Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

@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."

Ahem. gnostic says that God is nothing more than superstition, and you say he has a very good argument. Ok, I get that.

Yet then you go on to claim you believe in God? In the light of the above, I don't get that, can you explain?

Please explain why you think I am anti-science?

In any event, I am pleased to hear of your claim to believe in God, keep it on the broil, we don't want to share in the destiny of the luke warmers*. * Revelation 3:15-16.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ahem. gnostic says that God is nothing more than superstition, and you say he has a very good argument. Ok, I get that.

Yet then you go on to claim you believe in God? In the light of the above, I don't get that, can you explain?

Please explain why you think I am anti-science?

In any event, I am pleased to hear of your claim to believe in God, keep it on the broil, we don't want to share in the destiny of the luke warmers*. * Revelation 3:15-16.

I am not lukewarm on God or science, I believe in a Universal God, but not the ancient worldviews of God and yes the baggage includes a lot of superstition and mythology.

By your posts you fail to come out straight forward in support of science as science is, and accept the sciences of evolution physics and cosmology as science. You may clarify your views, I do not accept qualification limits on science based on ancient worldviews,

@gnostic as far as his science goes I have no problem with his views. He of course will not accept the belief in God in any form.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, that's what it's all about .. our souls are aware of why we say what we do..
..even if we unconsciously choose one thing over another for worldly reason, and ignore
them.

Your beating around the bush with polite meaningless euphemisms.

I take the bull by the horns and challenge your lukewarm response,

Again , , ,
These are too vague and general statements 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 still cling to an ancient tribal anti-science beliefs against evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Ahem. gnostic says that God is nothing more than superstition, and you say he has a very good argument. Ok, I get that.

Yet then you go on to claim you believe in God? In the light of the above, I don't get that, can you explain?

Please explain why you think I am anti-science?

In any event, I am pleased to hear of your claim to believe in God, keep it on the broil, we don't want to share in the destiny of the luke warmers*. * Revelation 3:15-16.

Superstition is when someone or some people assert natural or physical phenomena or even places, or something artificial & abstract (eg law, music, etc), and attribute any of these, to the supernatural (spirit, deity, demon, fairy, etc), that's superstitions.

If you were to claim today is raining is because of God, again that's superstition.

Should you were to claim that the thunder is due to Indra, Zeus or Thor, then that would be superstition.

If you were to claim an event occurred due to luck or fortune, that would be superstition.

Do you get what I am saying here?

That's what I meant by superstitions.

Now you have claimed the following:

The Universe is God, that's superstition.​

​

The reality is God, that's superstition.​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not lukewarm on God or science, I believe in a Universal God, but not the ancient worldviews of God and yes the baggage includes a lot of superstition and mythology.

By your posts you fail to come out straight forward in support of science as science is, and accept the sciences of evolution physics and cosmology as science. You may clarify your views, I do not accept qualification limits on science based on ancient worldviews,

@gnostic as far as his science goes I have no problem with his views. He of course will not accept the belief in God in any form.

If one's relationship with the reality represented by the concept of God is only through belief, then they are lukewarm.

Do you really think your opinion as to my scientific and religious devotion is worth consideration, was that meant to be a joke?

It is not your agreement with gnostic's view of science that raised my question, it is your agreement with his claim that religion is superstition. So come clean, do you or do you not agree with gnostic that religion is superstition?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Superstition is when someone or some people assert natural or physical phenomena or even places, or something artificial & abstract (eg law, music, etc), and attribute any of these, to the supernatural (spirit, deity, demon, fairy, etc), that's superstitions.

If you were to claim today is raining is because of God, again that's superstition.

Should you were to claim that the thunder is due to Indra, Zeus or Thor, then that would be superstition.

If you were to claim an event occurred due to luck or fortune, that would be superstition.

Do you get what I am saying here?

That's what I meant by superstitions.

Now you have claimed the following:

The Universe is God, that's superstition.​

​

The reality is God, that's superstition.​

Ok, 'all there is' is all there is. Do you think the concept of 'all there is' is superstitious?
Now let me define the concept of 'God' to mean 'all there is'. Do you think 'God' in this context is superstitious?

 

[gnostic]

Ok, 'all there is' is all there is. Do you think the concept of 'all there is' is superstitious?

By itself, “all there is”, isn’t superstition.

And if I was to “the Universe is all there is”, that’s not superstition.

if you were to say “God is all there is”, then in that context, yes, it is superstition.

The universe isn't supernatural…whereas God or spirit are.

When you mixed natural with supernatural, especially when you are personifying nature with the supernatural, then that’s superstition.

How many times must I say it, that when you attributed or personified the universe to God, that‘s superstition?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

By itself, “all there is”, isn’t superstition.

And if I was to “the Universe is all there is”, that’s not superstition.

if you were to say “God is all there is”, then in that context, yes, it is superstition.

The universe isn't supernatural…whereas God or spirit are.

When you mixed natural with supernatural, especially when you are personifying nature with the supernatural, then that’s superstition.

How many times must I say it, that when you attributed or personified the universe to God, that‘s superstition?

With due respect, it is your lack of understanding that is the problem. Words are just words, the word 'gnostic' is just a mental creation, the reality represented by the word 'gnostic' in this context is the actual living breathing you! Now you are not the same as the name gnostic, agreed. If the word God is being used to represent 'all that is', then you should agree that the word is not the same as the reality represented by 'all that is', the reality represented by the word 'God' is 'all that is'.

There is no personification involved in the concept of 'God' being equated with the concept of 'all that is', 'all that is' is not a person. Try not to be confused by your memory of words being used to mean other things in other contexts, and stick with our exchange.

 

[muhammad_isa]

These are too vague and general statements since there are too many conflicting 'beliefs' as to what falsehood and evil is.

You are entitled to believe what you like.
I judge by what G-d has revealed to mankind.

..and again, you can quibble over what has been revealed and what hasn't.
G-d will judge between us on the day of judgement on that which we differ.

 

[shunyadragon]

If one's relationship with the reality represented by the concept of God is only through belief, then they are lukewarm.

Do you really think your opinion as to my scientific and religious devotion is worth consideration, was that meant to be a joke?

It is not your agreement with gnostic's view of science that raised my question, it is your agreement with his claim that religion is superstition. So come clean, do you or do you not agree with gnostic that religion is superstition?

I did not say religion was superstition, and you failed to respond to my post specifically.

Again . . .

I am not lukewarm on God or science, I believe in a Universal God, but not the ancient worldviews of God and yes the baggage includes a lot of superstition and mythology.

By your posts you fail to come out straight forward in support of science as science is, and accept the sciences of evolution physics and cosmology as science. You may clarify your views, I do not accept qualification limits on science based on ancient worldviews,

@gnostic as far as his science goes I have no problem with his views. He of course will not accept the belief in God in any form.

Waiting for your response, Failure to respond specifically will lead to no other conclusion than to confirm your anti-science agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are entitled to believe what you like.
I judge by what G-d has revealed to mankind.

..and again, you can quibble over what has been revealed and what hasn't.
G-d will judge between us on the day of judgement on that which we differ.

The above remains a limp lukewarm monologue dodges the main issues of the nature of relationships between religions and science. The problem cannot be reduced to a mindless "quibble,"
The very serious questions concerning science and religious beliefs concerning issues such as what is 'evil'

 

[muhammad_isa]

The very serious questions concerning science and religious beliefs concerning issues such as what is 'evil'

I have no idea what you are talking about.
As far as I'm aware, science has nothing to do with defining evil.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I did not say religion was superstition, and you failed to respond to my post specifically.

Again . . .

I am not lukewarm on God or science, I believe in a Universal God, but not the ancient worldviews of God and yes the baggage includes a lot of superstition and mythology.

By your posts you fail to come out straight forward in support of science as science is, and accept the sciences of evolution physics and cosmology as science. You may clarify your views, I do not accept qualification limits on science based on ancient worldviews,

@gnostic as far as his science goes I have no problem with his views. He of course will not accept the belief in God in any form.

Waiting for your response, Failure to respond specifically will lead to no other conclusion than to confirm your anti-science agenda.

You stated that gnostic has a very good argument when he included in his argument against me that religion was superstition.

In any event, the issue is over, I do not find your claim to be religious convincing, and until I'm persuaded otherwise by evidence of your devotion to God, I will have my doubts.

 

[shunyadragon]

You stated that gnostic has a very good argument when he included in his argument against me that religion was superstition.

Not really, I said he had a very good argument for science as science is without trying to selectively fit science into an ancient world view by people who only know a superficial knowledge of science.

In any event, the issue is over, I do not find your claim to be religious convincing, and until I'm persuaded otherwise by evidence of your devotion to God, I will have my doubts.

Of course, I have my own doubts. Any expression of subjective religious beliefs should be open to doubt. Part of my belief is many mold God in their own image, and alas try and mold science in their own image. I believe in a Universal Source some call God(s).

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
As far as I'm aware, science has nothing to do with defining evil.

Both are severe issues form your perspective, self-defining science and evil to fit what you believe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course, I have my own doubts. Any expression of subjective religious beliefs should be open to doubt. Part of my belief is many mold God in their own image, and alas try and mold science in their own image. I believe in a Universal Source some call God(s).

That seems a bit luke-warmish, to be 'hot' is to give yourself to God, and to be cold is to be an atheist. You cannot serve two masters without serving one second best, religion or science, which is first for you?

 

[gnostic]

That seems a bit luke-warmish, to be 'hot' is to give yourself to God, and to be cold is to be an atheist. You cannot serve two masters without serving one second best, religion or science, which is first for you?

Science is knowledge for education and works (eg research or applied sciences like technology, engineering, medicine, etc) that lead to jobs or careers.

And with employment, you should be getting paid with salaries, in whatever fields you work in.

Science has nothing to do with theism, mysticism, atheism, agnosticism, or any other -isms (be it religious -isms or philosophical -isms). Science should be religion-neutral and mystic-neutral.

You follow pantheism, right, Ben?

Can you get qualification (education & training) & job for being a “pantheist”?​

​

Do you get a salary or wage for being a pantheist?​

​

Is there such thing as a “professional” pantheist?​

For being a physicist or biologist or astronomer, and so on, being employed to do their works, they required qualifications & employment. Being a scientist, is no different from being accountant, salesperson, surgeon, dentist, geologist, teacher, electrician, architect, builder, plumber, pilot, janitor, lawyer, and so on…education, qualifications, training or apprenticeship, employment.

Not so for in pantheism.

Science isn’t religion, and science isn’t atheism too. That you are equating science and atheism, just showed how narrow-minded your thinking is.

And btw, @shunyadragon followed the Baháʼí Faith, that his religion. But his career was that of a geologist, so science is geology (in Natural Sciences, that one of the sciences in Earth Science). I said, “was”, as it is my understanding, that he has been retired for some years now.

So why are you demanding that he should choose to do what he do for a living (a geologist) & being an atheist, or being theist (an Baháʼí)?

why can he not be both a theist & a scientist?

His religion, is his business, not yours. His career as a scientist (geologist), is also his business, not yours. It is rude of you that if he choose both religion and science, that you are pushing him to being an atheist, is truly offensive. And not of your damn business.

So tell me, Ben. Can a church, mosque or whatever pantheism organisation is, can any of them provide shunyadragon with education & qualification in geology, and then employ him as a geologist?

I think not. So yes, your reasoning is narrow-minded, indeed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science is knowledge for education and works (eg research or applied sciences like technology, engineering, medicine, etc) that lead to jobs or careers.

And with employment, you should be getting paid with salaries, in whatever fields you work in.

Science has nothing to do with theism, mysticism, atheism, agnosticism, or any other -isms (be it religious -isms or philosophical -isms). Science should be religion-neutral and mystic-neutral.

You follow pantheism, right, Ben?

Can you get qualification (education & training) & job for being a “pantheist”?​

​

Do you get a salary or wage for being a pantheist?​

​

Is there such thing as a “professional” pantheist?​

For being a physicist or biologist or astronomer, and so on, being employed to do their works, they required qualifications & employment. Being a scientist, is no different from being accountant, salesperson, surgeon, dentist, geologist, teacher, electrician, architect, builder, plumber, pilot, janitor, lawyer, and so on…education, qualifications, training or apprenticeship, employment.

Not so for in pantheism.

Science isn’t religion, and science isn’t atheism too. That you are equating science and atheism, just showed how narrow-minded your thinking is.

And btw, @shunyadragon followed the Baháʼí Faith, that his religion. But his career was that of a geologist, so science is geology (in Natural Sciences, that one of the sciences in Earth Science). I said, “was”, as it is my understanding, that he has been retired for some years now.

So why are you demanding that he should choose to do what he do for a living (a geologist) & being an atheist, or being theist (an Baháʼí)?

why can he not be both a theist & a scientist?

His religion, is his business, not yours. His career as a scientist (geologist), is also his business, not yours. It is rude of you that if he choose both religion and science, that you are pushing him to being an atheist, is truly offensive. And not of your damn business.

So tell me, Ben. Can a church, mosque or whatever pantheism organisation is, can any of them provide shunyadragon with education & qualification in geology, and then employ him as a geologist?

I think not. So yes, your reasoning is narrow-minded, indeed.

The two, religion and science are not in competition, one is about all that exists, eternally, and the other is the finite part relevant to the temporary material body. So all your concerns about the body's and human societies' material needs are unnecessary, a religious soul can be just as productive in this world as an atheistic one.

It is a question of which does one serve the greatest, religion or science, the hot or the cold, to be lukewarm is to put religion second, and that is considered worse than being cold/atheistic.

 

[gnostic]

The two, religion and science are not in competition, one is about all that exists, eternally, and the other is the finite part relevant to the temporary material body. So all your concerns about the body's and human societies' material needs are unnecessary, a religious soul can be just as productive in this world as an atheistic one.

Atheism only deal with the question of any deity, the question of existence, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is the opposite face of the same coin as theism.

They (whether it be atheism or theism) have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

Sciences related to researches or employment, where scientists should get salaries or wages.

Sciences are also knowledge that you learned from schools & universities, and get qualifications, something that are not required for being theists (eg monotheists, polytheists, henotheists, deists, pantheists, etc), atheists, agnostics, mystics, etc.

You are being ridiculous narrow that you think anyone working as scientists, HAVE TO BE ATHEISTS.

And it is damn offensive that you would demand @shunyadragon (or anyone else for that matter), because they choose to be a scientist.

You cannot be making such outrageous demands.

I don’t make demands that people have to be “agnostics” for any reasons at all.

shunyadragon accepted both his religion & science, so it is no one business of his own, just as it your business whether you accept pantheism & be anti-science.

It is a question of which does one serve the greatest, religion or science, the hot or the cold, to be lukewarm is to put religion second, and that is considered worse than being cold/atheistic.

That stupid way of thinking things.

This paragraph is contradicting your first paragraph.

if religion & science are “not in competition“, then why are you saying, one has to be the “greatest” over the other?

That’s just hypocrisy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheism only deal with the question of any deity, the question of existence, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is the opposite face of the same coin as theism.

They (whether it be atheism or theism) have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

Sciences related to researches or employment, where scientists should get salaries or wages.

Sciences are also knowledge that you learned from schools & universities, and get qualifications, something that are not required for being theists (eg monotheists, polytheists, henotheists, deists, pantheists, etc), atheists, agnostics, mystics, etc.

You are being ridiculous narrow that you think anyone working as scientists, HAVE TO BE ATHEISTS.

And it is damn offensive that you would demand @shunyadragon (or anyone else for that matter), because they choose to be a scientist.

You cannot be making such outrageous demands.

I don’t make demands that people have to be “agnostics” for any reasons at all.

shunyadragon accepted both his religion & science, so it is no one business of his own, just as it your business whether you accept pantheism & be anti-science.




That stupid way of thinking things.

This paragraph is contradicting your first paragraph.

if religion & science are “not in competition“, then why are you saying, one has to be the “greatest” over the other?

That’s just hypocrisy.

The prefix 'a' in front of theism means 'not', so to be an atheist is to not be religious, simple. It was never implied that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, quite the contrary, there is no competition between them, take Sir Isaac Newton for example.

Take yourself, science means more to you than religion, for myself, religion cones first, where is the hypocrisy? Are we both not using our own free will to choose to the most appropriate way to express ourselves in this life according to our present state of evolution.