Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Actually I got into a bad argument over Gilgamesh on the wrong thread. I defer to showmeproof in his Ugarit thread for any discussion on cuneiform tablets in history and their relationship to the Bible, and the origins of the Pentateuch. Back out of the rabbit hole and back to the topic at hand.
    So this an admission that you don't know what you're talking about?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

      "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

      The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

      The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

      The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

      The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

      The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.
      1) I like the Quote from Buddha, there is a similar idea from Epictetus "...it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows" and another from Al Ghazzali(1058-1111) "Doubt is to find truth--and those who do not have doubt cannot think and those who cannot think cannot find truth"
      Do you (personally or in general) have a criteria or point at which doubt changes to certainty or do you think a state of uncertainty throughout life is important?

      2) What, in yr opinion, is the nature of human knowledge and how do you define truth?

      3) The Hindu concept of Maya posits that the material/physical existence/universe is illusory? what is your opinion?

      4) Some mystics say that the diversity of the Divine comes about because of the limitations of language and how it is communicated in particular socio-cultural constructs......but the "experience" of the Divine is universal....."Truth is One, the wise call it by many names"---Vedas ----what is your opinion?

      5) what is the purpose of scientific revelation if it only reveals creation as it is created?

      6) If God is unknowable, what is the purpose of religion?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
        So this an admission that you don't know what you're talking about?
        Only in acknowledging my errors concerning Gilgamesh, and wrong headed argument on that subject. I thus defer to showmeproof in the Ugarit thread. There are at times you do not know what your talking about also.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Only in acknowledging my errors concerning Gilgamesh, and wrong headed argument on that subject. I thus defer to showmeproof in the Ugarit thread. There are at times you do not know what your talking about also.
          I already admitted that I do not know what I am talking about concerning the oldest physical evidence for the epic, but I was surprised by the (now retracted) allusions to a known author. I was also surprised by the reference to the larger number of ancient texts in closer chronological proximity to the original than exist for texts of the New Testament. I have no expertise to evaluate the quality of these quotes, but here is the first couple of academic source (merely introductory college level) cited in a simple Google search for Gilgamesh + date:

          The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE) ...
          http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl2..._gilgamesh.htm

          We can identify three stages in the epic's development. The first begins in roughly 2700 B.C.E. when the historical Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The earliest written versions of the story date from roughly 2000 B.C.E, but oral versions of the stories both preceded them and continued on, parallel with the written tradition. The language of these materials was Sumerian, the earliest written language in Mesopotamia.

          The history of the epic itself begins sometime before 1600 B.C.E., assembled from free translations of the oral versions of some of these tales and put into a connected narrative. By the time of Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.) the text was essentially stabilized.
          http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Rel..._gilgamesh.htm

          From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
          The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 bce). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium bce; the poems have been titled “Gilgamesh and Huwawa,” “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven,” “Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish,” “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld,” and “The Death of Gilgamesh.”

          The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium bce and who was thus a contemporary of Agga ...
          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...3644/Gilgamesh

          The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate. Upon first glance, anyway. I welcome additional information, especially regarding the number of texts uncovered, and corrections, of course.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I already admitted that I do not know what I am talking about concerning the oldest physical evidence for the epic, but I was surprised by the (now retracted) allusions to a known author. I was also surprised by the reference to the larger number of ancient texts in closer chronological proximity to the original than exist for texts of the New Testament. I have no expertise to evaluate the quality of these quotes, but here is the first couple of academic source (merely introductory college level) cited in a simple Google search for Gilgamesh + date:

            The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE) ...
            http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl2..._gilgamesh.htm

            We can identify three stages in the epic's development. The first begins in roughly 2700 B.C.E. when the historical Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The earliest written versions of the story date from roughly 2000 B.C.E, but oral versions of the stories both preceded them and continued on, parallel with the written tradition. The language of these materials was Sumerian, the earliest written language in Mesopotamia.

            The history of the epic itself begins sometime before 1600 B.C.E., assembled from free translations of the oral versions of some of these tales and put into a connected narrative. By the time of Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.) the text was essentially stabilized.
            http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Rel..._gilgamesh.htm

            From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
            The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 bce). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium bce; the poems have been titled “Gilgamesh and Huwawa,” “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven,” “Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish,” “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld,” and “The Death of Gilgamesh.”

            The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium bce and who was thus a contemporary of Agga ...
            http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...3644/Gilgamesh

            The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate. Upon first glance, anyway. I welcome additional information, especially regarding the number of texts uncovered, and corrections, of course.
            Thank you!
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate.
              Yeah, it was a pretty out there claim.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                Yeah, it was a pretty out there claim.
                The relationship between the cuneiform texts and the OT is a well established argument as robercht and showmeproofs describes. Especially without evidence of any Hebrew text before the exile, and the late evolution of the Hebrew language.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-16-2014, 11:00 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  The relationship between the cuneiform texts and the OT is a well established argument as robercht and showmeproofs describes. Especially without evidence of any Hebrew text before the exile, and the late evolution of the Hebrew language.
                  Drats, If only you had initially compared the cuneiform texts with the OT rather than the NT you would have had a valid claim. Oh well, better luck next time.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Since this thread seems to have at least in part been in response to a question I asked you, I feel I owe you a reply.

                    Firstly, I think most worldviews do need to have at bottom some fundamental axioms - beliefs that can't be conclusively proved but are assumed to be true - on which the rest of the worldview is built. So I think it's good that you have such a clear view of the axioms (or 'foundation assumptions')of your own worldview.


                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    There have been similar threads in the old Tweb, but since the question has come up, because I consider the traditional arguments for God in traditional Christianity bad to the point of being logically outrageous, some have asked if this is how you view the arguments, Why do you believe in God.

                    The first posting reflects my Foundation Assumptions of why I believe.

                    Foundations of Belief

                    Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.

                    The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

                    "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha
                    I love what you've said in the underlined part above. This is where TWeb can be very helpful - interacting with other people who have different beliefs can help us see our own beliefs more objectively, if we let ourselves be taught by others. Of course that last is hard to do sometimes.

                    Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                    The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.
                    I think this is problematic as an axiom. I agree that human knowledge is often limited and imperfect, and should be open to revision. However, that is not to say that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. (Here I take 'absolute truth' to mean something that is always true, independent of whether or not people believe it to be.)

                    If we say that all truth is relative, then is that truth itself relative or not? If it is relative, then some truth is not relative (and the axiom is incorrect). If it is not relative then it contradicts itself ( and again the axiom is incorrect).

                    Further, in practical terms if we hold this as an axiom, the we have no real rational basis for arguing against someone else's truth, telling them that they are wrong. After all we don't have an absolute truth to give them. So I think that you don't follow this axiom in your interactions on TWeb, Shunya.

                    Lastly, I think your reasons for holding this axiom are poor. 'There is no absolute truth' doesn't follow from noticing that human beliefs are not (always) perfect or correct, nor does it follow from 'what people have claimed as true has changed over time'. IOW, differences of opinion over the what truth of a proposition is do not prove that there is no truth at all, nor that there are several contradictory 'truths' all equally right. Think of some people arguing over the actual length of a particular piece of string....



                    Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                    The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.
                    A quibble: Reason and logic themselves aren't fallible, it's ourselves and our use of them that is fallible. If maths is reliable then logic is also reliable.


                    Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                    The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.
                    Again, the axiom that 'philosophy and logic are only useful in exploring the subjective' doesn't follow from the fact of people's disagreement about what we can know using philosophy and logic.

                    Further that axiom is self-contradictory: 'It's a real a fact about the real world that philosophy and logic only tell us about the subjective world'. That claim is a philosophical claim abut the real world, hence it destroys itself.


                    Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                    The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.
                    Agreed that science is a great tool for understanding the physical world.

                    But the claim that 'science has priority over any religious belief' is an absolute truth claim; is also a claim about objective reality which rests on philosophy and logic. So it's in conflict with your second and fourth assumptions.


                    I think a better axiom would be something like: 'The scientific method is an excellent tool for giving us understanding of the physical world. Conflicts between knowledge claims or truth claims should be examined on a case-by-case basis.'




                    Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                    The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.

                    I think we can know some things about God. IF there is a God (some all-knowing, all-wise, supremely powerful Being) then surely it's not absolutely impossible for this God to reveal Himself, to some extent, to people. Christianity does teach that there is a lot 'more' to God than we presently know or can understand - the revelation we have is in part and limited by our fallible natures.

                    The problem with this assumption is that, again, to some degree it contradicts itself: it's a religious doctrine and belief (and therefore cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine) that tells us that the nature of the Divine is such that it cannot be absolutely known.



                    Overall, I agree to a degree with many of your assumptions, but I think many of them go beyond what you have reasonable grounds to say
                    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                      Since this thread seems to have at least in part been in response to a question I asked you, I feel I owe you a reply.
                      Thank you for the thoughtful response.

                      I think this is problematic as an axiom. I agree that human knowledge is often limited and imperfect, and should be open to revision. However, that is not to say that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. (Here I take 'absolute truth' to mean something that is always true, independent of whether or not people believe it to be.)

                      If we say that all truth is relative, then is that truth itself relative or not? If it is relative, then some truth is not relative (and the axiom is incorrect). If it is not relative then it contradicts itself ( and again the axiom is incorrect).

                      Further, in practical terms if we hold this as an axiom, the we have no real rational basis for arguing against someone else's truth, telling them that they are wrong. After all we don't have an absolute truth to give them. So I think that you don't follow this axiom in your interactions on TWeb, Shunya.

                      Lastly, I think your reasons for holding this axiom are poor. 'There is no absolute truth' doesn't follow from noticing that human beliefs are not (always) perfect or correct, nor does it follow from 'what people have claimed as true has changed over time'. IOW, differences of opinion over the what truth of a proposition is do not prove that there is no truth at all, nor that there are several contradictory 'truths' all equally right. Think of some people arguing over the actual length of a particular piece of string....
                      Part of the problem is my wording, which has lead to misunderstandings. I did not intend to say that absolute truth does not exist. I intended to say something like 'absolute truth and knowledge' is problematic form the 'human perspective.' I will have to give this more thought as to how I word this. I may give some examples from religious perspective of different religions of the world in later posts. I do believe there are things that are always true (absolute truth), and an ultimate truth does exist. From the Theist perspective, this is the ultimate nature of the Source' some call God(s). From the atheist, and other naturalists this is the ultimate nature of our physical existence. At present I do not feel there is convincing evidence the 'absolute truth' in either case is within human comprehension.


                      A quibble: Reason and logic themselves aren't fallible, it's ourselves and our use of them that is fallible. If maths is reliable then logic is also reliable.
                      A quibble response: The highlighted above is the Catch-22 that limits the reliability of logic. The degree of reliability of math and logic depends greatly on the truth 'value' of the presuppositions. I find logic useful, but most use of logic in epistemology of belief systems is to justify ones own beliefs based on presuppositions of one's own belief. I prefer to use logic to challenge the conclusions and beliefs of all belief systems including my own.

                      Again, the axiom that 'philosophy and logic are only useful in exploring the subjective' doesn't follow from the fact of people's disagreement about what we can know using philosophy and logic.

                      Further that axiom is self-contradictory: 'It's a real a fact about the real world that philosophy and logic only tell us about the subjective world'. That claim is a philosophical claim abut the real world, hence it destroys itself.
                      One exception here I will consider math more a logical tool that can be used as modeling the nature of the objective world. Another exception is the philosophy of science where the logic is directed to developing the reliability of scientific methods, for example 'Methodological Naturalism,' to acquire the objective knowledge of our physical existence. In the case of the philosophy of science, and the use of math are subject to 'objective feedback' to revise them, and make them reliable in the practical objective sense, ie Popper's work.

                      I consider most other applications of logic to be subjective and limited application to potential knowledge about the nature of our existence. This will require more thought and possible references.

                      Agreed that science is a great tool for understanding the physical world.

                      But the claim that 'science has priority over any religious belief' is an absolute truth claim; is also a claim about objective reality which rests on philosophy and logic. So it's in conflict with your second and fourth assumptions.

                      I think a better axiom would be something like: 'The scientific method is an excellent tool for giving us understanding of the physical world. Conflicts between knowledge claims or truth claims should be examined on a case-by-case basis.'
                      Rewording with this assumption may help. I do think giving science the 'priority' would be an absolute claim. The wording may be better: 'Science has priority over religious belief in understanding the knowledge of our physical existence.' Some case by case basis is possible, but any objection to scientific knowledge should be based on objective falsifiable knowledge.

                      I think we can know some things about God. IF there is a God (some all-knowing, all-wise, supremely powerful Being) then surely it's not absolutely impossible for this God to reveal Himself, to some extent, to people. Christianity does teach that there is a lot 'more' to God than we presently know or can understand - the revelation we have is in part and limited by our fallible natures.

                      The problem with this assumption is that, again, to some degree it contradicts itself: it's a religious doctrine and belief (and therefore cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine) that tells us that the nature of the Divine is such that it cannot be absolutely known.
                      Actually I believe this a justifiable assumption from the 'human perspective.' Nothing in this assumption that 'absolute truth' in Revelation from God is impossible, but problematic based on the historical evidence, and human contradiction of these claims over the millennia, of the nature of the claims of different religions and belief systems.

                      My view of the 'Source' some call God(s) as more apophatic then cataphatic is based this assumption, and I may cite Jewish, Vedic (Hindu), Taoist and Buddhist view of this 'Source.'

                      Overall, I agree to a degree with many of your assumptions, but I think many of them go beyond what you have reasonable grounds to say.
                      Again, thank you for the thoughtful response, and yes they need to be revised. That is actually part of the purpose of this thread.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-26-2014, 03:34 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by robrecht

                        So do you see these transformations happening without awareness of Revelation as some kind of invisible supernatural effect? How do you explain it?
                        I do not try to definitively explain it.
                        I do not like the word 'supernatural,' because I believe the spiritual realms and our physical realms do not function separately as one natural and the other supernatural. There is an intimate interwoven matrix between the physical and spiritual.

                        A few comments about the changes that took place in the world beginning around the period centering on 1844.

                        (1) The independent belief that prophesy was fulfilled from different religious perspectives in many places in the world that the advent of the Promised One will return and a New Dispensation would begin. (2) The radical changes in science began in the period including the Theory of Evolution. (3) the advent of modern physics and cosmology in scripture. Seven Valleys and Four Valleys "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun." I doubt that Einstein and other scientists were directly aware of this quotation. At the time it was not accepted by science that the atom was considered the basic unit of matter as described by the Greeks, and the fact that the heart of the atom (nucleus) could be divided with the above consequences. E=mc2

                        The old worlds are passing away far more painfully and tragically then a 'crisis of faith,' and a new world is unfolding unlike any in the history of humanity.

                        A review of the thread may inspire questions, and possible requests for clarification
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-04-2014, 10:27 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          In the discussion of science and religion from the Baha'i perspective I have often been challenged for being accused of taking an unorthodox view. The following is from Stephen Friberg, a Baha'i experimental physicist, who describes in detail the same view as I have in this Huffington Post article.

                          Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-r-friberg/bahai-creation-evolution-debate_b_4721219.html

                          In short, the Baha'i writings describe evolution as having proceeded stage by stage from the world of inanimate matter to the world of humanity. In this process, there is no departure from the evolutionary sciences (for a more detailed description, see C. Mehanian and S. Friberg, Religion and Evolution Reconciled, The Journal of Baha'i Studies 2003 13 (1-4): 55 - 93.)

                          At the same time, the Baha'i writings describe humanity as God's creation, say that humans have always existed potentially, and characterize human reality as distinct and different than animal reality.

                          Here there is indeed a departure from some well-known points of view, but it is not a departure from the facts and details of evolutionary science. Rather, the departure is from certain of the perspectives and interpretations -- what are perhaps best called the evolutionary narratives -- that have developed around the evolutionary sciences.

                          And this Baha'i perspective is not widely different from that of "evolutionary creation" as espoused by such Christian organizations as Biologos (started by Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health, arguably the world's leading biologist), by scholarly Catholicism, or indeed, by a wide cross-section of informed religious belief throughout the world.

                          Why then is there so much fuss, thunder, and lighting over scientific issues like evolution that are readily reconciled with religious belief -- and have been widely perceived as such for centuries, indeed millennia? Part of the reason must certainly lie in the conflict over evolutionary science that will occupy Bill Nye and Ken Ham in their Feb. 4th debate. The impression such conflict creates -- the unfortunate resistance to well-established science that creationism inculcates -- certainly strengthens any predilections among those of a scientific persuasion to view religion as a kind of primitive pre-science that got its answers wrong.

                          Undoubtedly there is much more to it than that. Much of creationism is clearly a response to denunciations of religion in the name of science, as well as a reaction against populist movements like social Darwinism that proclaimed their supposed truths as facts derived from the evolutionary sciences. And the conflict is darn good drama, marvelous for motivating the troops, or the congregation, or the donors, and for grabbing headlines and commentary.

                          But ultimately, it is a conflict that should just be peacefully resolved. Men and women of goodwill should work together to lay the issue to rest where it belong -- along with other dead or dying 19th-century ideological battles. It is just diversion and a side-show to our main task, which is to work together towards that necessary and long-hoped for goal of peace and prosperity for all the countries and peoples of the world, regardless of their beliefs -- or lack thereof.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            But again shunya, we are talking two different things. I'm talking about creation of the natural world itself, not about creation within the natural world. You seem to keep focusing on the latter. My question was specific: From your perspective, is the natural world itself eternal or is it temporal and created ex nihilo. I think that what you are implying is that the natural world is itself eternal but the laws upon which it operates are created by a distinct and eternal God. Do I have that right? Thats why I asked "where does God enter the picture" from your perspective? Did he create the natural world ex nihilo or did he just engineer that which already existed?
                            God and the eternal Matrix from which all universes arise coexist. The natural world is eternal as the Matrix of the 'First Great Cause.' No engineers nor ex nihilo.

                            Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-163.html



                            Bahá’u’lláh teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause. The Creator always had His creation and always will have. Worlds and systems may come and go, but the [greater cosmos] universe remains. All things that undergo composition, in time undergo decomposition, but the component elements remain. The creation of a world, a daisy or a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden. By and by the elements will again be scattered, the form will disappear, but nothing is really lost or annihilated; ever new combinations and forms arise from the ruins of the old. Bahá’u’lláh confirms the scientists who claim, not six thousand, but millions and billions of years for the history of the earth’s creation. The evolution theory does not deny creative power. It only tries to describe the method of its manifestation; and the wonderful story of the material universe which the astronomer, the geologist, the physicist and the biologist are gradually unfolding to our gaze is, rightly appreciated, far more capable of evoking the deepest reverence and worship than the crude and bald account of creation given in the Hebrew Scriptures.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2014, 09:05 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              There have been similar threads in the old Tweb, but since the question has come up, because I consider the traditional arguments for God in traditional Christianity bad to the point of being logically outrageous, some have asked if this is how you view the arguments, Why do you believe in God.

                              The first posting reflects my Foundation Assumptions of why I believe.

                              Foundations of Belief

                              Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.

                              The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

                              "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

                              The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

                              The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

                              The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

                              The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

                              The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.
                              I have some catching up to do on this read.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                I already admitted that I do not know what I am talking about concerning the oldest physical evidence for the epic, but I was surprised by the (now retracted) allusions to a known author. I was also surprised by the reference to the larger number of ancient texts in closer chronological proximity to the original than exist for texts of the New Testament. I have no expertise to evaluate the quality of these quotes, but here is the first couple of academic source (merely introductory college level) cited in a simple Google search for Gilgamesh + date:

                                The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE) ...
                                http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl2..._gilgamesh.htm

                                We can identify three stages in the epic's development. The first begins in roughly 2700 B.C.E. when the historical Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The earliest written versions of the story date from roughly 2000 B.C.E, but oral versions of the stories both preceded them and continued on, parallel with the written tradition. The language of these materials was Sumerian, the earliest written language in Mesopotamia.

                                The history of the epic itself begins sometime before 1600 B.C.E., assembled from free translations of the oral versions of some of these tales and put into a connected narrative. By the time of Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.) the text was essentially stabilized.
                                http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Rel..._gilgamesh.htm

                                From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
                                The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 bce). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium bce; the poems have been titled “Gilgamesh and Huwawa,” “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven,” “Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish,” “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld,” and “The Death of Gilgamesh.”

                                The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium bce and who was thus a contemporary of Agga ...
                                http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...3644/Gilgamesh

                                The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate. Upon first glance, anyway. I welcome additional information, especially regarding the number of texts uncovered, and corrections, of course.
                                This is really interesting.

                                Check out this as well: http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X