Panentheism

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:56 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:22 pm
The universe as I've come to understand it, consists of levels of reality reflecting a chain of being and a conscious hierarchy. The earth as a plane of existence is unique in that it potentially connects the mechanical evolution we are aware of with the human potential for conscious evolution.

Man is dual natured. We re born as reacting animals and creatures of the earth with the potential for conscious evolution.
John 11: 11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Jesus explains the transition. Animal man is born of women and its greatest being is limited by mechanical evolution. The first level of conscious evolution is greater than the height of mechanical evolution.
Nick, you seem to be under the impression that all of humanity’s evolution (be it physical or spiritual) is strictly limited to the “interior” of this universe, whereas the Biblical passage you quoted is referencing two completely different settings (or “dimensions”) of reality.

Furthermore, if you are going to cherry-pick Bible verses to support your argument (something that I too am guilty of), then Philippians 3:21 speaks of how God (or Jesus - as a rhetorical representative of the Godhead) is going to:
Bible wrote: “...change our vile body...”
(meaning our “physical” body)
Bible wrote: “...that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body...”
Keep in mind that God’s “glorious body” (according to Panentheism) is the universe.

Look again at the visual metaphors I’ve been using, especially this one...

Image

...and notice how perfectly it describes the inevitable “...changing of our vile bodies...” into that whose “image” we have been created.

Humanity’s position on the ascending ladder of consciousness represents a “threshold-crossing” level of being, because...

Image

(As always, if the dialogue is not readable, then click on the link, here - http://theultimateseeds.com/Images/6%20 ... e%2089.jpg - and expand the image.)

You need to re-adjust your thinking to understand that our true and “eternal” evolution is going to take place in a context that is “above and outside” of the dark and limited confines of this universe.

More cherry-picking:
Bible wrote: “...For in him we live, and move, and have our being...for we are also his offspring...”
Bible wrote: “...Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
Bible wrote: “...it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
Bible wrote: “...we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye...”
_______

fooloso4
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by fooloso4 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:21 pm

Belinda:
Reflex countered:
Illiterate? Write for free help.
Will it be all right if I keep trying to improve?
Belinda, anyone who knows you knows how ironic this is. Nicely done! Take the high road. Allow cluelessness to show itself without the need for comment. But the irony is lost on the person it is aimed at, making it doubly ironic.

Nick_A
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:53 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:12 am
Fooloso4 wrote in a reply to Nick ,about Spinoza and panentheism:
(F4)The mistake that he is pointing to is to take nature as a kind of mass or corporeal matter. Nature, according to Spinoza, is not a mass or corporeal matter. Nature is not a body. It is not something that can be divided.
Jaspers makes precisely this mistake.

(Nick)The ONE is a great deal more than the living universe that functions within the ineffable ONE as the body of God.
(F4)You make the same mistake as well, taking nature as a kind of mass or corporeal matter or body.

Spinoza writes that Deus sive Natura is causa suis. There can be only one that is cause of itself.

The self-caused is exclusively either

1. a God that is the world which we inhabit of ideas and extended things plus infinitely more attributes that we don't experience,

or

2. the self-caused which transcends the world which we inhabit of ideas and extended things plus infinitely more attributes besides ideas and extended things.
-------------------------------------------------------------

2. cannot be the case because by Occam's razor hypothetical transcendence which cannot be known to us by definition of 'transcendence' is redundant. Spinoza says that our thoughts are adequate in proportion as they are reasoned thoughts: Spinoza's pantheist Deus is all reasoned.

Nick's claim is that he knows that which transcends ideas and extended things. Mysticism is unanswerable except by the practical and sceptical objection that mystical insight gives the bearer such a huge advantage over the rest of us that it's reasonable to suspect the bearer of either fraud or delusion. I think that Nick is not a fraud but that he is deluded, perhaps is a wishful thinker. Nick might benefit from applying Descartes's demon to himself.

Nick wrote:
The ONE is a great deal more than the living universe that functions within the ineffable ONE as the body of God. If not then the universe is a perpetual motion machine appearing from nothing existing as a virtual infinity of individual unique attributes often in opposition with no meaning or purpose which is impossible
But a machine does not have ideas, mind. Mind, or ideas, is one of the attributes of Deus sive Natura. So what you call "the universe"(I assume that you use "the One" and "the universe" interchangeably) includes ideas, and is also the ultimate cause of ideas. So the One is not a machine whether or not the One transcends nature or is nature.

Nick_A wrote , in another thread:
If a philosophy site goes secular and abandons the purpose of philosophy, then the only thing worth discussing are the aesthetics of the female behind and possibly the NY Mets.
The purpose of philosophy is well met by Descartes. I do urge you to subject yourself to the sceptical demon.
Apropos of scepticism, Spinoza wrote to the effect that passions are reactive. Descartes's demon would quiz you about whether you were led by passions instead of reason.
Belinda
Nick's claim is that he knows that which transcends ideas and extended things. Mysticism is unanswerable except by the practical and sceptical objection that mystical insight gives the bearer such a huge advantage over the rest of us that it's reasonable to suspect the bearer of either fraud or delusion. I think that Nick is not a fraud but that he is deluded, perhaps is a wishful thinker. Nick might benefit from applying Descartes's demon to himself.
Where did you get this from? What I do know is that I exist as the wretched man in Plato’s cave. My advantage is in being willing to admit it. I also agree with Simone’s observation
"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
I don’t glorify secular superficiality. I support doubt but also am astute enough to appreciate the poison of skepticism.
Whenever one tries to suppress doubt , there is tyranny . Simone Weil.

The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.” Simone Weil.
The naïve will say “yo, that’s a contradiction.” Is it?

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Panentheism

Post by Harbal » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:17 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:53 pm
I also agree with Simone’s observation
So do I.
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (22.75 KiB) Viewed 757 times

Nick_A
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:30 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:17 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:53 pm
I also agree with Simone’s observation
So do I.

Untitled.jpg
You have earned the admiration of Greta and F4

Reflex
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by Reflex » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:27 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:41 am
Just so I can get a handle on your ideas, what do you think of John Hagelin's universal field hypothesis?
I never heard of the guy so I looked him up and watched his lecture, Is Consciousness the Unified Field? It's not panpsychism. His ideas go deeper than that.

Hagelin has more faith in the explanatory power of string theory than what the evidence warrants and using it the way he did is a tremendous violation of Occam's razor. Similar ideas are proposed without inserting string theory -- Amit Goswwami's The Self-Aware Universe, for instance. Still, I liked what he said very much. It's a good place to start and not all that different from divine simplicity or the One.

Nick_A
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:37 pm

Seeds
Keep in mind that God’s “glorious body” (according to Panentheism) is the universe.
True, but man isn’t God. Man is a microcosm an inner unity in the image of God. Man on earth is a plurality and disunity out of balance.
You need to re-adjust your thinking to understand that our true and “eternal”evolution is going to take place in a context that is “above and outside” of the dark and limited confines of this universe.
As I understand it Man can only consciously evolve or return to to the level of the origin of man’s being. This like the rest of the demiurge is in the universe, in the body of God.

A person can say who cares; what difference does it make? The difference is that in order for science to take the essence of religion seriously, a logical structure of the conscious universe hypothesizing its purpose and man’s purpose must be reasonable. Panentheism and evolved man as a potential demiurge is a start and maybe in 100 years if we survive technology it will be both inwardly and externally verified and just be considered common sense

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Panentheism

Post by Harbal » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:46 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:37 pm

As I understand it......
And this is where we hit the brick wall.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Greta » Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:03 pm

Reflex wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:27 pm
Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:41 am
Just so I can get a handle on your ideas, what do you think of John Hagelin's universal field hypothesis?
I never heard of the guy so I looked him up and watched his lecture, Is Consciousness the Unified Field? It's not panpsychism. His ideas go deeper than that.

Hagelin has more faith in the explanatory power of string theory than what the evidence warrants and using it the way he did is a tremendous violation of Occam's razor. Similar ideas are proposed without inserting string theory -- Amit Goswwami's The Self-Aware Universe, for instance. Still, I liked what he said very much. It's a good place to start and not all that different from divine simplicity or the One.
Yes, while a beautiful idea and similar to other unitary visions. True that he makes a major logical leap to posit the Planck scale as "pure consciousness, pure intelligence" in what seems like a blend between pantheism and panentheism.

Nick_A
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Nick_A » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:39 am

A mind blowing way of contemplating the panentheistic concept of God is to define God as NOW.

Now is not bounded by time and space. Now IS. Now is also within me. My being is within NOW. Existence takes place within NOW. NOW doesn't exist for us since existence is a process and NOW is a state of being. Nothing happens NOW. Everything, all of universal existence, happens within NOW yet NOW is within me.

So the next time someone over the phone asks what you are doing now. Correct them and say Nothing. Everything I am doing is happening within NOW. They will disconnect and the men in the white coats will soon arrive and tell you that you are in good hands. They will make you well again.

Reflex
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by Reflex » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:20 am

Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:03 pm
Reflex wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:27 pm
Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:41 am
Just so I can get a handle on your ideas, what do you think of John Hagelin's universal field hypothesis?
I never heard of the guy so I looked him up and watched his lecture, Is Consciousness the Unified Field? It's not panpsychism. His ideas go deeper than that.

Hagelin has more faith in the explanatory power of string theory than what the evidence warrants and using it the way he did is a tremendous violation of Occam's razor. Similar ideas are proposed without inserting string theory -- Amit Goswwami's The Self-Aware Universe, for instance. Still, I liked what he said very much. It's a good place to start and not all that different from divine simplicity or the One.
Yes, while a beautiful idea and similar to other unitary visions. True that he makes a major logical leap to posit the Planck scale as "pure consciousness, pure intelligence" in what seems like a blend between pantheism and panentheism.
That's my take on it exactly. While I'm confident that consciousness exists at that level, I'm not satisfied with letting it go with "just because" for an answer. I want to know why. What is it that makes consciousness conscious? In effect, I'm asking "Why God?" Most people shrug their shoulders and say that's something we can never know. Not me. I agree with George Berkeley: "We should believe that God has dealt more bountifully with the sons of men than to give them a strong desire for that knowledge which he had placed quite out of their reach."

I think Berkeley did well with the information he had, but today we have at our disposal information and theories he could never have imagined. By integrating ideas like non-locality, random fluctuations in the zero point field, information theory and what have you, I think it is quite possible to find answers to questions that were once considered blasphemy to even ask.
Last edited by Reflex on Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Reflex
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by Reflex » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:34 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:39 am
A mind blowing way of contemplating the panentheistic concept of God is to define God as NOW.

Now is not bounded by time and space. Now IS. Now is also within me. My being is within NOW. Existence takes place within NOW. NOW doesn't exist for us since existence is a process and NOW is a state of being. Nothing happens NOW. Everything, all of universal existence, happens within NOW yet NOW is within me.

So the next time someone over the phone asks what you are doing now. Correct them and say Nothing. Everything I am doing is happening within NOW. They will disconnect and the men in the white coats will soon arrive and tell you that you are in good hands. They will make you well again.
I'll go you one better: every thing, every where, every when, and their every possibility converge in the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.

I'm pretty sure that folks like F4 and Harbal would like to call in the guys with big nets and straight jackets.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Greta » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:16 am

Reflex wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:20 am
Greta wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:03 pm
Reflex wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:27 pm
I never heard of the guy so I looked him up and watched his lecture, Is Consciousness the Unified Field? It's not panpsychism. His ideas go deeper than that.

Hagelin has more faith in the explanatory power of string theory than what the evidence warrants and using it the way he did is a tremendous violation of Occam's razor. Similar ideas are proposed without inserting string theory -- Amit Goswwami's The Self-Aware Universe, for instance. Still, I liked what he said very much. It's a good place to start and not all that different from divine simplicity or the One.
Yes, while a beautiful idea and similar to other unitary visions. True that he makes a major logical leap to posit the Planck scale as "pure consciousness, pure intelligence" in what seems like a blend between pantheism and panentheism.
That's my take on it exactly. While I'm confident that consciousness exists at that level, I'm not satisfied with letting it go with "just because" for an answer. I want to know why. What is it that makes consciousness conscious?
Heh, I have no confidence in that at all, but I'm open to it. The wildest conception I am open to is the possibility that some kind of Omega Point (or at least an evolutionary state) could appear that would be classed as immaterial by today's standards and even capable of surviving the universe's heat death, simply by solving one problem of survival after another as they loom. That begs the question of sequential universes where the remaining godlife life form of a prior universe is subtly involved in the development of the next, the ensuing evolution resulting in expansion of the immaterial entity.

However, no one seems to be calling for me to be straitjacketed because I freely admit that the ideas are speculative. However, I do think they are logical.
Reflex wrote:In effect, I'm asking "Why God?" Most people shrug their shoulders and say that's something we can never know. Not me. I agree with George Berkeley: "We should believe that God has dealt more bountifully with the sons of men than to give them a strong desire for that knowledge which he had placed quite out of their reach."
So the search for God is the conduit through which you have lived at least some of your life. Others use a formal religion. For many, it's their family or vocation that provides the focal point and raison d'etre. My conduit shifts - family & friends, the arts, work, now I am on a mission work out what the heck is actually going on with this reality caper, with all angles to be covered.
Reflex wrote:I think Berkeley did well with the information he had, but today we have at our disposal information and theories he could never have imagined. By integrating ideas like non-locality, random fluctuations in the zero point field, information theory and what have you, I think it is quite possible to find answers to questions that were once considered blasphemy to even ask.
At this stage the answers tend to remain partial. As far as I can tell, if God exists, it lies in the subjective, with the objective reality being metaphorically akin to a tree's wood, that builds and provides ever more structure and protection of the strip of tissue within that is actually alive. Again, speculation, but I find it interesting.

There are some interesting projects that should in time tell us much more, at least about pantheism, if not panentheism. One is the continuing attempt to work out how electrochemical processes in a squishy loaf of tissue produces the theatre of consciousness - how does A lead to B? Another is the development of AI and the question of whether it can become sentient and, if it did, how would we know?

Reflex
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by Reflex » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:34 am

Greta wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:16 am
The wildest conception I am open to is the possibility that some kind of Omega Point....
I'm taking you out of context just to mention that my Omega Point is the convergence I mentioned in my previous post. Given what I've read about physics, it's a real possibility.
So the search for God is the conduit through which you have lived at least some of your life. Others use a formal religion. For many, it's their family or vocation that provides the focal point and raison d'etre. My conduit shifts - family & friends, the arts, work, now I am on a mission work out what the heck is actually going on with this reality caper, with all angles to be covered.
Never thought about it that way, but you're right. I'm retired and my kids grown up so I have a lot of time on my hands but I'm never bored. It's really true: Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies.
At this stage the answers tend to remain partial. As far as I can tell, if God exists, it lies in the subjective, with the objective reality being metaphorically akin to a tree's wood, that builds and provides ever more structure and protection of the strip of tissue within that is actually alive. Again, speculation, but I find it interesting.
There will always be mystery. We are, after all, finite beings looking to the infinite. On the other hand, I take VERY seriously what I said about the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere and what it implies.

Belinda
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Belinda » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:12 am

Nick-A wrote:
Whenever one tries to suppress doubt , there is tyranny . Simone Weil.

The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.” Simone Weil.


The naïve will say “yo, that’s a contradiction.” Is it?
I did think it's a contradiction.

Scepticism is a sieve that excludes self deception. It does not exclude feelings but it excludes denial of feelings. Scepticism enables acceptance of one's feelings and also the ability to view one's feelings in the context of reason.
Scepticism no more denies peak experiences than it denies the fright of falling off a cliff face.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests