Who created God - Political Forum

dattaswami · 05-03-2007, 07:02 AM

Who created God

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space. Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God. If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation.

Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.

Such God desired to create this Universe for entertainment. The very desire itself is the Creation. In view of God this present materialized universe in only an idea or imagination or the very desire itself. Therefore, the desire to create the world is itself the desire and also the created world itself is a desire. Thus the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the imaginary world are also imaginations or desires. A part of this infinite creation is the individual soul. The soul is like a drop of the infinite ocean of imagination or desire of God. Thus, quantitatively the entire ocean of imagination of God is very huge compared to the tiny soul. Remember that both the Universe and the tiny soul are made of the same substance called as imagination or desire. Thus the force of the Universe is far greater than the force of the soul. Due to such huge quantitative difference of the same phase, the Universe, which is far stronger than the soul appears as a materialized entity for the soul. But this infinite ocean of desire, which is the infinite Universe is a tiny drop compared to the infinite force of God. Therefore, again due to the same quantitative difference of force the entire universe is just the very weak imagination from the view of God. Thus imagination and materialization exist simultaneously true from the point of God and soul.

For the sake of entertainment, God desired to create the Universe. This statement is in Veda (Sa dviteeya Maicchat). In this statement there is a very subtle intermediate stage, which is the essence of the desire to create the Universe. The desire to create the world is like the golden ornament but the essence of such desire is like the raw gold in which the ornament is not yet expressed. Such raw essence of the desire is pure awareness. The pure awareness is a special subtle form of energy, which is not qualified by any form. Such pure awareness is called as the spirit, which is not qualified and does not have any attribute. This is called as ?Nirguna Brahman?, which means the pure awareness, which has no reference to the creation of the universe. It is a very critical and subtle point to recognize the pure awareness. Veda says that only very very sharp intelligence can grasp that critical state (Drushyate Tvagraya bhuddhya). Sankara, the topmost genius among the spiritual preachers could grasp that state and proposed the concept of Nirguna Brahman or non-qualified pure awareness. Such pure awareness is the first creation of God (Parabrahman).

This first creation is almost as critical and unimaginable as the very Parabrahman itself. The only difference is that Parabrahman is absolutely unimaginable for any sharp intelligence, but this pure awareness is imaginable only for a very sharp intelligence. This pure awareness is called as Mula Prakriti or Suddha Sattvam or Mula Avidya or Mula Maya or the Spirit in general. The Parabrahman maintains such spirit and it is only an associated item and is the first created item. The word Mula means the first. This spirit is in the form of knowledge. It is aware of itself, which means that it is knowledge. Knowledge requires both subjective and objective characteristics. It is subject as well as the object. Therefore, it is called as knowledge or Sattvam. This knowledge is the first form of energy.

Energy is always active. Action is the characteristic of Rajas. Such Spirit is unaware of its own creator who is the God. Therefore, it is having ignorance or Tamas. Thus, the Knowledge itself is action and ignorance. According to Gita Knowledge is Sattvam (Sattvaat Sanjayate Jnanam), action is Rajas (Rajah Karmani) and Ignorance is Tamas (Tamastva Jnanajam). Thus these three qualities are always inseparable. The pure knowledge (Suddha Sattvam) itself is pure action (Suddha Rajas), which is the pure ignorance (Suddha Tamas). Thus in the very first instant itself the three qualities are created simultaneously in the purest state.

Since all these three co-exist, it is called as equilibrium of the three qualities. When the equilibrium is disturbed various items of awareness result in which the three qualities exist in various proportions. Such disturbance of the equilibrium resulting in various distorted items of the three qualities is the very creation. The various mixtures of these three qualities constitute this diversified universe, which is meant for the play of the God and for His entertainment. When the entertainment is over all the three qualities go into the equilibrium state. Thus the Universe is converted into Mula Prakruti.

vladward8 · 05-03-2007, 07:07 PM

Its quantuum physics: In an infinite series of events anything one can think of happening will happen, including the appearence of a deity. Perhaps things are not perfect yet because the deity is in its adolescance? Waiting for The Holy Spirit.....

emptypepsi · 05-03-2007, 08:10 PM

Actual infinites do not exist. Therefore this is of the same low caliber question of "Can God make a Rock so big even he can't lift it?"...

A very interesting theory to counter yours is one I've been around the loop with a thousand times. It's no definitive 'proof' of God's existence, but it shows this argument for the fallacy it is.

The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite - they cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually - at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there was no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause - one that had no beginning.

emptypepsi · 05-03-2007, 08:18 PM

More on actual infinites and potential infinites...
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

Notable exerpts...

In order to understand (2.1), we need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Crudely put, a potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. Such a collection is really indefinite, not infinite. The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in calculus, is ¥. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete."

"Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.

"Perhaps the best way to bring home the truth of (2.11) is by means of an illustration. Let me use one of my favorites, Hilbert's Hotel, a product of the mind of the great German mathematician, David Hilbert. Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before."

"Premiss (2.21) is the crucial step in the argument. One cannot form an actually infinite collection of things by successively adding one member after another. Since one can always add one more before arriving at infinity, it is impossible to reach actual infinity. Sometimes this is called the impossibility of "counting to infinity" or "traversing the infinite." It is important to understand that this impossibility has nothing to do with the amount of time available: it belongs to the nature of infinity that it cannot be so formed."

"...Now someone might say that while an infinite collection cannot be formed by beginning at a point and adding members, nevertheless an infinite collection could be formed by never beginning but ending at a point, that is to say, ending at a point after having added one member after another from eternity. But this method seems even more unbelievable than the first method. If one cannot count to infinity, how can one count down from infinity? If one cannot traverse the infinite by moving in one direction, how can one traverse it by simply moving in the opposite direction?"

"...Indeed, the idea of a beginningness series ending in the present seems to be absurd. To give just one illustration: suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: . . ., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity."

vladward8 · 05-03-2007, 08:37 PM

I'm one of those who likes "Multiverse" Theory. Interesting math. At least one of the dimensions is infinite. IF it is correct, then maybe there really is "a still small voice".

emptypepsi · 05-03-2007, 08:54 PM

Eh, to me string theory doesn't really do much for the cause of a deity in this regard. That is to say, how does the existence of multiple universes "must" mean one is infinite? What are the properties of these universes, so as to evince that they are not of the same properties of our very own (which if they are, would necesitate that they are bound to the very same "actual infinite" scenarios presented here)?

vladward8 · 05-03-2007, 09:13 PM

I have to find the issue of "Scientific American that tries to do an abstract of the theory. The mathematical cosmology indicates an infinite dimension. If infinite series of changes are going on in that dimension I imagine the appearence of consciousness is possible therein....whatever physical configuration.

vladward8 · 05-03-2007, 09:14 PM

I have to find the issue of "Scientific American that tries to do an abstract of the theory. The mathematical cosmology indicates an infinite dimension. If infinite series of changes are going on in that dimension I imagine the appearence of consciousness is possible therein....whatever physical configuration. Michio Kaku does a nice explanation as well.

dattaswami · 05-03-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Actual infinites do not exist. Therefore this is of the same low caliber question of "Can God make a Rock so big even he can't lift it?"...
...........n't see why this is true try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there was no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause - one that had no beginning.

Let Me even say that the unimaginable limits of space are God. The scientist agrees the existence of these unimaginable limits of space and therefore the scientists is agreeing to the existence of God. Even the common man is experiencing the existence of these unimaginable limits of space by seeing the space with his naked eyes. The scientists see the space through the telescope and arrive at the same conclusion. The human intelligence cannot cross the four-dimensional space-time model at any cost on any day. The beginning and the end of the space (limits of boundary) are always untouchable and unimaginable for the intelligence of even top most scientists.

If he crosses the limits of this space, certainly he can touch (Know) God who is beyond the space or exists in the limits of space. The unlimited space stands forever reminding the scientist regarding this eternal truth. Thus, the Universe is visible to all human beings in all times exhibiting the unimaginable item through its unimaginable limits. This Universe is a practical proof and the clear miracle of God available to all to declare this basic concept for every human being on this earth. Nobody needs the demonstration of any miracle other than this to indicate the unimaginable God. The miracles are not available to all in all times. Even if some miracle is demonstrated, people may conclude it as illusion or coincidence of events. But in this demonstrated example of unimaginable limits of space, there is no such controversy. Moreover, in this miracle there is no hope to disprove the unimaginable limits of space in future even according to the opinion of scientists.

There cannot be two or more than two unimaginable items. Hence, the unimaginable limits of the Universe are showing only one unimaginable God directly to every human being. Since, you do not perceive the limits of the Universe, you have not perceived God. The existence of unperceivable limits establishes the unimaginable limits. The Universe is exhibiting its unperceivable and unimaginable limits. This means that you have not seen these limits. Hence, you have not seen the unimaginable limits, which are God.

But the existence of unimaginable and unperceivable limits is exhibited. This means that the unperceivable and unimaginable God exists and His existence is clearly exhibited. This Universe itself exhibits the existence of such God. From this, the conclusion is that you have understood only the existence of unperceivable and unimaginable God but this does not mean that you have seen or imagined God. Veda says “Asteetyeva Upalabdhavyah” which means that you can know only the existence of the unknowable God. Veda says that God is unperceivable and unimaginable (Na Chakshusha…, Yasyaamatam…..). Gita also confirms that God is unimaginable (Mamtuveda Nakaschana…).

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

Universal Spirituality
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

emptypepsi · 05-04-2007, 05:01 PM

Well, I'm a pretty fixed agnostic, bordering on Pantheism, but I would say that it is a little hard to definitively say what God "is" and "is not". God is a bit beyond the scope of human undertanding, and I mean that both ways. That is to say, it goes just the same to an extreme Christian than with someone who uses the notion of death and famine as a reason not to believe in God.

To me, God is a bit like a cat at a vet. I used to have a small kitten who had a sickness when I was a kid. We took it to the vet where he injected medicine into the cat and stuck a scope down it's throat. The cat must have had no clue why the damned human was doing this and probably was furious at the human. The cat had no idea what the medicine inside (if he even knew it was a medicine) was doing, nor why the Vet was examining his throat. This, to me, is much like humans in their knowledge to a creator.

But even I, as an agnostic, must admit that my analogy does not even measure up to what the relationship really is between ourselves and a creator, as I can not (with my limited human perception) even begin to claim to think on a plain similar to that of a deity. My analogy may be humorous in the eyes of that who created us.