Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

How Hindus See the Prime Mover

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 11:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like reading Vedantic philosophy, and I came across two sentences which is perfectly self-evident to those familiar with the culture/philosophy, but shows just how wide the gulf can sometimes be between philosophical views prevalent around the world versus those represented on DDO:

[While discussing how the universe is continually created, maintained, and destroyed by a God which is not independent of his creation]

"Again, the present life is the result of a preceding one. Therefore each existence presupposes an earlier one and consequently no existence can be the first... Indeed, it is absurd to speak of the beginning of a causal chain."
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:15:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 6:07:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
How do Hindus deal with the big bang as the beginning of the universe, or evolutionary common descent??

Excellent questions.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:17:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 11:26:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Again, the present life is the result of a preceding one.

I agree here.

Therefore each existence presupposes an earlier one and consequently no existence can be the first... Indeed, it is absurd to speak of the beginning of a causal chain."

It is absurd to think there is chain and a first is needed for the second and so on? Seems like simple math to me.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 12:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 6:07:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
How do Hindus deal with the big bang as the beginning of the universe, or evolutionary common descent??

They accept it.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 12:58:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 12:48:01 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:07:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
How do Hindus deal with the big bang as the beginning of the universe, or evolutionary common descent??

They accept it.

I don't get how it's consistent with the universe and biological life having a beginning but to each his own, I guess.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:46:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 6:07:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
How do Hindus deal with the big bang as the beginning of the universe, or evolutionary common descent??

They consider knowledge to be of two kinds. The first is that which can be obtained by the sense organs and refers to the empirical world which is projected yet non-different from Braham (for all intents and purposes think pantheistic god with theistic manifestations).

Evolution, the Big Bang, and all related phenomena are true insofar as they apply to the "projected" world the same way that being hit on the head with a baseball in this world hurts.

However, the manifestation of the empirical world cannot, by definition, be explained by the empirical world itself (this is Hindu philosophy we're talking). You can learn simultaneously of the empirical and the "higher" knowledge and realize both are true, but only insofar as you consider empirical reality to be THE reality.

That's the thing, Hinduism can entirely embrace science by distinguishing between the domain of knowledge science and sensory perception can cover and the domain for "higher knowledge" about how the universe is actually structured.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:49:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 6:17:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:26:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Again, the present life is the result of a preceding one.

I agree here.

Therefore each existence presupposes an earlier one and consequently no existence can be the first... Indeed, it is absurd to speak of the beginning of a causal chain."

It is absurd to think there is chain and a first is needed for the second and so on? Seems like simple math to me.

"Seems" is important here.

If you define every event as being both the effect of a previous event and the cause of the next one, then how can you suddenly claim an event exists which causes an event but is not the effect of one?

That's special pleading. The only reason we westerners get away with it is because we don't want to face the infinite regress as a viable option.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 4:04:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:49:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:17:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:26:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Again, the present life is the result of a preceding one.

I agree here.

Therefore each existence presupposes an earlier one and consequently no existence can be the first... Indeed, it is absurd to speak of the beginning of a causal chain."

It is absurd to think there is chain and a first is needed for the second and so on? Seems like simple math to me.

"Seems" is important here.

If you define every event as being both the effect of a previous event and the cause of the next one, then how can you suddenly claim an event exists which causes an event but is not the effect of one?

Good question and I like your honesty and respectfulness. You are a pride to your belief or lack thereof. Your question: Naturally infinite needs no cause or it would not be infinite. Infinite means no beginning nor end. Now we as humans are infinite, not in this life but afterwards, but we began. We have problems with infinite because all we know is finite. We can think billions of years are infinite but is not, it is just a long time. Even if we are infinite, we really are not because we began and survive off an infinite source. That infinite source is timeless, no beginning nor end. God needs no cause because He is the supposed infinite source which has no beginning nor end. Even if we go to eternity, we still are finite because we began and unless we have the infinite source we would end.

That's special pleading. The only reason we westerners get away with it is because we don't want to face the infinite regress as a viable option.

No, it is plain logic. Infinite is no beginning nor end, has been and will be forever. We are only special pleading if we say that other things are infinite in our universe, we don't. Then the burden falls on you to show things are infinite besides God. I accept that infinite regress could be possible but you must it is.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 4:15:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 4:04:18 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:49:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:17:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:26:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Again, the present life is the result of a preceding one.

I agree here.

Therefore each existence presupposes an earlier one and consequently no existence can be the first... Indeed, it is absurd to speak of the beginning of a causal chain."

It is absurd to think there is chain and a first is needed for the second and so on? Seems like simple math to me.

"Seems" is important here.

If you define every event as being both the effect of a previous event and the cause of the next one, then how can you suddenly claim an event exists which causes an event but is not the effect of one?

Good question and I like your honesty and respectfulness. You are a pride to your belief or lack thereof. Your question: Naturally infinite needs no cause or it would not be infinite. Infinite means no beginning nor end. Now we as humans are infinite, not in this life but afterwards, but we began. We have problems with infinite because all we know is finite. We can think billions of years are infinite but is not, it is just a long time. Even if we are infinite, we really are not because we began and survive off an infinite source. That infinite source is timeless, no beginning nor end. God needs no cause because He is the supposed infinite source which has no beginning nor end. Even if we go to eternity, we still are finite because we began and unless we have the infinite source we would end.

That's special pleading. The only reason we westerners get away with it is because we don't want to face the infinite regress as a viable option.

No, it is plain logic. Infinite is no beginning nor end, has been and will be forever. We are only special pleading if we say that other things are infinite in our universe, we don't. Then the burden falls on you to show things are infinite besides God. I accept that infinite regress could be possible but you must it is.

"No, it is plain logic. Infinite is no beginning nor end, has been and will be forever. We are only special pleading if we say that other things are infinite in our universe, we don't. Then the burden falls on you to show things are infinite besides God. I accept that infinite regress could be possible but you must it is."

1. Every event is both a cause and effect
2. Time is linear.

From these two statements you can derive "There is no first cause" quite simply. Namely, no matter how many "causes" you go seek, each will always have its own cause you must identity. Thus, infinite regress.

Common sense.

But what you suggest is that we must posit a third presupposition, that some entity exists which is BOTH infinite AND not caused.

This while simultaneously asserting all things both cause and are caused.

*I'm doing this mainly to demonstrate an alternative worldview, I'm not Hindu*