Do You Find Ietsism a Likely and/or Plausible Belief?

[Heyo]

Only one truth is real… is that so?

It is so in Aristotelian logic, which is binary. Statements are either true or false, the law of the excluded middle applies.

How about ‘perspective’? How about Schroedinger‘s cat?

For those examples, you need trinary logic, where statements are allowed to be "unknown". But even then, there is no way that a statement and its negation can be both true. The law of non contradiction still applies.

How about Schroedinger’s Friends?

You mean Wigner's friend?

How about ’spooky action at a distance’?

Science itself is fallible too. Scientists ‘update’ their hypothesis aaall the time.

And scientists, or rather philosophers of science, have engrained that in their dogma. No scientific theory is ever declared "true". It is at most "unknown" (with varying possibilities of being false).

 

[Madsaac]

Look at the word meaning and then only desciribe it using evidence as per objective evidence per natural science.

In more technical terms not all words have objective referents or even physical referents.

The above is confusing.

No you made a few statements that require evidence.

Yes, because there is already more to the world than the physical. Really, such as? Prove it, please.

And I don't even mean that in a transcendent sense. What do you mean, then?

To explain the world as a physical universe doesn't even work within the everyday world in practice. How does it work, then? And why? Any proof?

All a bit tongue and cheek....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The above is confusing.

No you made a couple of statements that require evidence.

Yes, because there is already more to the world than the physical. Really, such as?

And I don't even mean that in a transcendent sense. What do you mean, then?

To explain the world as a physical universe doesn't even work within the everyday world in practice. How does it work, then? And why?

All a bit tongue and cheek....

Okay, if everything is physical, then explan the purely physical properties of this and how that is everything there is to it.

And then do it for: All a bit tongue and cheek....

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Yes. I would call myself an "Ietsist," to some degree.

I agree with Ietsism in the belief that "something," exists beyond what we know, but is undefined or unknown. I wish it was more popular as a philosophical position. The problem in part is its vagueness.

This is why I don't necessarily subscribe to atheist materialism personally. I think it is possible that there is something out there, beyond our known physical reality. I just don't know what it is. It may or may not be a "god." Just "something."

Why do I think this? Because I see a problem considering the vastness and awe of the universe without the argument that there could be something more than we know out there. I think it would be arrogant to claim that this is all there is.

Again, this doesn't necessarily postulate a god to me, though. As someone who identifies as both an Agnostic and sometimes atheist as well, I don't always think that anything that cannot be explained always points to a god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most likely you are right, however, there’s also a reasoning that says: “Just because something has always been one way, it doesn’t mean it will always stay that way.”

Indeed. You are preaching to the choir. I believe in progressive revelation, which means that God reveals more truth in every successive age, which is tailored to the needs of the people who are living in the present age.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

I mean, we seemingly have free will to change our minds, why not God too? Especially so, even. God, how boring it must be for him if everything he did stayed exactly the same aaaall the time! He probably wants to changed things up a bit and “See how they react if I change just this little thingy here… and maybe that there. *rubbings his hands* Right, let’s see how that goes!”

It is not that God changes His mind, it is that God knows what humanity needs at any particular time in history, so God reveals a new message in every age.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

 

[Trailblazer]

By paranormal I include the afterlife at the moment, as it is as yet unexplained. I also include God itself and all his angels, basically anything people believe in that science has yet to prove really exists.

Okay, that makes sense, especially if you are a nonbeliever. What is normal to a believer is not normal to a nonbeliever.

And yes, I would love to hear your personal story (and share mine, if you are interested) but don’t know how to PM on here?

I will start a conversation with you and if you click on the envelope at the top that says Conversations you will see it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, so if instead of the words they chose, they said: “God is everything“ Would you still disagree with them?

I'd say that "God is everything" is essentially meaningless. Everything is self-descriptive -- there's no need to personalize it and give it a name.

 

[PureX]

Originally a Dutch term, ietsism is a form of nontheism that asserts there is some unspecified transcendent reality beyond the mundane. It is expressed in the statement, "I feel there must be more to reality than the physical universe, but I have no idea what that 'more' could be."

Do you find ietsism a likely and/or plausible belief?

This sounds a lot like some sort of faithless intuition. One recognizes the logical need and thereby likelihood for some sort of transcendent reality to explain this one, yet will not accept a transcendent 'being', or 'entity' along with it.

I can certainly understand and appreciate this perspective. But for myself, it seems unnecessarily timid. And as a result, it's probably going to be quite ineffective. It's treating "I don't know" as though it were an impediment, when it is in fact a gateway to tremendous possibility. And if we allow ourselves to walk through that gateway and explore those possibilities, we can begin to discover their effectiveness.

 

[sew.excited73]

I think it would be arrogant to claim that this is all there is.

Exactly, it is this hubris within atheism and materialism that rubs me up the wrong way.

It gives me an innate feeling that is similar to when someone is lying to me.

It’s just a feeling though, and therefore it doesn’t necessarily make me right in any way. However, when I add that to some personal experiences then to me personally that means something.

So, yes, endlessvoid, that is exactly how I feel too.

 

[sew.excited73]

Indeed. You are preaching to the choir. I believe in progressive revelation, which means that God reveals more truth in every successive age, which is tailored to the needs of the people who are living in the present age.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

It is not that God changes His mind, it is that God knows what humanity needs at any particular time in history, so God reveals a new message in every age.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

Interesting!

 

[sew.excited73]

Okay, that makes sense, especially if you are a nonbeliever. What is normal to a believer is not normal to a nonbeliever.

I will start a conversation with you and if you click on the envelope at the top that says Conversations you will see it.

Thanks… will do!

 

[Tomef]

Originally a Dutch term, ietsism is a form of nontheism that asserts there is some unspecified transcendent reality beyond the mundane. It is expressed in the statement, "I feel there must be more to reality than the physical universe, but I have no idea what that 'more' could be."

Do you find ietsism a likely and/or plausible belief?

Please Note: The spelling of ietsism has been corrected.





_______________________________
This has got to be one of the best character studies every composed as a song....

Sounds like the backdrop for a Murakami novel.

 

[sew.excited73]

I'd say that "God is everything" is essentially meaningless. Everything is self-descriptive -- there's no need to personalize it and give it a name.

SoI take it that to you, God is definitely a ‘someone’ then, I reckon, right?

Well, that’s indeed very different from the ietsist belief.

As I include the possibility that God is a something too, rather than a someone. So, not a bearded old man, despite the fact that the Bible says we are made in ‘his’ image… I wonder whether ‘made in his image’ could mean he is an ‘idea’ (as in the Platonic definition of ‘idea’), or blueprint or he could be an alien who seeded us, or… he could even just be a consciousness and our consciousnesses are ‘in his image’, but not necessarily our bodies.

Maybe it is the consciousness in us that is ‘like’ him, in the sence that it is different from the that of other creatures in the universe perhaps, but without any physical likeness maybe?

It’s the interpretation that differs: from the God on a literal thrown, to a God on a proverbial thrown, if you like.

 

[sew.excited73]

This sounds a lot like some sort of faithless intuition. One recognizes the logical need and thereby likelihood for some sort of transcendent reality to explain this one, yet will not accept a transcendent 'being', or 'entity' along with it.

I can certainly understand and appreciate this perspective. But for myself, it seems unnecessarily timid. And as a result, it's probably going to be quite ineffective. It's treating "I don't know" as though it were an impediment, when it is in fact a gateway to tremendous possibility. And if we allow ourselves to walk through that gateway and explore those possibilities, we can begin to discover their effectiveness.

I accept it could be a being, but what’s different is that I would also accept God if it were not a being. I just believe there is more, something or indeed someone is not determined (yet).

(Sorry I didn’t follow your second bit… can you explain in simpler terms, please, so I may understand you? )

 

[sew.excited73]

Sounds like the backdrop for a Murakami novel.

Note to self… borrow Murakami book from library ; )

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

SoI take it that to you, God is definitely a ‘someone’ then, I reckon, right?

Well, that’s indeed very different from the ietsist belief.

As I include the possibility that God is a something too, rather than a someone. So, not a bearded old man, despite the fact that the Bible says we are made in ‘his’ image… I wonder whether ‘made in his image’ could mean he is an ‘idea’ (as in the Platonic definition of ‘idea’), or blueprint or he could be an alien who seeded us, or… he could even just be a consciousness and our consciousnesses are ‘in his image’, but not necessarily our bodies.

Maybe it is the consciousness in us that is ‘like’ him, in the sence that it is different from the that of other creatures in the universe perhaps, but without any physical likeness maybe?

It’s the interpretation that differs: from the God on a literal thrown, to a God on a proverbial thrown, if you like.

Still, I can't help but notice that you capitalize "God," but you do not capitalize "someone" or "man." That appears to mean something, don't you think? And most often, when are referring to a "something" (rather than a someone) we tend to use articles (definite or indefinite) rather than just the noun. We don't say, "use Force" (Star Wars) or "ask the God." But we do say "use the force" or "ask God."

The very way that we use language to describe our beliefs tells us something about how we believe them.

 

[osgart]

Ietsism is definitely where I'm at. But to explain exactly how that infinite realm operates is not knowable in the life here on Earth. Benevolent omnipotent God's I've ruled out for good reasons. Design is not an option because that implies that life is a carefully thought out plan which it is not.

A dimension of reality that has systemic non living intelligence that is far from perfect, and forms life, and posseses life qualities is where I'm at. I do not think everything comes from an infinite living mind, but life can only come from other life type qualities and things.

Otherwise to be a physicalist naturalist I'd have to accept that life on Earth is just a blind physical hiccup; mind from mindlessness, qualities of being without intentionality. Essentially a non special nothing burger, or the rarest of miracles. To be a naturalist is to say that life is nonsensical and deeply absurd.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, not a bearded old man, despite the fact that the Bible says we are made in ‘his’ image… I wonder whether ‘made in his image’ could mean he is an ‘idea’ (as in the Platonic definition of ‘idea’), or blueprint or he could be an alien who seeded us, or… he could even just be a consciousness and our consciousnesses are ‘in his image’, but not necessarily our bodies.

According to my beliefs, to be 'made in God's image' means that humans have the potential to reflect certain attributes of God, such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient. Humans reflect these attributes of God to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual they are. The more spiritual they are the more they reflect the attributes of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I accept it could be a being, but what’s different is that I would also accept God if it were not a being. I just believe there is more, something or indeed someone is not determined (yet).

According to my beliefs, God is a being with a personality but this does not imply that God is a human or a physical form.
I believe we can know some of the attributes of God through scriptures, but we can never know the Essence of God, i.e., God's intrinsic nature.

While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16]

God in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sew.excited73]

Still, I can't help but notice that you capitalize "God," but you do not capitalize "someone" or "man." That appears to mean something, don't you think? And most often, when are referring to a "something" (rather than a someone) we tend to use articles (definite or indefinite) rather than just the noun. We don't say, "use Force" (Star Wars) or "ask the God." But we do say "use the force" or "ask God."

The very way that we use language to describe our beliefs tells us something about how we believe them.

I somewhat agree, but culture and respect for each others cultures also dictates use of language, including punctuation. So, I don’t necessarily do it because that is what I believe, but more because it’s the ‘done thing’ culturally and it therefore helps explain things easier. Does that make sense?