Infinite regress.

[seer]

The cause from the human perspective is 'natural processes,' and the Baha'i belief is the God Creates through natural processes. There would be no difference from the Baha'i theist perspective and the materialist perspective as to what we observe through science. Science is neutral in that the knowledge acquired through the scientific methods cannot be used to justify the existence nor the non-existence of God(s) The Materialist perspective is different only in that it concludes no God is the cause, only natural causes based on strict Philosophical Naturalism.

sometimes you appear to equate materialism with 'Naturalism' in general, and in actuality it only applies to the assumption of 'Philosophical Naturalism.'

Shuny, so does God created the universe or greater cosmos or not? I don't care what our limited perspective is. Can the universe or greater cosmos exist without God in your theology? Is God necessary or not?

[sylas]

Shunyadragon's position seems pretty clear to me.

In the perspective he's described; God creates the universe, and always has created the universe. The creation is not a moment in time but a process over all of time. God is eternal, and likewise God's creative action is eternal. There is no time without God, and no time before God, and no time before God was creating. Individual things can have an origin in time, but the collection of all created things does not have an origin; just as God and God's creative acts don't have an origin.

Cheers -- sylas

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, so does God created the universe or greater cosmos or not? I don't care what our limited perspective is. Can the universe or greater cosmos exist without God in your theology? Is God necessary or not?

Our limited perspective is an issue, because it is the habit of many to argue a theological belief beyond the limited human perspective as some how logically proven.

Silas understood my explanation well, simply read his post above.

The simple analogy I gave before works. Creation (Essential Preexistence) is like the mirror image of God. The mirror image of God always exists eternally and infinitely as God exists.

[seer]

The simple analogy I gave before works. Creation (Essential Preexistence) is like the mirror image of God. The mirror image of God always exists eternally and infinitely as God exists.

But the mirror image can not exist on its own. It is dependent on the original image. If that is the case then matter and energy has no inherent ability to exist on its own. It depends on God. So materialism, or rather physicalism, is false.

[shunyadragon]

But the mirror image can not exist on its own. It is dependent on the original image. If that is the case then matter and energy has no inherent ability to exist on its own. It depends on God. So materialism, or rather physicalism, is false.

I am not sure where this is going beyond what I have described above. Of course, based on theistic beliefs the assumption 'Philosophical Naturalism (Materialism of Physicalism) is false, but based on the evidence there is not a good logical argument against 'Philosophical Naturalism.' The knowledge of our physical existence based on 'Methodological Naturalism' is simply the way it is regardless. Our physical existence including life, animals, and humans are the way they are naturally, and hypothetical arguments as to what the world would be without a God, just have no foundation in logic nor science.

There are logical problems for ancient worldviews trying desperately to make the evidence fit. Like pounding square pegs in round holes. All you get is a lot of splinters.

[seer]

I am not sure where this is going beyond what I have described above. Of course, based on theistic beliefs the assumption 'Philosophical Naturalism (Materialism of Physicalism) is false, but based on the evidence there is not a good logical argument against 'Philosophical Naturalism.' The knowledge of our physical existence based on 'Methodological Naturalism' is simply the way it is regardless. Our physical existence including life, animals, and humans are the way they are naturally, and hypothetical arguments as to what the world would be without a God, just have no foundation in logic nor science.

Shuny, either materialism or physicalism are false or they are not. And if they are false then matter and energy can not exist independently of God, God is the necessary cause of their existence. Whether we can figure this out or not is immaterial, it is either true or it is not.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, either materialism or physicalism are false or they are not. And if they are false then matter and energy can not exist independently of God, God is the necessary cause of their existence. Whether we can figure this out or not is immaterial, it is either true or it is not.

My posts have been clear and specific on these issues, and how they relate to science and the evidence. There is no need to repeat.

[seer]

My posts have been clear and specific on these issues, and how they relate to science and the evidence. There is no need to repeat.

Good, then you agree that materialism or physicalism are false. Thanks...

[Doug Shaver]

Did God have a first thought?

If that were possible, when could he have had it?

[robertb]

The universe has no intentions, it isn't aware of anything, it has no will.

Can you provide a deductive argument for the necessity of will?

The reason I ask is that 'will' as a requirement for the realization of a nature seems ad hoc.

[shunyadragon]

Can you provide a deductive argument for the necessity of will?

The reason I ask is that 'will' as a requirement for the realization of a nature seems ad hoc.

Interesting. I would like to see anyone present such an argument.

[JimL]

The Cosmos isn't one simple substance, its a whole bunch of objects that part of the same physical volume. Though admittedly you can turn the word 'Cosmos' into something sufficiently vague that it'll cover it. I am not part of you JimL. We're two different persons, we both have a nature. The nature I have is in someways the same as yours; we're both humans. However I'm Leonhard and you're JimL.

Is it a particle or a wave? Is it matter or energy? Is it divisible or indivisible? Even if you believe that it is a whole bunch of distinct objects, those distinct objects all emerge from and are made of one and the same substance.

The Cosmos is not a self.

Neither is your concept of God. A non thinking, purely active thing is no more of a self than is the universe.

While the Cosmos contains minds, us at least, its not a mind.

And your conception of God, which according to you, is not a thinking thing is not a mind either. The way you describe God could just as well apply to an unthinking purely active universe.

But is it?

I think thats still a matter of opinion.

As long as the universe isn't everything it can be, it lacks a perfection that God has. God encompasses everything he is. Therefore he doesn't have a first thought, however the universe likely has a first moment.

A rock encompasses everything that it is as well, so I'm not sure what you mean by perfection. If you meant by that that God is perfect because he encompasses everything "there is" then you could just as well apply that discription to the universe.

This is something you're asserting. I can argue that God knows whatever He does timelessly, and in facts its by Him knowing it that that thing is real. Right now I'm just stating the conclusion, but this is how theology has taught it for quite a while now. God's knowledge is simple whole and comprehensive, it has to be if he's to have any knowledge at all. I can do this deductively from metaphysical considerations about God that follow from his nature of being timeless and simple.

You could argue that, but you have no evidence for it. Whatever time is, there is no evidence for its non existence or that events happen timelessly.

You seem to at best be making an argument from analogy: human beings thoughts are like so and so, God is a among other beings just the most powerful of them, so God most have thoughts in a similar fashion to us.

And if I don't make such an analogous argument about minds and thoughts, then I would just be making it up.

I don't grant that God is a being among other beings, and can therefore be trivially compared to us. He's radically unlike the world He made.

But you are indeed comparing God to us with your analogy of him as a being with a mind. Tell me in what way God, your conception of God, differs from the idea of a purely active universe? Your answer is of course that God, unlike the universe, is a mind, a mind that doesn't think, but purely acts according to its own laws, and that notion of an eternal God differs from the notion of an eternal universe only in the fact that you call the former a mind.

The Cosmos is not eternal in the way that God is. Right now its May 19th where I'm sitting, a little while ago it was May 18th. Time passes for us.

Thats an unfounded assertion. Many believe that the Cosmos itself is eternal and that however it is we finally define time it is just as eternal.

The universe has no intentions, it isn't aware of anything, it has no will.

Neither does a non thinking God have intentions or a will, such an eternal God, just like that of an eternal Cosmos, would be purely active.

[JimL]

If that were possible, when could he have had it?

God couldn't have had a first thought which is why I believe it is that Leonard suggested that God is a kind of eternal mind that doesn't think. But an eternal mind that doesn't think is no different than an eternal universe that purely acts according to its own determined nature, accept for the fact that they call the former a mind that is.

[LaplacesDemon]

Did God have a first thought?

Yes., if by that you mean a first mental state.

[OingoBoingo]

God couldn't have had a first thought which is why I believe it is that Leonard suggested that God is a kind of eternal mind that doesn't think. But an eternal mind that doesn't think is no different than an eternal universe that purely acts according to its own determined nature, accept for the fact that they call the former a mind that is.

Leonard didn't say that God doesn't think. He said that he doesn't think in the same way that we do, with thoughts that are processed moment by moment. Reread post #27 to see how he lays that out.