Critical Thinking and Innate Feelings. — Gnomon

Nietzsche already said that we should reconcile these two - Apollinian and Dionysian -:

"Much will have been gained for humanity once we have succeeded in apprehending directly-rather than merely ascertaining-that Men owes its continuous evolution to the Apollinian- Dionysian duality, even as the propagation of the species depends on the duality of the sexes, their constant conflicts and periodic acts of reconciliation."

Later, their Christian descendants, began to imagine the human Jewish Messiah as the super-human Christ, and eventually fragmented the One God of Monotheism into a Polytheistic pantheon : Father, Mother, Son, Holy-Spirit, and a panoply of Saints. So, it's obvious that an abstract absolute unitary notion of deity does not appeal to the average person. — Gnomon

As I always say:

"As the romans had a pantheon of Gods, we, in the contemporary world, have a pantheon of interpretations of God."

The Enformationism thesis — Gnomon

Even though I may disagree with you in some cases, I really do support that you should publish this eventually. We need revolutionary thinkers who are not afraid to express themselves.

Early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus — 3017amen

Plotinus wasn't christian, and his ideas - the three hypostasis of the world: One, Intellect and the Soul - were practically robbed by Christian theology and philosophy.

Through simple engineering formulas for say the design of a building, aircraft, xcetera, as well as computing the laws of gravity, relativity, xcetera. — 3017amen

But the point is that if the absolute of existence - if it exists - can be evidenced - by experiment or theories - it would be just a version of it with deficiency, because we would making it "Be".

What puzzles me is that if the One possesses no attributes at all, — TheMadFool

Plotinus says that the One is "beyond all attributes". Therefore, it contains something that is seen as an attribute and is the attribute. Quoting Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one." What attribute is this, that can be seer and seen, is beyond our contemporary metaphysical knowledge - if by chance, the One exists -.

Infinity has an attribute - boundlessness. Plotinus' One has none. — TheMadFool

It must contain something, however, in the act of trying to abstract this "something beyond all attributes" we - according to Plotinus - have already introduced defects, simply because we are in and with existence.

in our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn in one way or another to the infinite. Whether it's an infinite tower of turtles , and infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Otherwise how do things-in-themselves exist? — 3017amen

I would still add the argument that because Men is finite, he tends to seek the absolute - infinite - to comfort himself that he is bound to existence.

Have you given any further thought to the video and how something that's absolute wouldn't require any outside/external data? — 3017amen

I am stuck with the reflection that:

"The One - or absolute - is something that "transcends" existence, however, through the use of language - which is a creation of a Being attached to existence; Men - this concept cannot be truly achieved, as it is something beyond our borders - here, I speak of our finitude - and it cannot be fully expressed either, since, for being absolute, infinity would be necessary to conceive it."

The only solution I see for this question is one where we "transcend" the boundaries of language. But still, we would be conceptualizing a flawed idea, as we still would "Be".

The One;

We are knowledgeable of the One;

As we Are, our knowledge of the One is deficient;

But through our deficient knowledge of the One, we know that it Is in some "higher" Existence (?) - Meaning (?) Purpose (?) Idea (?);

Next step?

My reference to Nietz was only to signify The Enlightenment, because you asked how humanity has matured. — praxis

And did the Enlightenment make religion become something less than reason? Indeed it did. But I don't get why you quoted Nietzsche in this case, but ok.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that you are in agreement with Nietzsche, and we are not in agreement. — praxis

And Nietzsche disagrees with you too.

My understanding of why you quote him this way is in effort to substantiate your belief that people require some contrived fiction in order to be lead around like cattle. — praxis

No. You who noticed that you interpret Nietzsche wrong as the whole crowd of people that claims to have read him. You don't cut a quote in pieces from someone so that they agree with your baseless opinion. If you want to quote someone, start being less biased, and be kind enough to project what the author really wanted to say.

And you didn't answer my question, so yeah...

God is dead. — praxis

Leaving aside our previous religious discussion, your statement intrigued me. What do you understand when Nietzsche says:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? "

ministry of thought. — JerseyFlight

The guy is Ingsoc made Man and he dares to say that others are being authoritarian?

Overcome your resentment against the world Flight; it is not doing you good.

As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world. — Gnomon

Oh, it is an attempt to stitch together scientific theory, with metaphysical abstraction. That's It? If so, it is really interesting, and in my view, necessary for an eventual intellectual revolution.

Enformationism Thesis — Gnomon

I'm going to read it, thank you.

The physical world that emerged from that postulated creative act is the only "material evidence" of a Creator. — Gnomon

The point is that if it is the concept of the "One" of Plotinus, it makes no sense to apply the notion of "God" to him because the creation of existence was not the result of his direct or indirect intention. The absolute of the One caused existence in a chain reaction of absolute - or perfections - smaller in scale. The One is not a God in the common sense.

Yes. Modern Science began as a revolt against the dominant metaphysical myths (Theology) of medieval Catholicism. But they inadvertently threw out the metaphysical baby (Mind) with the mythical bathwater (man-made dogma). Even most modern philosophers are uncomfortable with discussing non-empirical metaphysical notions. However, by "metaphysics" I don't mean magic or ghosts or theology, but the important non-physical aspects of Reality : Concepts, Ideas, Theories, Opinions, Beliefs. etc — Gnomon

I agree completely.

Unfortunately, most of them are not interested in the "god of the philosophers" : an unrevealed hypothetical abstract absolute explanation for our actual physical relative existence — Gnomon

Yes, the evolution of philosophy and science is increasingly proving that something is missing from the equation in relation to everything. My view is that metaphysics - as you have already said, concepts, abstractions, ideas, etc ... - is being left out in favor of a more intrisicaly causal perceptive answer.

Is the concept of the Absolute some sort of essence from physical existence, independent, like mathematics? — 3017amen

That is a really good question. How could we test and visualize this through the physical-material world? Perhaps through a new theory that covers both the metaphysical and the physical? And if it is something like Plotinus' abstraction, that existence arose from it, however, without the direct and indirect intention of it, how could we conceptualize it being that Plotinus already stated:

"Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

Metaphysician Undercoverer — 3017amen

@Metaphysician Undercover - show yourself!

Enformationism — Gnomon

Interesting, if you'd like, please dm me. I'm really curious about it.

I call that non-personal a priori force or power by various names, depending on the context. In an ontological discussion about the question of basic existence vs non-existence, I label the timeless power-to-be-and-to-become as "BEING". This concept is similar in some ways to Plotinus' "The One", which I sometimes call "ALL", or "The Whole". As a creative force, it is also akin to Plato's concept of LOGOS, in the sense of divine Reason, which was responsible for organizing Chaos into the living organism we call home : our physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) universe. — Gnomon

The world then would be made of two existences? The physical (material) and the metaphysical (mental)? Correct me if I'm getting it wrong.

However, a more up-to-date name for the creator of our information processing world may be The Programmer. — Gnomon

What?

*1. the Singularity, "perfect point", was like a cue ball struck by the cue stick (action) aimed & manipulated by an intentional pool shooter. The arrow of Time is like a rack of balls going in a general direction determined by the aim of the shooter. Their movements may seem random, but we can trace cause & effect back to a single input of force — Gnomon

This intrigues me, since the concepts are practically identical, however, one of them is evidenced by scientific studies, while the other is founded on metaphysical search. Perhaps the Big Bang is just the material evidence of the One? I cannot say.

I think it's due to a physical bias in Science, — Gnomon

I can agree with that. I feel that we are leaving aside one of the truths of this existence for the sake of the material. Perhaps one needs the other - Metaphysical and Material -?

Then of course you have other philosophical ideas that perhaps are a bit more intriguing relative to consciousness: — 3017amen

Really good video. Thanks.

If both the One and God are concepts of the absolute, in fact, it is understandable that they are confused and used interchangeably by most people. But the point is that the One is almost like an immutable and "objecty" concept - for lack of better terms -, while to God, a certain personality is commonly applied to this transcendental figure.

If both are absolutes, what makes them unique when in comparison with each other?

Look at the current democratically elected leader of the free world and tell me that we live in a mature society. — praxis

I guarantee you one thing:

We have been living in the "Dominatus" for longer than everyone thinks ... He is not the worst, there are still worst rulers to come - at least for the mean time, I'm in a privileged position - here in Brazil - to watch the fall of the West - commonly known as Europe and North America -.

Then obviously they haven’t sufficiently matured. — praxis

I'm not getting your use of "maturity" to criticize the institutions of order of humanity. In what respect has humanity really matured? In relation to whom? We are what we are, the only thing going foward is time...

One of the inescapable failings of religion is that it cannot extend beyond the tribe or in-group. — praxis

The mere fact that Christianity and Islam are multi-cultural religions refutes his argument. It is no accident that they have persisted until today. Both are religions that do not differ between their converts. That's why we have christian japanese, and muslim american people. Religion unifies people more than it divides...

Why do we eventually tell children that there's no Santa Claus? Because it's time for them to grow up. — praxis

What if they let themselves be blinded by another idea for the simple fact that they cannot stand their existence without purpose? This is the problem in our current society. We are denying your "Santa Claus" but we are not putting anything new in its place. Its common sense to criticize religion, but I dare any of you to construct something so complex and meaningful as to be the new "ideal" as religion was - and lets be honest, still is and will be -.

If the God of classical theism exists, then God is omnipotent (all-powerful). Given that God is all-powerful, would God set up the world in such a way where humans compete for resources? — Matthew724

Probably because in the historical moment when all the philosophy and theology developed in defending the existence of God, the economy, as it is currently structured, did not even exist as a concept. In fact, the structure of christian dogma is outdated in certain aspects, and in the economic aspect, this was not even thought of, but then, God doesn't care about our mundane problems. Economy wasn't his creation.

In my humble opinion, philosophy, being, above all, an approach to issues, a method of discovering truths, refined over many generations of practitioners, is universal in scope. One could say philosophy is to know how to read a map, religion is just one map among countless others that can be read. — TheMadFool

:100:

What's necessary for a question to exist? — Daniel

A question, being a concept, needs a vehicle to be projected into existence and a potency to make the vehicle project it. From "Non Being" it needs a "Being" with "Purpose" to "Become".

Meaning can be lost in many ways but the general thrust is simply that we eventually outgrow childish things. — praxis

Are you arguing that religion is a childish thing? If so, why?

Philosophy of Redemption (1876) - Philipp Mainlander

Rather, religions are weakened by a loss of meaning, which can result from metaphysical events failing to manifest. — praxis

Religion loses its meaning because it has been weakened by the loss of its metaphysical legitimacy, not the other way around.

" The human race is a microcosm of the universal law of entropy " — Spartacus

“But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!"

reality beyond? — Eremit

It seems to me here that this concept of yours is practically the metaphysical world o ideas, something incomprehensible that we - humans - try to understand and project in the world. If something like this exists, the fact that we are stuck with "Being" makes it impossible for us to conceive and experience the "Non Being". Its almost "the One" of Plotinus:

"Once you have uttered 'The Good' - the concept - add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

The Roman empire expanded its sphere of influence, territorial ownership, and power. Then that sphere contracted. — Kenosha Kid

However, this sphere of influence has to come to an end, and it seems to me that defining the end point of it is a subject to be discussed, since the concept of "fall" has as many characteristics as a moment of decay and still, both things are different.

A canny fellow, Constantine, but not one of my favorites among the emperors. — Ciceronianus the White

Constantine was successful because he was astute, charismatic, and populist. He told what the people wanted to hear, and told the senate and the elite what they didn't want to hear. I for sure don't like him in personality. And yes, the use of Sol Invictus and then Christianity was a good move.

Not to spend too much time on religion, but the transition from traditional paganism to Christianity in the Empire is something I find fascinating. — Ciceronianus the White

Then we are two.

especially the cult of Mithras regarding which we know very little. — Ciceronianus the White

What do you think about it?

As far as I'm aware, Heliogabalus was another name for Elagabalus, one of the more curious Roman emperors. — Ciceronianus the White

Aelagabalus, Heliogabalus, or even Elagabal, was an arab-roman sun God. He was initially venerated in Emesa - modern-day Homs, Syria -. The name is the Latinised form of the Arabic "Ilah Al-Gabal", and the cult of the deity spread to other parts of the Roman Empire in the second century, where he would be revered as "Elagabalos" by the Greeks and "Elagabalus" by the Romans.

The cult statue was brought to Rome by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus - also known as Heliogabalus -, who, before his accession, was the hereditary high priest at Emesa and was commonly called Elagabalus after the deity.

In a way, this cult driven idolatry of Heliogabalus, paved the way for Sol Invictus - late roman period version of Jupiter - to become the single most worshipped god of the pantheon, and when emperor Aurelian - emperor from 270 AD to 275 AD - ruled, the idolatry was so strong on Sol Invictus, that Aurelian considered banning all the other gods and establishing Sol Invictus as the sole God of Rome. He is famous for saying: "One God, One People, One Empire". Indirectly, this kind of accommodated the roman population to the concept of a single all-powerful God, who would eventually come to be formally established with Christianity.

You seem to insist that Christianity is the basis for all that is best in Western Civilization, while acknowledging its problems in (I think) a rather dismissive fashion. — Ciceronianus the White

In fact, I focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, as it has now become the rule to tarnish the image of the religion by focusing only on its rare cases of darkness. This is a perfect example of the decadence and secularization that I speak so much. Why don't they ask the same questions and make the same statements about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Shintoism, etc ...? It is very easy to criticize your parents when they are old and have built the entire foundation on which you currently live. Our society lives kind the same relationship with Christianity - as the romans lived with theirs during the "Dominatus" period of the Empire -.

You also seem hesitant to acknowledge the great debt Christianity owes to ancient pagan thought and civilization (being largely based on it and having incorporated it) and their influence on the West. — Ciceronianus the White

At no time did I even mention anything against greek philosophical influence on Christianity; in fact, I actually criticize Christianity for stealing greek ideas - Plotinus, as an example, practically developed the concept of the christian trinity with his " The One", " The Intellect" and " The Spirit" -.

I seem to be an extreme defender of Christianity, but in reality we live in a time where it has become the rule to defame your own past, and I wont allow it.

polemical way? — JerseyFlight

The polemic strikes back. He can't get enough of this bullshit...

Overcome your resentment for theism Flight; be better than a simple ideological doctrinaire.

No idea what you're saying about my proposal. — Srap Tasmaner

In most cases, atheists who seek to create "theses" or "arguments" against theism in this forum are new converts who, with the fanaticism of any new convert, try to express this to everyone. And they still try to denigrate the image that religion - here not focusing on any specific one - had and still has in humanity. Christian philosophy, Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, it doesn't matter, as long as doubts and/or arguments in favor are true and well formulated. What I am seeing is a tantrum of "intellectuals" who just because they do not believe in God - or Gods - think that everyone who believes must be inferior. Ridiculous.

They scream with all the fervor that only a fanatic can achieve that they are atheists. They are proud to cause their own decay ...

whose experience of philosophy seems to consist entirely of figuring out that god is dead and now they want to let everyone know and pick fights with people who haven't had this life-changing experience. — Srap Tasmaner

Atheistic fanaticism is as extreme as religious fanaticism. It is impressive how both are identical in characteristics.

"God is dead, and we have killed him!"

And everyone understood this statement wrong.
You shouldn't be happy about it, you should be crying...

Fifty percent of young people don't believe in God. — Gregory

And this is the portion that will cause the West to fall ... Good luck in rebuilding it. I guarantee that I will be laughing while dead.

I am not going to get into long discussions with people over it whos intent is merely is to make everyone Christian. — Gregory

If you prove to me that humanity has developed another set of moral values ​​that defend the freedom of the individual like Christianity, we can talk. However, so far you have brought only conspiracy theories and opinions without any historical foundation that only proves my argument that contemporary society is a symptom of the dogmatic weakness of Christianity itself.

I'm just looking at the imagery itself; it's very similar. — Noble Dust

Its real similar.

As the Kabbalah was founded during the 13th century, It is not doubtful that they probably drew much inspiration from christian theology and philosophy - which was at its apex -.

How much do you know know about time to make a judgment about this?

@Gregory

Do you talk about whether religious arguments become obsolete over time? If so, no doubt.

This happened with the pantheistic religion of the ancient roman civilization. Over the centuries, and with the absence of any proof that the Gods - or in the case of monotheism, God - exists, civilization begins to doubt the figure of worship, and eventually, the arguments that support its religion. It is not by chance that the roman pantheon raised and brought down several Gods of the title of the highest deity - Jupiter, Heliogabalus, Sol Invictus, etc ... -. One of the weaknesses of any religion - it seems to me - is that it is partly founded on the belief that metaphysical events can - and should - manifest in the real world, which does not happen.

Keeping in mind as backdrop that until about 6250 BCE, it was possible to walk from Europe to Britain across a wide and substantial land bridge in the English channel called Doggerland. — tim wood

I don't see how your comment contributes to the content of my article. Please clarify.

So the omnipotent paradox isn’t going to disprove God’s omnipotence because it is built on something that's contradict itself, also we derive contradictory results from a premise, which further proves that the property of “omnipotent” does not exist."

@xinye

You are trying to apply logic to something that is based entirely on interpretations, assumptions, beliefs and faith. Any monotheist would say right away that your premise is wrong because God simply "Is". Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are incomprehensible and in fact contradictory concepts when a mortal mind tries to conceive them.

Systematic Theology - by Berkhof, L. -:

"Christians believe God to be both transcendent - wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe - and immanent - involved in the world -."

Will you try to apply logic to this?

Athanasian Creed - by Athanasius of Alexandria -:

"The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal."

Will you try to apply logic to this?

We live in times where everyone knows very well how to deny God, however, they forget that the most difficult question is to affirm its existence.

With sincerity, from an atheist.

You fanatical drug addicts can talk to other people who are NOT going to pay attention and who are going to go to other threads to have meaningful conversations. Your arguments stand refuted and your religion stands condemned to the Fires of Hell where it was born — Gregory

Tell you what:

We'll be pretty happy without your conspiracy theories polluting the forum. Thank you very much!

I have many interesting threads. You have none. — Gregory

Why I still try to discuss with someone who argues like a child? Good Day/Good Night

Then go somewhere else. We like to talk about INTERESTING things on this forum, not Christian crap all the time — Gregory

You missed the point of my statement:

You are not interesting.

Faith (choosing to believe something) has no place in philosophy. — Gregory

In this case, disregard all the existing philosophy in the world. By the way, end the forum too, as it is full of people with "faith".

Oh my self!, it is ridiculous how the staff lets this kind of madness endure in the forum.

Religion is a drug that is usually from an evil force connected to the Satan force. — Gregory

Philosophy, people! LOL

You understand that the Bible didn't exist then. — Kenosha Kid

The first Christian bible consists of The Gospel of the Lord as preached by Paul the Apostle and referenced by him with the phrase "my gospel" on three occasions as found in the original Epistles of Paul. Within the Epistles are: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians. It was written in the year of 144 AD by Marcion of Sinope (85 AD - 160 AD), a shipbuilder and son of the Bishop of Pontus. And of course, it is the first we know of, it could have been earlier versions.