3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter

When I first picked this book up, I was expecting a book that would challenge my world view rather than simply support it. I had no idea who this author was nor of his background, but I felt drawn to his logic and expressed desire to find the truth or truths about philosophy,theology, and perhaps even science...though to be fair I steer around science using philosophy as an excuse. And he actually mentions this in the book!

Anyway, allow me to break the book down Chapter by Chapter.

From The Back Cover:
What is reality? What is the meaning of human life? Why do we suffer? In this concise volume, international speaker Ellis Potter explores three major worldviews that propose radically different answers to these eternal questions. In clear and compelling language, Potter shows us that the three worldviews,and the unique hope that each offers to humanity, have profoundly different consequences for how we see everyday reality and the ultimate purpose in our lives.

Lets start with The First Circle.
Potter basically breaks the three worldviews down as
Monism
Dualism
Trinitarianism

And when I saw the third one I was pleasent surprised that this author expressed familiarity with my own beliefs and indeed went farther than I ever have at asking questions.

It turns out that Potter originally was a Buddhist.

This book is good! I really enjoy the questions that he asks.

Here is an example of his thinking:
God alone is God
but
God is not alone

Phat writes: Here is an example of his thinking: God alone is God but God is not alone

That would look good on your bumper.

just somebody else making shit up

ringo writes: That would look good on your bumper.

well I hate bumper stickers! They clutter up the car and are hard to take off once you get tired of them. But Ellis does have some meat to chew on regarding some of the things you and I have discussed.

I once asserted to you the following:
Science is an intrinsic part of reality. Science is not all of reality.

ringo writes: Now you're scoffing at science. There's no such thing as placing too much value on reality.

Except that Ellis would argue that within the concept of monism one could claim scientism but that this limits the concept to an absolute.

I don’t think that monism or dualism can be described as worldviews and trintarianism - presumably the belief that there are three substances - probably can’t either.

(E.g. Idealism and Materialism are both forms of monism but I can’t say that they are the same worldview at all)

Phat writes: Except that Ellis would argue that within the concept of monism one could claim scientism but that this limits the concept to an absolute.

Philosophical mumbo-jumbo, too long for a bumper sticker.

If Potter has any arguments of value, bring them here in your own words.

Why do so many continue to push the ravings of charlatans spouting philosophical convolutions pulled from their emotional asses? This fool can know no more about the limiting vagaries of worldviews than a bicycle mechanic knows the intricacies of the LHC. He's a religious philosopher who wrote a book to sell. He knows nothing but how to strike emotional chords.

And I think that you are willfully ignorant for belueving that scientism and materialisn is all that there is. Humans do far mire than simply make stuff up. the characters exist apart from and outside of the book. No way to prove it to you though.

Phat writes: Humans do far mire than simply make stuff up. the characters exist apart from and outside of the book.

They made the book up, but at least there is a book for you to believe in, nonsense though most of it is. But it's quite another thing when people start imagining and claiming all sorts of crap that is not in the book. They can say absolutely anything they like because it's not open to challenge. It's just religious babble with no verifyable meaning.

No way to prove it to you though.

Or to you, or anybody. You just swallow it whole because it fits your personal belief.

Phat writes: the characters exist apart from and outside of the book.

Sure, Long John Silver has an existence outside the book. Y'know, that whole Arr! thing that people attribute to all pirates was originated by Robert Newton in the 1950 movie. You should see him in some of his other movies like Jamaica Inn.

But I don't pretend to be "in communion" with either Long John Silver or Robert Newton.

Another beautiful day! I look around and blink because I realize the times we are in--everyone wearing masks and collectively dealing with human issues such as survival. Its a good thing to be rationally minded and to understand that viruses can kill humans. It is a necessary task to wear the mask and to keep the hands clean and to avoid contamination. Science has its usefulness. That being said, my argument with yo today is tp pursue the idea and ideal that there is something more---a grand scheme to it all. Ellis Potter does that quite effectively and persuasively in this book.

Tangle writes: They made the book up, but at least there is a book for you to believe in, nonsense though most of it is. But it's quite another thing when people start imagining and claiming all sorts of crap that is not in the book. They can say absolutely anything they like because it's not open to challenge. It's just religious babble with no verifiable meaning.

I'm assuming you mean the Bible, though I suppose that your charge could also apply to Ellis Potters book.

Cant you get out of your narrow thinking and attempt to be philosophical for a change? Sure Long John Silver is simply a character in a book, but he was in someones head long before that. Moreover, Long John Silver may have evolved from thoughts and experiences far deeper than his character in the book actually hinted at.

You seem to adhere to this world view:

Wiki writes: Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

Am I close?

Phat writes: Humans do far mire than simply make stuff up

Your spell checker is making a fool of you. You (but, thankfully, not all humans) are truly mired in heaps of made up stuff.

I

I am not nothing.

I am not something.

I am everything.

I was there at the beginning of time.

I caused the beginning of time.

I am the beginning of time.

All that is, I created.

All that was and is no more, I destroyed.

I will be there at the end of time.

I will cause the end of time.

I will be the end of time.

I am your Imagination.

{the Upyourshepans, Canto 17, verse 6}

Phat writes: I'm assuming you mean the Bible, though I suppose that your charge could also apply to Ellis Potters book.

Of course.