Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[firedragon]

True but irrelevant, hein?

Have a lovely day.

Bogus, and irrelevant.

You too. Have a great day.

 

[blü 2]

Bogus, and irrelevant.

You too. Have a great day.

And I'd suggest never stop asking the hard questions, but that's a matter for you.

Go well.

 

[firedragon]

And I'd suggest never stop asking the hard questions, but that's a matter for you.

Go well.

You should definitely tell that to your self rather than being so dogmatic you cannot see anything beyond your cultish type indoctrination.

 

[blü 2]

You should definitely tell that to your self rather than being so dogmatic you cannot see anything beyond your cultish type indoctrination.

What cultist type indoctrination is that, specifically?

 

[firedragon]

What cultist type indoctrination is that, specifically?

You cannot even open your mind to distinguish between scientific evidence and a philosophical argument because you just are not ready to open your eyes. I remember you blu. You were the one who made such a big argument about scripture and their dating with absolutely useless sources and you insisted no matter what anyone says.

The discussion was about Brahman, you steered it away to scientific evidence that says all supernatural things are imaginary which bogus, and when asked for scientific evidence you just are not capable of having a decent discussion because you are so indoctrinated you cannot see beyond your shades created by evangelical atheists and their layman baseless arguments.

 

[danieldemol]

It’s now the consensus that the universe had a beginning; in other words, a moment of creation.

I still think you are using a loaded term. Most things that I know of have a beginning, but these beginings occur due to natural material properties at play. Do you call the beginning of rainfall the "creation" of rain?

When you use the term creation the baggage that comes with the term is of God magic poofing things into being. But rain begins due to evaporation causing precipitation, the beginning of the earth was caused by gravity collecting matter, call it earth's "creation" and you'll likely have people thinking you mean God zapped it into existence.

Similarly calling the origin of the universe "creation" would seem to imply that God magicked it into existence, so to me it makes more sense to call it the beginning than use a term loaded with as much baggage as "creation".

In my opinion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I still think you are using a loaded term. Most things that I know of have a beginning, but these beginings occur due to natural material properties at play. Do you call the beginning of rainfall the "creation" of rain?

When you use the term creation the baggage that comes with the term is of God magic poofing things into being. But rain begins due to evaporation causing precipitation, the beginning of the earth was caused by gravity collecting matter, call it earth's "creation" and you'll likely have people thinking you mean God zapped it into existence.

Similarly calling the origin of the universe "creation" would seem to imply that God magicked it into existence, so to me it makes more sense to call it the beginning than use a term loaded with as much baggage as "creation".

In my opinion.

If people lose all clarity of thought because they can’t hear a simple word without loading it with their own baggage, then I despair for the future of human discourse.

 

[blü 2]

You cannot even open your mind to distinguish between scientific evidence and a philosophical argument

All arguments have a philosophical background. Science doesn't argue in the dark ─ it argues from the background I outlined for you. You made no specific objection to the philosophical argument I set out, and you made no specific objection to the conclusions I listed ─ and that despite being more than once invited to do just that.

The discussion was about Brahman, you steered it away to scientific evidence that says all supernatural things are imaginary which bogus

I don't recollect this particular occasion.

Wikipedia informs me that

In Hinduism, Brahman [...] connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.

A footnote adds that

Ultimate reality is "something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality". This heavily overlaps with the concept of the Absolute in certain philosophies.

And a footnote to the footnote (with my paragraphing and enumeration, since three distinct ideas seem to be offered) adds

In philosophy, the Absolute is the term used for the ultimate or most supreme being, usually conceived as either

[1] encompassing "the sum of all being, actual and potential", or

[2] otherwise transcending the concept of "being" altogether.

While the general concept of a supreme being has been present since ancient times, the exact term "Absolute" was first introduced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and features prominently in the work of many of his followers. In Absolute idealism and British idealism, it serves as

[3] a concept for the "unconditioned reality which is either the spiritual ground of all being or the whole of things considered as a spiritual unity".​

The original entry continues (again with my paragraphing and enumeration):

In major schools of Hindu philosophy,

[1] it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.

[2] It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.

[3] Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.
​

Which of these definitions of Brahman are you talking about?

and when asked for scientific evidence you just are not capable of having a decent discussion because you are so indoctrinated you cannot see beyond your shades created by evangelical atheists and their layman baseless arguments.

Scientific evidence starts with empiricism and induction. Hence absence of evidence can be evidence of absence ─ if there's no reason to think something is the case, then there's no reason to think something is the case. For example, note that the search for the Higgs boson was prompted by theoretical considerations ─ the hunt was for empirical evidence that would confirm theory, and as you know, CERN provided this in 2012.

But of course, all conclusions of science are conditional, since outside of this sentence there are no absolute statements. That's to say, nothing protects scientific conclusions from unknown unknowns.

 

[firedragon]

All arguments have a philosophical background. Science doesn't argue in the dark

Scientific evidence. You are misquoting people.

I don't recollect this particular occasion.

Of course not. Because responding to it you started your own irrelevant discussion.

Scientific evidence starts with empiricism and induction. Hence absence of evidence can be evidence of absence

Irrelevant. Science does not approach evidence for anything supernatural. I didnt propose anything is supernatural in this thread, you brought it up and made a claim. And if you think "lack of scientific evidence means its imaginary and that lack of evidence is the evidence by itself', you are very sadly mistaken, and indoctrinated into thinking like that. And, its irrelevant. You made a claim, and you have to provide scientific evidence to your claim.

 

[firedragon]

A footnote adds that

Ultimate reality is "something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality". This heavily overlaps with the concept of the Absolute in certain philosophies.

And a footnote to the footnote (with my paragraphing and enumeration, since three distinct ideas seem to be offered) adds

In philosophy, the Absolute is the term used for the ultimate or most supreme being, usually conceived as either

[1] encompassing "the sum of all being, actual and potential", or

[2] otherwise transcending the concept of "being" altogether.

While the general concept of a supreme being has been present since ancient times, the exact term "Absolute" was first introduced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and features prominently in the work of many of his followers. In Absolute idealism and British idealism, it serves as

[3] a concept for the "unconditioned reality which is either the spiritual ground of all being or the whole of things considered as a spiritual unity".
The original entry continues (again with my paragraphing and enumeration):

In major schools of Hindu philosophy,

[1] it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.

[2] It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.

[3] Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.
Which of these definitions of Brahman are you talking about?

So you dont even know what the discussion was and you just came to someones rescue blindly and steered it away to your own favourite topic as a strawman.

Anyway, if you wish to discuss Brahman, it is Nirguna Brahman with no Upathi and in the Advaita philosophy, not Vedantha.

 

[danieldemol]

If people lose all clarity of thought because they can’t hear a simple word without loading it with their own baggage, then I despair for the future of human discourse.

In my opinion it is common baggage, not merely my own, therefore I would suggest it adds clarity to the thought process to identify such baggage, rather than losing it.

FYI Oxford languages defines creation as;

1. the action or process of bringing something into existence.
   "creation of a coalition government"
   
   
   
2. the creating of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
   "the big bang was the moment of the Creation, and therefore the work of God"

Part 1 doesn't apply because we don't know that there was a time the universe wasn't in existence, therefore it would be lacking clarity of thought to suggest the universe was brought into existence.

Part 2 shows that what you described as my own baggage is actually a part of the common definition of the term.

In my opinion

 

[Aupmanyav]

Regarding the discussion betwen Firedragon and Blu2.

Also, psychological "roots" of religion etc etc is CSR or Sociology of religion etc.

Psychology is a subject of science in its own right. Lot of research has been done and is being carried out. There is nothing woo-woo about it.

"Psychological research refers to research that psychologists conduct for systematic study and for analysis of the experiences and behaviors of individuals or groups. Their research can have educational, occupational and clinical applications

4 Methodology
4.1 Experimental methods
4.2 Observational methods
4.3 Descriptive methods
4.4 Case studies
4.5 Surveys
4.6 Psychometric methods
4.7 Archival methods
4.8 Cross-sectional methods
4.9 Longitudinal methods
4.10 Cross-cultural methods
4.11 Cohort methods
4.12 Computational methods
4.13 Unobtrusive methods
Psychological research - Wikipedia

Which of these definitions of Brahman are you talking about?

Yes, there is a Brahman of Duality, there is a Brahman of Non-dual Advaita (Brahman is the same as you), and there is a Brahman of an atheist (Brahman i not a God). Which Brahman is being referred to?

Science does not approach evidence for anything supernatural.

Science would have done that if there was any evidence to investigate, but there is absolutely none other than mention in scriptures of various religions and self-proclaimed representatives of God. What should science investigate?

 

[RestlessSoul]

In my opinion it is common baggage, not merely my own, therefore I would suggest it adds clarity to the thought process to identify such baggage, rather than losing it.

FYI Oxford languages defines creation as;

1. the action or process of bringing something into existence.
   "creation of a coalition government"
   
   
   
2. the creating of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
   "the big bang was the moment of the Creation, and therefore the work of God"

Part 1 doesn't apply because we don't know that there was a time the universe wasn't in existence, therefore it would be lacking clarity of thought to suggest the universe was brought into existence.

Part 2 shows that what you described as my own baggage is actually a part of the common definition of the term.

In my opinion

Well I didn’t specifically mean it was your baggage. But I’m not tiptoeing around the English language because certain words are triggers for angry people with an axe to grind (again, not aimed at you).

And for the record, I do believe in a Creator, and that the Universe and everything in it is an expression of His will. But equally, I acknowledge there can be a moment of creation without a creator. Language lends itself to that sort of nuance, as does the variety of human perspective and conviction.

Pretty sure the Big Bang has been universally accepted as a real event btw, since 1970 when Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose presented the mathematical evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Psychology is a subject of science in its own right. Lot of research has been done and is being carried out. There is nothing woo-woo about it.

"Psychological research refers to research that psychologists conduct for systematic study and for analysis of the experiences and behaviors of individuals or groups. Their research can have educational, occupational and clinical applications

4 Methodology
4.1 Experimental methods
4.2 Observational methods
4.3 Descriptive methods
4.4 Case studies
4.5 Surveys
4.6 Psychometric methods
4.7 Archival methods
4.8 Cross-sectional methods
4.9 Longitudinal methods
4.10 Cross-cultural methods
4.11 Cohort methods
4.12 Computational methods
4.13 Unobtrusive methods
Psychological research - Wikipedia

Good cut and paste but irrelevant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Good cut and paste but irrelevant.

Irrelevant is your stock word. Creation has two sources, natural and magic by the bearded man of the sky who repeatedly sends messages through email. Psychology studies what humans think about it. Nothing clandestine about my cut and paste, I gave the link in case you would like more information.

 

[blü 2]

Science does not approach evidence for anything supernatural.

Can you guess why?

Because there isn't any, perhaps?

If you had some, they'd be there very very quickly.

 

[blü 2]

So you dont even know what the discussion was and you just came to someones rescue blindly and steered it away to your own favourite topic as a strawman.'

I told you I don't recall the discussion.

Why don't you post a link?

Anyway, if you wish to discuss Brahman, it is Nirguna Brahman with no Upathi and in the Advaita philosophy, not Vedantha.

I only mention it because you specifically raised it. If you'd like to discuss it, just clarify my questions, and we can see where it goes.

 

[firedragon]

Irrelevant is your stock word. Creation has two sources, natural and magic by the bearded man of the sky who repeatedly sends messages through email. Psychology studies what humans think about it. Nothing clandestine about my cut and paste, I gave the link in case you would like more information.

Irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Can you guess why?

Because there isn't any, perhaps?

If you had some, they'd be there very very quickly.

Perhaps is not evidence to your claim.

 

[firedragon]

I told you I don't recall the discussion.

Why don't you post a link?
I only mention it because you specifically raised it. If you'd like to discuss it, just clarify my questions, and we can see where it goes.

What discussion? Google and cut and paste from wikipedia? No thanks.