yeah you heard!
No related posts.
The corollary to Arthur Clarkes 3rd Law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) is that any sufficiently advanced natural process is indistinguishable from god. So your god of the gaps proposition holds true again. No matter how complex the process becomes, it does not prove god.
Disagree with the premise. It would be like having sex without any pleasurable sensation. it just wouldn’t happen. That is where we all emanate from, that feeling. We are not ‘assembled’.
This is very well put imo. The arguments are about the same for which I, from a pure rational-scientific point of view, think that panentheism is just the most self-consistent point of view and therefore to be valued higher than all other, narrower, systems of belief.
I am trying to compose a question to you but i feel as if i should simply write a book instead and not an ages long comment. you have aroused my ontological mind however and hope to condense my thoughts to fit this YouTube format sometime in the foreseeable future. At any rate, thank you.
to the narrator with a warm, inviting accent:
Well, me again.
To me nature does show a purpose. And your purpose is to fit in sustainable way with the rest of nature. And to me that is godlike. To me that is paramount, outside of that, only personal desires matter. Personally I dont agree with ThouartThat. There isnt a set dogma for pantheism so we will often times have differences. Essentially pantheism is sexed up athiesm. And we all know that not all athiests are the same. That goes for us as well.
Dude, you first have to pass Karen Armstrong before you can abandon theism…Good luck.
I think “panetheism” is spelled without in there.
I think to a large degree, we all have a “warm & fuzzy module”. A part of us that, at certain times, for whatever reason, makes us occasionally feel W&F. (Cannabinoid receptors may or may not be involved.)
For those people whose “factory settings” render their W&F module more active than “normal”, they feel obliged to justify their W&Fs by attributing it to something “real”; i.e., it must be the Deity.
my perspective, which I would consider to be pantheist, is that the universe itself is alive and conscious.
all things are part of reality, not seperate from each other, not seperate from reality. all things are merely something reality does. I see the universe as a living organism, not as a machine.
this is not “god of the gaps” or an easy way out, it’s just a different way of interpreting the same evidence.
It’s fine to try and fill the gaps with theory and philosophy imo just not blind faith and wishful thinking.
You have some good arguments, but pantheism deducted would look more like agnosticism rather than atheism.
Typically human thought doesn’t jump from a theistic view to a non-theistic view, the intermediary is generally agnostic.
keep up the splendid vids mate!
I agree with you Kyle. The panentheist has most of the same problems as the the vanilla-type theist. It is up to them to demonstrate its veracity.
It is the weakness of most forms of Hinduism Kabalism, Gnoticism and Manichism.
Your clinging to Putnam and physicalism still concerns me, though. 😉
But if God was the stuff of infinity, was he an actual infinity or a potential infinity? Cantor’s actual infinity was not open-ended toward the future; however, Kant thought that potential infinity was. If, on the other hand, potential infinity could be set to point toward the past, then it could be thought of as actual yet potential. Whitehead does not want to say god is actual because that implies being spelled out in the material. Hence, he describes god as an infinite creative force.
were popular ideas in the 30’s and 40’s and was the main feature of Lovejoy’s The Great Chain of Being. Secondly, it is still quite counter-intuitive to think of reality, and all we know about it, in light of the certainty of our eventual absence from that great arena. What sustains that reality after we no longer exist? The idea was that conception was God-like and the essence of creativity. This creativity needed an eternal source in order to make sense of the sheer fortuitousness of reality..
There are three areas that need further philosophical investigation in order to clarify what is at stake in this debate: 1) creative force; 2) Reality after death; and, 3) actual vs. potential infinity. Firstly, up until very recently, evolution was thought to have had the purpose of leading from lower ‘animal consciousness’ (unconscious cogitations) to the exclusively human level of conceptualization. This, along with the concomitant idea of ‘telos,’ paramount in the history of consciousness…
Whenever consciousness exist, purpose exist in some sense. Consciousness is administered to agents. And if consciousness are the same as physical activities, then it is hard to argue how the universe isn’t thinking and why you being a distinct agent amongst dead matter isn’t an illusion.
In a theistic reality, it is only the creator which has made us for a purpose and made his own purpose that are valid purposes, while we can’t make our own purpose unless we have free will… though then we only have meaning when we use it and don’t follow the deities orders, so our purpose is not intended from a god who gives us strict rules and dislike us using our will. In a cold universe, our purpose is as easy to find as the gods finding their purpose. no problem there.
But as you know, a metaphysician will not conflate “creativity” with “purposefulness”. As one can easily imagine purposeless creativity.
So why not simply say “the universe” without painting on an additional attribute of a deity? I am glad you are asking this question.
One on hand it seems like we are just repeating the old argument, “Without a God, there is no purpose.” And then I feel no progress has been made since Nietzsche. On the other hand, it is as if the discovery of natural creativity demands a telos. (The above argument in inversion), “There is a purpose, and so this must be God.”
Much better this time.
Lots of developments in science have come from giant leaps of imagination, but until theories have enough evidence to be accepted beyond reasonable doubt, they remain open to criticism. Ideas that refer to god nullify themselves because theyre not open to debate. We may well be part of something greater than the sum of its parts, but referring to god always attempts to put a stop to questions. We need to learn from our greatest mistake, the concept of god. It has held us back for far too long
I am sometimes on stickam – my username is the same – Kyle
will you go on blog tv or stickam sometime?
btw perfect said 5 stars
I think it is a lot like god of the gaps. I mean, I think it’s okay to look at the universe to explain creation, but I don’t think you can look at the universe and call it a god.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *