Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Is there a point to this speculation about a concept that you don't understand but seems to you to confirm with some idea of yours?

What speculation?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, they could use the same word that is used for ball. But using the word for circle in Isa 40:22 does not mean that it is a flat earth verse.

circle is 2-dimension shape. sphere, cone and cylinder are 3-dimension shapes.

What the Old Testament describes, is like cylinder (or disk), not a sphere.

The earliest people to describe the Earth being a sphere or spherical, were ancient Greek natural philosophers, like Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato & Aristotle, and later by Hellenistic astronomers, like Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes.

 

[Pogo]

Wow! You are being really annoyingly tiresome.

I have never - not even once - did I ever support the idea of there being “nothing” in the Universe. That should have settled the matter.

But, no. You’ve misunderstood my position. You’ve ignored what I am trying to say. And you have twisted my words, again, and again.

I keep telling you that I don’t think nothingness is even being proposed in the Big Bang model, but you still keep bringing it up, as I have not said anything at all.

It like you are trying to play a cat-and-mouse-game with me. And seriously, it is really growing old on me.

Well if he defines words his way then of course he is consistent, but it is meaningless when he then assumes properties for these self-defined states.
Heck it might as well be a religion, a belief without evidence that drives one's emotions.

 

[Pogo]

What speculation?

everything about the "outside" of the universe for starters.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

everything about the "outside" of the universe for starters.

What about it?

 

[paarsurrey]

science and religion are complementary, and objective science practice does not have the focus on the subjective

I agree.

Regards

 

[Pogo]

So you didn't answer my question, we agree there is no nothing, so what is the BB expanding into?

You need to study some math to understand that the universe is not understood to be expanding into something, it is not displacing or whatever and thus all of your arguments about what is outside is just your attempt to apply an ancient Greek understanding to a problem that they never could conceive of. I don't know, nobody knows and making random philosophical statements is just what used to get done at 3AM while smoking.
beyond that, there are many ways to define "nothing" you can spend a lot of time just on that and still not find agreement with your personal desires.

Drop the arrogance and you might get a conversation.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, science is aware the 95% exists, what it does not know as it cannot be objectively proven, is that there is cosmic intelligence at work in these spiritual realms. Religious practice such as meditation, prayer, devotion, etc., is the subjective method of realizing the divine reality of these spiritual realms.

excuse me, science test a model with evidence & experiments, that would either verify or refute a model. Science doesn’t prove anything. Proofs are more mathematics, like with equations and formulas.

Scientists “test”, mathematicians “prove”.

But how do you prove something that spiritual, like spirits? You don’t. You cannot prove divine reality or spiritual realm with any equation…you certainly couldn’t prove their spiritual or divine existence, mathematically, nor test them scientifically & empirically. Meditation and prayers have zero results for researching natural phenomena of the Universe.

You are just bad as Young Earth Creationism creationists, hopelessly inapt in maths as in science, you confuse mathematics vocabulary with science vocabulary.

And while I am enjoy learning different cultures, including learning different religions & spiritualities, I am flabbergasted by the amount of woo that these believers & philosophers try to treat their beliefs as facts.

 

[Pogo]

What about it?

Well for starters, you know nothing about it and so everything you say about it is speculation.

Curiosity, How big was the singularity that was the origin of this universe?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, but one man's trusted intuition is another's speculation. But that's ok, learning from mistakes is quite effective.

Trusted Intuition?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need to study some math to understand that the universe is not understood to be expanding into something, it is not displacing or whatever and thus all of your arguments about what is outside is just your attempt to apply an ancient Greek understanding to a problem that they never could conceive of. I don't know, nobody knows and making random philosophical statements is just what used to get done at 3AM while smoking.
beyond that, there are many ways to define "nothing" you can spend a lot of time just on that and still not find agreement with your personal desires.

Drop the arrogance and you might get a conversation.

Math like language is conceptual, reality is being represented by numbers and letters as a symbolic representation of the real, but the real they represent will be forever separate from the symbols. In my religious practice for example, a mind in the state of non-conceptualization is the goal. When it is achieved, reality is present as it is, there is no math and language conceptualization of it as in objective learning, it is subjective and out of this world.

So when one is one with the oneness of all that is, one loses interest in the conceptual representation of reality as the real thing is so awesome beyond conceptual understanding.

As I explained to gnostic, science deals indirectly/objectively with reality, religion practice is subjective union with reality, each has its purpose,

 

[gnostic]

So you see, science and religion are complementary, and objective science practice does not have the focus on the subjective and vice versa for religion.

Natural sciences, like biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science & astronomy, may approach research & practices through objective tests, like evidence & experiments, but Social Sciences, like psychology, anthropology, sociology, and many other “social” disciplines, do deal with subjective matters & experience.

Psychology do explore the mind & emotions of human experiences, so personal opinions and beliefs are explored.

 

[Pogo]

Evidence for BB science is the biblical "Let there be light" quote. The universe is eternal, get over it, there is no nothing!

You forgot to provide evidence that whatever version of the Bible is anything more than the collected stories of a pre-scientific peoples that didn't even know the earth was a sphere even though their contemporaries did. What does Let their be light even mean? No, you can't just shoehorn the words into a modern understanding of what light is, that is just post hoc justification.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well for starters, you know nothing about it and so everything you say about it is speculation.

Curiosity, How big was the singularity that was the origin of this universe?

That is your speculation.

There was no singularity, if you think so, where did it come from?

 

[Pogo]

Science is fine for dealing with matter, but not spirit. The 95% of the universe that science knows as dark energy, or the quantum vacuum, or zpe, is the same realty to which I would also add such concepts as spirit or ether. Now the difference in approach to understanding this reality is that wrt religion, it is a subjective experience, wrt science, it is an attempt to objectively learn about it.

So you see, science and religion are complementary, and objective science practice does not have the focus on the subjective and vice versa for religion.

Show us evidence of a spirit and we can have a conversation, until then this is just woo.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Natural sciences, like biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science & astronomy, may approach research & practices through objective tests, like evidence & experiments, but Social Sciences, like psychology, anthropology, sociology, and many other “social” disciplines, do deal with subjective matters & experience.

Psychology do explore the mind & emotions of human experiences, so personal opinions and beliefs are explored.

Wrt social sciences, they may deal with the subjective, but they do it in an objective practice,

By religious subjective practice, it means not dealing with reality via concepts, but becoming one with reality with no conception at all.

 

[gnostic]

Math like language is conceptual, reality is being represented by numbers and letters as a symbolic representation of the real, but the real they represent will be forever separate from the symbols. In my religious practice for example, a mind in the state of non-conceptualization is the goal. When it is achieved, reality is present as it is, there is no math and language conceptualization of it as in objective learning, it is subjective and out of this world.

That’s BS.

All religions, including your own, are conceptual, abstract, and only mere representations of natural reality. And many religions also focused on the supernatural, which are nonexistent.

Your version of Panetheism, is just another new age concept, trying to adapt Hinduism & Buddhism into warped forms.

 

[Pogo]

That is your speculation.

There was no singularity, if you think so, where did it come from?

Who knows, but the evidence points to a period of extreme density, technically a singularity is not known because the math breaks down at that point, but then we go into hypotheses. These do not allow us to state that all of this is a spirit or whatever you believe so stop pretending you have any sort of logic behind what you are saying, you have unevidenced belief or faith as it is commonly known.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That’s BS.

All religions, including your own, are conceptual, abstract, and only mere representations of natural reality. And many religions also focused on the supernatural, which are nonexistent.

Your version of Panetheism, is just another new age concept, trying to adapt Hinduism & Buddhism into warped forms.

How can the mind conceptualize when it is in a state of non-thinking, theta and delta waves only, no alpha and beta?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Who knows, but the evidence points to a period of extreme density, technically a singularity is not known because the math breaks down at that point, but then we go into hypotheses. These do not allow us to state that all of this is a spirit or whatever you believe so stop pretending you have any sort of logic behind what you are saying, you have unevidenced belief or faith as it is commonly known.

There is no direct evidence of a singularity, period.