A Universe from Nothing?

[loverofhumanity]

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.
An excellent question -- for physicists. I'm pretty sure magic was not involved.
Why no doubt, why impossible and why is God (magic) the only reasonable explanation?

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

I agree with science fully. Science and reason is truth. We cannot accept anything that does not agree with science and reason.

But anything that we would call God would be the greatest Scientist not a magician.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Spirit first?.....or substance?

"Cause and effect" is not a principle of science, despite your insistence to the contrary.

Instead, it is a framework that we are neurologically conditioned to prefer.

It turns out that you personally value it a lot, even when it is not necessarily reasonable or realistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

So am I. As I said already, Bahais would be so much better an influence were they not so set on projecting God on beliefs not their own...

 

[Thief]

"Cause and effect" is not a principle of science, despite your insistence to the contrary.

Instead, it is a framework that we are neurologically conditioned to prefer.

It turns out that you personally value it a lot, even when it is not necessarily reasonable or realistic.

there are no experiments without cause and effect
without the association ....nothing can be proven

 

[LuisDantas]

there are no experiments without cause and effect
without the association ....nothing can be proven

And some of us are dead set on attempting to prove things, right?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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?

People seem to lean on this one a lot, but really it's quite simple.

If 'the big bang' or a similar 'first event' took place, what took place 'before' that is an incoherent question. Space-time is a property of the physical universe, so 'time' would not have been a factor up until the point it came into being.

There simply would be no 'before'.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So am I. As I said already, Bahais would be so much better an influence were they not so set on projecting God on beliefs not their own...

Buddha is a part of our beliefs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

You mean we should only have Christian seminaries and Muslim madarsas and close down all universitiy science departments and research institutions?

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddha is a part of our beliefs.

That is arguable at best.

While I will admit that there are at least some reasonable admissions in some of the Bahai texts about the challenges of reconciling Buddhist and Bahai beliefs, the effort is made nonetheless.

And yet, the fact remains that Buddhism does not use Abrahamic concepts and expectations. And the Bahai Faith is very much Abrahamic in nature.

Frankly, I do not understand why you even try.

 

[`mud]

In answer to all of your questions:
Ask your preacher, priest, or imam, or whatever,
The question has no known answer,
unless 'god did it', asking the question:
Where was 'god' at that particular 'time'.
Another sort of thought:
When did 'time' start.
Was 'god' inside of the singularity, all of that 'time' ?
The 'god' couldn't have been in the nothingness,
because, nothingness didn't exist yet, no 'time' yet !
Boy I'll tell you, I am still confused !

I could go on but that's,
NuffStuff
~
'mud

 

[Aupmanyav]

@'mud, God was outside singularity. He is never inside anything except people's imagination.

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

Ho ho ho. (Underline mine)

Buddha is a part of our beliefs.

Initially he was not, but was adopted later. But you see, Buddhists are hard nuts to crack.

If 'the big bang' or a similar 'first event' took place, what took place 'before' that is an incoherent question. Space-time is a property of the physical universe, so 'time' would not have been a factor up until the point it came into being. .. There simply would be no 'before'.

I think we should not rush to conclusions. Let time and further research decide it (not that it will show up a God).

 

[McBell]

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

And as you have thoroughly demonstrated numerous times here on RF, once science gets you to your god, you toss science out the window.
Along with logic, truth and reason.

But hey, whatever dogma helps you get through the day, right?

 

[ArtieE]

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

I started reading your second link but on page two your God is referred to as an "it"

“The utmost one can say is that [God’s] existence can be proved, but that the conditions of Its existence are unknown.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 54)"

but on page 6 your God is referred to as a "Who".

"Who does not exist in time and space".

So is your God an "it" or a "who"?

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is arguable at best.

While I will admit that there are at least some reasonable admissions in some of the Bahai texts about the challenges of reconciling Buddhist and Bahai beliefs, the effort is made nonetheless.

And yet, the fact remains that Buddhism does not use Abrahamic concepts and expectations. And the Bahai Faith is very much Abrahamic in nature.

Frankly, I do not understand why you even try.

This is what we believe about the Buddha.

“The Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but His followers do not possess His authentic writings.”

“The founder of Buddhism was a precious Being Who established the oneness of God, but later His original precepts were gradually forgotten”

Baha'i Writings

 

[loverofhumanity]

I started reading your second link but on page two your God is referred to as an "it"

“The utmost one can say is that [God’s] existence can be proved, but that the conditions of Its existence are unknown.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 54)"

but on page 6 your God is referred to as a "Who".

"Who does not exist in time and space".

So is your God an "it" or a "who"?

All we know is God exists but do not know His Nature or Essence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I started reading your second link but on page two your God is referred to as an "it"

“The utmost one can say is that [God’s] existence can be proved, but that the conditions of Its existence are unknown.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 54)"

but on page 6 your God is referred to as a "Who".

"Who does not exist in time and space".

So is your God an "it" or a "who"?

Both are correct. Baha'u'llah said God's Essence is unknowable but all the Prophets of God have referred to God as He.

 

[ArtieE]

All we know is God exists but do not know His Nature or Essence.

But here you say "His" and other places it says "it". Which is it?

 

[ArtieE]

Both are correct. Baha'u'llah said God's Essence is unknowable but all the Prophets of God have referred to God as He.

In one of your links it says "We not mean God in the personal sense". So why say "His" and not "it's"?

 

[ArtieE]

All we know is God exists but do not know His Nature or Essence.

Why does God exist? I mean, why God instead of no God?

 

[Thief]

And some of us are dead set on attempting to prove things, right?

not to someone who does not believe in cause and effect.

no argument will suffice