Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Science and the arguments for/against the existence of God. Cosmology and Cosmogony

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    They are distinct from one another.
    That would mean there are two Gods, two distinct, uncreated and eternal entities.


    God is the 'Source' and the Cause, and the Creation reflects the attributes of God, the greater cosmos and the universes.
    And in what sense is it a creation if it is Co-eternal?


    A perpetual emanation best describes the universes emanating from the Matrix (greater Cosmos) and the constant "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."
    I can agree with this completely, but worlds or daisy's emanating from the greater cosmos or matrix if you will is different than emanating from a distinct substance or entity such as God.
    The cyclic decomposition and re-composition occurs naturally through out our universe at all levels, for example stars are the result of the re-composition of older stars. In this view new universes would be the re-combination of older universes that decomposed into the greater cosmos.
    All very true and logical, but I see nothing here indicating the need of a God, or an explanation for why, or by what reason a God is posited as a source or first cause.




    No. both are not aspects of the same entity. An analogy is God's greater cosmos is like God's shadow. As long as God exists eternally the shadow exists eternally.
    This description seems to me to be nothing more than pantheism shunya. I understand that you define the two, i.e. God and the universe, as distinct the one from the other, but you don't really show what the distinction is. Spinoza implied the same kind of distinction in his philosophy but never really showed a distinction either. To call the universe a reflection of God, or a shadow, does nothing more than to define God as the universe itself. The shadow or reflection of a God would be a mirror image of God not an image of the natural world. Now perhaps you mean to indicate something else by defining the universe as a "reflection" or "shadow" but by what reason do you come to this conclusion in the first place?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      That would mean there are two Gods, two distinct, uncreated and eternal entities.
      They are separate, the Created 'Greater Cosmos' and all the emanations of universes ares not an entity nor a God. It would not exist if not Created.

      And in what sense is it a creation if it is Co-eternal?
      I am uncertain of the meaning here. What Sense???' Being co-eternal or temporal in and of itself does not determine whether something makes sense.

      I can agree with this completely, but worlds or daisy's emanating from the greater cosmos or matrix if you will is different than emanating from a distinct substance or entity such as God.
      Yes, it is different. The material universes, galaxies, stars, solar systems, and of course daisies are the emanations through the Creation process of the cyclic decomposition and re-composition Created out of the 'Greater Cosmos,' which is the result of the 'First Great Eternal Cause. Creation reflects the attributes of God, and not God.

      All very true and logical, but I see nothing here indicating the need of a God, or an explanation for why, or by what reason a God is posited as a source or first cause.
      You are correct, none of this indicates the 'need' for a 'Source' some call god(s), and not the subject of this thread. Need would be subjective consideration for the human perspective. For reasons to believe, read the thread in comparative religions. I make a comparable thread in Apologetics, My reasons to believe do not involve 'need' from the human perspective.

      This description seems to me to be nothing more than pantheism shunya. I understand that you define the two, i.e. God and the universe, as distinct the one from the other, but you don't really show what the distinction is. Spinoza implied the same kind of distinction in his philosophy but never really showed a distinction either.
      This is descriptive dialogue of the nature of God and the Creation from the Baha'i perspective. Spinoza aside, the is distinction is not 'shown,' it is described in Baha'i scripture. To be 'shown' you would need some objective justification for the distinction, which is not possible.

      first, pantheism is closer to an atheist/agnostic view, since there is no separate 'Source' or Creator involved. The universe would be considered God. The view of the Baha'i Faith is more a kin to Panentheism.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

      Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[2] Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world.

      © Copyright Original Source



      To call the universe a reflection of God, or a shadow, does nothing more than to define God as the universe itself. The shadow or reflection of a God would be a mirror image of God not an image of the natural world. Now perhaps you mean to indicate something else by defining the universe as a "reflection" or "shadow" but by what reason do you come to this conclusion in the first place?
      I did not call 'the universe a reflection of God, or a shadow,' I used this as a descriptive analogy. An analogy has no bearing on the reason one comes to a conclusion. The reason to believe is the basis for my conclusion, and not relevant to the descriptive relationship of God to Creation.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-08-2014, 06:40 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


      • #48
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        They are separate, the Created 'Greater Cosmos' and all the emanations of universes ares not an entity nor a God. It would not exist if not Created.
        Shunya, you have already stated that, in your opinion, the greater cosmos is eternal. Well, it can not be both eternal and created since the one contradicts the other. In order for creation of the greater cosmos to take place its cause would have to precede it, which in such a case it could not be eternal.


        I am uncertain of the meaning here. What Sense???' Being co-eternal or temporal in and of itself does not determine whether something makes sense.
        You are not making sense shunya. What does not make sense is your assertion that the greater cosmos is both eternal and created.


        Yes, it is different. The material universes, galaxies, stars, solar systems, and of course daisies are the emanations through the Creation process of the cyclic decomposition and re-composition Created out of the 'Greater Cosmos,' which is the result of the 'First Great Eternal Cause. Creation reflects the attributes of God, and not God.
        Okay, so we both agree that there is a cyclic decomposition and recomposition of those things arising from out of the greater cosmos, but on what basis do you make that same distinction with regard to the greater and eternal cosmos itself? What you are describing is an eternal and greater cosmos the substance of which eternally changes forms. That description doesn't even leave room for a creator?


        You are correct, none of this indicates the 'need' for a 'Source' some call god(s), and not the subject of this thread. Need would be subjective consideration for the human perspective. For reasons to believe, read the thread in comparative religions. I make a comparable thread in Apologetics, My reasons to believe do not involve 'need' from the human perspective.
        Why can't you just give your reason for believing that the eternal cosmos has an eternal creator, specifically since you admit there is no indication of the need for one?


        This is descriptive dialogue of the nature of God and the Creation from the Baha'i perspective. Spinoza aside, the is distinction is not 'shown,' it is described in Baha'i scripture. To be 'shown' you would need some objective justification for the distinction, which is not possible.
        So the distinction between the eternal creator and the eternal creation is described in Baha'i, but not justified?
        first, pantheism is closer to an atheist/agnostic view, since there is no separate 'Source' or Creator involved. The universe would be considered God. The view of the Baha'i Faith is more a kin to Panentheism.

        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

        Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[2] Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Yes, I get the idea basically, but you have still not given a reason to invoke a divine creator in the first place.


        I did not call 'the universe a reflection of God, or a shadow,' I used this as a descriptive analogy. An analogy has no bearing on the reason one comes to a conclusion. The reason to believe is the basis for my conclusion, and not relevant to the descriptive relationship of God to Creation.
        Yes, but a descriptive analogy is sometimes used because one has no idea how to explain the true nature of their assertion. Can you explain what you mean by that analogy? In what sense, according to your analogy, is the natural world a reflection or shadow of God?

        Comment


        • #49
          Jim, your being combative demanding off the wall stuff something like seer does. You are already apparently entrenched in atheism, and there is nothing I could say concerning 'why God exists?,' nor any justification based on the illusive problematic concept of 'need' from the human perspective. This portion of the thread, off original topic, was DESCRIPTIVE ONLY!!!!! concerning the Baha'i Cosmogony, as compared to the science of Cosmology. Part of the justification of my belief in God, because of the nature of the Baha'i Revelation relates to the fact that the Baha'i Revelation revealed knowledge and insights into the fundamental physics and cosmology of our physical existence before our modern physics and cosmology did, bit that eill be the subject of another thread in Apologetics.


          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Shunya, you have already stated that, in your opinion, the greater cosmos is eternal. Well, it can not be both eternal and created since the one contradicts the other. In order for creation of the greater cosmos to take place its cause would have to precede it, which in such a case it could not be eternal.
          Jim, It is not my opinion nor a contradiction. It is a simply description of Baha'i Cosmogony. No, nothing has to be from the human perspective including questions from any world view especially the atheist perspective. God cannot be proved to exist nor exist. Again, your demands are unreasonable from the perspective of my efforts to simply describe the Baha'i Cosmogony. Your courteous non-combative coherent responses would be appreciated. Your bordering on trollish behavior.

          You are not making sense shunya. What does not make sense is your assertion that the greater cosmos is both eternal and created.
          This is simply a descriptive attempt at what is the nature of Baha'i Cosmogony.

          Okay, so we both agree that there is a cyclic decomposition and recomposition of those things arising from out of the greater cosmos, but on what basis do you make that same distinction with regard to the greater and eternal cosmos itself? What you are describing is an eternal and greater cosmos the substance of which eternally changes forms. That description doesn't even leave room for a creator?
          The distinction is made simply of descriptive basis of Baha'i Cosmogony. Virtually all religions believe in the distinction between a Creator and the Created, nothing new here. It is of course apparent that no explanation would suffice for an entrenched atheist from any religious perspective,]. It is like demanding that you prove God does not exist. This line of reasoning results in fruitless perpetual dialogue.



          Why can't you just give your reason for believing that the eternal cosmos has an eternal creator, specifically since you admit there is no indication of the need for one?
          Jim. I have already given the reasons for my beliefs in the Comparative religions thread, 'Reasons for Believing,' which you may read. I may start a thread in apologetics to deal with this. It just simply is not remotely related to the topic of this thread, nor my attempts to satisfy your questions concerning a DESCRIPTION OF THE BAH'I COSMOGONY.

          Need is again a problematic issue that cannot be answered, and NOT an issue in my justification of belief in the Comparative Religion thread.


          So the distinction between the eternal creator and the eternal creation is described in Baha'i, but not justified?
          You would have to describe what you expect concerning a justification here. A simple descriptive explanation of the nature of the 'Source' and the Created could not be possibly justified just as the existence nor non-existence of God could be proved nor disproved.

          Yes, I get the idea basically, but you have still not given a reason to invoke a divine creator in the first place.
          If you get the idea basically, that is a step in the right direction in a frustrating dislogue. For example; the nonsense of comparing Pantheism to what I described as Theism, and your not understanding the use of an 'analogy,' reflects fundamental problem of understanding the English language.

          The question of the reason for invoking a Creator is not remotely a subject of the thread.

          Yes, but a descriptive analogy is sometimes used because one has no idea how to explain the true nature of their assertion. Can you explain what you mean by that analogy? In what sense, according to your analogy, is the natural world a reflection or shadow of God?
          The purpose of an analogy is not 'to explain the true nature of their assertion.' The purpose of an analogy is to 'illustrate' the nature of a another description for comparison. The issue is not whether it is 'true' or an 'assumption,' that is simply a judgment on your part. This is distinctly a problem of misusing (or misunderstanding?) English on your part.

          Explain????? Explain what??? It is simply and analogy describing coexistence. In what sense, according to the analogy is the natural world a reflection of God?

          The greater cosmos is a reflection of the attributes of God naturally. As long as God has existed, eternally, the greater cosmos has existed eternally. Out of the Greater Cosmos emanate the universes, which cyclically decompose back into the Greater Cosmos and emanate again as universes in the continuous natural process of Creation. Actually in the 'Greater Cosmos, Creation is process not a single event. This process continues within each universe.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-09-2014, 01:32 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


          • #50
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Jim, your being combative demanding off the wall stuff something like seer does. You are already apparently entrenched in atheism, and there is nothing I could say concerning 'why God exists?,' nor any justification based on the illusive problematic concept of 'need' from the human perspective. This portion of the thread, off original topic, was DESCRIPTIVE ONLY!!!!! concerning the Baha'i Cosmogony, as compared to the science of Cosmology. Part of the justification of my belief in God, because of the nature of the Baha'i Revelation relates to the fact that the Baha'i Revelation revealed knowledge and insights into the fundamental physics and cosmology of our physical existence before our modern physics and cosmology did, bit that eill be the subject of another thread in Apologetics.




            Jim, It is not my opinion nor a contradiction. It is a simply description of Baha'i Cosmogony. No, nothing has to be from the human perspective including questions from any world view especially the atheist perspective. God cannot be proved to exist nor exist. Again, your demands are unreasonable from the perspective of my efforts to simply describe the Baha'i Cosmogony. Your courteous non-combative coherent responses would be appreciated. Your bordering on trollish behavior.



            This is simply a descriptive attempt at what is the nature of Baha'i Cosmogony.



            The distinction is made simply of descriptive basis of Baha'i Cosmogony. Virtually all religions believe in the distinction between a Creator and the Created, nothing new here. It is of course apparent that no explanation would suffice for an entrenched atheist from any religious perspective,]. It is like demanding that you prove God does not exist. This line of reasoning results in fruitless perpetual dialogue.





            Jim. I have already given the reasons for my beliefs in the Comparative religions thread, 'Reasons for Believing,' which you may read. I may start a thread in apologetics to deal with this. It just simply is not remotely related to the topic of this thread, nor my attempts to satisfy your questions concerning a DESCRIPTION OF THE BAH'I COSMOGONY.

            Need is again a problematic issue that cannot be answered, and NOT an issue in my justification of belief in the Comparative Religion thread.




            You would have to describe what you expect concerning a justification here. A simple descriptive explanation of the nature of the 'Source' and the Created could not be possibly justified just as the existence nor non-existence of God could be proved nor disproved.



            If you get the idea basically, that is a step in the right direction in a frustrating dislogue. For example; the nonsense of comparing Pantheism to what I described as Theism, and your not understanding the use of an 'analogy,' reflects fundamental problem of understanding the English language.

            The question of the reason for invoking a Creator is not remotely a subject of the thread.



            We have a understanding problem of the use of basic English vocabulary. Explain????? It is simply and analogy describing coexistence. In what sense, according to the analogy is the natural world a reflection of God?

            The greater cosmos is a reflection of the attributes of God naturally. As long as God has existed, eternally, the greater cosmos has existed eternally. Out of the Greater Cosmos emanate the universes, which cyclically decompose back into the Greater Cosmos and emanate again as universes in the continuous natural process of Creation. Actually in the 'Greater Cosmos, Creation is process not a single event. This process continues within each universe.
            Shunya, you keep saying that my question to you is not the subject of this thread, but what you believe, as stated in the O.P., and why you believe it seems to me to be exactly the topic. You believe in the science, but you don't believe that science will ever be able to answer the ultimate question concerning existence and so you insert God, your cosmogony or philosophical belief, as an ad hoc explanation. Atheists, such as myself do not assume a greater eternal cosmos as an ad hoc explanation, we assume it because it is both a logical explanation and because there is no evidence of anything other than that such as what you are suggesting, i.e. God/Gods out of whom the natural world somehow emanates. The temporal forms arising, or emanating if you will, within our own universe are all of the same substance, the same substance comprising the universe as a whole. There is no reason to believe that this substance itself is not eternal and that all things within this eternal existence arise or emanate from out of it. You for some reason assume a dichotomy within this substance, that is, you assume it has need of a mind in order to design and direct its evolution. Panentheism I believe you call it, a divine mind that permeates the eternal cosmos. All i'm trying to get at is, based upon what do you believe this. Revelation?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Shunya, you keep saying that my question to you is not the subject of this thread, but what you believe, as stated in the O.P., and why you believe it seems to me to be exactly the topic. You believe in the science, but you don't believe that science will ever be able to answer the ultimate question concerning existence and so you insert God, your cosmogony or philosophical belief, as an ad hoc explanation.
              That is NOT what I proposed in the opening thread. I DID NOT insert God in anything concerning this thread. Please reread the opening post. ABSOLUTELY NO, my cosmogony was not the topic of the thread and NO my cosmogony or philosophical believe is NOT an ad hoc explanation for anything at this point. If you wish to continue in this thread, please reread the opening post and respond to the problem of using science (Cosmology) to argue for the existence of God. I have never done this.

              Atheists, such as myself do not assume a greater eternal cosmos as an ad hoc explanation, we assume it because it is both a logical explanation and because there is no evidence of anything other than that such as what you are suggesting, i.e. God/Gods out of whom the natural world somehow emanates. The temporal forms arising, or emanating if you will, within our own universe are all of the same substance, the same substance comprising the universe as a whole. There is no reason to believe that this substance itself is not eternal and that all things within this eternal existence arise or emanate from out of it. You for some reason assume a dichotomy within this substance, that is, you assume it has need of a mind in order to design and direct its evolution. Panentheism I believe you call it, a divine mind that permeates the eternal cosmos. All i'm trying to get at is, based upon what do you believe this. Revelation?
              Neither do I ASSUME the existence of a Greater Cosmos.

              I NEVER ASSERTED THAT the existence of the greater cosmos was an ad hoc explanation for anything. If you think I did, please cite where I did so. I simply explained the Baha'i Cosmology factually, because you requested it, which was apparently a mistake. Your presently trolling for trash and misrepresenting my thread. quotes and citations.

              The Baha'i Faith cosmogony describes the existence of an Eternal Greater Cosmos and the cyclic nature of the universes and within the universes as the combination, decomposition, and re-composition of galaxies and stars as a description of the nature of our physical existence. This simply is a statement of Baha'i Cosmogony and not an ad hoc explanation for the existence of God nor anything else.

              An interesting point is that this descriptive cosmogony fits well with modern cosmology far before our modern cosmology existed any proposal fro the Big Bang. Up to the 1940's the view of the universe was a static universe and believed so by Einstein. The Baha'i Cosmogony would include the beginning and death of our universe and all possible universes long before the Big Bang was even remotely proposed. Science has not conclusively determined that our physical existence is finite/eternal nor finite/temporal, nor the existence of the Greater Cosmos, but nonetheless the Baha'i Cosmogony fits well with the modern cosmology as the dynamic cyclic birth, death, and rebirth of the material existence.

              'split the atom's heart, and lo!
              Within it thou wilt release a sun.'


              Baha'u'llah The Seven Valleys and Four Valleys
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-09-2014, 04:06 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


              • #52
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                I differentiate Cosmogony from the science of Cosmology, as the philosophical and theological epistemology of the 'origins' of our physical existence. Cosmology in general is the physics of the physical existence of our universe and all possible universes. I will emphasize the Cosmology of 'origins' of our physical existence prior to the one plank time of the expansion of our universe when comparing it to cosmogony.

                Natural Laws we use to understand our physical existence are a product of our sciences. Science over time develops the human Natural Laws to explain and understand our physical existence as approximations of the ultimate Laws that determine everything which are only known by God, or in the case as some believe god(s) do not exist, the ultimate nature of our physical existence without god(s). For the purposes of my view in this thread is that both views are possible based on the scientific evidence at present which is neutral.

                Science, at present, cannot explain nor determine whether our physical existence is finite/temporal or infinite/eternal, nor the nature of the ultimate 'origins' of our physical existence. Nor is it likely that science can ever determine the existence/nonexistence, nor the nature of the Divine worlds of God. Even though I do not put limits on what science can ultimately explain, I do not believe that science can ultimately answer these questions.

                I believe that the present barrier of the one planck's time of the expansion of the universe is the present barrier between the physical science knowledge of our universe, ie the expansion of the universe, and the cosmology of origins, and theological cosmogony of 'origins,' before this time. In the science of cosmology the present knowledge of science is based on 'possible' models and theorems falsified by our knowledge of the Quantum world and theories like Relativity. Pretty much most models are based on the existence of something like a gravitational singularity prior to the expansion of the universe, therefore the expansion itself is not the beginning. At this point possible models propose such things as the collapse of a black hole, collision of two branes using string theory, and possibly M-theory where multiple universes form from Quantum fluctuations. One alternative without a singularity is the Loop Quantum Gravity model. The above referenced are possible models and theorems for the nature of our universes, and picking one model or selectively citing material form one model is not good science.

                I personally believe that the infinite/eternal, or the Hawking timeless view, of the nature of our physical existence are the best present possible conclusions based on the models and theorems concerning the possible existence of the multiverse Quantum World.

                The next post I will discribe the problem between the philosophical 'absolute nothing,' and the Quantum Zero State world sometimes described as 'nothing' by some scientists and layman.

                Unknowns and unanswered question concerning our physical existence are the driving force behind the Methodological Naturalism methods search for answers.
                Okay shunya, i have done as you requested and have re-read your post, now other than the obvious distinction between the science of cosmology and theological/philosophical cosmogony, what is the point if any that you are trying to make? You differentiate the two methods, but then you go on to only give explanation to the one, i.e. to the science or methodological naturalism. So, how are you defining theological cosmogony and how as a methodology does it differ from science? Is there a point that you are trying to make here, because, and it may be my own fault, but i am just not getting it.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Okay shunya, i have done as you requested and have re-read your post, now other than the obvious distinction between the science of cosmology and theological/philosophical cosmogony, what is the point if any that you are trying to make? You differentiate the two methods, but then you go on to only give explanation to the one, i.e. to the science or methodological naturalism. So, how are you defining theological cosmogony and how as a methodology does it differ from science? Is there a point that you are trying to make here, because, and it may be my own fault, but i am just not getting it.

                  Welcome to Shunyaland, Jim. I think 'the point' has probably changed several times over the course of this thread. I find dialogue with Shunya very hard going usually. Hopefully you can understand his point better than me.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Okay shunya, i have done as you requested and have re-read your post, now other than the obvious distinction between the science of cosmology and theological/philosophical cosmogony, what is the point if any that you are trying to make? You differentiate the two methods, but then you go on to only give explanation to the one, i.e. to the science or methodological naturalism. So, how are you defining theological cosmogony
                    Look again, it was defined in the post you cited: '. . . as the philosophical and theological epistemology of the 'origins' of our physical existence.'

                    and how as a methodology does it differ from science? Is there a point that you are trying to make here, because, and it may be my own fault, but i am just not getting it.
                    First the distinction between cosmology and cosmogony may be obvious to you (this is questionable since you asked me to define Cosmogony), but in contemporary theological arguments, like those of Craig for the existence of God the distinctions and problems of using science are not clear. Take a gander at the thread 'The Infinite Past,' and those posting, like mattballman31, seer and others are misusing science and cosmology for the support of the existence of God. Cosmogony is not a method as such. It is philosophy of the theological view of the nature of our existence.

                    I made it clear I believe the results of Methodological Naturalism cannot be used in arguments for or against the existence of God.

                    Talk about confusing, please explain your obvious confusion between 'pantheism,' and 'panenthism.'

                    Your confusion, which in some ways puzzling is not shared by others. Truthseeker posted the following with helpful correction of grammar and spelling:

                    Originally posted by truthseeker
                    Good essay, Shuny! But, bad boy, Shuny. "Planck," not "plank." "Brane," not "bran," what some people eat for fiber. And, I'm not sure, it's "Planck's Time," taking the possessive form.
                    I also demonstrated the diversity of cosmology models and theorems concerning possible origins of our universe, all possible universes, and our physical existence, challenging those who make highly selective references, like those of Vilenkin' to justify the theological argument.

                    For this and future discussions I differentiated the science of cosmology and physics between the scientific knowledge before and after the one plank's time of our universe. Before this time we are dealing with many unknowns in the development of models and theorems concerning origins. This is the realm of most of the classic selective 'misuse' of the science of cosmology by Craig and others on Tweb. After one planck's time the science of the universe is very well known, and not as often an issue in Cosmogony, except with the wacko fundamentalists that are combative with science on many fronts.

                    I also propose that 'Philosophical Naturalism' cannot like wise be argued from the atheist perspective using science, because like Cosmogony, 'Methodological Naturalism' is decidedly neutral for theological questions,' and cannot be used to argue for atheism.

                    Please notice, MaxVel is cheering on your fog index problems for his obvious religious agenda. Truthseeker on the other hand understood it very well. Also, it is worth noting that Tassman has been complementary concerning the content and context of my history on Tweb, and in the thread 'The Infinite Past?' he presents similar arguments that I do from a different perspective.

                    In Summary

                    The differentiation between Cosmology and Cosmogony are important and clear as posted. The common description of 'Cosmological arguments for the existence of God, should be described as Cosmogony arguments for God, and not misuse science.

                    The differentiation of the one planck's time in the history of our universe is an important point in time to distinguish methods of science and the nature of the evidence for 'Methodological Naturalism.' It is important that the theological arguments for God most often use the science before one planck's time to justify their arguments for the existence of God. A better understanding of the science before one planck's time is important in knowing the weaknesses of these theological arguments,
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-11-2014, 07:36 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


                    • #55
                      I guess it's like this: We cannot know exactly how old the universe is, because it was quantum foam at the very beginning, unless God was there to shape the universe then. We can't say definite things like, "At exactly two Planck's time, the universe is described as follows"--because quantum mechanics becomes more and more indeterminable the closer we get to the beginning.
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        I guess it's like this: We cannot know exactly how old the universe is, because it was quantum foam at the very beginning, unless God was there to shape the universe then. We can't say definite things like, "At exactly two Planck's time, the universe is described as follows"--because quantum mechanics becomes more and more indeterminable the closer we get to the beginning.
                        Agreed, but saying '. . . unless God was there to shape the universe then.' describes a hands on anthropomorphic God does something to Create like an event. This need not be so if Creation is a Natural process and not one event. The Baha'i Cosmogony describes Creation as an on going eternal process. There is of course, no evidence that connects a 'Source' some call God(s) to any Natural event, nor what is described as the Creation Process in the Baha'i writings.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-12-2014, 08:18 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
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          Please notice, MaxVel is cheering on your fog index problems for his obvious religious agenda. Truthseeker on the other hand understood it very well. Also, it is worth noting that Tassman has been complementary concerning the content and context of my history on Tweb, and in the thread 'The Infinite Past?' he presents similar arguments that I do from a different perspective.
                          At least be consistent, Shunya. If I'm only saying that you're hard to understand because of my 'religious agenda' then Tassman is only being complementary to you because of his 'irreligious agenda'. Either both our comments are worthless and you can ignore them, or they both should be taken on board.

                          You see, you do tend to post things like this:

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          There is of course, no evidence that connects a 'Source' some call God(s) to any Natural event, or what is described as the Creation Process in the Baha'i writings where we are bot of foam among many.
                          There are four things here that make it difficult to follow what you mean, and maintain a dialogue with you:

                          (1) You over-state your case or over-generalise : "There is of course, no evidence..." Really? No evidence at all? You do seem to make these kinds of expansive statements that later (after going down a long rabbit-trail with you) get more precise as to what you really mean and can support. It's time-consuming and unproductive. Why not trim the rhetoric and say what you really can back up.


                          (2) You use a lot of labels that have your own somewhat idosyncratic meanings: "God(s)", 'Source', 'Creation Process', etc etc. It takes a fair bit of time, questions, and effort to get a precise understanding of what you're actually saying with these kinds of terms.

                          (3) You identify as a Baha'i and a theist, but your beliefs are not really what most people think of when they think of those terms. When someone is trying to understand you, they might look at what Baha'is believe to get some help, but in your case it's not always very relevant. You identify as a theist, but functionally (IMHO) you are an atheist in terms of how you present on this board. Again, that does confuse people.

                          (4) You write stuff like this: ".....in the Baha'i writings where we are bot of foam among many." I can't parse that into anything meaningful - what is 'a bot of foam'? I'm guessing you meant 'A bit of foam', but the point is, I have to guess. Now everyone makes typos, but you do seem to make quite a few, and also you write sentences that are just hard to follow because of the grammar.


                          In short - you're just hard to understand, and it's not all others problems. A fair bit of it is the way you communicate.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                            At least be consistent, Shunya. If I'm only saying that you're hard to understand because of my 'religious agenda' then Tassman is only being complementary to you because of his 'irreligious agenda'. Either both our comments are worthless and you can ignore them, or they both should be taken on board.
                            Truthseeker and Tassman do not share your view that there is a problem.

                            [quote] You see, you do tend to post things like this:




                            I1) You over-state your case or over-generalise : "There is of course, no evidence..." Really? No evidence at all? You do seem to make these kinds of expansive statements that later (after going down a long rabbit-trail with you) get more precise as to what you really mean and can support. It's time-consuming and unproductive. Why not trim the rhetoric and say what you really can back up.
                            If you believe there is any objective falsifiable or other physical evidence please present it.


                            (2) You use a lot of labels that have your own somewhat idosyncratic meanings: "God(s)", 'Source', 'Creation Process', etc etc. It takes a fair bit of time, questions, and effort to get a precise understanding of what you're actually saying with these kinds of terms.

                            (3) You identify as a Baha'i and a theist, but your beliefs are not really what most people think of when they think of those terms. When someone is trying to understand you, they might look at what Baha'is believe to get some help, but in your case it's not always very relevant. You identify as a theist, but functionally (IMHO) you are an atheist in terms of how you present on this board. Again, that does confuse people.
                            Then comprehension of the English language is apparently your problem. Despite occasional typo errors, others have no problem with my posts.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-12-2014, 08:19 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
                              Truthseeker and Tassman do not share your view that there is a problem.
                              Exactly. You're only listening to those who tell you 'you're doing it right'. Which, oddly enough, is what you're implying I do.







                              Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                              If you believe there is any objective falsifiable or other physical evidence please present it.
                              See, you're already qualifying your over-broad initial statement. Which is what I predicted.





                              Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                              Then comprehension of the English language is apparently your problem. Despite occasional typo errors, others have no problem with my posts.
                              Hey, feel free to carry on inventing your own meanings for words. You evidently aren't particularly concerned with being understood.
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Truthseeker and Tassman do not share your view that there is a problem.
                                I'm not certain just what you mean. In any case, if there is any sense to what you post, it's quite difficult to determine what it is.



                                Then comprehension of the English language is apparently your problem. Despite occasional typo errors, others have no problem with my posts.
                                I should not speak for those who have yet to comment on your incomprehensibility, but I've usually found your posts to be unclear.
                                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X