The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I get you just fine.

My problem is not really with Brahman, but with you and with how you are trying to project your belief in the Brahman into what you believe to be "eternal" universe.

No one really know if the universe is eternal or not, but you are all-knowing, so you must know what you believe to be true...except your supposed grandeur of being Mr-know-it-all, is merely your superiority complex is just a delusion and pseudoscience of your own making.

I don't give a crap about what you believe, but your belief has no more credibility than any creationist's here.

You have presented no facts and no evidences in regarding to Brahman, except that delusional wishful thinking of yours.

Show me that Brahman exist in everything, and I am talking about you showing me evidences, not more of your meaningless sophistry.

Jimmie....a debate needs to proceed in logical manner so let's stay that way.. Brahman is understood by all reasonable people as being a concept that represents the universe... I do not believe the universe exists...I know so... Now the crux of the matter appears to be the 'eternal' aspect....you object is the "eternal" aspect...yes? Now I do not believe the universe is eternal....I know it is! How do I know? Follow my reasoning....

The universe exists....there is all this matter and energy in existence that science has not found an end to....yes?
There is no science in existence that can make the smallest bit of it to cease existing....yes?
There is no science in existence that can explain how to create the smallest bit to add to it...yes?
Therefore so far this supports my understanding...for....if nothing can be taken away from it and nothing can be added to it by any known science...it must have always been that way....yes?

None of the foregoing is belief Jimmie....it is scientific fact!

Now to show you what belief really is, let us look at your position that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning....
If there was a beginning....the universe we know exists had to have not existed...but there is no direct proof that there ever really was nothing...so you need to believe and have faith that once there was nothing...yes?
Next there had to be a beginning of existence that replace the hypothesized nothing....this also is requires your belief and faith for there is no direct proof...yes?
And because there is no known reason why existence began...you believe it is reasonable to accept that there is no need for science to know the reason...yes?
And no one knows how how existence began...you believe it is reasonable to accept there is no need for science too know the reason...yes?
Only after all these unknowns are put to one side....magically from nothing there is time = 0 and the singularity, time and space appears from a believed in unproved nothing...and science now is making all sorts of claims about it...

So who is the believer......I have proof as the basis of my understanding.......you only have your beliefs in an unproved nothing ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

... Now Brahman means all existence.....there is nothing that exists that is not Brahman....see how that works...it is the same as saying "all that exists"....it is objectively real. A pink unicorn otoh does not exist as something objectively real....

No, you're trying to conflate the cosmos with religious beliefs about the cosmos ( Brahman and God ).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

.. Brahman is understood by all reasonable people as being a concept that represents the universe..

No, Brahman is understood by all reasonable people as being a religious belief.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you're trying to conflate the cosmos with religious beliefs about the cosmos ( Brahman and God ).

Haha...are you agreeing with gnostic then that the reality represented by the concept of cosmos is as akin to the reality represented by the concept of a pink unicorn as the reality represented by the concept of Brahman manifest?

I have not said anything about the religious aspects of Brahman, we are only dealing with the manifested cosmos...which is the same reality as manifested Brahman

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, Brahman is understood by all reasonable people as being a religious belief.

The reality represented by the concept of Brahman may appear to be a religious belief to you as an atheist...but to the reasonable Hindu and pantheist....in the context of cosmos...it is just a concept representing the same real world in the here and now...Brahman manifest...aka cosmos...

http://hinduwebsite.com/brahmanaspects.asp

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have not said anything about the religious aspects of Brahman, we are only dealing with the manifested cosmos...which is the same reality as manifested Brahman

So it seems that you conflate the cosmos with Brahman because you believe them to be the same thing. But the fact remains that Brahman is a religious belief about the cosmos.

You seem to be continually moving the goalposts, one minute you're talking about the Hindu Brahman, the next minute about the Biblical God, the next minute about samadhi and non-duality. It looks like eel-wriggling and word games, obfuscation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The reality represented by the concept of Brahman may appear to be a religious belief to you as an atheist...but to the reasonable Hindu and pantheist....in the context of cosmos...it is just a concept representing the same real world in the here and now...Brahman manifest...aka cosmos...

A Hindu or pantheist believes that the cosmos is Brahman. Obviously. But these are religious beliefs about the cosmos. I think you're more interested in playing word games than having a serious discussion.

 

[`mud]

hey Ben,
Does the word 'circularity' mean anything ?
~
I liked your response, but you don't get my reply.
Around and around and around, no point made !
Imaginary transparency without foundation.
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
I hope you enjoy the trip !
~
'mud

 

[Windwalker]

So it seems that you conflate the cosmos with Brahman because you believe them to be the same thing. But the fact remains that Brahman is a religious belief about the cosmos.

Brahman is a metaphor to speak about the ultimate nature of reality. Science also uses metaphors to speak about the nature of the material reality. If the criteria is having material support to back up the metaphors, then Brahman has material support as well as saying "particles" or "waves", because it is a word used to describe those things from a 90,000 mile high perspective, such as calling them "matter" is.

What Brahman describes within the manifest universe includes physical matter which it is called the "Gross Body", but it also includes non-material reality, such as mind and spirit described as the Subtle Body, and then the very subtle or "Causal Body". But all these are simply ways to talk about the lived reality of our existence within this manifest universe. The whole of this is called Saguna Brahman, or Brahman with qualities, or manifestation. But in order for manifestation to be be, in order for form to be, there is also the unmanifest or the formless. This is Nirguna Brahman, or Brahman without qualities. Think of this like the paper upon which drawings are drawn. The paper is not the drawings, but the drawings do not exist without the paper on which they are drawn. The same can be said of music. Music does not exist without silence. Silence is included in music in order for it to take form and shape and be music.

I would be careful to simply say this is invalid as a way to describe the universe because it is spoken about in religion. It actually is no more or less valid that using scientific metaphors such as "biology" as a word to describe collections of things. These are all simply models to talk about reality, but in the case of speaking about Nirguna Brahman, that does in fact go beyond the physical sciences, or the "hard sciences". But then no right-minded scientist would imagine that the empiric sciences are the ultimate truth teller or tool to all knowledge. And those who do are in fact, beyond doubt holding science as a religious belief and should be dismissed in the same way they are dismissing religious metaphors when they speak about the ultimate nature of truth and reality with their word-signs. They are mistaking metaphors in general, be they religious or scientific, for reality itself.

The truth of it is, the modes of investigation in some of these other disciplines which end up speaking of things such as Nirguna Brahman, are in fact ways people are describing what they have investigated and encountered through firsthand experimentation. Just because the set of tools used is not the popular and often worshiped tools of the Western empirical sciences, does not invalidate them anymore than using the tools of psychology invalidates what is discovers and exposes.

 

[`mud]

Nirguna Brahman,
Supreme and ultimate knowledge, the top dog.
Knows all and guides all,
infinite, love, truth, knowledge, "being-consciousness-bliss"
But not the 'Creator' after all.
~
Ahhhhh... the Cosmos, the one and only 'CREATOR' !
~
Same question arrises....what came before?
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would be careful to simply say this is invalid as a way to describe the universe because it is spoken about in religion. It actually is no more or less valid that using scientific metaphors such as "biology" as a word to describe collections of things.

The fact remains that "Brahman" is a religious term with a religious meaning. What I'm objecting to here is the conflation of "cosmos" and "Brahman" as equivalent terms.

 

[Windwalker]

The fact remains that "Brahman" is a religious term with a religious meaning, while biology is not. What I'm objecting to here is the conflation of "cosmos" and "Brahman" as equivalent terms.

How is "Gross Body" a religious term? You mean it's a pre Western empirical science term?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How is "Gross Body" a religious term? You mean it's a pre Western empirical science term?

I mean that "Brahman" is a religious term to which Hindus ascribe a specific religious and meta-physical meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I think we need to be cautious about redefining terms like this in order to make them fit a syncretic model, banging square pegs into round holes can get very messy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The truth of it is, the modes of investigation in some of these other disciplines which end up speaking of things such as Nirguna Brahman, are in fact ways people are describing what they have investigated and encountered through firsthand experimentation.

People describe the experiences they have according to their pre-existing beliefs and assumptions. The experiences might be similar but that doesn't make the belief systems the same.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nirguna Brahman,
Supreme and ultimate knowledge, the top dog.
Knows all and guides all,
infinite, love, truth, knowledge, "being-consciousness-bliss"
But not the 'Creator' after all.
~
Ahhhhh... the Cosmos, the one and only 'CREATOR' !
~
Same question arrises....what came before?
~
'mud

I think that Brahman is viewed as eternal, so "what came before" isn't a question which would need to be asked.

 

[`mud]

And your 'ice cream' is also eternal !

~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And your 'ice cream' is also eternal !

~
'mud

Sadly ice-cream always melts eventually, it's a lesson on impermanence and a good reason for eating it up straight away.

 

[`mud]

 

[Windwalker]

I mean that "Brahman" is a religious term to which Hindus ascribe a specific religious and meta-physical meaning.

So is the term Universe or Cosmos, depending on what you are choosing to include in that understanding of the word. When the Greeks used the term Kosmos, it included everything, not just the stars in the sky. It included your emotions, your thoughts, systems, dreams, hopes, as well as metaphysical meanings. Universe can mean religious and metaphysical things too.

Is the actual argument let's get rid of metaphysics and only use language that describes scientific ideas of a mechanistic and reductionistic universe? Sure, it's not a scientific term, but then so are any philosophical terms. Braham can be used to speak of scientific realities, but it is more philosophical, as well as religious. People forget that these distinctions between religion, philosophy, and the empirical sciences is a relatively new thing beginning in the 1700s. But if we stop and look at it, it's ALL metaphors. So to say "That's a religious term", to mean it shouldn't be considered is disingenuous. It's all metaphor, all supporting certain perspectives on things, but all related to the same.

I think we need to be cautious about redefining terms like this in order to make them fit a syncretic model, banging square pegs into round holes can get very messy.

I don't think this is making it a syncretic model at all. I think it's shedding light on the fact that all of it is metaphor, science included. All fingers pointing to the moon. It's taking a 90,000 foot view down on the whole thing, not mashing the parts to fit into each other, but recognizing the relative nature of all of it, science included. You can speak of these things using many languages and say the same thing. It's only when one mistakes their own given language as the "truth" of it that they can't see it from any other point of view than their own, and the words replace reality for them.

People describe the experiences they have according to their pre-existing beliefs and assumptions. The experiences might be similar but that doesn't make the belief systems the same.

No one said the systems are the same. Other than saying all systems are systems, which is true. Turkish is not English, but they are both languages. It's only when some says the right language is English that they get themselves into some trouble. Different languages use different words to same the same things, but the words are obviously not the same. "That's religious language", is like saying "That's Turkish" so it means something else. It's spoken in Turkey, so it's not valid to what we're talking about here." My point is to speak of Reality as Brahman does not make it exist outside of what the language of science says in pointing at the specifics. It's not mutually exclusive.

As far as describing experiences using cultural symbols, sure of course that is true. That does not mean that the different words, the different metaphors are not pointing to the same thing. When you let the metaphors speak, it becomes apparent it's the same reality they are pointing to.