Philosophy Discussion Forums

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness said:

"We've been changing forms since the beginning of time, which never had a beginning."

Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this?

Present awareness also said:

"Since time had no beginning, the universe and everything in it, including us, have always been here, only in different forms then we are currently."

How do you know this? Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this?

I can not prove that what I say is true, it is just my philosophy about the nature of things. 2500 years ago, a wise man came up with what he called a noble truth. Everything in the universe is impermanent, and forming attachments to that which is impermanent will result in suffering, when those things disappear. Everything is constantly changing, including us, and although we might become attached to our present state of existence, it will not last. So my view of the universe would be an endless impermanent flux of forms, constantly changing, with no beginning and no end.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness said:

"We've been changing forms since the beginning of time, which never had a beginning."

Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this?

Present awareness also said:

"Since time had no beginning, the universe and everything in it, including us, have always been here, only in different forms then we are currently."

How do you know this? Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this?

Peer review, peer review, peer review, everything must be peer reviewed. Can't you think for yourself? Must some communist egghead do your thinking for you?

One thing is for sure, the facilitator of life does not depend on human understanding. Human understanding depends on the facilitator of life. The word "begin" is confined to human understanding and may not have anything to do with the existence of the universe/s.

Misty said:

"The word 'begin' is confined to human understanding and may not have anything to do with the existence of the universe/s." Seems you're trying to apply Aristolean logic. Now you said the facilator of life (I presume you mean God) does not depend on human understanding. But you just said that the word 'begin' is confined to human understanding so under these circumstances, how would God know about beginnings (and endings) when the understanding lies with humans and if God is unawares of beginnings, then how could He create this universe? Better hit those books harder Misty.

This is really two questions - "When did the universe begin"? and "When did the cosmos begin?" If one accepts the concept that there was a big bang (and I do), and that there must have been a 'cosmos' in existence prior to the big bang from which our universe was formed (as I do), then the second question comes into play. In my opinion - "The cosmos has always been" - Occam's razor suggests that this is an easier answer than trying to set a date. 'Time has always been" - All events have to occur 'now'; without 'now' there could not have been a big bang. "Space has always been and is unbounded" - Again, Occam's razor suggests that this is the easiest answer. The amount of energy/matter which was present is a tougher question. Neither an infinite amount or a specific amount are easy questions. I'll pass on that one.

Our understanding of beginnings and endings, depends on how we view time. There are two ways of looking at time. One could view the present moment as arriving from the future, at the speed of light and then disappearing into the past at the same speed, being replaced by a new present moment, or the present moment could be thought of as always being here, while everything changes "within" the present moment. I prefer the later view, and it goes to follow that if the present moment is always here, then everything within the present moment, must also always be here, in constantly changing forms. What we call the past, is just the present moment in a different form. You might say that when you had a child's body, that was in the past. I would say that the child's body is right here and now in the present moment. The form has changed, but you have never been anywhere else outside of the present moment.

Present awareness,

You're now saying that all we can be aware of is the present moment in two different ways or scenarios. Then how can we have concepts of past and future if we're not aware of them?

-- Updated February 20th, 2014, 2:32 pm to add the following --

The term "cosmos" has been kicked around a lot, but I don't think many understand precisely how it relates to the universe so I'm attaching a dictionary definition of the term to help clarify the meaning of the term cosmos and help the thread:

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/cosmos

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness,

You're now saying that all we can be aware of is the present moment in two different ways or scenarios. Then how can we have concepts of past and future if we're not aware of them?

-- Updated February 20th, 2014, 2:32 pm to add the following --

The term "cosmos" has been kicked around a lot, but I don't think many understand precisely how it relates to the universe so I'm attaching a dictionary definition of the term to help clarify the meaning of the term cosmos and help the thread as well:

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cosmos

What I'm saying is that we can think of time, in two different ways. Awareness is different then thought, since we can be aware that we are thinking. The mind has the capacity to store in memory, the different forms the present moment takes. However, only in the present moment, are we able to remember these different so called past forms. Since the present moment is always here, it may be used for memory, thinking, dreaming, whatever... and whatever shape it takes, that will be the form the present moment is currently in.

It began when here was a lot smaller, and there was here also, and when was waiting to matter long enough for us to be able to look back and ask why. I guess.

The Universe is eternal, inasmuch as eternal is God.

Alexei wrote:The Universe is eternal, inasmuch as eternal is God.

Sounds simple, doesn't it. Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this idea?

Sounds simple, but actually, it is not. I profess the idea of a developing God. The Universe, or Nature, appears at a certain stage of His development, as the Object of His cognition. For details, you may visit my website, in particular, http://de-alio.ru/de-alio-2/ Thank you.

Alexei wrote:Sounds simple, but actually, it is not. I profess the idea of a developing God. The Universe, or Nature, appears at a certain stage of His development, as the Object of His cognition. For details, you may visit my website, in particular, http://de-alio.ru/de-alio-2/ Thank you.

In science it takes more than saying that God created the universe as independent, peer-reviewed evidence must be presented. Aside from that, one of the burning questions about God is if he created the universe, why is there so much evil which is a very active thread on this forum.

One cannot create anything different from himself. And there is no evil, but suffering.

Alexei wrote:One cannot create anything different from himself. And there is no evil, but suffering.

How did He create Himself? And if He can't create anything different from Himself, then how did He create the universe? Also the Bible mentions evil many times.