Athiesm and disproving God

[Guy Threepwood]

how improbable? infinitely- that's Hawking's guess on how many random universes you might need to fluke this one, so you could take your point up with him!

astronomically- as in the number of stars in the universe, the Bible puts that number in accurate perspective

 

[viole]

how improbable? infinitely- that's Hawking's guess on how many random universes you might need to fluke this one, so you could take your point up with him!

Well, he is not a member of this forum, I presume. So, I would like to see what you know about the subject of probability and how to calculate them in case of Universes.

So, enthrall me with your acumen

astronomically- as in the number of stars in the universe, the Bible puts that number in accurate perspective

Can you give me a pointer in Scripture with the estimated number of stars in the Universe? At least the observable ones, if possible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, he is not a member of this forum, I presume. So, I would like to see what you know about the subject of probability and how to calculate them in case of Universes.

So, enthrall me with your acumen



Can you give me a pointer in Scripture with the estimated number of stars in the Universe? At least the observable ones, if possible.

Ciao

- viole

Sure, Hebrews 11:12 and others go well beyond the observable in fact and compare the number of stars to the grains of sand on Earth, which was cited as an example of a wild inaccuracy through history till we discovered that their numbers appear to be remarkably similar.

Hawking and others' estimates appear in various writings, looking at things like alternative attributes of the universal constants, balances of distribution of early particles that would result in almost infinite varieties of unstable universes. Hence the multiverse theories to overcome the mind boggling odds of merely creating space/time by chance far less beings to have enthralling debates on it's origins!

 

[Cephus]

Not according to most people!

Which says absolutely nothing about it's truth value. Try again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I disbelieve in all gods as defined here....
God | Define God at Dictionary.com
Since they're not amenable to rigorous detection & examination, they're neither provable nor disprovable.

I've heard of many god concepts, but I don't have one of my own. I disbelieve in all of'm, even those I've never heard of. (All they need do is fit the definition of "god".)

Yes, I understand your position. However, I am seriously religious and must add that I actually accept that, while although any and all concepts of God are mere descriptions representing a reality deemed to be, and such mental representations are not real in the sense that they can never be more than a indirect 'sign post' to the proposed reality, there is a reality unknowable directly by the conceptual mind of man that is.

 

[Revoltingest]

well exactly-
The singularity was composed such that it inevitably developed it's own consciousness to ponder itself with.. including in Norwegian

alter it's composition infinitesimally- and it wouldn't even create space/time. A bucket of sand will not get bored and develop it's own consciousness out of whatever is available - however long you give it, that has to be written in from the get go.

Similarly the DVD could never show any other movie, no matter how utterly chaotic and unpredictable the exact locations of the pits appear to be.

And similarly the end of the movie already exists when you watch the start- because the passage of time itself is part of that movie

Of course, a DVD will only play a single movie. The Big Bang would result in movies, but I speculate that it would be impossible to predict which ones, ie, it's not fully deterministic.

 

[Cephus]

Of course, a DVD will only play a single movie. The Big Bang would result in movies, but I speculate that it would be impossible to predict which ones, ie, it's not fully deterministic.

While at the deepest and most primal level of reality, whatever that happens to be, things might be perfectly deterministic, that level is so far away from what we understand or have any concept of that it really doesn't matter. At the level at which we operate, and likely will for the foreseeable future, that level of determinism is a bit beyond our ability to comprehend.

 

[Revoltingest]

While at the deepest and most primal level of reality, whatever that happens to be, things might be perfectly deterministic, that level is so far away from what we understand or have any concept of that it really doesn't matter. At the level at which we operate, and likely will for the foreseeable future, that level of determinism is a bit beyond our ability to comprehend.

Aye, my speculation is based upon what quantum mechanics appears to be. But I know that I don't know nuthin.

 

[Cephus]

Aye, my speculation is based upon what quantum mechanics appears to be. But I know that I don't know nuthin.

Quantum mechanics is our latest idea about what happens at the most basic level, it doesn't mean that it really is. After all, we didn't know about quantum mechanics before we discovered quantum mechanics. I'm sure there's more to learn. It doesn't mean that the human experience has much to do with things at the quantum state.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That goes nowhere. Tell me which version of God you believe in and I'll tell you if I believe it.

I don't believe in any concept of God, but there is a actual reality represented by the concept that is unknowable by the conceptual mind.

Now I realize I have used my conceptual language to convey my understanding, but I've only employed it as an expedient, for the reality of that of which I speak is on the other side of concepts.. That is not to say this reality can not be realized...just not conceptually.

So if you have understood me, your conceptual disbelief or belief is of no consequence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't formulate my own gods, I wait until someone else has a description of what they believe in and then I evaluate that description to see if it matches up to the reality that we observe. If it does, I would believe it, if it does not, I do not. I reject the claims made by others regarding gods, I do not make claims myself. So far, no gods have met the test. That's why I'm an atheist.

Fair enough. But the God of which I speak is unobservable as it is non-dual, so it can't be known by a second to be evaluated

 

[Cephus]

Fair enough. But the God of which I speak is unobservable as it is non-dual, so it can't be known by a second to be evaluated

Then how do you know it is objectively real? That's a question I keep asking and nobody even pretends to have an answer.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then how do you know it is objectively real? That's a question I keep asking and nobody even pretends to have an answer.

Hi Cephus, that is the problem....the 'reality' is not conceptual, it is absolutely real, while our personal mind works on duality..subject (observer) and object (observed). So I am limited to the use of conceptual language to convey this so bear with me...

Absolute reality represented by the concept of God is non-dual, there is nothing else that exists in time or space. All appearances of differences are nothing more than differentiated aspects of the one reality including the personal mind of the observer, and that observed.

The only way to prove that this is so would be to be in a state of awareness without thought, for when the mind is completely without thought, the personal observer (ego) does not arise to disturb the underlying unity, and so there is no dualistic observation. When this happens, the mind is in a state on non-duality, and the reality on the other side of the concept of non-duality is all there is.

Not that that the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity isn't always present....just that when the ego mind is thinking, the 'noise' it generates obscures the actual underlying non-dual reality. This is the greatest irony/paradox...that mentally seeking to find God creates the noise that obscures that for which it is 'chattering' away.mistaking the concepts of the real for the real.

 

[Bunyip]

Thanks Bunyip....understood. I might add though, I take religion seriously, and do not 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' with regards to the logical shortcomings caused by the dualistic mindset of the less contemplative mindset of some religious traditions and their adherents.

I'm afraid I don't know whatnyou are trying to say there .

 

[Cephus]

Hi Cephus, that is the problem....the 'reality' is not conceptual, it is absolutely real, while our personal mind works on duality..subject (observer) and object (observed). So I am limited to the use of conceptual language to convey this so bear with me...

But unless our mind, at least when dealing with things that are not conceptual, does not map to objective reality, it is simply wrong. An observer that makes an observation which does not map to objective reality is wrong. We can see that in the stereotypical drunk seeing pink elephants. They have an experience with a pink elephant but that is the result of a chemically-altered brain, not factual reality. Those pink elephants aren't real.

Absolute reality represented by the concept of God is non-dual, there is nothing else that exists in time or space. All appearances of differences are nothing more than differentiated aspects of the one reality including the personal mind of the observer, and that observed.

If it doesn't exist in time or space, how is one to determine whether or not it is real? We can simply define all kinds of things as not existing in time or space. Does that make them real? Since God is largely just defined into existence, it is arbitrarily stated as real without being actually demonstrated to be real. How is this any better than the pink elephant?

The only way to prove that this is so would be to be in a state of awareness without thought, for when the mind is completely without thought, the personal observer (ego) does not arise to disturb the underlying unity, and so there is no dualistic observation. When this happens, the mind is in a state on non-duality, and the reality on the other side of the concept of non-duality is all there is.

No, you have to understand that such a concept is one without form, it is totally within the mind. You can define leprechauns as existing outside of space and time. You can define unicorns as existing outside of space and time. You can define ghosts as existing outside of space and time. Just because you define a thing a particular way doesn't mean that it is actually that way.

Not that that the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity isn't always present....just that when the ego mind is thinking, the 'noise' it generates obscures the actual underlying non-dual reality. This is the greatest irony/paradox...that mentally seeking to find God creates the noise that obscures that for which it is 'chattering' away.mistaking the concepts of the real for the real.

These are all empty philosophical claims that have no justification in reality. It's wishful thinking, sorry. You have to do a lot better than that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

These are all empty philosophical claims that have no justification in reality. It's wishful thinking, sorry. You have to do a lot better than that.

I wasn't addressing your conceptual mind, I explained that I was using conceptual language only as an expedient...actual reality doesn't need any justification. That the deeper intuitive faculty is not yet sufficiently developed to understood what I conveyed is now self evident and therefore there is little reason to waste further time. But thank you for your best effort and all the best Cephus.

 

[Cephus]

I wasn't addressing your conceptual mind, I explained that I was using conceptual language only as an expedient...actual reality doesn't need any justification. That the deeper intuitive faculty is not yet sufficiently developed to understood what I conveyed is now self evident and therefore there is little reason to waste further time. But thank you for your best effort and all the best Cephus.

Nice to see you ignored the meat of my post and are now running away. Not particularly surprised.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nice to see you ignored the meat of my post and are now running away. Not particularly surprised.

Haha...sorry to disillusion you but I saw little indication of your understanding of what non-duality is...do you?

 

[Cephus]

Haha...sorry to disillusion you but I saw little indication of your understanding of what non-duality is...do you?

Oh, I understand what it is, I simply don't agree with your assertion that it was valid in this case.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course, a DVD will only play a single movie. The Big Bang would result in movies, but I speculate that it would be impossible to predict which ones, ie, it's not fully deterministic.

Aye, my speculation is based upon what quantum mechanics appears to be. But I know that I don't know nuthin.

The wise man knows himself a fool, and no animal alive can outrun a greased Scotsman!