Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 02:57 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;149305 wrote:
Buddhist? They don't have a creation myth. So I wonder if you even checked to verify that before saying it.


Are you sure about that? Buddhists like the word origin, try that when you look.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:11 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149316 wrote:
Are you sure about that? Buddhists like the word origin, try that when you look.


I have studied Buddhism extensively. It does not contain any creation myth.

"Buddhism itself generally ignores the question regarding the origin of life. The Buddha regarding the origin of life has said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is not conjectural that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.", and in regard to ignoring the question of the origin of life the Buddha has said "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.". The Buddha also compared the question of the origin of life - as well as many other metaphysical questions - to the parable of the poison arrow: a man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he wants to know who shot it (arguing the existence of God), where the arrow came from (where the universe and/or God came from) why that person shot it (why God created the universe), etc. If the man keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers. Buddhism is less concerned with answering questions like the origin of life, and more concerned with the goal of saving oneself and other beings from suffering by attaining Nirvana (Enlightenment)."
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:23 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;149205 wrote:
why is "something part of everything" needs a reference? I don` t give a **** about what the ancients think about the matter. I am right, and if you disagree, then you are wrong.


You're just making it up. You have no knowledge about the matter whatever. All you have is bluff and bluster.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:58 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;149325 wrote:
I have studied Buddhism extensively. It does not contain any creation myth.


yeah, in Buddhism its muddled. It starts with the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering.

Essentially the buddhists version is that true being exists not here in the universe but in Creation and that the Ideas of Creation, the Mind, are ensnared in the body within the universe to live this life.





"Buddhism itself generally ignores the question regarding the origin of life. The Buddha regarding the origin of life has said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is not conjectural that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.", and in regard to ignoring the question of the origin of life the Buddha has said "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.". The Buddha also compared the question of the origin of life - as well as many other metaphysical questions - to the parable of the poison arrow: a man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he wants to know who shot it (arguing the existence of God), where the arrow came from (where the universe and/or God came from) why that person shot it (why God created the universe), etc. If the man keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers. Buddhism is less concerned with answering questions like the origin of life, and more concerned with the goal of saving oneself and other beings from suffering by attaining Nirvana (Enlightenment)."[/QUOTE]
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 08:44 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149420 wrote:
yeah, in Buddhism its muddled. It starts with the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering.

Essentially the buddhists version is that true being exists not here in the universe but in Creation and that the Ideas of Creation, the Mind, are ensnared in the body within the universe to live this life.


Yeah, and you want to know something even more interesting. They say there is no end of suffering and no end to ignorance. From a Buddhist perspective there was never a first cause. According to Buddhism, there just has always been ignorance and always will be. Where there is ignorance there will be suffering. This is the only origin that you will come any where close to as a creation myth within Buddhism.

Now I understand that these sayings are often used as the interpretations of mind. But I just want to leave you with this last tid bit.

Before you have a thought, or an idea. Where did the thought exist? Where was the idea before you had the idea? Did it just spring into existence or did someone plant it into your mind? If someone planted it then are all your thoughts the seeds of someone else? If that is the case then you would be nothing more than a flower box. That someone would also have to discriminate who gets what thought. I guess you could also say that there are no geniuses because no thoughts are ever yours if someone is planting them there.

(This is not a rhetorical question)
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 08:59 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Krumple is right about the attitude of the Buddhists, such questions as 'origin of universe' and so forth are not encouraged in Buddhism as it is metaphysical speculation, and not conducive to enlightenment. However Buddhist astronomers and mathematicians would have adapted the traditional Hindu cosmology, which is very sophisticated and nothing at all like those of the ancient western cultures.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:28 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;149468 wrote:
Yeah, and you want to know something even more interesting. They say there is no end of suffering and no end to ignorance. From a Buddhist perspective there was never a first cause. According to Buddhism, there just has always been ignorance and always will be. Where there is ignorance there will be suffering. This is the only origin that you will come any where close to as a creation myth within Buddhism.


Of course there is end to suffering. As long as Love of Self overshadows Love of All one will continue on in continuous suffering, recycled over and over, but when love of all eliminates the self altogether then the holy work is done and one is reunited with mind, after the body is sloughed off the one remains one with mind. At least in terms of the path to the cessation of suffering.

Krumple;149468 wrote:
Now I understand that these sayings are often used as the interpretations of mind.


Keep in mind that everything you find in this forum as an interpretation.


Krumple;149468 wrote:
Before you have a thought, or an idea. Where did the thought exist?


The thought itself is the thinker. The Thought exists in the intelligible sphere or realm of the universe.

Krumple;149468 wrote:
Where was the idea before you had the idea?


Aspects of ideas reside in the Intelligible sphere or realm of the universe but exist wholly in Creation alone.


Krumple;149468 wrote:
Did it just spring into existence or did someone plant it into your mind?


All ideas are the creation of the Creator. There is no planting only thinking.


Krumple;149468 wrote:
If someone planted it then are all your thoughts the seeds of someone else?


No planting no planter only the natural evolution of thought within the intelligible realm


Krumple;149468 wrote:
If that is the case then you would be nothing more than a flower box. That someone would also have to discriminate who gets what thought.



I for one one do not hold the planter theory to be true but you of course are welcome to hold on to it. I think it needs some work though.

Krumple;149468 wrote:
I guess you could also say that there are no geniuses because no thoughts are ever yours if someone is planting them there.

(This is not a rhetorical question)


I would say that just because the gardener chose to plant roses, it does not make them any less roses than those that grew in the wild.
 
Chrisbx1
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:07 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
So is any of this answering the question? I think you guys are leaving out the part about "reason", and made it more about belief...... What reason would there be.... hmmmm
Maybe it's that we are God. When we are one thing which is the most powerful thing, we get so bored of knowing and being able to do anything that we split our-self into all the singular things we call you, me , it and such ...:poke-eye:
 
north
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:14 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148383 wrote:
Is there a reason for the existence of the universe? Suppose, there is a reason. There are two possibilities. Either the reason is within the universe, or the reason is outside the universe. The latter possibility is not possible since there is no "outside" to everything. So, we are left with only one possibility, namely, the reason for the universe is within the universe. Here, we have two possibility also. The reason could be 1. the reason is a part of the universe, or 2 the reason is the whole universe itself. Both possibility is sort stupid on reflection. It both case, it means that there is some object with the essence to exist. This is to suppose existence is a predicate. In either case, it rest on the notion that some entities has the property of existence. This is questionable. One solution is to say god has this property of self-existence, which than bring the universe into being. Atheist would question why the universe don` t have this property. If
there are any object with self-existing properties, then i assert that they must be mathematical objects. Such object bring about the world. I doubt this also, since math objects don` t have any spatio-temporal, or causal effects.


the reason the Universe exists is because space , energy and matter are infinite

in there existence

the total , and absolute opposite of the three , would lead to nothing , for infinity
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 10:39 am
@Chrisbx1,
Chrisbx1;149854 wrote:
So is any of this answering the question? I think you guys are leaving out the part about "reason", and made it more about belief...... What reason would there be.... hmmmm
Maybe it's that we are God. When we are one thing which is the most powerful thing, we get so bored of knowing and being able to do anything that we split our-self into all the singular things we call you, me , it and such ...:poke-eye:


All action including Creation is an act of Love. Love is the reason the universe exists.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 07:58 pm
@north,
north;149856 wrote:
the reason the Universe exists is because space , energy and matter are infinite

in there existence

the total , and absolute opposite of the three , would lead to nothing , for infinity



Are you sure it is not god, son, and the holy ghost?
 
volantis
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 10:31 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148383 wrote:
Suppose, there is a reason. There are two possibilities. Either the reason is within the universe, or the reason is outside the universe.

Reason is a consequence of complex thinking organisms.

Since complexity arises from simplicity, and subatomic particles are the simplest form of physical matter, then the existence of the Universe could not have been based upon reason.

Reason does not exist apriori of physical existence. If reason does exist apriori of physical existence, then we should be looking for a way to directly contact this reason rather than merely discuss it.
 
Specter
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 12:20 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
The way i see it, there are two theories about the universe's existence. The first is that it exists for a purpose and was therefor created for a purpose, and the second is that there is no purpose and everything that is or was, is coincidence, random anomaly, or just plain happenstance.

Here you see the division between creationism and non-creationism.

The only problem with either of these schools of thought is that neither can be distinctly proven. Yes, scientists have theories and astronomy and basically every sort of scientific process, but none can come to a single true conclusion.
Then there is creationism, which includes almost every religion. Religion, like Judaism and Christianity, are unreliable. The texts by which these religions operate are thousands of years old and have been translated many many times so that the original words are hardly there. Also, before the texts were even written, the stories were told orally almost as folk tales. And let us not forget that ALL religions have been written and told by MAN.

I am not trying to dissuade anyone from science or religion. I'm simply saying that in both cases, our efforts are in futility. If in fact the Universe came into being as random anomaly, then it happened so long ago and in such a manor that we do not, and may never know or understand how exactly it happened. And if in fact the Universe was created by a supreme power or will, then that entity would be incomprehensible to we humans, and would exist in a manor that would be so strange to us that we may never understand it.
What i am truly trying to say is that humans, in any case, might never ever know the true origin of the Universe and its meaning.

We may all believe on thing or another on this subject, but i know one thing, I can handle science being wrong. But if religion is wrong, there are far greater consequences for the way we live our lives.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:27 pm
@Specter,
Specter;150556 wrote:
The way i see it, there are two theories about the universe's existence. The first is that it exists for a purpose and was therefor created for a purpose, and the second is that there is no purpose and everything that is or was, is coincidence, random anomaly, or just plain happenstance.



That is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility. It is that the universe, as we know it, exists as a consequence of natural law. That is what most cosmologists believe.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;150579 wrote:
That is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility. It is that the universe, as we know it, exists as a consequence of natural law. That is what most cosmologists believe.


Would the universe, as we know it, existing as a consequence of being created by natural law, constitute a fourth possibility?
 
Specter
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 03:58 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;150579 wrote:
That is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility. It is that the universe, as we know it, exists as a consequence of natural law. That is what most cosmologists believe.



I thought of that already, but i decided not to mention it in my original post because then you get into a whole debate about natural laws. i just didn't feel like discussing that. i basically simplified it down to two options. but yes, that would be in the non-creationist category. but the natural laws themselves do not explain, at least accurately, the origin of the Universe. We only speculate as to their role in the Universe's conception.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:50 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;150589 wrote:
Would the universe, as we know it, existing as a consequence of being created by natural law, constitute a fourth possibility?


No, I would not think so. It would simply be the third possibility I mentioned.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 06:53 PM ----------

Specter;150609 wrote:
I thought of that already, but i decided not to mention it in my original post because then you get into a whole debate about natural laws. i just didn't feel like discussing that. i basically simplified it down to two options. but yes, that would be in the non-creationist category. but the natural laws themselves do not explain, at least accurately, the origin of the Universe. We only speculate as to their role in the Universe's conception.


But, if you omit it, then you are considering only two possibilities when there are actually three. The question of how the natural laws themselves came to exist is, perhaps another question, although I don't think I understand it.
 
Chrisbx1
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 07:45 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149982 wrote:
All action including Creation is an act of Love. Love is the reason the universe exists.


That's right, we are love and everything else is too, even though we can't always see how.:yinyang:
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 01:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;150619 wrote:
No, I would not think so. It would simply be the third possibility I mentioned.


So if created then, then it is still either created for a purpose or not. Which returns us back to the first two possibilities and negates the third.
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 03:36 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
the universe maybe a battle arena between fullness and nothingness

if one wins, they got the prize, the universe
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 02:57:16