Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[firedragon]

That's acceptable because it has to be.

Exactly. Very good.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you are presently self identifying with the clay body, Jesus taught that that which is born of flesh/clay is flesh, and that which is born od spirit is spirit, unless you are born of the spirit, you will not become an immortal in the kingdom of God.

We as aspirants need to transition our self idenentiy from the body. to the soul (the spirit originally breathed into the clay by God). You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Not all will attain to immortality; some will, others will have the capacity to live forever on the earth (not in heaven as transformed spirit creatures). That is what I see from my Bible study. God made the earth and mankind for a reason. That reason will not be demolished but will be fulfilled, I believe.

 

[firedragon]

That's acceptable because it has to be.

Very good. Good work.

There is no such problem.

You should read some philosophers of science without just making things up. Try Samir Okaha.

Read Thomas Kuhn. Don't make things up because you just don't like to hear some truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, if you believe the JW teaching of immortality in a clay body, then so be it. I hope though, there will be pleasant surprise, if it happens that your clay body does die, your soul is self-realized as an immortal angel.

No, it will not be immortality in a clay body. We were talking about something else. I'll be brief and as simple as possible, because I encourage you to perhaps go to the website at jw.org which can explain more to you. Or wol.jw.org has a search engine and you can look for immortality in the search box there, articles and explanations will come up. Immortality will be attained to those who, like Jesus, will be given bodies like his. No longer flesh and blood. There are lots of wonderful things to discover on this earth and most of us have not even uncovered a thread of it, if you know what I'm saying. God made the earth for a purpose. It's been nice speaking with you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not all will attain to immortality; some will, others will have the capacity to live forever on the earth (not in heaven as transformed spirit creatures). That is what I see from my Bible study. God made the earth and mankind for a reason. That reason will not be demolished but will be fulfilled, I believe.

Existence is eternal, and evolution continues, a fail in one exam just means it has to be done again, and again until there is a pass.

There is no such place as Hell in the universe, there are karmic rewards and punishments, but since everything is an expression of God, the journey never stops until there is that a realization of what and who one is in the context of all existence, This of course does not mean a conceptual belief, but an actual relaization, and all expressions of God realize what and who they really are eventually.

 

[Pogo]

What is amazing is that I've never met so many know-it-alls,in one place.. astounding!!

It is only relative, but your confusion is understandable.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it will not be immortality in a clay body. We were talking about something else. I'll be brief and as simple as possible, because I encourage you to perhaps go to the website at jw.org which can explain more to you. Or wol.jw.org has a search engine and you can look for immortality in the search box there, articles and explanations will come up. Immortality will be attained to those who, like Jesus, will be given bodies like his. No longer flesh and blood. There are lots of wonderful things to discover on this earth and most of us have not even uncovered a thread of it, if you know what I'm saying. God made the earth for a purpose. It's been nice speaking with you.

Ok, that's more like it, I will look into it.

 

[gnostic]

What is amazing is that I've never met so many know-it-alls,in one place.. astounding!!

You are projecting.

You seemed to claim to know it all, even when your science education are limited to high school. And you certainly don't have any work experiences in any scientific field or capacity.

You posts often revealed just how very little you know, judging by the mistakes you often make.

And yet you arrogantly believe that you know more than everyone else.

So, if you are going to say that
others are "know-it-all" that's you when you looking at your reflection in the mirror.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are projecting.

You seemed to claim to know it all, even when your science education are limited to high school. And you certainly don't have any work experiences in any scientific field or capacity.

You posts often revealed just how very little you know, judging by the mistakes you often make.

And yet you arrogantly believe that you know more than everyone else.

So, if you are going to say that
others are "know-it-all" that's you when you looking at your reflection in the mirror.

I can learn, and I'm sorry, I was expressing my reaction to many posts, I should not have said it that way.

 

[ratiocinator]

'heart' first, and brain second.

That's kind of comical if we're talking about matters of fact about reality. Emotions and feelings are going to differ from person to person on the matter, so it amounts to believing what you'd prefer was true, rather than what probably is true.

If you want to wrap yourself up in a comforting fiction, I guess that's entirely up to you, but don't expect thinking people to be persuaded to join you.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am dealing with reality itself, not definitions of reality.

So you say, but you're simply ignoring the evidence we have about it because you don't like it and/or can't understand it.

The analogy does not work for me period for whatever reason, and it does not matter, existence has always existed, there was never a beginning, nor will there ever be an ending. Only material things have beginnings and endings.

Blind faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you say, but you're simply ignoring the evidence we have about it because you don't like it and/or can't understand it.


Blind faith.

Projecting...

 

[Polymath257]

No, it's not. We live in a world corrupted by violence and greed. If you call that "civilization" that's up to you. Nope, a "civilized society" doesn't mean to ME greed and violence.

No, violence has been around as long as life has been. Living things have been eating other living things from the beginning of life. The world has not been corrupted by violence; it was born with violence.

Civilization is the process of pulling ourselves *up* from that world of violence and fear. And that is a long, slow process that is very far from complete. Each generation, hopefully, makes some small improvement. Sometimes we fall back a bit. But we are better than we were 500 years ago, which was better than 2000 years ago, which was better than 100000 years ago.

 

[ratiocinator]

Projecting...

Accepting the objective evidence we have is not blind faith - obviously.

 

[Polymath257]

That deals with our universe only. It cannot tell us anything about whether time might be eternal,
or limited to our experiences in this universe, for example.

Philosophy deals with these sorts of issues, and explores various possibilities.
..and then, of course, we have religion .. which many people believe to be true.

And philosophy has a very poor track record for finding the truth.

First, philosophers disagree with each other. Each makes their arguments, and all seem to reach conclusions, but the end results all differ. That shows the process is unreliable.

Second, even when the majority of philosophers agree with each other, when the ideas are testable, they tend to be wrong. Kant thought that the only geometry possible was Euclidean geometry. All other philosophers through time agreed. They were all wrong.

The problem is that there is no way to determine the truth when two philosophers disagree. there is no way to *test* to see even which one is wrong. And that means that philosophy is NOT a good way to get to truth. Instead, we need to demand our ideas be testable and try to show them *wrong* before accepting them.

This ultimately shows that philosophy is simply a matter of confirmation bias among intelligent people. That is a very poor way to find truth.

It is not always necessary to "see something" in a physical sense, to understand that a philosophical
viewpoint is more than likely true. That's would be a narrow-minded view of reality.
My reality is formed by many different considerations .. not just physical science.

Well, this is what *some* philosophers claim, but should we believe them? Do they really have good reasons for their claims, or are they simply engaging in more confirmation bias?

Is it narrow minded to reject ways of thinking we *know* fail, even after thousands of years?

People can take whatever philosophical stance they like .. and can change their mind if they like.
Take away our weaning .. our language .. our education .. our conditioning .. what is your reality then??

Observation, testing, thinking, prediction, modify views based on results. You know, the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

What is amazing is that I've never met so many know-it-alls,in one place.. astounding!!

You don't have to know it all in order to know something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And philosophy has a very poor track record for finding the truth.
...

There is no objective truth in the strong sense as truth is cognitive and not empirical.

And science as per methodological naturalism is philosophy.
Knowledge as a concept is epistemology and that is philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

'heart' first, and brain second.

Nope. Both together. At all times.

Compassion without thought is ineffective. Thought without compassion is inhuman.

Similarly, most people consider killing others as wrong ('heart'), but recognize that there
are some circumstances where it is acceptable (brain).

..so my heart tells me that this worldly life cannot possibly be all that is, and my brain tells me that there is a relationship between physical dimensions i.e. space and time

The heart is a very poor way to determine truth (as opposed to goals and values). use the brain for truth and the heart for values.

My brain also tells me (through thought and study), that while models can teach us a lot
about how the universe works, it is not as simple as models suggest.

Of course not. That's why they are models. That is also why we seek to find more encompassing models. And that is what leads to science.

A model is just that .. a model .. it serves its purpose .. to enable us to visualize how physical
dimensions relate to each other. Not a categorical definition of what it all means philosophically.

Meaning isn't the goal. Finding the truth is. For meaning, you need values and goals.

Again, BOTH the heart and the brain are required for balance. Both have their function and both have their limitations. Use each as best: the brain for truth and the heart for values.

 

[Polymath257]

..oh, but there is .. Evidence - Wikipedia
It's not limited to physical, scientific evidence.

Looks like the main alternative is legal evidence. If that is your point, then it seems pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no objective truth in the strong sense as truth is cognitive and not empirical.

And science as per methodological naturalism is philosophy.
Knowledge as a concept is epistemology and that is philosophy.

Or so philosophers like to claim. Not all thinking is philosophy. Once we get away from idle speculation into testing ideas through observation, we get away from philosophy and into science and knowledge.