• 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

atanu

Member
Premium Member

Hi PH

It is the approach to knowledge. We take the underlying general as holding true when the particulars may change. The "I" is all pervasive, although it is a product. The very fact that all computers model an "I" for themselves, make it the substratum. And thus all computers are probably not discrete.

However, "I" does not remain the substratum, when one considers that "I" will come up only after the computer boots and will go down when a particular computer shuts off. But in all these three periods there is a Seer of these three states, else these three states will not be known.

Equivalence of this is experienced by us through waking, dreaming and sleeping. In waking a kind of "I Am" is present. In dream another kind of "I am" is present. In deep sleep sleep, however, the "I am" is lost. But no one will say "I did not exist in deep sleep". The Seer of these three states is the substratum called the born Self -- the Seer.

The above may appear to be rambling. But what I am trying to say is that the transitions you propose for the computer -- booting, modelling, shutting -- must have some common thread that knows these three states and beyond. Similarly, while modelling, sensory inputs are presumed in your model. There again must be a common general medium that connects the objects, the subject that perceives these objects, and the process of modelling itself.

These connections all come and rest upon the unborn Self.
.
As an algorithm. It is not inherent to the universe, or somehow external to the universe.

I understand this. We call it Duality between Lord (Brahman -- unborn) and Jihva (born). But there must again be a connection or a substratum for one to know another. That brings us to Advaita, where the highest born entity is the Seer, who is all pervading and unchanging reality that connects and knows. Unlike the knower Mind, the Seer however, does not sleep. Beneath the Seer is the Unborn.

I know that I exist, but only as an emergent property in other things.

But you exist in deep sleep when other things do not exist. Hindu scriptures say that if one understands this, one is on the way to freedom from pain. The seeds of pain and pleasure and objects are present uncarved in the pure unlimited, unparted awareness of deep sleep. Hindu scriptures call this unlimited awareness as Pragnya -- the awareness itself. One does not know anything in this state since there is no second in this state -- it is pure, unlimited, unparted awareness. There is no second colour, no second touch, no second smell etc.

But seeds for all the separate things/objects that come up in dream as light objects or in waking as graspable objects, remain in deep sleep state as uncarved design that an artist may envisage in an uncarved piece of marble.

True, but it is a very accurate model. I haven't seen anything that suggests it's wrong.

A model of universe should explain why it comes up and the reason for the common "I" awareness -- at least.

All scriptures tackle "I am" -- explicitly or implicitly, to direct one to the unborn, whereupon the "I am" rests and sprouts.

I hope I have not ramled too much beyond the scope of the discussion. I also request patient hearing. :)

Regards

Om
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
It is the approach to knowledge. We take the underlying general as holding true when the particulars may change. The "I" is all pervasive, although it is a product. The very fact that all computers model an "I" for themselves, make it the substratum. And thus all computers are probably not discrete.
That's my point. Some people have great difficulty in generalizing. And, on the whole, very few computers model an "I", most just blindly evaluate input. What do you mean by discrete in this context?

However, "I" does not remain the substratum, when one considers that "I" will come up only after the computer boots and will go down when a particular computer shuts off. But in all these three periods there is a Seer of these three states, else these three states will not be known.
What do you mean, "known"?

Equivalence of this is experienced by us through waking, dreaming and sleeping. In waking a kind of "I Am" is present. In dream another kind of "I am" is present. In deep sleep sleep, however, the "I am" is lost. But no one will say "I did not exist in deep sleep". The Seer of these three states is the substratum called the born Self -- the Seer.
Occasionally, the "I am" disappears in dreams, too. And why does there need to be a seer of them at all?

The above may appear to be rambling. But what I am trying to say is that the transitions you propose for the computer -- booting, modelling, shutting -- must have some common thread that knows these three states and beyond. Similarly, while modelling, sensory inputs are presumed in your model. There again must be a common general medium that connects the objects, the subject that perceives these objects, and the process of modelling itself.
No. There is no "who" that is aware of the computer shutting down. (Unless someone took an MRI to a dying person.) The closest thing I can think of that matches what you are saying is the universe itself, but the modelling process itself is entirely abstract, and does not exist as anything physical.

But you exist in deep sleep when other things do not exist. Hindu scriptures say that if one understands this, one is on the way to freedom from pain. The seeds of pain and pleasure and objects are present uncarved in the pure unlimited, unparted awareness of deep sleep. Hindu scriptures call this unlimited awareness as Pragnya -- the awareness itself. One does not know anything in this state since there is no second in this state -- it is pure, unlimited, unparted awareness. There is no second colour, no second touch, no second smell etc.
My body exists, but the processing that gives rise to the idea of me, myself, and I stops. Someone who is asleep has only the most basic of responses, such as moving away from pain, most of which default to "wake up." There isn't really any "awareness" in that state, since the body is only executing pre-written responses.

But seeds for all the separate things/objects that come up in dream as light objects or in waking as graspable objects, remain in deep sleep state as uncarved design that an artist may envisage in an uncarved piece of marble.
Are you suggesting that the designs in an uncarved peice of marble exist in some physical sense?

A model of universe should explain why it comes up and the reason for the common "I" awareness -- at least.
As I mentioned, "I" appears because the brain tries to model the world, itself included.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
What do you mean, "known"?

Occasionally, the "I am" disappears in dreams, too. And why does there need to be a seer of them at all?

A computer does not know its output. A film does not see its colorful characters.
Om
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Occasionally, the "I am" disappears in dreams, too. And why does there need to be a seer of them at all?

That is correct. At those times the Seer of the dream remains.

Someone who is asleep has only the most basic of responses, such as moving away from pain, most of which default to "wake up." There isn't really any "awareness" in that state, since the body is only executing pre-written responses.

That is correct. In deep sleep, the knower is gone and the Seer, the Seen, and the Seeing is unified in one homogeneous mass. The person exists as a whole.

Are you suggesting that the designs in an uncarved peice of marble exist in some physical sense?

But there is the sculptor?

As I mentioned, "I" appears because the brain tries to model the world, itself included.

But the computer itself cannot know itself.

Om
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Friends

All religions: Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, speak of creator-controller as distinct from the created. "I am this body" is created while "I am" is the creator or the Lord.

The underlying "I Am", is distinct from "I am this". Buddhism essentially teaches that the "I Am" is also a product -- of ignorance. Hinduism agrees but points out that the wisdom-intellect of an enlightened one does not enter the objects and thus remains as distinct "I Am". So, Buddha is such all pervading "I am" acting as teacher.

Without such teachers, it would be difficult for fragmented wisdom-intellect, entangled in localised body-minds (names-forms such as us), to attain the fullness of "I Am" and further the 'unborn'. So, enlightened teacher is God to a Hindu.

All schools of Hinduism recognise a creator along with maintainer and destroyer (although worship of a creator is in general not prescribed). But eventually these three functions are not ascribed to the highest reality called Brahman-Self. It is said that the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction proceed from Brahman, who however is not a doer.

No doubt that the acts of creation, maintenance, destruction belongs to universal conciousness (Self-Brahman-Atman), however only when enacted as specific roles. But Self remains untainted, just as an actor enacting a role of a thief does not really become a thief or Gold, when shaped as a bangle does not lose its goldness. And ulimately there is no creation in the sense of creation of new things unrelated to the source, since the process is like making gold into various ornaments. Beneath all created forms and names, the consciousness remains the same.

So, the theory of Hawkings' does not conflict the tenets of Buddhism (IMO) or ajAtivAda (nothing created) school of Hinduism.

But at the same time, for the worshipful Hindu, nothing is lost, since at the level of nature (prakriti-mind), conciousness enacting the role of Lord as creator, maintainer, destroyer remains valid. Similarly, consciousness enacting the role of teacher whose intellect is separate from objects, remains valid.

Hope this helps.

Om
 
Last edited:

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
If Hawking's spontaneous creation theory is proven beyond doubt to be right that should not any problems whatsoever the tenants of Buddhism IMO, but Christianty Judaism and Islam there would be far more serious implications because it really hits at the very core of their beliefs and ancient cosmological views. Not just for ever marginalizing Gods role in nature as the God of the gaps, but eliminating Shim altogether
 
Last edited:

TJ73

Active Member
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he finds.


This is the part that always perplexes me in the argument against intelligent design.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, so laws spontaneously occur?

This argument was always in the context of material existence, the observable universe/multiverse. One would say matter could not arise out of nothing, it requires a creator. So now, according to Mr. Hawking, the existence of laws could aid in the generation of matter.

OK, but are we not still left to ponder the source of the paradigm? How do laws spontaneously generate?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
OK, but are we not still left to ponder the source of the paradigm? How do laws spontaneously generate?

Who says anything about laws generating rather than existing?

This is why I think it's interesting when theists claim to have more answers than atheists: "God did it." But they're blind to the fact that they're just moving the "problem" a step back: whence came God? They may happily believe without question that God has always existed for no reason but somehow can't grasp the possibility that the universe or its laws could have always existed.
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he finds.


This is the part that always perplexes me in the argument against intelligent design.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, so laws spontaneously occur?

This argument was always in the context of material existence, the observable universe/multiverse. One would say matter could not arise out of nothing, it requires a creator. So now, according to Mr. Hawking, the existence of laws could aid in the generation of matter.

OK, but are we not still left to ponder the source of the paradigm? How do laws spontaneously generate?

Hello.


Physical laws were created by man, they are human inventions, they are mathematical approximations given to the details of the model of reality we subscribe to..like Quantum physics or Newtonian (classical) physics.
They manifest in formulae as we determine/discover interactions and relationships within the physical world, mathematically.
Matter/energy and forces like gravity are also mathematical approximations, Approximations that nonetheless allow us to make approximately accurate predictions and construct our models of reality with.
Physical laws are mathematical artifacts of our models.

The universe is the ultimate free lunch...its total energy value is ZERO...as the negative energy of the universe (gravitational) is negated by the positive energy of the universe (mass/energy) therefore the universe has no net energy cost, it cost nothing to suddenly expand from a point into multidimensional existence.
Or better the law of conservation of energy was not violated...a fundamental law (mathematical artifact of our modelling) that always holds true...eventually.
 
Last edited:

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
but somehow can't grasp the possibility that the universe or its laws could have always existed.

Unlikely as the universe is finite and originated some 13 billion years ago...???
What science (the scientific method) cannot explain is what preceded our universe...(if in fact anything did)..and I dont think it ever will (limited as the scientific observer is to the subjective limitations and laws of this universe)
Yet that remains an important question...if you are religious...because (apart from pondering on what came before us) it shows that there may be other 'levels' of reality that science just cannot penetrate...questions that simply cannot be answered...other word views here coming to the fore.

Obviously what is not recommended is that some throw the baby out with the bath water...and consider science to be completely flawed or unholy or whatever ...when at our spectrum level of existence in the material universe, exploiting the reasonably accurate laws we have discerned, it is hugely successful.
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Unlikely as the universe is finite and originated some 13 billion years ago...???
Not quite. The Big Bang, which is the apparent origin of the universe we can see now, happened 13 billion years ago. It's entirely possible for something to have happened before then, and also entirely possible to predict what, based on evidence available to us now.
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
Not quite. The Big Bang, which is the apparent origin of the universe we can see now, happened 13 billion years ago. It's entirely possible for something to have happened before then, and also entirely possible to predict what, based on evidence available to us now.

Well Polyhedral I in fact mentioned earlier this issue and despite what you imagine to be the case it is not scientifically possible to go back beyond the big bang...not as yet...not ever while we are locked within the universe's finite relative frame of reference.

Speculation is all that remains.

Go on then...predict something that happened before...on the available evidence...I would be most interested.

I am looking forward to this... :)
 
Last edited:

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
I like to think the universe had a starting point in space and in the familiar real time that we experience...so there was a point prior to the big bang (initial inflation) where real time did not exist...but held in the greater abyss of infinite vertical imaginary time...as postulated by Stephen Hawking.
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
It's not physically possible to go back before t= +380,000 years, because at that point all matter breaks down. (Or rather, starts up. That's the point where discrete particles start appearing.) This doesn't mean that the mathematics stops then. If you have evidenced mathematics that show how the universe works before the Big Bang, it could well be true.

And I can't predict anything before the Big Bang because I do not have the decade of mathematics knowledge needed. Even if I could and did, you probably wouldn't understand any answer I could provide.
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
Even if I could and did, you probably wouldn't understand any answer I could provide.

Lots of laughing...yeah..well if it was any good it should be elegant and simple...how I like my men as well.

But anyway. you do not realise that mathematical models and their conclusions relate to our universe and its form...it cannot be expected to relate to what may have existed prior..the math we use reflects the constrains of the universe we exist in..
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
The universe is only elegant by the mathematicians' definition. High-level physics involves thinking about 4 (or higher) dimensional functions to begin with, and only gets more esoteric from there.
 
Top