A Universe from Nothing?

[james bond]

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that creation happened. Take two coins with a heads and a tails side and we flip them 100 times. If you get a head and a tail, then you win, but I win if the coins land two heads or two tails. Even if we increase the number of coins to 1000, we can still determine who won or lost because the outcome is simple. Now, suppose we have a small model car made up of 25 parts that can be taken apart and assembled in short-time. It means that some intelligence designed it so it can be put together and taken apart. Let's put the 25 parts in a bucket and toss it, but the chances of it forming the small model car is negligible. It won't happen in thousands of tries. One will just give up. Thus, the universe being creating from nothing or invisible parts is negligible. Even if quantum particles were to collide and provide a quantum explosion, we have found from the LHC that it takes a tremendous amount of energy. One can't create energy from quantum particles, so where did such energy come from. Even if there was such energy, why did it create a system where energy is conserved, i.e. something like that could not happen again?

 

[godnotgod]

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that creation happened. Take two coins with a heads and a tails side and we flip them 100 times. If you get a head and a tail, then you win, but I win if the coins land two heads or two tails. Even if we increase the number of coins to 1000, we can still determine who won or lost because the outcome is simple. Now, suppose we have a small model car made up of 25 parts that can be taken apart and assembled in short-time. It means that some intelligence designed it so it can be put together and taken apart. Let's put the 25 parts in a bucket and toss it, but the chances of it forming the small model car is negligible. It won't happen in thousands of tries. One will just give up. Thus, the universe being creating from nothing or invisible parts is negligible. Even if quantum particles were to collide and provide a quantum explosion, we have found from the LHC that it takes a tremendous amount of energy. One can't create energy from quantum particles, so where did such energy come from. Even if there was such energy, why did it create a system where energy is conserved, i.e. something like that could not happen again?

A car is an artefact. The universe is not an artefact. It was not made, but was grown.

Maybe the potential for Everything is already present in Nothing, like the potential for light is present prior to the flipping of the switch.
Every time you flip the switch you get the same result: light. But with the Universe, every time it comes around, it perhaps is unique each time, like snowflakes are unique.

 

[james bond]

A car is an artefact. The universe is not an artefact. It was not made, but was grown.

Maybe the potential for Everything is already present in Nothing, like the potential for light is present prior to the flipping of the switch.
Every time you flip the switch you get the same result: light. But with the Universe, every time it comes around, it perhaps is unique each time, like snowflakes are unique.

All right. I'll assume that we have this potential for growth in invisible particles or nothing, but I have a hard time believing that these particles are living organisms. If that is the case, then we should see more universes or whatever you want to grow all around us just like snowflakes will appear when certain conditions are met. Even with visible light and the switch, the potential may be there, but underneath wouldn't someone had to have created the switch, visible light, electricity, etc.? If you want a living organism, then we have to have a protein or the basic building block of life, but protein is complex. It can only be created within a cell and not outside. Thus, isn't the difference in the complexity or the simplicity?

 

[godnotgod]

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

"God is absolute nothingness (mattaku mu). However, if one says that God is merely nothingness (tan ni mu), this is certainly not so. At the base of the establishment of reality there is the unifying function which clearly cannot be moved. … God… is the basis of reality, and only because He is able to be Nothingness, is there no place whatsoever where He is not. (357-8)

Takeuchi, who designated absolute nothingness as "the place of encounter," asks, "How are being-itself and absolute negatively related in God or in the Absolute?" He answers:


God is at once Being-itself and Absolute Nothingness. It is understandable that I prefer the latter designation, because absolute nothingness as Absolute Negativity (that is, the negation of negation) at the same time implies the former, the affirmative. (Waldenfels, 388)

God as nothing is also found in certain western mystics. Harry Weinberg surveys this equation in the west:

As the Christian mystics state, 'God is Nothing' He is Utterly Other; He is the VOID.' Eckhart proclaims, 'Thou shalt love God as He is, a Non-God, a Non-Spirit, a Non-Person, a Non-Form.' Tauler describes God as 'The divine darkness, the nameless, formless nothing.' In Jewish mysticism we find frequent reference to the conception of God as Nothing. It is when these mystics proceed to making affirmative statements about the nature of God that misevaluation occurs. God cannot exist in the sense that we normally mean existence. As with things, whatever we say God is, he is not. (Weinberg, 248-9)

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

 

[godnotgod]

All right. I'll assume that we have this potential for growth in invisible particles or nothing, but I have a hard time believing that these particles are living organisms. If that is the case, then we should see more universes or whatever you want to grow all around us just like snowflakes will appear when certain conditions are met. Even with visible light and the switch, the potential may be there, but underneath wouldn't someone had to have created the switch, visible light, electricity, etc.? If you want a living organism, then we have to have a protein or the basic building block of life, but protein is complex. It can only be created within a cell and not outside. Thus, isn't the difference in the complexity or the simplicity?

Think of it as Consciousness manifesting (playing) itself as all forms. It is not the atom or particle that is conscious, but That which is behind it, manifesting itself as such. The particle is the foreground; Consciousness the background, out of which Everything comes.

When you look into this world, you see great variety. So the snowflake metaphor refers to this great variety, but not of earthly forms, but of incarnations of the universe, 'universe' here meaning Everything, including all multiverses and intergalactic space.

 

[Thief]

"God is absolute nothingness (mattaku mu). However, if one says that God is merely nothingness (tan ni mu), this is certainly not so. At the base of the establishment of reality there is the unifying function which clearly cannot be moved. … God… is the basis of reality, and only because He is able to be Nothingness, is there no place whatsoever where He is not. (357-8)

Takeuchi, who designated absolute nothingness as "the place of encounter," asks, "How are being-itself and absolute negatively related in God or in the Absolute?" He answers:


God is at once Being-itself and Absolute Nothingness. It is understandable that I prefer the latter designation, because absolute nothingness as Absolute Negativity (that is, the negation of negation) at the same time implies the former, the affirmative. (Waldenfels, 388)

God as nothing is also found in certain western mystics. Harry Weinberg surveys this equation in the west:

As the Christian mystics state, 'God is Nothing' He is Utterly Other; He is the VOID.' Eckhart proclaims, 'Thou shalt love God as He is, a Non-God, a Non-Spirit, a Non-Person, a Non-Form.' Tauler describes God as 'The divine darkness, the nameless, formless nothing.' In Jewish mysticism we find frequent reference to the conception of God as Nothing. It is when these mystics proceed to making affirmative statements about the nature of God that misevaluation occurs. God cannot exist in the sense that we normally mean existence. As with things, whatever we say God is, he is not. (Weinberg, 248-9)

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

the God I believe in has been reported able to say.....I AM!
that takes away the 'nothing' concept

 

[godnotgod]

the God I believe in has been reported able to say.....I AM!
that takes away the 'nothing' concept

Yeshu does not mean a personal self as in 'I'. He means a universal Self, which is That, whose nature is No-Thing. When Yeshu said:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

He meant he was not a product of history, like Abraham was, subject to birth and death. He meant that his true nature lives only in this timeless Present Moment. If you are born and die, you live in time and space. This is existence. But if you come out of that which is Unborn, not in time and space, you are Being. Being cannot be contained as it is not a finite 'thing'. It is No-Thing-ness, the true nature of the divine.

 

[Thief]

Yeshu does not mean a personal self as in 'I'. He means a universal Self, which is That, whose nature is No-Thing. When Yeshu said:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

He meant he was not a product of history, like Abraham was, subject to birth and death. He meant that his true nature lives only in this timeless Present Moment. If you are born and die, you live in time and space. This is existence. But if you come out of that which is Unborn, not in time and space, you are Being. Being cannot be contained as it is not a finite 'thing'. It is No-Thing-ness, the true nature of the divine.

time does not exist.....
wrong reference to lean to

 

[Ben Dhyan]

time does not exist.....
wrong reference to lean to

But that was presaged by.....John 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”.. So Jesus explained that I AM is not governed by time...I AM is timeless...

 

[Thief]

But that was presaged by.....John 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”.. So Jesus explained that I AM is not governed by time...I AM is timeless...

could also be meant to say.......having read scripture.....

I see have Abraham.....means to understand him

I have seen Job.......I understand him

 

[Ben Dhyan]

could also be meant to say.......having read scripture.....

I see have Abraham.....means to understand him

I have seen Job.......I understand him

But Jesus never said he had seen Abraham some time in the past...that implication was in the question from the Jews....He explained...'Before "Abraham, I AM"' meaning I AM always.....eternal.

 

[Thief]

But Jesus never said he had seen Abraham some time in the past...that implication was in the question from the Jews....He explained...'Before "Abraham, I AM"' meaning I AM always.....eternal.

and God would be before Abraham...and eternal....

(any chance of a translation problem?)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

and God would be before Abraham...and eternal....

(any chance of a translation problem?)

No problem....the 'before' was to address the context of the profane Jews who do not understand the reality represented by the concept of timelessness....'I AM' is for those with 'eyes to see' who do understand....

 

[ak.yonathan]

Quantum theory states that the universe had no beginning. The Big Bang was just an excitation from the ground state.

 

[Thief]

Quantum theory states that the universe had no beginning. The Big Bang was just an excitation from the ground state.

ground state.....so to speak.....equals starting point

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ground state.....so to speak.....equals starting point

Starting implies time....time is a mortal mind's conception...timelessness is eternal...

 

[godnotgod]

Quantum theory states that the universe had no beginning. The Big Bang was just an excitation from the ground state.

ground state.....so to speak.....equals starting point

Not 'starting point', but 'Source', as in 'Unified Field'; 'Ground of All Being'; 'Tao'; 'Brahman', etc. The question is: Is the Source conscious?

 

[Thief]

Starting implies time....time is a mortal mind's conception...timelessness is eternal...

ok...but....
the singularity is a sharp 'point'....

time is a measure of movement
and everything is moving

time is a measure
Man-made and cognitive
not a substance or a force

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ok...but....
the singularity is a sharp 'point'....

time is a measure of movement
and everything is moving

time is a measure
Man-made and cognitive
not a substance or a force

About time....agree!

About a sharp point...what about it? Do you imagine that God hung around for an eternity of eternities in non-dual existence..... and suddenly a mere 15 billion years ago it occurred to Him to make something from nothing to create duality....and now there is God and that which is not God.?

 

[idav]

time is a measure
Man-made and cognitive
not a substance or a force

Its not about a watch and measuring. Sure that cognitive tool exists but so does time as a force of some sort.

Its called fourth dimensional space.