Links to the .pdf document:
https://colloquiallum.net/aplustheism-v3-5/
Or
https://philpapers.org/rec/PRCAVT
What Is A+theism (v3.5):
Not atheism and not theism. A synthesis: the acknowledgment of a real, structurally provable Ground of Being, without the tribal, supernatural, or obedience-based packaging of traditional religion.
A+theism is a totalizing philosophical system I have developed independently, outside academic institutions, spanning metaphysics, cosmology, epistemology, morality/ethics, economics, politics, psychology, and personal spiritual practice. The name marks its position relative to both theism and atheism: it neither accepts religion, as in the classical sense, nor accepts the materialist foundation that conventional atheism is usually built on, or neither discards deities as assumed impossible. It proposes instead that reality is grounded in a primordial substrate of possibility under existential tension — a process ontology in which experience is foundational rather than emergent, and in which the traditional oppositions of theism versus atheism, and idealism versus materialism, are dissolved rather than adjudicated.
This is version 3.5. Earlier versions (Freedom Consequentialism, then Resonant Freedom Consequentialism) worked out the ethical core before the wider metaphysical and cosmological architecture matured enough. Version 3 integrated Jungian depth psychology, a formal cosmological argument, and the Common Capital Allocation System — a post-capitalist economic and political design. This revision, 3.5, does not change the core claims from 3.0. It reorganizes them by epistemic status, so that a reader can see clearly which parts of the system are argued to ordinary academic standards, which parts are coherent but currently unsettled, and which parts rest on personal experience I am not in a position to independently verify for anyone else. Version 3.5 also adds a few details.
Can I ask why this did get downvoted? It makes 0 sense in my eyes to downvote this document, only shows low intelligence of the voter.
Whoever downvoted it probably won't see your comment, so there isn't much use in asking why certain contributions are downvoted (like more generally).
If I had to guess it might because the connection to EA is weak (no TL;DR or such explaining the relevance[1]) / the post is too-promote-y. My second guess is the fact that the post is "~Entirely AI-written" -- which is not disallowed, just disliked by some people.
Side note: I think calling people low-intelligence for disagreeing/downvoting is anti-social and breaks the first essential norm for discussions on the forum:
I think if you want to engage with the Forum (which I think you should if you're into philosophy!), then you should consider reading the Guide to norms on the Forum to not get consistently confused.
"Make the connection to effective altruism clear, even if it seems obvious to you" (Guide to norms on the Forum)
If it was pearls before the swine it was pearls before the swine
The connection to EA is not weak even remotely - the pdf contains moral burden realism - a new form of moral system, the best one ever made