Define God

[pood]

^To initiate the stars, the universe was in a state other than thermodynamic equilibrium.

And?

The universe escaped thermodynamic equilibrium once. It will do so again, unto eternity.

Evidence?

 

[Gospel]

The evidence for reason lies within itself.

The evidence for god lies withing the words of god.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hitchen's Razor. What can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

 

[bilby]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/proof-2

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Reality has a double aspect. On the one hand, there are reason, evolution and order. On the other, there are the irrational, entropy and chaos. These aspects are complementary: the one cannot exist without the other. However, it is the destiny of mankind to embrace reason over the irrational, evolution over entropy and order over chaos.

To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual.--Hegel

It is the destiny of mankind to go extinct.

This is the dominant view today. It permeates science, politics and business. Accelerationists actually want to bring it about. It feeds indifference to destruction of the biosphere and it offers vain fantasies of off-world colonies. It creates apathy, depression and hopelessness. It is functionally identical to end-times doctrines of religion.

No, it's literally just a fact, and a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Every single species goes extinct eventually. And you're already contradicting yourself by suggesting it offers "vain fantasies of off-world colonies", that would still be a form of hope. Thirdly, I don't know why I'm pointing this out to you for the millionth time, but there's no reason we have to be depressed about the Universe being purposeless. That's made up. If we are to accept logic and reason, then it wouldn't exactly make sense to have a mental breakdown over the purposeless of the Universe. Fourthly, the most vain thing humans do is consider themselves special and/or divinely created. Much of human suffering has been caused by those with over-inflated egos, and thus an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

 

[bilby]

there's no reason we have to be depressed about the Universe being purposeless.

Indeed. And it would make zero difference to any of us if the universe had a purpose that will be revealed after the deaths of everyone currently alive.

Literally nobody you will ever meet will still be alive in two centuries.

Why should it matter personally whether the entire species goes extinct in two billion, two million, two thousand, or two hundred years?

From my personal perspective, the universe will end some time in the next sixty years, unless I break some records and/or there is some huge advance in medicine.

Obviously I care a bit about what happens after that to the people I know. I hope that my nephews and nieces, and any kids they might have in the future, will have nice lives. And I vaguely hope that things will go well for humanity indefinitely. But of course, that won't mean forever. And that's no cause for alarm, and no excuse for fucking things up for our descendants. It's just how things are - unless all of science is wrong (it's not, we checked).

I feel vaguely disappointed that I won't find out how it turns out - it's like starting a really good book, only to discover that the ending never got written. Which is not the end of the world, (except that it literally is).

 

[No Robots]

The Germans have a great word: Gattungswesen. This means generic essence. It corresponds with Plato's forms. Each life form is in essence an idea, an idea of God, and is infinite and eternal in its essence. The more closely an individual person identifies with the generic essence of man, the more that individual participates in its eternal and infinite essence. This is the foundation of Marx's philosophy. See for example Meikle's Essentialism in the thought of Marx and Waton's The Philosophy of Marx.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The Germans have a great word: Gattungswesen. This means generic essence. It corresponds with Plato's forms. Each life form is in essence an idea, an idea of God, and is infinite and eternal in its essence.

You can make all of the bullshit claims you want, you need evidence to support them. There's zero evidence any life form is "in essence an idea of god" and infinite/eternal. You're literally just saying something that sounds nice to you. And, once again, talk about vanity!

 

[pood]

The Germans have a great word: Gattungswesen. This means generic essence. It corresponds with Plato's forms. Each life form is in essence an idea, an idea of God, and is infinite and eternal in its essence. The more closely an individual person identifies with the generic essence of man, the more that individual participates in its eternal and infinite essence. This is the foundation of Marx's philosophy. See for example Meikle's Essentialism in the thought of Marx and Waton's The Philosophy of Marx.

Regrettably, there is zero evidence to support the existence of Plato’s forms. The rest of it is just ill-defined rhetoric. Are you talking about a literal god? A metaphorical god? The infinite and eternal — is this supposed to mean life after death, or again, something poetical, metaphorical? Or what?

 

[pood]

The Germans have a great word: Gattungswesen. This means generic essence. It corresponds with Plato's forms. Each life form is in essence an idea, an idea of God, and is infinite and eternal in its essence. The more closely an individual person identifies with the generic essence of man, the more that individual participates in its eternal and infinite essence. This is the foundation of Marx's philosophy. See for example Meikle's Essentialism in the thought of Marx and Waton's The Philosophy of Marx.

Regrettably, there is zero evidence to support the existence of Plato’s forms. The rest of it is just ill-defined rhetoric. Are you talking about a literal god? A metaphorical god? The infinite and eternal — is this supposed to mean life after death, or again, something poetical, metaphorical? Or what?

 

[pood]

Since Marx was an atheist, I have to assume your use of the word “god” is somehow metaphorical? Please clarify.

 

[pood]

I am actually not aware of any real connection between Marx and Plato in terms of their ideas. Again, maybe you could clarify.

 

[No Robots]

The Germans have a great word: Gattungswesen. This means generic essence. It corresponds with Plato's forms. Each life form is in essence an idea, an idea of God, and is infinite and eternal in its essence. The more closely an individual person identifies with the generic essence of man, the more that individual participates in its eternal and infinite essence. This is the foundation of Marx's philosophy. See for example Meikle's Essentialism in the thought of Marx and Waton's The Philosophy of Marx.

Regrettably, there is zero evidence to support the existence of Plato’s forms. The rest of it is just ill-defined rhetoric. Are you talking about a literal god? A metaphorical god? The infinite and eternal — is this supposed to mean life after death, or again, something poetical, metaphorical? Or what?

As Spinoza affirmed, God and Nature are one and the same. This is monism. In monism, thought and extension are two aspects of one and the same substance. Thought is omnipresent in the material world. Material objects are the expressions of ideas. Ideas originate in God, and God makes ideas manifest as material objects. Here is Waton:

It requires the height and universality of philosophy to perceive that all existence lives, moves and has its being in thought and in reason. Everyone according to the degree that he attained to reason, to that extent does he perceive the rationality of existence. Existence is rational. But existence is the manifestation of God. God manifests himself as existence, God is existence, God is everything in existence, and God [is] everywhere. Not only all realities and processes in existence live, move and have their being in God, but also God lives, moves and has his being in all realities and processes in existence. Just as the whole sun reflects itself in a drop of water, so God reflects himself in every reality, be it infinitely great or infinitesimally small. Once and for all, we must emancipate ourselves from the superstition that God is separate and above from the world; we must discard the notion that God created the world, then retired into his holy abode, and left the world to take care of itself. God did not create the world, God is the world, and God is eternally and infinitely in the world. If God should for an instant separate himself from the world, the world would at once cease to exist. God not only became the world, but God eternally and infinitely continues to be the world. We do not have to fly on the wings of thought to find God, just as we do not have to fly on the wings of thought to find space. God is everywhere and is everything.

Most people have a limited understanding and do not attain to the level of full rationality. For these people, only the material world is real. They do not see that reality has a double aspect: it is both thought and matter.

 

[No Robots]

I am actually not aware of any real connection between Marx and Plato in terms of their ideas. Again, maybe you could clarify.

Marx’s thought was developed in relation to that of Hegel. Marx saw himself as correcting Hegel’s idealism. He inverted it, conceiving history as a material process. Both Hegel and Marx erred in that they deviated from Spinoza’s monism. Here is Waton:

If Hegel and Marx had adequately comprehended Spinoza's philosophy, they would not fall into the error of assuming there is a causal relation between human consciousness and the material conditions of existence. The human consciousness, that is, his mind, is a mode of the attribute thought; and the body and the material conditions of existence are modes of the attribute extension. And, just as there is no causal relation between the attributes, thought and extension; so there is no causal relation between human consciousness and the body and the material conditions of existence.

According to Waton, all that is required now is to unite Hegel and Marx and we will have an adequate understanding of history.

All that being said, it is clear that Marx never completely eliminated thought from his materialism. He wrote about philosophy being the spiritual weapon of the proletariat, for example. He also based his understanding of man on the notion of Gattungswesen, generic essence. Essentialism is inherently conceptual and ultimate leads to the philosophic question of essence itself, which is the core of Plato's theory of forms.

 

[pood]

The Germans have a great word: Gattungswesen. This means generic essence. It corresponds with Plato's forms. Each life form is in essence an idea, an idea of God, and is infinite and eternal in its essence. The more closely an individual person identifies with the generic essence of man, the more that individual participates in its eternal and infinite essence. This is the foundation of Marx's philosophy. See for example Meikle's Essentialism in the thought of Marx and Waton's The Philosophy of Marx.

Regrettably, there is zero evidence to support the existence of Plato’s forms. The rest of it is just ill-defined rhetoric. Are you talking about a literal god? A metaphorical god? The infinite and eternal — is this supposed to mean life after death, or again, something poetical, metaphorical? Or what?

As Spinoza affirmed, God and Nature are one and the same. This is monism. In monism, thought and extension are two aspects of one and the same substance. Thought is omnipresent in the material world. Material objects are the expressions of ideas. Ideas originate in God, and God makes ideas manifest as material objects. Here is Waton:

It requires the height and universality of philosophy to perceive that all existence lives, moves and has its being in thought and in reason. Everyone according to the degree that he attained to reason, to that extent does he perceive the rationality of existence. Existence is rational. But existence is the manifestation of God. God manifests himself as existence, God is existence, God is everything in existence, and God [is] everywhere. Not only all realities and processes in existence live, move and have their being in God, but also God lives, moves and has his being in all realities and processes in existence. Just as the whole sun reflects itself in a drop of water, so God reflects himself in every reality, be it infinitely great or infinitesimally small. Once and for all, we must emancipate ourselves from the superstition that God is separate and above from the world; we must discard the notion that God created the world, then retired into his holy abode, and left the world to take care of itself. God did not create the world, God is the world, and God is eternally and infinitely in the world. If God should for an instant separate himself from the world, the world would at once cease to exist. God not only became the world, but God eternally and infinitely continues to be the world. We do not have to fly on the wings of thought to find God, just as we do not have to fly on the wings of thought to find space. God is everywhere and is everything.

Most people have a limited understanding and do not attain to the level of full rationality. For these people, only the material world is real. They do not see that reality has a double aspect: it is both thought and matter.

OK. To sort this step by step, you don’t believe in a literal supernatural God, correct? What you and the people you cite appear to be arguing for is pantheism.

Marx was an atheist and not a pantheist either, so I don’t see how you connect the dots between pantheism, monism, Plato and Marx.

And finally, plenty of us are perfectly well aware that there is a serious question about the reality of the material or that matter is all that there is. The hard problem of consciousness already challenges this is a serious way.

 

[pood]

I am actually not aware of any real connection between Marx and Plato in terms of their ideas. Again, maybe you could clarify.

Marx’s thought was developed in relation to that of Hegel. Marx saw himself as correcting Hegel’s idealism. He inverted it, conceiving history as a material process. Both Hegel and Marx erred in that they deviated from Spinoza’s monism. Here is Waton:

If Hegel and Marx had adequately comprehended Spinoza's philosophy, they would not fall into the error of assuming there is a causal relation between human consciousness and the material conditions of existence. The human consciousness, that is, his mind, is a mode of the attribute thought; and the body and the material conditions of existence are modes of the attribute extension. And, just as there is no causal relation between the attributes, thought and extension; so there is no causal relation between human consciousness and the body and the material conditions of existence.

According to Waton, all that is required now is to unite Hegel and Marx and we will have an adequate understanding of history.

All that being said, it is clear that Marx never completely eliminated thought from his materialism. He wrote about philosophy being the spiritual weapon of the proletariat, for example. He also based his understanding of man on the notion of Gattungswesen, generic essence. Essentialism is inherently conceptual and ultimate leads to the philosophic question of essence itself, which is the core of Plato's theory of forms.

I see no connection between Marx and Plato. I see no evidence that Plato’s theory of forms is valid. Plato was an idealist (there are different forms of idealism) and Marx was a materialist and an atheist.

 

[pood]

Monism seems perfectly plausible if unprovable. The idea that we will ever have an “adequate understanding of history” strikes me as a gigantic pipe dream. The idea seems to be that there is some telos to history which is discoverable. There is no telos to history any more than there is to evolution.

 

[No Robots]

OK. To sort this step by step, you don’t believe in a literal supernatural God, correct? What you and the people you cite appear to be arguing for is pantheism.

"Pantheism" is a term coined to describe Spinoza's philosophy. It is reductive and misleading. Waton and others have pointed to the correspondence between Spinoza's philosophy and Kabbalah.

I don’t see how you connect the dots between pantheism, monism, Plato and Marx.

This is a relatively recent area of inquiry. I linked to Meikle's book, Essentialism in the thought of Marx. Here is Meikle:

A full explication of Marx’s essentialism and its connections with Aristotle and Hegel would require a great deal more detailed philosophical work, which this book does not attempt. That will be the matter of a subsequent work. The point of this book is to point towards the right methodological spirit in which to read Marx, and thereby to reveal the need for the more detailed work.

And finally, plenty of us are perfectly well aware that there is a serious question about the reality of the material or that matter is all that there is. The hard problem of consciousness already challenges this is a serious way.

The general approach nowadays is to reduce thought to an epiphenomenon of matter. This is antithetical to true monism, which maintains that thought and matter are co-extensive.

 

[pood]

OK. To sort this step by step, you don’t believe in a literal supernatural God, correct? What you and the people you cite appear to be arguing for is pantheism.

"Pantheism" is a term coined to describe Spinoza's philosophy. It is reductive and misleading. Waton and others have pointed to the correspondence between Spinoza's philosophy and Kabbalah.

How is it reductive and misleading? How does it differ from monism? Be specific. And what does the Kabbalah have to do with anything? Be specific. In your own words.

I don’t see how you connect the dots between pantheism, monism, Plato and Marx.

This is a relatively recent area of inquiry. I linked to Meikle's book, Essentialism in the thought of Marx. Here is Meikle:

A full explication of Marx’s essentialism and its connections with Aristotle and Hegel would require a great deal more detailed philosophical work, which this book does not attempt. That will be the matter of a subsequent work. The point of this book is to point towards the right methodological spirit in which to read Marx, and thereby to reveal the need for the more detailed work.

What is Marx’s essentialism? Be specific. How does it relate to Plato?

And finally, plenty of us are perfectly well aware that there is a serious question about the reality of the material or that matter is all that there is. The hard problem of consciousness already challenges this is a serious way.

The general approach nowadays is to reduce thought to an epiphenomenon of matter. This is antithetical to true monism, which maintains that thought and matter are co-extensive.

Here I am in some agreement. Reducing thought to an epiphenomenon of matter would be just fine if you could explain HOW that happens. We can’t, hence the hard problem of consciousness.

 

[No Robots]

I see no connection between Marx and Plato. I see no evidence that Plato’s theory of forms is valid. Plato was an idealist (there are different forms of idealism) and Marx was a materialist and an atheist.

Marx's atheism is an open question. Here is an early writing from him:

Thus the union with Christ imparts an inner exaltation, comfort in suffering, calm trust, and a heart full of love for humankind, open to everything noble, everything great, not out of ambition but for the sake of Christ. Thus the union with Christ imparts a joyousness which the Epicurean in his frivolous philosophy and the deep thinker in his most arcane science have vainly tried to snatch at, but which the soul can attain only through its unrestrained and childlike Union with Christ and God, which alone makes life more beautiful and exalted. "Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged [John 16:11]."

Marx was a prophet. He had no tolerance for religious forms or for material representations of God. His theories were deliberately presented as purely materialist, but he would never reduce the whole of reality to mere matter.