To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3255213, member: 271333"]For the sake of argument, let's say that the universe has always existed (just like your God). No one is in charge. It functions strictly by natural processes.

[...]

QUOTE]
​

And wherefrom come forth the natural processes?

There were men wiser and more learned than you will ever aspire to be, founders of the most advanced military power to destroy -- and also to spread democracy, they talk about the laws of nature and nature's God.

You always talk gratuistously; think where do the natural processes come from, and keep in mind that the vast majority of scientists tell us today that the universe has a beginning in time and in space, so that if you again say gratuitously without thinking -- but of course you will drop the line again that it's just that you don't understand (shade of argument from ignorance?!), that they the natural processes come with the universe, but you have to add: however the vast majority of scientists today tell us that the universe has a beginning in time and in space, wherefore so also the natural processes.

Please do not write, first put your thoughts in order: so that every line you commit to writing has support from facts and logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QUOTE="Amar Nath Reu, post: 3255225, member: 279951"]I do not hold the view [universe came from nothing], but I also do not deny the possibility of what has come to be termed as 'bubble universes', out of 'absolute nothing'.

[...]

/QUOTE]
​

You are mistaken, bubble universes do not come out of absolute nothing, not even possible ones, they come out from the fervid vacuous yes bubbling imagination of their authors.

And they have succeeded in getting money from tax payers to continue working on their bubbles.

Think about this fact:

Physicists of all stripes know that mankind scarcely knows 4% of the universe we are parts of and tenants in, yet from that little knowledge some clearly aberrant ones who should otherwise concentrate on the 96% of the universe still unknown to man if they were not aberrant, take to bubble universes, why? Simple, because they bubble inverses sell more media hype.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The vast majority of scientists today aren't religious and don't believe in anything that you believe in so why try to use science and scientists to back up your argument?

The Big Bang doesn't try to explain what caused or existed before inflation. Saying "God" did it is no better than just saying "I don't know".

Do you believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth? Do you believe in Evolution? Scientists do.

Maybe you should provide the facts that you keep requiring of others? Maybe you should improve your own babbling before accusing others of the same?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How am I mistaken when I do not hold this view (since there is not sufficient evidence) and only accept the possibility. There are theories of universes arising out of absolute nothing also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Approaches_favoring_ex_nihilo_creation

"Modern physics
A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the Universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error. The paper “Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo" (CEN) shows how the Universe was created from pure ‘nothing’ in information terms." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Modern_physics

Or do you mean that since we do not exactly know what happened in the beginning, it becomes obligatory for me to accept a divine creation of the universe and man - 'God did it'?

 

Actually, Hinduism has no problem with creatio ex-nihilo. It is mentioned in the RigVeda quite many times. From Hindu creation hymn (Nasadiya Sukta) which was written at least 3,000 years ago:

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

 

It follows logically that if 1, 2, and 3 are proven, then the cause of the material manifestation was brought into being by something non-material (transcendental). With that as a premise, we can assume that the cause also contain elements of that which it caused. So why not God? How is assuming God, not a logical conclusion given what we have to work with? Is it

No. Infinite regressions don't help, are an unnecessarily distraction.
You either accept that it came from an causeless agent, the universe(s) is/are eternal, or it brought itself into existence.

You don't have to know. As I said we have a choice. Me believing God is that eternal source, is mechanistically non different to you believing the universe is eternal. Neither of us can prove the other right or wrong.

jan.

 

here i paste the link to words of an enlightened man. this is for the people who take sanctuary under labels such as atheists, theists, agnostic etc.
http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Artic...nciple/Osho-The-First-Principle-00000006.html

 

The material universe, that we know is based on space-time, where space and time are intertwined like a fabric. If we were to take the fabric of space-time and unweave it, into separate threads of space and separate threads of time, then we would no longer be in the universe, as we know it.

With separated threads of time one could move forward in time without space. While with separated thread of space one could move in space without time. Moving in space without time allows one to be anywhere and everywhere at the same time; omnipresent. If we could move in time without the restrictions of space we can know the history of the entire universe while never moving; omniscience.

The primordial atom of the big bang needed only one thread of time to intersect one thread of space to begin to weave the fabric of space-time. This is where omnipresence intersects omniscience placing a limit on each; singularity of thought; brooding. Our modern universe is not only space-time, but it is also interwoven with separated threads of space and time, like embroidery, sewed onto the fabric of space-time. This is where omnipresence and omniscience overlay matter; laws of nature that are the same for all.

 

as i said experientment with reality by being seperated from cosmic is perversion. this cannot satisfy.

 

It is? Why is that?

My guess is that whoever is making these claims is still blithely assuming the existence and applicability of the 'laws' of physics as he understands them. But that seems to contradict the idea of the universe coming from nothing. If the universe truly came from nothing, then there wouldn't be any preexisting laws of physics, mathematics or logic that the initial event would have to conform to, since the initial event would seemingly have been the origin of these more abstract principles of reality too.

"Shows how the Universe was created"? That's pretty grandiose. In my opinion this kind of rhetoric illustrates what happens when physicists get out of their depth and start behaving like metaphysicians.

 

yazata you wrote right.
dont be worry about the laws of physics and chemistry , thing is we witness and this is same as the presence of universe. meditate on both. the presence of universe and you witnessing

 

See the very last line. It leaves the question of creation wide open. Actually, this sukta launched the inquiry into the whole issue. But creatio ex nihilo was settled later on.

Chandogya Upanishad

Chapter II - Brahman: the Cause of the Universe
1. "In the beginning, my dear, this universe was Being (Sat) alone, one only without a second. Some say that in the beginning this was non - being (asat) alone, one only without a second; and from that non - being, being was born."


2. Aruni said: "But how, indeed, could it be thus, my dear? How could Being be born from non - being? No, my dear, it was Being alone that existed in the beginning, one only without a second.

This being is Brahmma.

Tandya Brahman, aka Panchvimsh Brahmana.

“Prajāpatir vā idam eka āsīt. Tasya vāg eva svam āsīt. Vāg dvitīyā.” (In the Beginning was Prajapati (Lord of Creation/world) alone. The Word was his true Self. The Word was the second.)

Clearly creatio ex nihilo was not accepted. Brahmma alone WAS there, but Bramma does not mean nothing or non existence.

Later philosophical inquiry was to explain How And Why of creation. This did lead to various results.

Sankhya go for Unseen Purusha, later Kaarta Purakh in Sikhism.

Nyaya goes for the Unseen, AdrishTa.

Shankaracharya states that world is a concomitant of Brahmma and hence maya.

Ramanujacharya propounds the Theory of Emanation and absorption.

But all of them accept the One Absolute.

 

I select what suits me, you select what suits you. That is OK. BTW, there are other hymns in RigVeda which voice similar views.

 

"A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero."


That is a mathematical construct in the minds of speculators who do not notice that the universe is operating notwithstanding the mathematical construct inside their minds, by which the universe should have long ago self-destructed itself into nothingness.


You see, everyone here, when you read something supposedly from scientists, you have to be critical; keep your feet on reality, the ground on which you are standing, the nose in your face which if you accidentally bang it hard in the dark against a concrete wall, it bleeds.


Just keep in mind that you are living and operating and eating and sleeping and making love and bringing up kids, these are all facts, and the logic is that against facts there can be no argument, not even from speculator-scientists with math inside their skull to the effect that the total energy level is exactly zero.


Another thing with in particular speculating scientists, they suffer from the taboo of not thinking outside the box of their science inside their minds; so that as their calculations bring them to t=0, they stop thinking at that point in their mind, and therefore proclaim they know nothing from that point; but they forget to keep in mind that t=0 in their mind's math calculation is no longer a fact at present, in actual reality outside their minds, the universe is still cruising in time and in space, and folks with their minds not boxed in by the speculative math of scientists, they can and do think beyond t=0.


The fact is that scientists doing mathematical constructs to delve into the universe, they are doing it inside their minds, but their minds exist in the real world of breathing, eating, sleeping, loving, all the world of experience outside the realm of conceptual mathematics inside their minds.


Now, what is reality? The mathematical constructs in the minds of speculating scientists who are bordering into absurd science fictions or the world were we move about, go to work, eat, sleep, defecate, suffer a headache, make money, enjoy sex, etc., etc., etc.


You tell me.

 

Such a list of non sequiturs and spurious logic...

 

Like?

I have presented a basket of views in totality, you are relying on one hymn, even though it is not conclusive in settling the issue.

Btw, whatever other hymns of Rig Veda, they not the last word, which comes from later developements like Brahmanas, Upanishads and crystallised philosopies.

 

Blasphemy! Brahmanas, Upanishads are but parts of Vedas. I thought they were considered the 'word of God'.
Wait, I will need to search. I had a topic on Hindu creation with references from RigVeda. Somehow, I cannot find it now. Was it removed? But find, I will.

 

Pachomius, How is the magical answer of "God did it" the best answer to any question?

It's certainly an answer but in what way is it the "best" answer?

It's not testable. It goes against everything that we can observe in our daily lives. It's not the simplest answer that would explain things. In fact it's the most complex answer.

So, in what sense can you possibly consider "God did it" as the best explanation?

For any other subject the "best" answer would generally have to be testable, not at odds with all known physical laws, and the simplest or least complex explanation that got the job done would be preferred.

"God did it" is the worst explanation if you consider how we would usually approach such matters.

 

They are addenda, not part of Vedas.

In the beginning, Max Muller has given a defective translation. His mischief is deliberate in case of the next sukta.

If there was no asat nor sat, and everything was in darkness, then go to 10.130. There WAS the Hrinyagarbha, the Golden Womb [which Muller has blanked out], from which everything came? One thing is sure. It was not of zero size, else you would not that it WAS the Golden Womb.