WHY did God create that that is?

ros

To start with no assumptions one needs to 'forget' the entity that is compelled to assume, and focus only on the task at hand.

This is probably more of a riddle than the initial question, though, but the idea is that we can solve problems by thinking away dualism so that the questions and the answers merge.

Ok, sounds interesting. But I'm still not sure how to do it. Can you give an example?

I'll try.

If you're listening to someone trying to explain christianity to you.
The most natural thing for us to do in such a situation is understand what is being said based on what we know on the subject. These are our assumptions, and they will to a large extent determine the nature of the story we're told.

But what if we try to disregard what we think we know, and just listen? Forget the objection that arises when you're told that god created the world. Just focus on hearing the story. You may not get a better understanding of christianity, but you'll get a better understanding of that person. You will also realize that that was all he was offering in the first place, even though he thought he was giving more.

Similarly, when studying an object, try to view it, not as a process of examination, but as a process of communication. You are not trying to learn about flowers when you study them. You are trying to learn about flowers in relation to you. In realizing this you are able to rise from your position as one part of a dualistic interplay to a broader experience, and the need for assumptions will go away.

Phew... I've tried to give an example of these thoughts that are still so fresh in my mind that they feel somewhat alien. Let others be the judge of wether I succeeded or not by seeing if they can get anything out of it..

What your objection demonstrates, Raul, is that neither you nor whomever authored the misinformation you quote understands Penrose. The thrust of Penrose" mathematic excercise simply is that the universe we inhabit very most likely could not have come about any other way than he says he thinks it did.


What Penrose failed to take into consideration is that there is no reason to assume - as he did and on which is predicate his calculation - that ours is the only universe possible or extant. In fact, mathematically it may be demonstrated ours is not the only possible universe, and further it may be demonstrated that - at least mathematically - there may be many, perhaps even must be, incalculably many, many universes, while no known mathematical proof excludes the possibility of other universes than our own. That apart, Penrose's calculation incorporated a number of assumptions the validity of which, while unproven, all, each and every in every particular and in concert, prove critical to the conclusion his calculation would present. Among these assumptions were particular parameters for the nature and mechanics of time, and of the properties and attributes of infinity.

What Penrose "Proved" is that given the specific particular set of specific circumstances necessary for his calculation to be valid, his calculation would be valid so far as it goes.

Now, apart entirely from all of that, Penrose himself does not dispute evolution at any scale from the cosmologic through the subatomic, rather, through his work, particularly but not singularly his collaborations with Hawking, he confirms it specifically in reference to the cosmologic. He himself may have a belief in a god, but he does not let that belief blind him to science. Furthermore, in more recent work, Penrose offers an elegant "Proof", incorporating his famous 10^10^123, wherein he demonstrates ours is the only possible universe for us to be in, is the only possible development of a universe from the circumstances predicate to The Big Bang as currently we understand things, and depends for its formation and clearly evidenced, observed, multiply verified, and well confirmed evolution on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Listen to him in his own words, in his own voice, deliver a roughly 75 minute (including brief concluding question & answer session) lecture outlining this hypothesis HERE (note: approx 28MB .mp3 download)

Accompanying slideshow HERE (note: 80 page .pdf download)

In short, what Penrose says is that as we know are here, what must have happened is that regardless of probability, circumstances as observed to pertain and obtain mandate that we be here, where, when, and as we are.


Certainly I'll answer that - you offer a bit of scripture, and you ask, reference that bit of scripture, "True?" ... do I have that right?

If so, then the answer is that having no claim to authority other than that self claimed and self referenced, scripture has no no authority other than that wich it claims for itself - the ultimate in circular reasoning. Now, whether or not that which is alleged by scripture might be "True" is immaterial, in no way may be used scripture, by itself, without independent corroborative evidence - actual, objectice, empirical, severally verifiable and reproducible evidence, not further claim, not further scripture, not opinion, not anecdote, but hard, outside evidence - to establish that such as is alleged in scripture be so, as the claim may not be part of the proof. All that may be proved via scripture, by itself, is that scripture exists.

What your referrenced offering illustrates, Raul, is terminally flawed understanding of science, mathematics, logic, and forensics; it demonstrates itself to proceed from and consequently to be an aburdity.

In short, you know not whereof you speak.