A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

There are stars and their planets,
clustering in their galaxies,
with all their flotsam of debris,
within our universe,
apart from all the others,
that composes the Cosmos,
and all that is contained within.
~
A lot of people get the universes,
and the Cosmos, confused.
One can't see the other universes yet,
but soon we will !
~
All universes had a beginning,
the Cosmos doesn't !
~
No true cause,
but, what an effect !

'All universes' are but appearances;
only The Absolute is The Real; The Changeless.

'all that is contained within' is none other than the universe itself. There is nothing being 'contained', as that implies the finite, as well as an inside and an outside. Since The Universe is infinite, only Nothingness can 'contain' it, as Nothing is itself Infinity, and is the most allowing and limitless condition possible.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

It is always interesting how those who do not agree with the concept of Creation,
almost never hold the belief that the universe may simply be a construct of a non-God.
Like it is beyond comprehension that our own society could evolve to the point where we
could construct pseudo-universes.

 

[godnotgod]

It is always interesting how those who do not agree with the concept of Creation,
almost never hold the belief that the universe may simply be a construct of a non-God.
Like it is beyond comprehension that our own society could evolve to the point where we
could construct pseudo-universes.

Have you considered that The Universe may have been 'constructed' from the inside-out? That there is no 'other', nor 'not-other' involved? That, in fact, This, is It?

But perhaps the origin of The Universe is not so important as the fact that a consciousness is up front and present inquiring about origins, when it itself is an end point in the evolution from that origin, and where that end point is not only not separate from The Universe in any way, but is, in fact, (surprise) The Universe itself, in the same way that a wave is none other than the ocean itself.

To put 'we could construct pseudo-universes ourselves' another way:

'The Big Bang was (is) an event in Consciousness'

 

[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..

That whole paragraph is muddle and inconsistent.

In physics, the conservation of mass is that "mass" cannot be created or destroyed, only transforms. It is "mass", not "matter", they are talking about.

And another thing is, this part I have highlighted in bold:

the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change..

You are wrong.

Matter can change.

For example.

The metal tin (Sn2) is a MATTER, comprising of tin atoms, bonded together as a metal. Similarly, copper (Cu2) is metal made of bonded copper atoms. They are two separate MATTERS.

With the right proportions of two different metals (matters) and by applying heat to them, they formed into a different metal or matter: bronze.

If you have studied chemistry at all, you would know that, mixing two different chemicals would result in chemical reaction that will bond together to form new matter, or break them apart to form other matters.

It is not just the physics you have muddled up, but you have ignored basic chemistry.

If you know the basic of nuclear physics, you would know that nuclear fusion will break down an element (matter) into smaller lighter elements, for instance a helium atom will become 2 hydrogen atoms, hence, 2 new matters.

And in nuclear fusion, the opposite reaction will occur. For instance the sun's main fuel is hydrogen (matter). At the sun's core, the heat will fuse two hydrogen atoms together to form, a heavier element - helium - which means a new matter has been created by the sun. The fusion of lighter elements into a heavier element, is what cause the energy output in the form of light, ultraviolet radiation and heat.

So of course, when you consider these examples, "matters" can change.

The question is, will your pride allow to accept that you are wrong and learn from your mistake, or will you deflect my examples and make some feeble apologetic excuses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That whole paragraph is muddle and inconsistent.

In physics, the conservation of mass is that "mass" cannot be created or destroyed, only transforms. It is "mass", not "matter", they are talking about.

And another thing is, this part I have highlighted in bold:


You are wrong.

Matter can change.

For example.

The metal tin (Sn2) is a MATTER, comprising of tin atoms, bonded together as a metal. Similarly, copper (Cu2) is metal made of bonded copper atoms. They are two separate MATTERS.

With the right proportions of two different metals (matters) and by applying heat to them, they formed into a different metal or matter: bronze.

If you have studied chemistry at all, you would know that, mixing two different chemicals would result in chemical reaction that will bond together to form new matter, or break them apart to form other matters.

It is not just the physics you have muddled up, but you have ignored basic chemistry.

If you know the basic of nuclear physics, you would know that nuclear fusion will break down an element (matter) into smaller lighter elements, for instance a helium atom will become 2 hydrogen atoms, hence, 2 new matters.

And in nuclear fusion, the opposite reaction will occur. For instance the sun's main fuel is hydrogen (matter). At the sun's core, the heat will fuse two hydrogen atoms together to form, a heavier element - helium - which means a new matter has been created by the sun. The fusion of lighter elements into a heavier element, is what cause the energy output in the form of light, ultraviolet radiation and heat.

So of course, when you consider these examples, "matters" can change.

The question is, will your pride allow to accept that you are wrong and learn from your mistake, or will you deflect my examples and make some feeble apologetic excuses.

Nothing you have written shows that I confused mass with matter....you are trolling and misdirecting! Now if you truly think I do not understand the difference between mass and matter...quote my exact words in my post that in any way reflects a misunderstanding? I repeat....my precise words....none of this "muddled" obfuscation....and your other rambling irrelevant babble...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d said: ↑
the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change..

And another thing is, this part I have highlighted in bold:

You are wrong.

Matter can change.

Haha...as for the above..., you would not pass primary school reading comprehension if your understanding of my statement was that it was the matter specifically that was being referred to in my comment....."the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change.." The statement is saying that it is the underlying universal mass that does not change...that is... the sum total of all energy and matter of the universe... Here is a pie chart for you.......
.

 

[godnotgod]

ben d said: ↑
the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change..

And another thing is, this part I have highlighted in bold:

You are wrong.

No, you're reading his statement incorrectly: note that he said that:

"the underlying universal mass OF energy and matter does not change.."

He is referring to the MASS that does not change, not matter.

Matter can change.

There is no such 'matter' that changes; only form changes.

 

[godnotgod]

..., you would not pass primary school reading comprehension...

...which seems to be the basic underlying problem with both gnostic and Guinness, causing them to jump to erroneous conclusions....or is it the Guinness talking? Herein lies the root of the problem.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

...which seems to be the basic underlying problem with both gnostic and Guinness, causing them to jump to erroneous conclusions....or is it the Guinness talking? Herein lies the root of the problem.

Absolutely......Gnostic and Ricky have a reading comprehension problem that makes them misunderstand most of what is being clearly said to them. And when they are told that they do not understand what is clearly said to them....they cry egotism... haha..

 

[Thief]

when i look up at the night sky.....I see.....

a whole lotta something.....from a whole lotta nothing

 

[godnotgod]

when i look up at the night sky.....I see.....

a whole lotta something.....from a whole lotta nothing

Sometimes you surprise me, Thief, when you allow your inner sage to express himself. Bravo!

You get 3 bonus atta-boys for that one.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The 'something' you refer to is no material thing at all. What we see as a material universe is the result of pure consciousness, Pure Abstract Intelligence, manifesting itself as The Universe.

Unsubstantiated new-age dogma. No evidence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'The Big Bang was (is) an event in Consciousness'

More new-age dogma, no evidence or reasoning to back it up. You have been preaching this stuff on RF for years, it is really just a muddle of new-age religious beliefs inspired by your hero, the charlatan Chopra.

If you can't provide coherent reasoning and evidence for you claims maybe you should just shut up and stop boring everyone.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What I posted:

"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'."

is the first part of the answer.

And what exactly is the second part of the answer? If you really have this worked out you should be able to explain your reasoning succinctly and show the evidence for your claims.

So how do you get from quantum mechanics to your claims that:

1. Matter is a creation of consciousness;
2. The big bang was an event in consciousness?

What is your reasoning, and what is your evidence for these claims?

So let's have a succinct explanation in plain English. I have repeatedly requested this, but you have never provided it. So come on, put your money where your mouth is. Stop hiding behind new-age jargon, naff videos and obscure quotes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why are you defending gnosis? Is he not capable of his own self-defense? Why is he hiding?

Because I am tired of you launching personal attacks on people who challenge your Chopra-inspired twaddle, your incessant preaching of new-age dogma, your arrogance, your devious fabrications and childish tricks.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, you're wrong. If you ask the people at the atomic clock facility in Colorado, they will tell you directly that the atomic clock is only a measuring device, but does not measure Time. 'Time' is only a concept created due to the movement of phenomena in 'Space', which also is a concept derived from the relationship of phenomena to each other. Without 'phenomena in movement', there is no Space-Time.

New-age twaddle. Read up on "Atomic CLOCK", the clue is the name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

And you have conveniently ignored the rest of what I said. The fabric of the cosmos is described as "space-TIME", there is the "arrow of TIME" in cosmology, there is entropy, etc.

Time is not only a "concept", it is part of the fabric of the cosmos, it is change. If you try to imagine the universe WITHOUT passing time and change it will be immediately obvious that this is true. It would just be a universe frozen in one moment, with nothing happening, no movement, no change, nothing.

As usual you are grossly misrepresenting scientific ideas and then trying to muddle them in with ideas from Eastern religion, this is classic new-age behaviour. As usual you are drawing false equivalences and coming to nonsensical conclusions.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

only The Absolute is The Real; The Changeless.

The same tiresome new age dogma, still with no evidence or reasoning. You are only here to preach your Chopra-inspired rhetoric, you are boring.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Absolutely......Gnostic and Ricky have a reading comprehension problem that makes them misunderstand most of what is being clearly said to them. And when they are told that they do not understand what is clearly said to them....they cry egotism... haha..

Your arrogance astounds me. You make incoherent posts using your pretentious stream.....of.....consciousness style, then you launch ad-hom attacks on people who question them.

Clearly you have a fragile ego, and clearly you can't cope with having your theistic beliefs challenged, you are only here to preach and pontificate. Just like your new-age chum, the Chopra-clone.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

At some level though, Gnostic and Ricky must intuitively know they do not understand, because they refuse to respond to requests provide the actual statement which they claim

Your arrogance astounds me. You make incoherent posts using your pretentious stream.....of.....consciousness style, then you blame other contributors for questioning them.
Clearly the real issue is that you can't cope with having your theistic beliefs questioned, that is why you launch ad-hom attacks. Your behaviour is tiresome and juvenile.

I now understand why you and Gnostic find my posts incoherent....you do not understand what is being said to you due to your own poor reading comprehensions skills. And now when it is shown how Gnostic and you thought that my statement....... "the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change.." meant that I was saying that matter does not change rather than the universal mass does not change...then it becomes clear why you are confused and muddled and project it at my posts. And now you think I am arrogant to point out your misunderstanding...boy, you must have hated your teacher at school...haha...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

At some level though, Gnostic and Ricky must intuitively know they do not understand, because they refuse to respond to requests provide the actual statement which they claim
I now understand why you and Gnostic find my posts incoherent....you do not understand what is being said to you due to your own poor reading comprehensions skills. And now when it is shown how Gnostic and you thought that my statement....... "the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change.." meant that I was saying that matter does not change rather than the universal mass does not change...then it becomes clear why you are confused and muddled and project it at my posts. And now you think I am arrogant to point out your misunderstanding...boy, you must have hated your teacher at school...haha...

Again your arrogance astounds me. You cannot conceive of the possibility that you are a poor communicator, so you have to blame your "audience". You are like a pompous preacher in a pulpit, you blame the congregation when they don't understand your naff rambling sermons.

But it is clear that your histrionics are really to distract from my earlier question about the big bang, you can't cope with any discussion which challenges your theistic beliefs.

Like your Chopra-clone new-age chum you are immensely arrogant, and you are only here to preach and pontificate. That is why you instinctively launch ad-hom attacks on anyone who dares to challenge your strange pronouncements.