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

[shunyadragon]

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:



There are four things here that make it difficult to follow what you mean, and maintain a dialogue with you:

(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.

Let's take these issues you have one at a time. Idiosyncratic meaning? I use a 'Source' some call God(s), because many different religions believe in a 'Source,' (I) some reject the word God, ie Buddhism and Taoism. (!!) Some believe the 'Source' includes more than one God. (III) Some are purely absolutely monotheistic like contemporary Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. (IV) Others have more complicated views of theism. I realize that you and many others do not include anyone else that does not believe as you do believing in the true 'god.'What is wrong with including everyone in dialogue?

The Baha'i Faith by scripture that Creation is not an event, but a process. You may not agree, but it should not be difficult for you to understand this. The meaning is clear by the definition of 'event' and the word 'process.' Why is it difficult to understand these terms?

[JimL]

Let's take these issues you have one at a time. Idiosyncratic meaning? I use a 'Source' some call God(s), because many different religions believe in a 'Source,' (I) some reject the word God, ie Buddhism and Taoism. (!!) Some believe the 'Source' includes more than one God. (III) Some are purely absolutely monotheistic like contemporary Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. (IV) Others have more complicated views of theism. I realize that you and many others do not include anyone else that does not believe as you do believing in the true 'god.'What is wrong with including everyone in dialogue?

The Baha'i Faith by scripture that Creation is not an event, but a process. You may not agree, but it should not be difficult for you to understand this. The meaning is clear by the definition of 'event' and the word 'process.' Why is it difficult to understand these terms?

Because that doesn't make sense shunya. Evolution is a process, creation is an event. It can't be that natural existence is both eternal and created. I'm sure you will argue that it is, but then you have to give a logical explanation as to how that could be.

[Truthseeker]

If there is one true religion and all the other religions are wrong, trying to combine them all (syncretism) into a true religion is surely impossible.

[shunyadragon]

Because that doesn't make sense shunya. Evolution is a process, creation is an event. It can't be that natural existence is both eternal and created. I'm sure you will argue that it is, but then you have to give a logical explanation as to how that could be.

Creation is an event as far as some ancient religious world views. The Baha'i scripture teaches Creation is an eternal process that reflects the attributes of God. The analogy I gave before still illustrates this relationship. The reflection in the mirror exists as long as the object exists. If the object (God) is eternal then the reflection (the attributes of God) is eternal If our Natural existence can be eternal and infinite, it is possible Creation can be eternal and infinite. There would not be a logical explanation either way from the human perspective. I do not appeal to logical arguments for the existence of God nor God's nature. You do not believe in God in any manner or form, therefore what is possible nor impossible from the perspective of a God would be meaningless to you.

[shunyadragon]

If there is one true religion and all the other religions are wrong, trying to combine them all (syncretism) into a true religion is surely impossible.

Agreed, IF there was one absolutely true religion, and all the other religions wrong, trying to combine the all (syncretism) into a true religion is surely impossible. First, the Baha'i Faith is not a syncretic religion. The Baha'i Faith does not propose that it is the One and only true religion. The Baha'i Faith teaches the different religions of the world are the human cultural perspective of the Revelation and neither definitively true nor false. Revelation is the constantly evolving spiritual nature of humanity, that parallels the physical evolving physical nature of humanity. The Baha'i Faith represents only one Revelation of many on the progressive spiritual education of humanity.

An example of a syncretic religion is Sikhism of India.

[JimL]

Creation is an event as far as some ancient religious world views. The Baha'i scripture teaches Creation is an eternal process that reflects the attributes of God. The analogy I gave before still illustrates this relationship. The reflection in the mirror exists as long as the object exists. If the object (God) is eternal then the reflection (the attributes of God) is eternal If our Natural existence can be eternal and infinite, it is possible Creation can be eternal and infinite. There would not be a logical explanation either way from the human perspective. I do not appeal to logical arguments for the existence of God nor God's nature. You do not believe in God in any manner or form, therefore what is possible nor impossible from the perspective of a God would be meaningless to you.

The fact that Baha'i teaches that Creation is eternal, doesn't change the definition of the term. Creation is bringing into existence that which before being created did not exist, it is not the directed evolution of an already existent thing. The analogy you give of a reflection is not an analogy that correlates with creation. When a tree casts a shadow, even if the shadow can not exist without the tree, the tree does not create the shadow. The same would be true when speaking of an eternal object, if its metaphorical reflection is co-eternal with the object, then it is not created. Btw, the human perspective, and the language we use to express it, is all we have to go by, so making stuff up, and re-defining language to mean whatever you want it to mean is junk philosophy. Besides that, all of your definitions are analogies and provide no real sense of what you mean by them. "The world is Gods reflection, the world is Gods attributes." What do these statements mean in real terms? Now if you were to say that an eternal object eternally evolves, or that evolution is an eternal process, well that makes perfect sense and can be logically understood, but to argue that an eternal object is created, well that just makes no sense at all.

[shunyadragon]

The fact that Baha'i teaches that Creation is eternal, doesn't change the definition of the term. Creation is bringing into existence that which before being created did not exist, it is not the directed evolution of an already existent thing. The analogy you give of a reflection is not an analogy that correlates with creation. When a tree casts a shadow, even if the shadow can not exist without the tree, the tree does not create the shadow. The same would be true when speaking of an eternal object, if its metaphorical reflection is co-eternal with the object, then it is not created. Btw, the human perspective, and the language we use to express it, is all we have to go by, so making stuff up, and re-defining language to mean whatever you want it to mean is junk philosophy. Besides that, all of your definitions are analogies and provide no real sense of what you mean by them. "The world is Gods reflection, the world is Gods attributes." What do these statements mean in real terms? Now if you were to say that an eternal object eternally evolves, or that evolution is an eternal process, well that makes perfect sense and can be logically understood, but to argue that an eternal object is created, well that just makes no sense at all.

Your clinging unnecessarily to a narrow narrow definition of Creation. If it makes you more comfortable and maybe consider it possible? choose the wording that makes you comfortable. The Baha'i view of Creation is also described as an eternal infinite evolving creative process. No, analogies are NOT definitions, they just simply illustrate as an example. Yes, 'its metaphorical reflection is co-eternal with the object (our physical existence). The physical existence would not exist if God did not exist, thus a Creation process. This is Creation in the view of the Baha'i Faith. Definitions of words used thousands of years ago do not necessarily mean that is the only way words may be defined and used. Your efforts at an anal attentive insistence of word definition does not take into consideration that language evolves and definitions of words may change.

[Truthseeker]

Your clinging unnecessarily to a narrow narrow definition of Creation. If it makes you more comfortable and maybe consider it possible? choose the wording that makes you comfortable. The Baha'i view of Creation is also described as an eternal infinite evolving creative process. No, analogies are NOT definitions, they just simply illustrate as an example. Yes, 'its metaphorical reflection is co-eternal with the object (our physical existence). The physical existence would not exist if God did not exist, thus a Creation process. This is Creation in the view of the Baha'i Faith. Definitions of words used thousands of years ago do not necessarily mean that is the only way words may be defined and used. Your efforts at an anal attentive insistence of word definition does not take into consideration that language evolves and definitions of words may change.

"Anal attentive"? Possibly you meant "anal retentive." Still, you should start with defining key terms. If there is a term that you use but can only wave your hands when asked to precisely define it, don't blame us for not understanding when we say, that's vague!

[shunyadragon]

"Anal attentive"? Possibly you meant "anal retentive." Still, you should start with defining key terms. If there is a term that you use but can only wave your hands when asked to precisely define it, don't blame us for not understanding when we say, that's vague!

My use of 'Creation process' should need no more definition that you cannot find in a standard dictionary. It simply means Creation that is not one event but a process over time. In this case God Creates over an infinite time period, I do not believe that JimL misunderstood the words. He simply holds to only one definition of Create and Creation, that it can possibly be only an event and not a process. I believe that the accepted English definitions allows Create to be considered a process over time and not necessarily just one event as JimL asserts.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=Create+definition

Create

bring (something) into existence. "he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, fashion, build, construct; More
design, devise, originate, frame, develop, shape, form, forge

"she has created a work of stunning originality"

•establish, found, initiate, institute, constitute, inaugurate, launch, set up, form, organize, develop
"the governments planned to create a free-trade zone"

•cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions.
"divorce only created problems for children"

synonyms: bring about, give rise to, lead to, result in, cause, breed, generate, engender, produce, make for, promote, foster, sow the seeds of, contribute to
"regular socializing creates good team spirit"

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Because that doesn't make sense shunya. Evolution is a process, creation is an event. It can't be that natural existence is both eternal and created. I'm sure you will argue that it is, but then you have to give a logical explanation as to how that could be.

Jim

Is it possible that God exists?

[JimL]

Jim

Is it possible that God exists?

Yes, of course it is possible shunya. Why do you ask?

[JimL]

My use of 'Creation process' should need no more definition that you cannot find in a standard dictionary. It simply means Creation that is not one event but a process over time. In this case God Creates over an infinite time period, I do not believe that JimL misunderstood the words. He simply holds to only one definition of Create and Creation, that it can possibly be only an event and not a process. I believe that the accepted English definitions allows Create to be considered a process over time and not necessarily just one event as JimL asserts.

No shunya, I understand that there are different ways in which the word create can be used, but with regards to the universe as a whole it can only be used one way and when used that way it means to bring into existence, to be the cause of its coming into existence when ere it had no existence. But if the universe is eternal then it can have no cause that brings it into existence. What you seem to be describing is the other use of the term which is that of a God creating a work, like an artist, out of an already existing material. But, you also seem to be saying that that already existing material is God himself, while at the same time you say no it is not God himself, that it is eternal but separate from God. Your use of analogies is also difficult because you can't explain them in real terms. If we take it literally that the natural world is a reflection of God, then that means that the world is just a mirror image of God, but of course analogies aren't meant to be taken literally so we are left to wonder what exactly do you mean by that. So, it is a confusing to say the least and i am only trying to see if you know what it is you are trying to convey and if you do i am trying to get a better picture of it from you.

[shunyadragon]

No shunya, I understand that there are different ways in which the word create can be used, but with regards to the universe as a whole it can only be used one way and when used that way it means to bring into existence, to be the cause of its coming into existence when ere it had no existence. But if the universe is eternal then it can have no cause that brings it into existence. What you seem to be describing is the other use of the term which is that of a God creating a work, like an artist, out of an already existing material. But, you also seem to be saying that that already existing material is God himself, while at the same time you say no it is not God himself, that it is eternal but separate from God. Your use of analogies is also difficult because you can't explain them in real terms. If we take it literally that the natural world is a reflection of God, then that means that the world is just a mirror image of God, but of course analogies aren't meant to be taken literally so we are left to wonder what exactly do you mean by that. So, it is a confusing to say the least and i am only trying to see if you know what it is you are trying to convey and if you do i am trying to get a better picture of it from you.

Actually I have to emphatically your conclusion above. Your picking and choosing to justify your perspective. Admitting that Creation may be both a process and an event, and then selectively picking a special case where it is not concerning the nature of God is illogical and irrational. The mirror analogy is an analogy and does not mean 'that the world is just a mirror image.' It is very unfortunate that you fail to understand basic English and the meaning and use of 'analogy.' This is very puzzling. It is simply the Divine world (Matrix of existence) of the Attributes of God exist eternally as long as God exists eternally, and universes are created naturally out of this Divine world. This by definition is a process over a period of time, and not one event. The creation of one universe would be an event, but not the only one. If God is in some way personally involved with our physical existence it is perfectly logical the Creation is process. It appears you are trying to describe what cannot be, and what can be Creation from God's perspective, a God you apparently do not believe in. This is not a good argument to hang your hat on.

Actually the Tao of Chinese mysticism has a similar understanding. Like the Baha'i view the nature of the 'Source' is unknown and undefinable apophatic 'Source', and logically hidden from human rational understanding, has always existed from which all things originate and all things return.

Your challenge of this being impossible, and what is possible, is problematic from the human perspective, because as you noted the existence of God is possible. If you feel the existence of God is possible. What sort of God would be possible from your perspective?

[JimL]

Actually I have to emphatically your conclusion above. Your picking and choosing to justify your perspective. Admitting that Creation may be both a process and an event, and then selectively picking a special case where it is not concerning the nature of God is illogical and irrational. The mirror analogy is an analogy and does not mean 'that the world is just a mirror image.' It is very unfortunate that you fail to understand basic English and the meaning and use of 'analogy.' This is very puzzling. It is simply the Divine world (Matrix of existence) of the Attributes of God exist eternally as long as God exists eternally, and universes are created naturally out of this Divine world. This by definition is a process over a period of time, and not one event. The creation of one universe would be an event, but not the only one. If God is in some way personally involved with our physical existence it is perfectly logical the Creation is process. It appears you are trying to describe what cannot be, and what can be Creation from God's perspective, a God you apparently do not believe in. This is not a good argument to hang your hat on.

Actually the Tao of Chinese mysticism has a similar understanding. Like the Baha'i view the nature of the 'Source' is unknown and undefinable apophatic 'Source', and logically hidden from human rational understanding, has always existed from which all things originate and all things return.

Shunya, i am not picking and choosing. Creation can be used to define both an event or a process, but if you are going to use it in the sense of process then you have to admit that the creative process, the work being done, is being done to an already existing thing. In other words the thing itself was not created, it is an already existing thing being creatively manipulated like an artists manipulates his brushes and paints. But if the thing itself is not created, if it is itself eternal, then the thing itself is either God/the artist or it is distinct from God/the artist. In other words self existing! Your philosophy wants to have it both ways. Your argument is that the natural world is both God and not God which is illogical on its face. For an eternal Cosmos on the other hand no such illogic enters the picture, no such illogic is needed, the Cosmos and all derived of it are one and the same substance, self creation or evolution being the inner nature of that substance

Your challenge of this being impossible, and what is possible, is problematic from the human perspective, because as you noted the existence of God is possible. If you feel the existence of God is possible. What sort of God would be possible from your perspective?

A God, as I explained above, in my opinion, is an eternal entity that is distinct and separate from his temporal creation.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, i am not picking and choosing. Creation can be used to define both an event or a process, but if you are going to use it in the sense of process then you have to admit that the creative process, the work being done, is being done to an already existing thing.

It is illogical and unreasonable for you to put specific limits on how God Creates from the human perspective.

Actually, you in a way are close to how I describe the Baha'i view of Creation, the Divine world Matrix which exists infinitely with God is described as an event and eternally existing with God. The process are the universes that are Created over time. Your issue appears to be the existence of a Divine World Matrix that exists eternally with God. Actually in the scripture of the Judeo-Christian- Islamic world there was an existence with beings prior to the Creation of our physical existence Biblically. We have no scripture here that describes the Creation of this world as temporal or infinite.

It is up to you to use the terminology you wish if you object to the use of the word Creation in terms in Baha'i scripture ie.

God Maattscatutures [insert word or phrase of your choice] the First Eternal Great Cause of our eternal physical existence, and Creates the universes in an eternal Creative natural processes reflecting the attributes and desire of God.

Remember these are only words, not bricks to build walls. IF God exists, humans like us could hardly limit the nature of the divine worlds of God, whether one or infinite with human words.

In other words the thing itself was not created, it is an already existing thing being creatively manipulated like an artists manipulates his brushes and paints. But if the thing itself is not created, if it is itself eternal, then the thing itself is either God/the artist or it is distinct from God/the artist. In other words self existing! Your philosophy wants to have it both ways. Your argument is that the natural world is both God and not God which is illogical on its face.

This too much of a mechanistic view from the human perspective to have any real understanding of God's Creation, which we in reality do not know, ah . . . unless you know something the rest of don't. Doubly problematic sense you do not believe God exists in the first place.

For an eternal Cosmos on the other hand no such illogic enters the picture, no such illogic is needed, the Cosmos and all derived of it are one and the same substance, self creation or evolution being the inner nature of that substance.

A God, as I explained above, in my opinion, is an eternal entity that is distinct and separate from his temporal creation.

Your picking frog hairs here on terminology. What knowledge do you have that the Divine world of God (including how it is described in the Bible) could only be created in the temporal sense. It is believed in the Biblical tradition that God Created everything, yet again beings and Divine world exist prior to the physical Creation,.