Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
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
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
-
Last edited by seer; 08-05-2014, 07:35 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo creation can be used as an argument for God's existence since creation would not exist apart from God's creative act.Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2014, 08:18 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI never said that nature self creates. That is your line from philosophical naturalism. God comes into the picture, because God Creates. In my view the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law simply reflects God's natural methods of Creation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut 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? That's 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour again asking specific question about my cosmogony and that of the Baha'i Faith. The answer will be in my thread in Comparative Religions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI'm not religious Shunya, so I can not post in comparative religions. Not sure why you will not answer here, it is a relatively simple question, requiring a relatively simple answer. I'm just trying to understand your point of view, but the choice not to answer is yours to make.
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.
This view roughly parallels the views of the current cosmology. This cosmogony is older then the contemporary cosmology.Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2014, 06:57 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPresent the argument you would propose based on God's Creation. What presented above is very. very circular, and does not appear to be a real argument..Last edited by seer; 08-06-2014, 08:17 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat are you talking about? Didn't you just say that creation depends on God? That it exists because of God? If that is the case, creation is evidence for God's existence since creation does not exist under its own power, it exists as an act of God. If creation is an emanation from God (eternal or not) then matter and energy do not exist on their own, they depend fully on God.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostShuny’s religious beliefs are not properly part of a rational proof for the existence of God.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut how does he escape the fact that without God creation would not exist. That creation is fully depended on God's activity. Matter and energy are not self-existent.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostHe does not escape this. He just does not think this can be proven rationally to those who do not share his religious beliefs or metaphysics.
The reasons I believe are found in my thread in Comparative Religions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is still off topic, but I forgot you cannot post in Comparative Religions. For you:
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.
This view roughly parallels the views of the current cosmology. This cosmogony is older then the contemporary cosmology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, thank you for the explanation shunya. Now when you say that the two co-exist, i.e. that God and the Natural world co-exist from eternity, do you mean to say that they are not only both eternal, but that they are also distinct the one from the other? Are they composed of one and the same substance or in what sense do you distinguish between the one from the other? Is it just a logical distinction or is there a real dichotomy between the two? Emanation doesn't seem to me to have any logical meaning when speaking of "a first great cause" if the two are co-eternal, i.e. if both cause and effect are eternal, because if they are co-eternal they are just different aspects of one and the same eternal entity, no?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, thank you for the explanation shunya. Now when you say that the two co-exist, i.e. that God and the Natural world co-exist from eternity, do you mean to say that they are not only both eternal, but that they are also distinct the one from the other?
Are they composed of one and the same substance or in what sense do you distinguish between the one from the other?
Is it just a logical distinction or is there a real dichotomy between the two? Emanation doesn't seem to me to have any logical meaning when speaking of "a first great cause" if the two are co-eternal, i.e.
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.
if both cause and effect are eternal, because if they are co-eternal they are just different aspects of one and the same eternal entity, no?Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2014, 08:37 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment