Philosophising on the Evo vs Creo debate.

Yes, but I was trying to suggest that how I FEEL might be a bias against these Eastern ideas. It wasn't meant as an argument or justification.

I guess what you are trying to say is that how you feel may be a cultural bias, and that is, to a certain extent, what I was trying to get at by asking.
"Is the Western way of thinking to blame for the Evo/Creo debate?" and
"Is the Evo/Creo debate fuelled by the western way of thinking that things are objects not events and in that way we presume that objects have to be made?"
So I think that you are starting to understand the topic even though you said that you did not in message 12.

quote:

---

And this gets even more confusing if we deny the reality of physicality. It becomes a messy maze, too deep for me.
  —robinrohan

---

As you go deeper it is a messy maze, it's not a wave or a point, or on the other hand, it's both, if you look close enough

So you have a knower that cannot be biased, an emotional self that might like an idea because it makes you feel good about yourself and a logical self that can doubt this emotional self and a one that must guard against, who, the doubter, the emotional one or the knower.Is it getting crowded in there?

The answer to your first question as to whether our culture is responsible for the debate, the answer is yes, and while its for a slightly different reason, the answer can be found in "The Art of Motorcycle Maintence'. In his book, Pensing answers the question as to why our society is clashing between technology and a desire for something more, and how an eastern worldview solves the problem.

I didn't mean cultural: I meant personal.ABE: I know not 'cultural.'This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-05-2006 07:07 PM

You are correct of course. Ones knower cannot be biased. Knowing is simply knowing. So which do you reckon it is w.r.t something-from-nothing, irrespective of how many people say its possible.Knower: no way
Emotional: I don't feel there is a way.This message has been edited by iano, 06-May-2006 02:40 PM

Sorry Kuresu. I should have said "some of some mens knowledge comes from Him". Those some men are in the first instance those who know him. This I cannot prove - no more than you can your own position. You are a self- consious being - but cannot prove where or how conciousness arises. Natural or supernatural: no one can prove either way.When you say "All knowledge comes from mans experience" you are really saying "I think all knowledge comes from mans experience" or "the evidence strongly indicates that all knowledge etc..." I think your mixing up a Christian (something that God makes) and a Religion called Christianity (which man makes). Sure there are many people who have been brought up in the Christian faith. Their parents may or may not be Christians. Even if they are, that doesn't make the children Christians. God has children - not grandchildren

a further definition of that whole John Locke quote, the man's experience one.Not to contest what you've said, but in the case of some of some men's knowledge coming from God, would you say that knowing God is an experience?That quote from Locke (an empiricist) is saying that no knowledge comes a priori-before experience. However, this whole thing is more of a philosophical question that was argued by the empiricists and whatever camp Descarte was in.

So you agree with me that it is impossible that something can come from nothing?

Are you speaking of matter/energy phenomena or would you include ideas also?lfen

I would include everything ifen.

So if some being/thing/idea always was it never came from anywhere, it was uncreated, had no beginning. It didn't come from anything so there was always something and we can't ask where IT came from?I don't see how you've avoided the problem. It's a mind boggling paradox of a mystery which ever way you cut it. I can't choose, neither alternative makes sense to me and yet I can't think of anything that does.lfen

In my view, something had to be forever if anything exists. Otherwise, we are saying that something came from nothing. It could be anything, but it had to be around forever.

But I ask myself How did it get here in the first place. How come you are tempted to ask that? Why is there anything at all? Where did it come from?lfen

I do. I know it is impossible. Is this something you know too - in which case it I would suggest it can be taken that it IS impossible and left to one side. Or is this an emotional stance - which means it might well be possible?