"For example?"

Anything eternal.

"Actually, the problem was with the claim "all things have a beginning".

Where is that claim in the Kalam cosmological argument?

"the cosmologists argument fails"

Is your reason for the failure that the argument says all things that exist have a cause, which contradicts the conclusion that an uncaused cause exists?


If so, this is a misunderstanding, the argument is about things which begin to exist. So there may be things in existence, which did not begin to exist, but do exist.

"Therefore, the cosmological argument refutes itself"


God is not a thing, but rather something supernatural.

"All concepts of God are false because, if there is a God, its true nature would be inconceivable to us puny mortals. Hence all concepts of God are idolatrous, which is why the ancient Hebrews started to lose the plot when they made their rules against idolatry, echoed by the Protestant iconoclasts of the Reformation. They were just switching one form of idolatry for another, without realizing it."

I agree, one should realise that our externally orientated mind cannot find, or describe God(although it can be described through esoteric systems). The mystic finds and knows God internally. The conceptual tools are different and hinge around the realisation of self, or being, as in some way in touch with God naturally, absent the externally orientated mind.

"uncaused" refers to a different sense of "cause" from what "cause" refers to."

Quite, how far down this path does philosophy tread? And presumably theology or mysticism carries the baton further?

My basic point is that the cause, or origin is not accessible to us intellectually and like you say "uncaused" is inapplicable. I do also consider that there may be a true uncaused cause, but that it would be way way beyond our humble imaginings. While God in the sense of the origin of our world need not be uncaused in this sense, but just external to our spacetime and spiritual realm(what we normally regard as existing).

"
Phenomena exist - what 'exists' is what stands apart, what begins and ends, every particular thing, every particular being. They all exist. The uncaused cause does not exist."

It isn't that simple though. We don't actually know what exists, or what it means for something to exist, or what existence is, all we've got is our experience of being in some sort of existence, something which we find on the occasion of our birth, again something not understood(in terms of the origin of our being).

Thus to say "the uncaused cause does not exist" is little more than Chitta Chatta in our heads. We don't know what an uncaused cause is, if it could exist, if there is anything which falls outside of our category of existing*, while still impinging in some way on our existing, or not. We don't have a clue how we got here, where we are, what is going on, or if there are any necessary causes that we can conceive of, or know of. Even if we can work out what is logically most likely to be the case we might be mistaken, or the reality might be odd and seemingly illogical.


*our concept of something existing, what it means to exist, is subject to human frailty and may be a pale reflection, or derivative of the reality out there. It could well be wrong headed, deluded, topsy turvy, inside out.

I agree with you and the rationale, but what does it prove? Does it prove the existence of God, an uncaused cause, or that from the human perspective there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of our known causal existence?

Indeed, is it even addressing existence atall, rather the concept of existence? A concept subject to human frailty.

I agree LEM is not applicable here. Either existents had a cause, or they didn't, there is no half way house. However as I have pointed out, philosophy is unequipped to address the issue to begin with. More so, there is the danger that philosophers might become of the opinion that they are addressing it in developing their complex theories, thus to become deluded. Even while steadfastly employing the tools of logic.

PSR?

Well, you've really whipped up a hornets nest there.

I'm not going to get stuck in on that one other than to point out that ever since the development of intellect in early humanity competing power structures have dominated human society. Also that our current decadent and chaotic age is primarily, as you say, a result of the breaking of strong, or brutal power structures, in favour of the more enlightened ideal, something which requires the cooperation of the masses, hence our problem.

Anyway, shall we get back on topic, radical Gods?

I am withy Marty on this one, although I wouldn't put such a strong emphasis on ethics.

"The issue with reincarnation in particular is that it is doubly taboo. Once because it was anathematised by the Church in about the 4th century, and again by science because it seems to undermine materialism"

Yes, folk could end up thinking of the world as little more than a dream, or a pool of water, that the soul occassionally dips its toe into. Rather the the totality of existence, perish the thought.

@Marty,

I like your radical God, might I say a transcendent God, perhaps. But I would not only elevate ethics to that plain, but every experiential concern of humanity*. So in a sense everything about our(and the experience of other beings in the biosphere) experience can be seen as an imperfect reflection/embodiment of the nature of God, or the divine. Likewise our "spacetime" can be viewed as a dim reflection of eternity, embodied in a causal chain. While the divine realm the cosmological argument is considering, in the person of God, is forever beyond the reach of the very tool employed to address it, namely logic.

Hence your "leap of faith".

*By experiential concern of humanity, I am referring to everything that is, or is an aspect of experience, or what can be conceptually generated and understood in the human mind.

The weakness of the argument is that it presumes to tackle the conundrum of first cause using logic. Logic (and the understanding it produces) is a product of a causal chain and therefore blind to that outside the chain.

I have encountered a few threads which try to do this with the various conundrums we face philosophically. They all seem to chase their own tail within the chain.

Perhaps it is time for philosophers to try thinking outside the box (chain) a little.

Transcendental unity might be the same as the being in/of us, now at this moment. That being does appear to be undifferentiated, if one considers it absent the trappings of the incarnation we find ourselves in.

From my perspective unitary existence is both here and there (by there I mean in that unified existence), both something as what we experience in this moment and something consummately unified, without any difference between the two, or the experience thereof.

Or in other words if one were to experience it, nothing would have changed, other perhaps from the mirage before our eyes.

It's on the Norfolk broads, in the UK. I paint local landscapes of East Anglia, there is a strong tradition and interest in the landscape and art of this region.

Yes I know what physicists have worked out. But that's besides the point, I am not questioning the scientific view of the universe. I'm pointing out that philosophically we cannot determine if, or not, our(humanity's) perception of the universe might be the result of a delusional state* and as such the perception of the finite might be a delusional mirage, or an artificial construct in a more complex and subtle reality inhabited by God like beings, or something else inconceivable to us.

This being the case we can't with certainty know what finite entails, or that there is anything finite external to our perception. It's worse than this regarding infinity, because it is entirely a figment of the human imagination.

* I am working from the observation that the only thing we can know with any certainty is that we have being and experience and that all else is secondary to this fact.

"If the universe is finite, then what's outside it? What does it expand into?"

You might be in a state of delusion, or an artificial construct in a more subtle reality etc.

Quite, we are not aware of what this maths is, what it is showing us about what exists, existence, or how it comes to exist(etc.etc...)

This is a painting I finished the other day. I can't get the image to show up in the post yet.

Ahha! See following post.

I don't see how logic can be of any use here. There are numerous loose ends which can't be reconciled.

I have given this a lot of thought over the years and the only logically consistent answer I could come up with is that it is the finite which doesn't exist and everything is infinite. But that we are in a state of delusion in which we experience a kind of finite existence.

Unfortunately in this thought experiment there are new loose ends, for example infinity and existence are inconceivable from our deluded perspective.

@TheWillowOfDarkness wrote,
"My approach in this is deliberate. The major point I'm refuting is precisely that distinction. Meaning is infinite. It's not a "human mind" nor a "world mind." Minds are only finite states-- instances of thinking being in existence. Meaning does not need them. The rock is still means a rock regardless of what anyone might think or if anything thinks at all. A human life is still meaningful, no matter how much they might insist such meaning is incoherent. Life does not draw from the infinite and finite for its presence. It is finite and always expresses the infinite. The twin of the finite and infinite are so, but neither is a precondition, foundation or ingredient in the making of life's presence."

I get what you are saying, but it is a bit vague and lacks rigour. For example, to say meaning is infinite and does not need mind(which is the implication here) is problematic. Firstly there is the issue of what meaning absent mind is and that we can assume there is such meaning(from the prison of our minds). I do agree that there is meaning absent mind, but to get there requires some quite sophisticated thinking, which I can't see you articulating. Secondly you are applying "infinite" to the world which I am saying cannot be done, this is because "infinite" is an abstract notion of the human mind, we cannot assume it has any more reality than this, such as for example 1+1=2, which may have more reality than as an abstract concept.

Also my thought experiment about two planes, one infinite and one finite is a thought experiment for the purposes of contemplation and is not intended to make statements about the world.


TheWillowOfDarkness wrote,
"I know the mystic hates this-- I'm pointing out they are arguing an incoherence. There is nothing mystical about the infinite. It's what we never are but always what we express. What the mystic professes is ignorance of meaning and ourselves. They proclaim meaning has to be attained when it's really been there all along. A nihilism which is steadfast because people are attached to the idea of being rescued from meaninglessness. For them to simply mean is either unfulfilling (e.g. "but I'll die," "Good won't necessarily be rewarded," etc., etc.) or not enough work (e.g. "You mean we have to nothing to mean?). Meaningless is our own false and poisonous expectation of ourselves."

Again I get what you are saying, but you are not doing mysticism justice here. It is true that some Mystics and spiritual people can be observed doing this, but this is a trivial observation and a caricature of the life style of mysticism. As a mystic I am not preoccupied with such pursuits, indeed thinking in this superficial way and the contents of my mind are nothing more than conceptual ornaments or furniture in a mystical room or place I might frequent from time to time. They can be changed sculpted, or put to one side in preference for natural furnishings(such as nature) at will in my practice.


TheWillowOfDarkness wrote,
"This is what Wayfarer was reacting against. For him what I'm saying doesn't make sense because I'm arguing meaning (the infinite) is the opposite (i.e. non-mystical, never needs to be attained because it's always expressed) of what he understands. To him I'm literally arguing up is down."

I will refrain from commenting on your interaction with Wayfarer. You appear to be saying that meaning and the infinite are the same thing, could you explain this? Also what Mystics seek to attain as you suggest is not meaning, but actually wisdom, or possibly freedom from meanings. The mystic practices freeing the self from mental constraints such as meaning/s, understandings, or constructs like the infinite as part of their practice.

@wayfarer
Willow is making sense, it's just with an unfortunate turn of phrase. Perhaps if you read between the lines, just focus on the direction of meaning in the text and skip over the specifics.

I have to do this anyway with any text as my autism can't cope with the specifics.

@TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree with what you are saying, but your use of "the infinite" has moved away from the conventional meaning and is actually refering more to what I will label "meaning mind". Also you appear to be making assumptions about the world, a thing and a place which we as thinking entities know little about. Rather you seem to be talking about "world mind". As such you are not actually describing the "world", but the "human world", but the human world only in any knowledge of it in the human mind.

This might not seem to be an important distinction to make, but from the perspective of the mystic, the relation between the personal, or human, mind and "the world" is a subtle and complex subject. In so much as on consideration the mind and world are inseparable, while distinctly seperate.

Regarding the infinite, it is an invention of the human mind and any attempt to apply it to the world, or "the realm of mind or meaning", is subject to human frailty. Such thought experiments as this one by Nietzsche, are useful contemplative tools, such as conceptual constructs around the concept of transcendence, or infinity.

Another example is one I use on occasion, that existence is an inteprlay between two closely parallel planes or membranes, one infinite in every sense, the other finite in every sense. Life draws from both for its presence.

We do have numbskulls in a way. In the sense that our selves are supported by a group of individually acting cells, cooperating and working in concert. Each of us is a multicellular colony with differing cells tailored to different tasks and cooperating to "be" a fully conscious self, with a mind and able to do metaphysics.

Yes the thinking mind of a human could be described as an algorithm. But I don't think that this is the whole story, there is consciousness and being, which do not require computation in the brain in the same sense, in that there is a metabolic component and possibly, due to philosophical analysis, an immaterial component.

I presume that you imagine a working A.I. device, do you also imagine it having consciousness?

I don't see how logic can be used to say anything about existence, other than to comment on things that we happen to experience and know(the empirical record), which is only part of the picture, logically, while only being derivable via an unknown and possibly independent source.

Thinking of the cupboard, I can imagine a pin on the shelf in the cupboard, with ethereal beings dancing on its head. I can only imagine and therefore believe, that ethereal beings conceptually derived from the empirical record are dancing there. I can't believe that any other kind are as they would be inconceivable to me, but I can't rule them out either, even though I don't know what I would be ruling out. So I can't say that unknown objects do, or don't exist. I can only comment on objects that could possibly be conceived of and derived from the empirical record.

Indeed I can't claim that empirically derived objects exist, or not, because I don't know what it means to exist, or that I can conceive, or have knowledge of anything that exists.

Yes, I did once experience an insight of the subtly of the communion of forms of divinity, well on more than one occasion, in the presence of a guru I knew well during Puga. To communicate this to someone who had not experienced it would not be easy and if it were possible in some way verbally, it would still not convey the experiential dimension. A dimension which would encompass a personal mystical process of revelation, again something not easily communicable.

There are I suspect issues with tying down transcendent experience into communicable means. Although I have had some success in close interaction with a fellow traveller, but even here, I was aware of a gulf between us in conception, which left us world's apart in personal understanding.

And yet I have had understandings with gurus I have encountered across a crowded room, for the briefest of moments, which were at the heart of my deepest ponderings and which I am at a loss to communicate verbally. Although I suspect that if I turned to that guru and referred to that interaction, he/she would know exactly what I meant and not much verbiage would be required. There is a deep significance with respect to face to face verbal traditions here I sense.

@Wayfarer
"But what about communities of faith, discourse and practice? "

I agree with you about this, however a degree of faith and acceptance is required in theses communities. Which is all well and good and enables people to experience divinity, spirituality etc. However in my response to the OP I was thinking of proofs for the existence of God, philosophical proofs. These communities don't provide proof in the philosophical sense and neither should they, it is not their business. I was pointing out the reality of the inability to apply philosophy to the question of the existence of God.

Now a practitioner may achieve a mystical union with God through being a member of such a community, in much the same way as the lone mystic I refer to. This is largely the purpose of these communities, but for some people this doesn't supply sufficient proofs for them and relies more on faith and trust. This was the case for me when I explored such communities, although finding God was not actually that important for me, or whether he/she exists. For me finding an intellectual route to an understanding of existence was what I seeked and still do seek and who I am and what is going on. In this quest I have left behind these communities and found a study of literature(including mystical literature), art, communion with nature and treading a personal mystical path to be the most appropriate.

I found the communities I entered to be lacking in the intellectual philosophical attitude and understanding necessary for my requirements. Something which I realised they are not in the business of disseminating, as their business is bringing people to God and the benefits of a spiritual and religious life, in good faith, rather than with philosophical rigour.

I've have come late to this discussion as I have only just found this forum.

I would like to point out that the God of man(and woman) is a conceptual construct, albeit a concept which is regarded as the subject of a serous consideration about the reality we find ourselves in. However if one does think about it seriously, whether God does exist or not, one ought to consider our, or your, or humanity's limitations in having knowledge or understanding of existence and what is encountered. Namely that we have no idea what is going on, where and how it is going on and that logic, and therefore philosophy cannot be used to address it, other than in what can be deduced from what we do know. Also that what we do know, or experience may only be an appearance of what we know of and may be something else etc.

This leaves us with only one other course of enquiry, that of an internal, or experiential inquiry, what is generally known as mysticism. What his adds to the mix is that of the self and it's being. From the position of the self one can consider what may have existence by having equivalence to that self, also that if one's self is itself a construct, or effect, what has existence of which one's self is a reflection, or construct.

Thus one can address the issue seriously, i.e. If an actual God(one which is not a conceptual construct, but is actually in existence) or its equivalent, exists and what form it takes, and what relation it has to one's self. This results in a realisation that the mystic is in the position of being face to face(or not, i.e. mistakenly) with God and all else in one's existence is consequential.

Unfortunately if that mystic discovers the existence of God, it remains impossible for that existence to be communicated between people, other than by one person trusting another to be correct in their affirmation. This suggests that the only way to answer the question of the existence of God requires one to go beyond reason on a quest of discovery.

MU!

( I say this while not wanting to reduce the conversation to a negation of conversation, which so often happens to threads about Zen. It would be nice to contribute to a conversation which doesn't end this way)

@Asktheshadow

It is folly to entertain the notion that ideas can prove something about existence*. For at least two reasons, firstly ideas are abstract constructs entertained by something in existence. Something the existence of which is not understood. Secondly that which entertains the ideas is demonstrably limited in all facets of its action and its existence.

There are problems in attempting to circumscribe, nail down, existence.

*by existence I am refering to the very existence of existence itself and any processes involved.

I have given it some thought and have concluded that it works well as a koan because of the juxtaposition of "what are you doing?" and "what are you saying?" and the shock factor conveyed. Rather like the unexpected thwack of a stick on your back. And as you say it is not scripture, but rather a collection of personal thoughts forming a lineage from teacher to student through the generations. So all that is being lost is this lineage some personal thoughts therein and an emotional attachment and significance of such a document.

There is a sense that those significant insights had by the teacher have been conveyed to the student already, verbally. That any significant insights conveyed from the previous generation by the teacher of the teacher along with the six generations before that would have been conveyed only verbally and any attempts to formulate them in the written word in the book would loose some verbal direct transmission and would rather become a confusing distraction from the task at hand.

@ TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree, like the tethered calf, the self is a being, an animal, a living entity, a soul, a creature. Something which exists, we know this because there are selves which don't have minds (in the sense we as humans experience mind).

So one can annihilate the self in our thoughts, our ego, our mind and we will still exist, we will still be here, (while our body lives). Infact little will have changed.

Hi wayfarer, it's nice to see familiar faces again after the other forum caught a cold.

Yes I think it is from the Satipathana sutra, (I am no scholar) I was thinking of the Ox herding pictures. This has been the most meaningful teaching for me from Zen.

From an article by Dr.Walpola Rahula

" This bhikku’s mind (i.e. the meditator’s mind),/which was for a long time scattered among such objects as visible forms (rupadisu arammanesu) does not like to enter into the path (street) of a subject of meditation (kammatthana-vithi), but runs only into a wrong path like a chariot yoked to an untamed (unruly) bull. Just as a herdsman, who desires to break in an untamed calf grown up with all the milk it has drunk from the untamed (mother) cow, would remove it from the cow, and having fixed a big post on a side would tie the .calf to it with a rope; and then that calf of his, struggling this way and that, unable to run away, may sit down or lie down close to the post."

I expect that at the front of the book which was thrown on the fire were some illustrations of tethered oxen, so that aspirants might ponder their task. Without the book the teaching may become lost.

"just as a man would tie to a post a calf that should be tamed, even so here should one tie one's own mind tight to the object of mindfulness"