Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Hank

Interesting, But does this argument, in your opinion "prove" or at least support the assertion that there must exist at least one non contingent or conditioned entity??

My main point is we can not understand the scope of the conundrum we are facing. Not standing where we are.

A change in thinking or Metanoia may allow us to understand more. I do not believe stopping the "regress" at it is what it is, the "thusness" or "suchness"or "Tathātā", sacrifices any profundity or wonder. The starry night, a Gothic cathedral, a Bach or Mozart piece, and love for all sentient beings can still move us in emotional some might say "religious" ways. Awe is good. We originally felt that for most things before we proceeded to name every thing. As we are taught to.

However, at some point existing religious explanations get mired in pseudo-intellectual rigamarole. Piled high and dry

For instance..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle.



An 1877 drawing of the world supported on the backs of four elephants, themselves resting on the back of a turtle.


The World Turtle (also referred to as the Cosmic Turtle or the World-bearing Turtle) is a myth theme of a giant turtle (or tortoise) supporting or containing the world. The myth theme, which is similar to that of the World Elephant and World Serpent, occurs in Hindu mythology, Chinese mythology and the mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The World Turtle in Hindu mythology is known as Akupāra (Sanskrit: अकूपार), or sometimes Chukwa. An example of a reference to the World Turtle in Hindu literature is found in Jñānarāja (the author of Siddhāntasundara.
"A vulture, whichever has only little strength, rests in the sky holding a snake in its beak for a prahara [three hours]. Why can [the deity] in the form of a tortoise, who possesses an inconceivable potency, not hold the Earth in the sky for a kalpa [billions of years].

Of course we are certainly more sophisticated. Aren't we?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

My main point is we can not understand the scope of the conundrum we are facing. Not standing where we are.

A change in thinking or Metanoia may allow us to understand more. I do not believe stopping the "regress" at it is what it is, the "thusness" or "suchness"or "Tathātā", sacrifices any profundity or wonder. The starry night, a Gothic cathedral, a Bach or Mozart piece, and love for all sentient beings can still move us in emotional some might say "religious" ways. Awe is good. We originally felt that for most things before we proceeded to name every thing. As we are taught to.

However, at some point existing religious explanations get mired in pseudo-intellectual rigamarole. Piled high and dry

For instance..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle.



An 1877 drawing of the world supported on the backs of four elephants, themselves resting on the back of a turtle.


The World Turtle (also referred to as the Cosmic Turtle or the World-bearing Turtle) is a myth theme of a giant turtle (or tortoise) supporting or containing the world. The myth theme, which is similar to that of the World Elephant and World Serpent, occurs in Hindu mythology, Chinese mythology and the mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The World Turtle in Hindu mythology is known as Akupāra (Sanskrit: अकूपार), or sometimes Chukwa. An example of a reference to the World Turtle in Hindu literature is found in Jñānarāja (the author of Siddhāntasundara.
"A vulture, whichever has only little strength, rests in the sky holding a snake in its beak for a prahara [three hours]. Why can [the deity] in the form of a tortoise, who possesses an inconceivable potency, not hold the Earth in the sky for a kalpa [billions of years].

Of course we are certainly more sophisticated. Aren't we?

Then the World Turtle took a good dump once upon a time...and here you are today talking about your causation.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Light

A finite entity cannot create itself because it would have to have abilities that only the infinite has. For example a universe that has a birth has a death. How can that which is finite which means limited to a world of duality (birth and death) cause its own birth and existence from the dimension of death and non existence? Impossible.

Similar tom what I believe. Sometimes the attempt to intellectualize what we can't handle easily becomes silly.

No doubt there is a profound connection between Zen and the teaching of Gurdjieff, in that they both propose that only with tough disciplines and practice is it possible to relate to a ‘changeless self.’ Theory without practice, words without an immediate connection to experience, is for followers of both Zen and Gurdjieff,

....in Gurdjieff's own words, as fruitless as ‘pouring from the empty into the void.’

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then the World Turtle took a good dump once upon a time...and here you are today talking about your causation.

What causation?

"Once upon a time there was a fable demonstrating just how silly causation can be."

You do get silly don'tcha?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What causation?

Your own. What part of my last post didn't you get?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... finite means subject to limitations.

Finite means countable, i.e., if you add or subtract an element from the set the count changes. That's the mathematical definition, not M-W.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In other words, you don't know what caused it? You can't tell us in a few sentences or a paragraph? Or are we back to infinite regress again?

You would have it that God did it. Is we assume, for the sake of argument only, that that's the case then 13.8 billion years ago He created the universe. He then waited around for 9.3 billion years for the earth for form. He then waited another 500 million years for life to form and then another 3 billion years while the oceans teemed with single celled organisms. The about a billion years ago multi-cellular life formed. 400 million years ago the dinosaurs began to rule but He apparently did not like dinosaurs so He threw an asteroid at the earth and wiped them out. But he spared the mammals, i.e., he spared the mice since mice were the only form of mammal back then. Then 2 million years ago humans evolved and now he could get down to work being pissed. That seems to be His purpose, to be pissed. And for 99.985% of the time since since the big bang He's had nothing to be pissed at. Molecules flying all through space do not make choices. Microbes don't make choices. Animals up to and including apes do not make choices.

But, you say, that's not it. The universe is only 6000 years old. And where did you get that idea? Out of a book written by goat herders.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your own. What part of my last post didn't you get?

What part of my acceptance that no cause or causes are needed to just be? It is what it is.

Causes? I could never figure out why you must insult someone by asking them how come your "explanation" went too far above heads? Or why you throw out dozens of your worn out catch phrases, thinking you are oh so clever.

You're not.

A good question to ponder the causes that prevent you from having an honest discussion without demonstrating your supposed superiority.



My apologies for the slightly worn out cartoon.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

You would have it that God did it. Is we assume, for the sake of argument only, that that's the case then 13.8 billion years ago He created the universe. He then waited around for 9.3 billion years for the earth for form. He then waited another 500 million years for life to form and then another 3 billion years while the oceans teemed with single celled organisms. The about a billion years ago multi-cellular life formed. 400 million years ago the dinosaurs began to rule but He apparently did not like dinosaurs so He threw an asteroid at the earth and wiped them out. But he spared the mammals, i.e., he spared the mice since mice were the only form of mammal back then. Then 2 million years ago humans evolved and now he could get down to work being pissed. That seems to be His purpose, to be pissed. And for 99.985% of the time since since the big bang He's had nothing to be pissed at. Molecules flying all through space do not make choices. Microbes don't make choices. Animals up to and including apes do not make choices.

But, you say, that's not it. The universe is only 6000 years old. And where did you get that idea? Out of a book written by goat herders.

For an unchanging deity, the biblical god sure changes his mind a lot, and must go back to fix his boo-boos.

Heaven is evidently Do-over ville.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You would have it that God did it. Is we assume, for the sake of argument only, that that's the case then 13.8 billion years ago He created the universe. He then waited around for 9.3 billion years for the earth for form. He then waited another 500 million years for life to form and then another 3 billion years while the oceans teemed with single celled organisms. The about a billion years ago multi-cellular life formed. 400 million years ago the dinosaurs began to rule but He apparently did not like dinosaurs so He threw an asteroid at the earth and wiped them out. But he spared the mammals, i.e., he spared the mice since mice were the only form of mammal back then. Then 2 million years ago humans evolved and now he could get down to work being pissed. That seems to be His purpose, to be pissed. And for 99.985% of the time since since the big bang He's had nothing to be pissed at. Molecules flying all through space do not make choices. Microbes don't make choices. Animals up to and including apes do not make choices.

But, you say, that's not it. The universe is only 6000 years old. And where did you get that idea? Out of a book written by goat herders.

"Goat herders" who knew how not to violate laws of logic in their writings, which is far more I can say for all your skeptics.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What part of my acceptance that no cause or causes are needed to just be? It is what it is.

If an entity came into existence, the Law of Causation requires a cause. Or sometimes this law is expressed: Every change in nature requires a cause. Of course, the Law does not require anyone to know what the cause is, which leaves the door wide ajar for the lame excuse of infinite regression.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If an entity came into existence, the Law of Causation requires a cause. Or sometimes this law is expressed: Every change in nature requires a cause. Of course, the Law does not require anyone to know what the cause is, which leaves the door wide ajar for the lame excuse of infinite regression.

No such law of science.
It apparently exists in a per-science "philosophy" as a principle.

A principle in philosophy. Every change in nature is produced by some cause.

However, we are speaking extra-nature, remember extra-universe?..

Once again the fallacy of composition prohibits the projection of intra-universe to extra-universe. Unlike prohibiting or violating evolution

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No such law of science.
It apparently exists in a per-science "philosophy" as a principle.


However, we are speaking extra-nature, remember extra-universe?..

Once again the fallacy of composition prohibits the projection of intra-universe to extra-universe. Unlike prohibiting or violating evolution

Define "extra nature" and "extra-universe".

Define "intra-universe".

And in which universe do you reside?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Define "extra nature" and "extra-universe".

Define ""extra nature"

And in which universe do you reside?

What have we been talking about recently? I have told you repeatedly I accept no "causation" needed for the universe to exist. It is what it is. Always, it is eternal so no eternal being separate from the universe is needed. Einstein's and Spinoza's pantheism is close to what I accept.

The infinite "regress" of god created the universe, and a even greater god created that god, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, is stopped at the first step of one eternal (or maybe not eternal) universe. It is what it is

Or in Buddhist terms,"Tathātā", the "thusness" or "suchness" of things is sufficient. However experiencing it fully is vital. Be here now.

Or perhaps everything exists for one moment and disappears. And we are at the moment. Or maybe it pops in and out of existence? Over and over again Ad infinitum? What is existence? We can't know. Do we know non-existence? Infinity must include all of that. Light and I have suggested our finite minds can not grasp the infinite. However, I believe it is possible to get some glimpses, but not at our current state of being and thinking

The concept of God is super natural, or "extra nature"
Things within the universe are "intra nature"

The fallacy of composition prevents you from projecting "intra nature" out to beyond the universe or onto the supernatural.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What have we been talking about recently? I have told you repeatedly I accept no "causation" needed for the universe to exist. It is what it is. Always, it is eternal so no eternal being separate from the universe is needed. Einstein's and Spinoza's pantheism is close to what I accept.

The infinite "regress" of god created the universe, and a even greater god created that god, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, is stopped at the first step of one eternal (or maybe not eternal) universe. It is what it is

Or in Buddhist terms,"Tathātā", the "thusness" or "suchness" of things is sufficient. However experiencing it fully is vital. Be here now.

Or perhaps everything exists for one moment and disappears. And we are at the moment. Or maybe it pops in and out of existence? Over and over again Ad infinitum? What is existence? We can't know. Do we know non-existence? Infinity must include all of that. Light and I have suggested our finite minds can not grasp the infinite. However, I believe it is possible to get some glimpses, but not at our current state of being and thinking

The concept of God is super natural, or "extra nature"
Things within the universe are "intra nature"

The fallacy of composition prevents you from projecting "intra nature" out to beyond the universe or onto the supernatural.

The universe cannot be eternal because what is eternal by nature cannot change. Yet, this universe is filled with change, including changes of things coming and going out of existence.

Also, the Law of Causation is a philosophical law. And the operative term here is "law. It is a universal law. If you doubt this, give one example of some change that is not caused.

By the way, "it is what it is" is circular.