An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (Mormons, Revelation, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok MPD here is a simple question. Again for understanding more clearly your beliefs.
Which do you believe:
God created the universe and everything in it.
or
God "is" the universe and everything in it.
God does not grow or change. God exists independent of whether the universe exists or not.
Or
God does grow and change because the universe grows and changes.
God's intelligence and knowledge is greater than the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge.
or
God's intelligence is the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge but does not exceed it.
In the statements above, which statements match your beliefs? Anyone welcome to answer
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-16-2018 at 07:56 AM..
"typical understanding" of immanence and transcendence is basic and straightforward. it's what the words mean.
the view you accept and are comfortable with and describe,
that is only immanence.
that is not transcendence (only immanence)
that is not panENtheism
what you are describing is pantheism. it is not panENtheism.
pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God)
you are simply saying nature/the Universe is identical to God.
no transcendence aspect at all.
the only "deeper understanding" needed is for you to understand the difference between pantheism and panENtheism. And understand the application of immanence and transcendence with regards to God. Which takes about 5 minutes on Wiki. Easy peasy.
pantheism is a good fit for you MPD.
it is congruent with your science views and with your disastisfaction with religion, and with your rejection of dogma and the omnis.
it makes sense now. this totally sounds like you:
"In being immanent, God is present in all things. God didn't make the earth or define gravity, but, rather, God is the earth and gravity and everything else in the universe. God did not choose one day to make the universe. Rather, it exists precisely because God exists, since the two are the same thing.This does not need to contradict scientific theories such as the Big Bang. The changing of the universe is all part of the nature of God as well.
Value of Science
"The belief system grew out of the Scientific Revolution, and pantheists are generally strong supporters of scientific inquiry. Since God and the universe are one, understanding the universe is how one comes to better understand God.
Unity of Being
"Because all things are God, all things are connected and ultimately are of one substance. While various facets of God have defining characteristics (everything from different species to individual people), they are part of a greater whole. As a comparison, one might consider the parts of the human body. Hands are different from feet which are different from lungs, but all are part of the greater whole that is the human form.
"Each person should be allowed to pursue such knowledge as they wish. This does not mean, however, that pantheists believe every approach is correct. They generally do not find merit in strict dogma and ritual.
I have no problem accepting your opinion that pantheism is PART of my view, Tzaph and if it satisfies you that is fine. But the phenomenon of consciousness is what accounts for the transcendence in my view. In our consciousness, the constraints of our measured time and space do not apply. What we create in our imagination is capable of violating every one of the laws that govern our measured time-space. That transcendence is why our consciousness is part of God.
Ok MPD here is a simple question. Again for understanding more clearly your beliefs.
Which do you believe:
God created the universe and everything in it.
or
God "is" the universe and everything in it.
I reject the Creation concept in favor of an existential concept. So in a sense, it is Both, since Creation is the result of God's existence.
Quote:
God does not grow or change. God exists independent of whether the universe exists or not.
Or
God does grow and change because the universe grows and changes.
I would reverse the last one.
The universe grows and changes because God is a LIVING God, i.e., grows and changes.
Quote:
God's intelligence and knowledge is greater than the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge.
or
God's intelligence is the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge but does not exceed it.
The first one, but I have no way to know the actual answer and neither do you. It is obvious that God's intelligence and knowledge would CONTAIN the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge but not be limited by it. I reject the silly idea of demanding what attributes God MUST have to qualify to BE God according to human vanity and hubris.
I reject the Creation concept in favor of an existential concept. So in a sense, it is Both, since Creation is the result of God's existence. I would reverse the last one.
The universe grows and changes because God is a LIVING God, i.e., grows and changes.The first one, but I have no way to know the actual answer and neither do you. It is obvious that God's intelligence and knowledge would CONTAIN the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge but not be limited by it. I reject the silly idea of demanding what attributes God MUST have to qualify to BE God according to human vanity and hubris.
no one is telling you what God must be.
no one is telling you what to believe.
no one is demanding anything.
we are simply asking you to clarify what your views and beliefs are.
by asking and answering simple basic questions.
for the purpose of increased understanding, and greater clarity.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-16-2018 at 11:25 AM..
... but I have no way to know the actual answer and neither do you.
This brilliantly zero's in on one of my primary pet peeves concerning Tza's posts. Obviously I can't read anyone else's mind but, based on her posts, she seems to think that she knows things that, so far as I can see, she almost certainly cannot "know". Faith and beliefs, yes of course, but her seemingly high confidence in her feeling that these beliefs are "knowledge" seems wildly unjustified to me. I, of course, am not in a position to claim that she is absolutely wrong. The best I can do is point out logical inconsistencies and absurdities. But my efforts in this regard are to no avail because of her faith in the idea that human ignorance, compared to God's infinite intellect, must always somehow explain why things that seem contradictory or absurd are actually not (or, to put it another way: If I claim that X is a contradiction, or is absurd, then all I manage to do is prove my own ignorance and foolishness in the face of God's infinite wisdom). To disagree with Tza is, almost by definition, to simply prove one's own ignorance of the absolute truth that Tza happens to know, and she feels certain that she knows it. Never any evidence of doubt in her words. That level of confidence about issues of "ultimate truth" leaves me feeling deeply suspicious.
In general, religious claims to know a variety of absolute ultimate truths strike me as being incredibly arrogant, but when I point this out, many religious people seem to miss my point completely. They will often say "It's not me who knows, it's God who knows. I'm just acknowledging God's wisdom." It's as if their own role in the knowledge claim is invisible to them. This strikes me as a profoundly deep sort of self-deception.
Quote:
...I reject the silly idea of demanding what attributes God MUST have to qualify to BE God according to human vanity and hubris.
And this highlights one of my other pet peeves. I don't see why so many religious people feel a need to define God, up front, in terms of certain attributes - as if anything that does not fulfill every attribute cannot really be God. My instincts are just the opposite. IF there is a God, then a major human mission ought to be to FIND OUT WHAT God's attributes are - not pre-define what God has to be, and then try to force everything into that definition. Why does God have to be omnipotent, omniscience, etc.? There are various historical reasons why people came up with these ideas about God, but if, instead of simply accepting these ideas at face value, you step back and think about what we actually experience, I think it becomes obvious that human beliefs about the nature of God are historical human traditions. These beliefs - like all human beliefs - are embedded in historical contexts, cultural contexts, regional/family contexts, and individual psychological contexts. Efforts to understand God ought to take these contextual factors into consideration. Faith that God is the ultimate foundation/source of absolute truth does not immediately imply that any particular person's beliefs about God are, themselves, absolute truth. I can't claim that absolute truths can't pop into a person's mind (divine/mystical revelation/enlightenment), but even if this happens, it still does not follow that the person will interpret this experience in a completely unbiased way - an "absolute truthy" sorta way.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-16-2018 at 11:13 AM..
That level of confidence about issues of "ultimate truth" leaves me feeling deeply suspicious.
It's quite telling indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
In general, religious claims to know a variety of absolute ultimate truths strike me as being incredibly arrogant, but when I point this out, many religious people seem to miss my point completely.
Exactly, they don't understand the concept of objective truths.
Religious "ultimate truths" are what divides and creates hatred, religious wars, the "us vs. them" mentality and a whole host of other human ignorance.
MPD states "but I have no way to know the actual answer and neither do you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
This brilliantly zero's in on one of my primary pet peeves concerning Tza's posts. Obviously I can't read anyone else's mind but, based on her posts, she seems to think that she knows things that, so far as I can see, she almost certainly cannot "know". Faith and beliefs, yes of course, but her seemingly high confidence in her feeling that these beliefs are "knowledge" seems wildly unjustified to me. I, of course, am not in a position to claim that she is absolutely wrong. The best I can do is point out logical inconsistencies and absurdities. But my efforts in this regard are to no avail because of her faith in the idea that human ignorance, compared to God's infinite intellect, must always somehow explain why things that seem contradictory or absurd are actually not (or, to put it another way: If I claim that X is a contradiction, or is absurd, then all I manage to do is prove my own ignorance and foolishness in the face of God's infinite wisdom). To disagree with Tza is, almost by definition, to simply prove one's own ignorance of the absolute truth that Tza happens to know, and she feels certain that she knows it. Never any evidence of doubt in her words. That level of confidence about issues of "ultimate truth" leaves me feeling deeply suspicious.
In general, religious claims to know a variety of absolute ultimate truths strike me as being incredibly arrogant, but when I point this out, many religious people seem to miss my point completely. They will often say "It's not me who knows, it's God who knows. I'm just acknowledging God's wisdom." It's as if their own role in the knowledge claim is invisible to them. This strikes me as a profoundly deep sort of self-deception. .
it sounds like you are focused on "claims to know" and "absolute ultimate truths." and "unjustified knowledge" and "a person can not know this." and "knowing the actual answer."
which is (again, still) what you were doing before (see post #2301) as you think, talk, focus, discuss in terms of being "correct" and "right" and "wrong"
that approach (and heated reaction of yours) is very different from participating in the conversation from the place of "understanding what the person is saying" and "increased clarity about their views" and "seeking to understand their views" and "how does it work in the system they are describing"
the conversation I am engaging in is from a place of seeking to understand each other's beliefs and views, and explain my own.
so when I speak with certainty and confidence, it is because yes "I am certain this is what I believe" "I am confident that these are my beliefs" "I know that this is my understanding of how such and such system works" Just like you are able to say "I am not sure what I believe about that."
i hope you can see the difference and feel the difference.
between "this is my understanding of how it works" and "you can't possibly know that"
between "I am certain I believe this" and "I am certain this is the truth."
the baggage of all the other stuff is what you are bringing into the discussion. It is not on my radar at all. it is not one size fits all on any of the topics we are discussing. therefore there is no "right answer." there is no "ultimate truth" just wherever each of us is in our understanding, beliefs, views, which are many and varied. For me it is simply people sharing our views, our beliefs, discussing topics we enjoy and find value in, or else we'd be doing something else.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-16-2018 at 02:49 PM..
immanence and transcendence i understand. those words make sense to me.
god is in here within us (inside us, immanent)
and also
god is out there all around us (outside us, transcendent)
god is "within the world" immanent, within nature and all of the physical world.
and
god is also "beyond" nature, outside of nature and physical reality.
nature and humans are a part of god, a subset of god, an expression of god.
however god is more than that.
the world is reliant on god. but god is not reliant on the world.
god created nature. god designed the system that is nature.
however god is also transcendent and operates outside of time and space and nature.
god is not bound by time and space.
word definitions, and wiki glimpse:
im·ma·nent
existing or operating within; inherent.
(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe.
tran·scend·ent
beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.
(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.
"In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. Panentheism is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and alsoextends beyond time and space."
the prefix "super-"
super-
a prefix with the basic meaning “above, beyond.” Words formed with super- “placed above or over”
Supernatural, meaning beyond time and space and nature = God's transcendent aspect.
The state of being infinite: the infinity of God. An Infinite Being.
Philos. a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea. b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.
... Faith that God is the ultimate foundation/source of absolute truth does not immediately imply that any particular person's beliefs about God are, themselves, absolute truth. I can't claim that absolute truths can't pop into a person's mind (divine/mystical revelation/enlightenment), but even if this happens, it still does not follow that the person will interpret this experience in a completely unbiased way - an "absolute truthy" sorta way.
Gaylen you are the one who is concerned with and focusing on and using the phrase "absolute truth."
others are "describing our views" "explaining our beliefs" giving details about "our understanding of how things work" or our "belief system"
can you see and feel and hear the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.