If not a Creator, then What?

[Karl]

So I take it that you do not know what a Higg's field is and how it impacts your logical position?

 

Yes I know about the so called 'God particle' and the expanding universe and the energy deficit. I'm a geek like that-although you must be very very bright to understand the physics and maths involved ! It miles past me . Yet it does not impact on my logic at all. That there is a dynamic to the universe does not mean it needs a creator Jeff.

[Jeff]

Yes I know about the so called 'God particle' and the expanding universe and the energy deficit. I'm a geek like that-although you must be very very bright to understand the physics and maths involved ! It miles past me . Yet it does not impact on my logic at all. That there is a dynamic to the universe does not mean it needs a creator Jeff.

 

While I am not defining a "creator", it also does not show that there is not some outside force that is providing the ongoing energy for the accelerating expansion of the universe. What is your logical argument that there is no such being?  But, please start a new thread with your argument for there being no such thing, it would make an interesting thread in its own right. 

 

[Karl]

While I am not defining a "creator", it also does not show that there is not some outside force that is providing the ongoing energy for the accelerating expansion of the universe. What is your logical argument that there is no such being?  But, please start a new thread with your argument for there being no such thing, it would make an interesting thread in its own right. 

 

If you posit the need for a creator then you have to posit a need for a creator of the creator. If you then say that the creator does not need a creator, then it also follows that neither does the universe.

 

 

[Jeff]

If you posit the need for a creator then you have to posit a need for a creator of the creator. If you then say that the creator does not need a creator, then it also follows that neither does the universe.

 

Not at all... Just as you have the universe always existing, you can have God always existing and everything that is perceived to exist is just a subset of God.

[Bud Jetsun]

If you posit the need for a creator then you have to posit a need for a creator of the creator. If you then say that the creator does not need a creator, then it also follows that neither does the universe.

 

 

The creator creator creator path quickly becomes turtles all the way down. 

 

Yet, here we are to ask the question. :-)

[Karl]

Not at all... Just as you have the universe always existing, you can have God always existing and everything that is perceived to exist is just a subset of God.

 

Well that's perfectly acceptable, but then you just defined God AS the universe. Unless you can separate God from the universe then we just use God and Universe interchangeably. Any word will do as long as the definition is clear.

 

I notice you said 'perceived' to exist. Was that just a turn of phrase or do you subscribe to the notion that existence is within perception ?

[Nungali]

This thread is listed as  having multiple replies .... but 0 views ?

 

How does that work ? 

[Aetherous]

This thread is listed as  having multiple replies .... but 0 views ?

 

How does that work ? 

 

Someone Created it.

[Brian]

This thread is listed as having multiple replies .... but 0 views ?

 

How does that work ?

Magic.

[Bud Jetsun]

Every consciousness is the root creator of it's own reality model built from perceptions.  No two can be alike or they would be the same reality. 

 

There can be no ultimate reality through the inherent limitations of human perception. 

 

To our ability to "know" it, there is only our delusions of reality created by us through perceiving them and integrating them into our reality models (which are exclusively delusions). 

 

Universal entanglement shatters both the time/space/mass human perception limitation delusions, as well as the construct there ever could have been more than oneness.  Oneness is inseparable and inherent both in our minds ability to perceive what we call reality, solipsism.  Oneness is also inseparable in inherent through whatever this illusion of a solid material world happens to be, as evidenced by universal entanglement. 

 

When you throw a ball up, the ball pulls back on not only your hand and all off the earth, but also all of the stars in the universe of universes.  The illusion there could be other than oneness, either from a human or 'physical' perspective. 

 

Include awareness from the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment, and all states are undefined until a conciousness chooses to perceive them, and only through the act perception defines (without the illusion of 'time' or 'space' preventing defining outcomes 'post-event' for lack of a better term). 

 

There is at least a creator of consciousnesses own unique delusion model of reality, and simultaneously only universal oneness. 

 

 

Words (delusion constructs) in attempt to describe the nature of reality feels like trying to sew with bowling balls. 

 

 

With unlimited Love,

-Bud

[sketchbo0k]

So, then show me God. Point him out. Prove his existence by logic.

 

 

Look at the sun.

Oh, you can't?

If you cannot even look at the creation, how do you expect yourself to look at its creator?

[dawei]

This thread is listed as  having multiple replies .... but 0 views ?

 

How does that work ? 

 

Split from another topic  

[dawei]

Every consciousness is the root creator of it's own reality model built from perceptions.  No two can be alike or they would be the same reality. 

 

There can be no ultimate reality through the inherent limitations of human perception. 

 

To our ability to "know" it, there is only our delusions of reality created by us through perceiving them and integrating them into our reality models (which are exclusively delusions). 

 

What if we let go of consciousness?

 

If 10 people see the same thing you ask them to look at, what/whose reality are they looking at?

 

I don't mind so much an individual consciousness but you can't seem to get to a universal one (?)

[Karl]

Look at the sun.

Oh, you can't?

If you cannot even look at the creation, how do you expect yourself to look at its creator?

 

You are begging the question.

As yet you have not proved the existence of a creator.

 

 

[Karl]

Every consciousness is the root creator of it's own reality model built from perceptions. No two can be alike or they would be the same reality.

 

There can be no ultimate reality through the inherent limitations of human perception.

 

To our ability to "know" it, there is only our delusions of reality created by us through perceiving them and integrating them into our reality models (which are exclusively delusions).

 

Universal entanglement shatters both the time/space/mass human perception limitation delusions, as well as the construct there ever could have been more than oneness. Oneness is inseparable and inherent both in our minds ability to perceive what we call reality, solipsism. Oneness is also inseparable in inherent through whatever this illusion of a solid material world happens to be, as evidenced by universal entanglement.

 

When you throw a ball up, the ball pulls back on not only your hand and all off the earth, but also all of the stars in the universe of universes. The illusion there could be other than oneness, either from a human or 'physical' perspective.

 

Include awareness from the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment, and all states are undefined until a conciousness chooses to perceive them, and only through the act perception defines (without the illusion of 'time' or 'space' preventing defining outcomes 'post-event' for lack of a better term).

 

There is at least a creator of consciousnesses own unique delusion model of reality, and simultaneously only universal oneness.

 

 

 

Words (delusion constructs) in attempt to describe the nature of reality feels like trying to sew with bowling balls.

 

 

 

With unlimited Love,

-Bud

"Every consciousness is the root creator of it's own reality model built from perceptions. No two can be alike or they would be the same reality."

 

 

That seems backwards Bud ?

 

 

Consciousness is conscious of something.

 

 

We are conscious of the direct percepion of reality, the things we see and touch that make up the universe-we can use tools to look deeper into the structures of those existent realities.

 

 

We are also conscious of our thoughts, feelings and conceptions. These are existent to us, but they are not realities as viewed by a second conscious entity.

 

 

Direct perceptual reality is existent. We don't need to go beyond that. We may see a different shade of blue, but we can all agree that the colour is blue. We all go and sit on a chair, there isn't a changing direct perceptual reality where a chair has become an elephant for instance.

 

It is in our conceptions that the difference is revealed. These are very different from person to person. They are creative outpourings of the higher cortex. We can reason, rationalise and feel emotion.

 

The question 'what is consciousness' is just a badly formed concept. Consciousness is not a thing at all because it is a fundamental. We cannot look at or hold consciousness.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

What if we let go of consciousness?

 

If 10 people see the same thing you ask them to look at, what/whose reality are they looking at?

 

I don't mind so much an individual consciousness but you can't seem to get to a universal one (?)

There is consciousness and unconsciousness ( the complete abscence of consciousness awareness). We let go in deep dreamless sleep.

 

We all look at the same realities or concretions though we might observe them marginally differently (optical illusions, mirages, shapes in clouds) and have different thoughts and feelings about them.

 

What you are saying is very important. In effect "how can I know what is real-what I see is what I see". If you begin to wonder if you actually CAN know, then you are drifting into the world of the subjectivist where nothing is assumed real at all. This is what self inquiry and other techniques does. It destabilises the entire direct perceptive and conceptive internal by putting it on one plane. It is a form of liquidation which eventually hardens out direct reality and conceptual internal realities. Then one can be seen entirely different from the other. This is the origin of the rope and the snake. To correctly identify direct reality. To know what is and isn't real. To see the real as real for separated out from the conceptions is the aim.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[Bearded Dragon]

"Every consciousness is the root creator of it's own reality model built from perceptions. No two can be alike or they would be the same reality."

 

 

That seems backwards Bud ?

 

 

Consciousness is conscious of something.

 

 

He's saying that everything is contained in your own consciousness. This is the perspective of those who know from experience. It is a presumption that there is something outside of consciousness. This is the perspective of those who like to add their own thoughts.

 

Given that everything is contained in consciousness then you can go one step further and say that consciousness is the creator. This is observable. Everything comes from it.

 

The hard part to fathom is that you can deduct that things happen outside of your own consciousness. One may eventually ask why something matters if you aren't aware of it. If you aren't aware of it then you can't do anything about it. This brings you back to the idea that only stuff presently in your consciousness is of importance because it's all you've got to work with.

 

Consciousness is the real. Everything else is delusion but it's all you've got so you just carry on with delusion from the perspective of the real.

 

Finally, I'll add that "If not a creator then what?" is not the right question. One must discover where the creation happens.

[Karl]

He's saying that everything is contained in your own consciousness. This is the perspective of those who know from experience. It is a presumption that there is something outside of consciousness. This is the perspective of those who like to add their own thoughts.

 

Given that everything is contained in consciousness then you can go one step further and say that consciousness is the creator. This is observable. Everything comes from it.

 

The hard part to fathom is that you can deduct that things happen outside of your own consciousness. One may eventually ask why something matters if you aren't aware of it. If you aren't aware of it then you can't do anything about it. This brings you back to the idea that only stuff presently in your consciousness is of importance because it's all you've got to work with.

 

Consciousness is the real. Everything else is delusion but it's all you've got so you just carry on with delusion from the perspective of the real.

 

Finally, I'll add that "If not a creator then what?" is not the right question. One must discover where the creation happens.

 

There is no 'in your consciousness'. There is only being conscious of something. You should start to see the impossibility of what you are saying. You are saying it is your consciousness that is 'producing' everything, but you know this cannot be true, because if that were the case then how would you be conscious of it :-) senses sense direct reality, mind produces conceptual un-realities

 

You have created a conceptual mind entity called consciousness, but you are consciousness itself. You cannot be conscious of consciousness, that much must be obvious. An eye cannot look at itself.

 

 

[sketchbo0k]

You are begging the question. As yet you have not proved the existence of a creator.

 

 

The Imam debates with an Atheist

An atheist, experienced in atheism and unbelief, hurried to attend Ima`m al-Rida`'s session in which was a group of people. The Ima`m turned to the atheist and asked him: "Do you see that if the correct view is your view and it is not your view then are we not equal? All that we have prayed, fasted, given the alms and declared of our convictions will not harm us?" 

The atheist kept silence because of this undeniable argument, for if the matter was as the atheists said that there was no god, then prayer and fasting would not harm the monotheists. 

After that the Ima`m added, saying: "If the correct view is our view¾and it is our view then have you not perished and we gained salvation?" 

The Imam wanted to say that if the atheists came to know that there was Almighty Creator, they would be perished, bring disgrace on themselves, and face a painful punishment. As for the 

believers and the pious, they would be successful. 

 

The atheist asked the Ima`m, peace be on him, the following questions: 

Q1: "May Allah have mercy on, let me know how is He (Allah) and where is He?" 

 

Ans. 1: "Surely the opinion you have adopted is mistaken. He (Allah) determined the 'where' and he was when there was no where; He fashioned the 'how' and He was when there was no 'how'. So He is not known through 'howness' or 'whereness' or through any form of sense perception; nor can He be gauged by anything." 

Indeed Allah is the Light of the heavens and earth, for it is impossible for Him to be distinguished by the 'where', 'how' and the rest qualities of the possible being who will perish sooner or later. As for Allah, the Glorified, He is not perceived by the senses; nor is He gauged by anything. 

 

Q2: "So then He is nothing if He cannot be perceived by any of the senses?" 

 

Ans. 2: "Woe unto you! When your senses fail to perceive Him, you deny His lordship. But when our senses fail to perceive Him, we know for certain that He is our Lord and that He is something different from other things." 

The perception of the senses is limited in quantity and quality as well as the senses do not perceive many possible beings. For example, they do not perceive the reality of soul, then how do they perceive the Necessary Being, the Exalted, the Holy? 

 

Q3: "Tell me, when He was?" 

 

Ans. 3: "Tell me when He was not, and then I will tell you when He was." 

The Imam, peace be on him, criticized the atheist for his question, for Allah, the Exalted is a brilliant reality which every one comprehends through His signs, His great creation, and His marvelous creatures. He is in every stage of existence, and it is impossible to say: "When He was?" 

 

Q4: "Then what is the proof of Him?" 

 

Ans. 4: "Surely when I contemplate my body and it is impossible for me to increase or decrease its breadth and height, or to keep unpleasant things away from it or draw benefits to it, then I know that this structure has a maker and I acknowledge Him even though that which I had seen of the rotation of the celestial sphere through His power, the producing of clouds; the turning about of the winds; the procession of the sun, the moon and the stars; and others of his wondrous and perfectly created signs, had already made me know that (all) this has a Determiner and Producer." 

Surely, every atom of this world is a proof of the existence of the great Creator, who has made them. 

If man carefully considers his own body and the wonderful systems and cells wherein, he will certainly believe in Allah, the Most High, just as it has been mentioned in the tradition: "He who knows his own body knows his Lord." Allah, the Exalted, created man in the best manner. It is impossible that there is increase or decrease in his organs. It is well know that this surprisingly accurate creation of man is evidence for the existence of Allah, for effect is proof of cause as logicians say. 

Among the signs of Allah are the rotation of the celestial sphere, the producing of clouds; the turning about of the winds; the procession of the sun and the moon. He, the Exalted, says: "Neither it is allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in a sphere." Glory belongs to Allah! Many signs are evidence for His existence. 

 

Q5: "Then why does the sense of sight not perceive Him?" 

 

Ans. 5: "Because of the difference between Him and His creatures, who are perceived by the vision of the eyes, whether their own or others. Then He is greater than that sight should perceive Him, imagination encompass Him, or the power of reason delineate Him." 

The sense of sight and rest of man's senses are limited, then how can they, perceive, see, and encompass the Almighty Creator? Rather they perceive and comprehend some possible beings. 

 

Q6: "Then define His limits for me." 

 

Ans. 6: "He has no limits." Limitation belongs to possible beings. As for the Necessary Being, it is impossible for Him to be limited. 

 

Q7: "Why?" 

 

Ans. 7: "Because every limited thing ends at a limit. If limitation is possible, then increase is possible. If increase is possible, then decrease is possible. So He is unlimited. He neither increases nor decreases. Nor is He capable of being divided or imagined." 

The Ima`m, peace be on him, provided evidence of that it was impossible for man to define the limits of the Almighty Necessary Being. That is because limitation, as we have mentioned, is one of the qualities of the possible beings. 

 

Q8: "Then tell me about your saying that He is Subtle, Hearing, Seeing, Knowing, and Wise. Can He be the Hearing without ears, the Seeing without eyes, the Subtle without working with the hands and the Wise without workmanship (san'a)?" 

 

Ans. 8: "Surely a person among us is subtle in accordance with (his) skill in workmanship. Have you not seen the man who undertakes a task and is subtle in his handling of it, so that it is said: 'How subtle is so and so!' Then how should it not be said of the Majestic Creator that He is subtle, when He creates a subtle and majestic creation, places in its living creatures their souls, creates every kind different in form from its own kind, and none resembles another? Each possesses in the composition of its form a subtlety from the Subtle and Aware Creator. 

"Then we look upon the trees and their bearing of delicate things, whether edible or inedible, and we said at that: 'Surely our Creator is Subtle, (but) not like the subtlety of His creatures in their workmanship.' And we said: 'Surely He is Hearing, for not hidden from Him are the sounds of His creatures between the Throne and the earth, from a mote to what is larger than it, and in the land and the sea. And their words are not confused by Him.' At that we said: 'Surely He is Hearing, but not through ears.' 

"Then we said: 'Surely He is Seeing, but not through eyes, for He sees the trace of a black speck on a dark night on a black stone. He sees the tracks of an ant on a pitch-black night. He sees what is harmful for it and what beneficial, and the result of its cohabitation, and its young and descendants.' And at that we said: 'Surely He is Seeing, but not like the sight of His creatures. "

[Karl]

 

Right. Still you have not proven the existence of a creator. You have given me some quotes from a twister of words. Unfortunately for the word twister my Kung Fu is stronger :-)

 

These are well known fallacies. If you can produce a creator either directly, or by the use of logical argument then that is sufficient.

 

The 'unbeliever' is subtle petitio epithet. It is question begging.

 

If I say to you there is a green goblin at your feet, now prove that I'm lying, then you cannot.

I call you an atheist and unbeliever- look at that poor atheist who cannot see this fine green goblin that rests at his feet. How poor his sight, how feeble his intellect.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"So, then show me God. Point him out. Prove his existence by logic.
The universe needed no creator. The universe is and has always been. No thing created it."

-----

 

If the universe exists, it will cease to exist.

 

If it had a beginning, it will have an end.

 

But uni-verse means One, and infinity equals zero.

 

The "Creator" is not a thing, because Creation is Infinite.

 

You are that, and so is every other Thing.

 

The source of the Finite is the Infinite.

 

Subdividing One, we are talking in the realm of Fractions.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Karl]

Re:

-----

"So, then show me God. Point him out. Prove his existence by logic.

The universe needed no creator. The universe is and has always been. No thing created it."

-----

 

If the universe exists, it will cease to exist.

 

If it had a beginning, it will have an end.

 

But uni-verse means One, and infinity equals zero.

 

The "Creator" is not a thing, because Creation is Infinite.

 

You are that, and so is every other Thing.

 

The source of the Finite is the Infinite.

 

Subdividing One, we are talking in the realm of Fractions.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

The universe is existent, it is totality. It has no number. The number one appears within totality, totality is not bound by it, it is a truism to say there is one universe, it's the same as saying there is one everything.

 

Things do not cease to exist within the universe, they are transformed from one thing to another thing. The universe remains the universe however things change within it. Our counting system contains a zero to indicate the abscence of something. We don't say an absence of something equals an infinity of absence, it's just a semantic play on words. There isn't a creator. Creation is infinite doesn't register. Creativity is infinite. The universe is the universe it is totality it required no benediction. I am certainly in the universe and therefore part of it, but separate from the other bits floating about. Source of the finite is the infinite looks good on toast, but needs pepper and Worcester sauce. Well one subdivided is parts, fractions, decimal places.

[forestofemptiness]

When people say they know there is no god, I'm curious as to what they mean by God, because usually it is a dumbed-down, straw man God -- typically a superhero type of God. 

 

Here are 20 arguments for the existence of God, created by philosophers throughout the centuries. 

 

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

[Karl]

When people say they know there is no god, I'm curious as to what they mean by God, because usually it is a dumbed-down, straw man God -- typically a superhero type of God.

 

Here are 20 arguments for the existence of God, created by philosophers throughout the centuries.

 

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm]http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm[/url]

There in lies the dilemma. I define it as creator of all.

By logical deduction there isn't a creator.

I've read Aquinas who got pretty close to creating a valid argument, it's pretty good, but hides a fallacy that is very hard to spot.

I'm also unimpressed with those who reason God does not exist because 'well he just doesn't'. The conclusion must be reached by logical deduction otherwise it's just another form mysticism and might as well be regarded as an alternative belief system.

 

I shall wander through your list.

 

First one is by Thomas Aquinas - not surprisingly it came first and goes

 

" there is no case know ( neither is it indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for it would be prior to itself which is impossible."

 

As it stands it is a mixed hypothetical argument denying the consequent and is valid when applied to 'things' in the universe, but not true of the universe.

 

However the universe contains ALL things, it isn't a thing within itself or we get Russian dolls.

 

It posits causality as the existence of the creator. So, now apply Aquinas argument to God. :-) God cannot then be a cause of himself and prior to himself, so there must be a creator of God and so on and so on.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[Fate]

I've always like the Hindu creation story best, they are the most humble.

They say in the beginning there was vibration, but who created it? Did someone start it? "Who can say" is basically the answer. How can we see outside of creation? This thread will surely have both poetic and logical arguments one way or the other, but at the core of aren't we just afraid of there not being an answer we can reach?