Posts by brightdrifter18

@ Gock, didn't you dig my take on hell? -Can philosophy even judge something like that (assuming hell is a fact)? -To an extent, sure, but philosophy isn't going to give us any final answers on those kinds of things.

It’s only natural for people to look for a "justification" for their wrongdoings within some theoretical belief system. They lean on ideas like endless reincarnation to clean up their negative karma. It creates this massive loophole where they can relativize their own responsibility. It lets them brush off how seriously they should actually use their free will when making life's heavy decisions.

The biblical description of the serpent tempting the first humans is incredibly significant: "God won't mind, go ahead and take the fruit. In fact, once you eat it, you'll be like gods. Your eyes will be opened. You'll know secrets that make you wise. You'll break free from the yoke of moral norms. Absolute freedom is right there for the taking. Just grab it. Go ahead, sin, sin. Muffle the voice of your own conscience. Freedom is just slavery if it isn't Absolute. What's the point of being merely human? Be a god, or be nothing at all..."

It's hard to grasp that archetype—that urge to run from responsibility and bend objective norms to fit one's own naive reasoning. It's the idea that responsibility isn't that serious, or that punishment for a crime is just an empty threat. The mindset is that everything will turn out fine regardless of what we do. There is no difference in the consequences of good versus bad decisions. Everything is permitted because objective morality doesn't exist.

But if objective morality doesn't exist, then God isn't a person. Life becomes a mere accident. The meaning of life becomes nothing more than a construct of the human mind. That's why there must be punishment; otherwise, freedom wouldn't even be a real category.

Leibniz asked "why is there something rather than nothing?" Maybe we should ask "why aren't people gods who can do whatever they want? Why does responsibility even exist?" But the real question is: "can anything be higher than the Absolute creating us in His own image?"

And one last thing: Can we truly be made in the image of the Absolute if we aren't free? -Why is freedom such a painful thing? I don't think we'll ever fully understand that, or at least not until we face the ultimate consequences of our good and bad choices. -Maybe then we'll finally get the essence of freedom and why it carries such suffering.

It's easy to philosophize. The trouble starts when you have to apply philosophy to real life. It's hard to reconcile practice with that distorted, romanticized view of reality where responsibility basically doesn't exist. It's the same situation as those who condemned Socrates; they end up in the same place as the righteous Socrates facing God's justice.

Does that make sense?

Just as the theory of predestination is repulsive, so is the opposite side of the spectrum regarding human freedom. That's the view that says everything is relative and there's no difference between the consequences of evil and good acts. If that distinction doesn't exist, then there is no difference between good and evil. One step further from there, and God is nothing more than a type of natural law, governing infinite eons of universal nonsense that exists solely for its own sake.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It isn't, obviously. And honestly, why on earth would it be?
You might want to give this a look:
http://www.philoonline.org/library/morriston_5_1.htm

Looks like I’m actually a much bigger expert for fools than you are.

It certainly seems so when you provide links to texts this nonsensical. I read through that entire mess of an article, and the ultimate proof that it is just a pile of garbage is the final paragraph—where the author summarizes the core logical fallacy of the whole mess:

In the last analysis, we simply do not have enough to go on to say what the causes (efficient or material) of the beginning of the universe are likely to be. Certainly, the Big Bang theory does not settle The issue in favor of creation ex nihilo. Even if time and the universe began together, they may, for all we can tell, have been created by an unknown efficient cause out of an equally unknown material “stuff.”

You can see how the author is essentially chasing his own tail in this previous sentence, trying to justify why he doesn't think these two claims are equally valid:
1.that the universe was created by an unknown but transcendental cause
2.that the universe was created by an unknown but material cause

It might occur to someone to object that the material cause of the universe couldn’t be timeless because it is a part or an aspect of the universe, and because every such part or aspect is temporal.

Exactly! But since the author of this nonsense has to somehow wiggle out of it, he performs a ridiculous bit of logical gymnastics before saying this:

I hasten to assure the reader that my purpose here is not to recommend such a doctrine of creation. I claim only that, given what is known about the Big Bang, creation out of an unknown timeless stuff is not less likely than creation by an equally unknown timeless person.

Notice how he "forgot" to include the word material between "timeless" and "stuff." He does this to create the illusion that this material substance isn't actually material, even though he is just repeating the exact same point!!!

It is obviously false to claim that an unknown timeless "stuff" (which is actually material) is just as likely a cause for creation as an unknown timeless transcendental person—unless that "stuff" is just a substitute for that very same person, which it isn't, because the material is not transcendental.

The fool who wrote this clearly has no way to coherently refute Craig's arguments. All he can do is chase his own tail and play word games to pretend he has written something smart and logical (he hasn't!), eventually concluding with the same thing every atheist participant in a debate ultimately concludes when they lose:

The best course may well be to suspend judgment about all of these bizarre possibilities.

If I know my dad is incomparably weaker than your dad, I will do everything in my power to make sure our fathers never even meet, because I already know mine stands no chance of winning.
So, it is best to just suspend judgment on who the stronger father is, right?

I have seen this tactic a billion times. ☕

Amanda Jackson5 said:What am I missing here? Are we seriously suggesting the entire universe just popped into existence ex nihilo? It’s basic common sense that nothing comes from absolutely nothing. Unless you’ve stumbled upon some groundbreaking evidence to the contrary, I'm not buying it. And just so we're clear, the Big Bang isn't some magic wand that proves the universe appeared ex nihilo, if you hadn't already realized that.

"Quote:"

ExpertForIdiots As if I needed more proof that some people just love to hear themselves talk, here’s what they had to say: Just because you haven't wrapped your head around what constitutes actual proof doesn't mean the evidence for God's existence isn't out there waiting to be found.

I don't actually need you to present me with some grand piece of evidence just to convince me that God exists. Since I’ve watched plenty of people attempt to "prove" His existence over the years only to come up empty-handed, I’d honestly just love to sit down and hear the argument myself if anyone actually had one.

Wait, how is the Big Bang not proof of creation ex nihilo?
This quick video breaks down five different proofs. The first one specifically tackles the Big Bang and reaches the exact same conclusion I did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w
Help me out. Why are we misinterpreting the Big Bang as proof of something coming from nothing? Explain it to me.

@ Amanda Jackson5,
The initial stage of what you're referencing actually contains all the proof for the existence of God according to Plato. Let’s look closely at what this starting point entails:

The Good and the One

Plato attempted to solve the problem of unity within the multiplicity of ideas by introducing the idea of the Good—the Good in itself, or the "supreme Good"—which holds a special place in *The Republic*. Here, the Good is compared to the sun, which illuminates everything, making all objects visible to everyone, and thus serves as the source of their value and beauty. The Good grants being (το εἶναι) to the objects of knowledge, namely the ideas; therefore, it is an all-encompassing and unifying principle that surpasses even being (essence, οὐσία) in both dignity and power (Rep. 509b 6–10). The Good allows everything it inhabits to be known, yet it is also the source of their very existence. For Plato, the Good is an ontological principle, the principle of being, truly in itself and existing for itself. In his *Metaphysics*, Aristotle clearly states that Plato considers the ideas to be the causes of the happiness of all other things, while the One is the cause of the happiness of the ideas. Consequently, one can conclude that for Plato, the Good, the One, and beauty (from the *Feast*) are identical, and that the intelligible world of ideas owes its existence to the One in some way. The One is the ultimate principle and the source of ideas. The One is also, in a certain sense, the source (though not a creator in time) of the divine mind (the Demiurge), which in Plato likely represents a symbol for the operation of the mind within the cosmos—essentially a "probable explanation" (κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα) of the cosmos.

Plato's One is, therefore, the idea of the absolute "in the beginning."

Regarding the Demiurge:

According to Plato, the material world came into being, and everything that comes into being does so because of a cause. That cause is the Demiurge, or the "divine craftsman." He "grasped" everything that was in chaotic motion and brought it into order according to a single, eternal, ideal pattern, shaping the world so that it becomes a visible, living entity endowed with soul and mind, modeled after the ideal living being containing all forms: the heavenly race, the winged race, the water race, and the land race. The Demiurge's motivation for shaping the world is to make everything as similar to himself as possible, because "order is better than chaos." The Demiurge is limited, however, by the raw materials available to him, but he does the best he can to shape the world "as beautifully and well as possible" (Tim. 29c 3–30a 6). The Demiurge, however, is not a creator-god in the way he is understood in American Christian theology: he uses material that already exists; he does not create it from nothing (ex nihilo), and he is himself constrained by it. Thus, the Demiurge represents a divine Mind (Νοῦς). The world he shapes arises as a mixture resulting from the union of necessity and mind. The atomistic theories of Democritus, and later Epicurus, suggest that the material world is built through the random collision of atoms, where a dimension of necessity must be present because a specific movement must connect with the preceding movement of another atom. Aristotle calls this random or necessary formation spontaneity (αὐτομάτον). According to Plato, however, the shaping of the world involves mind, which introduces purpose. This account of the world's origin is not presented as a temporal event, but is described solely for the sake of explanation: the Demiurge is a symbol of intellect.

Everything that comes into being does so because of a cause. That cause is the Demiurge, who represents the divine Mind. Mind implies purpose, and purpose is the foundation of the teleological argument. Alongside this, we have Plato's primary proof: the argument from perfection in things (the causa formalis, or the ideas).

Aristotle builds upon the cosmological arguments found in Plato by introducing the concept of the Unmoved Mover (causae prima) alongside efficient causation (causae efficiens).

The only thing missing is the argument from Necessity...

So here is the deal. Plato and Aristotle were walking this earth 2,500 years ago. Even without a grasp of modern physics, they grasped truths that seem to elude you. It’s funny, really. You might know what Penzias and Wilson stumbled upon back in 1965, which essentially validated the theory that the universe came into being EX NIHILO, yet you still can't see the bigger picture.

Just because you don't understand how a proof works doesn't mean the evidence for the existence of God isn't there.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Look, those are just religious metaphors—mythological imagery at best. It’s no surprise you decided to cling to Plato, considering how much Christianity is essentially just "Platonism for the masses," as Nietzsche put it.

As for any actual "proof" regarding the existence of God, let's be real: there isn't any. We pretty much settled that debate earlier in this thread:

And honestly, I'm a little surprised you haven't stumbled upon the term "God-man" before. I didn't just pull that out of thin air.

In his significant essay "end of philosophy and the task of thinking" (1964), Martin Heidegger argues that the foundational ideas of Platonic philosophy have largely shaped the development and framework of Western thought throughout history. It is widely recognized that Heidegger categorized the entire trajectory of Western philosophy—from Plato through Nietzsche—under the umbrella term "metaphysics," which essentially utilizes the conceptual toolkit from Plato's intellectual workshop.

Many followers of Plato argue that modern science—specifically mathematics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics—relies fundamentally on the language of Platonic philosophy. They distinguish between the realm of knowledge (episteme) and the conventional world we navigate daily. Our lived, perceptual reality is not the true scientific world, which is composed of elementary particles, electromagnetic waves, and energy states.

Alfred N. Whitehead suggests that the gap between the precision of abstract thought and the imprecision of physical perception—which Plato identified as the tension between "episteme and doxa"—actually serves as the bedrock upon which Western science is built and its civilizational progress achieved.

For centuries, people watched apples fall from trees and offered explanations rooted in mere opinion and belief, until Newton provided a logically sound explanation through the laws of gravity.

Paul Natorp attempted to interpret Platonic ideas as natural laws that govern the entire phenomenal world, representing true reality. In the Natorpian view, Plato’s concept of Ideas—used to explain the processual nature of the phenomenal world—anticipated the perspective of modern science, which seeks causes not within objects themselves, but within the laws represented by those objects.

That covers "Platonism for the masses."

As for proof of God, it’s like an American pastor once said: it’s a matter of scholarship, not superstition, with atheism leading the charge.

Amanda Jackson5 said:All this bickering about God in philosophy classes is just absurd because you’re missing the point: religion is essentially a metaphor for reality itself. It uses imagery and symbolism to describe things that philosophy tries to tackle through pure reason. You can see the Holy Spirit manifesting in art, in faith, in philosophy, even in history. Trying to pin down absolute truth through religious dogma is a fool's errand; the language used there is far too limited, and frankly, it's been completely discredited by people who only care about power, control, and profit rather than anything resembling truth, humanity, or the human spirit.
God serves as a metaphor for the Absolute—that deep-seated longing for an unattainable perfection within our own "selves," or that imaginary sense of being free from all objective constraints.
Think of God as a universal concept, internally articulated through a trinity but ultimately existing as a spiritual unity, a force capable of bringing heaven and earth into being. When creation happens, it introduces specific distinctions—not just between the creator and the created, but among the vast multitude of things that lack the inherent unity of the divine. It’s a logical process of differentiation. These differences become radical when the created beings develop their own independent centers of thought and action, pushing back against the divine order. This plurality and division within the created order are resolved through three Hegelian syllogisms. In the first, the particularity of division and death acts as the mediator between the individual—who integrates the divine—and the broader human experience expressed as spirit. Particularity sits right in the middle, between the singular and the universal. In the second syllogism, once the singular individual is established, they mediate between the various particularities of scattered humanity and their eventual incorporation into the universal spirit (God). Much like how induction works—where the singular mediates between the particular and the universal—we have this narrative of a god-like figure who dies to become the universal spirit, absorbing individual, independent people into the universal life of the Holy Spirit. This universal spirit then bridges the gap between the individual who has overcome mortality and the mass of particular people; it acts as the universal mediator between the singular and the particular. These three syllogisms weave together into one complex syllogism where the spirit mediates its own existence. Once you grasp the integrated quality of this totality, the door opens to true philosophical understanding.
That would be the rational way to interpret your fairy tales and little stories. But interpreting hysterical, hypomanic outbursts like this one:

Only the Absolute (Logos) is eternal, unchanging, perfect, almighty, complete, omniscient, absolutely just, and absolutely wise. If it isn't, then it isn't the Absolute!

...would require more of a psychiatric evaluation than a philosophical one.

Limited discourse? You mean this part in bold:

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn) (Athens, 428 BC or 427 BC – Athens, 347 BC or 348 BC) was an incredibly influential Greek philosopher. He was an idealist, a student of Socrates, a teacher to Aristotle, and the founder of the Academy.

His whole philosophy starts with his theory of ideas. To him, those ideas are the only true reality. Everything we see and touch in this world? It's just a blurry reflection of that higher realm. Ideas are eternal and unchanging. Physical things, though, they shift and fade; they are imperfect versions of those ideals, existing only because they participate in them. There’s a clear hierarchy among these ideas, too. At the very top sits the Idea of the Good, which is essentially one and the same with God. Every other idea occupies a specific rung on that ladder based on how much it participates in that ultimate Good. On the flip side, you have matter. Matter is just this chaotic, disorganized mass that has existed forever. The Demiurge takes that raw material and shapes it, using the ideas as a blueprint. Interestingly, Plato doesn't really explain the exact relationship between the Demiurge and the Idea of the Good—or how the ideas relate back to God. He mostly focuses on proving God's existence and defining His core attributes through various arguments. So, when you look at him, all the evidence for God's existence is already baked right in from the very start. A person belongs to the world of ideas through the soul, yet remains tethered to this fleeting material world by the body. Since the soul existed long before inhabiting this physical form—having arrived here as a consequence of past actions—true knowledge is really just a form of remembrance. One succeeds by living a virtuous life, which gradually frees the soul from the heavy influence of the flesh. Once the body eventually fails, the soul simply continues its journey in the realm of ideas.

Give this visual a shot:

An interpretation of these hysterical hypomanic outbursts would look something like this:

Amanda Jackson5 said:All this bickering about God in philosophy classes is just absurd because you’re missing the point: religion is essentially a metaphor for reality itself. It uses imagery and symbolism to describe things that philosophy tries to tackle through pure reason. You can see the Holy Spirit manifesting in art, in faith, in philosophy, even in history. Trying to pin down absolute truth through religious dogma is a fool's errand; the language used there is far too limited, and frankly, it's been completely discredited by people who only care about power, control, and profit rather than anything resembling truth, humanity, or the human spirit.
God serves as a metaphor for the Absolute—that deep-seated longing for an unattainable perfection within our own "selves," or that imaginary sense of being free from all objective constraints.
Think of God as a universal concept, internally articulated through a trinity but ultimately existing as a spiritual unity, a force capable of bringing heaven and earth into being. When creation happens, it introduces specific distinctions—not just between the creator and the created, but among the vast multitude of things that lack the inherent unity of the divine. It’s a logical process of differentiation. These differences become radical when the created beings develop their own independent centers of thought and action, pushing back against the divine order. This plurality and division within the created order are resolved through three Hegelian syllogisms. In the first, the particularity of division and death acts as the mediator between the individual—who integrates the divine—and the broader human experience expressed as spirit. Particularity sits right in the middle, between the singular and the universal. In the second syllogism, once the singular individual is established, they mediate between the various particularities of scattered humanity and their eventual incorporation into the universal spirit (God). Much like how induction works—where the singular mediates between the particular and the universal—we have this narrative of a god-like figure who dies to become the universal spirit, absorbing individual, independent people into the universal life of the Holy Spirit. This universal spirit then bridges the gap between the individual who has overcome mortality and the mass of particular people; it acts as the universal mediator between the singular and the particular. These three syllogisms weave together into one complex syllogism where the spirit mediates its own existence. Once you grasp the integrated quality of this totality, the door opens to true philosophical understanding.
That would be the rational way to interpret your fairy tales and little stories. But interpreting hysterical, hypomanic outbursts like this one:

Only the Absolute (Logos) is eternal, unchanging, perfect, almighty, complete, omniscient, absolutely just, and absolutely wise. If it isn't, then it isn't the Absolute!

...would require more of a psychiatric evaluation than a philosophical one.

Honestly, this would require more of a psychiatric analysis than a philosophical one.

brightdrifter18 said:

Goku goes Super Saiyan. It’s a complete shift. Pure power. Everything changes once he hits that level. brightdrifter18 says:
I didn't want to overcomplicate things with a massive wall of text. I just wanted to pinpoint exactly where our perspectives diverge. So, I'm going to lay out three questions.
Let's try to untangle that logical fallacy.

Before I move on, I have to point this out:

The Absolute possesses no internal deprivation. Because there is nothing lacking within it, there can be no striving toward anything else.

God wants to create the contingent being we call man out of pure love.

I’m not saying it’s a mistake. I just want you to give it some serious thought.

I’m going to have to simplify things here, just a little bit. There isn't really any other way to go about it.

Here is my question.

It’s more of a request than a question, really. Could you dive a bit deeper into this idea of our "ontological identity before birth," specifically focusing on that emphasis on "OURS"?

Does God already know what we’re going to do before we even have a clue ourselves? Or is it just that things which haven't happened yet aren't part of "existence" as defined by the Absolute?
Isn't the "future" just something outside the realm of existence entirely? It only becomes "existence" once it actually happens. And besides, if a person's life is already written into the Absolute and "predetermined" from that perspective, does that necessarily prove everything is meaningless? Does it just confirm pure determinism where we have zero control?

Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario. Just for the sake of argument. Let’s say I am a fundamentally good person. In terms of understanding the distinction between right and wrong, I might even be among the best—hypothetically speaking, of course. Not that I am actually claiming that. Now, imagine I witness someone committing an atrocity. Theft, murder, assault—something truly heinous. Because I possess a clear moral compass, the weight of those actions becomes instantly apparent to me. I see them for exactly what they are. The moment I witness such an act, does that deed become a part of me? I now carry a distinct, vivid memory of the event within my own mind. In a way, I am also experiencing the condemnation of that person's actions. Does this entire encounter alter my identity? Is the event contained within me, or does it exist outside of me? Admit this: the information regarding the event is inside me. But also inside me is the very essence of what would never permit such an act to happen. Are both the event itself and my nature as an individual who distinguishes good from evil simultaneously parts of my being? Pay close attention to that word: *information*.

I’d also point out that Plato actually gets much closer to Buddhist and Hindu concepts here. He argues that the soul enters the material world essentially as a punishment—sort of like a karmic sentence.

What was my first thought when I read this? Specifically that part about being "punished." Honestly, my mind went straight to hell. I’m actually looking forward to seeing you tackle the concept of heaven and hell. I'm genuinely curious to see how you'll approach it.

I’m not entirely sure where you got the idea that I view Jesus as anything less than everything. In fact, I see Him as the very realization of the divine logos. It’s like an independent, singular thought manifested—and honestly, it happens for all the reasons you mentioned, plus a few others you haven't even touched on yet.

That just raised another question for me. As you know, the Buddhist goal is reaching nirvana—that specific "state" where a person is finally free from all opposites. Do you think that term carries a deeper meaning, perhaps pointing toward something beyond our current ability to describe? Even if I agree with you that seeking nirvana as a form of salvation is a flawed conclusion, don't you think such a "state" might still exist? I mean, it could represent something much more profound, independent of whether or not we decide it should be our ultimate life goal.

God knows what lies ahead. If we actually had a clear vision of the future, we’d essentially be omniscient, just like God. But I assume that isn't quite what you meant. You were probably talking about our perception of things that have already happened, right?

Things that haven't happened yet aren't technically part of our realized existence. However, they are already known to God. In that sense, the future exists within the Divine Mind. You could say the "future" exists as a state of being through its presence in God's knowledge—it’s just waiting to manifest in our timeline. If this weren't true, how could prophets have foretold upcoming events? How could people today claim to be fulfilling ancient prophecies if those events weren't already written in the blueprint?

If you had actually read my long-winded thread regarding religion—you know, the one covering Suffering, Predestination, and Original Sin—you would realize how much I find the theory of predestination to be organically unbearable. It’s a foundation laid by St. Paul, expanded upon by St. Augustine, and it's what many Protestant churches continue to preach today. I honestly don't understand how serious theologians fail to see that predestination can only ever be God’s foreknowledge of future events. It isn't some form of pure determinism. Where could human free will possibly fit inside a theory of predestination? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. The wisdom of the Catholic Church is evident in its refusal to accept certain parts of St. Augustine's teachings—even though someone like Thomas Aquinas flirted with that same erroneous and Absolute unacceptable theory.

If you have ever witnessed a crime, that experience leaves a psychological mark on you as a human being. There are various ways those effects manifest, usually negatively, especially when they are violently repressed into the subconscious. If you are using this metaphor to suggest that God’s foreknowledge of future events (specifically crimes) necessarily implies God's responsibility—based on the argument that an almighty being should be able to stop a crime from happening—then you are overlooking the exact same thing every version of predestination theory trips over: human free will!

And so we arrive at what you were "hardly waiting" for: hell!

Yes, hell is something our deepest inner selves fight against. Some people have even abandoned the Christian faith entirely because of the dogma of hell. But what kind of free will or serious understanding of our own actions can we truly have if we eliminate personal responsibility? The teachings of Jesus are magnificent precisely because they speak of ultimate reward and ultimate punishment. Both serve to actualize ultimate responsibility, which in turn validates human free will. Steinbeck touched on this beautifully in *East of Eden*. For the first two-thirds of the novel, the story revolves around the Hebrew concept of *timshel*—meaning "you can." This is the word God says to Cain before he kills his brother: "You still CAN resist!" He tells Cain that he can resist the evil, the sin, the dark impulse rising in his soul. It is a vehement proof of the seriousness of our actions and the personal accountability every individual must face before their Creator.

The fact that humans are ultimately responsible beings, thanks to free will, means we must approach the morality of our actions with extreme gravity. When Thomas Aquinas was on his deathbed and asked what fascinated him most about his life on Earth, he replied: "What fascinated me most during my life was the ease with which so many people depart for their rest with heavy sins upon their immortal souls!"

As for nirvana: What is the difference between nirvana and samadhi? I assume that when you speak of the deeper meaning of nirvana, you are referring to the Platonic concept of souls dwelling in the world of ideas before entering matter? This brings us back to the start of your post, where you asked me to clarify what I meant by "our ontological identity before birth."

I wrote that, unlike Plato and his somewhat "Buddhist" concept of karmic reincarnation, I believe our ontological identity before birth does not exist. There is no second chance in some future reincarnation to clean up negative karma. We have to take this life seriously. The best evidence for the weight of responsibility required by free will is Christ's Calvary!

Regarding Plato's Seventh Letter, you made a good point about the Absolute truth. Perhaps you haven't found a reliable link to find an English translation of Plato's Seventh Letter?

Hey Gok,
At first, I honestly thought everything had been wiped clean. I was starting to panic. But then I felt this massive wave of relief when I realized someone actually took the time to pull our posts into their own dedicated thread. Huge thanks to that person for stepping up!

Just to clear things up regarding my last post. I think it might be easier to see where I’m coming from—specifically why I believe our ontological identity is something that is created rather than eternal, yet remains indestructible once it exists. Once it's here, it stays. To make sense of this, I'll use a metaphor:

We say that matter was created out of nothing. Sure, it isn't eternal—most people used to think it was—but the core idea holds. Matter comes from nothing. It’s a simple fact. The Absolute has the power to pull matter out of thin air. So, here is the real question. If the Absolute can manifest physical matter from nothingness, why couldn't it do the exact same thing for our ontological identity? Why couldn't our very essence be pulled from nothing, too?

It’s well established that Plato struggled to explain how ideas actually "interact" with our perception. He couldn't quite bridge the gap between the world of pure ideas and the realm of our own thoughts. It’s a tough one. How can those abstract ideas ever reach us when our entire ontological identity is essentially trapped within a material medium?

Purely through philosophical reasoning, we’re never going to land on an answer to questions this heavy. Once a philosopher hits that Platoan "abyss"—after they've poured every ounce of mental energy they have into the problem—they have to stop. They have to admit that whatever lies on the other side of that void can't be crossed using human logic alone. We simply don't possess the tools to bridge that gap on our own.

Standing there at the edge of that abyss, you just know there's something waiting on the other side. We catch glimpses of this realm made of pure ideas—and don't get me confused with that whole "cave" allegory from the State, let's stay focused here. To some extent, we've actually touched that world. We’ve confirmed it exists. But the fine details? We're still completely in the dark. Plato knew that better than anyone.

When Plato argues that the soul descends into this world from a realm of eternal, unchanging ideas, he isn't speaking from a place of certain knowledge. He’s just following a flawed premise. He operates under the assumption that for something to be truly immortal, it absolutely must be eternal. That logic is simply broken.

How does one even fall into a mental trap like that? It’s easy to get lost. People take mathematical principles or those perfect geometric shapes and use them as proof that ideas are eternal and unchanging. Even our concept of "infinity" suggests that there has to be something on the other side of the abyss—something we call transcendence. Think about it. Infinity minus infinity equals undefined. In plain English, infinity is an impossibility from our side of the ledge, yet it becomes a necessity from the other. It reminds me of that old question a monarch might have posed to an explorer like Columbus: "If the Earth is a sphere, what keeps the ocean from spilling off the edges?" To make sense of it, we have to take a leap into the transcendent. We have to cross that void. We have to become aware of whatever exists on the far side of the abyss just to justify the fact that anything exists on this side at all.

Once we think we’ve proven it, we fall into this trap of trying to merge our own souls with some transcendent "eternity" (in both directions—past and future—rather than just focusing on the future, which is where most people err). But just because we use philosophy to arrive at the necessity of the transcendent doesn't mean we suddenly become part of that eternal, unchanging world of ideas. It certainly doesn't mean we have merged substantively with the Absolute. That is the trap.

Only the Absolute (the Logos) is eternal, unchanging, perfect, almighty, complete, omniscient, absolutely just, and absolutely wise. If it isn't all those things, it simply isn't the Absolute.

God is immanent to this world and transcendent to it at the very same time. How is that possible? And how could we even begin to grasp it? We have to use every tool available (just as Plato teaches in his seventh letter). Not just picking and choosing certain methods, but employing all of them simultaneously. We can't rely solely on reason; we need intuition and sensory perception all at once.

Each of these tools helps us steer the rudder during our philosophical voyage toward the Absolute truth. It helps us catch a glimpse of what lies beyond the edge of Plato's abyss—that final boundary of what philosophy can actually achieve on its own. Beyond that point, we are on our own.

Here is the crux of the matter. Plato had to assume—without the critical revelation of a higher being, which he directly referenced as necessary to cross that abyss—that the soul must already be part of the eternal, unchanging world of ideas before birth if it "wants" to continue participating in that ideal realm after death. But that is clearly a flawed assumption. The proof lies in the fact that there is no coherent answer to this question: Why would a soul ever leave the ideal world of eternal ideas to enter the material realm in the first place? In this instance, Plato reaches for a concept similar to Buddhist notions of punishment. The problem is that such concepts only complicate matters rather than actually resolving them.

None of that holds up.

Goku goes Super Saiyan. It’s a complete shift. Pure power. Everything changes once he hits that level. brightdrifter18 says:
I didn't want to overcomplicate things with a massive wall of text. I just wanted to pinpoint exactly where our perspectives diverge. So, I'm going to lay out three questions.
Let's try to untangle that logical fallacy.

Before I move on, I have to point this out:

The Absolute possesses no internal deprivation. Because there is nothing lacking within it, there can be no striving toward anything else.

God wants to create the contingent being we call man out of pure love.

I’m not saying it’s a mistake. I just want you to give it some serious thought.

I’m going to have to simplify things here, just a little bit. There isn't really any other way to go about it.

Here is my question.

It’s more of a request than a question, really. Could you dive a bit deeper into this idea of our "ontological identity before birth," specifically focusing on that emphasis on "OURS"?

Does God already know what we’re going to do before we even have a clue ourselves? Or is it just that things which haven't happened yet aren't part of "existence" as defined by the Absolute?
Isn't the "future" just something outside the realm of existence entirely? It only becomes "existence" once it actually happens. And besides, if a person's life is already written into the Absolute and "predetermined" from that perspective, does that necessarily prove everything is meaningless? Does it just confirm pure determinism where we have zero control?

Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario. Just for the sake of argument. Let’s say I am a fundamentally good person. In terms of understanding the distinction between right and wrong, I might even be among the best—hypothetically speaking, of course. Not that I am actually claiming that. Now, imagine I witness someone committing an atrocity. Theft, murder, assault—something truly heinous. Because I possess a clear moral compass, the weight of those actions becomes instantly apparent to me. I see them for exactly what they are. The moment I witness such an act, does that deed become a part of me? I now carry a distinct, vivid memory of the event within my own mind. In a way, I am also experiencing the condemnation of that person's actions. Does this entire encounter alter my identity? Is the event contained within me, or does it exist outside of me? Admit this: the information regarding the event is inside me. But also inside me is the very essence of what would never permit such an act to happen. Are both the event itself and my nature as an individual who distinguishes good from evil simultaneously parts of my being? Pay close attention to that word: *information*.

I’d also point out that Plato actually gets much closer to Buddhist and Hindu concepts here. He argues that the soul enters the material world essentially as a punishment—sort of like a karmic sentence.

What was my first thought when I read this? Specifically that part about being "punished." Honestly, my mind went straight to hell. I’m actually looking forward to seeing you tackle the concept of heaven and hell. I'm genuinely curious to see how you'll approach it.

I’m not entirely sure where you got the idea that I view Jesus as anything less than everything. In fact, I see Him as the very realization of the divine logos. It’s like an independent, singular thought manifested—and honestly, it happens for all the reasons you mentioned, plus a few others you haven't even touched on yet.

That just raised another question for me. As you know, the Buddhist goal is reaching nirvana—that specific "state" where a person is finally free from all opposites. Do you think that term carries a deeper meaning, perhaps pointing toward something beyond our current ability to describe? Even if I agree with you that seeking nirvana as a form of salvation is a flawed conclusion, don't you think such a "state" might still exist? I mean, it could represent something much more profound, independent of whether or not we decide it should be our ultimate life goal.

God knows what lies ahead. If we actually had a clear vision of the future, we’d essentially be omniscient, just like God. But I assume that isn't quite what you meant. You were probably talking about our perception of things that have already happened, right?

Things that haven't happened yet aren't technically part of our realized existence. However, they are already known to God. In that sense, the future exists within the Divine Mind. You could say the "future" exists as a state of being through its presence in God's knowledge—it’s just waiting to manifest in our timeline. If this weren't true, how could prophets have foretold upcoming events? How could people today claim to be fulfilling ancient prophecies if those events weren't already written in the blueprint?

If you had actually read my long-winded thread regarding religion—you know, the one covering Suffering, Predestination, and Original Sin—you would realize how much I find the theory of predestination to be organically unbearable. It’s a foundation laid by St. Paul, expanded upon by St. Augustine, and it's what many Protestant churches continue to preach today. I honestly don't understand how serious theologians fail to see that predestination can only ever be God’s foreknowledge of future events. It isn't some form of pure determinism. Where could human free will possibly fit inside a theory of predestination? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. The wisdom of the Catholic Church is evident in its refusal to accept certain parts of St. Augustine's teachings—even though someone like Thomas Aquinas flirted with that same erroneous and Absolute unacceptable theory.

If you have ever witnessed a crime, that experience leaves a psychological mark on you as a human being. There are various ways those effects manifest, usually negatively, especially when they are violently repressed into the subconscious. If you are using this metaphor to suggest that God’s foreknowledge of future events (specifically crimes) necessarily implies God's responsibility—based on the argument that an almighty being should be able to stop a crime from happening—then you are overlooking the exact same thing every version of predestination theory trips over: human free will!

And so we arrive at what you were "hardly waiting" for: hell!

Yes, hell is something our deepest inner selves fight against. Some people have even abandoned the Christian faith entirely because of the dogma of hell. But what kind of free will or serious understanding of our own actions can we truly have if we eliminate personal responsibility? The teachings of Jesus are magnificent precisely because they speak of ultimate reward and ultimate punishment. Both serve to actualize ultimate responsibility, which in turn validates human free will. Steinbeck touched on this beautifully in *East of Eden*. For the first two-thirds of the novel, the story revolves around the Hebrew concept of *timshel*—meaning "you can." This is the word God says to Cain before he kills his brother: "You still CAN resist!" He tells Cain that he can resist the evil, the sin, the dark impulse rising in his soul. It is a vehement proof of the seriousness of our actions and the personal accountability every individual must face before their Creator.

The fact that humans are ultimately responsible beings, thanks to free will, means we must approach the morality of our actions with extreme gravity. When Thomas Aquinas was on his deathbed and asked what fascinated him most about his life on Earth, he replied: "What fascinated me most during my life was the ease with which so many people depart for their rest with heavy sins upon their immortal souls!"

As for nirvana: What is the difference between nirvana and samadhi? I assume that when you speak of the deeper meaning of nirvana, you are referring to the Platonic concept of souls dwelling in the world of ideas before entering matter? This brings us back to the start of your post, where you asked me to clarify what I meant by "our ontological identity before birth."

I wrote that, unlike Plato and his somewhat "Buddhist" concept of karmic reincarnation, I believe our ontological identity before birth does not exist. There is no second chance in some future reincarnation to clean up negative karma. We have to take this life seriously. The best evidence for the weight of responsibility required by free will is Christ's Calvary!

Regarding Plato's Seventh Letter, you made a good point about the Absolute truth. Perhaps you haven't found a reliable link to find an English translation of Plato's Seventh Letter?

amberpilot said:@brightdrifter18 I didn't just make up the concept of the Absolute, nor am I the only one arguing that humans are essentially "fragmented" beings. If you're going to be that agnostic, what do you have to say about a serious philosopher like Spinoza? God is identical to nature. But what exactly is God? What is nature? How are we even supposed to define nature?

God-unknown x
nature-unknown x

unknown x is the same thing as unknown x.🤔

What if we try to clear things up by looking at Plato's Seventh Letter?

I’m specifically thinking about this section:

Long digression on the forms (341b–345c)

Plato can claim that Dionysius was an impostor because the truth about metaphysics cannot be expressed in writing and all those who know that truth know this; hence, if Dionysius thought he had expressed the truth about metaphysics in writing, he did not know the truth.

Plato's explanation of why the deepest truths cannot be expressed in written form is famously abstruse. Before one attains the "thing which is cognizable and true" (gnōston te kai alēthes), one must have apprehended the "name," "account" (logos), "image," and "knowledge" (epistēmē). Name and account are approached through verbal description, while sense perception perceives the image. One attains knowledge only from the combination of verbal description and sense perception, and one must have knowledge before one can attain the object of knowledge (which Plato calls simply "the Fifth," name, account, image, and knowledge being "the Four"). The Fifth, moreover, differs from what is sensible and verbal expressions of it. Name and account provide the "quality" of a thing (to poion), but not its "essence" or "being" (to on). They are, moreover, akin to sense perceptions in that they are ever shifting and relative, not fixed. As a result, the student who attempts to understand the Fifth through name, account, image, and knowledge is confused; he seeks the essence, but always finds the quality intruding. Only certain kinds of student can scrutinize the four, and even then the vision of the fifth comes by a sudden flash.

Since this is how philosophy is conducted, no serious person would ever attempt to teach serious philosophic doctrines in a book or to the public at large. Dionysius' motivation for having written a philosophic text must have been a desire for glory. Indeed, he had received only one lecture on metaphysics from Plato.

Should we dive a bit deeper into this story?

amberpilot, I spent two hours grinding out a massive post for you today. Two whole hours. Then, my computer completely glitched out on me and failed to copy the text—even though I always try to be careful and save my work like that. To make matters worse, I got locked out of my account because of that one-hour waiting period they have after you first register. So now I’m just stuck. There is absolutely no way to recover what I wrote. It’s a total disaster. Anyway, I'll try to put together a much shorter version of what I was trying to say.

You hit the nail on the head regarding ontological identity being an undeniable fact, whether people like it or not. There is one specific point where you and Plato align, though I find myself stepping away from your conclusion: the idea that our ontological identity exists prior to birth and persists after death—essentially returning to some primal home. To me, that sounds like nothing more than a reincarnation theory. Neither you nor Plato actually provides an answer as to why the soul enters the realm of space-time in the first place.

Actually, Plato gets even closer to Buddhist or Hindu concepts when he argues that the soul enters the material realm as a sort of punishment—think of it like karma. In his view, the soul belongs to the world of Ideas, which represents the eternal, unchanging essence of everything. So, if the soul is part of that permanent, immutable reality, how exactly does it cause its own degradation into matter?

There isn’t a coherent or intelligent answer to that question. You’re making the same mistake Plato did by claiming that God strives toward imperfection while humans strive toward perfection. That just doesn't hold up. God is absolute perfection and fullness in every possible sense. Because the Absolute contains no deprivation, there is no possibility of "striving" for anything. Striving is an anthropomorphic concept, pure and simple. It shouldn't be applied to God, not even as a metaphor. Out of pure love, God chooses to create contingent beings like us. He brings us into the mystery of eternal existence—a state where we haven't always existed. If we had always existed, we would possess an attribute that belongs exclusively to God. That's why the correct answer to my previous question remains: eternity and immortality are not synonyms, and they never can be.

Here’s the thing. The Buddhist and Hindu principle of Samadhi—or Brahma—isn't actually accurate if you look at it through a substantial lens. If that concept were truly correct, we’d run into a massive logical wall. On one hand, anyone claiming ontological identity is beyond question would be right, but on the other, anyone teaching the reality of "substantial Samadhi" has to deal with a glaring error. It’s simply impossible to merge your own ontological identity with God while simultaneously holding onto that identity. That's the core flaw in the impersonalist philosophies found in Hinduism and Buddhism, isn't it?

If the soul is truly immortal, it means we get to participate in the bliss of being near God through a direct "vision of God"—much like the biblical concept—rather than just dissolving into some impersonal cosmic soup like you see in Buddhist or Hindu traditions. It’s a distinction worth making. I remember reading this a long time ago, maybe in the *Timaeus* or one of his other letters, though the specifics are a bit fuzzy now. But the core idea remains: Plato can claim that Dionysius was an impostor because the truth about metaphysics cannot be expressed in writing and all those who know that truth know this. He laid out a systematic argument that philosophy can undeniably prove God exists. However, he also pointed out that because our minds are so limited, there are certain truths we simply can't grasp on our own. We need divine revelation to bridge that gap. To truly understand the deeper mysteries, we require a connection to the Divine.

Since angels are also created beings, the concept of time must apply to them as well. They aren't absolute beings in any temporal sense. The same goes for space; they aren't omnipresent, which remains an attribute reserved exclusively for God. Just because angels exist outside our material spacetime continuum doesn't mean we can imagine them as eternal beings.

Alright, I’m signing off for now before my computer decides to send everything straight into the void.

As for hell, let's save that discussion for the next post. For now, I just want to offer a warning. Just because people find it so incredibly difficult to face the weight of their own responsibility as free beings doesn't mean that responsibility isn't real. If responsibility exists, then there has to be a crossroads somewhere—a point where paths diverge, forcing one direction over another.

The purpose of life simply cannot be some endless, pointless cycle of repetition—whether you look at it through the lens of personalist Eastern traditions or the more impersonal paths found in Buddhism. That idea is such a wild, nonsensical premise. It honestly feels just as absurd as atheistic nihilism, just positioned on the opposite side of the philosophical spectrum.

If there isn't a deeper purpose, then life becomes something incredibly serious, and we ought to treat it as such. Otherwise, do you really think Christ was a fool when He chose to walk the path to Calvary and endure that agony? A human being is a responsible entity. Life isn't some playground for gods on Mount Olympus, playing around with us like we’re just glitchy avatars in some poorly programmed video game.

Bottom line: philosophy is immensely valuable, and you are a true philosopher. I don't think there's much higher praise than what I've just given you. Still, philosophy has its limits. Plato can claim that Dionysius was an impostor because the truth about metaphysics cannot be expressed in writing and all those who know that truth know this. There are divine truths that must be revealed to us if we want to grasp the specific details that trip us up—details we clearly can't reach solely through our own strength. Imagination is fine, but philosophy isn't mere daydreaming. As a real philosopher, you realize that, don't you?

@ amberpilot, you write incredible posts!

I have a question for you: How do you interpret the concept of human "ontological identity"? Buddhists don't really buy into ontological identity. In their view, there is rebirth, but there isn't a "self" that undergoes it. Humans, animals, and plants are just mediums through which this cycle flows. There's no claim that humans are somehow more valuable or elevated than a plant or an animal in that sense.

The goal of Buddhism is to reach samadhi, which means escaping the illusion of the "self." The "I" is a trick, the world is an illusion—"maya"—and truth is just eternal rebirth. The ultimate aim is to break free from that cycle entirely. But I feel like Buddhists are missing something. They don't explain what the purpose of eternal rebirth actually is if that process lacks any ontological identity. If there is no personal nature, what is moving?

That’s why I see Buddhism more as a meditative technique rather than a religion. It doesn't account for a personal concept of consciousness, and to me, splitting consciousness away from personality is a fundamental mistake. When you dichotomize consciousness and personality like that, you end up with nothing.

Now, why did I start with all this Buddhist talk? Because when you suggest that nothing truly begins or ends with human birth, you’re likely referring to the Absolute, and you're probably right. But here is the real question:

Can we say that our immortal soul, once it breaks free from the shackles of time and space after death, will truly "become" part of eternity again—returning to its "homeland" as Plato (in his own "Buddhist" way) might imagine? Or will it exist in a sort of "linear" eternity—immortal, yet perhaps not eternal since it wasn't uncreated—forever praising God and thanking Him for the fact that He created us? This implies a beginning, even though the whole concept of "beginning-middle-end" shouldn't apply outside the context of time and space, right?

Angels were also created, yet they aren't bound by time and space, are they?

Are you a Platonist in this regard? Or do you admit you don't have a definitive answer on whether human consciousness—the soul—can be immortal without being eternal? Do you accept the possibility that something can be eternal only in one direction (toward the future)? Or do you think that being immortal (eternal toward the future) inherently changes the nature of eternity once we limit it to a single direction?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

That’s my point. You care about the definition of existence, not whether existence itself is a thing that happens, right?

That said, any philosopher claiming nothing exists isn't making a profound point. They're either dealing with a serious mental breakdown or they're just pulling a stunt for attention. It's pure self-promotion. Honestly, it makes sense. When you have absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation, there's always one last resort: say something incredibly stupid and completely anti-philosophical.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The problem with using "who" in this context is that it acts as a heavy assumption—it predetermines far more than we actually comprehend. And frankly, even the definition of what it means to "be"... that remains entirely elusive...

It’s perfectly logical for existence to be confusing. It feels unnatural for anything to emerge from nothingness. Since we operate on the premise that the universe sprang from nothing, we lose our footing. We can't be certain what preceded "nothing" or "something," and that uncertainty bleeds into our own sense of being.

The solution is simple. You just factor Absolute into the equation, and everything clicks. People aren't actually confused by the fact that they exist—only a fool would doubt that. No, the confusion stems from this:

How can we exist if the Absolute isn't behind it? But wait, who decided the Absolute isn't there? You might ask, "What exactly is the Absolute?" Well, it is Eternal Existence. How do you visualize eternal existence? You don't. You can't. It is simply the necessary destination of our logical and philosophical journey. It is the undeniable Necessity that serves as the prerequisite for your wonder regarding our existence. And honestly, it is so fascinating that it’s only natural to question whether your own existence is even real.

It exists. It really does. Yet, as Jonathan Brooks8 points out, "it is unknown what it means to 'exist'."
We don't truly know what love is, either. Neither is music or humor. But people claim those things are real. They even claim that sites like Reddit exist, where you can stumble upon deep thoughts that make your head spin. That's just how it goes. Give a man a computer, and you'll see just how brilliant he can be.