Is Thought the Actual Force Behind Creation

I agree that you are trying to make a useful contribution, however I would be careful about the way it is expressed. You may indeed have developed a personal philosophy where 'Allah' is understood as a 'she'. However by using this expresssion it is a fair bet you won't be bringing many people along with you, rightly or wrongly.

As for Allah being female, I translate the world Allah as I understand it being used here. The category of female implies passive reception of a seed into fertile ground from which a new and independent entity arises by transforming that ground with its own pattern of life. I don't know if that is what was meant, though.

You need a brain to think. There is no evidence of any thinking ever having occurred without a brain. Ergo, there is no thought behind the physical processes that have taken place since the big bang 15 billion years ago.
If we could find evidence of a brain existing before the big bang, then we could postulate thought before the big bang. Without evidence of a brain, any suggestion of thought is pure fantasy.

This thread has been going for ages. I have visited it from time to time. The answer is: no, it is not thought behind the Universe, but it is intelligence.
Thought requires intelligence, but intelligence can exist without thought. Therefore intelligence is prior to thinking. If you learn to discern in your own mind the intelligence that exists prior to thinking, then you will begin to understand what is behind the Universe.
Think about that.

I am. Of course, thought, mind, intelligence, reason, logos all are terms which portray subtle differences of meaning and the definition of which can be difficult to pin down.
For me and for most theists (of any persuasion) the universe is rationally ordered and intelligible. I am not sure I have the ability to clearly separate reason, thought and intelligence in the way you imply.

Its the old problem of how do reconcile a thinking creator with the notion of seeing the consequences of his creation. If you imagine a thoughtful god then it stands to reason he becomes questionable. You therefor try to imagine a creator who has no thought but has ability.

I'm just asking the question hypothetically. Not trying to instigate. I'm just curious how, if at all, it would change the way we live our lives if we found out without question that life was, indeed, meaningless.

Play along?

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 05:01 PM ----------



Upon re-reading what you have written, it is beginning to sound more and more like this:

-------

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

--------
etc. etc. etc. . . . . Just substituting "TO" for "God."

Personally, I'm undecided about this. On the one hand, you could say that man's transcendental faculties project intelligence and design. A person could argue that number is a human imposition on experience. (Kant, etc.)

But if you argue from a transcendental standpoint, you have to confess that reality-in-itself is unknowable. Perhaps reality-in-itself is mathematical/intelligent.

In my personal experience, number is numinous. Last night my friend and I were talking about the perfect beauty of spheres. A sphere can be described as a two dimensional line being pinned out at one of it's endpoints and rotated 3-dimensionally from this point in every conceivable direction. This reminds me of stars, those imploding-radiant fusion engines...A sphere is the most efficient shape for equalizing the forces involved.

All this pushes me toward the universe-as-intelligent. But I still feel that number is imposed, if not geometry. Consider the number pi. We can zoom in on it as much as we like, but there's always more pi.

Personally I find this assumption profoundly naive. It is as though our minds impose order and mathematical description on a universe that does not possess these properties inherently and without our mind to perceive them. The universe is inherently ordered rational and mathematical (thus logical and rationally ordered). The universe is is said more resembles a great thought than a great accident or a mindless machine. The assumption that only human minds are capable of thought is perhaps more anthropomorphic than scientific and in some sense more anthropomorphic than many religous conceptions.

Well said, creation does not exist because we are in it, it exists despite the fact that we are in it. Seems most of us think we are the almiighty intelligence of the universe and have it all figgered out. Like old Sargent Shultz used to say " We know Nuttink!"

So what you saying is that the complexity of some facets of creation suggests an intelligent source.

The slippery slope is even suggesting that we can imaging a creator. The only way we can reconcile the suffering its creation inflicted on us, is to assume we are party to this creation, this thought. To have thought, must infer thoughtful consequences and it then questions the motives and the malevolence of that thought.

I think if we can move away from anthropomorphism (the notion that man is so important in the overall scheme of things, or that the earth is the center of the universe and man is the crown of creation: i.e. traditional religous views) and assume that God (if there is a god) has other purposes, say creativity is the primary divine principle, it helps. Human suffering and human values may not be such an important feature of the divine purpose as we would like to think.

If you want to describe him , it, as that, fine but dont then give me another view that he cares for his creation or we are of importance. If he thinks, then he is responsible, if we are of no consequence then why worship him or even consider him at all. Your view of him is no clearer than mine.

"Through a glass darkly" for us all.
A philosophical speculation a metaphysical assumption only.
I would not claim my view is clearer than any other, but it is my view and so I present it.

I find the world elegant and beautiful even if sometimes cruel. I find life to be of value and so I worship that which makes life, the good, the beautiful and the true possible (the rational,ordering, and creative principle) but I do not expect favors or special attention.

Nor do i but we should not try to invent what out heart desires.

Perhaps not, but we all invent something when we construct our worldview or guide for living. Those who claim "just the facts" guide them have not carefully analyzed their positions for just the facts are insufficient.

A guide for living does not incur the necessity for invention. We may not have all the facts but must rely on what we have to describe what we see.