Atheist questions

[JDaniel]

My point is that without time you cannot tell which one came first, you have no way to measure. You cannot tell if A caused B or if B caused A because without time you are unable to say whether A or B came first. Indeed “first” has no meaning without a time against which to measure.

Well . . .Rossum, my old friend. There you are!

Might I just say, that 2 succeeds 1, and 3 succeeds 2, and 4 succeeds 3, etc. etc. And that second base succeeds first base, and third follows second, and home plate follows third. Hmmm. successions without time. But, according to you, they are not possible, or, have no meaning. Baseball players better give up the sport! Nah, they make too much money.

There is also the point that it is incorrect to describe an entity as “creator” if nothing has actually been created.

Not so. We call a Creator a creator a posteriori. There is no rule in logic, or otherwise, to presume that the creature must exist before, or contemporaneously with, the creator. Even in that word’s loosest sense, a portrait would then have to preexist its own artist! Huh?

Just as we cannot have a parent with no children so we cannot have a creator who has created nothing.

And, that’s precisely why we can call a parent a “parent” even before a baby is born! Woe to the murderer who kills a pregnant woman and her child. He will then be convicted of two murders!

A creator without a creation is a logical impossibility.

Except a posteriori. If we don’t know that an exigency is a creator before it has actually created, it is, in fact, stupid to define it as a “creator.”

The created cannot appear without a creator but conversely the creator cannot be a creator without the created also existing.

Then we shall just have to call him God. We really do not have to go any further at this time. Oops! Sorry. I forgot, there is no time.

The two are mutually dependent; neither can exist without the other.

But, they can co-exist - in language and meaning.

A child cannot exist without parents and parents cannot be parents without there being a child.

Brilliant! Proof positive that a human starts at conception!

Starting from time 0 and progressing forward you cannot show me a time when matter did not exist.

My goodness! Nor would I want to!

I am not saying that time caused matter, I am saying that if matter has existed for all of time then it is legitimate to describe matter as eternal. There is no time when matter did not exist.

That is true. And, as we know from physics, matter, cannot be destroyed (except by God). But, that it was created, even science can’t get past that one.

Buddhism emphasises change and interrelation.

Sorry, I don’t adhere to Buddhism. But, that being said, your statement has its equivalent in Christianity.

Parents imply children; children imply parents.

Linguistically true.

Neither can exist separately.

Again, linguistically true.

Similarly with cause and effect.

But, we know that a contractor (house builder - efficient cause) may easily exist before he builds his first house. At least, our various governments give him a builder’s license!

A cause must have an effect, otherwise it is not a cause.

Except contemporaneously or a posteriori.

An effect must have a cause, otherwise it is not an effect.

This is becoming tiresome.

Reality is analysed as a complex web of mutually conditioning processes. Final causes seem to be popular with the Abrahamic religions. They are seen as irrelevant and logically suspect in Buddhism.

If that is so, then I really don’t believe, or want to believe, in Buddhism.

The Buddhist analysis of reality emphasises change above stasis. Final causes are usually seen as static and thus not of any use in Buddhist analysis.

Not so. Final Cause is prior to First Cause. It is the intent of the agent. There’s nothing “static” about it.

Your analysis of what I think is incorrect. Christianity makes a big separation between the material and the spiritual. Buddhism does not.

Another reason not to adhere to Buddhism.

All men may be reborn as gods. All gods may be reborn as men.

And, your proofs for these naked assertions?

Both men and gods are subject to the same moral law of karma. There is far less difference between men and gods in Buddhism than there is in Christianity.

Excellent!

A man can become a fully enlightened Buddha which puts him far above any unenlightened god.

We need more proofs here!

There are issues with causation, as pointed out by Nagarjuna.

Who?

The problems are not with causation itself but with the human tendency to reify things which causes problems.

You call it potato and I call it potato. You call it reify and I call it abstraction. So?

A reified causation is not possible because it does not allow for any change.

What? Causation, is the very essence of change. Motion is only local motion in its broadest sense. It is change in its narrower sense. I know your a Buddhist, but, you’re not a Martian!

It is impossible for something that either exists
or that does not exist to have a cause.
If it were non-existent, of what would they be the cause?
If it exists, why would it need a cause?

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 1:6

I like the way he/she/,or, it said that.

Always a pleasure, my friend. (I hope I can call you that?)

God bless,
– jd 1.0

 

[tonyrey]

JDaniel has dealt with your points thoroughly and it will be interesting to see to what extent - if at all -his ideas converge with mine.

Although the First Cause is not bound by human categories it does not follow that they are entirely

Difficult but not impossible. Coherence and correspondence to reality are also important criteria of a metaphysical explanation.

Time had a beginning and we know Creation must have occurred at that moment

. It is illogical to believe the Creator and the created came into existence simultaneously because then you might as well believe the created appeared without a Creator! Does that strike you as credible? My point is that without time you cannot tell which one came first, you have no way to measure. You cannot tell if A caused B or if B caused A because without time you are unable to say whether A or B came first. Indeed “first” has no meaning without a time against which to measure.

The question is not one of temporal causation but ontological dependence. The choice is between a caused and an uncaused universe. There is no reason to believe the universe exists necessarily because it is composed of contingent elements.

There is also the point that it is incorrect to describe an entity as “creator” if nothing has actually been created. Just as we cannot have a parent with no children so we cannot have a creator who has created nothing. A creator without a creation is a logical impossibility.

The created cannot appear without a creator but conversely the creator cannot be a creator without the created also existing. The two are mutually dependent; neither can exist without the other. A child cannot exist without parents and parents cannot be parents without there being a child.

You are assuming that nothing but this universe has been created!

“No time” cannot produce eternity! All it can produce is nothing! In science space, time, energy and matter are related to one another and there is still no consensus among scientists as to whether the universe is eternal…

Starting from time 0 and progressing forward you cannot show me a time when matter did not exist. I am not saying that time caused matter, I am saying that if matter has existed for all of time then it is legitimate to describe matter as eternal. There is no time when matter did not exist.

It is not self-evident that “eternity” must be equated with “all of time”. In its usual context of spiritual reality it is understood as “beyond time (and space”). Only a materialist believes nothing remains if time and matter come to an end.

That is a physicalist assumption. Teleological explanation entails final causality: the means is determined by the end. Is the chronological sequence of physical events is not a full explanation of reality in Buddhism?

Buddhism emphasises change and interrelation. Parents imply children; children imply parents. Neither can exist separately. Similarly with cause and effect. A cause must have an effect, otherwise it is not a cause. An effect must have a cause, otherwise it is not an effect. Reality is analysed as a complex web of mutually conditioning processes. Final causes seem to be popular with the Abrahamic religions. They are seen as irrelevant and logically suspect in Buddhism. The Buddhist analysis of reality emphasises change above stasis. Final causes are usually seen as static and thus not of any use in Buddhist analysis.

If Buddhists dispense with purpose and free will they become helpless spectators who have no power to influence their destiny? Is that what you believe?

If you are a Buddhist you must believe that concept of causation is inadequate because it omits the spiritual aspect of existence.
Your analysis of what I think is incorrect. Christianity makes a big separation between the material and the spiritual. Buddhism does not. All men may be reborn as gods. All gods may be reborn as men. Both men and gods are subject to the same moral law of karma. There is far less difference between men and gods in Buddhism than there is in Christianity. A man can become a fully enlightened Buddha which puts him far above any unenlightened god.
There are issues with causation, as pointed out by Nagarjuna. The problems are not with causation itself but with the human tendency to reify things which causes problems. A reified causation is not possible because it does not allow for any change.It is impossible for something that either exists
or that does not exist to have a cause.
If it were non-existent, of what would they be the cause?
If it exists, why would it need a cause?

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 1:6

If Buddhism doesn’t make a big separation between the material and the spiritual how do persons differ from things?

 

[wbarquez]

An actual *contingent *infinite can’t exist. God is infinite, but, as you can imagine, the sense of the word infinite as it applies to him is not the usual sense we assume. And he is also in act, so you’re right, he is an actual infinite. But he is not contingent. Contingent things require causes, as you know, and God lacks a cause.

Nothing comes from nothing on its own, so there is still room for a God to make something out of nothing.

The first-cause argument isn’t circular. Its starting point is the fact that effects exist, and its ending point is that a cause exists.

I think it is also the actual infinite number of contingent events that cannot exist.

I think to make out of nothing can be accomplished only by a power that is infinite and only God can do that. Besides, God is not nothing. He is something and is the ground of all being, following Plato and Aquinas.

Yes, I agree that the argument is not begging the question because there no assumption that God exists. The premises start with the nature of material reality.

I asked these questions because they are the usual philolsophical questions asked by atheists to attack theistic beliefs.

Thanks for the response!

 

[wbarquez]

If time was created with matter then there was no time when matter did not exist, so matter is coextensive with time and hence is effectively eternal.

At first, I did not understand what you wanted to say here. If space and time, matter and energy had a beginning since they were created, how could matter be eternal? Were you talking about the prime matter of Aristotle?

But when I realized that you may be speaking within the framework of Hindu theology, I realized that you somehow believe in the eternity of matter since all things are parts or sparks of the eternal God. Following the Bhagavad Gita, there was no time when we did not exist.

 

[wbarquez]

Welcome to CAF, Wb!

If what we understood to be God, defined him as matter, yes. But, God has never been defined as matter - even from the earliest times. An actual infinity of physical magnitude is impossible. Neither can a numerical infinite magnitude actually exist. Both can approach infinity, but, can never achieve it, as extent actualities.

God is a non-physical reality. As such, he can be infinite in magnitude, as he has always been understood to be. (Infinity was not understood, unless someone can show me I’m wrong, by prehistoric men (or women)). (But, I’ll bet that the determinant of infinitude was drawn from Revelation even before any anticipation of today’s debate.)

Only a non-physical infinitude is possible. Now, our universe, as big as it is, is no doubt a huge, but finite, physical thing. Since a finite thing - no matter its size - cannot create another finite thing, it follows that only an infinite thing can do so. Only what is greater in perfection can create that which is lesser in perfection. The universe was created. It was not merely caused. Otherwise, the stuff of its causation would have to have preceded it, and/or existed contemporaneously with it (at least for a while).

We see no evidence of any contemporaneous causal agency, or, exigency. In our scientific look-back, we are led to conclude that the enormous matter and energy of the universe had a beginning. In fact, the more NASA studies red-shift data, the more it is convinced of this.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060508112217.htm

God bless,
jd

Thanks for the thoughts! What can be said of material reality cannot be said of the nonmaterial entity we call God.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for the thoughts! What can be said of material reality cannot be said of the nonmaterial entity we call God.

Material reality is finite. The same cannot be said of God.

 

[hatsoff]

At first, I did not understand what you wanted to say here. If space and time, matter and energy had a beginning since they were created, how could matter be eternal? Were you talking about the prime matter of Aristotle?

But when I realized that you may be speaking within the framework of Hindu theology, I realized that you somehow believe in the eternity of matter since all things are parts or sparks of the eternal God. Following the Bhagavad Gita, there was no time when we did not exist.

I’m pretty sure rossum’s comment had nothing to do with Buddhism. Rather, he was pointing out that tonyrey’s view seems to have that time and the physical world have no existence apart from each other. So, it’s not as if God created time, time flowed a bit, and then he created the physical universe to move along with time. Instead, God created time AND the universe as a single unit. On this view, at every point in time, the universe existed.

 

[The_Exodus]

Logically no creator/cause is required for an eternal creation.

Not at all, particularly if an eternal causal chain is insufficient to explain itself.

rossum:

The chair I am sitting on right now is not the chair I was sitting on one second ago.

If the chair you are sitting on is not the same chair you were sitting on, you are sitting on a different chair, making your critique of my example a strawman.

rossum:

It is one second older, it is very slightly more worn, it is very slightly more dusty etc. To paraphrase Heraclitus, ‘You can never sit in the same chair twice.’ Of course, neither is it the same me that was sitting one second ago, I too have changed.

And Heraclitus was reduced to silence, since he could not speak or make any meaningful statements about reality. If you were not the one sitting in the chair, then who was? And if you are not the same person as you were 1 second ago, nor will be 1 second from now, when do “you” exist?

I follow after Aristotle, who showed that Heraclitus’ theory (as well as Parmenides) destroyed substance and, taken to its logical conclusion, reduces everyone to silence.

rossum:

Both the chair and myself are simultaneous; neither precedes the other. I cannot say which was prior since both are transient, changing things.

Sure you can. What is the reason or logical explanation for your being seated? The chair. We are not speaking of temporal priority, but logical.

 

[tonyrey]

There is also the point that it is incorrect to describe an entity as “creator” if nothing has actually been created. Just as we cannot have a parent with no children so we cannot have a creator who has created nothing. A creator without a creation is a logical impossibility.

The created cannot appear without a creator but conversely the creator cannot be a creator without the created also existing. The two are mutually dependent; neither can exist without the other. A child cannot exist without parents and parents cannot be parents without there being a child.

It has just occurred to me that you have described God! The greatest creative force that exists is the love that exists between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit…

 

[rossum]

The choice is between a caused and an uncaused universe.

A false dichotomy. The universe may be caused, it may be uncaused, it may be a mixture of caused and uncaused elements and it may be neither caused nor uncaused. In part that depends on what definition of “universe” we are using.

You are assuming that nothing but this universe has been created!

Normally I take “universe” to mean “all that exists”. In the case of this argument I am prepared to allow the definition “all that exists except for a possible First Cause”. To do that you would need establish the existence of such a First Cause, and we have already agreed that logic is not a good tool to do that.

It is not self-evident that “eternity” must be equated with “all of time”.

It is to me. If something exists for all time then that thing is eternal. That is inherent in the definition of ‘eternal’.

In its usual context of spiritual reality it is understood as “beyond time (and space”).

If something is beyond time then it cannot act within time. If it acts within time then at lest a part of it is inside time and conforms to the usual rules governing the temporal: change, impermanence etc.

If Buddhists dispense with purpose and free will they become helpless spectators who have no power to influence their destiny? Is that what you believe?

No. I have free will within limits. I cannot run faster than a speeding bullet, though I can run faster than a speeding building. I cannot leap tall buildings with a single bound, though I can leap tall bullets. I am constrained in my actions by the situation I am in. As for purpose, that is something I set for myself.

If Buddhism doesn’t make a big separation between the material and the spiritual how do persons differ from things?

Buddhism does make a small separation. Humans are analysed into five parts. Only one of those parts is physical. A thing will only have physical parts.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m pretty sure rossum’s comment had nothing to do with Buddhism. Rather, he was pointing out that tonyrey’s view seems to have that time and the physical world have no existence apart from each other. So, it’s not as if God created time, time flowed a bit, and then he created the physical universe to move along with time. Instead, God created time AND the universe as a single unit. On this view, at every point in time, the universe existed.

You have correctly understood my comment. It is marginally connected to Buddhism in that it derives from Nagarjuna’s analysis of causality and the requirement for the existence of time for causality to have any meaning.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Not at all, particularly if an eternal causal chain is insufficient to explain itself.

You appear to be happy that an eternal God needs no prior cause. I am happy that an eternal universe needs no prior cause. Since there can be no time when an eternal universe does not exist then there is no place within time for any putative cause to insert itself. Wherever it appears in time the universe already exists and so no cause is required.

If the chair you are sitting on is not the same chair you were sitting on, you are sitting on a different chair, making your critique of my example a strawman.

The chair I am sitting on now is one version of me sitting on one version of the chair. At the next instant a new version of me is sitting on a new version of the chair. I am changing as well as the chair. Neither of us is the same.

I have two candles. One is lit, the other is not. I light the second candle from the first candle. Is the flame on the second candle the same flame as the first candle or is it a different flame? There is a series of chairs, each depending on the previous chair in the series. There is a series of me’s, each me depending on the previous me in the series. These two series are interacting. Buddhism does not see things so much as it sees processes. Both myself and the chair are changing processes that are interacting.

If you were not the one sitting in the chair, then who was? And if you are not the same person as you were 1 second ago, nor will be 1 second from now, when do “you” exist?

I can change and if I change I am obviously different. Change is utterly basic to religion. We all have to change from unenlightened to enlightened, or from unsaved to saved. One of the realisations that accompanies enlightenment is the realisation that what you thought was you wasn’t.

I can only ever exist temporarily because I am changing. The process that is labelled as ‘rossum’ may exist for longer, but that is not a single thing. It is a compound made from constantly changing elements. It is nowhere near as solid as it appears to be.

I follow after Aristotle, who showed that Heraclitus’ theory (as well as Parmenides) destroyed substance and, taken to its logical conclusion, reduces everyone to silence.

Excellent.Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

– Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter 9

rossum

 

[rossum]

Might I just say, that 2 succeeds 1, and 3 succeeds 2, and 4 succeeds 3, etc. etc. And that second base succeeds first base, and third follows second, and home plate follows third. Hmmm. successions without time. But, according to you, they are not possible, or, have no meaning. Baseball players better give up the sport! Nah, they make too much money.

You have four photographs of the runner each showing the runner at a different base. Did the runner score a valid run? Unfortunately the photographs were dropped and are now out of order, they show 2, 1, 4, 3 in that order. How can you tell if the runner scored a valid run unless there is some indication of time on the photographs?

Not so. We call a Creator a creator a posteriori. There is no rule in logic, or otherwise, to presume that the creature must exist before, or contemporaneously with, the creator. Even in that word’s loosest sense, a portrait would then have to preexist its own artist! Huh?

So, is it valid for me to claim to be a creator of universes if I have never actually created a universe? Until there is a creation then all claims to be a creator are invalid. Only after an act of creation is the claim to be a creator valid.

And, that’s precisely why we can call a parent a “parent” even before a baby is born!

We call her an “expectant mother” or a “mother-to-be”. The language we use makes the distinction between an actual mother and a pregnant woman.

But, they can co-exist - in language and meaning.

Of course. It is the mutual interdependence that is one of my main points here. Each requires the other in order to exist.

Brilliant! Proof positive that a human starts at conception!

Conception is merely one marker is a long sequence of changing mutually dependent states that extends over many lifetimes. Some of those lifetimes are human, some are animal and some are gods.

That is true. And, as we know from physics, matter, cannot be destroyed (except by God). But, that it was created, even science can’t get past that one.

When was it created? You have just agreed that matter (mass/energy) has existed for all time. There is no time slot available for any creation to take place. In the beginning matter already existed because it was present at time 0.

But, we know that a contractor (house builder - efficient cause) may easily exist before he builds his first house. At least, our various governments give him a builder’s license!

This is where my point about reification comes in. The builder yesterday is not the same as the builder today. Yesterday’s builder hadn’t done any work on my new extension. Today’s builder has looked at the work to be done and said “Hmmm. Cost you guv.” These are two different builders, they are not the same builder. The two builders are both part of a loger ongoing process to which we give a label of “Bob the Builder”. That process is a changing compound thing. It is not a reified single fixed thing. It has different properties at different times.

Who?

Nagarjuna.

What? Causation, is the very essence of change. Motion is only local motion in its broadest sense. It is change in its narrower sense. I know your a Buddhist, but, you’re not a Martian!

Which is why reified causation makes no sense. The problem is not with the causation but with the reification. One of the things that prevents us being enlightened is our tendancy to reify. It gets in the way of a correct understanding of the world.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

I like the way he/she/,or, it said that.

Nagarjuna was male.

Always a pleasure, my friend. (I hope I can call you that?)

By all means.

rossum

 

[DPMartin]

rossum

thanks for the reply

So, you are saying that the argument from First Cause is false and is of no use in establishing the existence of God? I am sure that a large number of Catholic theologians as well as Thomist philosophers will be interested to know this.

I see!

Catholic theologians and Thomist philosophy of cause and effect is so greatly effective, in your implication to the authority thereof, you’re still a Buddhist, right? So if they haven’t shown you what you need, to understand in order to know the Living God, why refer to them as though they are effective, in bringing souls into the Light? Besides, by your words, you perceive them as arguments. There is no peace in that, is there? Cordial conversation is one thing, and arguing is another.

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist. All living things: animals, men and gods are destined to suffer the results of their actions. There is no Judgement in Buddhism, just the results of actions. If you want me to accept Christian doctrine then you are going to have to convince me of Christian doctrine first.

No offence, but I don’t understand how it is that if the result is by the cause of actions and reactions then isn’t that the judgement that you say is not? Wouldn’t the result be the judgement of the system in place, that can’t be denied? Hiding one’s head in the sand, doesn’t change that, does it?

No. Jesus changed, and He is required to have changed as the very basis of Christian doctrine. He changed from alive to dead. Then He changed again from dead to alive. It says so in the Creed. If He didn’t change then all Christian hope in the Resurrection is false because the Resurrection requires Jesus to change.

rossum

For some one who does not consider, or contemplate the Ways or the Word of the Lord God as the Truth of God, it seems you think your quite a authority on who Jesus Christ of Nazareth is. I don’t know Buddhist’s belief nor consider, or contemplate, hence not a authority on the subject, how is it that you don’t know Jesus Christ, and yet you’re an authority thereof? How can you know what you don’t know?

As far as the Creed you refer to, it is a declaration of Faith or trust if you will in the witness of the trusted witnesses , the Apostles. Hence they witnessed the Body of Christ die on the Cross, they witnessed the Body of Christ be buried, they witnessed the Body of Christ be risen from the dead. This is strictly referring to death burial and resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ in this case.

For the life of the body was not present in the body, the life of the body (flesh) is the blood this goes back to Noah. (And also common sense) The Blood technically was poured out unto and into the ground. So how could the life of the flesh manage to get to the same body it once was in, if Life is only of flesh and blood? Or even creation for that matter. Therefore there must be a Creator, who gives Life according to His Will expressed in His Word for He is alive therefore He Speaks and it is fulfilled according to His Word or it is not good, or acceptable in His Presence.

Therefore how can Apostle Paul’s statement be true in the Scripture

Heb:13:8: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Unless God is forever and Life is of God and given according to His Word, revealed in the flesh, Son of man, human existence, and fulfilled in human existence, by His Presence and Power in human existence, (Son of man), Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the very Son of God, of God, the Word of God reveled in the flesh of mankind.

 

[The_Exodus]

You appear to be happy that an eternal God needs no prior cause. I am happy that an eternal universe needs no prior cause. Since there can be no time when an eternal universe does not exist then there is no place within time for any putative cause to insert itself. Wherever it appears in time the universe already exists and so no cause is required.

The universe needs a prior cause because it changes. If it has been eternally changing, it needs an eternal cause. If has been changing for only a finite time, it needs a cause also. This cause is not “in time” in the same way that it is not changing (if it were, it would require explanation). It is a changeless and timeless cause, existing outside the realm of our understandable reality.

rossum:

The chair I am sitting on now is one version of me sitting on one version of the chair. At the next instant a new version of me is sitting on a new version of the chair. I am changing as well as the chair. Neither of us is the same.

But you must be the same in some sense, otherwise there is no parity between the two, and one cannot be a ‘new version’ of the other.

rossum:

I have two candles. One is lit, the other is not. I light the second candle from the first candle. Is the flame on the second candle the same flame as the first candle or is it a different flame? There is a series of chairs, each depending on the previous chair in the series. There is a series of me’s, each me depending on the previous me in the series. These two series are interacting. Buddhism does not see things so much as it sees processes. Both myself and the chair are changing processes that are interacting.

If *everything *is a process, there are no “things” that change. Change itself requires a thing in order to be changing. There is some point in which it must be admitted that things have a particular substance, otherwise we have change but no definite “thing” that is being changed.

Heraclitus’ theory was one of sheer becoming, but being must precede becoming, else being comes from non-being and ex nihil nihil fit is true.

rossum:

I can change and if I change I am obviously different.

I don’t deny change at all. I am only saying, if you use “I” to describe multiple beings, those beings must have connection, some parity, some point of contact. Otherwise you are equivocating.

rossum:

Excellent.

There are certain things I greatly admire in the Buddhist religion. Thank you for sharing your quotes.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m pretty sure rossum’s comment had nothing to do with Buddhism. Rather, he was pointing out that tonyrey’s view seems to have that time and the physical world have no existence apart from each other. So, it’s not as if God created time, time flowed a bit, and then he created the physical universe to move along with time. Instead, God created time AND the universe as a single unit. On this view, at every point in time, the universe existed.

Hatsoff:

Your conception of the correlation of time with the first instant of the expansion of the universe is correct, IMHO. It is presumed that matter began to be formed within a few Planck lengths after the start of the expansion. So, one could actually say that time started at the same instant when energy began to flow out (from the primordial singularity). That would have been the original motion of mobile being. Time is said to be correlative with the motions of mobile beings. Like physical things, energy, too, has mobile being-ness. It consists in its different charges and their interrelations across spaces, regardless of the sizes of said spaces.

By twisting the words (which, unfortunately, can often easily be done with the help of languages’ imperfections), one can come up with phrases that are true, on their surfaces, but, not true, in their depths. To say that, “there was never a time when matter did not exist,” is true on its surface. But, to conceive that by saying this, matter becomes infinite, or eternal, is not necessarily true. The Christian conception of time and mobile being is that the a priori existence of God and, perhaps, the Angels, is not precluded by the temporal existence of the universe.

As you inferred, God may not have existed before mobile being/time temporarily. But he obviously did exist sequentially prior to the physical universe. So, a creator can easily exist sequentially a priori to its creature, even if not temporarily prior to it. This is not contradictory, otherwise, we could not know that home plate is sequentially posterior to first, second and third bases. Since one of God’s determinants, derived from his Infinity, is that he exists outside of time, it would seem that this is so.

One of the problems with Buddhism is that their logic creates a rather slippery slope. As rossum stated, “all men can become gods and all gods can become men.” Well, the slippery slope is, why should it end there? Why can’t all creatures become gods? Why can’t amoeba, and paramecia, and viruses become gods? Why the arbitrary restriction to just men? Now, I’m sure that some Buddhist holy man has a saying, but, such sayings do not disprove the possibility that things are gods and gods are things, under their system.

That leaves us back where we started: did we self-create? Did we all merely make ourselves, or, as some pseudo-religions believe, did we merely postulate ourselves into existence? Furthermore, did all the other things self-create, postulate themselves into existence? If so, then, as logic would seem to dictate, we certainly shouldn’t have need for evolution. There would be no need for (self-)improvement amongst gods, would there? If it can be said that there would, then Christianity contends that we are not gods at all. We’re simply men and creaturely things. Conceiving ourselves to be gods contemporaneously with our lives on earth, is the epitome of conceit. Right?

The jury is still out (and will more than likely be out for a very long time) on whether or not matter is eternal. If the math-models of thermodynamics are correct - and, there’s no reason to believe that they aren’t, IMHO - then it is possible that whatever God creates he leaves to project into the future eternally. He has revealed that there will be an end to the world, but, exactly what sort of “end?” It could be like the end to a carpenter’s shop. All of the tools, shavings and wood chips might remain behind, but the personality has departed the room.

If so, why, then, would there be a natural need for more universes? Only a lesser being would need more universes - for ulterior reasons - it would seem to me. Perhaps another thread.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

No offence, but I don’t understand how it is that if the result is by the cause of actions and reactions then isn’t that the judgement that you say is not? Wouldn’t the result be the judgement of the system in place, that can’t be denied?

If I throw a stone straight up in the air it will come down on my head. The bump on my head is the result of my action in throwing up the stone. Action gives rise to result. There is no judgement in the process. Karma is similar to gravity. It acts but it is not judgement. If you don’t want the results then don’t do the actions that cause those results. If you don’t want a bump on the head then don’t throw stones straight up in the air. There is no sin in Buddhism, nor is there any forgiveness of sin. There is only action and result.Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2
You are assuming an Abrahamic model while Buddhism works on a Dharmic model. The underlying assumptions are different.

For some one who does not consider, or contemplate the Ways or the Word of the Lord God as the Truth of God, it seems you think your quite a authority on who Jesus Christ of Nazareth is. I don’t know Buddhist’s belief nor consider, or contemplate, hence not a authority on the subject, how is it that you don’t know Jesus Christ, and yet you’re an authority thereof? How can you know what you don’t know?

I know that death is different to life. I know that someone who is alive one day and dead the next has changed by any reasonable definition of change. I know that someone who is dead one day and alive the next day has changed by any reasonable definition of change. If you say that Jesus has not changed then either you are not using a reasonable definition of “change” or you are denying the death and resurrection of Jesus. I cannot see any other possibility.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The universe needs a prior cause because it changes.

The God of Genesis changes as well. He says different things on different days. If God were unchanging then Genesis would read something like: “On the first day God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and on the second day God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and on the third day God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and on the fourth day…” The God of the Bible is a changing God and so is caught by the same logic as a changing universe.

But you must be the same in some sense, otherwise there is no parity between the two, and one cannot be a ‘new version’ of the other.

Think of the two as two different frames of the same film. Each frame is connected to the previous frame and to the next frame. They are at the same time separate frames and also parts of the same film. The different chairs are linked by a chain of cause and effect.

If *everything *is a process, there are no “things” that change. Change itself requires a thing in order to be changing. There is some point in which it must be admitted that things have a particular substance, otherwise we have change but no definite “thing” that is being changed.

Correct. In Nagarjuna’s philosophy all perceived things are empty. Our ideas of “thing” and “process” are overlaid onto reality by our inner thought processes. Those internal ideas are not reality, and cannot be reality. They are merely a model of reality. Our fundamental mistake is to think that the model is reality when it isn’t. It is just a model.As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

– Diamond sutra 32

I don’t deny change at all. I am only saying, if you use “I” to describe multiple beings, those beings must have connection, some parity, some point of contact.

Correct. They are joined in a chain of cause and effect. The earlier ‘I’ causes, along with other influences, the later ‘I’. The later ‘I’ is the effect of the earlier ‘I’ combined with those other causes.

There are certain things I greatly admire in the Buddhist religion. Thank you for sharing your quotes.

Thank you for appreciating them.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

You have four photographs of the runner each showing the runner at a different base. Did the runner score a valid run? Unfortunately the photographs were dropped and are now out of order, they show 2, 1, 4, 3 in that order. How can you tell if the runner scored a valid run unless there is some indication of time on the photographs?

Rossum . . .oops! I’m sorry. Is it really you - this time?

Dichotomies! Oh, those hateful contraries! Hmmm. Which side is correct? Either - or? Neither - nor? Or, maybe some place in between? The “one” and the “many.” “Same” and “other.” “Good” and “evil.” “Alive” and “dead.” “Matter” and “spirit.”

Enough of that! Above, you built a strawman. It matters not whether pictures were taken and juxtaposed. The pictures in my mind, as I witnessed the event, will not ever get juxtaposed, though they may eventually fade from my memory. The bases could, in fact, be altogether missing. Yet, their placeholders in space-no-time would still allow all of us to know them “sequentially-sans-time.” Things that are sequential are not necessarily dependent upon time, but could be. The actual bases may have been placed on their peculiar spots in reverse order. But, even that shenanigan will not deter a rational baseball player from knowing their correct sequence.

So, is it valid for me to claim to be a creator of universes if I have never actually created a universe?

No. Not for you.

All seriousness aside: linguistically, no. Creator is defined as that which causes something to be that had never been before, and without there being preexisting existing form and matter present:

"The verb “to create” does not necessarily mean to make something from nothing; this is true, also, of the equivalents of the English word in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. But the word in all these languages does contain the idea of a productive action that, in one way or another, is more than ordinarily powerful.

" . . . To make something to be where there was absolutely nothing." - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, pg 181, 1962. The Macmillan Company.

If one straw-mans so as to confuse that which is outside of time with our human conception of it from within time, one can certainly perform word games - which often are nothing more than nonsense.

Until there is a creation then all claims to be a creator are invalid.

Not necessarily, but, true, from a trivially human point of view.

Only after an act of creation is the claim to be a creator valid.

That is precisely how we humans come to know almost all of what we know, especially concerning the physical world: after the fact. Notice, I said, “we humans.”

We call her an “expectant mother” or a “mother-to-be”.

Yes, often we do. But, were this completely the case, our courts would never be able to get two convictions for the price of one murder, of a pregnant mother. Thus, it is understood (by most), and said (by many), that a pregnant woman is a mother. Live birth is not the necessary deciding determinant. I have heard many pregnant women affectionately called, “moms”. You give language too much credit, or perhaps too much credit in the wrong places. (Certain American Indian tribes do not even have words that reference the future. But, they know that a pregnant woman is a “mother.”)

The language we use makes the distinction between an actual mother and a pregnant woman.

In other words, a thing is not really a thing until we name it? A rather haughty conceit.

Of course. It is the mutual interdependence that is one of my main points here. Each requires the other in order to exist.

A dependence that “requires the other in order to exist?” Epistemically, perhaps. Ontologically, not so. Although, I will acknowledge that we require God in such way.

Conception is merely one marker is a long sequence of changing mutually dependent states that extends over many lifetimes. Some of those lifetimes are human, some are animal and some are gods.

I suggested that appropriate proofs might be in order here. I am still waiting. However, I am a patient man. I think all of us would like to meet a man, or a woman, from a previous life - and not some charlatan. Moreover, I wouldn’t mind meeting someone who was a maggot, in their past life. I’d like to know how that felt. Did he live on a maggot farm, perhaps to become food for spiders? I’m sorry, I’m waxing nonsensical.

When was it created?

Sequentially: before the beginning of time. You asked the wrong question. When was the last time you beat your wife?

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

You have just agreed that matter (mass/energy) has existed for all time.

They are correlates. I will stipulate, for the record, that “matter (mass/energy)” exists correlative with time. This is a unique relationship. But, with a caveat: “matter (mass/energy)” further require the creation of space, in order for time to come to be. And, since immobile matter can exist outside of time, there must be at least two exigencies of “matter (mass/energy),” juxtaposed relatively, so that time can actually transpire.

There is no time slot available for any creation to take place.

In a universe restricted to a singular exigency of matter, this is not true. A matter, that exists in a universe all by itself, as it were, can exist sans time, and thus, without “time slots.” It follows, therefore, that if matter could create, it would be creating in the absence of time slots. But, we know matter does not create. It cannot create itself. That would be an ontologically and logically impossible productive act.

In the beginning matter already existed because it was present at time 0.

That’s not the science that I’ve been reading. My readings of the scientific literature describe “clumping” beginning to occur somewhat later, after the initial spewing forth from the primordial singularity.

This is where my point about reification comes in. The builder yesterday is not the same as the builder today. Yesterday’s builder hadn’t done any work on my new extension. Today’s builder has looked at the work to be done and said “Hmmm. Cost you guv.”

Again, those hateful contraries! Christianity believes that we, as beings, exist some place in the middle. While we acknowledge that we are changing, to some smaller degree, we further acknowledge that we remain the same, to a larger degree. Rather than changing substantially, we change only accidentally. Our sameness remains. I believe that our experience parallels this.

These are two different builders, they are not the same builder. The two builders are both part of a loger ongoing process to which we give a label of “Bob the Builder”. That process is a changing compound thing. It is not a reified single fixed thing. It has different properties at different times.

Then, I’d fire both builders. One must be an impostor!

Which is why reified causation makes no sense.

Where, or, rather, how, is Thomistic causation an abstraction? Maybe this would help me to understand why you keep repeating that.

The problem is not with the causation but with the reification. One of the things that prevents us being enlightened is our tendancy to reify. It gets in the way of a correct understanding of the world.

One of the problems with thinking that only Buddhism builds “a correct understanding of the world,” is that it tends to place mankind at its source. Thus, sans man, there is no world. In order for the world to be, imaginations are required - perhaps even cumulatively. I don’t think Christians will ever adhere to that philosophy.

The Christian problem would, therefore, be: what to do with Jesus. He would have to become, for Christians, the dumbest man that ever lived! What sane man would do such a thing? This is the part where denying Christ is preferable to admitting him. But, like the extraordinary act of Creation, Christ’s act was equally extraordinary. 30 years of miserating the day, and a day of actually going through it. Unspeakable!

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

Nice, but I see no dialectic here. I see no induction here, either. Rather, I see an imaginative explosion of emotion.

Nagarjuna was male.

But, how do you know? How can I know? He might have just recently changed.

God bless,
jd