much ado about nothing (again!)

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do know that we should be wary about making absolute claims - this IS, that IS, this WILL NEVER, and so on. History tends to make fools of people who do. AMMANION

So if I say that a cat that exists will exist as a cat and not a dog , or 2+2 will always be 4 , is history likely to make a fool of me? My assertion is not a prediction , it is based ...[text shortened]... exist because it is non-dependent on a reason. Come on ammanion , think about it , think harder!

Yes, I agree, I don't know how you could explain an 'uncaused' entity without referencing other 'uncaused' entities. But what I'm saying is that I'm wary of making absolute claims - simply because I cannot explain, nor would logic seem to allow it, doesn't mean that we might not be able to explain it at some point.
How you ask?
I have no idea.

Cats and dogs and 2 + 2 are irrelevant.

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, I agree, I don't know how you could explain an 'uncaused' entity without referencing other 'uncaused' entities. But what I'm saying is that I'm wary of making absolute claims - simply because I cannot explain, nor would logic seem to allow it, doesn't mean that we might not be able to explain it at some point.
How you ask?
I have no idea.

Cats and dogs and 2 + 2 are irrelevant.

But what I'm saying is that I'm wary of making absolute claims - simply because I cannot explain, nor would logic seem to allow it, doesn't mean that we might not be able to explain it at some point.
AMMANION

So does that mean that you are claiming that we should always be wary of making absolute claims? If so would you claim this absolutely? You seem to be saying that we can't be certain of any claim ,however I wonder how certain you are about this claim? One might as well say we cannot be certain we exist and be done with it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Oh come on marauder it's you that needs to appreciate the context of the entire thread. We are not talking about the universe as such we are talking about existence and uncaused existence. I'm much more interested in your uncaused Brahman than whether the universe is an emanation or a creation. To me the argument about emanation or creation is a mere side issue.

You really don't know what you are talking about in the sense you just used that phrase. The context of the entire thread was "nothing" (in more ways than one). And I seriously doubt you are interested in any philosophical/religious system that doesn't involve an anthromorphic God.

If you don't understand the difference between a universe created by an anthromorphic God and a universe which is a manifestion of the Ultimate Reality, that's one thing. However, that difference is crucial to resolve the questions you implied in your first post. But you seem to be utterly incapable of thinking outside your own peculiar Theist box.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You really don't know what you are talking about in the sense you just used that phrase. The context of the entire thread was "nothing" (in more ways than one). And I seriously doubt you are interested in any philosophical/religious system that doesn't involve an anthromorphic God.

If you don't understand the difference between a universe cr st. But you seem to be utterly incapable of thinking outside your own peculiar Theist box.

It's quite simple. If the universe is created by a God or is an emanation of a God , or is God in and of itself , one is still left with an non-reliant , uncaused entity of some sort.

I find it wierd that you believe in this "brahman" but think a theist God peculiar. To an atheist we are both potty. To them it would be like a train spotter calling a stamp collector boring.LOL

By the way the anthromorphic God of theism would be the Ultimate Reality of existence anyway. I see no distinction.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's quite simple. If the universe is created by a God or is an emanation of a God , or is God in and of itself , one is still left with an non-reliant , uncaused entity of some sort.

I find it wierd that you believe in this "brahman" but think a theist God peculiar. To an atheist we are both potty. To them it would be like a train spotter calling ...[text shortened]... orphic God of theism would be the Ultimate Reality of existence anyway. I see no distinction.

No, the theist God isn't. He is separate and distinct from the universe, whereas the universe is but a manifestation of the Ultimate Reality (not a creation of). The stuff of the universe could be destroyed at God's whim in your theology; it cannot be destroyed if it is a manifestation of the UV - its form might change but the "stuff' would always exist.

I find it weird that you think that you can speak for what atheists believe. As the Brahman/Tao/Void isn't a God, I don't see why an atheist couldn't believe in its existence.

BTV is more in line with the scientific discoveries of the 20th Century whereas it has been shown that the universe we observe is mostly an illusion anyway ("solid" objects are mostly nothing), that superluminal exchanges of information occur (Bell's Theorem) and other observations regarding quantum and relativistic physics. The anthromorphic God fails certain philosophical objections (Problem of Evil being the most obvious) and is the type of "Big Daddy" that a semi-savage culture would create.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I think it's interesting to think about whether a universe with all its attributes eliminated would "look" like a singularity.

Interesting question. Also illustrates the difficulty, once one starts to grasp non-duality, of expressing it in a language that has subject-predicate (-object) duality built into it. I think some of my more long-winded p ...[text shortened]... llness, fullness comes.
When fullness is taken from fullness,
Fullness still remains.

🙂[/b]

Regarding the singularity that existed prior(?) to the Big Bang, I find this passage of the Tao Ching interesting:

There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. How still it was and formless, standing alone, and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in no danger of being exhausted! It may be regarded as the Mother of all things. I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Tao. . . .


This part isn't strictly on point but I find it quite striking as regards Natural Law theory:

Humanity takes its law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven: Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its being what it is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, the theist God isn't. He is separate and distinct from the universe, whereas the universe is but a manifestation of the Ultimate Reality (not a creation of). The stuff of the universe could be destroyed at God's whim in your theology; it cannot be destroyed if it is a manifestation of the UV - its form might change but the "stuff' would always exist. ...[text shortened]... ost obvious) and is the type of "Big Daddy" that a semi-savage culture would create.

BTV is more in line with the scientific discoveries of the 20th Century whereas it has been shown that the universe we observe is mostly an illusion anyway ("solid" objects are mostly nothingMARAUDER

I would have thought that this particular finding would contradict the idea of brahman and support the theist idea? If the universe is a manifestation of the ultimate unchanging reality then is the ultimate unchanging reality illusionary as well? This idea seems more consistent with the theist view that the universe is not a big deal and that the God behind it is.

Originally posted by knightmeister
BTV is more in line with the scientific discoveries of the 20th Century whereas it has been shown that the universe we observe is mostly an illusion anyway ("solid" objects are mostly nothingMARAUDER

I would have thought that this particular finding would contradict the idea of brahman and support the theist idea? If the universe is a manifestation ...[text shortened]... istent with the theist view that the universe is not a big deal and that the God behind it is.

Then you're an idiot.

What happens in this universe is a big deal to your religion, but it has no ultimate significance in BTV.

EDIT: And please stop cutting my sentences up when you quote them.

EDIT2: To be specific, the Bible presents the creation of Man as the crowning glory of God's work in Genesis. The whole reason why God creates the universe is to put Man in it. Man's "job" in this universe is to grovel before God and say how swell and great he is. Those that do their "job" properly in this universe get a reward: they get to grovel before God and say how swell he is for all eternity.

In BTV, nothing that happens in this universe ultimately changes anything; we and everything else are manifestions of the BTV and nothing we do or don't do will change that. And the BTV doesn't care if we grovel before it or not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then you're an idiot.

What happens in this universe is a big deal to your religion, but it has no ultimate significance in BTV.

EDIT: And please stop cutting my sentences up when you quote them.

EDIT2: To be specific, the Bible presents the creation of Man as the crowning glory of God's work in Genesis. The whole reason why God creates th ...[text shortened]... o or don't do will change that. And the BTV doesn't care if we grovel before it or not.

Man's "job" in this universe is to grovel before God and say how swell and great he is. Those that do their "job" properly in this universe get a reward: they get to grovel before God and say how swell he is for all eternity. MARAUDER

I'm glad you have been exposed to true Christianity rather than babble distorted myths about it!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Man's "job" in this universe is to grovel before God and say how swell and great he is. Those that do their "job" properly in this universe get a reward: they get to grovel before God and say how swell he is for all eternity. MARAUDER

I'm glad you have been exposed to true Christianity rather than babble distorted myths about it!

I'm glad you've given up trying to make any arguments in this thread.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm glad you've given up trying to make any arguments in this thread.

I never really had much of an argument with you. You presumably think the the Ultimate Reality of tao or brahman etc is eternal and without beginning and uncaused? I would guess you would agree that something uncaused is quite an incredible thought? If so then although we may disagree about the nature of God / brahman whatever , we would probably agree that an uncaused supreme reality would have no need of a beginning

Originally posted by knightmeister
I never really had much of an argument with you. You presumably think the the Ultimate Reality of tao or brahman etc is eternal and without beginning and uncaused? I would guess you would agree that something uncaused is quite an incredible thought? If so then although we may disagree about the nature of God / brahman whatever , we would probably agree that an uncaused supreme reality would have no need of a beginning

Once you consider certain things like an eternity Man's reasoning and language fails. The difference is that the BTV's philosophy acknowledges this and regards the BTV's nature as transcendental and essentially indescribable, while Western theism insists that it's anthromorphic God can be known, interacts (or has interacted) directly with Man and has attributes that can be understood and described. The latter type of entity is inherently implausible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But what I'm saying is that I'm wary of making absolute claims - simply because I cannot explain, nor would logic seem to allow it, doesn't mean that we might not be able to explain it at some point.
AMMANION

So does that mean that you are claiming that we should always be wary of making absolute claims? If so would you claim this absolutely? You ...[text shortened]... e about this claim? One might as well say we cannot be certain we exist and be done with it.

That's true. How can we be certain that we exist?
But in the end all the philosophising in the world doesn't avoid the practical issue - I feel like I exist and the world around me does, so I assume that it does.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Once you consider certain things like an eternity Man's reasoning and language fails. The difference is that the BTV's philosophy acknowledges this and regards the BTV's nature as transcendental and essentially indescribable, while Western theism insists that it's anthromorphic God can be known, interacts (or has interacted) directly with Man and has att ...[text shortened]... s that can be understood and described. The latter type of entity is inherently implausible.

So what use is a religion whoose ultimate reality cannot be understood at all? Theism does not say God can be completely understood but that he can be known personally and is relevant to our lives. God is still transcendent but also present with us. Any God or religion needs to be relevant otherwise what's the point?

Originally posted by amannion
That's true. How can we be certain that we exist?
But in the end all the philosophising in the world doesn't avoid the practical issue - I feel like I exist and the world around me does, so I assume that it does.

So it's not an absolute claim then? Do you claim absolutely that nothing can be known absolutely?