Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Thief]

Of course it had beginning.

God only exist only because of the imagination, ignorance and superstition of men. There are no evidences to say otherwise.

They associate natural things to god, but there are nothing to prove his existence, other than superstitious belief and blind faith of some superstitious books. And they were written by superstitious and ignorant men, who had very little understanding of the natural world.

This whole business of yours, using "Spirit first" or "God has no beginning" or you can't god on the petri-dish or under microscope, and whole other variations of them, are nothing than rhetoric and your personal opinion/belief.

so you don't like my rhetoric.....big deal

 

[gnostic]

Yes, I understand how science works.....and like you, it is great to see its progress and the benefits it has provided to humanity. Fwiw though. I do not depend solely on science for my understanding, for scence only deals with the observable universe, and there is much more to existence than the physical.

I didn't say that science have answers for everything. It explained the natural world quite fine, and even what knowledge we have outside of Earth (like the Solar System, Milky Way or the universe) are better than associating them with supernatural, magic or miracle, and that including these so-called "gods" or "spirits".

We don't need to answer the natural with the supernatural, because that's what all religions believe in, the supernatural, which are nothing more than superstition. And superstitions are based on fear and ignorance.

Science don't deal as well with morality or ethics, because there are possible many morals or ethics that may differ from one another; meaning that there could be several different approaches. Human behaviour and emotion are very much like morality/ethics; there is no single answer for all.

People used to believe that mental illness or behaviour issues were the result of God's anger, or evil spirits or demons. That's superstition, as direct result of fear and ignorance. And because of societies not understanding why people are mentally ill or have some sort of behavioral problems, they become outcasts, or worse, the superstitious people would use rituals, like exorcism, to cure them, or resort to torture and kill them for practicing witchcraft or demonology.

What we would call "social science", is not exact science. Nevertheless, you can understand psychology (behaviours and emotions) all without god or spirit.

Sure, there are lot of things that science cannot explain, but I would rather say "I don't know", instead of believing in miracles, spirits or gods.

 

[gnostic]

so you don't like my rhetoric.....big deal

Big deal, indeed.

It is a big deal, when you can't substantiate what you have claimed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't say that science have answers for everything. It explained the natural world quite fine, and even what knowledge we have outside of Earth (like the Solar System, Milky Way or the universe) are better than associating them with supernatural, magic or miracle, and that including these so-called "gods" or "spirits".

We don't need to answer the natural with the supernatural, because that's what all religions believe in, the supernatural, which are nothing more than superstition. And superstitions are based on fear and ignorance.

Science don't deal as well with morality or ethics, because there are possible many morals or ethics that may differ from one another; meaning that there could be several different approaches. Human behaviour and emotion are very much like morality/ethics; there is no single answer for all.

People used to believe that mental illness or behaviour issues were the result of God's anger, or evil spirits or demons. That's superstition, as direct result of fear and ignorance. And because of societies not understanding why people are mentally ill or have some sort of behavioral problems, they become outcasts, or worse, the superstitious people would use rituals, like exorcism, to cure them, or resort to torture and kill them for practicing witchcraft or demonology.

What we would call "social science", is not exact science. Nevertheless, you can understand psychology (behaviours and emotions) all without god or spirit.

Sure, there are lot of things that science cannot explain, but I would rather say "I don't know", instead of believing in miracles, spirits or gods.

Science does the objective observable universe....and so it follows naturally and logically that it does not know about the transcendent. However anyone who is sincere and mature wrt religious practice will have proof of the existence of spirit and transcendent consciousness...but there is no science involved as it is not objective and generally not able to be shown to others. If one wants to experience the proof, it requires a total commitment to a mature religious discipline...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Science does the objective observable universe....and so it follows naturally and logically that it does not know about the transcendent. However anyone who is sincere and mature wrt religious practice will have proof of the existence of spirit and transcendent consciousness...but there is no science involved as it is not objective and generally not able to be shown to others. If one wants to experience the proof, it requires a total commitment to a mature religious discipline...

So, in order to be shown the evidence, first all you have to do, is completely believe without evidence, until you already believe, and then use that belief as evidence of your beliefs. Valid plan.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, in order to be shown the evidence, first all you have to do, is completely believe without evidence, until you already believe, and then use that belief as evidence of your beliefs. Valid plan.

No beliefs involved...it is more real than objective world scientific proof....

 

[Awkward Fingers]

No beliefs involved...it is more real than objective world scientific proof....

And what is this evidence then, that only one with a total commitment finds?

 

[psychoslice]

In the big picture, is there really such thing as nothing ?.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And what is this evidence then, that only one with a total commitment finds?

I said upfront it is not objective and can not be conveyed to another....but for example if you have had intuitive insights that bring to your consciousness a great clarity and certainty about some problem you have been musing about for some time... These sorts of insights can not be brought about by thinking about the problem...they come at a time when one is not trying to deal with it...well what I'm saying is that that type of intuitive insight becomes more frequent and reliable when one is pondering the unknown to the point that one becomes aware that one's mind is interfacing a greater mind at which point there is contact...awesome to realize one's mind is not a totally separate stand alone system.. Furthermore, one's vision can become sensitive to energy movement and exchange between living entities that is invisible to normal vision, etc. etc...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In the big picture, is there really such thing as nothing ?.

No!

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I said upfront it is not objective and can not be conveyed to another....but for example if you have had intuitive insights that bring to your consciousness a great clarity and certainty about some problem you have been musing about for some time... These sorts of insights can not be brought about by thinking about the problem...they come at a time when one is not trying to deal with it...well what I'm saying is that that type of intuitive insight becomes more frequent and reliable when one is pondering the unknown to the point that one becomes aware that one's mind is interfacing a greater mind at which point there is contact...awesome to realize one's mind is not a totally separate stand alone system.. Furthermore, one's vision can become sensitive to energy movement and exchange between living entities that is invisible to normal vision, etc. etc...

And someone who is not religious lacks these insights? Or has them at a reduced rate, or less accuracy?
I'm curious how you even were able to make that claim that that is something that should be considered evidence. How did you come to that decision?

Now, the last bit, I'm interested in. So, these people who can see this energy, that is a real existent thing, or something that is only made up in their mind, and they think they see it?

 

[psychoslice]

No!

Yea that's what I felt.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And someone who is not religious lacks these insights? Or has them at a reduced rate, or less accuracy?
I'm curious how you even were able to make that claim that that is something that should be considered evidence. How did you come to that decision?

Now, the last bit, I'm interested in. So, these people who can see this energy, that is a real existent thing, or something that is only made up in their mind, and they think they see it?

I repeat myself because some people do not understand what is being said to them....ahem....the transcendent is not objective and can not be conveyed to another, they must experience it for themselves...,got it? You have not engaged in a mature religious practice so you have no proof, nor can anyone ever give it to you....do you understand? Cry all you like....but you will have to suck it to see.... As for the siddhis...the disciple is advised to take no notice as it retards the process of realizing union and thus freedom from ignorance and suffering...

 

[gnostic]

Science does the objective observable universe....and so it follows naturally and logically that it does not know about the transcendent. However anyone who is sincere and mature wrt religious practice will have proof of the existence of spirit and transcendent consciousness...but there is no science involved as it is not objective and generally not able to be shown to others. If one wants to experience the proof, it requires a total commitment to a mature religious discipline...

I am not a mathematician, Ben, so I don't give much figs about "proof" or with "proving". The world is more than just mathematical equations or mathematical models. When you say "proof", I would view "proof" being a mathematical issue, not a scientific issue. Nor am I a theoretical physicist, which put more emphasis on proof than evidences.

My experience with science is more precise dealing with Applied Science, because of the courses I had completed (Civil Engineering and Computer Science). And because of that practical application to physical science, I am more incline to what can be verified, through testing or evidence.

You do know that there are differences between "proof" and "evidence", don't you?

Some would use these two words interchangeably, like judges and lawyers in the courtrooms, but when lawyers talk about "proof" what they are really saying is "evidence". If lawyer were ACTUALLY talking about "proof", they would be writing complex mathematical equations on a white board before the judge and jury.

What they are presenting in the courtroom, are "evidences", not proof, that something had occurred (like a crime or civil offense).

But I am certainly not a law student, so it doesn't matter what language they used, they can use it interchangeably. (That's strictly not true, because how we say thing matters a lot in court room.) But you have to remember this debate is a debate between science and religion, not a law court room.

Both mathematicians and scientists understand this distinction between the two.

Can you write a mathematical equation for (or draw a mathematical model of) the existence of spirit or the transcendent consciousness? That's what I would be asking you, if I wanted or requested "proof" from you.

I know what you are talking about, I just wanted to point out you are using incorrect term in your reply.

But getting back to your reply.

Yes, science don't deal with transcendent consciousness or the existence of spirit, because both are not falsifiable. No scientists couldn't possibly find evidences for either one of them, but they are also "not testable".

But (of course, there's always a "but") I think spirit and transcendent consciousness are just as "faith-related" as that of Abrahamic religions. You cannot objectively test; you can believe that it is possible, and it doesn't matter how mature the believers are, it is still taken on blind faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not a mathematician, Ben, so I don't give much figs about "proof" or with "proving". The world is more than just mathematical equations or mathematical models. When you say "proof", I would view "proof" being a mathematical issue, not a scientific issue. Nor am I a theoretical physicist, which put more emphasis on proof than evidences.

My experience with science is more precise dealing with Applied Science, because of the courses I had completed (Civil Engineering and Computer Science). And because of that practical application to physical science, I am more incline to what can be verified, through testing or evidence.

You do know that there are differences between "proof" and "evidence", don't you?

Some would use these two words interchangeably, like judges and lawyers in the courtrooms, but when lawyers talk about "proof" what they are really saying is "evidence". If lawyer were ACTUALLY talking about "proof", they would be writing complex mathematical equations on a white board before the judge and jury.

What they are presenting in the courtroom, are "evidences", not proof, that something had occurred (like a crime or civil offense).

But I am certainly not a law student, so it doesn't matter what language they used, they can use it interchangeably. (That's strictly not true, because how we say thing matters a lot in court room.) But you have to remember this debate is a debate between science and religion, not a law court room.

Both mathematicians and scientists understand this distinction between the two.

Can you write a mathematical equation for (or draw a mathematical model of) the existence of spirit or the transcendent consciousness? That's what I would be asking you, if I wanted or requested "proof" from you.

I know what you are talking about, I just wanted to point out you are using incorrect term in your reply.

But getting back to your reply.

Yes, science don't deal with transcendent consciousness or the existence of spirit, because both are not falsifiable. No scientists couldn't possibly find evidences for either one of them, but they are also "not testable".

But (of course, there's always a "but") I think spirit and transcendent consciousness are just as "faith-related" as that of Abrahamic religions. You cannot objectively test; you can believe that it is possible, and it doesn't matter how mature the believers are, it is still taken on blind faith.

That's what I said...science does not do the transcendent because it can't...it is not an objective reality.... Belief and or faith in the transcendent does not mean spiritual experience...only those who commit fully to realize union with the transcendent will actually meet the goal if they live long enough...

 

[gnostic]

Belief and or faith in the transcendent does not mean spiritual experience...only those who commit fully to realize union with the transcendent will actually meet the goal if they live long enough...

How can it not be "spiritual experience"?

Isn't the whole "union" thingy about spiritual experience?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How can it not be "spiritual experience"?

Isn't the whole "union" thingy about spiritual experience?

Haha....belief involves conceptualization.....thought is thought, it matters not what the thought is about...it is a function of brain.. A spiritual experience involves moving out of the physical body....brain mind meets transcendent mind and normal physical reality takes q back seat to a reality beyond thought...this is what is meant by 'union'...but it is more than that...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

X = There is creation of something from something in time..... Y = There is creation of something from nothing in time...

Whence one can infer no Z. Your argument is the equivalent of "A fair coin toss must yield heads, or it must yield tails, therefore...."???
Therefore nothing. Also, your propositions claim there to be a "creation" and one that is "in time", meaning that your mutually exclusive possibilities are not exhaustive as they limit the origins of the universe to "creation" of something from either something or nothing "in time", and therefore assumes creation (rather than existence) and FAR more importantly assumes time.

X and Y are a complementary opposite pair in the context of creation

And even if we ignore how poor a choice of words "creation" is her, you rendered it conditional to "in time." As time didn't exist, your complementary pair is the logical equivalent of "either all dogs were puppies when cats, or all dogs weren't puppies when cats".

creation possibility on the one hand, with Z representing no creation on the other...understood?

Z implies nothing of the sort. It is another baseless assertion about time (ignoring the creation nonsense).

 

[gnostic]

Haha....belief involves conceptualization.....thought is thought, it matters not what the thought is about...it is a function of brain..A spiritual experience involves moving out of the physical body....brain mind meets transcendent mind and normal physical reality takes q back seat to a reality beyond thought...this is what is meant by 'union'...but it is more than that...

The outer body experience, still seemed to be "all in the mind", and that you believe it happen.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whence one can infer no Z. Your argument is the equivalent of "A fair coin toss must yield heads, or it must yield tails, therefore...."???
Therefore nothing. Also, your propositions claim there to be a "creation" and one that is "in time", meaning that your mutually exclusive possibilities are not exhaustive as they limit the origins of the universe to "creation" of something from either something or nothing "in time", and therefore assumes creation (rather than existence) and FAR more importantly assumes time.


And even if we ignore how poor a choice of words "creation" is her, you rendered it conditional to "in time." As time didn't exist, your complementary pair is the logical equivalent of "either all dogs were puppies when cats, or all dogs weren't puppies when cats".


Z implies nothing of the sort. It is another baseless assertion about time (ignoring the creation nonsense).

Says you...ok answer me this....do you believe there was a beginning to the universe or was there no beginning?