A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

..... do you have any clear evidence for your belief that there has always been something?

Not withstanding the absence yet of a response to point out precisely where you think I confused mass with matter, I am happy to answer this question. If there had once been an absence of something, that would imply nothing existed, and nothing we agree does not exist...yes? Therefore logically there was never a beginning....to suggest otherwise would require a theory to get something from nothing...which is absurd...

 

[godnotgod]

"...and ultimately of consciousness"? So you are claiming that matter is a creation of consciousness? Really?

Let's see some evidence for this claim.

Actual evidence, clearly laid out. Don't just keep posting your stock quotes from Hindu swamis and fringe scientists, let's see some actual evidence for this claim. Let's see a coherent argument in plain English ( though I am not holding my breath ).

Let's see some actual evidence for your claims of "Cosmic Consciousness", and the big bang being an "event in consciousness". Let's see a coherent argument to support these claims, plain English, free from your ill-defined jargon buzz-words.

You have been preaching this Chopra-inspired twaddle on RF for years, but I still haven't seen any clear evidence for your beliefs.
It is all smoke and mirrors, pseudo-science, misrepresentation, false equivalences, illogical conclusions, twisting and glossing over.

I will be glad to have a discussion with you, but currently you are without credibility, as you previously have made a claim that I claimed Enlightenment, and to date have failed to provide your evidence to that effect. So I cannot have a discussion with someone who has established himself to be without such credibility.

Fringe scientists? Max Planck and Albert Einstein are fringe scientists?

The reason you can't see is because you are a Black & White Legalist living in the dual world, and think Buddhism (and Reality) can be laid out in nice, neat little rationally-explainable bite-sized squares for you. 30 years on your mat and you still haven't gotten that the true nature of Reality is beyond all such explanations.

However, being the compassionate person that I am, I will not leave you without at least a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night, but you have to use your noggin:

Think:

Quantum Physics has established that all 'material' reality is made of energy fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields, and that what you think is a 'material' world is actually a 'superposition of possibilities'. That points to a non-material Reality as the true Reality, and 'material' reality as illusory. What does this suggest to you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Saying it is a muddle merely implies ignorance of understanding.....an explanation as to the scientific reason why you think what I said scientifically incorrect is what I am looking for! If you think I am confusing mass with matter...point it out...otherwise keep digging your hole deeper...

No, what you said was a muddle. Get over it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Quantum Physics has established that all 'material' reality is made of energy fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields, and that what you think is a 'material' world is actually a 'superposition of possibilities'. That points to a non-material Reality as the true Reality, and 'material' reality as illusory. What does this suggest to you?

Meh. The same arrogant tone, the same lame ad-homs, the same Chopra-inspired rhetoric, and the same evasion of straightforward questions. If you were being honest you would admit that the stuff you preach here is pseudo-Hinduism muddled with pseudo-science.

I asked for clear evidence of your claim that matter is a creation of consciousness ( #2614 ).

I'm still waiting.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not withstanding the absence yet of a response to point out precisely where you think I confused mass with matter, I am happy to answer this question. If there had once been an absence of something, that would imply nothing existed, and nothing we agree does not exist...yes? Therefore logically there was never a beginning....to suggest otherwise would require a theory to get something from nothing...which is absurd...

I simply don't know what there was "before" the big bang, and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either. I suspect it is beyond human logic though. Perhaps one day science will get some answers.

We can speculate, but does it really matter?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, what you said was a muddle. Get over it.

That is trolling! If you claim a comment I made confused mass with matter, and when asked to identify where I said it, repeatedly refuse to do so, you should be ashamed of yourself...no true practicing Buddhist would behave so badly. The least you should do at this stage is admit that you were mistaken, I can forgive that. In a debate where you accuse another poster of being in error, you need to identify the relevant statement and the reasons for your claim, for otherwise there can be no honest and fair debate. In this, so far you and gnostic are failing to meet your obligations, and so I will persist until you do so or withdraw your claim.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I simply don't know what there was "before" the big bang, and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either. I suspect it is beyond human logic though. Perhaps one day science will get some answers.

We can speculate, but does it really matter?

The question you asked was not about what precisely existed before a big bang, it was about whether the universe is eternal. Either eternity underlies cosmic existence or existence came from nothing. There is no third option...unless you think otherwise, in which case I am all ears!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is trolling! If you claim a comment I made confused mass with matter, and when asked to identify where I said it, repeatedly refuse to do so, you should be ashamed of yourself...no true practicing Buddhist would behave so badly. The least you should do at this stage is admit that you were mistaken, I can forgive that. In a debate where you accuse another poster of being in error, you need to identify the relevant statement and the reasons for your claim, for otherwise there can be no honest and fair debate. In this, so far you and gnostic are failing to meet your obligations, and so I will persist until you do so or withdraw your claim.

I DID identify the post in question and it WAS a complete muddle. You DID confuse mass and matter, as Gnostic observed. I will certainly not withdraw my "claim" and I am tired of your childish histrionics.

Are you so arrogant and egotistical that you cannot admit it when you have made a mistake?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The question you asked was not about what precisely existed before a big bang, it was about whether the universe is eternal. Either eternity underlies cosmic existence or existence came from nothing. There is no third option...unless you think otherwise, in which case I am all ears!

It appears that our universe ( space-time ) began with the big bang, in which case the question is what, if anything existed "before" the big bang. Time and cause-and-effect are both characteristics of our universe, so is far from clear whether they applied "before" the big bang.

I very much doubt your crude logic is valid here, or indeed your crude theistic beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I referred you to the post in question and it WAS a complete muddle, you DID confuse mass and matter. I will certainly not withdraw my "claim" and I am tired of your barrack-room lawyering.

Are you so arrogant and egotistical that you cannot admit it when you have made a mistake?

Ok...so let's clear this up....I now refer to the post in question...please quote my words within that post you claim show that I confused mass with matter. If you were to do that, everyone could follow the debate...but as it is, I can't do it because I do not know what you are referring to, and you refuse to tell me.

So the post in question whereby I am supposed to have confused mass with matter is gnostic's 5995..where I commented...

ben d said: ↑

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..

Now which of these words are you referring to?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It appears that our universe ( space-time ) began with the big bang, in which case the question is what, if anything existed "before" the big bang. Time and cause-and-effect are both characteristics of our universe, so is far from clear whether they applied "before" the big bang.

I very much doubt your crude logic is valid here, or indeed your crude theistic beliefs.

It appears......to whom...you? What a joke...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It appears......to whom...you? What a joke...

Cut the passive-aggressive ad-homs and respond to what I said.

Are you arguing that our universe DIDN'T start with the big bang? And if so, what evidence do you have for this position? I mean actual evidence, not your religious beliefs. I don't think Fred Hoyle's steady state view is accepted now, so what are you actually referring to?

Or are you arguing that our universe DID start with the big bang, but there must have been something "before" it? In which case we are back to the invalidity of "before", since the fabric of our universe is space-time, and time only came into existence when our universe was created.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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..[/I]

Now which of these words are you referring to?

All of them. Your statement here is an incoherent mess. Check how matter, mass and energy are actually defined. Check how conservation of energy is actually defined.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All of them. Your statement here is an incoherent mess. Check how matter, mass and energy are actually defined. Check how conservation of energy is actually defined.

You are still trolling....you said I confused mass with energy.....show where I used the words mass and matter is a way that is inconsistent with scientific definitions or contrary to the law of conservation?
So the post in question whereby I am supposed to have confused mass with matter is gnostic's 5995..where I commented...

ben d said: ↑

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..

Now which of these words are you referring to?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Cut the passive-aggressive ad-homs and respond to what I said.

Are you arguing that our universe DIDN'T start with the big bang? And if so, what evidence do you have for this position? I mean actual evidence, not your religious beliefs. I don't think Fred Hoyle's steady state view is accepted now, so what are you actually referring to?

Or are you arguing that our universe DID start with the big bang, but there must have been something "before" it? In which case we are back to the invalidity of "before", since the fabric of our universe is space-time, and time only came into existence when our universe was created.

Go back and check the question I responded to...you asked in your post #2622..."For example, do you have any clear evidence for your belief that there has always been something?"

My response was...."Not withstanding the absence yet of a response to point out precisely where you think I confused mass with matter, I am happy to answer this question. If there had once been an absence of something, that would imply nothing existed, and nothing we agree does not exist...yes? Therefore logically there was never a beginning....to suggest otherwise would require a theory to get something from nothing...which is absurd..."

There was nothing there about the big bang...so when I answered the question asked...you then try to make it about whether I believe in the big bang...an obvious obfuscation to avoid the conclusion you did not like, yet could not overtly disagree with..so shallow....

 

[godnotgod]

Meh. The same arrogant tone, the same lame ad-homs, the same Chopra-inspired rhetoric, and the same evasion of straightforward questions. If you were being honest you would admit that the stuff you preach here is pseudo-Hinduism muddled with pseudo-science.

I asked for clear evidence of your claim that matter is a creation of consciousness ( #2614 ).

I'm still waiting.

You're just being ridiculously stubborn.

I PROVIDED SCIENTIFIC INFO, BUT INSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING IT AND RESPONDING TO IT, YOU JUMP BACK TO YOUR PRE-PROGRAMMED, MEANINGLESS, IDIOTIC PAVLOVIAN RESPONSES.

SO TO REPEAT:

Quantum Physics has established that all 'material' reality is made of energy fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields, and that what you think is a 'material' world is actually a 'superposition of possibilities'.

FOR NOW, YOU NEITHER GET NOR DESERVE MORE THAN THIS FROM ME, UNTIL YOU 1) PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIM THAT i SAID I AM ENLIGHTENED, AND 2) DIRECTLY RESPOND IN A MEANINGFUL WAY TO THE ABOVE INFO RE: QUANTUM PHYSICS. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE FOR A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION. iF YOU FAIL TO SIEZE THE OPPORTUNITY, THEN OUR 'DISCUSSION' MUST TERMINATE, AS YOUR RESPONSES ARE COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.

 

[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 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.

YOU LIKE TO COME IN HERE AND HUFF AND PUFF AND POINT FINGERS, AND WHEN I RESPOND WITH ANSWERS, YOU JUST DISAPPEAR. I ANSWERED ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, SO WHERE ARE YOUR RESPONSES? I BET YOU HAVE NONE, SO YOU CONVENIENTLY VANISH, HUH?

 

[godnotgod]

That is trolling! If you claim a comment I made confused mass with matter, and when asked to identify where I said it, repeatedly refuse to do so, you should be ashamed of yourself...no true practicing Buddhist would behave so badly. The least you should do at this stage is admit that you were mistaken, I can forgive that. In a debate where you accuse another poster of being in error, you need to identify the relevant statement and the reasons for your claim, for otherwise there can be no honest and fair debate. In this, so far you and gnostic are failing to meet your obligations, and so I will persist until you do so or withdraw your claim.

Excellent! You and I both have taken notice of their clever evasions. And I think we both know the real reasons behind their obvious behavior.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Gnostic operates the same way with me, as well as of course Norman..err.. Ricky....I would not use the word clever...deplorable is how I would describe their behavior.. One does not have to be astute to see through it...

 

[godnotgod]

It appears that our universe ( space-time ) began with the big bang, in which case the question is what, if anything existed "before" the big bang. Time and cause-and-effect are both characteristics of our universe, so is far from clear whether they applied "before" the big bang.

I very much doubt your crude logic is valid here, or indeed your crude theistic beliefs.

Your reply is illogical and contradictory:

If, as you admit, that "our universe (space-time ) began with the big bang", then there cannot have been a 'before' the BB, as 'before' necessitates Time for that to have been a reality. But the real reason Space-Time did not exist is because they are conceptual, and arise only with man's rational mind. This is what most do not understand: that there is actually no Space-Time, even today. Once these conceptual overlays are removed (along with Causation), we are then able to see The Universe as it actually is, as The Beginingless Absolute that it actually is, outside of Time, Space, and Causation, as Vivekenanda tells us:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"