Thoughts on Buddhism

[KichigaiNeko]

It does seem contradictory that it is OK for religions to claim that a "creator deity" made the universe out of nothing but is is not ok for science to state (accurately) that we currently do not know what was before the 'big bang'

Wird

[Abracadabra]

According to science (and our precious logic as well), nothing can appear out of nothingness. Yet we exist. The universe exists. Therefore the very existence of the universe itself is indeed a "magical" event.

Argument from ignorance. Science claims it is currently UNKNOWN what conditions were like before the big bang.

That is a far cry from "nothing"

You're thinking of the Big Bang as being a critical point in time.

Forget about that.

How did anything ever get started in the first place?

If something preexisted the Big Bang (like quantum fields or whatever), then from whence did they come? And so on, etc, etc, etc.

What I'm saying is that very fact that anything exists at all is "magic".

Existence itself defies our conception of "logic". So anyone who proclaims otherwise simply isn't thinking deep enough.

To proclaim that "magic doesn't exist" and to try to support that as having some sort of scientific merit is nothing short of utter absurdity.

I was responding to what Rhythm wrote:

Reincarnation is not hard to swallow, it is a magical force that exists in fairy tales, not reality. Karma is not a simple mechanism of life, it is magic, and there is no evidence that magic is a mechanism of life at all, simple or otherwise. In fact, magic does not exist.

"In fact, magic does not exist?"

What fact?

Where has it been established scientifically, or in any other way, that magic does not exist?

It's not a fact. it's merely an opinion that has no scientific merit at all. Nor could such a statement be scientifically supported.

That's what I'm responding to.

No one can say that its a 'fact' that magic doesn't exist. Nobody knows whether that idea has any merit or not. I personally suggest that the mere fact that anything exists at all is proof that magic does exist.

It's proof enough for me.

---

It does seem contradictory that it is OK for religions to claim that a "creator deity" made the universe out of nothing but is is not ok for science to state (accurately) that we currently do not know what was before the 'big bang'

Wird

That's not contradictory at all. A "creator deity" is supposed to be a magical being. That's the whole point to it.

Moreover, it most certainly is ok for science to state (accurately) that we currently do not know what was before the 'big bang'. That most certainly is true.

What I was objecting to was the statement "In fact, magic does not exist"

What?

Bull crap. There is no scientific support for the claim that, "In fact, magic does not exist"

That's merely a personal opinion that has no basis in science whatsoever.

[Epimethean]

"That's merely a personal opinion that has no basis in science whatsoever."

Um, that's your MO, not hers, magic man.

[Abracadabra]

"That's merely a personal opinion that has no basis in science whatsoever."

Um, that's your MO, not hers, magic man.

I'm just speaking the truth.

Does anyone care to seriously hold that it is an established fact that magic does not exist?

I'm absolutely certain that there does not exist any credible scientific evidence for this.

On the contrary, I have already given observational evidence to the contrary that any lay person can know. The mere fact that anything exists at all flies in the very face of anything we might call "logical", or scientific.

What's left but "magic"? (i.e. the unexplainable)

The problem with far too many secular atheists is that they get carried away with what they claim is 'fact'.

It's simply false to claim that it is a fact that magic does not exist.

Is there truly anyone who would care to argue otherwise?

If so, please give the "evidence" for what you believe to be "proof" of this claim.

I wish you the best of luck on that one.

[reverendjeremiah]

It does seem contradictory that it is OK for religions to claim that a "creator deity" made the universe out of nothing but is is not ok for science to state (accurately) that we currently do not know what was before the 'big bang'

Wird

I personally like the oscilating model of the universe. But I have two problems:

#1 - current data suggests that this universe will more than likely NOT have a "big crunch".

#2 - We have no data of what happened before the big bang.

So I basically have to admit that I just do not know at this time.

Yet at the same time I cant help but think that a big crunch followed by big bang makes so much sense to me. The data we have doesnt NEGATE the posibility of an oscilating universe, at least for past bang crunch activity. For all we know the universe has "bang/crunched" fifty bazillion times and this time it isnt going to crunch.

Dont put too much weight on this post...Im just rambling something that I find interesting.

[KichigaiNeko]

No worries Jerry

It IS interesting (read wannabe astrophysicist here) There are so many hypotheses out there and each new bit of information tends to support one or many of them

This universe may not be headed for the Gnab Gib ...as you say ... we currently just don't know.

What I find hilarious is that fundies ARE quite happy with the goddit from nothing, but are rabid when it comes to science saying... "we just don't know at the moment"

[Abracadabra]

Yet at the same time I cant help but think that a big crunch followed by big bang makes so much sense to me. The data we have doesnt NEGATE the posibility of an oscilating universe, at least for past bang crunch activity. For all we know the universe has "bang/crunched" fifty bazillion times and this time it isnt going to crunch.

Dont put too much weight on this post...Im just rambling something that I find interesting.

Those are very interesting thoughts. And the truth is we have no clue of the true 'geometry' of the universe.

Maybe instead of launching from a single point and re-collapsing 'backwards' to the same point, it might be some kind of a bi-directional thing. Maybe it's 'falling outward' toward another "point" where it actually collapses. A 'point' that we can't even comprehend. And then it bounces back from that weird state and ultimately rushes back to the original point.

Many years ago, long before String Theory was invented, I actually had an idea for a "Big Ting" (that was my name for it). I imagined that the universe is some sort of substance that was "struck" everywhere at once like a bell, and this is what created the "Big Bang". The reason I came up with this idea was to avoid the 'singularity' and the infinite density associated with a singularity type of Big Bang.

I was totally scoffed at for having such a "crazy" crackpot idea. But guess what? This is basically what String Theorists are now proposing with their "Branes" colliding to cause a "Big Bang". Funny how things work out over time. Maybe the universe never did start out as a singularity at all, maybe it started out as a "Brane".

The expansion is then seen as the Brane itself explaining just as any object expands when excited. I'm not sure how the String Theorists deal with the fact that the universe is accelerating in its expansion though. That seems to fly in the face of the "Brane Theory". But they're still considering that idea anyway.

However it happened I personally think it was magic.

[reverendjeremiah]

You're thinking of the Big Bang as being a critical point in time.

Actually we have good, solid evidence that when the "big bang" was a singularity, that time was not active..as time and matter are connected at the hip. What made time rolling to cause the big bang and mass is something they are currently trying to figure out with the hadron colider.

Forget about that.

Sure, I forget things better when cold beer is involved.

How did anything ever get started in the first place?

Magnets?

If something preexisted the Big Bang (like quantum fields or whatever), then from whence did they come? And so on, etc, etc, etc.

The concept of string theory is trending downward now in csmological circles.

What I'm saying is that very fact that anything exists at all is "magic".

Magic is the art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science.

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing"—chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields

Existence itself defies our conception of "logic". So anyone who proclaims otherwise simply isn't thinking deep enough.

Im sorry...I promise I will think more deeply in the future.

To proclaim that "magic doesn't exist" and to try to support that as having some sort of scientific merit is nothing short of utter absurdity.

I was a practicioner of the occult for well over a decade. I have dumped it all, but I have a very warm spot in my heart for the esoteric utterances of the Erisian movement.

[Bgood]

Abra said

There's nothing more pathetic than an egotistical Buddhist. That's the the epitome of irony. If you're going to be egotistical about religion you may as well become a Christian. The Christians have already totally destroyed all respect for their religion anyway so you can't do much harm there.

[Abracadabra]

What I find hilarious is that fundies ARE quite happy with the goddit from nothing, but are rabid when it comes to science saying... "we just don't know at the moment"

When you stop and think about it, it's really not hilarious at all. I mean why laugh at people who are desperate to believe in something to avoid facing the possibility of an atheistic existence. Such people are truly suffering from extreme anxiety and if you think they aren't having trouble keeping their faith, think again. Behind their public facade they are seriously troubled. Especially the fundies who preach religion to the hilt.

Why do you think they do that?

They do it because they are trying to convince themselves that it's true.