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

[shunyadragon]

Did you actually imagine that I was ever speaking of an infallible intuition? Quite the contrary! Did you actually imagine that I would ever eschew 'independent investigation of knowledge outside my own intuition or personal preferences of belief'? Again, quite the contrary. My view of intuition was offered as something less than any sense of definitive proof that would be considered compelling independent of multiple metaphysical foundations. Likewise, my attempt to integrate insights from alternative, even atheist perspectives should in no way be seen as limiting my views to what is merely my own personal intuitions.

I never stated anything like this in any of my posts, I was simply responding to your statement in your original post. No, I do not rely on personal intuition at all for basing my belief in God, God's nature nor my choice of belief.

[robrecht]

I never stated anything like this in any of my posts, I was simply responding to your statement in your original post. No, I do not rely on personal intuition at all for basing my belief in God, God's nature nor my choice of belief.

I just wanted to make sure you were not characterizing intuition as fallible because you thought I considered any intuition infallible, as some do. So, let me see if I understand your position correctly. You do not believe the existence of God can be proven on rational grounds. You do not consider personal intuition to be involved in any way. You think that scientific findings as they have evolved over time correlate to Baha'i revelation as part of an larger evolution of revelation. Am I missing something?

[shunyadragon]

I just wanted to make sure you were not characterizing intuition as fallible because you thought I considered any intuition infallible, as some do. So, let me see if I understand your position correctly. You do not believe the existence of God can be proven on rational grounds.

You do not consider personal intuition to be involved in any way.

Involved? I do not consider personal intuition reliable in determining whether God exists or not, determine the nature of God nor choice of belief system.

You think that scientific findings as they have evolved over time correlate to Baha'i revelation as part of an larger evolution of revelation. Am I missing something?

I believe the foundation principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion teaches that the evolving nature science knowledge is the standard of knowledge of our physical existence, and ALL scripture including Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the knowledge of science. This applies only to the scientific knowledge itself, and not the application of knowledge as in technology. Spiritual principles and guidance should guide the application of scientific knowledge to human needs and purposes.

[Kelp(p)]

. . . because by the evidence too man people over the eons conclude something different based on 'intuition.'

And the fact that most of those people over the eons believed in some god or gods based on their intuition is one of the reasons I'm not an atheist (though not the only reason and also not the reason I'm a Christian as opposed to being part of some other religion).

Not that I blame any atheist for not buying that idea, of course.

[robrecht]

Involved? I do not consider personal intuition reliable in determining whether God exists or not, determine the nature of God nor choice of belief system.

I believe the foundation principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion teaches that the evolving nature science knowledge is the standard of knowledge of our physical existence, and ALL scripture including Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the knowledge of science. This applies only to the scientific knowledge itself, and not the application of knowledge as in technology. Spiritual principles and guidance should guide the application of scientific knowledge to human needs and purposes.

I am still trying to understand what it is you do consider reliable about your reasons for belief in God's existence, his nature, and your choice in belief system. I recall your saying that you consider the spiritual laws and teachings in the Baha'i scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. Is that the bottom line, a fideistic belief in the reliability of infallible and inerrant Baha'i holy scriptures? Or is there something else that you consider reliable in your faith that is accessible to those who do not share you belief in the infallible and inerrant Baha'i holy scriptures?

[37818]

1. There never was nothingness.
2. Existence exists.
3. An uncaused self existent existence is fundamental. [Needs no God.]

Regarding point 1.. Nothingness, no matter, no time, no space, no dark nor light. Conceptually I can describe this, as I just did. But can I really conceive of this nothingness. No. Therefore there from my limited understanding there was always an existence. And this existence is self existent. It needs no God.

Add to this, I am a theist. A Christian. Trinitarian. And I really believe the above.

[shunyadragon]

1. There never was nothingness.

Likely true from the perspective of science, but not falsifiable in Methodological Naturalism. The Baha'i Faith believes that absolute nothingness never existed. All possible Created universes arise from the eternal infinite matrix that exists eternally with and Created by God.

2. Existence exists.

True as the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day on the 4th of July at noon.

3. An uncaused self existent existence is fundamental. [Needs no God.]

. . . is fundamental to atheism, but not science. Methodological Naturalism cannot demonstrate nor conclude that atheism nor theism is true.

Add to this, I am a theist. A Christian. Trinitarian. And I really believe the above.

OK.

[37818]

Likely true from the perspective of science, but not falsifiable in Methodological Naturalism. The Baha'i Faith believes that absolute nothingness never existed. All possible Created universes arise from the eternal infinite matrix that exists eternally with and Created by God.

Is truth falsifiable? Truth is contingent upon what actually exists or is of reality. Is reality falsifiable? ". . . from the eternal infinite matrix . . . " is meaningless. And therefore utter nonsense.

True as the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day on the 4th of July at noon.

Is not really a relevant answer. The blue color of the sky is a direct result of Rayleigh scattering which redirects higher frequency (blue) sunlight back into the field of view of the observer.

. . . is fundamental to atheism, but not science. Methodological Naturalism cannot demonstrate nor conclude that atheism nor theism is true.

Metaphysics verses the empirical. There is no agreed upon metaphysical method to deal with all religions or the question of God or no God.

[shunyadragon]

I am still trying to understand what it is you do consider reliable about your reasons for belief in God's existence, his nature, and your choice in belief system. I recall your saying that you consider the spiritual laws and teachings in the Baha'i scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. Is that the bottom line, a fideistic belief in the reliability of infallible and inerrant Baha'i holy scriptures? Or is there something else that you consider reliable in your faith that is accessible to those who do not share you belief in the infallible and inerrant Baha'i holy scriptures?

First you are misusing a 'fideistic' belief. Check your definitions and use and come back. The Principle of the Independent Investigation of Truth (Knowledge) rejects the fideist philosophy.

Second, I belief I have explained my beliefs in detail previously. Third, Infallibility and inerrant can be defined differently. I bow to Sen McGlinn's post in response to yours concerning what Infallible and Inerrant means.

To say that the spiritual law and teachings are infallible and inerrant is an empty statement -- for if it is a spiritual law, how would one know that it is in error? One can only say that one has faith in it and seeks to apply it in life. Or that one believes the teachings, if applied, lead to a better life, a better world, a better picture of God's will, etc.

Propositional infallibility is something different, and a very hard case to maintain. It can be proved wrong by any error in a statement purporting to be a statement of fact. I think there are not many churches with that level of confidence in the inerrancy of scripture today, and the same would go for Bahais. Apart from being a hard claim to maintain, it seems to miss the point about the purpose of revelation.

I will add here that translation of Baha'i scripture is often problematic, and back up to basic principles that give guidance on how to deal with the modern world and realize the evolution of religion will continue over the millennia, and not change or mean what I want it to believe, or demand change from the human perspective.

[Truthseeker]

True as the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day on the 4th of July at noon.

Possibly you meant 2015. What if the sky is clouded o'er then?

[37818]

Possibly you meant 2015. What if the sky is clouded o'er then?

He specified "a clear day." Your argument is not relevant.

[robrecht]

First you are misusing a 'fideistic' belief. Check your definitions and use and come back. The Principle of the Independent Investigation of Truth (Knowledge) rejects the fideist philosophy.

Second, I belief I have explained my beliefs in detail previously. Third, Infallibility and inerrant can be defined differently. I bow to Sen McGlinn's post in response to yours concerning what Infallible and Inerrant means.

I do not need to check my definition when I am asking you a question. You need only decide how you would like to answer and what terms you would like to use. Are you now abandoning your previous belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of Baha'i sacred scriptures?

[shunyadragon]

And the fact that most of those people over the eons believed in some god or gods based on their intuition is one of the reasons I'm not an atheist (though not the only reason and also not the reason I'm a Christian as opposed to being part of some other religion).

Not that I blame any atheist for not buying that idea, of course.

'Most people believe in some god or gods' stretches thing a bit. Most people believe what they are told by 'tradition' in history, and their beliefs are very variable to say the least. No historically 'intuition' has never been a primary motivation for belief in a Divine being or beings in the past. Actually serious philosophical theological questioning belief in god or god(s) is a relatively recent phenomenon. One of the first is possibly Lucretius in the 1st century Rome. An actual atheist movement is only a couple of hundred years old.

[shunyadragon]

I do not need to check my definition when I am asking you a question. You need only decide how you would like to answer and what terms you would like to use. Are you now abandoning your previous belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of Baha'i sacred scriptures?

This has been a problem in the past. You tend to come up with personal definitions for things, which makes it difficult to answer. Not abandoning my belief at all. I referred to Sen's post as a more adequate explanation and I am always willing to clarify and adjust my use of terminology so that there is better understanding.

Again . . .

First you are misusing a 'fideistic' belief. Check your definitions and use and come back. The Principle of the Independent Investigation of Truth (Knowledge) rejects the fideist philosophy.

Second, I belief I have explained my beliefs in detail previously. Third, Infallibility and inerrant can be defined differently. I bow to Sen McGlinn's post in response to yours concerning what Infallible and Inerrant means.

To say that the spiritual law and teachings are infallible and inerrant is an empty statement -- for if it is a spiritual law, how would one know that it is in error? One can only say that one has faith in it and seeks to apply it in life. Or that one believes the teachings, if applied, lead to a better life, a better world, a better picture of God's will, etc.

Propositional infallibility is something different, and a very hard case to maintain. It can be proved wrong by any error in a statement purporting to be a statement of fact. I think there are not many churches with that level of confidence in the inerrancy of scripture today, and the same would go for Baha'is. Apart from being a hard claim to maintain, it seems to miss the point about the purpose of revelation.

I will add here that translation of Baha'i scripture is often problematic, and back up to basic principles that give guidance on how to deal with the modern world and realize the evolution of religion will continue over the millennia, and not change or mean what I want it to believe, or demand change from the human perspective.

It's pretty tough to find a matter "of the faith" where Baha'u'llah made an error. He did make errors as regards the chronology of classical Greek philosophers, because he followed the history-writing traditional in Islamic scholarship up to modern times, which had become confused at an early stage. But (1) is this a matter of faith? Don't the prophets and sages refer to the world and its history in order to say something about spiritual matters? This is the approach of the great Bahai scholar Mirza Fadl al-Gulpaygani, who says the Manifestations don't come to teach us history. And (2), some read Baha'u'llah's framing of this section as a warning to the reader that he will be citing received accounts, as if he knew the chronology was dubious but used it in the form that his readers would expect. Whatever greater knowledge of worldly things a prophet may have, he his bound to speak in the language of his hearers, more or less adopting their cosmos.

You can see an example of the discussion within the community on such issues in
http://bahai-library.com/cole_proble...onology_hikmat
and then google discussion of it. Note that the original paper was published in World Order, which at the time was the most prestigious Bahai journal.

Abdu'l-Baha made some errors in his account of the martyrdom of some Bahais in Yazd, and when the issue was raised in the time of Shoghi Effendi, he told the Bahais they should get the best documentation and use that account, because Abdu'l-Baha had said that he was citing sources he had received.

Shoghi Effendi included one section in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah which apparently (I am not certain) was written by Abdu'l-Baha. In terms of doctrine it makes no difference which of them wrote it, but it illustrates that when he says that he is dependant on the information he receives, that includes information about the Bahai writings themselves. The Universal House of Justice also says that it is not omniscient: it depends on the information given to it and can change its decisions when more information is received.

This is not to say that there is no room for the idea of propositional inerrancy in Bahai doctrine, but it is on shaky ground. I personally do not argue for the propositional inerrancy of Bahai scripture, but there may be some who do.

Note my byline 'I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.'

[shunyadragon]

Possibly you meant 2015. What if the sky is clouded o'er then?

My condition is on a clear day