A Universe from Nothing?

[Thief]

It is The Changeless; Brahman; The Absolute, which does not come and go, but only appears to do so. It is Unborn, Uncaused, Unconditioned, not in Time or Space, and so is Beginning-less. As it is a Source unto itself, it arises from nothing. There is no 'other'.

this is what I call God^....

but I don't leave out that He is a Person
the First Person
the Almighty

 

[Ben Dhyan]

this is what I call God^....

but I don't leave out that He is a Person
the First Person
the Almighty

God is also you, and also me....in the sense we are expressions. That is why I so love myself....I love God.. ...and of course God loves me for the same reason...God is not a self hater...

 

[Thief]

God is also you, and also me....in the sense we are expressions. That is why I so love myself....I love God..

I might not go that far......

 

[godnotgod]

this is what I call God^....

but I don't leave out that He is a Person
the First Person
the Almighty

God is usually thought of as being formless, so a person as we know persons he is not. That is just an anthropomorphic projection on the part of humans. I would say that we are projections of The Formless, in a similar manner that wave-forms emerge from the formless sea.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As it is a Source unto itself, it arises from nothing.

After it arises from 'nothing', it is a thing. I see no problem there. I too hold similar views. The only difference is that I do not insist that it is 'the' true situation, it is certainly a strong possibility (Many worlds hypothesis). I only want it to be confirmed by science. As of now there is no confirmation of it.

 

[james bond]

Can you cite the scientific theory you referenced though? I've heard of hypotheses like abiogenesis and such, but I've not heard of a scientific theory that claims that the universe arose from nothing. The Big Bang Theory certainly doesn't claim such things.

BBT claims the universe from "invisible" particles. We claim an "invisible" God.

Why does one need a bang? I've yet to see an experiment where a firecracker produces a small model of an universe. Are there any evo scientists who test this?

 

[godnotgod]

BBT claims the universe from "invisible" particles. We claim an "invisible" God.

Why does one need a bang? I've yet to see an experiment where a firecracker produces a small model of an universe. Are there any evo scientists who test this?

It was not a destructive bang, but a creative one, an event in consciousness, rather than of matter, which came afterwards.

 

[godnotgod]

After it arises from 'nothing', it is a thing. I see no problem there. I too hold similar views. The only difference is that I do not insist that it is 'the' true situation, it is certainly a strong possibility (Many worlds hypothesis). I only want it to be confirmed by science. As of now there is no confirmation of it.

Sorry, I phrased my statement in a double meaning way.

The Source itself neither arises nor returns. Only that which it manifests seemingly does so, and that which is manifested is not a thing; it is an appearance of things. Quantum Mechanics now reveals to us for the first time the virtual nature of the mass of the atom, an appearance of real material, but not actually so.

Science will never be able to confirm what the true nature of the Source is simply because its own methodology stands squarely in the way.

 

[YmirGF]

It was not a destructive bang, but a creative one, an event in consciousness, rather than of matter, which came afterwards.

Likewise, it is happening as much, right now, as it was 14.2342 billion years ago.... the expansion continues unabated...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science will never be able to confirm what the true nature of the Source is simply because its own methodology stands squarely in the way.

By making a prediction, you become a prophet. I do not claim to be one. Let time decide.

 

[godnotgod]

Likewise, it is happening as much, right now, as it was 14.2342 billion years ago.... the expansion continues unabated...

"14.2342 billion years ago" is just a conceptual overlay onto Reality. At the moment of its inception, there was no Time nor Space. Space-Time are only concepts. It occurred in not Space-Time, which is this timeless Present Moment, and continues to occur in this Timeless Present Moment. I do agree it is occurring right here, right now, but that has always been the case.

 

[godnotgod]

By making a prediction, you become a prophet. I do not claim to be one. Let time decide.

No. I cannot predict that which cannot occur. It cannot occur because the nature of the scientific method prevents it. Its method is dissection and reduction. What do you see that occurs when something is dissected? You gain data and factual knowledge, but you gain no insight as to the nature of things. To do so, one must apprehend Reality just as it is, right here, right now.

The ordinary mind thinks it can understand the nature of the Universe by analysis; by dissection; by setting up an observer and the observed. Here, the approach is putting the cart ahead of the horse. How can we understand the nature of Reality by attempting to interpret it in terms of a conceptual framework? Should'nt we instead understand the conceptual framework (ie the mind) in terms of Reality? That is what meditation is: a direct experience of Reality itself.

 

[Aiviu]

When you are asleep, dreaming, consciousness creates an entire dream-world, with dream hunger, thirst, adventure, scenery, etc. During the dream, it is real. When you awaken, you realize the illusory nature of the dream. Same is true from this level to the next higher one, but the dream, the illusion, is of a much higher calibre.

Well, does this consciousness never wakes up?

 

[godnotgod]

Well, does this consciousness never wakes up?

The awakening can be very difficult, partly due to the power of the dream to represent itself as being real, and partly due to our own personal attachment to who we think we are, called 'Identification'. The irony is that both our social and biological life is set up to keep us asleep, reinforced by the quality of the dream as being 'real'. Our perceptions tell us that everything about it is real, reinforced by science. This is the Hide phase of our journey. But our true nature is always quietly prompting us to awaken. Only it is drowned out much of the time by all of the noise in our everyday lives which captures our attention up front. At some point, we sense something with this 'reality' is not quite right, not quite satisfying, and we embark on the Seek phase of our journey.

 

[Aiviu]

The awakening can be very difficult, partly due to the power of the dream to represent itself as being real, and partly due to our own personal attachment to who we think we are, called 'Identification'. The irony is that both our social and biological life is set up to keep us asleep, reinforced by the quality of the dream as being 'real'. Our perceptions tell us that everything about it is real, reinforced by science. This is the Hide phase of our journey. But our true nature is always quietly prompting us to awaken. Only it is drowned out much of the time by all of the noise in our everyday lives which captures our attention up front. At some point, we sense something with this 'reality' is not quite right, not quite satisfying, and we embark on the Seek phase of our journey.

What if someone is tired after keeping the illusion alive and revealed anything with the help of his untrue life? What if he is tired to live? What if he knows that he cant bring himself alive despite he knows its ought to be? Is that because the Seek phase never should stop? Is it like, that a truth must be seeked, found, and forget? And all that on repeat? No, but what if one cant bring himself alive? Is this illusion still working within himself?

 

[godnotgod]

What if someone is tired after keeping the illusion alive and revealed anything with the help of his untrue life? What if he is tired to live? What if he knows that he cant bring himself alive despite he knows its ought to be? Is that because the Seek phase never should stop? Is it like, that a truth must be seeked, found, and forget? And all that on repeat? No, but what if one cant bring himself alive? Is this illusion still working within himself?

Could it be that this 'self' that seeks to 'bring itself alive' is always a product of the past, and that is why it cannot do so? We collect a lifetime of images and experiences that we identify with as ourselves, as "i", but that is not who we really are. That "I" is a product of past experiences, and is an illusion. You' cannot bring what is in the past to be alive in the present. If you see that for what it is, you can then begin to shift your attention to the present moment and be truly alive, instead of focusing on something that exists only in the past. Go easy on yourself and don't worry. Take your time and enjoy this new adventure of awakening your true nature.

'That which you are seeking is causing you to seek'
Cheri Huber

 

[`mud]

Such a circle we all inscribe,
to find only the beginning!
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

God is usually thought of as being formless, so a person as we know persons he is not. That is just an anthropomorphic projection on the part of humans. I would say that we are projections of The Formless, in a similar manner that wave-forms emerge from the formless sea.

I don't see Him in form.....
I mean to say, His form is a manner of thought and feeling

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

There's no evidence of any kind concerning a cause for the universe or what started it. I can only envision it coming from nothing, or as the result of a supernatural will--and given that there's no evidence at all, that makes it an even 50-50. Several modern scientists/philosophers have backed down from their previous certain atheistic stances and admitted in essence that we can't rule out a laissez-faire God.

As for a "beginning", yes, the evidence is overwhelming that our universe had a beginning, but that's only because time is one of our dimensions. But we don't know what came "before", and that word may have no meaning if the universe was started in a quantum, timeless ether. Evidence such as quantum entanglement and dark matter/energy indicate a separate, timeless ether with which the universe is somehow associated, and may have been created into and which was preceded by it....or something. In such a timeless environment, "beginning" would have no meaning, and neither would saying that something (God) "always was".

 

[james bond]

It was not a destructive bang, but a creative one, an event in consciousness, rather than of matter, which came afterwards.

Sure, it was. I'm still waiting for the experiment to tell it all ha ha. OTOH creation has Genesis backed up by what the theories science has today. In addition, they have facts, logical reasoning and historical truths backing them up. Evolution very little, but a lot of promotional fluff and advertising claims.