Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is supporting my culture and supporting all varieties of my religion. I am an atheist but still a Hindu. Hinduism is not against atheism.
-
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!
"We are That"
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I know quite a few people who are on the fence with this who don't feel there's compelling evidence one way or another. I am non-theistic, as you well know, and yet I simply cannot discount the possibility of there being god(s) even though I doubt that there are. It's not that I like riding the fence as it's really hard on the crotch, but I simply have to plead ignorance about what caused all. Therefore, I take the "Whatever happened, happened" position.
Theism is not about evidence, and therefore neither is atheism. It is impossible to know one way or another, but it takes perceiving it as somewhat significant to even consider theism.
Fair enough, but how does that relate to you possibly becoming a believer? Do you mean a believer in Hinduism?
Oh, right. For a while there I thought you meant becoming a theist.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
how about a line of thought in regression?
Someone had to be First.
going back to that moment when Someone did say...I AM!....
was He born of substance?
or Spirit?
was He born at all?
I choose Spirit first as I do not believe.....substance is not 'self' creating.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yes, someone had to be the first. Mitochondial Eve some 100,000–200,000 years ago, Y-chromosomal Adam around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago (Wikipedia). Answer not available today. Take birth in 23 Century. Then, there is a possibility that it will have been answered by that time. What arose must have arisen from 'absolute nothing', otherwise the question persists 'wherefrom the substance?' Space accompanies energy (Zero-point Energy). Space and energy arose simultaneously from 'absolute nothing', Quantum Mechanics, way of the world, dao, 'ritam'. The best Hindu attempt to answer is here, 'Nasadiya Sukta': http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
Problem with you is that you never acknowledge what has been shown to you several times. It has been pointed out to you many times that the last two lines of Nasadiya affirm that a Seer controls the world, although he may or may not know whether he is the cause or not. The Nasadiya affirms a Seer's existence prior to the universe.
And verse after verse in Upanishads re-affirm this.
Last edited:
Below is an interview of Michio Kaku.
http://www.biographile.com/the-future-of-the-mind-a-qa-with-theoretical-physicist-michio-kaku/29039/
I reproduce a portion from the interview. Most important point pertinent to this thread is Kaku's statement ".....and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist."
BIOG: One of my favorite subjects -- quantum consciousness -- appears at the end of your book. Could you briefly explain the concept and expound on how it’s tied to theoretical physics?
MK: In my book, I give an entirely new definition of consciousness which describes the consciousness of animals and human alike. My theory is testable, reproducible, falsifiable, and even measurable. This definition in particular focuses on the consciousness of animals and humans. However, there is also another type of consciousness, which is sometimes called cosmic consciousness, which goes to the heart of the quantum theory (my specialty). It is so sensitive that even Nobel Laureates today are not in uniform agreement. Basically, the quantum theory (which I teach to our grad students, and which is the most successful physical theory of all time) says that you have make an observation to determine the state of any object (e.g., atoms, electrons, laser beams). Before you observe something, it exists in a never-never-land world, being neither here nor there. (For example, this means that a cat in a closed box is neither dead nor alive in this nether state, before it is observed.) But once you make an observation, you know precisely the state of the cat (e.g., it is alive.) So, in some sense, an observation was necessary for the cat to exist. But observations imply consciousness. Only conscious beings can make an observation. Hence, it seems that consciousness is more fundamental that reality, and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist. The greatest minds of science have struggled with this question, without a final resolution. But in my book, I give you a critique of the various bizarre solutions that have been proposed. As J.B.S. Haldane once said, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.
...........
Kaku essentially echoes the last two lines of Nasadiya Sukta. Just check.
http://www.biographile.com/the-future-of-the-mind-a-qa-with-theoretical-physicist-michio-kaku/29039/
I reproduce a portion from the interview. Most important point pertinent to this thread is Kaku's statement ".....and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist."
BIOG: One of my favorite subjects -- quantum consciousness -- appears at the end of your book. Could you briefly explain the concept and expound on how it’s tied to theoretical physics?
MK: In my book, I give an entirely new definition of consciousness which describes the consciousness of animals and human alike. My theory is testable, reproducible, falsifiable, and even measurable. This definition in particular focuses on the consciousness of animals and humans. However, there is also another type of consciousness, which is sometimes called cosmic consciousness, which goes to the heart of the quantum theory (my specialty). It is so sensitive that even Nobel Laureates today are not in uniform agreement. Basically, the quantum theory (which I teach to our grad students, and which is the most successful physical theory of all time) says that you have make an observation to determine the state of any object (e.g., atoms, electrons, laser beams). Before you observe something, it exists in a never-never-land world, being neither here nor there. (For example, this means that a cat in a closed box is neither dead nor alive in this nether state, before it is observed.) But once you make an observation, you know precisely the state of the cat (e.g., it is alive.) So, in some sense, an observation was necessary for the cat to exist. But observations imply consciousness. Only conscious beings can make an observation. Hence, it seems that consciousness is more fundamental that reality, and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist. The greatest minds of science have struggled with this question, without a final resolution. But in my book, I give you a critique of the various bizarre solutions that have been proposed. As J.B.S. Haldane once said, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.
...........
Kaku essentially echoes the last two lines of Nasadiya Sukta. Just check.
Some people just can't in good conscience claim belief in a deity, Atanu.
That is however no reason to refuse a religious tradition, except if it is so flawed as to forbid itself such a necessary feature as acceptance of non-theists.
Most sources seem to agree that Judaism and Hinduism do not have such a flaw, while Christianity and most of all Islam do.
Not everyone agrees, of course.
That is however no reason to refuse a religious tradition, except if it is so flawed as to forbid itself such a necessary feature as acceptance of non-theists.
Most sources seem to agree that Judaism and Hinduism do not have such a flaw, while Christianity and most of all Islam do.
Not everyone agrees, of course.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Then you do not believe in cause and effect, so why didn't you say that in the first place instead of the opposite?
So, let's deal with the next part, namely why did "Someone had to be first"? Why supposedly is that? Infinity, which is slightly older than I am, is another possibility.
BTW, how do you know it's not "Someones"? See, what you are doing is making assumptions. Yes, it's always possible that your assumptions could be right, but there really is no way of telling whether they are or aren't, so why guess?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
at some 'point' one item takes the lead and the other follows.
substance as creation....God as Creator.
we get to ask Him how He came to be....when we get there.
until then God first
Someone had to be first.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear of it.....
does it make a sound?
yes
observation came after the creation.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
thought and feeling were left out of your response.
Someone was First in mind and heart.
that would be on a spiritual level.....and Creator
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
A painter needs a canvas for his painting. What was God's canvas? Himself?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Did God observe before he created?
That is just a dogma you feel passionate about, Thief. Not necessarily, or even likely, the truth.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But that's all based on assumptions that cannot in any way be verified. That's fine as far as belief is concerned, but beliefs are not always correct. Therefore, I much prefer the "I don't know" stance because I am not forced to take positions and manufacture dogmas based on nothing more than mere assumptions. "Infinity" is a viable contender, but I simply do not know if it's correct.