cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Ben Dhyan]

Neither are within the scope of big bang theory.

That 's why BB theory is a cop out!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

First, it's (like usual) post hoc reinterpretation to vaguely match scientific findings.
Secondly, ask any theist to describe what he means by "spiritual energy".
Then put that next to science's description of "dark energy".

I guarantee you that they are nothing alike.



Except when the science contradicts their a priori religious beliefs.

Are you saying dark energy is not omnipresent according to science?

 

[leroy]

All the evidence we have is that causality is determined by natural laws and only works inside of the universe.

The only universe we know of is this one and we have no evidence supporting the idea that this universe is caused.

But, let's go a different direction: what do you mean when you say that something is a cause of something else? What does the word 'cause' mean?

My point is that it doesn’t matter if you claim that the big bang was caused by:

1 by God

2 By Nothing

3 Something that existed before the big bang

In either case there is no evidence for the existence of any of these 3 alternatives.

theism and naturalism would have the same problem anyway

What does the word 'cause' mean?

X would be the cause of Y, if “Y” wouldn’t exist without X

A heavy ball would be the cause of the curvature in the couch, because without the ball, the curvature wouldn’t be there

 

[gnostic]

You are here, alive, enjoying the sunshine, breathing the air. This either:
a - came from utterly N.O.T.H.I.N.G. and for N.O...R.E.A.S.O.N. or
b - it was created by someone outside of the physical realm.

If you think it is b, then show evidence that the Creator or Designer exist, and that it is responsible for the sunshine and air.

You are the one who is making positive claim of there being “someone outside of the physical realm”.

If your example is true - “You are here, alive, enjoying the sunshine, breathing the air.” - then the sunlight come from that “someone outside the physical realm”, meaning the light did not from the sun.

And the air @TagliatelliMonster is breathing, didn’t come from some land vegetation, it come from that someone in another reality?

Please show that sunshine and air come from “outside of the physical realm”.

Do you have evidence for that “someone outside of the physical realm”?

 

[F1fan]

If you are interested in realizing the reality represented by the concept of God, then by all means do so and I will be happy to support you.

This is an incoherent sentence. What reality is represented in any of the many thousands of concepts of gods?

But if you are not prepared to seek union with the underlying unity of all that exists for whatever reason you have, then all that is left for you is a life of whining against that which you reject.

This is another incoherent state ment that makes quite a few religious assumptions.

You've made claims, and I have asked for evidence that your claims are true. I take it your inability to provide evidence means you acknowledge your claims are not true.

 

[F1fan]

My point is that it doesn’t matter if you claim that the big bang was caused by:

1 by God

2 By Nothing

3 Something that existed before the big bang

In either case there is no evidence for the existence of any of these 3 alternatives.

theism and naturalism would have the same problem anyway

There can be any number of plausible causes. There are no gods known to exist so that one isn't plausible. the Big Bang could have been caused by its own instability. So the cause would be the state of the energy itself.

X would be the cause of Y, if “Y” wouldn’t exist without X

A heavy ball would be the cause of the curvature in the couch, because without the ball, the curvature wouldn’t be there

Balls and couches are known to exist, unlike gods.

 

[Polymath257]

My point is that it doesn’t matter if you claim that the big bang was caused by:

1 by God

2 By Nothing

3 Something that existed before the big bang

In either case there is no evidence for the existence of any of these 3 alternatives.

theism and naturalism would have the same problem anyway


X would be the cause of Y, if “Y” wouldn’t exist without X

A heavy ball would be the cause of the curvature in the couch, because without the ball, the curvature wouldn’t be there

Well, you also need the law of gravity, the properties of the foam of the couch, etc.

And, of course, if the ball is replaced by something else, the curvature would still exist. so by your definition, the ball is NOT a cause of the curvature.

I think your definition needs serious work.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes that is the point, one can recognize design in a thing even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of the designer.

Do you grant this point?

We can recognize a human designer because we have previous experience of human designers and can sometimes differentiate between natural processes and human designers.

 

[Polymath257]

So why is there any physics at all? This question is one of the reasons we’ll never have a theory of everything, because even the best theory can’t explain its own existence. Scientific explanations end at this level, and it’s probably where this video should end, but I admit I enjoy talking about nothing, so let’s see what else there is to say.

Exactly. At some point, there has to be something that 'just is' with no deeper explanation.

Physics exists because things exist that have properties. Physics is the study of those properties.

The ultimate mystery is why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's the problem - some will ask 'How did it all start?'
and some might use this 'B model' and say, 'Well, space and time were always here... and within it the universe began.' (probably some virtual particle anomaly or whatever)
The B-Modle folks haven't answered the question.
How did it all start takes on board the question of 'all', as in space and time included.
Space is a Big Deal - it's a weird foam-like structure with particles popping in and out of existance - it's not just a 'nothing' sitting there forever.
So no, I don't accept B-models.

Well, space and time are part of the universe. Whenever space or time existed, so did the universe with matter, energy, etc.

The difficulty is that when you ask how time started, there *can be no explanation* because any explanation would describe a process in time.

From my perspective the B model is the only one that makes sense.
So time is one of those things that *cannot* have a cause.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is an incoherent sentence. What reality is represented in any of the many thousands of concepts of gods?

This is another incoherent state ment that makes quite a few religious assumptions.

You've made claims, and I have asked for evidence that your claims are true. I take it your inability to provide evidence means you acknowledge your claims are not true.

You ask for evidence for a spiritual experience, and when instructions can be provided that will allow that to happen, you reject it. It is though you think the concept of God represents a reality external to you, separated from your body like the sun in the sky?

If you are unable to understand what is being explained to you, then it just means you are not ready, people are not all at the same level of spiritual evolution. No problems though, have a happy life.

 

[F1fan]

You ask for evidence for a spiritual experience

False. You wrote this post:

You have opened up a Pandora's Box of possibilities, it appears to my understanding that it really is early days on the path to realize ultimate understanding. Whatever the truth, that is God, God is all there is, was, or ever will be.​

And I asked you for evidence that any of this is true. You refuse to offer any evidence. You claim this is the truth, not a spiritual exverience.

, and when instructions can be provided that will allow that to happen, you reject it.

False, you haven't provided any instructions any more than you have provided evidence that a "God is all there is".

It is though you think the concept of God represents a reality external to you, separated from your body like the sun in the sky?

What of the many thousands of concepts of God are you referring to here? Is it your secret? Should it try to guess?

If you are unable to understand what is being explained to you, then it just means you are not ready, people are not all at the same level of spiritual evolution. No problems though, have a happy life.

You've only made claims, you have ignored numerous requests for evidence and only respond with more claims. If the evidence is complex then provide a coherent explanation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

False. You wrote this post:

You have opened up a Pandora's Box of possibilities, it appears to my understanding that it really is early days on the path to realize ultimate understanding. Whatever the truth, that is God, God is all there is, was, or ever will be.​

And I asked you for evidence that any of this is true. You refuse to offer any evidence. You claim this is the truth, not a spiritual exverience.


False, you haven't provided any instructions any more than you have provided evidence that a "God is all there is".

It is though you think the concept of God represents a reality external to you, separated from your body like the sun in the sky?


You've only made claims, you have ignored numerous requests for evidence and only respond with more claims. If the evidence is complex then provide a coherent explanation.

So here are the instructions, practice still mind meditation until your mind ceases all thought, your mind will be free from any conceptualization whatsoever. There will be no 'you' present since there is no thinker present, so there will be no self-identification with your body. What is present is a transcendent state of pure non-dual awareness, No words can ever describe non-duality, except such cliches as the Father and I are one, Nirvana, etc..

 

[F1fan]

So here are the instructions, practice still mind meditation until your mind ceases all thought, your mind will be free from any conceptualization whatsoever. There will be no 'you' present since there is no thinker present, so there will be no self-identification with your body. What is present is a transcendent state of pure non-dual awareness, No words can ever describe non-duality, except such cliches as the Father and I are one, Nirvana, etc..

Where does the idea of "Father" come from with a clear mind? Sounds like a mind busy with religious concepts.

I perform certain meditaion practices. My clear mind never senses any gods. This is quite common.

I've never heard of anyone meditate and sense any gods.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where does the idea of "Father" come from with a clear mind? Sounds like a mind busy with religious concepts.

I perform certain meditaion practices. My clear mind never senses any gods. This is quite common.

I've never heard of anyone meditate and sense any gods.

'Father' in the context of Jesus' statement is meant to represent the source/origin of life and the 'son' is meant to represent the expression of the source, ie., the universe and its expression are one, not separate.

You seem fixated on the concept of God, it is only a label, Surely as a Buddhist you are familiar with the finger pointing at the moon meme where the unenlightened are fixated on the finger instead of the moon. All names including your personal name, are just like signposts pointing to something they represent. Hey Fido, the dog comes running. Hey Bob,... Hey Angel, Hey Gautama Buddha... There are more evolved beings in the universe than humans, but some religious traditions eschew involving them in human affairs, though they (higher beings) may do so of their own accord. This apparently is why Gautama created a different 'path than the pantheistic Hindu practice of his day, it was corrupt, also the reason Jesus began a new path, the Judaic system was corrupt.

 

[F1fan]

'Father' in the context of Jesus' statement is meant to represent the source/origin of life and the 'son' is meant to represent the expression of the source, ie., the universe and its expression are one, not separate.

These are Christian concepts. A person doing meditation has a quiet mind, not one filled and occupied with a bunch of Christians concepts. Even what you insist these ideas represent are not facts or anything an educated mind would believe, unless that mind was indoctrinated. Minds that are indoctrinated are not free or clear. They are shackled and trapped by concepts.

You seem fixated on the concept of God,

You use the word as if it has some relevance to reality. You have failed to demonstrate that it does.

it is only a label,

Not in a way that correlates to anything real. At best it is a label to a type of thinking by theists.

Surely as a Buddhist you are familiar with the finger pointing at the moon meme where the unenlightened are fixated on the finger instead of the moon.

In the case of theists, like yourself, God is the finger. Theists just don't realize this, because the finger is easier for busy minds. It requires less effort to focus on the finger, or God. Notice how atheists manage life very well without belief in a God? Yet theists can't. That's because God is the finger, and taking charge of the mind is difficult and demands a lot of courage to see beyond what is believed true.

All names including your personal name, are just like signposts pointing to something they represent. Hey Fido, the dog comes running. Hey Bob,... Hey Angel, Hey Gautama Buddha... There are more evolved beings in the universe than humans, but some religious traditions eschew involving them in human affairs, though they (higher beings) may do so of their own accord. This apparently is why Gautama created a different 'path than the pantheistic Hindu practice of his day, it was corrupt, also the reason Jesus began a new path, the Judaic system was corrupt.

Notice the bulk of your post focuses on labels. That is what is important to theists. It's the easy, superficial path.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

These are Christian concepts. A person doing meditation has a quiet mind, not one filled and occupied with a bunch of Christians concepts. Even what you insist these ideas represent are not facts or anything an educated mind would believe, unless that mind was indoctrinated. Minds that are indoctrinated are not free or clear. They are shackled and trapped by concepts.


You use the word as if it has some relevance to reality. You have failed to demonstrate that it does.



Not in a way that correlates to anything real. At best it is a label to a type of thinking by theists.


In the case of theists, like yourself, God is the finger. Theists just don't realize this, because the finger is easier for busy minds. It requires less effort to focus on the finger, or God. Notice how atheists manage life very well without belief in a God? Yet theists can't. That's because God is the finger, and taking charge of the mind is difficult and demands a lot of courage to see beyond what is believed true.


Notice the bulk of your post focuses on labels. That is what is important to theists. It's the easy, superficial path.

We must be making progress, all the instructions on realizing the non-dual state that was provided to you, you are now using against me.as things I should do.

 

[LIIA]

In sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, testing the new hypothesis or existing (scientific) theory require observations of the evidence or of the experiments, regardless if it is the "cause" or the "effect", you would still need evidence for both.

So if you are going to formulate a hypothesis that include "cause-and-effect", then you would need evidence for the "cause" as much as you do with the "effect"...otherwise those advocating for "cause" is nothing more than speculative and highly subjective opinions.

How did you come up with such assumption? It’s totally false/illogical.
Don’t get me wrong; my intent is to clarify the matter, not to be critical.

Cause and effect are inseparable. Your argument that we need evidence for both is an oxymoron, simply because the effect itself is the evidence for the cause. You don’t prove each one separately. Don’t jump to conclusions without making an effort to understand the subject matter, let me explain further.

Scientifically, the most abundant existence in our universe by far is the dark matter/dark energy, which constitutes about 96% of what’s out there in the universe.

Observations of astrophysical effects are what caused the inference of the abundant presence of something completely invisible of a totally unknown nature that can’t be understood or observed. You cannot argue that dark energy, as a cause of astrophysical effects needs independent evidence of its existence, it’s an oxymoron since the effects itself is the evidence of the cause.

Similarly, Newton inferred the existence of gravity because of the effects of gravity. You don’t need separate evidence of gravity as the cause of observed effects. It’s an oxymoron. Effects (of gravity) are the evidence of the cause (gravity).

In most cases, effects are directly observed, IOW, its evidence is simply the fact that we observe it, on the other hand, causes may not be observed, yet it can be scientifically/logically inferred through the observations of its effects. The effects itself are the evidence of the causes.

That said, I’m not here for an argument but rather to clarify some facts, you may accept it or reject it. It’s your call.

 

[LIIA]

In short, from what I see on this forum, -god needs a cause
-the big bang just happened
OR
-god always existed without cause
-the big bang had to have a cause


That's it in a nut shell

Nice, I like your accurate concise statements.

The fact that the BB had a beginning about 14 billion years ago means that the BB is a contingent being (didn’t always exist). The BB as the first observable effect as well as every subsequent physical effect that we may observe in our realm is a contingent being. The entire observable cause/effect chain in its entirety is a contingent being. As a contingent being, its instantiation in reality is dependent on a cause.

On the other hand, God is the necessary being who gave rise to every contingent/possible being of all kinds. Contingent entities including physical laws and everything in the contingent realm apply only within that realm, it doesn’t apply on the necessary being/absolute cause. Time, space, physical laws are all caused entities. The absolute cause is independent from any influence/limitation of time, space, causality or any physical law, i.e., exists by virtue of its mere essence.

The question what was before God doesn’t apply, such question applies within the realm of spacetime (contingent realm). Beyond that realm, the word "before" itself doesn’t apply, it has no meaning given the absence of time.

 

[F1fan]

The fact that the BB had a beginning about 14 billion years ago means that the BB is a contingent being (didn’t always exist). The BB as the first observable effect as well as every subsequent physical effect that we may observe in our realm is a contingent being. The entire observable cause/effect chain in its entirety is a contingent being. As a contingent being, its instantiation in reality is dependent on a cause.

The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy.

On the other hand, God is the necessary being who gave rise to every contingent/possible being of all kinds.

What God? Why are any religious ideas necessary? Or relevant?

Contingent entities including physical laws and everything in the contingent realm apply only within that realm, it doesn’t apply on the necessary being/absolute cause. Time, space, physical laws are all caused entities. The absolute cause is independent from any influence/limitation of time, space, causality or any physical law, i.e., exists by virtue of its mere essence.

The physical laws are just part of existing energy.

The question what was before God doesn’t apply, such question applies within the realm of spacetime (contingent realm). Beyond that realm, the word "before" itself doesn’t apply, it has no meaning given the absence of time.

This statement is not factual. So we throw it out.