As an atheist, which makes more sense to you? I'm more inclined toward pantheistic thought.
i dont get any form of pluralism and i feel like im dunning krugering myself. I just dont understand how there can be 2 things that are distinct somehow, in absolute sense. That makes no sense. Deism for example ok. God|Creation. But God is omni-present, so how can creation not be part of god?
And even if god was another distinct object next to creation, they would still have to share a united universe, which means they would share natures, and so on a level they would be identical, heck they couldnt ever be really completely distinct from another. It makes no sense. All forms of dualism presuppose shared unity, which of course undermines dualism/pluralism.
Various worldviews try to patch the gap between the one uniting factor and the plurality of others (they are mutually exclusive), but the patch is always bullshit and turns into "its just a mystery brah" when you ask about it. I honestly dont get it. For example christianity has trouble explaining the creator-creation (one-multiple) distinction, but at least they are honest in admitting the union between creation and god is mystical, it's even part of their christology, the hypostatic union in christ etc.
But its still not a solution, it's just an honest admission of having hit an intellectual wall. I don't think there is a solution. Both strongly monistic positions like pantheism and their opposites, pluralistic positions, fail for the same reason. You need both, unity and multiplicity for a working worldview, but they are contradictory and generate so many issues, you can only throw the towel. I think plato had his own version of the union of the two called Methexis, but it again just mystifies the issue, just like the trinity in christianity and other such attempts.
Nobody can tell you how it works. How does the trinity work? idk bruh. How does Methexis work? idk bruh. How does potential-actual distinction work in Aristotle? Is potential something or nothing? If its something, its actual, not potential. So this also solves nothing. None of this shit works unless you grant whats in question first.
Oh, I didnt touch on the other half of the one-vs-many thing yet. If you privilige the one, which I kind tend to do often, then you have to explain how multiplicity is real in the world. Traditionally they would say shit like its an illusion, its fake, idk, world is a simulation its actually all one. Or come with up with something else that makes no sense. An illusion is still something, not nothing, so that entire movie backfires for example.
I dont read books or anything, I just talk to grok about this and I cant determine whether I am dunning krugering myself or if this actually impossible to solve without appealing to some nonsensical bullshit that bridges the gap between the two positions. And I am not smart enough to understand academic jargon, so I am left stewing in my own juices.
Deism is believe that there's first perfect being, Aristotle's first mover, which is distinct from the world; and has started the causal chain. Pantheism is most broadly Spinozianizm, wherein substance as such (which is one) is god, and its particular shapes are his parts. I hope it helps.
thx, I see, interesting variety of attempts at grappling with same issues. If only people investigating incel culture were capable of this level of thought 
Monotheism is the only faith that makes sense, i'm talking about real monotheism, not the retarded trinitarianism found in christianity which is basically tritheism
X
Both are retarded
Monotheism never really made sense to me tbh though I'm still open to it. Strongly believing in a distant God nobody can possibly prove actually exists. That's why pantheism made the most sense to me since nature or the natural law governing the universe is the closest thing one can possibly see and experience as God.
Then who created nature ?
We don't know nor can we know if something created the universe or if it just began on its own. Perhaps this world always existed but it could also be the case that something did indeed create it.
I can’t really pick which one makes sense because they both don’t have any logical errors to point out
That's not possible, the creation must have a creator
The world was not created by "something", it was created by the one God
Deism. I lean more towards an impersonal God who architected and create the world but actively do not intervenes in its affairs.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
