Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[Looncall]

Kabbalah Society » An Introduction to Kabbalah

"Before the beginning of anything there was only God. Nothing existed, not even existence. Tradition states that the Absolute, called Ayin or No-thing and Ayin Sof or The Limitless in Kabbalah, wished to behold ITSELF and so Existence was willed into being to act as a vast mirror by which God could perceive the reflection of God. This process was accomplished, it is allegorically explained, by the Absolute withdrawing ITSELF from a portion of totality, thus allowing a void to appear in which Existence could be encompassed. Into this space the Holy One projected a line of light, a symbol of will, which unfolded in a specific sequence that was to be the structure and dynamic of a series of four universes, held together by Divine will".....

How do you verify that any of this is true?

 

[PolyHedral]

...there was only God. Nothing existed, not even existence...

The only way that can be consistent is if God doesn't exist. I assume that's not what you mean to say.

Tut-tut. You know that that is an argument from consequences, don't you?

*scurries away to the corner* :cover:
(Annoyingly, I don't have a non-inductive proof that energy is conserved.)

 

[wubs23]

All I'm saying that science alone can't prove or disprove anything about God's existance without getting into metaphysics.

I actually had to think for a good 10 minutes, whilst walking my dog, about this question.
At first, this seems a very true statement. But still I disagree.

Take a look at the following two statements:
1. science cannot prove or disprove God.
2. science cannot prove or disprove anything about God.

Obviously, there is a difference. Whilst I agree with the first statement, the second one is proven to be false fairly easily.

We can namely be certain about the following statements considering God:

1. Probability:
It is more likely for event X to occur, than event X AND event Y. Agreed?
In the same way, it is more likely for our universe to occur without God, than with God.

So, we can prove that the existance of God is less likely than the non-existance of God.

2. Measurements:

It is either possible for God to be observed/measured, or impossible. Agreed?
This gives us two options about God:
1) God can be measured, but somehow we have no evidence for him as of yet. Meaning that we can safely say that the measurements and observations we have done to date, are all giving information about where or what God NOT is.
2) God cannot be measured in any way, meaning that nothing can exchange information about God. Meaning that God can not have an impact on anything. If he would have an impact, we could measure that and therefor he would be observable.

3. Creation:

If God created everything, that means he also created Space, Time, the Laws of Physics, et cetera. Agreed?
Again; this leads to two options:
1) God did not create everything, just most of it. But then something else created those things, meaning that God is not omnipotent, and not the sole creator of our universe. (notice how this is saying something about God)
2) God did create everything, including Space, Time and the Laws of Physics.

Now, if statement 2 is correct; that means that at the (first) moment of creation, there was no time, and no causality.
Meaning that we might as well say that the universe created God, as that God created the universe.


4. Conclusion:

Whilst it is impossible for science to prove or disprove if God exists, we can say something about him.

Namely; we can set boundaries on Him. Namely a probability lower than 1, the fact that he must be observable or unobservable, et cetera.

And finally; if we can even set ONE boundary on God, we can already prove that he is not omnipotent.

 

[Quiddity]

Quiddity, that's like saying that science can't prove or disprove anything at all without getting into metaphysics. Everything we see can be explained in terms of invisible spirits and magic. Just because nature appears to follow certain natural laws, that doesn't prove that the laws will continue to work in the future. We do not need to posit the existence of gravity spirits to explain the force of gravity, but we can never rule them out as a logical impossibility.

In the case of God, we are told a lot of things about him. His existence has explanatory force. We are told that he caused physical reality to come into being. We are told that he designed the order that we see about us in nature, just as a watchmaker might design and assemble a watch. We are told that he has absolute control over physical reality and can perform miracles. If these things that people say about God are true, then we can expect to find evidence of his existence by studying nature. If we can find no evidence of God, then it is legitimate to ask whether he is like most other imaginary spiritual beings that human beings have invented throughout history to explain natural phenomena.

Of course it's a legitimate question, but that's pretty much all it is; a legitimate question. The fact you seem to be seeking God at all, through science, is a misuse of science itself. The fact you're asking a question that goes beyond the bounds of science...."Does something exist we have no evidence for?"......is a metaphysical one.

 

[Quiddity]

Whilst it is impossible for science to prove or disprove if God exists, we can say something about him.

Namely; we can set boundaries on Him. Namely a probability lower than 1, the fact that he must be observable or unobservable, et cetera.

And finally; if we can even set ONE boundary on God, we can already prove that he is not omnipotent.

What you call boundaries, I call it all part of how it was intended to be so. In otherwords, the fact we can deduce to things through the sciences is precisely how it's supposed to be not because it eliminates God, but because it eliminates other possibilities.

 

[garrydons]

Shalom! If we dont acknowledge a God who created all things, then what is your answer to the riddle?

 

[idav]

Shalom! If we dont acknowledge a God who created all things, then what is your answer to the riddle?

Infinity

 

[garrydons]

To: Idav

Who created infinity. Or can we explain why is there infinity?

 

[idav]

To: Idav

Who created infinity. Or can we explain why is there infinity?

Nothing can create infinity, it is infinite. How would there be an infinite creator rather just infinite existence?

 

[outhouse]

Seth (channeled by Jane Roberts might help)"

I would want my minutes back after reading her material [facepalm]

it reminds me of Rodney Dangerfields movie "back to school" where after his rant the guy states "WE are all now dumber for having heard that"

 

[outhouse]

So if I stop believing in God does that make you the winner?

Because I could care less concerning whether I can open your eyes to anything I've seen over the past 55 years I've been around.

You are persistent in your attempt to make a spiritual language to conform to some kind of binary yes or no system. Little do you know that this is the reason your are trapped into closed system model.

Do yourself a favor and read Flatland. It might inspire you to consider alternative ways to look at things.

I would never want to change your faith

nor do I try and convert people to my lack of belief.


but knowledge in some cases cannot be redefined due to imagination

 

[wubs23]

What you call boundaries, I call it all part of how it was intended to be so. In otherwords, the fact we can deduce to things through the sciences is precisely how it's supposed to be not because it eliminates God, but because it eliminates other possibilities.

I don't think you understood my post, then..

Because I don't say anything about if God exists or not. At no point did I say these boundaries would eliminate God.

All I am saying, is that these boundaries give us some information about the existence of God - what you originally said to be impossible for science.

And they do. If we look at something (object X) that is NOT God, we already say something about God; namely that whatever it is, it is NOT object X.

Now is that helpful information? probably not.
Does it prove the existence or non-existence of God? not at all.
But it does say something about God. However trivial it might be.

And finally; it does not matter if God created the universe or not. Because either way; the laws of physics remain the same.

 

[Thief]

To: Idav

Who created infinity. Or can we explain why is there infinity?

'Who'..could also be 'what'.

Geometry has the answer to your question...in part.
Between any two points there are an infinite number of points.
No matter how close those points are to each other.

Infinity begins when two points are present.

For the singularity to be truly singular...a secondary point cannot be allowed.
No infinity.
No distance to measure.... no movement to perform...nothing.
No heat,no cold....no sound, no echo....nothing.

Then...'Let there be light'.

The perfect uniformity of the void is then broken.

 

[Thief]

I would never want to change your faith

nor do I try and convert people to my lack of belief.


but knowledge in some cases cannot be redefined due to imagination

Here then is your chain....and the cause for your lack of faith.

The imagination is the problem solving part of your mind.
The are no problems you can solve without it.

When you seek a cause, you first imagine the possibilities....then eliminate them as you can.

'Sometimes'....there is nothing let to eliminate...except God.
And you constant cry for evidence stymies your imagination.

 

[Looncall]

Maybe this excerpt from Seth (channeled by Jane Roberts might help)"

“If you prefer, you can call the supreme psychic gestalt God, but you should not attempt to objectify him. What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.”

“[It] is not one individual, but an energy gestalt. (It) is a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever expanding consciousness, that creates simultaneous and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence and eternal validity. Its energy is so unbelievable that is does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, fields and systems, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls.”

“Dimly remembered through what you would call history, there was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. All That Is had to learn this lesson, and could not be taught. From this agony, creativity was originally drawn, and its reflection is still seen. All That Is retains the memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus toward renewed creativity. Desire, wish and expectation, therefore, rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within the dreams of All That Is, potential beings had Consciousness before any beginning as you know it.”

“All That Is saw an infinity of probable, conscious individuals. These Probable individual selves found themselves alive within a God’s dream And they clamored to be released into actuality. All That Is yearned to release them and sought within itself for the means to do so. Finally, with love and longing It let go of that portion of itself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.”
“All That Is loves all that It has created down to the least, for It realizes the dearness and uniqueness of each consciousness which has been wrest from such a state of agony. It is triumphant and joyful at each development taken by each consciousness, and It revels and takes joy in the slightest creative act of each of Its issues.”
“All individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is as It once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source...and yearn to give it actuality through their own creations.”

“The connections between you and All That Is can never be severed, and Its awareness is so delicate and focused that its attention is indeed directed with a prime creator’s love to each consciousness.”

“All That Is knows no other. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like Itself may exist. It is constantly searching.”

“There are answers to some questions that I cannot give you about the origin of All That Is, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence.”

“All portions of All That Is are constantly changing. All That Is is constantly seeking to know Itself, for seeking itself is a creative activity and the core of all action.”
“You, as a consciousness, seek to know yourself and become aware of yourself as a distinct individual portion of All That Is. You automatically draw on the overall energy of All That Is, since your existence is dependent upon it. The portion of All That Is that is aware of itself as you, that is focused within your existence, can be called upon for help when necessary. This portion of All That Is looks out for your interests and may be called upon in a personal manner. A psychic gestalt may seem impersonal to you, but its energy forms your person.”

“You do not have to die to find God. All That Is, is-now; and you are a part of All That Is now. And as I have told you often, you are a spirit now. The avenues for development are open now. If you want to, you can now set upon exploring environments that are not physical, but I do not see any rush of students at that invisible door!”

“And so, I offer no hope for the lazy, for they will not find eternal rest. However, through traveling within yourself, you will discover the unity of your consciousness with other consciousnesses. You will discover the multi-dimensional love and energy that give consciousness to all things. This will not lead you to want to rest on the proverbial Blessed Bosom. It will, instead, inspire you to take a better hand in the job of creation.”

“God is always more than All That Is, is the sum that you cannot find--and for my definition of God, I therefore leave you with that one: For God is the sum that you cannot find, that resides within you, that is more than anything you can discover, that is His creations and yet more than that which is created, within Whom infinities rest.”
Seth, as channeled by Jane Roberts

It amazes me how much meaningless drivel the English language is capable of.

I find that this kind of flowery language is a pretty good indication of vacuous nonsense. Do others find this? Post-modernist writings come to mind as another example.

 

[Meow Mix]

It amazes me how much meaningless drivel the English language is capable of.

I find that this kind of flowery language is a pretty good indication of vacuous nonsense. Do others find this? Post-modernist writings come to mind as another example.

Martin Gardner wrote an excellent article that I read in his anthology book "Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries?" called something like "The Vagueness of Krishnamurti" in which he absolutely devastates, in that Martin Gardner civilish way, what James Randi might call woo-speak and what I tend to call mystispeak.

His [Krishnamurti's] lines are like those in Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky." As Alice remarked, they seem to mean something, but it's hard to pin down just what.

If you can find his article, it's worth reading. It also goes into strange aspects of his life and how people speaking nonsense can even catch the attention of people like reknowned physicist David Bohm, who followed Krishnamurti around like a lost puppy at one point (and also got swindled by Uri Geller).

I think for some people, the "woo" aspect is enough for them to declare a sentence is meaningful -- even if they can't elucidate to us unwashed masses what that meaning is

 

[Quiddity]

I don't think you understood my post, then..

Because I don't say anything about if God exists or not. At no point did I say these boundaries would eliminate God.

All I am saying, is that these boundaries give us some information about the existence of God - what you originally said to be impossible for science.

And they do. If we look at something (object X) that is NOT God, we already say something about God; namely that whatever it is, it is NOT object X.

Now is that helpful information? probably not.
Does it prove the existence or non-existence of God? not at all.
But it does say something about God. However trivial it might be.

And finally; it does not matter if God created the universe or not. Because either way; the laws of physics remain the same.

Ah ok.

Do know that I never said that it said nothing about God; I simply said it doesn't prove or disprove God.

 

[shawn001]

'Who'..could also be 'what'.

Geometry has the answer to your question...in part.
Between any two points there are an infinite number of points.
No matter how close those points are to each other.

Infinity begins when two points are present.

For the singularity to be truly singular...a secondary point cannot be allowed.
No infinity.
No distance to measure.... no movement to perform...nothing.
No heat,no cold....no sound, no echo....nothing.

Then...'Let there be light'.

The perfect uniformity of the void is then broken.

Geometry doesn't work as you approach the singularity at trillionths of a second or planck time.

There was light twice as well.

 

[PolyHedral]

Geometry doesn't work as you approach the singularity at trillionths of a second or planck time.

There was light twice as well.

The geometry works perfectly; the problem is that the things inside the geometry stop working sensibly.

 

[shawn001]

This is new



3-D videos show origins of the universe

STANFORD (US) — The mysteries of the universe—from the first stars and supernovas to galaxy clusters and dark matter—are being revealed in full-color, high-definition 3-D videos.

Trapit