Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:... Second, to the claim that this thread belongs in the theology and not metaphysics: metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality. According to Wikipedia and many other sources, it seeks to answer two basic questions: Ultimately, what is there? and What is it like? Naturally, there is going to be some overlapping with theology, but this thread is properly placed. ...

How so? As it just assumes a 'God' and the discussion is about it's attributes, so theology but I take your point.

Reflex wrote:... Ultimate Reality, however, just IS. Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of such an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. For in the absence of divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. We are forced to employ the technique of time-space reasoning in order to reach some semblance of understanding. Therefore, the simultaneous events of eternity must be theorized as sequential and multifarious transactions in order to present a picture of what must be in order for what is to be as it is.

Personally I'd have just used 'ultimately Reality just IS' but essentially I agree with Kant and talking about the Noumena with authority is just make-believe.

Reflex wrote:

But Nick cannot have it both ways: 1. God is all there is 2. God is more than all there is.(wrote Belinda)
But Belinda, that is panentheism.

Like I said, the problem is how to derive the many from the One while avoiding pantheism. The One is infinite and eternal, but to deny the possibility of its volitional self-limitation or self-differentiation amounts to a denial of the very concept of its volitional absoluteness. The many that follow in the wake of self-limitation does not subtract from the one's absoluteness.

Yes it is panentheism .What Nick is trying on is two propositions that are mutually exclusive.

"The many" are modes of the One. No problem exists.

Nick:

It is misleading to contemplate this idea of the ONE overflowing since we consider it in three dimensions. However, it is the same as the Eastern idea of the universe continually becoming.

It is also misleading to think of this temporally. The site you reference clearly states this.Of course if one’s mind is a sausage maker then all differences are ground up and become undifferentiated parts of the same sausage you call universalism.

The universe is a necessity.

Why is the universe necessary? A common theistic view is that it is contingent, while God is the only necessary being. But this does not answer the question why there is something rather than nothing. Certainly it is necessary that the universe be as it is in order for us to make claims about or inquire into the existence of anything, but it is not necessary that there be creatures capable of asking such questions.

I AM describes the relationship where AM is the universe or multiverses.

If you mean the I AM of Exodus this is absolutely wrong, but once thrown into the universal sausage grinder that is no longer clear.

Reflex:

… metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.

In that case inquiry into the fundamental nature of reality cannot start with positing a God, since it has not been established that God is part of the fundamental nature of reality.

And, third, if you listen to F4, you're not allowed to think independently of whatever source you might cite.

You can think whatever you want, but if you are going to cite a source only to make claims contrary to the source then why cite it? And if you are going to make claims that are at odds with the source you cite then you should not pretend, as Nicky does, that the source supports you own claims.

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:26 am ...Plotinus' One and divine simplicity suffer from the same difficulty: how to derive the many from the One while avoiding pantheism. The pleasure I get from contemplating the mystery is second only to the pleasure I get from contemplating and worshipping the One, but I have understanding concepts whose accuracy can never be more than relative to the actual.

I personally think that Plotinus’ concept of the One is more in line with Spinoza’s “one substance” (or vice versa, seeing how Plotinus came before Spinoza).

He seems to be proposing the idea of an “indivisible” and unnamable “SOMETHING” that transcends (yet subsumes) literally everything (including God), beyond which there is only nothingness.

To me, the question of where the “SOMETHING” came from is so utterly impossible to wrap one's mind around that I sometimes wonder if even God knows the answer.
_______

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:01 am Nick wrote:

Panentheism is a God concept which serves as a plausible premise for the relationship of God to the universe. The universe is the body of God for panentheism. God is both outside not limited by time and space and inside of its body.

Imagine a large water saturated log floating in a pond. The water is both outside of the log and inside of it. The same idea is in Christianity:

Do you mean that panentheism is the belief that despite God's being thoroughly mixed up with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of this world of time and transience, God is also outside of (beyond, beneath, above etc.)time and transience?

Hi Belinda, it’s been a long time since we’ve conversed (4 years?). I hope you are doing well.

Anyway, and not to speak for Nick, but it’s not so much that the God of Panentheism exists above and beyond time in the ultimate sense of the word, it’s just that his central consciousness (his “I Am-ness”) is not encapsulated in physical matter, and is thus not bound to the constraints of that which dictates time within the universe.

In other words (at least from my own Berkeleyanish take on the issue – in that the universe is the “mind” of God), God’s movement throughout the universe is not limited by the speed of light.

So in that sense, God is above and outside of time from our perspective.
_______

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 am No no no. This is how it goes.

Do I detect some facetiousness there?

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 am Do you think this is the first universe? No, it's the billionth, or more.

If you listen to some of the “scientific” estimates based on the MWI, the number of universes (and copies of you and me) is 10 to the 100+ and growing (as per Bryce DeWitt – the theoretical physicist who coined the term “many-worlds”). I’ve even seen the number 10 to the 500 thrown out there.

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 am The pnanentheistic deity did not exist in the early universe, which were slow developing, chaotic and largely only succeeded in creating dark matter black holes.

However, over time, matter became more sophisticated...

What is “matter”? Where did it come from? And what was its reason and impetus for becoming “more sophisticated”?

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 am ...and after many billions of prior universes, one species from a life-bearing survived the end of its universe, solving one problem of decrepitude at a time until, by the end of that universe's Stelliferous Era they had achieved de Chardon's Omega Point. They were the first to survive The Great Filter - and all subsequent challenges - over many billions of years to eventually become immortal, immaterial and, while not omnipotent, capable of influencing the physical constants of the next big bang to speed up its progression and ensure fecundity.

Aside from the convenience of not having to describe or account for where “many billions of prior universes” came from, I like the idea of consciousness reaching an immortal and immaterial “Omega Point” – a point to where it can now influence and manipulate the fabric of reality into anything imaginable, such as that which forms the near infinite and multifarious features of a universe.

Now just imagine that this “Omega Point” of consciousness (along with its ever-advancing intelligence) was achieved so far back into the infinite depths of eternity that the creation of a new universe has become so easy and mundane that it is achieved in the back seat of a Chevy Impala on a Saturday night at a drive-in movie.

In other words, Greta, as piddling and insignificant as we humans appear to be in our temporary corporeal form, I suggest that we are the offspring (the most recent generation) of your Omega Point beings...

...(as in “Universes-R-Us”).

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 am If we are going to all just have a stab at what the nature of reality is, without worrying much about rigour, then we all might as well have a go. That's mine. I have about as much evidence for it as any other [whatever]-theist claim.

And a fine “stab” it is. I like it.
_______

Seeds wrote:

Anyway, and not to speak for Nick, but it’s not so much that the God of Panentheism exists above and beyond time in the ultimate sense of the word, it’s just that his central consciousness (his “I Am-ness”) is not encapsulated in physical matter, and is thus not bound to the constraints of that which dictates time within the universe.

It's anthropomorphic to attribute consciousness to God. However let's say that God is conscious for the sake of the argument.

Presumably God is not anchored to mind but has infinite attributes of which mind, and matter, are the only two of which we have any inkling.

I like Berkeley's scepticism but I cannot believe that there is nothing 'outside' of mind. Similarly I cannot believe that there is nothing ' outside' of matter.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:00 pm Reflex wrote:

But Nick cannot have it both ways: 1. God is all there is 2. God is more than all there is.(wrote Belinda)
But Belinda, that is panentheism.

Like I said, the problem is how to derive the many from the One while avoiding pantheism. The One is infinite and eternal, but to deny the possibility of its volitional self-limitation or self-differentiation amounts to a denial of the very concept of its volitional absoluteness. The many that follow in the wake of self-limitation does not subtract from the one's absoluteness.

Yes it is panentheism .What Nick is trying on is two propositions that are mutually exclusive.

"The many" are modes of the One. No problem exists.

You are conflating pantheism and panentheism. Or, perhaps, advocating strong panentheism as opposed to weak panentheism. God, or the One, is ontologically distinct from the many. It is not a member of the set of many; it is that "in whom we live, move and have our being."

The video below is about Christian panentheism, a topic in which metaphysics, the exploration of the fundamental nature of reality, overlaps theology.

https://youtu.be/_xki03G_TO4

We cannot stare at the One without being blind to its glory. We can, however, discern something of its nature by observing the behavior of its co-eternal energies.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:35 pm

However, over time, matter became more sophisticated...

What is “matter”? Where did it come from? And what was its reason and impetus for becoming “more sophisticated”?

Matter is energy that has cooled enough to concentrate. There is no reason. It's basically the same reason that ice crystals are more complex and ordered than steam.

seeds wrote:

Greta wrote:...and after many billions of prior universes, one species from a life-bearing survived the end of its universe, solving one problem of decrepitude at a time until, by the end of that universe's Stelliferous Era they had achieved de Chardon's Omega Point. They were the first to survive The Great Filter - and all subsequent challenges - over many billions of years to eventually become immortal, immaterial and, while not omnipotent, capable of influencing the physical constants of the next big bang to speed up its progression and ensure fecundity.

Aside from the convenience of not having to describe or account for where “many billions of prior universes” came from, I like the idea of consciousness reaching an immortal and immaterial “Omega Point” – a point to where it can now influence and manipulate the fabric of reality into anything imaginable, such as that which forms the near infinite and multifarious features of a universe.

Now just imagine that this “Omega Point” of consciousness (along with its ever-advancing intelligence) was achieved so far back into the infinite depths of eternity that the creation of a new universe has become so easy and mundane that it is achieved in the back seat of a Chevy Impala on a Saturday night at a drive-in movie.

The laws of quantum physics allow for the spontaneous inflation of virtual particles in so-called "nothingness" so big bangs are probably inevitable. What seems less inevitable is how they develop. Another analogy - we know more life will be born in the future but can only guess as to the nature of that life.

Yes, the Omega Point idea is a good one - life continually advancing as they solve one existential challenge after another until they finally render themselves safe from any possible threat - even the destruction of conventional matter. If virtual particles on the Planck scale in the universe before its big bang phase canny enough energy to kick start universes, then the energy of nothingness can theoretically be utilised and harvested by sufficiently technologically advanced beings.

seeds wrote:

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 amIf we are going to all just have a stab at what the nature of reality is, without worrying much about rigour, then we all might as well have a go. That's mine. I have about as much evidence for it as any other [whatever]-theist claim.

And a fine “stab” it is. I like it.

Cheers Seeds It's one of a number of speculative ideas that lie between known facts, but does not contradict.

Thing is, the line between believers and not is not always so great, sometimes only words. We are human and inevitably have certain ideas about existence. It depends to a fair extent on whether we treat our hunches as speculation or as fact. However, whether one believes in an intuition or not is a personal matter and not one that is under control. We don't choose to believe in the reality of dogs and not in Santa Claus; we just do. So belief, as stated on a forum, is not a spiritual decision but a social and political one.

Returning to the original link on Panentheism

http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php

panentheism and the wonder of god

Since the scientific revolution of the fifteenth century, there has been an increasing tendency in Christianity to see God as separate from Creation. To the commmon view, it's no longer God sending the sun across the sky each day, but the Earth's rotation, and no longer God raining down blessings on our fields, but water precipitation. Of course, we might pray for God to step in and cause some precipitation, but prevalent thinking has him obsessed with "spiritual" concerns, and uninvolved with the universe. In my opinion, this is nothing but the utter negligence of the modern Christian mind to seek God where he may be found!This has led to a wholly unnecessary gulf between science and religion, and results in a tragic compartmentalization of our "spiritual life" as being somehow separate from our daily lives.
According to this thought, God is fundamentally uninvolved. The universe is like a wind-up toy, left to go on its own, while God attends to—whatever. Once formed, natural laws work without any continued intelligence or consciousness, the true mindless governors of an inert and dumb universe.
But the truth is that science itself is shedding that view. Furthermore, through its genius for questioning how?science invites believers of all faiths to question who?, what?, and why? at a deeper level. Who sustains our continued survival through precipitation on our fields? What does the constant rotation of the Earth on its axis meanto those of us who depend on it for life? What is the source of the Big Bang, or First Cause? Why are we here? For Christians, the answer is as simple as it is profound: God.
The vibrant message from the Bible, from Christian mystics, and lately even science, is quite different. The Bible states that the heavens are alive, declaring the glory of God (Ps. 19), and that Christ is the One who "holds all things together," (Col. 1.17). Ever since the double-slit experiment which proved that even individual photons of light have awareness, even science recognizes that consciousness permeates the universe at the subatomic level. And a universe in which not just plants, animals and humans, but subatomic particles, and the rocks and stars composed of them are also alive, is a universe which Christians should find familiar. Jesus said that even if the crowd kept silent when he entered Jerusalem, the rocks and stones themselves would start to sing (Lk.19.40), and David described all heavenly bodies singing for joy. It seems that every part of the Universe is aware in some way of the immanent presence of God.
Another wonderful discovery of science was the cloud-chamber, which revealed that subatomic particles do not have an independent, continuous existence, but come in and out of existence billions of times every second. This has an important theological implication is that Creation did not end in the past, but is continually flowing forth. Countless times every second, every subatomic particle in the entire universe is being re-created. God must think it is worth the effort! God's questions to Job from the whirlwind no longer sound like metaphors— "Whose skill details every cloud, and tilts the flasks of heaven?" —but rather, a humble presentation of himself as the passionate and compassionate Sustainer of every aspect of Creation.
Jesus presented this constant presence of God with Creation as being proof of the Father's love. In the Sermon on the Mount, he urged us to see that God is not distant, but is so intimately involved with the world that even the beauty of the lilies of the field and the food for the birds of the air comes directly from God's magnificence.
The Gospel of John reveals the "Cosmic Christ," that is, Christ is identified not only as Jesus on earth, but as the whole creative and redemptive movement of God throughout space and time. Thus, Christ is the Word which brings everything into existence (1:2-3), the Light that enlightens all humanity, (1:9) the Bread of God that sustains all life, (6:33) and much more.

So at one time God and Creation were seen as separate. God for Panentheism or the ONE for Plotinus is both outside and inside the universe, we must live in a conscious universe which comes into being not by God but by the Christ, the Son within creation, or Nous. The ONE IS. This means it is not bounded by time and space so has no beginning or end. Creation is the result of the Cosmic Christ within creation and the process of creation functions within ISNESS and limited by time and space.

If we can agree on this hypothesis then we can speculate as to how and why levels of reality are created which sustain the universe in which involution is the movement of spirit within matter of differing ratios away from the source and mechanical evolution making the transition into conscious evolution made possible through conscious contemplation leads back to the Source, God, The ONE, The GOOD, or whatever name you choose for the ineffable.

Nick_A wrote:...
If we can agree on this hypothesis then we can speculate as to how and why levels of reality are created which sustain the universe in which involution is the movement of spirit within matter of differing ratios away from the source and mechanical evolution making the transition into conscious evolution made possible through conscious contemplation leads back to the Source, God, The ONE, The GOOD, or whatever name you choose for the ineffable.

But can you make a kettle from this? As a cup of tea goes a long way to making existence bearable.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:53 am

Nick_A wrote:...
If we can agree on this hypothesis then we can speculate as to how and why levels of reality are created which sustain the universe in which involution is the movement of spirit within matter of differing ratios away from the source and mechanical evolution making the transition into conscious evolution made possible through conscious contemplation leads back to the Source, God, The ONE, The GOOD, or whatever name you choose for the ineffable.

But can you make a kettle from this? As a cup of tea goes a long way to making existence bearable.

These ideas are only for those with the love for meaning. They have questions like "Who am I" and "Why am I here?" Some need meaning more than what a cup of tea can provide. To each his own.

Reflex wrote:

You are conflating pantheism and panentheism. Or, perhaps, advocating strong panentheism as opposed to weak panentheism. God, or the One, is ontologically distinct from the many. It is not a member of the set of many; it is that "in whom we live, move and have our being."

No . I am saying that panentheism is a cop -out from the rigorous reason and humanity of pantheism.

On the question of whether this is metaphysics, from the site that NIck recommended:

Plotinus is not a metaphysical thinker in the strict sense of the term. He is often referred to as a 'mystical' thinker, but even this designation fails to express the philosophical rigor of his thought. Jacques Derrida has remarked that the system of Plotinus represents the "closure of metaphysics" as well as the "transgression" of metaphysical thought itself (1973: p. 128 note). The cause for such a remark is that, in order to maintain the strict unity of his cosmology (which must be understood in the 'spiritual' or noetic sense, in addition to the traditional physical sense of 'cosmos') Plotinus emphasizes the displacement or deferral of presence, refusing to locate either the beginning (arkhe) or the end (telos) of existents at any determinate point in the 'chain of emanations' -- theOne, the Intelligence, and the Soul -- that is the expression of his cosmological theory; for to predicate presence of his highest principle would imply, for Plotinus, that this principle is but another being among beings, even if it is superior to all beings by virtue of its status as their 'begetter'. Plotinus demands that the highest principle or existent be supremely self-sufficient, disinterested, impassive, etc. However, this highest principle must still, somehow, have a part in the generation of the Cosmos. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/)

Nick:

Ever since the double-slit experiment which proved that even individual photons of light have awareness …

So, this is how you expect science and religion will be united, by making false claims and calling it science? The double-slit experiment did not “prove” that individual photons have awareness.

So at one time God and Creation were seen as separate. God for Panentheism or the ONE for Plotinus is both outside and inside the universe, we must live in a conscious universe which comes into being not by God but by the Christ, the Son within creation, or Nous.

You can throw Plotinus into the sausage grinder but this misrepresents his views and shows a disregard for his work. As I pointed out in a previous post, matter according to Plotinus, is eternal, it is not created. There is no creatio ex nihilo. Matter is the passive substratum or ground of existence that is receptive of form. God or the One, according to Plotinus, did not create matter. Matter is separate from the One. It is not in or of the One which is immaterial.

In addition, John in the NT does not call Christ Nous but Logos. They can be seen as the same only if you ignore the difference. But this is, of course, true of everything.