Non-sentient creator deity

[Dei Ty]

Within my personal interpretation of early Buddhism, that is what Samsara is. IMO, Samsara is Creator-Creation all rolled into one, and is not sentient itself, being infinite.

I think that's probably the closest to non-sentience I've seen, but a cyclical system isn't really what I'm looking for. Preferably it would be something with an identifiable "this was when it made the universe", only without it being a decision, just an event.

If the "deity" is non-sentient, it is not technically a deity, rather it is a force. However, it can be personified as a deity. I think that the god's are personification of force - that are conscious in their own respect.

While I don't know of any religions where the creator is non sentient, I do know of a few that believe in forces of nature. Many Satanists and Pagans of various subdivisions believe that, and they personify them as gods.

A believer in the big bang could argue that the proton and what struck it and caused the explosion are male and female "deities", and when the explosion occurred, they gave their "lives" to the universe, and became part of it, which is essentially a more scientific variant of pantheism.

Yes, this is a good point, even if your understanding of the big bang theory is a little off... but generally speaking, once something's personified it tends to gain sentience. So I guess my new question is "is there a religion that mainly follows forces of nature but without personifying them significantly?"

 

[buddhist]

I think that's probably the closest to non-sentience I've seen, but a cyclical system isn't really what I'm looking for. Preferably it would be something with an identifiable "this was when it made the universe", only without it being a decision, just an event.

As I see it, if Creator-Creation-Samsara's innate nature is infinite in every respect, it could and would not have a "starting point" in time, because that would make time superior to it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Deism? (If I'm not mistaken) is not sentient (has emotions or personal?).

I don't know any other god-religion that doesn't have a personal/sentient god. Unless I got the definition wrong.

I think it depends on the deist, since it's a bit of an umbrella term. Some believe there was a sentient creator but that it's gone or otherwise doesn't care about human affairs.

 

[columbus]

Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient? Perhaps, there existed some kind of pre-creation... stuff, which, through some random (but inevitable) event, ended up creating the universe, without anyone specifically willing for it to be so?

I consider myself a deist.
I simply define God as "Why there is something, rather than nothing."
No sentience, at least not necessarily.

I am certain that we humans don't know anything important about the whys of the universe. We've hardly put a scratch in the whats and hows. I'm sure that we still have gigantic, unimaginable finds in our future. Maybe god is one.

We also like to think that we are the Crown of Creation. That we, as sentient beings, are the pinnacle. I think that's hubris myself. I expect that god is further beyond our puny abilities than we are beyond an amoebas. Mere sentience is too limiting for god.

I think god is less like a human king with super powers and more like gravity. No thoughts or plans or desires, perfect and changeless and eternal.
It is not very religious.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

I think that's probably the closest to non-sentience I've seen, but a cyclical system isn't really what I'm looking for. Preferably it would be something with an identifiable "this was when it made the universe", only without it being a decision, just an event.

You've got to keep in mind that when it comes to stories about the gods, they are anthropomorphized rather deliberately to tell a better story and to help us anthropomorphous understand it better. If a particular story says that a deity "decided" to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that there was some literal, human-like thinking being making a decision. In essence, it is your interpretation that determines these things.

Yes, this is a good point, even if your understanding of the big bang theory is a little off... but generally speaking, once something's personified it tends to gain sentience. So I guess my new question is "is there a religion that mainly follows forces of nature but without personifying them significantly?"

Yes. Mine does.

I like a good story as much as the next person, though. On the whole, I'm not as much of a fan of traditional Pagan mythos because it makes heavy use of personification. I'm much more likely to stuff my face in a work on natural history or science...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient?

Hinduism and its concept of Brahman. It is not sentient in the way a human is. It is not involved or affected by what is happening in the world. It is neither good, nor evil. It does not act or react. It is the brick which constitutes the whole universe, without any exception. From air to water to rocks to vegetation to animals and to humans. It is so because it is just energy, force. It is indifferent to the belief of a person, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or any other. It does not require any allegiance or worship. You cannot call upon it for help in case you are in trouble. It is just the principle that gives rise to the illusion of creation. It is sentient in its own way like a force, energy, wave-particle. It is acceptable to theists and atheists alike. I do not consider it as a God. Theist Hindus consider it to be 'Super soul' pervading/constituting all things.

I believe hotdogs must exist, because I've eaten more than a few.

Do you know if you exist? You are just a temporary bundle of energy who has reacted in a particular way (eating) another bundle of energy (hotdog). What these bundles seem and think themselves to be are illusions.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient? Perhaps, there existed some kind of pre-creation... stuff, which, through some random (but inevitable) event, ended up creating the universe, without anyone specifically willing for it to be so?

I can't think of any that fit your requirements. Evolution may be close, ha ha...it creates, but not 'supernaturally'. Maybe the 'God' of deists would qualify. l am a 'primitive christian' (the term is my creation) which means in its simplest terms is anyone that uses the earliest biblical documents and other documents stories along with our current bible to discover truth. ------ (Other documents etc are considered if they are verified by authorities learned in relevant disciplines). The biblical authors are said to have received most of their information by divine revelation. I on the other hand after years, decades really, of study think along semi-Gnostic lines feeling that WE the readers, and WE the believers also receive divine revelation. So, what I am getting around to is maybe supernatural and natural are nearly if not fully the same thing. Its only the things we call 'supernatural' is so far advanced from our understanding and the ability of our current science to describe it, that 'it' seems like majack'.

God bless this universe and please God, save us from our fool selves~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

PARTIAL QUOTE >>>>>>>>>>>

.Do you know if you exist? You are just a temporary bundle of energy who has reacted in a particular way (eating) another bundle of energy (hotdog). What these bundles seem and think themselves to be are illusions.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<END OF PARTIAL QUOTE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hi Aupmanyav, You are describing 'Solipsism'. When I first discovered it I thought it was just more philosophical meandering without too much real world employment. But its really an interesting concept! I used it in my one time attempt at teaching* and challenged my students prove self awareness etc. The concept really would make a very good 'Turing test for AI' ! *(a substitute teacher slot for a high-school philosophy class).

Anyway your post demonstrated good observation and way to apply the idea, yet again.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I think it depends on the deist, since it's a bit of an umbrella term. Some believe there was a sentient creator but that it's gone or otherwise doesn't care about human affairs.

I hope the forum members or 'the Digital Artist' will forgive me for a one time off topic question. Is the eyeball in your avatar yours? Just wondering, as I too am a amateur photographer/artist and the image looks either like a drawing or an digitally enhanced photograph, and a good one at that, meaning its simple but hit me 'emotionally'..... so to speak.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hi Aupmanyav, You are describing 'Solipsism'. When I first discovered it I thought it was just more philosophical meandering without too much real world employment.

MrMrdevincamus, this is not solipsism. The concept clearly accepts the existence of Brahman as the sole entity constituting all things in the universe. It accepts the existence of what constitutes us and all other things, only not in the way we take it in practice. I am not a person, the personhood is only an illusion, I am Brahman. That is why Hindu scriptures said 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are - if you realize it), 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Ekameva Adviteeyam' (Only it exists, there is no second), etc. There are many more such inputs. This is strict 'Non-duality'. Since it is non-duality, that is why I reject existence of God. As you will notice, it is different from Solipcism - "Solipsism from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self", is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist." (Wikipedia). Here, we are claiming to know about all things in the universe (as constituted by energy). As for mind which is the result of working of the brain, that is an illusion and temporary. It ceases to exist after what people call as death (I will term it 'chemical recycling'). Hindu philosophy, it is not all that easy to comprehend.

Yeah, eyes sometimes hit very hard. I have been hit repeatedly.
"Akhiyon se goli mare, ladki kamaal ki" - Shoots bullets with the eyes, what a remarkable girl!

Of course, Raveena's eyes were nothing out of ordinary. But there are many others.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I hope the forum members or 'the Digital Artist' will forgive me for a one time off topic question. Is the eyeball in your avatar yours? Just wondering, as I too am a amateur photographer/artist and the image looks either like a drawing or an digitally enhanced photograph, and a good one at that, meaning its simple but hit me 'emotionally'..... so to speak.

Hey there, sorry for getting back to you so late. My icon was a photoshop exercise. A digital eye drawing. Thank you, I'm glad you like it.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

MrMrdevincamus, this is not solipsism.

I'm sorry what I meant was only this bit reminded me of solipsism (see below). As a young man I searched for truth and or something to believe in having accepted atheism at a very young age. Again I dabbled and studied all the major religions before I settled on what the way I believe today. Also I highly respect all non violent religions, they all have treasure to give, all are to be if not revered, respected. Btw, Hinduism is one of my top three 'favorites'. Favorites means they are valuable in a way that transcends, but includes the material world*. Also I have a screwy way of writing a result of 'my off again on again' education. I said ; "You are describing 'Solipsism'. When I first discovered it I thought it was just more philosophical meandering without too much real world employment." what I meant was when I first read about solipsism I thought it (solipsism) was just an abstract concept. Sorry for that mix up too!

The concept clearly accepts the existence of Brahman as the sole entity constituting all things in the universe. It accepts the existence of what constitutes us and all other things, only not in the way we take it in practice. I am not a person, the person-hood is only an illusion, I am Brahman.

The type of Christianity I practice understands God to be the creator, the sole God, I call God GID, God the Intelligent Designer. When you say Brahman constitut(ing) all things in the universe, do you mean Brahman 'permeates' all material things or is literately all material things. when I say material I am referencing any thing not spiritual in nature. A rock, planet, gravity, light, energy are all material things.

That is why Hindu scriptures said 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are - if you realize it), 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Ekameva Adviteeyam' (Only it exists, there is no second), etc. There are many more such inputs.

In Christianity we are in an the hands and the body of God, we do the will and work of a supernatural God in a temporal materialistic world. Our bodies are a material conduit that connects the supernatural realm of God to our natural materialistic universe. As Christians are in effect natural ambassadors for Gods supernatural will.

This is strict 'Non-duality'. Since it is non-duality, that is why I reject existence of God.

You said "I am not a person, the person-hood is only an illusion, I am Brahman." Do you mean since you are Braham, you are in effect God? Therefore there is no 'division' ie duality? Christians believe we are beings but unclean beings and can never come to heaven or really in Gods presence because of sin. The flesh is never without sin. However after the death of the material body we become a perfect non-material** eternal body and soul and having no flesh are able to stand in the presence of God, and are cleansed. Does your religion believe the universe was created or that it has always existed or something else?

As you will notice, it is different from Solipcism - "Solipsism from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self", is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist." (Wikipedia). Here, we are claiming to know about all things in the universe (as constituted by energy). As for mind which is the result of working of the brain, that is an illusion and temporary. It ceases to exist after what people call as death (I will term it 'chemical recycling'). Hindu philosophy, it is not all that easy to comprehend.

Yes, well most Christians do not think the mind and brain is the same or that one creates the other. In our religion the mind and soul are independent of the brain and are eternal. Of course the brain is flesh and it will return to dust after death. So our two religions are far apart in some ways but similar in others. Also for the Solipsism remarks I said and I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not mean your entire religion was similar to solipsism. I was referring to the idea expressed in that one sentence.

[/quote]Yeah, eyes sometimes hit very hard. I have been hit repeatedly.
"Akhiyon se goli mare, ladki kamaal ki" - Shoots bullets with the eyes, what a remarkable girl![/quote]

Of course, Raveena's eyes were nothing out of ordinary. But there are many others.[/QUOTE]

?

Do you know if you exist? You are just a temporary bundle of energy who has reacted in a particular way (eating) another bundle of energy (hotdog). What these bundles seem and think themselves to be are illusions.

Yes my friend, I know I exist but I am not so sure about the rest of the world!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Hey there, sorry for getting back to you so late. My icon was a photoshop exercise. A digital eye drawing. Thank you, I'm glad you like it.
View attachment 14350View attachment 14351

Yes it's a very beautiful rendering. Thanks for the attachments, the detail of the iris is amazing. Art, like music sometimes moves me emotionally, and when that happens I know its real art. So 114350 is real art! Lastly, just saying', I sure miss my photoshop and plan on buying another as soon as I get a dedicated art PC up (that will never see the net).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hey there, sorry for getting back to you so late. My icon was a photoshop exercise. A digital eye drawing. Thank you, I'm glad you like it.
View attachment 14350View attachment 14351

Beautiful, ADigitalArtist.

At one time I had some version of Photo-Shop. That was nice. But it is so costly. Presently I have Gimp 2. It is more difficult to work with. But I do not do any art.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When you say Brahman constituting all things in the universe, do you mean Brahman 'permeates' all material things or is literately all material things. when I say material I am referencing any thing not spiritual in nature.

You said "I am not a person, the person-hood is only an illusion, I am Brahman." Do you mean since you are Braham, you are in effect God?

Does your religion believe the universe was created or that it has always existed or something else?

Don't say sorry that many times in one post. We all may have different views. That is perfectly OK.

Yes, In 'Advita' (non-duality), Brahman literally constitutes all things perceived or unperceived. My view (which is a bit different from the majority) does not accept existence of soul, spirit; and the body, just as bone and flesh. It does not differentiate between material and non-material. Energy and mass equivalence. Actually it does not accept any kind of differentiation.

Brahman in 'advaita' is not a person, not a being, not God, as yet indefinable, closest to physical energy (and not any kind of spiritual energy). All forms are but Brahman, not just me, since there is no other. It has no form of itself and is indifferent, changeless and eternal. Strict 'advaita' does not accept creation, birth or death. It only accepts change in form and that is supposed to happen constantly. It does not accept heaven or hell. When we are in the form of humans and living in a society, then we must follow the rules of the human society. That in Hinduism is termed as 'dharma' (the correct thing to do). Doing that is what people call merit and not doing that is what people call sin. Society and psychology rewards or punishes, praises or abuses, a person depending on his/her deeds. 'Advaita' takes the universe and all things in it, and their action as illusions, missing to see what is at the base of it, which is Brahman.

The rest about eyes was just fun.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Don't say sorry that many times in one post. We all may have different views. That is perfectly OK.

If I say sorry its usually an extension, or show` of respect. I was in south east Asia way back in the day, and as I said I was dabbling and studying religions after I decided atheism was not for me. In Cambodia I met a Buddhist, a bhikkhu who taught me about respect saying too much is not a good thing. He also said my ego and pride was going to be he biggest obstacle to, um', having a relationship with God (If I chose Christianity) or achieving Nirvana as a Buddhist if I chose to adopt his religion. He was right! So I am practicing to rid myself of too much arrogance and Ego, and pride, and to add more respect of others, regardless of their beliefs etc.

Yes, In 'Advita' (non-duality), Brahman literally constitutes all things perceived or unperceived. My view (which is a bit different from the majority) does not accept existence of soul, spirit; and the body, just as bone and flesh. It does not differentiate between material and non-material. Energy and mass equivalence. Actually it does not accept any kind of differentiation.

Ok cool! Our religions are a little similar but a lot different, at least in that regard.

Brahman in 'advaita' is not a person, not a being, not God, as yet indefinable, closest to physical energy (and not any kind of spiritual energy). All forms are but Brahman, not just me, since there is no other. It has no form of itself and is indifferent, changeless and eternal. Strict 'advaita' does not accept creation, birth or death. It only accepts change in form and that is supposed to happen constantly.

Still some similarities, the reason I search for common ground is because I can understand your religion 'better'. When you say forms what do you mean? Forms as in different forms of plants or forms like the outline of an object is a form? Or am I completely wrong on both counts?

It does not accept heaven or hell. When we are in the form of humans and living in a society, then we must follow the rules of the human society.

The bible also says that Hell is reserved for the devil and its angels....hmm. Also Jesus said to the tax men ; "They say to him, Caesar's. Then said he to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." So Christians should follow the law of the land but only if its not corrupt.

That in Hinduism is termed as 'dharma' (the correct thing to do). Doing that is what people call merit and not doing that is what people call sin. Society and psychology rewards or punishes, praises or abuses, a person depending on his/her deeds. 'Advaita' takes the universe and all things in it, and their action as illusions, missing to see what is at the base of it, which is Brahman.

I agree that time and the material world is an illusion my friend. The real world is for me Gods realm, its eternal and static.

The rest about eyes was just fun.

Thanks for sharing your 'faith' with me and I enjoy getting to know more about you and your religion....

 

[Aupmanyav]

When you say forms what do you mean? Forms as in different forms of plants .. The real world is for me Gods realm, its eternal and static.

Different plants, different animals, different people, different rocks, liquids or gases - In 'advaita', any kind of differentiation is taken as imaginary, since every thing is constituted by Brahman. Brahman's world is eternal and ever dynamic, forms changing each Planck's unit of time or less (5.39 x 10 raised to power −44 seconds), the world of Feynman diagrams.

 

[rusra02]

Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient? Perhaps, there existed some kind of pre-creation... stuff, which, through some random (but inevitable) event, ended up creating the universe, without anyone specifically willing for it to be so?

Evolution, I think....

 

[Parsimony]

Evolution, I think....

Evolutionary theory is purely biological: it has nothing to do with how our universe came to be.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Different plants, different animals, different people, different rocks, liquids or gases

Thanks for clarifying

- In 'advaita', any kind of differentiation is taken as imaginary, since every thing is constituted by Brahman. Brahman's world is eternal and ever dynamic, forms changing each Planck's unit of time or less (5.39 x 10 raised to power −44 seconds), the world of Feynman's diagrams.

Advaita, is non-duality or another way to say it is Advaita is not two. So again our 'religions' are more alike than they first seemed. We Christians say God is one, which is the traditional monotheism claim that I have some issues with (but that's a topic for a new thread!). In any case, oneness is a quality of everything 'material' which is really just a very temporary event or existence, just like a flash bulb going off according to Gods timeline. That is true even it it may last billions of years in 'human' time. I feel that is what the scripture meant when it said; "2Pe 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Everything is a part of and made of one a non-dual consciousness (in Christianity we call your non-dual consciousness God, although the trinity and the so called Gods head begin to make things interesting!). I think we, you and I are beginning to establish a 'platform' for a dialog if we need to talk about something involving our religions. Its difficult when the members of two disparate faiths attempt to discuss issues, eh? God bless you and yours.

I just want to close this kind of long reply by saying I hope you don't think I am challenging or questioning your 'faith' for lack of a better word, your 'beliefs' nor non beliefs, or ideas about your spirituality, or lack of it, lol I think I covered everything.

I just find the different beliefs, and the life styles beautiful like a Monet, and valuable like medicine for the heart (when we can discuss and engage in productive debate and conversation etc). These productive debates and convos' are unlike greed generating gold and other treasure, and for that I am grateful.

So with that I am outta here!


Pray for Peace on earth ~ the alternative is pain ~