Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why is an incomprehensible god acceptable but an incomprehensible universe isn’t?The cause is God, God knows the reason, we are not able to understand the mind of God, so the reason will remain unknown to us.
What you have stated here is false. You're confused on the facts. The OP was four sentences long, please try to keep up.
The conclusion upon which religious metaphysicians East and West have generally agreed is that it cannot possibly be the case that there are only contingent realities. If, beyond the scintillating, shifting, intermingling, coalescing, and dissolving spectacle of finitude, there is no reality that is independent, changeless, and logically self-explanatory, then nothing at all could ever come into or be sustained in existence; on the logical “other side” of all contingent things lies nothingness, and nothing can arise from nothing. As Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan writes, in his magisterial exposition of the metaphysics of the Upanishads, “Either we must postulate a first cause, in which case causality ceases to be a universal maxim, or we have an endless regress”; this, he says, is a “puzzle” that is resolved only by the further postulation of the “self-existent Brahman” who is “independent of time, space, and cause.” Here, I should note, Radhakrishnan is using the word “cause” to mean “contingent cause” or (in Western scholastic terms) “secondary cause” (see below), but otherwise he is merely stating a logical intuition expressed in some form or another in the metaphysical traditions of all the major theistic creeds. It can be found with equal ease in the thought of a Muslim like Ibn Sina (c. 980–1037), of a Vishishtadvaita Hindu like Ramanuja (tenth to eleventh century), of a Christian like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), or of any of a vast number of other thinkers. It is simply the intuition that a reality based entirely upon possibility, not “upheld in being” by the creative power of any self-subsistent source of actuality, could not exist at all. Reason seems to dictate that there cannot be an endless regress of purely contingent causes of existence; each cause in that chain would have to be enabled by some logically prior cause, which would itself have to be enabled by another prior cause, and so on, and if this regress were infinite it would never be reducible back to an actual beginning; the sequence, reaching back as it must into an infinite abyss of unrealized possibilities, would never actually begin. Such an infinite regress would therefore be equivalent to nonexistence. On the other hand, neither could this chain of prior causes be traced back simply to some first finite thing, as nothing intrinsically contingent can come into being without a prior cause; the first cause could not be some limited thing that just magically happens to be there. So a finite regress of dependent causes would also be equivalent to nonexistence. At some point, then, at the source of all sources and origin of all origins, the contingent must rest upon the absolute.Not really. The Big Bang merely describes the universe expanding rapidly from that central point. Essentially, the universe already existed when the Big Bang happened, and the Big Bang spread it all out.
Is there are reason to think that God exists for a reason at all?Are you asking the person who just posted that we do not know the mind of God?
Both are faith statements.Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:
The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.
But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:
The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.
I never heard a Christian claim that God has no purpose or reason for creation. New to me. So I agree, it is not a reasonable statement.
You're leaving your own thread?
Both are faith statements.
When you see Nature as the Eternal Creator of all that is, then you've kinda renamed God with a new name, via the key attribute: Originator of all that is. We've simply discovered more about God though, perhaps by willingness or wonder, or the humble (perceptive) awe of the child looking at the stars, for instance.
But do you believe that one is reasonable and the other is not? Or are they both reasonable or are they both unreasonable?
What is it that you have discovered about God?
Both are equally 'reasonable', but one turns out to be more informative than the other.
About the last question: I have tried, and found out that I just cannot word things better (and I know from having tried over and over and over for years) than the typical wordings in the common bible. If you want to learn the most accurately and well said attributes about God, there just isn't better wording than in the bible. I really did try a lot to find more wordings, and this is just the result after many years.
For a single book from the bible, I'd suggest one of the 4 gospels to discover things about God. I could not write it shorter or better.
Here's one: John 1 NIV
The way I end up taking things in the Bible on faith that I haven't been able to test (such as details about past events) is by the associations to things that I know from testing hold reliably to work as they are said to work. Of course, that Christ Himself quoted things from Isaiah or from Genesis gives powerful credence to those, as it's mostly the instructions of Christ that I spent so much time putting into action and getting results on. When I learned He is so reliable, then slowly I learned I could rely on His understanding, by experience. This isn't the only way to learn that, but it's the way I did.How is it more informative to say that God created the universe? You just said it's a statement of faith, which presumably means it is not established fact, which would mean it is not actual information.
The way I end up taking things in the Bible on faith that I haven't been able to test (such as details about past events) is by the associations to things that I know from testing hold reliably to work as they are said to work. Of course, that Christ Himself quoted things from Isaiah or from Genesis gives powerful credence to those, as it's mostly the instructions of Christ that I spent so much time putting into action and getting results on.
When I learned He is so reliable, then slowly I learned I could rely on His understanding, by experience. This isn't the only way to learn that, but it's the way I did.
Nope. Thanks for asking.Are you describing some sort of prosperity gospel?
Or are the results you're getting some kind of intangible peace or wisdom?
Here's it looks to me like you are harming yourself for no apparent gain. If you want all other people to be not worth talking to, then disconnect from the internet and so on.There is the Dunning-Kruger effect, after all.
There's a good question. I didn't claim to be, but here's something wise: to learn from experience. When something doesn't work, then change what you are doing. Also, it's classic conventional wisdom that it's wise to learn from others if you are able to do so. I figured then that Christ would be a possible source, having a reputation and standing the test of time as being thought wise through 2 millenia now. Is it wise to take a course and learn the content of the course? I think the answer would depend on how that content works in real life: Is the learning valuable when put into action. The only way to know would be to try and find out. The only experimenter that typically succeeds in more advanced experiments (such as in physics) is one that takes care and dedication to do the experiment well and carefully.If it's wisdom, how do you actually know you're so wise?
Nope. Thanks for asking.
Those are each an outcome that is possible (and I found). They are not at not the only things we gain.
Here's it looks to me like you are harming yourself for no apparent gain. If you want all other people to be not worth talking to, then disconnect from the internet and so on.
There's a good question. I didn't claim to be, but here's something wise: to learn from experience. When something doesn't work, then change what you are doing. Also, it's classic conventional wisdom that it's wise to learn from others if you are able to do so. I figured then that Christ would be a possible source, having a reputation and standing the test of time as being thought wise through 2 millenia now. Is it wise to take a course and learn the content of the course? I think the answer would depend on how that content works in real life: Is the learning valuable when put into action. The only way to know would be to try and find out. The only experimenter that typically succeeds in more advanced experiments (such as in physics) is one that takes care and dedication to do the experiment well and carefully.
Which researcher is more likely then to get the research grant? Perhaps one that is showing they are taking care and dedication generally in their efforts. And another factor can be whether they are working on a key thing that matters or could help to a breakthrough or expansion starting from important aspects of the field. One can apply all those parallels to trying out the instructions in the bible.The only experimenter that succeeds is the one that gets the research grant.
Humility is explicitly and repeatedly in the text as an absolute requirement for God's grace.
Which researcher is more likely then to get the research grant? Perhaps one that is showing they are taking care and dedication generally in their efforts.
And another factor can be whether they are working on a key thing that matters or could help to a breakthrough or expansion starting from important aspects of the field. One can apply all those parallels to trying out the instructions in the bible.
Which Christians say this? Do you have a source?Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:
The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.
But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:
The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.
If humans can have a give-and-take relationship with God then God must respond to our behavior. This makes God's behavior in time an effect contingent on our behavior in time."God" is never defined as a contingent effect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?