Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[godnotgod]

The problem with this scenario is that nature has more advantageous situations than the monkey at the typewriter.

Monkeys hammering away at typewriters also have no focus, history, or pattern associated with the proposed outcome. Men and nature do. The monkeys will either get bored or continue to be fascinated with their new toy, but little else.

 

[Ouroboros]

(For Ouroboros) - I would like to say that I think you have gravely misunderstood quantum mechanics. Yes, at that level(the smallest possible), observation does change things. But it has been shown that sentience nor intelligence is required. We made a machine to observe, a sensor, and it had the same effect. Observation, not understanding, is all that is required, and in that regard anything that can observe anything at all qualifies.

Perhaps that's God then. The observer, with or without understanding.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So does your explanation mean that your creator-God is separate from his creation? IOW, is God 'out there' and we 'over here'?

No...... and yes. He is everything, that is all there is. It is like the adult to the child. Where are you as a child? If you can find that one, then you can find God.

 

[godnotgod]

No...... and yes. He is everything, that is all there is. It is like the adult to the child. Where are you as a child? If you can find that one, then you can find God.

To say that one finds God retains the distinction between God and his creation as separate identities.

 

[Robert.Evans]

To say that one finds God retains the distinction between God and his creation as separate identities.

There has to be some distinction in some way otherwise I cannot sit here and you sit there.

 

[godnotgod]

There has to be some distinction in some way otherwise I cannot sit here and you sit there.

But all distinctions, including that between a creator-God and it's creation, are only in the discriminating mind. Where the discriminating mind is not present, there are no such distinctions; there is no subject/object separation. This merging of the two is what occurs in divine union; it is when 'I' in relation to 'God' disappears. As the Hindus tell us, like dye dissolved in water. Otherwise, you are still in the realm of duality; of 'this' and 'that'. Divine union is the realization of 'tat tvam asi': 'Thou art That'. IOW, you are none other than the divine essence itself. In the big picture, the universe is none other than the Absolute itself: alive, conscious, intelligent, just as you are alive, conscious, intelligent. You are THAT; you are the universe looking at itself through your eyes.

You see, because you think that some distinction is necessary gives me the idea that you have not experienced God in the sense that YOU are God. You have, in fact, experienced an image of God projected by your ego. This is common, and known as Idolatrous Love, one of the Five Egotistical States in psychology. 'God' for you, is still an 'other' in the relationship of 'self and other', where no such distinction actually exists. Having said that, we are all experiencing the divine nature, whether we know it or not. And that is because of the cosmic game of Hide and Seek being played by the divine essence, which is pretending to be some 'other' than what it really is, 'other' being the illusory self we call 'I'. We believe the character called 'I' is real because we are asleep, dreaming. Only upon a higher awakening can divine union be realized, and the character we think is real is actually fictional.

The theist is God pretending he is some 'other', some object of his experience, while the atheist is God pretending he doesn't exist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where the discriminating mind is not present, there are no such distinctions; there is no subject/object separation.

That doesn't have to involve God though.

 

[godnotgod]

That doesn't have to involve God though.

It needn't involve either God, or not-God. So what happens to your consciousness when you free yourself of either concept?

 

[Robert.Evans]

But all distinctions, including that between a creator-God and it's creation, are only in the discriminating mind.

But the discriminating mind is the mind of God is it not, and therefore everything we see. Does not nature itself dothe same.

Where the discriminating mind is not present, there are no such distinctions; there is no subject/object separation.

But that ia above, is it not. Here we are said to know what is clean and what is not clean.

This merging of the two is what occurs in divine union; it is when 'I' in relation to 'God' disappears. As the Hindus tell us, like dye dissolved in water. Otherwise, you are still in the realm of duality; of 'this' and 'that'. Divine union is the realization of 'tat tvam asi': 'Thou art That'. IOW, you are none other than the divine essence itself.

I agree.

In the big picture, the universe is none other than the Absolute itself: alive, conscious, intelligent, just as you are alive, conscious, intelligent. You are THAT; you are the universe looking at itself through your eyes.

Absolutely

You see, because you think that some distinction is necessary gives me the idea that you have not experienced God in the sense that YOU are God. You have, in fact, experienced an image of God projected by your ego.

Perhaps so. But I am man, and I will die like man, as per scripture. To know is one thing, to take it by force is another.

This is common, and known as Idolatrous Love, one of the Five Egotistical States in psychology. 'God' for you, is still an 'other' in the relationship of 'self and other', where no such distinction actually exists.

You are probably right that I see God as an 'other' even though I know he is all things. I am part of the consciousness, but not the highest part, but the lowest. The lord said we should humble ourselves, not lift ourselves up.

Having said that, we are all experiencing the divine nature, whether we know it or not. And that is because of the cosmic game of Hide and Seek being played by the divine essence, which is pretending to be some 'other' than what it really is, 'other' being the illusory self we call 'I'. We believe the character called 'I' is real because we are asleep, dreaming. Only upon a higher awakening can divine union be realized, and the character we think is real is actually fictional.

The theist is God pretending he is some 'other', some object of his experience, while the atheist is God pretending he doesn't exist.

Haha.... Okay. I like it. But, and there's always a but, ''I'' think that everything is about the ''I''. To me we are reflections of the One ''I'', which we percieve as God. The reason for lfe is to become like him. It is a long process. The Source of everything is complete now as the son has returned. Each one of us will become a Source, and thus a God. But what is here is not what we are, only a reflection of what we are, like the reflection in water, like the adult to the child. One is seen one is not. One seems to be real, and one was real and has changed.
I don't dismiss what you say, it makes a lot of sense, but only as a deeper understanding. I do not think it is right to lift ones-Self up.

 

[godnotgod]

But the discriminating mind is the mind of God is it not, and therefore everything we see. Does not nature itself dothe same.

No. Nature is the entirety of all dualities as one. It does not prefer one and reject the other. And your notion that the mind of God is a discriminating mind is simply man's projection of his own discriminating mind onto Reality.

But that ia above, is it not. Here we are said to know what is clean and what is not clean.

But you can only know the one via the other. They are not separate, but relative and complimentary. In effect, they are one.

Perhaps so. But I am man, and I will die like man, as per scripture. To know is one thing, to take it by force is another.

If you have resigned yourself to submit to scripture in the sense that it is fated, then so be it, but that is still your choice. You do not have to die like man. Fate can be overcome. You can transcend death and the human condition. That is one of the gifts given to the human being. But it involves difficult, inner spiritual work and a whole lot of attentiveness to achieve transcendence. And force is not required to do so. It just involves a spiritual Awakening to see things as they really are. When that happens, you will see that there is no death, nor anyone who dies. Then you are free.

You are probably right that I see God as an 'other' even though I know he is all things. I am part of the consciousness, but not the highest part, but the lowest. The lord said we should humble ourselves, not lift ourselves up.

Realization of your true nature is in no way an egoic experience. On the contrary, it is the dissolution of the ego; the extinguishing of the self. As for 'highest' and 'lowest':

'O Lord, let not my gaze be too high, nor too low, but fixed on that thin line of the horizon between Heaven and Earth'
(from Sufism, maybe Rumi, not sure)

Humility does not come about via our will, but just via seeing into our true nature. False humility is just another form of pride, in reverse, in the game of spiritual one-upsmanship.

Haha.... Okay. I like it. But, and there's always a but, ''I'' think that everything is about the ''I''. To me we are reflections of the One ''I'', which we percieve as God. The reason for lfe is to become like him. It is a long process. The Source of everything is complete now as the son has returned. Each one of us will become a Source, and thus a God. But what is here is not what we are, only a reflection of what we are, like the reflection in water, like the adult to the child. One is seen one is not. One seems to be real, and one was real and has changed.
I don't dismiss what you say, it makes a lot of sense, but only as a deeper understanding. I do not think it is right to lift ones-Self up.

The realization of, and awakening into your true nature has nothing to do with lifting yourself up. It is all right where you have always been, right here, right now.

The reason for life is not to become anything. It is to realize who you actually are via awakening. You cannot become something other than what you already are.

There is no reflection but in the mind. When the mind is seen for what it is, an illusion, all reflections vanish, and what is real will be present and full. Here is a little Zen story to illustrate this:

No Water, No Moon

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

Of course, the pail is a metaphor for the mind, which always attempts to encapsulate Reality, but eventually always self implodes, because it is not real. What we are left with is only pure seeing, without mind.

 

[DrTCH]

A reasonable answer--I think--would be "Yes." Yet, there is no particular logic behind the presumption--adopted by many--that this intelligence is that of a particular deity or of a kind or mode (let us say) that is familar to us, as thinking and planning beings (as Homo Sapiens Sapiens). E.g., an essentially animistic world-view might well account for the many phenomena we observe and experience every day. Perhaps consciousness and creative potential pervade the entire universe--both gross physical reality, as well as the more "subtle realms." Buddhism, incidentally,embraces a stand akin to this, as do a number of shamantic culture faiths (including Taoism). There is no particular reason--as I see it--to immediately presume that the Judeo-Christian deity--YHWH--is the "underpinning" and "cause" of all phenomena throughout the universe. As a matter of fact, I find the idea of a "great, bearded, male deity in the sky" to be a relatively juvenile conception. You know, the kind of tale you tell your young children, until they are old enough to comprehend more complex/sophisticated ideas (and to think for themselves). My best, friends!!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Monkeys hammering away at typewriters also have no focus, history, or pattern associated with the proposed outcome. Men and nature do. The monkeys will either get bored or continue to be fascinated with their new toy, but little else.

Well that's nice but I was referring to things that are formed, say amino acids, are self replicating. Monkeys do not have the advantage of having certain words or phrases being replicated in a single keystroke.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It needn't involve either God, or not-God. So what happens to your consciousness when you free yourself of either concept?

God becomes irrelevant. God is missing the point.

 

[Robert.Evans]

............ As a matter of fact, I find the idea of a "great, bearded, male deity in the sky" to be a relatively juvenile conception. You know, the kind of tale you tell your young children, until they are old enough to comprehend more complex/sophisticated ideas (and to think for themselves). My best, friends!!

I don't think anyone now does think he is a man with a beard in the sky.... so it would be right to think it was a juvenile belief... though if that is what you are saying God is like, which you appear to be, perhaps I should by you a rattle. Think about it (not the rattle, I can't afford, but the concept of God)

 

[joshua3886]

Probability isn't absolute. If you assume that flipping a coin has an absolute 50% chance of tails then every time you flip the coin it should come up "Heads, Tails, Heads, Tails, Heads, Tails". But the way it usually happens in the real world is random: that coin could come up tails 50 times in a row or it could come up heads several times in a row. This is because the universe doesn't keep track of probability. If something is going to happen, then it will happen.
It's like the creationists who say "The odds of the universe being created by chance are too great". The odds don't matter, because the universe clearly exists.
Pure math is often useless and misleading.

 

[godnotgod]

God becomes irrelevant. God is missing the point.

At least not the God you and the theists are probably conceptualizing.

The materialist view is that we, as conscious beings, emerged from an unconscious, material environment. Mystics and others have challenged this 'upward causation' theory:

The central doctrine of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Therefore consciousness ought not to exist. Materialism’s biggest problem is that consciousness does exist. You are conscious now.

The main opposing theory, dualism, accepts the reality of consciousness, but has no convincing explanation for its interaction with the body and the brain. Dualist-materialist arguments have gone on for centuries. But if we question the dogma that matter is unconscious, we can move forwards from this sterile opposition.

Scientific materialism arose historically as a rejection of mechanistic dualism, which defined matter as unconscious and souls as immaterial, as I discuss below. One important motive for this rejection was the elimination of souls and God, leaving unconscious matter as the only reality. In short, materialists treated subjective experience as irrelevant; dualists accepted the reality of experience but were unable to explain how minds affect brains.

Rupert Sheldrake

https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/view/1268/is_matter_unconscious?

 

[godnotgod]

Well that's nice but I was referring to things that are formed, say amino acids, are self replicating. Monkeys do not have the advantage of having certain words or phrases being replicated in a single keystroke.

I think we're saying exactly the same thing, but from different angles.

 

[Tiapan]

The universe only requires enthalpy and entropy to explain 99.9 % of all that exists, religious argument does not have even the weakest evidence to compete, let alone understand what these terms actualy mean.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

At least not the God you and the theists are probably conceptualizing.

I don't find the "God" paradigm useful - too much baggage in too many peoples' minds. Dualism is perhaps more useful, but I think these questions are best approached with an open mind as far as possible. So often people start with a position or belief and then try to justify it, rather than just looking carefully.

 

[godnotgod]

The universe only requires enthalpy and entropy to explain 99.9 % of all that exists...

Does this assume that 'all that exists' to be something real?