Spirit first?.......or substance first?

[Thief]

You are not looking in the right direction.

point the way.....

 

[Thief]

Simply an unsupported claim. No one knows what caused the big bang or what, if anything existed before it. May as well claim a unicorn fart kick started the big bang. It's just as believable as your claims, has the same amount of reason and evidence supporting it.

you might want to support your denial

 

[Thief]

The Baha'i view is that the universe is without beginning and creation has been a continuous emanation from God... without beginning or end.

Bahá'u'lláh says, "The universe hath neither beginning nor ending." He has set aside the elaborate theories and exhaustive opinions of scientists and material philosophers by the simple statement, "There is no beginning, no ending."

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 220)

and the quotation.....I AM!.....
is not a starting point?

I believe.... Let there be light....
would be a starting point

unless you like to back up even further
to that 'void'

but it might be difficult to say.....I AM!.....
without throwing some light on the idea

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, Where did that comment come from?

I should apologize: I think I misread your post. I took it as an attempt to define materialism in a way that implied materialists are closed-minded, but on readinv it again, I think I was reading too much into what you were saying.

 

[Quintessence]

You're in for a long wait. I have yet to see anyone who believes in spirits/souls give any kind of understandable explanation for what they're talking about.

I find that hard to believe, considering I myself have done it on multiple occasions.

At any rate, I ask for clarification because the manner in which I define "spirit" is doubtlessly at odds with how the OP is defining it since it appears they are setting up some sort of dichotomy between "spirit" and whatever this "substance" is (and I really have no clue what they mean by that term). @Thief

 

[Thief]

I find that hard to believe, considering I myself have done it on multiple occasions.

At any rate, I ask for clarification because the manner in which I define "spirit" is doubtlessly at odds with how the OP is defining it since it appears they are setting up some sort of dichotomy between "spirit" and whatever this "substance" is (and I really have no clue what they mean by that term). @Thief

you may use any definition you care to.....
but I do not believe they are the same existence

or maybe you pray before graven images?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you may use any definition you care to.....

In that case, my spirits have substance... and proof:

 

[Thief]

In that case, my spirits have substance... and proof:

ha...ha...

 

[Quintessence]

you may use any definition you care to.....

Thanks for the clarification. I ask because defining terms for things like this is very important. How terms are defined in no small part determines outcomes of the answer and what direction the discussion goes in. I thought it might be more useful to lay out how we are to understand those terms for the purposes of the discussion. The alternative is people spend a lot of time talking in circles around each other because they don't have a common framework for understanding what "spirit" and "substance" is. Some of that can be avoided by taking care to explain what one means by the terms, but provided we remember to do that (and we often don't) it is probably easier to provide some operational definitions to guide the discussion.

Plus, then you won't get people like me coming in and going "well, for me the word spirit designates the essence/nature of a thing, which inevitably includes whatever this substance thing you are talking about is, so.... the question you ask doesn't really make sense."

but I do not believe they are the same existence

Could you elaborate on your understanding of the terms, then? It sounds like you are some sort of dualist?

or maybe you pray before graven images?

I can't say I know what a "graven image" is. But if you mean to ask if I go to graveyards and pray at tombstones? No, I can't say I've ever done that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

of course the laws of physics break down
the universe needs to 'gel' as it takes form
the primal forces applied won't fit our numbers
no equations

you would need to focus on Spirit
the ability to say....I AM.....prior the possibility of evidence

No. If all we can do is THINK about it, any conclusions reached cannot be validated. YOU are going where evidence cannot go, by you own admission, because you THINK that it is true. But there are other alternatives, which do not presuppose "spirit," which you have still failed to define in any meaningful sense.

 

[leibowde84]

all the way back to the beginning
that is where we start

I think we don't have enough evidence to make even an educated guess on this.

 

[Thief]

I think we don't have enough evidence to make even an educated guess on this.

and you insinuate .....I lack the education to ......guess....?

 

[Thief]

No. If all we can do is THINK about it, any conclusions reached cannot be validated. YOU are going where evidence cannot go, by you own admission, because you THINK that it is true. But there are other alternatives, which do not presuppose "spirit," which you have still failed to define in any meaningful sense.

and therefore you would say.....substance first?

 

[Thief]

Thanks for the clarification. I ask because defining terms for things like this is very important. How terms are defined in no small part determines outcomes of the answer and what direction the discussion goes in. I thought it might be more useful to lay out how we are to understand those terms for the purposes of the discussion. The alternative is people spend a lot of time talking in circles around each other because they don't have a common framework for understanding what "spirit" and "substance" is. Some of that can be avoided by taking care to explain what one means by the terms, but provided we remember to do that (and we often don't) it is probably easier to provide some operational definitions to guide the discussion.

Plus, then you won't get people like me coming in and going "well, for me the word spirit designates the essence/nature of a thing, which inevitably includes whatever this substance thing you are talking about is, so.... the question you ask doesn't really make sense."



Could you elaborate on your understanding of the terms, then? It sounds like you are some sort of dualist?



I can't say I know what a "graven image" is. But if you mean to ask if I go to graveyards and pray at tombstones? No, I can't say I've ever done that.

this takes no time at all.
a simple choice
Spirit first or substance?
it's one or the other
they are not the same existence

and if the term graven image confuses you
then your confusion will stymie your answer

 

[McBell]

and you insinuate .....I lack the education to ......guess....?

No, he flat out said as much.

 

[Thief]

anyone else.....back to topic

 

[leibowde84]

and you insinuate .....I lack the education to ......guess....?

By "we" I mean the entire human race. There just isn't enough information/understanding about the early universe to make an educated guess.

 

[Thief]

By "we" I mean the entire human race. There just isn't enough information/understanding about the early universe to make an educated guess.

but sufficient observation to indicate a singular point....

 

[leibowde84]

but sufficient observation to indicate a singular point....

Not even close. We don't know for sure whether the universe started with a singularity. There are several contending theories that contradict an initial singularity. One notable one being string-theory (see below).

General relativity is used to predict that at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point. The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions.[2][3] In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.[4]

 

[Thief]

Not even close. We don't know for sure whether the universe started with a singularity. There are several contending theories that contradict an initial singularity. One notable one being string-theory (see below).

General relativity is used to predict that at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point. The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions.[2][3] In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.[4]

there are no experiments to place the primal singularity in a petri dish
no equations apply as the numbers run off the chalkboard

you can't figure this out by means of science
but science would insist......cause and effect
and science would also insist.....cause first.....then effect

observation will take you to that starting 'point'

then you make a choice
Spirit first?
or substance