A Universe from Nothing?

[loverofhumanity]

Amitabha is a later Mahayana idea which came up with the Second Buddhist Council. Hinayana does not accept Amitabha. As for Baha'u'llah, establishing one's own religion is like establishing a business. It takes care of the person's future generations. Two generations of Baha'u'llah benefited by that till the time it went dry.

Nevertheless it's true. The new Buddha which has arisen, His Words are truth and enlightenment.

Each time a new Buddha or Teacher arises there are always detractors and deniers. That is to be expected.

Christ began with only 12 and was crucified yet His Cause has encompassed the world. So too is the Cause of Baha'u'llah and every man will profess this Faith one day, I promise you that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

More and more people are putting their faith in Science rather than on Self-professed Gods, Sons, Manifestations, Mahdis or Prophets.

 

[loverofhumanity]

More and more people are putting their faith in Science rather than on Self-professed Gods, Sons, Manifestations, Mahdis or Prophets.

Yes very true. We definitely need science but science too needs some moral guidance otherwise it can be destructive as we have seen with things like the atomic bomb etc

Put to good uses science can solve a lot of humanity's problems.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bombs also are a necessity (like in case of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi). Those not in power preach love, the tune changes once one gets power. That has been the lesson of history. So, which country will be the first to adopt Bahai religion?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are a sentient being but not human being? It is you who are projecting the concept of morality or lack thereof on God...yes?

How can you know that?

No, I am saying that morality is a sentient's duty, not specifically a human's.

Those who propose an essentially immoral God all but ensure my disbelief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not according to Buddha. There is ample evidence and proof He taught about God.

1. The Five Disappearances of His true Dhamma- His original Dhamma would be corrupted over time with man made ideas.

2. A counterfeit Dhamma would replace His Original one lost during the Five Disappearances (the counterfeit Dhamma is the one that denies there is a God)

3. A new Buddha would arise teaching the SAME truths Buddha originally taught.

4. Buddha said that His Dispensation would last 5,000 years but because women entered monastic life that it would only last half that time which is 2,500 years.

He even mentioned the name of the future Buddha as AmitAbha a derivative of Baha which refers to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah means Glory of God. Buddha spoke of the great King of Glory as also in the Bible.

Baha'u'llah taught the oneness of God. Baha'u'llah, the return of Buddha did teach as prophesied what the original Buddha taught that there is a God but that teaching was gradually lost over time.

All these things are in the Buddhist scriptures. So the future Buddha would confirm what the original teachings of Buddha were which Buddha Himself said would be lost and replaced with a counterfeit Dhamma. Then the only way of knowing what Buddha actually taught is from the future Buddha which we say has come and is Baha'u'llah.

Please refrain from clumsily inserting theistic projections into Buddhist doctrine like that. You are, in essence, lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow#Commentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

You Bahai could be so great were it not for that insistence on presuming God...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I am saying that morality is a sentient's duty, not specifically a human's.

Those who propose an essentially immoral God all but ensure my disbelief.

A duty according to whose authority?

No one that I am aware of proposes an immoral deity, except perhaps for satanists...

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please refrain from clumsily inserting theistic projections into Buddhist doctrine like that. You are, in essence, lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow#Commentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

You Bahai could be so great were it not for that insistence on presuming God...

Judge me as you will. I've told the truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

A duty according to whose authority?

No one that I am aware of proposes an immoral deity, except perhaps for satanists...

Satanists do in fact sometimes point out how immoral the Bible-described deity is.

Among other reasons, because it prescribes authority over moral righteousness.

 

[LuisDantas]

Judge me as you will.

I will. I have had plenty enough of being gently invited to presume and lie about a God out of the convenience of theists.

I've told the truth.

Excuse me? If I am not mistaken the word for that is "denial". And it is still a lie.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Satanists do in fact sometimes point out how immoral the Bible-described deity is.

I am sure they do....that's their calling...

 

[loverofhumanity]

Well I've tried to be honest and sincere with you but if that is not acceptable to you then I'm truly sorry.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You Bahai could be so great were it not for that insistence on presuming God...

And a manifestation. With that, they are no better than any other Abrahamic/monotheistic religion.

 

[`mud]

How does one come to Baha'u'llah and Brahma and...blah blah...from nothingness to the Cosmos,
or Universal infinity into the Cosmos coming from the nothingness.
How many of your 'gods' did that !
~
Mythology amazes me...and it's lies about 'true' existance.
A transparancy of invisibility casting shadows on the imagined wall of their 'gods'.
~
What's the OP ??
NuffSuff
~
'mud

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mythology is fun. Great stories. We have some of the best in the world. They are lies if they are believed to be true. Forgot, what is the OP?

 

[Valjean]

If the universe was at one time non existent how then could it have created itself as it would not have been in existence to do so?

A power or force outside existence that had never been born and always existed would be the only power to be able to bring existence Into existence because if we are saying time was not in existence to create itself then A Timeless or Eternal Being created it. Also, intelligence is found in existence and it did not create itself.

This is an argument from ignorance.
Reality does not conform to our everyday experience of the world. At the string, quantum, even relativistic levels it's bizarre, counter-intuitive and flies in the face of commonsense; "spooky," as Einstein put it.
Till you can understand the theoretical physics involved, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of a universe creating itself.
If you'd lived a thousand years ago, LoH, I'll bet you'd be using the same "reasoning" to support a divine origin for volcanoes, storms, earthquakes, northern lights, &c.

The intelligence and complexity of the human body for example could not have come about by a random act. It's cells are organised and it contains DNA and gene mapping which is all highly intelligent. Composition and decomposition, a process which occurs whether we are here or not is perpetuated by another force not us. We call it God but know very little about God except what Prophets have said.

Only an All Knowing and All Intelligent Existence could have initiated existence not a random occurrence.

No-one is proposing any "random occurrence." You're arguing from incredulity.
The mechanisms which gave rise to this 'paragon of animals' are clear and understandable, if you'd take the time to explore them.
Your conclusion that God is the only reasonable alternative doesn't follow, nor does it explain anything. It's a false dilemma; an appeal to magic.

According to Genesis 1:1 the universe ( heavens ) had a start or a beginning.
God provided the needed dynamic energy (power and strength) to create the universe, so it was from God's power that the universe came.
- Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 10:2; 27:5; 32:17; Psalms 104:30

This is simplistic nonsense. "Power and strength" is poetry; not physics, not mechanism. And I question your textbook. It doesn't pass scientific muster.

 

[Thief]

More and more people are putting their faith in Science rather than on Self-professed Gods, Sons, Manifestations, Mahdis or Prophets.

science is sooooooo cool....
and it leads the way to saying.....God did it

 

[Thief]

I will. I have had plenty enough of being gently invited to presume and lie about a God out of the convenience of theists.


Excuse me? If I am not mistaken the word for that is "denial". And it is still a lie.

a study of science led me to agree....cause and effect....

Spirit first?.....or substance?

 

[Valjean]

That's what it says. As it was not in existence at one time, it could not have created itself so an All Knowing an eternal and All Powerful Being must have created existence. That is of course, God.

You're still trying to apply your everyday experience to theoretical physics. Reality is not as we experience it.
And you're still proposing a false dilemma.

So how then did existence put in place the processes that govern it?

An excellent question -- for physicists. I'm pretty sure magic was not involved.

There is no doubt that initially there was a single origin of existence and the universe. I'm saying that there is a God because existence could not have ever created itself because it would have had to do so from non existence which is impossible.

Why no doubt, why impossible and why is God (magic) the only reasonable explanation?

God always existed so He could have created any existence or ended any existence while there still being Him alone. But existence could never have come into existence unless there was a God because existence cannot create but simply follows laws and processes.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Links please.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is an argument from ignorance.
Reality does not conform to our everyday experience of the world. At the string, quantum, even relativistic levels it's bizarre, counter-intuitive and flies in the face of commonsense; "spooky," as Einstein put it.
Till you can understand the theoretical physics involved, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of a universe creating itself.
If you'd lived a thousand years ago, LoH, I'll bet you'd be using the same "reasoning" to support a divine origin for volcanoes, storms, earthquakes, northern lights, &c.

No-one is proposing any "random occurrence." You're arguing from incredulity.
The mechanisms which gave rise to this 'paragon of animals' are clear and understandable, if you'd take the time to explore them.
Your conclusion that God is the only reasonable alternative doesn't follow, nor does it explain anything. It's a false dilemma; an appeal to magic.

This is simplistic nonsense. "Power and strength" is poetry; not physics, not mechanism. And I question your textbook. It doesn't pass scientific muster.

We accept science and reason and so maybe you would like to have a look at these scientific proofs about the existence of God.

http://bahai-library.com/pdf/h/hatcher_proof_existence_god.pdf

http://wilmetteinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BAHAI-Bahai-Proofs-of-God-1.pdf