The Biblical Big Bang

[rossum]

But this discussion all began with you denying the existence of a real world, or of a substance out of which it is formed. Or am I still misunderstanding your point?

I do not deny the existence of the external world, though I cannot be sure that I am correct -- the Matrix again.

Depending on how deeply you want to delve into quantum mechanics, there is a lot less "substance" in matter than appears to our senses. The great majority of the space inside an atom is very sparsely populated with the probability distributions of the shell electrons.

The "substance" I do reject is the philosophical construct, such as Thomist 'Substance' as opposed to 'Accident'. In those terms I accept 'Accident, but not 'Substance'. If you remove the Accident atom by atom then there is no Thomist Substance remaining after the last atom has been removed.

[shunyadragon]

And just as scientists reserve the right to change their minds about the big bang as new evidence comes to light, bible believers reserve the right to reinterpret the text as necessary.

Actually the scientists do not reserve the right to change their minds. They follow the evidence with scientific methods demonstrated by new evidnce. Despite the personal wanderings of some individuals and philosophies science remains science.

Yes, over the years 'Bible believers' do move the goal posts and 'selectively cite science' to justify the new goal posts or a new interpretation synario fudged by theological assumptions.. None of the various hypothesis of the Big Bang do not propose that the Big Bang began from absolute nothing, ie exnhilo. This a philosophical/theological assumption with no basis in the physics and cosmology of the origin of our universe. In fact the multiverse models dominate the contemporary scientific view of the cosmos. The cyclic view remains a possibly hypothesis for the history of our universe, and all possible universes.

Actually, this thread should be in apologetics, because science is not a 'reason to believe.'

[rogue06]

Actually the scientists do not reserve the right to change their minds. They follow the evidence with scientific methods demonstrated by new evidnce. Despite the personal wanderings of some individuals and philosophies science remains science.

No. They indeed do reserve the right to change their minds because they follow the evidence and new discoveries may provide evidence that indicates previous views to be erroneous.

[shunyadragon]

No. They indeed do reserve the right to change their minds because they follow the evidence and new discoveries may provide evidence that indicates previous views to be erroneous.

My object to 'reserve the right to change their minds,' which is indicates personal preference, but nonetheless your qualification is the same as my statemnt.

[JimL]

I do not deny the existence of the external world, though I cannot be sure that I am correct -- the Matrix again.

Depending on how deeply you want to delve into quantum mechanics, there is a lot less "substance" in matter than appears to our senses. The great majority of the space inside an atom is very sparsely populated with the probability distributions of the shell electrons.

The "substance" I do reject is the philosophical construct, such as Thomist 'Substance' as opposed to 'Accident'. In those terms I accept 'Accident, but not 'Substance'. If you remove the Accident atom by atom then there is no Thomist Substance remaining after the last atom has been removed.

Ah, you might be going way beyond my paygrade here. Are you suggesting that accident, ie. the universe, is the result of pure potentiality or in other words that all arises from nothing? I may be way off here, but if that's what you have in mind, why sould we believe in the pure potentiality of nothing?

[rossum]

Ah, you might be going way beyond my paygrade here. Are you suggesting that accident, ie. the universe, is the result of pure potentiality or in other words that all arises from nothing? I may be way off here, but if that's what you have in mind, why s[h]ould we believe in the pure potentiality of nothing?

Your 'potentiaity' is yet another of those reifications of an internal model that I reject. I do not accept any external potentially at all, so of course i do not accept the potentiality of nothing, pure or not.

From the Buddhist point of view 'potentiality' appears to be a way to avoid the universality of change. There is nothing new because it already existed before 'in potentiality'.

That seems to me to be a general problem with the Abrahamic religions; they see the world as essentially constant and unchanging with a veneer of apparent (though not real) change laid over it. Hence the requirement for God to be unchanging, despite the obvious ways He changes in the Tanakh, the Bible and the Qur'an.

Buddhism sees the world as constantly changing, with an apparent (though not real) veneer of stasis laid over it.

"Impermanent are all compound things."
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

-- Dhammapada 20:5

One of the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism is whether or not non-compound things change. I follow the Mahayana line; non-compound things do change.

[JimL]

Your 'potentiaity' is yet another of those reifications of an internal model that I reject. I do not accept any external potentially at all, so of course i do not accept the potentiality of nothing, pure or not.

Yeah, me too neither. Not as a potentiality from out of nothing at any rate,

From the Buddhist point of view 'potentiality' appears to be a way to avoid the universality of change. There is nothing new because it already existed before 'in potentiality'.

I agree that there is nothing new other than the change in forms. I believe that's the Buddhist idea as well. The world is one of ever changing forms.

That seems to me to be a general problem with the Abrahamic religions; they see the world as essentially constant and unchanging with a veneer of apparent (though not real) change laid over it. Hence the requirement for God to be unchanging, despite the obvious ways He changes in the Tanakh, the Bible and the Qur'an.

Not sure what you mean by a constant and unchanging world with respect to the Abrahamic religions.

Buddhism sees the world as constantly changing, with an apparent (though not real) veneer of stasis laid over it.

I agree, but what do you mean by the "stasis laid over it."

"Impermanent are all compound things."
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

-- Dhammapada 20:5

Agreed, but ya know, people desire permanence. Can't blame them there.

One of the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism is whether or not non-compound things change. I follow the Mahayana line; non-compound things do change.

Any example?

[Duragizer]

It cannot imply ex nihilo because it does not start with nothing. It starts with God, so unless God is nothing, then it cannot be creation ex nihilo. At best is can be creation from nothing plus God.

This is panentheism. So creatio ex deo; "nothing" isn't part of the equation.

IMHO, panentheism is the only satisfactory form of theism.

[rossum]

I agree that there is nothing new other than the change in forms. I believe that's the Buddhist idea as well. The world is one of ever changing forms.

In Buddhism there is nothing behind those forms. All that exists is those changing forms. Ideas of permanent somethings sitting behind those forms are projected illusions: essence, substance, soul etc.

Agreed, but ya know, people desire permanence. Can't blame them there.

And desire is to be avoided because it leads to suffering.

Any example?

Nirvana and space are non-compound things.

[Leonhard]

The basic assumption is that the external world exist; we are not a brain-in-a-jar or in the Matrix. That is only an assumption, but it is a reasonable one.

As one of my Oxford philosophy friends said to me over a pint. There are two completely consistent worldviews: Theism, or solipsism.

[Stoic]

As one of my Oxford philosophy friends said to me over a pint. There are two completely consistent worldviews: Theism, or solipsism.

We all believe things we can't prove.

[shunyadragon]

As one of my Oxford philosophy friends said to me over a pint. There are two completely consistent worldviews: Theism, or solipsism.

Spoken by a devouted one-sided theist. The only option there was what your Oxford Philosophy friend believes. Philosophy?

[JimL]

In Buddhism there is nothing behind those forms. All that exists is those changing forms. Ideas of permanent somethings sitting behind those forms are projected illusions: essence, substance, soul etc.

But the universe itself is substantive, space is not nothing. The idea that there is an empty void, aka nothing within the which the universe exists doesn't change the fact that the forms are one with the universe, or one with the substance out of which they are formed. No?

And desire is to be avoided because it leads to suffering.

Well that may be true, but that isn't the natural inclination of human beings.

Nirvana

Nirvana is a state of mind, correct?

and space are non-compound things.

Depends upon what you mean by space. A void would not be a compound thing, but I have no idea what the space of the universe is.

[rossum]

But the universe itself is substantive, space is not nothing.

The universe is indeed not nothing. It is the idea of an 'essence' sitting behind the universe that is nothing.

Nirvana is a state of mind, correct?

That comes close. All descriptions of nirvana have to be false; they are descriptions, they are not nirvana. Vimalakirti probably came closest:

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, "We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality."

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: "Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas."

-- Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter Nine

[shunyadragon]

Drawing parallels between ancient mythical Creations as in Genesis and the cosmological science of the origins of our universe is an attempt to justify a religious agenda by the misuse and misrepresentation of science.