A Universe from Nothing?

[DavidFirth]

Well, you see, it all started like this:

First, we had nothing. Then nothing became more nothings. Before we knew it, there were enough nothings to make a something. Then, wa-la, we have a universe!

 

[ChristineM]

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.

You have an opinion, not a position.

Your zen master seems to be inventing gods.

P.s. for every zen master you posted (1) i responded with 2.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, you see, it all started like this:

First, we had nothing. Then nothing became more nothings. Before we knew it, there were enough nothings to make a something. Then, wa-la, we have a universe!

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

So not wa-la but Wuhan, the Wuhan institute to be precise

While you are you creationist god magic rant, could you tell us what your god magicked the universe from? And where did he stand while doing it.

I've asked you this before but it seems you ignored it.

 

[godnotgod]

Except that the universe is not a dream....

Which criteria are you using to determine that the universe is real?

 

[godnotgod]

You have an opinion, not a position.

Your zen master seems to be inventing gods.

P.s. for every zen master you posted (1) i responded with 2.

So you think sheer numbers trump content.

The Zen Master is inventing no such gods. You have missed the point of the Zen Master, which is that:

"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."

You, like gnostic, are having problems with comprehension.

Once again, whether Zen and Buddhism are religions or not is debatable, depending on your criteria as to what constitutes 'religion'. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding this simple point?

 

[godnotgod]

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.

So what? The point is that what I posted about Paul synthesizing the myth of Jesus using the 3 elements of Jewish history, the descending Logos, and the dying/resurrecting god-man was taken from that book. You seem to disagree with that?

'Compiling data' is not writing content.

 

[Ponder This]

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

If we assume the universe originated from nothing (no material object), then that doesn't rule out the possibility of supra-material origins (such as spirits or gods). We might also consider if the universe arose spontaneously (without apparent external cause).

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?

Is it?

 

[metis]

If we assume the universe originated from nothing (no material object), then that doesn't rule out the possibility of supra-material origins (such as spirits or gods). We might also consider if the universe arose spontaneously (without apparent external cause).

Or that the answer may be "infinity", which is only slightly older than I am?

 

[DavidFirth]

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

So not wa-la but Wuhan, the Wuhan institute to be precise

While you are you creationist god magic rant, could you tell us what your god magicked the universe from? And where did he stand while doing it.

I've asked you this before but it seems you ignored it.

Well, you have Genesis 1:1. Just read on from there.

 

[`mud]

And from David comes a lot of 'nothings' and then came 'something'.
I guess the 'something' formed a 'container' about which the 'singularity' was held.
Sillingness becomes more silliness !
~
Again I ask: from where did the water come, before Genesis !

 

[godnotgod]

If we assume the universe originated from nothing (no material object), then that doesn't rule out the possibility of supra-material origins (such as spirits or gods). We might also consider if the universe arose spontaneously (without apparent external cause).



Is it?

I want you to confirm what I said, if it is indeed the case. Can you do that?

 

[ChristineM]

So you think sheer numbers trump content.

The Zen Master is inventing no such gods. You have missed the point of the Zen Master, which is that:

"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."

You, like gnostic, are having problems with comprehension.

Once again, whether Zen and Buddhism are religions or not is debatable, depending on your criteria as to what constitutes 'religion'. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding this simple point?

The content of my links was more valid, reason being they agree with the founder.

Nerada Thera : It [Buddhism] is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Your guy may choose to call variable phrases a supernatural being, most people call it a variable phrase.

The criteria of religion is defined in the definition. Its not faith in variable phrases but faith in a (or more) supernatural beings.

 

[ChristineM]

So what? The point is that what I posted about Paul synthesizing the myth of Jesus using the 3 elements of Jewish history, the descending Logos, and the dying/resurrecting god-man was taken from that book. You seem to disagree with that?

'Compiling data' is not writing content.

Where did i disagree? I simply put forward an alternative tale, one which has hard evidence to back it up

That me drear is why i did not infer that i wrote it, you have a problem with that?

 

[ChristineM]

Well, you have Genesis 1:1. Just read on from there.

Yup, what does Genesis 1:2 say about void... Look it up

 

[DavidFirth]

And from David comes a lot of 'nothings' and then came 'something'.
I guess the 'something' formed a 'container' about which the 'singularity' was held.
Sillingness becomes more silliness !
~
Again I ask: from where did the water come, before Genesis !

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yup, what does Genesis 1:2 say about void... Look it up

I'm not the one asking about it, you are.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not the one asking about it, you are.

Interesting reply, completely lacking in reason while hedging having to give a valid reply.

You are the one making statements to mock science on the subject of a universe from nothing. Yet your bible claims your god did exactly that.

And you are unwilling to defend your stance.

 

[ChristineM]

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Ahh truly falsifiable evidence.

 

[DavidFirth]

Interesting reply, completely lacking in reason while hedging having to give a valid reply.

You are the one making statements to mock science on the subject of a universe from nothing. Yet your bible claims your god did exactly that.

And you are unwilling to defend your stance.

I don't have a stance. That post was obviously made in jest. Of course I don't believe that you believe in the content of that post.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do have a sense of humor.

 

[DavidFirth]

Ahh truly falsifiable evidence.

You could falsify it, I guess, if you wanted to.