-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God did not create the Universe
- Thread starter Skeptisch
- Start date
OK. Thanks. So are many many independent computers (bundle of tissues called brains) or are these clients connected to a big server?
Or is there only one computer creating models of universe, based on sensory inputs (presumably there are objects outside this computer to create sensory impressions)?
Om
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
There are many independent computers.
Thanks PH. There are a few questions that arise.
Is there a Bill Gates, preceeding booting up of the computers, whose monopoly OS/ Application run on all these independent computers so that all of them invariably model an "I"? There is no computer that does not first model an "I". What is this common OS?
Moreover, as these computers model an universe (presumably based on some code), the coder must apriori know the objects? Suppose, you are a coder and if you wish to code an object called 'zoo', then you have a real object to base your code on. If the computer itself is a coder then also this must hold. Who then is the coder?
Moreover, in your model there seems to be timed events and there is a process. Someone knows that the computer is booting up. Next, the computer is modelling the universe based on sensual inputs (presumably of objects outside of it). The computer is now booting off. These change of events must be seen and known? Who or what knows the sequence?
There is an objectful universe out there, external to the computer, feeding sensual impressions to the computer/s. What these objects actually are? What these are made of? Wherefrom they came. And who knows these to have coded them for the computers. Who/what inhabits this objectful space? This inhabitant must be seeing/knowing the objects, the space and the computers at all times? A fixed unchangeable recorder must record all the changes. No?
Moreover, the model you give, ie., of independent multiple computers all modelling "I" and the Universe, based on sensory inputs --- is itself a model created by a computer -- you.
How can we take a model of a computer to be true? A model can only be a representation of something. Then what is that something?
................
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
There isn't one. There is no requirement that the computer model an "I", but it is the most successful approach. Oddities, such as not modelling an "I", or being unable to generalize hypotheses, result in (I know the metaphor's getting a little thin here, bear with me) Autistic spectrum disorders and the like.
No. A true artificial intelligence can generate its own hypotheses from input. No external programmer is necessary.
Nobody. The sense of time appears because physics is "processed" semi-sequentially, with each timestep starting from the results of the previous. (And Relativity comes in and breaks everything by making time non-absolute.)
It isn't sensible to consider the universe at large as "inhabited." I have very little idea of what the fundamental structure of the universe is, but I suspect it is some version of mass-energy, in whatever configuration is described by the Theory of Everything. There is also no recording of the universe, except if you want to interpret the metaphor literally, in which case the recording is stored outside the universe.
We can't; That is why it is only a model.
Sorry you think I missed the point. Since our brains work on different wiring all we can do is respectfully agree to disagree what we disagree on.
We all seek the truth, yet pursue it differently. But how will we recognize it if and when we find it? With so many possibilities, some theorists argue that truth itself is relative. That, since everybody has an opinion, reality is subjective to individual perceptions. However there can be no argument about the scientific truth, the one arrived at through experiment. Experiment is its sole judge.
There may very well be something beyond the scientific truth but it must be found with knowledge of it. Hawking and Mlodinow arrived at Model Dependent Realism through a thorough understanding of the laws of nature, especially the laws physics. The comprehension of these laws convinced them that a supernatural deity is not needed for the creation of a universe.
Truth is ultimately found through a slow, incremental, step-by-step process of elimination not divine revelation.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Skeptisch,
Thank you,
However, be of the knowledge that there is none here to agree or disagree on any matters as a mirror only reflects the TRUTH and if any matters have been reflected the mirror knows not.
The mind as you have stated only looks for information based on the existing knowledge acquired by the mind itself and TRUTH/reality/existence/etc. as mentioned earlier is that the perceiver is only a part of TRUTH and so TRUTH can never be perceived by that which is its part.
This is also certain that the mind is evolving and only the that evolutionary process is the mind going to exhaust itself to understand that there is something called a no-mind, and something called an *ABSENCE* as opposed to PRESENCE as its duality and both are required for that balance.
Love & rgds
Thank you,
However, be of the knowledge that there is none here to agree or disagree on any matters as a mirror only reflects the TRUTH and if any matters have been reflected the mirror knows not.
The mind as you have stated only looks for information based on the existing knowledge acquired by the mind itself and TRUTH/reality/existence/etc. as mentioned earlier is that the perceiver is only a part of TRUTH and so TRUTH can never be perceived by that which is its part.
This is also certain that the mind is evolving and only the that evolutionary process is the mind going to exhaust itself to understand that there is something called a no-mind, and something called an *ABSENCE* as opposed to PRESENCE as its duality and both are required for that balance.
Love & rgds
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Man, we need voice on this thing...
look for it, you shall. Find it not, you shall; until you know it was never lost...
Get'em, Yoda...
Last edited:
This is all true, but it still doesn't mean that God is unnecessary for the universe to exist. And I'd say the reason that it is the Christian concept that is the mainframe from which science objects to theism is because the main scientific developments have occurred in places where Christianity has been the predominant religion. It's just like debating in these forums- when atheists start arguing against the idea of a God, their points are almost always irrelevant to Eastern God concepts.
outhouse
Atheistically
I understand a little of your side and read a thin book on buda and the basic concepts years ago.
Im still confused on my own beliefs, of what role, a higher power might be.
Im not going to be swaying towards a universal creator that is what how you say omnipresent?
I would almost classify that as the power of collective good simular to yin yang but not.
Either way I find so much of nature is very easily scientifically explained to a T that I cannot see a place where a higher power would jump in and start. This point changes for christians so much its laughable to me. On your side of the coin I dont see a starting point 14 billion years ago. I see a natural explanation and because it looks like a beginning and we know so little people want to claim this as the beginning of the universe. Im not sure it is.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Ah, atheists are always irrelevant.
Kidding. But they have a tough row to hoe in this "Christian country."
Namaste
The metaphor breaks.
You acknowledge intelligence.
We can't; That is why it is only a model.
Actually this amounts to saying: "True the model is only a model and not truth, but I know that I do not exist".
It is you who model yourself as a computer and then see other computers also doing so.
.............
Thanks for the patience.
Om
Sorry you think I missed the point. Since our brains work on different wiring all we can do is respectfully agree to disagree what we disagree on.
We all seek the truth, yet pursue it differently. But how will we recognize it if and when we find it? With so many possibilities, some theorists argue that truth itself is relative. That, since everybody has an opinion, reality is subjective to individual perceptions. However there can be no argument about the scientific truth, the one arrived at through experiment. Experiment is its sole judge.
There may very well be something beyond the scientific truth but it must be found with knowledge of it. Hawking and Mlodinow arrived at “Model Dependent Realism” through a thorough understanding of the laws of nature, especially the laws physics. The comprehension of these laws convinced them that a supernatural deity is not needed for the creation of a universe.
Truth is ultimately found through a slow, incremental, step-by-step process of elimination — not divine revelation.
I agree with you to some extent.
Hawkings must have had very valid argument to say that a God is not required to explain creation etc. But in doing that Hawkings cannot deny himself. Similarly you cannot deny yourself. To know the truth one must know oneself, which is self evident and on which every one stands and thus hides (borrowed from friend ZenZero).
Om
Om
Last edited:
As a Hindu, I do not believe that the beginning of this universe was the beginning of existence. I believe that the universe come in and out of existence. Ie/ it begins, it dies, it starts over again. I really like how Carl Sagan explains it, and shows how the Vedic descriptions fit in well with this scientific theory.
The reason that I do not separate nature (science) and God, is because my eastern beliefs describe material nature as part of God. There is no separation. The universe is one small manifestation of the Divine. And so, how can we know if God is necessary or not, when for someone like me there is no distinction between existence and God?
PS: Buddha is certainly eastern, although he pertains to Buddhism. There are many eastern religions, and they are grouped into the Dharmic faiths as there are threads of similarity, just as the Abrahamic faiths are threaded together by similarity and history.
I actually like your views
Not sure about in or out with the universe though. Changes yes, to what extent im not sure. I would love to know more about pre 14 billion year time era [as would scientist lol]
If you are referring to my earlier comment, I just mean that it is still a mystery of how there were even elements in existence that allowed for manifestation of a universe to occur. Because the universe didn't come from 'nothing'. All the ingredients existed beforehand.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Skeptisch,
Once again.
Have mentioned before.
The above is the way the mind works to discover truth; similarly is the way internally to find truth and this method you mention is called *NETI, NETI* in sanatan dharma scriptures a process by which meditators arrive at the truth and by eliminating one by one that everything what they see is nothing but another form of one energy and as friend atanu stated TRUTH on which we stand which would refine to by TRUTH of which we are part of.
The path taken on this internal journey are to be undertaken religiously and so is a religion but none the less a path or way and there are as many as minds that understands them.
The beginning of the journey starts as soon as the mind is STILLED consciously even for a split second till then they remain SCIENTISTS as thereafter the stillness of the mind they maybe labelled *mystics* again by those who remain in the MIND.
Those of the no-mind [still mind] then understands that these are all *labels* and so does not differentiate between any forms and no-forms.
That *god* is only another label Besides there is nothing divine about anything nor about existence itself.
Love & rgds
Once again.
Have mentioned before.
The above is the way the mind works to discover truth; similarly is the way internally to find truth and this method you mention is called *NETI, NETI* in sanatan dharma scriptures a process by which meditators arrive at the truth and by eliminating one by one that everything what they see is nothing but another form of one energy and as friend atanu stated TRUTH on which we stand which would refine to by TRUTH of which we are part of.
The path taken on this internal journey are to be undertaken religiously and so is a religion but none the less a path or way and there are as many as minds that understands them.
The beginning of the journey starts as soon as the mind is STILLED consciously even for a split second till then they remain SCIENTISTS as thereafter the stillness of the mind they maybe labelled *mystics* again by those who remain in the MIND.
Those of the no-mind [still mind] then understands that these are all *labels* and so does not differentiate between any forms and no-forms.
That *god* is only another label Besides there is nothing divine about anything nor about existence itself.
Love & rgds
David M
Well-Known Member
No, the problem is when people assert that the imaginary is actually real without evidence to back up this assertion. As long as people stick with discussing imaginary things as imaginary freethinkers have no problems at all.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Why?
As an algorithm. It is not inherent to the universe, or somehow external to the universe.
I know that I exist, but only as an emergent property in other things.
True, but it is a very accurate model. I haven't seen anything that suggests it's wrong.