Eternity

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Science seems to have some theories that suggest some sort of an eternity through a repeated creation and destruction of the universe.

The Abrahamic religions also talk of eternity in the heavenly realms. with eternal salvation or eternal damnation.

In Hinduism  also there is the concept of eternity. The Universe is said to be cyclically created and destroyed....every 311 trillion years. After this period the universe including celestial realms and all gods and  deities, get destroyed and everything is said to dissolve into the Universal Spirit (Brahman). After an equal period the universe arises from Brahman once again. This goes on eternally. 

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

Science seems to have some theories that suggest some sort of an eternity through a repeated creation and destruction of the universe.

Since it was discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, there are very few cyclic hypotheses left standing (not theories, there are none of those that are cyclic). Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is the only one that springs to mind.

The Abrahamic religions also talk of eternity in the heavenly realms. with eternal salvation or eternal damnation.

In Hinduism  also there is the concept of eternity. The Universe is said to be cyclically created and destroyed....every 311 trillion years. After this period the universe including celestial realms and all gods and  deities, get destroyed and everything is said to dissolve into the Universal Spirit (Brahman). After an equal period the universe arises from Brahman once again. This goes on eternally. 

Mythology.

Not entirely sure why this is in philosophy, or, for that matter, what the point is that you're trying to make.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Hi everyone,

Science seems to have some theories that suggest some sort of an eternity through a repeated creation and destruction of the universe.

The Abrahamic religions…

etc

So that’s it is it? On the Reincarnation, Karma and “Mind is a field” conversations you started you made a series of mistakes that others here have corrected, but rather than address the corrections you’ve just run away again in favour of starting yet another discussion that starts with a bare snippet of scientific thought and then tries to meld it with a trite little homily to follow.

What do you expect to achieve with this behaviour?   

[Sriram]

This is a Religion & Ethics board. So...don't expect everything written here to conform to your scientific ideas.

[Nearly Sane]

This is a Religion & Ethics board. So...don't expect everything written here to conform to your scientific ideas.

And it has sub boards as the post made clear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

This is a Religion & Ethics board. So...don't expect everything written here to conform to your scientific ideas.

They're not "my" scientific ideas, and you've missed the point in any case. Your mistakes on the sub-boards I referred to weren't mistakes about the science (though you have made made plenty of those), they were mistakes in reasoning. And I merely suggested that rather than continue with your guerilla tactic of starting numerous discussions, making mistakes on them, having those mistakes corrected, then running away only to start the process over again you'd be better advised actually addressing your mistakes.

Does that seem unreasonable to you?   

[Sriram]

guerilla tactic...?!  That's a good one.

I don't believe I have made any mistakes....rather, I believe you are making all the mistakes. Don't you get it?!   The blind man analogy....remember?!

I know you like to position yourself as a head master of some sort......but you should know by now what I think of that. 

So...let us not get into these childish blame games....please. 

[Stranger]

I don't believe I have made any mistakes....rather, I believe you are making all the mistakes.

Well of course that's what you believe. You have blind faith and you clearly don't understand evidence and critical thinking. You could easily learn about both and make a much better case than you do, but it appears that you just can't be arsed.

Don't you get it?!   The blind man analogy....remember?!

One of the most dimwitted, poorly thought out analogies I think I've every heard in my life. Comedy value only.

So...let us not get into these childish blame games....please.

[Alan Burns]

Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.  Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence.  Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end.  But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.

[Nearly Sane]

....
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.  ....

Define nothing.

[Aruntraveller]

Moderators Note:

Accusations of sock puppetry (claiming that two posters are the same person) are taken very seriously.

If any poster does suspect this activity please report it directly to the Moderators, do not make unsubstantiated accusations on the board.

Any accusations of this nature will be removed from the board.

[Outrider]

Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.

No current knowledge, scientific or otherwise, can handle the concept of eternity - our inherently limited capacity can only conceptualise it abstractly in certain frameworks.

There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

There is no explanation of any kind for 'why' there is something rather than nothing, but it is rather begging the question. There are ideas about 'how' there is this particular something instead of nothing, but none of them are very fleshed out.

Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence.

That we have better potential explanations for - it relies on accepting that 'nothing' is not the bottom of hole with 'something' representing the lip to be reached, but rather seeing that 'nothing' is an equilibrium state between 'something' and 'anti-something', and that the equilibrium is not necessarily stable.

Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end.

Which makes people suggesting a 'tri-omni' god even less justified, presumably?

But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.

No. It just means that there is more to reality than we can (currently?) determine - it doesn't mean that that additional bit must be non-physical unless you're trying to suggest that we have absolute understanding of the physical?

O.

[Stranger]

Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.

Drivel.

There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

There is no explanation in religion either.

Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence.

It's doubtful such an 'event' has ever happened. It doesn't really make much sense.

Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end.

Drivel.

But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe...

Drivel (non sequitur).

...which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.

Appalling ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation?

[jeremyp]

There is no explanation in religion either.

Not true. Several religions have such explanations. The problem is that they are all different. There's no way to tell which, if any, is true. Those that are falsifiable, such as the creation myth in Genesis chapter 1, have been falsified. And they all include some element of hand waving like "God is outside time and therefore just is".

This is a general problem with all religious "knowledge": there is just no way to tell if it is true or not.

[Nearly Sane]

Not true. Several religions have such explanations. The problem is that they are all different. There's no way to tell which, if any, is true. Those that are falsifiable, such as the creation myth in Genesis chapter 1, have been falsified. And they all include some element of hand waving like "God is outside time and therefore just is".

This is a general problem with all religious "knowledge": there is just no way to tell if it is true or not.

Do they amount to explanations?

Part of the problem is 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' does not appear to be a coherent question since it's not clear that nothing could be. Indeed talking about there being nothing is a nonensical idea since if it was then it wouldn't be nothing.

[Stranger]

Not true. Several religions have such explanations.

Do they? I've never seen one. Many religions have some god creating stuff, but a god existing is not nothing, so we're left with the same question.

[jeremyp]

Do they amount to explanations?

Yes, but explanations that are impossible to evaluate.

Part of the problem is 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' does not appear to be a coherent question since it's not clear that nothing could be.

I don't see how that makes the question incoherent. If the answer is "our physical laws make 'nothing' an incoherent concept because x, y and z". So be it. It's still a satisfactory answer to a legitimate question.

Indeed talking about there being nothing is a nonensical idea since if it was then it wouldn't be nothing.

Sorry, that sentence seems to have got a bit mangled. I think you are saying that the ability of humans to talking about nothing in the abstract means that it couldn't exist in reality. I don't think we have that kind of power.

[jeremyp]

Do they? I've never seen one. Many religions have some god creating stuff, but a god existing is not nothing, so we're left with the same question.

Hence the handwaving.

[Sriram]

Moderators Note:

Accusations of sock puppetry (claiming that two posters are the same person) are taken very seriously.

If any poster does suspect this activity please report it directly to the Moderators, do not make unsubstantiated accusations on the board.

Any accusations of this nature will be removed from the board.

My comment was meant as a joke...not as an accusation.  You are free to remove the post if you feel it is warranted.

I apologize if any board rules have been broken.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, but explanations that are impossible to evaluate.
I don't see how that makes the question incoherent. If the answer is "our physical laws make 'nothing' an incoherent concept because x, y and z". So be it. It's still a satisfactory answer to a legitimate question.
Sorry, that sentence seems to have got a bit mangled. I think you are saying that the ability of humans to talking about nothing in the abstract means that it couldn't exist in reality. I don't think we have that kind of power.

No, I am saying that if a concept is not linguistically coherent, then talking about it is meaningless.

[Stranger]

Hence the handwaving.

Yes, but the point is that postulating a god simply does not answer the question as to why there is something rather than nothing. The question remains just the same whether the 'something' refers to the universe or to some god.

[Maeght]

Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.  Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence.  Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end.  But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.

No reason to think that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

guerilla tactic...?!  That's a good one. 

Then stop doing it.

I don't believe I have made any mistakes....

You’ve made many, many mistakes. Each time those mistakes are explained to you you just disappear for a bit, only to pop up with a new discussion that rapidly descends into yet more of your mistakes. 

…rather, I believe you are making all the mistakes. Don't you get it?!   The blind man analogy....remember?!

And speaking of mistakes, your hapless blind man “analogy” is a doozy (because it’s a category error). I’ve explained this to you several times before now, and not once have you even tried to engage with the explanation you’re given. And then, like a bad penny, here it pops up yet again – just as wrong, just as dim-witted, just as dishonest.

What do you get from this behaviour?     

I know you like to position yourself as a head master of some sort......but you should know by now what I think of that.

Correcting your many mistakes in reasoning isn’t positioning myself as anything. 

So...let us not get into these childish blame games....please.

Correcting your numerous mistakes isn’t a “childish blame game” - it’s just correcting your numerous mistakes.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the last few discussions you started and then abandoned when your mistakes have been identified and explained to you.   

[Sriram]

Oh please...!  Could you (Blue) and Stranger please stop lecturing and telling me what to do.

I will write what I please (within board rules) and you are welcome to offer your opinion on that subject. Leave it at that.

 

[Alan Burns]

I sympathise with Siram.
Whenever their arguments fail to convince they just resort to ridicule or an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude instead of further engaging with genuine reasoning.