A
AlNg
Guest
But is a quantum fluctuation nothing or is it something?
- Status
O
openmind77
Guest
Before the fluctuation there is nothing
A
AlNg
Guest
So the quantum fluctuation came from nothing and had no cause and no catalyst?
BTW, is the philosophy of quantum field theory well understood and is there general agreement on its foundations and philosophical implications?
Last edited:
F
franklinstower
Guest
Jesus the incarnation of the second person of the trinity who became a human being without ceasing to be gully God. when Jesus experienced death on the cross God did experience death but did not cease to live fully everywhere in the universe at the same time.
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
Hinduism just says that the universe lasts about 3 trillion years and then dissolves into nothingness and then comes back into existence and this cycle continues for ever.
Modern physics speculates different ways the Universe can end:
U
upant
Guest
your nothing has something,
even krauss admitted his nothing is something.
prove it from “no” thing not a nothing with laws
so how did the first cycle start? or is inanimate-matter all eternal? that takes faith
R
rossum
Guest
No. Hypotheses contain speculation. Only when there is sufficient supporting evidence does a scientific hypothesis get to the status of a scientific theory.
R
rossum
Guest
In Buddhism such questions are indeed irrelevant. There are a huge number of such irrelevant questions in all religions. For example: “What, if anything, did Jesus have for breakfast 137 days after His 23rd birthday?”
The Buddha did not answer all possible questions, and he told us why:
If you want to know the origin of the material universe then ask a cosmologist. She will explain in great detail the various hypotheses currently under consideration. Though I should warn you that you will need a lot of advanced mathematics to understand it. How good is your tensor algebra?
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
When did he admit that? Can you give a link?
There was no first cycle. The cycle is eternal.
Matter is not eternal. Only brahman is eternal - this is the impersonal consciousness of all existence.
H
Hume
Guest
Challenge accepted!Hume:
What does it mean to be empirically minded? Is reality limited to your ability to empirically verify? Or will you trust others who empirically verify?
What about love? Can you empirically verify that for us?
Go!
Objective claims require objective proof.
Non-negotiable. Else you have exactly zero ability to know that reality is reality.
Love? Subjective construct. As a discrete, “in and of itself” object, it does not exist. You can’t fill a beaker with it. Put in on a scale. So on.
H
Hume
Guest
It’s not meant to. The theory describes what it describes and nothing else.
On life’s origin, we’re getting very close. I’m confident I’ll live to see laboratory abiogenesis with organisms that many will have no choice but to deny as qualifying as organisms. Something that will look very similar to a perpetual organic chemical reaction, so long as the necessary (name removed by moderator)uts remain available.
On the universe? Who know. We can explain to the big bang and beyond that? My favorite theory is an alien with red hair and three butt-cheeks.
What’s pathetic is what some theists claim as “evidence” for a god. “Look at the sunrise!”
“Look at how complex my eye is!” Vague things like that.
Sure. The father of genetics was Mendel. Your point?
The biological “language of God” on Earth is RNA. Just fyi. Preceded DNA.
G
Gab123
Guest
Again, theories include speculation, and they try to explain something based on assumptions. From the assumptions follows a number of possible hypotheses. Also realize that there have been plenty of scientific theories in the past that were superseded and replaced by others.
U
upant
Guest
do you mean Brahmā, the creator god in the Hindu Trinity? didn’t he start the cycle?
A
AlNg
Guest
How can consciousness be impersonal. Does not the conscious state involve a person?
O
openmind77
Guest
In this Krauss basically admitted that when there is nothing, laws of quantum mechanics or some laws of physics do exist. This is not a material ‘something’ but the laws of physics.
BTW I am not an atheist.
Actually I don’t mean Brahma. Brahma is a personal God. He is said to create the ‘physical world’ for a specific cycle of the universe. But even before Brahma and the other personal Gods, there is brahman which is an impersonal, infinite consciousness that remains even after the entire universe is destroyed (Brahma and the other Gods also disappear in the dissolution of the universe). brahman does not create the universe, the universe just appears out of him/it (very much like a quantum fluctuation) - so there is no intent or action.
BTW I am not an atheist.
A
AlNg
Guest
Why is it important that the alien had three butt cheeks? And what were the consequences of the appearance of this alien?
O
openmind77
Guest
brahman is said to be totally beyond human comprehension - nobody can describe it. So Hinduism says it is impossible to give him/it any qualities, you can only say what he/it is not.
So he/it is neither a person nor a non-person, he/it neither One nor Many, he/it is even beyond good or evil.
Finally Hinduism states you can say only three things about brahman - it exists, it has consciousness and it is bliss.
G
Gab123
Guest
Again, the evidence for God’s existence permeates the cosmos itself. As for the complexity of the eye, that itself points to the necessity of a rational source, being that anything that has purposeful functionality has necessitates a rational foundation. The complexity of your shoe requires a rational source simply because it has purpose and functionality. Shoes, just like televisions and telephones and cars all evolve, but the key ingredient for that evolution is a rational source, in this case, the human mind.
But the fact that the cosmos is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the Cause of the universe is a Rational Source. Thus evidence of God permeates everything. The real issue is that for some, the word “God” triggers a psychological complex known as atheism. I suggest that for now, you replace the word “God” with “Rational Source” in order to make progress understanding the necessity for an Eternal Rational Being for you and I and existence itself to exist.
Yes; simply more evidence for the Eternal Rational Source.The com¡somos is made up of systems governed by laws; even you are made up of systems, both physical and spiritual, which are governed by laws.
A
AlNg
Guest
First you say brahman cannot be described.
then you describe brahman:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Please stop being condescending and attempting to duck and weave out of the question by your last two sentences. Yet another strawman.
Again I am going to ask you, what is the buddhist explanation for how the first element in the periodic table came about, hydrogen.
We can fit second generation stars like our sun into the buddhist hypothesis
But how does buddhism, explain hydrogen, the very first element?
Yet another strawman, your example here is not going to answer the question.
So again, how does buddhism explain the first element , because, as we both know, matter can never be destroyed.
Copious quoting is meaningless if the quote cannot be discussed and is off topic to the question being asked. In your own words please.
Last edited:
- Status