↪180 Proof : If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon
Well, not only doesn't that follow (category error), but all three concepts are mere abstractions; what makes any of them "woo woo nonsense" is attributing causal – physical – properties to any of them like "creator" "mover" ... "programmer". :eyes: — Relativist

180woowoo anachronistically & erroneously confuses my metaphorical programmer G*D, with the religious God of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph & Jesus. Since the Hebrews envisioned their tribal god as a king-like humanoid entity, living above the heavens (Shamayim) imagined as a crystal dome (firmament), yet immanent within the complete world system. {image ⓵} 180 denigrates "mere abstractions" , but some abstractions are more useful than others*1. You may be more open to discussing meta-physical philosophical metaphors than 180 is.

The Judeo-Christian intervening immanent "God" is indeed a different logical & philosophical category from my God of the philosophers : similar to Spinoza's immanent deus sive natura. Except that modern cosmology forces us to deal with the necessity of a transcendent Cause to explain the Big Bang. For example, mathematicians have found the metaphysical transcendent notions of Zero & Infinity useful for their logical explorations. Another logical, but irrational notion is the number PI. It's labeled as "transcendent" because it does not exist on the number line. And it is "irrational" because it cannot be computed as a ratio of other numbers. Does that metaphysical logic sound like "woo woo" to you?

Since secular cosmology has concluded that our world is not self-existent --- as Spinoza assumed --- would you agree that "how & why it came into existence" is a reasonable philosophical question? And any answer we posit will be an unproven conjecture, not a verifiable fact ; an abstract concept, not a material object. The humanoid Hebrew God is indeed a different philosophical category from Zero & Infinity, pure abstract Logical structures. But to me, G*D is also a "mere abstraction", but like Zero a useful concept for inquiring philosophers. Not a tyrant in the sky for us mortals to cower before, but a reasonable answer to the question of world origins.

180's accusation of "attributing causal properties to mere abstractions" missed the point of the Zero & Infinity analogy. As usual, he interprets a metaphor literally. The Causation I "attribute" to the pre-Bang {image ⓶} Source of Cause & Laws (energy & limits) is not a physical property, but merely the burst of Potential that powered the Big Bang from No-Thing to the "endless forms most beautiful"*2 of Darwin's world. Some cosmologists --- ignoring the first & second laws of thermodynamics --- like to imagine that Energy itself is eternal. But only in its timeless Potential state of statistical Probability is causal Energy safe from energy-devouring Entropy.

But even that common scientific term for causal capability is a meta-physical concept of transforming abstract Potential (voltage) into concrete Actual (current). And a cosmological Programmer is one who has the ability to setup a world system with the capability of performing an assigned task, a purpose. Apparently 180 doesn't see any purpose to an evolving world that began with nothing (zero) but Potential (infinity) and has produced inquiring Minds that explore the mystery of Being. :smile:

*1.Yes, the concept of infinity is very useful, particularly in mathematics and physics, despite being an abstract idea. It's used to describe things that are unbounded or limitless, and it helps simplify calculations and model complex phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+infinity+useful

*2. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species"



❶ ANACHRONISTIC WORLDVIEWS


❷ BEFORE THE BANG

If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

I suppose most of the creativity in western Philosophy occurred in the Golden Age of the Greeks, who basically defined the methods & terminology of the rational pursuit of Wisdom. Since then, philosophers have focused on "dissecting" those original ideas*1, and "criticizing" those that depart from some off-spring orthodoxy : e.g. Scientism. :smile:


*1. The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. He suggested that much of Western philosophy, in its development and articulation, can be understood as engaging with, responding to, or building upon the ideas presented by Plato.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote

I appreciate your response and that all sounds interesting, but right now I am trying to understand hylomorphism simpliciter (viz., the OG theory). I still haven't been able to wrap my head around what 'matter' is if it does not refer to merely the 'stuff' which are the parts that are conjoined with the form to make up the whole. — Bob Ross

In skimming this thread, I must have missed "the OG theory". And "hylomorphism simpliciter" may be above my pay grade. But I think has clearly & simply presented the traditional philosophical answer to your basic question "what is matter"? And he has even introduced the non-classical Quantum notion of statistical Stuff (pure Form?). Which, absent the hyle, probably would not make sense to Aristotle, but might fit into Plato's world of abstract Forms.

So, I'd like to add that modern physics has a counter-intuitive mathematical definition of Matter, that doesn't make sense to non-mathematicians : the fundamental element of reality is not material (actual) "stuff"*1, but immaterial (statistical) Fields*2. Since those Fields are not something you can see or touch, they are more like Aristotle's Potentia (statistical probability) as distinguished from Actus (real thing).

The total Universal (unified) Field is mathematically defined in terms of an infinite array of dimensionless points, not in space, but of space. Which amounts to nothing, unless those valueless points consist of Potential Energy, that can be actualized, or realized, or excited by some outside force or internal perturbations (conflicts?)*3. Unlike that imaginary Field, some local fields (e.g. electromagnetic) are measurable, hence real & physical & dimensional. But the UF is an Ideal, and may be equivalent to Aristotle's Potentia*4, which may also be the "formless stuff" that combines with enforming (actualizing) Energy to produce tangible Matter : hylo + morph.

It's over my head, but A.N. Whitehead published a Quantum Field Theory*5 of his own, in which the excited "points" of Potential are defined as "Events" or "Occasions". I find it easier to imagine those particular events as actualizations of potential Energy (Causation). Which, depending on ambient conditions, may take on the form of mathematical Mass (graviton?), or tangible Matter (particles). Since I haven't fully digested this theory myself, I'll just mention it in passing, as one more way to imagine the HyloMorph notion.

The bottom line for me is Form (non-physical essence), which is monistic & simplistic in that it has no internal parts, but omnipotential, in that it can transform into both Energy & Matter, and eventually Mind. :nerd:

PS___ Sorry to get so technical & complicated, but I'm still working on a modern scientific equivalent to the ancient notion of HyloMorphism. In my thesis I call it EnFormAction.


*1. Yes, in physics, fields are considered fundamental concepts. They are not just mathematical constructs, but rather represent the underlying reality of how forces and particles interact. In quantum field theory, particles are understood as excitations of these underlying fields.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physics+field+is+fundamental
Note --- The "excitations" are supposed to be inputs of energy. But where do those pinpricks come from, if the Field is all there is? Stick a pin in a Field, and a bit of Matter pops out.

*2. In the context of quantum field theory (QFT), the term"immaterial" can be misleading. Quantum fields are considered fundamental physical entities, not in the sense of tangible matter, but as the basis for all other physical phenomena. They are not made of anything else, but rather, particles are seen as excitations or disturbances within these fields.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+immaterial
Note --- In my own theory, the Fields are made of Potential, that can transform into Energy or Matter.

*3. In modern physics, particularly within quantum field theory (QFT), matter is fundamentally understood as excitations or manifestations of underlying fields, rather than being comprised of discrete, fundamental particles. These fields are not just mathematical constructs, but are considered the most fundamental aspect of reality, with particles being secondary emergent phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physics+matter+is+fundamentally+a+field
Note --- Whence the "excitations"?

*4. In Aristotelian philosophy, "matter" and "potentia" (or potentiality) are closely related concepts. Matter, in this context, refers to the underlying substance that has the potential to take on different forms. Potentia, on the other hand, is the capacity or possibility for something to become actualized. Essentially, matter is the substratum that possesses potential, and potentia is the inherent ability of that matter to change and develop into a specific form. . . . .
Aristotle viewed matter as the fundamental, formless stuff that underlies all physical things.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potentia+and+matter

*5. Whitehead's philosophy, particularly his concept of "actual occasions" or "events," offers a framework for interpreting quantum field theory. His process philosophy, emphasizing becoming and relationships, aligns with quantum mechanics' focus on processes and interactions, and his ideas about indeterminacy and creativity resonate with quantum phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+quantum+field+theory

But what if what I am seeing is not what is really there, but merely a representation, just like a portrait does not contain the real person? What if seeing is not believing—but merely interpreting? — Kurt

What you are describing sounds like a social contract*1, in which what we both see is real, and what we individually imagine is ideal or unreal (or woo woo). Some of us prefer one or the other, or both Reality & Ideality. For Scientists & Materialists, seeing is believing. But for Philosophers & Spiritualists, imagining may be believable too. Yet, as various philosophers & scientists have noted : seeing is always interpreting*2. :smile:


*1. Shared reality refers to the perception that one's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs are aligned with those of another person or group. It's the sense that you and others experience the world in a similar way, leading to a feeling of connection and validation. This shared understanding can be about anything from trivial matters to fundamental beliefs, and it plays a significant role in social bonding and personal well-being.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shared+reality

*2. In philosophy, the idea that "seeing is interpreting" suggests that our perception of the world is not a passive reception of raw sensory data, but rather an active process of making sense of that data based on prior knowledge, experiences, and expectations. We don't just see what is physically present; we interpret what we see based on our internal frameworks.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+seeing+is+interpreting

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. — alleybear

As others have so helpfully pointed out, "nothing" cannot or does not exist. That's why the concept of Zero took so long to catch-on with mathematicians*1. The relevant point here is that No-Thing means no physical existence, hence no usefulness for Science or Mechanics. But the meta-physical concept of Nothingness*2 is useful for philosophical purposes.

Those who challenge your god-concept are imagining the Deity as a physical material substantial entity. In that sense it makes sense to ask "who created your God?" But Aristotle defined his notion of Substance, as not the material thing, but the immaterial Essence or Form of the thing. And Plato defined his Forms*3 as eternal & self-existent. Hence, essential & fundamental, not objective or optional.

So, in the interest of clarity, perhaps you could explain that the God of Philosophers is not an Idol of gold-plated wood or flesh-covered bones, but a meta-physical concept, similar to Infinity (∞), which also does not exist in the real physical world. If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. Unfortunately, an impotent Nothingness could not create a universe from scratch. So you'd have to add the concept of Potential*4, which also does not exist physically, until Actualized. :smile:


*1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Even though zero is a fundamental idea for the modern science, initially the notion of a complete absence got a largely negative, sometimes hostile, treatment by the Western world and Greco-Roman philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea

*2. Metaphysical Nothingness :
Since metaphysics is the study of what exists, one might expect metaphysicians to have little to say about the limit case in which nothing exists. . . . .
Let’s begin with a question that Martin Heidegger famously characterized as the most fundamental issue of philosophy. . . . .
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

*3. Essential Form :
Plato's theory of Forms posits that the Forms are self-existent and independent of the physical world or individual minds
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+form+self+existent

*4. Potential is Unreal :
The statement "potential does not exist" is a philosophical point, not a scientific one. In physics, potential is a measurable quantity related to stored energy or the ability of a system to do work. In other contexts, potential refers to unrealized abilities or possibilities. While "potential" in the sense of a future reality may not be physically present, the capacity for that future to exist is often acknowledged as real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+does+not+exist
Note --- A creator God is real & measurable, only if the creation is physical & material. According to Cosmologists, there was a beginning point in Time, when our material universe did not exist. But the Energy & Laws that cause & govern our world, necessarily pre-existed the beginning of physical evolution. That's what Aristotle called First & Final Cause (Ability & Purpose). God is the "capacity" for cosmic creation.
.

Let me tell y'all about my god (who's still around, by the way).

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. Whatever entity caused the creation of existence is my god. Since nothing existed, my god had to use itself for materials/energies to create with, so I am literally a part of my god. If you go with the Big Bang theory, a few hundred million years after the universe started, at the end of the hot plasma phase, the first OG atom, hydrogen, was created. Those hydrogen atoms are still in existence since they don't die. Those billions of years old hydrogen atoms are within our bodies today. We are physically linked to our universe's origin. — alleybear

Your "god" sounds a lot like Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover, which was a logical necessity, not an emotional source of succor & sanction. In other words, it's the "god of the philosophers", not the God of theologians. Although you mentioned physical evidence, your "entity" is also not a Nature God aiming lightening bolts at evil-doers.

Instead, your Creation Causer sounds more like A.N. Whitehead's PanEnTheistic principle*1, both immanent and transcendent. That's also how I view my own god-model, which I like to describe functionally as a Programmer*2. Since I don't have any reliable direct or prophetic revelations of this philosophical Principle, or any "higher insight" & "participatory knowledge", all I know about this logical necessity is that something like it is logically necessary to understand how we, and our world, evolved from mathematical Big Bang Singularity to biological Nature-as-we-know-it, and to human Culture that is on the verge of becoming interplanetary, and to little ole me & you.

Is any of this interpolation close to your god-model? :smile:


*1. Whitehead's God :
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the on-going process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
[ see post 64 ] [ see Programmer God at sidebar ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

But as you so eloquently say, we do find ourselves putting the pieces of our history together in a narrative. This is an inevitable consequence of living a reflective life. This may be a sort of mythologising, a sense-making that to a large extent sits outside critical appraisal, at least by it's author. — Banno

In my youth, I had little exposure to Philosophy outside of Theological argumentation. As a Post-religion adult though, my "reflective life" was mostly Science-based, until the Great Recession and subsequent Retirement gave me time for impractical philosophizing. Triggered by a perplexed comment from a quantum physicist --- "it's all information!" --- I was motivated to create my own personal worldview (mythology), based mostly on key concepts from Quantum Physics and Information Science.

I call that "narrative" a mythology because A> I am not a scientist, and B> my narrative goes beyond the evidence for a something-from-nothing beginning. Both of those limitations left me vulnerable to harsh criticisms by those who revere classical science and abhor transcendent narratives. But I see no reason why theoretical philosophy must be limited by the empirical rules of science. For example, Aristotle, whose writings were mostly based on empirical observations, reasoned from the obvious imperfections & contingencies of Nature that, logically, there must be something like an Ideal Source of creation & causation*1.

Since I have no colleagues to censor my personal myth, I depend on this forum for "outside critical appraisal". Some of that criticism has been bulldozer fault-finding --- showing me where I need to patch the myth --- and some has been holistic & constructive. I am not the hero of my unfinished myth, but it does put my little life into a wider perspective. :smile:


*1. Aristotle's first cause argument, also known as the unmoved mover argument, posits that everything in the universe that undergoes change must have a cause, and that this chain of causes cannot extend infinitely backward. Therefore, there must be a first cause, an "unmoved mover," that initiates all motion and change without itself being moved by anything else. This first cause, according to Aristotle, is God, according to some interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+first+cause+argument
Note --- Logically, the First Cause cannot itself be an effect of a prior cause. So, some view the Big Bang as a Secondary Cause, which leaves open the question of "what caused the Bang?" Of course, nobody knows the answer to that, but like Aristotle, we can reason beyond what is now known, to speculate on the First and Final Cause. Unless, of course, that going-beyond seems critical of someone else's mythical Narrative.

Good. I'm pleased with the attention it has garnered. Yes, 'dissection' is pretty much 'analysis' but I went with the former both in order to leave behind some bagage, and to take advantage of the alliteration. — Banno

I've noticed that several posts in this thread speak of having a "narrative" as-if it's a bad thing, like fiction or myth. Is "dissection" or "analysis" of a philosophical Narrative different from literary Criticism? In philosophy, how is a Narrative different from having a self-examined philosophical Position or personal Worldview, in which all parts of the story are integrated by a central principle or core value? I suppose it's that core belief (e.g. God) that critics attempt to seek out and dissect. Does analytical revelation of that Core Value determine whether the Narrative is True or False, Good or Bad? Or is the critic's worldview the deciding factor? :smile:


Philosophical Narrative :
Many philosophers argue that our sense of self is shaped by the narratives we construct about our lives. According to some philosophers on Oxford Academic, our personal identity is not a fixed entity but rather a narrative we continually revise and refine.
#. Narrative can play a crucial role in ethical reflection, helping us understand moral dilemmas and evaluate actions by considering their narrative consequences or their alignment with certain ethical frameworks.
#. Narrative analysis is a method used to examine the structure, content, and function of narratives in various contexts, including literature, history, and everyday life.
#. Narratives can shape our perceptions of reality, influencing how we understand events, people, and ourselves.
#. Daniel Dennett, while not strictly a narrative philosopher, uses the concept of the "narrative self" to explain how we construct a sense of self through the stories we tell.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+narrative

If I am right, then it seems like we can get rid of 'matter' (in Aristotle's sense) and retain form (viz., actuality). Each thing, then, would be caused by a prior actuality which would provide it with compresence of properties, identity through time, and potency by the mere causality of forms upon forms until we trace it back to the being which has a form that entails existence (i.e., God).
Am I misunderstanding the view? — Bob Ross

Not at all! From my amateur perspective, you have hit the entailing nail (Pure Potential) on the head. My own personal worldview is based on a notion similar to Hylomorphism, but expressed in 21st century terms : Information & Causation. Information is the meaning (definition) of a knowable thing, and Causation is the trans-form-action of that physical Thing (hyle) into a new Form (morph).

The science of Cosmology has traced this transformation of Energy into Matter back to the Big Bang beginning. At that point, the trail goes cold in an abyss of infinity, so pragmatic scientists close-up shop and go home. But philosophers, undeterred by absence of hard evidence, leap the information gap into the unknown by means of rational inference (every action has a prior cause) and poetic metaphor (chicken & egg ; tree & seed).

Philosophy doesn't reveal practical Facts, but theoretical Truths. For example, in imagination, Aristotle followed the trail of Causation to the end of observation, and then deduced a First Cause prior to the known-world Effect. Being practical-minded though, he didn't call it a conventional God, but gave it an operational definition : such as Unmoved Mover. Likewise, Plato made a functional distinction, similar to Hylomorphism, in terms of Potentiality & Actuality. Like a Creator God though, prior Potential “entails” the existence of Actual things --- or what Whitehead called “actual occasions”.

You asked : “why would we need to posit a real potency”? In my thesis of Enformationism, the Form (whatness) of a new thing is necessarily prior*1 to the material existence (isness) of the observable object. In my former profession as an Architect, a new building is posterior*1 to the design (form ; concept) of its structure. That complex idea must be conveyed to builders as an abstract design (blueprint), and then implemented in concrete bricks & mortar. Without the design (morph), a brick is just dried mud.

In this analogy, the “real potency” is merely an imaginary Idea, or Ideal (definition of a thing). And the idealizing Mind that dreams-up the idea (design) has traditionally been described as some kind of anthro-morphic creator : a God or Cosmic Architect. But, due to my emphasis on the compresence*2 of physical & metaphysical Information*3 --- like Einstein's equation of Energy & Matter --- I like to call that "prior actuality" a Programmer.

To modern secular minds, such unreal immaterial “Potency” does not make sense. And yet, Potential can be defined as not-yet-real. And we have many examples of such potency (e.g. voltage) in the real world. So, the notion of a pre-bang First Cause does make functional sense, if not factual sensation. :smile:


*1.In Bayesian statistics, prior probability is your initial belief about an event or parameter before observing any data, while posterior probability is the updated belief after incorporating new information or evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prior+vs+posterior+probability

*2. The "compresence of opposites" refers to the philosophical idea that contrary or contradictory properties can exist simultaneously in the same thing or within a single entity. This concept is often explored in the context of understanding the nature of reality, particularly in relation to Plato's theory of Forms and the nature of sensible particulars.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=compresence+of+opposites

*3. What is Information?
The Power to Enform
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

What I want to propose is that there are two different ways of doing philosophy. There are those who do philosophy through discourse. These folk set the scene, offer a perspective, frame a world, and explain how things are. Their tools are exposition and eulogistics. Their aim is completeness and coherence, and the broader the topics they encompass the better. Then there are those who dissect. These folk take things apart, worry at the joints, asks what grounds the system. Their tool is nitpicking and detail. Their aim is truth and clarity, they delight in the minutia.

The discourse sets up a perspective, a world, a game, an activity, whatever we call it. The dissection pulls it apart, exposing its assumptions, underpinnings and other entrails. Perhaps you can't have one without the other, however a theory that explains any eventuality ends up explaining nothing, and for a theory to be useful it has to rule some things out. — Banno

Thanks for the perspicacious post. I have noticed the different philosophy "styles" on this forum, but hadn't distilled it down to a polarity : Dissecting vs Doing.

Since I am an amateur philosopher, who as a retirement hobby discourses on a Philosophy Forum, I dabble in both sides of this pursuit of Truth . . . and clarity. The Analytic side may consist of “prising apart the various bits and pieces of each text and examining them for their beauty, utility and faults”. But, you could spend a lifetime “dissecting” other people's ideas, and end-up with a pile of disconnected notions.

Yet my analytically examined life is almost over. So I spend most of my time on the Application (doing) side : putting together the best bits of historical science & philosophy into a complete GPS system for steering a life through the natural & cultural labyrinth. Philosophy is both a Study and a Practice.

One way to describe a holistic philosophy is as a Worldview. Some people inherit a complete belief system --- where the "grounds" must be taken on Faith --- from their traditional social religion. But I long-ago rejected the groundless Faith of my fathers. Since then, I have been privately constructing a personalized Belief System of my own, from whatever scraps of Truth I can find by dissection of other's views, or by personal observation.

Since the cosmos itself is dynamic and ever-evolving, my emerging belief system may never be finalized. And there is always room for improvement, including both positive & negative contributions from forum posters. So, my fallible personalized worldview seems close-enough to ultimate Truth that it will help me to steer a safe course between Scylla & Charibdis, and to avoid such personal pitfalls as snarling dogmatism and supercilious dissection.

Since I am somewhat analytical by nature, I encourage others to "dissect" my own rambling reasoning, in order to reveal its weak points. And, I agree that, for the pursuit of truth, "you can't have one without the other". Yet, when critical "dissection" becomes nothing but nasty "nitpicking", "fault-finding", or political put-downs, with no alternatives offered, I call it "trolling", and end the one-sided dialog. :nerd:

So this thread is partly to assist me to gain a survey of accounts of God that might be richer and more interesting, particularly when I talk to doctrinaire atheists in the 'real world' who think they have mastered the subject. But more generally, I am interested in what people believe and why. — Tom Storm

In the US, the typical, non-philosophical, believer seems to feel the need for a sympathetic person to pray to : Jesus and/or Mary. And Jesus' absentee father-god is sort of a shadowy background figure. Do you think abstract & impersonal Philosophical god-models are "richer and more interesting", or is it intimately personal Mystical models that interest you? Personally, I found anglo-catholic Evelyn Underhill's 1911 book, Mysticism*1, very interesting, because its sophisticated, yet spiritual, portrayal of God was so different from my own literal-biblical childhood Jehovah. But, such direct mystical experience of God is not accessible to those who tend to be more Rational than Emotional. The God of Mystics is not my kind of God.

If you prefer sophisticated & intellectual god-models though, Baruch Spinoza*2 developed a revolutionary worldview for his 17th century milieu. But its very strangeness compared to our normal experience of the world, makes it a poor foundation for a religion of the people. It combines a variety of philosophical elements into a system that has been known by various names, depending on the interpreter : Idealism*3, Pantheism, Acosmism*4, etc. Do you find his Post-Judaism God more amenable than that of the Christian “literalists”? I think of Whitehead's*5 theology as a 20th century update of Spinoza's 17th century god-model, but even his paradigm needs a bit of scientific updating for the 21st century. Which I have attempted to do in my own quantum & information science-based god-model. Definitely not mystical or ecstatic or literal. :smile:

PS___ Obviously, these god-models are not revelations from God, but imaginations of God. And they may be rudimentary Scientific observations of Nature, but mostly of Human nature. Some of Spinoza's ideas are compatible with my own. But I don't consider him my guru.

*1. Evelyn Underhill, a prominent writer on Christian mysticism, viewed God as the ultimate reality and the object of the mystical journey. She emphasized the presence of God in all aspects of life, even the seemingly ordinary, and stressed the importance of both contemplation and action in seeking union with God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evelyn+underhill+god
Note --- Click on the link for more info.

*2. Spinoza :
Spinoza is often interpreted as an acosmist, meaning he denies the independent existence of the world (cosmos) apart from God. While not denying the existence of finite things, he views them as manifestations or modes of a single, infinite substance, which is God. This interpretation, particularly by thinkers like Hegel, suggests that Spinoza's system prioritizes the unity of God over the perceived diversity of the world, leading to an acosmic view.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=acosmist+spinoza

*3. Spinoza Idealism :
While Baruch Spinoza is not a straightforward idealist in the traditional sense, his philosophy does incorporate elements that resonate with idealism, particularly in his concept of God and the relationship between mind and body. Spinoza's view, often described as objective idealism, sees God as the underlying substance of all reality, with thought and extension (matter) being two of God's infinite attributes. This differs from subjective idealism, which posits that reality is fundamentally mental.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+idealism

*4. An "acosmist" is someone who believes in or adheres to the philosophical doctrine of acosmism. Acosmism, in turn, is the view that the finite world, or the world of our everyday experience, does not have true or independent reality, and that only God or the infinite is truly real. Essentially, it posits that the world we perceive is an illusion or a manifestation of the divine, not a separate, independent entity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=acosmist

*5. Alfred North Whitehead and Baruch Spinoza are both important figures in Western philosophy, but they have distinct approaches to metaphysics. Whitehead's philosophy emphasizes process and becoming, while Spinoza's is rooted in substance and a more static view of reality. Both, however, are considered important figures in the history of metaphysics and have influenced each other's work. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spinoza

Do you have a robust reading of Whitehead or Godel's theisms? — Tom Storm

Since I am an untrained amateur philosopher, you may not consider these blog posts a "robust reading". But they may serve as a brief capsule of his Philosophy and his Theology. :smile:

Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality
Whitehead also defined his natural + super-natural lawmaker-deity in terms that are more scientific and philosophical than religious⁷. For example : “non-temporal” = eternal ; “primordial - consequent” = both creator & creation ; “potential” = pre-big-bang world-creating power ; “anti-entropic” = what I call Enformy⁹.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

The Point of Process Philosophy
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

Clearly, what I’m asking for is a survey of different, more philosophical accounts of theism to contrast with the literalist versions put forward by many apologists. — Tom Storm

I assume that by "literalist" you mean those who accept the Christian bible as the revealed word of God. But, I've seen very few bible-thumpers on this forum. So most of the god-models that are discussed seem to be some variation on what Blaise Pascal derisively called the "god of the philosophers"*1. That was probably a reference to his contemporary Baruch Spinoza, and his Pantheistic equation of God with Nature. Spinoza denied the validity of the Jewish scriptures, supposedly revealed by God via human prophets. So his substantial & immanent god-model was derived by human reasoning, which for "literalists" was trivial compared to the omniscience of God.

The exemplars of nuance you mentioned in the OP, Tillich & Hart, are Theologians with some commitment to religious doctrine. Have you found any secular non-religious Philosophers who fit your definition of a nuanced notion of God? C.S. Pierce, A.N. Whitehead, Kurt Gödel, for example. :smile:


*1. The "God of the Philosophers" refers to the concept of God as understood through philosophical reasoning and natural theology, rather than through revelation or religious tradition. This God is often described as an impersonal, abstract force or a maximally great being, rather than a personal, active God as found in religious texts like the Bible.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=god+of+the+philosophers

Or is an imagined telos merely an anthropomorphic, indeed anthropocentric, projection? — Janus

"Imagined Telos"*1 and "Projection" make the notion of a direction to evolution sound like wishful thinking. But a more positive way to label that idea is Interpretation or Inference. For example, cosmologists have interpreted the stellar red-shift to mean that the universe is expanding in all physical directions. Physicists have also interpreted physical Entropy as an inevitable result of the second law of thermodynamics. But they also imagined our experience of a flow from past to future as an Arrow of Time*2 : a Telos.

On the other hand, Whitehead's notion of Purposeful Cosmic Telos*3 is both an inference from evidence of the Arrow of Time, and a causal interpretation in terms of the original impulse that set the universe on this course into the unknown. So where are we going, and why?

Scientists tend to not ask Why? questions. But philosophers have always wanted to know Why the world is in the dynamic directional state of, not only expansion, but of qualitative evolution, from near nothing to Life, Mind, and Culture (as a supplement to Nature). As a product of the human (not animal) Mind, Teleology is indeed anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. But is the Telos a projection onto, or an inference from the observable cosmos? :smile:


*1. "Imagined telos" refers to a concept in philosophy and art where individuals or communities envision and create a future purpose or goal. This future purpose is not necessarily based on established facts or historical patterns, but rather on imagination and hope for a better state of affairs.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imagined+telos

*2. The arrow of time refers to the directional nature of time, the phenomenon that time flows from past to future. This is a central concept in physics and philosophy, with the second law of thermodynamics playing a key role in explaining it. While the fundamental laws of physics don't inherently favor a direction of time, the increasing entropy of isolated systems (as described by the second law) creates the observable arrow of time, making it clear that time moves forward rather than backward.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=arrow+of+time

*3. In Whitehead's process philosophy, teleology refers to the idea that everything in the universe is moving towards a specific end or purpose. Whitehead believes that reality is fundamentally a dynamic process of becoming, and that all entities, including humans, are striving towards some form of fulfillment or "telos". This telos is not a pre-determined destiny, but rather a constantly evolving goal that is shaped by the ongoing creative process of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+teleology

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't? — Gnomon
I’m trying to read this charitably. Is condescension something you tend to fall back on when challenged? What exactly were you trying to express here? — Tom Storm

"What do you find intriguing" is a serious question to determine where you are coming from. "To provide a larger context" is just one possible response. The "doggy ideal" of food in the bowl is an example of basic Physicalism, unencumbered by abstract ideas. "What does he know" is just a repeat of a question in your OP.

The questions quoted were intended to be sincere philosophical inquiries to elicit a better understanding of your worldview. Which is still opaque to me. The OP seems to imply a wish to return to a "classical theism", but leaves it open for interpretation of what that refers to*1. You denied being a Materialist, and offered that you are intrigued by Idealism. But to what extent? Idealism can be critiqued as wishful thinking, inappropriate for living in the Real world. Or applauded as an example of going beyond the obvious to a more subtle understanding of mundane reality.

Sophisticated language can sometimes use esoteric words, and "tendentious distinctions" that obscure their meaning for us simple-minded folk. For example, you referenced Hart's "ultimate reality", but that's just as abstract & obscure as "ground of being". Then you asked "what does it mean?" Amen! I have used that enigmatic term myself, but followed up with more functional descriptions of the role of God in the real world.

As you said, "Such accounts seem to head towards the mystical and the murky realm of ineffability". That's why I am trying to discover what kind of "account" you would find more convincing to modern philosophers. A viable answer to that query is important to me. And was one motivation for my creating a down-to-earth god-model that is more descriptive & meaningful than "ground of being". My philosophical god-concept serves not as the transcendent over-lord for our devolved Garden of Eden, but as the essence of Matter & Energy, and the immanent cause of every event in physical evolution.

You said that Hart's "account of God comes from a vast tradition". How would you describe that tradition : Orthodox Christianity?*1. If so, that would help me to grasp what you mean by "more sophisticated philosophical accounts". Does that tradition seem radical compared to "more contemporary theological personalism"? If so, I misinterpreted the thread title, and will have little to offer on the topic.

My questions are not intended to be disrespectful, but to be probing. I suppose I'm poking around in spots that are sore from past experience on this forum. :smile:


*1. David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox scholar of religion and a philosopher, writer, and cultural commentator.
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/interviews/what-we-think-we-know-about-god

John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer

I haven't read anything by Vervaeke, but I Googled and found this summary of his worldview*1. His notion to "untangle the sacred from the supernatural" makes sense to me. Although my personal worldview has a role for a Transcendent First Cause or Tao, that is necessarily pre-natural, I don't see any reason to worship such an abstract concept. My G*D concept is basically Spinoza's deus sive natura with accomodations for 21st century cosmology and 5th century BC philosophy.

The definition of his Essentialism*2 in terms of an eternal essence seems to be an update of Plato's Ideal Forms. This also is amenable to my worldview, which prefers to avoid referring to the Primal Essence as "God", due to the term's historical religious contamination by association with human tyrants. But Metaphysical Essentialism --- if it implies a transcendent source of Qualia --- might also clash with the OP's wish for a return to a "classical metaphysical" Theism --- if "classical" refers to Catholic Scholasticism, which definitely "entangled" sacred taboos with supernatural sovereignty. :smile:




*1. Vervaeke uses the terms “metaphysical essentialism” to refer to this attitude. He argues that if we want to solve our meaning crisis, we must untangle the sacred from the supernatural. We have to come up with a way of re-articulating our worldview in which we can get back that sense of deep connectedness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+John+Vervaeke

*2. Metaphysical essentialism is a philosophical concept that proposes that things possess an inherent, unchanging essence that defines their identity and determines their properties. This essence is considered necessary and sufficient for an entity to be what it is. In essence, metaphysical essentialism argues that things have a fundamental nature that remains constant, regardless of their accidental properties or changes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+essentialism%E2%80%9D

For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero

That is exactly the kind of natural Revelation that turned me away from Atheism toward Deism. The "self organizing processes" of Nature are what led A.N. Whitehead to write his magnum opus of Process and Reality. I was somewhat surprised to learn that someone of his intellectual stature had reached the same conclusion as had, not from religious revelations but from pragmatic godless scientific exploration of natural processes. How could a self-organizing system emerge from a random Bang in the dark? That "striving against entropy" is what Schrodinger called "Negentropy" (free energy) and what I call "Enformy"*1 (causal en-form-action). :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace. — Janus

Mea culpa. Due to my personal bias, I did not interpret Faith in Revelation as a viable means of knowing the "unknown god" (Acts 17:23). As you say though, millions of people throughout history and around the world have found such indirect revelation (via human "witnesses" & interpreters)*1 to offer salvation & solace.

In my experience, I have found the primary Revelation (Bible)*2 of Christianity to be a record of Imperial Rome's need to create a unifying alternative to its divisive babble of multicultural polytheistic religions, and the watered-down official religion of the Pantheon. Obviously, placing the burden on Faith instead of Works (and Reason) has worked beyond the dreams of "visionary" Constantine*3, the Trump of his day, to Make Rome Great Again. I hope you will pardon my unofficial notion of "knowable". :wink:

PS___ In my personal worldview, the direct revelation of G*D is the self-organizing world itself. Unfortunately, the only solace offered is something like Stoic Eudaimonia.


*1. While it's true that Christianity encompasses a vast number of denominations and sects, estimating a precise number is difficult. Estimates range from 200 in the U.S. to a staggering 45,000 or more globally. These numbers highlight the diverse range of beliefs and practices within the Christian faith
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thousands+of+christian+religions
Note --- One revelation, thousands of interpretations & implementations.

*2. The official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church is the Vulgate, which was affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
Note --- There was no "official" revelation until the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Even 1500 years later, scholars were still re-interpreting the "revelation".

*3. The first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity was Constantine the Great. After a vision before the Battle of Milvian Bridge, he declared his support for Christianity in 312 CE and gradually transitioned the religion from a persecuted minority to a favored religion within the Roman Empire. This led to the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which granted religious tolerance and allowed Christians to practice their faith openly. Constantine's conversion and subsequent policies marked a significant turning point for Christianity and its eventual establishment as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=roman+emperor+christianity

You are difficult to have a discussion with because you seem to keep turning it into battles you think you’re having with people, instead of actually reading what I’m saying. None of the points you raise apply to my position. — Tom Storm

Again, I have to apologize for asking questions that upset you. I'm just trying to understand what you mean, behind what you say : the implications. 180proof does indeed make philosophical dialog into a "battle" between opposing worldviews. {see PS below} But, I'm actually interested in your perspective on the God question. That's why I ask "why" questions. If you don't like to label your personal philosophy with conventional terms, a longer, detailed post might suffice to present a "philosophical defense"*1 of a specific position. So far, I haven't been able to get a fix on your "position".

However, if you don't like to get litigious on historically contentious topics, it would be better to not issue a challenge to converse in Metaphysical terms*2. Perhaps following the example of legalistic Judaism, the medieval Catholic Scholastics used "sophisticated" metaphysical arguments --- some of them polemical & pugnacious*3. The problem with Metaphysics on this forum is that, for many posters, scientifically validated physical evidence is much more persuasive. That's why my worldview includes both, but like Whitehead's Process Philosophy, focuses mainly on making the rational First Cause (God postulate) acceptable to modern thinkers in a science dominated world.

Historically, the "God" question has both pro & con Metaphysical arguments*4. Do you find any of them convincing? :smile:

PS___ I suspect that the "battles" you find in my posts, are actually my indirect responses to 180proof's parallel posts. These physical/metaphysical*5 skirmishes have been going on for years. Yet, because he seldom engages in philosophical arguments, but polemical attacks instead, I long ago ceased replying directly to him. So I must beg your pardon for using your thread to make my counterpoints.


*1. A philosophical defense, similar to a legal defense, presents an argument without necessarily making a positive case for a particular conclusion. Instead, it aims to address criticisms or objections raised against a philosophical position, providing justification and clarification.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+defense

*2. "In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones." ___Tom Storm, original post

*3. Scholastic Disputes :
There was no single Scholastic doctrine; each of the Scholastics developed a distinct philosophy, which was often in disagreement with the systems of fellow teachers. . . . .
Masters also held disputations in which the affirmative and negative sides of a question were thoroughly argued by students and teacher before the latter resolved the problem.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism/Enduring-features

*4.Metaphysical arguments against God often explore philosophical inconsistencies or logical paradoxes inherent in the concept of God, challenging the idea of a perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent being. These arguments focus on the properties attributed to God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness, and how these seemingly contradict the existence of evil, suffering, and apparent divine hiddenness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+arguments+against+god

*5. metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Note --- 180proof's worldview is based on Spinoza's notion of an Immanent God. Hence, no essential Being, no First Cause, and nothing that does not Change. And no need for Metaphysical arguments. Do you find Spinoza's common-sense approach to metaphysical topics acceptable?

Personally, I have a limited capacity or interest in speculations - you have a much more intense curiosity and deeper reading than me. — Tom Storm

If that is the case, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Did you expect responses to your OP to be lists of hard Facts? What is Philosophy, if not "speculations" beyond the range of our physical senses, into the invisible realm of Ideas, Concepts, and Opinions?

Pragmatism*1 is a good policy for routine mundane activities. But when faced with novel situations or questions beyond here & now, that policy may fail to get practical results. If you want to see some arguments against Pragmatism*2 --- e.g. superficiality & lack of empathy --- click on the link below. :nerd:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area. — Tom Storm

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't?

Until the 20th century, Science was grounded in deterministic Newtonian physics, random Darwinian biology, and spyglass Cosmology. But statistical Quantum Physics, variable Genetic Biology, and creation-event Cosmology have opened-up a whole new world for scientific & philosophical exploration. None of those professions are "my area", but I probably know more about them than the average layman. I feel that I need to know something about the foundations of the Real world, in order to rationally discuss lofty notions about the Ideal cosmos.

Personally, I find all of those technical fields "intriguing". But for us to draw valid philosophical conclusions from such narrow-scope sciences, it's necessary to learn some nuts & bolts about how the world works from those new perspectives. On this forum, some basic familiarity with Quantum Reality should be your "area", if you are going to discuss modern & non-traditional notions of God, and why our contingent world exists. :halo:

A lot of what you think is natural to you — just part of how your mind works — is actually culturally internalized. — Wayfarer

Physicalism, Materialism, Naturalism are philosophical worldviews that have been "culturally internalized" since the 17th century revolution in science. For most of us, they seem natural & normal, and unquestionable. But philosophers feel free to question everything. :smile:


*1. Pragmatism and idealism represent contrasting philosophical approaches. Pragmatism emphasizes practicality and the consequences of actions, focusing on what works in the real world. Idealism, on the other hand, prioritizes ideas, vision, and the potential of what should be.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pragmatism+vs+idealism

*2. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the practical consequences of ideas and beliefs, evaluating their "truth" based on their effectiveness in solving problems and achieving desired outcomes
While it has influenced various fields like law, education, and social science, it also faces significant criticisms. Here are some of the main arguments against pragmatism:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+pragmatism+is+bad

Your next statement and its formulation is a reason I guessed you are riffing off the beliefs of your youth. You can't resist bagging materialists at most opportunities when there are so few, if any, on this site. — Tom Storm

You must not post on the same topics that I do. Ask Wayfarer and Count Timothy von Icarus about their encounters with many Materialists, Atheists, and Empiricists of various stripes. As you might expect, they make paradoxical physical & scientific arguments about metaphysical & philosophical questions, such as this one : about the "nature" & being of a non-physical immaterial god. If it's physical & natural, it ain't a god, it's an idol.

Most of the threads I post on start-out high-minded, but eventually descend into "bagging" Idealists & Theists. So, I spend a lot of time defending my non-religious Philosophical concepts from accusations & characterizations of religious Creeds, scientific Ignorance, and plain Stupidity. I never attack, but I do make counter-arguments, that may seem like an attack on cherished beliefs. Fortunately, a few posters do attempt to make positive philosophical arguments, instead of negative us-vs-them political attacks like 180. :cool:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area. — Tom Storm

If you are not a materialist or a scientist, do you use any alternative term to describe your metaphysical worldview*1. I reluctantly use terms like Deist, which is confused with religion, but try to avoid Idealist, because it just sounds silly & impractical.

Personally, I am not a Chemist, but If I was I would be "committed" to Materialism. Likewise, a professional Physicist should be committed to Physicalism. Back when I was a practicing Architect/Engineer, I was an Empiricist & Theorist, dealing with both material structures and immaterial concepts. But as an amateur Philosopher, my commitment is to Idealism, in the sense of the Science of Ideas.

For all practical purposes, I could be labeled a Materialist or Physicalist, because I live in a world of Matter & Energy. But for theoretical explorations on a philosophy forum, I am an Idealist, because I live in a world of Ideas, and this is a forum for exchanging ideas, not things. But if I lived in the Paleozoic Age, I would be an animal, because there would be no ideas to engage in. :wink:



*1. A metaphysical worldview, often called a metaphysics, is a philosophical system that explores the fundamental nature of reality, encompassing questions about existence, reality, and the world beyond the physical. It delves into what things are, how they exist, and the nature of reality itself. Metaphysics seeks to understand the underlying principles and structures of the universe, including whether it's purely physical or if there are non-physical entities like minds or souls.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+worldview

No. You’re jumping the gun. A ‘safe place’ just means whatever gives you comfort. I wouldn’t have thought heaven was a candidate here, why would you? I notice that you’re still seem to be riffing off the religion of your youth, which for whatever reason fails to support you in your sense making. That’s understandable and many do likewise. But that’s not my ‘path’, so given we don’t share suppositions, and the fact that I’m not a physicist or scientist, I don’t generally get into speculative cosmology. — Tom Storm

I apologize if I misinterpreted your "safe place". But a synonym is "Haven", an analog of "Heaven".

I am intentionally trying to avoid "riffing off the religion of your youth". So, I don't know how you got that impression. The "religion" of my old age is Philosophy, which doesn't offer a "safe place" in the afterlife, but Ataraxia & Eudaimonia in the here & now. The religion of my youth is "not my path", so what is your path, if not Physics and Material Science?

My retirement hobby is primarily "speculative cosmology", especially the open question of "what caused the spaceless-timeless Singularity*1 to go Bang? Perhaps due to childhood religious "wounding" 's scientific reasoning stops at that boundary of physical reality. But my philosophical reasoning is not limited to the interior of the Bubble of Reality, and can go on to explore transcendent Ideality*2. Does that notion offend your Immanentist sensibilities, as it does for 180? Does Quantum Physics contradict your Materialist worldview? Let me know if the italicized beliefs do not apply to you.

What was your motivation for posting this topic : "I'm interested in conversations about more sophisticated and philosophical accounts of theism"? I don't know exactly what you mean by "more sophisticated", but my amateur philosophical thesis is a unique, non-religious "account" not of Theism, but of Deism*3*4. Is that sophisticated enough for you? :smile:


*1. What is a singularity? :
A singularity is a point in spacetime where the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, break down. It's a region of infinite density and curvature.
In the context of the Big Bang, it refers to the initial state of the universe, a point of infinite density and temperature from which the universe expanded.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+singularity+mathematical
Note --- An infinite state has no place for space or time. But then Mathematical Logic is not restricted to space-occupying Matter, or change-causing Time. So, it can in theory be applied to reasoning beyond the beginning, into such philosophical notions as First Cause.

*2. Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
# Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
# Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. Deist :
Deism can be described as a rational, science-based worldview with pragmatic reasons for believing in a non-traditional non-anthro-morphic deity, rather than a faith-based belief system relying on the imaginative official myths of a minor ancient culture. So a Deist does not live by faith, but by reason. However, on topics where science is still uncertain (see Qualia), Deists feel free to use their reasoning powers to develop plausible beliefs that lie outside the current paradigm.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Ha! :grin:
That's the exact opposite of my childhood religious experience. — Gnomon
I'm glad to hear it. :up: — Tom Storm

Thanks. Now that we have established that my philosophical worldview is not a religious search for a "safe place" in heaven, let's consider what it actually is. And what it does not entail.

Because of his history of harshly deprecating ideas that don't fit his personal (immanent) worldview --- seen from inside our directly knowable bubble world --- I don't reply to 's saracastic, supercillious & science-based diatribes against the philosophical concept of Transcendence. Therefore, since you are more reasonable, I will instead direct my response to you.

First, this is a philosophical forum, not a science symposium. So his assertion that it's not "physically necessary" to postulate a pre-bang Cause, in order to scientifically model our space-time universe, is beside the point of this thread about a complete philosophical account of the Creator God concept. Such a philosophical model must explain the source of Energy & Laws that produced the event originally described as-if an explosion of nothing into something*1.

He admits that our universe had a Big Bang beginning, hence is "ontologically contingent". But then asserts that " in no way entails that it had a 'beginning' or will 'end' ". Yet professional cosmologists have reached that very entailment*2. Note that "cold & empty" (heat death) is a return to the presumed original state of nothingness before the the hot & dense bang. What do you think? Is our universe Static & Eternal, or Dynamic & Destined to end?

Then, he declares that it's "more likely to be unbounded – without beginning or ending". That may be true, but the description fits the image of a bubble of space-time expanding from the initial Singularity out into the nothingness of Eternity. We are inside the bubble and can't get out. So, in that sense we are bounded by the limits of physical Reality. Yet. our spooky minds can imagine a view from outside our physical prison. {image below}

How would you characterize his characterization of A.N. Whitehead's Progressive Process worldview :
"Occult teleology (i.e woo-of-the-gaps)". Does that sound like a rational philosophical argument to you? :smile:


*1. Yes, the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the beginning of space-time. It proposes that the universe originated from a single, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded and evolved into the cosmos we observe today.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+the+most+generally+accepted+scientific+hypothesis+for+the+beginning+of+space-time+is+the+Big+Bang+theory

*2. While the Big Bang theory suggests a beginning, it also proposes that the universe is expanding and accelerating, potentially leading to a Big Freeze, where it becomes cold and empty.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+the+universe+have+a+beginning+and+an+end

*3. "In Einstein's book about relativity, he says that his theory predicts that the shape of the universe would be finite but unbounded. . . .
Extending the idea to 4D spacetime in an intuitive way is difficult, but one could think of a finite, unbounded Universe as one in which, if you travel long enough in the same direction in spacetime, you come back to where you began, rather than reaching the 'edge of the Universe'."
Note --- Bounded : You can't get out of this world alive.

YOU ARE INSIDE THE BUBBLE UNIVERSE.
Only a transcendent entity gets this view from outside space-time

No, I don't imply that, since I don't know whether you have a positive worldview or not. To me, it seems like you're working terribly hard to overcome a wounding experience in a fundamentalist religion. I'm not sure I would call that positive. Perhaps it's a determined effort to find somewhere safe? — Tom Storm

Ha! :grin:
That's the exact opposite of my childhood religious experience. The Johnathan Edwards quote in my last post was an expression of extreme Calvinism. He focused on our "fallen" nature, as compared to the perfection of God. Hence he imagined that God would be so offended by the sinfulness of creatures created in his own image, that the Creator would gladly exterminate them in the waste-basket of eternal hell-fire. So, if I had been exposed to such a religion, I might indeed be psychically wounded.

By contrast, my small independent church was locally governed by untrained elders, not indoctrinated priests or pastors. So there was no institutional creed, and we were encouraged to freely interpret the Bible, using god-given reason. My little church was Fundamentalist (Arminianism) only in the sense that it believed and taught that the Bible, not the Pope-led Roman institution, was the sole authority on God's intention for the creation.

Ironically, as I began to exercise that rational freedom, I learned that the New Testament was actually Imperial Catholic propaganda, and not the revealed Word of God. So, I gradually evolved away from my youthful bible-based belief system. Yet as I learned more about secular Science, I realized that some kind of First Cause (pre-big-bang) or G*D was logically necessary to make sense of our contingent world, evolving toward some unknown Destination.

My philosophical & scientific self-education continued over the rest of my life, without any formal training, except for basic courses in the four subdivisions of Science. My only philosophical course in college was Logic, which was a math requirement. Since I retired though, this forum has been my philosophical Academy & Lyceum. So, my personal worldview has been tested by plenty of opposing opinions.

Although I am aware of the incomplete evolution of Nature, and the faults & failings of nascent human Culture, my worldview is generally positive. I sometimes refer to it as "Pragmatic Idealism". My knowledge of the mundane practical aspect of Reality comes from physical Science --- including materialistic Chemistry, and semi-material Quantum Physics. But the impractical theoretical knowledge of immaterial Ideality*1 stems from my self-education in Philosophy. So, my "safe place" is in my own mind.

Did Plato & Aristotle have a "positive" worldview? Obviously, Plato's imaginary Ideal realm was a metaphor to strive toward, not an ivory-tower imaginary Utopia. Likewise, my worldview is similar to Whitehead's open-ended "Process" toward some tantalizing ultimate unknown goal. It's also similar to Plato's 2500 year old philosophy of Eudaimonia*2, except that his notion of a Soul, separate from the body, is interpreted in terms of modern Information theory : it's all information, all the way down. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're welcome to peruse the Enformationism website & blog*3. :nerd:



*1. Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
A. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
B. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Plato's worldview :
while sometimes seen as idealistic, contains several elements that can be interpreted as positive and contribute to a hopeful outlook on life and society. Here are some key aspects:

# Pursuit of the Good and Happiness (Eudaimonia):
Plato, like Aristotle, emphasized the concept of eudaimonia, which translates to "happiness" or "flourishing". He believed that true happiness results from the virtuous pursuit of one's potential and living in accordance with reason and moral virtue. The four cardinal virtues – wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice – are seen as essential for a happy life.
# Emphasis on Reason and Knowledge:
Plato highly valued reason as the guiding principle for a balanced and virtuous life, believing it should govern emotions and desires. He saw ignorance as the root of unethical behavior and stressed the importance of knowledge. His famous quote, "the unexamined life is not worth living," underscores the value of critical self-examination and philosophical inquiry.
# Belief in a Higher Reality and the Forms:
Plato's Theory of Forms proposes a higher, perfect, and unchanging reality beyond the physical world, which can offer a sense of hope and meaning. The Forms, including the Form of the Good, are considered the ultimate source of existence and knowledge, providing a basis for objective truth and moral standards.
# Vision of a Just Society:
In The Republic, Plato explored the concept of justice and the structure of an ideal state that promotes the well-being of its citizens. He believed that justice is achieved when individuals fulfill their proper roles, leading to a harmonious society.
# Positive View of Death:
Through Socrates, Plato presented a positive belief in death, viewing it as a potential liberation of the soul from the body. This perspective encourages courage in facing the unknown and highlights the eternal nature of the soul.

In summary, Plato's positive worldview includes the pursuit of a virtuous and happy life through reason and knowledge, the existence of a higher reality providing a foundation for truth and morality, the vision of a just society, and a courageous acceptance of death. These ideas continue to influence philosophical discussions on ethics and the meaning of existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+positive+worldview

*3. BothAnd Blog https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page50.html
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page37.html

A scientific account doesn’t describe life as an “accident” in any meaningful sense. It simply explains that life arose through natural processes. To call it an “accident” is to impose a value-laden metaphor onto a description that is, at its core, neutral. — Tom Storm

I agree. But I suspect that those who describe Cosmic Evolution as "accidental" do intend to imply a negative value opposed to the notion of intentional divine creation. Randomness is indeed a necessary function of physical & biological evolution. But so is Natural Selection, which implies a positive goal-oriented value. Darwin used future-focused human breeders as examples of selecting plants & animals for desirable qualities in next generations. Those YinYang dual functions work together to produce novel forms, and to test them for conformance to specified values of suitability for human purposes : Fitness. The mechanism of Progressive Evolution appeared, even to Darwin, as-if "designed" to create new generations with higher levels of Fitness (a value-laden metaphor). "To Evolve" simply means to develop in cycles & gradations ; but the term can be assigned either positive & negative values, depending on the worldview of the speaker.

For example, on this forum, some posters respond to "God" questions with scathing negativity. And their low opinion of "the creation" is expressed by denigrating the supposed pinnacle of divine creativity : god-fearing upright apes. Moreover, their devaluation of humanity is expressed in harsh god-like judgements : as when Adam & Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden for daring to dabble in Morality (knowledge of Good & Evil). For example, pastor Jonathan Edwards, in his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", described those moralizing apes, created in the image of God, as "loathesome insects"*1. Ironically some Atheists & Antinatalists ask sarcastically, "is this --- barely moral homo sapiens --- the best that creation or natural evolution can offer?"

Personally, my "value-laden metaphors" would tend to be more positive, since the progression of Evolution did not stop with ape morality. And the burden of justice for post-industrial-age apes has shifted to the artificial Cultures & civil laws that have evolved beyond Material chemical complexity into the realm of Mental standards of civilization. Which some of us still violate to this day. :smile:


*1. "O sinner! The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked."
https://gracequotes.org/quote/o-sinner-the-god-that-holds-you-over-the-pit-of-hell-much-as-one-holds-a-spider-or-some-loathsome-insect-over-the-fire-abhors-you-and-is-dreadfully-provoked-his-wrath-towards-you-burns-like-fir/

For Whitehead, I think the divine aim is creativity, higher degrees of complexity, awareness and experience. . . . . There is creation and destruction but the overall path seems to be higher levels of complexity, intensity of experience and creative advance. — prothero

"Divine Aim" is a controversial concept in modern philosophy. But, if you combine physical Cosmology with biological Evolution, it's obvious that the universe started with almost nothing but cosmic Potential, and gradually created Matter (the neatly organized table of elements) from raw amorphous Energy (power to cause change) and Natural Laws (limitations on change), then complexified each stage (suprasystems) of evolution, until Awareness & Experience emerged in the most recent step toward some unpredictable "higher degree" of organization.

So, what was the Big Bang shot-in-the-dark aiming at? As you suggested, complexity & consciousness seem to be on the increase --- at least on the only planet we can observe directly. Yet, some focus their criticism on the pruning effects of natural selection on the fractal branches of creation, including mass extinctions of organisms, and the prophesied anthropogenic Apocalypse. Nevertheless, the "overall path" seems to be an upward curve tending toward some ultimate Omega Point {image below}. Personally, I wouldn't call that ultimate goal the "Cosmic Christ", but the general implication seems to be in the ballpark.

I would also hesitate to predict the transition to a "new state of existence" or "technological transcendence" as postulated by Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near". So, I'm content to accept the non-specific notion of an "aim" or Final Cause guiding the path of evolution. I'll let others prophesy about the details of that a> Ultimate End or b> New Beginning or c> Heat Death. But, I can accept Aristotle's inference that a First & Final Cause (G*D??) is necessary for us to make sense of what's going on. :smile:



*1. "Upward evolution" can refer to two concepts: a general direction of increasing complexity and sophistication in biological or social systems, or a specific type of evolutionary process where systems grow through the development of successive suprasystems, according to Brill. In the former, it's often associated with the idea that evolution has led to increased complexity and sophistication over time. In the latter, it's a specific process where systems develop by adding layers of organization above existing structures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=upward+evolution

*2. The "Omega Point" is a concept, originating in the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, that describes a future state of the universe where all things are drawn towards a final point of unification and maximum complexity. It's often compared to the Christian Logos, or Christ, who draws all things into himself. The Omega Point is considered a point of spiritual or cosmic significance, potentially marking the end of evolution or a transition to a new state of existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=omega+point

No. We all see what we want to see. The point of philosophy, as I see it, is to notice what we've overlooked. But how do we get there? That's rhetorical: no need for an answer. — Tom Storm

I agree. So, here's my rhetorical response to "how do we get there?" :
Humans are inclined to accept new information that fits neatly into the current worldview of their social group, whether religious or political or scientific. Such naive tribal certainty tends to result in social conflict between neighboring faith communities. That's why Philosophy, especially Skepticism, was designed to dig into belief systems below the superficial stuff, down to the fundamentals. For Aristotle, perhaps the most fundamental force in the world is the First Cause that set us on the course we now see more clearly, due to the filled-in details of scientific cosmology.

For my own personal worldview, one "overlooked" force in both physics and metaphysics is Information. Which my thesis heretically labels as EnFormAction (Energy + Laws ; Causation + Direction). Physical science has only recently recognized the connection between Active Energy and Meaningful Information*1. My philosophical thesis follows this creative relationship from Big Bang to Atomic Bomb, and Singularity to Single-Mindedness. Yet, I discovered later that A.N. Whitehead had already described this innovative Process in his seminal book, Process and Reality. There, he refers to the First & Final Cause as "God", in a functional philosophical sense, not as a faithful religious belief.

His computer-like Process is not a fait-accompli miracle, but a slowly-evolving trial & error search pattern for some ultimate outcome, apparently defined only in terms of properties & qualia & values, that we can't express in conventional words & numbers. Materialistic Philosophy deliberately overlooks creativity in Nature, due to its historical implications of divine intervention into physical processes. But in my thesis, and Whitehead's, the creativity is built into the program from the beginning. As you said, "we see what we want to see" --- what conforms to our prior belief system. And Materialism is a metaphysical belief system, that guides the believer's eyes toward confirming or contradicting information. It's a good guide for analytical Chemistry, but not for Quantum Physics, or mental Philosophy. :nerd:


*1. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

If pushed, and speaking from a human perspective, you might say the world appears designed and calibrated for dysfunction and suffering: children with cancer, mass starvation, natural disasters, a clusterfuck of disease and disorder wherever you look. Not to mention the defective psychology of humans. But I don't believe this theory either. Things may appear a certain way to us because we want to believe. We are sense-making creatures compelled to find or impose an overarching narrative on everything. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry that's the "narrative" you impose on the world, "from a human perspective". But it "overlooks" a lot of good stuff that gets left out of the lurid tabloid news, and post-apocalyptic dystopian movies. In a competition for who feels the pain of the world most deeply, I would lose by default. That's because I wear a pain-coat called myopic Stoicism*2, which focuses attention on what is within my arm's length, and lets anything beyond that fade into the painless background. :wink:


*2. Happiness : A powerful Stoic quote is "You have power over your mind – not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength." This quote, attributed to Marcus Aurelius, emphasizes that while we cannot control external circumstances, we can control our reactions to them, which ultimately determines our happiness and strength. This quote highlights the importance of focusing on what is within our control, which is our thoughts and actions, rather than dwelling on things we cannot change.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stoic+quotes

You may not have intended it this way, but that comes across as both dismissive and irrelevant. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry if it came across that way. But I was indirectly agreeing with your conclusion : "I think this is the best time to be alive". I even added a second PS, that may apply, if you get your bad news first hand. In my retirement gig, I now get to experience some of the "real world" in the urban ghettos of Chocolate City, as contrasted with Vanilla Suburb. Not to mention the napalming of Vietnam.

But you seemed to imply that my somewhat positive worldview is based on Faith instead of Facts*1. Yet I rejected the "overarching narrative" of my childhood and constructed a philosophical worldview of my own from scratch. If I "wanted to believe" a fairy tale, my native religion had a happy ending to look forward to. But my current view does not predict anything for me, beyond this not-so-good-not-so-bad lifetime.

My personal worldview happens to agree with A.N. Whitehead about the Teleological trend in evolution. Which seems to align with your "best time" quote above. Yet, my "real world" has both Good & Bad features. But, like Anne Frank, I choose not to dwell on the downside. :smile:

*1. Excerpt from your post above : "Things may appear a certain way to us because we want to believe. We are sense-making creatures compelled to find or impose an overarching narrative on everything."

Well that's your conclusion, not mine.
If pushed, and speaking from a human perspective, you might say the world appears designed and calibrated for dysfunction and suffering: children with cancer, mass starvation, natural disasters, a clusterfuck of disease and disorder wherever you look. — Tom Storm

FWIW, I'd suggest that you cut-back on your intake of Headline News. William Randall Hearst, magnate of the nation's largest media company, insightfully observed about the criteria for news publishing : "if it bleeds, it leads". Another version is "bad news sells". News outlets may have professional scruples about objectivity, but the bottom line says that the news industry is basically mass-market gossip and broadcast rumours. The function of Modern news networks is to collect information about "dysfunction and suffering: children with cancer, mass starvation, natural disasters, a clusterfuck of disease and disorder" from around the world, and funnel it into your eyes & ears.

Even a high-tone philosophy forum like TPF, contributes its share of bad news in the form of criticism of sinful human nature and design flaws of Nature. But look around you with your own eyes & ears and make note of the last time you personally witnessed --- from your own "human perspective", not the media perspective --- "dysfunction and suffering: children with cancer, mass starvation, natural disasters, a clusterfuck of disease and disorder". You might even find some not-so-bad news on Good News Network, The Optimist Daily, and DailyGood. But these outlets are financially marginal because good news is boring. Our survival-scanning minds seem to be tuned to look for the exceptions to the common routine, because that's where threats are most likely to come from.

Our modern cultures are far safer from the ancient threats of tooth & claw, but now imperiled mostly by imaginary evils brought into your habitat by the Pandora's Box of high-tech news media. Maybe we all need a Pollyanna Umbrella defense-mechanism from pollution of the mind. :wink:

PS___ Catholics are taught from infancy about Original Sin. But my anti-catholic Protestant upbringing did not interpret the Bible from that inherently pessimistic perspective. We were taught about Free Choice, not Predestination for Hell. Did that blind me to Satan's schemes?

PPS___ If you live in Gaza or Ukraine, a bit of pessimism about man's inhumanity to man is justifiable. But, if you live in shopping center Suburbia, lighten-up! :joke:


"Pessimism leads to weakness, optimism to power." ___ William James : noted for promoting a philosophy of Pragmatism

"I don't think of all the misery, but of the beauty that still remains." ___ Anne Frank : died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched". ___ Helen Keller : deaf & blind from birth

↪Gnomon
I meant useful in the sense of offering solace or salvation. — Janus

OK. But I interpreted "useless" to mean having no function or value. And "solace or salvation" seems to be the ultimate value for believers. So, the function of Faith is to get us to where our treasure is laid-up*1.

However, if this world of moth & rust & thieves is all we have to look forward to, then investing in "pie-in-the-sky" heaven would be a "white elephant" of no practical value. :smile:


*1. Value & Treasure :
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
___ Matthew 6:19-21

A scientific account doesn’t describe life as an “accident” in any meaningful sense. It simply explains that life arose through natural processes. To call it an “accident” is to impose a value-laden metaphor onto a description that is, at its core, neutral. — Tom Storm

Yes, but many people interpret the inherent randomness, indeterminacy, & uncertainty of quantum physics as a series of blundering accidents ; hence no divine intention or pre-destination. But there's another way to interpret the stochastic nature of Nature : it allows opportunities for novelty to emerge*1 from evolution, and the final outcome (the sum) is negotiable, un-decided until the the process is complete.

Evolution is not just a blindly meandering process*2, it's a progressive process. Not necessarily in the sense of Orthogenesis, but in terms of increasing complexity & novelty. The most obvious sign of creativity is the emergence of Life & Mind from a hypothetical primordial soup of meta-physical quarks & gluons. And the minds of those living creatures have introduced Purpose into the world. For some myth believers, their "higher" purpose is not just basic survival long enough to reproduce, but to thrive in a second chance at life.

Therefore, something is going on here that smacks of Teleology*3. That doesn't imply creation by divine fiat, for the purpose of producing sycophantic slaves of faith. But it does provide food for philosophical thought. A deterministic (cause & effect) universe would move quickly & directly to some predestined end : as in Genesis. Yet a lawful, but stochastic universe would erratically evolve by trial & error : Darwinian evolution*2. And the ultimate state of such a world would be unpredictable. So, purposeful people would have opportunities to pursue their own personal goals in their allotted lifetime. :smile:


*1.Emergence theory, in a nutshell, explains how complex systems can exhibit behaviors and properties that are not present in their individual components. It suggests that these emergent phenomena arise from the interactions and relationships between the parts, rather than being simply a result of their individual characteristics. Essentially, the "whole" is greater than the sum of its parts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=emergence+theory

*2. While the statement "evolution is blind" is often used to describe the process of natural selection, it's not entirely accurate. While mutations are random, the selection process itself is guided by environmental pressures and the interactions of organisms with their environment. This means that evolution is not entirely blind but rather a complex process involving both random variation and directed selection.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evolution+not+blind

*3. In Whitehead's philosophy, teleology, the idea of things having a purpose or end goal, is not about pre-ordained destiny, but about the dynamic and open-ended process of becoming. He viewed reality as a constant flux of actual entities (occasions of experience) that are continuously engaging with each other and co-creating new possibilities. This means that while there's a sense of ongoing creation and potential, there's no fixed endpoint or predetermined path for entities to follow.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+teleology

An unknowable divinity would seem to be useless to us — Janus

Perhaps, unless the deity is knowable by reason rather than revelation*1. That's what's called the "God of the Philosophers". For example, Spinoza imagined his God, not as transcendent, but immanent, serving as the very stuff of reality (substance ; being), which is otherwise inexplicable*2. And Whitehead describes his God as a "value creating process"*3. Which has evolved the human mind, as the only value-evaluating (usefulness) process in the world. :nerd:


*1. Whether it is "being-itself" (Scholastics) or the "universal substance" (Spinoza), whether it is "beyond subjectivity and objectivity" (James) or the "identity of spirit and nature" (Schelling), whether it is "universe" (Schleiermacher) or "cosmic whole" (Hocking), whether it is "value creating process" (Whitehead) or "progressive integration" (Wieman), whether it is "absolute spirit" (Hegel) or "cosmic person" (Brightman)-each of these concepts is based on an immediate experience of something ultimate in value and being of which one can become intuitively aware.
___Excerpt from your Tillich passage

*2. The Big Bang theory assumed, axiomatically, that Energy & Regulations preexisted the bang. And from that cosmic Energy, all the matter in the world evolved. So, the God of Cosmology is essentially Cause & Laws.

*3. In Whitehead's philosophy, the process of creating value involves the "subject-superject" concept, where every event is both experiencing and aiming for a future state. This "subjective aim" drives the experience towards its ultimate satisfaction and realization, which is intrinsically valuable. Value, for Whitehead, is not an external attribute but rather the intrinsic reality of an event and its enjoyment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead++value+creating+process

I think a lot of people share this intuition. I personally don’t and I don’t encounter any transcendent meaning in life or the universe as I understand it. What I do see is humans telling stories - stories that offer solace, meaning, and guidance for how to live.
To me, the idea that life is accidental or mindless isn’t necessary either. It doesn’t have to be a choice between God and Meaninglessness or theism versus nihilism. There’s perhaps a middle ground: a world where meaning is made, not given. — Tom Storm

Yes. Since I don't find the Judeo-Christian Bible or Islamic Koran plausible as the revealed word of God, I've been forced to create my own mythical story to establish the meaning of my own worthless life. It's intended to be a "middle ground", based on information & insights from Objective Science, Subjective Religions, and Rational Philosophy. My myth does not have a happy ending in transcendent Heaven, yet it does conclude that the evolution of Life & Mind from a mysterious Big Bang was not "accidental", but in some sense intentional*1. You could say that it's my own version of a "More Sophisticated, Philosophical Account of God". :smile:


*1. The idea that "life was not accidental" suggests that existence is not purely random or chaotic, but rather guided by a purpose or meaning, even if that purpose is not explicitly defined. This belief can be seen in various philosophical, religious, and personal contexts. . . .
The idea that "life is not accidental" can also be interpreted as a belief in the principle of cause and effect, where events are interconnected and influenced by preceding circumstances.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=life+was+not+accidental
Note --- Cause & Effect is not totally random or inconsequentially accidental, but reliably predictable. That's the assumption Science is based on.

The world as it appears to us is obviously understandable — Janus
Well, I don’t understand it, so there’s that. :razz: Logical fallacies aside, I suppose my intuition is that we understand some things. We’ve learned to make things work; we’ve developed remarkably effective models, tools, and narratives to account for what we observe. But does that amount to genuine understanding? — Tom Storm

This post seems to highlight the various ways of "understanding" the world : a> Science, in terms of objective matter, and b> Theology, in terms of unknowable divinity, and c> Secular Philosophy, in terms of direct human experience. Science has a Blind Spot*1 in that it knows the world by means of Mind, but cannot know the subjective tool objectively. That limitation of objectivity may be why ancient Philosophy began to turn the rational microscope toward the viewer : a crude "selfie" so to speak*2. Later, Medieval Theology*3 began to use philosophical methods to look behind the Self, in order to know the Mind of God.

But eventually, that attempt at double introspection became so effete that it's theories were comprehensible only by faith. So, the Enlightenment rebellion banned subjective Faith in favor of supposedly objective Empiricism. Yet, when hard evidence for mental phenomena (direct experience) proved unobtainable and indescribable in material terms, Modern Philosophy began to again use self-aware Reason to rationalize itself.

Unfortunately, as Hume noted, Reason can be the slave of the passions. Which is why Philosophical understanding requires a dispassionate perspective --- allowing mind to rise above body --- and a language based, as far as possible, on first principles instead of blind faith & selfish desires. Such self-knowledge & self-discipline may not amount to genuine or divine understanding, but it should make the material & mental world more understandable to our subjective experience. First know thyself, then put God under the microscope of reason. :smile:



*1. Blind Spot of Science :
But this image of science is deeply flawed. In our urge for knowledge and control, we’ve created avision of science as a series of discoveries about how reality is in itself, a God’s-eye view of nature.
Such an approach not only distorts the truth, but creates a false sense of distance between ourselves and the world. That divide arises from what we call the Blind Spot, which science itself cannot see. In the Blind Spot sits experience : the sheer presence and immediacy of lived perception
https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of-science-is-the-neglect-of-lived-experience

*2. Plato's psychology, particularly his Theory of the Soul, explored the nature of the human mind and its relationship to the body. He proposed a tripartite model of the soul, dividing it into reason (logistikon), spirit (thymoeides), and appetite (epithymetikon), which represent different aspects of human nature and often conflict with each other. Plato believed that a harmonious society and individual life required reason to rule over spirit and appetite.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+psychology

*3. Nick Spenser, theologian :
this essay, once it has done some necessary ‘explanation’, looks instead at one particular aspect of quantum theory, on which Ball touches frequently, and which I think is of real interest and relevance to theology: namely the business of using language to describe things that can’t really be described.
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/09/14/quantum-theology

God is the fellow traveler and sufferer of the world. God is persuasive and not coercive. God offers possibilities for creative advance but does not force outcomes. God is the poet of the world.
I personally like Whiteheads conception but no linguistic or verbal description can adequately capture the God. — prothero

Unlike Spinoza, Whitehead concluded that some Cause outside of our evolving spacetime Cosmos was necessary for a complete philosophical worldview. Surprisingly, he came to that conclusion before astronomers found evidence of an ex nihilo beginning to spacetime reality. Likewise, eons ago, Plato rationally inferred that a creation myth (Cosmos from Chaos) was necessary for his philosophical system, that ranked static*1 unchanging eternity above the dynamic ups & downs of mundane reality. Yet, all of these fleshless intellectual god-models may still not appeal to the non-philosophical mind.

So, Whitehead may have felt that some human-like attributes (personhood) would make his god-model more acceptable : "fellow traveler", "sufferer" , "persuasive", "poet", etc. Although I agree that such personal features make the invisible intangible deity more accessible to the imagination, I still find it hard to picture his otherwise ghostly God as an allegorical father in heaven. In any case, an immanent participating deity feels better than a theological formless featureless apophatic*2 God that can only be described in terms of what it's not (e.g. Infinite : no spacetime definition). However, I don't take any of these metaphors literally.

Hard-core Materialists can't accept the notion of ex nihilo (something from nothing) world creation , so they envision a tower-of-turtles reality, where one evolving world stands on the back of another material world. But my worldview is based on causal Information, not malleable matter. So, I can accept Plato's notion of a formless, self-existent, ineffable, First Cause or omni-potential Chaos*1. That's closer to a mathematical concept than a material myth. :smile:


*1. What is the fundamental state of Statistics?
Statistics and spacetime, while seemingly disparate, have a surprisingly intricate relationship in modern physics. Statistics, in its core, deals with the probability distribution of data, while spacetime, as described by general relativity, is a dynamical, curved 4-dimensional structure where gravity is a manifestation of spacetime curvature. The intersection arises in the realm of quantum gravity and the statistical nature of spacetime itself, particularly in models involving quantum black holes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=statistics+vs+spacetime
Note --- Most practicing statisticians think of their field only in terms of given data. But theoretically, the unspecified state of mathematical potential, containing all possible data, is necessarily infinite & unbounded. Plato's Chaos is essentially a Statistical black hole containing infinite possibilites.

*2. Apophatic theology :
Augustinian Negative theology, attempts to understand God by stating what He is not rather than what He is. It's a theological approach that acknowledges the limitations of human language and reason in fully grasping the divine nature. The point of apophatic theology is to move beyond conceptual understanding and towards a more mystical or intuitive experience of God, recognizing that true understanding is often found in what cannot be expressed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=apophatic
Note --- As you said, "no linguistic or verbal description" can adequately define a transcendent God.

This does not mean that the forms are occult entities floating ‘somewhere else’ in ‘another world,’ a ‘Platonic heaven.’ It simply says that the intelligible identities which are the reality, the whatness, of things are not themselves physical things to be perceived by the senses, but must be grasped by reason. — Eric D Perl, Thinking Being, p28
So much of this has actually filtered through to the way we understand the world today - after all the Greek philosophers are foundational to Western culture. So to understand principles, to see why things are the way they are, is to see a 'higher reality' in the sense that it gives you a firmer grasp of reality than those who merely see particular circumstances. Indeed the scientific attitude is grounded in it, with the caveat that all of Plato's writings convey a qualitative dimension generally absent from post-Galilean science. — Wayfarer

Like Plato & Kant, due to the Materialistic bias of our language, I have been forced to borrow or invent new words (neologisms) to describe Metaphysical*1 concepts that don't make sense in Physical terms. In my Enformationism thesis, I describe those "occult entities" as Virtual or Potential things. I'm appropriating terms that scientists use to describe not-yet-real particles and incomplete electrical circuits for use as metaphors of un-real Forms. At my advanced age, I am still learning the lingo.

The physical focus of ordinary language may be why Plato & Aristotle used allegories & metaphors to convey the idea of unseen things. That's also why Jesus spoke in parables about spiritual notions. Whereas Plato spoke of a "higher reality", I coined the term Ideality*2 to convey the same idea, without confusing it with mundane Reality. You could say, metaphorically, it's a parallel dimension of Qualia, yet it exists side-by-side with the phenomenal world as noumenal notions in rational minds. Unfortunately such abstruse language makes philosophy enigmatic for those who don't speak Jargon or Klingon. :smile:


*1. Meta-physics :
Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
#. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
#. Some modern idealists find that quantum scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an indefinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A traditional name for that infinite fertile field is G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Personally I find most philosophers’ conceptions of God are hollow shells that barely outline any type of entity; or they are anthropomorphic wishful thinking, slapping a face and personality on something that did not ask for it, like “being” or “the one” or “necessity”.
My sense is, if it’s a question of God, it is a question of personhood, — Fire Ologist

God-like powers without personhood*1 is what we call Nature, Universe, Cosmos . Traditional polytheistic notions of gods --- (Zeus {weather} ; Ceres {grain} ; Persephone {seasons} ; Bacchus {wine, orchards} --- gave unique personalities to sub-components of Nature-in-general. Viewed as the impersonal physical universe though, Nature doesn't do anything in particular, but everything in general. So, it's the specialized aspects of Nature that seem more personal and intentional : as when lightening strikes your house.

That may be why the image of a mercurial divine king on a heavenly throne makes more sense to common people than the timeless-spaceless-personless notion of strict Monotheism, and the abstract everything everywhere concept of Cosmos*2. But for rational philosophers, a broader non-specific definition may seem more plausible. That's why I think A.N. Whitehead's PanEnDeistic God may be an appropriate update of Plato's universal Cosmos*3. :smile:


*1. Five requirements for Personhood :
Next, “The Cognitive Criteria of Personhood” was created by Mary Anne Warren in 1973, where she lists the five requirements for a person to exist. The criteria includes consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, ability to communicate and self-awareness.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/personhood-explained/

*2. Cosmos :
Ancient Greek: κόσμος, romanized: kósmos) is an alternative name for the universe or its nature or order. Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
Note --- Plato described the creation of our world allegorically, as the emergence of a pocket of organized space-time-energy-law (cosmos) within a larger expanse of random-but-potential nothingness (chaos). This was a functional, instead of personal, kind of Creator. As a logic-worshiping philosopher, Plato may have preferred that simple rational abstract practical definition over the crazy quarrelsome pantheon of Greek gods.

*3. Whitehead's God :
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the on-going process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

↪Gnomon
Plato’s so-called ‘Forms’ might be better understood as principles of intelligibility —not ghostly objects in another realm, but the structural grounds that make anything knowable or what it is. To know something is to grasp its principle, to see what makes it what it is.

And they’re neither objective - existing in the domain of objects - nor subjective - matters of personal predilection. That is why they manifest as universals — Wayfarer

Thanks for that insight. I hope you'll pardon me for my layman's playful use of less technical terms for discussing "spooky" invisible concepts that are only apparent to highly intelligent beings. Although Principles are of primary importance for philosophers, they may be un-intelligible to non-philosophers. I suppose that all humans have some minimal ability to broadly categorize their environment, but only a few go so far as to break it down into fundamental (essential) concepts for understanding (intellectual comprehension). For example, most people can count up to ten, but only a few can deal with infinities & differentials.

We tend to broadly categorize obvious things, and their essential forms, into either Objective (material things) or Subjective (mental experiences). But, as you implied, Universals may be an overarching third class of knowables, and yet we only know them via rational extrapolation from objective observation. They are not obvious, but must be discovered (revealed) by means of rational work.

In my own profession, engineers view "structure" in terms of invisible force relationships (e.g. gravity, wind, earthquake), while laymen think of "structure" in terms of obvious beams, columns, and bricks. Engineer's design diagrams symbolize those unseen forces with vectors (arrows), which might be called "principles of intelligibility" or symbols (ideograms ; mind pictures) that stand-in for the physical flow of forces that our senses cannot detect directly. Likewise, the Form "Justice" is symbolized by a conventional word, that allows the mind to make invisible political inter-relationships intelligible. :smile:


In philosophical discussions, intelligibility refers to what the human mind can understand, contrasting with what can be perceived by the senses. Intelligible forms, according to ancient and medieval philosophers, are the abstract concepts used for understanding, such as genera and species, as opposed to concrete objects. The intelligible realm, as conceptualized by Plato, includes mathematics, forms, first principles, and logical deduction. Kant's work also explores the relationship between the sensible and intelligible realms, and the principles governing each.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=forms+principles+of+inteligibility

Your depiction of the forms is something of a caricature. All I can say is, do more readings. — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm sure you are not used to thinking of Forms in such irreverent terms. But my ignorant subjective/objective question about ideal Forms vs real Things, is "which is the caricature, and which is the original"? Did Plato discover the Forms, or did he invent them? It's just a rhetorical thought, no need to answer. :wink:

PS___ Did Moses discover God's (formerly concealed) ideal laws on the mountain, or did he invent them? It's a question about authorship. :joke:


Plato's "Forms" are not discovered in the sense of being found by exploration. Instead, they are understood through a process of philosophical reasoning, particularly through dialectical reasoning (questioning and discussion). Plato believed that the Forms are eternal, unchanging, and the ultimate reality, and our understanding of them is a matter of recollection or intuitive grasp, not empirical discovery.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+discovered

While Moses's revelation is of eternal commandments, Plato's noetic apprehension of the Forms (especially the Form of the Good) is more intellectual ascent. — Wayfarer

What I'm still struggling with is the Subjective vs Objective nature of the Forms. Sure, Plato assures us that there is an ideal Concept, Pattern, Design of everything, but not in the Real world, so why should we believe him? As a professional designer myself, I like the idea that there is a perfect house for this couple, for example. But I've never even come close.

Kant reasoned his way to the Categorical Imperative of morality, and others generalized the Golden Rule. But Plato implies that there is a perfect universal Form, on a shelf in the heavenly treasury, corresponding to every thing and every idea in our imperfect world*1. Carried to an extreme, presumably, there is a perfect Pickle, that is not subject to personal taste. Ideal Perfection is a nice idea, but is it true in any verifiable sense? Why should we "intellectually assent" to his noetic notion of The Good? Was Good/God a poor designer, or is there a good reason for the sorry state of our local world, after 14B years of development?

I suppose the reason I'm quibbling is because an atheist or materialist would deny that anything is perfect in our randomized accidental world. Karl Marx wanted to make the material world better, but did he envision a perfect Utopia? Why is perfection always unattainable? Why is Reality so screwed up? Why did God/Good create an inferior world of shoddy things, and keep the quality stuff for himself in Form Heaven? I'm talking like an a-form-ist here, so I can learn to answer such skeptical questions.

Back to Objectivity, would any two people agree on what constitutes an Ideal Dog? Or an ideal God? :wink:


*1. The Forms are not limited to geometry. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse, Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms

*2. Moral & Mathematical Forms :
"So I believe that morality is something that's discovered, in the same manner that pure mathematics discovers universal truth : it's not within us but out there."
Philosophy Now magazine p64 (April 2025)

Many would say that Plato and Moses were completely different historical types — Wayfarer

Ha! I didn't mean to equate them as "historical types", such as a messianic prophet. I imagined them as more like analogous divine intermediary types, handing down the Truth of God (Laws vs Forms) to ordinary mortals.

I was just using Moses as an example of a system-maker whose supposedly divine rules were accepted on the basis of his designated authority as an interpreter of divine intentions. A more modern formal system is the notion of Natural Law that is based on the authority of secular Science, not any particular person. Hence, the ultimate authority is Nature (ultimate Reality ; Pantheos) itself, and scientists are merely self-designated interpreters. Moses' system of Divine Laws was built upon the ultimate authority of God (Ideality), and Moses was simply his messenger. Likewise, Plato's system of eternal Forms was also supposed to reveal True Reality (Ideality) that was unknown by ordinary people. So the ultimate author of those Forms was not Plato, but Nature, or God, or Good*1.

Anyway, it looks like I'm forced to answer my own poorly-formed amateur philosopher query : "My question is this : did Plato ever imply that his ethical rules (Forms) had something like divine authority?" Apparently, the answer is a provisional Yes : Plato wrote the books, but implied that the ultimate author is the essential principle of Perfect Good, and Plato is his messenger*2. Just as the Demiurge is the PanEnDeistic builder (enforcer) of our imperfect world, not of Forms, but of Things. Is that a plausible comparison of religious/philosophical system-builder, acting as intermediary for the ultimate law-maker?

Autocratic human rulers have always been aware that subjective rules are hard to enforce in a mob of independent thinkers. So, most societies & civilizations, until recently, have officially claimed that their laws are actually objective, and ideally universal, instituted not by the human on the national throne, but by the supreme God on a heavenly cathedra. Even modern secular societies may play lip service to something like Kant's Categorical Imperative : an objective universal principle that applies to all people everywhere all the time.

Perhaps Plato's perfect Forms were a similar attempt to overrule the varying opinions of quibbling quarreling philosophers with a "buck stops here" set of divine opinions, defined as perfect, unchanging, eternal verities. Surely, an ideal god-mind wouldn't create a not-yet-perfect, evolving, space-time world of relative truths and real things. Hence, the necessity for a subordinate (Demiurge) to blame for screwing-up God's divine plans. 2500 years later many of us still revere Plato as the revealer of the formal structure of the good-God's more perfect realm, for us mortals to strive for and fail. Or did he just make it all up from bits of previous philosophical systems, sans revelation? :smile:

PS___ This rambling notion, of how Ideal Forms were disclosed to humans as a supernatural system, still seems garbled, so I'll blame its imperfections on the semi-divine Demiurge we call material Evolution.


*1. In Plato's philosophy, the term "God" can be understood in a few different ways. Plato believed in a single, transcendent, and all-good being, which he often referred to as the Form of the Good. He also acknowledged the existence of other, lesser gods, often associated with the Greek pantheon, and saw them as divine beings, but not on the same level as the ultimate source of all good. Plato's concept of God also involves a Demiurge, a divine artisan who shaped the universe according to the Forms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato%27s+god

*2. Islamic Shahada : "There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his messenger"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada