Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hold on buster....you did not answer the questions....just bluster and obfuscation....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
"The sum total of all that is" is the universe, the reality of the universe, that has nothing to with your philosophical claptrap "absolute" reality.
We still learning about the universe, and what we don't know, we don't need to jump to silly conclusion of absolute reality. The whole absolute reality thingie, is just absolute rubbish, based on religious or philosophy preconception, which have nothing to with reality at all.
You keep calling things like timelessness, or eternity as "beyond reality" or "absolute truth", but the truth is nothing more than lazy cop-out, in a similar line as "God did it". It is intellectually bankrupted and intellectually dishonest.
We don't know if there are "no beginning and no end" (eternity) or if there is a "beginning and end", but to make a claim that you "do know" is nothing but ego or arrogance.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The sum total of all that is...is absolute reality as I defined it in my post #599....so since it is now clear you believe in the reality represented by the concept the sum total of all existence', we can move on to the second question...
Do you believe you fully know all there is about the sum total of all there is, ie. the universe?
I am happy to use the conceptual labels of your choice if you balk at the ones I use.....what is important is that we both understand the actual realty represented by these labels lies forever on the other side... So when in future, just tell me what is your preferred term....and when you are not clear what I am referring to, just simply ask me...
And lastly, do you not see the irony of calling my understanding of the eternal nature of the universe arrogant, when you admit you do not know...it is as though not knowing is equal to knowing any other view as being an arrogant view...haha
gnostic
The Lost One
No, Ben. I believe in the universe contained all the facts within, but we will never know a fraction of what it is. BUT (again, another "but") I don't think it is what you would call "absolute reality".
The "absolute reality" is nothing more than mystic or philosophical crap. The absolute reality followed along the line of -
"I don't know anything about the universe or world beyond, but I can pretend that I know something."
The whole "absolute reality" is just an empty and shameless sophistry.
I don't believe that "absolute reality" of yours and the universe are the same thing.
So "the sum total of all that is" is meaningless with absolute reality, because different people have different opinions of "absolute reality", and not all would agree with what is "absolute"?
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
It is the universe that I am calling absolute reality....do you understand? It is the unknowns of the universe that I refer to as being beyond conceptual knowledge..
I know English is not your first language, and so I am happy to use the term universe, universal reality, etc....but fyi...the adjective 'absolute' merely means complete in that context.....complete reality.....no empty and shameless sophistry there gnostic....
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I wouldn't call it the quotient but I understand what you mean. However I don't see how it supports your original point.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Can you give EVEN ONE that has been verified to not be natural causes?
One.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Arrr....correct.....logically there are no natural phenomenon that are not due to natural causes...
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
lolArrr....correct.....logically there are no natural phenomenon that are not due to natural causes...
yup. Pretty much a straight tautology, there.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
How could you say about phenomenon that has not been discovered by science with any certainty where science is silent and dumb? That would be unscientific. Who has made science a judge for declaring something belonging to nature or not nature?
Regards
Thief
Rogue Theologian
that time is not real?
we humans have lots of ideas in our heads.
with manipulation we can form some of those notions into tangible items.
time is a quotient.....forever on the chalkboard....never anywhere else.
KBC1963
Active Member
Indeed well thought.
We can know that there is an uncaused cause for all subsequent effects based on the logic of infinite regress but who is to say that such a cause if it is found to be intelligent is not natural?
True. But what is this logic of infinite regress?
Forgetting for a second the need to define what we exactly mean with causation, and accepting the intuitive notion thereof, what leads you to the conclusion that we cannot be the result of an infinite sequence of causes/effects?
Ciao
- viole
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I think that's quite likely. Infinite space and infinite time. The big bang seems to have been the beginning of our ( current ) universe, but it doesn't mean there wasn't something before it, or that there aren't other universes.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Have you any scientific basis for your thought.
Regards
KBC1963
Active Member
For which thought? the uncaused cause or an intelligent cause being natural?
KBC1963
Active Member
I'm sure you can and already have looked up what the logic of infinite regress is.
Infinite regress is the proposition that there is a perpetual motion machine and you can run the idea by the patent office if you like and they can explain the error to you or you can look at our reality and see what is there to be seen.
We have never observed / experienced an infinite sequence of causes/effects and if infinite regression were true then we would be existing during a point along that infinite action of cause and affect so, ultimately we should never be able to observe an effect that is not also a cause but, physics has shown that every effect comes from a greater cause, thus an effect is always of less potential than its cause with which we can easily conclude that the potential of an effect to be causal diminishes to the point where it can no longer cause anything and it will simply remain an effect. An example; Scientists have asserted that heat death of the universe will leave the universe at equilibrium and unable to do any further work or cause a further effect. Thus, it is logical that there is neither an infinite regression or progression of causality based on the simple observable evidence of effects being less than their cause and eventually ending in uselessness. If you can see infinity end then you weren't observing infinity and you cannot assert that infinity occurred previous to your point in time since all points in time would be part of infinite time.