What tools or mediums does God use to create the universe?

[Link]

The verbs are all singular... not exalted ones, plural.

Is it, I checked before, it was plural. But maybe you can show me.

 

[Link]

Is it, I checked before, it was plural. But maybe you can show me.

O you mean, the verbs, as opposed to the nouns?

 

[Link]

The Quran does same though, it talks about Ahlulbayt (a) as a singular Wali in 5:55 for example, although plural would be correct grammar, and technically "Wali" is singular and hence wrong. It maybe "the exalted ones" are referred to as unity in Torah as well and so the verb describes them as a unified actor.

 

[George-ananda]

What tools or mediums does God use to create the universe?​

From my Advaita Vedanta (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) philosophy I would answer that 'a creative thought emanation' creates the universe. The universe is a thought-form of Brahman.

 

[dybmh]

O you mean, the verbs, as opposed to the nouns?

Yes. The noun follows the verb, not the other way around. To tell masc/fem singular/plural, look to the verb.

What's happening in Gen 1 is all the forces of nature are under the absolute command and authority of the ineffable-source.
It might look plural.. but it's definitely not, that's the whole point.

​

Deut 4:35​

​

אתה הראת לדעת כי יהוה הוא האלהים אין עוד מלבדו׃​

​

To you it was shown, that you might know that the יהוה is האלהים; there is no other beside him/it (singular).​

 

[Valjean]

Hi my friend. My understanding is that God in Divine Language says ‘Be’ and it ‘Is’. It is beyond the understanding of mortal man. All creation runs on what we understand to be scientific law. God is the Ultimate Scientist so to speak.

Speaking something into existence is magic, not "scientific law."

Science is a research methodology. What is God researching?
Science relies on observation of observable facts, hypothesis formation and then testing -- ie: trying to disprove the hypothesis -- then inviting other scientists to critique and retest the hypothesis? Is this what God does? If not, He's no scientist, just a magician.

 

[dybmh]

Speaking something into existence is magic, not "scientific law."

If you don't consider QM magical, then I'm not sure what you would call it? I think the word "strangeness" gets bandied about.

 

[dybmh]

The Quran does same though, it talks about Ahlulbayt (a) as a singular Wali in 5:55 for example, although plural would be correct grammar, and technically "Wali" is singular and hence wrong. It maybe "the exalted ones" are referred to as unity in Torah as well and so the verb describes them as a unified actor.

No, they're nothing in comparisson in the Torah. Nothing at all. They're a tiny spark completely occluded in layer after layer after layer of "darkness". But that one tiny spark is pretty awesome since it's coming from an absolutley literally infinite source.

 

[Valjean]

If you don't consider QM magical, then I'm not sure what you would call it? I think the word "strangeness" gets bandied about.

OK, if you want to call quantum mechanics magic, fine, but you get my point.
Uncertainty? Probability?

 

[dybmh]

OK, if you want to call quantum mechanics magic, fine, but you get my point.

Yes, I agree 100% that "magical" is a perfectly good term for what is described by creation via divine-fiat. But that should not be considered insulting considering all of the other objective scientific phenomena which have been and currently are considered mysterious.

Speaking something into existence is magic, not "scientific law."

Did you intend for this to sting? Even a little?

Science is a research methodology. What is God researching?
Science relies on observation of observable facts, hypothesis formation and then testing -- ie: trying to disprove the hypothesis -- then inviting other scientists to critique and retest the hypothesis? Is this what God does? If not, He's no scientist, just a magician.

What about this? Calling God a magician? Surely you can understand how that is an insult?

I think they were intending "natural law" as opposed to "scientific law", but I could be wrong. If so, is there anything wrong with considering space, time, and matter being "spoken" into existence along with their associated observable properties which can be labeled "natural laws"?

Considering is the key word here. Not claiming any kind of certainty, just, considering it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not completely without context. Have you used a VR headset? It simulates vision and sound and blocks off all experience of the real world. All you would need is to buff up the technology (a lot!) and add the other senses, and you would have a total virtual experience. OK, that's a lot, but it's really just an extension of current technology. Two things would remain to make a "Matrix". A sensation of bodily movement that matched what your senses are telling you. That is, your eyes tell you you are walking along, but your body says you are sitting in a chair. It's possible to actually stand and move around and the software adjusts what you see to match it, but it's very limited, for example you have to have something to stop you bumping into things in the real world, but I've seen setups where you walk on a treadmill. Last but not least is the knowledge you go in with that tells you it's not real.

You are still projecting existing technology into sci-fi as if there is a direct connection. Yes, sci-fi does at times illude to future technology, but the connection is subjective.

It is a separate problem of concluding reality may be computer simulation based on the fact that it can be computer-simulated by AI now.

Now I'm not sure what the relevance is to the subject at hand ....

Somewhat off concerning the possibility that reality may be a computer simulation. The computer simulation may eventually give a very accurate history of the nature of our physical existence. It is no help in determining the illusion of knowing God and Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, if you want to call quantum mechanics magic, fine, but you get my point.
Uncertainty? Probability?

Based on more contemporary Quantum Mechanics and Physics the Uncertainty Principle is not so uncertain.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I agree 100% that "magical" is a perfectly good term for what is described by creation via divine-fiat. But that should not be considered insulting considering all of the other objective scientific phenomena which have been and currently are considered mysterious.

Mystery and intention are quite different things. One implies unknown, the other, conscious planning and design.

Did you intend for this to sting? Even a little?

Huh? Why would this sting? Why would I want to sting?

What about this? Calling God a magician? Surely you can understand how that is an insult?

To God? I'm going to hurt the feelings of the author of the universe?! Magic is effect without mechanism. This is exactly what God is repeatedly depicted as doing. One who performs magic is a magician, so how is the appellation not apt?

I think they were intending "natural law" as opposed to "scientific law", but I could be wrong.

How are they different? Science is a discipline that studies and describes natural law.

If so, is there anything wrong with considering space, time, and matter being "spoken" into existence along with their associated observable properties which can be labeled "natural laws"?

Yes. spoken into existence means intentionally created, by a conscious personage, rather than just being the automatic result of chemistry or physics.

Considering is the key word here. Not claiming any kind of certainty, just, considering it.

But wouldn't it also be reasonable to dismiss any unevidenced considerations?

Hitchen's razor -- "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[dybmh]

Mystery and intention are quite different things. designed

In the magic show and in QM, something's happeing, but it's unknown how. Can you imagine a good magic trick or illusion that is not mysterious.

Huh? Why would this sting? Why would I want to sting?

Because caling god a magician is rude. A magician is a stage performer who is essentiially tricking people.

To God? I'm going to hurt the feelings of the author of the universe?! Magic is effect without mechanism. This is exactly what God is repeatedly depicted as doing. One who performs magic is a magician, so how is the appellation not apt?

You're being silly. No not to God, to the people who are reading your posts. It's rude to call someone's deity "silly".

How are they different? Science is a discipline that studies and describes natural law.

They're not. That's the point. You made a point of defining "science" as a method in response to the words "scientific law" when the person simply meant "natural law".

Yes. spoken into existence means intentionally created, by a conscious personage, rather than just being the automatic result of chemistry or physics.

Not neccessarily a "personage". Just a "voice" in the "unknown"

But wouldn't it also be reasonable to dismiss any unevidenced considerations?

Also? sure. It would also be reasonable not to ridicule others, but perhaps that's too much to expect.

Hitchen's razor -- "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Hee, just apply that to atheism and then it's a fair statement. Until then, it's a double standard. Now we're back to agnosticsm which permits considering things without evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Based on more contemporary Quantum Mechanics and Physics the Uncertainty Principle is not so uncertain.

Are you certain of that?

 

[Valjean]

Because caling god a magician is rude. A magician is a stage performer who is essentiially tricking people.

An actual magician is one who effects change without mechanism. This is what God is claimed to do, so the appellation is apt.

You're being silly. No not to God, to the people who are reading your posts. It's rude to call someone's deity "silly".

So you're objecting to my manners, not the aptness of my statements?
Sorry if I don't pay proper deference to a delusion about a being I don't believe in.
Why should a fixed, unevidenced belief (delusion) be respected or deferred to?

They're not. That's the point. You made a point of defining "science" as a method in response to the words "scientific law" when the person simply meant "natural law".

I don't even use the term "scientific law." There are natural laws, and scientific theories.
I'm not sure what your objection is, here.

Not neccessarily a "personage". Just a "voice" in the "unknown"

Huh? Is there a "whom'" that voice originates from?
Very poetic, but it still assumes a conscious vocalist of some kind.

Also? sure. It would also be reasonable not to ridicule others, but perhaps that's too much to expect.

I'm not ridiculing. I'm pointing out errors.
I do get exasperated when certain posters repeat the same errors over and over, or ignore repeated explanations, and I may claim they're being obtuse, or uninformed, or deluded, or illogical. If you disagree with my assessment, please point out why.
I believe my assessments are appropriate.

Hee, just apply that to atheism and then it's a fair statement. Until then, it's a double standard. Now we're back to agnosticsm which permits considering things without evidence.

Atheism's not an assertion of fact. It makes no claim except that evidence is insufficient to support the God hypothesis.
The burden of proof is not on the atheist, it's on the God claimant. If the claim is not supported, it is logically disregarded.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you certain of that?

The uncertainty principle represents a predictable and useful property and not some complete mystery 'to be bandied about' in the behavior of particles at the Quantum scale.

I had a thread in the past on Quantum MEchanics to take the Layman hookus pockus out of the foggy layman perspective.

The Uncertainty Principle

Way down at the quantum scale, one thing you can be absolutely sure of is uncertainty.

quantumatlas.umd.edu

The Uncertainty Principle​

Way down at the quantum scale, one thing you can be absolutely sure of is uncertainty.​

The uncertainty principle expresses a give and take between quantum properties such as position and momentum, represented here by the letters X and P.

One of the bedrock tenets of quantum physics is the uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. It says that certain pairs of quantum properties—such as position (X) and momentum (P)---always maintain a careful balance. The more precisely you specify one, the less certain you are about the other.
This principle locks some quantum properties into a rigid trade-off reminiscent of a seesaw. On a playground, one seesaw rider can enjoy the view only when the other rider sits near the ground. Similarly, in the quantum world, to know where an electron is located, you’ll have to give up knowing how fast it’s moving.

One can never know with perfect accuracy both of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles—its position and its velocity. It is impossible to determine accurately both the position and the direction and speed of a particle at the same instant.

Heisenberg originally applied the uncertainty principle to position and momentum, but there are others properties that obey its signature trade-off.

Although originally formulated for position and momentum, the uncertainty principle applies to other complementary quantum properties as well.

In the pantheon of quantum phenomena, the uncertainty principle can be a little hard to pin down. That’s because it’s not the only place in the quantum world where “uncertainty” rears its head. For example, the results of quantum measurements are uncertain before they’re made, but that’s not because of the uncertainty principle. Rather, it’s because quantum particles generally live in a superposition of different possibilities. At the time of measurement the superposition collapses into one of these possibilities at random.

The "uncertainty" in the uncertainty principle relates two different complementary properties that cannot be precisely known at the same time. One way to think about how those properties are related (besides the seesaw) is by considering the area of a rectangle.

These rectangles all have the same area. The uncertainty principle binds together a pair of quantum properties in the same way that the area of a rectangle binds together length and width.
If the width of the rectangle stands for the uncertainty in position and the height of the rectangle stands for the uncertainty in momentum, then the uncertainty principle says that the area of a rectangle can’t get any smaller than a certain number, related to a fundamental constant of nature. This is like saying that the acreage of your yard is fixed but the actual shape of it, narrow or wide, is flexible.

The mathematical expression of the uncertainty principle boils down to an inequality in which the product of two numbers is always greater than a third number.

This fact—that the uncertainty principle constrains the product of two numbers—means that it contains a bit of wiggle room. The rectangle can get as skinny as you like in one direction, as long as the other direction grows to keep the area in check. Scientists use this idea—called squeezing because the shape ends up looking, well, squeezed—to enhance their ability to make high-precision measurements in the lab.

You can think of the uncertainty principle like a constraint on the area of a rectangle: The length and width can be modified, but the area of the rectangle can never dip below a certain number.

Crucially, the uncertainty principle is not a limit on the quality of such measurements. In general, it’s possible to measure the value of a single quantum property as accurately as you’d like, assuming you have the right tool. You just won’t be able to have the same confidence in another, complementary property at the same time.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you don't consider QM magical, then I'm not sure what you would call it? I think the word "strangeness" gets bandied about.

A better understanding of QM would help instead of a misuse of terminology that you bandy about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know fundamentalists say it is merely spoken into existence. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion?

If you believe in God then surely God would necessarily have methods of creating the universe?

Simply declaring God created the universe invites all kinds of questions as to the definition of God, and then once defined, how does that actually happen?

It sounds to me like God's creation is an appeal to the mysterious and unfathomable. It's very reasonable to question how it's actually done though. I can't imagine a believer forbidding such questioning as if it were unacceptable to do so.

I know in my religion consciousness exists in a medium that is abstract and has no known physics. This underlying medium is not consciousness but has qualitative aspects both living and non living. It's a non physical, non living environment that gives conceptions and ideas a life of their own; from which consciousness is spawned. To me the fact that humans must invent meanings, and purposes to live sheds light on the idea that meaning and purpose is essential, and fundamental to reality.

The medium I believe in is non spatial, and non local. It creates space, time, location, energy, matter, and form. Life merely inhabits this intellectual, and spiritual medium. It is spiritual in the sense that values and virtues, such as love, honesty etc. are expressed in this medium.

Even with all my beliefs I don't see a living authority such as a God could ever spawn such a reality as the one in which we all live. Perhaps God is a hunter. Perhaps finite theism is true. Im not convinced of any of it though.

I have no idea. The Bible doesn't say. Maybe science is filling in those details.

 

[dybmh]

An actual magician is one who effects change without mechanism. This is what God is claimed to do, so the appellation is apt.

no, that's not a magician that's a miracle worker

So you're objecting to my manners, not the aptness of my statements?
Sorry if I don't pay proper deference to a delusion about a being I don't believe in.
Why should a fixed, unevidenced belief (delusion) be respected or deferred to?

I was pretty clear that it is rude to the person, but there seems to be a real problem with you staying sync'd up with what you've said and my response.

I don't even use the term "scientific law." There are natural laws, and scientific theories.
I'm not sure what your objection is, here.

That's because you have lost track of the conversation.

You made a silly objection to the words "scientific law", when the person meant "natural law". And took the opportunity to rude at the same time.

Huh? Is there a "whom'" that voice originates from?

It's not stated. It's just a voice.

Very poetic, but it still assumes a conscious vocalist of some kind.

But not a magician.

I'm not ridiculing. I'm pointing out errors.

Not really. You've misunderstood repeatedly. And calling something a delusion when it is only a belief is ridicule. And assuming it's unevidenced is itself unevidenced.

I do get exasperated when certain posters repeat the same errors over and over, or ignore repeated explanations, and I may claim they're being obtuse, or uninformed, or deluded, or illogical. If you disagree with my assessment, please point out why.

I did. But you lost track of the conversation.

I believe my assessments are appropriate.

They're unevidenced. So they can be dismissed per your own rules.

Atheism's not an assertion of fact. It makes no claim except that evidence is insufficient to support the God hypothesis.

There you go... "the evidence is insufficent" is an unevidenced claim.

The burden of proof is not on the atheist, it's on the God claimant. If the claim is not supported, it is logically disregarded.

Claiming it's unevidenced is itself an unevidenced claim. "But, but I don't have to..." is silly.