I didn't claim to know HOW. And "scripture" is relevant because??? Something has to be, and the universe is the only thing we have evidence of. (I could just as easily say, "The universe is eternal, meaning it doesn't come from anywhere." It's a fairly easy word game to play.)
gmilam, If you don't know how, then why make the claim? 1) they must be part of the universe, so (from you perspective) they shouldn't be ignored. 2) they contain information about the origin of everything. Information we cannot possible aquire by our own efforts. The evidence aquiring mecahanisms are only capable of observing universal properties. That doesn't mean there is nothing beyond it. The scriptures explain what is beyond it, why is that so hard to accept. Why could you? What, about the universe leads you to believe it is eternal? jan.
So that's two first causes. of jan. I think the idea of a first cause is meaningless. If something can be a cause, then it cannot have been one thing. What is one thing anyway? One thing cannot perform any action because all action is interaction with something else.
Non-sequitor. I don't need to know HOW something works to see that it does. Another non-sequitor Assuming you believe they aren't merely myths and legends. (And there's no reason to assume they are anything other than myths and legends.) It doesn't imply that there is either. See above... You obviously like word games What leads you to believe otherwise?
There are lots of different deities in religious history. Tradition provides us with countless names and no end of divine attributes. When we start talking about "first causes", we're talking about the more abstract and cerebral 'God of the philosophers'. Equating at least some of the deities of religious tradition with the philosophical functions that embody the 'God of the philosophers' is a conceptual leap that requires some justification. We also need to be cognizant that the classic Aquinas-style God of the philosophers was intentionally conceived in such a way as to hopefully be consistent with the tradionally understood God of medieval Christianity. Maybe different aspects of being have different "first causes". In other words, maybe the multiplicity of chains of physical causation in the universe don't all have one single origin. Maybe the "first cause" isn't identical with the "ground of being". In other words, maybe whatever the explanation is for why there's something rather than nothing isn't identical to the explanation of what supposedly kick-started time and change into motion. We've already seen that the explanation for a great deal of the functional structure that we observe in nature might be attributable to yet another very different kind of explanation. That's why many religious believers can't forgive Darwin for proposing natural-selection and in so doing subverting the traditional design argument. Nor do we really know that everything in the universe has the same teleological goal. Or that there's only a single savior. (Assuming that teleological goals and saviors even exist.) Some of the Christian Neoplatonists did conceive of the emanations proceeding from out of the incomprehensible Godhead in that way, as functional 'energies'. But historically, the Christian God, like just about all the other deities of religious tradition, was conceived first-and-foremost as a "person", a heavenly Somebody that humans can relate to emotionally in much the same manner that we relate to other human beings. That's very different thing, both conceptually and psychologically, than an abstract philosophical function. But where does a "basic definition" come from? Is there really some secret body of language controllers out there that establishes the one-true-definition of words? It's probably more accurate to say that words have uses. Lots of people use a particular word, in different times, places and circumstances, and they aren't always using the word to express exactly the same idea. Often words have a range of meanings that might not even be entirely consistent. So it's often helpful to study the history of words and to try to determine the historical influences that have shaped the various usages. I think that the word 'God' is like that. That's really all that I've been trying to say.
The Big Bang is a theory about the early development of the universe, not a theory about how it came to be in the first place. In other words, it doesn't make any definitive postulations about where all the energy originally came from, only that an extrapolation backwards in time results in a picture of a universe that was initially infinitely dense and infinitely hot. But is this an accurate picture of what was really going on? Not at all. Most cosmologists see such a singularity as an artifact of relativity, which is why they are seeking a unified theory of quantum gravity in order to make more sense of it. It is possible, then, that we may come to view such a singularity as an infinite volume of unimaginable density, rather than being an infinitely small "point" of infinite density. In any case, in some sense the universe has always been infinite, and theres no real reason why all of it's constituent energy couldn't have simply always existed. When theists are asked "Where did God come from", the response is typically "He has simply always always existed" and/or "Since he is outside of time, such questions are meaningless". Well, a relational property such as time may very well be meaningless within a singularity as well, making questions about where it came from equally nonsensical. If you happen to think that's a bit of a cop out, then welcome to hypocrisy.
This means that you believe the scriptures to be the Word of God, that God Himself spoke the scriptures. And also that issues of translations, intepretations and other text-critical problems do not enter the scene for you. That is a big trust. Unless, of course, you are enlightened and such.
But to ask "Where did God come from?" is to ignore some of the usual definitions of God - while keeping some other definitions of God. How can such selectiveness be justified?
Signal, No. It means that I ACCEPT that the scriptures are ''the Word of God, that God Himself spoke the scriptures''. I recognize that I have no way of knowing for myself, through scientific experiment, or philosophical discourse, whether or not it is true. My ultimate decision on whether or not I believe this to be true, is based on my interaction with the phenomenal world (experience). This includes both my subjective and objective experience, which shape my overall understanding. My experience tells me that if I interact positively with something, my understanding of that thing increases. IOW, if I accept that Superman can and does fly, and dodge bullets, I understand the show more than if I remain negative and skeptical. It also increased my enjoyment. It is because you are enlightened in philosophy why you see these as an obstacle. You, somehow or other, think yourself separate, a pure observer, and until such time you make a decision, you are un-affected by what you read. If there is a downside to being an academic, that is it. The information found in religious scripture, is for the benefit of the soul, the spiritual particle which is the cause of your perception (including your observational ability). There is no way you can know this via any amount of philosophical discourse, or scientific experiment. Therefore you must accept it right off the bat. Failure to do so amount to ignorance of the soul, the seat of all perception. Try and understand it from that perspective. To sum up, you have a choice (free-will). Either you accept the position, or not, and from there your path begins. jan.
We've already been down this road. I could just as easily define the physical universe as all that exists and accuse the theists of ignoring my definition while keeping another when they propose the existence of God. You have to be careful not to confuse a definition of something with the question of the actual existence/truth of something.
What I see in this is that your personal experience and opinion trump the opinions of others who are nominally on the same path as yourself. In other words, if another devotee disagrees with you on some doctrinal or experiential matter, this does not have final power over your spiritual stance. This would be nothing special, were it not that you are adhering to scriptures that emphasize the exclusive importance of the disciplic succession and membership in a particular religious organization. In short, you say you adhere to scriptures, accept them. These scriptures are telling you to do X (in this case, formally joining that particular religious organization, with everything this entails, nowadays this can mean including sucking up to everyone who is above you in the hierarchy; because if you don't get the people who are in positions of authority to approve of you, you won't get intitiated, and if you don't get initated, you won't make progress). You don't do X. But you still claim you accept the scriptures. This is what I find odd. You appear to be basically a ritvik. That is a rather naive and inaccurate rendition of the philosopher's/academic's (" ") situation. Perhaps Yazata and some others might agree with it, but I don't. All I see in this is that this is just one possible theory, competing with so many others out there - the Christian ones, the Muslims ones, Scientology, humanism, and so on. Such an acceptance is indistinguishable from willed insanity.
It appears you think that the theists and atheists are or should be equals in this discussion/debate. From a formal perspective, I don't see how any progress can be made or resolution arrived at if the parties involved in discussion of a religious or philosophical topic are equals.
Then start forming a mental hierarchy and keep testing your hypothesis. You will find we are equal. Different means of expressions for the same truths.
I don't consider theists to be any kind of authority on metaphysical matters. Most of them just embrace what "feels" right or true, so they aren't really bringing anything useful to the table. They are essentially no different from those who claim to be alien abductees or the reincarnation of Jim Morrison. Even adherents of more ancient religions that have had thousands of years to build a much more sophisticated and compelling metaphysical structure aren't really offering anything of a higher caliber than what a good atheistic philosopher (or even a creative novelist) could produce, and these structures vary to the point of being mutually exclusive. Honestly, in the end I think people mistake what millions of intelligent (and often brilliant) people can collectively come up with over thousands of years when wrestling with the fundamental questions of existence, for divine revelation. How do I not interpret this as a statement of belief on your part to the effect that there are indeed people who are the recipients of divine revelation? You have previously insisted that you don't take this as a given, yet here you are again clearly implying that the only way forward is to accept that it's true.
I just don't see much point in discussing religious or philosophical topics without presuming that someone knows better. I am not making any claims as to who is who in this. Just that on principle, a discussion between equals cannot bring much in areas that require specific knowledge (be it religion or astrophysics). But perhaps you, or someone else, think differently? What would you say is going on in these discussions about theism/atheism at Sciforums?
If some philosophical theologian defines 'God', at least in part, as 'a necessary being', then the problems of whether such a being even exists, of how its supposed necessity is to be understood and explained, and of why there might be such a thing as a necessary being instead of simply nothing at all, just goes away? Can we really make philosophical problems go away simply by defining strategic words so as to rule out the question by definitional fiat? An atheist could define 'God' as 'non-existent religious deity' and that would seemingly eliminate all question of theism being true. To even ask whether God exists would be to ignore that definition of 'God'. I don't think that it's quite as easy as that.
What's going on in the religion sub-forum in particular? Theists directly or indirectly trying to convert people to their own world-view. Atheists directly or indirectly trying to convert people to their own world-view. Theists trying to slam atheistic arguments into the ground. Atheists trying to slam theistic arguments into the ground. That's what goes on here, for the most part. But there is more. Some of us engage in debate simply because we are naturally interested in such things and because doing so is a good way to learn more about yourself, other people, and the scope of the human desire to make sense of the world. For me, at least, it's also because the philosophy sub-forum is a little slow, which is where I'd probably spend most of my time if it wasn't. Still others are agnostic truth seekers (like yourself) who see participation as a possible means to find what they are looking for. I'm a bit of an agnostic truth seeker myself, although my own efforts aren't leading me to the same conclusions that others seem destined for. In this forum we have Deists, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, agnostics, atheists, universalists, fundamentalists, creationists, theistic evolutionists (if that's a proper phrase, but I'm sure you know what I mean in any case) and any number of other interesting combinations of such things and more, all of whom seem quite certain about the validity of their own world-view. It's a fascinating mix, and certainly an interesting environment.
I agree very emphatically with Rav on that point. Actually, I hold open the possibility that a theist (or anybody for that matter) might know something that I don't know. But whatever it is, they have to convince me that what they tell me is true. In a university context, you are thinking like an undergraduate. If you want to know something, you look for a class taught by a professor who's an authority on the subject. If there weren't any authorities, then how could there be any classes? But eventually, students progress to the PhD-level doctoral-research phase of their educations. Doctoral students are often embedded in university research groups working on a single, or a closely related set of fundamental scientific or scholarly questions. The professors don't already know what the answers are going to be, any more than the doctoral students and post-docs on the team. Everybody present is a researcher, an investigator. That's how I look at the epistemological side of the religious quest as well. It isn't really a search for an authoritative professor, preacher, prophet, scripture or guru who is in a position to reveal the mysteries to us. It's more like the whole human race is a giant existential research group, composed of people whose human condition puts them on the same epistemological plane, that's found itself in this weird... reality... thing, and is trying to figure out what might explain it and what meaning it might possibly hold for us in our lives.
