--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis wrote:
> > I don't believe that humans know that their 
> > silent self is the basis of creation just 
> > because if can feel like that is true. 
> >
> What kind of assumptions would you need to
> entertain in order to believe that there is 
> a 'creation' - since it has been established
> that there is in fact, no 'science of creative
> intelligence'?

I am not absolutely skeptical of all sensory data.  I accept that we
have enough evidence to conclude that there is a creation without
having to assume it.  

> 
> What epistemology, theory of knowledge, would
> you cite to indicate that things or events
> were created?

I wouldn't. 

 Doesn't the idea of a creation
> infer that there must have been a creator, an
> intelligent designer?

Absolutely not.  This is completely fallacious.  There can be a
primacy of existence itself without the need for a creator.  If this
fallacy was valid you would need to imagine a creator for the creator
in an infinite regress.  I stop at creation itself without the need to
imagine a creator.


> 
> 1:1
> 
> Neither from itself nor from another,
> Nor from both,
> Nor without a cause,
> Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
> 
> Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika:
> http://tinyurl.com/666v3s
>


Reply via email to