Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Along with not believing that humans are the reason for creation, I do not believe that the Earth is important in anyway. We don't matter that much in the big picture.
I think the bigger picture, is lost to most people.
If we are looking at the bigger picture, then we realise how small a role the 80 or so years we spend on this Earth is, however, if you do choose to consider the bigger picture things like the "Problem of Evil" and such fall apart.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.
2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...
Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.
most people do not understand the contradiction they are introducing when they use the first cause argument. the chain of causality does lead back, but not to any necessary beginning. if you say that things have to be caused{not exempting anything from this} then the first cause also had to be CAUSED. otherwise, you may aswell say, the current things happening dont have to be caused and can just exist without cause. basically, it wud be logicall to say that the universe has existed in one form or another forever and the chain of causeality goes back into infinity where it gets obscured and we are unable to use logically analytic techniques on it. {which is why many are forced to think up of self negating concepts like first cause}.
also, the big band theory speaks of THIS specific universe, which also came FROM sumthing, and there is vast amounts of evidence suggesting physical things OUTSIDE this universe. so the big bang didnt have to come from a FIRST cause, but was merely an offshot of the chain of causality in different dimensions/universes.
i do not beleive the laws of nature, pre exist the big bang, they are unque to our universe and are different{dimensions/forces etc} in other universes.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think the bigger picture, is lost to most people.If we are looking at the bigger picture, then we realise how small a role the 80 or so years we spend on this Earth is, however, if you do choose to consider the bigger picture things like the "Problem of Evil" and such fall apart.
even though im not christian or follow any real relgion, the way i deal with that problem is: "even if instead of atoms, entire planets r galaxies or even universes were our building blocks, we would still be the same US" our conciousness isnt dependant on the size of components just like a computers capacities are not dependant on the size of wires that make up its circuit. it is dependant on the MAP that the constituents create and the PATTERNS which form{which are identical no matter how big or small}, so really, there is no QUALITATIVE difference between us or giants or liliputians. it is the quality of our CONCIOUSNESS that is all important, whether we are made up of galaxies or whether we are small enough to live on atoms doesnt matter. and our conciousnesses have infinite potential for thought and creaticity and fealing and that is bigger than all the non sentient things in creation combined. either way, if we lived on atoms, wed call em planets, and if we were made of universes, wed call em atoms. doesnt matter, size continues in both the small and large direction infinitely, doesnt make a difference.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I am sure they are. 🙂
just incase you were being sarcastic, the weakness of gravity and the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics as well as the twins paradox in reletivity all point to parallel universes with different dimensional arrangements and different types and reletive strengths of forces.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think the bigger picture, is lost to most people.If we are looking at the bigger picture, then we realise how small a role the 80 or so years we spend on this Earth is, however, if you do choose to consider the bigger picture things like the "Problem of Evil" and such fall apart.
You make it sound like the bigger picture was something bad. As far as evil is concerned, from the bigger picture, it would be nice if we cared for each other, and got alone.
Originally posted by leonheartmmWhich could explain many things we don't understand as of yet.
just incase you were being sarcastic, the weakness of gravity and the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics as well as the twins paradox in reletivity all point to parallel universes with different dimensional arrangements and different types and reletive strengths of forces.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.
2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...
Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.
Aquinas was brilliant for his time, but unaware of current science that removes the need for a God-figure. And I'd agree that everything has a prior cause, which then makes the "uncaused" creator logically impossible. If one invokes causality as evidence for a creator, you can't abandon it as soon as it becomes convenient for your religious beliefs. To say that such an argument is intellectually inconsistent is being very generous.
And how are we to know that the laws of physics predated matter? Isn't it equally as possible that that existed as soon as matter/energy existed to adhere to them (or, actually, more likely)? To blindly assume the former is begging the question.
Originally posted by Mindship
Ontological arguments offer, at best, inferential conclusions. They do not give direct experiential evidence of a transcendent reality anymore than empirical science does.
Who's talking bout the ontological argument?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You make it sound like the bigger picture was something bad. As far as evil is concerned, from the bigger picture, it would be nice if we cared for each other, and got alone.
What I am saying, is in terms of the bigger picture in Christianity- the suffering we have in this life is nelegable based on the pleasure we gain for the rests of eternity, thus Problem of Evil, Suffering and so forth is irrelevant.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Aquinas was brilliant for his time, but unaware of current science that removes the need for a God-figure. And I'd agree that everything has a prior cause, which then makes the "uncaused" creator logically impossible. If one invokes causality as evidence for a creator, you can't abandon it as soon as it becomes convenient for your religious beliefs. To say that such an argument is intellectually inconsistent is being very generous.And how are we to know that the laws of physics predated matter? Isn't it equally as possible that that existed as soon as matter/energy existed to adhere to them (or, actually, more likely)? To blindly assume the former is begging the question.
I think his point was that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, it has to start with something which therefore, wasn't caused. To me, that is logical.
As for Davies, I don't know enough about it to argue it, just thought I'd through it in there.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
just incase you were being sarcastic, the weakness of gravity and the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics as well as the twins paradox in reletivity all point to parallel universes with different dimensional arrangements and different types and reletive strengths of forces.
I don't do sarcasm.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...What I am saying, is in terms of the bigger picture in Christianity- the suffering we have in this life is nelegable based on the pleasure we gain for the rests of eternity, thus Problem of Evil, Suffering and so forth is irrelevant...
But the idea of heaven for human ghosts is part of this egotistical outlook we selfish animals hold on to. If there is a heaven, then it has everything in it that is in this world. It would have cats and dogs and trees and aliens. The idea of a separate heave is just a type of revenge made up by people who could find no other way to get back at the people who hurt them.
Poor person who is wronged by the powerful: "I can't get him back now, but I will go to heaven and he will go to hell"
This allows the person to get over the fact that they were wronged and powerless to change it. This belief gives them the power to live on, and have more children, and pass this idea on to them so they can cope with the wrongs of reality.
From my point of view: this life is heaven and hell.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the idea of heaven for human ghosts is part of this egotistical outlook we selfish animals hold on to. If there is a heaven, then it has everything in it that is in this world. It would have cats and dogs and trees and aliens. The idea of a separate heave is just a type of revenge made up by people who could find no other way to get back at the people who hurt them.Poor person who is wronged by the powerful: "I can't get him back now, but I will go to heaven and he will go to hell"
This allows the person to get over the fact that they were wronged and powerless to change it. This belief gives them the power to live on, and have more children, and pass this idea on to them so they can cope with the wrongs of reality.
From my point of view: this life is heaven and hell.
I think its easy to say humans are egotistical, but there is no evidence to suggest we are not a special part of creation...albeit just a part.
Your argument would be good if all people took from their religious faith was a way to make up for problems they faced in this life- however, that isn't the case, indeed its a gross simplification of religion.
Originally posted by Mindship
"First Cause" is classic OA.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think its easy to say humans are egotistical, but there is no evidence to suggest we are not a special part of creation...albeit just a part.Your argument would be good if all people took from their religious faith was a way to make up for problems they faced in this life- however, that isn't the case, indeed its a gross simplification of religion.
Is it?
The most important thing that science has given the human race is perspective. We started off as the center of the universe, and now know we are just a small part in a very big universe.
It is only logical that religion should following in this path. The idea of self importance has lead to as much evil as good in the past. Also, remember I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is about living a winning life.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Is it?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The most important thing that science has given the human race is perspective. We started off as the center of the universe, and now know we are just a small part in a very big universe.It is only logical that religion should following in this path. The idea of self importance has lead to as much evil as good in the past. Also, remember I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is about living a winning life.
I think your assuming the geocentric view and the homo-centric view. Regardless of the position of the Earth it doesn'st detract from the fundamental wonderous nature of every human life.
Originally posted by Mindship
How is that ontological? Explain to me please, im a little confused.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think your assuming the geocentric view and the homo-centric view. Regardless of the position of the Earth it doesn'st detract from the fundamental wonderous nature of every human life...
It would be the same for every life and non-life. I am not bringing human life down; I am bringing all life and non-life up to be equal in the big picture.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It would be the same for every life and non-life. I am not bringing human life down; I am bringing all life and non-life up to be equal in the big picture.
Well, again I am not trying to diminish the importance of other parts of creation, simply that humans have a special role to play.
I assume you agree because I don't think that your average woodlice has the necessary understanding to meditate and achieve enlightenment.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think his point was that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, it has to start with something which therefore, wasn't caused. To me, that is logical.
Something can come from nothingness. There's your uncaused entity. I agree that there can't be an infinite chain of causes, but God isn't the only conclusion, and it's actually a rather illogical one.
Like I said before, invoking causality to "prove" something with the characteristics of God, then discarding causality as soon as it fits a religion is patently silly.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, again I am not trying to diminish the importance of other parts of creation, simply that humans have a special role to play.I assume you agree because I don't think that your average woodlice has the necessary understanding to meditate and achieve enlightenment.
I do not believe we have a special role. That is what I am talking about. Human nature makes us want to think we are special, when we are not.
😆 Woodlice have their own enlightenment.