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.
This just appeared in my FB feed, and it may be of interest to many to read on this forum. I'm going to try and read it over the next couple of days, and may post some observations on it here.
At any rate, enjoy! It's not often we get such quality literature available without charge.
This just appeared in my FB feed, and it may be of interest to many to read on this forum. I'm going to try and read it over the next couple of days, and may post some observations on it here.
At any rate, enjoy! It's not often we get such quality literature available without charge.
It is a rigorous exposition of the philosophical issues endemic to a definition of a pantheist God. On the negative side, it gives short shrift to my panentheist views. On the plus side, it would serve to educate Harry Diogenes (in particular) out of his myopic views. It provides a thorough (but Cliff's Notes) exposition of all the issues he seems oblivious to.
It does a good job of clarifying his pet misunderstanding and misconceptions about AI computational equivalence with consciousness. It also is an excellent vehicle to eliminate his inability to conceive of the universe holistically due to his composition fallacy nonsense. At the very least it should shake his simplistic view of the issues.
The substance monism discussion would benefit from my view of the spacetime field as a consciousness field. It would eliminate many of the issues raised in the other alternatives, but it would require serious consideration of my panentheism in tangent with "logical pantheism." The equating of consciousness with the transcendental aspect of God would prove most fruitful, as would the ability of our imagination to create ex nihilo, IMO.
This just appeared in my FB feed, and it may be of interest to many to read on this forum. I'm going to try and read it over the next couple of days, and may post some observations on it here.
At any rate, enjoy! It's not often we get such quality literature available without charge.
Excellent, maybe we will finally get some intelligent arguments for pantheism.
It is a rigorous exposition of the philosophical issues endemic to a definition of a pantheist God. On the negative side, it gives short shrift to my panentheist views. On the plus side, it would serve to educate Harry Diogenes (in particular) out of his myopic views. It provides a thorough (but Cliff's Notes) exposition of all the issues he seems oblivious to.
It does a good job of clarifying his pet misunderstanding and misconceptions about AI computational equivalence with consciousness. It also is an excellent vehicle to eliminate his inability to conceive of the universe holistically due to his composition fallacy nonsense. At the very least it should shake his simplistic view of the issues.
The substance monism discussion would benefit from my view of the spacetime field as a consciousness field. It would eliminate many of the issues raised in the other alternatives, but it would require serious consideration of my panentheism in tangent with "logical pantheism." The equating of consciousness with the transcendental aspect of God would prove most fruitful, as would the ability of our imagination to create ex nihilo, IMO.
So Harry, have you read it yet and eliminated your myopic views of the issues????
That it is not a god, and you do not like THAT, well, that is nature.
Your post...indicative of your lack of understanding...that's God too.
You need to get hip to that.
Your need to get hip to that...that's God too.
It's ALL One Thing...and it's God.
So Harry, have you read it yet and eliminated your myopic views of the issues????
Ha, the usual ad hominem with some well poisoning. One thing with my views is that they are not myopic, they account for alternatives, but only use them if they have evidence. You should try this instead of ignoring the evidence you do not like, that way you can eliminate your myopic views.
As to the paper, I read half of it, but because of the problems in the first half, I jumped to the conclusions to save time.
1) the major problem, the paper is trying to provide a logically consistent position, but the points he relies on are speculation.
2) like many modern philosophers, he ignores data.
3) the author is happy to define the theological points, but avoids defining what he means by 'processing', 'information', and 'intentional'.
4) There are different definitions of information, which raises the question, is the author using the Motte and Bailey fallacy?
5) his limited definition of a cognitive system is not how we would use it.
6) he begs the question with his composition fallacy.
This just appeared in my FB feed, and it may be of interest to many to read on this forum. I'm going to try and read it over the next couple of days, and may post some observations on it here.
At any rate, enjoy! It's not often we get such quality literature available without charge.
I began reading until I felt I was working through quick-sand AKA wasting my time, so I decided to jump to where I thought I might learn something, a little faster at least. I read all of section 2. Clarifying What We Could Mean by “Pantheism”
"No doubt my presentation thus far has been somewhat tendentious and may exclude some models of God that have been assumed to be pantheistic. But I hope that I have offered a principled basis for carving up the conceptual space so we can get beyond some of the confusion that is so common in debates over how we should distinguish pantheism from other accounts of the nature of God, especially panentheism. In any case, some vagueness may be unavoidable here. In the next section, I move to dealing with a topic that is underexplored in the literature on pantheism. Specifically, I will consider what sort of unity the universe must exhibit for pantheistic unity."
Tedious indeed and more time wasted, so I then decided to jump to the conclusion.
6 Conclusion
"Pantheism has received far less attention than variants of traditional theism in analytic philosophy of religion. I have focused narrowly on a set of considerations revolving around how we should understand pantheism and its general conceptual and ontological commitments. So, I have not been able to take up issues such as what, if any, of the traditional omniproperties God might have on pantheism or the problem of evil for pantheism, among other issues. Additionally, I have not tried to make a case for accepting pantheism, per se. That said, I do hope that readers recognize it as a coherent conception of God that is worthy of investigation and deeper engagement by analytic philosophers of religion. There has been an uptick of interest in pantheism and other alternatives to traditional theism in recent years. This is a promising trend. I hope it will continue unabated going into the future."
I was hoping for more in the way of what justifies a belief in Pantheism, and maybe that case or justification is in there somewhere. If so, someone please let be known were to find it. Otherwise, I'm not seeing any good reason to read through all of what you call "quality literature." Curious your thoughts once you get through it all too. Thanks!
I began reading until I felt I was working through quick-sand AKA wasting my time, so I decided to jump to where I thought I might learn something, a little faster at least. I read all of section 2. Clarifying What We Could Mean by “Pantheism”
"No doubt my presentation thus far has been somewhat tendentious and may exclude some models of God that have been assumed to be pantheistic. But I hope that I have offered a principled basis for carving up the conceptual space so we can get beyond some of the confusion that is so common in debates over how we should distinguish pantheism from other accounts of the nature of God, especially panentheism. In any case, some vagueness may be unavoidable here. In the next section, I move to dealing with a topic that is underexplored in the literature on pantheism. Specifically, I will consider what sort of unity the universe must exhibit for pantheistic unity."
Tedious indeed and more time wasted, so I then decided to jump to the conclusion.
6 Conclusion
"Pantheism has received far less attention than variants of traditional theism in analytic philosophy of religion. I have focused narrowly on a set of considerations revolving around how we should understand pantheism and its general conceptual and ontological commitments. So, I have not been able to take up issues such as what, if any, of the traditional omniproperties God might have on pantheism or the problem of evil for pantheism, among other issues. Additionally, I have not tried to make a case for accepting pantheism, per se. That said, I do hope that readers recognize it as a coherent conception of God that is worthy of investigation and deeper engagement by analytic philosophers of religion. There has been an uptick of interest in pantheism and other alternatives to traditional theism in recent years. This is a promising trend. I hope it will continue unabated going into the future."
I was hoping for more in the way of what justifies a belief in Pantheism, and maybe that case or justification is in there somewhere. If so, someone please let be known were to find it. Otherwise, I'm not seeing any good reason to read through all of what you call "quality literature." Curious about your thoughts once you get through it all too. Thanks!
This just confirms my suspicions that those who dismiss pantheism or panentheism simply are too intellectually lazy to consider it rigorously. Sadly any REAL learning and assessment of Truth (which you claim to seek) require the very type of rigorous analysis you and your cohort seem to find too tedious!
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.
