God did not create the Universe

[atanu]

If God is unknowable, then nobody should be claiming knowledge of God. If God has no justification, then nobody should be claiming belief in God.

Hello Meow

For the time being let aside God. Does Meow know Meow? Or does Meow think that Meow knows Meow?

For instance, every one knows oneself from some distance -- through eyes and words of other persons. Some know self in mirror and through one's own sensory inputs. Some know through analysing one's actions and emotions.

But no one knows oneself from ground zero. Are you known or unknown to yourself?

...

 

[PolyHedral]

I am entirely known to myself, of course.

 

[atanu]

I am entirely known to myself, of course.

eesh Who says so? An emergent property?

Now, more seriously. If one knows oneself then one should be able to tell what one was doing before as a sperm one impregnated an egg.

Finally, earnestly. I fully believe you. Self is Self proven and fully known to Self -- even when the mind seems to go into darkness and lose awareness.

"I am entirely known to myself, of course" means that there can never be a moment when one does not know oneself. That is why you are truly fearless and immortal, irrespective of whether the mind is aware or not.
.......................................................

Oh, Buddha.
...

 

[PolyHedral]

eesh Who says so? An emergent property?

Now, more seriously. If one knows oneself then one should be able to tell what one was doing before as a sperm one impregnated an egg.

But I didn't exist then.

"I am entirely known to myself, of course" means that there can never be a moment when one does not know oneself. That is why you are truly fearless and immortal, irrespective of whether the mind is aware or not.

It means nothing of the sort. The fact that I know myself now doesn't automatically mean that I can known myself at any point of the past or future.

 

[atanu]

It means nothing of the sort. The fact that I know myself now doesn't automatically mean that I can known myself at any point of the past or future.

Who says so? An emergent property? :cigar:

...

 

[Etritonakin]

A post of mine from a similar thread....

If it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, then life, human will, creativity, etc... are not accidental or random, but the result of a "mold", if you will -a casting, negative image, etc...

...and I see it as at least far more likely that what we call the "big bang" was initiated by will -to achieve what has come to pass. I believe it is absolutely necessarily so -but for the sake of argument, I'll say more likely.

Are we to believe that for every action there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction?
We do not understand everything about physics, but we believe physics to be predictable. Things do not always happen as WE predict they will given our limited knowledge, but we believe every effect has a cause -and effects can be predicted given enough knowledge and information.

Yes? No?

Some say this law "breaks down" in certain cases, but does it truly -or do we not understand how the reactions we witness are equal and opposite to actions? If it truly breaks down.... (unfinished thought)

Either all that now is was physically inevitable, or there is a truly unpredictable force at work. I'm not saying that the makeup a truly unpredictable force could not be understood by science, but the idea certainly makes some scientists uneasy -and even if they understood its makeup -they could obviously not always predict how it would react (hence, unpredictable). The word "unpredictable" is often used, but we tend to believe nothing is truly scientifically unpredictable -given enough knowledge and ability.

So -how does this all apply to our own thoughts?

Many thoughts are predictable, but are they 100 percent predictable?
Is all that we may create just reaction to action which came before?
Certainly, that which we may now create WITH externally is subject to physical laws, but are our thoughts merely inevitable reactions? Are we really choosing, or are we reacting as we always inevitably would?
Or, are our minds unpredictablity machines -made up of predictable matter arranged in a particular manner so as to allow the production of unpredictable thought?
Is will/creativity an unpredictable force exerting itself on predictable matter?
If so, how could it have unpredictably sprung from predictable matter?
If we possess will/creativity, why should we assume it impossible that the universe is not a product of such? Why is our creativity -ability to purpose -springing randomly from matter more acceptable to our minds than the idea that the present arrangement of things was purposed by another with far greater knowledge and ability? Why would we see this as impossible?

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hello Meow

For the time being let aside God. Does Meow know Meow? Or does Meow think that Meow knows Meow?

For instance, every one knows oneself from some distance -- through eyes and words of other persons. Some know self in mirror and through one's own sensory inputs. Some know through analysing one's actions and emotions.

But no one knows oneself from ground zero. Are you known or unknown to yourself?

...

I'm pretty sure I know me, yes... at least better than anyone except my lover knows me.

 

[Meow Mix]

Either all that now is was physically inevitable, or there is a truly unpredictable force at work. I'm not saying that the makeup a truly unpredictable force could not be understood by science, but the idea certainly makes some scientists uneasy -and even if they understood its makeup -they could obviously not always predict how it would react (hence, unpredictable). The word "unpredictable" is often used, but we tend to believe nothing is truly scientifically unpredictable -given enough knowledge and ability.

Current understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that there are indeed fundamentally random aspects of nature, but the word "unpredictable" wouldn't be quite correct because we can at least predict the probabilities involved.

If we possess will/creativity, why should we assume it impossible that the universe is not a product of such? Why is our creativity -ability to purpose -springing randomly from matter more acceptable to our minds than the idea that the present arrangement of things was purposed by another with far greater knowledge and ability? Why would we see this as impossible?

I don't think anyone's saying it's impossible, just that there's no evidence or justification for it; and therefore it shouldn't be believed until such is forthcoming.

 

[Etritonakin]

Current understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that there are indeed fundamentally random aspects of nature, but the word "unpredictable" wouldn't be quite correct because we can at least predict the probabilities involved.



I don't think anyone's saying it's impossible, just that there's no evidence or justification for it; and therefore it shouldn't be believed until such is forthcoming.

Not to disagree, as I'm a physics newb, but that is not the understanding I have seen presented thus far -that these aspects are fundamentally random -but, rather, that things are not behaving as we thought they would given our present understanding -and that they seem random because we are not yet capable of predicting them -not that they are, of themselves, unpredictABLE.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121970

 

[PolyHedral]

Bell's theorem tells us that there is fundamental uncertainty in the universe, and so it cannot be perfectly predicted.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not to disagree, as I'm a physics newb, but that is not the understanding I have seen presented thus far -that these aspects are fundamentally random -but, rather, that things are not behaving as we thought they would given our present understanding -and that they seem random because we are not yet capable of predicting them -not that they are, of themselves, unpredictABLE.

Bell's theorem tells us that there is fundamental uncertainty in the universe, and so it cannot be perfectly predicted.

Yep. What Poly said.

 

[Blackheart]

Clever man this Hawkins but I always thought it was a scientific necessity that every effect has a cause. With that rule in mind you have to ask what cause led to the big bang? Once you have answered that as, for simplicity sake, an 'X' you have to ask what cause led to the creation of 'X' if your still onboard you could say that 'Y' causes an 'X' but then there has to be a cuase for 'Y' and so on and so on. In the end you realise that there had to be something that defies science as the 'Original Cause'. Being clever doesnt mean you can know everything. Being clever at theoretical science means you know how to make a theory whether it fits into the facts or not and still get people believing your nonsense .:sarcastic

 

[outhouse]

Im along those lines blackheart.

I believe there was something long before the big bang.

Something was a catalyst

 

[Blackheart]

Exactly outhouse. Hawkins himself will tell you that there is always a cause to every effect

 

[atanu]

I'm pretty sure I know me, yes... at least better than anyone except my lover knows me.

Hi Meow

Same arguments as with PolyHedral.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2271299-post363.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2271311-post364.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2271322-post365.html

The correct and true knowing cannot be untrue for a moment in time and absent altogether beyond time.

...

 

[Meow Mix]

Exactly outhouse. Hawkins himself will tell you that there is always a cause to every effect

Actually there are quantum events that are in principle causeless, one of them (Hawking radiation) is what put Hawking on the scene as an eminent cosmologist -- so I doubt he would agree with that

 

[Meow Mix]

Hi Meow

Same arguments as with PolyHedral.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2271299-post363.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2271311-post364.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2271322-post365.html

The correct and true knowing cannot be untrue for a moment in time and absent altogether beyond time.

...

I don't really consider this to be meaningful. As Poly stated, just because I know myself at this time doesn't mean I always have and always will.

 

[atanu]

I don't really consider this to be meaningful. As Poly stated, just because I know myself at this time doesn't mean I always have and always will.

Do you mean to say that you know yourself at one moment and then don't know yourself at another moment? Is that characteristic of knowing?

That was not the one and only point. More pertinent is who is determining the meaning? An emergent property?

Hope we will be honest.
...

 

[Blackheart]

Meow Mix I take your poin but do you not think that it is impossible to say difinatively that anyone can know how/who/why the universe was created as if they can show factual undisputable evidence that leaves no other alternative? I almost feel that Science has become the biggest belief system out there despite much of its theories being based on speculation, assumption and sheer faith. It upsets me when people think that Jesus could not turn water into wine because none of our scientists can, if you take my point.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix I take your poin but do you not think that it is impossible to say difinatively that anyone can know how/who/why the universe was created as if they can show factual undisputable evidence that leaves no other alternative? I almost feel that Science has become the biggest belief system out there despite much of its theories being based on speculation, assumption and sheer faith. It upsets me when people think that Jesus could not turn water into wine because none of our scientists can, if you take my point.

I make no assertions about the universe prior to the Planck epoch after the Big Bang event and chide those who do without justification.

Science isn't a belief system, and I'm not sure which scientific theories you accuse of being based on "speculation, assumption and sheer faith."