Spirit first?.......or substance first?

[miodrag]

I give you an option....
dark energy...dark matter
which came first?

No idea. Since dark energy is the idea born from the necessity to fine tune the explanation of the Universe we observe. What is that idea practically? Is it spirit or matter? Whatever may be the case, if any of those dark categories is spirit, then it is eternal, if it is matter, then it is also eternal, only being temporarily manifested. Whatever is temporarily manifested, if it has a beginning and end, then that is called matter, at least by convention in Hinduism, regardless if we call it matter or energy. So, from the perspective of Hinduism, your question is wrong. It is not the matter of what is older in time, but in rank. Energy cannot manifest an 'energent', or the source of energy. So, energent is older in rank. Energy is the potency of that energent. And that potency is as eternal as any other aspect of the energent. Translating this into theology, God is eternal and He has an eternal potency to manifest the material world. Material world include both matter and energy. After some time, that manifestation cease to exist, until the next time.

 

[Thief]

No idea. Since dark energy is the idea born from the necessity to fine tune the explanation of the Universe we observe. What is that idea practically? Is it spirit or matter? Whatever may be the case, if any of those dark categories is spirit, then it is eternal, if it is matter, then it is also eternal, only being temporarily manifested. Whatever is temporarily manifested, if it has a beginning and end, then that is called matter, at least by convention in Hinduism, regardless if we call it matter or energy. So, from the perspective of Hinduism, your question is wrong. It is not the matter of what is older in time, but in rank. Energy cannot manifest an 'energent', or the source of energy. So, energent is older in rank. Energy is the potency of that energent. And that potency is as eternal as any other aspect of the energent. Translating this into theology, God is eternal and He has an eternal potency to manifest the material world. Material world include both matter and energy. After some time, that manifestation cease to exist, until the next time.

okay.....and I see you have no idea (though you posted well enough).....

I would continue to insist......One before the other

chose any term you prefer

one will have the character of movement by will of self
the other reacts to that will

Spirit?....first
or substance

 

[Thief]

"Makes sense" to you, but:

-Many don't believe there is a god of any sort, spirit or otherwise.

-Many don't believe that any gods, singular or plural, created of the Universe.

-There is no imperative for believing either in spirits or in God;

-Or that HeSheItThem created the universe.

-Some even believe that Substance and Spirit are the same thing...

For these, and many many other categories of people, your choices are meaningless.

My question to you is WHY EVEN BOTHER TO POST A SURVEY WHEN YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE RESPONSE?

I see that the results so far are evenly divided at 5 apiece... but at least that many more have pointed out that they cannot sensibly respond.

If one does not believe that there is a god or any other spirits, substance does not precede nor follow spirit, because there is no spirit.

Those who believe some variation of "it's all spirit" or "spirit and substance coexist, neither came before or after," (regardless if their idea is that they preceded the beginning of the universe, or started at the same time), your choices are, again, meaningless.

So why are you playing this game? Why post it in General Religious Debates when you clearly wanted the response of dualistic monotheists and not anyone else?

note my previous post

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

note my previous post

And note mine

 

[Thief]

the hall of mirror trick doesn't work on God

Someone had to be First

substance does not move of it's own will

Someone formed and set in motion the universe (one word)

Spirit first

 

[Willamena]

not quite.....

substance is dead

let's not confuse that with life

if substance first........at any level.....
then something dead came to life .....of it's own will
it's own volition
it's own.......self

So rather than something dead creating something alive, you promote that something alive created something dead.

Like many have pointed out to you, we don't have to accept either. It's false dichotomy.

 

[Thief]

So rather than something dead creating something alive, you promote that something alive created something dead.

Like many have pointed out to you, we don't have to accept either. It's false dichotomy.

and yet.....substance is dead stuff

and we are not

or maybe...you are referring to the famous quote of the Carpenter....
Let the dead.....bury the dead

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but sufficient observation to indicate a singular point....

How do you figure? Why do you assume that absolutely everything has the same ultimate source? If one god can exist uncaused, why not two? Why not a million?

 

[Thief]

How do you figure? Why do you assume that absolutely everything has the same ultimate source? If one god can exist uncaused, why not two? Why not a million?

Someone had to be First

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Someone had to be First

Irrelevant. What comes first doesn't necessarily cause what comes second.

You're arguing that God can pop into existence uncaused, right? What's stopping another god from popping into existence later, also uncaused?

 

[Thief]

Irrelevant. What comes first doesn't necessarily cause what comes second.

You're arguing that God can pop into existence uncaused, right? What's stopping another god from popping into existence later, also uncaused?

most of what I believe in has a linear existence
and Someone had to be First

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

most of what I believe in has a linear existence

What you believe is irrelevant until you demonstrate that your beliefs are justified.

and Someone had to be First

So gods do need causes, except for the very first god?

 

[Thief]

What you believe is irrelevant until you demonstrate that your beliefs are justified.


So gods do need causes, except for the very first god?

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

no justification you will accept
toooooo bad

and how He became self aware ( as in .....I AM!....)
we get to ask Him when we get there

but if you prefer to follow your substance into the ground
that form of contentment is yours for the lack of belief

enjoy

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

no justification you will accept
toooooo bad

I'll accept any rational justification.

and how He became self aware ( as in .....I AM!....)
we get to ask Him when we get there

but if you prefer to follow your substance into the ground
that form of contentment is yours for the lack of belief

enjoy

Threats instead of a real response? Lovely.

You say that "spirit" can exist uncaused. Don't you believe this? Or do you really think that this has been false since the start of the universe?

 

[Thief]

I'll accept any rational justification.


Threats instead of a real response? Lovely.

You say that "spirit" can exist uncaused. Don't you believe this? Or do you really think that this has been false since the start of the universe?

I believe in cause and effect.....it's lovely
and a sure thing

and Someone had to be First
is rational

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe in cause and effect.....it's lovely
and a sure thing

But not completely: when it's convenient for you, you insist that some things can exist uncaused so that your God can exist uncaused. However, you then insist that nothing else can exist uncaused so that your God is the source for everything.

This is contradictory.

and Someone had to be First
is rational

That depends what you mean. It seems like you're trying to say something like "the first thing had to cause everything that came after it." This isn't obviously rational; you'd need to demonstrate it as so.

Same with calling this first thing a "someone": that's something you'd need to demonstrate, too.

 

[Thief]

But not completely: when it's convenient for you, you insist that some things can exist uncaused so that your God can exist uncaused. However, you then insist that nothing else can exist uncaused so that your God is the source for everything.

This is contradictory.


That depends what you mean. It seems like you're trying to say something like "the first thing had to cause everything that came after it." This isn't obviously rational; you'd need to demonstrate it as so.

Same with calling this first thing a "someone": that's something you'd need to demonstrate, too.

I have already stated.....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

there will be no demonstration

all we can do is think about it


Cause and effect.....always one and the other
never one without the other
until you go back to the beginning

and when we do we get to ask God how He became self aware
Someone had to be First

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone had to be First

So, you are stating that there must have been a literally miraculous creator being... while also claiming that it was definitely differentiable from and previous to existence itself (or perhaps just to "the rest" of existence)?

That is a lot of certainty to have about the properties and limitations of awfully speculative events and entities.

Say that you prefer to believe that it is so and I will bother you no more. But saying that it is so... well, I just don't see how that could not be an arbitrary belief.

 

[Thief]

So, you are stating that there must have been a literally miraculous creator being... while also claiming that it was definitely differentiable from and previous to existence itself (or perhaps just to "the rest" of existence)?

That is a lot of certainty to have about the properties and limitations of awfully speculative events and entities.

Say that you prefer to believe that it is so and I will bother you no more. But saying that it is so... well, I just don't see how that could not be an arbitrary belief.

i cannot make denial......you may try

Someone had to be First

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have already stated.....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

there will be no demonstration

all we can do is think about it

I've thought about it and rejected your position as undemonstrated. You're going to need something more. Something rational.

Cause and effect.....always one and the other
never one without the other
until you go back to the beginning

So "spirit" normally requires a cause? I thought you said it didn't.

and when we do we get to ask God how He became self aware
Someone had to be First

If God could do it on his own, why couldn't someone else?