NO AFTERLIFE (Page 5)

TheismIsUntenable: "TIU, the FIRST cause can never be identified but there is one and it's comprehensible to us so, we call that the Source - God."

A first cause just means the first event that happened in time. I certainly wouldn't call it god, a person, or anything similar.

What you believe in isn't a first cause but rather atemporal causality which is, quite frankly, a complete joke.

Zanjan: Call it what you will - that aint gonna change humanity.

Zanjan: I'm sure you have no words for what existed before the Big Bang either.

TheismIsUntenable: There isn't any such nonsense as "before" the big bang.

Zanjan: So you believe something came out of nothing? Is that your word -> Nothing?

TheismIsUntenable: Nope. I don't believe in "nothing".

Zanjan: Then you believe in "something". How quaint. What is this "some" you believe in?

TheismIsUntenable: What do you mean? There is no time when the Universe did not exist.

Zanjan: I agree with that. However, you don't say how you came to this conclusion.

Since the big bang occurred, logic dictates the bang was a new state of being. Consequently, one state of being must have ended. This is true for everything in the contingent world because nothing in the universe remains static.

TheismIsUntenable: Because that's what physics tells us.

Whatever existed at the moment of cosmic inflation was not "nothing" it was something and that something became the Universe we see today.

GeraldtheGnome: There are so many mistakes on there. I can’t remember what Zanjan’s generalized of the word use of we Iwas about, it was about the disproven medieval in origin God, the name has not been worked out to have come from earlier than then, it is however an alternative name for the god who is made up and seen in the Tanakh under a Hebrew name. One of you are making a mistake that I used to make on this site and the other is making a mistake about religion that I used to do.

Now the idea for many religious people of various religions is that there is a god around and that he created heaven or the heavens according to some and that when we die (depending on which religion it is) we end up there or in hell. Ipswich and Logan are bad enough on Earth.

One of you contradicted yourself about the universe and the other went on about something always comes from something. No one knows if there was a Big Bang or not, the Red Shift itself isn’t certain but it’s believed to have started from The Big Bang. Those who believe in it believe in various reasons why the Big Bang came about, one is that there was a singularity. If there was a singularity then there was something before it, there was never a beginning. Something always came before something else. Since there was no beginning that means that everyone who believes in a religious story or a scientific belief that does suggest otherwise are wrong. No one knows everything about what happened before the Earth was formed.

It is true that everything that was around before the Earth formed that is known about formed billions of years ago, I doubt that it is as many billions of years ago as is claimed due to how they decided all of it. The so many fractions of a second after The Big Bang is a real stretch of the imagination especially since The Big Bang Theory is possible instead of confirmed. Anyway there’s nothing for or against that any form or forms of creation happened when you get away from every religious story. It’s possible that there is at least one god, an afterlife and some other things but none of them are certain.

To Zanjan. Something always comes from something else ? Someone always comes from something or someone or some supernatural entity or born from some life form ?

Zanjan: TIU, physics can't tell us if there was anything prior to cosmic inflation - scientists say they don't know. All the scientists say they don't know. How is it YOU know? I mean, what is your premise? That's a serious question.

Zanjan: GTG, yes, in the phenomenal world, something always comes from something. That which is supernatural won't follow natural laws but wont break them either.

GeraldtheGnome: There are so many mistakes that have been made on here. I admit that no one knows, the reality is that no one really knows everything about what happened before the Earth formed, not even how long ago. There always was something around before everything that is known. Something always came before something else. Another thing that is unknown is if there is an afterlife. No one knows about what came before what is known obviously.

A religious instruction teacher introduced me to questioning what is just accepted as being true, he told me in grade six that if there is a god then a (according to him) god was created by another god who was created by another god. He then went onto say that then you have to work out who created the god that created the god who created the other god. If you haven’t worked it out there is no start to any of that. This is why it is impossible to prove or disprove that there is at least one god around and with everyone and everything else there always was something or someone before that. There are many things that there are no answers to including abiogenesis and every missing link that stupid people thinks proves that evolution is a made up theory even though some of them unknowingly support the theory.

GeraldtheGnome: I know that certain things about extra sensory perception is true yet unproven, most supernatural beliefs are possible but going against what is possible, like the claim of a god from nothing is true is the wrong way to think. Where’s the proof that there is an afterlife ?

TheismIsUntenable: "TIU, physics can't tell us if there was anything prior to cosmic inflation - scientists say they don't know. All the scientists say they don't know. How is it YOU know? I mean, what is your premise? That's a serious question."

Huh? Every scientist on the planet will tell you at the point of inflation there was something. There is no "before". Time itself didn't exist.

GeraldtheGnome: There are too many errors on here. Just like Zanjan with her lack of understanding that there was always something before you are doing that too. No one knows that there was not a before so you are guessing that every scientist believes that which is as credible as any claim that a scientist can prove or disprove that there is an afterlife.

Zanjan: TIU, you need to read back what you wrote. I've not heard from you an explanation of your own reasoning. I'll off a sample of what I mean:

Science says the substance that existed at the moment of the Big Bang was pure energy. They now call that "Cosmic Expansion Energy", saying it's working throughout the universe at all times. Still, they can't say where it came from, only that it moves.

If there was no "before" (the Bang), as you say, the universe couldn't have always existed in any form so the Bang couldn't have occurred.

Personally, I've intuited that the universal energy has always existed - it had no beginning and no end. It's an inescapable projection of the mind of God - He paints as He thinks. The picture continues to change form, very slowly at times, quickly at other times. So, the universe's energy is enduring, which means "eternal".

If transforming physical substance can be eternal, then the transforming spiritual powers are eternal too. Since our soul is made of spiritual energy, no physical substance can affect its viability. It must exist forever; and, like the physical universe, transform as it moves.

TheismIsUntenable: "Still, they can't say where it came from, only that it moves."

This is your first problem. You're assuming there was a state of affairs when this energy did not exist. I don't make such an assumption.

"If there was no "before" (the Bang), as you say, the universe couldn't have always existed in any form so the Bang couldn't have occurred"

I think you're confused. I didn't say that there was "nothing" before the big bang occurred. I said there was no time. No state of affairs. The video stops there. There's nothing more to see. I cannot rewind any further because that's it.

Could there be a "before"? Maybe. I don't know. But physicists tell me that time itself is said to have resulted concurrently from the big bang.

"Personally, I've intuited that the universal energy has always existed - it had no beginning and no end. It's an inescapable projection of the mind of God"

And maybe there is no beginning. I simply don't know.

I definitely think there will be an end of our Universe. Whether that's a crunch or a heat death, I don't know. There is something poetic about an oscillating expansion, crunch, in perpetuity.

It's like the Universe is reborn over and over again. The question is, does it repeat the same events or are there new events each time?

GeraldtheGnome: You are both wrong about a lot of things. You both don’t know yet you both claim that certain things are certainly true. There was no beginning, each physicist personally told us nothing. There is no God, there never was a beginning of time, whether or not there is an afterlife is unknown and so on.

Zanjan: TIU wrote: "You're assuming there was a state of affairs when this energy did not exist. "

No, I'm not. Quite the contrary. We know that one form of energy can be converted into a different form of energy.

You wrote: "I didn't say that there was "nothing" before the big bang occurred. I said there was no time. No state of affairs."

Here's what you had previously written >>>"There isn't any such nonsense as "before" the big bang." Now you say>>> "Could there be a "before"? Maybe."


The concept of an osculating (breathing) universe is intriguing; however, the idea has been shot down because some scientists found flaws in the theory. Flaws I know nothing about.

Back 40 years ago, scientists envisioned the universe as similar to a balloon - all its heat and energy would fizzle, leaving a cold, dark dead universe. There would be no pressure to push the skin so it would collapse back into a single point - theory known as the Big Crunch.

Thing is, nobody has spotted an edge to the universe - they don't know if its open or closed; yet cosmological evidence says the universe is flat within a margin of 4% - that is, it expands without curving. If a deflation occurred, that would be like a much flatter tire, eh.

Your last question is a good one. I think there would be some alternate events but those would be small, not likely to disrupt the grand layout. Some would point out the Butterfly Effect but nature has its checks and balances; compensations are being made now, even as we speak, so they could certainly be made then.

GeraldtheGnome: More mistakes have been made on here. Whatever can't be proven is either disproven or possible, now if something can't be disproven then it is either possible or certainly true. Now if something is possible then it hasn't been proven and it hasn't been disproven. If something is certainly proven or disproven then someone has proven that somehow.



The girls in the video are very hot !



The singularity is guessed to have been around as pure energy. How can something so tiny expand so much that it became everything that it now is and how ? No one knows. Therefore no one knows why the universe is now what we know about it nor does it tell us why it came about and why it started to expand if it ever did start to expand, that means that we don't know how The Big Bang happened if it did and we also don't know if that was the start of a red shift. Was there a Big Bang and therefore was there a start of the red shift ? We don't know. Was there ever a red shift and is there a red shift ? We don't know. There was no origin to gas, electricity/light, solid and liquid. The so many fractions of a seconds after The Big Bang and what all was formed due to it if there was is guessed.

10 to the minus 43 seconds after The Big Bang and the time roughly in between the start of the expansion is considered to be the Planck Epoch and the early start of the red shift. Forces came about at this time. All of this is claimed about what I refer to as the earliest stage of the claimed to be true red shift. All of it is guessed even though all of it might be possible. The first problem I find is why it would expand out into a kind of disk when if it happened then the known universe would have more likely have expanded out in all directions. The problem from then to know is how something so tiny became so massive that no when knows where the edge is or even if there is any end of the known universe in any direction.

The Grand Unification Epoch then happened is the claim, with the Electroweak Epoch at 10 to the 36 seconds and then the Quark Epoch is claimed to have started in 10 to the minus twelve seconds after The Big Bang is what is claimed. By that stage it is claimed that the universe was more than 100 trillion kilometres wide and disc shaped. One microsecond after The Big Bang it's claimed that the Hadron Epoch started, then one second after The Big Bang it is claimed that the Lepton Epoch started and 10 seconds after The Big Bang the Photon Epoch started. The red shift is claimed to have continued on after The Primordial Era that is claimed to have started at the time of The Big Bang to 370,000 years after The Big Bang. At the time it is claimed to have been around there was this very bright hot light of radiation everywhere. It's just guesswork just like that there is an afterlife. Possible but doubtful.

TheismIsUntenable: "No, I'm not. Quite the contrary. We know that one form of energy can be converted into a different form of energy."

Perfect, then it's agreed.

"Here's what you had previously written >>>"There isn't any such nonsense as "before" the big bang." Now you say>>> "Could there be a "before"? Maybe.""

Well, the evidence seems to dictate that there was not a before, but that evidence is only as good as the model. Models can be inaccurate.

"The concept of an osculating (breathing) universe is intriguing; however, the idea has been shot down because some scientists found flaws in the theory. Flaws I know nothing about."

I'm not aware of any flaws. If you have a paper to read, I will review it. I think this is still very much an open question.

"Back 40 years ago, scientists envisioned the universe as similar to a balloon - all its heat and energy would fizzle, leaving a cold, dark dead universe."

This is still also a possibility as I understand it, the heat death of the Universe.

"Thing is, nobody has spotted an edge to the universe - they don't know if its open or closed; yet cosmological evidence says the universe is flat within a margin of 4% - that is, it expands without curving. If a deflation occurred, that would be like a much flatter tire, eh."

I thought part of the discovery of it being flat was that it was also open.

Zanjan: GTG, this is fascinating stuff for the particular kind of mind that delights in the mysteries of mathematics. Since that’s not my forte, I’m pretty flexible with theories.

We have a list of major universal laws of physics with which everyone or normal intelligence should be familiar, knowing science doesn’t pretend to have discovered them all. We can accept the existence of more than 4 dimensions despite them being invisible because we know that reality is both hidden and manifest. Everything in existence has its counterpart.

We can trust Cause and Effect - we’ve always had enough evidence to make a decision about reality as it pertains to ourselves. We’re aware of the stirrings of the spirit and the invisible power it has to effect a change in the status quo. We can record progress and call it development or evolution. There’s no dead end to it, only varying rates of speed.

So, we ask, what intelligence has formed those laws, guaranteeing they’ll always operate? How could this intelligence hide? From where did we get this capacity to appreciate that if it didn’t want to make itself known to us?

Zanjan: TIU, as you can see, I'm firmly planted in the view that the universe has always existed, regardless of form and condition.

My knowledge of the natural world, past and present, informs me that nothing came out of chaos; despite appearances at any given time, nature has always been an ordered existence.

The universe's architecture is a successful plan, so well constructed, there's no need for another universe beyond this one. One doesn't fix perfection.

To imagine our universe is a strainer, leaking material into a vacuum, is to suggest its integrity is broken - that it was never a solid, viable thing. In that case, it would have never been able to start life! Yet birth and death is one event - the cycle of life demonstrates that a thing has to die so it can live.

In my previous post, I mentioned an intelligence - that's singular, not plural - which ordered all things in creation. I recognize the unity of this intelligence via the perfect unity of nature rather than individual flaws in subjects.

If life had come about by random chance, a particular creature would exist independently of all other creatures. That's not the case. If by random chance, then life wouldn't be expressed in the vast diversity of creatures that co-exist at any given time.

We're talking about billions of random accidents that happen to perfectly synchronize so that each unique creature has a symbiotic relationship with two or more other specific creatures and species. The result sings to me of perfect order, continuously maintained. That's unity.

This intelligence has no physical substance so its reality must be spiritual, enduring throughout time. To me, this is proof that when a certain level of cognition is present in any entity, it will also be enduring throughout time, continuing to be forever active, influencing those of lower conditions and awareness.