Merkabah

[sprinkles]

That's the beauty of believing in multiple truths! I'm not saying I enjoy the indecision in my ideas and faith, but I do like the ability to contemplate a range of possibilities!

Plus...we all know that it's all because of the flying spaghetti monster. That's the reality of everything.

Eris probably has more to do with it than FSM. I mean Eris is known for discord and FSM only looks like discord, because noodles.

Why else would things be so apparently confusing?

 

[Tin Man]

[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION]

I call BS. Materialism doesn't have anything to say about religion or the supernatural. It just says that anything which is, is material.

There could be a God and the entire Bible could be true for all we know, and it could still work even if you define it all as material. God would be more of a god if God had a material reason to be. "God can't be physical!" Well why the fuck not??

What's so damn important about supernatural? What kind of mindfuck reasons do we need to keep maintaining the idea of it?

Using materialism to say that 'there is no supernatural and therefore no God' is full on retarded. It just says that supernatural is not a thing.

The view of materialism is simply that anything which interacts with material with given laws should also be material. To take away material you must also take away any definitions or workings because you're left with nothing to define or cause things to be. Without material a thing can't be itself - even abstractions must be conveyed through states of material.

I wasn't suggesting that we discard materialism or the scientific method. I simply think that it lacks the capability to examine certain phenomena and maybe there needs to be changes in how it determines what is true. Perhaps it doesn't even need to be altered, perhaps all we need is new instruments. You said that you are a multi-dimensional persona. You made claims before that the current scientific method would find very difficult to prove. I have done the same. If these claims met with empiricism, they would most likely be put down to a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Just as phenomena such as magnetism could be observed but not understood until certain conditions were met. In a few decades we might have indisputable proof that we are in a holographic universe, a claim which would be met disbelief by the scientific community a century ago.

I suppose if you subscribe to materialism then there can be no such thing as supernatural. Whether it be ghosts or gods, if it exists, then it must have occurred through natural means.

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Also I don't think subscribing to something because you think it makes more sense is at all problematic. A lot of times that's all you can get to do if you're actually honest about what you really know.

In fact that's all most people ever do. If you ever read it in a book somewhere and didn't experiment it yourself, then that's what you're doing - making sense of it. Who cares about the scientists who wrote it, if you're reading it without self discovery, then you're responsible for that - you're very much taking what makes sense to you.

That reminds me of the wozzle effect where we often spread information which is incorrect because we believe it is valid. The fact is that we can't experiment on most things we read. I've often come across scientific articles on reputable sites which suffer from improper experimentation and are poorly sourced. Of course the only way of finding this out is to read other articles which repute the claims and then read their research which will lead to more research. This will often lead to stuff that requires years of study to understand. Even then it requires a certain amount of trust to accept it.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION]
Empiricism is for things that you can actually get a handle on, and in the human realm the number of those things is relatively small.

As for multidimensional - we all are. Even if you just want to play with words and definitions, it's commonly assumed that you exist in 3D or 4D and three or four is more than one, a.k.a. multiple. That isn't exactly what I meant but I think if I can recognize that it could be true at least to that extent then I'm probably not insane and the rest depends on what fantastical notions people think I have when I say multidimensional - it's probably less fantastical than you think it is.

 

[Tin Man]

[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION]
Empiricism is for things that you can actually get a handle on, and in the human realm the number of those things is relatively small.

As for multidimensional - we all are. Even if you just want to play with words and definitions, it's commonly assumed that you exist in 3D or 4D and three or four is more than one, a.k.a. multiple. That isn't exactly what I meant but I think if I can recognize that it could be true at least to that extent then I'm probably not insane and the rest depends on what fantastical notions people think I have when I say multidimensional - it's probably less fantastical than you think it is.

Yes, of course that's true. I had assumed that in this context multidimensional was something outside Newtonian mechanics. You didn't go into great detail and I immediately imagined a kind of science fiction scenario.

That's the problem with words when discussing such concepts. If we ever meet I've created created a substance we can use which allows for two way telepathic communication (it's just pcp soaked in gasoline).

 

[Skarekrow]

Semantics aside...(and please don’t say metaphysics around @sprinkles!)

There are growing numbers of brilliant scientists that are saying further inquiry into the paranormal is valid.
And when I say paranormal, I’m including psychic phenomena, the afterlife, the whole shebang!

* Professor Russell Targ PhD, American physicist, author and ESP researcher, pioneer of the laser.

He also co-founded the Stanford Research Institute's investigation into psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s. He authored numerous books suggesting that the mind itself reaches to the far ends of the universe and that it is this "non-local" quality, rather than any particular mechanism, that accounts for the remarkable data of parapsychology.

(In reference to remote viewing)
"When you quiet your mind you are able to expand your awareness and experience what is happening in different places and different times....so you couldn't possibly be a physical body.

Here is one on the topic of materialist science -
* Dr Amit Goswami PhD. theoretical quantum physicist and author.

“ Materialist science takes it as its basic axiom that everything is matter. We have literally managed to train a whole generation of students on the idea that everything is material, but this Newtonian world view that has shaped our understanding for centuries is now giving way to the revelations of quantum physics which goes beyond materialism; to show that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being.”

[video=youtube_share;Lr-KkzLa-UE]http://youtu.be/Lr-KkzLa-UE[/video]

* Dr. Claude Swanson, PhD, Applied physicist

has collated the "best evidence" illustrating the inadequacy of our present scientific paradigm. In his book, The Synchronized Universe, he describes scientifically controlled remote viewing and ESP experiments, demonstrations of long-range healing, psychokinesis (mind over matter), scientifically controlled experiments in levitation, teleportation and out of body phenomena (OBE). He outlines numerous examples of these strange forces being demonstrated under rigorous scientific conditions, with odds of millions or even billions to one against chance. Dr Swanson argues that there is a need for a new, truly "unified field theory" which can explain and understand both science and consciousness.

" A new scientific revolution is underway. Recent discoveries in the "hard sciences" as well as in parapsychology have demonstrated the existence of new scientific effects our science cannot explain."

It's our science that needs to be upgraded. It cannot progress by ignoring real things that happen in the universe. If we want a correct theory of physics and science needs to include all the phenomena. Science needs to enlarge itself and grow up and include the phenomena that right now are being ignored."

* Ron Pearson in his article Theoretical Physics Backs Survival (sorry guys, the link is broken) talks about a new mathematical model he has developed. he writes: "Now, however, nearly all aspects of the paranormal, inclusive of survival, are seen as potentially real effects. Theoreticians are therefore no longer justified in their attempt to explain these away. Nor can they be justified any longer in resorting to any other kind of subterfuge for their discreditment. Instead a way is provided for physics to be revitalised and reformed to accept survival as a fact which in no way conflicts with its basic principles.





* Professor John O'M. Bockris Distinguished Professor
of Chemistry Texas A& M University (1982-1997)
Professor John Bockris in his book The New Paradigm--A Confrontation Between Physics and the Paranormal Phenomena(2005) discusses the evidence for the paranormal, including telepathy, near-death experiences, out-of-body travel, mediumship, reincarnation, apparitions, possession, distant healing, and other phenomena. He concludes that other concepts such as the paranormal, theories about consciousness, and interconnectedness must be integrated into science to enable a superior understanding of reality.

"Present science is incomplete, and able to retain its position largely by suppressing by ridicule fields of knowledge which are inconsistent with its fundamental concepts."

He concludes that other concepts such as the paranormal, theories about consciousness, and interconnectedness must be integrated into science to give us a much better understanding of the true nature of reality.

* Dr Thomas Campbell- Physicist and out of body explorer, Metaphysics (sorry about that word again @sprinkles) & the Consciousness author of My Big T.O.E.

Argues that traditional science is “little picture science”, is not objective and is based on untested beliefs of materialism for which there is no justification.
" Our beliefs set the boundaries and define the limits of our science - they always have and any reasonably accurate history of science will verify that fact."
[video=youtube_share;akgCb85PG-A]http://youtu.be/akgCb85PG-A[/video]
(this is a video series 1-18 if you are interested)


THERE IS ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS...
Quantum physics suggests that at the deepest level there is no matter, only consciousness. This is a theoretical basis for the existence of God and the unity of all things.

Scientist Dean Radin suggests that civilization is going through a developmental stage. Describing the world as made up of adolescent-like tribes, he says that it may take some great threat to force these tribes to work together.
[video=youtube_share;ssO3uhvF73o]http://youtu.be/ssO3uhvF73o[/video]

Most of these claims cannot be proven by today’s standards...but everything we know to be true was once a theory in someone’s mind.

 

[Skarekrow]

Many brilliant scientists have used scientific methods (various) to investigate the afterlife and psychic phenomena. They were skeptical at first and it was only after thorough investigation that they accepted that it exists.There were other world famous engineers, medical doctors, philosophers, lawyers, judges and highly regarded professional people who also accepted the afterlife after years of investigation.

Many of these were highly practical people whose major discoveries in other areas fundamentally changed the way people work and live. Many considered themselves to be Rationalists and Humanists and had to face intense opposition from both highly conservative Christian clergy and from materialist scientists.
Here are the names of just a few of those past and present who have made outstanding contributions:

Professor Robert Almeder, Sir William Barrett, Dr. Julie Beichel, Dr. Peter Bander, John Logie Baird, Professor John Bockris, Hereward Carrington, Edgar Cayce, Professor J.W. Crawford, Dr. Robert Crookall, Sir William Crookes, Andrew Jackson Davis, Professor Augustus De Morgan, Dr. George T. Dexter, Lord Dowding, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Dr. C. J. Ducasse, Judge John W. Edmonds, Professor Arthur Ellison, Dr. Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa, Dr. Edith Fiore, Arthur Findlay, Professor Camille Flamarion, Professor David Fontana, Dr. Isaac K. Funk, Dr. Hamlin Garland, Dr Amit Goswami, Professor Gustav Geley, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss, Professor Stanislav Grof, Dr. Arthur Guirdham, Emma Harding, Dr. Robert Hare, Dr. T. Glen Hamilton, Professor Charles Hapgood, Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright, Dr. Richard Hodgson Professor James Hyslop, Professor William James, Dr. Raynor C. Johnson, Professor Brian Josephson, Allan Kardec, Esq, Dr. John S. King, Dr. Jon Klimo, Dr. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, Sir Oliver Lodge, Dr. Cesare Lombroso, Dr. Jeff and Jody Long, Dr. William McDougall, Joseph McMoneagle, Mark Macy, Dr. Robert Hare, Maurice Maeterlinck, Vice-Admiral William Usborne Moore, Rev Stainton Moses, George Meek, Dr. Raymond Moody, Dr. Melvin Morse, Dr. Gardner Murphy, Frederic
W. H. Myers Dr. Morris Netherton, Professor William R. Newbold, Dr. Karlis Osis, Ron Pearson, Dr. Hal Puthoff, Dr. Dean Radin, Peter Ramster, Edward C. Randall, Dr.Konstantine Raudive, Drs. J.B. and Louisa Rhine, Scott Rogo, Professor Charles Richet, Dr. Kenneth Ring, Dr. Barbara R. Rommer, Aubrey Rose, Professor Archie Roy, Dr. Michael Sabom, Dr. Hans Schaer, Professor Marylyn Schlitz, Baron (Dr.) Albert Von Schrenck-Notzing, Dr. Bernie Siegel, Professor Ernst Senkowski, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Judge Dean Shuart, Dr. Ian Stevenson, Dr. Claude Swanson, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Governor Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, Professor Russell Targ, Professor Charles Tart, The Rev. Charles Drayton Thomas, Professor Jessica Utts, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, Dr. Jan W. Vandersande, Dr. Alexander von Boutlerow, Professor Wadhams, Prof. Alfred Russell Wallace, Dr. Helen Wambach, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Carl Wickland, Dr. Carla Wills-Brandon, Professor Fred Alan Wolf.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] I'm curious to know why you think that this evidence isn't being embraced by more people? They're answering questions that a lot of people want to know and questions that could have profound cultural, theological and scientific impact- why aren't we talking about all this?

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Don't worry about the words. They just bother me because they imply a duality that I know doesn't exist. It can be hard to get around using them but I just feel that if we want to have a model of a one holistic universe then they can't be a thing.

Physical/metaphysical natural/supernatural normal/paranormal are all dualities which speak against unification. It's just the mind/body problem moved over which I don't think you want to do if one of them is only a projection of the other.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow I'm curious to know why you think that this evidence isn't being embraced by more people? They're answering questions that a lot of people want to know and questions that could have profound cultural, theological and scientific impact- why aren't we talking about all this?

Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow College wrote in 2005-
"as yet most traditional scientists are simply unaware of the evidence for the afterlife. They have never done psychic research and have never read the evidence. But they are often hostile to it because they think it challenges their outdated scientific world view.

Traditional western science has been based on a strict separation of science from religion. It is based on observation and experiment which means it is only interested in things which can be sensed and measured within the narrow range of vibrations which make up our five senses. It rejects the possibility of an afterlife because materialist science teaches that consciousness is located only in the physical brain and once the brain dies that is the end of consciousness. This view is increasingly being challeneged by modern physics."

[video=youtube_share;y9bVd3BspIQ]http://youtu.be/y9bVd3BspIQ[/video]

Then when you throw in the pressures put upon people in regards to investigating the afterlife or psychic phenomena...namely that it is dangerous, dangerous to your soul. Sadly, most people don’t even realize that most, if not all of todays religions started with psychic and spiritual experiences like out of body experiences, near death experiences and after death contacts which many many people are still having today.
This has made it taboo to talk about in society in general...it’s perfectly okay to profess your status as a believer in Christ or Allah, etc...but if you talk about seeing a ghost, having a vision, going out of body, etc...then you are looked at as if you are a crazy person.
There’s a good video for this being “taboo” -
[video=youtube_share;0doLM6mh8-s]http://youtu.be/0doLM6mh8-s[/video]

This is discussed further...

"This academic hostility to the study of psychic phenomena and the afterlife has meant that there has been almost no money for research in it and no career possibilitites for researchers even though the subject is of great interest to most people, including many scientists. Even today there are very few organizations dedicated to paranormal research and most of the work is being done by dedicated people in their spare time.
The research information is complex
As well, in a time-poor society most people do not have the time to sift through the huge amount of complex research materials that have been accumulated by previous researchers. For example the cross correspondences consist of three thousand scripts transmitted over thirty years. Some of them were more than forty typed pages long. Together they fill 24 volumes and 12,000 pages and contain much information that would only make sense to a scholar of Latin and Ancient Greek.


Information was not shared
Until recently many of the best books on psychic and afterlife research were not easily available, even in most libraries. They were called "occult" which means hidden. And people were frightened to talk about their experiences in case others thought they were crazy and attacked them. It is only recently with the development of the internet that many of these books have been made available online and websites have been set up to allow people to share experiences.


Most people don't know about the evidence
This has led many highly intelligent people to wrongly conclude that there is no evidence for the afterlife simply because they are unaware that scientists have been systematically studying the afterlife for more than 150 years."

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow

Don't worry about the words. They just bother me because they imply a duality that I know doesn't exist. It can be hard to get around using them but I just feel that if we want to have a model of a one holistic universe then they can't be a thing.

Physical/metaphysical natural/supernatural normal/paranormal are all dualities which speak against unification. It's just the mind/body problem moved over which I don't think you want to do if one of them is only a projection of the other.

I understand what you are saying...as I did before...but we simply don’t have better words for it yet, words that immediately imply to someone not thinking of the universe in a holistic way what is trying to be conveyed to them.
I get that it can be like nails down a chalkboard...but the uninitiated have to have a starting point.

 

[Skarekrow]

Scientism is self-refuting.
The claims of people that science has precede or dismissed philosophy, is a false claim and also self-refuting.

I think that there are two schools of thought within the scientific community in general at large...that there is nothing after we die, or there is something.
I DO think that the majority of the scientific community has sided with there not being anything...in fact, in the US, it’s about 60% who don’t...this has just about been unchanging since 1916.
"The findings show that better and more widespread education has notdestroyed the need to believe.", Edward Larson, a historian at the University of
Georgia and Larry Witham of Seattle's Discovery Institute, said.
But it also has not gained any more ground within the scientific community.


In 1916, researcher James Leuba shocked the nation with his survey that
found only 40 percent of scientists believed in a supreme being. He predicted
such ungodliness would spread as education improved.
``To test that belief, we replicated Leuba's survey as exactly as
possible,'' Larson and Witham wrote in a commentary for the science journal
Nature.
``The result: about 40 percent of scientists still believe in a personal
God and an afterlife. In both surveys, roughly 45 percent disbelieved and 15
percent were doubters (agnostic).''
They surveyed 1,000 randomly chosen scientists listed in the reference book
``American Men and Women of Science,'' a later version of the 1910 work Leuba
used.
The were asked whether they believed in a God who would answer prayers,
whether they believed in human immortality and whether they wished for an
afterlife of some sort.
``Today, even more than in 1916, most scientists have no use for God or an
afterlife,'' they found.
``But to the extent that both surveys are accurate readings, traditional
Western theism has not lost its place among U.S. scientists, despite their
intellectual preoccupation with material reality,'' they wrote. ``Americans
will doubtless be pleased to know that as many as 40 percent of scientists
agree with them about God and an afterlife.'' There were notable differences
among the disciplines.
``The 1996 survey showed that mathematicians are most inclined to believe
in God (44.6 percent),'' they wrote.
``And although biologists showed the highest rate of disbelief for doubt in
Leuba's day (69.5 percent), that ranking is now given to physicists and
astronomers.''
One scientist, asked whether he desired immortality, answered: ``It is
pointless to desire the ridiculous.''
Another said: ``But it would be nice.''

The numbers clearly show that MOST have dismissed philosophy...at least in the sense of them submitting to the beliefs contained within said philosophy.

 

[Skarekrow]

That being said though.. @LucyJr
Just as I was discussing with @say what, it is considered a “taboo” subject within the confines of science and society in general.
Quantum physics can actually be that transcendental “bridge” so to speak...

"Professor Robert Lanza believes the theory of biocentrism teaches that death as we know it is an illusion created by our consciousness.
A variety of spiritual texts teach that ‘existence’ on this plane is an experience of the limit-less, immortal soul. However, faith in the unknown has been the foundation which has molded spiritual tradition, not science. The professor’s findings may change this.
“We think life is just the activity of carbon and an admixture of molecules – we live a while and then rot in the ground,” said Lanza on his website.
A graduate of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, the Professor continued, “As humans we believe in death because ‘we’ve been taught we die’, or more specifically, our consciousness associates life with bodies and we know that bodies die.”
The scientist’s entire theoryexplains how death may not be as terminal as commonly thought. Biocentrism is classed as the theory of everything and comes from the Greek, meaning ‘life center’.
Biocentrism, then, is the belief that life and biology are central to reality and that life created the universe, not the other way around. This suggests a person’s consciousness determines the shape and size of objects in the universe.
Lanza’s theory uses the example of the way all people perceive the world around them. A person sees a blue sky, and is told that the color they are seeing is blue, but the cells in a person’s brain could be changed to make the sky look green or red.
Simply stated: “What you see could not be present without your consciousness,” explained Robert. “Our consciousness makes sense of the world.”
Instead, when one dies their life becomes a ‘perennial flower’ that returns to bloom in the multiverse. Lanza shared “Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix.”
To prove his theories, the famous double-slit experiment was cited to back up his claims. In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.
Yet if a person doesn’t watch the particle, it acts like a wave. This means it can go through both slits at the same time.
This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that behavior of the particle changes based on a person’s perception and consciousness.
As the collective consciousness shifts into better understanding of the universe and the self, it can only be hoped scientific studies will continue to validate what spiritual teachings have long since acknowledged as truth."

 

[sprinkles]

That being said though.. @LucyJr
Just as I was discussing with @say what, it is considered a “taboo” subject within the confines of science and society in general.
Quantum physics can actually be that transcendental “bridge” so to speak...

"Professor Robert Lanza believes the theory of biocentrism teaches that death as we know it is an illusion created by our consciousness.
A variety of spiritual texts teach that ‘existence’ on this plane is an experience of the limit-less, immortal soul. However, faith in the unknown has been the foundation which has molded spiritual tradition, not science. The professor’s findings may change this.
“We think life is just the activity of carbon and an admixture of molecules – we live a while and then rot in the ground,” said Lanza on his website.
A graduate of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, the Professor continued, “As humans we believe in death because ‘we’ve been taught we die’, or more specifically, our consciousness associates life with bodies and we know that bodies die.”
The scientist’s entire theoryexplains how death may not be as terminal as commonly thought. Biocentrism is classed as the theory of everything and comes from the Greek, meaning ‘life center’.
Biocentrism, then, is the belief that life and biology are central to reality and that life created the universe, not the other way around. This suggests a person’s consciousness determines the shape and size of objects in the universe.
Lanza’s theory uses the example of the way all people perceive the world around them. A person sees a blue sky, and is told that the color they are seeing is blue, but the cells in a person’s brain could be changed to make the sky look green or red.
Simply stated: “What you see could not be present without your consciousness,” explained Robert. “Our consciousness makes sense of the world.”
Instead, when one dies their life becomes a ‘perennial flower’ that returns to bloom in the multiverse. Lanza shared “Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix.”
To prove his theories, the famous double-slit experiment was cited to back up his claims. In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.
Yet if a person doesn’t watch the particle, it acts like a wave. This means it can go through both slits at the same time.
This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that behavior of the particle changes based on a person’s perception and consciousness.
As the collective consciousness shifts into better understanding of the universe and the self, it can only be hoped scientific studies will continue to validate what spiritual teachings have long since acknowledged as truth."

That's great but it's not "a person" that does anything. That's simply not the truth at all so if they want to validate truth, they shouldn't continue to say this.

This idea about the double slit is KNOWN to be false but people keep propagating it, similar to the also false idea that entropy is disorder. The woozle effect that [MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION] mentioned? This is it happening right now.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
And I'm really sorry to continue to harp on that but a big reason this hasn't made progress is the persistent use of outdated premises. It just makes people continue to think in terms that they already know about and therefore nothing is further elucidated.

It's like talking to a baby in baby talk but you never stop doing it. Soon that baby is 40 years old and you've never increased its vocabulary.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
There is a very strong philosophical argument against materialism, based on the reliability of knowledge and the possibility of it. I'll search for it because I don't remember exactly how the argument is.
Scientism is true only if materialism is true. Thus if materialism is self-refuting, it also means scientism is self-refuting.
There is even a scientific argument against materiliasm, what science has shown to be the finite time and matter and energy of Universe. Most of the scientists today agree that there was a begining of the Universe, and until that there was nothing. So the question arise: could Universe arise to existence by itself ( remember that the Universe was inexistent?

Note:the paralel or multi universes theory doesn't work either. It only moves the problem a bit backward for the materialist.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow
There is a very strong philosophical argument against materialism, based on the reliability of knowledge and the possibility of it. I'll search for it because I don't remember exactly how the argument is.
Scientism is true only if materialism is true. Thus if materialism is self-refuting, it also means scientism is self-refuting.
There is even a scientific argument against materiliasm, what science has shown to be the finite time and matter and energy of Universe. Most of the scientists today agree that there was a begining of the Universe, and until that there was nothing. So the question arise: could Universe arise to existence by itself ( remember that the Universe was inexistent?

Note:the paralel or multi universes theory doesn't work either. It only moves the problem a bit backward for the materialist.

No the scientists do not think there was nothing before the “Big Bang”...
There are many theories out there like this - http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point#.UuR3XGatuLI
Or this - http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm
or many, many others...but scientists generally agree that there was something there first.

 

[LucyJr]

No the scientists do not think there was nothing before the “Big Bang”...
There are many theories out there like this - http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point#.UuR3XGatuLI
Or this - http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm
or many, many others...but scientists generally agree that there was something there first.

Yes, I agree there was "something" there first, because the Universe actually had a beginning, according to today science. This is from the second link you posted:

“This cannot happen,” says Vilenkin. “So when you follow this space traveler’s history back in time, you find that his history must come to an end.”

The fact that the traveler’s journey backward in time hits an impasse means that there’s a problem, from a logical standpoint, with the assumption of an ever-expanding universe upon which this whole scenario is based. The universe, in other words, could not always have been expanding. Its expansion must have had a beginning, and inflation — a particularly explosive form of cosmic expansion — must have had a beginning, too. By this logic, our universe also had a beginning since it was spawned by an inflationary process that is eternal into the future but not the past.

Something From Nothing

A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far: Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all. This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

Of course, Lucretius had never heard of quantum mechanics and inflationary cosmology, 20th-century fields that contest his bold claim. “We usually say that nothing can be created out of nothing because we think it would violate the law of conservation of energy,” a hallowed principle in physics holding that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, Vilenkin explains. So how could you create a universe with matter in it, where there had been nothing before?

“The way the universe gets around that problem is that gravitational energy is negative,” Vilenkin says. That’s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero: The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. “Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today. If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself.

One virtue of this picture, if correct, is that the spontaneous creation of our universe gives a definite starting point to things. Time begins at the moment of creation, putting to rest the potentially endless questions about “what happened before that.”

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

In the Clint Eastwood movie Magnum Force, Harry Callahan says, “A man’s got to know his limitations,” but Vilenkin’s work is a testament to pushing past traditional limits. If we persevere in the face of skepticism and doubt, as Vilenkin is often inclined to do, interesting and unexpected ideas may well emerge — just like a universe popping out of nowhere.

"just like a universe popping out of nowhere." - so nothingness created all that existed...this is food for thoughts.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

Did the cosmos have a beginning? The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.

At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012). I’ve quoted a few brief highlights below.

In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos.

One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility:

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.”

A second option explored by Vilenkin was that of a cyclic universe, where the universe goes through an infinite series of big bangs and crunches, with no specific beginning. It was even claimed that a cyclic universe could explain the low observed value of the cosmological constant. But as Vilenkin found, there’s a problem if you look at the disorder in the universe:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.

However, Vilenkin’s options were not exhausted yet. There was another possibility: that the universe had sprung from an eternal cosmic egg:

Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time.

“This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes.

So at the end of the day, what is Vilenkin’s verdict?

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Check this video also, Alexander Vilenkin states that it seem physical laws are necessare and independent from the Universe...
[video=youtube;_XYGo3wjdoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM[/video]

So, the Universe had a beginning. It was created from nothing or not? Some people think yes...others say is the most silly thing one could "solve" the problem with...nothingness is...nothing.

And there is also the problem of the law of physics, like it says in the video.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
I found a video on free will, I think its interesting. It say why the idea of absence of free wil is self-refuting. What do you think?
[video=youtube;zYLnNPYT5pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYLnNPYT5pk#t=117[/video]

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
I found a video on free will, I think its interesting. It say why the idea of absence of free wil is self-refuting. What do you think?
[video=youtube;zYLnNPYT5pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYLnNPYT5pk#t=117[/video]

His argument is already circular and problematic. There's nothing to say that you're not irrationally forced to 'accept' certain explanations or theories.

He says it can't be rational, and hes right. Nothing says it must be rational. What we accept is actually so often the very opposite of rational, and occasionally absurd and exceedingly stupid.

He says he chooses belief on the basis of rational credentials. Does he really, or does he just think he does? How does he know? How do you know?

How do you know it's not all a trick like these people who occasionally think they are guilty of crimes they didn't commit, or remember things that never actually happened?

 

[LucyJr]

His argument is already circular and problematic. There's nothing to say that you're not irrationally forced to 'accept' certain explanations or theories.

He says it can't be rational, and hes right. Nothing says it must be rational. What we accept is actually so often the very opposite of rational, and occasionally absurd and exceedingly stupid.

He says he chooses belief on the basis of rational credentials. Does he really, or does he just think he does? How does he know? How do you know?

How do you know it's not all a trick like these people who occasionally think they are guilty of crimes they didn't commit, or remember things that never actually happened?

I think you missed his argument. He is saying the one that claim that there is no free will makes a self-refuting claim.

With regard to your response toward me, his argument would be that if there is no free will, then NOTHING from what you wrote to me is RATIONAL, meaning that if there is no free will, there is no RATIONALITY.

So if there is no reason, it means that what you wrote and disagreed with, is not because it makes any sense, but because you were forced by blind and irational causes to do so. But if it is thusly, then your argument is irrational, and therefore it refutes itself.

So, by his argument, you are the one who argues circular.