A Word about Nothing...

[Desert Snake]

Nor should it.
The fact we don't know what "nothing" is, doesn't have any relevance to the question of a God.

It is relevant. If you have a 'nothing' in the equation, before matter /matter in the universe/, then you have the subject of cause, etc.

If it isn't relevant, then it has no relevance to atheism, either. You are mistaking the position of atheism, here, with non-position.

Any time the atheism is presented as an oppositional to theism, you have the relevance of cause, etc.

 

[godnotgod]

Here:

'Here', what? What are you trying to say? That these quotes are insults?

 

[metis]

I am using the phrase 'The Universe' to include all of existence, including all multiverses. IOW, 'The Universe' is Everything that is, and is therefore not only an absolute, but The Absolute.

However, the information you have provided above still leaves us with the problem of Infinite Regression, as you claim that cosmologists believe in a pre-existing condition, the problem being that such a pre-existing condition must have been caused by a previous condition, and so on, ad infinitum.

Which is where "infinity" comes in.

It may be possible that we're talking past each other.

 

[metis]

'Here', what? What are you trying to say? That these quotes are insults?

I went back through the quotes again, and it appears that I misread your use of "nothing" as a personal slam, so I apologize as I apparently mistook how you were using the word in context.

 

[godnotgod]

I went back through the quotes again, and it appears that I misread your use of "nothing" as a personal slam, so I apologize as I apparently mistook how you were using the word in context.

Well I am glad you discovered the real meaning, which was in no way intended to be insulting.

 

[godnotgod]

Which is where "infinity" comes in.

It may be possible that we're talking past each other.

I don't think so. The key issue here is that of the assumption of Causation, which I am challenging.

 

[metis]

I don't think so. The key issue here is that of the assumption of Causation, which I am challenging.

If you can please do me a favor and please explain where you're coming from in this regard so it'll save me the trouble of going back through a myriad of posts? By chance, are you referring to what some call a "cosmic consciousness" that generated everything?

 

[McBell]

227 post about nothing?
Now isn't that something.....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In terms of Brahman, it is said that Brahman is the world, but the world comes and goes, while Brahman does not come and go. Similarly, energy comes and goes and some is transformed into the material world, which also comes and goes, but the Void does not come and go.

Brahman is just another concept for infinite eternal being, the coming and going are dualsitic conceptual aspects of non-duality..ying and yang, good and evil, etc..

 

[Desert Snake]

0=0

class dismissed.

 

[Desert Snake]

Brahman is just another concept for infinite eternal being, the coming and going are dualsitic conceptual aspects of non-duality..ying and yang, good and evil, etc..

Non-duality isn't dualistic. You just contradicted yourself in one comment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

0=0

class dismissed.

The relative absence of something does not mean nothing is real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Non-duality isn't dualistic. You just contradicted yourself in one comment.

Hmmm, I will have to go slowly with you, non-duality is an indivisible unity, that the mortal mind perceives many aspects of the oneness is due to its design to discern the apparent differing energy vibrations. Conceptual language is being used in the context of explaining about non-duality that the conceptual language itself is dualistc..

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmmm, I will have to go slowly with you, non-duality is an indivisible unity, that the mortal mind perceives many aspects of the oneness is due to its design to discern the apparent differing energy vibrations. Conceptual language is being used in the context of explaining about non-duality that the conceptual language itself is dualistc..

You are claiming dualism and trying to say that it is somehow non-dualistic. This is entirely your problem, and why your premise doesn't work.

 

[godnotgod]

Brahman is just another concept for infinite eternal being, the coming and going are dualsitic conceptual aspects of non-duality..ying and yang, good and evil, etc..

For now, we will just have to agree to disagree. The primary difference in our POV is that you are saying that energy is That, while I am saying that energy is a manifestation of That, which itself is uncreated, unborn, unconditioned. IOW, energy is just another form of the maya of Brahman, even though we say that 'Brahman is the world'. It is sort of like saying that the character being portrayed in a drama is in reality the actor himself, but in another sense, is not the actor.

That is none other than Nothingness, and Nothingness is Pure Consciousness, The Unified Field, out of which Everything, including energy, emerged.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are claiming dualism and trying to say that it is somehow non-dualistic. This is entirely your problem, and why your premise doesn't work.

The problem is that you do not comprehend what you are reading. One is non-dual, but it is possible for the conceptual mind to imagine it being equal to two halves.... The Cosmos is one, that is why it is called a universe, that the universe is divided into two parts by your mind such as you and not you is merely the way your dualistic mind works,

 

[godnotgod]

The relative absence of something does not mean nothing is real.

If nothing is not real, then something must be the default state as well as being absolute. If that is the case, we are now back to square one in trying to explain the origin of 'something'. But is it not clear to you that any idea of 'something' must be understood in the context of nothing? Without nothing, you have, well....nothing!

Is that clear?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For now, we will just have to agree to disagree. The primary difference in our POV is that you are saying that energy is That, while I am saying that energy is a manifestation of That, which itself is uncreated, unborn, unconditioned. IOW, energy is just another form of the maya of Brahman, even though we say that 'Brahman is the world'. It is sort of like saying that the character being portrayed in a drama is in reality the actor himself, but in another sense, is not the actor.

That is none other than Nothingness, and Nothingness is Pure Consciousness, The Unified Field, out of which Everything, including energy, emerged.

Fine, we can agree to disagree about the non-dual nature of the infinite eternal omniscient Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If nothing is not real, then something must be the default state as well as being absolute. If that is the case, we are now back to square one in trying to explain the origin of 'something'. But is it not clear to you that any idea of 'something' must be understood in the context of nothing? Without nothing, you have, well....nothing!

Is that clear?

What is this " trying to explain the origin of 'something'? The origin of 'something' does not require explaining as it is a given, it exists now, it existed in the past, it will exist in the future, it had no beginning because it is eternal and not the smallest iota can ever be removed from existence or added to it. Nothing otoh does not exist now, nor did it in the past, nor will it in the future, it is merely a concept to represent the relative absence of some aspect of being, but being itself in non-dual and unborn.

 

[Desert Snake]

The problem is that you do not comprehend what you are reading. One is non-dual, but it is possible for the conceptual mind to imagine it being equal to two halves.... The Cosmos is one, that is why it is called a universe, that the universe is divided into two parts by your mind such as you and not you is merely the way your dualistic mind works,

Hahaha

No, your premise has the same problem as any other premise that uses the same equations. The duality is there, you realize this, but you are trying to say that somehow it isn't ''dualistic''. Anyone can immediately notice the problem, here. Merely stating that the universe isn't ''dualistic'', does not fix your equational mistake. Either you really do not understand what dualism means, or you are trying to fit this faulty concept into other theories.

Dualism is dualism; any sort, presents the problem that you have with your equation.