Apeirotheism?

[Veyl]

Curious as to see if there are any apeirotheists on the forum, or those who would want to discuss it.

 

[Vee]

Thanks to you, I just learned a new word today
I believe in only one God.

 

[syo]

Curious as to see if there are any apeirotheists on the forum, or those who would want to discuss it.

I'm one.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Curious as to see if there are any apeirotheists on the forum, or those who would want to discuss it.

What can you tell me about your beliefs and religious/spiritual practices?

 

[Ashoka]

I'm one as well.

 

[JustGeorge]

I had to look it up, too!

But I guess I fall into that category, if I'm understanding right.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm probably not, but I don't know the daffynition. So I could be.

 

[Brickjectivity]

One web page had this to say in defining apeirotheism (abstract):

"Davidson believed there was a primary or archetypal individual or God, which he referred to as thinking or Nous. God thinks only of Himself, but with His being, there must be some content, so His identity is not completely abstract. Therefore, He must include the world as part of Himself.This world contains secondary individual selves or Gods, who emerge from the primary individual. They’re more of an essence than a unique individual, like droplets on a glass of water. Through cooperation, love, and the drive for possibilities, these secondary Gods can approach the perfection of the primary. Therefore, the potential exists for an infinite number of God-selves in the universe."
--https://listverse.com/2015/06/24/10-uncommon-and-unorthodox-conceptions-of-god/
​

Unbelievably, the above page loaded faster than another page with even less information. It kept reloading,too, trying to beat my browser into submission, but nothing can beat my browser into submission. I've tried myself, and it does what it wants to do.

 

[The Hammer]

I apparently am one. Learned a new term today, neat.

 

[wellwisher]

Curious as to see if there are any apeirotheists on the forum, or those who would want to discuss it.

The idea of infinite gods is regressive in terms of developing modern perception. Picture if we apply the principles of the apeirotheists to science. Instead of looking for unified theories that can combine similar things, we define everything we see in reality as a unique and separate thing. Each of the infinite things in nature; two blades of grass of the same composition, are now occupied by two of the infinite gods, like they are totally different. The black bug will be seen as different from the same species of black bug with a small white streak, as though it is a separate species. The push to unify the gods into monotheism is why we now see these two bugs via their common DNA, only different by a gene or two; almost monotheism science theory.

The Apeirotheist approach was useful for differentiating reality into all its details. That is an early stage of human perception when humans became different from the animals and could and ponder the diversity of nature. The next stage was to combine these observations into fewer and fewer piles; unifying theories.

Years ago I did some unconscious mind research on myself. The first stage was the get first hand data of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. This is similar to data from the firmware of the brain connected to human nature and the brain's operating system. This data appeared as a wide range of symbolism in dreams and visions. In the end, it turned out all this diversity of symbolism was based on only a few types that generated all the data. This research led to a type of dissociation of my personality; infinite gods. This was reintegrated though the inner self; monotheistic principle.

The gods of mythology had a separate god for each task; love, war and farming. For a human to come to a focus and be good at any of these, you needed to pray to the god of that task. Monotheism is like being a jack of all trades,, with one appeal all you need to do all. It was far more compact and efficient.

 

[Veyl]

I'm one.

Good to see one.

What can you tell me about your beliefs and religious/spiritual practices?

Qabalistic magic in practice. In cosmology, lean towards pluralism. The topic is interesting to me as I can't say I've wholeheartedly embraced the monistic leanings of said practice; sentiments and experience have led me to theopsychism. Might I ask of your praxis as well?

I'm one as well.

It's neat to see some come out of the woodwork. Thank you for your response.

I had to look it up, too!

But I guess I fall into that category, if I'm understanding right.

Same to you.

One web page had this to say in defining apeirotheism (abstract):

"Davidson believed there was a primary or archetypal individual or God, which he referred to as thinking or Nous. God thinks only of Himself, but with His being, there must be some content, so His identity is not completely abstract. Therefore, He must include the world as part of Himself.This world contains secondary individual selves or Gods, who emerge from the primary individual. They’re more of an essence than a unique individual, like droplets on a glass of water. Through cooperation, love, and the drive for possibilities, these secondary Gods can approach the perfection of the primary. Therefore, the potential exists for an infinite number of God-selves in the universe."
--https://listverse.com/2015/06/24/10-uncommon-and-unorthodox-conceptions-of-god/
​

Unbelievably, the above page loaded faster than another page with even less information. It kept reloading,too, trying to beat my browser into submission, but nothing can beat my browser into submission. I've tried myself, and it does what it wants to do.

I think Davidson's model actually accounted for the shortcomings of traditional pantheism, wherein only the whole universe as an aggregate is God, which still leaves the finitude of individual objects. His mention of how each monad is the whole God allows the full extension of divinity and actually greatly resembled my own conclusions.

I apparently am one. Learned a new term today, neat.

Tip of the hat to you.

The idea of infinite gods is regressive in terms of developing modern perception. Picture if we apply the principles of the apeirotheists to science. Instead of looking for unified theories that can combine similar things, we define everything we see in reality as a unique and separate thing. Each of the infinite things in nature; two blades of grass of the same composition, are now occupied by two of the infinite gods, like they are totally different. The black bug will be seen as different from the same species of black bug with a small white streak, as though it is a separate species. The push to unify the gods into monotheism is why we now see these two bugs via their common DNA, only different by a gene or two; almost monotheism science theory.

The Apeirotheist approach was useful for differentiating reality into all its details. That is an early stage of human perception when humans became different from the animals and could and ponder the diversity of nature. The next stage was to combine these observations into fewer and fewer piles; unifying theories.

Years ago I did some unconscious mind research on myself. The first stage was the get first hand data of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. This is similar to data from the firmware of the brain connected to human nature and the brain's operating system. This data appeared as a wide range of symbolism in dreams and visions. In the end, it turned out all this diversity of symbolism was based on only a few types that generated all the data. This research led to a type of dissociation of my personality; infinite gods. This was reintegrated though the inner self; monotheistic principle.

The gods of mythology had a separate god for each task; love, war and farming. For a human to come to a focus and be good at any of these, you needed to pray to the god of that task. Monotheism is like being a jack of all trades,, with one appeal all you need to do all. It was far more compact and efficient.

Alas, one runs into the traditional problem of classical monotheism then; there is no point in any other object besides God.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

I am quite close to the apeirotheism vision except that it seems to conceive the multiplicity of Gods as limited in time and space. I see them omnipresent.