Hi Craig --
You say:
1) an "uncreated source" (which is not in existence)
created everything in existence.
Others say:
2) everything came into existence either uncreated or
created from something that was already in existence.
Neither 1) nor 2) is more "logical" than the other,
nor more plausible.
As regards 1), the parenthetical phrase "which is not in existence" is
disingenuous and somewhat problematic. I have defined "existence" as that
which appears in time and space. By that definition, the uncreated source
is not an existent. However, the world of appearances logically must
represent the uncreated source, and in that sense transcends existence.
As regards 2), the option of something coming into existence uncreated is
meaningless to me, unless "uncreated" infers "unformed" or "in a nebulous
state". Coming into existence from something "already in existence" is just
another way of expressing causation or natural evolution. In either case,
the ontology lacks a primary source and we are left with the paradox of
infinite regression.
I'm surprised that you didn't suggest a third explanation; namely, that the
universe has always existed in some form and thus needs no creator or
source. Although Pirsig did not specifically define Quality (DQ) as the
"primary source", this is the ontogeny inferred by equating Quality with
Reality.
Thanks for your interest, Craig.
Regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
