Then perhaps you'll be surprised to know that Bunge suggests that the Big Bang didn't happen. In other words, Bunge himself denies premise FTI10: the Big Bang did not happen, precisely because (in Bunge's view), creatio ex nihilo is impossible. He says that as a physicist. He thinks that the Universe is somehow eternal in an Aristotelian sense. — Arcane Sandwich

Did Bunge say the Big Bang did not happen? I haven't encountered such a statement in my readings of Bunge. I doubt that many physicists consider the Big Bang to be "creation ex nihilo", that is creation out of absolutely nothing. The Big Bag is compatible with a Universe that cycles form Big Bang to Big Crunch for example (I am aware that current evidence is considered to tell against this thesis). It is also consistent with the multiverse thesis.

Even if we want to say that God created the Universe out of nothing, this is not really out of nothing because God, if it exists, is not nothing (even if it might be no-thing).

Did Bunge say the Big Bang did not happen? — Janus

He suggested it, yes. He suggested it, as professional physicist, as well as a philosopher.

I haven't encountered such a statement in my readings of Bunge. — Janus

I can share some quotes, if you don't believe me. And I've published a paper on this, as well. PM me if you want to download a copy.

I doubt that many physicists consider the Big Bang to be "creation ex nihilo", that is creation out of absolutely nothing. — Janus

Most physicists did not share Bunge's theories.

The Big Bag is compatible with a Universe that cycles form Big Bang to Big Crunch for example (I am aware that current evidence is considered to tell against this thesis). — Janus

Both of those claims are true.

It is also consistent with the multiverse thesis. — Janus

Yes, it is. It is also compatible with the thesis that there have been multiple Big Bangs, each originating a distinct Universe. And there are two kinds of Big Bangs in that theory: simultaneous ones, and successive ones.

Even if we want to say that God created the Universe out of nothing, this is not really out of nothing because God, if it exists, is not nothing (even if it might be no-thing). — Janus

It is impossible for human reason to understand the essence of God.

:up:

It is impossible for human reason to understand the essence of God. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you assuming that God exists? Because if God is merely a human idea, something imaginary, it seems strange to say that it is impossible to understand it.

Are you assuming that God exists? — Janus

No, I am not. Fictional entities have essences, just as much as real entities do.

Because if God is merely a human idea, something imaginary, it seems strange to say that it is impossible to understand it. — Janus

No essence can be understood.

No essence can be understood. — Arcane Sandwich

Could that be because the idea of a single unique essence is incoherent? I think of essences as sets of specifying characteristics. So, I would say that we have a set of specifying characteristics for God, which is it is an imaginary entity are understandable.

If God is a real entity, then there may well be real essences, which would presumably be the ideas of things in God's own understanding of them. In that case it would seem though, to echo Spinoza, that God would have infinite attributes, of which we can comprehend only extensa and cogitans.

As you no doubt no Spinoza thought the highest function of reason was a kind of intellectual intuition— to see things "sub specie aeternitatis", and that intuition may well be ineffable, or only partly effable.

Could that be because the idea of a single unique essence is incoherent? — Janus

There's nothing incoherent about the idea of a single unique essence. It's called pantheism. Spinoza was a pantheist, unlike Descartes, for example.

I think of essences as sets of specifying characteristics. — Janus

Ok.

So, I would say that we have a set of specifying characteristics for God, which is it is an imaginary entity are understandable. — Janus

Perhaps.

If God is a real entity, then there may well be real essences, which would presumably be the ideas of things in God's own understanding of them. — Janus

Perhaps.

In that case it would seem though, to echo Spinoza, that God would have infinite attributes, of which we can comprehend only extensa and cogitans. — Janus

Descartes also spoke of a third substance, a res divina. So, you have: res cogitans, res extensa, and res divina.

As you no doubt no Spinoza thought the highest function of reason was a kind of intellectual intuition— to see things "sub specie aeternitatis", and that intuition may well be ineffable, or only partly effable. — Janus

It's possible. Kant didn't believe in intellectual intuition, yet Meillassoux does. In After Finitude, he says:

Thus, in order to interrupt this see-sawing between metaphysics and fideism, we must transform our perspective on unreason, stop construing it as the form of our deficient grasp of the world and turn it into the veridical content of this world as such - we must project unreason into things themselves, and discover in our grasp of facticity the veritable intellectual intuition of the absolute. 'Intuition', because it is actually in what is that we discover a contingency with no limit other than itself; 'intellectual' because this contingency is neither visible nor perceptible in things and only thought is capable of accessing it, just as it accesses the chaos that underlies the apparent continuity of phenomena. — Quentin Meillassoux

We are the victims of an age when men of science are discredited, and only a few remain who are capable of engaging in scientific research. Our philosophers spend all their time in mixing true with false and are interested in nothing but outward show; such little learning as they have they extend on material ends. When they see a man sincere and unremitting in his search for the truth, one who will have nothing to do with falsehood and pretence, they mock and despise him. — Omar Khayyam

(edit: the previous videoclip is from a Turkish series. The character there, is Ibn Arabi)

Are you familiar with this website? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, it's mine. I'm almost done with an 8 volume set on the Rubaiyat and my extensions to it; then I guess I'll put PDFs of it there, or elsewhere, since no one could afford to buy it.

Are you familiar with this website? — Arcane Sandwich


Yes, it's mine. — PoeticUniverse

:roll:

It was a rhetorical question, mate. I already knew it was your site. Why do you think I even linked to it?

I'm almost done with an 8 volume set on the Rubaiyat and my extensions to it — PoeticUniverse

Impressive task. Clearly, Omar Khayyam is to you what Mario Bunge is to me.

then I guess I'll put PDFs of it there — PoeticUniverse

Good. I support that.

since no one could afford to buy it. — PoeticUniverse

You don't understand Ibn Arabi's , then.

Impressive task. Clearly, Omar Khayyam is to you what Mario Bunge is to me. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, it will be a gift, a the greatest book ever made; 6400 pages of art and words, one set in 11x8.5 and one in 14x11, both on coated glossy paper. There are videos, too, but they need to be updated somewhat, although they are basically OK.

the greatest book ever made — PoeticUniverse

Do you say that as a Sufi, or as an atheist, or simply as a fan of Omar Khayyam?

I would argue that no atheist book can be as good as a theist book, be it polytheist, monotheist, or pantheist. That, is Ibn Arabi's point. And that, is why such a book must be gifted.

I would argue that no atheist book can be as good as a theist book, be it polytheist, monotheist, or pantheist. That, is Ibn Arabi's point. And that, is why such a book must be gifted. — Arcane Sandwich

It's anti-religious in parts, but that makes it to have a Biblical flavor, too, plus it has the Theory of Everything in it, as surpassing the Biblical.

It's anti-religious in parts, but that makes it to have a Biblical flavor, too, plus it has the Theory of Everything in it, as surpassing the Biblical. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like the Qur'an.

87. We gave Moses the Scripture, and sent a succession of messengers after him. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that whenever a messenger comes to you with anything your souls do not desire, you grew arrogant, calling some impostors, and killing others? — The Qur'an

Does this mean that the Qur'an declares that Jesus is God, yes or no? Open question for everyone.

Does this mean that the Qur'an declares that Jesus is God, yes or no? Open question for everyone.

No, it is quite explicit about this. For example Surah An-Nisa - 171:

O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs.

The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah — The Qur'an

And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. — The Qur'an

I see these two claims as contradictory, in a Hegelian way.

I know that generally speaking Jesus is considered to be a prophet like Muhammed was a prophet -- so I'm inclined to read "We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs" as saying he's on par with Muhammed, but not God.

I know that generally speaking Jesus is considered to be a prophet like Muhammed was a prophet -- so I'm inclined to read "We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs" as saying he's on par with Muhammed, but not God. — Moliere

In Islam, it is a truth that Jesus performed miracles, so did Muhammed. The composition of the Qur'an itself was Muhammed's miracle. In Cartesian terms, how is this possible if Jesus and Muhammed are only a duality of res cogitans and res extensa, without being also res divina, either wholly or in part?

From my perspective it's because performing miracles is a trope of the literature -- the Buddha also performed miracles in various stories. What it does is differentiate the character from the rest in the story so that you know you should listen to them as a font of special wisdom. Also I think these are features of the stories for the more literally minded who will shrug at doing virtue for its own reward, but when put in earthly terms like magic which fulfills desires and other earthly, human rewards then the more literally minded will understand.

From my perspective it's because performing miracles is a trope of the literature -- the Buddha also performed miracles in various stories. What it does is differentiate the character from the rest in the story so that you know you should listen to them as a font of special wisdom. Also I think these are features of the stories for the more literally minded who will shrug at doing virtue for its own reward, but when put in earthly terms like magic which fulfills desires and other earthly, human rewards then the more literally minded will understand. — Moliere

Or perhaps anyone who performs miracles has, or is, a res divina, either wholly or in part, in addition to having, or being, a res cogitans as well as a res extensa. If so, then it could be the case that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and that Haile Selassie (former emperor of Ethiopia) is also God incarnate, and perhaps even Muhammed is also God incarnate. How can that be? Well, a polytheist might argue that, for example. Polytheism should be taken just as seriously as monotheism, atheism, and pantheism.

Sure.

But I want to avoid speaking for the Muslim, or any other religious perspective. I've attended Islamic service and that's where my knowledge of Muhammed and Jesus both being profits in Islam comes from; since there's also theological disputes I append "generally"

So here I resort to what I see -- I grant the possibility, but religious claims often come back to this basic relationship of "seeing as": the point of the scripture is to help the reader see the world as such-and-such a person. The subject of the work isn't God as much as humanity.

I've attended Islamic service and that's where my knowledge of Muhammed and Jesus both being profits in Islam comes from — Moliere

"Profits" or prophets, mate?

The subject of the work isn't God as much as humanity. — Moliere

Maybe polytheism encompasses all of humanity, as the Rastafari religion argues.

heh, prophets.

If so then the gods I see are a little bit pathetic ;)

heh, prophets. — Moliere

Others might accuse you of a Freudian slip. Luckily for you, I don't believe in pseudoscience.

If so then the gods I see are a little bit pathetic ;) — Moliere

Why wouldn't they be? The word "pathetic" is etymologically rooted in the word "pathos", which means passion.

Think of it like this, Moliere. We've become accustomed to the idea that God incarnate (i.e., Jesus Christ) should be a sort of Nietzschean Over-man. He wasn't. Jesus Christ was a man. Are you not familiar with the the concept of the Passion of Jesus?

Even if he was a man his function in the story is to be a font of wisdom, right? So like the philosopher he's part-man, part-divine.

Are you not familiar with the the concept of the Passion of Jesus? — Arcane Sandwich

Which part of the wiki ought I look at for the specific concept? I'm surely familiar with the gospels. And in each one of them Jesus performs more miracles with each retelling. Almost like it's being told by a group of people who want to one-up eachother on just how holy Jesus was.

Why wouldn't they be? The word "pathetic" is etymologically rooted in the word "pathos", which means passion. — Arcane Sandwich

If he is then he's not worthy of worship, right?

We have to get along -- but it's an earthly existence, and not a heavenly one.

Almost like it's being told by a group of people who want to one-up eachother on just how holy Jesus was. — Moliere

You say that like there's something wrong with it. Is there? Philosophically speaking.

Why wouldn't they be? The word "pathetic" is etymologically rooted in the word "pathos", which means passion. — Arcane Sandwich


If he is then he's not worthy of worship, right? — Moliere

"he", who? Jesus Christ? Yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a Christian would tell you. And yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a Muslim would tell you. And yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a polytheist would tell you. And yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a pantheist would tell you.

What would the atheist tell you?

We have to get along -- but it's an earthly existence, and not a heavenly one. — Moliere

Who says that we have to get along? Creatures kill each other. We are creatures. Why should we not kill each other? I'll tell you why: because it would be a naturalistic fallacy to suppose that creatures ought to do what creatures are.

Do you know who preached that truth, among other people?

Yeah. They call him "Jesus Christ".