Understanding Jainism

Jains believe nothing in the universe is ever destroyed or created, they simply change from one form to another. The universe itself has always existed and will always exist. It is regulated by cosmic laws and kept going by its own energy processes. - I rather like this idea.

Is this concept of the universe compatible with modern scientific thinking? (Jains do not believe the universe was created by any sort of god, indeed as it has always existed it was not created at all).

Perhaps time and the need to create are just human concepts, fashioned to make the infinite comprehendible to the finite?

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml)

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Jains believe nothing in the universe is ever destroyed or created, they simply change from one form to another. The universe itself has always existed and will always exist. It is regulated by cosmic laws and kept going by its own energy processes. - I rather like this idea.

Is this concept of the universe compatible with modern scientific thinki ...[text shortened]... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml)

Oh dear, more science deniers.

Ever heard of the Big Bang?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I rather like this idea.

Liking an idea has nothing to do with whether it reflects reality.

Is this concept of the universe compatible with modern scientific thinking?
No.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Liking an idea has nothing to do with whether it reflects reality.

[b]Is this concept of the universe compatible with modern scientific thinking?
No.[/b]

Why is the idea that the universe has always existed less a reflection of reality than a creating God or a big bang?

It may indeed not reflect your concept of reality. But perhaps your concept is wrong and the Jainists are right?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why is the idea that the universe has always existed less a reflection of reality than a creating God or a big bang?

Why are apples square?

Who exactly said that "the idea that the universe has always existed less a reflection of reality than a creating God or a big bang"? You, that's who. Maybe you should answer it.

It may indeed not reflect your concept of reality. But perhaps your concept is wrong and the Jainists are right?
I said nothing whatsoever about it not reflecting my concept of reality. I did suggest it was incompatible with modern scientific thinking, which is what you asked. Good to know that you consider me an example of 'modern scientific thinking', while accepting that Jainists are not. And note that I was referring to the whole OP and not just the infinite time thing.

After some reflection, however, I am less certain it is incompatible, because I am not certain that the claims in the OP have any actual content - other than the claim that time is infinite - which as far as modern scientific thinking goes is still an unknown. If the Jainists are right about that one, then its not that surprising given that they have a 50% chance of being right. What would be impressive is if they have a good reason for thinking it. Hint: Liking the idea isn't a good reason.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why are apples square?

Who exactly said that "the idea that the universe has always existed less a reflection of reality than a creating God or a big bang"? You, that's who. Maybe you should answer it.

[b]It may indeed not reflect your concept of reality. But perhaps your concept is wrong and the Jainists are right?
I said nothing whatsoever ab ...[text shortened]... essive is if they have a good reason for thinking it. Hint: Liking the idea isn't a good reason.[/b]

'Liking an idea has nothing to do with whether it reflects reality.'

This seemed to imply you thought the idea did 'not' reflect reality, irrespective of my liking for it. ( 'You liking it, doesn't make it true.' ) - Perhaps I liked it because i thought it made sense and was no less plausible than a big bang or a creating deity. I like, and see solid reasoning, in the notion that time is a human construct and that perhaps there never was 'a beginning'.

This thread is putting forward Jainist ideas. (As a break from the 99% Christian threads). For you to say it has no actual content is rather arrogant and closed minded.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
This seemed to imply you thought the idea did 'not' reflect reality, irrespective of my liking for it.

Well it wasn't intended to imply that. It was only intended to suggest that liking an idea has nothing to do with whether or not it reflects reality.

I like, and see solid reasoning, in the notion that time is a human construct and that perhaps there never was 'a beginning'.
Well perhaps you would care to explain that 'solid reasoning'.

This thread is putting forward Jainist ideas. (As a break from the 99% Christian threads). For you to say it has no actual content is rather arrogant and closed minded.
I fail to see what the percentage of Christian threads has to do with how closed minded I might be. I say it has no actual content because it has no actual content. And there is nothing 'arrogant' about that observation. What do you mean by 'created' or 'destroyed'? How do they differ from 'change'?
What do you mean by 'regulated by cosmic laws'?
What do you mean by 'energy processes'?
Other than the unsubstantiated, unsupportable and indeterminable claim that time is infinite, the whole OP is just wishy washy feel good phrases that don't really mean anything.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Jains believe nothing in the universe is ever destroyed or created, they simply change from one form to another. The universe itself has always existed and will always exist. It is regulated by cosmic laws and kept going by its own energy processes. - I rather like this idea.

Is this concept of the universe compatible with modern scientific thinki ...[text shortened]... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml)

"Perhaps time and the need to create are just human concepts, fashioned to make the infinite comprehendible to the finite?"

So I focused, and focused, and stayed focused on the question.

There's no answer. How can the question be valid if it needs to be asked from the viewpoint that there's no answer. Do you know the answer? Nobody does because the question is illogical.

The infinite can never be comprehensible to the finite. Reminds me of a verse if you don't mind. John 1:5

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The only way to comprehend the infinite is to know the one that is infinite.

Originally posted by twhitehead


I fail to see what the percentage of Christian threads has to do with how closed minded I might be. I say it has no actual content because it has no actual content. And there is nothing 'arrogant' about that observation. What do you mean by 'created' or 'destroyed'? How do they differ from 'change'?
What do you mean by 'regulated by cosmic laws'?
What ...[text shortened]... is infinite, the whole OP is just wishy washy feel good phrases that don't really mean anything.[/b]

This thread is putting forward Jainist ideas. (As a break from the 99% Christian threads). For you to say it has no actual content is rather arrogant and closed minded.

The percentage of Christian threads has nothing to do with how closed minded you are. Did the brackets confuse you? - Take away the bracketed text and you have 'This thread is putting forward Jainist ideas. For you to say it has no actual content is rather arrogant and closed minded.' (In other words you were dismissing out of hand beliefs held by 4 million plus people).

My OP gave no more than a glimpse into Jainism. If I opened with a page long post (as Dasa was prone to do) who would bother to read it?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Perhaps time and the need to create are just human concepts, fashioned to make the infinite comprehendible to the finite?"

So I focused, and focused, and stayed focused on the question.

There's no answer. How can the question be valid if it needs to be asked from the viewpoint that there's no answer. Do you know the answer? Nobody does because ...[text shortened]... ehended it not.

The only way to comprehend the infinite is to know the one that is infinite.[/b]

But what if the only one who is infinite is the universe itself?

The Ghost does appreciate though all the focusing. 🙂

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Jains believe nothing in the universe is ever destroyed or created, they simply change from one form to another. The universe itself has always existed and will always exist. It is regulated by cosmic laws and kept going by its own energy processes. - I rather like this idea.

Is this concept of the universe compatible with modern scientific thinki ...[text shortened]... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml)

According to the Jains, who put the cosmic laws into place?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The percentage of Christian threads has nothing to do with how closed minded you are.

Then what was it doing there?

Did the brackets confuse you?
No. But it is entirely possible that I interpreted them differently from the way they were intended. But that isn't 'confusion' on my part. It is merely the fact that language, especially in posts on the internet, is often ambiguous.

- Take away the bracketed text and you have 'This thread is putting forward Jainist ideas. For you to say it has no actual content is rather arrogant and closed minded.' (In other words you were dismissing out of hand beliefs held by 4 million plus people).
Assuming that what you posted in the OP is actually an accurate representation of the beliefs held by 4 million plus people.

My OP gave no more than a glimpse into Jainism.
Well that glimpse, was worth dismissing as containing practically no meaningful content. Calling me 'arrogant' and 'closed minded' for pointing that out on the basis that supposedly 4 million plus people believe it, is simply ridiculous.

If I opened with a page long post (as Dasa was prone to do) who would bother to read it?
How is that relevant? I commented on what you presented, not on what you didn't present nor on what you would have presented were you Dasa, nor on what other beliefs may be held by 4 million plus people who are not here. What you presented was mostly vapid, vague to the point of meaningless mumbo jumbo.
I note that you haven't clarified any of the terms I asked about.

Can we for example take the phrase 'regulated by cosmic laws' to mean that Jains are determinists? Or does that phrase just mean not everything is perfectly random? Or should I read more into the word 'regulated'? Is it saying there is a certain amount of order maintained? On what scale? How could any possible description of the universe you could possibly imagine not be reasonably described as being 'regulated by cosmic laws'?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
But what if the only one who is infinite is the universe itself?

The Ghost does appreciate though all the focusing. 🙂

Well, if you like focus, then you'll really like re-focus.

I've heard some say, in various times and places, that God can be seen in the entirety of the universe. That the universe is His body. It paints a very interesting picture, if it's true.

But then there's another way of seeing it too. God cannot be defined or explained from a human perspective. That God transcends creation. God is both in creation and outside of creation. He is everywhere at once. And where is everywhere?

But until we know that we know what we know is the truth, we need to stick to the basics of what is actually knowable about God.

Originally posted by josephw
The only way to comprehend the infinite is to know the one that is infinite.

Why is not knowing about the integers (an infinite set) not sufficient?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then what was it doing there?

[b]Did the brackets confuse you?
No. But it is entirely possible that I interpreted them differently from the way they were intended. But that isn't 'confusion' on my part. It is merely the fact that language, especially in posts on the internet, is often ambiguous.

- Take away the bracketed text and you have ' ...[text shortened]... u could possibly imagine [b]not be reasonably described as being 'regulated by cosmic laws'?[/b]

The bracketed text was just there as an aside, to explain why I had created the thread. (Like this one where I explain that non Christian threads are a rarity and that it is a shame if they are immediately squashed). - I do accept though that language is ambiguous on the internet and things can at times be misconstrued. I also don't think you are closed minded and apologise for that comment.

If you are unsure if the 'OP is actually an accurate representation of the beliefs held by 4 million plus people' by all means go away and research the topic. I am by no means an authority on Jainism and would be interested to learn more myself, beyond what I have already read..

The point remains though that I like the idea of a universe that has always existed (in some form) and is by no means alien to thoughts I've already entertained.