--- 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 >
