Christianity

[Dubious]

Dubious. You ain't on the list. As I'm wee-wee end of the Mensa pool, you'd have an IQ of way less than an Alsatian. I am just old and dim but bloody dogged. I can give you my constrained attention, not the latest three Foed.

Thank you! Nevertheless, I must endeavour to constrain myself from epic verbal confrontations with my superiors knowing well how it's going to end!

Bugger me Dubious! We're not in sodding conflict! Carry on that man. Say owt yer like.

I know! But for a short résumé of my character, please note - since likely to happen more often - I'm seldom constrained besides being one sarcastic AH. I'm certain not to get any arguments regarding that from Mr. Jacobi!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Thank you! Nevertheless, I must endeavour to constrain myself from epic verbal confrontations with my superiors knowing well how it's going to end!

Bugger me Dubious! We're not in sodding conflict! Carry on that man. Say owt yer like.

I know! But for a short résumé of my character, please note - since likely to happen more often - I'm seldom constrained besides being one sarcastic AH. I'm certain not to get any arguments regarding that from Mr. Jacobi!

Dah. We're allll bluffing mate. But some of us, present company excepted, don't know it. There are some vast intelligences round here. But God is fair. What He gives on the one hand, He sure as Hell takes away with the other! I think you're well entitled to a little more confidence.

[seeds]

I concede the baby in the womb scenario is an apt metaphor for the human mind within God's greater mind.

Good.

And thank you, Belinda, for making an effort to understand the metaphor.

And, of course, that doesn't mean that you have to accept the metaphor as being true, but it's at least nice to know that we're making a little progress here.

I agree, if I may paraphrase you, that Christianity rests on the Cartesian theory that body and mind are separate and separable substances.

Not "separate" substances in the strictest sense of that word, just "different" from one another in form and purpose, in that one (body/matter) is composed of a substance that the other (mind) uses to create reality out of.

The substance of life, mind, and consciousness can no more function without the existence of the substance of matter, than a dreamer of dreams or the thinker of thoughts could function without the existence of the substance from which thoughts and dreams are created.

The reason why we (our mind/soul) can (and will) separate (sep-a-rate) from our body at the moment of death, is because the substance that composes our body is an integral aspect of God's mind and belongs solely to God, not to us.

The debated metaphor clearly implies that the human body and brain are God's "placental-like" phenomena that she uses to replicate herself (to conceive and give birth to her literal offspring [us]).

And that's why I refer to human cemeteries as being the "Gardens of Afterbirth."

And that God is separate from (i.e. transcends) both body and mind.

God can no more sep-a-rate herself from this universe (from her own mind) than we can sep-a-rate ourselves from our own mind.

I am not a Christian as my God is wholly and solely immanent.

I understand that, and I think we've been over your stance on pantheism several times in the past.

Can you clearly and logically describe for me how "your God" managed to grab hold of the fabric of reality and shape it into a context of order that defies our understanding?

You wrote:

"And once the quantity and quality of "brain-mind" reaches a certain level, it crosses a threshold and joins (becomes a member of) the highest species of being in all of reality - the same species of being as God."

I do actually enjoy the theory of existence that there is something of living systems that is immortal or transcends death. That theory of existence holds that what is immortal is ,precisely , experience.

I do not understand what you are suggesting.

How is "experience" immortal? And how does it (experience) transcend death?

Seeds wrote:

(with our material body being Immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of her very being)

...is (metaphorically speaking) the exact same relationship that our eternal souls have with the greater SOUL of this universe.

That is panentheism.

Yes, I am a panentheist through and through.

What does the word "panentheism" mean to you?

I may take issue with you over what you call "soul". Sometimes you seem to refer to what is more precisely ego-self, and sometimes you refer to soul as that which survives bodily death.

What is it that you take issue with?

Even Plato (of whom you mention later) allegedly believed in the existence of the immortal soul.

According to Wiki...

At the heart of Plato's philosophy is the theory of the soul. Francis Cornford described the twin pillars of Platonism as being the theory of the Forms, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

And according to AI Copilot...

Soul vs. Body: A Dualistic Tension

• Plato saw the body as a temporary, flawed vessel—a “prison-house” that distracts the soul from its true purpose.
  
  The soul is pure and rational, while the body is corruptible and deceptive, tied to sensory illusions.

In short, Plato’s soul is ontologically superior to the body: it is eternal, immaterial, and the true essence of a person. The body is transient; the soul is the seat of reason, virtue, and identity.

The Abrahamic God is an ego-self , as compared with the more austere Platonic good, truth, and beauty triad. The distinction is crucial , as your theory of transcendence of God rests on the Abrahamic, not the Platonic, God.

My theory of the transcendence of God rests on (emerges from) a synthesis of a vast array of sources that I have studied over the decades, not to mention what was imparted to me in my alleged encounter with God back in 1970.

Furthermore, just for funzies, I asked AI Copilot about your "Platonic God," and here is a portion of that conversation...

Me:
One more question. Did Plato envision God as being a living, conscious, self-aware entity?

Copilot:
Plato did indeed envision a divine principle that can be described as living, conscious, and self-aware, though his conception of “God” is more abstract and metaphysical than the personal deity found in later religious traditions.

Here’s how Plato’s vision unfolds:

The Demiurge in Timaeus

• Plato’s most explicit depiction of a divine creator appears in Timaeus, where he introduces the Demiurge—a benevolent, rational craftsman who orders the cosmos.
  
  The Demiurge is:
  
  • Living: It is active and creative, shaping the universe from pre-existing chaos.
    
    Conscious and Rational: It uses reason and intelligence to model the cosmos on eternal Forms.
    
    Self-aware: It chooses the best possible structure for the universe, implying deliberation and awareness.

This Demiurge is not omnipotent or omniscient in the theological sense, but it is a divine mind—a conscious agent of cosmic order.

The bottom line is that all of these ancient philosophical writings and religions contain "puzzle pieces" that need to be assembled in order to reveal a greater picture.
_______

[Belinda]

I concede the baby in the womb scenario is an apt metaphor for the human mind within God's greater mind.

Good.

And thank you, Belinda, for making an effort to understand the metaphor.

And, of course, that doesn't mean that you have to accept the metaphor as being true, but it's at least nice to know that we're making a little progress here.

I agree, if I may paraphrase you, that Christianity rests on the Cartesian theory that body and mind are separate and separable substances.

Not "separate" substances in the strictest sense of that word, just "different" from one another in form and purpose, in that one (body/matter) is composed of a substance that the other (mind) uses to create reality out of.

The substance of life, mind, and consciousness can no more function without the existence of the substance of matter, than a dreamer of dreams or the thinker of thoughts could function without the existence of the substance from which thoughts and dreams are created.

The reason why we (our mind/soul) can (and will) separate (sep-a-rate) from our body at the moment of death, is because the substance that composes our body is an integral aspect of God's mind and belongs solely to God, not to us.

The debated metaphor clearly implies that the human body and brain are God's "placental-like" phenomena that she uses to replicate herself (to conceive and give birth to her literal offspring [us]).

And that's why I refer to human cemeteries as being the "Gardens of Afterbirth."

And that God is separate from (i.e. transcends) both body and mind.

God can no more sep-a-rate herself from this universe (from her own mind) than we can sep-a-rate ourselves from our own mind.

I am not a Christian as my God is wholly and solely immanent.

I understand that, and I think we've been over your stance on pantheism several times in the past.

Can you clearly and logically describe for me how "your God" managed to grab hold of the fabric of reality and shape it into a context of order that defies our understanding?

You wrote:

"And once the quantity and quality of "brain-mind" reaches a certain level, it crosses a threshold and joins (becomes a member of) the highest species of being in all of reality - the same species of being as God."

I do actually enjoy the theory of existence that there is something of living systems that is immortal or transcends death. That theory of existence holds that what is immortal is ,precisely , experience.

I do not understand what you are suggesting.

How is "experience" immortal? And how does it (experience) transcend death?

Seeds wrote:

(with our material body being Immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of her very being)

...is (metaphorically speaking) the exact same relationship that our eternal souls have with the greater SOUL of this universe.

That is panentheism.

Yes, I am a panentheist through and through.

What does the word "panentheism" mean to you?

I may take issue with you over what you call "soul". Sometimes you seem to refer to what is more precisely ego-self, and sometimes you refer to soul as that which survives bodily death.

What is it that you take issue with?

Even Plato (of whom you mention later) allegedly believed in the existence of the immortal soul.

According to Wiki...

At the heart of Plato's philosophy is the theory of the soul. Francis Cornford described the twin pillars of Platonism as being the theory of the Forms, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

And according to AI Copilot...

Soul vs. Body: A Dualistic Tension

• Plato saw the body as a temporary, flawed vessel—a “prison-house” that distracts the soul from its true purpose.
  
  The soul is pure and rational, while the body is corruptible and deceptive, tied to sensory illusions.

In short, Plato’s soul is ontologically superior to the body: it is eternal, immaterial, and the true essence of a person. The body is transient; the soul is the seat of reason, virtue, and identity.

The Abrahamic God is an ego-self , as compared with the more austere Platonic good, truth, and beauty triad. The distinction is crucial , as your theory of transcendence of God rests on the Abrahamic, not the Platonic, God.

My theory of the transcendence of God rests on (emerges from) a synthesis of a vast array of sources that I have studied over the decades, not to mention what was imparted to me in my alleged encounter with God back in 1970.

Furthermore, just for funzies, I asked AI Copilot about your "Platonic God," and here is a portion of that conversation...

Me:
One more question. Did Plato envision God as being a living, conscious, self-aware entity?

Copilot:
Plato did indeed envision a divine principle that can be described as living, conscious, and self-aware, though his conception of “God” is more abstract and metaphysical than the personal deity found in later religious traditions.

Here’s how Plato’s vision unfolds:

The Demiurge in Timaeus

• Plato’s most explicit depiction of a divine creator appears in Timaeus, where he introduces the Demiurge—a benevolent, rational craftsman who orders the cosmos.
  
  The Demiurge is:
  
  • Living: It is active and creative, shaping the universe from pre-existing chaos.
    
    Conscious and Rational: It uses reason and intelligence to model the cosmos on eternal Forms.
    
    Self-aware: It chooses the best possible structure for the universe, implying deliberation and awareness.

This Demiurge is not omnipotent or omniscient in the theological sense, but it is a divine mind—a conscious agent of cosmic order.

The bottom line is that all of these ancient philosophical writings and religions contain "puzzle pieces" that need to be assembled in order to reveal a greater picture.
_______

I been thinking about your baby in the womb image. Strictly speaking it's a simile not a metaphor. But no matter, the image serves.

Science has the best explanation about how God-or-Nature made everything .

Is immortal soul the same substance as mind?
Is the immortal soul a self? If so is God composed of Himself plus a lot of ex-human selves?
Is the immortal soul an anatomical or physiological entity? If the immortal soul is a mental entity how do we know it exists?
Is the immortal soul an emotional entity that feels and desires?
Plato's notion of soul is that soul i.e. reason is eternal. Eternal is not the same as immortal.Eternity coexists with temporality. whereas immortality exists after the mortal life is ended.

The theory that experience survives death of the individual depends on the death of the individual ego self . The ego self dies; but experience, which had necessarily happened as it did , continues necessary and so cannot become nothing .

What panentheism means to you is the same as it means to me. If I could draw a online diagram of what panentheism means to me I think you would agree it's the same for you. This conversation has been of great use to me and thanks for making me question my ideas.
I think that panentheism is where we agree except the 'mother' in your pregnant woman image for you is God , and for me she is Being.

[seeds]

I been thinking about your baby in the womb image. Strictly speaking it's a simile not a metaphor. But no matter, the image serves.

Perhaps "analogy" might also be fitting.

All that matters is that all parties understand the actual point being made.

Science has the best explanation about how God-or-Nature made everything .

No way.

Science (materialism), which relies on the "chance hypothesis," is total crap when it comes to explaining how the unfathomable order of the universe came about.

Is immortal soul the same substance as mind?

The mind is the living spatial "arena" in which the immortal soul's (the I Am-ness's") personal mental phenomena is created, staged, and developed.

As you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are witnessing - (from a "fetal-like" perspective) - the fully-fruitioned, fully-developed, fully-matured (adult) version of a mind just like our own mind.

Indeed, if you click on the following link,...

https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

...it will take you to a clip of me on YouTube where I attempt to offer some scientific support of my theory of how our minds are literally encapsulated within the mental fabric of the fully-evolved higher mind mentioned above. The video clip is a brief excerpt taken from one of the episodes of my public access television lecture series that aired for 7 years in Grand Rapids, Michigan back in the 90s.

Anyway, getting back to your question,...

"...Is immortal soul the same substance as mind?..."

...I suggest that it's more metaphysically logical to think of the two (mind and the owner of the mind) as being comprised of something that is more akin to Spinoza's "oneness" substance, which is a substance that represents the singular foundational essence from which all of reality is created.

Is the immortal soul a self?...

Yes!

...If so is God composed of Himself plus a lot of ex-human selves?

Is your mother literally composed of you and (assuming you have some) your siblings?

Come on, Belinda, when it comes to the "organic (mammalian-like) naturalness" of our familial relationship to God, try to fathom the true meaning of the Hermetic axiom:

"As Below, So Above."

In other words (and with a few minor differences), even in the highest context of reality, members of the highest species of being in all of existence replicate themselves (give birth to their own offspring) similar to how it is done in this lower context of reality.

Is the immortal soul an anatomical or physiological entity?

Needless to say, this is all just speculation,...

...but, yes, it stands to reason that the immortal soul possesses some sort of inexplicable anatomy and physiology (inexplicable from our present perspective) that has its being (its form and functionality) in a higher context of reality that somehow renders it capable of lasting forever.

If the immortal soul is a mental entity how do we know it exists?

Clearly, we won't know for certain until it is revealed to us after crossing the threshold of death.

However, and at the risk of sounding like a lunatic,...

(though I'm pretty sure that that ship has already sailed a long time ago )

...I personally have already been shown that God exists and is indeed a "mental" (incorporeal) entity as was chronicled in the thread at this link:

viewtopic.php?p=685773#p685773
.

Is the immortal soul an emotional entity that feels and desires?

As opposed to what?

Imagine having eternal life without being able to feel anything such as joy, or happiness, or bliss.

Sounds like some kind of hell to me.

Plato's notion of soul is that soul i.e. reason is eternal.

Show me a quote where Plato referred to the eternal soul as being nothing more than "reason."

What does that even mean?

Eternal is not the same as immortal.Eternity coexists with temporality. whereas immortality exists after the mortal life is ended.

"Eternal" in the context we are discussing is just a reference to the immortal soul's infinitely long (never-ending) existence - as in forever alive, and conscious, and forever evolving.

The theory that experience survives death of the individual depends on the death of the individual ego self . The ego self dies; but experience, which had necessarily happened as it did , continues necessary and so cannot become nothing .

I'm sorry, Belinda, but this line,...

"...The ego self dies; but experience, which had necessarily happened as it did, continues necessary and so cannot become nothing..."

...makes absolutely no sense to me.

What panentheism means to you is the same as it means to me. If I could draw a online diagram of what panentheism means to me I think you would agree it's the same for you.

Well, seeing how you've already made it clear to me that you think my diagrams are horrible, I wouldn't dream of asking you to view the one that resides in the link I provided above, even though I personally think it is an almost perfect depiction of the concept of panentheism.

Indeed, it is the first image you see on my website at this link:

http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

However, with that being said, I would love for you to at least describe for me what your "diagram" of panentheism would look like.

I think that panentheism is where we agree except the 'mother' in your pregnant woman image for you is God , and for me she is Being.

Fair enough.

Now, if you just explain to me how this abstract notion of "Being" managed to create the unfathomable order of the universe, then we'll see if it makes any sense.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take [Craig] very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. [...] I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally, I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down', you know. But with him, I do."

In 2011, with respect and compliment to his debating skills, New Atheist Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists".

wiki

Then don't debate.

That is Richard Dawkins attitude. Much as I admire Hitchens and Harris, they had/have an interest in keeping the dialogue spicy, so pretending that a useless fucknut like Craig could contribute to a meaningful conversation is good for business. I'm not aware of anything that Craig has presented that cannot be challenged, if not refuted, by anyone with a first degree in philosophy. Is there something about the man you think we should take seriously?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Technically, and according to you Mr. Boneman, everything philosophical is open to challenge and refutation. And the reason we tend to one notion or the other is aesthetic.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take [Craig] very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. [...] I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally, I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down', you know. But with him, I do."

In 2011, with respect and compliment to his debating skills, New Atheist Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists".

wiki

Then don't debate.

That is Richard Dawkins attitude. Much as I admire Hitchens and Harris, they had/have an interest in keeping the dialogue spicy, so pretending that a useless fucknut like Craig could contribute to a meaningful conversation is good for business. I'm not aware of anything that Craig has presented that cannot be challenged, if not refuted, by anyone with a first degree in philosophy. Is there something about the man you think we should take seriously?

Not in the slightest Will. Apart from his being the champion of the fascist majority. I like your point about business. Reminds me of Douglas Adam's Deep Thought. I'm with Dawkins. WLC has a blind spot for eternity. His Kalam is utter crap. There again so do the majority of philosophers. There is no such thing as reasonable faith. I prefer my faith with sheer dread. Like we all do.

[Dubious]

Technically, and according to you Mr. Boneman, everything philosophical is open to challenge and refutation.

Yes, unlike stupid theistic beliefs which attempt to explain everything and every cause by way of irrefutable dogma impervious to any challenge and refutation.

Bluntly stated, theism makes one stupid; a prime example would be you-know-who, even if no one started off that way, theism will teach you to accept without thinking; the longer you quit that dirty habit, the more established you become in your beliefs.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Technically, and according to you Mr. Boneman, everything philosophical is open to challenge and refutation.

Yes, unlike stupid theistic beliefs which attempt to explain everything and every cause by way of irrefutable dogma impervious to any challenge and refutation.

Bluntly stated, theism makes one stupid; a prime example would be you-know-who, even if no one started off that way, theism will teach you to accept without thinking; the longer you quit that dirty habit, the more established you become in your beliefs.

Being human makes one stupid.

There are many brilliant theists. Brilliant downstream of theism, of belief. Whose beliefs themselves were, are brilliant for their time. History happens forwards after all. The writers of the Bible. Many of its characters. The ultimate being Paul and Jesus respectively. Many of those who believe them since. The theologians, orthodox and heterodox, from the C1st to now.

Fear, desire and pareidolia make one stupid.

[Will Bouwman]

Technically, and according to you Mr. Boneman, everything philosophical is open to challenge and refutation.

Well yeah, that's what makes it philosophical.

And the reason we tend to one notion or the other is aesthetic.

Wassat Gus, you been paying attention?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well yeah, that's what makes it philosophical.

And the reason we tend to one notion or the other is aesthetic.

Wassat Gus, you been paying attention?

How could it not have been paid attention to? It is an axiom of your system. And its implications are anything but minor.

[Belinda]

Well yeah, that's what makes it philosophical.

And the reason we tend to one notion or the other is aesthetic.

Wassat Gus, you been paying attention?

How could it not have been paid attention to? It is an axiom of your system. And its implications are anything but minor.

If God is wholly and solely immanent then the God idea is freed from the accusation of telos as if He were a huge big imitation life form.
The facility of seeing a human form where none exists is not unusual. Lots of people see spectres.

Life forms such such as us, trees, sheep, canis lupus, neanderthals, and so forth---how can God be another such life form like me or you which purposes to make sense of possibilities, only much bigger and stronger?

[Will Bouwman]

How could it not have been paid attention to? It is an axiom of your system.

More a conclusion than axiom but, aw Gus, you do care. I'm touched.

And its implications are anything but minor.

Nah, they're pretty minor. Anyone who believes their core beliefs, the favoured axioms they rationalise with, are rational will continue to do so; it pleases them. Why people believe has little bearing on what they believe. I mean, in some sense that is obviously untrue, can it really be a coincidence that, for instance, of the English people who confess a religion, most would confess C of E? What are the odds, Gus, eh? What are the odds? Culture is aesthetic though so, you know...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nah, they're pretty minor. Anyone who believes their core beliefs, the favoured axioms they rationalise with, are rational will continue to do so; it pleases them. Why people believe has little bearing on what they believe. I mean, in some sense that is obviously untrue, can it really be a coincidence that, for instance, of the English people who confess a religion, most would confess C of E? What are the odds, Gus, eh? What are the odds? Culture is aesthetic though so, you know...

I maintain anything but minor. But as you may well guess I see your axiom or conclusion if you wish as fundamentally shallow. And therefore I question your aesthetic sense.

Anyone who believes their core beliefs, the favoured axioms they rationalise with, are rational will continue to do so; it pleases them.

Merely sophomoric.

I await the post-classical realizations to develop in the Wilburian system.