First cause

[Polymath257]

Your words are proof?
Why do I bother asking people on here to support their claims with supportive material.

No, the archeology on the ground is proof. But I can't take you to the archeological digs and must use words instead.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You'd have to convince me you believe that since you accept Hinduism. Or maybe you don't.

Perhaps the only way to do that will be to see some of my posts in Hinduism and other forums. Hinduism comes in many shades. One of the (important) old shades is non-duality ('Advaita'). As the name indicates, since the followers of this philosophy accept the existence of just one entity in the universe and no other, that will not allow the acceptance of the existence of Gods and Goddesses. You can read about this philosophy and one of the mo0re recent teachers of this philosophy here: Gaudapada - Wikipedia. Of course, the philosophy is much older than Gaudapada. Incidently, Gaudapada was perhaps the teacher of the teacher of the first Sankaracharya, the most influential 8th Century philosopher of Hinduism.

Therefore I am a staunch orthodox advaitist Hindu who believes that all things in the universe, perceived or unperceived, without any exception, living or non-living, are constituted by Brahman, an entity which is not God, is eternal, changeless and form-independent and unconcerned with the affairs of the universe. This makes me a strong atheist who would not even accept the possibility of existence of any God or Goddess.

Of course, I am from a orthodox brahmin family, which has mention in RigVeda and Bhagawat Purana, and I am very well aware of the scriptures and myths of Hinduism. Therefore, to the theists in Hinduism, I answer as a theist though I am myself not one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This universe is perhaps 13.4 billion years old. But no such calculation can be made of existence itself, or whatever came before this universe.

Thinking about these things does tend to screw with the mind.

13.78 billion years.
That is what Buddha said 2700 years ago and termed such speculation as Acinteyya (imponderable or incomprehensible). One of the four imponderables identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, is: Speculation about (the origin, etc., of) the cosmos.

Buddha advised his disciple, Vatsagotra (Vacchagotta) saying "Vaccha, (any of these views) is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. And whoever speculates about these things would go mad & experience vexation."
Acinteyya - Wikipedia

Well, it is OK for me to speculate on these things because I am a Hindu and not a Buddhist, though I consider Buddha as one of my two gurus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes the *observable* universe was quite small initially, but the universe as a whole may well have been infinite.

Polymath, I think even when small, the universe could have been infinite - if it was curved.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath, I think even when small, the universe could have been infinite - if it was curved.

Positive curvature (like a sphere) will give spatial finiteness. Negative curvature (like a trumpet) can give spatial infiniteness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you don't know that man evolved from anything right?
You do make stories though. You do. Yes you do.

Scientists are human, as well. They are not "infallible, pure in heart, honest to God - never ever be dishonest, nor bias" people.

What does the current findings reveal... What does the evidence say... that the universe began, or it didn't?

Well, that is not true. We evolved from mammal branch of an animal like Slender Loris. Apes and Chimps came much later.
Phylum Cordata: A chordate (/ˈkɔːrdeɪt/) is an animal of the phylum Chordata. During some period of their life cycle, chordates possess a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail (check, you have a bone there, Coccyx, which has no purpose. It is a relic of that time); these five anatomical features define this phylum. Chordates are also bilaterally symmetric, and have a coelom, metameric segmentation, and circulatory system.
Class Mammalia: Mammals (from Latin mamma "breast") are vertebrate animals constituting the class Mammalia (/məˈmeɪliə/), and characterized by the presence of mammary glands which in females (and sometimes males) produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young, a neocortex (a region of the brain), fur or hair, and three middle ear bones. These characteristics distinguish them from reptiles and birds, from which they diverged in the late Triassic, 201–227 million years ago.
Theria (/ˈθɪəriə/; Greek: θηρίον theríon, wild beast) is a subclass of mammals amongst the Theriiformes (the sister taxon to Yinotheria). Theria includes the eutherians (including the placental mammals) and the metatherians (including the marsupials). Temporal range: Late Jurassic – Holocene, 160–0 million years ago.
Eutheria (/juːˈθɪəriə/; from Greek εὐ-, eu- "good" or "right" and θηρίον, thēríon "beast" hence "true beasts") is one of two mammalian clades with extant members that diverged in the Early Cretaceous or perhaps the Late Jurassic. Temporal range: Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous–Holocene, 161 or 145–0 million years ago.
Placentalia is one of the three extant subdivisions of the class of animals Mammalia; the other two are Monotremata and Marsupialia. The placentals are partly distinguished from other mammals in that the fetus is carried in the uterus of its mother to a relatively late stage of development. Temporal range: Paleocene-Holocene 66–0 million years ago.
Primate (/ˈpraɪmeɪt/ (About this soundlisten) PRY-mayt) (from Latin primat-, from primus: "prime, first rank") is a eutherian mammal constituting the taxonomic order Primates. Primates arose 85–55 million years ago first from small terrestrial mammals, which adapted to living in the trees of tropical forests: many primate characteristics represent adaptations to life in this challenging environment, including large brains, visual acuity, color vision, altered shoulder girdle, and dextrous hands. Temporal range: Paleocene–Present, 55–0 million years ago.

Juramaia, the oldest known eutherian (ancestor, yours and mine), Slender Loris (primate and our, yours and mine, cousin)

Oh, sure. All people make stories and we are no different. But stories are stories. It is not necessary to take them as facts.

An individual scientists may certainly be fallible, but when his work or opinion is discussed by thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries over decades, then the chances of anything false surviving are non-existent.

We do not know. We will need more information to cross the event horizon.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean, "We... do not know"? Are you not speaking for yourself here?

No. This is understood among the cosmology community.

Whatever, they come up with regarding the "before the BB", is future, and any ideas on that, is only an idea.

Right now, is the present.
Like I said, if you are not dealing with the current accepted scientific theory, then why should anyone care what science has to say?

Science always has a variety of different ideas extended the current best theory. So, the currently accepted theory, the Big Bang scenario, is accepted *after* about a tenth of a second into the current expansion phase. In general, this is a time period that is well understood.

It is also accepted by the scientific community that *some* extension of the standard model is going to be required for the early universe simply because we *know* that quantum mechanics is an aspect of the universe and the standard model does not include it.

Further, it is accepted that *some* model of quantum gravity is going to be relevant and necessary for the very early universe (Planck time and earlier). But we do NOT have a tested theory of quantum gravity.

So, speculation on the *necessary* extension of the standard model is quite appropriate.

So you think the current cosmological model is inaccurate... and you are concerned with the "mays" that are not. Okay.

No, I think the current model *is* accurate for the time periods it is usually used for: after about a second into the current expansion. And it is *known* and *accepted* that some extension is going to be necessary for the period before a Planck time into this expansion.

The model has *known* limitations. It is very good after a certain time and it needs to be modified before that.

Let's have that attitude with all the scientific theories.
Moving on...
What are we discussing again?

OK, let's have the attitude with *all* scientific theories: they are models which apply very well for the circumstances where they have been tested and may or may not work outside of that. ALL are based on assumptions and failt o include everything that might be relevant for extreme cases. So speculation about those extreme cases is necessary and appropriate.

So you are hoping for an infinite regression. Okay. I got you loud and clear... and you didn't have to shout.

I actually have no attachment to either way: infinite or finite. But so many people exclude the infinite for no good reason that I find it necessary to remind people what the limits are of our knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

What does the current findings reveal... What does the evidence say... that the universe began, or it didn't?

The current best model has a beginning. But it is known that that model does not consider aspects of quantum gravity that are very likely to be relevant for the very early universe.

So, it is the best, tested model we have. But it is known to be incomplete. We have possible extensions dealing with that incompleteness, but they give different answers to your question. And we have not been able to test between those extensions to determine which is correct.

OK?

 

[Aupmanyav]

As for speculation, my view is that existence and non-existence are phases of what exists. That is a limitation for our perception and mind. What exists may not be bound by it. So, as RigVeda said 3,000 years ago:

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[McBell]

Claim?

Yes, claim.
It is not been shown to be a fact.
It matters not who makes the claim.

So you agree that scientists make claims. Alright!

Yes.
that you fail to understand how the scientific process works is not a failing of mine.

Well why not tell them how wrong they are, and you don't believe their claims.
I am only presenting what they say.

Steady-state model - Wikipedia
In cosmology, the steady-state model is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady-state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.

While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.

And?

I have "no dog in that fight".

yet you yapping like a Chihuahua about it....

The Bible has the truth, as far as I am concerned. I'm sure you know what Genesis 1:1 says.
You may not believe it, but that's fine.
There's a whole lot of stuff people didn't believe, until...

and there is a whole lot of nonsense people used to believe until...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Math will do that as math isn't a thing of existences. These arguments cover things that exist. First cause is based on nature itself. You have parents who have parents, etc.

And just like your parents will one day die and literally "disappear"

One could say then the first cause no longer exists, so hypothetically, for somebody un -familiar it would look like you came about literally out of nothing.

 

[Aman Uensis]

Well, in math there are several different *types* of infinity and, within each type, several different *sizes* of infinity. Not all of them are 'kinds of numbers'. And even those that are can still be different *types* of numbers (cardinal versus ordinal).

The one we have been dealing with here is only the most basic one.

Truthfully, I find very large finite numbers to be much harder to fathom than the infinite. Look up Grahams number sometime.

I did just have a quick browse of the continuum hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong it proposes several infinities, each of which abide by some boundaries? And that they are layered within one another? If so, this could actually prove very useful to me and I thank you for alerting me to such a thing.

I've long held the view that our reality is an infinity that comes with restrictions and there may be many such. But the one I'm looking into at the moment is the overarching one, the simplest one, because I do think it is harder to explain the presence of such things as they cannot be further reduced down to anything but themselves. And I believe this touches upon the question of God (or lack thereof). Say, if we were were brushstrokes on a painting, it is the canvas I seek. So for my inquiry, the basic one is the focus, the stage upon which all other infinities play out.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Say, if we were were brushstrokes on a painting, it is the canvas I seek. So for my inquiry, the basic one is the focus, the stage upon which all other infinities play out.

Very nice, Aman. Nicely worded.

 

[nPeace]

No, the archeology on the ground is proof. But I can't take you to the archeological digs and must use words instead.

No, you can show me what is written on the archeological digs, that give proof of your claims, but of course you can't show me anything, if there is nothing there but opinions of men who are biased against the same thing you are biased against.
Similar to the Documentary Hypothesis (DH).

 

[nPeace]

Perhaps the only way to do that will be to see some of my posts in Hinduism and other forums. Hinduism comes in many shades. One of the (important) old shades is non-duality ('Advaita'). As the name indicates, since the followers of this philosophy accept the existence of just one entity in the universe and no other, that will not allow the acceptance of the existence of Gods and Goddesses. You can read about this philosophy and one of the mo0re recent teachers of this philosophy here: Gaudapada - Wikipedia. Of course, the philosophy is much older than Gaudapada. Incidently, Gaudapada was perhaps the teacher of the teacher of the first Sankaracharya, the most influential 8th Century philosopher of Hinduism.

Therefore I am a staunch orthodox advaitist Hindu who believes that all things in the universe, perceived or unperceived, without any exception, living or non-living, are constituted by Brahman, an entity which is not God, is eternal, changeless and form-independent and unconcerned with the affairs of the universe. This makes me a strong atheist who would not even accept the possibility of existence of any God or Goddess.

Of course, I am from a orthodox brahmin family, which has mention in RigVeda and Bhagawat Purana, and I am very well aware of the scriptures and myths of Hinduism. Therefore, to the theists in Hinduism, I answer as a theist though I am myself not one.

How does any of this invalidate your beliefs from a lie?

 

[nPeace]

Well, that is not true. We evolved from mammal branch of an animal like Slender Loris. Apes and Chimps came much later.
Phyllum Cordata: A chordate (/ˈkɔːrdeɪt/) is an animal of the phylum Chordata. During some period of their life cycle, chordates possess a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail: these five anatomical features define this phylum. Chordates are also bilaterally symmetric, and have a coelom, metameric segmentation, and circulatory system.
Class Mammalia: Mammals (from Latin mamma "breast") are vertebrate animals constituting the class Mammalia (/məˈmeɪliə/), and characterized by the presence of mammary glands which in females (and sometimes males) produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young, a neocortex (a region of the brain), fur or hair, and three middle ear bones. These characteristics distinguish them from reptiles and birds, from which they diverged in the late Triassic, 201–227 million years ago.
Theria (/ˈθɪəriə/; Greek: θηρίον theríon, wild beast) is a subclass of mammals amongst the Theriiformes (the sister taxon to Yinotheria). Theria includes the eutherians (including the placental mammals) and the metatherians (including the marsupials). Temporal range: Late Jurassic – Holocene, 160–0 million years ago.
Eutheria (/juːˈθɪəriə/; from Greek εὐ-, eu- "good" or "right" and θηρίον, thēríon "beast" hence "true beasts") is one of two mammalian clades with extant members that diverged in the Early Cretaceous or perhaps the Late Jurassic. Temporal range: Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous–Holocene, 161 or 145–0 million years ago.
Placentalia is one of the three extant subdivisions of the class of animals Mammalia; the other two are Monotremata and Marsupialia. The placentals are partly distinguished from other mammals in that the fetus is carried in the uterus of its mother to a relatively late stage of development. Temporal range: Paleocene-Holocene 66–0 million years ago.
Primate (/ˈpraɪmeɪt/ (About this soundlisten) PRY-mayt) (from Latin primat-, from primus: "prime, first rank") is a eutherian mammal constituting the taxonomic order Primates. Primates arose 85–55 million years ago first from small terrestrial mammals, which adapted to living in the trees of tropical forests: many primate characteristics represent adaptations to life in this challenging environment, including large brains, visual acuity, color vision, altered shoulder girdle, and dextrous hands. Temporal range: Paleocene–Present, 55–0 million years ago.

Juramaia, the oldest known eutherian (ancestor, yours and mine), Slender Loris (primate and our, yours and mine, cousin)

Oh, sure. All people make stories and we are no different. But stories are stories. It is not necessary to take them as facts.

An individual scientists may certainly be fallible, but when his work or opinion is discussed by thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries over decades, then the chances of anything false surviving are non-existent.

We do not know. We will need more information to cross the event horizon.

Did you not just tell me 'you are not afraid to say "you don't know"'? You don't know any of this. Something else may be true, but you just accept this... and I think the reason is because it is one of those things you don't want to buck against, and face the ridicule - you can "live with it".

What are you saying is not true though? I don't understand.

 

[nPeace]

@Polymath257 Let's consider your phrase, "may or may not".
So currently what is observed based on the evidence, is that the universe began; is not infinite; has an age.
Quantum mechanics being included in the model may or may not change this, but since there is a possibility it may not, then why do you conclude that because there is the other possibility (future), that somehow renders the current model void, making it unknown?
Do you take that approach with general relativity, and gravity, as well. Or do you say, the evidence currently indicates that general relativity and gravity is true... although, that may, or could change, based on future studies at the quantum level?


@Mestemia "Yapping like a Chihuahua" How civil. That seems to be the normal behavior of some people, when someone doesn't agree with them on their beliefs.
I want to be sure not to make personal attacks, so... have a nice day... and life. Bye bye.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think you misunderstand the nature of the original singularity (assuming it exists,
that is). It is NOT a point. Instead, it is simply the condition that the universe increases in
temperature, density, pressure, etc as we get close to the beginning.

If the universe is infinite spatially, it was *always* infinite. And if the curvature
is negative or zero, then it was and will be spatially infinite at *all* times.
The growth of the universe was NOT out of a single point. Yes the *observable*
universe was quite small initially, but the universe as a whole may well have been
infinite.

I wonder if infinities actually exist in nature. Maybe they don't even exist in maths
if that's the case.
Regardless of singularities, colliding membranes and the like - the real issue is
WHY there is something instead of nothing.

 

[nPeace]

The energy I'm thinking of is what exists despite our knowledge. Since humans don't determine the complexity and simplicity of the physical universe, I'd assume the same is for spirit-ual affairs. We tend to put ourselves down more often rather than accept where we are rather than compare our status to an unknown.

Instead of "I am limited; I can't know the universe" maybe more, "I am where I need to be at knowledge of the universe; and, I am learning more about it."

Same with "I am beyond" rather than "I am where I need to be" without comparison and rank.

I read a lot of self-help books about not comparing ourselves to others. I'd add god included.

This isn't a greater Being. We see life at different perspectives rather than levels.

Spirituality isn't over the mundane. We can use the mundane and the spiritual to learn about about each other.

God doesn't rule the universe. God doesn't rule us. We are part of this god and revolve within him. We can't literally not just spiritually live without him.

My question is: why separate oneself from god as greater and mundane?
Mysterious doesn't mean greater and limited knowledge of the cosmos.

There we go: It's what we don't know not what we are limited in known.

(To put it honestly, sounds more like we need to work on self-esteem so we value our human potential and knowledge without limiting us even spiritual comparison speaking. Actually, quite a few religions do this. Separate the body from the spirit or consciousness. I don't know about Paganism and their gods, though. I would love to hear their view of the gods-especially not spirit-ually speaking however the word is defined.

Since god is not greater, I'd assume the bible should help describe him not exalt him. Of course, this is my opinion. Just saying.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner Artist, I have to be jumping on and off, fairly quickly.

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your sharing your perspective.
Actually, I don't believe we are the ones who make up the concept of God. I see God as real - a being that we have to, and will get to know, one way, or other.

Think of it this way...
Say you found a letter one day, when you discovered an old hidden basement. The letter is written by someone you never met. Turns out, it is written by your dad, who supposedly died before you were born. That letter, and what it contains, can reveal a lot to you, and may even change your life.
The point is, the author of the letter is real, even though you never met him, and what is written, may reveal much about him.

That's how I see it.
The Bible reveals a lot about the creator; it changes lives for the better; it provides answers to the most important questions we could ask... etc.
The way I see it, an examination of the Bible reveals the truthfulness of what the creation reveals - that God is, and it tells us what we need to know about God... and more.

To me, it's not the other way around. We don't decide if God is, and what he is like - which is what it seem many people are trying to do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does any of this invalidate your beliefs from a lie?

I do not think you mean what you wrote. What you wanted to ask was "How does any of this validate your beliefs and make them any different from a lie?" Kindly note that I was not doing any of that. You had asked me to try to prove to you that I accept Hinduism. Here is the question you had put to me:

You'd have to convince me you believe that since you accept Hinduism. Or maybe you don't.

I have tried to show that my belief has been part of Hinduism at least since Gaudapada's time, which was prior to 8th Century. Actually the view is mentioned in many Upanishads and RigVeda also. So it is not possible to date the view exactly. Probably the last verses of RigVeda were written at least 3,000 years ago (that is prior to Buddha's time).