God cannot explain the origin of life

[SilverShadow22]

Some in this thread are attempting something on those lines by splitting the definition of “living” into two parts: god-living and material-living, which excludes God from the material-living category.

I blame my signature on reading too much Nagarjuna.

rossum

A being or object cannot in any sense be a deity if it is not, at minimum, self-aware, and thus, in some sense, ‘alive’. This is based solely on the standard definition of deity.

 

[hasantas]

They have some similarities and some differences. Humans do not phosynthesise for instance.

Sorry for not being clearer. I am talking about the originof life. Since God is already alive, He cannot be the origin of life. It is impossible for Him to create the first living thing because He Himself is already alive. At best He can create the second living thing, not the first.

rossum

The origin and existence of God is from Himself. It is not something we can comprehend. God is out of time and matter and God is eternal. Our minds cannot evaluate God but the mind can find God.

You did not answer that question:Where do life come from?

And why do you ask that question?

For us the origin of life is God. And if you ask for God what is origin of life?

 

[SilverShadow22]

Consider: You cannot explain the origin of life by starting with something that is already alive. You have to start with something that is not alive, and show how it starts the first living thing.

My argument is that a living God cannot explain the origin of life precisely because He is already living. Only something that is not living can explain the origin of life; anything that is living must come after the origin, not before it.

Well, this is quite the conundrum. How can life come from lifelessness? It’s a totally different thing than inanimate matter. You’re right, in a sense, every cause has a prior cause and back and back and back, until… It stops somewhere. There had to be a first life, force, energy, being, existence – it had to start somewhere.

Can we conceive of pure being, pure existence? It sounds like you believe in a universe that existed forever – but on its own merits? How can a ‘universe’ exist eternally and create itself, how can you believe in a self-caused world, but not a God-caused world? My understanding has been that to Buhddists, the world is the first and ultimate god. Is this correct?

I personally find it much easier to believe in an ordered being, a force of pure existence, who by his own will brought form and light and matter from nothingness. We can’t conceive of true nothingness – we’ve never seen it. If true nothingness existed, we wouldn’t exist, and there would be no one to see it, anyway. And even prior to creation, there was still something – there was God.

 

[hasantas]

Well, this is quite the conundrum. How can life come from lifelessness? It’s a totally different thing than inanimate matter. You’re right, in a sense, every cause has a prior cause and back and back and back, until… It stops somewhere. There had to be a first life, force, energy, being, existence – it had to start somewhere.

Can we conceive of pure being, pure existence? It sounds like you believe in a universe that existed forever – but on its own merits? How can a ‘universe’ exist eternally and create itself, how can you believe in a self-caused world, but not a God-caused world? My understanding has been that to Buhddists, the world is the first and ultimate god. Is this correct?

I personally find it much easier to believe in an ordered being, a force of pure existence, who by his own will brought form and light and matter from nothingness. We can’t conceive of true nothingness – we’ve never seen it. If true nothingness existed, we wouldn’t exist, and there would be no one to see it, anyway. And even prior to creation, there was still something – there was God.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Sorry for not being clearer. I am talking about the originof life. Since God is already alive, He cannot be the origin of life. It is impossible for Him to create the first living thing because He Himself is already alive. At best He can create the second living thing, not the first.

rossum

That’s exactly the point. The First Cause…

Is the FIRST.

Not created by anyone or anything. Every set of dominoes to fall has the first domino. No universe has unlimited dominoes.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It tells us not to get too hung up about details of things that we cannot know. Something like discussing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

rossum

Yet you have started this discussion with many people. Catholicism teaches ideas similar to that of ‘the blind men and elephant’ but not in such a plain spoken disregarding fashion. We are to combine teachings as a whole to come to that conclusion. Teachings such as:

If you teach and are not accepted, walk away.
Do not quench the Spirit.
Do not despise prophetic utterances, but test everything and retain what is good.
Do not return evil for evil.

Those are just off the top of my head. I’m sure many more could be dug up.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . While it is an interesting question as to how life originated, it is not an important question. It is a distraction from the spiritual life, which does not depend on the details of the origin of life. . . There is an infinite succession of non-eternal living entities being born again and again and again… The task of the Buddhist is to avoid being born again, and hence dying again. All that is born dies. If you don’t want to die then don’t get born in the first place. rossum

And yet, you are here, distracting yourself.

There’s no equivalent of a Magisterium and with different schools, it is difficult to pin down, but Buddhism basically does not believe in transmigration of the soul. The fundamental Reality, the Ground from which all is born can be spoken of as an eternal mind, a transcendent realm which is at the same time, here and now. This mystery, uncreated, gives rise to everything that is. It is not part of thel “life” it brings into being, except perhaps in the form of the bodhisatva, who attaining Nirvana, remains in the world out of compassion for all sentinent beings. It is ignorance of one’s true nature that brings about suffering. Desire for what is transient causes rebirth, which proceeds on to death. Buddha did died in time, but paradoxically, attaining Nirvana, he remains everpresent, here and now.

In this life and whether you wish to frame it in terms of Dukkha or sin, judgement or karma, it boils down to the same thing, that it is what we do that determines who we are. It is through our actions that our fate is determined. As a result, nobody here, not Rossum, not anyone reading this will attain Nirvana.

That said, in the revelation of God’s love, Jesus Christ, the road less travelled becomes a superhighway and the very, very narrow gate is opened to accommodate everyone who wishes to enter.

 

[Gorgias]

I am talking about the originof life. Since God is already alive, He cannot be the origin of life. It is impossible for Him to create the first living thing because He Himself is already alive. At best He can create the second living thing, not the first.

I still think we would say that “God is the origin of all created life,” and assert that this distinction is important.

After all, what we’re saying is that life always existed – even outside the boundaries of time and of the universe, life existed: God.

So, in much the same way that the ancients would have asserted that the universe always existed (and this didn’t prove an existential crisis for them), we Christians assert that life always existed (inasmuch as God is life itself). If that’s the context we’re framing up, then we would say that “life has no origin, but is eternal” and assert that created life proceeded from uncreated life.

Does that help, or do you have a problem with uncreated immaterial life? And, if so, what’s the particular problem you’re struggling with?

 

[SilverShadow22]

And yet, you are here, distracting yourself.

There’s no equivalent of a Magisterium and with different schools, it is difficult to pin down, but Buddhism basically does not believe in transmigration of the soul. The fundamental Reality, the Ground from which all is born can be spoken of as an eternal mind, a transcendent realm which is at the same time, here and now. This mystery, uncreated, gives rise to everything that is. It is not part of thel “life” it brings into being, except perhaps in the form of the bodhisatva, who attaining Nirvana, remains in the world out of compassion for all sentinent beings. It is ignorance of one’s true nature that brings about suffering. Desire for what is transient causes rebirth, which proceeds on to death. Buddha did died in time, but paradoxically, attaining Nirvana, he remains everpresent, here and now.

In this life and whether you wish to frame it in terms of Dukkha or sin, judgement or karma, it boils down to the same thing, that it is what we do that determines who we are. It is through our actions that our fate is determined. As a result, nobody here, not Rossum, not anyone reading this will attain Nirvana.

That said, in the revelation of God’s love, Jesus Christ, the road less travelled becomes a superhighway and the very, very narrow gate is opened to accommodate everyone who wishes to enter.

Well, that explains some things.

But by those (Buddhist) criteria, it seems impossible to me to ever know if you’re doing it ‘right’.

 

[rossum]

All contingent, or caused, beings must have a cause.

Agreed. Now the question becomes, is life contingent? The answer may vary depending on how life is defined.

He is no-thing in the sense that he doesn’t fall into any categories like everything else.

Here I disagree. Does God exist? Then He falls into the category of “things that exist”. Is God necessary? Then he falls into the category of “things that are necessary”. Any adjective used to describe God: omnipotent, omniscient etc. places God into the category of things that possess that property.

He is the Ultimate Reality, the eternal unchanging principle of being

Unchanging? I think not. Consider the following dialogue:

Moses: Lord, please part the sea for us so your people can escape the Egyptians chasing us.

God: I’m sorry Moses, I can’t do that. You see, I am unchanging and I did not part the sea yesterday, and because I cannot change, I cannot do anything today that I didn’t do yesterday. Sorry about that.

An unchanging entity cannot change, and hence cannot change how it acts. If it changes how it acts, then it is changing and so cannot be unchanging. Being unable to change is extremely restrictive.

rossum

 

[rossum]

For us the origin of life is God.

No, the origin of life is the origin of God, which is different. God is already alive. What you think is the explanation is actually not the explanation.

God can certainly explain the origin of the second living thing in the world: God created that second living thing. God cannot explain the origin of the first living thing, since God Himself is that first living thing and God is not created.

Hence my thread title.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

I’m sorry, but that is an absolutely terrible exegesis on scripture. Do you really think thousands of years of classical theistic tradition across the Abrahamic faiths just missed that little detail?

There are different ways to handle it, certainly, but God is unchanged in your example, whether we want to view all of existence as part of the ONE eternal act of God or if we wish to simply note that God is not a finite being in which events cause a loss on one side and a gain on the other; God, being infinite, is unchanged on his half of the equation as part of any action.

Not to mention that your example does some severe anthropomorphizing and ends up making God a being in time and not the source of time itself.

 

[Wesrock]

No, the origin of life is the origin of God, which is different. God is already alive. What you think is the explanation is actually not the explanation.

God can certainly explain the origin of the second living thing in the world: God created that second living thing. God cannot explain the origin of the first living thing, since God Himself is that first living thing and God is not created.

Hence my thread title.

rossum

God is sufficient to explain life in himself. No cause is needed.

 

[rossum]

And yet, you are here, distracting yourself.

Indeed. I am a layman, not a monk and I am far from perfect.

There’s no equivalent of a Magisterium and with different schools, it is difficult to pin down, but Buddhism basically does not believe in transmigration of the soul.

Agreed. There is no soul, and what does not exist cannot transmigrate.

It is ignorance of one’s true nature that brings about suffering.

Agreed. We are seeing a mirage and mistaking it for reality. When we can see the mirage as a mirage, then we have reached enlightenment.

Buddha did died in time, but paradoxically, attaining Nirvana, he remains everpresent, here and now.

The Buddha did die, but his current status is undefined. It is covered by four of the fourteen unanswered questions.

• After death, a Buddha continues to exist.
• After death, a Buddha does not continue to exist.
• After death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist.
• After death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist.

In this life and whether you wish to frame it in terms of Dukkha or sin, judgement or karma, it boils down to the same thing, that it is what we do that determines who we are. It is through our actions that our fate is determined. As a result, nobody here, not Rossum, not anyone reading this will attain Nirvana.

We are all wading Heraclitus’ river. We can never step in it twice because it is not the same river and we are not the same us. Both are changing. Buddhism emphasises change over stasis. The rossum who will attain enlightenment in the far future is not the rossum who is writing this.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

Maybe it’s English that’s the issue. In Greek we can distinguish between zoe, psuche, and bios. God is definitrly not bios.

The type of life in God is zoe. It’s existence. It’s being. It’s participation in the divine nature. God is not “bios,” though. God’s zoe is self-existent life. The zoe of everything else is not.

Being, existence, zoe… is what God is, and is inseparable from what God is.

 

[rossum]

But by those (Buddhist) criteria, it seems impossible to me to ever know if you’re doing it ‘right’.

You are not the first to ask that question:

[The Buddha said:] “Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

Basically, you see what works, considering the advice of the wise. What works for some people will not work for others. Buddhism provides a very large menu of techniques; select the ones that work for you. The important words are “when you yourselves know”.

rossum

 

[lax16]

The Buddha did die, but his current status is undefined. It is covered by four of the fourteen unanswered questions.

• After death, a Buddha continues to exist.
• After death, a Buddha does not continue to exist.
• After death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist.
• After death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist.

rossum

Isn’t that an extremely important detail not to know?

 

[Lion_IRC]

‘Life can’t come from life.’
Why not?
‘Because life is alive.’

Surely rossum you can see the logical fallacy here.

Here’s the counter ‘argument’ with the logic stripped out.

‘Life can’t come from non-life.’
Why not?
‘Because non-life is not alive.’

 

[Lion_IRC]

…four of the fourteen unanswered questions.

• After death, a Buddha continues to exist.
• After death, a Buddha does not continue to exist.
• After death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist.
• After death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist.

See those ones about… “Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist”?

If it is possible for a thing to simultaneously exist and not exist then you really shouldn’t pretend to know things like - life can only come from non-life.

 

[Lion_IRC]

What is life rossum?

“Tell me, what is my life without your love
Tell me, who am I without you, by my side…”