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

  • #91
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Why not?
    I guess, 'why not?' is a good question. I guess it is possible that a hard core atheist to take a theist seriously, and I guess I have dialogues with a few, but it is rare. It is about as rare as Jorge taking me seriously.

    JimL asserted that it is impossible for an eternal God to coexist with an eternal physical existence.

    I asked him if it was possible for God to exist. He indicated the only possible God is one which creates a finite temporal existence. He has indicated in another thread that it is most likely that our physical existence is eternal. Connect the dots to reach the obvious conclusion.

    This is true only if belief or lack of belief in God is considered the single fundamental axiom upon which all logic must be based. Sounds rather fundamentalist.
    I guess I agree here. Some theists propose that the belief in God is considered the single fundamental axiom which all logic must be based.

    I believe logic is a very limited human thing, fun and interesting way to explore ideas and concepts, but does not work well to answer the big questions.

    Not very apophatic.
    My view and the Baha'i view is for an apophatic God, which is the reason I could not meet the detailed demands JimL made for an explanation of why God and our physical existence could be co eternal..

    How does apophatic fit into the above response? Please explain.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-20-2014, 09:08 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


    • #92
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I guess, 'why not?' is a good question. I guess it is possible that a hard core atheist to take a theist seriously, and I guess I have dialogues with a few, but it is rare. It is about as rare as Jorge taking me seriously.
      It has nothing to do with whether you are theist or not shunya, it has to do with whether or not what you are asserting can be made sense of. Thats why peple don't take Jorge seriously!
      JimL asserted that it is impossible for an eternal God to coexist with an eternal physical existence.
      No shunya, what I asserted is that the universe cannot be said to be both eternal and created. You claim that it is both of these things without giving explanation, logical explanation, as to why you believe this to be the case.
      I asked him if it was possible for God to exist. He indicated the only possible God is one which creates a finite temporal existence. He has indicated in another thread that it is most likely that our physical existence is eternal. Connect the dots to reach the obvious conclusion.
      When you explain how an object can be both eternal and created then we can discuss it, until that happens there is no reason to take your assertion seriously. I'm am not trying to be antagonistic, even though you keep implying that I am, but if you are going to make illogical assertions "from the human perspective" and use the "with God anything is possible defence", then we are at an impasse and can no longer discuss the matter reasonably.


      I guess I agree here. Some theists propose that the belief in God is considered the single fundamental axiom which all logic must be based.

      I believe logic is a very limited human thing, fun and interesting way to explore ideas and concepts, but does not work well to answer the big questions.
      In other words you are one of those theists whose belief in God comes first, regardless of reason, logic or science?


      My view and the Baha'i view is for an apophatic God, which is the reason I could not meet the detailed demands JimL made for an explanation of why God and our physical existence could be co eternal..

      How does apophatic fit into the above response? Please explain.
      Then why do you insist in your assertion that they are co-eternal? What is the reason behind your assertion? The only reason that I can come up with is because you want to make them both, God and the universe, a united whole as well as distinct entities. But the way I see it is that they can only be either the one or the other, either they are a united whole, or in otherwords they are one and the same thing, or they are distinct entities.
      Last edited by JimL; 08-22-2014, 07:29 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        [QUOTE=JimL;91471]It has nothing to do with whether you are theist or not shunya, it has to do with whether or not what you are asserting can be made sense of. Thats why people don't take Jorge seriously! [/ quote]

        At this website!?!? My participation here is neither a popularity contest.

        No shunya, what I asserted is that the universe cannot be said to be both eternal and created. You claim that it is both of these things without giving explanation, logical explanation, as to why you believe this to be the case. When you explain how an object can be both eternal and created then we can discuss it, until that happens there is no reason to take your assertion seriously.
        Like seer you continuously misrepresent my posts. The comparison between you and, and Jorge works better.

        Your hung up again on the word create, which periodically you seem to flop around as to what you object to. You also questioned whether an eternal God could coexist with an eternal physical existence.

        IF God exists, do you seriously think that human logic or reason could explain the nature of God or 'Creation?'

        I'm am not trying to be antagonistic, even though you keep implying that I am, but if you are going to make illogical assertions "from the human perspective" and use the "with God anything is possible defence", then we are at an impasse and can no longer discuss the matter reasonably.
        Again I never used 'with God anything is possible,' because in reality I do not know what is possible with God. You are the one stating what is possible and not possible from God's perspective, which regardless of what kind of God may exist you do not believe in any God. I have not made any logical nor illogical arguments in this discussion, except to possibly outline your reasoning to Robert.

        Again I never, and again never, described what is possible and not possible from God's perspective, YOU DID.

        In other words you are one of those theists whose belief in God comes first, regardless of reason, logic or science?
        Neither. First, Methodological Naturalism has absolutely no role in understanding nor investigating the nature of, nor the existence or non-existence of God. Second, the logic and reason from the human perspective could not determine the nature of God nor Creation.



        Then why do you insist in your assertion that they are co-eternal? What is the reason behind your assertion? The only reason that I can come up with is because you want to make them both, God and the universe, a united whole as well as distinct entities. But the way I see it is that they can only be either the one or the other, either they are a united whole, or in otherwords they are one and the same thing, or they are distinct entities.
        I never stated anything in my posts that would indicate the highlighted in any way described the relationship between God and Creation.

        Again, it is not my assertion. It is the description of the relationship between God and Creation according to the Baha'i belief. I am not trying to reason the nature of God and Creation from the human perspective, and what is possible and not possible, YOU ARE, and, of course, you do not believe in any form of God.

        Again, from the theist perspective of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, actually also Zoroastrian and Hindu beliefs there is a preexistence prior to the physical creation, None, including the Baha'i Faith consider them one and the same. Again in all theistic religions they are not one and the same. Your imagination is working over time.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-23-2014, 07:38 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


        • #94
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          At this website!?!? My participation here is neither a popularity contest.
          In what sense that answers my objection i have no idea.


          Like seer you continuously misrepresent my posts. The comparison between you and, and Jorge works better.
          No, rather i think you misrepresent your own posts.
          Your hung up again on the word create, which periodically you seem to flop around as to what you object to.
          You see here you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. I am not hung up on the word create, i'm hung up on your inexplicable and illogical usage of it.
          You also questioned whether an eternal God could coexist with an eternal physical existence.
          Yes i did, and that was in response to your inexplicable belief that they, two distinct entities, one the Creator and the other the Created, could eternally coexist.
          IF God exists, do you seriously think that human logic or reason could explain the nature of God or 'Creation?'
          Well if it doesn't conform with human logic and reason then don't use human language to define it and assert that it is a perfectly acceptable and meaningful explanation. Unless you can explain it, then it doesn't even make sense to you.


          Again I never used 'with God anything is possible,' because in reality I do not know what is possible with God. You are the one stating what is possible and not possible from God's perspective, which regardless of what kind of God may exist you do not believe in any God. I have not made any logical nor illogical arguments in this discussion, except to possibly outline your reasoning to Robert.
          Again, yes you did, you implied it in stating that "with God a distinct and created thing can also be eternal." This in human terms defies logic and is impossible since something which is created did not exist previous to its creation so can not be said to be eternal. In other words you are saying that the impossible is possible with God which is the same as to say that "anything is possible with God."
          Again I never, and again never, described what is possible and not possible from God's perspective, YOU DID.
          See above.


          Neither. First, Methodological Naturalism has absolutely no role in understanding nor investigating the nature of, nor the existence or non-existence of God. Second, the logic and reason from the human perspective could not determine the nature of God nor Creation.
          Right, humans can not determine the nature of God, creation, nor of Gods existence, so please stop trying to do so.




          I never stated anything in my posts that would indicate the highlighted in any way described the relationship between God and Creation.
          Didn't say you did, but it is implied else for what other reason, than to unite them as one, do you believe that God and Creation are co-eternal?
          Again, it is not my assertion. It is the description of the relationship between God and Creation according to the Baha'i belief. I am not trying to reason the nature of God and Creation from the human perspective, and what is possible and not possible, YOU ARE, and, of course, you do not believe in any form of God.
          Shunya, please stop hiding behind the Baha'i belief, the Baha'i belief is your belief and the Baha'i description of God and creation is your description which in turn i guess is Gods description since as you say humans are incapable of describing God and Creation. Did God tell someone that Creation is co-eternal with him?
          Again, from the theist perspective of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, actually also Zoroastrian and Hindu beliefs there is a preexistence prior to the physical creation, None, including the Baha'i Faith consider them one and the same. Again in all theistic religions they are not one and the same. Your imagination is working over time.
          See, here you are contradicting yourself again. If there is a pre-existence prior to the physical creation, then how is it that the physical creation is co-eternal with that which existed prior to it, i.e. with its eternal creator, God.
          Last edited by JimL; 08-23-2014, 11:43 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by JimL View Post

            Yes i did, and that was in response to your inexplicable belief that they, two distinct entities, one the Creator and the other the Created, could eternally coexist.
            Then stop denying it and confusing the dialogue. Yes there is a problem when you consider the nature of something possible and impossible when you do not believe it exists.

            Well if it doesn't conform with human logic and reason then don't use human language to define it and assert that it is a perfectly acceptable and meaningful explanation. Unless you can explain it, then it doesn't even make sense to you.
            From you limited reductionist reasoning you expect everything to be explained by human logic and reasoning. Reality does not work that way. You are simply not willing to accept that the nature of God cannot explained in detail to conform to your expectations,



            Again, yes you did, you implied it in stating that "with God a distinct and created thing can also be eternal." This in human terms defies logic and is impossible since something which is created did not exist previous to its creation so can not be said to be eternal. In other words you are saying that the impossible is possible with God which is the same as to say that "anything is possible with God."
            Please, do not misrepresent me like seer does. I NEVER IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING. Yes, it may defy your limited mechanistic reductionist logic, but of course expecting all of existence to comply with one's expectations is extremely egoistic.

            Right, humans can not determine the nature of God, creation, nor of Gods existence, so please stop trying to do so.
            I never did try to 'determine' the nature of God, nor God's existence.


            Didn't say you did, but it is implied else for what other reason, than to unite them as one, do you believe that God and Creation are co-eternal?
            For purposes of a constructive dialogue' please do not 'imply' anything beyond what I say.

            Shunya, please stop hiding behind the Baha'i belief, the Baha'i belief is your belief and the Baha'i description of God and creation is your description which in turn i guess is Gods description since as you say humans are incapable of describing God and Creation. Did God tell someone that Creation is co-eternal with him?
            No hiding here at all. The Baha'i scriptures describe (tell?) the nature of God's relationship with Creation, which is coeternal.

            See, here you are contradicting yourself again. If there is a pre-existence prior to the physical creation, then how is it that the physical creation is co-eternal with that which existed prior to it, i.e. with its eternal creator, God.
            No contradiction here whatsoever. It is simple God is co-eternal with creation. No, God does not exist prior to Creation. The object (God) does not exist prior to the reflection (Creation) of God.
            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


            • #96
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Then stop denying it and confusing the dialogue. Yes there is a problem when you consider the nature of something possible and impossible when you do not believe it exists.
              When did i ever deny this shunya. Your confusion has nothing to do with my assertion that a created thing can not at the same time be said to be eternal. Thats my position and i have never denied it. Also my position is not that the eternal does not exist, my position is that your description of the eternal as being both created and eternal is not more than an inexplicable and illogical assertion and thus an unacceptable description from the human perspective. Now if you want to believe the illogical solely on the basis of scripture, be my guest.


              From you limited reductionist reasoning you expect everything to be explained by human logic and reasoning. Reality does not work that way. You are simply not willing to accept that the nature of God cannot explained in detail to conform to your expectations,
              Yes reality does work that way shunya, it is through observation, reason and logic that we are able to explain anything at all. What I am not willing to accept is an illogical rendering concerning the nature of anything, including God.




              Please, do not misrepresent me like seer does. I NEVER IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING. Yes, it may defy your limited mechanistic reductionist logic, but of course expecting all of existence to comply with one's expectations is extremely egoistic.
              Of course you are correct that one should not expect that necessarily they can come to an understanding of all aspects of existence, but that is no reason to adopt beliefs that are also illogical. You believe that physical existence is both eternal and created. That is illogical, so why should it be believed? Based on what?


              I never did try to 'determine' the nature of God, nor God's existence.
              Sure did, you ascribe to God the same attributes that are seen in man and nature.



              For purposes of a constructive dialogue' please do not 'imply' anything beyond what I say.
              I didn't imply anything, you did.


              No hiding here at all. The Baha'i scriptures describe (tell?) the nature of God's relationship with Creation, which is coeternal.
              Yes i realize that, but it is your belief as well, which neither you, and apparently Baha'i scripture can not explain in a logical or believable way.


              No contradiction here whatsoever. It is simple God is co-eternal with creation. No, God does not exist prior to Creation. The object (God) does not exist prior to the reflection (Creation) of God.
              Okay shunya i'm done here this is a totally unproductive and nonsensical conversation and it is obvious I will never get a logical explanation for why you believe what you believe. Sorry.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Yes i realize that, but it is your belief as well, which neither you, and apparently Baha'i scripture can not explain in a logical or believable way.
                It became apparent long time ago that no matter of explanation would suit you. The apophatic view of God cannot be explained in a logical way from the human perspective,



                Yes reality does work that way shunya, it is through observation, reason and logic that we are able to explain anything at all. What I am not willing to accept is an illogical rendering concerning the nature of anything, including God.
                This hard core atheist reductionist perspective your logic and the Methodological Naturalism of science is sound as far as the nature of our physical existence, but beyond that it does not work. If all of existence can reduced by reductionist logic and the Methodological Naturalism of science then you are correct, but I do not believe so.

                This basically sums up your atheist view regardless of anything I said, nor any possible description of the nature of God, in this exchange. I indicated before in prior posts concerning your priori assumption that God does not exist in any form. Your assertions as to what was possible an not possible was further confused your dialogue. With this assumption I am not certain what you chose to accomplish in this exchange.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-24-2014, 04:57 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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  It became apparent long time ago that no matter of explanation would suit you. The apophatic view of God cannot be explained in a logical way from the human perspective,





                  This hard core atheist reductionist perspective your logic and the Methodological Naturalism of science is sound as far as the nature of our physical existence, but beyond that it does not work. If all of existence can reduced by reductionist logic and the Methodological Naturalism of science then you are correct, but I do not believe so.

                  This basically sums up your atheist view regardless of anything I said, nor any possible description of the nature of God, in this exchange. I indicated before in prior posts concerning your priori assumption that God does not exist in any form. Your assertions as to what was possible an not possible was further confused your dialogue. With this assumption I am not certain what you chose to accomplish in this exchange.
                  What i wanted to find out was if you had a soundl reason for believing the things you do, such as the the existence of God, the natural world being both eternal as well as created, or the notion of the natural world being the mirror image of God and so forth. No such reason was forthcoming, other than its the Baha'i view of God and creation, so i will just leave it at that.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    What i wanted to find out was if you had a soundl reason for believing the things you do, such as the the existence of God, the natural world being both eternal as well as created, or the notion of the natural world being the mirror image of God and so forth. No such reason was forthcoming, other than its the Baha'i view of God and creation, so i will just leave it at that.
                    This statement determined the whole course of our dialogue.

                    Yes reality does work that way shunya, it is through observation, reason and logic that we are able to explain anything at all. What I am not willing to accept is an illogical rendering concerning the nature of anything, including God.
                    Nothing I could say would make any difference.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      This statement determined the whole course of our dialogue.



                      Nothing I could say would make any difference.
                      I tried hard, but I have found that to be the case as well shunya. Tx anyway.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                      160 responses
                      507 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