Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 12, 2024, 11:55 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Non-Violent Solution?
#67
RE: A Non-Violent Solution?
(February 18, 2012 at 11:46 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Reality - a bit more complicated than "God did it".

That's an interesting poster that actually flies in the face of the views of many physicists, especially string theorists.

I just watched a documentary about a Garrett Lisi who is working on string theory and multiple dimensions. He's proposing a very 'simple' mathematical model based on lie groups of intertwined circles.

His argument for atheism is precisely the opposite of what the poster you displayed is suggesting. He claims that everything can potentially be reduced to a single geometrical object defined mathematically by a particular lie group.

His argument against a "God" is that the universe probably came into being from a very simple thing, so why proposed an extremely complex omniscient "God" when all you need is this simple elegant mathematical lie group based on nothing more than interlocking circles.

[Image: garrett-lisi-photo-by-dan-winters.jpg]

So actually, the argument that the universe is far to complex to be explained by "God did it" is precisely the opposite argument that a String Theorist like Garrett Lisi would give against the concept of a "God"

~~~~

However, in both of these cases the term "God" is most likely being used to convey an idea of a designer God like the God of Abraham or Zeus in the Mediterranean mythologies.

Actually the type of spiritual essence that I'm considering could itself be extremely simple. At least as simple as Garretts Lie Groups.

By the way, those Lie Groups may seem 'simple' because they can be expressed elegantly using mathematical formalism and notation. But in truth, his Lie Group composes of over 250 interlocking circles that give rise to very specific Calabi-Yau cavities. Hardly a 'simple object'. Elegant, perhaps, but to call it 'simple' is a matter of personal opinion. No human mind can actually visualize intuitively what such a multidimensional objects could even be like.

That very object itself could be the "mind of God". It certainly has structure and the extreme flexibility to potentially explain everything we see around us including our very own brains!

Certainly not a trivial object to be sure.

Of course, Garrett Lisi's Lie Groups are just a 'theory' thus far and he hasn't been able to successfully meld together gravity and Quantum Mechanics yet either. So his 'theory' is still in the speculation stages.

But still, I think it shows the contrast between these arguments:

Is the universe 'so complex' that it needs to be more than just 'God did it'.

Or is it 'so simple' that there's no need for a 'complex God' as Lisi suggests?

These two positions themselves seem to fly in the face of each other.

Too complicated? Or too simple?

And what would constitute a universe that's "Just right" to warrant a "Goldilocks God explanation"?

Personally I intuitively favor Lisi's view that the universe is extremely simple at it's core. And I also hold the view that spirit is most likely also equally elegant.

So I have no problem accepting Lisi's view of an elegantly simple universe, and my view of an elegantly simple spirituality simultaneously without conflict.

These two concepts do not need to be in conflict with one another as far as I'm concerned.


(February 19, 2012 at 3:02 am)padraic Wrote: I have always liked this:


[Image: inteldesign15a.gif]

By the way, my views on spirituality have absolutely nothing at all do to with the creationist's ideas of "intelligent design".

I'm not suggesting that the universe necessarily needed a 'designer' all. And certainly not in the sense of a pre-thought-out design.

In fact, if the universe was designed in that way, then the designer would have been a complete idiot, IMHO.

So my views on spirituality have absolutely nothing at all to do with any concept of "intelligent design", or anything like that.

These are arguments that should be made against Christian Creationists.

They have nothing at all to do with my view of spirituality.

But then again I guess it is naive of me to expect people to have a truly deep understanding of the potentiality of Eastern Mystical philosophies. Those philosophies themselves are quite varied and abstract.

So I guess it's unrealistic for me to think that I could even converse with atheists on spiritual ideas that are much different from the lame mythologies of the Middle East.

Everyone seems to be so totally focused on those philosophies that they can't move beyond them. And of course, it makes sense that they would be because of all the nasty shit that comes out of Christian proselytizing and the bigotry and hatred held up in the name of Jesus as "The Christ". Along with all the suicide bombings inspired by the same fundamental religion in Islam.

People just want to get ride of religion altogether. Toss the baby out with the bath water. Who care. The Abraham religions are so despicable they'd turned everyone off to any possible idea of spirituality.

Apparently that's the true state of affairs in the world today.

Just get rid of the hateful jealous-God religions and don't ever mention "spirituality" again!

That seems to be the mindset anymore.



Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply



Messages In This Thread
A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 13, 2012 at 11:59 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Minimalist - February 14, 2012 at 12:06 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Jackalope - February 14, 2012 at 12:39 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by padraic - February 14, 2012 at 1:16 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 1:19 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 14, 2012 at 1:22 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Minimalist - February 14, 2012 at 2:02 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 14, 2012 at 2:18 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by AthiestAtheist - February 14, 2012 at 1:29 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Jackalope - February 14, 2012 at 3:41 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 14, 2012 at 1:31 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by padraic - February 14, 2012 at 4:42 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by leo-rcc - February 14, 2012 at 4:58 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 14, 2012 at 5:06 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by LastPoet - February 14, 2012 at 7:16 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 14, 2012 at 8:05 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by LastPoet - February 14, 2012 at 10:23 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Aardverk - February 14, 2012 at 11:01 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Doubting Thomas - February 14, 2012 at 11:56 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 15, 2012 at 2:44 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Minimalist - February 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by LastPoet - February 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 15, 2012 at 8:27 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 15, 2012 at 11:52 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 15, 2012 at 8:34 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 16, 2012 at 3:15 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 17, 2012 at 7:06 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 18, 2012 at 9:51 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 18, 2012 at 5:41 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Anomalocaris - February 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by LastPoet - February 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by LastPoet - February 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Minimalist - February 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 14, 2012 at 3:06 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by padraic - February 15, 2012 at 6:24 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 16, 2012 at 12:28 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Cosmic Ape - February 16, 2012 at 12:29 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Rusko - February 16, 2012 at 1:04 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Cosmic Ape - February 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Cosmic Ape - February 18, 2012 at 7:21 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 19, 2012 at 9:03 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 19, 2012 at 3:20 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 19, 2012 at 6:49 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by genkaus - February 20, 2012 at 4:01 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Cosmic Ape - February 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by KichigaiNeko - February 18, 2012 at 11:46 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 19, 2012 at 3:21 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by padraic - February 19, 2012 at 3:02 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by LastPoet - February 19, 2012 at 7:14 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 19, 2012 at 9:14 am
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 19, 2012 at 4:40 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 19, 2012 at 8:10 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Violet - February 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm
RE: A Non-Violent Solution? - by Abracadabra - February 19, 2012 at 9:13 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can you be a "Non religious muslim"? Woah0 31 2002 August 22, 2022 at 8:22 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Persistent Non-Symbolic Experiences Ahriman 0 561 August 18, 2021 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: Ahriman
  Questions about the European renaissance and religion to non believers Quill01 6 745 January 31, 2021 at 7:16 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  God as a non-creator Fake Messiah 13 1794 January 21, 2020 at 8:36 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Being can come from non-being Alex K 55 7626 January 15, 2020 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Being cannot come from Non-being Otangelo 147 14774 January 7, 2020 at 7:08 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How do religious folks reconcile violent concepts in "peaceful" Abrahamic religions? AceBoogie 57 11395 April 28, 2017 at 1:46 pm
Last Post: Huggy Bear
  Non Sequitur Minimalist 8 1603 August 20, 2016 at 4:33 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Deism vs Religion (Non-guidance vs guidance). Mystic 21 3944 March 1, 2016 at 2:18 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Jesus the Jew, yet non-Jew Foxaèr 21 3683 January 19, 2016 at 1:03 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)