[quote]kamui wrote:<<< With respect to panENtheism only. Not with respect to pantheism. >>>[/quote]I didn’t forget ya man.
Do not know if this would be the right thread or if I should place it in the Hijack one but, since it is being discussed… To those that believe, what are the issues or faults you see with Pantheism and/or Panentheism?
I have another question but, I think it is best if I get these answered first.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Do not know if this would be the right thread or if I should place it in the Hijack one but, since it is being discussed… To those that believe, what are the issues or faults you see with Pantheism and/or Panentheism?
I have another question but, I think it is best if I get these answered first.[/quote]Both are repudiated by the bible is the short, but definitive answer for me. The bible teaches the necessary and certain existence of one eternal triune creator God who from nothing created everything else.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
But you don’t need to know all states of mind to predict certain behaviour, though.
If you believe a part of the mind, the self, is immutable or eternal, you require an either/or position, but this postition is not a necessaty for it depends on what your believe.
There are too many variables you’d have to take into account in order to make an accurate behavioural prediction all of the time, but you can predict some [or even most] behaviour some of the time.
I believe that most of our decisions are based on established primers, and aren’t all that free. We aren’t always aware of those primers and that gives us the illusion of being able to choose freely.
There’s a middle way here that is overlooked, imo. [/quote]
You’re right in that when it comes to freewill, it occurs far less frequently than we tend to think it does, but it still occurs.
What’s your middle?[/quote]
What we value the most is what determins our outlook, our opinions and beliefs. If we do not look at why we value it the most, our attention will just be an outward flow aimed at, necessarily, supporting and increasing its value.
Understanding why we do things is not enough though, if you want to know the truth about yourself. The logical consequences of knowing a thing, as put so eloquently by kamui, are inconsequential without understanding of ones self. Without this understanding it all remains mental masturbation.
The middle way would, for me, be seeing how the mind is a phenomenon without a backdrop. A phenomenon afflicted by the opposite ends of the seesaw motion between good/bad, wanted/unwanted. A motion that fuels the mind, gives it creedence and plausibility until it believes itself to be real.
I wanted peace and spent 10 years searching for it, peeling away the layers I believed kept me away from happiness. That was what I valued the most until the search needed to end. I couldn’t justify to myself that the search had become the source of peace and happiness for that meant that my peace and happiness depended on the search, and that’s no good.
So I stopped and found the fulcrum of the seesaw.
Lo and behold, in the middle between good and bad, unmoved and effortless, there was peace. But it had nothing to do with me. This peace could only be in my absence [a quiet mind].
So in a way the title of this thread is correct. Metaphysics is the key to everything; when it’s absent. We talk about keys [logic, faith and beliefs] and we talk about what the keys unlock [truth] ignoring the emptiness that allows for both to exist [the key hole].
That is the essence of the middle way.
“Everything, it argues, requires a cause. To avoid infinite regress, there must be a first cause.
But this first cause is something that has no cause.
Therefore not everything requires a cause.
Therefore the premise is invalid.”
I found this little tidbit and I’ve been thinking this one out. Also this:
"The truth we must get accustomed to is this.
The universe embraces all time and all space and all things that have existed or exist now or will exist in the future.
It has no before and it has no outside.
Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause.
Nothing exists outside it that could be the source or goal of its purpose or the reference point for its meaning.
It cannot conceivably have any cause or purpose.
The cosmos is its own cause, purpose and designer"
Basically, existence is the first cause and it’s own purpose and meaning and purpose is learning to live as one with nature/God as they are one.
Source: The universe has no cause or purpose. (what’s in quotations)
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
“Everything, it argues, requires a cause. To avoid infinite regress, there must be a first cause.
But this first cause is something that has no cause.
Therefore not everything requires a cause.
Therefore the premise is invalid.”
I found this little tidbit and I’ve been thinking this one out. Also this:
"The truth we must get accustomed to is this.
The universe embraces all time and all space and all things that have existed or exist now or will exist in the future.
It has no before and it has no outside.
Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause.
Nothing exists outside it that could be the source or goal of its purpose or the reference point for its meaning.
It cannot conceivably have any cause or purpose.
The cosmos is its own cause, purpose and designer"
Basically, existence is the first cause and it’s own purpose and meaning and purpose is learning to live as one with nature/God as they are one.
Source: The universe has no cause or purpose. (what’s in quotations)[/quote]
Or you can take the Panenthiest view.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Do not know if this would be the right thread or if I should place it in the Hijack one but, since it is being discussed… To those that believe, what are the issues or faults you see with Pantheism and/or Panentheism?
I have another question but, I think it is best if I get these answered first.[/quote]Both are repudiated by the bible is the short, but definitive answer for me. The bible teaches the necessary and certain existence of one eternal triune creator God who from nothing created everything else.
[/quote]
So, because the bible says? How is that a fault in the view itself?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ruling out the first one seems sensible enough. But how on earth do you decide on which of the other two choices? It’s late, I’m out till tomorrow.[/quote]
I do not decide it, actually.
Panentheism is pantheism with a “bonus”.
Ontology does not need it.
Axiology does not need it.
Epistemology does not need it.
So i do not need it.
But since we can’t prove a negative, nor synthetically decide this one, i have to admit it may be true.
In other words :
As far as panentheism is concerned, i’m an agnostic.
[/quote]
Not trying to be rude, I just thought Kamui stated it well.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
But you don’t need to know all states of mind to predict certain behaviour, though.
If you believe a part of the mind, the self, is immutable or eternal, you require an either/or position, but this postition is not a necessaty for it depends on what your believe.
There are too many variables you’d have to take into account in order to make an accurate behavioural prediction all of the time, but you can predict some [or even most] behaviour some of the time.
I believe that most of our decisions are based on established primers, and aren’t all that free. We aren’t always aware of those primers and that gives us the illusion of being able to choose freely.
There’s a middle way here that is overlooked, imo. [/quote]
You’re right in that when it comes to freewill, it occurs far less frequently than we tend to think it does, but it still occurs.
What’s your middle?[/quote]
What we value the most is what determins our outlook, our opinions and beliefs. If we do not look at why we value it the most, our attention will just be an outward flow aimed at, necessarily, supporting and increasing its value.
Understanding why we do things is not enough though, if you want to know the truth about yourself. The logical consequences of knowing a thing, as put so eloquently by kamui, are inconsequential without understanding of ones self. Without this understanding it all remains mental masturbation.
The middle way would, for me, be seeing how the mind is a phenomenon without a backdrop. A phenomenon afflicted by the opposite ends of the seesaw motion between good/bad, wanted/unwanted. A motion that fuels the mind, gives it creedence and plausibility until it believes itself to be real.
I wanted peace and spent 10 years searching for it, peeling away the layers I believed kept me away from happiness. That was what I valued the most until the search needed to end. I couldn’t justify to myself that the search had become the source of peace and happiness for that meant that my peace and happiness depended on the search, and that’s no good.
So I stopped and found the fulcrum of the seesaw.
Lo and behold, in the middle between good and bad, unmoved and effortless, there was peace. But it had nothing to do with me. This peace could only be in my absence [a quiet mind].
So in a way the title of this thread is correct. Metaphysics is the key to everything; when it’s absent. We talk about keys [logic, faith and beliefs] and we talk about what the keys unlock [truth] ignoring the emptiness that allows for both to exist [the key hole].
That is the essence of the middle way.
[/quote]
Ah, I see. You are gettin’ all Zen on me. That’s cool. Yes, these things we discuss are just affects of the bigger whole, or hole as you put it.
Actually, more correctly termed ‘Metaphysics is the boss of everything, understanding it is the key.’ But, putting the correct key in the key hole, closes the hole, so we aren’t ignoring the hole, we’re trying to plug it with the right key.
Reason, logic, fuel faith and belief. Reason and logic are the best tools to know something. Unfortunately, we don’t have access or the capacity to know everything. The reason and logic, though, can give us enough basal foundation that one can infer the rest with relative accuracy. Belief and faith fill in the gaps of that which we cannot know implicitly through reason and logic. But the better your foundational logic, the more accurate your inferences will be.
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< With respect to panENtheism only. Not with respect to pantheism.
it’s the extra “EN” that is theoretically possible, but that can not be asserted from our finite perspective. >>>[/quote]I’ve been saying that all along. Which is why I do not assert it from our finite perspective, but from the perspective of the mind of Christ the creator which I have been given by faith(1 Corinthians 2:16 ). I understand the things from God because His Spirit lives in me(1 Corinthians 2:12) and I have been made a partaker of His diviner nature(2 Peter 1:4). Really and for true =] I encourage you to check those verses.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Since panentheism does “include” pantheism, we can be certain that, at least, pantheism is true. >>>[/quote]I’m not sure how this follows in your mind. Especially in light of the below statement that panENtheism is useless. But it includes pantheism that is not? Unless you’re saying that pantheism is only incidentally subsumed under panENEtheism, but not dependent on it.?[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Occam’s razored without mercy. >>>[/quote]The razor is a useful and generally true but fallible human construct, besides I can turn this argument back at you saying that “God did it” IS the simplest explanation and given my unshakeable conviction that no particle of knowledge can possibly exist except as evidence of His existence and sovereignty, all other things are far from equal. They already proclaim His majesty, razor or not.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< And Pat’s formula is a sophism. Very close to a “moving the goalpost” fallacy, based on a confusion between “de fact” knowledge and “de jure” knowledge. >>>[/quote]It isn’t a sophism, at least to me. There is no confusion between the two. Where you say “de fact” and “de jure”, I have been saying objective and pragmatic respectively. The latter is spawned from and is governed by the former with both being meaningless without each other.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< To know anything for certain, YOU don’t have to know everything for certain. You just have to know that if you had an infinite intellect, everything would be knowable for you. This is not exactly the same thing. >>>[/quote]Again. [quote]<<< I do not and have never claimed to know everything, but I do KNOW that HE knows everything and that is where my certainty derives from. Once again. A child does not know what his father knows, but he knows that his father knows it. He has no idea how Daddy’s grown up world operates. He simply trusts that Daddy does. I do the same. Jesus Himself said that we must come to Him as little children. >>>[/quote][quote]kamui wrote:<<< but anyway, if this formula were actually true, your own system could not escape its consequence. >>>[/quote]The resurrection life of Christ living in me IS the escape from it’s consequences whereupon I am freed from bondage to my own autonomy and enlivened to think God’s thoughts AFTER Him.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Even the strongest belief in an omniscient God doesn’t make yourself omniscient, neither de facto or de jure, and it doesn’t give a direct access to His infinite intellect. >>>[/quote]Oh yes it does. Please see the preceding along with those scriptures.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Especially not since your system states that there is an ontological, radical difference between His intellect and yours.[/quote]It does indeed, however, He recreates me by the power of His Son’s resurrection whereby my intellect is literally 'plugged into" His by His grace. THAT is the central driving point of the gospel itself. Once dead and deluded autonomous criminals, already executed once, raised unto new life and freed from their captivity to sin and death… in other word freed form their own deadly autonomy.(from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint)
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]Nobody can know themselves without knowing the God who created them.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]Nobody can know themselves without knowing the God who created them.
[/quote]
Irrelevant due to non-existence of said god.
You’re breathing His air and glorying Him by your display of His image which you are, every time you say that Ephrem. Anytime you say anything actually. Well… even if you don’t. You are His unwitting servant every second you deny Him. You life is FULL of purpose whether you like it or not. I continue to pray that you will.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:Do not know if this would be the right thread or if I should place it in the Hijack one but, since it is being discussed… To those that believe, what are the issues or faults you see with Pantheism and/or Panentheism? I have another question but, I think it is best if I get these answered first.[/quote]Both are repudiated by the bible is the short, but definitive answer for me. The bible teaches the necessary and certain existence of one eternal triune creator God who from nothing created everything else.[/quote]So, because the bible says? How is that a fault in the view itself?[/quote]I didn’t mean to ignore you friend. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this though.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]Nobody can know themselves without knowing the God who created them.
[/quote]
Irrelevant due to non-existence of said god.[/quote]
WIN
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]
The only time I find people cannot know themselves is when they over complicate the situation. ‘You ain’t that complicated’. ‘You’ meaning anybody of course. Everybody looks for the lofty when your actually sitting on the ground floor.
All that is really double speak though. You can’t even prove your own existence. You may not be here, really.
The concept of self is an interesting one and one that can separate one’s being from greater purpose or make one that much more aware of oneness and unity. To know oneself, one must not only know they have a distinct self, but also know it’s role in greater being and purpose and that one’s being will live forever if even in the tiniest way, but the self will cease to exist at some point.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:The concept of self is an interesting one and one that can separate one’s being from greater purpose or make one that much more aware of oneness and unity. To know oneself, one must not only know they have a distinct self, but also know it’s role in greater being and purpose and that one’s being will live forever if even in the tiniest way, but the self will cease to exist at some point.[/quote]That sounds suspiciously like wishful thinking Fletch, despite the use of the words like “must” “know” and “will”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:The concept of self is an interesting one and one that can separate one’s being from greater purpose or make one that much more aware of oneness and unity. To know oneself, one must not only know they have a distinct self, but also know it’s role in greater being and purpose and that one’s being will live forever if even in the tiniest way, but the self will cease to exist at some point.[/quote]That sounds suspiciously like wishful thinking Fletch, despite the use of the words like “must” “know” and “will”.
[/quote]
Even in Christianity, the goal is to become one with God basically, right? That’s basically what I mean by oneness and unity.
Having a self just means that you are aware of your distinct existence.
Thus, you can choose to use one’s ‘self’ to isolate oneself, or to appreciate and understand oneness with God.
To know greater purpose and being is basically to have a realization that God and existence is greater than us. That we are not the center of existence. Even if in the smallest way.
And to say that our being lives forever is saying that our legacy in some form will continue to live whether that legacy continues to isolate being from existence and God or be one with existence and God.
When our bodies cease to function, we lose our self. Our awareness of distinct existence.