Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Agreement on Important Point

In response to Contingent Beings Require... posted by dancooper:

We are agreed then that a cyclical universe with an infinite regress is the only possible alternative to the First Cause thesis. And so if the cyclical universe with an infinite regress can be discredited, the existence of a divine Necessary Being becomes all the more likely.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Another View

.
Let us assume the existence of the Necessary Being.
.
Let us say that it is the substance of life.
.
So, then, every living thing is contingent on the substance of life.
.
In this sense, it could be said that we all are a part of the Necessary Being and that we all are part of the Contingent. We are all that there is--without us, nothing can be said to exist.
.
It all ends up being circuitous and we end up dizzy.
.
Whenever humans probe into the unknown, they enter unchartered waters. Who knows what we will find when we come to the edge of the unknown sea? Will there be gigantic reptiles waiting to swallow us up? Wooooooooo.
.
Trying to prove the unknown is like trying to square a circle.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Another View

In response to Another View posted by pink101:

This view you're proposing strays into pantheism. I'm not dismissing it or being accusatory. Just an observation. Do you see the connection?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» dancooper - Chicken and egg

In response to Chicken and egg posted by BrianTubbs:

"The chicken clearly came first."

Darn! And I thought it was the egg!

-- posted by dancooper

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» dancooper - Another View

In response to Another View posted by BrianTubbs:

I, too, saw the pantheism connection in what Pink said. But I, for one, have not dismissed pantheism as a possibility. It has an inherent attractiveness, and its weaknesses, to my mind, are not quite as weak as those manifest in Monotheism.

-- posted by dancooper

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Another View

In response to Another View posted by dancooper:
.
Let's just do a little logic.
.
Accepting the idea of a Necessary Being, one is left with the fact that such a being has to be all that existed in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?
.
Then, if that is correct, all that is now was derived some how from what ever that Necessary Being was in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?
.
If it is, then all that is is a part of the original.
.
Is that correct?
.
As far as I can put things together, that does seem to be what the popular Christian belief amounts to.
.
Pantheism?
.
Could be.
.
Pretty much, it's the Jewish myth of the Shekinah which is mentioned in the Bible..
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Another View

In response to Another View posted by pink101:

Let's just do a little logic.

Let's.

Accepting the idea of a Necessary Being, one is left with the fact that such a being has to be all that existed in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?

Yes
.
Then, if that is correct, all that is now was derived some how from what ever that Necessary Being was in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?

I'll answer in the affirmative with some caution, depending on what is meant by "derived from." If the Necessary Being is the omnipotent God described in the Bible, then such a God is capable of creating something out of the nothing - and need not use part of His own essence to accomplish that creation.
.
If it is, then all that is is a part of the original.
.
Is that correct?

It's correct IF God used part of Himself or, rather the Necessary Being used part of itself to accomplish the creation.
.
As far as I can put things together, that does seem to be what the popular Christian belief amounts to.
.
Pantheism?

No. Pantheism is distinct from Christianity for the reasons outlined above.
.
Could be.
.
Pretty much, it's the Jewish myth of the Shekinah which is mentioned in the Bible..

You can elaborate on that a little bit more, if you'd like, but the Genesis account does not endorse pantheism.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Another View

In response to Another View posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I'm not trying to sell the idea, ok?
.
But, I do think it deserves some honest consideration.
.
In the middle, you questioned the presentation with, I'll answer in the affirmative with some caution, depending on what is meant by "derived from." If the Necessary Being is the omnipotent God described in the Bible, then such a God is capable of creating something out of the nothing - and need not use part of His own essence to accomplish that creation.
.
Let's say that what ever the "omnipotent God described in the Bible" created, [He] did it with fore thought and purpose. So, whatever it was, it was derived from God's mind along with everything else. I think we can, thereby, say that it "was derived some how" from God.
.
So, then, we are all derived from that Necessary Being if my logic is correct. Has to be, Brian. Do the Venn Diagrams.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» dancooper - Another View

In response to Another View posted by pink101:

Hello Pink.

Nice to talk with you again.

And thanks for the earlier compliment, by the way. I always did enjoy our discussions, even when our POV was not quite identical. And while I am on the subject of reminiscences, I want to thank the Reverend Jones for his comment (which reply I failed to offer earlier). And also to thank him, as well as you (and only a small handful of others, by the way) for all the benefit your comments in the past have given to various discussions I have enjoyed.

But now to this particular discussion: I see and appreciate where Brian is coming from with his attention to this component of your premise, "derived from." It could probably mean a lot of different things. But as you later defined it, including the concepts of "forethought and purpose," you have implied 'design' as both a motive and an action. Having both of these, we certainly also derive your conclusion, and give Brian more than enough confidence to join you in that conclusion.

Brian's questioning of the definition, I am fairly sure, resulted from the possibility that the 'derivation' in question might be more simply defined, as something like what we observe on a regular basis, namely, the mundane and orderly 'cause and effect' relationships that occur in our world with some frequency. If 'derived from' means simply 'caused by,' as any more typical and normal effect in our ordinary world is caused, then the resulting conclusion is in line with pantheism. But with your elaboration, this derivation is specified as exhibiting more than just a simple causal nature, with forethought and intention as its formative components. If we have those components, we have Brian, and we also have God, but probably not in that order...

-- posted by dancooper

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - The Idea

In response to Another View posted by dancooper:

.
I sure don't have the skills necessary to always make my points clearly. That's one reason why I've asked for a discussion on the idea of Religionism in other threads.
.
But--here--it is important, I think, that we recognize that the God of the Bible is given the prerogative of having created all that is, was, and ever shall be. I'm sure even the formlessness and the void when only darkness gathered over the earth. So, whatever is, was, or ever shall be must as a consequentiality have come from God. It could not have come from any other place.
.
In this sense, we are all--as is EVERYTHING ELSE--in one way or another derivations of God. Nothing else can be true in this sense.
.
I don't see any thing wrong with that idea in so far as having to do with the creation stories in the Book of Beginnings--Genesis.
.
We can use logic here, can we not?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds