Is spirit everything?

Rachel Bishop said:uh... the final installment..

Look, there are some philosophers who just don't go that far. Obviously, religion's take on God covers way more ground than philosophy ever could. Because of that, they argue, it doesn't mean that the subject of a philosophical study of God would ever clash with religious views of God. You can't even prove a contradiction exists. Anything we can say about God through a philosophical lens, a religious person will pretty much agree with. But, let's be real—that person knows way more about God than even the greatest metaphysicians out there. The conflict isn't about the subject itself, it's about how people approach it. A philosopher looks at God as this rational explanation for the universe. To them, God isn't someone you pray to; He's just necessary to defend their own brand of rationalism.😛Basically, knowing Him is nothing more than a blunt acknowledgment that being is explainable. And if we’re talking about faith here, the only thing actually being assumed is a faith in reason itself. There's zero room to talk about a love for God in this context. Even when Spinoza talked about an intellectual love of God, he was strictly talking about pure cognition.
But that mindset pushes the philosopher—just like with any question about humanity—right up to the edge where everything goes dark. Their version of God gets so vague and bogged down by problems that the philosopher starts wondering—and yeah, Plato actually did this—if there’s a reality beyond just philosophy. If they happen to be a believer, they can turn to religion to find answers to all those heavy, nagging questions. It doesn't warp their concept of God; it actually makes it fuller and more alive.
The only way philosophy can push a thinking person to that limit—where they can't go any further on their own—is if philosophy stays true to itself. In every single issue, philosophy proves it's a creator of life and full of fruit only when it's driven by a genuine hunger to understand and a stubborn grip on reason.
Philosophy is really just human reason applied to explaining the world: doing it without hesitation, without setting limits, and using every bit of strength we've got available to us.

chichamicha😉

stormywolf2.... I'm expecting a huge thank you and a deep bow for all this effort put into transcribing, all in the name of love... 🙂

Rachel Bishop said:Joseph M. Bochenski – Introduction to Philosophical Thought: The Absolute

...In this final reflection of our series, we arrive at the problem of the Absolute. This is how philosophers have traditionally referred to the Infinite... because for a philosopher, God... is never positioned at the starting line the way He is for a believer.

1. The contentious question isn't, I repeat, whether God exists, but rather how we ought to think about Him.
It goes without saying that the question of God's existence is legitimate...

2. Between the nonsense of anthropomorphism—which turns God into just another creature—and the no less absurd nonsense of God being absolutely unknowable...

3. Of course, religion tells us more about God than philosophy does. From this, they argue, it doesn't follow that the object of philosophical study regarding God would ever be in contradiction with the God of religion. Such a point cannot be proven. Anything we can say philosophically about God will also be acknowledged by a religious person.

swiftcobra15 said:What does, say, Buddhism actually "say" about God?😕

That’s just nonsense—total babble from someone who’s completely checked out of thinking altogether.😉 [/B]

stormywolf2 said:Buddhism is just an illusion of the human spirit!

swiftcobra15 said:AGY, man, you missed the mark again. Seriously. Buddhism isn't even the point of this thread (your thread!), it was just an example. I could've used Hinduism, Taoism, or whatever—it doesn't matter.
The guy doesn't even define what he means by religion, then turns around and claims it "says more about God" than philosophy does. That’s just totally arbitrary and completely unacceptable in any actual philosophical debate. But hey, I guess you love it because you pull the same kind of nonsense yourself.
The dude's conclusions are a total wash because his logic is full of holes. We can talk about those holes here if you want, but let's save the Buddhism talk for another thread. 😉

ironbadger31 says:
ironbadger31: Look, there are basically two physiological facts that Buddhism is built on—two things it just obsesses over. First off, you’ve got this insane hypersensitivity, right? It’s like this unnaturally refined capacity for feeling pain that just won't quit. And second, there's this massive overkill of spirituality. People spend way too much of their lives trapped inside concepts and logical loops, which totally guts a person's raw instinct just to serve some kind of "impersonal" void.

stormywolf2:
Look, I think there’s just one specific term in there that totally muddies the waters of your explanation. You can throw all the physiological facts you want at me, but honestly? It doesn't matter how you try to spin them. We can't actually prove that our thoughts and feelings are just some byproduct of neurophysiology happening in the CNS. And that’s where the real nightmare begins. Instead of actually solving the problem, you're just opening up a massive floodgate of even bigger, high-caliber issues—problems that, let's be real, are basically unsolvable. Consciousness, self-awareness, willpower, and the way we grasp or interpret an emotion... none of that can be proven to be nothing more than the physical activity of synapses, neurons, or neurotransmitters in the CNS. It's just not that simple.
Look, I think you’re jumping the gun here. You're making assumptions about stuff that hasn't even been settled by science yet. It's all just guesswork at this point. Also, honestly? That second part of your text went right over my head—total gibberish. I'm just trying to drop a few quick facts in there without making it a whole thing. Keeping it brief.
So, here's the deal: the whole process of emptying out your consciousness in Buddhism basically revolves around the Four Noble Truths and that Eightfold Path thing. And look, Buddha wasn't about that life—he wasn't looking for dogma, mindless prayers, fancy rituals, or throwing sacrifices at an altar. He didn't give a damn about all those endless metaphysical speculations and deep-dive theories either; he figured that kind of stuff just flies way over the limit of what the human brain can actually wrap itself around. Honestly, he wasn't even interested in getting sucked into philosophical debates. He just wanted one thing, and one thing only: total self-control. Just stripping away every single desire and emotion until you hit that point of... well, pure madness.
Look, there isn't some fancy, specialized science he's preaching here or anything. It's way simpler than that. The whole point is just hitting Nirvana through spiritual self-improvement. That's it.
Bottom line? We're out here on this road all by ourselves. There’s nobody coming to bail us out, which means everything that happens—the good, the bad, and the ugly—is squarely on us. We own it. All of it.
Look, if there isn't some kind of indestructible spirit out there, his whole argument just falls apart because everything in the universe is constantly shifting. Like, seriously. The natural law—the Dharma that actually runs this whole show—acts as the only real moral authority we've got. There isn't some other higher power or moral board sitting in judgment elsewhere. And honestly? This whole thing about Karma and reincarnation feels like he's just grabbing old leftovers from Hindu systems and trying to pass them off as new without changing a single thing. It's lazy.
So, that would just be a quick little rundown on the original Hinayana Buddhism.
Everything else that falls under the umbrella of Buddhism eventually just morphs into some kind of theistic thing anyway.
So you’ve got Mahayana Buddhism, then there's Yogacara Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism, and that specific flavor of Zen Buddhism they've got going over in Japan... all just different branches of the Mahayana tree. But honestly? At the end of the day, Buddhism is just something humans cooked up. That's why I don't trust it to be some solid compass for navigating life—it's way too shaky for that.

ironbadger31:
So, looking at those physiological conditions... On purpose. Totally intentional. Depression was basically engineered to exist, you know? And honestly, the way Buddha deals with it is almost... I don't know, borderline hygienic. It’s like he’s cleaning house. He counters that heavy, sinking feeling by pushing for life out in nature—think nomadic vibes, a total bohemian lifestyle. Just zero anxiety, neither for yourself nor for anyone else. There’s no prayer involved, no grueling asceticism, none of that "categorical imperative" nonsense. No coercion whatsoever. That's exactly why Buddhism doesn't go looking for a fight with people who think differently. Its whole doctrine is built to protect itself from even the slightest hint of vengeance. You can't beat hostility with more hostility, right? It just doesn't work.

stormywolf2:
Ugh, seriously?! ACK!
Look, here’s the thing. In American Christianity, they talk about loving your enemies and all that—there isn't some big call to embrace evil or anything like that. But then you look at Buddhism, where it's "exclusively" about practicing compassion rather than love, and that applies to every single living thing out there. Since it lacks any real metaphysics, you could argue Buddhism isn't even a true religion. I mean, how can stepping into nothingness be a solution if you don't actually know what that nothingness even signifies? Plus, let's be real, Nirvana has a million different interpretations depending on who you ask.

ironbadger31: Look, I’m strictly sticking to Buddhism here. To me, Zen Buddhism just reeks of that fake New Age garbage. If you want to talk real Buddhism, there’s a baseline: you need massive moral flexibility, zero militarism, and absolutely no hatred toward anyone else. The whole point is chasing serenity, peace, and total detachment as the ultimate goal—and honestly, that's usually how people actually end up getting there.
In Christianity, it’s all about the instincts of the broken and the suppressed; the bottom of the barrel is always looking for some kind of salvation. It turns into this weird full-time job where people just obsess over the casuistry of sin—constant self-criticism, basically an Inquisition of the conscience. They just cling to this desperate affection for the powerful, for God, treating things that are totally out of reach like they're some kind of gift or divine grace.

stormywolf2:
This is just some Nietzschean clusterfuck that’s got zero to do with New Age science. Honestly, if you actually knew both religious systems inside and out, you would've stopped making these kinds of judgments ages ago. I mean, Christianity is built on the doctrine of Love. And love isn't inherently evil, so I don't get why you're equating Christian New Age teachings with the actions of shitty Christians? If you take the concept of Karma—which is basically the main engine behind reincarnation in both Buddhism and Hindu systems—you end up at a conclusion that can be used to justify both Communist and Nazi lifestyles and atrocities. Because according to Karma, those people (the victims of those systems!) actually deserved it. See, that’s just not possible in Judeo-Christianity, because its whole foundation is the science of love. If you believe in the randomness of reincarnation and the universe in general, since Buddhism doesn't really have a cosmology, then it doesn't matter what moral principle we live by, because the "wheel of Samsara" just keeps spinning until someone is born as a monk, who then empties their consciousness to escape this cursed cycle through Nirvana. It’s a total, illogical mess, not a religious system.
It’s basically just a playground for sadomasochistic types, and even worse than that.
Morality, Nazism, Communism, euthanasia, abortion, cloning—basically everything incompatible with love becomes possible there because Karma justifies anything. It's madness. No wonder kamikaze terrorists were Buddhists, or how certain Lamaist Buddhists fought alongside Hitler; they have this totally fascist tendency because they’re waiting for the final Avatar, the last Buddha, and they think the whole world needs to convert to Buddhism before he arrives.

ironbadger31:
To hate Christianity is to reject pride, courage, freedom, libertinage of the spirit.

stormywolf2:
That's just plain crazy, because love is stronger than pity. You are completely off base here. Just look at the doctrine of Karma in Buddhism!

ironbadger31:
Buddhism is for people in a later era. It’s colder, more truthful, more objective.

stormywolf2:
Buddhism is a human invention. Think about what those attributes would actually imply if you interpret them through Karma. Cold-blooded killing, a "truer" version of euthanasia, and more "objective" abortions.

ironbadger31:
Christianity has this one perverse nuance compared to Eastern religions. It fundamentally knows that whether something is true doesn't actually matter as much as the fact that you *believe* it is true. In Buddhism, and generally in the East, knowing if something is true is what makes you a sage.

stormywolf2:
That claim is so insane that even a mindless comment would seem smart by comparison, so I don't even want to bother responding.

ironbadger31:
If, for example, happiness lies in a person atoning for their sins, it isn't a necessary assumption that the person is actually sinful, but rather that they merely *feel* sinful.

stormywolf2:
Not a smart point either. According to psychology, guilt is just whatever an individual perceives it to be, so under that same psychological framework, you need to eliminate that feeling of sinfulness. Obviously, this applies not just to Christianity but to psychology itself, which has its roots in religion.

ironbadger31:
The worst thing about Christianity is that if faith is required above all else, then reason, knowledge, and investigation have to be discredited. The path to truth becomes a forbidden path. Even official documents (just look at the Fides et Ratio Pope John Paul II wrote) confirm this.
That’s where Buddhism has the edge over Christianity, even though personally, I think both religions are nihilistic and decadent.😎 😎 😎

stormywolf2:
I can't agree with any of that. No one can force salvation on anyone else, and Christianity is the least likely to do so. Seeking truth is the freedom of perception and judgment. And the Christian science of love provides the best path toward reaching the ultimate goal—TRUTH—because Jesus Christ himself said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life!"
Trust me, you can only hear this from one specific person who actually has the authority to back it up. Why on earth didn't Buddha say it himself!?
M.

ironbadger31 said:ironbadger31: How do you even approach Meta? Why? Take, say, a mentally captured person. How are they ever going to get a real grasp on the teachings being preached to them by Bible exegesis? They’re never actually going to comprehend or experience the truth; all they’re left with is blind faith that it even exists. The real issue here is that it seems like only theologians and priests get to have any actual insight into the truth, while everyone else is totally shut out—whether they can't wrap their heads around it or they haven't even heard what it looks like. So, because of tradition, people just believe in God without having any clue about His "characteristics," which are just things theologians cooked up by digging through "holy scriptures." How do you explain that? [/B]

swiftcobra15 said:You clearly put in the effort, but you might have found a more unbiased author elsewhere. This Joe (is he somehow Jesus' stepfather?😕 ) posits God right at the start and then tries to "prove" Him; it’s strikingly similar to our own AGY.
Given the massive gaps in his reasoning (or your transcription), the conclusion simply doesn't hold water.

I'll stick to these three points:

1. It is a contentious question, naturally, how we should conceive of and name Him. If we use the word God, we aren't even in the realm of philosophy (as an intellectual pursuit) anymore; we've stepped into theology, dogma, and other ecclesiastical delights.😁
So: The Absolute, The One, The All, The Totality, The Infinite—whatever else fits an intellectual inquiry is fine.
God is not! "God" is a religious term and has no place in philosophy.

2. Why would the absolute (rational) unknowability of God be considered an absurdity?
It is quite simply the truth. We can only know the Whole (The Absolute, The One = The All) by merging with it—by losing our individuality and separation.

3. Religion "says" something different, not "more." Besides, which religion? It isn't defined anywhere, and it always (using that favorite clerical tactic of implying things under the radar😁) assumes Christianity is the "most perfect" and essentially the only true religion. Here, the author suffers from a pathological Eurocentrism ("Christianity") and doesn't even attempt to pretend to be unbiased.
What does, for example, Buddhism say about God?😕
"A religious person will recognize it." 😕 Which person? Which religion? What philosophical background?

This is a meaningless claim—the rambling of someone who has given up on reasoning.😉

Philosophy is nothing more than human reason applied to explaining the world: doing so without regard for anything, without setting boundaries, using whatever strength is available to us.

stormywolf2 said:In both systems—both paths, really—faith is the driving force.
If you don't have faith, then none of this matters.

Now, I’m not trying to be some huge dogmatist by pushing this idea—honestly, I’m just trying to wrap my head around it through pure logic.
Think about it: if we were actually capable of explaining God within His own battle, we’d basically be His equals. Simple as that! That’s why I feel it's just impossible. Philosophers have been trying to crack this code forever, and while they keep at it, I personally think we're hitting a wall. In that sense, I'm leaning toward Aquinas's agnosticism.

Dragonfly said:Let's see what's actually on the menu today.🙂

In this specific scenario, what's happening up top isn't even remotely the same thing as what's going on down below.🙂

Look, I owe an apology to all you distinguished debaters for my goofy way of putting things—I know it kind of messes with the gravity of this whole philosophical deep dive; if I really have to, I'll tone it down.
Though, honestly, I'd rather not..

Cheers,
🙏 [/B]

Pandora said:1. It doesn't matter.
2. That’s just an absurd truth.
3. Which man... which religion... which God?

Honestly, any deity from any faith works... as long as they aren't being exclusive. 😉 (I really can't stand that whole "exclusivity" thing.)

The fact that people use the concept of God in philosophy—even if it feels a bit misplaced—shouldn't cause such a massive uproar. It’s just how things are; most people use the term while implying God knows what else...

though we all know that...

naming things actually stands in opposition to the truth. 😉