Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[Jim B.]

Ok, but no I do not accept the wording used here. We have to consider it unresolvable. Even though you apparently do acknowledge apophatic attributes of God as 'should not be defined,' I believe the dominant view of Christianity is to define God as Trinitarian apart from other beliefs like Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. This is a long running, and apparently unresolvable disagreement.

The trinity is an attribute or property of God; it does not define God in his essence. The essence and totality of God is apophatic. Whenever we use the words "God is" we're talking analogically or metaphorically, not literally. All God talk is metaphorical, imo, even apophatic talk. God 'has' properties and relations in equivocal, not univocal, senses.

I question the human perspective of the judgement as to what is good. You perspective may be ok, I do not know, but as far as fallible human judgement from the perspective of different religions and churches they would not accept the concept of God of 'other' belief systems. There for statements of what God is . . ., is too inconsistent, and it remains the case that they define what is 'good' differently.

There's a great amount of consistency among the cultures of the world as to what is considered good and bad. The differences usually are explained due to differences in non-moral beliefs. But even if they did differ, this would have no bearing on metaethics. This alone doesn't 'prove' God or that God 'is' good. It only means that differences of opinion have no bearing on whether or not there's a fact of the matter.

[shunyadragon]

But whatever science finds, assuming it does find it, to explain how these particular laws came to be, it would have to appeal to some other set of constraints, and those depending upon some other set and so on. The question would just be pushed back one step without really being explained. This is one reason why this is most likely not a scientific question.

Science is simply does not ask the question 'why?,' because of the nature of Methodological Naturalism. Science is not looking for the 'why?'.

This thread is considering the question: Why is there something rather than nothing at all? You yourself have written that science isn't in the business of answering "Why?" questions. So why not say existence, or whatever caused it, is simply a brute fact not in need of further explanation rather than obfuscate using these occult entities that would not answer the question even if they could be rendered even remotely coherently?

OK, from the Philosophical Naturalist perspective it is simply a brute fact that our physical existence is a product of 'Nature' and occult nor mythical entities.

I am happy to consider it if you can explain it at all coherently. Please explain how physical existence could be explained or 'caused' by natural laws and the physical nature of our existence. Are you saying that these laws and this nature 'exist' somehow independently of physical existence? How? They would have to in some sense in order to cause physical existence. And how would they have any causal power? And even if you could explain these things, you'd still have to propose a coherent possible explanation for the existence of these laws and this nature.

So you're saying that the two in conjunction would 'cause' physical existence? How could the nature of our physical existence contribute, either alone or together with other things, to the cause of physical existence when that existence is already pre-supposed in that nature?

Possible example: In the case there is no God, it is possible the nature of our physical existence would be the infinite Quantum World of Quantum-zero point energy. The Natural Laws would be as a matter of fact the Ultimate Laws that govern the nature of the infinite Quantum World.

[shunyadragon]

The trinity is an attribute or property of God; it does not define God in his essence. The essence and totality of God is apophatic. Whenever we use the words "God is" we're talking analogically or metaphorically, not literally. All God talk is metaphorical, imo, even apophatic talk. God 'has' properties and relations in equivocal, not univocal, senses.

Both Robrecht and you are expressing an opinion approaching the apophatic meaning of the Trinity of the Baha'i Faith. It is not the traditional belief dominant in Christianity. The following is a good source for the concept of the Trinity in traditional Christianity. The Trinity unequivocally and literally describes the nature of God.

Source: http://www.theopedia.com/trinity

Trinity

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that deals with and describes the nature of God. The doctrine asserts the following:

There is one and only one God.
God eternally exists in three distinct persons.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, . . .

Understanding the terms

In Trinitarianism, God is said to be three persons in one essence, nature, or being. These last three terms are often seen as synonymous, but it can be helpful to understand what each means independently. Theological explanations of the Trinity, especially as developed in the early church, included the use of certain Greek terms which are included below for reference.

Essence

The word "essence" may be defined as the intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. Essence describes what it is to be God. The three persons of the Godhead share the same essence, and God's essence is immaterial. With this understanding, the doctrine of the Trinity continues to assert monotheism, an essential and easily found belief within Scripture.

© Copyright Original Source

There's a great amount of consistency among the cultures of the world as to what is considered good and bad. The differences usually are explained due to differences in non-moral beliefs. But even if they did differ, this would have no bearing on metaethics. This alone doesn't 'prove' God or that God 'is' good. It only means that differences of opinion have no bearing on whether or not there's a fact of the matter.

Unfortunately how 'good' is defined in different religions, churches, and divisions in religions in particular different belief systems, does in fact have a bearing on the meaning of 'good' when one states 'God is good,' because different religions define 'good' based on own and exclusively separate belief from other belief systems. Different religions and churches may and do consider belief systems other than their own not 'good' in terms of stating 'God is good.' For example; Traditional Christianity would not consider 'God is good' in Islam. Moral and ethical codes of what would be 'good' may be similar in different cultures, but that is not what the issue is here.

I believe you are misusing 'metaethics' if you are referring to some value of 'good' other than moral values and properties, which makes your argument confusing. To resolve it you may need to just reword your statement.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=metaethics%20definition

Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of applied ethics and normative theory focus on what is moral, metaethics focuses on what morality itself is.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Both Robrecht and you are expressing an opinion approaching the apophatic meaning of the Trinity of the Baha'i Faith. It is not the traditional belief dominant in Christianity. ...

I have merely tried to teach you the approach of Thomas Aquinas, who summarized and systematized several earlier Christian theologians. Your attempts to define traditional Christian theology tend to be colored by your polemical approach.

[Jim B.]

Science is simply does not ask the question 'why?,' because of the nature of Methodological Naturalism. Science is not looking for the 'why?'.

So there are things that science does not do? It has limits?!?

Possible example: In the case there is no God, it is possible the nature of our physical existence would be the infinite Quantum World of Quantum-zero point energy. The Natural Laws would be as a matter of fact the Ultimate Laws that govern the nature of the infinite Quantum World.

Which, barring any other explanation, would be brute facts.

[Jim B.]

Both Robrecht and you are expressing an opinion approaching the apophatic meaning of the Trinity of the Baha'i Faith. It is not the traditional belief dominant in Christianity. The following is a good source for the concept of the Trinity in traditional Christianity. The Trinity unequivocally and literally describes the nature of God.

Source: http://www.theopedia.com/trinity

Trinity

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that deals with and describes the nature of God. The doctrine asserts the following:

There is one and only one God.
God eternally exists in three distinct persons.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, . . .

Understanding the terms

In Trinitarianism, God is said to be three persons in one essence, nature, or being. These last three terms are often seen as synonymous, but it can be helpful to understand what each means independently. Theological explanations of the Trinity, especially as developed in the early church, included the use of certain Greek terms which are included below for reference.

Essence

The word "essence" may be defined as the intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. Essence describes what it is to be God. The three persons of the Godhead share the same essence, and God's essence is immaterial. With this understanding, the doctrine of the Trinity continues to assert monotheism, an essential and easily found belief within Scripture.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm not here to defend "standard " Christianity, if there even is such a thing. But even according to the quote, the three persons share in the same "essence". This essence, what it is like to be God, is beyond trinitarian accounts or any other point of doctrine. The idea that formulations such as the Trinity or other properties could begin to convey an understanding of what it is like to be God is pure folly. The apophatic tradition is an enduring part of "traditional" Christianity, going back to before Christ and through the Pseudo-Dionysius and up to today.

Unfortunately how 'good' is defined in different religions, churches, and divisions in religions in particular different belief systems, does in fact have a bearing on the meaning of 'good' when one states 'God is good,' because different religions define 'good' based on own and exclusively separate belief from other belief systems. Different religions and churches may and do consider belief systems other than their own not 'good' in terms of stating 'God is good.' For example; Traditional Christianity would not consider 'God is good' in Islam. Moral and ethical codes of what would be 'good' may be similar in different cultures, but that is not what the issue is here.

We can say that "God is good" without necessarily believing that we have an inerrant understanding of the good. We can believe that God's goodness sets the standard of goodness that we fallible humans aim at but most likely fall short of.

I believe you are misusing 'metaethics' if you are referring to some value of 'good' other than moral values and properties, which makes your argument confusing. To resolve it you may need to just reword your statement.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=metaethics%20definition

Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of applied ethics and normative theory focus on what is moral, metaethics focuses on what morality itself is.

© Copyright Original Source

It's the distinction between descriptive and normative ethics. That's what I was discussing just above.

[shunyadragon]

So there are things that science does not do? It has limits?!?

Most definitely science has limits. If a theory, hypothesis, model, or whatever cannot be falsified by scientific methods with objective evidence it is beyond the limits of scientific investigations.

Which, barring any other explanation, would be brute facts.

Actually the Philosophical Naturalist view is on sound ground based on Methodological Naturalism, which is the basis of 'brute facts.' Theism, Deism and other isms have to make assumptions of belief that are not grounded in objective evidence. It does have to make a philosophical assumption that there are no worlds beyond our physical existence.

[shunyadragon]

I have merely tried to teach you the approach of Thomas Aquinas, who summarized and systematized several earlier Christian theologians. Your attempts to define traditional Christian theology tend to be colored by your polemical approach.

I believe I understand your approach of Thomas Aquinas, but it is a slippery beast, and difficult to deal with. I do not define traditional Christian Theology, because it is clearly what is believed and taught in the Roman Church, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. You are not teaching me anything new.

Again, if you move toward the approach reflected in Jim B's statement you are closer to the Baha'i Faith where the essence and totality of God is apophatic, and the concept of the Trinity is analogically or metaphorically the human perspective of the nature of God, and not literally 'describing the nature of God'.

The trinity is an attribute or property of God; it does not define God in his essence. The essence and totality of God is apophatic. Whenever we use the words "God is" we're talking analogically or metaphorically, not literally. All God talk is metaphorical, imo, even apophatic talk. God 'has' properties and relations in equivocal, not univocal, senses.

An apophatic approach to God that is half way between traditional Christian beliefs and the Baha'i Faith has little meaning to me.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not here to defend "standard " Christianity, if there even is such a thing. But even according to the quote, the three persons share in the same "essence". This essence, what it is like to be God, is beyond trinitarian accounts or any other point of doctrine. The idea that formulations such as the Trinity or other properties could begin to convey an understanding of what it is like to be God is pure folly. The apophatic tradition is an enduring part of "traditional" Christianity, going back to before Christ and through the Pseudo-Dionysius and up to today.

Yes, there is such a thing as the consistent doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity as to what is taught and believed in the Roman Church. Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Ther is of course considerable variation beyond the core that defies a generalization. Reread the citation, which is accurate as to how essence is considered in this case. Pseudo-Dionysius beliefs influence belief with a mystical theology, but do not represent contemporary traditional Christianity. I do not believe it is resolved whether Dionysius believed in a lteral Trinitarian view or not. I believe that in general the view of Dionysius was a negative (apophatic) theology and would not define God positively as God is. . .

We can say that "God is good" without necessarily believing that we have an inerrant understanding of the good. We can believe that God's goodness sets the standard of goodness that we fallible humans aim at but most likely fall short of.

The question of inerrancy does not work here, nor have I proposed that it is a problem. The problem believing what is 'God's goodness setting the standard of goodness that we fallible humans aim at but most likely fall short of,' is that the standards in different belief systems are too inconsistent as to what is the standard of God's goodness. Of course, you can say it, but to me it is too vague to provide any coherent understanding as to what the nature of God is from a universal perspective.

It's the distinction between descriptive and normative ethics. That's what I was discussing just above.

The question of the meaning and use of 'God is good' is not related to descriptive nor normative morals nor ethics, though these may cloud the picture between cultures concerning the view and nature of 'what is God?'

[robrecht]

I believe I understand your approach of Thomas Aquinas, but it is a slippery beast, and difficult to deal with. I do not define traditional Christian Theology, because it is clearly what is believed and taught in the Roman Church, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. You are not teaching me anything new.

Again, if you move toward the approach reflected in Jim B's statement you are closer to the Baha'i Faith where the essence and totality of God is apophatic, and the concept of the Trinity is analogically or metaphorically the human perspective of the nature of God, and not literally 'describing the nature of God'.

An apophatic approach to God that is half way between traditional Christian beliefs and the Baha'i Faith has little meaning to me.

Thomas, who was summarizing and systematizing much earlier traditional Christian theoligians, predates the Baha'i Faith by several centuries. I'm sorry you find his thought so difficult to grasp. Your polemical approach does not serve you well.

[shunyadragon]

Thomas, who was summarizing and systematizing much earlier traditional Christian theoligians, predates the Baha'i Faith by several centuries. I'm sorry you find his thought so difficult to grasp. Your polemical approach does not serve you well.

It is not difficult to grasp at all, nor does it originate with Thomas Aquinas. the apophatic view of the 'Source' in Vedic traditions, Buddhism and mystical Judaism predate Thomas Aquinas by centuries at least if not millennia, without having to deal with the Trinity. Actually the apophatic beliefs of the Baha'i faith have share these more ancient mystical theological views of God.The problem is your view of the apophatic view of God is half way between traditional Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, and is not meaningful from my perspective.

You perpetually confuse understanding you with agreeing with you. You are under the dilusion that if you teach me to understand you I will agree with you, that is very unlikely.

[robrecht]

It is not difficult to grasp at all, nor does it originate with Thomas Aquinas. the apophatic view of the 'Source' in Vedic traditions, Buddhism and mystical Judaism predate Thomas Aquinas by centuries at least if not millennia, without having to deal with the Trinity. Actually the apophatic beliefs of the Baha'i faith have share these more ancient mystical theological views of God.The problem is your view of the apophatic view of God is half way between traditional Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, and is not meaningfull from my perspective.

I never said apophatic theology began with Christianity or Thomas, but the views of Thomas (and mine) are simply not "half way between traditional Christianity and the Baha'i Faith." Most people realize that Thomas' views do indeed represent a major school of thought within the Christian intellectual tradition. Sorry you cannot see this.

[shunyadragon]

I never said apophatic theology began with Christianity or Thomas, but the views of Thomas (and mine) are simply not "half way between traditional Christianity and the Baha'i Faith." Most people realize that Thomas' views do indeed represent a major school of thought within the Christian intellectual tradition. Sorry you cannot see this.

You did make a distinct claim of the Thomas Aquinas apophatic belief system predated the Baha'i Faith, but in reality the Baha'i Faith belief in an comlete apophatic belief without the Trinity in God clearly predates Aquinas.

Thomas, who was summarizing and systematizing much earlier traditional Christian theoligians, predates the Baha'i Faith by several centuries.

It is not a matter of 'seeing it,' I just do not agree with it. By the matter of fact evidence of what you have revealed concerning this belief system it is indeed "half way between traditional Christianity and the Baha'i Faith." It at present shows no evidence of being 'major school of thought within the Christian intellectual tradition,' and by the evidence remains a distinct minority view particularly in reference to the core beliefs in the Trinity. Very few Protestant Theologians hold this view except for aspects of the nature of God beyond the core beliefs such as the Trinity, and it is a very very minority view among believers.

[robrecht]

You did make a distinct claim of the Thomas Aquinas apophatic belief system predated the Baha'i Faith, but in reality the Baha'i Faith belief in an comlete apophatic belief without the Trinity in God clearly predates Aquinas.

It is not a matter of 'seeing it,' I just do not agree with it. By the matter of fact evidence of what you have revealed concerning this belief system it is indeed "half way between traditional Christianity and the Baha'i Faith." It at present shows no evidence of being 'major school of thought within the Christian intellectual tradition,' and by the evidence remains a distinct minority view. Very few Protestant Theologians hold this view, and it is a very very minority view among believers.

[shunyadragon]

By half way I am not speaking of origins nor dates, but conceptual differences between the strong specific catephatic doctrine and dogma beliefs of Christianity with mystical apophatic beliefs beyond this, and the Baha'i Faith believing in a total apophatic view with no doctrine and dogma defining God in a positive way.