A Universe from Nothing?

[Rational Agnostic]

But a belief in a human interpretation of sacred scripture does not mean it is a correct interpretation. The fact remains, God could not logically create the universe from nothing, ie.'no building material'... God could though create all forms anew from those which God has previously destroyed....and has done so without beginning or end eternally... For God is One and the apparent separate acts of creation is also the apparent act of destruction.....only the real is eternally unchanged...God.

Hold on.......you're saying that God needs matter to create more matter? I thought he was omnipotent.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hold on.......you're saying that God needs matter to create more matter? I thought he was omnipotent.

Matter is made of energy......only the forms are created and destroyed...like stars and planets and humans...the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change..

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Matter is made of energy......only the forms are created and destroyed...like stars and planets and humans...the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change..

Interesting perspective. If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that matter has always existed in some elementary form, but God is the one who rearranged the particles in such a way so that the existence of organized structures like galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, conscious life forms could be facilitated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Interesting perspective. If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that matter has always existed in some elementary form, but God is the one who rearranged the particles in such a way so that the existence of organized structures like galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, conscious life forms could be facilitated.

No I am not saying that...I am saying that all of that has always existed...there was never a beginning to existence...only specific manifested forms have beginnings and endings...such as cells, mortals, planets, stars, etc.. but at all times throughout eternity, they always exist...as does the unmanifested universal essence. God is One, the unmanifest and manifest (spirit and matter) are only conceptual distinctions made for helping the dualistic mind understand his universal environment. Genesis 1 is an allegorical tale written for the benefit of non-scientifically knowledgeable Earthly mankind to help him understand how the Sun and Earth came into existence against a backdrop of preexisting Heavenly Stars..

 

[godnotgod]

.....only the real is eternally unchanged...God.

....and yet, we see a Universe that is changing all the time, or seemingly so. This is so because we see it through the filters of Time, Space, and Causation.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, [ie Changeless] we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else.

There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing.

So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

For myself, the most compelling thing about this, is that, if The Universe is none other than The Absolute, and The Absolute is none other than The Changeless, then what we see as a changing universe is something that The Changeless Absolute is 'doing', where even It's doing is an illusion. But even more compelling than that, is that we ourselves are none other than That, while not knowing that we are That. To realize that we are none other than That is to realize one's own Enlightenment. And this is the experience of Absolute Joy, for which no opposite exists.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No I am not saying that...I am saying that all of that has always existed...there was never a beginning to existence...only specific manifested forms have beginnings and endings...such as cells, mortals, planets, stars, etc.. but at all times throughout eternity, they always exist...as does the unmanifested universal essence. God is One, the unmanifest and manifest (spirit and matter) are only conceptual distinctions made for helping the dualistic mind understand his universal environment. Genesis 1 is an allegorical tale written for the benefit of non-scientifically knowledgeable Earthly mankind to help him understand how the Sun and Earth came into existence against a backdrop of preexisting Heavenly Stars..

Can't say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your perspective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can't say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your perspective.

You are welcome my friend...

 

[godnotgod]

You are welcome my friend...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

.......

 

[gnostic]

....and yet, we see a Universe that is changing all the time, or seemingly so. This is so because we see it through the filters of Time, Space, and Causation.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, [ie Changeless] we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else.

There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing.

So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

For myself, the most compelling thing about this, is that, if The Universe is none other than The Absolute, and The Absolute is none other than The Changeless, then what we see as a changing universe is something that The Changeless Absolute is 'doing', where even It's doing is an illusion. But even more compelling than that, is that we ourselves are none other than That, while not knowing that we are That. To realize that we are none other than That is to realize one's own Enlightenment. And this is the experience of Absolute Joy, for which no opposite exists.

Which is all Absolute rubbish. The "rubbish" are article you've quoted and your interpretation or claims.

There are no evidences to support the universe being "Changeless" or "Absolute". No evidences for this nonsensical "Absolute Being".

The only things that are illusions are your "Enlightenment" and the whole "Absolute" shebang. I see no enlightenment in frequent uses of the Absolute.

That you think everyone who disagree with your silly concept of "Changeless Absolute" as illusion, are simply your sophistry and sheer arrogance.

 

[`mud]

Is the Cosmos a toroid ?...
.......like the many universe's galaxies within it ?.....
a toroid within what ????
There is no ultimate !
~
I maybe I will stop signing these posts,
Everyone that matters doesn't care !

 

[gnostic]

Matter is made of energy......only the forms are created and destroyed...like stars and planets and humans...the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change..

Wrong.

It is "mass" not "matter" that are conserved.

So whenever they talk of conservation of either "mass" or "energy" - "cannot be created or destroyed" - they are talking of "mass", not "matter".

Matter have properties like mass and energy.. And there is a link between mass and energy.

What cannot be created or destroyed, it can be "changed" or "transformed".

And lastly, the law of conservation only referred to a "closed" system. This law of conservation doesn't always apply if the system is "open".

An example of open systems would be like object have become radioactive. Large amount of energy will escape the system.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Which is all Absolute rubbish. The "rubbish" are article you've quoted and your interpretation or claims.
There are no evidences to support the universe being "Changeless" or "Absolute". No evidences for this nonsensical "Absolute Being".
The only things that are illusions are your "Enlightenment" and the whole "Absolute" shebang. I see no enlightenment in frequent uses of the Absolute.
That you think everyone who disagree with your silly concept of "Changeless Absolute" as illusion, are simply your sophistry and sheer arrogance.

Well said, I feel exactly the same way.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wrong.

It is "mass" not "matter" that are conserved.

So whenever they talk of conservation of either "mass" or "energy" - "cannot be created or destroyed" - they are talking of "mass", not "matter".

Matter have properties like mass and energy.. And there is a link between mass and energy.

What cannot be created or destroyed, it can be "changed" or "transformed".

And lastly, the law of conservation only referred to a "closed" system. This law of conservation doesn't always apply if the system is "open".

An example of open systems would be like object have become radioactive. Large amount of energy will escape the system.

Yes, and the amount of pseudo-science in these threads is tiresome.

 

[`mud]

How does one define a .......
"wisp",
like us, on this tiny pebble of a planet !
And pseudo science rests on the back of real science,
where the answers are still hiding.

 

[`mud]

That didn't make any sense at all, did it ??

 

[YmirGF]

That didn't make any sense at all, did it ??

It made as much sense as the other baffle-gab in this thread. Maybe it would be better if you capitalized every other word. Some seem to be impressed by that sort of nuanced drivel.

 

[YmirGF]

How does One define A .......
"WisP",
like Us, on This tiny Pebble of A Planet !
And pseudo Science rests on The back of Real Science,
where THE ANSWERS are Still ... ... Hiding.

There, @'mud fixed it for ya.

 

[godnotgod]

Which is all Absolute rubbish. The "rubbish" are article you've quoted and your interpretation or claims.

There are no evidences to support the universe being "Changeless" or "Absolute".

No? Is The Universe everything that exists?

Did I, or John Dobson, say that The Universe is 'Changeless'?

No evidences for this nonsensical "Absolute Being".

Correct. But I never alluded to any such 'Absolute Being', did I?

The only things that are illusions are your "Enlightenment" and the whole "Absolute" shebang. I see no enlightenment in frequent uses of the Absolute.

Oh no? Then tell me: what state of mind are you using to determine that?

That you think everyone who disagree with your silly concept of "Changeless Absolute" as illusion, are simply your sophistry and sheer arrogance.

It's not 'my' concept, but a realization of Vivekenanda's.

But just to provide a small hint for you that we do live under illusory conditions, consider some of the findings of Quantum Physics which, for one, tell us that this 'material' world is not what it seems to be, but is instead a 'superposition of possibilities'.

note: I never said that the 'Changeless Absolute' is illusion; on the contrary, I said that it is the only true Reality, and that this 'material' world is illusion. And I never used the term 'Changeless Absolute', as they are one and the same.

 

[godnotgod]

And pseudo science rests on the back of real science,
.

What is 'real' science?