I agree that grounding ontology in the infinite implies that our reality including time must in some way be unsubstantial. This is hard to grasp from our frame of reference for we are fully immersed in our reality. However, this concept is not limited to theism. Several physicists have argued that reality is other then what it appears to be and that we may actually live in a
Holographic Universe. This of course raises the question of who sustains the projection?
It hardly matter who is proposing the idea, or its specifics, if it is an ontology where infinity grounds finitude it is a theistic ontology. The fact that physicists and mathematicians are prone to this kind of theologies, while at the same time not knowing what they are doing, claiming to be athiests and claiming the uselessness of philosophy, just tells me that there is in fact something very common about our misapplication of the concept.
Godels incompleteness theorem tells us that for any overarching logical system no mater how complete there will exist unprovable assertions which if assumed true will require a priori knowledge (truths which are assumed but cannot be proven from within the system). With this in mind the logical course of action is to work to minimize our reliance on such assumptions while ensuring that our chosen system is not inconsistent for it is an elementary fact of logic that in an inconsistent formal system every statement is derivable, and consequently, such a system is trivially complete.
This is not what a priori means, it is a designation of non-empirical knowledge (regardless of its certitude). Gödel had shown the limitations of formal systems, and that they can either be consistent or closed, but knowledge is not itself a formal system. The problem of self-reference is in fact much older than Gödel's formalization and proof, it lies at the heart of transcendental philosophys as the self-referentiality of subjectivity and/or knowledge and is an essential problem for epistemology. If for formal systems, the problem of self-reference is proven by Gödel, its more epistemological implications are so far unknown, and so the essential problem (neither Russel nor Kripke, were successful, however the latter had progressed in the right direction).
I cannot evaluate your concept of nihilism without further detail specifically your first posit and what you derive from it. However, the typical concept of nihilism argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or value, and that morality does not inherently exist. It argues that established moral values are simply contrived abstractions. This definition appears inconsistent with your a priori assertion of the good as perfection.
The first thing to know is that there is nothing simple about abstractions.
Even your definition of good is not the infinite creator, but something else.
Right, the old problem of giving something a name; a philosopher will ask me what do I mean by REALITY: am I talking about the physical world of nature or am I talking about a spiritual world--or what? And to that I have a very simple answer: when we TALK about the material world, that is actually a philosophical concept, so in the same way, if I say that reality is spiritual, that is also a philosophical concept, and reality itself is NOT a concept--reality IS... and we won't give it a NAME!
Most civilized people are out of touch with REALITY because they confuse the world as it IS with the world as they think about it, talk about it, and describe it; on the one hand there is the real world, and on the other a whole System of Symbols about that world, which we have in our minds. These are very, very useful symbols, and all our civilization depends on them, but like ALL good things, they have their disadvantages, and the principle disadvantage of symbols is that we confuse them with REALITY, just as we confuse money with actual wealth, and our NAMES about ourselves, our IDEAS of ourselves, with our SELVES.
I agree, the confusion between concepts and reality is an essential problem, however the concept of reality (or Being, or Gods) is itself a confusion of a concept of infinity for something existing outside of a concept, this is my whole point.
If anything be placed before GOD--IT IS EVIL, good friend.
And WHO is THE MOST HIGH in nihilism? Come again? It is a MAN--GOD IS ONLY "OFFERED THROUGH THE RITUAL" AS "BEING FIRST" BUT "HE" IS NOT! Almost everything in the "churches" is FIRST before the ACTUALITY OF GOD PRESENCE. LOOK AT YOUR WORLD AND CHECK IT OUT. ARE YOU INTO CHAOS AND TROUBLE OR ARE YOU IN THE MIDST OF HARMONY AND BALANCE IN GODLY TRUTH? Maybe your way and "wisdom" didn't work?
There is nothing before god, because there isn't one. Nihilism does not imply that man is the highest, man is just a finite creature, his concepts are much higher.
But let me reveal my heart entirely unto you, my friends: if there were gods, how could I endure it not to be a god! Hence there are no Gods.
After the failure of Christianity (if there is such a failure), the
final philosophy is Nietzsche.
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/18055Nietzsche does not seem to rejoice in the reality of atheism in any of his works. He doesn't seem to regret it either (as it just
is).
As to nihilism, he saw it as a crisis, a crisis that must be overcome.http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/37246Of course, Nietzsche was rooting for the whole pantheist/pagan Dyonisian mythology, nobody ever accused Nietzsche of being a rationalist, the closest we have come to nihilism was in the most theistic rationalists (Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes), it comes quite unintentionally, as knowledge is the natural enemy of gods.