[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

If the Universe needs a creator as the religious people consider, then even God would need a creator. There cant be two yardsticks for the same concept...

I guess I view both God and the universe to be eternal. That is because I view the universe to be the body of God.

When I eat I eat of Him, when I drink I drink of Him, when I lay down I am laying on Him.

I believe you and I are part of Him.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Something has to be Eternal or you are stuck with the something from nothing paradox.

[Drifter]

''The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function''
—F. Scott Fitzgerald
(Thanks Mel)

Originally Posted by dipayankar

If the Universe needs a creator as the religious people consider, then even God would need a creator. There cant be two yardsticks for the same concept...

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Still doesnt answer my question... who created God??

"For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed." - Blaise Pascal

Man is nature, what else do we need to know?
Do we need to know finite and infinite, beginning and end?
Do we need to know when water begins and ends?
Is the ocean the beginning or end, or is it the evaporation, the clouds, the rain or snow___when the drops unite on a hillside and start a trickle of a stream, a creek, a river that unites with another river, that runs back to the sea?
Why do we ask such things, why do we need to know?
If we are incapable of seeing or understanding the beginning and the end, the nothing and everything, then we should focus on what we can see, and become intimate with it.
What is essential to life, the contemplation of finite and infinite, beginnings and ends, or is it simply the water we drink?
Do we need to understand more than that?
(thanks MJA)

[dipayankar]

Being eternal defies logic. And anything that defies logic is not acceptable. And hence it is not possible to imagine a indefinite Universe..

Originally Posted by Profpat

I guess I view both God and the universe to be eternal. That is because I view the universe to be the body of God.

When I eat I eat of Him, when I drink I drink of Him, when I lay down I am laying on Him.

I believe you and I are part of Him.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Something has to be Eternal or you are stuck with the something from nothing paradox.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Being eternal defies logic. And anything that defies logic is not acceptable. And hence it is not possible to imagine a indefinite Universe..

Logic, can't get past its own rules.

Logic is a very elegant tool, and we've got a lot of mileage out of it for
two thousand years or so. The trouble is, you know, when you apply it to
crabs and porpoises, and butterflies and habit formation---you know, to all
those pretty things, logic won't quite do.
It won’t do, because, that whole fabric of things is not put together by
logic. You see, when you get circular trains of causation, as you always do
in the living world, the use of logic will make you walk into paradoxes.
Just take a thermostat, a quite simple sense organ, yes?
If it's on, it's off; if it's off, it's on. If yes, then no; if no, then
yes.
Kinda like they lie (logically).
Light on yet?
Yes-no-yes-no-yes-no. You see, the cybernetic equivalent of logic is
oscillation. Heraclitus knew that, and so did Loa Tzu, and so do the trees
over there, logic won't do for them.
So what do they use instead, Metaphor, yep Metaphor.
That's how the whole fabric of mental interconnections hold
together. Metaphor is right at the bottom, of Being alive. -Gregory
Bateson [Steps to an Ecology of Mind]
In an age characterized by fragmentation and overspecialization, Bateson
challenged the basic assumptions and methods of several sciences by looking
for patterns and for processes beneath structures. He declared that
relationship should be the basis of all definition and his main aim was to
discover the principles of organization in all the phenomena he observed,
"the pattern which connects, as he put it.
For me this ideation (showing again the oscillation of the universe/logos)
is the same as 'That', found/discovered, in the canon of Mahayana Buddhism
known as Indras Net.
Scientia es Potential

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Being eternal defies logic. And anything that defies logic is not acceptable. And hence it is not possible to imagine a indefinite Universe..

Hi Dipayankar;

Here's the problem, you can either believe something from nothing, not to logical.
Or you can believe something is Eternal. Again not to logical.
Do you have a third possibility? I'd love to hear it.

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Since ancient times, literal interpretations have been considered the lowest level of understanding in the east, and, ironically, a child is said to have a greater sense of imagination than adults.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe that something can come from nothing, but it seems that something existing inside of nothing is a different matter because most folks believe it.

Perhaps when the "something" is not taken literally, the proper finite mechanics can be employed which can easily and logically explain all observable phenomena.

[Profpat]

Hi Drifter;

To me " ..the processes beneath the structure...the relationship..underlying the principles of organization in all phenomena.." is Trinity

It's true in God; Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
It's true in Man; Mind. Body, and Spirit ( Emotion )
It's true in Light; Red, Green, and Blue ( the 3 primary colors making up the spectrum )
It's true in the Proton/Neutron: Three quarks ( 2 up 1 down; or 2 down and 1 up )
It's true in mental dynamics; Id, Ego, and Superego.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Since ancient times, literal interpretations have been considered the lowest level of understanding in the east, and, ironically, a child is said to have a greater sense of imagination than adults.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe that something can come from nothing, but it seems that something existing inside of nothing is a different matter because most folks believe it.

Perhaps when the "something" is not taken literally, the proper finite mechanics can be employed which can easily and logically explain all observable phenomena.

Well Nobody I am a little confused by this post. There is obviously something. Even if reality is an illusion it's still something. As long as you have thought you have something. Nothing would be Void. No sound, total blackness. no thought, no awareness, total and complete oblivion. This is not our universe.

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Exactly, Pat, it's the absolute universe.

The operative word to the point in question is "obviously" which is based on relative observational processes that govern thoughts, and thoughts are abstract, not "things."