1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Thief, Jun 2, 2017.

?
  1. Spirit in existence first

    6 vote(s)
    54.5%
  2. substance in existence first

    5 vote(s)
    45.5%
  1. miodrag

    miodrag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    115
    Ratings:
    +41
    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.
     
  2. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    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
     
  3. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    note my previous post
     
  4. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    20,666
    Ratings:
    +7,015
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    And note mine
     
  5. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    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
     
  6. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,572
    Ratings:
    +6,576
    Religion:
    Mystics
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    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
     
    #87 Thief, Jun 8, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
  8. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,289
    Ratings:
    +17,180
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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?
     
  9. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    Someone had to be First
     
  10. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,289
    Ratings:
    +17,180
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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?
     
  11. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    most of what I believe in has a linear existence
    and Someone had to be First
     
  12. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,289
    Ratings:
    +17,180
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    What you believe is irrelevant until you demonstrate that your beliefs are justified.

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

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    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
     
  14. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,289
    Ratings:
    +17,180
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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?
     
  15. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    I believe in cause and effect.....it's lovely
    and a sure thing

    and Someone had to be First
    is rational
     
  16. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,289
    Ratings:
    +17,180
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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.
     
  17. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    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
     
  18. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,752
    Ratings:
    +4,583
    i cannot make denial......you may try

    Someone had to be First
     
  20. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,289
    Ratings:
    +17,180
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I've thought about it and rejected your position as undemonstrated. You're going to need something more. Something rational.

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

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