Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

Yes, I am aware you do not do any serious religious practice, so it follows naturally that you cannot understand the reality represented by the concept of divine awareness, but what do you expect, you do not seek the reality represented by the concept of universal awareness. If you seriously want evidence, all I would say to you is, "knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find".

The 2nd and the last church I had considered joining was the Methodism church. I was 19 and befriended a pastor in college (1985). But got into heated argument with him, when I brought up about a newspaper article about the Gospel of Thomas. At that time, I was curious, but I never heard of this gospel, and did know it history or its connection to Gnosticism. The pastor was upset, then angry when I insisted in learning about this strange gospel, wanting to know if there was translation.

In the end, our friendship ended that day. I was so busy with my studies (and later work), that I stopped looking for church to join, and In the following year, i didn’t open the Bible for 14 years - my 14-year hiatus where I was a Christian and theist without a church.

When I did touch the Bible again (early 2000), it was for research for webpage on the Grail and Joseph of Arimathea, for my website Timeless Myths that I had started in 1999. I read more than the crucifixion story…I went back and re-read gospel of Matthew, and realized the inconsistency & discrepancy of Matthew 1’s interpretation (Matthew 1:23) of Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17).

That’s what really started to challenge & question the gospels. At that time, it had nothing to do with science, nothing do with Evolution or the Big Bang. In 2000, I was absolutely clueless about the BB theory and about the Theory of Evolution, as neither subjects were taught in any of universities courses I attended, and I didn’t know anything about them until I joined my 1st internet forum in 2003. I have also never heard of creationism or creationists until 2003.

The more I learned about Evolution, I came to realize that creationism was wrong, wrong about Evolution, and wrong about Genesis 1 & 2.

Since 2003, I became interested all sorts of sciences, not just about Evolution, but whole of lot of physics that were never taught in my courses I had studied, like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy & Astrophysics, and many more. I was also curious about non-science areas, like history outside of Ancient Greece & Rome, outside of Viking Scandinavia and Celtic Britain & Ireland.

Curiosity has also made me explore religions outside of Christianity, outside of the mainstream. In 2004, I actually found the translation to the gospel of Thomas at the State Library, a book that I have forgotten about.

As to “universal awareness”, I did explore dharma religions, like the multifaceted Hinduism & Buddhism, at my first forum, as well as here, at RF. While I found Hinduism more than interesting, but the more I learned about it, the less I know and the more questions I have.

I am aware of Brahman, but not to extent that I fully understood Brahman, let alone believe that Brahman is real. I was happy to ask questions here, and have them answered me, but unlike them, you have been pushy and arrogant, acting like those awful evangelists.

I like Hinduism and learning about it, but i don’t like your pantheism, because of my experiences with you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The same as the difference between not believing that somebody is trustworthy and believing that they are untrustworthy. Everybody falls into that first category upon an initial encounter. If we know them long enough and accumulate experience with them, some will prove to be trustworthy and some will turn out to be untrustworthy. We go from agnostic (unknowing) regarding trustworthiness to knowing one way or the other.

But here's rub. We treat people we don't know about the same way as we treat people that we know are untrustworthy - we don't trust them. This is because while there are three opinions possible about somebody's trustworthiness - trustworthy, untrustworthy, not yet known to be either, there are only two ways to behave - trust or not.

Applying that to the god matter, an agnostic regarding gods is somebody who, when asked if gods exist, answers, "I don't know." He doesn't have enough information to say yes or no. By analogy, though there are three answers to the question of gods - yes, no, and I don't know- there are only two possible ways to live - as if one's answer were yes or as if it were no. The agnostic theist has chosen the first option. He agrees that he doesn't know if gods exist but chooses to think and act like one or more do. The agnostic atheist has chosen to live as like the person who claims that gods don't exist despite not making that claim himself.

To answer your question, these differences don't seem subtle to me, l though they must me inasmuch as so many people just can't see a distinction between agnostic atheism (I don't believe in gods, but don't claim to know that they don't exist) and gnostic atheism (there are no gods).

Also, there is no practical distinction between those two. Both of those people live the same way - without a god belief and outside of religion.

Pedantry notwithstanding, the point is if you believe in, or not believe there is, a God, then you must have some idea of the concept God.
Do you not agree it would be ridiculous to say I believe there is, or I don't believe there is a unicorn, without having some idea of the reality represented by the concept 'unicorn'?

Nobody does.

You are speaking for yourself!

One cannot believe in atheism. He either believes in gods or not. The latter is the atheist.

So are you suggesting an atheist does not believe in atheism?

That's possibly the case, but you don't know that. The proper position for the critically thinking empiricist to take is agnosticism again.

As you may know, there are four ideas about what the fundamental substance of reality is and how mind and matter relate:

• Ontological materialism (or physicalism) - the physical world is fundamental and mind is an epiphenomenon of matter.
• Ontological idealism - mind is fundamental and matter its epiphenomenon; most Abrahamics fit here.
• Ontological neutral monism - both mind and physical reality are properties or manifestations of some prior substance as space and time are manifestations of spacetime
• Ontological dualism - reality comprises two unrelated substances

Presently, we can't rule any of these in or out. The four form a MECE set, that is they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, which is a convenient way to say that one must be correct (the CE part) but none or more than one (the ME part).

Panpsychism, or the idea that all of reality has elements of mind or consciousness, is consistent with the second and third of these. Panpsychism can be divided further comes in two flavors, one calling experience fundamental (panexperientialism) and the other calling thought fundamental (pancognitivism).

Well again, you speak for yourself. I know as a matter of basic logic, that complimentary opposites cancel each other out, good does not arise from evil, light does not arise from darkness, consciousness does not arise from non-consciousness.

Consciousness on earth is older than humanity.

The very earth has consciousness, how else could it arise in the lifeforms. (Btw, the same applies to life, life cannot arise from no-life.)

None that we know of.

You speak for yourself.

I don't think you know anything of value in that department, because there is nothing of value to know. Lots of people like to represent that they have special knowledge, but there's no evidence that they do or that whatever knowledge they claim to have gives them any useful insights. For example, I believe I read that you consider the universe conscious (your words: "if the Universe is not conscious" and "was the universe conscious from the beginning, or did it come later?"). What use would that special knowledge have? None.

I group all so-called spiritual truths in that category. Besides having nothing to do with spirits and not being truth, such ideas are not useful even if in some sense they are correct, which is why I don't give any time to that world anymore and why I don't find such people to have anything interesting or useful to say to me. I'm more interested in what attracts them to and holds them to such activities - what need it fulfills.

You don't know what you don't know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The 2nd and the last church I had considered joining was the Methodism church. I was 19 and befriended a pastor in college (1985). But got into heated argument with him, when I brought up about a newspaper article about the Gospel of Thomas. At that time, I was curious, but I never heard of this gospel, and did know it history or its connection to Gnosticism. The pastor was upset, then angry when I insisted in learning about this strange gospel, wanting to know if there was translation.

In the end, our friendship ended that day. I was so busy with my studies (and later work), that I stopped looking for church to join, and In the following didn’t open the Bible for 14 years - my 14-year hiatus where I was a Christian and theist without a church.

When I did touch the Bible again (early 2000), it was for research for webpage on the Grail and Joseph of Arimathea, for my website Timeless Myths that I had started in 1999. I read more than the crucifixion story…I went back and re-read gospel of Matthew, and realized the inconsistency & discrepancy of Matthew 1’s interpretation (Matthew 1:23) of Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17).

That’s what really started to challenge & question the gospels. At that time, it had nothing to do with science, nothing do with Evolution or the Big Bang. In 2000, I was absolutely clueless about the BB theory and about the Theory of Evolution, as neither subjects were taught in any of universities courses I attended, and I didn’t know anything about them until I joined my 1st internet forum in 2003. I have also never heard of creationism or creationists until 2003.

The more I learned about Evolution, I came to realize that creationism was wrong, wrong about Evolution, and wrong about Genesis 1 & 2.

Since 2003, I became interested all sorts of sciences, not just about Evolution, but whole of lot of physics that were never taught in my courses I had studied, like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy & Astrophysics, and many more. I was also curious about non-science areas, like history outside of Ancient Greece & Rome, outside of Viking Scandinavia and Celtic Britain & Ireland.

Curiosity has also made me explore religions outside of Christianity, outside of the mainstream. In 2004, I actually found the translation to the gospel of Thomas at the State Library, a book that I have forgotten about.

As to “universal awareness”, I did explore dharma religions, like the multifaceted Hinduism & Buddhism, at my first forum, as well as here, at RF. While I found Hinduism more than interesting, but the more I learned about it, the less I know and the more questions I have.

I am aware of Brahman, but not to extent that I fully understood Brahman, let alone believe that Brahman is real. I was happy to ask questions here, and have them answered me, but unlike them, you have been pushy and arrogant, acting like those awful evangelists.

I like Hinduism and learning about it, but i don’t like your pantheism, because of my experiences with you.

Thank you for sharing your story. I also had stops and starts to my religious beliefs, until one time I read some book of the Vedic tradition on meditation. I began to practice and soon realized that the Christian tradition of bible belief and attending church services regularly is the kindergarten entry level to religion. Eventually the still mind meditation produced states of awareness that is beyond words, which was more along the lines of the teachings of Jesus.

Nowadays my religious practice does not involve reading anything, meeting with anyone, discussing* it, etc., it is an inner journey.
* I do discuss it here, and with anyone anywhere who would like, but most of my time is spent in silent meditation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if you believe in, or not believe there is, a God, then you must have some idea of the concept God.

OK. I have several concepts according to the theist who describes his god or gods, but I mostly mean any sentient universe creator since that what Abrahamists claim exists.

So are you suggesting an atheist does not believe in atheism?

Yes. Atheism isn't something to believe in. It's something to be.

The very earth has consciousness

I hope not. Imagine how boring it would be to be a rock that rotates and revolves for billions of years according to the laws of celestial mechanics and being awake. Do you think it sleeps?

You don't know what you don't know.

That's a tautology.

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that YOU know anything of value that any other person can't also know in the usual way. If you did, you could surprise me with it. But we both know that isn't going to happen. You'll continue to claim to have arcane knowledge, but you'll never demonstrate any such thing, and to an empiricist, that means that you can't convince me of anything at all without a compelling, evidenced argument or demonstration.

Let me illustrate. A man visits an island where the inhabitants could count but hadn't discovered the rules of addition yet. He tells them that he has a special way of knowing about numbers. One day, there is a marriage, and two flocks are to be combined, one known to be 36 sheep and one of 42. Before the tribe can count the combined flock, the man who sees further tells them that 36+42=78, that is, that they have 78 sheep combined. The chief combines the flocks and counts the size of the combined flock, and lo and behold, there are 78. This man really does see further and can prove it by reporting what he sees, and it being correct.

Now what do you know as a result of your alleged special way of knowing that you can demonstrate is correct? If something, then you might be able to convince me that you are on to something like the man who could add by revealing that knowledge. If nothing, then you shouldn't expect others who need more than just your claims to believe you.

This probably annoys you to read, but how about addressing it as a serious counterargument and demonstrating that I am wrong if you can or than I am right if you can't?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK. I have several concepts according to the theist who describes his god or gods, but I mostly mean any sentient universe creator since that what Abrahamists claim exists.

Then you allow there may be some reality represented by the concept 'God' that may exist, but none yet that is credible.
How about pantheism? The universe, seen and unseen, known and unknown, is the reality represented by 'God'.

Yes. Atheism isn't something to believe in. It's something to be.

"Atheism holds to the belief that the physical world is all that exists." Atheism — WorldviewU
Atheism therefore is a belief system.

I hope not. Imagine how boring it would be to be a rock that rotates and revolves for billions of years according to the laws of celestial mechanics and being awake. Do you think it sleeps?

You believe that the planet is not alive, yet it is full of plant, animal, bird, fish, human life? Life from non-life, hmmmm?

That's a tautology.
What I'm saying is that I don't believe that YOU know anything of value that any other person can't also know in the usual way. If you did, you could surprise me with it. But we both know that isn't going to happen. You'll continue to claim to have arcane knowledge, but you'll never demonstrate any such thing, and to an empiricist, that means that you can't convince me of anything at all without a compelling, evidenced argument or demonstration.

Let me illustrate. A man visits an island where the inhabitants could count but hadn't discovered the rules of addition yet. He tells them that he has a special way of knowing about numbers. One day, there is a marriage, and two flocks are to be combined, one known to be 36 sheep and one of 42. Before the tribe can count the combined flock, the man who sees further tells them that 36+42=78, that is, that they have 78 sheep combined. The chief combines the flocks and counts the size of the combined flock, and lo and behold, there are 78. This man really does see further and can prove it by reporting what he sees, and it being correct.

Now what do you know as a result of your alleged special way of knowing that you can demonstrate is correct? If something, then you might be able to convince me that you are on to something like the man who could add by revealing that knowledge. If nothing, then you shouldn't expect others who need more than just your claims to believe you.

This probably annoys you to read, but how about addressing it as a serious counterargument and demonstrating that I am wrong if you can or than I am right if you can't?

So what, as long as you understand that all beliefs are conceptual and while they may represent some reality, they are not real, except as a conceptualization.
My understanding is not conceptual, it is reality itself, not theory, but reality itself. Unless you go beyond thoughts and words, you will never realize that which is all that is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Atheism holds to the belief that the physical world is all that exists." Atheism — WorldviewU

That's incorrect. Atheists don't believe in gods, which is different.

Atheism therefore is a belief system.

You might try to argue that atheism is a belief, but unless a belief is a belief system to you, that's also incorrect.

You believe that the planet is not alive

Your word was, "conscious"

My understanding is not conceptual, it is reality itself, not theory, but reality itself.

Your understanding isn't conceptual?

Unless you go beyond thoughts and words, you will never realize that which is all that is.

It seems you think that you have realized "all that is." I guess that means that you also believe that we lesser, smaller minds are shrouded in unseeing ignorance.

I'm content with my present state of understanding. Unanswered questions don't torment me. Frankly, I couldn't use more understanding in any area except maybe cooking. For example, if gods exist I can't and don't need to know that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's incorrect. Atheists don't believe in gods, which is different.

You might try to argue that atheism is a belief, but unless a belief is a belief system to you, that's also incorrect.

Your word was, "conscious"

Your understanding isn't conceptual?

It seems you think that you have realized "all that is." I guess that means that you also believe that we lesser, smaller minds are shrouded in unseeing ignorance.

I'm content with my present state of understanding. Unanswered questions don't torment me. Frankly, I couldn't use more understanding in any area except maybe cooking. For example, if gods exist I can't and don't need to know that.

Understood, God bless you dear IANC, best wishes to you in your life's endeavours.

 

[wellwisher]

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.​

The ancient Astronomers were also Astrologists. Although they used mythological explanations for the objects and movement of objects in the heavens, they could nevertheless accurately predict the behaviors of the heavens; comets, eclipses and the future position of stars and planets. For example, although some might attribute the movement of the Sun to Helios, they could nevertheless correlate the annual movement of the Sun. Theory still works the same way. Theory is a just place holder, while the observations, plotting of data, and the formation of a correlation, allows repeat pattern to emerge. How did superstitious people build the pyramids. This needed applied science based on superstition placeholders. If inspiration is attributed to the gods, and you become inspired, if that works, it still works.

The Alchemist invented many modern chemistry lab practices still used today; distillation and extraction, using a mystical approach to chemicals as their placeholder. They invented high proof booze. Applied science makes use of pure science and applies it to new areas. The ancients didi good applied science, that used mythological placeholders for theory, combined with careful observation and documentation.

I look at the modern theory of evolution as being based on a modern superstition placeholder. How do black boxes manufacture the positive change needed for evolution? Why are will still in the dark about this? If we combine that with "natural selection"; Mother Nature, that seems like modern math magic and old time superstitions, being used as a placeholder for sound observational correlations. This is science based on an ancient tradition. This may be why Atheism and Evolution; pot, work so hard to call religion; kettle, black.

The modern science approach; Age of Reason, required logic and data but no more superstition placeholders. Black box evolution falls short of logic, and is a placeholder for the good data that appears to correlate to the placeholder. The black box; dice and cards approach is like modern variation of a God, who is semi-conscious; drunk, and where he passes out, a change occurs. Mother Nature; natural selection, decides whether she will take him in and sober him up, or leave him in the gutter. But on any good day, Mother Nature brings him home and sobers him up. But it is not too long before the Atheist God goes on another drinking binge, needed for change. Is the goddess, called Mother Nature ,conscious when she makes selection, or has she also had a few? Even a broken watch gets it right twice a day.

I can accept the correlation of evolution, since the data was gathered in earnest. But the superstitious place holder is where I depart. My approach was use the age of enlightenment and reason standards to find a reasonable and logical explanation for the same data. This involves water and entropy. Water is the most studied substance in all of science and entropy is one of the fews laws in science; beyond a theory placeholder. I am able to avoid modern superstition. But at the same time, I understand the placeholder nature of superstition still allows science to go forward, albeit, is a drunk walk type of way in the mystical land of Casinos; subjective.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I look at the modern theory of evolution as being based on a modern superstition placeholder.

The theory of evolution replaces all ancient superstitions that attempt to explain the diversity in the tree of life with gods and magic. Superstition is the currency of religion, not science.

How do black boxes manufacture the positive change needed for evolution?

There is no black box in the theory, but there is in the superstitions that have a god doing magic and offering no mechanism for how a deity's will turns into reality.

Why are will still in the dark about this?

We're not, but the creationists are. The mechanism for biological evolution is well understood.

Black box evolution falls short of logic, and is a placeholder for the good data that appears to correlate to the placeholder.

I think that the logical shortage here is all yours. The theory of evolution employs no black boxes (unseen mechanisms), nor is it a placeholder if by that you mean a name given to something unknown that is the cause of some observable phenomenon. Dark matter is a placeholder for that unseen, unknown source of gravity that keeps galaxies intact.

The black box; dice and cards approach is like modern variation of a God, who is semi-conscious; drunk, and where he passes out, a change occurs

Gods have no place in any scientific theory, law, or fact.

The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

The Abrahamist's magician in the sky answer does none of that. You want to contaminate science with such religious superstitions, which include black box deities (no mechanisms, just magic) that serve as placeholders for that which is responsible for reality. Science needs neither.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Gods have no place in any scientific theory, law, or fact..

Of course not.
Science deals with our observations in this universe .. it can't possibly show us
anything about its origin, or whether it always existed etc.

It is true that 'the big-bang theory' is still currently well believed to be true.
..but as to facts..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science deals with our observations in this universe

That was a reply to, "Gods have no place in any scientific theory, law, or fact."

You seem to be saying that your god makes no impact on the universe. Why would we care about anything that doesn't affect our world?

You can't have it both ways. Either a deity can modify our reality, in which case it would be detectable through that effect, or it's beyond detection, in which case, its existence is irrelevant.

Causality is two-way. If A can affect B, then A can be detected through that effect and B can affect A in return. The idea that there is a supernatural realm that is relevant to the natural world but can't be detected is incoherent. Nature is the collection of objects and processes that affect one another at certain times and in certain places.

It is true that 'the big-bang theory' is still currently well believed to be true.

My point was that gods don't appear in the Big Bang theory, nor any other scientific theory, nor any scientific law like F=ma and E=MC2, nor any scientific fact such as the freezing and boiling points of pure water at atmospheric pressure

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would we care about anything that doesn't affect our world?

What is "your world" ?

My world does not merely consist of physical atoms, it includes ideas, and people are
not just physical bodies who consume organic matter, and expel waste .. live and die.
People have names and identity (soul), and one nation is not superior to another except in deeds.

Either a deity can modify our reality, in which case it would be detectable through that effect..

It IS "detectable" .. we see that the minds of humanity are subject to change through G-d's
messengers. The fact that you turn away from perceived truth, is neither here nor there.
One has to see the opinion of the whole world, and not just you, or your nation.

My point was that gods don't appear in the Big Bang theory, nor any other scientific theory..

..and I agreed .. observation of the physical has little to do with Divinity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is "your world" ?

The universe.

It IS "detectable" .. we see that the minds of humanity are subject to change through G-d's messengers.

All you see is people claiming to be channeling a god. There is no evidence that they are correct.

observation of the physical has little to do with Divinity

Yes, I know. If divinity exists, it is irrelevant for just that reason. I live in the physical world. Whatever others argue exists but doesn't affect it is irrelevant to me even if they are correct about its existence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

All you see is people claiming to be channeling a god..

No .. that is all you see.

 

[Pogo]

The fact is gnostic, that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness, just like something cannot come from nothing, if you can't acknowledge that science cannot disprove these facts, then there is nothing to discuss.

That is not a fact, that is an assertion and further is an unevidenced equivocation of something you define as universal consciousness with the observed function of CNSs that we call consciousness that you cannot even explain to others. It is a religious feeling specific to your brain apparently.

Water is wet, but neither hydrogen nor oxygen are, the wetness comes as an emergent property of their physical combination. So it appears with brains and consciousness. We have seen these Aether ideas before and they haven't led anywhere but feel free to search for your aetherial substance and come back when you can demonstrate it to anyone beyond yourself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not a fact, that is an assertion and further is an unevidenced equivocation of something you define as universal consciousness with the observed function of CNSs that we call consciousness that you cannot even explain to others. It is a religious feeling specific to your brain apparently.

Water is wet, but neither hydrogen nor oxygen are, the wetness comes as an emergent property of their physical combination. So it appears with brains and consciousness. We have seen these Aether ideas before and they haven't led anywhere but feel free to search for your aetherial substance and come back when you can demonstrate it to anyone beyond yourself.

As I said, if they are not facts, then science would be able to show how conscious can come from non-consciousness, if not, then I consider it a fact.

 

[ppp]

As I said, if they are not facts, then science would be able to show how conscious can come from non-consciousness, if not, then I consider it a fact.

Well that's silly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well that's silly.

Well that's silly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, if they are not facts, then science would be able to show how conscious can come from non-consciousness, if not, then I consider it a fact.

But we can see consciousness naturally arising. What makes you think that science cannot show that? They already have done so. Perhaps you are using some strange definition of "conscious".

 

[muhammad_isa]

But we can see consciousness naturally arising..

That doesn't mean anything to me. How does the word "natural" explain anything?