A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

Honestly I don't normally engage young souls since they are yet unaware of what and who they really are, but if they like to challenge me as you do, I am happy to oblige. And in this case, i use logic and reasoning to point out your weak points wrt your simplistic materialist belief system. Unfortunately it turns out it is mostly a waste of time as you lack the understanding to grok what is being conveyed to you.

You do realise that anyone can use logic and reasoning, and since logic and reasoning are using human convention, if the person has agenda, then there is greater probability that person is not impartial or objective in his reasoning.

For instance, two schools of philosophies can use their logic and reasoning in their claims, but how do you determine which school has a better argument have the argument?

You cannot have one side or the other being their own judge, since each side will be biased, and favoured their own side.

Another example would be have teams of Christians, Muslims and Hindus. How would you judge, which religion is the superior religion? Do you any side would be fair and impartial?

Do you see where I am getting at?

Logic and reasoning have their merits, but where two or more schools of thoughts competing against each other, then who's logic would win? Do you think any side would not be biased?

You can keep your logic, Ben. If you truly want to convince me of anything, then please present your evidences. I don't trust your words and I don't trust you being unbiased using logic or reasoning.

 

[`mud]

ahhhhh...an hour.....a minute....seconds....
and of course.....`now` !
What comes before `now`.....what's before and after ?
How much 'time' can fit into this `now` ?
Also....from where did it come ?

 

[gnostic]

The gross physical can not detect the subtle. It may be like trying to catch an atom with a butterfly net.

I understand what you getting at. But we know atom exist, and net would be my choice of tool to use.

But atoms can be detected by other mean, even if you cannot see it with your own eye. Atoms can be measured. For example a mass spectrometer can breakdown materials down to molecules and elements.

But something like soul, isn't at all detectable, simply because they don't exist any more than demon or angel or fairy would exist.

The soul is not so much as subtle, it is more like they are nonexistent.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry but you cannot possible know the force or energy, without knowing the acceleration or the velocity, and these required knowing the time.

 

[George-ananda]

I understand what you getting at. But we know atom exist, and net would be my choice of tool to use.

But atoms can be detected by other mean, even if you cannot see it with your own eye. Atoms can be measured. For example a mass spectrometer can breakdown materials down to molecules and elements.

But something like soul, isn't at all detectable, simply because they don't exist any more than demon or angel or fairy would exist.

The soul is not so much as subtle, it is more like they are nonexistent.

I am taken by the fact that 95% of the universe is not directly detectable by the methods you are talking about (dark matter/energy). There appears to be dimensions beyond where our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments can reach.

Also I mentioned evidence (paranormal) from the human experience in my reply. After decades of interest, I am convinced that events colloquially called paranormal have occurred from the quantity, quality and consistency of the accumulated evidence. Also, I have come to believe that we all have psychic senses that reach beyond our normal three-dimensional world and those most gifted with these senses can tell us of astral bodies and souls and etc..

We each need to seriously consider the evidence for ourselves and form our own beliefs.

 

[idav]

And how does a sun dial measure time?

Thats not really measuring time, it's measuring change, there's a difference.

 

[ChristineM]

Haha.....you are so disingenuous, how do you live with yourself? I merely stated that there is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice. #4255 You replied by saying no, stilling the mind was not a religious practice, just a practice. #4259 This poster has practiced religious meditation and realized a still mind, get over it,

And still, i provided proof that transcendence is not necessarily a religious practice. Why do you feel you have the right to bar non religious people?

 

[ChristineM]

You are misunderstanding. I realize that is the scientific definition of space, which also includes the word 'concept', but that does not mean I was posting it because I agree with that definition. No. I do not agree that the dimensions of height, width, and depth are what space is at all. As I said, those dimensions are concepts superimposed over what we physically perceive as 'space'. They are not intrinsic to space, as you (and science) claim.

Where does your consciousness end and 'space' begin?

I am misunderstanding nothing. I responded directly to your post. Who gives a toss what magic you believe? I will believe evidence, the definition and the fact

 

[ChristineM]

What voices?

Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism, and is considered by some to be a religion, not by others.

The voices telling you nonsense.

Buddhism is not a religion according to its founder, nor its concepts. If people want to distort Buddhism to massage their own egos that's up to them

 

[ChristineM]

Of course I disagree that we are related to apes and monkeys. He meant that without the Numinous we are primates, not that we are primates.

Pity genetics disagrees with you. We are descended from apes, not monkeys, but if you feel better by distorting fact that is entirely up to you to rationalise

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, it was created to be humorous and posted as a joke. How does it feel to have somebody make fun of atheism?

Yes i did realise that, a creationist's joke of little substance and no fact
But whatever turns you on eh?

 

[godnotgod]

I am misunderstanding nothing. I responded directly to your post. Who gives a toss what magic you believe? I will believe evidence, the definition and the fact

I have no problem with evidence and facts. But dimensions of height, width, and depth are not facts about space; they are facts about the measurements we superimpose over something we call 'space'. But 'space' is not a reality that can be apprehended in any tangible way that can be measured. There is nothing you can derive directly from space itself that yields any fact that says it is the dimension of height, width, and depth. Even science qualifies it's definition by carefully calling it a 'concept'.

The direct experience of space, without any thought in mind about what you are experiencing, is not a belief, since space is not a doctrine that one can hold a belief about, and since belief requires the formulation of thought in order to become belief. This direct experience of space is not about what you think, as in 'the concept of space', but about what you see directly via consciousness.

Where does your consciousness end and space begin?

 

[godnotgod]

The voices telling you nonsense.

Buddhism is not a religion according to its founder, nor its concepts. If people want to distort Buddhism to massage their own egos that's up to them

There was no existent teaching called 'Buddhism' when the Buddha realized his Enlightenment, so how could he (ie the founder) have denied that it was a religion? But Buddhism, as well as Zen, have indeed become religions as we know them today.

The only voice telling me nonsense is the one coming from you.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   sect, church, cult, denomination
   "the freedom to practice their own religion"
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.*
     "consumerism is the new religion"
   *as in the pursuit of Enlightenment, a central Buddhist teaching.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do realise that anyone can use logic and reasoning, and since logic and reasoning are using human convention, if the person has agenda, then there is greater probability that person is not impartial or objective in his reasoning.

For instance, two schools of philosophies can use their logic and reasoning in their claims, but how do you determine which school has a better argument have the argument?

You cannot have one side or the other being their own judge, since each side will be biased, and favoured their own side.

Another example would be have teams of Christians, Muslims and Hindus. How would you judge, which religion is the superior religion? Do you any side would be fair and impartial?

Do you see where I am getting at?

Logic and reasoning have their merits, but where two or more schools of thoughts competing against each other, then who's logic would win? Do you think any side would not be biased?

You can keep your logic, Ben. If you truly want to convince me of anything, then please present your evidences. I don't trust your words and I don't trust you being unbiased using logic or reasoning.

I have no idea why you are now on a rambling discordant discourse on logic, it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you because you seem not to understand the importance of context. And now please spare me a rambling incoherent discourse on 'context'. The point at issue is that the concept of soul refers to an immaterial essence of a human being, that can not be detected by physical senses or means. As a materialist, your narrow mindset is not open to an area of vibration that will eventually be realized when the prerequisite conditions are present.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thats not really measuring time, it's measuring change, there's a difference.

It was you who said that is how you could know how an hour had passed so you could wake up your friend. Now you say the sun dial does not measure time, it measures change. I totally agree

So what does a mechanical clock measure? What does a quartz crystal clock measure?

 

[ChristineM]

I have no problem with evidence and facts. But dimensions of height, width, and depth are not facts about space; they are facts about how we measure space. There is nothing you can derive directly from space itself that yields any fact that says it is dimensions of height, width, and depth. Even science qualifies it's definition by carefully calling it a 'concept'.

The direct experience of space, without any thought in mind about what you are experiencing, is not a belief, since space is not a doctrine that one can hold a belief about, and since belief requires the formulation of thought in order to become belief. This direct experience of space is not about what you think, as in 'the concept of space', but about what you see directly via consciousness.

Where does your consciousness end and space begin?

Pity the scientific definition and just about every one else in the world don't agree with you.

 

[ChristineM]

There was no existent teaching called 'Buddhism' when the Buddha realized his Enlightenment, so how could he (ie the founder) have denied that it was a religion? But Buddhism, as well as Zen, have indeed become religions as we know them today.

The only voice telling me nonsense is the one coming from you.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   sect, church, cult, denomination
   "the freedom to practice their own religion"
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.*
     "consumerism is the new religion"
   *as in the pursuit of Enlightenment, a central Buddhist teaching.

Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And still, i provided proof that transcendence is not necessarily a religious practice. Why do you feel you have the right to bar non religious people?

I do not bar anyone from anything, you said my religious practice of stilling the mind was not a religious practice, just a practice. If you did not mean that, but that non-religious people are capable of doing still mind meditation, then say so and I will understand.

 

[godnotgod]

Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not."

Yes, but in the process of rational examination, what becomes true about his teachings does not result in a rational explanation that can be demonstrated via Logic, Reason, or Analysis; it results in a radical transformation of consciousness in which what one thought to be 'reality', is not the true Reality, ie; 'the way things are', and which cannot be rationally explained, because to see 'the way things are' is an experience beyond the thinking mind. He said 'to SEE the way things are'; and not to THINK about how they are.

One of the definitions of 'religion' that I posted above says:

"a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

....such as the Buddhist pursuit of the experience of Enlightenment, which is a pursuit of happiness, a general pursuit of all religious endeavors.

 

[godnotgod]

Pity the scientific definition and just about every one else in the world don't agree with you.

I have no problem with the scientific definition as it applies to science, but it does not tell me what space actually is. If you want to know what space actually IS, you need to transcend all definitions, while recognizing the mistaking of the definition for the reality.

Science can describe me in terms of certain characteristics and behaviors, such as hair and eye color, height, weight, and my activities, even my psychology, but that is not who I am; that is only my identity. My true nature is beyond all identification, just as space is beyond all description.