[FairfieldLife] Brahman doesn't need a cause

[Yifu Xero]

Subject: Brahman doesn't need a cause


Mundane arguments drawn from personal experiences of causation don't 
necessarily apply to the universe at large, i.e. Brahman. 
Wiki::  (Cosmological argument)

Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply 
to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from 
an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]
 
On a supposed first cause.  If there is a first cause, say Brahman, Krishna, 
Vishnu, or Whomever, why is the first cause exempt from a prior cause.?  
Brahman being self-caused, is not in this category of requiring an infinite 
regression, having existed eternally., with no cause other than Itself.
 
On the First Cause (supposed), Wiki says regarding arguments which lead to 
Deism::
Identity of a First Cause 
An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even if 
one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that 
First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause 
some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a 
theisticGod, such as immanenceor omnibenevolence.[14]Rather, it simply argues 
that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) 
must exist.[16]
Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is an 
argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. 
This is the foundation for beliefs such as deismthat accept that a god created 
the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.[17]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Brahman doesn't need a cause

[Tom Pall]

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Yifu Xero yifux...@yahoo.com wrote:





  *Subject:* Brahman doesn't need a cause

  Mundane arguments drawn from personal experiences of causation don't
 necessarily apply to the universe at large, i.e. Brahman.
 Wiki::  (Cosmological argument)
 
 Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily
 apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw
 conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond 
 experience.[13]http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#cite_note-reichenbach-12

 On a supposed first cause.  If there is a first cause, say Brahman,
 Krishna, Vishnu, or Whomever, why is the first cause exempt from a prior
 cause.?  Brahman being self-caused, is not in this category of requiring an
 infinite regression, having existed eternally., with no cause other than
 Itself.

 On the First Cause (supposed), Wiki says regarding arguments which lead to
 Deism::
 Identity of a First Cause
 An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even
 if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not
 identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe
 to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with,
 for instance, a theistic http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Theistic God,
 such as immanence http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Immanence or
 omnibenevolence 
 http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Omnibenevolence.[14]http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#cite_note-cline-13Rather,
  it simply argues that a First Cause (e.g. the Big
 Bang http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Big_Bang, God, or an
 unarticulated First Cause) must 
 exist.[16]http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#cite_note-15
 Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is
 an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not
 required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as 
 deismhttp://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Deismthat accept that a god created 
 the Universe, but then ceased to have any
 further interaction with 
 it.[17]http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#cite_note-16



Sounds like absolute, pure b.s. to me.  We can't do infinite regress so
we'll posit Brahman ever existed.