Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[tonyrey]

You have visited this site, a Muslim site, and a Hindu site and you are “not searching”? Interesting claim.

It is possible to search with negative intent but as the New Year is nigh let’s be positive! With best wishes for 2014.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

It is possible to search with negative intent but as the New Year is nigh let’s be positive! With best wishes for 2014.

True enough. Except in an earlier post he says he suspends judgment, and that he does not dismiss any god, and generally open to the possibility of the existence of gods. He concludes with: “one has only a certain amount of time to devote to researching these matters.”

It would be reasonable to conclude, as Charlemagne III did, that LogosSokratikos is searching.

 

[belorg]

True enough. Except in an earlier post he says he suspends judgment, and that he does not dismiss any god, and generally open to the possibility of the existence of gods. He concludes with: “one has only a certain amount of time to devote to researching these matters.”

It would be reasonable to conclude, as Charlemagne III did, that LogosSokratikos is searching.

My guess would be that Logos is searching fro the truth, whatever that may be.
I, for one, am willing to accept what can be shown is true, even if it could very well be that I would not like the truth.

 

[tonyrey]

True enough. Except in an earlier post he says he suspends judgment, and that he does not dismiss any god, and generally open to the possibility of the existence of gods. He concludes with: “one has only a certain amount of time to devote to researching these matters.”

It would be reasonable to conclude, as Charlemagne III did, that LogosSokratikos is searching.

In his most recent post he stated:

I am not searching.

Either he is confused or you are mistaken! In any case Happy New Year.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Recap: Up to now, the message is reason until reason doesn’t point to your god, then consider god reveals truth to those who are unwise, and if that doesn’t work consider god speaks to you just by winding up talking with Catholics, and when the other answers that s/he has spoken with others, the dodge-du-jour is now…?

I don’t think the recap is entirely fair.

Reason has its place pointing to God, but reason has limits.

By analogy…

There might be lots of reasons (external indicators) that point towards developing a friendship relationship with another person, but those externals can never take the place of the relational interaction between the two persons that must occur in order for the two to get to know each other. Neither can those externals substitute for the intimacy necessary for the friendship to occur in the first place.

We don’t continue a relationship with someone because of that person’s “external” or objective traits. These are insufficient for keeping a friendship going, although they may have enabled an initial relationship.

It may be that there are external features or “reasons” pointing to God that draw individuals to Catholicism, for example, but the purpose of those features is limited to “getting there,” in order to actually imbibe “in God” requires, as in a friendship, the development of a new level of “relating” beyond what “reasons,” at least of the “objectively verifiable kind” can provide.

The problem is with counting the external “reasons for” beyond their importance in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . to accept what can be shown is true, . . .

Just randomly going with this part of the statement:

To accept something as true one arrives at an understanding: whatever it is, it makes sense.
In other words, it fits within a context, a view of the world that has already been accepted as true.
That world view incorporates the new concept and, although altered in some way, does not change with respect to its foundations.
We develop views of how the cosmos is ordered. That order, the models that describe it change (e.g.: We no longer “see” a vault above us, but imagine space spreading out.). The fundamental premises that the world is not illusion, and that our senses and mind reveal it to us is maintained as we try to further our knowledge towards more valid and more comprehensive understandings.
New truths are shown, demonstrated, proven and communicated, shared among people, who would view them from different perspectives and understand them different ways.

The world view that emerges through our interactions within reality is determined by the type of relationship we have with the object of our study.
An empirical approach will result in a particular cosmological picture because of what is being studied and the way in which this is done.
A problem arises when tries to grasp a particular subject with a wrong approach, like trying to understand God empirically.

Let us bring this closer to home.
Say we want to try to get to know who it is that is doing the knowing or what the knowing is itself.
You can take the empirical approach and come up with many interesting facts about neurology and behaviour.
This really doesn’t bring you any closer to the knower or the knowing, which is the most true reality: the beingness of all this.
You cannot measure being.
It is so personal, immediate; it contains the senses, rather than vice versa, as the things we relate to are contained by the senses and mind.
Being, however, belongs to the “structure” that constitutes the spiritual world. I am not going to say anything about beauty, goodness and truth itself.
(Sorry, I can’t contain myself - They are ultimately the same thing and the eternal Source of all.)
If one is searching for spiritual truth, one has to approach the matter in a totally different way than one would the material or the purely psychological.

I am going to say that:

• the Truth exists
• it is understandable
• very many persons have understood it, since the beginning
• it is in fact obvious
  How would one show it to be true?

These understandings come by ways described as faith, intuition, realization, and ultimately revelation - the veil is lifted and Reality shows itself.
Seek and you will find.

 

[Tomdstone]

• the Truth exists
• it is understandable
• very many persons have understood it, since the beginning
• it is in fact obvious.

What is the obvious truth about capital punishment? Is it right or wrong absolutely? Or does it depend on the culture. In other words, whether it is right or wrong to use capital punishment is relative to the culture in which it is applied?

 

[belorg]

Just randomly going with this part of the statement:

To accept something as true one arrives at an understanding: whatever it is, it makes sense.
In other words, it fits within a context, a view of the world that has already been accepted as true.
That world view incorporates the new concept and, although altered in some way, does not change with respect to its foundations.
We develop views of how the cosmos is ordered. That order, the models that describe it change (e.g.: We no longer “see” a vault above us, but imagine space spreading out.). The fundamental premises that the world is not illusion, and that our senses and mind reveal it to us is maintained as we try to further our knowledge towards more valid and more comprehensive understandings.
New truths are shown, demonstrated, proven and communicated, shared among people, who would view them from different perspectives and understand them different ways.

The world view that emerges through our interactions within reality is determined by the type of relationship we have with the object of our study.
An empirical approach will result in a particular cosmological picture because of what is being studied and the way in which this is done.
A problem arises when tries to grasp a particular subject with a wrong approach, like trying to understand God empirically.

Let us bring this closer to home.
Say we want to try to get to know who it is that is doing the knowing or what the knowing is itself.
You can take the empirical approach and come up with many interesting facts about neurology and behaviour.
This really doesn’t bring you any closer to the knower or the knowing, which is the most true reality: the beingness of all this.
You cannot measure being.
It is so personal, immediate; it contains the senses, rather than vice versa, as the things we relate to are contained by the senses and mind.
Being, however, belongs to the “structure” that constitutes the spiritual world. I am not going to say anything about beauty, goodness and truth itself.
(Sorry, I can’t contain myself - They are ultimately the same thing and the eternal Source of all.)
If one is searching for spiritual truth, one has to approach the matter in a totally different way than one would the material or the purely psychological.

I am going to say that:

• the Truth exists
• it is understandable
• very many persons have understood it, since the beginning
• it is in fact obvious
  How would one show it to be true?

These understandings come by ways described as faith, intuition, realization, and ultimately revelation - the veil is lifted and Reality shows itself.
Seek and you will find.

We must always be prepared to find something else than what we seek.

 

[tonyrey]

What is the obvious truth about capital punishment? Is it right or wrong absolutely? Or does it depend on the culture. In other words, whether it is right or wrong to use capital punishment is relative to the culture in which it is applied?

Killing is **always **evil but when it is the lesser evil it is **always **justified.

The principle of choosing the lesser evil is absolute.

 

[belorg]

Killing is **always **evil but when it is the lesser evil it is **always **justified.

The principle of choosing the lesser evil is absolute.

The same holds for abortion. Abortion is always justified when it is the lesser evil.

 

[tonyrey]

The same holds for abortion. Abortion is always justified when it is the lesser evil.

Precisely! Like killing it is not evil relative to the culture.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The same holds for abortion. Abortion is always justified when it is the lesser evil.

Choosing the lesser of two evils only applies when there are ONLY two possible choices available.

A) Greater Evil
B) Lesser Evil

Your claim regarding abortion would only be true if the abortion were the lesser evil AND only ONE other (greater evil) choice existed. Can you produce an instance where this would be objectively true in an abortion situation?

Capital punishment might be warranted, for example, in primitive societies where the killer was maliciously and repeatedly intent upon killing others and no other reasonable option existed for stopping that from occurring. Thus, lesser of two evils along the lines of self-defense or protection of innocent lives would be the case.

In modern societies where prison systems exist to protect the lives of vulnerable citizens capital punishment may not be the lesser of two evils since other reasonable options (i.e., incarceration in a secure facility) exist.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

In his most recent post he stated:

Either he is confused or you are mistaken! In any case Happy New Year.

I’m not sure how I am mistaken - the more reasonable conclusion is that his posts are sending mixed messages. Cheers!

 

[Tomdstone]

Choosing the lesser of two evils only applies when there are ONLY two possible choices available.

A) Greater Evil
B) Lesser Evil

Your claim regarding abortion would only be true if the abortion were the lesser evil AND only ONE other (greater evil) choice existed. Can you produce an instance where this would be objectively true in an abortion situation?

Capital punishment might be warranted, for example, in primitive societies where the killer was maliciously and repeatedly intent upon killing others and no other reasonable option existed for stopping that from occurring. Thus, lesser of two evils along the lines of self-defense or protection of innocent lives would be the case.

In modern societies where prison systems exist to protect the lives of vulnerable citizens capital punishment may not be the lesser of two evils since other reasonable options (i.e., incarceration in a secure facility) exist.

Was capital punishment justified in the inquisition when a converted Jew relapsed?

 

[belorg]

Choosing the lesser of two evils only applies when there are ONLY two possible choices available.

A) Greater Evil
B) Lesser Evil

Your claim regarding abortion would only be true if the abortion were the lesser evil AND only ONE other (greater evil) choice existed. Can you produce an instance where this would be objectively true in an abortion situation?

My claim would be true if abortion were the lesser evil AND all other choices, regardless how many there are, would result in a greater evil.
So, abortion is always justified when it is the lesser evil. So, in fact, the burden for radical pro-lifers is to show that it is impossible that there is a situation in which abortion is the lesser evil.

Capital punishment might be warranted, for example, in primitive societies where the killer was maliciously and repeatedly intent upon killing others and no other reasonable option existed for stopping that from occurring. Thus, lesser of two evils along the lines of self-defense or protection of innocent lives would be the case.

In modern societies where prison systems exist to protect the lives of vulnerable citizens capital punishment may not be the lesser of two evils since other reasonable options (i.e., incarceration in a secure facility) exist.

I completely agree with that.

 

[Tomdstone]

My claim would be true if abortion were the lesser evil AND all other choices, regardless how many there are, would result in a greater evil.
So, abortion is always justified when it is the lesser evil. So, in fact, the burden for radical pro-lifers is to show that it is impossible that there is a situation in which abortion is the lesser evil.

I completely agree with that.

Is it justified to burn at the stake a relapsed converted Jew or others convicted of heresy or witchcraft, such as St. Joan of Arc?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is it justified to burn at the stake a relapsed converted Jew or others convicted of heresy or witchcraft, such as St. Joan of Arc?

The short answer is no.

Was it justified for the atheist government of Russia to imprison and execute Christians?

The short answer is no.

Is it justified to take the life of the unborn because that life is inconvenient to the mother?

The short answer is no.

The devil comes at all times and everywhere. He especially likes atheists because they have no claim to moral authority from God that could oppose the devil’s authority.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, abortion is always justified when it is the lesser evil.

So far as the lives of the unborn are concerned, you might say it is always the greater evil.

By the way, how did we get from the universe creating itself to this?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . By the way, how did we get from the universe creating itself to this?

I commented on a statement from a poster who said he would accept something if shown to be true.
Finding this a very interesting remark, I rambled on, getting to the point that Truth coming by way of revelation, is obvious to the person to whom it is revealed and difficult to show to another.
To this another poster commented:

What is the obvious truth about capital punishment? Is it right or wrong absolutely? Or does it depend on the culture. In other words, whether it is right or wrong to use capital punishment is relative to the culture in which it is applied?

You think you’ve done well explaining the nature of apples only to be told you’ve gotten oranges all wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You think you’ve done well explaining the nature of apples only to be told you’ve gotten oranges all wrong.

I feel your pain.