Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ppp]

Agreed, a discussion maybe, but religious practice itself is meant to be a non-dual, non-verbal practice, an exercise in transcending the thinking mind.

"Meant to" by you, perhaps. But your "meant to" is merely your opinion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Meant to" by you, perhaps. But your "meant to" is merely your opinion.

I was explaining it to anyone who may be ignorant of the fact that church services for example are not non-verbal, not non-dual.

 

[gnostic]

@Ben Dhyan

When I say "as is" , I mean what I say.

But you keep quibbling on "dual" and "non-dual", are actually distorting what I am saying.

The reality that I see "as it", is at least for me, is unfiltered. I have no interests in philosophizing my views with "dual vs non-dual" BS.

Now, I have a lot of respect for meditation, which are great for focus, concentration, and for introspection...but the whole transcendent consciousness or mind, is nothing but woo to me.

I have not seen any major contributions towards Natural Sciences, be it on the subjects of biology or that of cosmology, from people claiming to be transcendent.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@Ben Dhyan

When I say "as is" , I mean what I say.

But you keep quibbling on "dual" and "non-dual", are actually distorting what I am saying.

The reality that I see "as it", is at least for me, is unfiltered. I have no interests in philosophizing my views with "dual vs non-dual" BS.

Now, I have a lot of respect for meditation, which are great for focus, concentration, and for introspection...but the whole transcendent consciousness or mind, is nothing but woo to me.

I have not seen any major contributions towards Natural Sciences, be it on the subjects of biology or that of cosmology, from people claiming to be transcendent.

Dualistic natural science is for mortals, non-dual transcendence is for immortals.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

Simply because it could not exist before One G-d's commandment "to be", when He commanded then the process of its creation/"to become" got kicked out, right, please? Science bears witness to it, please, right?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

Simply because it could not exist before One G-d's commandment "to be", when He commanded then the process of its creation/"to become" got kicked out, right, please? Science bears witness to it, please, right?

Regards

God the creator and God's creation are one, there is no separation, except in human thought, God is within you. The goal of religion is to realize God within, not outside as a duality. All created things have a beginning, and all created things have an ending, but the creative process is eternal.

 

[gnostic]

Dualistic natural science is for mortals, non-dual transcendence is for immortals.

Define “immortal”?

Humans, even with the hoopla of non-dual transcendence that talk about, such a transcendent person will live no longer than those living the dualistic life.

So really what immortals are you talking about?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Define “immortal”?

Humans, even with the hoopla of non-dual transcendence that talk about, such a transcendent person will live no longer than those living the dualistic life.

So really what immortals are you talking about?

Immortal means an entity that exists eternally.

An immortal is a spiritual being.

 

[gnostic]

Immortal means an entity that exists eternally.

An immortal is a spiritual being.

Which is no more real than the pixie.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which is no more real than the pixie.

Your thought comes as a result of neuron firings in your brain, reality is not a thought about reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

Because it couldn't exist, simply, right, please?

Regards

 

[simsi]

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.

Hello now I have some opinion of Wolfram’s modelling. I didn’t think commenting without familiarising myself with it would mean much. One thing I wanted to be sure of was if the modelling entailed anything external to itself, which it doesn’t.

Naturally I distinguish between modelling and the reality being modelled, the physical universe. I may be wrong, but I assume your reference to hypergraphs is just shorthand for a universe presumably structured and evolving in the way the modeling tells us. I must say that my understanding as a Baha’i is that time and space exist at the level of the physical universe only, so it seems I agree with Wolfram’s representation of the physical universe, in which time and space arise. So I’ll just refer to the universe now. Baha’is believe that the universe is eternal. And I think you’re asking an immediate and interesting question that arises: since the universe is eternal then where is God, also considered eternal, in relation to it? Is God outside it, is it in him?

The Baha’i position is that absolutely everything other than God emanates from him. The forerunner of Baha’u’llah the Bab was emphatic about this, and I accept it for various reasons. Emanation and creation are the same thing in the Baha’i context. Secondly God surrounds all and is not surrounded. I used these two notions in another post which you may have come across, but anyway I feel they’re useful here too.

There isn’t a starting point for emanation/creation. As far as I can see, it’s not illogical to say God eternally emanates the universe if we’re ready to talk of the universe as a system in which time itself arises. The Baha’i writings say that time holds sway over creatures not over God. Perhaps then, we can say God atemporally emanates the universe. I mean that as far as we can imagine God’s viewpoint, there’s no such thing as time. Naturally we can’t fully grasp the situation.

So supposing the hypergraphic modelling completely corresponds to the universe - I wouldn’t know as yet whether it does – then we’d have a universe that is structured and evolving as per the modelling - emanating from God atemporally. This universe, then, would be eternal too, and I don’t see problems arising about eternities. One is the function of the other, never without the other, yet the other is that through which it exists, both eternal. Actually in the Baha’i writings, the attribution of eternity itself, as the be all and end all, is unhooked from its moorings. Not inescapably defining God, Baha’u’llah said.

Then I believe God surrounds the universe, and this also reinforces the idea that time doesn’t apply to him. And so he is outside it as you said, and it is in him, also as you said. Your Baha’i contacts here may have mentioned ‘Abdu’l-Baha, son of Baha’u’llah. He demonstrated in many ways how God surrounds all and isn’t surrounded, an unusual characterisation of God that I’ve not heard otherwise, and that has said a lot to me since I first came across it years ago. Naturally how God surrounds all – actually or exactly – isn’t fully appreciated by any being but him. Yet I don’t feel we can deny it. Presumably what God creates is somehow in and through him, and let’s say he’s perfectly aware of, or alive to, his own creation, its nature, its boundaries etc. Naturally terms like ‘awareness’ wouldn’t mean what they do for us, but again we can’t very well say God isn’t aware etc. It’s rather a case of logically denying certain things than asserting God real nature, and the notion of surrounding isn’t as anthropomorphic as other ways of expressing God’s priority over creation either. ‘Abdu’l-Baha meant it as much as a warning as anything else, to guide thought in what it could reasonably hope to grasp. God can’t be surrounded mentally by comprehending him either - so it has a few applications.

And obviously surrounding doesn’t mean the universe being incorporated or assimilated into God, constituting, adding to, or modifying him in any way, which has pantheistic overtones perhaps. The Baha’i position isn’t pantheistic in any sense, that’s very clear. God is God and absolutely nothing else, meant very strictly. He is an absolutely transcendent creator.

So that’s about it for now. I hope my comments were relevant. You believe in God I assume. I feel it’s rather meaningless and unfortunate having to use the male pronoun for God. ‘It’ is truer but confusing usually. I’d like to hear your views on how you feel Wolfram’s modelling fits into certain religious positions. Also you said Baha’is accept Muhammad. Later I added to a reply I’d already given, that Baha’is accept all prophets, of whom there are only several being followed today.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ If man is a model (Gen 1:27 God created man in his image), and the model models the modeller/universe, the models will turn out to be in the modeller's image. An atheist will see themselves evolved from unconsciousness, no God is needed, while a theist will see themselves as having their origins in Divine consciousness, God.

 

[danieldemol]

Hello now I have some opinion of Wolfram’s modelling. I didn’t think commenting without familiarising myself with it would mean much. One thing I wanted to be sure of was if the modelling entailed anything external to itself, which it doesn’t.

Naturally I distinguish between modelling and the reality being modelled, the physical universe. I may be wrong, but I assume your reference to hypergraphs is just shorthand for a universe presumably structured and evolving in the way the modeling tells us. I must say that my understanding as a Baha’i is that time and space exist at the level of the physical universe only, so it seems I agree with Wolfram’s representation of the physical universe, in which time and space arise. So I’ll just refer to the universe now. Baha’is believe that the universe is eternal. And I think you’re asking an immediate and interesting question that arises: since the universe is eternal then where is God, also considered eternal, in relation to it? Is God outside it, is it in him?

The Baha’i position is that absolutely everything other than God emanates from him. The forerunner of Baha’u’llah the Bab was emphatic about this, and I accept it for various reasons. Emanation and creation are the same thing in the Baha’i context. Secondly God surrounds all and is not surrounded. I used these two notions in another post which you may have come across, but anyway I feel they’re useful here too.

There isn’t a starting point for emanation/creation. As far as I can see, it’s not illogical to say God eternally emanates the universe if we’re ready to talk of the universe as a system in which time itself arises. The Baha’i writings say that time holds sway over creatures not over God. Perhaps then, we can say God atemporally emanates the universe. I mean that as far as we can imagine God’s viewpoint, there’s no such thing as time. Naturally we can’t fully grasp the situation.

So supposing the hypergraphic modelling completely corresponds to the universe - I wouldn’t know as yet whether it does – then we’d have a universe that is structured and evolving as per the modelling - emanating from God atemporally. This universe, then, would be eternal too, and I don’t see problems arising about eternities. One is the function of the other, never without the other, yet the other is that through which it exists, both eternal. Actually in the Baha’i writings, the attribution of eternity itself, as the be all and end all, is unhooked from its moorings. Not inescapably defining God, Baha’u’llah said.

Then I believe God surrounds the universe, and this also reinforces the idea that time doesn’t apply to him. And so he is outside it as you said, and it is in him, also as you said. Your Baha’i contacts here may have mentioned ‘Abdu’l-Baha, son of Baha’u’llah. He demonstrated in many ways how God surrounds all and isn’t surrounded, an unusual characterisation of God that I’ve not heard otherwise, and that has said a lot to me since I first came across it years ago. Naturally how God surrounds all – actually or exactly – isn’t fully appreciated by any being but him. Yet I don’t feel we can deny it. Presumably what God creates is somehow in and through him, and let’s say he’s perfectly aware of, or alive to, his own creation, its nature, its boundaries etc. Naturally terms like ‘awareness’ wouldn’t mean what they do for us, but again we can’t very well say God isn’t aware etc. It’s rather a case of logically denying certain things than asserting God real nature, and the notion of surrounding isn’t as anthropomorphic as other ways of expressing God’s priority over creation either. ‘Abdu’l-Baha meant it as much as a warning as anything else, to guide thought in what it could reasonably hope to grasp. God can’t be surrounded mentally by comprehending him either - so it has a few applications.

And obviously surrounding doesn’t mean the universe being incorporated or assimilated into God, constituting, adding to, or modifying him in any way, which has pantheistic overtones perhaps. The Baha’i position isn’t pantheistic in any sense, that’s very clear. God is God and absolutely nothing else, meant very strictly. He is an absolutely transcendent creator.

So that’s about it for now. I hope my comments were relevant. You believe in God I assume. I feel it’s rather meaningless and unfortunate having to use the male pronoun for God. ‘It’ is truer but confusing usually. I’d like to hear your views on how you feel Wolfram’s modelling fits into certain religious positions. Also you said Baha’is accept Muhammad. Later I added to a reply I’d already given, that Baha’is accept all prophets, of whom there are only several being followed today.

Hello simsi,
Welcome to RF

Are you aware of Baha'u'llah's antiscientific teachings, such as that copper would turn into gold if left in it's mine for 70 years in a molten state?

Also are you aware that Baha'is do not accept all the Prophets eg Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Joseph Smith and many others?

 

[RestlessSoul]

sciences provide knowledge and understanding about nature or anything artificial, as to WHAT they are, and HOW they work, and WHAT you do with such knowledge.

Love isn’t necessary, to understand the natural world.

I don’t need to love, to know that brown bears hibernate in the colder seasons, while polar bears don’t hibernate. I just need to understand it.

i don’t need to love, where the light and heat come from the Sun, i just need to understand that nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, will generate enough hear to cause the Sun’s surface, incandescent the plasma of hydrogen, and that will cause heat to radiate and photons and ultraviolet to reach the Earth.

love isn’t necessary, but have passion for science and the curiosity to understand the world, do keep most scientists working.

And of course, I do like a physics & chemistry experiments, as they can be a lot of fun.

Beside all that. I am still curious about the natural world, that I do like learning something new…even though I don’t do experimenting lately.

And sciences are still education, research and works, unlike religion, which are more about ones believe or don’t believe, on personal level.

But you do need to love, because you are human. If we are starved of love, our spirit dies, just as surely as our body dies if it is starved of food.

 

[gnostic]

^ If man is a model (Gen 1:27 God created man in his image), and the model models the modeller/universe, the models will turn out to be in the modeller's image. An atheist will see themselves evolved from unconsciousness, no God is needed, while a theist will see themselves as having their origins in Divine consciousness, God.

Atheism ONLY deal with the question of any deity's existence:

Atheism are where the people (atheists) don’t believe in any deity’s existence, or simply lack the belief. ​

​

None of that involve science, or anything relating to nature.​

Atheism isn’t study of nature.

Atheism have no scientific theory of any kind, as atheism isn't science. There are no biology, no chemistry, no physics, no astronomy, being taught within atheism.

You are conflating evolutionary biology with atheism. Evolution is taught in biology, not in atheism.

So what you claiming about what atheists, about evolving from unconsciousness to consciousness, is not only incorrect, it is false as in strawman. You are inventing that are false - “false” as in dishonest claim.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheism ONLY deal with the question of any deity's existence:

Atheism are where the people (atheists) don’t believe in any deity’s existence, or simply lack the belief. ​

​

None of that involve science, or anything relating to nature.​

Atheism isn’t study of nature.

Atheism have no scientific theory of any kind, as atheism isn't science. There are no biology, no chemistry, no physics, no astronomy, being taught within atheism.

You are conflating evolutionary biology with atheism. Evolution is taught in biology, not in atheism.

So what you claiming about what atheists, about evolving from unconsciousness to consciousness, is not only incorrect, it is false as in strawman. You are inventing that are false - “false” as in dishonest claim.

So where did human consciousness come from?

Atheists believe in a Godless universe, do they not?

 

[Esteban X]

So where did human consciousness come from?

That is not a question that Atheism answers. However the accepted answer from the field of biology is that it is the result of millennia of evolution. Human consciousness is not all that different from the consciousness of other animals.

Atheists believe in a Godless universe, do they not?

There is a subtle difference between believing that God does not exist and not believing that God does exist. In the former God is the "actor" by not existing in the latter the non-believer is the "actor" by not believing. Most Atheists fall into the latter camp.

 

[ppp]

So where did human consciousness come from?

Suppose I don't know. Then what?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not a question that Atheism answers. However the accepted answer from the field of biology is that it is the result of millennia of evolution. Human consciousness is not all that different from the consciousness of other animals.

There is a subtle difference between believing that God does not exist and not believing that God does exist. In the former God is the "actor" by not existing in the latter the non-believer is the "actor" by not believing. Most Atheists fall into the latter camp.

Do atheists believe like biologists that consciousness arises from unconsciousness?

So what is the subtle but practical difference in believing that God does not exist, and not believing that God exists?
I mean you can't not believe in something if you do not know what it is that you are not believing in. So what is the reality that is represented by the concept 'God' that you do not believe in?