Share, You said: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
I really like the Thomas Merton quote. I think it's a tidy and yet almost poetic way to get around the "problem" of anthropomorphism. Which btw, I think the atheists have too (-: It also keeps some human beings humble for thinking they may know it all. On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:28 PM, "jr_esq@..." <jr_esq@...> wrote: Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. I tend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. We are human beings and, as such, we can't help thinking of the universe in terms of the human experience. What's wrong with that? If some of the anthropomorphic ideas can be proved wrong, then it should be corrected when a more logical and true answer is found. The basic fact is there is the experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. The reason why you experience is because you have the capacity to reflect on that experience. This implies that you know that you know. IOW, you can understand that you are the experiencer, the process of experiencing and the experienced. But if that's not enough for you, perhaps Thomas Merton's idea could apply. He said: God is everything that you can think of and at the same time It is NOT. :) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote: Xeno, You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical coherency." I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and the mind.
