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

[robrecht]

This has been a problem in the past. You tend to come up with personal definitions for things, which makes it difficult to answer. Not abandoning my belief at all. I referred to Sen's post as a more adequate explanation and I am always willing to clarify and adjust my use of terminology so that there is better understanding.

Again . . .

First you are misusing a 'fideistic' belief. Check your definitions and use and come back. The Principle of the Independent Investigation of Truth (Knowledge) rejects the fideist philosophy.

Second, I belief I have explained my beliefs in detail previously. Third, Infallibility and inerrant can be defined differently. I bow to Sen McGlinn's post in response to yours concerning what Infallible and Inerrant means.




I will add here that translation of Baha'i scripture is often problematic, and back up to basic principles that give guidance on how to deal with the modern world and realize the evolution of religion will continue over the millennia, and not change or mean what I want it to believe, or demand change from the human perspective.





Note my byline 'I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.'

I am not defining your beliefs, merely asking you about the foundations or justification of your beliefs. You are free to explain with your own terms. So if you still believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of (at least parts of) the Baha'i scriptures, would you please explain why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures?

[shunyadragon]

I am not defining your beliefs, merely asking you about the foundations or justification of your beliefs. You are free to explain with your own terms. So if you still believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of (at least parts of) the Baha'i scriptures, would you please explain why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures?

The reference to spiritual laws and teachings being infallible and inerrant came from shunheydragon, and I cannot speak for what he meant. I however said of spiritual laws and teachings that one "can only say that one has faith in it and seeks to apply it in life. Or that one believes the teachings, if applied, lead to a better life, a better world, a better picture of God's will, etc. "

The teachings I was thinking of are (1) general moral laws, such as not lying, stealing, killing and the like;
(2) teachings about religious practice, such as the times and types of prayer, fasting, pilgrimage,
(3) religious teachings about society, such as (in Bahai) the advocacy of consultative decision making in politics and within the Bahai community; advocacy of world peace through mutual security, international law and an international tribunal; equality of all and abolition of prejudices and discrimination; separation of church and state (religious leaders should not interfere in politics; state should not interfere with individual conscience and religious practice).

For all of these, it is I think meaningless to say "this is infallible." One might say, "I think this is an infallible remedy." The proof of such things is in the pudding.

It is not whether I believe in inerrancy and infallibility or not. It is how inerrancy and infallibility is considered in context of scripture. Since the Baha'i view is that Revelation is an evolving process over time the view that inerrancy and infallibility is a static unchanging absolute truth does not work as a general rule of scripture in the Baha'i Faith. There are some 'Truths' which are unchanging and absolute in the Baha'i scriptures such as the nature of God being absolutely One united, unnamable, and unknowable. Revelation reveals progressively the attributes and knowledge of God.

One principle of the Harmony of Science and religion is an example of where knowledge evolves, and it is the obligation that all scripture must be interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science. This principle 'in principle' may be considered 'inerrant and infallible,' but the understanding of scripture and the knowledge of science will evolve and change over time.

I also believe that Sen explained well the problem of 'inerrancy and infallibility' from the human perspective. Also translation and human interpretation become problematic in terms of absolute truths. Again I believe that the 'Principles and basic teachings revealed in the scripture of the Baha'i Faith are the standards for our Age, which results in the eventual unification of humanity over the millennia.

The bottom line is I consider the Baha'i scripture the best answer for humanity in this Age. Evolution and Change over time to meet the needs of the evolving nature of human spirituality is an aspect of inerrancy and infallibility.

In contrast in the Roman Church there are certain Doctrines and Dogma that are absolute and can never change because they are inerrant and infallible in the absolute sense.

Before I became a Baha'i I strongly preferred Buddhist and Taoist philosophy and thinking. This thinking has influenced me since. The two foundation principles are 'Nothing is Necessary,' and 'Impermanence rules' from the human perspective. Considering the whole of human history and human fallibility it becomes abundantly apparent that everything that exists and is believed will fade and be gone in a matter of a short period of time when compared to the vastness of the physical existence we can witness. As far as the certainty of what we believe, considering the fallibility of humans, and the diversity of beliefs, All our beliefs are most likely flawed and probably wrong.

That is why I believe 'I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.'

[robrecht]

It is not whether I believe in inerrancy and infallibility or not. It is how inerrancy and infallibility is considered in context of scripture. Since the Baha'i view is that Revelation is an evolving process over time the view that inerrancy and infallibility is a static unchanging absolute truth does not work as a general rule of scripture in the Baha'i Faith. There are some 'Truths' which are unchanging and absolute in the Baha'i scriptures such as the nature of God being absolutely One united, unnamable, and unknowable. Revelation reveals progressively the attributes and knowledge of God.

One principle of the Harmony of Science and religion is an example of where knowledge evolves, and it is the obligation that all scripture must be interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science. This principle 'in principle' may be considered 'inerrant and infallible,' but the understanding of scripture and the knowledge of science will evolve and change over time.

I also believe that Sen explained well the problem of 'inerrancy and infallibility' from the human perspective. Also translation and human interpretation become problematic in terms of absolute truths. Again I believe that the 'Principles and basic teachings revealed in the scripture of the Baha'i Faith are the standards for our Age, which results in the eventual unification of humanity over the millennia.

The bottom line is I consider the Baha'i scripture the best answer for humanity in this Age. Evolution and Change over time to meet the needs of the evolving nature of human spirituality is an aspect of inerrancy and infallibility.

In contrast in the Roman Church there are certain Doctrines and Dogma that are absolute and can never change because they are inerrant and infallible in the absolute sense.

Before I became a Baha'i I strongly preferred Buddhist and Taoist philosophy and thinking. This thinking has influenced me since. The two foundation principles are 'Nothing is Necessary,' and 'Impermanence rules' from the human perspective. Considering the whole of human history and human fallibility it becomes abundantly apparent that everything that exists and is believed will fade and be gone in a matter of a short period of time when compared to the vastness of the physical existence we can witness. As far as the certainty of what we believe, considering the fallibility of humans, and the diversity of beliefs, All our beliefs are most likely flawed and probably wrong.

That is why I believe 'I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.'

If this were what I believe, I would certainly not express it by saying that the Baha'i sacred scriptures (or parts of them) are infallible and inerrant, just as I do not believe that any scriptures (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc) or church pronouncements are infallible and inerrant. We are all human and fallible as are our writings.

[Kelp(p)]

If everything humans believe will change, then so will the definition of God as, "One, united, unnameable, and unknowable," will it not?

[shunyadragon]

If everything humans believe will change, then so will the definition of God as, "One, united, unnameable, and unknowable," will it not?

If I left the impression that everything will change, then I apologize. I as a fallible human do not in reality know, except . . .

No, the nature of God will probably remains one of the most absolute inerrant and infallible teachings of Baha'i Scriptures. Even though the revealed attributes and spiritual teachings and Laws may evolve, this will not change. Actually there are certain other divine Laws of the Baha'i Faith that will not 'likely' change radically but may evolve. As with all religions 'unlawful death' (murder) is prohibited. The concept of what is meant by 'unlawful death' evolves and changes.

[shunyadragon]

If this were what I believe, I would certainly not express it by saying that the Baha'i sacred scriptures (or parts of them) are infallible and inerrant, just as I do not believe that any scriptures (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc) or church pronouncements are infallible and inerrant. We are all human and fallible as are our writings.

I would and did. I have no problem with dialogue and discussion as to what 'inerrant and infallible' means in terms of the Baha'i scripture and how it applies in context.

One the other hand the Roman Church does consider some of their Doctrines and Dogma as absolutely inerrant and infallible and not subject to change, regardless of what you believe or not. The Roman Church does not accept Revelation evolving beyond the One True Church, as the Baha'i Faith considers the constant evolution and change of Revelation in human history, before and beyond the human experience.

[robrecht]

I would and did. I have no problem with dialogue and discussion as to what 'inerrant and infallible' means in terms of the Baha'i scripture and how it applies in context.

One the other hand the Roman Church does consider some of their Doctrines and Dogma as absolutely inerrant and infallible and not subject to change, regardless of what you believe or not. The Roman Church does not accept Revelation evolving beyond the One True Church, as the Baha'i Faith considers the constant evolution and change of Revelation in human history, before and beyond the human experience.

So is it only the spiritual laws and teachings within the Baha'i sacred scriptures that you consider infallible and inerrant or the entirety of the Baha'i sacred scriptures?

[robrecht]

It is not whether I believe in inerrancy and infallibility or not. ...[/B]

Indeed, that was not the question. The question was, "would you please explain why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures?

[shunyadragon]

Indeed, that was not the question. The question was, "would you please explain why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures?

Answered this question in detail. DONE. No further comment needed. Please read posts if you wish to actually understand. my view

[shunyadragon]

So is it only the spiritual laws and teachings within the Baha'i sacred scriptures that you consider infallible and inerrant or the entirety of the Baha'i sacred scriptures?

Answered in detail. DONE. No further comment necessary.

[robrecht]

Answered this question in detail. DONE. No further comment needed. Please read posts if you wish to actually understand. my view

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

[shunyadragon]

Is truth falsifiable? Truth is contingent upon what actually exists or is of reality. Is reality falsifiable?

The nature of our physical existence is falsifiable.

". . . from the eternal infinite matrix . . . " is meaningless. And therefore utter nonsense.

Not an answer I can respond to.

Is not really a relevant answer. The blue color of the sky is a direct result of Rayleigh scattering which redirects higher frequency (blue) sunlight back into the field of view of the observer.

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

Metaphysics verses the empirical. There is no agreed upon metaphysical method to deal with all religions or the question of God or no God.

True

[Kelp(p)]

The nature of our physical existence is falsifiable.

How? We could never tell whether or not we aren't a brain in a vat.

[shunyadragon]

How? We could never tell whether or not we aren't a brain in a vat.

The brain in a vat is a terrible foolish analogy and not worth a dialogue. Nonetheless the physical existence and our human nature is as it is, and not what we want it to be. Methodological Naturalism is neutral as to whether our existence is the result of Nature alone or by Divine Creation.

[Kelp(p)]

Ok, then Descartes' evil demon, a version of the Matrix, whatever. The point is, why trust that our senses point to something real?

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