Something is eternal.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

All you're doing is asserting things are the case. Do you have any reason to believe reality actually is the way?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Do you have any reason to believe reality actually is the way?

Reality is a word.
What is a word?

What is a word made of?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

A word is a group of signs or symbols that refers to or is about something else. Words are composed of signs and symbols. What does this have to do with proving reality is monistc and grounded in brahman ?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Do you have any reason to believe reality actually is the way?

What do you mean?
What else is there other than reality?

What does the word 'reality" mean?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Reality means the state of things as they actually exists, rather than some notional understanding that may or may not map onto the way things actually are in the world. You made a claim about the way the world exists:

Brahman is the movie screen on which the movie of things is playing.

The screen is not affected by any thing that appears on it....the play of light Maya is the movie.

In essence you're saying that the distinctions we draw within our minds are not part of reality. That is these distinctions do not accurately represent the state of things as they exists, rather the true state of things is that all is one and that one is Brahman. This higher level metaphysical belief is called monism and it is acting as the framework within which you conclude that there is no me, for to say there is a me is to draw a distinction, and thus speak of the illusion rather than the true state of reality. My question to you was how do you know that this is the nature of reality, and that the Christian view of metaphysics is wrong?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
I did not claim anything about the way the world exists.

Have you ever heard the term 'non duality'?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Do you have any reason to believe reality actually is the way?

What do you mean?
What else is there other than reality?

What does the word 'reality" mean?

Does it mean the physical stuff in the universe ?

Are the un-manifested laws the are required for this 'real' ?

a reply to: rom12345
The 'physical' is the visible image of the invisible god.

Christ is the visible image of the invisible god.

Christ is usually assumed to be a person...... but the word Christ means the anointed one.

The One is what actually is.

Man does not see or hear what is.......because man is full of before and after.

originally posted by: midicon
...And no one claims that something can come from nothing, that is just a creationist flawed argument against the big bang theory because no one knows the precursor.

In response to someone pointing out to Richard Dawkins that "something can't come from nothing", Dawkins answered:

"Something can come from nothing and that's what physicists are now telling us." (funny, that's literally word for word what you said "no one claims")

He was referring to theoretical physicists like Lawrence Krauss who wrote a whole book about the subject calling it "A Universe from Nothing". (still the same claim, something coming from nothing)

Or theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking who said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." (another guy talking about something coming from nothing, and using the word "can" as if that's a logical possibility.)

Are those the 'brilliant' minds of today? Have they ever made any factual groundbreaking discoveries akin to the discovery of the fact/certainty/truth/reality that E = MC^2? Or how about those facts/certainties/truths/realities described in Newton's law of gravity?

I guess they're too busy with selling books about "nothing" and misleading people about quantum physics, trying to sound clever and sophisticated and attempting to beguile with technical jargon and fancy (usually irrelevant*) mathematics and formulae (*: to anything pertaining the reality of the matter under discussion):

Response to Stephen Hawking's self-contradictory claim (a triple contradiction according to John Lennox) from his book "The Grand Design". From 16:13 - 23:04 (no need to watch anything else, it may just distract and mislead):

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
...
Most of it beyond me all the same, but it's nice to try and get your head around it, until it starts hurting.

That's what happens when you try to wrap your mind around sophisticated nonsense dressed up in quantum mechanical language and fancy impressive-looking jargon to hide the paradoxes/contradictions and to sell it under the marketingbanner "Science". (/ means I'm using synonyms)

Schrödinger's cat ain't going nowhere people. A synonym for "paradox" is "contradiction", here are some other related synonyms listed on thesaurus.com on the page for "paradox" (I'm mostly picking from the slightly different colored ones, so these are not the main synonyms where "contradiction" is listed):

absurdity [from the main list]

error
mistake
nonsense

"Science" comes from the Latin "scientia", meaning knowledge, which is also a synonym for "science". Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Nonsense is not science/knowledge. When nonsense is being 'sold' (primarily figuratively but also literally, or indirectly by means of making a career out of it) or marketed as 'science', then it's called pseudoscience. If pseudoscience is being promoted as science by those who like to be seen as scientists such as theoretical physicists and quantum physicists, that makes them charlatans. Like James Randi, the charlatan that likes to expose other charlatans to distract from the fact/reality that he is one himself.

The 3 examples in my previous comment promoting the notion of something (the whole universe actually) coming from nothing, are all charlatans. Don't believe everything you hear (see my signature), especially not when it comes from those with an impressive career in the sciences and lots of marketing in the media as being worth listening to and taking your information from (best example of recent decades would probably be Stephen Hawking for that, but there are others heavily promoted in the media or with a lot of airtime in some show supposedly about "science", like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.). Some of those love to impress their potential audience, their market, with their supposed knowledge about quantum physics, but they are not being honest about it. Nor do they understand simple things such as what's explained by Freeman Dyson concerning QM below after 21:00 (in particular the conclusions at 22:15 - 23:55), or they are deliberately refusing to acknowledge it so they can continue speculating about nonsense and 'selling' it under the marketingbanner "science" as explained. In so doing trying to impress people who actually don't understand the significance of the rational correct conclusions mentioned below; and what that means for what they've been doing and how they've been using "quantum mechanical language" to beguile people (and how that relates to this whole business about a universe from nothing, or "the quantum vacuum" as W.L. Craig puts it in the video from my previous comment with Dawkins and Krauss in it, I believe John Lennox uses the term as well in response to Stephen Hawking, see context in those videos cause they tend to misleadingly equate the quantum vacuum with "nothing", when it's already an inappropiate and poorly described mental construct to supposedly describe the state of the early universe in "the past". Quoting Dyson there at the end to show the relation to what he says about "statements about the past". Something you may discover if you consider what Dyson has to say about it below and think it through. Perhaps a bit too much information otherwise):

Something relevant concerning what Stephen Hawking was doing concerning quantum physics and "a wave function for the whole [incl. early state of the] universe" [in "the past"] is mentioned after 2:03 in the introduction.

a reply to: whereislogic
Exact timeframes to watch are 2:03 - 3:35, 5:48 - 6:03, then you can skip to around 21:00, with the key points at the earlier mentioned timeframes. Couple more in the Q&A section at the end. You may also be interested in some of the background discussed at 0:43 - 1:37.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, cheers for your take on the matter.

I'll try and give the video a watch when i get time for a cup of joe.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: carsforkids

... a reality that probably comprises at least 11 dimensions.

You've really fallen for all of them haven't you (Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson like to promote that one as well)? Don't believe everything you hear. Or as Newton said it:

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.

Do you understand what a dimension is? How the word was originally used? Before there were people wanting to sell books and publications about all sorts of speculative so-called 'dimensions'*, where the word has taken on a much broader meaning to facilitate that business venture. (*: to intrigue their market with, the way a Sci-Fi writer does when they're talking about all sorts of exotic intriguing unverified ideas/philosophies, tickling the ears of their audience as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4)

a reply to: whereislogic

Yes in In physics and mathematics i understand what a dimension is.

I try and grasp the more fundamental aspects put it that way. x

You cant take me to school whereislogic, at least try and understand that. LoL

If Superstring theory is wrong or incorrect, which it may very well be, you need to provide a reason as to why, nevermind a better theory to supplant that one.

Good luck with that.

a reply to: andy06shake

I try not to spend too much time on debunking the notion of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters if the supposed 'evidence' in favor of those fantasies is seriously flawed or lacking in the first place.

The interpretations in quantum physics involving string theory, "quantum foam", 11 or even more so-called 'dimensions' (where I don't agree with their usage of that word as hinted at before), the multiverse and M-theory, the notion that "physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured" (to which the notion that particles are popping in and out of existence is attached by some people, as well as other notions involving the supposed need for an observer before something exists or 'has definite properties', i.e. Schrödinger's cat being either definitively dead or alive, a definite property, that being the effect of the definite properties of a decaying atom vs no decaying atom), quoting from wikipedia's page on the "Copenhagen interpretation", do not follow from our observations in quantum physics (they are non sequitur, Latin for "it does not follow"). This relates to what Freeman Dyson mentioned in his 2nd conclusion concerning "the picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading", which does follow from the evidence that is available (our observations and common sense; see full context and Schrödinger's cat paradox, which is what that part of the Copenhagen interpretation leads to, indicating that it's in error/mistaken/incorrect, remember the synonyms for "paradox"? "Absurdity/error/mistake/nonsense").

I also don't need "a better theory to supplant" any myths about pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. If the evidence is lacking or seriously flawed, I feel pretty comfortable dismissing it out of hand. As I do with the myths promoted in the field of quantum physics that are based on interpretations that do not follow from our observations. They are mental constructs that have little to no bearing on reality, i.e. fantasies/imaginations. Not much different than fantasies about pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters (just a bit better dressed up, they look more serious or 'scientific', they are promoted by better conmen with a more convincing story and line of argumentation to beguile and confuse*).

*: better suits as well:

I guess they all ignored Newton's warning:

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.

And if you're already admitting "nobody understands" some particular notion or set of notions, maybe it's a little presumptuous to be promoting it under the marketingbanner "Science"? I'm referring specifically to the part in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that I quoted from wikipedia and all attached unverified imaginative speculative philosophies/ideas/notions as promoted by others (no longer thinking of Feynman but tying what he says back into what I was talking about; that's the 'weird' part of what Feynman refers to as "quantum mechanics", or nonsense part as I explained before, that part of the interpretation is wrong and causes a wrong way of thinking about quantum physics. Feynman didn't see the danger either as far as I know).

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
...
Most of it beyond me all the same, but it's nice to try and get your head around it, until it starts hurting.

originally posted by: whereislogic

That's what happens when you try to wrap your mind around sophisticated nonsense dressed up in quantum mechanical language and fancy impressive-looking jargon to hide the paradoxes/contradictions and to sell it under the marketingbanner "Science". (/ means I'm using synonyms)

Note how the Assemblies of God website describes the Trinity as a "mystery" (another synonym for paradox listed on thesaurus.com, in the main list) and what it mentions about what Augustine said concerning "anyone that tries to understand it is in danger of losing his mind", below at 3:03:

That's because the doctrine of the Trinity again leads to a paradox, or several depending on how you look at it:

The Paradox of Tertullian

a reply to: whereislogic

Something can come from nothing and that's what physicists are now telling us.

I agree it's an absurd view of metaphysics. For example, this interpretation of QM usually goes in hand with the many world's interpretation, which says that every time a quantum particle is measured it splits off into another universe, and there are an infinite number of universes that we cannot observe or contact used to describe the universe we find ourselves in.

Physicist are often very poor philosophers, which is sad because philosophers discovered all the tools needed for the scientific method they cherish so dearly. David Albert explains why this statement that things come from nothing is misleading:

Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. . . . But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states . . . are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff.. . . The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings . . . amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
The field is the sole governing agency of the particle. Einstein.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes. All you're doing is trying to argue for a view of monism that I find absurd. Non-duality means that you attempt to "transcend" all dialectics. There is no I and no other. There is only one who might be called Brahman in hinduism, and all else is maya(illusion).

If you're claiming to believe non-duality is a reality, then you are claiming things about the world.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
There is just what there is......has anything other than what is presently happening ever been found??

The witness and the witnessed are not separate......

The witness is all seeing and all knowing and the witnessed is the visible image (what is showing up).