Did existence always exist?

[The Anointed]

NO. Brahman does not derive from word or logos. Don't force your Abrahamic meaning on Dharmic religions.

"These words come from a Sanskrit root bŗh = " to swell, grow, enlarge", cognate with many English words such as "bulge". They all derive from the Proto-Indo-European root *bhel-, meaning "to swell" or "to grow" . The Latin verb flāre = "to blow" also comes from the same root."

Pokorny PIE Master Etyma:
118 bheigu̯- IE to shine, glitter?
118-20 1. bhel-, Balto-Slavic also bhelə- IE 2. bhel- glittering white
120-22 3. bhel-, bhlē- IE 2. bhlei- to grow, spread, swell, inflate
122 4. bhel-, and bhlē-, bhlō-, bhlə- IE leaf, foil, blade; bloom
155 bhlegu̯- IE to swell, become bloated
155-56 1. bhlē̆i- : bhləi- : bhlī- IE bhlē̆ig̑- to shine, glitter
156 2. bhlei- IE bhleu- to swell, burst, blow up
156-57 bhlē̆ig̑-, bhlīg̑- IE bhleiq- to shine, glitter
157 bhleiq- bhləido-s to shine, glitter

No wonder you are a Hindu atheist.

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

Shabda Brahman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shabda Brahman or Sabda-brahman or Nada brahmin means transcendental sound (Shatapatha Brahmana III.12.48) or sound vibration (Shatpatha Brahmana Vi.16.51) or the transcendental sound of the Vedas (Shatpatha Brahmana Xi.21.36) or of Vedic scriptures (Shatpatha Brahmana X.20.43).

Nada Brahmin Tradition

Shabda or sabda stands for word manifested by sound ('verbal') and such a word has innate power to convey a particular sense or meaning (Artha). According to the Nyaya and the Vaisheshika schools, Shabda means verbal testimony; to the Sanskrit grammarians, Yaska, Panini and Katyayana it meant a unit of language or speech or vac. In the philosophical terms this word appears for the first time in the Maitri Upanishad (Sloka VI.22) that speaks of two kinds of Brahman - Shabda Brahman ('Brahman with sound') and Ashabda Brahman ('soundless Brahman'). Bhartrhari speaks about the creative power of shabda, the manifold universe is a creation of Shabda Brahman (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.i.2). Speech is equated with Brahman (Shatpatha Brahmana 2.1.4.10).The Rig Veda states that Brahman extends as far as Vāc (R.V.X.114.8), and has hymns in praise of Speech as the Creator (R.V.X.71.7) and as the final abode of Brahman (R.V.I.164.37). Time is the creative power of Shabda Brahman.

Did you see that? "Speech is equated with Brahman. And The Rig Veda states that Brahman extends as far as Vāc and has hymns in praise of Speech as the Creator. . . . . Sorry sunshine.

In the beginning was SPEECH/WORD which was God the creator.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Shabda Brahman' is a later expansion and philosophy. Hindu books Brahamanas and Upanishads are later creations. Even the Book 1 and 10 of RigVeda that you are citing was written later than the other books.

"In the eight books that were composed the earliest, the hymns are mostly praise of specific deities. The younger books (books 1 and 10) in part also deal with philosophical or speculative questions, .."
Rigveda - Wikipedia

You see, Anointed, with the rise of chauvinist Hinduism in India during the recent years, even the Wikipedia has changed heavily. Otherwise, Wikipedia had very scholarly articles. That is why you don't find connection of Brahman with the PIE word in Wikipedia because that would indicate that Aryans originated outside India. That is something not acceptable to our mantra-chanting brothers.

- And what the verse in question (X.114.8) says is that 'Speech extends as far as Brahman extends'. Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXIV. Viśvedevas.
- Verse X.71.7 has no connection with Brahman. It is in the first verse (X.71.1) that the poet says Brahaspati (Brahman) sent out Speech to give names to things. Speech is not the creator, Brahaspati is. Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXI. Jnanam
- In 1.164.37, Speech is called the 'first born of the Holy Law', it is not the creator. Rig Veda: Rig-Veda Book 1: HYMN CLXIV. Viśvedevas.

Surely, once the creator (if there is any) creates humans, the next step is Speech (Vāk).

 

[The Anointed]

'Shabda Brahman' is a later expansion and philosophy.

The Anointed and a much better philosophy and the one to which I refer.

 

[ratiocinator]

Elaborate on what you know about the axis of evil and what it suggests, please.

No, I'm not going to play games. You brought it up as "100% scientific proof that science knows that a God exists". It's rather up to you to present your argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nothing Is Solid & Everything Is Energy – Scientists Explain The World of Quantum Physics*

You really need to stop using that, it's cobbled together by a tax advisor and contains some total nonsense. Nothing is made of energy: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

 

[ChristineM]

You really need to stop using that, it's cobbled together by a tax advisor and contains some total nonsense. Nothing is made of energy: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

He is part right, nothing is solid. There is a colossal amount of space in each atom between the proton and electrons. A hydrogen atom for example is about 99.9999999999996% empty space.

And of course matter if made from energy.

 

[ratiocinator]

He is part right, nothing is solid. There is a colossal amount of space in each atom between the proton and electrons. A hydrogen atom for example is about 99.9999999999996% empty space.

Depends what you mean by solid. You could also argue (if we were being pedantic here) that since elementary particles are considered to be points, that an atom was 100% empty space.

However, more accurately, all that really exists (as far our current theories go) within space, is quantum fields - which would mean there is no such thing as empty space and an atom is 0% empty space.

And of course matter if made from energy.

No, it isn't. Energy isn't stuff. Nothing is made from energy. See link in my last post.

 

[ChristineM]

Depends what you mean by solid. You could also argue (if we were being pedantic here) that since elementary particles are considered to be points, that an atom was 100% empty space.

However, more accurately, all that really exists (as far our current theories go) within space, is quantum fields - which would mean there is no such thing as empty space and an atom is 0% empty space.



No, it isn't. Energy isn't stuff. Nothing is made from energy. See link in my last post.

Never mind your link. The first law of thermodynamics is specific : The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

 

[ratiocinator]

Never mind your link. The first law of thermodynamics is specific : The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Indeed it does but that doesn't tell you that energy is stuff that things can be made from. Things have energy, they can't be energy.

We now know that the conservation of energy is because of the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (they remain the same over time). In exactly the same way we get conservation of momentum because the laws of physics do not depend on position - same with angular momentum and direction. See Noether's theorem.

Energy is like momentum, it isn't a substance.

 

[The Anointed]

He is part right, nothing is solid. There is a colossal amount of space in each atom between the proton and electrons. A hydrogen atom for example is about 99.9999999999996% empty space.

And of course matter if made from energy.

Sorry mate, what you call matter is only energy, which has neither beginning or end and that has become this seemingly material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that "IT" [The Eternal Energy] or God has become.

 

[ChristineM]

Indeed it does but that doesn't tell you that energy is stuff that things can be made from. Things have energy, they can't be energy.

We now know that the conservation of energy is because of the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (they remain the same over time). In exactly the same way we get conservation of momentum because the laws of physics do not depend on position - same with angular momentum and direction. See Noether's theorem.

Energy is like momentum, it isn't a substance.

The history of matter in the universe is quite well understood. Other than the simplest, low atomic weight elements, hydrogen, helium etc matter forms in/of the nuclear furnace (energy) of suns, or exploding/collapsing suns.

I have never said energy is s substance

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry mate, what you call matter is only energy...

No, it isn't. See the link I've given you three times now that explains why.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry mate, what you call matter is only energy, which has neither beginning or end and that has become this seemingly material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that "IT" [The Eternal Energy] or God has become.

Please dont "mate" me.
I will prefer to go by the word of particle physics rather than your delusion

 

[The Anointed]

No, it isn't. See the link I've given you three times now that explains why.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

Where is the physical substance in an atom?

You, I and all life forms are no more than shimmering vibrating clouds of energy within the greater energized cloud of combined Cosmic Consciousness, which the eternal energy has become, and who is ONE in who all that exists----exist.

 

[GoldenThread]

No, I'm not going to play games. You brought it up as "100% scientific proof that science knows that a God exists". It's rather up to you to present your argument.

Okay, I can see you are getting upset. Not sure why you think I am playing games?
Anyways, you said that from what you have researched from the "axis of evil", you can't see why it proves God's existence. Doesn't it seem fair for me to ask what exactly did you understand from the research so I can thoroughly continue this discussion?

It seems a bit strange that you wouldn't answer this question, rather turn it back on me. Why is that?

In peace

 

[ratiocinator]

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

Ever since quantum mechanics was discovered some people have taken the view that it has something to do with consciousness. It's never been a popular interpretation and there is zero evidence for it.

Where is the physical substance in an atom?

An atom, like everything else, is an excitation in quantum fields.

You, I and all life forms are no more than shimmering vibrating clouds of energy...

No, we aren't. It's impossible for us to be energy (simmering, vibrating, or otherwise).

Energy isn't stuff.​

Once again: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy.
[Written by a particle physicist, not a tax advisor, like article you keep referencing.]

Here is an extract:

• Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
  
• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
  
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
  
• The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
  
• Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
  
• The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.
  

 

[ratiocinator]

Okay, I can see you are getting upset.

Not really, I'm beginning to think you don't actually have an argument and are avoiding having to face the fact by asking me questions about your argument - which is rather silly.

Anyways, you said that from what you have researched from the "axis of evil", you can't see why it proves God's existence. Doesn't it seem fair for me to ask what exactly did you understand from the research so I can thoroughly continue this discussion?

It seems a bit strange that you wouldn't answer this question, rather turn it back on me. Why is that?

It's not strange at all. If I wanted to present an argument about something I'd provide a reference (if necessary) and then explain my case - not just provide a term and then start interrogating people about it. That's a totally bizarre approach.

I looked it up, saw no obvious connection at all, and said so. If you want to present your case, do so, otherwise not...

 

[GoldenThread]

Not really, I'm beginning to think you don't actually have an argument and are avoiding having to face the fact by asking me questions about your argument - which is rather silly.



It's not strange at all. If I wanted to present an argument about something I'd provide a reference (if necessary) and then explain my case - not just provide a term and then start interrogating people about it. That's a totally bizarre approach.

I looked it up, saw no obvious connection at all, and said so. If you want to present your case, do so, otherwise not...

It is funny how I can say the exact same thing to you, as you did to me. Why is he not wanting to answer my question? It is probably because he doesn't have an argument. Even now, you are still being vague about what exactly you studied from topic I suggested, because I am not asking you to reference what I know about it; I was asking for what you know about it.

If you don't want to share than that is fine. We have a free will and can do with it what we will. Again, it just seemed weird why you would assume I was playing games and continue to think my "approach is bizarre".

This could be easily resolved and moved on if you only answer the question I asked you first (since you didn't ask me a question, rather made a statement), which again, sounds a bit odd to me.

Anyways, it seems clear to me that reasoning and further won't progress to much but a 'hill of beans' so I'll leave it there.

In peace

 

[ratiocinator]

It is funny how I can say the exact same thing to you, as you did to me. Why is he not wanting to answer my question? It is probably because he doesn't have an argument.

It's not me who's trying to put forward an argument, it's you. Do you not keep track of your own conversations? Remember, you said that there was "100% scientific proof that science knows that a God exists"?

You can either try to back that up or not...

 

[The Anointed]

Ever since quantum mechanics was discovered some people have taken the view that it has something to do with consciousness. It's never been a popular interpretation and there is zero evidence for it.



An atom, like everything else, is an excitation in quantum fields.



No, we aren't. It's impossible for us to be energy (simmering, vibrating, or otherwise).

Energy isn't stuff.​

Once again: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy.
[Written by a particle physicist, not a tax advisor, like article you keep referencing.]

Here is an extract:

• Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
  
• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
  
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
  
• The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
  
• Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
  
• The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.
  

Ratiocinator wrote...….An atom, like everything else, is an excitation in quantum fields.

The Anointed...…. In other words it has no physical structure.

The big bang is the instant when the primordial singularity became the universe. Based on observations of distant objects and measurements of the cosmic background radiation, scientists have deduced the temperature at the Planck time, which is 10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second. At that instant, the temperature was 100 million trillion trillion kelvins (180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit). The universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion that ended well before a second had elapsed. By this time, it had cooled to a temperature of 100 billion kelvins (180 billion degrees Fahrenheit).

Are you suggesting that there were particles in that liquid like plasma soup of energy

in the millions of trillions of degrees, that became subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc, etc?​