Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
94 online now:
dwise1, nwr, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,609 Year: 5,255/14,102 Month: 176/677 Week: 35/26 Day: 7/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 5 of 96 (879175)
07-12-2020 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
07-12-2020 2:10 PM


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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 07-12-2020 2:10 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 2:44 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 18 of 96 (879285)
07-14-2020 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
07-14-2020 2:44 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
quote:
He explains his conclusions further:
3 Theories Of Everything writes:

I believe the existence of absolutes is most likely,but is inconvenient and disagreeable to our egos. People nowadays are often motivated not to believe in absolutes, because if there are true absolutes, then we are responsible to the absolute.(...)When I looked for absolutes, I discovered there weren't many. I believe it comes down to three: Monism, Dualism, and Trinitarianism.


No, this makes no sense to me at all.

quote:
So lets figure out what Potter means when he claims these three absolutes.
Ellis Potter writes:

If science is the measure of everything, you have scientism. If the human being is the measure of everything,you have humanism.

Personally, the way you guys carry on around here, I see you as accepters of scientism.

I don’t think that my views would be fairly classified as either. Some things should be science-centred. Others should be human-centred.

quote:
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy writes:

There are many monisms. What they share is that they attribute oneness. Where they differ is in what they attribute oneness to (the target), and how they count (the unit).

The article gets deep, but does not address Potters insistence that there are only 3 basic absolutes:
Oneism
Twoism
Threeism.

Then it’s likely that Potter is using his own private definitions. And without those we can’t discuss his work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 2:44 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 8:32 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 08-29-2020 3:06 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 25 of 96 (879301)
07-14-2020 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
07-14-2020 8:32 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
quote:
Those two concepts are monastic and indistinguishable. They both are human centered. You cant have science without humans to define and quantify it.

Oh they are distinguishable. From a scientistic viewpoint there is nothing wrong with using Mengele’s data. From a humanistic viewpoint that data is tainted by the way Mengele got it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 8:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 28 of 96 (879344)
07-14-2020 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
07-14-2020 1:01 PM


Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
I have to say the idea that the Trinity are three separate Gods is not one that orthodox Christianity accepts. But if they are really only one God isn’t that a form of what Potter calls monism ?

(I wonder how much Potter is influenced by Hindu belief. The Hindu Trimurti is usually presented as three Gods - at least in Western material - even if they are thought to be aspects of one The Christian Trinity is far more explicit about them being one God).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 1:01 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:06 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 30 of 96 (879352)
07-15-2020 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
07-15-2020 10:06 AM


Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
quote:
This is how he explains it

“Explains” is a bit strong. Doubling down on the contradictions of the Trinity is an interesting take but not one I can take seriously.

quote:
He mentions that no other God in human imagination has this attribute. You can say Buddha alone is Buddha, but thats all. (The rest is silence)

How about the Trimurti

The identification of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purāṇa, wherein 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme

I have to say that Potter looks like another apologist with nothing of great value to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:06 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:21 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 32 of 96 (879356)
07-15-2020 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
07-15-2020 10:21 AM


Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
quote:
As far as the Trimurti goes, I think it differs in the whole image thing.

But that image is as good a representation as you can get of what Potter is saying - diversity and unity together.

The usual Christian view downplays diversity, which is contrary to Potter’s ideas - Potter places diversity on the same level as unity. And a lack of images does nothing to counter that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:21 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:32 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 34 of 96 (879358)
07-15-2020 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
07-15-2020 10:32 AM


Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
quote:
Christians have never been able to clearly explain the concept of the Trinity, but the idea of God being unified(Monotheistic) yet also diversified(Father and Son) cant really be explained any better...dont you think?

I think that doubling down on the contradiction makes a dubious concept even worse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:32 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 2:37 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 36 of 96 (879383)
07-15-2020 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
07-15-2020 2:37 PM


Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
The contradiction should be obvious. You can’t have something that is completely separate and completely unified. Taking it to that level as Potter does is such an obvious contradiction I can’t take it seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 2:37 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 8:37 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 38 of 96 (879412)
07-16-2020 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
07-15-2020 8:37 PM


Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
quote:
Why not?

Because they are opposites. It’s like being absolutely identical and completely different.

quote:
One obvious example that comes to mind is the family unit

Which is neither completely separate nor completely unified. I’m not talking about mere aspects of both, but of totality. The family unit is not a hive-mind with a single will, in a single body and never will be.

And for any way in which they are unified they are not separate. Those are opposites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 8:37 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 40 of 96 (879505)
07-17-2020 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
07-17-2020 12:07 AM


Re: Trinitarian Rabbit Trail Can Continue Elsewhere
It’s hard to ask anything about a book I haven’t read.

And if you don’t want to talk about it more I think this topic is a bit of a waste.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 07-17-2020 12:07 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-17-2020 11:09 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 42 of 96 (879519)
07-17-2020 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
07-17-2020 11:09 AM


Re: Trinitarian Rabbit Trail Can Continue Elsewhere
If you think it would be worthwhile to look at them, why not? This is the thread for discussing the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-17-2020 11:09 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 07-17-2020 1:32 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 46 of 96 (879723)
07-21-2020 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
07-21-2020 12:39 AM


Re: Some of the best questions and answers from the book.
My thoughts.

I don’t think that his “circles” even do a good job of capturing the underlying beliefs. There is a lot of room for nuance and divergence.

And the whole “my beliefs are best!” implicit in it is - well, probably the point, but it’s rather distasteful at best. The more so unless it’s really rigorously justified with painstaking fairness, and I’m not seeing that. At all.

Also, it’s a rather sad commentary on Christianity that acknowledging that non-Christians can do good is even an issue. That it has to be justified with dodgy talking of “completeness”, to try and say that Christians are still better just shows that the problem is still there.

So, I don’t think that they are really good questions. And the answers aren’t that great either. (Well, the second question is worth asking, I guess, but the fact that it is worth asking is a pretty severe indictment of Christianity).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 07-21-2020 12:39 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 07-21-2020 9:54 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 59 of 96 (881779)
08-30-2020 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
08-29-2020 3:06 PM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
I don’t think that my “monism” is what Potter is talking about at all.

But let’s deal,with the physicalism. In my view mind is supervenient on physical phenomena. There is no “spirit” at least as a concrete entity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 08-29-2020 3:06 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:04 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 61 of 96 (881794)
08-30-2020 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
08-30-2020 2:04 PM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
quote:
If by concrete you mean material

No, I mean as opposed to abstract.

quote:
I would argue that there was at one time Jesus Christ as a concrete entity and when He rose, the Body of Christ or the Church became the resident of the Spirit as concrete entity

I would argue that he did not rise. Jesus the man was a concrete entity, but that man is dead, gone and so obscured that historians despair of finding the truth about him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:04 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 09-03-2020 11:48 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 63 of 96 (881890)
09-03-2020 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
09-03-2020 11:48 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
quote:
Perhaps you are an atheist because you cannot fathom God as a concrete entity.

No.

quote:
Personally I am much more comfortable with the idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen than I am with Quantum mechanics and Physics trying to configure an objective truth concerning the origin of the universe. Perhaps you are more evidence based and logical than I am and see no need for consideration of a Creator for which there likely never be evidence.

Religious claims to exclusive truth are ten-a-penny. At least science is honestly trying to understand reality, rather than to (at best) force fit it to pre-conceived ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 09-03-2020 11:48 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 09-07-2020 3:10 PM PaulK has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021