A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

I have never said that Christians were *snip*.....

.

The point of the discussion was that even large numbers of people can be fooled into believing things that aren't true.

 

[Ponder This]

Yes, but in the context of the way you used it, as the opposite of nothing, I am asking you if this 'something' is real, 'something' to mean the material Universe.

I used the word 'something' to explain how we actually understand what 'nothing' is.

We understand a thing to be a (material) object. So to say that the universe originated from nothing is to say that the universe didn't originate from a material object.

So in this case, I am using the word 'something' to refer to a hypothetical material object from which the universe originated and interpreting the statement to mean that this hypothetical material object wasn't there (aka nothing there). So the something that I am referring to is not real. It never existed.

If I take the word 'nothing' to simply refer to the absence of the universe, then it is a tautology. Of course there was no universe before there was a universe (assuming there was a point before the universe was).

More precisely, I don't take the phrase 'the origin of the universe from nothing' to mean that non-material forces (such as a God) were not present. This may seem like an exception, but it really comes down to how we resolve the meaning of the word 'thing' because 'thing' can be encompassing enough to include ideas and non-material spirit entities, or it could be used to refer simply to material objects. I believe it is being used to refer to the latter definition: inanimate material objects as distinct from living sentient beings.

reality is real......

seems circular in having to say so

Agreed.

 

[godnotgod]

I used the word 'something' to explain how we actually understand what 'nothing' is.

We understand a thing to be a (material) object. So to say that the universe originated from nothing is to say that the universe didn't originate from a material object.

So in this case, I am using the word 'something' to refer to a hypothetical material object from which the universe originated and interpreting the statement to mean that this hypothetical material object wasn't there (aka nothing there). So the something that I am referring to is not real. It never existed.

If I take the word 'nothing' to simply refer to the absence of the universe, then it is a tautology. Of course there was no universe before there was a universe (assuming there was a point before the universe was).

More precisely, I don't take the phrase 'the origin of the universe from nothing' to mean that non-material forces (such as a God) were not present. This may seem like an exception, but it really comes down to how we resolve the meaning of the word 'thing' because 'thing' can be encompassing enough to include ideas and non-material spirit entities, or it could be used to refer simply to material objects. I believe it is being used to refer to the latter definition: inanimate material objects as distinct from living sentient beings.

Look, can you just tell me if what is called 'the material universe' we live in today is real or not. That's all. Ordinarily, we would definitely refer to it as 'something', correct?

 

[ChristineM]

I told you several times I did not agree with the scientific definition as you presented it: the dimensions of height, width, and depth, and saying that 'space is those dimensions'. As I also said, at least science itself qualifies its definition by calling it a 'concept'. Space itself is indefinable.



That has nothing to do with my question, which, once again is:

"Where does your consciousness leave off and space begin?"

So prior to defining it as 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth', there is an awareness of something that exists called 'space'. What is it prior to defining it in conceptual terms?

Not as i presented it but as it is defined

I answered your question, you choose to ignore it, that says much about you

 

[ChristineM]

Do you think the doctrine of reincarnation or rebirth is a secular teaching or religious?

Straw man

 

[ChristineM]

My question has nothing to do with anything from the link, I am asking you if you still believe my still mind meditation practice is not a religious practice?

Then why ask, where in that link???

 

[ChristineM]

You are missing the point about Hitler as it relates to the discussion. Like Christians, who believe in the myth of the Romanized 'Jesus' which is essentially a lie, Germans also believed in the dual myth of German racial superiority as it relates to Jewish racial inferiority, ie 'untermenschen'. In both cases, the believers also acted on those beliefs, with devastating consequences for their scapegoats. Hitler's 'popularity' only came about due to a large enough quantity of people believing in his lies, just as Christians truly believe that the Jesus of Paul is the real McCoy.

You are twisting my words. I never said that 'space is a human concept'; I said that science defines space as a concept, and that 2.2 billion Christians believe in what is essentially a myth, because the real man, Yeshua, a Nazarene, who belongs to a Jewish mystical cult, never taught the doctrines of blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, nor that of the virgin birth, doctrines that had been overwritten onto the authentic teachings of Yeshua.

I read Maccoby's 'Mythmaker', which states that Paul created the myth from the 3 elements I previously posted.

There was neither a Jesus nor a 1st century Nazareth.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

...but there are today 2.2 billion Christians who fell for that story, hook, line, and sinker.

It had no relationship to the discussion hence my reply.

You read it? Interesting, i had a hand in compiling some of the data used in the book.

 

[ChristineM]

I never made any allusion to any such 'dedication to do what is best'; what I said was that "the religion part is the work that one does toward the goal of the experience.", that is to say "the experience of spiritual awakening". Do you understand the difference between what you said and what I said?



Sure, that is one definition of 'religion'. Another is:

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



Zen Is a Religion

Rev. Master Jiyu-Kennett*

I am sure you’ve noticed by now that I’ve been talking about Zen as a religion, and yet some of you may have heard that all of Buddhism, and especially Zen, is atheistic. It is not. You’ve heard this due to the fact that the Christian missionaries who brought back the Scriptures from the Far East either did not know of, or deliberately steered clear of, one particular Scripture spoken by the Buddha. In the Udana Scripture He says very clearly, “O monks, there is an Unborn, Undying, Unchanging, Uncreated.”1 This is what He found in meditation and which gave Him His enlightenment. In other words, He found That Which Is. What the Christians call “God” and Mohammedans call “Allah”, the Buddhists call variably: That Which Is, the Lord of the House, the Cosmic Buddha, the Eternal, Amida Buddha, the Immaculacy of Emptiness, Vairocana Buddha, the Unborn, etc.2 The terms we use for It don’t really matter: they’re just labels, just concepts.

*Soto Zen Master

I think a Buddhist Zen Master's assessment as to whether Zen or Buddhism are religions carries far more weight than your anemic and narrow view.

Rest of article here:

Dharma Articles - Zen is a Religion

Interesting that you copy and paste to fill up space while i post links directly to leading Buddhist sites.

ZEN BUDDHISM | What is Zen?

Zen is not a religion.

 

[Ponder This]

Look, can you just tell me if what is called 'the material universe' we live in today is real or not. That's all. Ordinarily, we would definitely refer to it as 'something', correct?

You want me to tell you? Okay.

Something is real if it is actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
The universe is all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
Because the universe is defined as something that exists, it follows that it is real by definition.

Although we think about the universe as a something, it's usually more precise to refer to it as everything (as in all things) rather than a something. The usage is, of course, contextual.

The fact that you asked me if the universe was real or not suggests to me that you question the accepted understanding and definition of what the universe is. I hope you will forgive me if I don't immediately see where you are going with this line of questioning and I am sorry if my answer is not what you were looking for.

As it stands, I have no particular reason to question whether or not the universe is real nor reason to regard my own existence as imaginary in the absence of a compelling context in which to do so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Straw man

Not a strawman, you believe Buddhism is not a religion, and since Buddhism teaches reincarnation/rebirth, to be consistent it would follow that you would believe that reincarnation/rebirth is not a religious teaching. Just answer the question and don't try and obfuscate further.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then why ask, where in that link???

Huh...the link has nothing to do with it! You claimed my religious practice was merely a practice, not religious. The link came later after the fact as a lame attempt to obfuscate your obvious erroneous claim. So stop referring to a link that is totally irrelevant to your claim that I am only doing secular practice, and not religious and admit your error.

Is English your second language, it seems you have a problem much like gnosis in understanding context?

 

[Thief]

I used the word 'something' to explain how we actually understand what 'nothing' is.

We understand a thing to be a (material) object. So to say that the universe originated from nothing is to say that the universe didn't originate from a material object.

So in this case, I am using the word 'something' to refer to a hypothetical material object from which the universe originated and interpreting the statement to mean that this hypothetical material object wasn't there (aka nothing there). So the something that I am referring to is not real. It never existed.

If I take the word 'nothing' to simply refer to the absence of the universe, then it is a tautology. Of course there was no universe before there was a universe (assuming there was a point before the universe was).

More precisely, I don't take the phrase 'the origin of the universe from nothing' to mean that non-material forces (such as a God) were not present. This may seem like an exception, but it really comes down to how we resolve the meaning of the word 'thing' because 'thing' can be encompassing enough to include ideas and non-material spirit entities, or it could be used to refer simply to material objects. I believe it is being used to refer to the latter definition: inanimate material objects as distinct from living sentient beings.



Agreed.

so....would that be?.....Spirit first
as in ...Creator

 

[godnotgod]

Something is real if it is actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
The universe is all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
Because the universe is defined as something that exists, it follows that it is real by definition.
.

When you are in a dream, you do not know you are dreaming, and the dream world is absolutely real to you, but upon awakening, you discover that your dream-world was not, in fact, real. Is that so?

 

[godnotgod]

Interesting that you copy and paste to fill up space while i post links directly to leading Buddhist sites.

ZEN BUDDHISM | What is Zen?

Zen is not a religion.

You keep forgetting my position, which is that whether Zen and Buddhism are religions is debatable, as I first indicated. The space filled above says that Zen and Buddhism are indeed religions, as explained by a Soto Zen Master. But your problem is that you are still looking at the question from a POV that is non-transcendent, and so you only have an intellectual understanding of what the Zen Master is pointing to that is equivalent to 'God' in the Buddhist world. All you know is your narrow definition and ignore everything else, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

 

[gnostic]

When you are in a dream, you do not know you are dreaming, and the dream world is absolutely real to you, but upon awakening, you discover that your dream-world was not, in fact, real. Is that so?

Except that the universe is not a dream, so it is really not a good comparison.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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?

Which scientific theories claim this? Why either nothing or an originator?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which scientific theories claim this? Why either nothing or an originator?

He does also ask the question, "Who believes the universe has no beginning?". so that is a third option.

 

[godnotgod]

Except that the universe is not a dream, so it is really not a good comparison.

When dreaming, the universe you experience is real, absolutely. But upon awakening, you realize the illusory quality of the dream, which vanishes. On the ordinary, everyday level of wakefulness, the universe is real to us, absolutely, but upon awakening to a yet higher level of wakefulness, it is clearly seen that the universe we were so convinced to be real, now appears strangely unreal, even though it does NOT vanish, making it far more difficult to detect as illusory.

You seem pretty certain that the universe is not a dream; that it is real. What criteria are you applying to it that renders it real to you?

 

[ChristineM]

Not a strawman, you believe Buddhism is not a religion, and since Buddhism teaches reincarnation/rebirth, to be consistent it would follow that you would believe that reincarnation/rebirth is not a religious teaching. Just answer the question and don't try and obfuscate further.

Wt* has "reincarnation/rebirth" to do with Deity worship?

Obfuscate? Who is the one telling porky pies about what i posted? Who is the one claiming reincarnation and rebirth are god worship?

You want to accuse me of your faults then you need to be much more clever...

 

[ChristineM]

Huh...the link has nothing to do with it! You claimed my religious practice was merely a practice, not religious. The link came later after the fact as a lame attempt to obfuscate your obvious erroneous claim. So stop referring to a link that is totally irrelevant to your claim that I am only doing secular practice, and not religious and admit your error.

Is English your second language, it seems you have a problem much like gnosis in understanding context?

Rubbish, you made a claim and i provided a link to disprove your claim. The link has everything to do with it despite the fact you wish it was not there.