Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhich is clear once you explain it. It was not clear prior to the explanation, so to suggest the brackets confused me because I didn't know exactly what you meant, seems unreasonable.
The bracketed text was just there as an aside, to explain why I had created the thread.
- 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.
Apology accepted.
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 think I will pass, and remain unsure.
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.
Well I have no feelings or desires whatsoever on the matter. It seems self evident that 'it has always existed'. What is less obvious is whether or not 'always' is finite.
Certainly the Big Bang Theory strongly suggests that it hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time in its current form. And certainly I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to think a religion called Jainism has any special insight on the matter.
I would still like some expansion on what you think the OP actually means. How does destruction / creation differ from change? How do 'cosmic laws' differ from any other system? Would for example God running the universe qualify as 'cosmic laws' or is that ruled out? Perhaps it rules out a group of half mad gods running the system?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do plan to elaborate on the OP, but was hoping a dialogue would emerge from it.
Which is clear once you explain it. It was not clear prior to the explanation, so to suggest the brackets confused me because I didn't know exactly what you meant, seems unreasonable.
[b] - 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 th ...[text shortened]... ic laws' or is that ruled out? Perhaps it rules out a group of half mad gods running the system?
In the meantime,can't believe i got away with not apologizing for calling you arrogant.(Just closed minded).
Originally posted by HandyAndyI don't think that is what 'arrogant' means. You are correct that I have little interest in Jainism at this point. I wouldn't even have known it existed prior to this thread if it wasn't for Sam Harris who uses it as an example of a religion that has and indisputably less violent message than Islam.
Arrogant, as in principally interested in scoring debate points, and no interest in Jainism.
I would welcome more interesting discussion of a variety of spiritual and related topics, but its really hard to find people willing to discuss them, hence my usual entertainment of scoring debate points (if that's what you want to call it).
Originally posted by SuzianneThe difference is of course (in these forums) that we lack a resident Jainist to defend their position while combative Christians are ten a penny.
Welcome to the theists' world. Only for some of us, it's [b]billions who hold the belief. That doesn't seem to be a big deal, in fact rather run-of-the-mill, to most here.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThat doesn't give the Jainists' views any more credence, does it?
The difference is of course (in these forums) that we lack a resident Jainist to defend their position while combative Christians are ten a penny.
I understand you wishing a break from the same old, same old. But it's all the same to you, isn't it?
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, but without any Jainists around to defend their position, and in the interest of fairness, it may require non Jainists to ensure their actual beliefs are fairly represented.
That doesn't give the Jainists' views any more credence, does it?
A similar example is where Sonship recently (unintentionally) misrepresented how a Hindu viewed reincarnation. (He didn't think they held the view that it was the 'same soul' that was reborn). Without a Hindu around to correct him, such a misrepresentation could go unchallenged and others come to share his misunderstanding.
Edit: Sorry, missed your edit. - No it is not all the same to me. I find all religions interesting and worthy of study in their own right.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou are proposing Jainism as a logically feasible position? Surely if it is logical you should do fine to defend it yourself?
No, but without any Jainists around to defend their position, and in the interest of fairness, it may require non Jainists to ensure their actual beliefs are fairly represented.
A similar example is where Sonship recently (unintentionally) misrepresented how a Hindu viewed reincarnation. (He didn't think they held the view that it was the 'same so ...[text shortened]... m, such a misrepresentation could go unchallenged and others come to share his misunderstanding.
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually yes, it is compatible. There is a significant current in cosmology that doubts that the big bang was the start. There are theories of continuous inflation - inflationary cosmologies where the universe expands very rapidly - interspersed with slow expansionary eras such as our own. Not everyone agrees with the big bang as the start of the universe (although clearly they do not deny that the observable universe was once contained in a vastly smaller space). The standard model of cosmology is the lambda-CDM model (a cosmological constant and cold dark matter) but that is not dependent on an initial singularity, it doesn't really say what happened before the inflationary phase. The universe may be infinitely old, with all empirical evidence of previous "universes" destroyed by inflation. I would not regard the Jain's cosmology, at least as represented by Ghost of a Duke in the OP, as automatically contradicting modern cosmology.
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]