• 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!

Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

Photonic

Ad astra!
I am not sure why anyone would worry about the creation of the Universe- it happened very long time ago and no one could ever know how it happened. But...

I completely disagree. It is entirely testable. Just because we don't have the means at this very second to test it, does not mean it is outside our grasp forever.

It is also very important that we know the history of our origins. In the pursuit of knowledge, one often learns many things one did not expect. It would be an incredible folly not to pursue such basics as how we got here.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Actually, it is relevant if you introduced yourself as someone who has actually seen both sides, when you were instead being deceptive, and then made a play which was supposed to be informed and more authoritative based on your open-minded experience of both sides.

Liar in one thing, liar in all, really.

Nope, what is relevant or what counts is that who has better knowledge in the violation of Bell Inequality by recent experiments and its philosophical and epistemological consequences and who has better knowledge in the deepest truth of Esoteric Religions.

A personal attack is not an argument. Try to make genuine arguments or demonstrate that science can simulate conscious thought if not both Mind and Intellect belongs solely to the realm of theologians and God is very much necessary for a complete model of the cosmos. Esotericism is going to correct both Science as well as orthodox religions and its going to fill gaps in our knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Gui10

Active Member
I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence and tenacity in the face of his illness.

Last night I got to see the full episode of the show in which he describes why there is no need for God in the creation of the universe. As I understood his reasoning, before the Big Bang, time did not exist and there was no "before". Therefore there was nothing for God to exist in. However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me :p). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

What say you?

If this god you are talking about exists, he must do so in some place? At least he must be ''something'', ''somewhere'', ''sometime''. I dont see how he can be something without these elements.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Nope, what is relevant or what counts is that who has better knowledge in the violation of Bell Inequality by recent experiment and its philosophical and epistemological consequences and who has better knowledge in the deepest truth of Esoteric Religions.

A personal attack is not an argument. Try to make genuine arguments or demonstrate that science can simulate conscious thought if not both Mind and Intellect belongs solely to the realm of theologians and God is very much necessary for a complete model of the cosmos.
It's called credibility.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Nope, what is relevant or what counts is that who has better knowledge in the violation of Bell Inequality by recent experiments and its philosophical and epistemological consequences and who has better knowledge in the deepest truth of Esoteric Religions.

A personal attack is not an argument. Try to make genuine arguments or demonstrate that science can simulate conscious thought if not both Mind and Intellect belongs solely to the realm of theologians and God is very much necessary for a complete model of the cosmos. Esotericism is going to correct both Science as well as orthodox religions and its going to fill gaps in our knowledge.

We know the body can work without the mind, but the body cannot work without the brain. So how does that fit into your view?
 

Pleroma

philalethist
We know the body can work without the mind, but the body cannot work without the brain. So how does that fit into your view?

Scientists think that an organism is kept alive because it reduces entropy but that's only true from an empirical perspective which is only a state of mind.

When the living entity is in deep sleep, when he faints, when there is some great shock on account of severe loss, at the time of death, or when the body temperature is very high, the movement of the life air is arrested. At that time the living entity loses knowledge of identifying the body with the self. (SB 4.29.71)

Ancient wisdom or esoteric knowledge says a living entity is kept alive because of the life force and this life force along with a metaphysical mind and also the metaphysical sense organs (not biological sense organs) is responsible for the retrospective creation of this empirical reality which is only a state of mind. This can be tested by doing Yoga.

Vladko Vedral, a quantum physicist and an quantum information scientist said, "Rather than passively observing, we in fact create Reality".

The consensus is changing and many people are not aware of it. All evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence where the mind is the product of a divine God.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Scientists think that an organism is kept alive because it reduces entropy but that's only true from an empirical perspective which is only a state of mind.

When the living entity is in deep sleep, when he faints, when there is some great shock on account of severe loss, at the time of death, or when the body temperature is very high, the movement of the life air is arrested. At that time the living entity loses knowledge of identifying the body with the self. (SB 4.29.71)

Ancient wisdom or esoteric knowledge says a living entity is kept alive because of the life force and this life force along with a metaphysical mind and also the metaphysical sense organs (not biological sense organs) is responsible for the retrospective creation of this empirical reality which is only a state of mind. This can be tested by doing Yoga.

Vladko Vedral, a quantum physicist and an quantum information scientist said, "Rather than passively observing, we in fact create Reality".

The consensus is changing and many people are not aware of it. All evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence where the mind is the product of a divine God.

Forcing new knowledge into your preconceived notions is dishonest. You shouldn't do that.
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Scientists think that an organism is kept alive because it reduces entropy but that's only true from an empirical perspective which is only a state of mind.

When the living entity is in deep sleep, when he faints, when there is some great shock on account of severe loss, at the time of death, or when the body temperature is very high, the movement of the life air is arrested. At that time the living entity loses knowledge of identifying the body with the self. (SB 4.29.71)

Ancient wisdom or esoteric knowledge says a living entity is kept alive because of the life force and this life force along with a metaphysical mind and also the metaphysical sense organs (not biological sense organs) is responsible for the retrospective creation of this empirical reality which is only a state of mind. This can be tested by doing Yoga.

Vladko Vedral, a quantum physicist and an quantum information scientist said, "Rather than passively observing, we in fact create Reality".

The consensus is changing and many people are not aware of it. All evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence where the mind is the product of a divine God.
1) That doesn't point to theism.
2) I have absolutely no reason to trust your claims about "ancient wisdom or esoteric knowledge." Cite sources, or be honest that you mean "my opinion."
 

Pleroma

philalethist
1) That doesn't point to theism.

Once you have accepted the fact that Mind is something different than the brain, you're not far away from accepting theism because what's behind the Mind is the Intellect and what's behind the Intellect is the pleroma of God, the totality of divine powers. This exists in all the esoteric religions of the world.

2) I have absolutely no reason to trust your claims about "ancient wisdom or esoteric knowledge." Cite sources, or be honest that you mean "my opinion."

It has testable consequences and anyone can test them.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Once you have accepted the fact that Mind is something different than the brain, you're not far away from accepting theism because what's behind the Mind is the Intellect and what's behind the Intellect is the pleroma of God, the totality of divine powers. This exists in all the esoteric religions of the world.



It has testable consequences and anyone can test them.
Careful, you are claiming that your view is falsifiable, therefore the realm of science. You sure you want to do that?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Once you have accepted the fact that Mind is something different than the brain, you're not far away from accepting theism because what's behind the Mind is the Intellect and what's behind the Intellect is the pleroma of God, the totality of divine powers. This exists in all the esoteric religions of the world.
I long ago accepted that the mind is different from the brain, and I'm as far from your brand of theism as I can run.


It has testable consequences and anyone can test them.
Since when is failure to cite a source more specific than "knowledge" a testable claim?
 

Pleroma

philalethist
So your argument will grow smaller and smaller until there is nothing left? What will you hold on to then?


[youtube]IF54xqYhIGA[/youtube]
Consciousness and the limits of Science - Boundaries of the Knowable (1/10) - YouTube

There are boundaries of the knowable and the world is going to retain a mystery for its existence and Esoteric Religions are going to explain that mystery and answer our questions like What is the world made of? Where do we come from? Do we have free will? etc etc.

Boundaries of the knowable - OpenLearn - Open University

So my argument has lot of space to it.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Careful, you are claiming that your view is falsifiable, therefore the realm of science. You sure you want to do that?

Of course, Yes. I want to falsify the existence of God. Either I want to be a strong atheist or a strong theist.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Since when is failure to cite a source more specific than "knowledge" a testable claim?

We have NCBI for the Biological Sciences, we have arixv for the Physical Sciences, how many reputed journals are there for Esotericism? Hardly a few people are interested in it and those who do don't often get science right.


The New Copernican Revolution

Immanuel Kant believed his insights into the nature of perception, and the distinction between physical reality and the reality we each experience, would be the basis for "a Copernican Revolution in philosophy." Now, two hundred years later, it seems he may have been close to the mark. In the Copernican Revolution, the key insight was the realization that the earth was spinning through space. Kant’s distinction between the two realities is likewise the key insight which opens the door to a new metaparadigm.

In both cases the key insight defied common sense. In Copernicus’ time it seemed absolutely obvious that the Earth was still. Today it seems equally obvious that we are perceiving the physical world directly. Even when we intellectually accept the fact that our entire world of experience is a construction within the mind, as eventually we must, we still see this world "out there," around us.

It may be that we will always see it this way. Even now, five centuries after Copernicus, we still see the sun going down, even though we know that it is really the earth spinning round.

In this instance, however, it is possible to see it the other way. All you need do is go somewhere where you have a good view of the horizon. Then, rather than thinking of yourself as stationary, see yourself standing on this huge ball of rock we call Earth, which is slowly turning in space from West to East. As it turns new parts of the sky come into view in the East while others disappear from view in the West. Now, instead of seeing the sun setting, you see the horizon moving up and hiding it. In a similar way, the full moon "rises" as the opposite horizon moves down opening up new vistas. Changing your perception in this way, the Copernican shift becomes an experienced reality.

It is much more difficult, however, to do a similar exercise with our perception of the world around us. Try as I may, I cannot experience the fact that it is all an image within my mind. But this doesn’t mean it is impossible to see things differently. Some spiritual adepts who have made deep personal investigations into the nature of consciousness, and witnessed the arising of experience, claim to have achieved this new perception.

Perhaps one the most succinct and clearest descriptions of this alternative mode of consciousness comes from the contemporary Indian teacher Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, who, describing his own spiritual awakening, said:

You realize beyond all trace of doubt that the world is in you, and not you in the world.

Swami Muktananda, another contemporary sage, said:

You are the entire universe.
You are in all, and all is in you.
Sun, moon, and stars revolve within you.

And the Ashtavakra Gita, a highly venerated Indian text, states:

The Universe produced phenomenally in me, is pervaded by me…
From me the world is born, in me it exists, in me it dissolves.

These people appear to have awoken from the dream of maya–the delusion that we are directly perceiving the physical world. They know as a direct personal experience, not just as some theoretical idea, that their entire world is a manifestation within the mind. These are the ones–the enlightened ones, we sometimes call them–who have personally made the shift to a new metaparadigm.

Turning Reality Inside Out

In much the same way as Copernicus’ insight turned our model of the cosmos inside out, the distinction between the physical world and our experience of the world turns the relationship of consciousness and the material world inside out. In the current metaparadigm, consciousness is assumed to emerge from the world of space, time and matter. In the new metaparadigm, everything we know, including space, time and matter, manifests from consciousness.

We think the world we see around us is composed of matter–that the stuff of the world is, for the want of a better word, matterstuff. As far as the actual physical reality is concerned, this may be so–uncertain though we may be as to the ultimate nature of this matterstuff. But the world we see around us is not the physical world. The world we actually know, is the world that takes form in our mind. And this world is not made of matterstuff, but mindstuff. Everything we know, perceive, and imagine, every color, sound, sensation, thought, and feeling, is a form that consciousness has taken on. As far as this world is concerned, everything is structured in consciousness.

Matter is derived from mind or consciousness, and not mind or consciousness from matter.

Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

Kant argued that this was even true of space and time. To us, the reality of space and time seems undeniable. They appear to be fundamental dimensions of the physical world, entirely independent of my or your consciousness. This, said Kant, is because we cannot see the world in any other way. The human mind is so constituted that it is forced to construct its experience within the framework of space and time. Space and time are not, however, fundamental dimensions of the underlying reality. They are fundamental dimensions of consciousness.

It was an astonishing claim at the time–and probably still seems astonishing to many of us today–but contemporary physics now lends weight to this extraordinary idea.

This pure Mind, the source of everything,

Shines forever and on all with the brilliance of its own perfection.

But the people of the world do not awake to it,

Regarding only that which sees, hears, feels and knows as mind,

Blinded by their own sight, hearing, feeling and knowing,

of all substance.

Zen Teachings of Huang Po

Converging Paradigms

The worldviews of science and spirit have not always been as far apart as they are today. Five hundred years ago, there was little difference between them. What science there was existed within the established worldview of the Christian church. Following Copernicus, Descartes and Newton, Western science broke away from the doctrines of monotheistic religion, establishing its own atheistic worldview, which today is now very different indeed from that of traditional religion. But the two can, and I believe eventually will, be reunited. And their meeting point is consciousness. When science sees consciousness to be a fundamental quality of reality, and when religion takes God to be the light of consciousness shining within us all, the two worldviews start to converge.

Nothing is lost in this convergence. Mathematics remains the same; so do physics, biology, chemistry. The shift may throw new light on some of the paradoxes of relativity and quantum theory, but the theories themselves do not change. This is a common pattern in paradigm shifts; the new model of reality includes the old as a special case. Einstein’s paradigm shift makes no difference to observers traveling at everyday speeds; as far as we are concerned Newton’s laws of motion still apply. In a parallel way, making consciousness fundamental does not change our understanding of the physical world. It does, however, bring a deeper appreciation of ourselves.

The same applies on the spiritual side. Much of the wisdom accumulated over the ages remains unchanged. Forgiveness, kindness, and love are as important as they ever were. Many of the qualities traditionally ascribed to God remain, they being equally applicable to the faculty of consciousness. The difference is that spiritual teachings and scientific knowledge now share a common ground. This too often happens in paradigm shifts. Newton brought terrestrial and celestial mechanics under the same laws. Maxwell integrated electricity, magnetism and light in a single set of equations. With the shift to a consciousness metaparadigm–the paradigm behind the paradigms–the integration goes much further. It is the two halves of humanity’s search for truth that are now brought under the same roof.

This meeting of science and spirit is crucial, not just for a more comprehensive understanding of the cosmos, but also for the future of our species. Today, more than ever, we need a worldview that validates spiritual inquiry, for it is the spiritual aridity of our current times that lies behind so many of our crises.

- Peter Russell
From Science to God: A Physicist's Journey into the Mystery of Consciousness.

The consensus is indeed changing.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
We have NCBI for the Biological Sciences, we have arixv for the Physical Sciences, how many reputed journals are there for Esotericism? Hardly a few people are interested in it and those who do don't often get science right.



The consensus is indeed changing.
Kant is "ancient wisdom," by your standards?
 
Top