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.
That does not describe or address or clarify how you differentiate between God and nature. You seem to equate God and nature as being the same thing. That's why I asked what for you is the difference.
People ask you (or others) to use different words to say the same thing for increased clarity in trying to understand the view you are seeking to express.
Sorry to butt in guys, butts I'm way back on page 204 &just had to bump...even if MyPD or other people do think God and nature is the same...which I think no, but how is that any different than when you say, "There is no place where God is not?" And I agree with you, Tzap...you got some good reads back here.
What does MyPHD think exactly? See my toe? You guys think you see God or what? well hey, what's the diff in my toe and CXhrist's toe?
I can't never see what you guys are disagreeing about.
We can not "calculate" behaviors but we can choose our own behaviors. When we live from a place of responsibility instead of blaming.
Yes, of course we choose our behaviors. But billions of people choosing trillions of behaviors on the fly (behaviors that you admit cannot be calculated) results in a complex system that is, I would suggest, a chaotic system in the mathematical sense of the term. But you've said that there are no accidents because every event in life is intended. The burned girl chose to be burned. In the soul planning committee, the factory worker agreed to not pay close attention to his work on a given day so a faulty stove could find its way to the girl's house, etc. - all, of course, with the approval of the girl's soul because somehow a life of suffering is just what her soul thinks she needs. But since the factory has free will and is not just a wind-up toy, he might choose to be careful, in which case the stove doesn't malfunction and the girl doesn't get burned. But that's ok because that contingency was planned too. But if I'm that little girl, I'd say: "But wait! I was burned because my soul chose to be burned if the factory worked became careless, but I didn't necessarily have to be burned because the factory worker has free will, so he might choose to be careful. And the driver on the road might choose not to honk his horn....." Basically, the girl didn't have to be burned and no one could have realistically calculated/predicted that she would be burned, so I don't see in what sense the event causing the girl to be burned was "intentional."
My suggestion: Drop all the nonsense about souls agreeing to suffer prior to birth, and everything being intentional. It's easy enough to imagine, in a hand-waving way, "there are no accidents", but given the realities of life, it is simply absurd for lots of reasons. If we "chose to be born" then all that we can realistically "agree to" is to accept the consequences of whatever unpredictable things happen because, as a soul, I need to experience a life of randomness and uncertainty. I might choose a few things like my parents, and thus my place of birth, etc., but I can't realistically choose to suffer severe burns at age 5 because, as you say, no one can calculate that far out. I'd say that the girl's tragic accident was an accident, plain and simple. Why do you insist that there are no accidents? Maybe we all agreed to be born into a random, chaotic world. Why couldn't that be a means of growth for a soul? I don't personally buy the "chose to be born" stuff, but if I did, I think that best that any soul can agree to, up front, is that life will be one heck of an unpredictable ride with lots of crap that only has meaning if I can learn to build meaning out of the otherwise meaningless components.
The parts of a chair aren't "parts of chair" until some craftsman makes them so by building a chair. This or that piece of wood becomes a "chair leg" or "chair seat" not because it was in some sense destined to do so, but because it had the potential to be and a craftsman recognized the potential. This stick of wood was not "meant to be" the arm of a chair. Rather, the meaning "being the arm of a chair" emerged in a creative process that did not involve any prior agreements among the atoms composing the wood. Along similar lines, we aren't born to play out any particular meaning in our lives; we are born with the potential to develop into artists who construct our meanings as we go along based on whatever materials are at our disposal. That's what conscious life does: It constructs meaning for itself. Life doesn't chose to be born; Life is born, and then constructs itself based on its choices.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-15-2018 at 04:18 PM..
Yes, of course we choose our behaviors. But billions of people choosing trillions of behaviors on the fly (behaviors that you admit cannot be calculated) results in a complex system that is, I would suggest, a chaotic system in the mathematical sense of the term. But you've said that there are no accidents because every event in life is intended. The burned girl chose to be burned. In the soul planning committee, the factory worker agreed to not pay close attention to his work on a given day so a faulty stove could find its way to the girl's house, etc. - all, of course, with the approval of the girl's soul because somehow a life of suffering is just what her soul thinks she needs. But since the factory has free will and is not just a wind-up toy, he might choose to be careful, in which case the stove doesn't malfunction and the girl doesn't get burned. But that's ok because that contingency was planned too. But if I'm that little girl, I'd say: "But wait! I was burned because my soul chose to be burned if the factory worked became careless, but I didn't necessarily have to be burned because the factory worker has free will, so he might choose to be careful. And the driver on the road might choose not to honk his horn....." Basically, the girl didn't have to be burned and no one could have realistically calculated/predicted that she would be burned, so I don't see in what sense the event causing the girl to be burned was "intentional."
My suggestion: Drop all the nonsense about souls agreeing to suffer prior to birth, and everything being intentional. It's easy enough to imagine, in a hand-waving way, "there are no accidents", but given the realities of life, it is simply absurd for lots of reasons. If we "chose to be born" then all that we can realistically "agree to" is to accept the consequences of whatever unpredictable things happen because, as a soul, I need to experience a life of randomness and uncertainty. I might choose a few things like my parents, and thus my place of birth, etc., but I can't realistically choose to suffer severe burns at age 5 because, as you say, no one can calculate that far out. I'd say that the girl's tragic accident was an accident, plain and simple. Why do you insist that there are no accidents? Maybe we all agreed to be born into a random, chaotic world. Why couldn't that be a means of growth for a soul? I don't personally buy the "chose to be born" stuff, but if I did, I think that best that any soul can agree to, up front, is that life will be one heck of an unpredictable ride with lots of crap that only has meaning if I can learn to build meaning out of the otherwise meaningless components.
The parts of a chair aren't "parts of chair" until some craftsman makes them so by building a chair. This or that piece of wood becomes a "chair leg" or "chair seat" not because it was in some sense destined to do so, but because it had the potential to be and a craftsman recognized the potential. This stick of wood was not "meant to be" the arm of a chair. Rather, the meaning "being the arm of a chair" emerged in a creative process that did not involve any prior agreements among the atoms composing the wood. Along similar lines, we aren't born to play out any particular meaning in our lives; we are born with the potential to develop into artists who construct our meanings as we go along based on whatever materials are at our disposal. Life doesn't start off with meaning; life constructs meaning. That's what conscious life does: It constructs meaning for itself. Life doesn't chose to be born; Life is born, and then constructs itself based on its choices.
well, the parts are meant to carry out life and all the processes associated with it. And there is a limited set of what any of us can be. So "no meaning" isn't exactly the way it should be described. You are meant to live as a human lives, to carry out the potentials that were there before you. like all proteins do.
It seems that the universe is evolving. The body design of the human meant that a chair was going to made long before we made it. What materials? a limited set of materials are logical. So wood was probably going to be a chair leg long before anybody knew it was.
I mean i agree with ya, but causality is important. The human body shape, the mind, and our interactions with our surroundings set some things in action that will be. Like terra forming a new planet or making a new universe.
we aere going to make that chair leg the moment the universe went "boom"
well, the parts are meant to carry out life and all the processes associated with it. And there is a limited set of what any of us can be. So "no meaning" isn't exactly the way it should be described. You are meant to live as a human lives, to carry out the potentials that were there before you. like all proteins do.
It seems that the universe is evolving. The body design of the human meant that a chair was going to made long before we made it. What materials? a limited set of materials are logical. So wood was probably going to be a chair leg long before anybody knew it was.
I mean i agree with ya, but causality is important. The human body shape, the mind, and our interactions with our surroundings set some things in action that will be. Like terra forming a new planet or making a new universe.
we aere going to make that chair leg the moment the universe went "boom"
...The formal jargon for my overall view is panentheism which encompasses the immanence and the transcendence of God. We represent a useful model to understand that immanence and transcendence. Our physical body is the immanent aspect of our Being and our consciousness is the transcendent aspect. Our entire physical reality (Nature) is the immanent aspect of God's Being and God's consciousness is the transcendent aspect.
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.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-15-2018 at 08:03 PM..
...The formal jargon for my overall view is panentheism which encompasses the immanence and the transcendence of God. We represent a useful model to understand that immanence and transcendence. Our physical body is the immanent aspect of our Being and our consciousness is the transcendent aspect. Our entire physical reality (Nature) is the immanent aspect of God's Being and God's consciousness is the transcendent aspect.
i agree that God is both immanent and transcendent.
within us, within the physical world
and also
beyond us, beyond the physical world (above or beyond nature = "super-" + "natural" )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
...online 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."
which brings us to the omnis (of "omni-dude" fame) which are part and parcel of panentheism
Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence
Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless.
Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future [=outside of time] Nothing takes him by surprise. His knowledge is total. He knows all that there is to know and all that can be known.
Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once.
This link also has panentheism including the omnis:
"Panentheism maintains that the world is in God, included in the divine life, but that God's reality is not reducible to nor exhausted by the reality of the individuals or the structures of the universe or of the universe as a whole. Thus God is all-inclusive or all-encompassing with respect to being.
"For panentheism then, while the universe is part of God, God and the universe do not form an undifferentiated whole. Panentheism draws definite distinctions between God as the including whole and the nondivine parts of the universe considered in themselves. Certain properties of divinity, such as aseity (self-existence) or necessary existence and the all-encompassing attributes of omnipresence (everywhere present), omniscience (all-knowing), and omnipotence (all power or all-powerful) apply to God but definitely not to individual creatures or to the universe itself.
"Panentheism upholds while God is not an individual simply distinct from the nondivine individuals, in the way, for example, that one human being is distinct from another, neither is God to be equated with the universe or its constituents."
You are very resistant to any explanations that do not conform to your vague, magical, platitudinous, and mysterious concepts of God and reincarnation. The formal jargon for my overall view is panentheism which encompasses the immanence and the transcendence of God. We represent a useful model to understand that immanence and transcendence. Our physical body is the immanent aspect of our Being and our consciousness is the transcendent aspect. Our entire physical reality (Nature) is the immanent aspect of God's Being and God's consciousness is the transcendent aspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
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.
I am pleased to have brokered some understanding in you, Tzaph, but there are clarifications necessary from the typical understanding of immanence and transcendence especially since you went off the rails into "supernatural." There is no supernatural. Everything is natural because everything IS God. The transcendence of God does NOT mean God is not bound by time and space. God's very existence establishes the REAL time and space and the requirements of His living existence establish the limitations inherent in our derivative measured nature. He cannot be supernatural or beyond the confines of His own Being.
God is a living God. Life requires growth and that involves time (and coincidentally the expansion of space). The time and space we experience is just a derivative of God's time and space. The fact that our consciousness as a part of God's consciousness can transcend our measured time and space in our imagination simply reflects the fact that God's consciousness transcends our measured time and space. But God cannot transcend the REAL time and space that comprises His very Being. As Whitehead tried to distinguish it, there is a creative advance of the universe (God's REAL time and space) that is distinguishable from our measured time and space but ultimately inseparable. The time and space that comes from God's growth (living) cannot be transcended.
At the risk of completely losing Tzaph and causing eyes to glaze over, I cannot allow this to be dismissed as mere opinion or unsupported speculation. This demands that I interject some elements of my Synthesis. This will only be of value to Gaylen and others with a deeper understanding of the issues. Let's begin with my understanding of time and the discordant time systems using Whitehead's explanation:
"The difficulty as to discordant time-systems is partly solved by distinguishing between what I call the creative advance of nature, which is not properly serial at all, and any one-time series. We habitually muddle together this creative advance, which we experience as the perpetual transition of nature into novelty, with the single time series which we naturally employ for measurement. The various time series each measure some aspect of the creative advance, and the whole bundle of them express all the properties of this advance which are measurable."
Far from only partly solving the problem, Whitehead's distinction is a more than adequate solution. In distinguishing between the "measurable" advances and the "creative advance," Whitehead overlooked the significance of the very nature of the phenomenon of measurability. Paradoxically, it is this same phenomenon, “MEASURABILITY” (observation -- as it is referred to in quantum discussions), that produces all the interpretational difficulties in the indeterminacy debate.
Measures (observations) are EVENTS that are an artificial aid to logical thought. That which is measurable is that for which there is a viable construct in the relativistic and sequential framework of the creation of thought itself. Every measurement event has meaning only when we can relate its representation of stimulus configurations to some standard configuration in our mind. In Helmholtz's words,
"Events, like our perceptions of them, take place in time so that the time relations of the latter can furnish a true copy of those of the former."
Time is the only feature which is shared by both physical reality and our consciousness. In all other things, perception is only symbolical and the dissimilarity of the stimulus and its conscious registration is striking. For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of airwaves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. Milik Capek states the question clearly,
"But if the time of our consciousness and the time of physics are both pulsational in their nature, can we obtain a better insight into "the topology without points" in exploring the structure of psychological time? Is it possible to find an adequate scheme sufficiently general and sufficiently flexible to be applicable to physics and psychology?"
R.L. Wing suggests,
"Since the advent of quantum mechanics, scientists have become intrigued with the link between human awareness and the workings of the universe. Quantum mechanics seems to suggest that the sub-atomic world, and even the world beyond the atom, has no independent structure at all until defined by the human intellect. They suggest that we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws are dependent upon an observer to formulate them. "
What Wing should have said is that “ . . . we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws as measured and apprehended by us are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.”
We ingenious creatures have created objective measurement devices to monitor the changes we perceive more accurately. But these objective creations have always been ultimately dependent upon our subjective assessments of existing relationships (e.g., time involved for a mainspring to unwind, for a radioactive substance to decay, and so on.) These assessments require some base of reference connected to the "creative advance".
We simply fail to acknowledge that our consciousness possesses any tangible connection to the basic structure of the universe we seek to understand. But it is only because our consciousness exists at the "creative advance" of the universe (is "EM-like" energy) that our "measurements" and notions of time have any validity.
This is a major claim but it is not arbitrary or unsupported. To observe anything, we must have an "instance" of consciousness with which to do so. We experience these "instances" conjoined as a continuous stream of instantaneous awareness from which we "measure" time that Whitehead called our "stream of consciousness."
"So far as sense-awareness is concerned there is a passage of mind which is distinguishable from the passage of nature though closely allied with it. We may speculate if we like, that this alliance of mind with the passage of nature arises from their both sharing some ultimate character of passage which dominates all being."
But are our thoughts instantaneous? Penrose thinks not and I agree. The "quantum time" that our consciousness uses to acquire our "instantaneous" awareness and enable us to measure and observe is what establishes the neural field within which our measures are created, "gauged" and standardized. The various constants we repeatedly "measure" reflect that underlying structure, especially the co-equal constants of the speed of light and the Planck length, which are what cause classical measured time and space and all the confusion.
The fact that we know so little about the quantum gravity problem (and Penrose's quantum explanation of consciousness) is what adds to our current "confusion." One of the few (perhaps the only) relatively robust hints that we have about quantum gravity is that our conventional description of spacetime should start to break down at the Planck length which should be the shortest "measurable" length (analogous to the shortest classically measurable time interval, right?). For example, in processes involving two "particle events" the magnitude of the new effects would be set by some power of the ratio between the Planck length and the characteristic wavelength of the process. Why do you think that is? Are any bells going off yet?
All our measurement constants reveal the underlying structure of our "observed reality" (one that is comprehended by an emergent consciousness which itself takes "quantum time" to emerge!). Their "constancy" is derivative of the "quantum time" it takes to form our emergent "instances" of the consciousness we use to "measure" anything. Penrose's quantum decoherence "signal" for consciousness acquisition takes 10^-13 seconds which, coincidentally, is approximately the same order of magnitude as the inverse of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. This tends to support my claim that our consciousness is forming as "EM-like" energy at the "creative advance" and existing at a vibrational level of manifestation as "EM-like" energy (E=hf) a point I belabor repeatedly as the basis for claiming our consciousness is eternal and part of God.
I assume that anyone whose eyes glazed over did not actually labor through reading it all but to sum the essential points: God's existence ESTABLISHES everything including "our measured time and space" which is derivative of our LIVING God's continuing existence that we experience as the creative advance or the REAL time and space. The creative advance is "God's time and space" that exists because God exists as a living God, NOT a static one. God's consciousness is transcendent to "our measured time and space" and that is why our consciousness as part of God's consciousness is transcendent to "our measured time and space" using our imagination.
I am pleased to have brokered some understanding in you, Tzaph, but there are clarifications necessary from the typical understanding of immanence and transcendence especially since you went off the rails into "supernatural." There is no supernatural. Everything is natural because everything IS God. The transcendence of God does NOT mean God is not bound by time and space. God's very existence establishes the REAL time and space and the requirements of His living existence establish the limitations inherent in our derivative measured nature. He cannot be supernatural or beyond the confines of His own Being.
God is a living God. Life requires growth and that involves time (and coincidentally the expansion of space). The time and space we experience is just a derivative of God's time and space. The fact that our consciousness as a part of God's consciousness can transcend our measured time and space in our imagination simply reflects the fact that God's consciousness transcends our measured time and space. But God cannot transcend the REAL time and space that comprises His very Being. As Whitehead tried to distinguish it, there is a creative advance of the universe (God's REAL time and space) that is distinguishable from our measured time and space but ultimately inseparable. The time and space that comes from God's growth (living) cannot be transcended.
At the risk of completely losing Tzaph and causing eyes to glaze over, I cannot allow this to be dismissed as mere opinion or unsupported speculation. This demands that I interject some elements of my Synthesis. This will only be of value to Gaylen and others with a deeper understanding of the issues.
...
"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.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-16-2018 at 12:35 AM..
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.
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.
