3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter

When I first picked this book up, I was expecting a book that would challenge my world view rather than simply support it. I had no idea who this author was nor of his background, but I felt drawn to his logic and expressed desire to find the truth or truths about philosophy,theology, and perhaps even science...though to be fair I steer around science using philosophy as an excuse. And he actually mentions this in the book!Anyway, allow me to break the book down Chapter by Chapter.From The Back Cover:
What is reality? What is the meaning of human life? Why do we suffer? In this concise volume, international speaker Ellis Potter explores three major worldviews that propose radically different answers to these eternal questions. In clear and compelling language, Potter shows us that the three worldviews,and the unique hope that each offers to humanity, have profoundly different consequences for how we see everyday reality and the ultimate purpose in our lives.Lets start with The First Circle.
Potter basically breaks the three worldviews down as
Monism
Dualism
TrinitarianismAnd when I saw the third one I was pleasent surprised that this author expressed familiarity with my own beliefs and indeed went farther than I ever have at asking questions.It turns out that Potter originally was a Buddhist.This book is good! I really enjoy the questions that he asks.Here is an example of his thinking:
God alone is God
but
God is not alone

well I hate bumper stickers! They clutter up the car and are hard to take off once you get tired of them. But Ellis does have some meat to chew on regarding some of the things you and I have discussed.I once asserted to you the following:
Science is an intrinsic part of reality. Science is not all of reality.Except that Ellis would argue that within the concept of monism one could claim scientism but that this limits the concept to an absolute.

And I think that you are willfully ignorant for belueving that scientism and materialisn is all that there is. Humans do far mire than simply make stuff up. the characters exist apart from and outside of the book. No way to prove it to you though.

Another beautiful day! I look around and blink because I realize the times we are in--everyone wearing masks and collectively dealing with human issues such as survival. Its a good thing to be rationally minded and to understand that viruses can kill humans. It is a necessary task to wear the mask and to keep the hands clean and to avoid contamination. Science has its usefulness. That being said, my argument with yo today is tp pursue the idea and ideal that there is something more---a grand scheme to it all. Ellis Potter does that quite effectively and persuasively in this book. I'm assuming you mean the Bible, though I suppose that your charge could also apply to Ellis Potters book.

Cant you get out of your narrow thinking and attempt to be philosophical for a change? Sure Long John Silver is simply a character in a book, but he was in someones head long before that. Moreover, Long John Silver may have evolved from thoughts and experiences far deeper than his character in the book actually hinted at.You seem to adhere to this world view: Am I close?

Potter plays his cards quite close to the vest. He explains his conclusions further: So lets figure out what Potter means when he claims these three absolutes. Personally, the way you guys carry on around here, I see you as accepters of scientism. I'm finding my argument through discussion. I am not quite able to express Potters views in my own words, though I am finding quotes that he makes which I agree with. Tangle would claim that I am simply agreeing with made up mumbo jumbo that gives me comfort. Perhaps he is right. Time will tell. I considered your line of reasoning enough to look outside Potters definitions. The article gets deep, but does not address Potters insistence that there are only 3 basic absolutes:
Oneism
Twoism
Threeism.Potter was a Buddhist before he became a Christian. The story is intriguing.Edited by Phat, : punctuation 101

We are in the process (in this discussion) of defining reality...as an abstract concept. jar always talks of logic, reason,l and reality.So lets ask ourselves some questions.

How is reality defined? Is it defined only through that which we can quantify and verify? Is it objective or subjective?

jar writes:

​

And it absolutely sells to those who simply don't know how to think or that know how but refuse to think.

It is so easy for you to bash and criticize other peoples arguments while being too lazy to provide one of your own. You often trip over your own ego. To be fair, you dont have the book to read as I do, thus you cannot fully understand Potters arguments and yet you immediately jump to your pet conclusion that the man must be "selling" something and that he is likely a conman. Am I right?

​

Potter writes:

​

The Western tradition of thought recognizes that the idea 'things were once perfect and need to be made right again' is the biblical view of history.

You would of course disagree, claiming that the Bible is human-centric and was created solely as a product of man. Edited, redacted, compiled, yada yada yada.

​

So some questions about the basic storyline.

Was there perfection in the beginning? Does the storyline indicate that God existed before humans thought Him up? Is the focal point of reality, in this context, focused on God as humans understand Him or is the focal point on our human understanding itself?

​

Perhaps another way to phrase the question I am asking is this:

Is reality a concept that is defined by humans or is it a concept that is discovered by humans and pondered philosophically? If the former, you are supporting what Potter calls scientism. Feel free to throw humanism in with it. The basic question is whether we should focus on human-centric thinking in describing reality or whether we should speculate on whether there is a power/reality/ground of being that exists whether we choose to acknowledge "it" or not?

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer

​

The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

Those two concepts are monastic and indistinguishable. They both are human centered. You cant have science without humans to define and quantify it.

OK I will try. I've heard your arguments enough that I think I can mimic them to a degree.You essentially believe or are convinced through logic, reason, and reality that there is an essential distinction between beliefs (of any garden variety) and facts...those events,behaviors, and physical laws which can be objectively proven.I perused Potters notes in his questions and answers to see if he addressed your particular types of worldviews and did not specifically find it.I concluded on my own that you were basically Monists...if we could fit you (ringo,Tangle, and perhaps AZPaul3) into a category. In that there is a singular reality and not a dualistic cosmic battle or a Trinitarian God who brings His wayward children back into a unified fold through Holy Communion.You guys essentially skip belief all together---you throw it away basically. All that you embrace is objective truths through human interpretation of physical evidence and the observable behavior of how the universe around us operates.

Remember how he chooses to break this stuff down as "circles"? The first circle is Monism, the second circle is Dualism and the third circle is Trinitarianism? (Don't ask me why he does it this way.,...but lets roll with it for now)This is how he explains it:

quote:

---

According to the third circle, when we look around at the world we see both unity and diversity. In this way we are like the people of the first circle. But whereas the people of the first circle conclude that unity is good and diversity is not, and that unity is real and diversity is illusion, people of the third circle have a different view. They regard the original perfection, which is called God, as both perfectly unified and perfectly diversified. We see a clear description of this reality in the Bible. God is perfectly unified as One God, and yet God is perfectly diversified in the three persons of the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit. There is unity and diversity in absolute reality. There is not One God who chooses to reveal Himself in three ways in order to create the appearance of diversity, and there are not three persons who choose to unite and cooperate in order to create the appearance of being unified. The original reality is 100% unified and 100% diversified. Its a 200% reality that cannot be comprehended by simple logic.

---

Thats what I think he meant when I quoted him in Message 1
I actually misquoted. The correct quote he used was:
God alone is God,and God is not alone.He mentions that no other God in human imagination has this attribute. You can say Buddha alone is Buddha, but thats all. (The rest is silence)
You can say Krishna alone is Krishna, or Allah alone is Allah, but again...the rest is silence.

quote:

---

If the God of the third circle wants to talk to somebody, He talks among Himself because He is three persons. A God who wasn't diversified could not talk among Himself. He would have to create something else to talk with. He would require a creation in order to be personal, whereas (Ellis argues) the God of the third circle is intrinsically personal, independent of His creation.

---

Thus Potter explains his understanding of Trinitarianism as the centrality of the third circle.
In a sense, his concept unifies Yin and Yang(the 2nd circle) back into monism(One God) while preserving the belief in the Trinity and a subsequent explanation of his understanding of it. Which sorta makes sense in that the first Adam fell from unity into diversity and the 2nd Adam, Jesus, reunified the diversity caused by that pesky snake back into perfect unity....through acceptance of GOD in the personality of Jesus Christ and preserved eternally through the presence of the Holy Spirit. I mean, it all makes sense to me. I know Tangle insists its all made up Bushwa, but in a strict sense, any belief can be accused of being made up. Ellis Potter expanded my own understanding of Christianity in that his explanations felt intuitively sound. I suppose a critically thinking scientist would challenge the assumptions, but without throwing all belief away and relying solely on objective evidential discovery, what else can one do?Edited by Phat, : added clarification

As far as the Trimurti goes, I think it differs in the whole image thing. Which is why Christians were always encouraged to see God as an un-imaged concept.(One would never know it by all of the statues of Jesus, (a white Jesus at that!) but this is one reason Protestants dont trust Catholics. The Orthodox try and get around it all through the use of icons, which they claim are "windows to heaven"...but I never really understood it all. I know that for me personally, it helps when I pray to not have any physical image in my mind as to the God I believe I am talking with...though jar would likely argue that by giving God attributes(friendly to Phat, loving, quick to forgive, etc etc...)I have essentially created Him in my own mind. I disagree, but can see the point.

Christians have never been able to clearly explain the concept of the Trinity, but the idea of God being unified(Monotheistic) yet also diversified(Father and Son) cant really be explained any better...dont you think?

OK, Paul fair enough.Lets start out by asking what the specific contradiction is?

Why not? One obvious example that comes to mind is the family unit. Ideally complete and unified. Also fully separate. I see no contradiction here.

PaulK---regarding our rabbit trail into the sanity (or insanity) of Potters third circle, Trinitarianism, lets continue this at an older topic where the Trinity was more fully covered:
Message 397We can continue our discussion of Potters book specifically in this topic.Here is Potters Table Of Contents:
The First Circle--(Monism)

The New Age Movement

Experiencing Oneness

The Cycle Of Life

Meditation and Language

The Nothing of Zen

​

The Second Circle--Dualism
(I notice that Potter does not elaborate too much on dualism. For the record, I wouldn't either! )

​

The Third Circle--Trinitarianism

The Problem of Opposites

Humpty Dumpty

Falling in Love on a Bridge

Defying Gravity

Change,Time, and Eternity

Me and We

You Gotta Serve Somebody

Look,Daddy,Look!

​

A Black Hole in the Heart

The Solution

To Put it Simply

​

45 Questions

Themes for discussion
with responses by Ellis Potter
******************************
Overall, I think this was a useful book for me. Critics may say that it only reinforced my World View, and I can only answer by saying yes, yes it did.

​

If anyone has any questions regarding any of the chapters in the book or any of Potters 45 questions, which I can also list in a few posts, we can go there. Otherwise, thanks for participating and perhaps some of you can start your own Book Nook topic and discuss your favorite reads this summer.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer

​

The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy