(This is a reworking of an idea I had about two years ago.)

Please, take a moment to look far into the past. To the very beginning of the universe (or if you subscribe to multi-verse, to the very beginning of that).

Alright now. What possibilities do we have at understanding this?

We have the infinite existence ideal...which is that it has always existed. Wonderfully reasonable, right?

We then have the spontaneous existence ideal...which is that something came from nothing. Wonderfully reasonable, right?

We also have the divine existence ideal...that a supernatural force caused the beginning. (Which can lead back to either the infinite or spontaneous existence ideals, depending on whether we think this supernatural force must have a creator itself, or is timeless)

Which of these views IS reasonable?

Which has any evidence or solid reasoning behind it? Isn't each one as unnatural as the next? Why then, when our three possibilities are all supernatural, is it so outrageous that one prescribes to a different understanding than you? Why is my unreasonable choice more delusional than yours? Why is your unreasonable choice less delusion when it is as faulty and logically ridiculous as my choice?

Well, the divine creation notion simply adds to the confusion. Now you must explain far more than simply the existence of the natural universe...and since it is by definition supernatural, it can't be explained nor have any support for, simply this awful thing called "faith" backs it. As by occam's razor, I'll take one of the first two.

And I'm cool with that, because my decision is just as irrational. :)

(This is a reworking of an idea I had about two years ago.)

Please, take a moment to look far into the past. To the very beginning of the universe (or if you subscribe to multi-verse, to the very beginning of that).

Alright now. What possibilities do we have at understanding this?

We have the infinite existence ideal...which is that it has always existed. Wonderfully reasonable, right?

Personally I subscribe to this one.
(I wrote an essay about it awhile back)

When we return to the origin of All, it is Silence that we reach. At the dawn of time, or more accurately before time began, the existence of, or rather the non-existence of a great no-thing brought about the emanation of the whole universe. But it wasn't created. It is eternal and infinite, in that it has no definite qualities, you must remember, it doesn’t exist. What it does have is the possibility of qualities. An infinite amount of possibilities, it is infinite in infinitely many ways, and has no point in were it can be defined. What this comes down to is infinite contraction (-) and infinite expansion (+) so there is an infinite union between the two forces. This clasp between the infinite results in one, the equilibrium of silence is perfection. This is the Qabalistic Zero!

When we leave the archetypal world and enter reality, the world of possibilities made real, it is time for the Qabalistic egg to hatch. This is the beginning of time, the bond between the principle of order and destruction, a lower form of what was before. Within this state we find the scheme of expansion, contraction; dissolving, centralizing, but these are lower aspects of what came before, and therefore the possibilities are no longer limitless, but must contain achievability within the now existing world. This level brings about the consciousness of the microcosm, that of man, a lower form of the consciousness of the macrocosm which it was born.

LMAO, the Universe is beyond REASON!


We then have the spontaneous existence ideal...which is that something came from nothing. Wonderfully reasonable, right?
Lol, the BIG BANG, just by looking at the name you can see how little we understand.
Personally I like the Ekpyrotic Universe (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/%7Esteinh/npr/) theory more than the BIG BANG, way more bizzare, but then again, thats all subjective. 50 years from now they'll look back laugh at us for believing something so silly as the BIG BANG. lol


We also have the divine existence ideal...that a supernatural force caused the beginning. (Which can lead back to either the infinite or spontaneous existence ideals, depending on whether we think this supernatural force must have a creator itself, or is timeless)
I think anyway you look at it there must be a so called "supernatural force" that either IS ALL or CAUSED ALL.


Which of these views IS reasonable?
All and none, depending on how you want to look at it.

Which has any evidence or solid reasoning behind it?Just because the so called "evidence" matches your theory does not mean your theory is correct.

Isn't each one as unnatural as the next?
sure is strange isn't it?

Why then, when our three possibilities are all supernatural, is it so outrageous that one prescribes to a different understanding than you? Why is my unreasonable choice more delusional than yours? Why is your unreasonable choice less delusion when it is as faulty and logically ridiculous as my choice?
Because people think their goggles are clearer than the other guys.

Maybe the big difference is that many people choose to accept the divine theory, while most of the rest of us accept some ignorance in how energy came about (or has always existed). It is as if everyone pondered how black holes were created, and some accepted something on faith and others just accepted that they simply don't know. In short, there is no reason to take any position and most don't.

The point of this is nothing more than humility. But I like the little bit of expression Vanhalla brought in.

(This is a reworking of an idea I had about two years ago.)

Please, take a moment to look far into the past. To the very beginning of the universe (or if you subscribe to multi-verse, to the very beginning of that).

Ok,........ sorry can't see a beginning!:D
Alright now. What possibilities do we have at understanding this?

We have the infinite existence ideal...which is that it has always existed. Wonderfully reasonable, right? Yes, agrees with Stephen Hawking's theories and Einsteins equations and is wonderfully supported by the insights of scientists, poets, teachers and philosophers.

We then have the spontaneous existence ideal...which is that something came from nothing. Wonderfully reasonable, right?? No! That's non-sense. If you can, please describe the 'nothing' that 'something' came from?

We also have the divine existence ideal...that a supernatural force caused the beginning. (Which can lead back to either the infinite or spontaneous existence ideals, depending on whether we think this supernatural force must have a creator itself, or is timeless)? No! Depends on something being created from nothing('Nothing comes from nothing" Parmenides) by ''a supernatural force" and fails to explore/explain the origin of that supernatural entity!

Which of these views IS reasonable? The first! The uni/multiverse has and always will exist in some manner as it is impossible for there to be nothing so there must be something!

Which has any evidence or solid reasoning behind it? #1 again. Stephen Hawkings("A brief History of Time") use of Einstein's equations shows space and time could be infinitely curved to an extent that there is no place to posit a beginning. This agrees with the mind 'pictures' created by some of the terms used in Australian Aboriginal spirituality, picturing existence as a never beginning, never ending, ever expanding spiral.



Isn't each one as unnatural as the next? 2 & 3 are incomprehensible, #1 however seems very compatible with Nature!
Why then, when our three possibilities are all supernatural, is it so outrageous that one prescribes to a different understanding than you? #1 needs no supernatural explanation.
Why is my unreasonable choice more delusional than yours? Without ego, it's difficult to answer, in fact your question is begging an egotistical answer!:D
Why is your unreasonable choice less delusion when it is as faulty and logically ridiculous as my choice? Another egocentric poser! IMHO it's more reasonable to believe there cannot be ''nothing'' so there is something! Much of what can thus be derived from the 'is'ness of existence remains a mystery, however the simple elegance of the principle gives a logical starting point from which to attempt a scientific, common sense, explanation of existence.

If one begins from any of the other theories one's deliberations rest upon the incomprehensible, however beginning from the simple law that there cannot be nothing, 'nothing' has no existence, not now not ever, existence is the imperative! This means there is no other option! We, the cosmos, all that is, exists because it must! There cannot be nothing, therefore there must be 'something', everywhere, everytime, in all places, to infinity. It must all be connected, all one-thing, for if not, what would constitute the seperation?

Cheers:)

Haha, I like you redzed. Good response.

^^ yea good read.
what if you like the idea of infinite realities/universes
in some there must be a god in others there wont be ?
Like a black hole in your neighborhood means your neighborhood never existed ,i just hurt my head.

maybe there is one constant there is or is not a god?

It seems like a lot of circular reasoning and begging the question is being used. "There must have always been something, because there can't be nothing. Why not? Because there must be something." If you are going to state the first part, then you need a reason why there can't possibly be nothing, WITHOUT re-stating one of the premises. Not saying you're wrong or prominent theories don't back this option though.

Why is my unreasonable choice more delusional than yours? Why is your unreasonable choice less delusion when it is as faulty and logically ridiculous as my choice?

What we do know is that matter can niether be created nor destroyed. This makes matter itself eternal.

So claiming it has always been....has more basis than a creationist view. It is more reasonable and logical. It is a superior view to yours.

What we do know is that matter can niether be created nor destroyed. This makes matter itself eternal.

So claiming it has always been....has more basis than a creationist view. It is more reasonable and logical. It is a superior view to yours.

BP...there's either a purpose or there isn't. If there isn't, well, I guess I'm wrong...but I've had a lot of fun pretending there is. If there is, I probably don't really know what it is anyways...but I'm having a lot of fun treating 'love indiscriminately' as the purpose.

To each their own, though. Just find what makes you happy...if you genuinely have that with atheism or whatever it is you are, kick ass. I don't give a shit what anybody believes; I never really have. I like to fuck around on these forums, but I'm being serious here: Just find what makes you happy in life and stick to it. Chances are, it will be nothing like what makes me happy in life, and that's cool by me. I'd rather see my fellows break the mold and find their own happiness than be like me and find it's not to their taste.

Either way, BP, have a good life.

Oh, one other thing...I recall reading about quantum mechanics a few years back...small bits of matter randomly come into existence then disappear. I don't recall where it was I read that (probably SciAm)...but it was interesting.

(This is a reworking of an idea I had about two years ago.)

Please, take a moment to look far into the past. To the very beginning of the universe (or if you subscribe to multi-verse, to the very beginning of that).

Alright now. What possibilities do we have at understanding this?

We have the infinite existence ideal...which is that it has always existed. Wonderfully reasonable, right?

We then have the spontaneous existence ideal...which is that something came from nothing. Wonderfully reasonable, right?

We also have the divine existence ideal...that a supernatural force caused the beginning. (Which can lead back to either the infinite or spontaneous existence ideals, depending on whether we think this supernatural force must have a creator itself, or is timeless)

Which of these views IS reasonable?

Which has any evidence or solid reasoning behind it? Isn't each one as unnatural as the next? Why then, when our three possibilities are all supernatural, is it so outrageous that one prescribes to a different understanding than you? Why is my unreasonable choice more delusional than yours? Why is your unreasonable choice less delusion when it is as faulty and logically ridiculous as my choice?

To tell the truth, anything at all could be behind our existance.

Our lives could be a game played by some advanced race, or something.

is it likely? naw.. but really you can't rule anything out completely..

It seems like a lot of circular reasoning and begging the question is being used. "There must have always been something, because there can't be nothing. Why not? Because there must be something." If you are going to state the first part, then you need a reason why there can't possibly be nothing, WITHOUT re-stating one of the premises. Not saying you're wrong or prominent theories don't back this option though.

It's a simple principle that seems hard to grasp! Try to imagine 'nothing', give it a go.

You're quote is in " " so is it correct to assume you are quoting moi? If so please get it right!

"There must always have been 'something', because there can't be nothing. Why not? Because 'nothing' does not exist! that means there must be an infinite something."

It would be nonsense to say 'nothing' existed before the 'big bang', 'dreamtime', whatever. Something has always been, .. like energy? Energy is eternal, cannot be created nor destroyed. Einstein gave us an equation to calculate the amount of energy in matter. Matter - the illusive forms that pop in and out of existence, either for a very short time like some quantum particles, or for a very long time like a universe. In infinite eternity the only reality is energy, cycling between the formless state and matter. 95% of the universe is dark matter/dark energy. The forms we can observe are a mere 5% of the total. The sun is 98% of the matter in our solar system.

Are we a fractal of infinite being? A sense organ? A storage system? The DNA has been found to act like a quantum computer the potential storage of one sugar cube of human DNA is similar to 6 trillion cds. There are more possible connections between neurons in the human brain than grains of sand on all the beachs of the planet. Perhaps the 'eyes and ears' of omniscience?

What starts a thought? Does an atom somehow decide to jiggle another atom? There are many teachers and practitioners witnessing to a transcendant dimension not measurable by form, is it the formlessness of infinite energy? In a vast electro-magnetic field such as a universe existing because it must, there is no alternative, there cannot be nothing. This one/something, it must be 'one' as there is no-thing to seperate it, must exist at all times in all places because there cannot be 'nothing', anywhere! In math '1' may be seperated into an infinite number of positive and negative values. In a uni-verse the one existence/being appears seperated into an apparent infinite array of forms composed of positive and negative values.

Positive and negatively charged particles create electro magnetism. On a grand scale such as the universe the vast energies within that infinite power demonstrate a chaos of triangular paths, similar to the neurology of the human brain. Does the vast electro magnetic field of the universe create infinite reflections each reflecting an individual aspect of that creative force? Is the human brain/mind, a reflection of a cosmic mind? A mind that exists simply because it must?

"The ultimate stuff of the universe is mind-stuff" stated british astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington. His contemporary Sir James Jeans, put it his way:"The universe can be best pictured, though still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisiting of pure thought, the thought of what we must describe as a mathematical thinker ... If the universe is a universe of thought, then it's creation must have been an act of thought."

All existing because there cannot be nothing?

Cheers:)

......

Hey, you asked why your view was more foolish than mine. I told you.

I don't have a problem if people wish to believe whatever they wish to believe. My greatest problem with religion comes from people who believe this shit, and vote on things that effect my life, due to this irrational fear of an invisible man in the sky.

So believe what you will, when you vote on that belief, your beliefs become my business and are open to criticism and review by anyone your vote affects.

... similar to the neurology of the human brain. Does the vast electro magnetic field of the universe create infinite reflections each reflecting an individual aspect of that creative force? Is the human brain/mind, a reflection of a cosmic mind? A mind that exists simply because it must?

Hmmmm, sounds similar to my opinion of it all.

Hmmmm, sounds similar to my opinion of it all.

It's not new. Parmenides in ancient Greece said "Nothing comes from Nothing" and another Greek, Zeno of Cittium argued as follows: " Nothing lacking sensation can have a sentient part. But the world has sentient parts. Therefore the world does not lack sensation. Nothing without a share in mind and reason can give birth to one who is animate and rational. therefore the world is animate and rational." "Mind penetrates into every part of the world, just as the soul pervades us... the whole world(universe) is a living thing endowed with soul and reason."

Cheers:)

Which has any evidence or solid reasoning behind it? Isn't each one as unnatural as the next? Why then, when our three possibilities are all supernatural, is it so outrageous that one prescribes to a different understanding than you? Why is my unreasonable choice more delusional than yours? Why is your unreasonable choice less delusion when it is as faulty and logically ridiculous as my choice?

Oh, and good OP, Hex.