/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16556575]

Convince me that we are not all fragments of God expressing himself endlessly in order to better know Himself.

[Anonymous No.16556584]

>>16556575
No you can explore that for a bit yourself anon

[Anonymous No.16556588]

>>16556575
Well you're the one supposing we are, so you should start by explaining why you think so...

[Anonymous No.16556601]

>>16556575
Hmm God not real cuz science and shit and dat be it nigga.

[Anonymous No.16556607]

>>16556575
If god is all knowing why doesn't he know himself?

[Anonymous No.16556610]

>>16556588
Its an intuitive feeling I have, that all conscious beings are indeed One and part of a larger web of consciousness that permeates all life, and possibly even all material things. I believe God has allotted us an infinitely small, temporary piece of himself which He reabsorbs when we pass away.

[Anonymous No.16556613]

>>16556575
If you are godshatter then surely you don't need us to explain it to you

[Anonymous No.16556616]

>>16556575
Yes, countless threads of retards yelling NIGGERS here surely means that we're trying to understand the divine plan

[Anonymous No.16556618]

i mean he says he understands us better than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.16556620]

>>16556607
I never claimed God is all knowing

[Anonymous No.16556621]

>>16556610
I have an intuitive feeling that you are full of shit

[Anonymous No.16556639]

>>16556621
No need for harsh words, just a discussion. If you disagree, tell me why you feel that way

[Anonymous No.16556650]

>>16556610
But you've just pushed the issue aside, how did you intuit it? Or from what?

[Anonymous No.16556658]

>>16556650
I’m not sure, it makes the most sense to me

[Anonymous No.16556673]

>>16556575
Can I talk here about some Twinkling Titanite that I found overthere?

[Anonymous No.16556682]

>>16556620
First define what you think God is then.

[Anonymous No.16556683]

>>16556658
Well lets see if we can't figure out why you think so, then. What kind of thing do you think God is?

[Anonymous No.16556695]

>>16556575
god already knows everything retard

[Anonymous No.16556699]

>>16556682
>>16556683
God is everything in and outside this reality, and I don’t think God created anything. God is the universe/reality, the the universe/reality has always existed. No creation involved

[Anonymous No.16556702]

>>16556639
I just wanted to semi-humorously illustrate the absurdity of hanging on to intuitive feelings as arguments

We could have a discussion, but in the OP you already have a package of assumptions that would be difficult to unravel (for instance, what God is or is supposed to be and so on)

We'd essentially be throwing our assumptions and intuitions and cultural baggage at each other

[Anonymous No.16556704]

>>16556695
Capital G. Its God. Show some respect young man

[Anonymous No.16556709]

>>16556699
Also, God doesnt know or not know anything. God simply “is”.

[Anonymous No.16556721]

>>16556702
Fair enough, my post above you shows a bit of what I think God is. I come from a non religious family and have never gone to church or anything like that, but I believe in God, whatever he may be

[Anonymous No.16556723]

>>16556575
it's more like a fractal. you are god. enjoy the ride or don't.

Here, take the greenpill and have a cold one on me:

>>16556490

[Anonymous No.16556749]

It’s gay and retarded. i see some people and just know there’s no way we’re from the same “divine source”, sorry i’m better than all of you

[Anonymous No.16556759]

>>16556702
implying LOGIC is anything besides that. lmao.

[Anonymous No.16556760]

>>16556699
So your a Spinoza fag then. Here's an objection given by Leibniz.
>Leibniz argued that whereby it might be impossible for two substances to have all of their attributes in common (because then they would be indistinguishable), it may be possible for two substances to share an attribute and yet differ by each having another attribute that is not shared. For example, one substance may have attributes A and B and another substance has attributes A and C. The two substances would be distinguishable because each has an attribute the other lacks, but both substances would nevertheless share an attribute.

[Anonymous No.16556775]

>>16556760
Well I’m not very well read in philosophy, so I can’t tell how that objects to what I said. Can you repeat in layman’s terms?

[Anonymous No.16556796]

>>16556759
That's like saying a square is just as close to a perfect circle shape as an oval is

At least in logic there is an attempt at discussing things rather than throwing impressions at each other

[Anonymous No.16556835]

>>16556775
Substance Monism refers to Spinoza's belief that everything is made up of one universal substance that is God. In support of this Spinoza needs the following.
>If substance A and substance B both have attribute 1 as their nature, then in virtue of what are there two different substances here? Why aren’t A and B just one substance? Since no cause can be given to explain their distinctness, Spinoza infers that they must actually be the same.
Leibniz is saying here that 2 different substances can share 1 attribute if they differ in other ways. There's no need to group everything into a single substance.

[Anonymous No.16556851]

>>16556835
Doesn’t Leibniz make the mistake of differentiating the two substances to begin with? Isn’t Spinoza’s whole point that differentiating useless since God encompassed all?

[Anonymous No.16556925]

>>16556851
Leibniz's point is that even if God has every attribute if a substance lacks every attribute it isn't God since God has attributes that that substance doesn't have and is therefore distinct.

[Anonymous No.16556944]

>>16556925
Couldn’t it be possible that all matter and life has every attribute of reality within itself latently? As in, we cannot see all the attributes of a specific subject because we are under an illusion, or the substance has not completely expressed itself yet

[Anonymous No.16556988]

>>16556944
The idea that we may just be under an illusion is starting to sound like Descartes demon problem. Neither I nor does anyone have a good metaphysical answer to that problem but you could have the epistemic justification given by Descartes.
1. I think therefore I am
2. Everything I vividly and clearly conceive is true
3. I vividly and clearly conceive God
4. God has all perfections
5. Honesty is a perfection
6. God wouldn't deceive me so the world isn't an illusion

[Anonymous No.16557001]

>>16556988
I think all 6 of those statements sound like baseless assumptions.

[Anonymous No.16557010]

>>16557001
read the meditations for his explanations I'm not going through all that typing here.

[Anonymous No.16557152]

>>16556575
God is not a being as we understand, he is the first principle of all Being

[Anonymous No.16557286]

Why would I tell a lie?

lt is I who am Shu,
whom Atum created on the day that he developed.
I was not built in the womb,
I was not tied together in the egg,
I was not conceived in conception.
My father Atum sneezed me in a sneeze of his mouth,
together with my sister Tefnut.
How she emerged was after me,
while I was still hooded with the air of the Phoenix's throat,
on the day that Atum developed
out of the Flood, out of the Waters,
out of the Darkness, out of Chaos.
It is I who am Shu, father of the gods,
in search of whom, together with my sister Tefnut, Atum had sent
his Sole Eye.
I am the one who made it possible for it to give brilliance to the
Darkness.
It found me as a man of infinite number:
I am the begetter of repeated millions
out of the Flood, out of the Waters,
out of the Darkness, out of Chaos.
It is I who am Shu, begetter of the gods.

[Anonymous No.16557470]

You're close, but it's actually God coming to self-consciousness of itself as Freedom, OP.

[Anonymous No.16557620]

>>16556575
I agree with you, so I won't try to convince you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16557659]

>>16557470
So God is freedom? Is this why humans put freedom above all else?

[Anonymous No.16557699]

>>16557659
Well, Hegel's more than a little obscure, but in the aspect of God that's absolute spirit I'd say that's accurate. But God is also the unconditioned and sum totality of everything as a whole too. Humans don't all put freedom on a pedestal though, look at the Chinese.

[Anonymous No.16557715]

>>16556607
omniscience = omnipresence, the knowledge and experience of everything is omniscience, it’s not ‘to better know’ but this all-knowingnessis already perfectly balanced within the pre-existing harmony.

[Jesus No.16557725]

>>16556607
all knowing means all seeing.

[Anonymous No.16557795]

>>16556575
Cool, another pantheist. I thought I was the only one. You know, even if religion is true, pantheism could still be true also. Just something to consider.

[Anonymous No.16557822]

here you go, don't worry friends

[Anonymous No.16557834]

>>16557795
Are Christianity and pantheism reconcileable?

[Anonymous No.16557837]

Test

[Anonymous No.16557848]

>>16556575
That would be a very inefficient way to go about it. Also, what exactly would he gain any insight about himself by observing NPCs?

[Anonymous No.16557906]

>>16557848
He is the NPCs. Also, God isn’t all powerful

[Anonymous No.16557922]

>>16556575
How could you not know the answer to this

[Anonymous No.16557952]

>>16557922
Nigger

[Anonymous No.16557976]

>>16556575
There is nothing to express and no one to express it to.

[Anonymous No.16557983]

>>16556575
DUDE WEED
its retarded because a true God can't lack understanding of Himself or anything. you could say that we're "the universe maaaaaaan" trying to understand itself, but even that fails because the total amount of equipment needed to collect all information about the universe would be bigger than the universe itself. i forget the name of this "paradox" or whatever, but its a real thing. so even if you want to call the universe "God," it still can't be because the universe would be incapable of understanding itself.

[Anonymous No.16558000]

>>16556723
Agreed.
Inspiration for a Materialist Gnosis:
Noumena is Physical, the reality of physics which Consciousness inaccurately models into our experiential reality (Phenomena)(see Michael Graziano & Thomas Metzinger) and is Universe B (Bertiaux & Grant), The Flesh/Remainder (Rogozinski), Implicate Order (Bohm). Consciousness doing what it always does: deeply misleading us (looking at the Idealists like Plato esp).
Grant expresses this pessimist Mysticism through a Consciousness-dreaming where horror at the Outside is realized and integrated. Of course that horror is expressed literally, and atavistically.
Ligotti releases us of this horrible pressure in his Determinism with Conspiracy Against The Human Race (quoted below), as does Ruda in Abolishing Freedom.
Through Jeremy England (Dissipation-Driven Adaptation in non-equilibrium systems, he has a book FINALLY coming out in September) we find that Shakti/Teotl is much closer (Process Metaphysics in general), though we can never actually know due to the function of consciousness as Maya-shakti.

Ligotti:
"But here is the real catch: If you want to become enlightened you will never become enlightened, because in Buddhism wanting things is just the thing that keeps you from getting the thing you want. Less circuitously, if you want to end your suffering, you will never end your suffering. This is the “wanting paradox,” or “paradox of desire,” and Buddhists are at the ready with both rational and non-rational propositions as to why this paradox is not a paradox. How to understand these propositions is past understanding, because, per Buddhism, there is nothing to understand and no one to understand it. And as long as you think there is something to understand and someone to understand it, you are doomed. Trying for this understanding is the most trying thing of all. Yet trying not to try for it is just as trying. There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be."

[Anonymous No.16558013]

>>16557834
I think so. But I don't identify as Christian so I can't tell you for sure

[Anonymous No.16558021]

>>16556723
>>16558000
Further note

[Anonymous No.16558041]

>>16556723
>>16558000
Further note,

[Anonymous No.16558072]

>>16556610
>consciousness
define this and you win a Nobel

[Anonymous No.16558098]

>>16556723
Spiral out, keep going

[Anonymous No.16558120]

>>16556575
It's more that were God having fun, re-learning about himself is just part of that fun.

[Anonymous No.16558218]

>>16558120
shut the fuck up. you know nothing.

[Anonymous No.16558232]

>>16556723
>>16558098
>>16558041

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBgviceBzFs

[Anonymous No.16558239]

>>16558218
And you think you actually know? You're the one who is truly ignorant.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16558256]

>>16556575
It’s a cute theology, but you have to convince schizophrenics to believe you if you want this faith to survive.
I once tried to believe it when I went through my gnostic phase. —like splinters of a great tree....

[Anonymous No.16558258]

>>16556575
>Convince me that we are not all fragments of God
too anthropomorphic
>expressing himself
too anthropomorphic
>endlessly
questionable
>in order to better know Himself.
baseless assumption

[Anonymous No.16558263]

>>16556610
Ok but why?

[Anonymous No.16558270]

>>16558000
you'll need to get comfortable with paradox. start here.

[Anonymous No.16558275]

>>16556575
These sorts of explanations (+gnosticism) always struck me as midwit traps. Like a compromise for atheists to not literally have to believe in something thought of as ridiculous or contradictory while getting to be spiritual, too.

[Anonymous No.16558276]

>>16558239
DUDE WEED

[Anonymous No.16558283]

>>16558275
they never have any grounded world view, its all just hearsay basically.

[Anonymous No.16558284]

>>16558000
Alright, I started reading Abolishing Freedom and it goes like this:
>, Châtelet writes, we start “to live and think like pigs.”8 Marx himself already demonstrated that within bourgeois societies man is ultimately reduced to being an animal. But things are more complicated. We are not simply reduced to a given form of animality— for example, in Kantian terms, to our pathological inclinations and needs that are ultimately always the exact opposite of freedom— but rather to an animality that is produced by and within the very same act by means of which we are reduced. If, however, we take seriously the diagnosis of the present state of indifference, the animality that is produced and to which we are reduced can paradigmatically be represented more adequately by having recourse not to the pig but to the donkey: to the ass. In an infamous logical anecdote, often (falsely) attributed to Johannes Buridan, the so- called Buridan’s ass finds itself in the following situation: it is hungry, and in front of it equidistantly are two equally tempting bales of hay. Being unable to decide which of the two to approach, the ass ultimately starves to death. Usually this anecdote is taken to exemplify a logical problem inherent in an understanding of freedom as freedom of choice.9 If indifference results from understanding freedom as a capacity that one has, namely to choose freely, then freedom itself is mortified and dies, so to speak, for even if concrete choices are taken, they are taken in such a way that freedom ultimately disappears. In this precise sense, then, the present situation can be said to be a time of universalized assthetization.
Is it all this bad?

[Anonymous No.16558287]

>>16556575
God knows himself perfectly through the simple act of his existence which is indistinguishable from himself.
God need not "express himself" or do anything for that matter to "know himself better". Omniscience cancels this out.

[Anonymous No.16558292]

>>16556575
more like beings that mirror within them the all and act within it, mysteriously conscious of this circumstance and no fundamental explanation for that state of consciousness yet so it seems entirely reasonable that consciousness, or rather its potential is baked into the universe

[Anonymous No.16558298]

>>16556575
intelligent infinity

lawofone.info

[Anonymous No.16558299]

>>16558287
sure, if you actually try to define God. but op's God can be whatever he wants based on the axiom of absolute dude weed simplicity

[Anonymous No.16558325]

>>16558287
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum

[Anonymous No.16558897]

>>16558325
Wtf I’m Jewish now

[Anonymous No.16559282]

>>16556584
basEd

[Anonymous No.16559337]

>>16556575
Firstly, the idea that you have expressed reads a lot like pantheism to me.
Secondly, Creation is not for God to better know Himself. God made Creation because it is good and He makes good things because He is good.
Finally, if you accept that God is ultimately simple, that is, His essence and existence are one, then the idea that we are 'fragments' of God is totally nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.16559377]

>>16557001
Based non philosopher absolutely btfo a 'philosopher'

[Anonymous No.16559742]

>>16557470
hegel took the shit tier route

[Anonymous No.16559767]

We are fragments of god but not in the way you suggest. Technically we are the universe experiencing itself, and since consciousness either exists or it doesn't, it is impossible for consciousness NOT to exist from any one individual's perspective.

You have no memory of the world before your life, you will have none after, and you have no consciousness during sleep. In these states you return to being "the universe", and reincarnate into someone else, something else, anything that can be sentient. We are all the exact same entity.

[Anonymous No.16559773]

>>16559742
How so

[Anonymous No.16559774]

>we are all literally God's diary desu

[Anonymous No.16559790]

>>16556575
All parts of the Universe are parts of God for God is the Universe.

[Anonymous No.16559804]

>>16557470
>an unconscious ""spiritual"" substance-""god""

spinoza was a mistake and corrupted the germans

[Anonymous No.16559830]

>>16559804
Hegel's God is fully conscious, or at least becomes so, and also willing, not like Spinoza at all.

[Anonymous No.16559893]

>>16556575
Congratulations OP, you figured it out. Now go actually read some books on consciousness or Hindu/Buddhist/Gnostic/Dialectical philosophy so you can effectively back this statement up instead of throwing it around and embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.16559899]

God, the occultist, tries to forget.

[Anonymous No.16559900]

>>16559337
literally nothing in this post is a well grounded argument or point

[Anonymous No.16559904]

>>16558275
>>16558283
fallacious arguments made in response to weak statements that contain strong ideas

[Anonymous No.16559906]

>>16556610
retardpill

[Anonymous No.16559916]

>>16559830
for it to become so in history and in the kind of knowing that closes Hegel's circle is to try to wring Geist out of Substanz. it's only convincing if you assume it from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.16559929]

>>16556607
>>16556695
>>16556835
>>16556925
>>16556988
>>16557983
The Absolute is the sum of all knowledge and the explanation for all things. As such, the Absolute must include itself in the sum and be able to explain itself. This leads to a recursion in which The Absolute creates self-consciousness as an object that is "in-itself" for it to relate to in order to express this recursion.

A = Absolute
K = Knowledge

A = K+1

The Absolute is "all-knowing" at any given moment, but must be able to explain and know the sum of all, so the previous moment in which it was all-knowing must be succeeded by a new "all-knowing".

tl;dr consciousness is forever expanding by means of self consciousness and the ride might never end

[Anonymous No.16559937]

>>16559916
Nah you don't have to assume anything, it's a presuppositionless system.

[Anonymous No.16559939]

>>16559337
>God made Creation because it is good and He makes good things because He is good.
material existence is most assuredly not good. it is in fact, incomplete

[Anonymous No.16559948]

>>16559916
the point is not that there is no mediateness in Spirit. quite the opposite. only the robustness of Spirit can mediate. Hegel achieves self-transparency prematurely by trying to generate it out of Substanz that finally becomes full Geist through us.

>>16559937
I have a bridge to sell you

[Anonymous No.16559951]

Filthy, filthy MATTER...
Get this SHIT off of me!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.16559953]

>>16558287
a designer of a computer program can still learn more about it by running random things on it, despite the fact he designed it

being a designer does not imply there is not more to learn in running the program different times

[Anonymous No.16559965]

>>16555555

[Anonymous No.16559979]

>>16556575
Convince me that God matters to me in this scenario.

[Anonymous No.16560098]

>>16559953
ok this is some whack understanding of god that ignores divine simplicity.

God isn't some complex creature he is purely simple - and so his knowledge and understanding and will are not that of a human but just multiplied infinitely in capability.

Read Aquinas (ST, Prima Pars, Q2 - 21)

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

[Anonymous No.16560801]

>>16556575
I've been thinking about this idea for a few days now, but I don't remember when and where I encountered it first. Where is it from, OP?