Okay may I ask you why wouldnt there be nothing?
I'm not sure I understand your question. There would be nothing if we are identical to our bodies. If, rather, we are something different, then there is the possibility that something exists once the material layers are stripped away.
But I suspect we are getting a bit off track here. I'm not talking about literally stripping away the physical body itself. My statement was about stripping away the "material conditioning." And, by that, I mean the mentality of bodily identification. Every personality trait that derives from an identification with one's bodily circumstances is a product of false ego.
Your argument is completely based on morals and beliefs and sorry to say this but we cant all relate to them.
I haven't brought morals into this. But as far as beliefs go, sure. I begin with the belief that the self is distinct from the body. But between this belief and the one that says I am identical with the body, I've found mine to be the more rational one.
No one is perfect and that goes for this whole world. Not everyone believes in spiritual beings (I am an atheist so I dont). So right now you are using a false cause fallacy.
Well, what I am saying is that living entities are perfect underneath, so to speak. Perfection is there to be discovered.
I realize not everyone believes in spiritual beings. In fact, many people claim a belief in spiritual beings, but they don't understand what that even means to have any effect on how they understand themselves. For these people, "spiritual beings" is synonomous with "ghosts."
It should be noted that while atheists tend to not believe in spiritual beings, it isn't necessary in the definition of "atheist" that they lack a belief in them. Atheists are allowed to believe in nearly anything. All "atheist" denotes is a person who lacks a belief in a deity or deities.
Anyway, I was just offering my viewpoints on the subject as someone who does believe in spiritual beings.
He's basing it off the assumption that there is an objective truth and that truth exists in all nature, not morals.
Elaborate please. How did you get that "truth exists in all nature" from what I've written? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that. I'm just not ready to commit until I know what you mean.
Unfortunately this premise, though already flawed, will logically reach a point of which people don't want to hear.
Already flawed? How so? Also, please elaborate on the "point of which people don't want to hear."
I am going to refer to this absolute or perfection as "god", because it is more or less the same thing.
OK. I might refrain from calling it "god" for the reason that that term carries extra baggage I'd rather avoid in such an early stage of discussion. But ultimately, that is what I am talking about.
If perfection or objectivity exists in everything, this yields two outcomes. One, this god would be an imperfect being with all the imperfections in this world. Descartes was unable to dismiss a god's imperfection if it is a part of everything. An imperfect god or a self-doubting god is an interesting, yet often, unexplored option in many religions or philosophical conversations.
How does it follow that if perfection or objectivity exists, then God would be an imperfect being with all the imperfections of this world? I don't see the connection between perfection or objectivity existing and God being imperfect.
The other part of what you say here pertains to God being imperfect on the condition of being part of everything. This is a separate consideration from the one made above. But to comment on that, we'd have to delve more into the nature of imperfection in the world as well as the ontological nature of God being (or not being) a part of everything.
The second option is that this god is either not benevolent or omnipotent. All the chaos, destruction, and bad things that happen in this world are connected to it and it cannot be either benevolent or omnipotent. If it is omnipotent, than it has no alignment, good or bad.
Again, what you are saying here, to put it succinctly, is "If perfection or objectivity exists, then God is either not benevolent or (not?) omnipotent. Just as with your option one, I don't see how this follows. It sounds like you're attempting to invoke the problem of evil, which isn't an argument particularly contingent upon there existing perfection or objectivity.
These are the major issues with a pantheistic viewpoint like this. Some people see them as issues, others don't.
Somehow or other you have come under the impression that I am a pantheist. I assure you that I am not.
