Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[YoursTrue]

I understand “existence” that if it exists, it could be independently verified; “verified” as in with evidence and/or experiments, & with data. Those are the only objective criteria to verifying “existence”.

Evidence are something where existence can be observed, tested.

Aside from the fact that your grammar is wrong in the last sentence, what you are saying does not make sense. Who knows? Maybe that's how it should be. Ya think?

 

[gnostic]

You want evidence to prove existence, just take a look, listen, feel, taste, and smell. or does not that count because it is subjective?

You are still ignoring what I am saying, Ben

It isn't the existence of the universe, nor the existence of consciousness that I am concerned about the evidence.

It is you applying any deity, that there are no evidence for.

And when you say the highlighted below:

If you do not understand that existence itself is deity, then you are lost, at least until you realize the truth/

...that's what you don't have evidence for - the existence of a deity.

Using deity or God, and applying that to the universe or to consciousness, the supernatural parts (eg deity) that you have no evidence for existence, that's superstition.

When anyone claims the "supernatural" with the "natural", that's superstition.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still ignoring what I am saying, Ben

It isn't the existence of the universe, nor the existence of consciousness that I am concerned about the evidence.

It is you applying any deity, that there are no evidence for.

And when you say the highlighted below:



...that's what you don't have evidence for - the existence of a deity.

Using deity or God, and applying that to the universe or to consciousness, the supernatural parts (eg deity) that you have no evidence for existence, that's superstition.

When anyone claims the "supernatural" with the "natural", that's superstition.

No one is applying the concept of deity to existence. existence is deity. Deity emerged as the word/concept to represent existence, and in another sense, the concept of existence emerged to represent deity. Now context is everything when we are communicating with a fellow human, so we should use the most appropriate concept for the occasion. For example, I would not usually use the word God to represent existence when talking in a secular environment, or to an atheist or agnostic, but this is a debate forum and so here we are.

Actually, there is no supernatural for me, everything that happens is natural, but like above, I would use the concept of supernatural as appropriate when explaining things in a secular environment or dealing with atheists.

 

[gnostic]

No one is applying the concept of deity to existence. existence is deity. Deity emerged as the word/concept to represent existence, and in another sense, the concept of existence emerged to represent deity. Now context is everything when we are communicating with a fellow human, so we should use the most appropriate concept for the occasion.

No, Ben.

If we were to follow this claim of yours, equate “existence” as if it is the same as “deity”, then all you have done is to flush the word “existence“ down the toilet.

As I said before, you are no better than any creationist - dishonestly redefining word to suit your agenda - your pantheistic belief. It is exactly the same tactics I have seen creationists have employed, here.

That’s just your concept.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, Ben.

If we were to follow this claim of yours, equate “existence” as if it is the same as “deity”, then all you have done is to flush the word “existence“ down the toilet.

As I said before, you are no better than any creationist - dishonestly redefining word to suit your agenda - your pantheistic belief. It is exactly the same tactics I have seen creationists have employed, here.

That’s just your concept.

Ok gnostic, try this. As it happens, I understand the reality of the concept of deity as representing 'all that exists', and I also understand that while you do not believe there is deity, you do understand the concept of 'existence' as meaning 'all that exists'.
So what is the difference between our understanding of deity existence and plain existence, just this, my understanding is that deity is conscious and therefore existence/universe is conscious, whereas you believe there is no consciousness outside of that which evolved, and therefore 'existence' is not conscious.
Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[gnostic]

Ok gnostic, try this. As it happens, I understand the reality of the concept of deity as representing 'all that exists', and I also understand that while you do not believe there is deity, you do understand the concept of 'existence' as meaning 'all that exists'.

Then you should know, that I view “deity” or “god” to be a supernatural being with supernatural powers.

The problem with supernatural is that it doesn’t exist.

The supernatural is great, if you like to create story about such things, but it doesn't exist in reality, it certainly wouldn’t be natural. Hence, I view supernatural to be a myth or fiction.

Don’t get me wrong, Ben. I do love great stories, and myths are one of my favourite interests in life, and I have researched some of the great ancient & medieval literature in myths, legends and folklore, from Western Europe to the Middle East. While I have explored other myths from India (Vedic & Hindu), China (Taoism) & Japan (Shinto), but only to very limited extents…meaning, I am not as well as acquainted with these myths than I am with those of classical Greek/Roman, Sumerian-Babylonian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Celtic, Norse/Germanic, etc.

I am also familiar with myths that are related to religions of those civilisations & cultures.

The differences between some people and I, is that these stories are cultural stories, but they are not real.

I do see the universe and natural world as “all that exists”, but not with the whatever deity people believed in. Because to me, people invented deities that they have worshipped, and other than accepting these religious beliefs through faith, THEY WERE ALL INVENTED BY PEOPLE, SO NONE OF THEM REAL.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you should know, that I view “deity” or “god” to be a supernatural being with supernatural powers.

The problem with supernatural is that it doesn’t exist.

The supernatural is great, if you like to create story about such things, but it doesn't exist in reality, it certainly wouldn’t be natural. Hence, I view supernatural to be a myth or fiction.

Don’t get me wrong, Ben. I do love great stories, and myths are one of my favourite interests in life, and I have researched some of the great ancient & medieval literature in myths, legends and folklore, from Western Europe to the Middle East. While I have explored other myths from India (Vedic & Hindu), China (Taoism) & Japan (Shinto), but only to very limited extents…meaning, I am not as well as acquainted with these myths than I am with those of classical Greek/Roman, Sumerian-Babylonian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Celtic, Norse/Germanic, etc.

I am also familiar with myths that are related to religions of those civilisations & cultures.

The differences between some people and I, is that these stories are cultural stories, but they are not real.

I do see the universe and natural world as “all that exists”, but not with the whatever deity people believed in. Because to me, people invented deities that they have worshipped, and other than accepting these religious beliefs through faith, THEY WERE ALL INVENTED BY PEOPLE, SO NONE OF THEM REAL.

That is your belief, I otoh do the reality. I have no interest in trying to persuade you to change your quite limited belief.

 

[gnostic]

That is your belief, I otoh do the reality. I have no interest in trying to persuade you to change your quite limited belief.

No, what you have is a belief, and an unsubstantiated claim. Even when you have claimed that your belief is concept, it is still unsubstantiated, and it certainly doesn’t make it true, by calling it concept.

A concept is merely an “abstract idea“, something that conceived in one’s mind - which by itself, is not indicative its true. Without logic AND evidence to back up the concept, it is worth anything to anyone.

You can claim that your concept to be true, but without evidence, that’s just merely circular reasoning & confirmation bias.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, what you have is a belief, and an unsubstantiated claim. Even when you have claimed that your belief is concept, it is still unsubstantiated, and it certainly doesn’t make it true, by calling it concept.

A concept is merely an “abstract idea“, something that conceived in one’s mind - which by itself, is not indicative its true. Without logic AND evidence to back up the concept, it is worth anything to anyone.

You can claim that your concept to be true, but without evidence, that’s just merely circular reasoning & confirmation bias.

Every word is a concept dear gnostic, even if you use a mundane word like 'bird' or 'tree' in a conversation, the concept of the bird and tree in my mind would be different to yours', unless the types of bird and tree were specified, and even then, there is size, etc., that each would have in mind or imagine independently and differently from the other.. For this reason, I remind people that reality is on forever the other side of concepts.

Now none of this matters much in the context of social conversation, but it can and does cause a problem in the work and classroom environment. However, in the religious environment it serves to obscures the very teaching as truth can never be realized via conceptual understanding, the divine has to be realized directly as non-dual. Such a realization cannot be conveyed to another as it is not a conceptual belief, but pure non-dual experience.

All the best with your search for truth gnostic.

 

[gnostic]

Every word is a concept dear gnostic, even if you use a mundane word like 'bird' or 'tree' in a conversation, the concept of the bird and tree in my mind would be different to yours', unless the types of bird and tree were specified, and even then, there is size, etc., that each would have in mind or imagine independently and differently from the other.. For this reason, I remind people that reality is on forever the other side of concepts.

The word, concept, can be used anywhere, and everywhere, be in sciences, in arts, in design departments, in corporate boardrooms, in classrooms, and yes, even in religions, where ideas are formulated, communicated, presented. In another word, concepts are often shared.

The concept does not make it inherently “true” or “false”. They are just ideas that started with something thinking about the ideas, will then either write them down or present the concept orally, for others to consider the concepts, eg evaluate it, implement it, or discard it.

A concept doesn’t have to be science-related or religion-related. As I said in the opening sentence or paragraph, concepts could be on any subjects, unrelated to science & religion.

Concepts are not “true” by-default. It has the potential of being true, but as humans can make mistakes, or be illogical or unrealistic, concepts can also be shown to be wrong, when evaluated, analyzed or investigated.

An actual “scientific theory” begin with developing a hypothesis, that’s neither true, nor false, but must be testable and eventually tested, if a hypothesis is to ever be considered scientific. A hypothesis is only true, when it has been rigorously tested, and the evidence, experiments & data are accepted by independent scientists as a new ”scientific theory”.

In another word, no hypotheses are accepted as true without being rigorously tested & verified.

But at the very beginning of Scientific Method, before even starting the hypothesis in the first place, it should always start with some preliminary observations to some specific phenomena, following by having “ideas” or “concepts” that are questions about the “observations” that a scientist is curious about.

These questions are often about -

​

(A) WHAT the phenomena are?​

​

(B) HOW do they (A) work?​

​

(C) WHAT could to use the information (from earlier questions, A & B)?​

​

(D) HOW would you implement C?​

Note that questions A & B is all about understanding the observed phenomena, understanding the properties of the phenomea & its mechanisms.

While C & D are all about exploring the possible or potential applications they may have.

So all of that will involved some preliminary research, to learn if these conceptual ideas are falsifiable, and whether it should start developing the actual hypothesis.

In the scientific method diagram below (copy from Wikipedia), what I was talking about the ”observations”, “questions” & “research”, they are all starting point, prior to formulating the hypothesis (the hypothesis is a "proposed" detailed models of explanations & predictions, including instructions on how one would test the hypothesis, eg how to perform the experiment(s), or where to look for evidence, etc):

So science, concepts are involved in science too, but the big differences between following the processes or steps of Scientific Method, and all non-scientific concepts (including religions), the models in a hypothesis, have to be tested, to verify and validate if the hypothesis is true, or to refute the hypothesis.

In science, particularly accepted scientific theories, and for working hypotheses, explanations have to be very clear and specific, so it require much more details about the birds or trees, the examples you have given, and if you were a scientist, then you would have to test the proposed explanations, via experiments or finding evidence about the birds or trees.

A concept without observational evidence or experiments, make such concepts worthless to science. Unfalsifiable concept (or untestable concept) is pseudoscience, junk that needs to be thrown out, as you cannot test the concept.

How would you test your claims about the pantheistic "deity"? You don't.

While it is great that you can meditate and believe what you believe, meditations are great for retrospection, reflection and expanding one's "spiritual" consciousness, but what you tell us about your experiences, is nothing more than hearsay. It is only relevant to you, and no one else, hence highly subjective and personal.

It doesn't tell what you've claimed, to be true - something that I can observe, touch. If anything, all you have to say, is not only unrealistic, your claims also sound illogical.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The word, concept, can be used anywhere, and everywhere, be in sciences, in arts, in design departments, in corporate boardrooms, in classrooms, and yes, even in religions, where ideas are formulated, communicated, presented. In another word, concepts are often shared.

The concept does not make it inherently “true” or “false”. They are just ideas that started with something thinking about the ideas, will then either write them down or present the concept orally, for others to consider the concepts, eg evaluate it, implement it, or discard it.

A concept doesn’t have to be science-related or religion-related. As I said in the opening sentence or paragraph, concepts could be on any subjects, unrelated to science & religion.

Concepts are not “true” by-default. It has the potential of being true, but as humans can make mistakes, or be illogical or unrealistic, concepts can also be shown to be wrong, when evaluated, analyzed or investigated.

An actual “scientific theory” begin with developing a hypothesis, that’s neither true, nor false, but must be testable and eventually tested, if a hypothesis is to ever be considered scientific. A hypothesis is only true, when it has been rigorously tested, and the evidence, experiments & data are accepted by independent scientists as a new ”scientific theory”.

In another word, no hypotheses are accepted as true without being rigorously tested & verified.

But at the very beginning of Scientific Method, before even starting the hypothesis in the first place, it should always start with some preliminary observations to some specific phenomena, following by having “ideas” or “concepts” that are questions about the “observations” that a scientist is curious about.

These questions are often about -

​

(A) WHAT the phenomena are?​

​

(B) HOW do they (A) work?​

​

(C) WHAT could to use the information (from earlier questions, A & B)?​

​

(D) HOW would you implement C?​

Note that questions A & B is all about understanding the observed phenomena, understanding the properties of the phenomea & its mechanisms.

While C & D are all about exploring the possible or potential applications they may have.

So all of that will involved some preliminary research, to learn if these conceptual ideas are falsifiable, and whether it should start developing the actual hypothesis.

In the scientific method diagram below (copy from Wikipedia), what I was talking about the ”observations”, “questions” & “research”, they are all starting point, prior to formulating the hypothesis (the hypothesis is a "proposed" detailed models of explanations & predictions, including instructions on how one would test the hypothesis, eg how to perform the experiment(s), or where to look for evidence, etc):

So science, concepts are involved in science too, but the big differences between following the processes or steps of Scientific Method, and all non-scientific concepts (including religions), the models in a hypothesis, have to be tested, to verify and validate if the hypothesis is true, or to refute the hypothesis.

How would you test your claims about the pantheistic "deity"? You don't.

While it is great that you can meditate and believe what you believe, meditations are great for retrospection, reflection and expanding one's "spiritual" consciousness, but what you tell us about your experiences, is nothing more than hearsay. It is only relevant to you, and no one else, hence highly subjective and personal.

It doesn't tell what you've claimed, to be true - something that I can observe, touch. If anything, all you have to say, is not only unrealistic, your claims also sound illogical.

You certainly are a verbose person gnostic, if you were more succinct in your responses, a more fluent and meaningful dialog would ensue. As it is, I will address only those points I feel are relevant.

Even your thoughts are concepts gnostic, you will never find out what and who you really are in the context of pure existence, by thinking, thoughts about reality are not THE reality. One must be in a state where there is no concept arising in the mind to realize THAT which is non-conceptual. When your mind is free of thought, free of conceptualization, the is no duality of you and existence, there is only pure awareness, which is a state of non-duality.

You ask how to test it? Why you just do it, still your mind! Now here comes a sad truth, it is not an easy goal for anyone, not alone someone whose mind is very inclined to be conceptual in both thought and words, it may take years of multi-times daily meditation to still the mind to the point where realization takes place, a state you may have heard of called samadhi. Only those who have the 'calling' to engage in religious practice have the self-discipline to realize the goal, disciples are relatively few.

Lastly, the irony is that I have by necessity employed conceptual words and ideas to convey to you that to realize the religious goal of non-duality Self realization, you must learn to have periods in your day free of all conceptualizations, thoughts and speaking.

 

[gnostic]

Now none of this matters much in the context of social conversation, but it can and does cause a problem in the work and classroom environment. However, in the religious environment it serves to obscures the very teaching as truth can never be realized via conceptual understanding, the divine has to be realized directly as non-dual. Such a realization cannot be conveyed to another as it is not a conceptual belief, but pure non-dual experience.

While the whole non-dual experiences might work with your religion, to me, the whole dual philosophy vs non-dual philosophy, are just sophistry to me.

To me, the universe is real and natural, where as the "deity" is unrealistic supernatural, and so far nonexistent. No one have shown any deity to be real.

The mixing of nature and supernatural, is just recipe of myth or fiction, something that are clearly made up.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

While the whole non-dual experiences might work with your religion, to me, the whole dual philosophy vs non-dual philosophy, are just sophistry to me.

To me, the universe is real and natural, where as the "deity" is unrealistic supernatural, and so far nonexistent. No one have shown any deity to be real.

The mixing of nature and supernatural, is just recipe of myth or fiction, something that are clearly made up.

Yes correct, so far as there exists a non-dual philosophy, it is conceptual and thus has to be recognized as duality, but the realization itself of the state of non-duality is enlightenment, Christhood, Buddhahood, etc.. It is true though, no one can actually know if this is true until or unless they have actually realized it.

 

[gnostic]

You certainly are a verbose person gnostic, if you were more succinct in your responses, a more fluent and meaningful dialog would ensue. As it is, I will address only those points I feel are relevant.

Even your thoughts are concepts gnostic, you will never find out what and who you really are in the context of pure existence, by thinking, thoughts about reality are not THE reality. One must be in a state where there is no concept arising in the mind to realize THAT which is non-conceptual. When your mind is free of thought, free of conceptualization, the is no duality of you and existence, there is only pure awareness, which is a state of non-duality.

You ask how to test it? Why you just do it, still your mind! Now here comes a sad truth, it is not an easy goal for anyone, not alone someone whose mind is very inclined to be conceptual in both thought and words, it may take years of multi-times daily meditation to still the mind to the point where realization takes place, a state you may have heard of called samadhi. Only those who have the 'calling' to engage in religious practice have the self-discipline to realize the goal, disciples are relatively few.

Lastly, the irony is that I have by necessity employed conceptual words and ideas to convey to you that to realize the religious goal of non-duality Self realization, you must learn to have periods in your day free of all conceptualizations, thoughts and speaking.

The reasons why I am skeptical about meditation is it because people like you.

I don’t deny the values of meditation for personal well-being, such as to alleviate stresses, anxiety, etc, and meditation that could help with focus, or allow for some personal insights.

However, what I am skeptical of, are religious claims that it (meditation) can pierce the mysteries of the Universe, . That where I see New Age woo from so-called mystics or spiritualists, making lots of unsubstantiated and over-the-top exaggerated claims.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The reasons why I am skeptical about meditation is it because people like you.

I don’t deny the values of meditation for personal well-being, such as to alleviate stresses, anxiety, etc, and meditation that could help with focus, or allow for some personal insights.

However, what I am skeptical of, are religious claims that it (meditation) can pierce the mysteries of the Universe, . That where I see New Age woo from so-called mystics or spiritualists, making lots of unsubstantiated and over-the-top exaggerated claims.

You are entitled to your beliefs, all the very best to you and may God's blessings go with you.

 

[viole]

Why didn't the universe always exist? Because since God is supposed to be outside of time and is supposed to have always existed, then how could God have used a point in time to start creation? Any thoughts on this?

The Universe always existed. So, I am not sure what that question of yours means,

Ciao

- viole