Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Spoken like a true science denier. It's incoherent to you because you wish to remain willfully ignorant least the truth corrupt you. You are unwilling to put in the time and effort to learn. It's easier to deny science than to learn it.

I'm not denying science. I'm denying science fiction and embracing reality and truth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

When you’re born again you get to be a dick.

I think you may have a mortal lock on that department.

But hey...if PA ever finds that elusive "humor bone", maybe he'll share it with you so that both of you can gnash on it in tandem.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Scientists say that before the initial expansion of the universe, all the material in the cosmos was packed into an extremely dense object about the size of a modern day shot-put ball...I find this difficult to believe...
....but anyway, I have a question: exactly WHERE WAS this dense sphere located...?

Since everything that ever was/ is... IS IN THAT SPHERE, and coupled with the idea that there is nothing outside that sphere, how could it actually BE anywhere...?

This suggests that the cosmos has always been here, in one form or another, and was not ever created...there would be no place for it to be created in...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm not denying science. I'm denying science fiction ...

How do you tell the difference?

I have asked that question before and you have never answered it. Why do you refuse to answer it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you tell the difference?

I have asked that question before and you have never answered it. Why do you refuse to answer it?

I have answered it many times. You're not paying attention: Scientism never passes the sniff tests of the laws of logic.

For any science to be credible it must be grounded in sound logic. Evolution, athesitic materialism, whether this postulates a finite or infinite universe, etc. are all self-refuting worldviews.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

The Nasadiya Sukta
1a The non-existent did not exist, nor did the existent exist at that time.
There existed neither the midspace nor the heaven beyond.
b What stirred? From where and in whose protection?
Did water exist, a deep depth?
2a Death did not exist nor deathlessness then.
There existed no sign of night nor of day.
b That one breathed without wind through its inherent force.
There existed nothing else beyond that........

Part of ancient Hindu Vedas...

It is very difficult for we western Abrahamic centered persons to understand, and let alone translate the meaning of "The Nasadiya Sukta." accurately

First there are language difficulties, and more importantly a very different cultural and philosophical orientation.

All you have done is paste what appears to be a a jumble of words. On the other hand, some important inner concepts, and Hindu cosmology.....

Commentary...
The ‘Nasadiya Sukta’
https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/the-nasadiya-sukta

The ‘Nasadiya Sukta’ is perhaps the most scientific description of the ultimate Reality as well as of the projection of the phenomenal world. It makes the relative and the Absolute, nature and Spirit, the twin aspects of that one Reality and shows that men of wisdom (kavayah), who had controlled their senses, found out the ultimate cause of this world (which appears to be real) in their own hearts (hridi)

....Rig Veda says in the sixth verse, who will know and who can declare when and where from it all started since we, the seekers were not there and also the causative forces were not present. They came later. Even gravity broke away from the presumed unified force later.

Veda makes it clear that so long you are in search of the causative forces only, you will not get the answer.

****(Zen elaborates on this. The improper intellectual mind is out of it's league.)

Will the universe eventually stop expanding and start contracting or will it expand forever? Stephen W. Hawking, famous theoretical physicist of the present day, says in his book “A Brief History Time”: “If the density of the matter in the universe is greater than the critical value, gravity will stop the expansion at some time in the future” . As we are not in a position at present to calculate the density even to an approximation, we cannot answer the question.

Robert Jastrow confirms there is a theory in the scientific world envisaging a cosmos that oscillates forever passing through infinite number of moments of creation in a never-ending cycle of birth, death and repetition. This has the advantage of being able to answer the question – What preceded the explosion? (In his book “God and the Astronomers”). Veda also says that this creation and its ending is a repetitive cycle.

Very very different than the Jude-Christian cosmology up until modern cosmology.

Carl Sagan.....

YouTube (Short URL)

[VigorsTheGrey]

It's strange, but I have an affinity for the Hindu religions that I lack for the Abrahamic ones... First, I do not respect religions that begin with commandments. Second, the Mosaic 1st commandment regarding having no other Gods than the one god doing the commanding here is particularly offensive...the whole " thou shalt" trip is so very arrogant to begin with...and the emissaries of the Abrahamic religions are so convinced of the singular rightness of their beliefs...how boorish...!

If there is such a thing as true religion, the Hindu seem to be much closer to it than Jews, Christians, and Muslims...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

It's strange, but I have an affinity for the Hindu religions that I lack for the Abrahamic ones... First, I do not respect religions that begin with commandments. Second, the Mosaic 1st commandment regarding having no other Gods than the one god doing the commanding here is particularly offensive...the whole " thou shalt" trip is so very arrogant to begin with...and the emissaries of the Abrahamic religions are so convinced of the singular rightness of their beliefs...how boorish...!

If there is such a thing as true religion, the Hindu seem to be much closer to it than Jews, Christians, and Muslims...

The major problem with all religions is they confuse difficult to understand inner work and techniques for mechanical rules. Do this or don't do that are false examples of what is taken as religion

The "god" inside represents a higher more conscious way of knowing and being. Originally, INHOL the message was whatever corresponds externally to the internal "god" principle is eventually discovered by connected FIRST with the internal god. Although literature from all religions do have examples those who discover this by design or sometimes by accident

So when traditions like Zen and the Vedic schools warn against using overly verbose intellect to "analyze" both the internal and external cosmic "divine" principles

One god is significant because we are normally fragmented. Unity within calls for unity or one god.

“All religions are true but none are literal.”
― Joseph Campbell

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

It is very difficult for we western Abrahamic centered persons to understand, and let alone translate the meaning of "The Nasadiya Sukta." accurately

First there are language difficulties, and more importantly a very different cultural and philosophical orientation.

All you have done is paste what appears to be a a jumble of words. On the other hand, some important inner concepts, and Hindu cosmology.....

Commentary...
The ‘Nasadiya Sukta’
https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/the-nasadiya-sukta

The ‘Nasadiya Sukta’ is perhaps the most scientific description of the ultimate Reality as well as of the projection of the phenomenal world. It makes the relative and the Absolute, nature and Spirit, the twin aspects of that one Reality and shows that men of wisdom (kavayah), who had controlled their senses, found out the ultimate cause of this world (which appears to be real) in their own hearts (hridi)

....Rig Veda says in the sixth verse, who will know and who can declare when and where from it all started since we, the seekers were not there and also the causative forces were not present. They came later. Even gravity broke away from the presumed unified force later.

Veda makes it clear that so long you are in search of the causative forces only, you will not get the answer.

****(Zen elaborates on this. The improper intellectual mind is out of it's league.)

Will the universe eventually stop expanding and start contracting or will it expand forever? Stephen W. Hawking, famous theoretical physicist of the present day, says in his book “A Brief History Time”: “If the density of the matter in the universe is greater than the critical value, gravity will stop the expansion at some time in the future” . As we are not in a position at present to calculate the density even to an approximation, we cannot answer the question.

Robert Jastrow confirms there is a theory in the scientific world envisaging a cosmos that oscillates forever passing through infinite number of moments of creation in a never-ending CYCLE of birth, death and repetition. This has the advantage of being able to answer the question – What preceded the explosion? (In his book “God and the Astronomers”). Veda also says that this creation and its ending is a repetitive cycle.
(emphases mine)

Very very different than the Jude-Christian cosmology up until modern cosmology.

Carl Sagan.....

https://youtu.be/GGJxoYPy4OI

But it is seriously marred by the disadvantage, Humpty, of using circular reasoning to explain the existence of the universe. That "cycle of birth, death and repetition" goes and comes around like a merry-go-round in perpetual motion, doesn't it? The universe is because it is!

Wow, talk about a moronic "explanation"! Do you and of your wannabe superheros of scientism ever listen to yourselves?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed-up-car

Wow, talk about a moronic "explanation"! Do you and of your wannabe superheros of scientism ever listen to yourselves?

So the Hindu Rig Veda is scientism?

Or is Carl Sagan or S.Hawking your pejorative scientism-istic scientists?


You seem to throw that around at the drop of a philosophical hat.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But it is seriously marred by the disadvantage, Humpty, of using circular reasoning to explain the existence of the universe. That "cycle of birth, death and repetition" goes and comes around like a merry-go-round in perpetual motion, doesn't it? The universe is because it is!

Wow, talk about a moronic "explanation"! Do you and of your wannabe superheros of scientism ever listen to yourselves?

And I suppose that you believe that everything that is, was, or ever will be is here by virtue of the singular deity....that ALL is here TO SERVE AT AND FOR the pleasure of said deity...but why should the raison d'etre of all be the PLEASURE of a single deity..?

PLEASURE is an entirely HUMAN construct...the universe cares not one JOT for PLEASURE...

The fact that MAN has made PLEASURE the deity's cheif attribute is the surest indicator that this singular deity is but the projection of MAN's deepest yearning and desideratum..that being HIS OWN SATISFACTION...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have answered it many times.

No, you have not. In spite of the gobbledegook you post.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're not paying attention:

The pot calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Religion never passes the sniff tests of the laws of logic.

FTFY!

Originally Posted by boxcar

For any science to be credible it must be grounded in sound logic.

Biology (including the theory of evolution), physics, chemistry, etc. are so grounded. Religion is not.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Evolution, athesitic materialism, whether this postulates a finite or infinite universe, etc. are all self-refuting worldviews.

You make the claim. The burden of proof is yours.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, you have not. In spite of the gobbledegook you post.

The pot calling the kettle black.

FTFY!

Biology (including the theory of evolution), physics, chemistry, etc. are so grounded. Religion is not.

You make the claim. The burden of proof is yours.

See, you haven't been paying attention. I have often shown how either the finite or infinite model of atheistic materialism, violate the laws of logic. Or even more recently how circular reasoning is implicit in either model.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

And I suppose that you believe that everything that is, was, or ever will be is here by virtue of the singular deity....that ALL is here TO SERVE AT AND FOR the pleasure of said deity...but why should the raison d'etre of all be the PLEASURE of a single deity..?

PLEASURE is an entirely HUMAN construct...the universe cares not one JOT for PLEASURE...

The fact that MAN has made PLEASURE the deity's cheif attribute is the surest indicator that this singular deity is but the projection of MAN's deepest yearning and desideratum..that being HIS OWN SATISFACTION...

If God indeed created the heavens and the earth by his infinite wisdom and power, and owns the entire universe, then does that make his "clay pots" (human beings) equal to or greater than the Potter (God) who created those pots? Should the clay pots rise up and demand equality with or superiority to their Potter?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So the Hindu Rig Veda is scientism?

Or is Carl Sagan or S.Hawking your pejorative scientism-istic scientists?


You seem to throw that around at the drop of a philosophical hat.

Sure why not? The Hindu Rig Veda and the high priests of scientism probably sing out the same hymnal quite often. After all...both groups trace their spiritual roots to the same spiritual father.