Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Carbon is special in forming four bonds: single, triple, or double.% Because of this there are more possible structures. Water is a liquid at high temperatures because of hydrogen bonding. That's part of the reason life and carbon are related.
Directly below carbon is silicon, but the bonds in silicon are more like a metal relative to carbon.
% for example if you only form 2 bonds you are limited to a straight chain.
I find the theory interesting, but there are some contrasting ideas between the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles from where it is derived. However, in general, this and similar types of analysis might allow us to better understand God's uncreated energies that are, and can be, within limits, known by us, but in no way can God's essence be known in this manner or by any other conceptual notion.
The following excerpts from St Dionysius the Areopagite's Mystical Theology I think sum up a proper approach in understanding, or rather not, God's essence.
“Trinity!! Higher than any being, any divinity, any goodness! Guide of Christians in the wisdom of heaven! Lead us up beyond unknowing and light, up to the farthest, highest peak of mystic scripture, where the mysteries of God's Word lie simple, absolute and unchangeable in the brilliant darkness of hidden silence. Amid the deepest shadow they pour overwhelming light on what is most manifest. Amid the wholly unsensed and unseen they completely fill our sightless minds with treasures beyond all beauty.
For this I pray; and, Timothy, my friend, my advice to you as you look for sight of the mysterious things, is to leave behind you everything perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is, and with your understanding laid aside, to strive upward as much as you can toward union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge. By an undivided and absolute abandonment of yourself and everything, shedding all and freed from all, you will be uplifted to the ray of the divine shadow which is above everything that is.
But see to it that none of this comes to the hearing of the uninformed, that is to say, to those caught up with the things of the world, who imagine that there is nothing beyond instances of individual being, and who think that by their own intellectual resources they can have direct knowledge of him who has made the shadows his hiding place. And if initiation into the divine is beyond such people, what is to be said of those others, still more uninformed, who describe the Transcendent Cause of all things in terms derived from the lowest orders of being, and who claim that it is in no way superior to the godless, multiformed shapes they themselves have made? What has actually to be said about the Cause of everything is this. Since it is the Cause of all beings, we should posit and ascribe to it all the affirmations we make in regard to beings, and, more appropriately, we should negate all these affirmations, since it surpasses all being. Now we should not conclude that the negations are simply the opposites of the affirmations, but rather that the cause of all is considerably prior to this, beyond privations, beyond every denial, beyond every assertion.
...so this is what we say. The Cause of all is above all and is not inexistent, lifeless, speechless, mindless. It is not a material body, and hence has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it.
Again as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge or truth. It is not kingship. It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it spirit, in the sense in which we understand the term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth-it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free from every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial.”
The gauntlet falls. Now does anyone understand that? ^^ Now does anyone understand that? Seems it is fit for a narrow collection of scholars.
Seriously I couldn't understand it. If it is a cause then it can be known by its effect? Judge by fruits.
I do intend respect to the poster and it is a culmination of a lot of study, which naturally I find hard to penetrate in seeing all at once with no preparation.
The final problem is more personal. If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, then there really can be no ultimate purpose in our lives. This is not only bad news for us individually, it undermines the ethical and moral underpinnings of society and civilization.
He seems to beg the question that ethics and morality are only possible in some non-random universe.
It's worse than that. It assumes that to have a purpose, we must have been created and given that purpose by someone or something greater than ourselves. It assumes we are incapable of creating our own purpose in life. That need to be told what we're here for actually strips us and our lives of individual value. So the universe was created so I could walk around and worship the creator? Then God or the Sentient Universe should have stopped with dogs. Dogs are good at worship. Humans should find their own purpose in life, not bow down before God or the Universe and beg for answers to what our purpose is.
Honestly, I don't quite deny the existence of a god-like entity but I don't necessarily support it. The conditions of the universe are as they are and saying that they are "made for us" would sound somewhat pompous. Not to mention the fact that hundreds of millions of other vastly different species have evolved under the exact same conditions. I also believe that there is life outside of our planet and lots of it but that's a little off track. My point is that I don't think this proves any self-righteous point of humanity's superiority over everything (except the proposed "god") or even the existence of god. We could still just be and anomaly of nature.
I don't know for sure though. I just like to keep some healthy skepticism.
The gauntlet falls. Now does anyone understand that? ^^ Now does anyone understand that? Seems it is fit for a narrow collection of scholars.
Seriously I couldn't understand it. If it is a cause then it can be known by its effect? Judge by fruits.
I do intend respect to the poster and it is a culmination of a lot of study, which naturally I find hard to penetrate in seeing all at once with no preparation.
Certainly not--this is not for scholars-- Dionysios is one of the great mystics of Christianity who had a great influence on other mystics from Eckhart, John of the Cross and the anonymous author of the Cloud of Unknowing. Unfortunately this aspect of Christianity has been largely forgotten in the west.
The language is very similar to that of the Prajnaparamita literature and other Mahayana texts.
To say there is a Diety Is to imply there is something "outside" of the Absolute "All that is,is That Any-Thing that is not That is the name of a perception. "You" are "God"
@Jeffrey - Dionysius is difficult, true, but no more or less than the Buddha. It's all the same message. If you interpret him to mean the same as the Buddha but by way of a different set of images and metaphors, then this helps to decipher his meaning. For instance, Para 7 from @Silouan's post would be a description of Nibbana or Tao.
The word 'God' can cause trouble, but it may be a mistake to imagine we know what Dionysius means by this word. Unless we know God then how could we? His is certainly not the God of anthropomorphic theism.
The gauntlet falls. Now does anyone understand that? ^^ Now does anyone understand that? Seems it is fit for a narrow collection of scholars.
Seriously I couldn't understand it. If it is a cause then it can be known by its effect? Judge by fruits.
I do intend respect to the poster and it is a culmination of a lot of study, which naturally I find hard to penetrate in seeing all at once with no preparation.
Siloun makes it clear that these are the thoughts of Saint Denysius The Aeropogite..not his own credo. And like the Dharma of Nagarjuna or Guru Rinpoche this is not something that can be understood by the application of the intellectual faculty alone. The conceptual framework must be in tandem with the concommitant arising of prajna. Which arising is a matter of integration of a number of faculties which at a superficial level are apparently antagonistic.. This is what is known as 'one pointedness ' and is not the result of samadhi or an absorption of a conceptual framework into an integrated psycological functioning, rather it is necessary prerequisite to those.
I think the most important point St Dionysius made as being necessary is the abandonment of the self, because we are very much attached to a fragmented and transitory individual self, and this is the source of our egoism. It is from this position of a prideful self that influences our perceptions, understanding, and interpretations all things spiritual and not just about God.
St Gregory of Nyssa, in his writing of “The Life of Moses” provides insight for ascending the Mountain of Divine Knowledge:
"Again Scripture leads our understanding upward to the higher levels of virtue. For the man who received strength from the food, showed his power in fighting with his enemies, and was the victor over his opponents is then led to the ineffable knowledge of God. Scripture teaches us by these things the nature and the number of things one must accomplish in life before he would at some time dare to approach in his understanding the mountain of the knowledge of God, to hear the sound of the trumpets, to enter into the darkness where God is, to inscribe the tablets with divine characters, and , if these should be broken through some offense, again to present the hand-cut tables to God and to carve with the divine finger the letters which were damaged on the first tables.
It would be better next, in keeping with the order of the history, to harmonize what is perceived with a spiritual sense. Whoever looks to Moses and the cloud, both of whom are guides to those who progress in virtue (Moses in this place would be the legal precepts, and the cloud which leads, the proper understanding of the Law), who has been purified by crossing the water, who has put the foreigner to death and separated himself from the foreigner, who has tasted the waters of Marah (that is, the life removed far from pleasures), which, although appearing bitter and unpleasant at first to those tasting it, offers a sweet sensation to those accepting the wood, who has been delighted in the beauties of the palm trees and springs (which were those who preached the Gospel, who were filled with the living water which is the rock), who received the heavenly bread, who has played the man against the foreigner, and for whom the outstretched hands of the lawgiver became the cause of victory foreshadowing the mystery of the cross, he it is who then advanced to the contemplation of the transcendent nature.
His way to such knowledge is purity, not only purity of a body sprinkled by some lustral vessels, but also of the clothes washed from every stain with the water. This means that the one person who would approach the contemplation of Being must be pure in all things so as to be pure in soul and body, washed stainless of every spot in both parts, in order that he might appear pure to the One who sees what is hidden and that visible respectability might correspond to the inward condition of the soul. For this reason the garments are washed at divine command before he ascends the mountain, the garments representing for us in figure the outward respectability of life. No one would say that a visible spot on the garment hinders the progress of those ascending to God, but I think that the outward pursuits of life are well named the “garment”.
Moses then approached the ascent to lofty perceptions. That none of the irrational animals was allowed to appear on the mountain signifies, in my opinion, that in the contemplation of the intelligibles we surpass the knowledge which originates with the senses. For it is characteristic of the nature of irrational animals that they are governed by the senses alone divorced from understanding. Their sights and hearing often lead them to what stimulates their appetites. Also, all other things through which sense perception becomes active assume an important place in irrational animals. The contemplation of God is not effected by sight and hearing, nor is it comprehended by any customary perceptions of the mind. For “no eye has seen, and no ear has heard,” nor does it belong to those things which usually enter “into the heart of man” [1 Cor. 2:9, Isa. 64:4]. He who would approach the knowledge of things sublime must first purify his manner of life from all sensual and irrational emotion. He must wash from his understanding every opinion derived from some preconceptions and withdraw himself from his customary intercourse with his own companion, that is, with his sense perceptions, which are, as it were, wedded to our nature as its companion. When he is so purified, then he assaults the mountain.
The knowledge of God is a mountain steep indeed and difficult to climb-the majority of the people scarcely reach its base.”
A remarkable discovery has gradually emerged in astrophysics over the past two decades and is now essentially undisputed: that certain key physical constants have just the right values to make life possible. In principle these constants could have taken on values wildly different from what they actually are, but instead, they are in some cases within a few percent of the “just right” values permitting us to exist in this universe.
That's similar to saying, "Wow - the water fits the depression in the ground just perfectly - what a miracle; that proves there must be a God".
That's similar to saying, "Wow - the water fits the depression in the ground just perfectly - what a miracle; that proves there must be a God".
Good analogy. Taking it further here we are swimming in the water. Another set of situational arisings. It is not unusual for experienced meditators to have 'experiences', visions etc. It is part of our being:
The proof is within yourself, not in 'the puddle'. The video is about an hour long.
Two great quotes @Silouan. We seem to have the same heroes.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
So I've been looking into a universe from nothing proposed by Lawrence Krauss. I think I get the crux of it, this idea says that the universe can arise out of quantum flux because the energy of the universe is zero. The issue I'm having with it though is that these quantum fluctuations Krauss is talking about occur in space-time and those things were supposedly created in the Big Bang.
So it seems to me that I'm missing something about quantum fluctuations, this hypothesis doesn't hold water or space-time wasn't created in the Big Bang.
If anyone can explain a solution to this problem or can point me to a resource that explains it I'd appreciate that.
Here's a good, short video describing the origin of the universe from quantum fluctuations.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I came across this lecture by Dr. Paul Francis on the greatest unsolved mysteries of the universe.
I recommend it. Basically what I learned is that we don't know the answers to the origin of the universe.
Lawrence Krauss and the author of the OP article have particular agendas they are trying to push and so they make conclusions and inferences that aren't totally justified by the data.
It seems for now we're stuck with we don't know, I'm ok with that.
There is no Creator God, Mind is the Creator of all experience not some external force.
Mind creates experience but does it create the stuff of the external world, I don't think science knows this but some speculate that its is so.
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“ ~ Max Planck
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Can god be experienced and known? Then objectively maybe we can point to his existence. If god cannot be experienced and known then the idea of god is just that, a concept, an idea, subjective in its nature.
It's a difficult topic. Some people feel they do "know" God. How can I say they are wrong?
I can't walk on Venus. So is it not there?
Since everybody that has claimed to know God knows it slightly differently, if they are not wrong then God is Omni-possible.
Meaning we would all be at least partially right because we are all at least partially God.
I don't view God (or the Tao) as a creator deity but the universe waking up one aspect at a time.
To me, God (for lack of a better word) is still in the process of waking up.
Can god be experienced and known? Then objectively maybe we can point to his existence. If god cannot be experienced and known then the idea of god is just that, a concept, an idea, subjective in its nature.
It's a difficult topic. Some people feel they do "know" God. How can I say they are wrong?
I can't walk on Venus. So is it not there?
Since everybody that has claimed to know God knows it slightly differently, if they are not wrong then God is Omni-possible.
Meaning we would all be at least partially right because we are all at least partially God.
I don't view God (or the Tao) as a creator deity but the universe waking up one aspect at a time.
To me, God (for lack of a better word) is still in the process of waking up.
Disclaimer: I don't have any faith in my beliefs.
It doesn't bother me in the least when someone believes in God, doesn't believe in God, or believes in a different God.
It bothers me, when like in a post a few above, states their personal belief as absolute fact.
There is no Creator God, Mind is the Creator of all experience not some external force.
Mind creates experience but does it create the stuff of the external world, I don't think science knows this but some speculate that its is so.
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“ ~ Max Planck
Materialism is insubstantial when things are searched for with wisdom they cannot be found to exist in the way they appear. That is a rather nice quote by the way !
So I've been looking into a universe from nothing proposed by Lawrence Krauss. I think I get the crux of it, this idea says that the universe can arise out of quantum flux because the energy of the universe is zero. The issue I'm having with it though is that these quantum fluctuations Krauss is talking about occur in space-time and those things were supposedly created in the Big Bang.
So it seems to me that I'm missing something about quantum fluctuations, this hypothesis doesn't hold water or space-time wasn't created in the Big Bang.
If anyone can explain a solution to this problem or can point me to a resource that explains it I'd appreciate that.
Scientists often ignore common sense. Ex nihilo creation is a logically absurd idea. All these theories of the universe arising out of nothing at all fail in logic. Don't worry, you're thinking about it sensibly. Krauss, Stenger, Guth and co. are desperate men trying at any cost, even at the cost of common sense, to avoid concluding that Buddhist doctrine is true.
I'd recommend Paul Davies The Mind of God. He is one physicist who does not abandon reason but prefers to explore the problem properly. He concludes that mysticism may be the answer, although does not seem to quite grasp how it would work. A very good book.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
So I've been looking into a universe from nothing proposed by Lawrence Krauss. I think I get the crux of it, this idea says that the universe can arise out of quantum flux because the energy of the universe is zero. The issue I'm having with it though is that these quantum fluctuations Krauss is talking about occur in space-time and those things were supposedly created in the Big Bang.
So it seems to me that I'm missing something about quantum fluctuations, this hypothesis doesn't hold water or space-time wasn't created in the Big Bang.
If anyone can explain a solution to this problem or can point me to a resource that explains it I'd appreciate that.
Here's a good, short video describing the origin of the universe from quantum fluctuations.
I've heard this too. It doesn't quite make sense to me because quantum fluctuations are not 'nothing". The grand total of energy can be said to equal itself out leaving an imaginary quantity we call "zero" but that doesn't fly. Hawking explains it like a pile of dirt being made. There must also be a hole being dug at the same time. The pile represents positive energy and the hole represents negative energy which would cancel each other out leaving a total of "zero" work. However, this is faulty because the dirt itself is not 'nothing".
Scientists are being very misleading when they talk of "nothing" because they admit that nothing is actually something... Kinda changes the meaning of the word.
Nothing is just the new spin on the god of the gaps.
When a scientist says the universe was started by "nothing", it's the same thing as a creationist saying "Goddidit"
I've heard this too. It doesn't quite make sense to me because quantum fluctuations are not 'nothing". The grand total of energy can be said to equal itself out leaving an imaginary quantity we call "zero" but that doesn't fly. Hawking explains it like a pile of dirt being made. There must also be a hole being dug at the same time. The pile represents positive energy and the hole represents negative energy which would cancel each other out leaving a total of "zero" work. However, this is faulty because the dirt itself is not 'nothing".
Same here. To me the only explanation that would make sense would be the multiple universe theory. That could explain the quantum fluctuations that arise, but then again you have to explain what gave rise to the surrounding dimensions and there you are, back at square one again.
I believe that if there is a scientific, materialist explanation it would likely be beyond human understanding, at least at this point in our evolution.
I'm certainly not intelligent enough to really understand this kind of thing, but it is fascinating to think about. I love the relentless march of science and human understanding but we may as well say that the universe is the dream of Vishnu when we reach this level of abstraction.
That sounds like a good book @Florian. I may have to check that out.
The notion of God as an external force with an essence that is anthropic in nature are false assumptions. For the Christian Mystic a God that is not inaccessible by nature he can dispense with.
For the Christian Mystic a God that is not inaccessible by nature he can dispense with.
Maybe so. God is however to some misfits and mystics, inaccessible by definition and anything accessible is self and not God. However I have no mystic dispensation or disposition . . . :wave:
The trouble with God as an external force is that it just moves the problem for physicists back a step. The problem remains unchanged. The only answer is to assume that our everyday concepts of 'Something' and 'Nothing' break down at the limit. As Kant and Hegel concluded. Buddhism is common sense philosophy really.
The trouble with God as an external force is that it just moves the problem for physicists back a step. The problem remains unchanged. The only answer is to assume that our everyday concepts of 'Something' and 'Nothing' break down at the limit. As Kant and Hegel concluded. Buddhism is common sense philosophy really.
Well, we wouldn't want to make life difficult for the physicists!
Here's a general question to anyone. If Buddhists have imponderables, why is it people who believe in God often seem required to be able to prove his existence?
I honestly believe that we could could make life a lot simpler for physicists if only they would listen. I have a book coming together which will of course change everything overnight, so it's a topic of immediate interest to me.
I agree about the God thing. People who ask for a proof are not students of theology. otherwise they wouldn't be so naive. But intelligent sceptics don't usually ask for a proof of God. They ask for a proof that He is necessary hypothesis and not just a needless multiplication of theoretical entities. This is a much more sensible request.
I held similar beliefs as a Buddhist, as I was not aware of Christian mystical theology or very familiar with Christianity at all for that matter. I had a concept of God that was very much biased with anthropomorphic sentiments which can easily be negated by the doctrine of dependent origination.
However, in relation to that doctrine I think the question of how a God inaccessible in essence, without origin, and unchanging creates things that are subject to change which poses the greatest stumbling block, but it is passable, though it requires some effort in becoming familiar with the patristic commentaries that address it.
I have often wondered why the burden of proof seems to only fall on the theists.
My personal view is - God may or may not be. As the Buddha stated, why waste energy on this? I think that it does no harm to be compassionate, kind and loving to all sentient beings. If there is a God when we die, then we may go to heaven. If there is no God when we die, we will have accumulated merit to be reborn into a better lifecycle and regardless if there is or isn't a God, we can leave the world slightly better than when we entered it.
I may of course be wrong It has been known to happen.
Here's a general question to anyone. If Buddhists have imponderables, why is it people who believe in God often seem required to be able to prove his existence?
Because if someone tells me an intelligent being created the universe, they should be able to prove it to me, I shouldn't need to disprove it to them. It's called the burden of proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof If they're happy for me to reject their claim, I'm happy to ignore their burden of proof.
So it seems to me that I'm missing something about quantum fluctuations, this hypothesis doesn't hold water or space-time wasn't created in the Big Bang.
If anyone can explain a solution to this problem or can point me to a resource that explains it I'd appreciate that.
They way I understand it, energy/matter and spacetime are intrinsically related, spacetime isn't just the backdrop to the play of the material universe. At a gravitational singularity like you find at the center of a black hole, and as is thought have existed at the point of the big bang, spacetime is curled up to the point that it possesses zero volume and the energy it "contains" is infinite. At this point there is no demonstrable difference between energy and spacetime, conventional physics breaks down.
There are a few theories that try to explain what happens. Loop quantum cosmology suggests that the singularity is a quantum bridge, a sort of stepping stone between one contracting universe and the subsequent expanding universe. The theory of "baby universes" forming from the gravitational singularities at the center of black holes, that Stephen Hawking discusses, is similar to this quantum bridge idea. An alternative is brane cosmology, which suggests that our 3-dimensional universe is a pocket universe hanging off a hyperspatial membrane within a broader reality consisting of membranes of more than 3 dimensions. When these membranes interact or collide they generate quantum fluctuations within their structure, giving rise to bubbles of spacetime and energy like our universe.
Because if someone tells me an intelligent being created the universe, they should be able to prove it to me, I shouldn't need to disprove it to them. It's called the burden of proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof If they're happy for me to reject their claim, I'm happy to ignore their burden of proof.
First, go back and read your citation, which says, "This holds true for either arguing party".
But beyond that, there is just as much for someone who believes there's a God to prove, as for the person who believes it's all coincidence.
First, go back and read your citation, which says, "This holds true for either arguing party".
Yeah, so if I came up with an alternative to their assertion I'd also have a burden of proof on me. But if someone says "there is a God" and I say "prove it", the burden is only theirs.
But beyond that, there is just as much for someone who believes there's a God to prove, as for the person who believes it's all coincidence.
Indeed, but us "coincidence believers" have humungous telescopes, the knowledge of Hawking and Einstein as well as a large hadron collider to help us prove what we suggest, the God believer has some bronze age texts and a general sense of wonder.
The use of the term "intelligent being" is limited by an anthropic bias in assuming we are the basis or definition of intelligence, and in so doing make anthropomorphic statements in describing God. However, God's essence and "intelligence", if that word can even be used in describing Him, is ineffable and beyond the realm of terms and not grasped by the intellect.
The use of the term "intelligent being" is limited by an anthropic bias in assuming we are the basis or definition of intelligence, and in so doing make anthropomorphic statements in describing God. However, God's essence and "intelligence", if that word can even be used in describing Him, is ineffable and beyond the realm of terms and not grasped by the intellect.
What you have said can be summed up as "God isn't anything like a human and you can't possibly ever comprehend It's mind or reasoning". If that's the case, when taken in the context of God also being unverifiable through scientific experimentation, what reason does anyone have to spend time contemplating such an "entity"? What's the point in believing in an ineffable God?
I thought man was made in Gods image. Shouldn't we share some some characteristics? Personally, I don't spend any time thinking about whether there is or isn't God. I just can't see how I could come to any conclusion or what benefit taking a position on it might have.
0
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
If that's the case, when taken in the context of God also being unverifiable through scientific experimentation, what reason does anyone have to spend time contemplating such an "entity"? What's the point in believing in an ineffable God?
I don't know about others, but my belief in "god" comes from my perception and experience of the world around me. It is scientific? No, but then again, religion isn't scientific. I believe in the scientific explanations of the universe and world, but I also believe in a higher being. I don't wish for a "reward" for believing in God. To me, God just is and is simply a part of my subjective reality.
Just because the idea of God is ludacris and delusional to some doesn't mean it is likewise for others.
First, go back and read your citation, which says, "This holds true for either arguing party".
Yeah, so if I came up with an alternative to their assertion I'd also have a burden of proof on me. But if someone says "there is a God" and I say "prove it", the burden is only theirs.
But beyond that, there is just as much for someone who believes there's a God to prove, as for the person who believes it's all coincidence.
Indeed, but us "coincidence believers" have humungous telescopes, the knowledge of Hawking and Einstein as well as a large hadron collider to help us prove what we suggest, the God believer has some bronze age texts and a general sense of wonder.
I'm not aware of any proof that science has offered that there is no God. You've let your own personal belief obliterate any balanced viewpoint.
Indeed, but us "coincidence believers" have humungous telescopes, the knowledge of Hawking and Einstein as well as a large hadron collider to help us prove what we suggest, the God believer has some bronze age texts and a general sense of wonder.
Einstein was a Jew. Newton was a Kabbalist.
But I don't believe denigrating EITHER set of beliefs is conducive to discussion.
I'm not aware of any proof that science has offered that there is no God. You've let your own personal belief obliterate any balanced viewpoint.
Actually, I've never seen/read/heard that either. Perhaps this is why the Buddha chose to not involve himself in that debate?
Just because the idea of God is ludacris and delusional to some doesn't mean it is likewise for others.
Totally agree.
At the end of the day, does it really matter if someone believes differently to you?
I believe in one of shunyru suzukis books he said there is something like God but we (his sangha) don't talk about it because mere words don't convey the meaning. Sorry can't provide reference (without digging through my 2 books).
I don't think there is any real argument here. @vinlyn has pointed out that there are imponderables in both Buddhist and Christian traditions. I think most can accept this after dropping preconceived notions and presumptions and come to terms with it.
I'm no expert in patristics, but perhaps the following points where I have attempted to summarize some of the teaching might provide a response as to why would anyone would desire or want to contemplate, or rather, become a portion of God.
*Man was created for union with God and to become what He is. Not by nature, but as partakers of the divine nature through participation in His uncreated energies experienced as joy, peace, and love.
*There is no human being who does not desire joy, peace and love. However, it must be understood that whatever we can say about that experience it is be beyond our normal understanding and infinitely more than can be described.
*God is spirit and communicates, and is made known to us, through his uncreated energies or grace, as much is possible according to our capacity.
*The uncreated energies or grace permeates the entire universe within and without.
*Man is created in the image of God, but is not Him according to nature, otherwise he would be unchangeable.
*When referring to human person it is not to be confused with the transient individual self, fragmented with various characteristics and conditions, and grounded in egoism normally ascribed to mean person. The human person created in the image of God can be reduced to nothing less than a mystery.
*The Fathers have provided no one clear definition of the divine image, but have provided various characteristics, or clues if you will, as the spiritual nature in his soul, sovereign dignity, in the mind (nous), freedom proper to man, faculty of inner determination, by virtue, true author of his own actions, a certain quality of the soul, its simplicity or immortality, ability of knowing God, of living in communion with Him, and the possibility of sharing the divine being.
*Man is also created according to His likeness, and this generally refers to man's potential to grow in well-being rather than non-being by Theosis or union with God fulfilling man's person-hood, a state that as yet to be accomplished.
See, I have no problem with those who believe there is no God. That's their right. I won't try to convince them there is.
But I expect the same courtesy in return.
So Einstein wasn't religious? So what? I could list hundreds of famous people who are. That proves nothing. So Hawking doesn't believe in God? Okay. Fine. He's one man who may not have the most balanced view of why life is like it is.
If a christian evangelizes to you that "do you know about Jesus"? or something then they should prove it to you. Because they are trying to uproot your atheism by 'telling you about Jesus'
But it's different if the Christian is minding their own business and not evangelizing and you start up an argument with them.
Personally I try to follow what has been traditioned to me, and in doing so I know that I have no right to impose my will upon another person for not even God does that.
However, I see no problem with providing information that is contrary to preconceptions or presumptions when someone throws them out there as describing supposedly what I believe.
Also, I too get the odd knock on the door on Saturday's by someone attempting to save me, and you know, it really doesn't matter what you believe if you are outside that inner circle. I'm usually kind to them and they eventually go their way, but when I'm in a sour mood I mention passages of scripture that I know they fail to underline with their yellow marker, because it undermines their position and that sets them on their way even more quickly.
Comments
God is Buddha
Buddha is God
Directly below carbon is silicon, but the bonds in silicon are more like a metal relative to carbon.
% for example if you only form 2 bonds you are limited to a straight chain.
The following excerpts from St Dionysius the Areopagite's Mystical Theology I think sum up a proper approach in understanding, or rather not, God's essence.
“Trinity!! Higher than any being, any divinity, any goodness! Guide of Christians in the wisdom of heaven! Lead us up beyond unknowing and light, up to the farthest, highest peak of mystic scripture, where the mysteries of God's Word lie simple, absolute and unchangeable in the brilliant darkness of hidden silence. Amid the deepest shadow they pour overwhelming light on what is most manifest. Amid the wholly unsensed and unseen they completely fill our sightless minds with treasures beyond all beauty.
For this I pray; and, Timothy, my friend, my advice to you as you look for sight of the mysterious things, is to leave behind you everything perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is, and with your understanding laid aside, to strive upward as much as you can toward union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge. By an undivided and absolute abandonment of yourself and everything, shedding all and freed from all, you will be uplifted to the ray of the divine shadow which is above everything that is.
But see to it that none of this comes to the hearing of the uninformed, that is to say, to those caught up with the things of the world, who imagine that there is nothing beyond instances of individual being, and who think that by their own intellectual resources they can have direct knowledge of him who has made the shadows his hiding place. And if initiation into the divine is beyond such people, what is to be said of those others, still more uninformed, who describe the Transcendent Cause of all things in terms derived from the lowest orders of being, and who claim that it is in no way superior to the godless, multiformed shapes they themselves have made? What has actually to be said about the Cause of everything is this. Since it is the Cause of all beings, we should posit and ascribe to it all the affirmations we make in regard to beings, and, more appropriately, we should negate all these affirmations, since it surpasses all being. Now we should not conclude that the negations are simply the opposites of the affirmations, but rather that the cause of all is considerably prior to this, beyond privations, beyond every denial, beyond every assertion.
...so this is what we say. The Cause of all is above all and is not inexistent, lifeless, speechless, mindless. It is not a material body, and hence has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it.
Again as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge or truth. It is not kingship. It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it spirit, in the sense in which we understand the term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth-it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free from every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial.”
Seriously I couldn't understand it. If it is a cause then it can be known by its effect? Judge by fruits.
I do intend respect to the poster and it is a culmination of a lot of study, which naturally I find hard to penetrate in seeing all at once with no preparation.
It's worse than that. It assumes that to have a purpose, we must have been created and given that purpose by someone or something greater than ourselves. It assumes we are incapable of creating our own purpose in life. That need to be told what we're here for actually strips us and our lives of individual value. So the universe was created so I could walk around and worship the creator? Then God or the Sentient Universe should have stopped with dogs. Dogs are good at worship. Humans should find their own purpose in life, not bow down before God or the Universe and beg for answers to what our purpose is.
I don't know for sure though. I just like to keep some healthy skepticism.
The language is very similar to that of the Prajnaparamita literature and other Mahayana texts.
Another time waster? Another way of not experiencing?
This is what I know about what I don't know?
Oh Buddha, pray for us slackers in the moment of our neediness . . . :wave:
Me either. I just focus on what I know and what can help me now
In metta,
Raven
Is to imply there is something "outside" of the Absolute
"All that is,is That
Any-Thing that is not That
is the name of a perception.
"You" are "God"
I am not even COD (PBUH)
. . . to even suggest such a thing is red herringsy
Oh great flying fish, forgive them for they know no batter . . .
The word 'God' can cause trouble, but it may be a mistake to imagine we know what Dionysius means by this word. Unless we know God then how could we? His is certainly not the God of anthropomorphic theism.
And like the Dharma of Nagarjuna or Guru Rinpoche this is not something that can be understood by the application of the intellectual faculty alone.
The conceptual framework must be in tandem with the concommitant arising of prajna.
Which arising is a matter of integration of a number of faculties which at a superficial level are apparently antagonistic..
This is what is known as 'one pointedness ' and is not the result of samadhi or an absorption of a conceptual framework into an integrated psycological functioning, rather it is necessary prerequisite to those.
In a universe as big as ours, life is mathematically inevitable.
No God required, and nuthin' up my sleeve.
I think the most important point St Dionysius made as being necessary is the abandonment of the self, because we are very much attached to a fragmented and transitory individual self, and this is the source of our egoism. It is from this position of a prideful self that influences our perceptions, understanding, and interpretations all things spiritual and not just about God.
St Gregory of Nyssa, in his writing of “The Life of Moses” provides insight for ascending the Mountain of Divine Knowledge:
"Again Scripture leads our understanding upward to the higher levels of virtue. For the man who received strength from the food, showed his power in fighting with his enemies, and was the victor over his opponents is then led to the ineffable knowledge of God. Scripture teaches us by these things the nature and the number of things one must accomplish in life before he would at some time dare to approach in his understanding the mountain of the knowledge of God, to hear the sound of the trumpets, to enter into the darkness where God is, to inscribe the tablets with divine characters, and , if these should be broken through some offense, again to present the hand-cut tables to God and to carve with the divine finger the letters which were damaged on the first tables.
It would be better next, in keeping with the order of the history, to harmonize what is perceived with a spiritual sense. Whoever looks to Moses and the cloud, both of whom are guides to those who progress in virtue (Moses in this place would be the legal precepts, and the cloud which leads, the proper understanding of the Law), who has been purified by crossing the water, who has put the foreigner to death and separated himself from the foreigner, who has tasted the waters of Marah (that is, the life removed far from pleasures), which, although appearing bitter and unpleasant at first to those tasting it, offers a sweet sensation to those accepting the wood, who has been delighted in the beauties of the palm trees and springs (which were those who preached the Gospel, who were filled with the living water which is the rock), who received the heavenly bread, who has played the man against the foreigner, and for whom the outstretched hands of the lawgiver became the cause of victory foreshadowing the mystery of the cross, he it is who then advanced to the contemplation of the transcendent nature.
His way to such knowledge is purity, not only purity of a body sprinkled by some lustral vessels, but also of the clothes washed from every stain with the water. This means that the one person who would approach the contemplation of Being must be pure in all things so as to be pure in soul and body, washed stainless of every spot in both parts, in order that he might appear pure to the One who sees what is hidden and that visible respectability might correspond to the inward condition of the soul.
For this reason the garments are washed at divine command before he ascends the mountain, the garments representing for us in figure the outward respectability of life. No one would say that a visible spot on the garment hinders the progress of those ascending to God, but I think that the outward pursuits of life are well named the “garment”.
Moses then approached the ascent to lofty perceptions. That none of the irrational animals was allowed to appear on the mountain signifies, in my opinion, that in the contemplation of the intelligibles we surpass the knowledge which originates with the senses. For it is characteristic of the nature of irrational animals that they are governed by the senses alone divorced from understanding. Their sights and hearing often lead them to what stimulates their appetites. Also, all other things through which sense perception becomes active assume an important place in irrational animals.
The contemplation of God is not effected by sight and hearing, nor is it comprehended by any customary perceptions of the mind. For “no eye has seen, and no ear has heard,” nor does it belong to those things which usually enter “into the heart of man” [1 Cor. 2:9, Isa. 64:4]. He who would approach the knowledge of things sublime must first purify his manner of life from all sensual and irrational emotion. He must wash from his understanding every opinion derived from some preconceptions and withdraw himself from his customary intercourse with his own companion, that is, with his sense perceptions, which are, as it were, wedded to our nature as its companion. When he is so purified, then he assaults the mountain.
The knowledge of God is a mountain steep indeed and difficult to climb-the majority of the people scarcely reach its base.”
Taking it further here we are swimming in the water. Another set of situational arisings. It is not unusual for experienced meditators to have 'experiences', visions etc. It is part of our being:
The proof is within yourself, not in 'the puddle'. The video is about an hour long.
So it seems to me that I'm missing something about quantum fluctuations, this hypothesis doesn't hold water or space-time wasn't created in the Big Bang.
If anyone can explain a solution to this problem or can point me to a resource that explains it I'd appreciate that.
Here's a good, short video describing the origin of the universe from quantum fluctuations.
I recommend it. Basically what I learned is that we don't know the answers to the origin of the universe.
Lawrence Krauss and the author of the OP article have particular agendas they are trying to push and so they make conclusions and inferences that aren't totally justified by the data.
It seems for now we're stuck with we don't know, I'm ok with that.
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“
~ Max Planck
Meaning we would all be at least partially right because we are all at least partially God.
I don't view God (or the Tao) as a creator deity but the universe waking up one aspect at a time.
To me, God (for lack of a better word) is still in the process of waking up.
Disclaimer: I don't have any faith in my beliefs.
It bothers me, when like in a post a few above, states their personal belief as absolute fact.
Approval met !
I'd recommend Paul Davies The Mind of God. He is one physicist who does not abandon reason but prefers to explore the problem properly. He concludes that mysticism may be the answer, although does not seem to quite grasp how it would work. A very good book.
Scientists are being very misleading when they talk of "nothing" because they admit that nothing is actually something... Kinda changes the meaning of the word.
Nothing is just the new spin on the god of the gaps.
When a scientist says the universe was started by "nothing", it's the same thing as a creationist saying "Goddidit"
I believe that if there is a scientific, materialist explanation it would likely be beyond human understanding, at least at this point in our evolution.
I'm certainly not intelligent enough to really understand this kind of thing, but it is fascinating to think about. I love the relentless march of science and human understanding but we may as well say that the universe is the dream of Vishnu when we reach this level of abstraction.
That sounds like a good book @Florian. I may have to check that out.
God is however to some misfits and mystics, inaccessible by definition and anything accessible is self and not God. However I have no mystic dispensation or disposition . . . :wave:
Here's a general question to anyone. If Buddhists have imponderables, why is it people who believe in God often seem required to be able to prove his existence?
I agree about the God thing. People who ask for a proof are not students of theology. otherwise they wouldn't be so naive. But intelligent sceptics don't usually ask for a proof of God. They ask for a proof that He is necessary hypothesis and not just a needless multiplication of theoretical entities. This is a much more sensible request.
I held similar beliefs as a Buddhist, as I was not aware of Christian mystical theology or very familiar with Christianity at all for that matter. I had a concept of God that was very much biased with anthropomorphic sentiments which can easily be negated by the doctrine of dependent origination.
However, in relation to that doctrine I think the question of how a God inaccessible in essence, without origin, and unchanging creates things that are subject to change which poses the greatest stumbling block, but it is passable, though it requires some effort in becoming familiar with the patristic commentaries that address it.
I have often wondered why the burden of proof seems to only fall on the theists.
My personal view is - God may or may not be. As the Buddha stated, why waste energy on this? I think that it does no harm to be compassionate, kind and loving to all sentient beings. If there is a God when we die, then we may go to heaven. If there is no God when we die, we will have accumulated merit to be reborn into a better lifecycle and regardless if there is or isn't a God, we can leave the world slightly better than when we entered it.
I may of course be wrong
In metta,
Raven
If they're happy for me to reject their claim, I'm happy to ignore their burden of proof. They way I understand it, energy/matter and spacetime are intrinsically related, spacetime isn't just the backdrop to the play of the material universe. At a gravitational singularity like you find at the center of a black hole, and as is thought have existed at the point of the big bang, spacetime is curled up to the point that it possesses zero volume and the energy it "contains" is infinite. At this point there is no demonstrable difference between energy and spacetime, conventional physics breaks down.
There are a few theories that try to explain what happens. Loop quantum cosmology suggests that the singularity is a quantum bridge, a sort of stepping stone between one contracting universe and the subsequent expanding universe. The theory of "baby universes" forming from the gravitational singularities at the center of black holes, that Stephen Hawking discusses, is similar to this quantum bridge idea.
An alternative is brane cosmology, which suggests that our 3-dimensional universe is a pocket universe hanging off a hyperspatial membrane within a broader reality consisting of membranes of more than 3 dimensions. When these membranes interact or collide they generate quantum fluctuations within their structure, giving rise to bubbles of spacetime and energy like our universe.
But beyond that, there is just as much for someone who believes there's a God to prove, as for the person who believes it's all coincidence.
If that's the case, when taken in the context of God also being unverifiable through scientific experimentation, what reason does anyone have to spend time contemplating such an "entity"? What's the point in believing in an ineffable God?
Personally, I don't spend any time thinking about whether there is or isn't God. I just can't see how I could come to any conclusion or what benefit taking a position on it might have.
Just because the idea of God is ludacris and delusional to some doesn't mean it is likewise for others.
But I don't believe denigrating EITHER set of beliefs is conducive to discussion. Actually, I've never seen/read/heard that either. Perhaps this is why the Buddha chose to not involve himself in that debate? Totally agree.
At the end of the day, does it really matter if someone believes differently to you?
In metta,
Raven
I'm no expert in patristics, but perhaps the following points where I have attempted to summarize some of the teaching might provide a response as to why would anyone would desire or want to contemplate, or rather, become a portion of God.
*Man was created for union with God and to become what He is. Not by nature, but as partakers of the divine nature through participation in His uncreated energies experienced as joy, peace, and love.
*There is no human being who does not desire joy, peace and love. However, it must be understood that whatever we can say about that experience it is be beyond our normal understanding and infinitely more than can be described.
*God is spirit and communicates, and is made known to us, through his uncreated energies or grace, as much is possible according to our capacity.
*The uncreated energies or grace permeates the entire universe within and without.
*Man is created in the image of God, but is not Him according to nature, otherwise he would be unchangeable.
*When referring to human person it is not to be confused with the transient individual self, fragmented with various characteristics and conditions, and grounded in egoism normally ascribed to mean person. The human person created in the image of God can be reduced to nothing less than a mystery.
*The Fathers have provided no one clear definition of the divine image, but have provided various characteristics, or clues if you will, as the spiritual nature in his soul, sovereign dignity, in the mind (nous), freedom proper to man, faculty of inner determination, by virtue, true author of his own actions, a certain quality of the soul, its simplicity or immortality, ability of knowing God, of living in communion with Him, and the possibility of sharing the divine being.
*Man is also created according to His likeness, and this generally refers to man's potential to grow in well-being rather than non-being by Theosis or union with God fulfilling man's person-hood, a state that as yet to be accomplished.
But I expect the same courtesy in return.
So Einstein wasn't religious? So what? I could list hundreds of famous people who are. That proves nothing. So Hawking doesn't believe in God? Okay. Fine. He's one man who may not have the most balanced view of why life is like it is.
If a christian evangelizes to you that "do you know about Jesus"? or something then they should prove it to you. Because they are trying to uproot your atheism by 'telling you about Jesus'
But it's different if the Christian is minding their own business and not evangelizing and you start up an argument with them.
Personally I try to follow what has been traditioned to me, and in doing so I know that I have no right to impose my will upon another person for not even God does that.
However, I see no problem with providing information that is contrary to preconceptions or presumptions when someone throws them out there as describing supposedly what I believe.
Also, I too get the odd knock on the door on Saturday's by someone attempting to save me, and you know, it really doesn't matter what you believe if you are outside that inner circle. I'm usually kind to them and they eventually go their way, but when I'm in a sour mood I mention passages of scripture that I know they fail to underline with their yellow marker, because it undermines their position and that sets them on their way even more quickly.