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

[shunyadragon]

The point is, why trust that our senses point to something real?

If we didn't physically exist, how could we prove that we didn't (falsification)?

I am uncertain as to the point of this approach. Everyone would have answer these questions, and they are not particularly meaningful. It as if your taking the Vedic Hindu approach to the nature of our physical existence. Methodological Naturalism (falsification) does not prove anything. The question from the philosophical/theological perspective is whether the spiritual worlds apart from our physical existence believed by theists and others exists or not.

If our physical existence is illusion, it is a very wonderful, painful, interesting, and dynamic, illusion.

There is an interesting philosophical science concept that our physical existence originates from the Eternal and Infinite Quantum World Matrix and ultimately returns to this Matrix of Quantum 'Nothingness.' The modals and theorems of possible universes and possible multiverses dominates physics and cosmology today, but no, there is no hope that science, nor religions East and West, could ever ultimately answer your questions above.

[Kelp(p)]

I am certain as to the point of this approach. Everyone would have answer these questions, and they are not particularly meaningful. It as if your taking the Vedic Hindu approach to the nature of our physical existence. Methodological Naturalism (falsification) does not prove anything. The question from the philosophical/theological perspective is whether the spiritual worlds apart from our physical existence believed by theists and others exists or not.

If our physical existence is illusion, it is a very wonderful, painful, interesting, and dynamic, illusion.

There is an interesting philosophical science concept that our physical existence originates from the Eternal and Infinite Quantum World Matrix and ultimately returns to this Matrix of Quantum 'Nothingness.' The modals and theorems of possible universes and possible multiverses dominates physics and cosmology today, but no, there is no hope that science, nor religions East and West, could ever ultimately answer your questions above.

From

I know and I'm fine with that.

I was just asking about your post to robrecht where you said our physical existence is falsifiable. I don't see how it is. It's just something we have to accept.

[shunyadragon]

I know and I'm fine with that.

I was just asking about your post to robrecht where you said our physical existence is falsifiable. I don't see how it is. It's just something we have to accept.

I think there needs to be slight clarification here. It is the 'Nature' of our physical existence that is falsifiable, and not the existence of the physical existence itself.

[Kelp(p)]

Oh, ok. I see.

[shunyadragon]

Please point to where you have answered this question as to why you believe the Baha'i sacred scripture are infallible and inerrant. I do not believe you have ever done so.

The proper question is why I believe in the Baha'i scriptures. Wrong thread, the discussion on this topic is here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...believe-in-God

[37818]

The nature of our physical existence is falsifiable.

Nonsense. I would agree that our understanding of the nature of our physical existence can be falsifiable when that understanding is proved wrong.

True so what?? You did not get the analogy.

Maybe not. Except that analogy seemed as about as meaningful as what is true is true.

[Leonhard]

Eternal and Infinite Quantum World Matrix and ultimately returns to this Matrix of Quantum 'Nothingness.'

Deepack Chopra would llove this. Quantum Nonsense almost at its very finist.

[robrecht]

The proper question is why I believe in the Baha'i scriptures. Wrong thread, the discussion on this topic is here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...believe-in-God

You can answer the question wherever you like, but please do not insult our intelligence by changing my question into one which I did not ask. The proper question is not why you believe in the Baha'i scriptures, but rather why you believe the Baha'i sacred scriptures or specific parts thereof are infallible and inerrant.

[shunyadragon]

You can answer the question wherever you like, but please do not insult our intelligence by changing my question into one which I did not ask. The proper question is not why you believe in the Baha'i scriptures, but rather why you believe the Baha'i sacred scriptures or specific parts thereof are infallible and inerrant.

Consider your intelligence insulted. The question of 'Inerrancy and infallibility' has been explained by me to best of my ability, references by Sen were helpful to me. You appear to stuck in a cracked broken record, repeating the question over and over again. I do not agree with everything Sen posted, but the bottom line in my view and apparently Sen's the human perspective of what 'infallibility and inerrancy' is not absolute as you seem to be pressing, as it is from the perspective of the Roman Church.

Why and what I believe does not have any specific relationship to any scripture being 'infallible and inerrant.'

[robrecht]

Consider your intelligence insulted. The question of 'Inerrancy and infallibility' has been explained by me to best of my ability, references by Sen were helpful to me. You appear to stuck in a cracked broken record, repeating the question over and over again. I do not agree with everything Sen posted, but the bottom line in my view and apparently Sen's the human perspective of what 'infallibility and inerrancy' is not absolute as you seem to be pressing, as it is from the perspective of the Roman Church.

Why and what I believe does not have any specific relationship to any scripture being 'infallible and inerrant.'

You are the one who said that 'the spiritual law and teachings in the Baha'i sacred scriptures are infallible and inerrant'. If you no longer believe this, or do not want to defend this statement, simply retract it. No need to insult any one over this.

[shunyadragon]

You are the one who said that 'the spiritual law and teachings in the Baha'i sacred scriptures are infallible and inerrant'. If you no longer believe this, or do not want to defend this statement, simply retract it. No need to insult any one over this.

and I explained at length my view and your ignoring it for your own agenda. Consider your intelligence insulted.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=robrecht;127644]You are the one who said that 'the spiritual law and teachings in the Baha'i sacred scriptures are infallible and inerrant'. If you no longer believe this, or do not want to defend this statement, simply retract it.

No need to insult any one over this.

If you would be willing to carry on a constructive dialogue, not ignore my posts, and demanding a particular explanation that satisfies your agenda, then maybe, but at present no. It would help if you would post in an appropriate thread instead of going on rants off topic in any thread 'Willy neely' as you wish.

The topic of this thread is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[robrecht]

If you would be willing to carry on a constructive dialogue, not ignore my posts, and demanding a particular explanation that satisfies your agenda, then maybe, but at present no. It would help if you would post in an appropriate thread instead of going on rants off topic in any thread 'Willy neely' as you wish.

The topic of this thread is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

False. I have not ignored your posts. Couching yourself in the ad hominem claim that I am merely pursuing my agenda or that I am engaging in 'rants' is, I think, merely avoiding the topic, which has come up in this thread and several others. You are free to address the point wherever you wish, or to avoid the issue wherever you wish. But, rest assured, I do pay attention to your posts and I do see very clearly how you avoid the issue.

and I explained at length my view and your ignoring it for your own agenda. Consider your intelligence insulted.

Your attempts at insults aside, you have not really explained why you believe that the spiritual law and teachings in the Baha'i sacred scriptures are infallible and inerrant. Your attempts to hide behind Sen's view are silly. He said that your statement was meaningless and an empty statement:

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.

When you agreed with him, I thought you were retracting your statement, but you would not admit to retracting it. So, if you want to hold fast to your statements as empty and meaningless, that is, of course, fine with me. I will also consider your attempts to insult or avoid the issue as empty and meaningless.

[shunyadragon]

False. I have not ignored your posts. Couching yourself in the ad hominem claim that I am merely pursuing my agenda or that I am engaging in 'rants' is, I think, merely avoiding the topic, which has come up in this thread and several others. You are free to address the point wherever you wish, or to avoid the issue wherever you wish. But, rest assured, I do pay attention to your posts and I do see very clearly how you avoid the issue.


Your attempts at insults aside, you have not really explained why you believe that the spiritual law and teachings in the Baha'i sacred scriptures are infallible and inerrant. Your attempts to hide behind Sen's view are silly. He said that your statement was meaningless and an empty statement:



When you agreed with him, I thought you were retracting your statement, but you would not admit to retracting it. So, if you want to hold fast to your statements as empty and meaningless, that is, of course, fine with me. I will also consider your attempts to insult or avoid the issue as empty and meaningless.

No, I reject the literalist anal attentive view of the meaning of ' propositional inerrant and infallibility' from the human perspective, unlike the Roman Church, which still maintains that view. I agreed with Sen in many ways as he presented the problems of holding to 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility' this unrealistic view. As he said he did not 'understand my view of what it means. I have made it clear that Revelation constantly evolves over time, therefore the traditional Roman Church view of 'propositional inerrant and infallibility' does not hold true in the view of the Baha'i Faith. The fundamentalist view of the Bible holds a more rigid 'propositional inerrant and infalibility' as it applies to the whole of the Bible.

My view is more the 'Progressive inerrancy and infallibility' as the evolving Divine guidance for the spiritual evolution of humanity and Creation. See the following:

Source: http://meditationsonbahaullah.blogspot.com/2008/05/infallibility-5.html

Infallibility 5

I want to look at propositional inerrancy some more here. This time I will outline Mirza Abu'l-Fadl's thesis about the inerrancy of the prophets and scripture. As I understand it, his thesis is that the prophets cannot be relied upon as factually correct in matters such as history and science. I think this thesis contradicts mainstream beliefs about infallibility. But, unlike scholars of today, Abu'l-Fadl was protected by Abdu'l-Baha, who told the community that Abu'l-Fadl was a man of great learning and everyone should listen to him. So it didn't matter if Abu'l-Fadl said seemingly controversial things, the community assumed they were consistent with Baha'i teachings anyway.

Miracles and Metaphors

The argument I will consider here is found in Miracles and Metaphors (Kalimat Press, 1981, trans Juan Cole) pages 7-16. These pages contain a short essay Abu'l-Fadl wrote in answer to the following question: "Shaykh Nuru'd-Din al-Hindi asked our belief concerning Noah's age. Did he live 950 years as revealed in the Holy Qur'an, or does this have another meaning?" This raises questions about the inerrancy of scripture. Did people really live that long back then? Abu'l-Fadl begins his essay by pointing out that there are two views on this matter, the religious one and the scientific one. He briefly states the religious view and then outlines the scientific view at length. Gradually his discussion merges into his final conclusion, which is that historians should not rely on the scriptures for knowledge about historical events. I'll give an outline of the argument here.

The religious view: "whoever believes in the truth of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad, and believes that the Holy Qur'an is the Book of God revealed from heaven, necessarily accepts the validity of everything contained in that noble book. He acknowledges the truth of whatever was revealed therein, whether or not it accords with the understanding of the people…" (p7)

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

No, I reject the literalist anal attentive view of the meaning of 'inerrant and infallibility' from the human perspective, unlike the Roman Church, which still maintains that view. I agreed with Sen in many ways as he presented the problems of holding to 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility' this unrealistic view. As he said he did not 'understand my view of what it means. I have made it clear that Revelation constantly evolves over time, therefore the traditional Roman Church view of 'inerrant and infallibility' does not hold true in the view of the Baha'i Faith.

So you do not in fact agree with Sen's characterization of your belief in infallibility and inerrancy as a meaningless and empty statement?