• 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!

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
@Ben Dhyan, who I have been debating with, believe that mere meditation, concept are more than real, but I have yet to seen any past or present master yogi actually formulating science treatise on the cosmology of the universe with any accuracy that modern astronomers & astrophysicists have done so far.

For astronomy & astrophysics, it has been long, ongoing learning process, where there have been mistakes or false leads, but the great things about either sciences, that people can learn from their mistakes.

Most religions have only described the world they lived in, especially ancient religions, never knew much about how much larger the universe is. What astronomers saw before the invention of telescopes, was merely some planets, moons, and about 2000 to 3000 stars in their given location (so whether you live at the equator or near equator, or further south or further north, hemisphere-wise) and depending on how good & clear the eyesight, they would only see the tiniest of fraction of the Milky Way, closest to Earth.

For centuries after Galileo, but before Edwin Hubble in 1919 to 1929, astronomers thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy, that Andromeda and other galaxies were mistakenly as identified and cataloged as nebulas.

As Ben is a pantheist with leaning towards more more easterly dharma religions, like Hinduism & Buddhism, than with the Abrahamic religions, then you would have to ask yourself, just much did the ancient Hindu or Buddhist astronomers really know about the universe?

Without even basic telescopes, not much at all. Eastern and western astronomers in ancient times, knew very little.

Ben Dhyan like to pretend that people that have mastered the meditation of yoga would know more about the universe than today with current knowledge supported be technology, but this is all anachronistic.

I am saying ancient astronomers were ignorants and idiots…no, they were simply just limited by what they can learn from their own eyes, just like everyone else back then.

It took times, for ancient people to reason that the Earth was spherical in shape, not flat like a disk or cylinder, that the earth wasn’t the centre of the celestial planetary system (geocentric vs heliocentric). It was the same with those astronomy in ancient India as well as well for ancient Greek astronomy. Both sides of the world in ancient times, really didn’t know where all the light and heat come from the Sun, no idea about Stellar Nucleosynthesis, until mid-20th century.

Instead, the Sun was personified as various deities in ancient religions, like the Ra in Egypt, Shamash in Babylonia, Heilios in Greece, Surya in India, and so on.

Until the mid-19th century, astronomy was often entwined with astrology, including India.

my understanding of the word concept, lies pretty much with definitions given, and it is clear to me, that Ben has taken the word out-of-context, he wanted more than the what the actually means, then perhaps he should use a different word.
Dear gnostic, meditation is a non-dualistic practice, science in the context of astronomy is a dualistic practice, there is no objection to, or competition with, on the part of a meditator as to the practice of astronomy. In fact, there is no reason why an astronomer could not practice meditation, one deals with the material world and the other with pure awareness free from conceptualization.

So here is a commonly used image that helps to explain to the conceptual minded person that reality is on the other side of conceptualization.

1727405377224.png



Like the metaphorical finger pointing to the moon, the finger is not the moon and is unimportant except as an expedient to show where one should actually direct their gaze to see the moon. So it is with conceptual descriptions and thoughts pertaining to reality, they act as an expedient to 'point' to THAT which is real, but are not real in themselves except as mental conceptualization/pointing finger.

Meditation opens one's awareness to apprehend reality on the other side of thought. Difficult for sure, and may take some years of practice to transcend the conceptual mind, but actual reality is so awesome relative to thinking about reality.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
meditation is a non-dualistic practice, science in the context of astronomy is a dualistic practice, there is no objection to, or competition with, on the part of a meditator as to the practice of astronomy. In fact, there is no reason why an astronomer could not practice meditation, one deals with the material world and the other with pure awareness free from conceptualization.

meditation have never taught anyone about the universe…conceptually or otherwise.p

when are you ever going to learn that personification of the universe with God, is nothing more than superstition? If you want to that, that is really your choice to believe what you will, but it has no basis in reality, whether you meditate on it or not.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
meditation have never taught anyone about the universe…conceptually or otherwise.p

when are you ever going to learn that personification of the universe with God, is nothing more than superstition? If you want to that, that is really your choice to believe what you will, but it has no basis in reality, whether you meditate on it or not.
Ok, it is understood that you believe there is no value in religion, what is not understood is why you are not able to resist going into ant-religion mode against religious minded posters, even when you were not addressed, when this very forum is called Religious Forums.

Why don't you just keep your anti-religion hysteria in check.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
..when are you ever going to learn that personification of the universe with God, is nothing more than superstition? If you want to that, that is really your choice to believe what you will, but it has no basis in reality, whether you meditate on it or not.
Truth is distinct from falsehood .. righteousness is distinct from evil.
 

simsi

Member
The reality represented by the concept 'God' is infinite and eternal, the reality represented by the concept 'space' and 'time' is infinite and eternal respectively. God is one, there is nothing outside of God. God is the eternal now, God is the infinite space.
The reality represented by the concept of time is an abstraction from eternal existence to create a finite segment of eternal existence which is then measured by some proxy means. Same with finite space, it is an abstraction from infinity to create a finite 3D segment which is then measured by proxy
Wolfram's idea of the hypergraph is proposal that the universe is a hypergraph of points. IT is a hypothetical explanation to make things fit a Unified Theory. I can only give it best a maybe, because it trying to work a geometry of the universe back words to make things fit a Unified Theory,

I am not comfortable with this approach
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Dark matter is used to explain their gravitational effects on large structures, eg galaxies, galactic clusters, molecular clouds, nebulas, stars, etc.

The expansion of the universe, of spacetime, is explained with Dark Energy.

Unlike Dark Matter, which is the attractive gravitational force, Dark Energy, on the other hand, is the repulsive force that drive the expansion, and possibly also responsible for the cosmic inflation (exponential rapid expansion).

Prior to the introduction of Dark Energy, eg the last two models of the Big Bang theory: the Cosmic Inflation model (early 1980s), the Lambda-CDM model (ΛCDM, late 1990s), the expansion of the universe are dependent on 3 essential factors:
  1. The Cosmological Principle: that the universe observed at larger scale (greater than 200 million light-year), is known to be both uniformly isotopic (eg universe appeared the same in every direction, regardless of the positions in the universe) & homogeneous (eg evidence are the same regardless of positions in the universe).
  2. The Redshift: measurement of distance are based on shifts in the electromagnetic spectrum, eg using spectrometry. The distance are from the “Observer” and the “observed” respective objects (eg galaxies). If the objects appear blue in spectrometer, then the objects would appear moving towards each other, that would imply the universe to be contracting. But if the objects appeared to be shifted towards each other the red end of EM spectrum, then the objects are moving away from each other, indicating the universe is expanding.
  3. The Friedmann Equations and the FLRW metric: The Friedmann Equations are actually based on Einstein’s Field Equations that Einstein have formulated in his General Relativity theory (1915), which Alexander Friedmann revised (1922), with the then Friedmann metric (now called FLRW metric). Georges Lemaître did the same thing, independently in 1927.
Together, they are part of the Hubble’s Law, as Edwin Hubble discovered the redshifts in 1929.

In the Friedmann Equations has equation notion for the rate (velocity) of expansion, denoted by H0, the Hubble Constant, although it is really not a constant, because throughout its history, the values have changed, from Hubble’s measurement (1929) of H0 to be 500 (km/s)/Mpc, to the Planck 2018 Data Release of the CMBR to 66.88 (km/s)/Mpc.

Whereas the WMAP & the Planck have used the CMBR to measure the expansion rate (H0), while Edwin Hubble used the Cepheid variable stars as his benchmark or “standard candle”. In 1998, the standard candle was the observation of the Type 1a Supernova, independently observed by 2 different teams, led by Adam Riess (High-Z Supernova Search Team), and by Saul Perlmutter (Supernova Cosmology Project).

And here is the punchline, since 1998, the observations of Type 1a Supernova provided indirect evidence of Dark Energy, which are supported by the WMAP & the Planck missions. It was in 1998, that led to formulation of the latest BB model - the ΛCDM. Both Riess & Perlmutter (independently) stated that the universe is slowing down its expansion, instead it is accelerating.

Anyway, Dark Matter is not doing the same thing as Dark Energy. Dark Matter is responsible for formation of large structures, like stars, galaxies, quasars, nebulae, etc.
Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven to be real in the lab. These are just a placeholder. I could say dark matter is and dark energy is due to unicorns, and that has as much proof or lack thereof.

I can explain these same observations, with the affect of separated space and time, on space-time, with separated space and time proven; Heisenberg. You cannot build a real house on an imaginary "dark" foundation and expect it to stand for very long. Conceptional modeling can see this but reverse engineering the foundation last will lead to problems in the future.
 

simsi

Member
The reality represented by the concept 'God' is infinite and eternal, the reality represented by the concept 'space' and 'time' is infinite and eternal respectively. God is one, there is nothing outside of God. God is the eternal now, God is the infinite space.
The reality represented by the concept of time is an abstraction from eternal existence to create a finite segment of eternal existence which is then measured by some proxy means. Same with finite space, it is an abstraction from infinity to create a finite 3D segment which is then measured by proxy.
Thanks Ben I agree with the distinction you make between language and reality and appreciate your rightly saying God is one and nothing is outside it (If the discussion continues I won't be calling God he etc. As you may know, some other languages have a neutral pronoun that's appropriate for God, unlike 'it' which is just better than nothing. Anyway I'll be using 'it')

But I've come across very convincing arguments that show how human language ultimately fails where God is concerned. It's true as you say that nothing is outside God but at the same time God is God and absolutely nothing else, hence neither the space nor time that seems to surround us.

I'm just assuming that you're equating certain infinities with God which is also characterised as infinite. I may have assumed wrong.

God's infinity, or rather how this name (the Infinite) applies to God isn't known or describable because what it applies to, God, isn't experienced or known by anyone. We need two knowns not one to make the equation. This is related to how our language isn't suitable.

Since you've responded to a post mentioning the Baha'i scripture, it teaches that everything other than God emanates from it.

So one could say both that everything is in God and outside it. Ultimately, as far as I understand the matter so far, relations like in/out break down, language limits.

The son of the religion's founder said something I have mused on much: that God surrounds all and is not surrounded. This includes the way the mind surrounds, by comprehension. That is, whatever we think or imagine isn't the Reality that surrounds all including the mind and whatever it thinks by way of language/signs and symbols etc.

Limits of language basically, more, of the mind itself. I haven't done justice at all to the issue. Briefly how God is, only God experiences and knows, and here we're just doing the best we can projecting our own criteria such as experience and knowledge onto God.

Actually I think you responded to me before by discussing God and creation being one. I was writing something back which I'll send later. Cheers
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven to be real in the lab.
No Dark Energy and Dark Matter are descriptive of indirect effects on gravity in the cosmos, nothing can be proven in science, and Dark Matter and Dark Matter cannot be proven in the lab.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Ok, it is understood that you believe there is no value in religion, what is not understood is why you are not able to resist going into ant-religion mode against religious minded posters, even when you were not addressed, when this very forum is called Religious Forums.

Why don't you just keep your anti-religion hysteria in check.
@gnostic has a very good argument. I agree with him and believe in God and meditation

You need to " just keep your anti-science hysteria in check."
 

simsi

Member
Wolfram's idea of the hypergraph is proposal that the universe is a hypergraph of points. IT is a hypothetical explanation to make things fit a Unified Theory. I can only give it best a maybe, because it trying to work a geometry of the universe back words to make things fit a Unified Theory,

I am not comfortable with this approach
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Truth is distinct from falsehood .. righteousness is distinct from evil.
This to vague and general a statement since there are too many conflicting 'beliefs' as to what falsehood and evil is.

As far as what is the universally held knowledge of science, you cling to an ancient tribal anti-science beliefs against evolution.
 

simsi

Member
What do you (as a Baha'i) think of Wolfram's idea of the hypergraph? Its not a religious idea but seems to fit into certain religious positions. He tries to figure out a universal theory of physics that models the universe mathematically. Within the hypergraphs are the construct of time and space which appear to have a beginning though they exist inside the (eternal I add) hypergraphs. Where would God be? Outside the hypergraphs? Would the hypergraphs be inside God? I am curious what you'd think about it as a Baha'i.

Below is an online article about it:
"https://www.sciencenews.org/article/stephen-wolfram-hypergraph-project-fundamental-theory-physics"
Brickjectivity I'm taking the time to read the article you cited and some other sources before replying. But I have responded to another post in this thread, touching on the limits of language and God, which is relevant roughly. Is it easy to read whatever one wants to locate? - I don't know as I haven't really found my way round yet. I suppose you'll come across that post.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven to be real in the lab. These are just a placeholder.

None of the distant galaxies we observed through the observatories (optical or radio astronomy) and through space telescopes (the Hubble, JWST, etc), also cannot be brought to the labs, wellwisher. The same are with surveys of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) by COBE, WMAP, the Planck, BICEP Array, none of that can be recreated in lab experiments.

All observations including the data acquired (eg measurements), are all processed and calculated through computers...and yet these are all evidence for galaxies.

And speaking of CMBR, the energy densities of the universe, have been measured & calculated the baryon matters (just under 5%), according to the Planck’s 2013 Data Release. While Dark Matter at 26.8%, Dark Energy at 68.3%.

See Planck Science Highlights from the European Space Agency (ESA). But if you are really smart, and don’t mind reading the technical reports for those data releases, go here, Planck Publications. As I am not an astrophysicist, I would suggest the first link, if you’re like me.
 
Last edited:

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
There are words for that: “superstition” being one of them.

Unfounded belief, myth. Primitive, ancient & medieval people believe that a god, spirit, demon, fairy, and all sorts of supernatural entities that are one with the sky, Sun, Moon, stars, rain, lightning or thunder, forests, mountains, rivers or seas, forests, they imagined under every rocks and crevices, or haunted them in their dreams, inspired them or drove them to madness.

That people are superstitious to this day, seems very odd to me.
Unfounded being the operative term, I'm sure. Beyond unfounded comes a string of presumptions negating that which exists as a singularity, namely the universe but far be it from me to persuade you otherwise. Superstition equates to an unfounded belief without an aim to discover truth, but it can also be that which drives us towards the answers to these unknowns, so maybe superstition is needed, if only to create a mystery needing to be solved.

I imagine einstein to have been one driven to and/or by madness. Look at his hair. I wonder how much of it ended up in the palms of his hands. These quests for truth could leave a man bald. Madness? Term it how you will. I'm not crazy. Everyone else is.
 

simsi

Member
Wolfram's idea of the hypergraph is proposal that the universe is a hypergraph of points. IT is a hypothetical explanation to make things fit a Unified Theory. I can only give it best a maybe, because it trying to work a geometry of the universe back words to make things fit a Unified Theory,

I am not comfortable with this approach

By functional do you mean relative? I suppose these terms would be interchangeable (within my limited grasp of physics also)

We can measure distance between two objects, and we can measure relative velocity also.
Some galaxies are moving away from us, others towards us.

"Playing" time from singularity, the division of matter meant "parts" were moving away from each?
So how is it that, now, some of these parts are moving towards each other again?

The universe is 14+ billion years old, so are there photons of electromagnetic radiation that are 14+ billions lights years away from the point of singularity?
Yes more so, actual essential qualities of matter, although as I say I'm not seeing it clearly yet. This means, for one thing, that spacetime isn't prior to matter, not some sort of container it may have been classically conceived, e.g. by Newton and others if I remember my basic physics - and I loathed it when I was in highschool - until I came at it again from the viewpoint of philosophy, which is my basic approach now.

Anyway I think we're beyond such literalism as containers nowadays, when I consider how we know that mass warps space and has implications for time too. And it's mass doing this, hence my expression 'functional'. No matter and, I believe, no spacetime either, but I can't fully justify my feelings yet.

I'm familiar with the theory of material singularity and how it's considered unsatisfactory by some nowadays. I believe in a singularity that pre-exists everything and isn't just a material state. Perhaps this is why some are dissatisfied with the concept as an idea - because they're still thinking in terms of formed matter. The universe has always been, just in what different states we're still hypothesizing. Perhaps the fact that as you say obviously some matter is moving towards itself rather than apart supports the idea.

Interestingly some Eastern philosophy and Baha'i scripture is motivating some directions, not in the mainstream of course. I raise this because you may have responded to my post which mentions the religion, can't access now what I exactly wrote. Briefly the Baha'i Faith is the latest update of religion, you may already have heard of it, lots have. Anyway I'm into these two sources.

Battery's nearly dead. Cheers
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Brickjectivity I'm taking the time to read the article you cited and some other sources before replying. But I have responded to another post in this thread, touching on the limits of language and God, which is relevant roughly. Is it easy to read whatever one wants to locate? - I don't know as I haven't really found my way round yet. I suppose you'll come across that post.
Only do so if it continues to be interesting and not for my sake. I work many hours and am a slow reader, so I cannot give tit for tat in this.

Briefly the Baha'i Faith is the latest update of religion, you may already have heard of it, lots have.
We do have Baha'is on this forum, some for years, and some are not here now. As a result I know several things about Baha'i religion. You must read a lot to be a knowledgable Baha'i. You must believe Muhammad is a prophet of God. You (Baha'i) are probably more mystic than Islam sects typically are...questioning the nature of our underlying reality more.
 

simsi

Member
Unfounded being the operative term, I'm sure. Beyond unfounded comes a string of presumptions negating that which exists as a singularity, namely the universe but far be it from me to persuade you otherwise. Superstition equates to an unfounded belief without an aim to discover truth, but it can also be that which drives us towards the answers to these unknowns, so maybe superstition is needed, if only to create a mystery needing to be solved.

I imagine einstein to have been one driven to and/or by madness. Look at his hair. I wonder how much of it ended up in the palms of his hands. These quests for truth could leave a man bald. Madness? Term it how you will. I'm not crazy. Everyone else is.
Nice humourous way to say something serious.
General Relativity defines gravity as a geometric property of space and time; spacetime is curved by proximity to mass and energy, so if we accept Relativity as a reasonable approximation of objective reality (rather than a functional abstraction) we can say space and time have substance, or fabric.

In Quantum Mechanics, space and time are considered to be granular (reducible to discrete quanta), but whether energy and mass may be considered properties of time and space itself, as opposed to properties solely of entities evolving in time and space, is an unresolved question as far as I am aware. In fact I’m not even sure the question makes sense.
Thanks, my language is probably misleading. I do consider time and space as real but as intertwined with matter in formation without which they wouldn't exist. This is what I meant by 'functional on' - actually I'm unsure of the grammar here. Anyway I don't think they're substances. I'm approaching things from a philosophical rather than a physics viewpoint. Actually as I said in another post, I didn't connect with physics at all, fed concepts and formulas in school without any why or wherefore, putting me off for life.

I don't think energy and mass are properties of spacetime, as neither do you. Granularity of time and space make more sense to me as minute architecture.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Thanks Ben I agree with the distinction you make between language and reality and appreciate your rightly saying God is one and nothing is outside it (If the discussion continues I won't be calling God he etc. As you may know, some other languages have a neutral pronoun that's appropriate for God, unlike 'it' which is just better than nothing. Anyway I'll be using 'it')

But I've come across very convincing arguments that show how human language ultimately fails where God is concerned. It's true as you say that nothing is outside God but at the same time God is God and absolutely nothing else, hence neither the space nor time that seems to surround us.

I'm just assuming that you're equating certain infinities with God which is also characterised as infinite. I may have assumed wrong.

God's infinity, or rather how this name (the Infinite) applies to God isn't known or describable because what it applies to, God, isn't experienced or known by anyone. We need two knowns not one to make the equation. This is related to how our language isn't suitable.

Since you've responded to a post mentioning the Baha'i scripture, it teaches that everything other than God emanates from it.

So one could say both that everything is in God and outside it. Ultimately, as far as I understand the matter so far, relations like in/out break down, language limits.

The son of the religion's founder said something I have mused on much: that God surrounds all and is not surrounded. This includes the way the mind surrounds, by comprehension. That is, whatever we think or imagine isn't the Reality that surrounds all including the mind and whatever it thinks by way of language/signs and symbols etc.

Limits of language basically, more, of the mind itself. I haven't done justice at all to the issue. Briefly how God is, only God experiences and knows, and here we're just doing the best we can projecting our own criteria such as experience and knowledge onto God.

Actually I think you responded to me before by discussing God and creation being one. I was writing something back which I'll send later. Cheers
"Everything other than God emanates from it." Hi simsi, yes that expresses it very well. Understanding that only God experiences and knows, helps us understand what and who we are as expressions of God.

Thank you simsi for your excellent reply, we seem to be in agreement on the important issues, God surrounds all and is not surrounded, very well said.
 

simsi

Member
Only do so if it continues to be interesting and not for my sake. I work many hours and am a slow reader, so I cannot give tit for tat in this.


We do have Baha'is on this forum, some for years, and some are not here now. As a result I know several things about Baha'i religion. You must read a lot to be a knowledgable Baha'i. You must believe Muhammad is a prophet of God. You (Baha'i) are probably more mystic than Islam sects typically are...questioning the nature of our underlying reality more.
Yes it's enjoyable for me and I've no interest in tit for tat. I've probably more time on my hands than you.

You raised a few points regarding Baha'is. Yes including Muhammad, Baha'is accept all the major prophets. There are only several prophets followed today, although obviously through thousands of schisms and sects. As for being knowledgeable, I feel this is due to the founder's emphasis on universal education and private, personal investigation of truth. The mystical aspect is a resolution of issues mostly in Islam, though resonant with other faiths, and moving beyond as you say. As I say, all in all an update, in keeping with our greatly developed capacities, as evidenced, for one thing, by the explosion of knowledge in the modern scientific era.

You were perhaps aware of all this but being brief. Your exposure to Baha'is explains your initial forthright question. Naturally what I've said reflects a viewpoint at the moment.

Naturally Jesus is also accepted as e.g. Buddha, Krishna etc. Cheers
 
Last edited:
Top