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

[robrecht]

Interesting and thanks for sharing.

I think maybe that you are referring to having a sense of the numinous, which I too value. But I don’t see this as necessarily connected to religion or God. Although admittedly, a splendid choral Eucharist can provide a wondrous sense of transcendence. But then so can a superb performance of an opera or concert or even special quiet times, such as witnessing a beautiful sunset, achieve the same effect. Perhaps, the difference is that your background and acculturation interprets these things in a religious way whereas mine doesn't.

I do believe in the numinous apart from any thematized religious beliefs and across different cultural or communal frameworks. Despite my background and professional academic training, I am actually not that religious of a person. As a novice (literally a novice in novitiate), I remember telling people that I had been cured of religion. But there's not very far anyone can go from God, regardless of whether he is consciously acknowledged or not. For me, the Eucharist is not about choral music or any of that, but one person reaching out over the centuries through intimate disciples to people who admire his teachings and want to share in his self-sacrifice and witness to the truth. I have many friends who are priests and even a small celebration of a couple of people or a small goup of committed Christians sharing in the source of their communion with each other and God. That is very thematized, obviously, but God is by no means limited to religious or even spiritual realm. He is, in a sense, incarnated in the whole world, in whom we live, move, and have our being, so to speak.

[shunyadragon]

But why does one assume that the “divine” exists in the first place, especially when Apophatic theology is unwilling to ascribe definite properties to such a concept?

The Baha'i view of God is predominately Apophatic, because God cannot be defined by doctrine, dogma, such as the Trinity, nor specific name God from the human perspective. The names of the attributes of God are the names of God, such as, Justice, Compassion, and Glory.

[Tassman]

I do believe in the numinous apart from any thematized religious beliefs and across different cultural or communal frameworks. Despite my background and professional academic training, I am actually not that religious of a person. As a novice (literally a novice in novitiate), I remember telling people that I had been cured of religion. But there's not very far anyone can go from God, regardless of whether he is consciously acknowledged or not. For me, the Eucharist is not about choral music or any of that, but one person reaching out over the centuries through intimate disciples to people who admire his teachings and want to share in his self-sacrifice and witness to the truth. I have many friends who are priests and even a small celebration of a couple of people or a small goup of committed Christians sharing in the source of their communion with each other and God. That is very thematized, obviously, but God is by no means limited to religious or even spiritual realm. He is, in a sense, incarnated in the whole world, in whom we live, move, and have our being, so to speak.

All of which I can relate to but still don’t feel that the concept of God need be invoked. I respect your view that God is at the core of it all but again come back to the question of why one assumes that the “divine” exists in the first place. Clearly you think differently.

The Baha'i view of God is predominately Apophatic, because God cannot be defined by doctrine, dogma, such as the Trinity, nor specific name God from the human perspective. The names of the attributes of God are the names of God, such as, Justice, Compassion, and Glory.

As per robrecht, I respect your views and identify with them to a large extent, but nevertheless see no need to invoke the concept of God.

[robrecht]

All of which I can relate to but still don’t feel that the concept of God need be invoked. I respect your view that God is at the core of it all but again come back to the question of why one assumes that the “divine” exists in the first place. Clearly you think differently.

As per robrecht, I respect your views and identify with them to a large extent, but nevertheless see no need to invoke the concept of God.

I do not disagree from a purely intellectual point of view in that I do not think that the existence of God can be proven, at least not to the satisfaction of everyone, regardless of metaphysical worldview and presuppositions. This is why, in speaking of my own experience and beliefs, I speak of a kind of intuition.

[shunyadragon]

I do not disagree from a purely intellectual point of view in that I do not think that the existence of God can be proven, at least not to the satisfaction of everyone, regardless of metaphysical worldview and presuppositions. This is why, in speaking of my own experience and beliefs, I speak of a kind of intuition.

If my belief had to be based on 'a kind of intuition' I would find it hard to believe in any god(s).

[robrecht]

If my belief had to be based on 'a kind of intuition' I would find it hard to believe in any god(s).

Why, wouldn't you trust your intuition?

[shunyadragon]

Why, wouldn't you trust your intuition?

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

[robrecht]

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

One who is aware of the many defective intuitions of the past is perhaps better able to avoid defective intuitions in the present. Perhaps. I don't really know.

One of the problems I see with claiming ones reasons for believing in God are something more definitive than intuitive, faith approaches to reality, partly subjective, partly mythical (in a positive sense) and largely apophatic, is that it implies an overly negative judgment of those who do not share your beliefs or accept your reasons for belief. Is Tassman, for example, not as intelligent as you? Is he more biased than you? If he were exposed to an unendless supply of all your thoughts on the matter, would he necessarily agree with all of your conclusions? Thus a Baha'i believer might consider 'the Jews accursed, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, still expecting that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus will Baha'is believe that God hath laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire'.

I think God is beyond all of our ideas of him, something more than we can know or express. The atheist approach is beneficial to theists who recognize that God is more than we can know or express; and those who do not share our beliefs need not be put in such a negative light.

[MaxVel]

I think God is beyond all of our ideas of him, something more than we can know or express.

That's nicely put.

he atheist approach is beneficial to theists who recognize that God is more than we can know or express; and those who do not share our beliefs need not be put in such a negative light.

Perhaps one mistake is to conclude that because God is beyond what we can know or express, therefore nothing we know or can express about God can be true.

[shunyadragon]

One who is aware of the many defective intuitions of the past is perhaps better able to avoid defective intuitions in the present. Perhaps. I don't really know.

One of the problems I see with claiming ones reasons for believing in God are something more definitive than intuitive, faith approaches to reality, partly subjective, partly mythical (in a positive sense) and largely apophatic, is that it implies an overly negative judgment of those who do not share your beliefs or accept your reasons for belief. Is Tassman, for example, not as intelligent as you? Is he more biased than you? If he were exposed to an unendless supply of all your thoughts on the matter, would he necessarily agree with all of your conclusions? Thus a Baha'i believer might consider 'the Jews accursed, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, still expecting that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus will Baha'is believe that God hath laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire'.

I think God is beyond all of our ideas of him, something more than we can know or express. The atheist approach is beneficial to theists who recognize that God is more than we can know or express; and those who do not share our beliefs need not be put in such a negative light.

I never said I believe that my belief in God is more definitive then 'intuition.' At present I am only pointing out the 'egocentric' weakness of relying on 'intuition' to justify the belief in the existence of God.

[robrecht]

I never said I believe that my belief in God is more definitive then 'intuition.' At present I am only pointing out the 'egocentric' weakness of relying on 'intuition' to justify the belief in the existence of God.

You said, "If my belief had to be based on 'a kind of intuition' I would find it hard to believe in any god(s)." Does this mean your belief is indeed also basd on a kind of intuition and that you therfefore do indeed find it hard to believe in God, or that your belief is based on something more than intuition? Or something different?

[shunyadragon]

You said, "If my belief had to be based on 'a kind of intuition' I would find it hard to believe in any god(s)." Does this mean your belief is indeed also based on a kind of intuition and that you therfefore do indeed find it hard to believe in God, or that your belief is based on something more than intuition? Or something different?

The problem is your use of 'more definitive.' No, the basis of my belief is not necessarily ' more definitive.' Personal intuition would be a questionable egocentric way to base ones belief in God. Actually me belief in God is based more on an 'Independent Investigation of knowledge' outside my own intuition or personal preferences of belief.

My belief system is more fluid then most and always open to question and change. My participation on Tweb is a part of this quest for more knowledge as what people believe and why.

That is why everything is in pencil, because in reality I do not know.

[robrecht]

The problem is your use of 'more definitive.' No, the basis of my belief is not necessarily ' more definitive.' Personal intuition would be a questionable egocentric way to base ones belief in God. Actually me belief in God is based more on an 'Independent Investigation of knowledge' outside my own intuition or personal preferences of belief.

My belief system is more fluid then most and always open to question and change. My participation on Tweb is a part of this quest for more knowledge as what people believe and why.

That is why everything is in pencil, because in reality I do not know.

So when you say that your beliefs are based on an 'Independent Investigation of knowledge' outside my own intuition or personal preferences of belief, does that imply that anyone else who undertakes an 'independent investigation of knowledge outside their own intuition or personal preferences of belief' will or at least should come to the same conclusions?

[shunyadragon]

So when you say that your beliefs are based on an 'Independent Investigation of knowledge' outside my own intuition or personal preferences of belief, does that imply that anyone else who undertakes an 'independent investigation of knowledge outside their own intuition or personal preferences of belief' will or at least should come to the same conclusions?

Considering the fallible nature of humans, No. Nonetheless I believe it works better to make these assumptions concerning the fallible questionable nature of individual 'intuition' as way to justify one's belief in God or even to justify one's own choice of belief or understand the nature of God.

[robrecht]

Considering the fallible nature of humans, No. Nonetheless I believe it works better to make these assumptions concerning the fallible questionable nature of individual 'intuition' as way to justify one's belief in God or even to justify one's own choice of belief or understand the nature of God.

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