God is know through his creation. So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
Umm - who says this? Is this a Buddhist concept?
Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists, in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved. This does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
A double negative, making a positive - or another negative? I'm lost! :confused:
I thought of this thread when I came across a new interview with Daniel Scott who featured so controvesially (well, to one member) on my thread on evolution and couldn't decide whether to put it here or there. Anyway, it's there https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=615485&postcount=54 but what he says has relevance to this thread too.
Judy
Hi Judy,
We are speaking different languages I fear. But if you wish let us look further into this difference.
Can we look at this first? You quoted my post:
God is know[n] through his creation. So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
And commented:
Umm - who says this? Is this a Buddhist concept?
The first part of my quote is "God is known through his creation." Isn't this a fairly standard theological view?
And the second part of my quote is "So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
This seems a reasonable question to me.
And then:
Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists, in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved. This does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
A double negative, making a positive - or another negative? I'm lost! :confused:
My paragraph is ungrammatical. I'll rewrite it:
]Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists (in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved) does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
I hope that is clearer.
There is one further example of a related point that I will try to draw out from the quote from Daniel Scott from the post you have linked:
I thought of this thread when I came across a new interview with Daniel Scott who featured so controvesially (well, to one member) on my thread on evolution and couldn't decide whether to put it here or there. Anyway, it's there https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=615485&postcount=54 but what he says has relevance to this thread too.
... physics reasons from effect back to cause which is what keeps it locked in the realm of matter or physical sense testimony. Metaphysics on the other hand reason from the basis of cause--the one and only Cause--divine, infinite Mind.
Daniel Scott is presenting an analysis based on the notion that there is an ultimate cause (that is self existing). On the one hand this cause is physical and can be measured objectively. On the other it is a statement of faith that the ultimate cause is "infinite Mind." These are clearly two opposing positions. There is a third option: (and this is a Buddhist view) that the notion that there is an ultimate cause (which exists of itself) of any kind is a flawed.
This is because all causes are relative (unless you believe there is a causeless cause, which is God). They come from other causes, which come from other causes etc. And any cause only acts in certain conditions that are the circumstances in which a cause acts (even a causeless cause can only act in certain conditions, which begs the question, what are the causes of the conditions in which the causeless cause acts?)
Then all of the words we use to describe causes and conditions are just words. Reality is much more than can be described by words.
Norbu
The first part of my quote is "God is known through his creation." Isn't this a fairly standard theological view?
Yep
And the second part of my quote is "So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
This seems a reasonable question to me.
That's where I'm confused. Who says that there is no creation? Is that a Buddhist doctrine?
Then all of the words we use to describe causes and conditions are just words. Reality is much more than can be described by words.
It is indeed. I have experienced divine Love as a tangible warmth surrounding me, as an encompassing state of bliss and safety - quite apart from other mortals or places or things and each time this has preceeded either a physical healing or an instance of protection that has been described as "miraculous". As far as who created the first Cause, well, how old is Love? Surely you can see that divine Love is self-existent, eternal and infinite? I know that if I were to go to Mars or beyond, Love would be there and Its laws just as practical as they are here.
Judy
Hi Judy,
Thanks for your reply.
That's where I'm confused. Who says that there is no creation? Is that a Buddhist doctrine?
My question is "So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?" My question is not saying that there is no "creation," it is a thought experiment... "So suppose if there were no creation, could God exist unknown?"
Surely you can see that divine Love is self-existent, eternal and infinite?
It seems to me that love requires as subject and object. Love is a quality of relationship. As such it is dependent on subject an object and is not therefore "self existent."
I can see that most fundamental framework for existence is one that is based on subject and object that relate lovingly but subject object and the verb are all dependent on each other. Some say (not just in the Bible) that "I am" is the first cause and some say that "God is Love." Some say both these are consistent and some say one comes first. Most would agree that the third part "the object" (creation) is dependent on the first two parts but some point out that without creation there is no creator.
To my mind this is all nonsense. You have to have all three parts to the relationship for anything to exist at all and therefore it is impossible to say which is the first cause. Furthermore, this desire to identify first cause is merely a human desire to fit what is beyond language and concept into concepts defined by language and this is a habit that results in all sorts of problems.
Norbu
I am just wondering why we are discussing religion in the scientific matters forum??