The Cause without a Cause

[Aupmanyav]

If you think the concept nothing represents anything other than nothing, then that is crazy, but then I understand that English is your second language.

Now quantum mechanics can look over anyone's shoulder, it they find something where there was thought to be nothing, then it just means the science in question was in error, it does not change the meaning of nothing!

Sure, English is my second language, but nothing may not just be what you consider it to be. Again, Quantum Mechanics looking over my shoulder. At the moment we do not know what is wrong and what is right about 'nothing'. Only future will tell us that.

 

[blü 2]

God is all that exists!

Then why do you need the word "God" when words such as "everything" or "the universe" already do the job?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really? Cool, let's see the evidence.


I don't.

So don't forget to present evidence that any sort of god exists. I can't wait to see you back up your fantastic claim.

Air, Vapor, Gas, all names meant to represent some reality, Tao, God, Nirvana, Brahman, all names meant to represent some reality.

God is a concept, the concept serves as nothing but a signpost that points to a postulated reality, the concept is not the reality. To discover the reality, one must do work, maybe a lifetime's work of practice the way to realize exactly what it is that is represented by the concept. For example, if you are a Buddhist, you must realize Nirvana, if you have not, you do not know what the concept of Nirvana actually is.

People use words like God, Nirvana, etc., and expect someone to prove it to them before they believe, it can't happen that way, the proof is the reality itself, To realize Nirvana, it is said you must let go of personal self, have you?

Or do you expect me to prove to you the reality represented by the concept Nirvana before you accept it as real?

 

[Trailblazer]

God can.

That is actually true, and I have been saying that to atheists for eons.
God could prove that He exists if He wanted to since God is all-powerful, so the fact that God does not prove that He exists indicates that God does not choose to prove that He exists. I have all the reasons why He does not prove that He exists delineated in a Word doc so if you want my treatise on the subject I will post it here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure, English is my second language, but nothing may not just be what you consider it to be. Again, Quantum Mechanics looking over my shoulder. At the moment we do not know what is wrong and what is right about 'nothing'. Only future will tell us that.

You can't be serious, nothing means what is says. If something was found to exist where before science thought there was nothing, then it just means they had the science wrong, not that the nothing is something.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then why do you need the word "God" when words such as "everything" or "the universe" already do the job?

Because the concept God is used in religious writings, not 'Everything' or 'Universe', and these writings provide a practice to become one with the Universe as opposed to the dualistic relationship at the beginning.

 

[blü 2]

Because the concept God is used in religious writings, not 'Everything' or 'Universe', and these writings provide a practice to become one with the Universe as opposed to the dualistic relationship at the beginning.

Is there any difference, then, between the concept "God" and the concept "the universe"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can't be serious, nothing means what is says. If something was found to exist where before science thought there was nothing, then it just means they had the science wrong, not that the nothing is something.

I would not make a categorical statement on this. As I said, I consider it as a question to be answered in future.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, we thinkers want claimants to provide facts and evidence for their fantastic claims. If you can't, we defer to the default of not being convinced.

Well, you're "safe" there aren't you..
You know very well that God is not a physical being.

Imagine being in "a heaven" along with a load of dead people .. pretty boring, no?
There again, you could be "in heaven" with a load of robots, programmed to disbelieve like you. I wonder if you would find it spiritually rewarding..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is there any difference, then, between the concept "God" and the concept "the universe"?

If one is non-dualistically aware of that represented by the concepts, no it is the same pure awareness. But to the dualistic mind, the normal thinking mind, there are probalby as many different imagined meanings to the concepts as there are thinking minds.

 

[blü 2]

If one is non-dualistically aware of that represented by the concepts, no it is the same pure awareness. But to the dualistic mind, the normal thinking mind, there are probalby as many different imagined meanings to the concepts as there are thinking minds.

I mean the universe as disclosed by science, with maybe 20 septillion stars and however many planets that entails, but with earth the only known place in it where intelligent life is found.

If all that is God then God is very big and constantly expanding, as [his] galaxies move apart at an ever-accelerating rate, while [his] brains, the only parts of the known universe capable of thought, constitute some exquisitely tiny fraction of the whole, no?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I mean the universe as disclosed by science, with maybe 20 septillion stars and however many planets that entails, but with earth the only known place in it where intelligent life is found.

If all that is God then God is very big and constantly expanding, as [his] galaxies move apart at an ever-accelerating rate, while [his] brains, the only parts of the known universe capable of thought, constitute some exquisitely tiny fraction of the whole, no?

Everything you are saying, thinking, imagining, has nothing to do with God realization. God realization comes about through developing a non-dual mind awareness state, then there is no you and the universe, just self-identification with universal being. There is the dualistic path of science, and there is the non-dualistic path of religion, one leads to enlightenment and eternal being, and the other to a temporary life due to self-identification with a physical mortal thinking brain.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You can't be serious, nothing means what is says. If something was found to exist where before science thought there was nothing, then it just means they had the science wrong, not that the nothing is something.

'Nothing' is relative since there are limits to observation on how large or small things can be probed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

'Nothing' is relative since there are limits to observation on how large or small things can be probed.

'Nothing' in the context of existence is not relative, it is absolute nothing, not even nothing in existence!

 

[blü 2]

Everything you are saying, thinking, imagining, has nothing to do with God realization.

Why not? It follows directly from your equating God with Everything.

God realization comes about through developing a non-dual mind awareness state, then there is no you and the universe, just self-identification with universal being.

Do you speak as one who has this particular awareness state?

And if there is no you and other, "just self-identification with universal being", why do you bother to talk to me, or anyone else? I really don't understand what you're saying.

There is the dualistic path of science, and there is the non-dualistic path of religion, one leads to enlightenment and eternal being, and the other to a temporary life due to self-identification with a physical mortal thinking brain.

What did "the non-dualistic path of religion" ever contribute to the understanding of reality, the development of modern medicine and technology, modern food technology, modern transport, modern education, for instance?

Or is the payoff postponed till after you've died? (That's a genuine enquiry. I really don't get what you're saying at all.)

 

[wellwisher]

'Nothing' in the context of existence is not relative, it is absolute nothing, not even nothing in existence!

We live in space-time where space and time are integrated. We observe motion and change based on changes in space coordinated with time. This is what allows cause and affect, since the vector of time is to the future. Cause is now and the affect is in the future. This is easier to see when connected space also shows changes with time; allows us to infer cause and affect.

But if space and time were not connected, then the rules of cause and affect can change. For example, say I am playing chess and are about to make a move. I am touching the bishop but I pause. Before I move, I think it through and look to the future; imagination, to see all the potential affects from this initial cause; my move. I notice I will be trapped six moves down the line. I saw the future, so now I change the present; use a different move with a better ending. Which is the cause and which is the affect?

The answer has to do with observational reference. An outside person cannot read my mind, nor am I narrating my thought train so my opponent can hear. The outsiders will see me about to move, pause and then move. Then the game goes on; cause and affect. But in my imagination the initial cause; original move, led to a cascade of affects, that showed me that this would not be a good move. That realization; new cause, then led to the affect of me changing my mind; new move This affect is then assumed to be the cause of my opponents move, by third parties.

The imagination, where space-time is not limiting, cannot be seen under the microscope since it involves movements of data which have no physical nature. Yet this movement of data can still impact material cause and affect in ways that may not be obvious in the third person. Faith cannot be seen like a plant, other than by body language, yet it often sees the future and adjusts the present to meet the future on time.

In the case of a realm, where space and time are not connected; informational realty, the universe can appear from a glimpse in the future and an adjustment in the present. It is like the author who writes the happy ending first and now they can do whatever they wish everywhere else in the book, since in the end they all live happily ever after.

2-D thought is based on cause and affect, but 3-D thought involves cause, affect, cause and affect, cause and affect. This is where the imagination comes in; space and time separated added to space-time connected. If space and time were separated we would be in a realm of maximum complexity or maximum entropy. This maximum complexity allows not only the laws of nature, but all the potential of the imagination. If we lower the complexity to just the laws of nature the entropy will lower and give off energy; let there be light. The second law by increasing the entropy of the universe gradually returns space-time back to the realm of disconnected space and time. The second law connects the two realms; material with informational.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There again, you could be "in heaven" with a load of robots, programmed to disbelieve like you. I wonder if you would find it spiritually rewarding..

Disbelievers are more interesting than believers. They come with different ideas. Actually, the believers are uninteresting all playing the same tune. What is rewarding in believing in promises for which there is no evidence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Disbelievers are more interesting than believers. They come with different ideas. Actually, the believers are uninteresting all playing the same tune. What is rewarding in believing in promises for which there is no evidence?

..so you would like to be in "a heaven" with atheist robots?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not believe in heaven or hell. I also do not believe in any life after death except in a chemical sense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I do not believe in heaven or hell....

..so you can't see that living in a war-zone could be like hell, and living in a loving, secure community could be like heaven?

..suit yourself.