Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 16, 2018 14:07:27 GMT
The Case for Dialectical Monism
Dialectical monism is the view that all of reality is one thing. The same way the computer I am using is one thing and the chair I am sitting on is one thing. However the dialectical monist does not deny the existence of individual things within reality the same way a blender does not not contain individual things. A blender is made of individual things but is also a seperate thing (the blender). The same could but said for the constituents of all of reality, they are individual things but also make up another individual thing, reality (or the universe).
Everything in reality consists of atoms. Eberything may be very different on the surface but underneath we contain the same basic properties. All things in the universe are made of the same basic elements.
The whole of the universe is also connected. The universe could be said to be like a giant brick. A brick is an individual thing because it is composed of the same material everywhere in the brick and there is no spaces in between that individual brick (to the naked eye). If we were to split this brick in half it would be two bricks. The universes has no splits and everything in it is in constant contact with everything else in it. You cannot separate a chair from its surroundings, only move it through its surroundings. A chair is always in constant contact with the rest of reality whether it be in contact with the floor or in suspension while in contact with gases.
The Universe Is Omnipotent
Considering the universe is the sum total of all existing things it logically follows that the universe is the cause of all things that have happened, are happening and will happen. All things that have happened have been determined by the universe itself. The Universe has determined and will continue to determine the fate of all of reality, which is itself.
The Universe Is God
The idea of god is a vague one but most gods have the qualities of omnipotence and being responsible for the fate of mankind and the universe. Considering the universe is an individual thing the same way a blender is, it logically follows that the universe is god.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 16, 2018 14:18:29 GMT
You mean deism? For many nonbelievers, that's often the last step before atheism.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 16, 2018 15:47:30 GMT
Everything is indeed one thing in so far that we are 'are made from star dust' etc, etc. But that does not mean the necessity of an over-arching mind. In my experience the grander and vaguer the concept of 'god' grows by interpretation the less specific its supposed powers and character are. Ultimately 'god' can end up as a purely symbolic gesture towards a functioning reality of no recognisable aims or responsibilities.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 16, 2018 16:42:49 GMT
Everything is indeed one thing in so far that we are 'are made from star dust' etc, etc. But that does mean the necessity of an over-arching mind. In my experience the grander and vaguer the concept of 'god' grows by interpretation the less specific its supposed powers and character are. Ultimately 'god' can end up as a purely symbolic gesture towards a functioning reality of no recognisable aims or responsibilities. Who said anything about an "over-arching mind"?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 16, 2018 17:18:21 GMT
I don't think so. I think deism says the universe was created by God, instead of the universe being God. Dialectical Monism sounds to me like a particular variety of atheism (one that prefers to put the word "God" someplace in its scheme of things).
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Feb 16, 2018 17:23:51 GMT
have your god get in line.
i'm rather busy.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 19:20:31 GMT
If God is naturalistic and apersonal, how does that really differ in practice from an atheistic naturalist conception of reality?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 16, 2018 19:27:58 GMT
If God is naturalistic and apersonal, how does that really differ in practice from an atheistic naturalist conception of reality? Well my conception includes many views. Dialectical monism and the universe being omnipotent for example. But besides that, nothing really. Naturalistic pantheists are just consistent in how we use the term 'god', unlike atheists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 22:36:27 GMT
If God is naturalistic and apersonal, how does that really differ in practice from an atheistic naturalist conception of reality? "Dialectical monism" sounds more trendy and hipsterish.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 17, 2018 12:06:07 GMT
If God is naturalistic and apersonal, how does that really differ in practice from an atheistic naturalist conception of reality? "Dialectical monism" sounds more trendy and hipsterish. Yet it appears more of a one-size-fits-all approach to communication and a failed attempt at expedience.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 17, 2018 12:29:24 GMT
You mean deism? For many nonbelievers, that's often the last step before atheism. I suppose it's true that the more difficult to follow something becomes and the less impact it appears to have on daily decisions, the less priority many people will give it. There is a tendency to become increasingly agnostic, and that can be the last step before atheism. I think it's a path that rather remarkably incurious persons take. They prefer simple answers.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 17, 2018 15:39:12 GMT
tpfkar Well my conception includes many views. Dialectical monism and the universe being omnipotent for example. But besides that, nothing really. Naturalistic pantheists are just consistent in how we use the term 'god', unlike atheists. Atheists use of "god" tends to reflect the beliefs of whoever they're talking to. What!?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 11:23:38 GMT
All you are saying here is that "god" is another word for "universe". Why bother? Why not just stop using the word "god" completely and use the word "universe" instead?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 18, 2018 15:49:08 GMT
Dialectical monism is the view that all of reality is one thing. The same way the computer I am using is one thing and the chair I am sitting on is one thing. However the dialectical monist does not deny the existence of individual things within reality the same way a blender does not not contain individual things. A blender is made of individual things but is also a seperate thing (the blender). The same could but said for the constituents of all of reality, they are individual things but also make up another individual thing, reality (or the universe). There's a problem already in that the idea of "computer" and "blender" being "one thing" is only "one thing" in the human mind. It's a category, a way in which the mind separates reality into entities that are relevant to its own existence. In reality, the blender and the chair and everything is just groups of particles in configuration space. So it would be more accurate to say that, from reality's perspective, reality is every particle in every position that it's in; reality being "one thing" can only be "one thing" from subjective categorical perspective. I might also mention that the particles that make everything up are not uniform either. The Universe Is Omnipotent Considering the universe is the sum total of all existing things it logically follows that the universe is the cause of all things that have happened, are happening and will happen. All things that have happened have been determined by the universe itself. The Universe has determined and will continue to determine the fate of all of reality, which is itself. Omnipotent would mean it could do everything, but it clearly can't as the universe is governed by laws. Just because it's the cause of everything doesn't mean it can cause anything (ie, omnipotence). This also doesn't really help to explain the cause of the universe (unless you're going with "the universe is eternal" or some other theory about why there needn't be a cause for the universe). The Universe Is God The idea of god is a vague one but most gods have the qualities of omnipotence and being responsible for the fate of mankind and the universe. Considering the universe is an individual thing the same way a blender is, it logically follows that the universe is god. [/b][/quote]Meh, this is just a semantics game. No need to call the universe "god" when we already have a name for it that doesn't lend itself to any possibility of confusion. Most concepts of God(s) involve conscious being(s).
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 18, 2018 17:17:48 GMT
Dialectical monism is the view that all of reality is one thing. The same way the computer I am using is one thing and the chair I am sitting on is one thing. However the dialectical monist does not deny the existence of individual things within reality the same way a blender does not not contain individual things. A blender is made of individual things but is also a seperate thing (the blender). The same could but said for the constituents of all of reality, they are individual things but also make up another individual thing, reality (or the universe). There's a problem already in that the idea of "computer" and "blender" being "one thing" is only "one thing" in the human mind. It's a category, a way in which the mind separates reality into entities that are relevant to its own existence. In reality, the blender and the chair and everything is just groups of particles in configuration space. So it would be more accurate to say that, from reality's perspective, reality is every particle in every position that it's in; reality being "one thing" can only be "one thing" from subjective categorical perspective. I might also mention that the particles that make everything up are not uniform either. The Universe Is Omnipotent Considering the universe is the sum total of all existing things it logically follows that the universe is the cause of all things that have happened, are happening and will happen. All things that have happened have been determined by the universe itself. The Universe has determined and will continue to determine the fate of all of reality, which is itself. Omnipotent would mean it could do everything, but it clearly can't as the universe is governed by laws. Just because it's the cause of everything doesn't mean it can cause anything (ie, omnipotence). This also doesn't really help to explain the cause of the universe (unless you're going with "the universe is eternal" or some other theory about why there needn't be a cause for the universe). [/b][/quote]Meh, this is just a semantics game. No need to call the universe "god" when we already have a name for it that doesn't lend itself to any possibility of confusion. Most concepts of God(s) involve conscious being(s). [/quote] Fair enough regarding your first paragraph. Although I am not sure how that is really a criticism of the idea of the universe being one thing. Omnipotence has varying definitions. Some definitions are just "the ability to do almost anything.". There is no reason to presume the universe is governed by laws as opposed to "Laws" being nothing more than empirical generalizations. Also the universe itself sets the laws so it definitely has godlike power. I am not sure how the cause of the universe is relevant here anymore than how Zeus was caused is relevant to whether he is a god. If you define the universe as the sum total of all existing things then yes obviously the universe is eternal. Nothing comes from nothing afterall. Nothingness/non-existence isn't even a coherent concept anyway. "Meh, this is just a semantics game. No need to call the universe "god" when we already have a name for it that doesn't lend itself to any possibility of confusion. Most concepts of God(s) involve conscious being(s)." No need to call chess a game when we already have a name for it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 18, 2018 17:30:41 GMT
There's a problem already in that the idea of "computer" and "blender" being "one thing" is only "one thing" in the human mind. It's a category, a way in which the mind separates reality into entities that are relevant to its own existence. In reality, the blender and the chair and everything is just groups of particles in configuration space. So it would be more accurate to say that, from reality's perspective, reality is every particle in every position that it's in; reality being "one thing" can only be "one thing" from subjective categorical perspective. I might also mention that the particles that make everything up are not uniform either. Omnipotent would mean it could do everything, but it clearly can't as the universe is governed by laws. Just because it's the cause of everything doesn't mean it can cause anything (ie, omnipotence). This also doesn't really help to explain the cause of the universe (unless you're going with "the universe is eternal" or some other theory about why there needn't be a cause for the universe). Meh, this is just a semantics game. No need to call the universe "god" when we already have a name for it that doesn't lend itself to any possibility of confusion. Most concepts of God(s) involve conscious being(s). Fair enough regarding your first paragraph. Although I am not sure how that is really a criticism of the idea of the universe being one thing. Omnipotence has varying definitions. Some definitions are just "the ability to do almost anything.". There is no reason to presume the universe is governed by laws as opposed to "Laws" being nothing more than empirical generalizations. Also the universe itself sets the laws so it definitely has godlike power. I am not sure how the cause of the universe is relevant here anymore than how Zeus was caused is relevant to whether he is a god. If you define the universe as the sum total of all existing things then yes obviously the universe is eternal. Nothing comes from nothing afterall. Nothingness/non-existence isn't even a coherent concept anyway. "Meh, this is just a semantics game. No need to call the universe "god" when we already have a name for it that doesn't lend itself to any possibility of confusion. Most concepts of God(s) involve conscious being(s)." No need to call chess a game when we already have a name for it. It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is. Well, yes, laws are empirical generalizations, but they also represent our best understanding of how reality behaves, and clearly there are some things that it doesn't do given those laws (or, at least, if it can we haven't observed them). I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first. It's possible they both came into existence from something more fundamental than either. Well, the universe can be referring to OUR universe, the sum of all (possible) universes, or all possible universes plus whatever reality might underlie the existence of those universes. It depends on which you're talking about. I guess if you mean the latter then, yes, either the universe would have to be eternal. I agree with you RE the incoherence of "nothing." Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?).
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 18, 2018 17:44:21 GMT
Fair enough regarding your first paragraph. Although I am not sure how that is really a criticism of the idea of the universe being one thing. Omnipotence has varying definitions. Some definitions are just "the ability to do almost anything.". There is no reason to presume the universe is governed by laws as opposed to "Laws" being nothing more than empirical generalizations. Also the universe itself sets the laws so it definitely has godlike power. I am not sure how the cause of the universe is relevant here anymore than how Zeus was caused is relevant to whether he is a god. If you define the universe as the sum total of all existing things then yes obviously the universe is eternal. Nothing comes from nothing afterall. Nothingness/non-existence isn't even a coherent concept anyway. "Meh, this is just a semantics game. No need to call the universe "god" when we already have a name for it that doesn't lend itself to any possibility of confusion. Most concepts of God(s) involve conscious being(s)." No need to call chess a game when we already have a name for it. It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is. Well, yes, laws are empirical generalizations, but they also represent our best understanding of how reality behaves, and clearly there are some things that it doesn't do given those laws (or, at least, if it can we haven't observed them). I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first. It's possible they both came into existence from something more fundamental than either. Well, the universe can be referring to OUR universe, the sum of all (possible) universes, or all possible universes plus whatever reality might underlie the existence of those universes. It depends on which you're talking about. I guess if you mean the latter then, yes, either the universe would have to be eternal. I agree with you RE the incoherence of "nothing." Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?). "It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is." Sure, I never presented it as anything else. Also labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'. "I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first." That doesn't really make sense to me. Physical laws are not like legal laws. They are not written down somewhere, separate from the actions of individuals themselves. Considering this I dont see how that could be possible as "laws are useful fictions like "centres of gravity" are. "Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?)." 'God' has a meaning and the meaning is the criteria for something being that something. By saying "The universe is god" you are implying the universe satisfies condition x, condition y etc. I dont see how that is not categorizing.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 19, 2018 3:14:02 GMT
It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is. Well, yes, laws are empirical generalizations, but they also represent our best understanding of how reality behaves, and clearly there are some things that it doesn't do given those laws (or, at least, if it can we haven't observed them). I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first. It's possible they both came into existence from something more fundamental than either. Well, the universe can be referring to OUR universe, the sum of all (possible) universes, or all possible universes plus whatever reality might underlie the existence of those universes. It depends on which you're talking about. I guess if you mean the latter then, yes, either the universe would have to be eternal. I agree with you RE the incoherence of "nothing." Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?). "It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is." Sure, I never presented it as anything else. Also labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'. "I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first." That doesn't really make sense to me. Physical laws are not like legal laws. They are not written down somewhere, separate from the actions of individuals themselves. Considering this I dont see how that could be possible as "laws are useful fictions like "centres of gravity" are. "Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?)." 'God' has a meaning and the meaning is the criteria for something being that something. By saying "The universe is god" you are implying the universe satisfies condition x, condition y etc. I dont see how that is not categorizing. Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect, and mistaking our conceptions of reality for how reality is is a particular mistake that many make constantly. When I'm talking about "laws coming first" I'm talking about whatever it is that causes reality to behave like it does. "Laws" are indeed just our descriptions of how it behaves, but it behaves how it does for some reason. Well, yes, God has a meaning but that meaning typically has connotations like "consciousness being" which the universe doesn't have. I don't really see how calling the universe "God" is adding anything meaningful that calling it the "universe" doesn't already cover.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 3:26:09 GMT
"It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is." Sure, I never presented it as anything else. Also labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'. "I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first." That doesn't really make sense to me. Physical laws are not like legal laws. They are not written down somewhere, separate from the actions of individuals themselves. Considering this I dont see how that could be possible as "laws are useful fictions like "centres of gravity" are. "Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?)." 'God' has a meaning and the meaning is the criteria for something being that something. By saying "The universe is god" you are implying the universe satisfies condition x, condition y etc. I dont see how that is not categorizing. Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect, and mistaking our conceptions of reality for how reality is is a particular mistake that many make constantly. When I'm talking about "laws coming first" I'm talking about whatever it is that causes reality to behave like it does. "Laws" are indeed just our descriptions of how it behaves, but it behaves how it does for some reason. Well, yes, God has a meaning but that meaning typically has connotations like "consciousness being" which the universe doesn't have. I don't really see how calling the universe "God" is adding anything meaningful that calling it the "universe" doesn't already cover. C'mon, you party pooper! Some people just get off on calling God...'every fucking thing'! No-one gets offended and we can all party!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 3:29:56 GMT
If God is naturalistic and apersonal, how does that really differ in practice from an atheistic naturalist conception of reality? I would say it differs in that a naturalist's perspective of god is still a perspective of god, while an atheist may insist that such a perspective is absurd, for no god exists... not even a pantheistic or naturalistic god.
|
|