La, on 18 July 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:
Whatever form it was, its a form within the bounds of space. It moves through a linear passage of time, so it must have a starting point to reach the present which we are experiencing. And naturally a starting point will mean a time when matter/prakriti wasn't present, since matter has form and moves through time. Outside this universe there would be no time since it is a formless, boundless & infinite space. Just replace the "space" with God, and you will understand what ethereal says when stating that from God's perspective everything has happened in one eternal moment. The beginning of this universe and the timelessness of God's essence are two ontological realities, just like eternity. We cannot comprehend the unknown, but we do know that for every effect there is a cause. And that for this present to be reached the universe's past couldn't have been infinite. And that the universe didn't emerge from nothing, nor did it create it self. The Ultimate cause for this non-sentient universe is only one:
I dont know about that.
Time itself, doesnt actually exist. So I am trying to not use that word. And, when we discuss matter, realistically, we dont understand matter. It can pop in and out of existence and can be ever present in any place at any given moment, or nowhere at all.
So, the last thing we want to do is make an argument dependent on matter. Let alone time which doesnt exist on its own.
Then you say, just replace space with God. Well, why not just leave it as space? Space filled with the unknown.
And there ya go, we do know that for every effect there is a cause and that the universe didnt emerge from nothing. It must have existed in another form elsewhere.
You call it God. I say, well, I really dont know what it is, nor do I know why I should even bother calling it God. I could call it God, but I could also call it beebop the magnificent. Or the rarabanana ambiguous material.
I could call it anything, and it could be anything. It could be non sentient as well. Nobody really knows. And yet, there are people calling it "creation", as if it is something that was thought about with tender loving care, and made in a particular "image".
And in religious texts, this beebop the magnificent also shows emotion. He fights wars for the Jews and floods the planet n such.
Well, I guess thats part two of our discussion. For another time.
I dont think id call something creation, without knowing anything about the supposed creator first. Its like...the blind watch maker argument.
People would argue that if you saw a complex eyeball, it must have been created. They assume a creator without knowing anything about the creator. Then we find out something non sentient made it, and all of a sudden the argument shifts back to...well, back to even more distant questions.
So why believe the universe is a creation? Rather than something that exists on its own?
Come to think of it, I dont even know if God, or beebop the magnificent could even be sentient in the way we use the word. Even if it could be understood, it probably wouldnt even be something that could be considered "alive". It would just be what it is. And that would be it.
And I agree that there, would likely be something out there. There could be many things out there. I just dont think I would call "it" or "those things" a "creator", nor would i call it "sentient". Those words have fairly specific meanings. I think its a bit bold to use them.
Edited by Belial, 18 July 2012 - 08:31 PM.