How to explain to someone universe has no prupose and there is no meaning of life?

Re: Re: How to explain to someone universe has no prupose and there is no meaning of life?

Originally posted by Canute
Mind you, if you define God as Spinoza did then one gets into grey areas.
What grey areas? How is pantheism anything other than superfluous?
 
Re: Re: Re: How to explain to someone universe has no prupose and there is no meaning of life?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What grey areas? How is pantheism anything other than superfluous?
If He is defined as a Jehovah's Witness would define Him then to me the concept is illogical. However Spinoza's God of no attributes (a heretical view) makes much more sense. The definitions vary so much among theists that it's hard to generalise.

Panpsychism (NOT pantheism) has always been popular among philosophers (and still is) for quite logical reasons. It won't be superfluous until we have a theory of existence that works. Until then no logically consistent theory will be superfluous, they're all contenders.
 
Canute,

The universe "is" and calling it God is unecessary, i.e. it is superfluous, as Consequent correctly states.
 
Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

The universe "is" and calling it God is unecessary, i.e. it is superfluous, as Consequent correctly states.
Hmm. Well it's not very superfluous if you believe in God. You can argue that's it's superfluous if you like, but you can't state it as a fact. Not unless you're claiming to know.
 
purpose of universe

The universe creates and recreates itself, that is its purpose.
Life, mimics the universe, because it is born of it.

Meaning of life is to achieve sentience, to experience what the universe is and to evolve accordingly. All life on earth, is like the nerve endings in a tiny part of the universe, a miniscule part of its consciousness, therefore, when the life experiences, so does the universe by default.
 
Canute,

Hmm. Well it's not very superfluous if you believe in God. You can argue that's it's superfluous if you like, but you can't state it as a fact. Not unless you're claiming to know.
Why? The ‘universe’ is the name we use to describe everything there is. Pantheists call it ‘God’ instead. Isn’t this simply an alias?

Kat
 
Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

Why? The ‘universe’ is the name we use to describe everything there is. Pantheists call it ‘God’ instead. Isn’t this simply an alias?

Kat
I don't have the slightest interest in or knowledge of pantheism, as I said before.

You said that the concept of God is superfluous. I said it wasn't. Now you're supposed to tell me why I'm wrong.

It's no good saying that we've explained the existence of the universe so we don't need any extra concepts. We haven't.
 
Canute,

You said that the concept of God is superfluous.
You appear to have misunderstood and miss-read. The statements referred to Pantheism being superfluous.

Here is something to help you with Pantheism

Kat
 
Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

You appear to have misunderstood and miss-read. The statements referred to Pantheism being superfluous.
Kat
So you're ok with panentheism but not pantheism?
 
I think we should start again. I'm no longer sure whether I agree or disagree or with what I might be agreeing or disagreeing about.

Unless you disagree of course.:confused: :)
 
Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

Why? The ‘universe’ is the name we use to describe everything there is. Pantheists call it ‘God’ instead. Isn’t this simply an alias?

Kat

----------
M*W: Yes, "God" is an alias for the universe and everything in it. It should more properly be called "We" or "We are that we are."
 
PANTHEISM: THERE ARE REPORTEDLY TWO DEFINITIONS. HOWEVER, THEY BOTH FOLLOW THAT GOD AND NATURE ARE ONE. Spinoza did write pantheism; it is left to his students to determine exactly what he meant.

One take on Pantheism litterally puts nature as God, and this seems to match the definition in one of my dictionaries. This, however, does not seem to coincide with Spinoza's writings. Rather, from what I get from him is, God is nature just as God is us, which is a bit different. I back this difference with the following: He also writes that it is innate in man to believe in God. He writes there is nothing in Nature contrary to the intellectual love of God. His writings also show that he believes in good and evil, and he talks about having the mind of God. In fact, some have called him, the man obsessed with God. Others (probably Christians, I am sorry to say), have called him anything but Godly. I think I prefer yet another title, that may have come from Will Durant. This being, "The gentle philosopher."

The other definition for Pantheism, seems not to allow for such a personal God. As follows:

DICTIONARY: The doctrine that all forces manifestations, etc., of the universe are God. (Now, this is more toward Medicine Woman's idea of God, I believe.

[Forgive me M.W. if I am wrong about your definition :D ]

LOOK, I HAVE WHOLE THING ON PANTHEISM, AND ONLY READ IT ONCE, SO I WILL LOOK IT UP IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE ME TO, AND PROVIDE BETTER DEFINITIONS.
.................................................P M T
 
Originally posted by Katazia
I think we should start again. I'm no longer sure whether I agree or disagree or with what I might be agreeing or disagreeing about.

Unless you disagree of course.:confused: :)

Argh. If you look back you'll see I asked you a question about panetheism vs. pantheism. You didn't answer but just said you agreed. I had to guess what you meant, which led to a muddle.

I was trying to pint out that you couldn't logically argue that God was a superfluous concept, whether or not He in fact exists. But no big deal.
 
Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
PANTHEISM: THERE ARE REPORTEDLY TWO DEFINITIONS. HOWEVER, THEY BOTH FOLLOW THAT GOD AND NATURE ARE ONE.

Yes, but there is quite an important difference (if you're into such things) between types. Pantheism says that God is everything, whereas panentheism says that everything is in God. When you unpick the logic of these views they're actually very different.

Spinoza did write pantheism; it is left to his students to determine exactly what he meant... etc
As you point out later many Christians would call Spinoza a heretic. This is the problem. Although he talks about 'God' and about pantheism etc., in his understanding of God 'It' is, ultimately, an entity devoid of all attributes and without any will or purpose.

This is much more like Brahman or emptiness than any Christian God. Thus although Spinoza is a pantheist on paper, I'd say he was really a panpsychist, and had abandoned God in all but name, in favour of a more Eastern metaphysic.

Whether he was conscious of doing this it's hard to tell. He didn't dare publish his deeper thoughts during his lifetime, and may have held some things back even posthumously. What is telling is that Christians find difficult contradictions in his writings but Buddhist do not.
 
Pantheism

A NOTE TO CANUTE: I promise to get back to you as soon as time permits on your posting, but here is some information to mall over, if you care to. I have reams and reams of notes on various things, so bear with me in trying to deliver something of value.
Regards...

I am unable to cannot locate—at this moment, information, previously mentioned, regarding the two concepts of Pantheism, but the defining the same is more varied than one might think.

(1) The following are quotes that were handy, regarding Pantheism.

(2) After this, I quote comments regarding the philosopher, Spinoza.

(3) Finally, I give you some words from Spinoza himself, not about Pantheism, but to present a side of Spinoza that is not often discussed. The errors he observed in his day, which are amazingly similar to the complaints of many in our day. This just blows my mind. Thought some of you might enjoy the commonality.

1-a “Modern pantheism is often misunderstood. It has nothing to do with "pantheon" or "polytheism"- belief in many Gods. It is neither theism nor atheism, but transcends both.
~ Paul Harrison


1-b “Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism.” ~ Edward A. Pace

1-c “With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God ... the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ ... signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. ~Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

2-a “Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza is one of the most important philosophers -- and certainly the most radical -- of the early modern period. ……………………Of all the philosophers of the seventeenth-century, perhaps none have more relevance today than Spinoza.” ~ Steven Nadler

3-a From Spinoza himself, talking about the strife and nonsense in religious groups:

“Inquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it to the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses merely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument—in short, popular religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. The spread of this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing God’s religion degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition.

Every church became a theatre, where orators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to instruct the people, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to public scorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would tickle the ears of their congregation. This state of things necessarily stirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of time could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion nothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the multitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices—aye, prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem, in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark of reason !

Piety, great God ! and religion are become a tissue of ridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn away from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all men, are thought, O lie most horrible ! to possess light from on High. Verily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not insolently rave, but would learn to worship God more wisely, and would be as marked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they were concerned for their opponents’ souls, instead of for their own reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled with pity and compassion.

Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear from their doctrine. I grant that they are never tired of professing their wonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that they teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to which (in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy Writ conform; -not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want to make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in sleep have they caught a glimpse of Scripture’s Divine nature.

The very vehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that their belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and the fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle that it is in every passage true and divine. Such a doctrine should be reached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books (which would teach it much better, for they stand in need of no human fictions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.

As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only despised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human commentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled as faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down. . . . . . . . . .”

// -UNABRIDGED ELWES TRANSLATION. VOL. 1; WORKS OF SPINOZA –Peter Smith, a book published by DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. NY., NY. International Standard Book Number: 0-486-20249-6; Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-2221.\\

I will add nothing to any of these quotes. I hope someone enjoys reading them, or perhaps something above will stir up a desire to go find something either complimentary too, or in opposition, and that you will always be blessed with an open mind. MY BEST TO ALL, ~PMT
 
Greetings!

CANUTE:

QUOTING YOU: ………”Pantheism says that God is everything, whereas panentheism says that everything is in God. When you unpick the logic of these views they're actually very different.”

Yes.

Actually, I am not much into labels, and use them only to try to reach some level of commonality, and to make or understand a point, as I am supposing you do as well. As for those you mention, one is old, -very very old-, and the other is relatively new. Whereas I respect the desire to bring us all together, I happen to believe this will be accomplished a brick at a time, so to speak. I appreciate the thought, and your thoughtfulness, so let me try this another way, so bear with me, okay?

We settled in Alma, which is, as I recall, about fifty miles from Van Buren when I was twelve. Even though we had come from Oregon, I was fascinated with so much of this state's own natural beauty. From the colorful centipedes, to the many, many rocks, the variety of fish, bugs, snakes, and the night howlings of the wild animals. It was all so strange and such a marvel to me.

Early in the mornings, I would leave with the dog and explore for miles, then be home just in time for supper. Whenever they had time to hear, I would share the wonders of the day with my parents. On the days I did not go, I would simply ponder and daydream. It seemed I enjoyed everything. As I chopped wood, releasing the wonderful smells, or carried water from the natural spring that was all but hidden down the hill behind our house, I felt so much a part of it all.

There were other reasons--having nothing to do with the state-- that kept me close to nature during those months we were there. My stepfather had a marvelous garden, with almost anything one could want. Various kinds of mellons, and several kinds of lima beans, corn so high that even "Oklahoma" would have to take notice, and all the other things one finds in a garden so complete and healthy, met our eyes as we ascended the hill to the back of our house. There was a "pour-off" filled with fish, from creeks on either side. It was a big, round hole, deep and full of wonders.

We had White Rock chickens, with short glistening while feathers, hogs that squealed with delight when they saw one of us coming with the slop bucket. No food was wasted. It was one of the most marvelous times in my life, and one of the worst, with the worst also caused mostly by nature.

For sure, we cannot pick and choose, or I would have passed up the terrible draught that came, the awful fire that took a good portion of our roof and attic, the rains that ensued, bringing ugly muddy water and floods that were almost unimmaginable, cutting us off entirely for a time. The horrible illness of my mother that we thought would surely take her from us, seems to go on forever, before she was to have any relief.

My point here is ............that none of that god-awful experience could ever take away from, or even put a dent in, the joy of those quiet times, the wonders, or the glory of God's creation that I had experienced to my very soul in those quiet times that Frisky accompanied me in my peaceful journeys.

And the message is: I believe with all my heart that when we see the beauty of God's grace, while exploring all that he has given us, we will have claimed the power and will recognize the source, and then! when bad times come, though they be devastating, they cannot take away the good that we know is ours, and we can survive with our joy and peace intact.

I believe that we must read and search, think and divide, purge and ponder, until we are drenched with the joy that comes with enlightenment and the developments of our intuition, (on-the-spot, discernment). Once there, we feel no need to chase after miracles, and spend no time looking for signs.

We will see the signs in nature, and catch our breath, we will see them in what we so carelessly call coincidences, and we will stop to ponder, but we will not need them to keep us, because we will feel safe with the wonder of things bigger than us, we will be comfortable with that which pulls us together, that which quickens our hearts and minds, and we shall understand the folly of thinking that we are islands.

---------------------------------------

HERE, I QUOTE YOU......“Although he talks about 'God' and about pantheism etc., in his understanding of God 'It' is, ultimately, an entity devoid of all attributes and without any will or purpose.”

You know, Canute, I could give you so many quotes from Spinoza’s Ethics, (finished only 3 years before his death), that would seem to contradict your statement (above). But, you do not want that.

Aside from that, my rather minor issues with Buddhism are not that important either. So, we have a bit of a disagreement about those two things. Whereas, I do not mind telling you what I think, I care not to over do it. I will try to answer any questions, as you have also been willing to do, but I shall not assume that you want more of my point of view than you say.

Go for whatever there is in Buddhism for you, with my blessing. Not that you need it, but I do not like it much when someone denounces Christ, or even Spinoza, Apostle Paul, or anyone that I love. In fact I do not care much for far-sweeping generalizations.

It is always good to hear from you. Do share your thoughts and discoveries anytime you wish. Agreeing is not necessary. Respect is, and you have that. That which comes with “listening” can be so fulfilling as we open our minds to ideas that transform us into more insightful and peaceful human beings. PMT
 
Back
Top