Originally posted by FreakyKBHInteresting (this is not aimed at either you or Nemesio particularly)—
[b]The question 'where does the universe come from' is equivalent to 'where did God come from.'
Not exactly. One is recognized as created, the other considered the Creator.
You can say 'God was never "not there."' The atheist can say the same thing about the universe.
Again, not exactly. There is no 'not there' for God to be, as He is imm ...[text shortened]... al. No such impetus is required for an immaterial being, Himself outside of creation.[/b]
The rabbis asked: “Where could there have been that God was not?” (Yes, they had to use terms of dimensionality.) What manner of nihil could “confront” God as it were—God here as ein sof: the “without end.” From this questioning came the whole mystical theology of kabbalah.*
Ein sof had/has no “where” or “when;” there was/is nothing “outside.” Dimensionality loses all meaning in the one, the absolute whole—language, perhaps, and conceptualization, reaches its own “singularity,” beyond which nothing can properly be said. Ein sof is ultimately ineffable.
God cannot be “a” being, because “a” being is bounded: without boundedness, “a” being is not distinguishable. To be “separate” means to be separate from “something.” If God was in any way (metaphysically) “separate” from some (metaphysical) nihil, then God is not ein sof.
This is what Rav Abraham Isaac Kook meant when he said: “Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry.” [This theme is also found in Maimonides, and the early Christian theologian, Pseudo-Dionysus; it is found in every stream of the “perennial philosophy,” from Vedanta to Zen to Sufism.]
The name of God, YHVH, means, quite literally, “[She/he that] is, was, will be.”** It is an archaic verb construct: God is properly not a “noun,” but a “verb.”
An accurate translation of Isaiah 6:3—
And called such to such, saying:
“Holy holy holy, YHVH Tzevaot,
the fullness of all the earth is [his] palpable presence.”
The second line in Hebrew is: melo kol ha’aretz kevodo. Melo is a noun, meaning fullness; kavod, though often translated as “glory” (and I don’t know the etymology of that English word) means presence, and carries the connotation of weightiness, heaviness or abundance—hence my adjective “palpable,” though “abundant” would do as well. Again, the perennial philosophy, within the limits of language.
___________________________
* Not the occultic stuff, but what pretty much became the main stream of Jewish theology; except that my understanding is possibly more monistic than most.
** Both feminine and masculine and masculine aspects are included. Yah (as in “Hallelu Yah” ) is feminine. (There is no neuter in Hebrew, and verbs carry gender.)
__________________________
As jaywill noted, I will at most be spending limited time here for awhile, maybe just pop in and out every so often. I have studying to do...
Originally posted by vistesdApparently even our language of accomodation is language of accomodation! It is indeed difficult for us to fathom the un-fathomable. What does the shore know of the ocean except for periodic visits?
Interesting (this is not aimed at either you or Nemesio particularly)—
The rabbis asked: “Where could there have been that God was not?” (Yes, they had to use terms of dimensionality.) What manner of nihil could “confront” God as it were—God here as ein sof: the “without end.” From this questioning came the whole mystical theology of k ...[text shortened]... imited time here for awhile, maybe just pop in and out every so often. I have studying to do...
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One is recognized as created, the other considered the Creator.
As I recall, the axiom 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed' is elemental to physics.
Matter can no more be created than God can.
And, who is to say that, if you can define God as 'uncreated' that an atheist can't define the
universe the same way? It's just postulated definitions of the terms in question.
Again, not exactly. There is no 'not there' for God to be, as He is immaterial, and (by definition) un-created. The atheist can say whatever he chooses, but the evidence (and reason) tells us that the universe had a beginning. There is an impetus for the universe to begin, having the properties of material. No such impetus is required for an immaterial being, Himself outside of creation.
Again, you are just creating a convenient definition. But, as above, there is nothing to say that
matter hasn't always existed, that there was never a 'creation' per se.
And, if you say 'BUT WHERE DID IT COME FROM?' one can simply retort 'WHERE DID GOD COME
FROM?'
and the circle dance begins anew.
Nemesio
Nemesio,
This may disappoint you much. But God says that He is the Beginning and the End.
"And He said to me, They have come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give to him who thirsts from the spring of the water of life freely" (Revelation 21:6)
It seems here that there is a circle. We thirsty are on that circle. We are thirsty for life. We want life to be lovely, and exciting, and enjoyable, and rich, and beautiful. I think we all do.
On the circle God tells us that He is the Beginning and the End. What shall we do?
Shall we come to God to have our thirst for life quenched or should we forgo that and just argue with Him. Shall we tell God that it is not FAIR that He be the beginning and the end. We may prefer a linear reality. But God says He is the Alpha and the Omega.
I think this means that He is the start and the destination and everything inbetween.
That is He is everything we need. He is all that we need for life. I'm sorrow that you prefer a straight line rather than this great circle with God as the Beginning and the End.
But you know. Dancing might not be such a bad idea after all.
Originally posted by NemesioAs I recall, the axiom 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed' is elemental to physics.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One is recognized as created, the other considered the Creator.
As I recall, the axiom 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed' is elemental to physics.
Matter can no more be created than God can.
And, who is to say that, if you can define God as 'uncreated' that an atheist can't define the
unive ...[text shortened]... etort 'WHERE DID GOD COME
FROM?'
and the circle dance begins anew.
Nemesio[/b]
Yes, and another axiom-like phrase is "Speed Limit 65." However, like the speed advisory rule, the rules for matter and energy are boundaried by the physical (created) world.
And, who is to say that, if you can define God as 'uncreated' that an atheist can't define the universe the same way?
Again, the definition wouldn't match the evidence. Infinite regress is wholly unsupported by observable tangibles.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy do you insist on "created". What evidence do you have that it was created and doesn't just exist? As far as I can see there is no way to differentiate between the two.
[b]As I recall, the axiom 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed' is elemental to physics.
Yes, and another axiom-like phrase is "Speed Limit 65." However, like the speed advisory rule, the rules for matter and energy are boundaried by the physical (created) world.
And, who is to say that, if you can define God as 'uncreated' that an a ...[text shortened]... n't match the evidence. Infinite regress is wholly unsupported by observable tangibles.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yes, and another axiom-like phrase is "Speed Limit 65." However, like the speed advisory rule, the rules for matter and energy are boundaried by the physical (created) world.
Only in as much as we can observe them in the physical world (that is,
our frame of reference). However, just like with God, we can postulate
their extra-phyiscal capacities with whatever axioms we'd like.
As far as the physical world is concerned, matter can be neither created
nor destroyed. The only conclusion that can be certainly drawn is that
it always was since the beginning of time -- there was no time when it
wasn't, just like God is traditionally defined.
As soon as you say, 'but, it had to be created[/i], you enter a
proposition that matter had to be created. That's fine, as long
as you are willing to allow the atheist the same consideration.
That is, you want the liberty of changing the atheist's definition of matter
-- that it can, indeed, be created -- but you will not tolerate the same
change to God's definition.
Again, the definition wouldn't match the evidence. Infinite regress is wholly unsupported by observable tangibles.
Uh. Which definition and which evidence? That God is uncreated?
What evidence is there for that? That matter was created? What
evidence is there for that?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAll knowledge to date reveals that all matter had a starting point. Since that starting point, the axiom has held true: matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. It was, however, brought into existence.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Yes, and another axiom-like phrase is "Speed Limit 65." However, like the speed advisory rule, the rules for matter and energy are boundaried by the physical (created) world.
Only in as much as we can observe them in the physical world (that is,
our frame of reference). However, just like with God, we can p ...[text shortened]... here for that? That matter was created? What
evidence is there for that?
Nemesio[/b]
The only thing known to man which is able to stand outside of that creation is the Creator of all matter and energy, the Source. In postulating extra-physical capacities upon matter/energy, we are merely substituting one for another, giving to m/e the properties of God. Such a stance is absurd in theory and completely unsupported in practice.
First off, there is the problem of impetus. Next comes the problem of constraint and/or control. Then there is the problem of current observations. Three major obstacles to such a perspective, hardly a parsimonious position to hold. After just a few steps down the path, the rules and beliefs become more complex than the hierarchy of the Hindus.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBrought into existance? How about "came into existance"? Much better, I think. You are falling into the trap of couching your terms in such a way that you cannot help but find God, irrespective of whether or not he exists.
All knowledge to date reveals that all matter had a starting point. Since that starting point, the axiom has held true: matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. It was, however, brought into existence.
The only thing known to man which is able to stand outside of that creation is the Creator of all matter and energy, the Source. In postulat ...[text shortened]... steps down the path, the rules and beliefs become more complex than the hierarchy of the Hindus.
Outside of time, all talk of a source is moot. No source is required, because this requires causality, which is a time dependant process. You are getting hooked up on your own inconsistancies.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRecent thoughts suggest that our universe might in fact have formed as the collapse of a massive star in another universe - ie. inside a black hole.
All knowledge to date reveals that all matter had a starting point. Since that starting point, the axiom has held true: matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. It was, however, brought into existence.
The only thing known to man which is able to stand outside of that creation is the Creator of all matter and energy, the Source. In postulat ...[text shortened]... steps down the path, the rules and beliefs become more complex than the hierarchy of the Hindus.
If that were possible - and clearly it's highly speculative stuff and not yet able to be verified or tested - then the need for an origin disappears.
Much as it seems incongruous to us, an infinite multiverse is possible in such a scenario, with universes forming inside other universes ad infinitum.
No creation.
No starting point.
An infinity of universes ....
Originally posted by amannionKey words: highly speculative. It's a type of miracle that simply replaces God by giving that which is created creative, God-like powers. Kinda like calling Tom Jones 'Harry,' and then saying,"Boy! That Harry sure can sing like Tom Jones!"
Recent thoughts suggest that our universe might in fact have formed as the collapse of a massive star in another universe - ie. inside a black hole.
If that were possible - and clearly it's highly speculative stuff and not yet able to be verified or tested - then the need for an origin disappears.
Much as it seems incongruous to us, an infinite multiverse ...[text shortened]... other universes ad infinitum.
No creation.
No starting point.
An infinity of universes ....
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo a little better with your citation.
Cosmology, for one specific discipline.
Where in the discipline cosmology does it say that matter has a starting point?
I know that our current universe has a starting point. However the massive energy that
became the matter of our universe is a constant -- physics hinges on this as I understand it.
So, can you provide even the most basic citation -- a text book, article, something -- that
says that a premise of cosmology is that matter has a starting point?
I bet you can't.
Nemesio