The origin of mankind

[Nungali]

How can we know if humans was created?

 

By observing and evaluating evidence.

 

Can something derive from nothing?

No!

A typical counter question from someone with a blocked third-eye chakra is "What is the definition of nothing?".

You don't need a definition. Nothing is simply nothing.

 

Can life evolve out of life-less matter?

No!

Evidence is the proof. Never ever something could evolve out of dead matter.

 

Well there are certainly people who claim that given enough time you will finally get some results.

But come on, what kind of thinking is this?

If you consider all variables and all constants, you will come to only one conclusion: The universe was created by an intelligent being, supreme and loving, intelligent and wise.

Why refuse our father, our creator? Why ignore him?

Because of our bloated ego?

Because it is not hip to believe in God?

Because we are coward, hiding behind a materialistic hypothesis which soothe a little bit our bad conscience?

 

 

But who created 'God'    

 

( whole above argument comes crashing down ) 

[Nungali]

And who created this supreme being ? I mean nothing comes out of nothing, you said so yourself ? So this being must have been created by some other supreme being, who must have been created by another supreme being. Your argument simply creates infinite regression.

 

So, no such God is required or exists. The universe does not need a designer. The universe is the universe-all and everything and all causality.

 

 

Stop playing games Karl .... you know as well as I that God was created by Giant Space Turtle 

 

... and who created Giant Space Turtle ?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oooo ... look !    Flat Earth !  

[Nungali]

I can't recall the scientist who enjoys saying it but I have heard him say it a number of times:  When you here scientists mention the word "Singularity" all this really is saying is that we do not know.

 

And yes, assuming there was at some point in time Singularity, it was still the entire universe.  It's just that science cannot define that particular state.

 

We do not know =  singularity .....   God ....  Dark Matter  ......   Dao     

[Nungali]

Interesting that you went to the concept of finite/infinity.  Recently, again I can't recall who said it but it was one of the scientists during a documentary regarding the universe, I have heard the statement (paraphrased):  When we scientists do our calculations and our end result is infinity we think that we have found an answer.  What really has happened is that we made errors in our calculations. 

 

 

Just wait until they find out they made an error in the double slit experiment  

[Karl]

Stop playing games Karl .... you know as well as I that God was created by Giant Space Turtle 

 

... and who created Giant Space Turtle ?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oooo ... look !    Flat Earth !  

Turtles Jim, but not as we know them.

[Junko]

I also imagin a DRAGON under neath.

[Gerard]

But who created 'God'   

 

Who created the Tao, the Source of everything?

Is there something beyond the Source?

 

One of the greatest dangers of spiritual cultivation: intellectualisation, rationalism.

 

As Bruce bluntly put:

 

Don't think, FEEEEEL...<i>it is like a finger pointing at the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory. </i>

 

Very wise words from a great man.

 

[Marblehead]

We do not know =  singularity .....   God ....  Dark Matter  ......   Dao     

 

Good try but you get a "Fail" on that one.

[Marblehead]

Just wait until they find out they made an error in the double slit experiment  

 

I doubt they would ever confess to that one.

[Marblehead]

Who created the Tao, the Source of everything?

Is there something beyond the Source?

 

 

That's a problem, isn't it?

 

And the reason for the problem is that the word "Tao" is being used as a noun.  "Tao" is a verb.

 

Karl's universe is all there is.

[Michael Sternbach]

Who created the Tao, the Source of everything?

Is there something beyond the Source?

That's a problem, isn't it?

Only if you assume that their must be a time flow - a before and an after. But this only applies to the created, not to the source of creation, which is also the source of space and time.

 

And the reason for the problem is that the word "Tao" is being used as a noun.  "Tao" is a verb.

In my understanding, it can be both a noun and a verb.

 

Karl's universe is all there is.

To each their own Universe.

[Marblehead]

I give you credit.  You tried.

Only if you assume that their must be a time flow - a before and an after. But this only applies to the created, not to the source of creation, which is also the source of space and time.

 

This is a tricky one because my response would appear that I am being self-contradictory again. 

 

Based on Karl's universe, space and time existed within Singularity, even prior to its beginning, but it was meaningless.

 

Based on the Big Bang theory space/time did not exist until Singularity "Banged".  (The beginning of separation.)

 

We must, IMO, always assume that time is linear.  There was time before I was born and there will be time after I die.  That means there was time between my birth and death and it flowed from the beginning (my birth) to the end (my death).  I was never in the same time twice.

 

All movement within the universe requires time flow.  There is no static universe.  Sorry. 

In my understanding, it can be both a noun and a verb.

 

That used to be my understanding as well.  I had to stop using it as a noun because if it is used as a noun you are creating a god, an omni-potent essence that is in control.  This negates any thought of free will and actually even the processes of nature.

  
 

[Stosh]

Who created the Tao, the Source of everything?

Is there something beyond the Source?

 

One of the greatest dangers of spiritual cultivation: intellectualisation, rationalism.

 

As Bruce bluntly put:

 

Don't think, FEEEEEL...<i>it is like a finger pointing at the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory. </i>

 

Very wise words from a great man.

 

I feeeel Bruce died of a drug overdose of his own doing, and that gods are imagined parents, and that Karl is too restricted in his definition of infinity.

[Stosh]

That's a problem, isn't it?

 

And the reason for the problem is that the word "Tao" is being used as a noun. "Tao" is a verb.

 

Karl's universe is all there is.

Is that conclusion based on the words.. syntax? and if so, how does it compare to the syntax of words like route ,or habit? Junko, Mh , anyone...( I know nothing about english, having used it for many years:) ummm I mean, if we call it a verb ,does that mean in classical chinese, that its usage implies the same syntactical constraints? Edited July 7, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Just wait until they find out they made an error in the double slit experiment  

Cool ,!Im glad someone else noticed that

[Karl]

Is that conclusion based on the words.. syntax? and if so, how does it compare to the syntax of words like route ,or habit? Junko, Mh , anyone...( I know nothing about english, having used it for many years:)

That's why the Trivium begins with a comprehensive understanding of grammar.

 

Where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

Grammar, logic, rhetoric.

 

Input, processing, output

[Stosh]

That's why the Trivium begins with a comprehensive understanding of grammar.

Where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

Grammar, logic, rhetoric.

Input, processing, output

So what are you saying?

[Michael Sternbach]

I give you credit.  You tried.

I return the compliment.

 

This is a tricky one because my response would appear that I am being self-contradictory again.

Maybe it's in the nature of this kind of topic? Maybe that's why sages every so often speak in paradoxes?

 

Based on Karl's universe, space and time existed within Singularity, even prior to its beginning, but it was meaningless.

Can it be said to exist then? Interestingly, Roger Penrose's CCC theory (which I have spoken to on various occassions) assumes an absence of time and space once these entities have become meaningless (i.e. can no longer be measured).

 

Based on the Big Bang theory space/time did not exist until Singularity "Banged". (The beginning of separation.)

I would say, they existed as potentials within the zero state (which insofar is not just nothing).

 

We must, IMO, always assume that time is linear. There was time before I was born and there will be time after I die. That means there was time between my birth and death and it flowed from the beginning (my birth) to the end (my death). I was never in the same time twice.

 

All movement within the universe requires time flow. There is no static universe. Sorry.

Emphasis is my own.

 

Again, the problem arises because you project a condition of your familiar experience on what transcends it.

 

That used to be my understanding as well. I had to stop using it as a noun because if it is used as a noun you are creating a god, an omni-potent essence that is in control. This negates any thought of free will and actually even the processes of nature.

This is a non-sequitur. Sorry.

[Karl]

To 'butt in'. Time and space are relative only to man. They describe causality as understood by the human mind. Without human conception then causality continues, but the relation disappears. An expansive, or shrinking universe is causality in action. Causality is the result of entities with particular natures (therefore identities) acting on each other.

[Karl]

So what are you saying?

That you must know what you read, hear and think. Words are conceptual.

[Marblehead]

Is that conclusion based on the words.. syntax? and if so, how does it compare to the syntax of words like route ,or habit? Junko, Mh , anyone...( I know nothing about english, having used it for many years:) ummm I mean, if we call it a verb ,does that mean in classical chinese, that its usage implies the same syntactical constraints?

Well Stosh, I suppose we could call it syntax (principle of word usage).

 

For a long time I stated that "Tao" could be used as a noun or a verb.  But the deeper I got into Taoist Philosophy and the stronger my Atheistic beliefs became the more I shyed away from using it as a noun because of its misunderstand of it being just another word for "god".

 

This is just my opinion based on my experiences during conversations with others.

 

I can't say my way is right but I feel better with this understanding.  (It reduces inner conflicts.)

[Stosh]

Things dont act on one another, the rules of the universe dictate causality. Ex, moon in orbit of earth, follows gravitational constant rule , which pervades everywhere and is observed local to mass bodies.

[Karl]

Things dont act on one another, the rules of the universe dictate causality. Ex, moon in orbit of earth, follows gravitational constant rule , which pervades everywhere and is observed local to mass bodies.

There is no 'gravitation constant rule' as an absolute. This is a man made conception of the actions/nature of objects.

[Stosh]

That you must know what you read, hear and think. Words are conceptual.

Thanks for that assumption, but as Ive aged I've begun to notice that I really dont know much of what I think. Its mostly a black box event,,if you get my drift.

[Marblehead]

Maybe it's in the nature of this kind of topic? Maybe that's why sages every so often speak in paradoxes?

Yes, speaking of non-concrete concepts is always challenging.

 

Can it be said to exist then? Interestingly, Roger Penrose's CCC theory (which I have spoken to on various occassions) assumes an absence of time and space once these entities have become meaningless (i.e. can no longer be measured).

Meaningless, yes.  Absent, unknown.  Potential, yes.

 

I would say, they existed as potentials within the zero state (which insofar is not just nothing).

 

Agree.

Emphasis is my own.

 

Again, the problem arises because you project a condition of your familiar experience on what transcends it.

 

But then, nothing happens external of the universe.  There isn't anything to happen.  I like the term "Absolute Nothingness".