- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,768
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
It is not an assumption but a conclusion based upon the available evidence of physics and cosmology.
The term probably means everything that began to exist.
The alternative is an actual infinite series of past events which is and absurdity of monumental proportions.
A necessary thing that exists will only change if it makes a choice to change. Your inability to comprehend the ability of a person to choose something of its own volition simply because it wants to, simply as an act of will, is perhaps the problem here.
So the universe creates itself? This is absurd in spite of the current popular belief among those who should know better. Actually what I have encountered with pantheism is that they usually appreciate a being at the centre of it all from which all other gods and realities emate.
A consistent something rather than an absurd nothing is always a better explanation, and yes I do prefer this explanation.
Because that's how minds work. Does a mind of an unborn infant make free will decisions?
You are projecting an developed and informed mind apart from the ONLY context where we find such concept in reality - an informed brain.
Then you detach that concept from the ONLY place where we find it, and you place it in the middle of nowhere with nothing else around, literally, and you say that it can decide everything into existence. How exactly does that work?
The question is not so much as how this might work. It will obviously be something that we find difficult to comprehend. But it is not unreasonable.
More to the point though is how the mind works and develops through the brain. Something that we also know very little about and find difficult to comprehend.
So I when I know exactly how the human mind works perhaps I might be able to make an inference as to the working of another type of mind.
What is certain is that the current insistence of materialism in the neurosciences is doing absolutely no favours to our understanding.
How would you know? Clearly in the case of a human brain development generally runs hand in hand with the development of the person but this is not always the case. There are several cases of severely handicapped or damaged people who relate a clear awareness and thought life (once they have recovered or developed) in spite of the physical (brain) problems they encounter.
What you raise is an issue that has been considered since the very earliest days of Christian thought, and it was the way in which the Christian concept of trinity was explained to me.
It is necessary for God to have at least an eternally dual nature because therein lies Gods recognition of “I AM”.
In this way as well we see that there is indeed some form of causality, to and fro relationship between God and God, with the third person being the relationship itself.
To be frank I haven’t thought of a way in which this might work in a timeless context however.
The reality for this mind would be the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
I don’t think I am assuming anything. In the topic of the supernatural we are largely dealing with the unknown so the question is whether it might be reasonable for something to exist, not whether it exist within the context of our experience.
I can see no reason why it would be logically inconsistent for a person to exixt within the context of its own being.
Only if you assume that the mind always follows a process of computation.
I would probably have great difficulty in providing a “justifiable” answer but at least with this sort of “magical”, the magician is present. The opposing view is devoid of anything whic is a whole lot worse.
Because I like to look at a problems from a different angle.
Yes I am. What I find interesting is that I don’t think that the Human mind is created to operate without the brain and I am sceptical of stories to the contrary.
Nevertheless the brain might be instrument that can be played like a keyboard.
So the idea of a disembodied mind is, I admit problematic but not logically inconsistent, and with the view of the fact that something had to cause a complete and perfect reality to change in order to bring about the beginning of the Universe it is the only thing that makes sense.
The alternative would be something like Stephen Hawkins assertion that because physical laws exist, the universe exists. But nobody has ever observed a physical law causing anything at all and neither have all of the other abstract descriptors that are often attributed.
LOL what can any of us “know” in this respect. I don’t claim to know that it works or how it might work. My objective here is to present a reasonable argument and the only certainty I have after 28 years it is that the argument for the Personal Uncaused Cause continues to be a whole lot more plausible than the alternative.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
