A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

So you're going through a Hindu phase again? OK.

Brahman is just another word for the ground of all being. Why are you getting so apoplectic? Careful. You'll soon burst.

 

[Thief]

So your talking about the ruler metric stick version of time and refuse to talk about the time that Eisenstein version sees as time as part of a force of nature. Can you talk beyond Newton physics. As I said before seeing time as a force makes eternity more plausible, or do you believe magic has to happen when we pass?

I like Albert
and I have his book on Relativity (in terms for the layman)

I think he made error to use description of words such as .....fabric

as I stated before....
gravity, mass and movement screw with each other
each one tugs and plays to the next

as we make observation our brains cannot keep up
we simply can't
so we use numbers

Albert had an unusual brain ( the autopsy proofed it)
when discussing the concept with others not having such numerical sense........
he could only use terms a lesser mind can grasp
that includes me

but I do understand

drop a steel ball on a fabric and the weave becomes curved

yeah I get it

but time is only a measure.....not a force or substance

it's not real

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Brahman is just another word for the ground of all being.

More tautology. What exactly is "ground of all being"?

Maybe you should check this in the Hindu sub-forum first.

 

[godnotgod]

More tautology. What exactly is "ground of all being"?

Maybe you should check this in the Hindu sub-forum first.

Brahman

Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म, "the Supreme Being; the Absolute Reality; Godhead"), from the verb brh, "to grow", and connotes "immensity" — is the impersonal and immanent, infinite cause and support of the universe that has no form or attributes. The uncaused cause of the Universe; satchidānanda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss Absolute), The Eternal Changeless Reality, not conditioned by time, space and causation. Brahman is the basis, source and support of everything — the transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this universe. Its nature consists of the three incommunicable attributes of (1) sat (Absolute Being), (2) chit (Consciousness), (3) ananda (Bliss). This Supreme Being assumes a dual nature — Male and Female. The male aspect is known as Purusha which means “that-which-fills” — and the Female aspect is known as Shakti which translates as “Energy” or “Dynamic Force” or Prakriti — material nature. Also called as Paramātman (Universal Self), Parasiva, Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being or the Absolute.

also:

Brahman may be viewed as Nirguna Brahman (without personal attributes)

IOW, 'empty of inherent self-nature' = Sunyata

http://veda.wikidot.com/brahman

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Brahman

Cut the BS. Go onto the Hindu sub-forum here, and ask whether Brahman = sunyata.

Then go onto some Buddhist forums and ask the same question, I would love to see that.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Why would you think that the bbt would suggest that every explosion would create a model universe? That seems ridiculous.

 

[godnotgod]

Cut the BS. Go onto the Hindu sub-forum here, and ask whether Brahman = sunyata.

Then go onto some Buddhist forums and ask the same question, I would love to see that.

Hey der, dude. You asked about the ground of all Being, and when I answer it, you get all puffy and noxious.

I will pursue the Sunyata issue with you later.

Reality is not divided into Sunyata over here, and Brahman over there.

Now go to your room

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I will pursue the Sunyata issue with you later.

I really don't care, your ideas are ridiculous.

Go to any Buddhist forum and suggest that sunyata = Brahman, you will be laughed out of the room. Probably the same on any Hindu forum. Get a grip.

 

[Etritonakin]

My personal belief is that the universe had no beginning. Everything that is always has been. It is "recycled", after a fashion, over periods of billions, possibly trillions of years, in a grand cycle of contraction and explosion/expansion. The basis of my belief (and I admit that it IS only a belief) is the overwhelming proliferation of cyclical activity of the universe. Any planet orbiting a star - on a track toward consumption by that star, but until then ringing that star in millions upon billions of cycles. Entire galaxies rushing toward one another due to gravity's pull - eventually colliding and each individual member affecting others and creating new orbits, new cycles. The substance of any given large, planetary object continually shifting and moving - almost like water, but much, much slower. It's contents being sucked toward the center and spewed out to the surface again until the object is a near perfect sphere when seen from a distance. Even spinning - by it's definition a cycle - and one of the most prolific natural occurrences in ALL matter in the entire universe. The cycle of radioactive energies breaking down, but never truly being lost - awaiting a time when they are energized once more and made new in the culmination of the intergalactic, near-universal recycle.

I feel all of the interactions we have observed throughout the universe point to my belief. Even the idea of a "big bang" - matter being sent forth from a central "explosion" of sorts - the recycling event - even as other matter never quite made it there in time for the party. Which explains any bodies whose movement and trajectory doesn't necessarily conform to the "big bang" - because it wasn't the first, nor will it be the last.

I see collapse -or return -as the tendency, but believe it can be opposed to create stable systems -and that everything need not completely collapse and then expand again.

Actually, I believe that the force which caused everything and our universe to "expand" as it has can best be described as "will" -and that the same force can create stable systems -having first itself been or become a stable system. The Big Bang might resemble an explosion, but it is actually specific designations and laws -logic -being applied to that which existed before -whether you believe it to be preceded by design or not. We, ourselves, are proof that the system will follow its now-inherent logic unless we apply different logic to change what would otherwise happen in and to the system.

I do believe our universe -due to its specific nature -was necessarily preceded by an overall self-awareness capable -or having self-developed to be or become capable -of producing that which now exists from that which has always existed -it essentially being the mind of everything and everything essentially its body -both that which could act and that which could be acted upon and react, so on and so forth, becoming more complex together perhaps from the least complex state possible.

 

[godnotgod]

I really don't care, your ideas are ridiculous.

Go to any Buddhist forum and suggest that sunyata = Brahman, you will be laughed out of the room. Probably the same on any Hindu forum. Get a grip.

Why should I go to a Buddhist forum? I thought you had 35 years of solid Buddhish-ism under your Hinayanist belt.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why should I go to a Buddhist forum?

Because I would like to see your ridiculous ideas demolished. They wouldn't last 5 minutes.

 

[godnotgod]

Because I would like to see your ridiculous ideas demolished. They wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Demolished? But good sir, I thought that's what YOU were doing, being a Buddhish of over 35 years, while I am merely a Fake Corn Flake Box Buddhist.

Hey! I know! The Crunch of the Flake demolishes all isms! YAY!

Instant Enlightenment!



No need for a stodgy stagnant 35 years on that stinky old mat.

Now go peel your potatoes!

 

[leibowde84]

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

Do you have any evidence that would show that this is anything more than a coincidence? Just because the word "invisible" is used in a scientific theory and a description of God doesn't mean that they are related in any real way.

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?

The big bang theory is supported by countless forms of evidence and experimentation; hence the classification "scientific theory" (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation) rather than "hypotheses". And, obviously enough, because a firecracker explosion happens under completely different conditions than the big bang, there would be no reason for any scientist to conduct the experiment you mention. The BBT doesn't make claims of explosions in general. It only speaks to one specific "bang". Further, the theory of evolution doesn't speak to anything beyond speciation, so evolutionary biologists wouldn't be the experts in this area of study.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I like Albert
and I have his book on Relativity (in terms for the layman)

I think he made error to use description of words such as .....fabric

as I stated before....
gravity, mass and movement screw with each other
each one tugs and plays to the next

as we make observation our brains cannot keep up
we simply can't
so we use numbers

Albert had an unusual brain ( the autopsy proofed it)
when discussing the concept with others not having such numerical sense........
he could only use terms a lesser mind can grasp
that includes me

but I do understand

drop a steel ball on a fabric and the weave becomes curved

yeah I get it

but time is only a measure.....not a force or substance

it's not real

If you are speaking of 'space time' I must disagree! Intuitive time is of course a measure, but when physicists speak of space time they mean something different. Actually they use an upper case and lower case T to express the difference between space time and intuitive time. But I forget which 'T' is used for which version of time, l,ol! Time and space are 'interwoven' hence the fabric analogy. I think Al Ein. had the matter energy equivalency theory correct (E=MC2), it has a lot of empirical evidence and practical apps to back it up as true. However, even though most astrophysicists and cosmologists say time ie space time was created in the big bang along with gravity all mater and energy including quantum processes and zpe, I think we have something fundamentally wrong about time AND gravity including quantum gravity. But until we develop a new physics* I doubt we are going to find what is wrong anytime soon. Eh?

note......* Hawking said we need a new physics to understand what happened during and before the big bang. I agree well if we want empirical evidence. There is already metaphysical evidences and other evidences to explain 'pre big' bang goings on. Saying pre' or 'before the big bang' is a misnomer because time was created according to science in the BB, so nothing happened 'before' the big bang, but may of happened 'outside' time in the unfolding big bang universe. Or another logically valid idea is that causality of making the big bang begin happened in another realm or atemporal dimension, which is what I think is how the universe began, or was created by GID. (GID = God the intelligent designer)

 

[atanu]

Nothing is real. How else could Everything exist were it not for Nothing? Only unreal (maya) can come forth from the real. Buddhism says that all things are empty of self-nature:

form is emptiness;
emptiness is form

I am saying that Brahman is Pure Consciousness which is No-thing-ness.

See, I will not like to mix terms from different schools.

 

[atanu]

We are ALL ignorant about how/why our universe came into being. Some people fill the gap with religious belief. Is this not obvious to you?

You have taught me all through "no essence", "anatta", and "anitya" yet you alone seem to have a true view.

 

[idav]

but I do understand

drop a steel ball on a fabric and the weave becomes curved

yeah I get it

but time is only a measure.....not a force or substance

it's not real

The fabric description is simply to describe the force that is spacetime. Just like you say God is not a force and magically immaterial, you may as well describe God as nonexistent. Continuing to say time is not real doesn't make it true. There is a physics to eternity it isn't magic.

 

[godnotgod]

See, I will not like to mix terms from different schools.

I am not mixing them; I am placing them side by side for comparison.

 

[james bond]

Why would you think that the bbt would suggest that every explosion would create a model universe? That seems ridiculous.

We're in agreement. Every explosion we've witnessed has destroyed things. Firecrackers destroy the peace. What makes anyone think it would create something? We just had another 4th of July and no reports of any universe being created. The LHC did not create anything new. Just showed us particles that were already there, but tightly bound. Thus, the simplest explanation is some creator created the universe.

 

[james bond]

Do you have any evidence that would show that this is anything more than a coincidence? Just because the word "invisible" is used in a scientific theory and a description of God doesn't mean that they are related in any real way.

The big bang theory is supported by countless forms of evidence and experimentation; hence the classification "scientific theory" (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation) rather than "hypotheses". And, obviously enough, because a firecracker explosion happens under completely different conditions than the big bang, there would be no reason for any scientist to conduct the experiment you mention. The BBT doesn't make claims of explosions in general. It only speaks to one specific "bang". Further, the theory of evolution doesn't speak to anything beyond speciation, so evolutionary biologists wouldn't be the experts in this area of study.

I didn't say they were related. It's one theory vs the other. One evidence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Plenty of others.

What experiments and evidence? I've asked for it and no one has provided it. Maybe you can shed some light on us ignorant creation folks.

Maybe you're confused about creation and the BBT. The creation scientists do not believe in the BBT. However, it is the best theory so far since the eternal universe theory. A lot of it backs up what's stated in Genesis. The BBT is more closer to creation than an eternal universe. That's when I became interested in creation.

Obviously, God didn't need to provide a "BANG." So what you're saying supports the Bible, as well.