A Universe from Nothing?

[muhammad_isa]

Your bold empty claim.
You failed to support it.
Thus, it can be dismissed.

How would you like me to support it?
Perhaps you could tell me why 'my claim' is illogical or likely to be wrong

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It seems like we're discussing semantics which is a waste of time. There are different constructs of "sun." It could be the word sun or what you stated. Or refer to our sun. Do we have a name for our sun? Or it could mean heat or light.

All of which isn't that interesting so I'll move on unless you have a point in relation to this thread.

Unfortunately you do not understand what is being said to you....the reality represented by the concept of 'Sun' is forever beyond the conceptual knowledge of the mortal mind. So long as you try to understand existence using your mind in the dualistic mode....you are dealing with mental constructs, thoughts about reality.....but never realizing reality itself. The purpose of religion is to realize true reality...not a conceptual interpretation of it...by transcending the dualistic mind...

 

[james bond]

I'm in agreement up to that very last part, we still don't know that. Far as we know the system could have simply morphed.

If the energy is within our universe, i.e. closed system, then it would have had to morph. The BBT proponents posit that all of the matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity. Thus, creationists and evolutionists agree that the universe had a beginning and the eternal universe theory and other theories of the past are pseudoscience. The evo thinkers propose such matter such as dark matter and dark energy were the cause of immediate expansion from singularity. However, this is all philosophy. To be fair, one can say that God, or a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent being, is based on philosophy, as well.

 

[james bond]

Unfortunately you do not understand what is being said to you....the reality represented by the concept of 'Sun' is forever beyond the conceptual knowledge of the mortal mind. So long as you try to understand existence using your mind in the dualistic mode....you are dealing with mental constructs, thoughts about reality.....but never realizing reality itself. The purpose of religion is to realize true reality...not a conceptual interpretation of it...by transcending the dualistic mind...

Oh ok. I apologize for thinking you were arguing semantics. How can we use this way of looking at "reality" then?

The way I look at is as follows (from what I was taught and read on my own). We live in a material world or our first life. Many do not comprehend that which is a timeless, spaceless and immaterial reality exists outside our material world. This material reality is not all there is or was and all there will ever will be. The reality is there exists an afterlife or a timeless, spaceless and immaterial reality after we die. This reality exists even as we speak. Thus, when we crossover or reach the point of no return and die, we are not part of earth or the material world anymore. We transform into a timeless, spaceless and immaterial being.

 

[idav]

If the energy is within our universe, i.e. closed system, then it would have had to morph. The BBT proponents posit that all of the matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity. Thus, creationists and evolutionists agree that the universe had a beginning and the eternal universe theory and other theories of the past are pseudoscience. The evo thinkers propose such matter such as dark matter and dark energy were the cause of immediate expansion from singularity. However, this is all philosophy. To be fair, one can say that God, or a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent being, is based on philosophy, as well.

The creationist and evolutionist can't be both right, in one scenario the universe would always have been a closed system and the other invokes god to take care of where our universal closed system would have come from. There being an open system is speculation since there is no science to show violation of conservation of energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh ok. I apologize for thinking you were arguing semantics. How can we use this way of looking at "reality" then?

The way I look at is as follows (from what I was taught and read on my own). We live in a material world or our first life. Many do not comprehend that which is a timeless, spaceless and immaterial reality exists outside our material world. This material reality is not all there is or was and all there will ever will be. The reality is there exists an afterlife or a timeless, spaceless and immaterial reality after we die. This reality exists even as we speak. Thus, when we crossover or reach the point of no return and die, we are not part of earth or the material world anymore. We transform into a timeless, spaceless and immaterial being.

Yes...that's about it.. where a man's heart is, there lies his treasure....destiny is not arbitrary... A way to transcend the dualistic mind is to discipline the mind to be quiet and contemplate the underlying unity of existence..When the mind is still and relatively free from thought....the ego self does not arise to disrupt the peace that passes understanding...

 

[james bond]

The creationist and evolutionist can't be both right, in one scenario the universe would always have been a closed system and the other invokes god to take care of where our universal closed system would have come from. There being an open system is speculation since there is no science to show violation of conservation of energy.

Ok. Can you explain dark energy and/or dark matter and how this cosmology is supposed to work in a closed system? Is the universe always a closed system? How can it be closed if the universe is expanding or what do you mean by closed system?

The creation scientists theorize that the universe is bounded and has a center which is in close proximity to our Milky Way galaxy, cosmic center (our solar system to a region smaller than our galaxy), or Earth is approximately the center (geocentric, but this theory is being discredited by many creation scientists). There are white papers and peer-review papers written on the bounded universe and our galaxy being the center. It's a large approximation, but compared to the universe it is pretty good. The boundary or edge explains the white hole cosmology which states the universe would only be a few thousand years old by a clock on Earth, but by a clock at the edge of the universe it would be billions of years old. The key to this model is the idea that time was much slower on Earth than distant parts of the universe, on day 5 of the creation. There is no dark energy or dark matter. Otherwise, it relies on presuppositions or starting assumptions from the Big Bang Theory so there is some overlap. Many think God is outside our universe if He created it, but there are three meanings to heaven -- place for God and the angels, interstellar space and earth's atmosphere. The place for God and the angels is timeless, spaceless and immaterial so it is assumed to be outside our universe or in another plane or another dimension (5th dimension?) from our reality. Whether it is within or without our universe is not known, i.e. it's location is not known, but the angels and saints have the ability to move from heaven (timeless, spaceless and immaterial) to time, space and material world and back.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A way to transcend the dualistic mind is to discipline the mind to be quiet and contemplate the underlying unity of existence..When the mind is still and relatively free from thought....the ego self does not arise to disrupt the peace that passes understanding...

What is the "underlying unity of existence"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is the "underlying unity of existence"?

Energy......

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Energy......

1. What kind of energy?
2. How does having a still mind help to see that the "underlying unity of existence" is energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1. What kind of energy?
2. How does having a still mind help to see that the "underlying unity of existence" is energy?

Energy energy...
By avoiding the inclination to interpret what is....existence is unknowable by the dualistic mental process...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

By avoiding the inclination to interpret what is....existence is unknowable by the dualistic mental process...

Large areas of existence are unknown and unknowable to us.

I don't see how having a still mind makes any difference. There is still the same limited "input" from the senses, and conceptualisation is only the last stage of the perceptual process. There may be a sense of oneness, but that says nothing about existence generally.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Large areas of existence are unknown and unknowable to us.

I don't see how having a still mind makes any difference. There is still the same limited "input" from the senses, and conceptualisation is only the last stage of the perceptual process. There may be a sense of oneness, but that says nothing about existence generally.

You don't see because you do think about it....thinking is interpreting....duality...me and not me....what I know and do not know.....me and the universe....me and God...etc...etc..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You don't see because you do think about it....thinking is interpreting....duality...me and not me....what I know and do not know.....me and the universe....me and God...etc...etc..

This is just rhetoric. I have lots of experience of meditation, still mind, samadhi, being fully in the present, whatever. These are interesting states of mind and can provide insights, but they remain subjective and say nothing about the objective nature of existence or the cosmos.

I think you are reading far too much into them, interpreting them through the distorting lens of your religious beliefs. You are unable to approach them with an open mind.

Energy might well be a unifying force in the universe ( whatever ) but that is nothing to do with subjective meditative states.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is just rhetoric. I have lots of experience of meditation, still mind, samadhi, being fully in the present, whatever. These are interesting states of mind and can provide insights, but they remain subjective and say nothing about the objective nature of existence or the cosmos.

I think you are reading far too much into them, interpreting them through the distorting lens of your religious beliefs. You are unable to approach them with an open mind.

Energy might well be a unifying force in the universe ( whatever ) but that is nothing to do with subjective meditative states.

Yes...I am using conceptual language as an expedient to explain to you that you will never know the underlying unity of existence through conceptualization.... That you insist on a conceptual explanation for that which can never be known through conceptualization shows you do not understand....even though it has been explained...and that can not be helped for now...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes...I am using conceptual language as an expedient to explain to you that you will never know the underlying unity of existence through conceptualization.... That you insist on a conceptual explanation for that which can never be known through conceptualization shows you do not understand....even though it has been explained...and that can not be helped for now...

Just more rhetoric, and for the umpteenth time, conceptualisation is only the last stage of the perceptual process.

With certain states of mind you can have feelings of oneness, spaciousness, timelessness, whatever. But so what? These subjective states say nothing about the objective nature of the cosmos.

Basically you have religious beliefs which you cannot substantiate, the rest of it is rhetoric, fluff and bluff.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just more rhetoric, and for the umpteenth time, conceptualisation is only the last stage of the perceptual process.

With certain states of mind you can have feelings of oneness, spaciousness, timelessness, whatever. But so what? These subjective states say nothing about the objective nature of the cosmos.

Basically you have religious beliefs which you cannot substantiate, the rest of it is rhetoric, fluff and bluff.

A still mind is beyond duality.....subject - object ....noobs and atheists do not understand...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A still mind is beyond duality.....subject - object ....noobs and atheists do not understand...

I am not a "noob" in these terms, so you can drop the patronising rhetoric. Respond to the points I actually made, if you can.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You

I am not a "noob" in these terms, so you can drop the patronising rhetoric. Respond to the points I actually made, if you can.

What points.....you have not made any of substance...calling my comments rhetoric is rhetoric.. Ponder on the underlying unity of the apparent all....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ponder on the underlying unity of the apparent all....

So what does that mean? What is the "underlying unity", and what is the "apparent all"? When providing answers, please distinguish clearly between scientific ideas, religious beliefs, and personal experience.