• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

If the universe is God, and God is love...

I think one of the causes for that is that this is a freewill-universe. So everyone are allowed the right to do what they want. Even demons and really evil entities to a certain point. Or, like some say, "God only gives them enough rope to hang themselves". I think God mostly watches and we're responsible for our own salvation.
 
I can't reconcile it but I have to believe there's something good in the universe. I'm so close to total oblivion that to not believe is to die.
 
You aren't the only one with a God complex.

Tell me, what is the nature of your throne? And how have you "earned" it?

And if you truly don't sleep, and are living among us as a human, you should lend yourself to research. I imagine it could benefit us.

If you aren't lying about not sleeping and are just a "regular" human, then that explains this behavior, or could be considered partial to it.

Do you have some "tricked out" idea of "not sleeping"?

Aside this, to say you are this God... What is your story? What have you come to do? What makes you unique?
 
Last edited:
If you define god as and infinite being who is all knowing, all loving and all powerful. You need to accept that you lack the knowledge that god has. And if god created all events you must trust that it is the best possible outcome that this possible moment could have taken, that could have been created (it's like a baby questioning it's mother when he takes away its junk food). You lack the understanding to see why evil is part of the greater good and that's what it's all about. The greater good. Perhaps evil is necessary for this universe to subsist. Have you ever considered that?

I personally don't believe in god however I believe that while we're relatively intelligent, our mental faculties are extremely limited and there are just some things beyond our understanding.
 
I forget who said it and what he said, exactly, but it was a scientist who believed in a God/intelligent design to things. He said something along the lines of, "for science to be able to be" (for us to form some kind if framework of reproducable, intelligible structure about things) "it must come from something intelligable" (the universe must be intelligable, to produce order as it has).

I've had an idea that randomness is impossible, especially if it is all one. "No event can be random if all events are one event".
 
Last edited:
Or:

Cosmological natural selection[edit]
Smolin's hypothesis of cosmological natural selection, also called the fecund universes theory, suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest of scales. Smolin published the idea in 1992 and summarized it in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos.

The theory surmises that a collapsing[clarification needed] black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (masses of elementary particles, Planck constant, elementary charge, and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe thus gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. The theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, and so is formally analogous to models of population biology.

The resulting population of universes can be represented as a distribution of a landscape of parameters where the height of the landscape is proportional to the numbers of black holes that a universe with those parameters will have. Applying reasoning borrowed from the study of fitness landscapes in population biology, one can conclude that the population is dominated by universes whose parameters drive the production of black holes to a local peak in the landscape. This was the first use of the notion of a landscape of parameters in physics.

Leonard Susskind, who later promoted a similar string theory landscape, stated:

"I'm not sure why Smolin's idea didn't attract much attention. I actually think it deserved far more than it got."[5]

Smolin has noted that the string theory landscape is not Popper falsifiable if other universes are not observable.[citation needed] This is the subject of the Smolin-Susskind debate concerning Smolin’s argument: "[The] Anthropic Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science."[5] There are then only two ways out: traversable wormholes connecting the different parallel universes, and "signal nonlocality", as described by Antony Valentini, a scientist at the Perimeter Institute.[clarification needed]

In a critical review of The Life of the Cosmos, astrophysicist Joe Silk suggested that our universe falls short by about four orders of magnitude from being maximal for the production of black holes.[6] In his book Questions of Truth, particle physicist John Polkinghorne puts forward another difficulty with Smolin's thesis: one cannot impose the consistent multiversal time required to make the evolutionary dynamics work, since short-lived universes with few descendants would then dominate long-lived universes with many descendants.[7] Smolin responded to these criticisms in Life of the Cosmos, and later scientific papers.

When Smolin published the theory in 1992, he proposed as a prediction of his theory that no neutron star should exist with a mass of more than 1.6 times the mass of the sun.[citation needed] Later this figure was raised to two solar masses following more precise modeling of neutron star interiors by nuclear astrophysicists. If a more massive neutron star was ever observed, it would show that our universe's natural laws were not tuned for maximal black hole production, because the mass of the strange quark could be retuned to lower the mass threshold for production of a black hole. A 2-solar-mass pulsar was discovered in 2010.[8]

In 1992 Smolin also predicted that inflation, if true, must only be in its simplest form, governed by a single field and parameter. Both predictions have held up, and they demonstrate Smolin’s main thesis: that the theory of cosmological natural selection is Popper falsifiable.
Click to expand...

+ Anthropic Principle.
 
Flickering said:
... then why is the universe like this? If you've ever had a mystical experience that led you to believe it, how do you reconcile it with an existence so full of torment and injustice? The world around us repeatedly proves to be utterly indifferent; there is no intent there, it just is. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...


I don't think there is a god, at least not the way they describe. Maybe there is a maker, but I don't think we are any part of the creation "plan", when you put some food or anything in a grass of water, then seal it, don't touch it, few weeks later, some nameless bugs pop out from nonexistent.


Then the bugs start thinking is there a god, does god have a plan for them...
so, maybe I created them, but I don't have a plan for them..


we are here on our own, no one is going to save us from torment and injustice, so use your life to do something you want to do, then maybe when the day you die, you can skip this part at the last nanosecond: "omg what have I done...I wasted my entire life in a church, believe in something doesn't exist, I should use the money for xxxxxx"
 
I think there's some semantic confusion over the sense in which "is" is employed... If we conceive that a god would have emotions (and the same ones humans can experience, no less), love itself couldn't exhaust all characteristics and practices necessary for something to be a god.

We could say that god is permeated by love in all its being and actions. I don't really see what philosophical problems that solves...yet this overwhelming love appears in nearly all shulgin plus four run-ins with the mystical divine.
 
jesse1988 said:
when you put some food or anything in a grass of water, then seal it, don't touch it, few weeks later, some nameless bugs pop out from nonexistent.
Click to expand...
The Law of Causality doesn't work that way. Nonbeing does not cause being; only being causes being. Nonexistence causes nothing because nonexistence is nonbeing.


jesse1988 said:
...I wasted my entire life in a church, believe in something doesn't exist,
Click to expand...
And this illustrates my point.
 
-=SS=- said:
I don't believe the Universe is God, or that God is love.. so I'm kinda pissing on your parade here ^_^ Mystical experiences up to the level of cosmic consciousness are clouded by emotion and relative human brain/mind mechanics. If you had the final experience (Enlightenment) you'd realize first that you're God, and that god 'just is'.. there's no good or bad, bliss or pain, it just is. As for the Universe, perhaps just one bubble or iteration, or room in a hallway of infinite length.. like this scene from Yellow Submarine (@17:25) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv95g8_yellow-submarine-1968-george-dunning-with-beatles-john-paul-george-and-ringo_shortfilms
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're describing God as Emptiness, which I find apt. Nothing has inherent nature on its own, and developing a consciousness that sees reality this way is probably a lot closer to accurate perception of God than anything else. But who is to say.
 
I admit that, from the perspective of an impartial and disinterested spectator, I cannot help but to find non-analytic (i.e, sophistic) philosophical discourse—with all its characteristic conjecture and unfalsifiable propositions—on the quiddity of God(s) both jejune and comical.

This conversation and its participants seem too ill-equipped and sophomoric to even engage in meaningful, productive, and intelligent philosophical ratiocination, let alone to use such thinking to even adequately formulate anything approaching a veritable depiction or hypothesis on the nature of a God. But it wasn't my intention to interject by criticizing a discussion I'm now technically part of, nor to castigate and deride the conversation's participants that, again, I'm now one of.


So, my contribution to this thread's discussion will be to broach a quotation from the Rigveda that has been well-received and lauded by even Western scientific luminaries and lodestars (as has been the case for countless other Sanskrit quotations replete with profundity and wisdom that are dispersed throughout manifold Ancient Indian texts).


Within the Rigveda, the 129th hymn of the 10th Mandala, which is notated as [R.V.10.129], is called Nasadiya Sukta (or Creation Hymn). It goes as follows (with the Sanskrit quotation preceding the approximate English translation:


नासदासींनॊसदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजॊ नॊ व्यॊमापरॊ यत् ।
किमावरीव: कुहकस्यशर्मन्नभ: किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥१॥


Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?


न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या।आन्ह।आसीत् प्रकॆत: ।
आनीदवातं स्वधया तदॆकं तस्माद्धान्यन्नपर: किंचनास ॥२॥


Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.


तम।आअसीत्तमसा गूह्ळमग्रॆ प्रकॆतं सलिलं सर्वमा।इदम् ।
तुच्छॆनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपसस्तन्महिना जायतैकम् ॥३॥


At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.


कामस्तदग्रॆ समवर्तताधि मनसॊ रॆत: प्रथमं यदासीत् ।
सतॊबन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयॊ मनीषा ॥४॥


In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.


तिरश्चीनॊ विततॊ रश्मीरॆषामध: स्विदासी ३ दुपरिस्विदासीत् ।
रॆतॊधा।आसन्महिमान् ।आसन्त्स्वधा ।आवस्तात् प्रयति: परस्तात् ॥५॥


And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.


कॊ ।आद्धा वॆद क।इह प्रवॊचत् कुत ।आअजाता कुत ।इयं विसृष्टि: ।
अर्वाग्दॆवा ।आस्य विसर्जनॆनाथाकॊ वॆद यत ।आबभूव ॥६॥


But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?


इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।
यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥


Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know
 
Interesting rig veda quote. I enjoy some of your posts and the verbiage deployed in them, but if your intention is to help spread wisdom to others, i think the arrogance and the thinly-veiled insults won't help. Please keep posting the interesting stuff, but i'd suggest leave out the self-importance as it doesn't speak much for your spiritual or intellectual development :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top