Deity as the First Cause

[mentored1]

Hello folks!

I am not stating my position here only some arguments I've encountered:

I've heard a good many defenses of Creationism dealing with the idea of God as the First Cause, the Prime Mover. Science cannot explain the singularity of the Big Bang's initial state and it appears that an initial cause is needed to get the ball rolling.

My inquiry is three-fold:
1. Why is the identity of this First Cause associated with a Deity - from whence does an identity arise in this Deity?
2. If causation is needed for an explanation then why do we stop at this Deity and not inquire into its cause - why not an infinite regress?
3. What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?

Take care!

[technomage]

Good questions!

1. Why is the identity of this First Cause associated with a Deity - from whence does an identity arise in this Deity?

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of teleological arguments for God. However, the "First Cause argument" is not a specific argument for a specific God, but simply for the existance of a Divine entity. Other arguments are usually used to establish which God is being spoken of.

2. If causation is needed for an explanation then why do we stop at this Deity and not inquire into its cause - why not an infinite regress?

Cause implies temporality--yet time can only go back to the Big Bang. Therefore, it is assumed that causal chains cannot be infinite.

However, the problem here is that quantum physics is calling many of the commonsense assumptions about cause and effect into question.

3. What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?

This is usually covered in other arguments, not specifically in "First Cause."

[Truthdigger]

Hello,

As far as I can tell, ACOM answered your questions already about the first cause argument as far as explanatory powers. I thought if you were interested, though, I could give you some arguments I've heard used for your inquiries?


1. Why is the identity of this First Cause associated with a Deity - from whence does an identity arise in this Deity?


As far as I can tell, William Lane Craig gives the most contemporary defense of a personal cause as the first cause. He uses two arguments that I've heard-

1) The explanation (or cause)of the beginning could only be one of two things- scientific of personal. Since it could not be scientific, you are only left with one choice.
2) The principle of determination (an old Arabian principle) says that if the possibility of something happening is the same as it not happening, then a personal causal agent is required.

2. If causation is needed for an explanation then why do we stop at this Deity and not inquire into its cause - why not an infinite regress?

It's sort of an aftershock of Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason. Once we have reached the point where it can be explained, we should stop.

Not only that, but the infinite regress must stop somewhere (the KCA says), and the only place it could stop is an omnimax personal God.


3. What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?


I believe they would say that this knowledge has always been there, and that it didn't "arrive" in the mind of God.

Hope I helped.

[mentored1]

Hey TD - thank you for the information: I appreciate the replies.


As far as I can tell, ACOM answered your questions already about the first cause argument as far as explanatory powers. I thought if you were interested, though, I could give you some arguments I've heard used for your inquiries?

And I am most grateful for them! Any of your own personal opinions, thoughts, or comments are also welcomed! My replies are in the spirit of inquiry so feel free to discuss them openly!

As far as I can tell, William Lane Craig gives the most contemporary defense of a personal cause as the first cause. He uses two arguments that I've heard-

1) The explanation (or cause)of the beginning could only be one of two things- scientific of personal. Since it could not be scientific, you are only left with one choice.
2) The principle of determination (an old Arabian principle) says that if the possibility of something happening is the same as it not happening, then a personal causal agent is required.

I'm familiar with quite a bit of Craig's stuff... I have a couple of comments regarding the explanations given here: I'd like to get your take on them and perhaps what you've encountered for them as well.

(1) Why only these two things? From our current understanding, I gather, these seem to be the only two options available; but given that our knowledge expands at a seemingly exponential rate it seems odd that we often stop at any given point in history and go "it must be this or that" when later we realize it was neither of those two but something else. Could we have a case here where just don't know because we don't have enough options unraveled?

(2) Basically (if I understand correctly) that if the probabilities are equal something must, in effect, choose which of the probabilies are to occur? Interesting concept. Isn't this a bit anthropomorphic though? Are we assuming that what occurs in human reality must also occur in a reality that, it seems, we are woefully underequipped to evaluate?

It's sort of an aftershock of Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason. Once we have reached the point where it can be explained, we should stop.

Not only that, but the infinite regress must stop somewhere (the KCA says), and the only place it could stop is an omnimax personal God.

Interesting once more... Sufficient Reason is a powerful guiding principle - as well Accam's Razor, I think. Nonetheless, I must inquire again as to 'why' we should stop...

Why is there a stop sign at a certain point? Hasn't history borne out that many of our conclusions that we halted at were overthrown later when somebody decided to take that stop-sign down? If somebody had not done that we might still think our earth was flat and the universe operated on epicycles guided by angelic clock-keepers.

If the regress MUST stop (thus I again must ask why it has to stop) why stop at a personal God? I don't presume to deny God's existence only to wonder if the universe's existence is just simply beyond our knowledge right now and this 'beyond' in its unknown state is unacceptable to mankind. We have so little tolerance for saying :shrug: and so much fear of the unknown.

What is your take - why is God the only place that it COULD stop?

I believe they would say that this knowledge has always been there, and that it didn't "arrive" in the mind of God.

This troubles me for a particular reason: God is exempt from all the natural laws that emanate from Him; God is not subject to any causes or effects yet is the source of all causation; God is the origin and depository of all the forms and knowledge of the creation yet is without form (or at least cannot be perceived by the forms and knowledge thus created)...

Having said all that... How does mankind propose to understand a being, or what such a being would desire, when all of the elements we are under and experience in this universe cannot be applied to God? How does God know to make DNA operate the way it does without any reference seeing that God himself does not contain DNA? Before the universe was created where was all the knowledge that came into being deposited and how did it get there?

Your own opinions as well as any information you've come across is welcomed!

Hope I helped.

Of course you have! I keep a running dialogue in my head and in my journals of everything I discuss and work through it all from every angle I can fathom: so your input is appreciated!

Take care

[Truthdigger]

Hello Mentored,

(1) Why only these two things? From our current understanding, I gather, these seem to be the only two options available; but given that our knowledge expands at a seemingly exponential rate it seems odd that we often stop at any given point in history and go "it must be this or that" when later we realize it was neither of those two but something else. Could we have a case here where just don't know because we don't have enough options unraveled?

From what I gather, Craig argues that we do know all the possibilities in light of the current scientific paradigm. But his argument really is two-fold- its an argument based on the "Big Bang", and also on the "Impossibility of Traversing an Infinite Principle". Whether or not the two are valid, I think it does help that he appeals to two different groups.

(2) Basically (if I understand correctly) that if the probabilities are equal something must, in effect, choose which of the probabilies are to occur? Interesting concept. Isn't this a bit anthropomorphic though? Are we assuming that what occurs in human reality must also occur in a reality that, it seems, we are woefully underequipped to evaluate?

Not necessarily. It means that if the probability of something occuring is exactly the same as it not, a personal causal agent must be the deciding factor (like flipping a coin).

Interesting once more... Sufficient Reason is a powerful guiding principle - as well Accam's Razor, I think. Nonetheless, I must inquire again as to 'why' we should stop...

I think Leibniz would return that we should stop because we can- we have found the sufficient cause.

Why is there a stop sign at a certain point? Hasn't history borne out that many of our conclusions that we halted at were overthrown later when somebody decided to take that stop-sign down? If somebody had not done that we might still think our earth was flat and the universe operated on epicycles guided by angelic clock-keepers.

But the beginning of time is a little different, because it is a mathematical truth rather than scientific discovery.

If the regress MUST stop (thus I again must ask why it has to stop) why stop at a personal God?

The First Cause argument would say there are a couple of reasons why- like I said earlier, the Principle of Determination, they argue against a deistic god (but that is another set of arguments) and the idea that an effect can lead us to some knowledge of the cause. After Aquinas, of course, this knowledge became knowledge thru analogy, but again, thats a whole different hill of beans.

What is your take - why is God the only place that it COULD stop?

I would say that IF indeed it was impossible for an actual infinite to exist in our world, and since it seems rather silly to presume that something could come from nothing, God would seem a very logical starting point. In fact, I don't think I could think of another.

This troubles me for a particular reason: God is exempt from all the natural laws that emanate from Him; God is not subject to any causes or effects yet is the source of all causation; God is the origin and depository of all the forms and knowledge of the creation yet is without form (or at least cannot be perceived by the forms and knowledge thus created)...

I think God must be non-contingent. That is, God couldn't be affected by his creation.

Having said all that... How does mankind propose to understand a being, or what such a being would desire, when all of the elements we are under and experience in this universe cannot be applied to God? How does God know to make DNA operate the way it does without any reference seeing that God himself does not contain DNA? Before the universe was created where was all the knowledge that came into being deposited and how did it get there?

Umm, well...

I think mankind, or at least the theistic portion of it, believes that God chose to make himself known to us mere mortals.

As for your other questions, I think these are questions of epistemology rather than the First Cause argument. But seeing as how you are the originator of this post, I would suggest reading some books on God and knowledge. I dont think I have the endurance to type out everything (the little that I know), but I could suggest a few books- I think Frames "The Doctrine of God" is one of the better books that goes through Gods divine attributes, and I think Aquinas' Summa is a great place to start also. I believe Moreland treats the subject a bit too. Oh yeah, Plantiga, of course.

Later

[mentored1]

From what I gather, Craig argues that we do know all the possibilities in light of the current scientific paradigm. But his argument really is two-fold- its an argument based on the "Big Bang", and also on the "Impossibility of Traversing an Infinite Principle". Whether or not the two are valid, I think it does help that he appeals to two different groups.


Certainly in light of the current paradigm he does cover the bases... Based on this current paradigm there is alot that is unexplainable still: and with the progress of understanding - assuming it continues (big IF) - this paradigm may give way to a very different one in the future. I've read Craig's stuff (and a few of his debates) and I have no problems with his explanations; but the other side of the arguments have also made a valid case.

I don't quite understand why both sides insist on the legitimacy of their explanations (at least in trying to explain how things came to be) when there is so much information that is beyond our reach. Not to say that God cannot be posited here - but even the mechanistics of how God did what he did are beyond our finite minds.

Not necessarily. It means that if the probability of something occuring is exactly the same as it not, a personal causal agent must be the deciding factor (like flipping a coin).

Right... I think that's what I intended to say... Oh well... :doh:

Now why does this have to be a 'personal' causal agent? If we try to enter that instance before the birth of the universe we have no explanation for how things might have worked mechanistically do we? It's still a realm of metaphysics and philosophical inquiry. Based on what we know up to that point we assume a 'personal' agent is needed - where does this assumption come from? I understand the transposing of causality (though there's no way to know if that would hold at the earliest point) but why a 'personal' agent?

I think Leibniz would return that we should stop because we can- we have found the sufficient cause.

:shrug: Seems fair enough in light of what we have... Though I doubt we've come anywhere near finding out what really occurred at that point.

But the beginning of time is a little different, because it is a mathematical truth rather than scientific discovery.

I'm assuming it is accepted as a mathematical truth because they work backward and assume that there was an original point from which everything emerged. But math in general cannot express this singularity, or this infinite density, at the birth of the universe can they? They just assume it exists because causality, worked in reverse, demands it.

I find your distinction between mathematical truth and scientific discovery to be a bit confusing: aren't they the same? Using math to discover this "truth" is a scientific discovery isn't it?

I could be mistaken here, so forgive me if that's the case.

I would say that IF indeed it was impossible for an actual infinite to exist in our world, and since it seems rather silly to presume that something could come from nothing, God would seem a very logical starting point. In fact, I don't think I could think of another.

This is certainly one of the de facto arguments in this case. I must ask why is it silly to presume something might come from nothing? Is it a possibility or an impossibility and why? I read a book recently (I think it was 'in search of the universe' or something like that) that suggested the possibility that all the energy/matter in the universe may well equal out to zero if it is all compressed into a singularity or infinite density as at the birth of the universe and thus would, in a sense, equal out to nothing. Silly perhaps - but possible?

I understand wanting to have God as in the initial cause but is it really logical: if God has attributes and can act in a fashion then we ought to, logically using causation, inquire as to where God arose from - what caused God. If we suspend causation at God then why not suspend it at something else? Maybe the universe was sneezed from the nose of a giant anteater? :teeth:

I think God must be non-contingent. That is, God couldn't be affected by his creation.

If we accept God as we understand from the Bible I agree. That ties in with causation in that if everything must be caused except God and everything must be contingent except God - we're still at that same point where one asks why is God exempt from causation or contingency? Why not inquire further? Perhaps God is an agent of something else? Not to say this is the case - only to really hammer that point in that to stop there and suspend inquiry seems arbitrary. :teeth: But that, again, is probably just my own absurd thinking.

As for your other questions, I think these are questions of epistemology rather than the First Cause argument. But seeing as how you are the originator of this post, I would suggest reading some books on God and knowledge. I dont think I have the endurance to type out everything (the little that I know), but I could suggest a few books- I think Frames "The Doctrine of God" is one of the better books that goes through Gods divine attributes, and I think Aquinas' Summa is a great place to start also. I believe Moreland treats the subject a bit too. Oh yeah, Plantiga, of course.

I've explored many of these: Aquinas was good stuff; Alan P. was interesting... I understand the points you've made and the arguments from these books... So I understand your position in not wanting to produce them all here... :wink:

My trouble with the whole situation is that the ideas and concept and knowledge used and presented in any work (theological or scientific) hinges on its relation to some other branch or body of work. How many "halls of mirrors" are needed to reflect what's really going on? The presentation of all these ideas and theories and beliefs is, in itself, an infinite regress of reflections.

Take care - thanks for your time and patience

[Truthdigger]

Hello again,

Now why does this have to be a 'personal' causal agent? If we try to enter that instance before the birth of the universe we have no explanation for how things might have worked mechanistically do we? It's still a realm of metaphysics and philosophical inquiry.

It is in the realm of philosophy, but for some that doesnt make it any less explorable (is that a word) than science. Indeed, origin science is alot of the times based on metaphysical assumptions.

:shrug: Seems fair enough in light of what we have... Though I doubt we've come anywhere near finding out what really occurred at that point.

Probably not. I think Craig should be careful about putting too much stress on Big Bang cosmology. The whole of it could overturn overnight. No one ever thought Newtonian Mechanics would ever be displaced as an all-encompassing theory, but Einstein and GR did just that. I dont think that Einstein's theory has enjoyed as much when it comes to explanatory power as Newton did during its day. But, nonetheless, we are making great astrophysical strides.

I'm assuming it is accepted as a mathematical truth because they work backward and assume that there was an original point from which everything emerged. But math in general cannot express this singularity, or this infinite density, at the birth of the universe can they? They just assume it exists because causality, worked in reverse, demands it.

I dont think anyone knows what happened at the singularity, or even claims to know. Some, though, like Hawking, are working to do away with the singularity concept. He invented something like imaginary time (whatever that is).

I find your distinction between mathematical truth and scientific discovery to be a bit confusing: aren't they the same? Using math to discover this "truth" is a scientific discovery isn't it?

Not really, though some, like John Stuart Mill claimed Math is the product of experiment and experience. There is a pretty good majority of people who would say that math deals with abstract concepts that are true regardless of experience. Take a simple equation, like 1+1=2. No matter what we experience in life, this is true separate from us knowing it to be true or experiencing it. A scientific discovery, however, is a detailed and intricate process of observation, hypothesizing, prediction and testing until we reach a theory.

I must ask why is it silly to presume something might come from nothing? Is it a possibility or an impossibility and why? I read a book recently (I think it was 'in search of the universe' or something like that) that suggested the possibility that all the energy/matter in the universe may well equal out to zero if it is all compressed into a singularity or infinite density as at the birth of the universe and thus would, in a sense, equal out to nothing. Silly perhaps - but possible?

It certainly isnt a logical necessity that something comes from something only, but it does seem to grind against every experience we have. In fact, cause and effect, or something coming from something only, is one of the most scientifically validated concpets we have. I dont mean, of course, that we see the creation of some new material rather than a reording of already existing matter, but you get the point.

I understand wanting to have God as in the initial cause but is it really logical: if God has attributes and can act in a fashion then we ought to, logically using causation, inquire as to where God arose from - what caused God. If we suspend causation at God then why not suspend it at something else? Maybe the universe was sneezed from the nose of a giant anteater? :teeth:

It's not so much just arbitrarily halting at God as it is a culmination of arguments. Look at it this way- suppose you assume that something can only come from something, and that everything that is material had a beginning, it seems that a supernatural agent is a hard conclusion to escape. As for the anteater, your on your own there:teeth: .

Why not inquire further? Perhaps God is an agent of something else? Not to say this is the case - only to really hammer that point in that to stop there and suspend inquiry seems arbitrary. :teeth: But that, again, is probably just my own absurd thinking.

Hume brought something like that up- it seems as though our world is the product of some infant deity rather than an omnimax Creator. Thats fine, but an infant creator presuppose a completely actualized "adult" Creator.

I've explored many of these: Aquinas was good stuff; Alan P. was interesting... I understand the points you've made and the arguments from these books... So I understand your position in not wanting to produce them all here... :wink:

Whew. Thank you!

My trouble with the whole situation is that the ideas and concept and knowledge used and presented in any work (theological or scientific) hinges on its relation to some other branch or body of work. How many "halls of mirrors" are needed to reflect what's really going on? The presentation of all these ideas and theories and beliefs is, in itself, an infinite regress of reflections.

Regrettably, it does seem sometimes that philosophers and scientists are just blowing alot of hot air- and I would bet money that most of them are. But I have my own convictions of what is true for this reason or another, and consequently, I'm a Christian. I think there is alot more to Christianity than intellectual justification, but I'll leave that for your own discovery.

Take care - thanks for your time and patience

My pleasure

[John from Ebla]

Hi mentored1,

Could make a few points.

If we accept God as we understand from the Bible I agree. That ties in with causation in that if everything must be caused except God and everything must be contingent except God - we're still at that same point where one asks why is God exempt from causation or contingency? Why not inquire further? Perhaps God is an agent of something else? Not to say this is the case - only to really hammer that point in that to stop there and suspend inquiry seems arbitrary. :teeth: But that, again, is probably just my own absurd thinking.



If we cannot understand an infinite number because we can always add one, then we can say the same about causation, when looking at effect--> cause you will always have another. So what do we look at? Well, what could be in the human mind that was “Not” originally experienced by our senses?

Everyone knows the universe is expanding, what expands has to have boundaries. If that's the case, what is outside the boundaries of the universe and what expression do we use to connote duration without beginning or ending, because infinity is 1,2,3….and counting- can you tell me where it stops? So once again, what could be in the human mind that was “Not” originally experienced by our senses?


Do we really use our intellect in a time-dependant way? Well, if you agree the universe existed before living beings then you have to consider if our "time" is a component of "Cosmic-time." and differentiate between the two, but just consider your time for now. Your time, counts from what you have left, because the past is not- the problem is you don’t have the future until your next temporal moment of actuality, meaning your time is “Now” and it moves- this is your temporal existence. Would your “now” move as in the sense of how we understand motion/time if you were never to die, but live infinitely? Your past is not but what about your future- because of infinity, your “now” will always be “now” because time is irrelevant.

Is there any evidence that apart from a physical object (brain) there is no such thing as human intellect (mind), then how does God act? Well, we have structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order and then the elements of nature-do we know where the law of the universe operate from, are you sure objectivity is the issue here?

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[mentored1]

Hey TD... I'll keep this one short... I appreciate your frank remarks in this discourse.


It certainly isnt a logical necessity that something comes from something only, but it does seem to grind against every experience we have. In fact, cause and effect, or something coming from something only, is one of the most scientifically validated concpets we have. I dont mean, of course, that we see the creation of some new material rather than a reording of already existing matter, but you get the point.

Agreed... I found the experience of faith to be something that grinds against our natural experiences as well though... That was the memory in mind when I wrote to you regarding the 'something from nothing'... I remember feeling like the drive to have faith, to believe in the God of the Bible, was something that ran contrary to my being. Of course there are explanations for that... but it was a grinding sensation nonetheless.

It's not so much just arbitrarily halting at God as it is a culmination of arguments. Look at it this way- suppose you assume that something can only come from something, and that everything that is material had a beginning, it seems that a supernatural agent is a hard conclusion to escape. As for the anteater, your on your own there

I agree... The acceptance of a supernatural possible is, I think, required at the heart of everything. Unless science really does come up with a purely mechanistic explanation - and even that would not be understood in a universe of causation - there will always be an appeal to something we don't understand yet... Something beyond our grasp...

Regrettably, it does seem sometimes that philosophers and scientists are just blowing alot of hot air- and I would bet money that most of them are.

It's always the conclusions that reveal the hot air. The omnipresent fear of leaving something at "I don't know" and not trying to insert explanations. I suppose that its necessary to do so - but given the weight the average person puts on scientific discovery it's a dangerous game.

But I have my own convictions of what is true for this reason or another, and consequently, I'm a Christian. I think there is alot more to Christianity than intellectual justification, but I'll leave that for your own discovery.

There certainly is a lot more... I have made that discovery and subsequently lost the map and compass... In the end resolution a personal conviction of the true is the ultimate proof regardless of the endless questions.

Take care

[mentored1]

Hi mentored1,

Could make a few points.

Hey John! Always welcome with your comments!

So what do we look at? Well, what could be in the human mind that was “Not” originally experienced by our senses?

I haven't a clue though I would propose an answer as 'absence'. A nothingness, a void... Perhaps the thing that creates a fear of death? The end of sensations.

Everyone knows the universe is expanding, what expands has to have boundaries.

I may be rusty but isn't it possible that the expansion is its own boundary... That the boundary expands with the universe? I know that throws off the inquiry a bit but it certainly would jive with infinity: the boundary continually expands with the universe and while possibly measurable what is the limit?

Your time, counts from what you have left, because the past is not- the problem is you don’t have the future until your next temporal moment of actuality, meaning your time is “Now” and it moves- this is your temporal existence. Would your “now” move as in the sense of how we understand motion/time if you were never to die, but live infinitely? Your past is not but what about your future- because of infinity, your “now” will always be “now” because time is irrelevant.

Now I've pondered a different aspect of this... How can really say that the present exists at all? Are we not at least a little behind in our perception of time? As I turn the light switch on there is some time - however small - that passes before the radiation from the bulb is perceived as "light" in my 'consciousness'. That small fraction of time was the temporal - of which I cannot experience. Everything is a recent echo but still an echo. Even temporality escapes us into the past. The repetition of sensation to our mind is the maintenance of this immediate past but is it, in actuality, the 'present'?

It is, of course, absurd to try and live with that perspective in everyday affairs but it is equally absurd to say that I experience the present as an immediate temporality rather than an immediate past or echo.

Is there any evidence that apart from a physical object (brain) there is no such thing as human intellect (mind),

There is a growing study of the consciousness of the "mind" and the physical structures that could make it possible... What we think is a different mind (the dualistic structure of brain-mind) might not be so different. Our mind may be the symbolic representation of the physical world... the language, the meaning we give to things, to the raw sensations that processed. It's hard to separate our mind (the meaning) from the physical processes that make it up and that I think makes it hard to understand they could be the same. But that is, of course, only some thoughts - I don't pretend to be certain.

Well, we have structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order and then the elements of nature-do we know where the law of the universe operate from,


It's not all orderly... It's controlled chaos. There is an awful lot of destruction going on as well. The structures, I'll grant, are certainly a result of how this controlled chaos operates... There are certain reactions that come from the interaction of the matter and energy of the universe. And where those operational parameters come from I don't know: I don't know even know if they are arbitrarily assigned rules or just the expanded version of cause-effect, action-reaction... There might just be a simple rule... Who knows?

are you sure objectivity is the issue here?

Did I express that objectivity is the issue? :eh: If I did (which I don't think I did) then I would say that it's not. The issue in understanding everything, to me, is the relativity - the seeming contingency that everything demonstrates. In so far as human understanding is concerned the relation of ideas seems to be an infinite hall of mirrors... finding the original thing(s) that are being reflected in so many directions is baffling.

Take care John - look forward to hearing from you again!

[shunyadragon]

Hello folks!

I am not stating my position here only some arguments I've encountered:

I've heard a good many defenses of Creationism dealing with the idea of God as the First Cause, the Prime Mover. Science cannot explain the singularity of the Big Bang's initial state and it appears that an initial cause is needed to get the ball rolling.

My inquiry is three-fold:
1. Why is the identity of this First Cause associated with a Deity - from whence does an identity arise in this Deity?
2. If causation is needed for an explanation then why do we stop at this Deity and not inquire into its cause - why not an infinite regress?
3. What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?

Take care!

The problem with most theistic arguments for a 'first cause' beyond the basic argument for a 'first cause' are too anthropomorphic, and coached in terms like 'personal', 'mind', and the hands on Deity. None of these are very valid from an unbiased perspective as to the nature of a first cause. If you include what we know know based on the evidence and observations in recent history in the argument, the nature of the universe is indifferent and not personal.

I accept the 'first cause' as the undefined source of existence we call 'God'. The argument for a creator that reveals, directs or steers the course of existence must fit what we see as a vaste, evolving, constantly changing universe with cycles of birth and death that is greater than the limited worldview of ancient religions.

I rely on the explanatory power of the Baha'i revelation that puts the history of humanity in harmony within this vaste framework, and gave an adaquate explanation for what we would call a 'personal' God within what appears to be an indifferent universe.

If the Source is theistic and reflects the nature of reality as it is, the Baha'i worldview describes the relationship well between the spiritual and physical nature of existence without the necessary jerrymeandering and patchwork rigging of ancient worldviews. Some people may accuse the Baha'i Faith of creating a religion to fit the evidence, but the Baha'i Faith described the nature of existence first before much of the evidence was available.

[mentored1]

The problem with most theistic arguments for a 'first cause' beyond the basic argument for a 'first cause' are too anthropomorphic, and coached in terms like 'personal', 'mind', and the hands on Deity. None of these are very valid from an unbiased perspective as to the nature of a first cause. If you include what we know know based on the evidence and observations in recent history in the argument, the nature of the universe is indifferent and not personal.

I might agree here shunya... It seems in suggesting that an "intelligence" was necessary to fashion what appears intelligible to us we assume it is an intelligence like us - but this is only natural isn't it? After all how can we comprehend a totally different intelligence, one that is capable of ordering the immensity and complexity of the universe? It appears to us natural to assume it is an intelligence like ours but far vaster... a sort of unlimited and infinite humanity... Perhaps that is the picture after all.

The universe and the fates of individual consituents in the universe certainly seem to be a type of "controlled chaos" but to form this into a personality is a leap that I don't yet understand - not that I deny, but just don't get.

I accept the 'first cause' as the undefined source of existence we call 'God'. The argument for a creator that reveals, directs or steers the course of existence must fit what we see as a vaste, evolving, constantly changing universe with cycles of birth and death that is greater than the limited worldview of ancient religions.

Yes indeed... I have two comments that I'd like to discuss here with you:
1. If causation is so far unknown in the events prior to the birth of the universe (without spacetime and the elements that make causation a part of the universe) then can we truly and rightly speak of a "first cause" when such causality cannot be ascertained as even existing at that instance?
2. Is it possible, do you think, that the ancient religions may have put forth something very different than what we see today? Much of the power in that mythology and symbolism was not, methinks, the literalness of it but the essential ideas and imagination that was being clothed in the symbols. Perhaps as we progressed to a more materialistic worldview we lost the capability to see the symbols for what they are - clothing?

I rely on the explanatory power of the Baha'i revelation that puts the history of humanity in harmony within this vaste framework, and gave an adaquate explanation for what we would call a 'personal' God within what appears to be an indifferent universe.

I'm interested to hear this 'adequate explanation' - my curiosity is peaked... What's the story?

Take care shunya!

[shunyadragon]

I might agree here shunya... It seems in suggesting that an "intelligence" was necessary to fashion what appears intelligible to us we assume it is an intelligence like us - but this is only natural isn't it? After all how can we comprehend a totally different intelligence, one that is capable of ordering the immensity and complexity of the universe? It appears to us natural to assume it is an intelligence like ours but far vaster... a sort of unlimited and infinite humanity... Perhaps that is the picture after all.

The universe and the fates of individual consituents in the universe certainly seem to be a type of "controlled chaos" but to form this into a personality is a leap that I don't yet understand - not that I deny, but just don't get.

Controled chaos is a good description. The concept of 'Chaos Theory' found that what was previously thought was random is not random, but has a distinct pattern to it. As far as getting it, the nature of the physical universe essentiall reflects the nature of the Divine, nothing less and nothing more.

Intelligence is another human word and does not adaquately express the nature of a greater reality than our own worldview.

Yes indeed... I have two comments that I'd like to discuss here with you:
1. If causation is so far unknown in the events prior to the birth of the universe (without spacetime and the elements that make causation a part of the universe) then can we truly and rightly speak of a "first cause" when such causality cannot be ascertained as even existing at that instance?

Cause or 'First Cause' is human constraint from the reasoning from a limited perspective. Modern science and math are bringing into question our dated linear thinking concerning the nature of existence.

2. Is it possible, do you think, that the ancient religions may have put forth something very different than what we see today? Much of the power in that mythology and symbolism was not, methinks, the literalness of it but the essential ideas and imagination that was being clothed in the symbols. Perhaps as we progressed to a more materialistic worldview we lost the capability to see the symbols for what they are - clothing?

Not only possible, but I believe the evidence very much supports this. I am an geologist and have maintained a side involvement in archeology and athropology my whole life. I am currently in China studying Chinese culture and jade, and the ancient cultures are rich in symbolism and not literalism as to what they actually believed. Unlike the confusion and destruction that took place in the west, in the east Confucius recorded this symbolism as an important aspect of the earlier kingdoms of China. The art work and carvings reflect this in stylistic froms.

This is not an idealistic view saying they did not have superstitions and outdated beliefs. This is arguing that their beliefs were also rich with symbolism and not necessarily everything written and depicted in art and carvings was literal in belief.



I'm interested to hear this 'adequate explanation' - my curiosity is peaked... What's the story?

Take care shunya!

My threads and posts that deal with this have been treated like the plague in the past, because I feel this is the 'Achilles Heal' of the theology of ancient worldviews. My argument is that the extent of our knowledge of existence in today's world as we know it basically falsifies these ancient worldviews. This is threatening to the very foundation of these ancient beliefs. This is addressed by them in two basic ways, and both result in schisms and divisions in religions. The first is denial, which results in a fundimentalist apologia, which creates an idealic, unrealistic, and inhuman image of the past and in one way or another rejects today's knowledge. The second is a pathwork of adaptation, reform and 'chewing on it until it fits'* metheology, which results in an elephant that does not look like an elephant.

*This is an analogy from an old puzzle joke of mine concerning how people react when the pieces do not fit.

These following attributes of ancient worldviews are pretty much universal with human nature, and the nature of ancient religions. They are the core of the 'Achilles Heal' of trying to argue these worldviews in todays world.

(1) The ancient scriptures appear to be full of accounts of supernatural phenomenon and hands-on involvement of spiritual entities. Today the theology of ancient world religions fail to put this in the context of a very human ancient worldview.

We can actually see this phenomenon today, but we put these phenomenon in a modern world view, at least sane people do, and they are easily falsified in a literal context. The nature of human nature has not changed.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this and makes no claims concerning these phenomenon (miracles and the supernatural) and they do not represent the nature of the core of revelation and the nature of the relationship between humanity and God.

(2) Ancient peoples depicted their worldview as the center of existence and reality as in the words, Mediterranian and in China Zhongguo (Center of the world). This limited worldview horizon is reflected in how they expressed their religious beliefs in their scriptures, thus carried on in the doctrines of the religions.

From today's broader worldview of the world and history this phenomenon basically falsifies any single claim of any one religion. This is a tough one for people to face, and either the claims are all false or there is a connection and theme that has a more real explanation. This is what I have described as the 'fork in the road' in the past as to the nature of reality.

The egocentric worldview is very human one and would not be a Divine view of an existence that is far vaster in time and space of the reality of existence.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this phenomenon and weakness in human nature, and matter of factly, the different religions of the world do not represent any possible exclusive position concerning the nature of reality, revelation or God. They represent a progressive evolving human consciousness of the nature of existence.

(3) From today's worldview the scriptures of ancient religions contain contradictions, questionable histories, human failings, a relitively high fog index of the intent and thinking of the people and writers of the time. This to some extent true of Baha'i writings, but the worldview is much more real. Based on the evidence the nature of the transmission of revelation through the context of human reasoning would not be literal or doctrinal to the extent claimed by individual religions.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges two realities concerning the nature of revelation and scripture. It acknowledges the 'best' understanding in the relative sense of human comprehension, and acknowledges that God's Word is eternal and infalliable, but not absolute from the human perspective. The cyclic rebirth and renewal of religion is a part of the nature of the eternal infaliability of God's Word, which is restored from age to age.

(4) The nature of existence on all levels from the life of an individual to the nature of the universe reflects an evolving, cyclic constantly changing vaste existence in time and space.

The world view of individual religions fail to provide any explaination of this in the context of their own beliefs neither in the vasteness of the universe nor in the nature of human history.

The Baha'i Faith believes and teaches this is the nature of God's creation and the constantly evolving, progressive nature of human existence is reflected in the nature of the universe, creation and revelation. It is all in harmony and unity. There are in relaity not only many progressive revelations in the theme of human history, but many, many worlds of existence.

The nature of existence reflects the nature of the Divine, and in science it is our teacher as to the nature of God as reflected in the physical universe.

The modern world is in confusion theologicaly grasping at straws like Plantinga in hopes of finding 'explanatory power' to explain their worldview in terms of the nature of existence as we know it, but this desire for the 'Holy Grail' is in vain and actually embarrassing.

[mentored1]

My threads and posts that deal with this have been treated like the plague in the past, because I feel this is the 'Achilles Heal' of the theology of ancient worldviews.


:huh: I can't imagine why someone would treat such information as the plague!

...pause for sarcastic effect...

My argument is that the extent of our knowledge of existence in today's world as we know it basically falsifies these ancient worldviews. This is threatening to the very foundation of these ancient beliefs.

Or at least for a literal acceptance of such beliefs... Even in light of modern knowledge there are inexplicable things which escape us - and perhaps always will. There is a void where the heart is, a meaninglessness to life. I've seen real fear in people resulting when this modern knowledge doesn't suffice to fill that void... If something like a symbolic belief - or even one that is known to be utter nonsense - fills that space with meaning then is it wise for such beliefs to be dismantled?

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this and makes no claims concerning these phenomenon (miracles and the supernatural) and they do not represent the nature of the core of revelation and the nature of the relationship between humanity and God.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this phenomenon and weakness in human nature, and matter of factly, the different religions of the world do not represent any possible exclusive position concerning the nature of reality, revelation or God. They represent a progressive evolving human consciousness of the nature of existence.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges two realities concerning the nature of revelation and scripture. It acknowledges the 'best' understanding in the relative sense of human comprehension, and acknowledges that God's Word is eternal and infalliable, but not absolute from the human perspective. The cyclic rebirth and renewal of religion is a part of the nature of the eternal infaliability of God's Word, which is restored from age to age.

This is great stuff - in all seriousness why is it treated as the "plague"?

Anyways... I have a question regarding the cyclical nature you describe about the revelation of religion... How and why is this happening?

The Baha'i Faith believes and teaches this is the nature of God's creation and the constantly evolving, progressive nature of human existence is reflected in the nature of the universe, creation and revelation. It is all in harmony and unity. There are in relaity not only many progressive revelations in the theme of human history, but many, many worlds of existence.

Interesting... In regards to 'harmony and unity' is this accomplished through the chaos and struggle we see as natural forces work upon one another and as things are obliterated in the process? Or is the harmony and unity the one and same with this struggle and destruction?

The nature of existence reflects the nature of the Divine, and in science it is our teacher as to the nature of God as reflected in the physical universe.

In regards to, for example, the Christian God who has many attributes and is somewhat anthropomorphic this principle of studying the physical to learn of the spiritual - can it be applied in the sense that it is with regards to the God of the Bible? Can we learn of that God by studying the human creation that is His image? If so then is such a personal deity being wrongly understood? A lot of arguments abound from this type of vantage: like the universe is orderly and intelligent so it shows an orderly and intelligent deity-creator... How far can this idea be used?

Thanks for posting the information Shunya - I read it through a few times...

Take care

[shunyadragon]

:huh: I can't imagine why someone would treat such information as the plague!

...pause for sarcastic effect...

This is great stuff - in all seriousness why is it treated as the "plague"?


Pause acknowledged, but aside from that it is an interesting question. The apologist fundimentalist Christians have strategies when dealing with those that do not believe that fits their worldview. This worldview considers only two options, which basically are they are absolutely right about God, or God does not exist. This simplifies their life and avoids difficult questions that come closer to home. Eventhough only a small number, which makes for an easier target, this alternative becomes the focus of most of their efforts. The Apologist 301 section designed to confront atheists becomes the most popular on Tweb, and their goal is to make atheism as the most terrible boggeyman of existence. They are Don Quixote's windmills.

Interesting note is atheists also like to simplify there task, and the absurd illogical worldview of Christianity becomes an easy target for them. Take away a lot of their issues like the 'problem of evil' and an absurd anthropomorphic God of the Bible, and much of the wind is taken from their sails too.

Doing this helps them to prevent bitting the bullet of the biggy. The Christian worldview does not fit what is known of the existence today, and is esentially falsified. Most of my responses that deal with this go unanswered, and many threads end, sometimes after a frustrated flurry of emotional responses, without bitting the bullet and addressing the real issue. 'Christianity is one of many ancient worldviews that just do not fit the simple basic knowledge of todays modern world.'

A little side note is my joke about Plantinga's proposed solution that if people are 'functioning properly' their worldview is justified. This sort of saying to the Christians that he is reassuring them that regardless of how illogical Christianity is and the fact that it does not fit the knowledge of the modern world, it is okay, because you are 'apparently' sane and 'functioning properly'.:blush: :lol:

Or at least for a literal acceptance of such beliefs... Even in light of modern knowledge there are inexplicable things which escape us - and perhaps always will. There is a void where the heart is, a meaninglessness to life. I've seen real fear in people resulting when this modern knowledge doesn't suffice to fill that void... If something like a symbolic belief - or even one that is known to be utter nonsense - fills that space with meaning then is it wise for such beliefs to be dismantled?

Both the literal understanding, and the liberal shuffle and fit world of Plantinga's Christianity have insermountable problems when they try to justify their worldview in light odf today's very basic knowledge of existence and history. Many things are indeed inexplicable and escape our grasp, but my argument does not need address these nebulous realms of knowledge.

Anyways... I have a question regarding the cyclical nature you describe about the revelation of religion... How and why is this happening?

Progressive, cyclic, evolving nature of human history is the natural way of the witness of existence. If God creates and reveals, the nature of existence and human history will reflect a consistent image. I believe the image of God is reflected in the nature of existence and is consistent, which must be accepted 'as it is', and not coached in the constraints of human reasoning to justify one belief.

Interesting... In regards to 'harmony and unity' is this accomplished through the chaos and struggle we see as natural forces work upon one another and as things are obliterated in the process? Or is the harmony and unity the one and same with this struggle and destruction?

This part of the natural cyclic processes of existence, and also includes rebirth and renewal of great beauty and majesty.



In regards to, for example, the Christian God who has many attributes and is somewhat anthropomorphic this principle of studying the physical to learn of the spiritual - can it be applied in the sense that it is with regards to the God of the Bible? Can we learn of that God by studying the human creation that is His image? If so then is such a personal deity being wrongly understood? A lot of arguments abound from this type of vantage: like the universe is orderly and intelligent so it shows an orderly and intelligent deity-creator... How far can this idea be used?



Yes, we can learn if we consider God to be consistent with all creation and human history. Consistency and uniformity is one of the biggies in the house of cards Christian theology. This is why uniformitism is one of the great boggeymen that needs to be vanquished from the fundimentalist world. The modern thinkers like Plantinga even hedge around this issue. If uniformitism holds universally in all things, even Plantinga's arguments collapse before he begins.

In understanding the Bible and all ancient scriptures we have to make it more human. The contemporary traditional worldview of the Bible is really surreal and approches that of the world of science fiction.

'Orderly and intelligent, and personal' ring of anthropomorphism. I prefer to say simply the existence of God must reflect the nature of existence as we know it, and this failure is the achelles heal of ancient worldviews of God.

The view that God's creation reflects the nature of existence does make God intimately involved in Creation, but God does not come and knock on your door.

[mentored1]

Doing this helps them to prevent bitting the bullet of the biggy. The Christian worldview does not fit what is known of the existence today, and is esentially falsified. Most of my responses that deal with this go unanswered, and many threads end, sometimes after a frustrated flurry of emotional responses, without bitting the bullet and addressing the real issue. 'Christianity is one of many ancient worldviews that just do not fit the simple basic knowledge of todays modern world.'

I certainly do agree... perhaps for another reason, but we're on the same page... I don't think a literal interpretation and acceptance of Scripture provides any substantial answers (at least not that I can understand) and something that is capable of a flexible power seems more comprehensible: thus it has appeared to me that a symbolic or allegorical view of Scriptures (be they any kind) may help us to uncover some of the wisdom in it without being constrained to a literalism that clouds more than it reveals.

Progressive, cyclic, evolving nature of human history is the natural way of the witness of existence. If God creates and reveals, the nature of existence and human history will reflect a consistent image. I believe the image of God is reflected in the nature of existence and is consistent, which must be accepted 'as it is', and not coached in the constraints of human reasoning to justify one belief.

Your belief is certainly a reasonable one based on what we know today and the limits of that knowledge. I agree that this cyclic nature is present and must tie into "God" somehow... So would you say that in the process of unlocking secrets of nature we are unlocking the "identity" of God?

In understanding the Bible and all ancient scriptures we have to make it more human. The contemporary traditional worldview of the Bible is really surreal and approches that of the world of science fiction.

I agree... When you suggest making it more human what about humanity are you considering?

'Orderly and intelligent, and personal' ring of anthropomorphism. I prefer to say simply the existence of God must reflect the nature of existence as we know it, and this failure is the achelles heal of ancient worldviews of God.

Perhaps it was originally intended as an ideal, an allegory to which men could aspire? In assuming a literalness to it perhaps we have corrupted it?

The view that God's creation reflects the nature of existence does make God intimately involved in Creation, but God does not come and knock on your door.

In the Baha'i realm what is God? An identity? A Force? Is there something that the Baha'i suggests that God is? I understand that God reflects the Creation as it is... and it is a wonderful idea to keep in mind... but do the Baha'i embrace any particular interpretation or idea of God? I would guess not, but I'm curious and figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

Thanks for the info and your views - most appreciated

[basicbeliever]

I've heard a good many defenses of Creationism dealing with the idea of God as the First Cause, the Prime Mover. Science cannot explain the singularity of the Big Bang's initial state and it appears that an initial cause is needed to get the ball rolling.

My inquiry is three-fold:
1. Why is the identity of this First Cause associated with a Deity - from whence does an identity arise in this Deity?
I assume you are talking about the argument from creation. This is based on the law of causality. Everything that is finite needs a cause. We know that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it is finite. So the universe has something that cause it. However, the argument from creation does not prove what that cause is, just that something caused it.

There are other arguments after this that are used to point to God.

2. If causation is needed for an explanation then why do we stop at this Deity and not inquire into its cause - why not an infinite regress?
The problem here is only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, then as you say, we would have an infinite regression. God is the first cause, you can't go back any farther than a first.

3. What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?

As an infinite, necessary being that is outside of time as we understand it, a God who is all-knowing would not have a problem with this issue.

[Knight6]

Interenting topic from someones whos title translates to "God of the Machine".Assuming that any diety is responsable for existance why should we assume that this is the paradigm it has in mind?If you unbind a Darwinian theory enough one could assume that we are mearly a stepping stone to something far different.Given that,couldn't that also mean that the diety responsable was also created by something even more superior?

And the theory of a "void" in my view is impossable.Everything is either negative energy or possative energy.A "void" would assume the universe was once,in a sense in perfect harmony.Wouldn't that make the creation of everything else destructive and therefore negative.

Just a thought...

[mentored1]

I assume you are talking about the argument from creation. This is based on the law of causality. Everything that is finite needs a cause. We know that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it is finite. So the universe has something that cause it. However, the argument from creation does not prove what that cause is, just that something caused it.

Do we know for certain that the universe had a beginning? I was under the impression that that was an inference based on the expansion and such of the universe - but in trying to explain that origin we have so far failed. That "singularity" when we rewind the universe. That being the case we only assume an origin... I understand this is splitting hairs but I'm a street philosopher, it's in my blood (or somewhere)... :doh:

Until we really understand how the universe came to be (or we reach a point of faith - either one) then assuming the universe is finite is just that, assumption. Unless of course you believe otherwise - that's fine too. :wink:

The problem here is only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, then as you say, we would have an infinite regression. God is the first cause, you can't go back any farther than a first.

What you say here is certainly given - but my question is why is God the stop. Simply because we can't have an infinite regression? That's not a very convincing argument. It certainly makes sense to stop somewhere but it leaves so much relegated to the "unknown" bin. It just seems that our lack of knowledge puts up these stop signs because it is an area we can't or won't explore... :shrug:

As an infinite, necessary being that is outside of time as we understand it, a God who is all-knowing would not have a problem with this issue.

Granted I cannot see the God of the Bible - as is understood - to be lacking for this. But how do possibly understand this other than simple acceptance when everything we know is acquired in some fashion? How can we possibly relate to a being whose knowledge is immanent? We can imagine such a thing but we cannot understand how it works can we?

Thanks amigo! take care

[mentored1]

Hey Knight... Dont think we've met so nice to cross swords with ya!
:fencing:

Interenting topic from someones whos title translates to "God of the Machine".

God out of (or from) the machine... Given the historical context of when it was used (as far as I know :demure:)... The knowledge of God has come out of this machine we call the universe... The Greeks used to use a machine of sorts to suspend, move, and lower a God into a play... The picture of needing the machine to present the God really struck me.

Assuming that any diety is responsable for existance why should we assume that this is the paradigm it has in mind?If you unbind a Darwinian theory enough one could assume that we are mearly a stepping stone to something far different.Given that,couldn't that also mean that the diety responsable was also created by something even more superior?

What isn't possible is a good question! With all the wackiness in string theory I'm wondering just how zany this universe really is. We think we are the pinnacle because we are governed by self-interest: survival, reproduction, growth.... The only existence and experience that we know of is our own, through our own eyes and nobody else - this develops the egocentric view so common to our species... :teeth:

All I gotta say about that stepping stone idea is :cirrobot:

And the theory of a "void" in my view is impossable.Everything is either negative energy or possative energy.A "void" would assume the universe was once,in a sense in perfect harmony.Wouldn't that make the creation of everything else destructive and therefore negative.


Why is it either negative or positive? The two exist to annihilate each other - they exist to balance, to harmonize don't they? The "struggle" between them is the precarious balance that makes the universe exist... Ultimate annihilation would be, in effect, ultimate harmony. When all differentiation is destroyed all is singularity... I don't know or assert that this is the case... but I accept it as possible.

Besides the sweet thing about a void is that it cannot be described or determined. Even saying "void" or "nothing" isn't correct because it is a symbolic word for something that is nothing... It defies all understanding because our mind always wants to posit something... The universe itself seems to be struggling to avoid this annihilation... Ahh... What an interesting fiction. :teeth:

Nice talking with you - take care!

[shunyadragon]

I certainly do agree... perhaps for another reason, but we're on the same page... I don't think a literal interpretation and acceptance of Scripture provides any substantial answers (at least not that I can understand) and something that is capable of a flexible power seems more comprehensible: thus it has appeared to me that a symbolic or allegorical view of Scriptures (be they any kind) may help us to uncover some of the wisdom in it without being constrained to a literalism that clouds more than it reveals. The Source would not be flexible in its nature, but it is best that our worldview is flexible.

n the Baha'i realm what is God? An identity? A Force? Is there something that the Baha'i suggests that God is? I understand that God reflects the Creation as it is... and it is a wonderful idea to keep in mind... but do the Baha'i embrace any particular interpretation or idea of God? I would guess not, but I'm curious and figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.



'Force' would be a vague understanding of attributes of God.

'Identity' be simply the assumption as to whether God existed or not. God exists in my worldview therefore the identity is assumed. If someone believes God does not exist, there would be no identity.

The best description of the assumptions from my point of view and that of the Baha'i Faith is that what we call God is the 'source' of all existence. The difference from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic worldview is that existence is also eternal and infinite, and has always existed as attributes of the 'Source'. There was not a time in the past that the 'source' existed and existence did not. This likely a rather revolutionary concept of the Baha'i Faith.

The assumptions of the nature of God are that 'creation and revelation are a process without specific beginnings and endings'. The nature of existence from our point of view just reflects a much greater progressive, cyclic, evolving, and dynamic existence far vaster than our uiverse.

Any human defined concepts like theism. deism, pantheism. panentheism, monism and what ever '-ism' we use cannot begin to define the 'Source'. Our woyldview is very limited and faliable, which is a very basic obvious fact that theists fail to realize. Science than is probably one of the best tools we have of comprehending the nature of the 'Source', because its attributes directly reflect the Source.

[mentored1]

Hey shunya - well met, hope this finds you well.

The Source would not be flexible in its nature, but it is best that our worldview is flexible.

I assume that is a necessity because of the inconsistency and fallibility of human understanding... That we must be ready to adjust things constantly to correct our deficient comprehension of the 'source'?

The best description of the assumptions from my point of view and that of the Baha'i Faith is that what we call God is the 'source' of all existence. The difference from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic worldview is that existence is also eternal and infinite, and has always existed as attributes of the 'Source'. There was not a time in the past that the 'source' existed and existence did not. This likely a rather revolutionary concept of the Baha'i Faith.

The assumptions of the nature of God are that 'creation and revelation are a process without specific beginnings and endings'. The nature of existence from our point of view just reflects a much greater progressive, cyclic, evolving, and dynamic existence far vaster than our uiverse.


So the emergence of the universe and the God of said universe are inextricably wed together? That both "exist" contemporaneously so to speak? What then becomes of the alleged "big bang" and the infinite density that seems to have occured before it? I understand that these are only suppositions based on inference and what not but with the current model of how things seem to have progressed do we assume that God did not exist, in a sense, until the universe did? That the two are one and the same?

Any human defined concepts like theism. deism, pantheism. panentheism, monism and what ever '-ism' we use cannot begin to define the 'Source'. Our woyldview is very limited and faliable, which is a very basic obvious fact that theists fail to realize. Science than is probably one of the best tools we have of comprehending the nature of the 'Source', because its attributes directly reflect the Source.

I am in agreement: my exploration of all the "isms" has served only to confuse the search for meaning and understanding. A grasp of how limited and 'handicapped' our perception of things are is a humbling experience.

In regards to scientific pursuits without accepting the possibility, and factoring it in, of supernatural events what is science pursuing? Can the universe - and in turn God - be ultimately defined by scientific principles? Or will there always be that core "mystery" that we are left to imagine?

On a side note - is there anything on the web or otherwise regarding the Baha'i views that one could peruse. Not that your explanations haven't sufficed but I learn by digesting information in a very long and uncomfortable process :teeth:...

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Hey shunya - well met, hope this finds you well.
I assume that is a necessity because of the inconsistency and fallibility of human understanding... That we must be ready to adjust things constantly to correct our deficient comprehension of the 'source'?

I believe human comprehansion evolves, and the willingness to adapt and grow spiritually will be the key to the future. Unfortunately even though religion is one area of the greatest potential to reach beyond the limits of science, religion most often becomes an impediment to our own advancement.

Go with the flow the river knows.

So the emergence of the universe and the God of said universe are inextricably wed together? That both "exist" contemporaneously so to speak? What then becomes of the alleged "big bang" and the infinite density that seems to have occured before it? I understand that these are only suppositions based on inference and what not but with the current model of how things seem to have progressed do we assume that God did not exist, in a sense, until the universe did? That the two are one and the same?

Our universe must be put in perspective of the potential of the nature of existence. Our universe is likely not much more than a dust bunny in one corner of infinity. The relationship between the 'Source' and what is existence is unknown from the human perspective and not likely one and the same. From the Baha'i perspective the nature of existence reflects the attributes of God.

I am in agreement: my exploration of all the "isms" has served only to confuse the search for meaning and understanding. A grasp of how limited and 'handicapped' our perception of things are is a humbling experience.

It is not only a humbling experience, but also a crushing experience to the ego. My awakening in my Buddhist journeys was a very rude uncomfortable jolt to me that put my 'self' in perspective with a reality that could not be defined in any way from my point of view.

[/quote] In regards to scientific pursuits without accepting the possibility, and factoring it in, of supernatural events what is science pursuing? Can the universe - and in turn God - be ultimately defined by scientific principles? Or will there always be that core "mystery" that we are left to imagine?[/quote]

I believe there will always be a core of unknowable mystery. This unknowable mystery would not be supernatural, it would just have a half-life of attainment from the human perspective. We could not know God, but we could relate to God more intimately through science and the progressive revelation of the beliefs of all cultures and peoples of the world, which the traditional Christian perspective would have a great deal of difficulty dealing with. Supernatural is simply the natural we do not yet understand.

On a side note - is there anything on the web or otherwise regarding the Baha'i views that one could peruse. Not that your explanations haven't sufficed but I learn by digesting information in a very long and uncomfortable process :teeth:...

Take care

I will respond to this shortly. I do recommend two small books by Baha'u'llah, 'Seven Valleys and Four Valleys'. and the 'Hidden Words'.

Remember what I said about my views being the 'plague'. When they come up here our discussion becomes a two way dialogue and it is rare for others to intelligently respond, except maybe a flyby bombing run of a gooney bird in the night.

[shunyadragon]

Hey Knight... Dont think we've met so nice to cross swords with ya!
:fencing:



God out of (or from) the machine... Given the historical context of when it was used (as far as I know :demure:)... The knowledge of God has come out of this machine we call the universe... The Greeks used to use a machine of sorts to suspend, move, and lower a God into a play... The picture of needing the machine to present the God really struck me.

It is interesting that Christians are often offended by this analogy when the universe is indeed like a machine, and God's attributes are reflected in this machine. It is true there is likely more to God than this, but it is a good analogy.

[mentored1]

It is interesting that Christians are often offended by this analogy when the universe is indeed like a machine, and God's attributes are reflected in this machine. It is true there is likely more to God than this, but it is a good analogy.

Even if there is more can we know more than this? :shrug:

Take care amigo

[shunyadragon]

Even if there is more can we know more than this? :shrug:

Take care amigo

We essentially do not know God in the way we know science. Science is a window of knowing God through God's physical creation. Religion is essentially the inner awareness of God through revelation. Revelation plays a distinct role in the cyclic evolution of existence, because it recreates and renews the nature of existence. Once a revelation takes place a new world begins andthings are never the same again. There are distinct cycle in revelation we can see in history.

In the ancient world the greatest was likely not Christianity or Islam, but the revelation of about ~600 to ~800 BC Zarathustra, Buddha, and others even likely among the Iroquios accompanied by a world embracing awakening of knowledge as with Confucius and Laotzi in China and the rebirth and renewal of faith among the Isrealites, whose modern scripture likely dates from this period.

The best example I can give is the Baha'i revelation which brought the greatest and most dramatic change ever in the history of the world beginning in the early 18th century and centering on the period between ~1844 and 1863. The Baha'i revelation described the new world and the knowledge that burst forth in fairly specific terms with spiritual laws, principles, morals and ethics that showed great insight into the needs of this new world.

The quote from the Seven Valleys and Four valleys sets the tone for the change that would take place in the world both spiritually and physically. 'If you split an atom you will release the sun.'

Creation and Revelation are essentially one and the same.

[mejablue]

What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?


Thanks; this is a question I am interested in researching. Why creation? Are the natural laws tied into the Deity's "purpose" in bringing the material universe into being?

[mentored1]

Thanks; this is a question I am interested in researching. Why creation? Are the natural laws tied into the Deity's "purpose" in bringing the material universe into being?

Perhaps why not Creation? If all was void before God created then from whence came all this energy/matter? Something from Nothing? Isn't that a big no-no in our quaint cause and effect universe? It seems we must suspend our disbelief in this matter to trust that God can do what defies our understanding and senses. Or perhaps the universe is still the very thing that it emerged from: a void.

There is the notion that if any of the constants in the universe were altered by the slightest amount the universe and thus life could not have formed the way it has... It seems reasonable to assume that in order for our particular universe and life to have arrived where it is God was either forced to use the constants and laws that He did or the constants and laws simply resulted from what God willed to be...

The questions and possibilities provide for endless hours of amusing thought.

Take care

[shunyadragon]

What caused the knowledge of natural laws and the composition of the material universe in the "mind" of this Deity - what caused this knowledge?


Thanks; this is a question I am interested in researching. Why creation? Are the natural laws tied into the Deity's "purpose" in bringing the material universe into being?

From comparing the vaste nature in time and space of God's creation with our very limited capabilities to comprehend Go ot God's purpose, Why? or even 'Cause? or purpose?' are far beyond our capabilities. We have caused enough confusion arguing over who is right, when even that is far beyond our capability.