Not at all.
That I agree.Not at all.
I am simply providing you with my frame of reference, that is all
I see this universe, this earth and the spiritual realms as a drop in a surging wave of universes, earths and spiritual realmsā¦thats my frame of reference
.
But do you agree with my argument.I mean no ill intent with what I say here Bahman, but I honestly struggle to understand many of your arguments, dear friend. It is my shortcoming.That I agree.
It is very simple. Real singularity cannot exist. What we call singularity is the result of our ignorance and can be resolved once we are cognitively open to subject matter. Universe has infinite degrees of freedom hence Godās eternal act. Godās eternal act should manifest itself in time in all diverse forms yet it is single act from God perspective. This means the nature of the eternal act is singular from time perceptive which is problematic since singularity does not exist in reality hence we have to think through.I mean no ill intent with what I say here Bahman, but I honestly struggle to understand many of your arguments, dear friend. It is my shortcoming.
I am often too lazy to question you to try to understand as well, (again, my shortcoming) but maybe you can explain your argument for me, because post #70 went way way over my head.
.
I used ā aeons ā as a figure of speech. Of course you are correct, God exists eternally and for him there is no time. And yes, his act of creation, is an eternal act and I agree that he always has, is, and will be saying, eternally, " let there be light. "
He argues indirectly that, philosophically speaking, one cannot prove the universe has not always existed. And all his proofs for the existence of God assume that position. And you are correct, the dependence of the universe on God is rooted in its " essence-esse " principles for its existence. Thomas discusses this pretty thoroughly in De Potentia, Ques 3, ans. 5 ( this work is quite fascinating by the way ). And he discusses the possibility of an eternal creation in the work Existence and Essence and also in S.T., part 1, ques 46, ans 1. So you are correct. In the case of an eternal creation we would view creation as simultaneous with Godās own Essence, yet dependent on his Essence for its existence. He would still be the cause of its existence. And although time would still exist in the universe, the universe would have had no beginning in time. And the universe would still be created out of no prior existing matter.
Of course I do not accept Bahaāi theology and when saying that I do not mean there is no value to be found there, I simply mean that Catholic theology is different in essential respects. And this is not the place to debate theologies and their relative merits and, frankly I am not interested in doing so. I have found that such " debates " are seldom fruitful. Catholic theology is open for all to see just by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked below. The O.P. is about the possibility of a universe that has always existed, and if such is possible, how do we understand its existence and at the same time explain its existence? On the other hand, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bahaāis all accept, on faith, that the universe had an actual beginning in time.Hi there Linus,
I think this dialogue would progress if we were to contemplate how the Divine Essence (which is completely separate from Creation) can through an act of love bring creation into existence through the joining of the letters B and E?
This mediator between the Essence of God and Creation is termed the Logos, or Primal Will, First Mind or First Emanation, and is familiar to Judaism and Christianity.
Logos is the means by which the universe was created. In the Bahai Writings this is termed the Primal Will, or First Emanation. Logos was actually used as a term before Jesus to signify this āintermediaryā between the transcendent Essence of God and creation. Heraclitus (who St. Justin called the first Christian) and the Stoics used this term well before Christ appeared.
(newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm )
In the New Advent link, it goes on to say:
In the New Testament, this Logos is both differentiated from God (is āwithā GOD) and is equated with God (and āisā GOD). In the Bahaāi Scripture, this is affirmed.
For the Essence of God cannot āmanifestā into creation, like the waves of the sea manifest themselves in the ocean and partake in its nature, but rather the Essence of God āemanatesā into its Primal Will, His Word, like the rays of the sun, and through that means, and that reality, all creation is then manifested, as active attributes of the Word.
So you see, all descriptions of God, historically recorded in the all the Holy Books, such as All-Knowing, Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Loving, All-Wise (remember Wisdom in the OT?) are all actually descriptors of the Word, not of the Essence of God. God is far far far far removed from such human language. According to the Bahaāi Writings, were any human to say that the āEssence of God isā¦(such and such)ā they are showing their human ignorance, for God is automatically none of those things, since a description implies comprehension, and His Essence is beyond human comprehension.
A full understanding of this concept of Logos will enable us to determine the eternal or non-eternal nature of the universeā¦
.
I think you just donāt understand what Thomas teaches. There isnāt much point repeating it.
Of course God, the eternal Act is the source of other acts, but he is their source as their creator.
If you look at his diagram you will see that all acts emerge out from one point. That is the definition of singularity. Hence your philosophy is anomalous meaning that there exist something which you donāt understand.
You are making too much out of the diagram, you are reading into it things it doesnāt say.
If your argument is similar to the diagram posed by Imelahn, then yes, I believe in a Singularity, which is God (the triangle)
Dear friend, it seems your line of dialogue revolves around discrediting the Bahaāi Faith and its theology. I do not believe that I once mentioned the historicity of Jesus, never mind to debate it.
that you were interested to dialogue about this theology. Maybe not
The O.P. is clear. If you want to discuss Bahaiā theology or Krishna, etc. you need to go to the " Non-Catholic religions " forum. Or you could go to the Strange Notions web site. But their standards are pretty high, and those who challenge are much better educatedAnd there is no evidence that God revealed His intentions to Krishna?
.
. Personally I am not much interested.But singularity is Godās act and not God. Nevertheless singularity cannot exist since everything is measureless at the point.