Vague talk about the limits of logic and how this renders the most salient dimensions of human existence unspeakable is just dismissive, and sets one on a course of inquiry that, in positivist fashion, prizes clarity over substance, and if "Making our Ideas Clear" (Peirce) were the be all and end all of philosophy — Constance

Beauiful! Philo-poetry! :ok:

Prishon say: pain in the aaaaass. Auw! — Prishon

I assumed you would take that as a compliment.

My point is to ask basic questions — Constance

And this you have done. In a sense, such questions push us out of our boat - sink the boat - and leave us in a sea. What then? The ancient answer is to swim.

I assumed you would take that as a compliment — T Clark

I did! But Prishon is an imaginative guy. Likes to expess and imagine. No further implications. I like being a PITA! As long as the pains implies backreaction from the ones I give that pain to.

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? In the beginning there was the word? — Constance

This is from John 1:1 from the New Testament. My understanding is that "the word" is the translation of the Greek logos, which is understood as Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity).

Take this quite literally: How are such things that are "begun" to be conceived prior to their beginning; or, what is presupposed by a beginning? An absolute beginning makes no sense at all, for to begin would have to be ex nihilo and this is a violation of a foundation level intuition, a causeless cause, spontaneously erupting into existence simply is impossible, just as space cannot be conceived to "end". — Constance

This is Genesis 1:1 from the Old Testament.

Richard Friedman in "Commentary on the Torah" offers a direct translation from the Hebrew as "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth - when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said "let there be light,."

This does not suggest creation ex nihilo, but suggests God created order from the pre-existing chaos.

The real question is, does the world "speak"? — Constance

I don't think that is the question at all. The NT "in the beginning there was the word" is not meant to replace the OT account of creation and beginnings. You're reading John 1:1 as a Wittgensteinian commentary on the primacy of language, but it's not, and no one suggests that the world did not exist prior to language.

...no one suggests that the world did not exist prior to language. — Hanover

Well...you know...I kind of do. I acknowledge that that way of seeing things is a metaphysical proposition, but then, everything in this thread so far has been metaphysics. As usual, when I say "metaphysics," I mean neither true nor false.

Just so. logos being the Greek word for the spirit of the world (as they understood the term "spirit," of the cosmos, or world as they understood "world"). Thus for the logos to be a man and to speak an inconceivable violence, and revolution in thought*. And ty for saying well and instructively to the point.

A Brief History of Thought, Luc Ferry (pp. 60 - 63).

Religion generally deals with issues of the origins and nature of reality, ontology, so, of course it's philosophy. — T Clark

The fact that they both attempt to answer the same questions doesn't make them the same fields. If that were the case, then science would be philosophy and religion would be science because all three deal with ontological questions.

Reliance upon sacred texts, deities, and the supernatural are well within the purview of religion, but not of philosophy.

I do agree that that religion often does delve deeply into ontology, but not always and not necessarily. Even in the Western tradition, the OT offers only a very short account of the origin of the universe, and it provides no explanation for where God came from. But, see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony for other theological systems that do.

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? — Constance

God's word has the power of creation.

prizes clarity over substance, — Constance

These merge, or tend to, in simplicity. Try some.

Well...you know...I kind of do. — T Clark

If the world began when language began, then millions of years prior to the evolution of language existed in some non-existent state, whatever that means.

God has no power he doesn't have to earn. A necessary being is an incoherent idea. Who created God?

That's backwards, you're talking about the God of philosophers, not about God as he is conceived of in actual monotheistic religions.

Which is this thread about?

It seems the OP is trying to make it about the God of philosophers. But then it's not clear on the grounds of what a religious idea should be given relevance.

I think he is saying that the god of the philosophers is more reasonable than the God of the religions because religion says he creates from nothing. So religion has to explain what this God is and how it can create something by sheer power

In the beginning there was the word? — Constance

In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god. This is very much the same as all beginnings, in the sense that they are a relation of one thing to another. We see this at the base of all theories: energy and it's information ( frequency and amplitude ) create a wavicle, a field and its excitation, a string and it's vibration, order and entropy, 1+1. These are the limits of logic / metaphysics.

To construct anything one has to begin by relating one thing to another. Here begins our relational understanding. The construction of a relation is necessary to create a distinction, such that in relation to each other two things become distinct. The distinction is information. This is the beginning of consciousness "as we know it". Of course, assuming a systems understanding, this relational beginning would have it's counterpart in the real world. So the "real" world starts in exactly the same way. :smile:

My point is that there two kinds of good,

1) goods of nature (babies, strawberries, ect)

2) and goods of action, like sacrifice

If God contains of the good of (1) he has no more casual power than the universe. If he is a necessary being he can only have (1) and not (2) because he doesn't change and can't be tested or do wrong. The conclusion is God has no casual power unless he is contingent

God's word has the power of creation. — baker

Gods are eternal. They posses the magic essence. They created the world in their image. So the world is eternal and magic filled. The eternal magic is created by divine words only. Which goes to show that in the beginning there was the word. Spoken by gods for the holy trinity to emerge. From which we and every living creature are formed. In the beginning there was one-ness. Shifting over time in a dual interdependend world united by the magic bodies that we are. In between we are. The contemplation of the holy trinity unit is heard by revelations. To be spread by the word. I give you that words.

So religion has to explain what this God is and how it can create something by sheer power — Gregory

In religion, God is defined as that one being who does things by sheer power.

Gods are eternal. They posses the magic essence. They created the world in their image. So the world is eternal and magic filled. The eternal magic is created by divine words only. Which goes to show that in the beginning there was the word. Spoken by gods for the holy trinity to emerge. From which we and every living creature are formed. In the beginning there was one-ness. Shifting over time in a dual interdependend world united by the magic bodies that we are. In between we are. The contemplation of the holy trinity unit is heard by revelations. To be spread by the word. I give you that words. — Prishon

If you are suggesting that "gods" generically adhere to the description provided, that would simply be incorrect to the extent there are religions that do not hold as you have alleged. If you are suggesting this is Christianity (as I might glean from your reference to the trinity), you'll need to give textual support for it. Your reference to gods (in the plural) speaking in order to cause the emergence of the trinity (which is understood as a single entity) presents a claim that the gods created God, which is not Christianity, but is a polytheism that posits a theogony (as in who gave birth to the gods, as you see in Greek mythology), which is something the OT clearly does not do.

All of this strikes me as confused and confusing, but if you have some clarification for it, please share.

Deleted

Not if there is an eternal universe. A 4d spatial static substrate on which our universe evolves. And a next one.
There was a fluctuating time before it took of in one direction (entropic time). — Prishon

But the question here is about the religious dimension of human existence, and 4d spatiality is a science term that has no bearing. You are working in a world of scientific assumptions, but this has little to do with the foundation of meanings that constitute the human condition at the level of basic questions, the level where the most important issues arise. Too much analytic philosophy has turned philosophy into exactly this kind sanitized theorizing.
Authentic philosophy does not assume things to be the case that can stand a more fundamental analysis. Before you can even talk about time, one has to ask, what is the structure of time that is there PRIOR to, that is, presupposed by normal science.
Eternal? What can this possible even mean?

what is the structure of time that is there PRIOR to, that is, presupposed by normal science. — Constance

There is no prior. God created the whole if infinity of time. No time involved. The word was spoken and BANG. The eternal universe was there. His wird is revealed. I heard him speak. The is the holy trinity. His own image. Thats from what he created. From himself. The contemplation of the holy trinity is the contemplation of god. But Rishin no care about god. God can go to hell says Rishon. As far as I'm cincerned god is dead. I care about his creation though...

I agree with your post. As Kant said about the series of past causes, it's indeterminate. We can speculate if it's eternal or not but time itself is either material or mystical. Both options seem as absurd as a finite or infinite past seemed to Kant. So we have a casual series which science makes rational sense of. Where it starts is beyond us which is why religion talks about a "beginning" so much. It becomes a religious question because science can't know the whole of reality

But the question is begged: Prior to the Big Bang as a meaningful notion at all, there is the language out of which this theory in physics is constructed. Big? What does this mean? — Constance

Unless we are elite physicists we have no idea how to even conceive of these matters. Any wonder that literature/religion/myth/philosophy are so attractive. For my money any discussion of this subject is exceptionally speculative and the best we can do is read the distilled ideas of experts and pretend we understand.

'Big Bang' is a term used by Fred Hoyle in 1949 to gently mock the event, so don't get bogged down in the wording. Physicists do not believe there was explosion but an expansion. Personally I couldn't care less.

The idea of beginnings and endings seem to me to be human conceptions and preoccupations and, while such frames certainly match lived experience on earth, they can hardly be expected to describe all which is the case.

So you get to choose between making shite up and admitting that you don't know.

Most folk choose to make shite up.

Philosophy is an empty vessel.

Unless we are elite physicists we have no idea how to — Tom Storm

I am not an elite ohysicist. Im a particle physicist and have a rather clear view what happened.

The fact that they both attempt to answer the same questions doesn't make them the same fields. — Hanover

I think this just points out the arbitrariness of your philosophy/religion distinction.

Reliance upon sacred texts, deities, and the supernatural are well within the purview of religion, but not of philosophy. — Hanover

One definition of "philosophy" from the web - "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." About half the people in the world are followers of Abrahamic religions. For most of those people, you can't discuss those subjects without also talking about God.

To be clear, I'm not saying that all philosophies are religious or are religions. Would I say that all religions are philosophies?... My answer is a tentative yes. I need to think about that some more.

I am not an elite ohysicist. Im a particle physicist and have a rather clear view what happened. — Prishon

Not sure that counts but thanks for being grandiose. :razz: Laat je niet gek maken.