Actually i agree, watching tv is a great way to pass the time but not a great way to get ideas about how society should work or about how to vote at the election.
— christian2017

Plato said learning geometry and would have said watching Snow White are activities that help the society. Platonic stuff

Matter is defined by degrees of solidity. Nothingness must be the softest "thing" possible (although it's closer to an idea than a substance. Sorry Descartes). I think science can answer the HOW but not the what or the why. The how can be explained by a non-existing clock. It clicks, the first second thus exist, and then the second, ect. Suddenly a whole clock exists and it rebirths itself every hour. It didn't come from nothing as far as science is concerned. It just is a brute fact. Nothingness is necessary (how could there not be nothing?) but not brute. It's too soft for that :) — Gregory

I believe nothing exists as in a small vacuum as in the phrase "light travels best in a vacuum".

I believe there are spaces in our universe that have nothing (vacuum), or atleast that is what my current understanding is.

Can matter exist without movement/heat?
— christian2017

No. It everything is dependent on motion and motion on them, but motion is the prime mover. — Gregory

If matter matter requires motion and all matter involves gravitational pull (Newtonian as well as Einstein believed this), wouldn't that imply there was always motion, thus eternal motion going back forever? Or did i misunderstand you and matter or small particles did not always exist?

spaces in our universe that have nothing — christian2017

I believe those places are were holiness resides. Not a being, not a Person, but abstract holiness.

"Impermanence, called anicca or anitya (Sanskrit) appears extensively in the Pali Canon as one of the essential doctrines of Buddhism" Wiki

Impermanence implies something from nothing.

"The Theravada school teaches that there is no universal personal god. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman or the Abrahamic God." Wiki

If matter matter requires motion and all matter involves gravitational pull (Newtonian as well as Einstein believed this), wouldn't that imply there was always motion, thus eternal motion going back forever? Or did i misunderstand you and matter or small particles did not always exist? — christian2017

You are basically asking what the particles were doing before the first pull of gravity and the first tick of the clock. I am saying "throw out absolute time". Nothing was before it. Absolutely nothing, holiness

Good is a different nothing. The world is good and parts are beautiful

spaces in our universe that have nothing
— christian2017

I believe those places are were holiness resides. Not a being, not a Person, but abstract holiness.

"Impermanence, called anicca or anitya (Sanskrit) appears extensively in the Pali Canon as one of the essential doctrines of Buddhism" Wiki

Impermanence implies something from nothing.

"The Theravada school teaches that there is no universal personal god. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman or the Abrahamic God." Wiki — Gregory

back to collective soul or collective consceeeence. I don't entirely disagree with that. Is that what you are getting at.

back to collective soul or collective consceeeence. I don't entirely disagree with that. Is that what you are getting at. — christian2017

We and the world have all the reality to exist on our own, yet we are dependent on nothingness. I can't settle that paradox, but it is not a contradiction. If it feels like a contradiction, the thought will take time. We don't all share a common soul nor experience the same things. So we are "collective" only through the womb of nothing. "A medium" as Hegel put it

back to collective soul or collective consceeeence. I don't entirely disagree with that. Is that what you are getting at.
— christian2017

We and the world have all the reality to exist on our own, yet we are dependent on nothingness. I can't settle that paradox, but it is not a contradiction. If it feels like a contradiction, the thought will take time. We don't all share a common soul nor experience the same things. So we are "collective" only through the womb of nothing. "A medium" as Hegel put it — Gregory

Hinduism and Buddhism actually have alot in common. There are actually subsets of both Hinduism and Buddhism that approach the threshold of being atheist (to put it simply). I'm guessing if i wanted to know what you believe i would study a Hindu or Buddhist Holy book?

I'm guessing if i wanted to know what you believe i would study a Hindu or Buddhist Holy book? — christian2017

For an Eastern view, yes. For a Western view, the German idealists

I'm guessing if i wanted to know what you believe i would study a Hindu or Buddhist Holy book?
— christian2017

For an Eastern view, yes. For a Western view, the German idealists — Gregory

Druidism and alot of (at the very least indo-european) non abrahamic religions share a significant (maybe not tremendous) similarities to Hinduism. I don't know much about the deeper aspects of Viking and Saxon religion.

The Dravidians were conquered by the "aryans" (not being racist because they would tell you this) in India/Pakistan. This is part of why there is still a caste system in India to this day. The aryans are commonly said among "scientists" to be indo-european. I'm not implying superiority, what i'm saying right now is a common cliche of what happened. Perhaps you know more about this subject.

Perhaps you know more about this subject. — christian2017

I've read a little about it. Ancestor worship is very popular in other religions. I personally think it may have been a more comforting religion in times of crisis than the Jewish rabbi one now popular

Perhaps you know more about this subject.
— christian2017

I've read a little about it. Ancestor worship is very popular in other religions. I personally think it may have been a more comforting religion in times of crisis than the Jewish rabbi one now popular — Gregory

I was talking about Hinduism. Did i mention ancestor worship? Whats this about a jewish rabbi?

I was talking about Hinduism. Did i mention ancestor worship? Whats this about a jewish rabbi? — christian2017

I was speaking of Jesus. You brought up Druids, so I brought up another interesting theory. With the theory of evolution, how far back is it scientifically rational to worship your ancestors? Hinduism doesn't interest me as much as Buddhism though. Fascinination with nothingness!

I was talking about Hinduism. Did i mention ancestor worship? Whats this about a jewish rabbi?
— christian2017

I was speaking of Jesus. You brought up Druids, so I brought up another interesting theory. With the theory of evolution, how far back is it scientifically rational to worship your ancestors? Hinduism doesn't interest me as much as Buddhism though. Fascinination with nothingness! — Gregory

Oh so you were saying ancestor worship was more comforting than christianity (your original phrase was slightly vague). I disagree but whatever.

Humans could easily go back 2 million years and a minimum of 100,000. I don't see why human ancestor worshiping religions can't go back to scientific adam and scientific eve. You ought to look up those concepts because scientists actually recognize scientific adam and scientific eve.

Oh so you were saying ancestor worship was more comforting than christianity (your original phrase was slightly vague). I disagree but whatever. — christian2017

Christianity is immoral, ancestor worship isn't. Sure it's comforting to think a God would die for you in order to change you (not you personally) from a evil person to a good person. But it's a clear perversion of justice in the name of mercy. Mercy has to do with doing away with punishment in order to give someone a chance to make up for what they did. Christianity changes mercy into something else, saying that you can't make up for your sins so that your only salvation is for God to walla! change you into a good person. It's sick. It was created by sinners for sinners. Bad people created it. Weak people believe it. We all have weak moments though

Humans could easily go back 2 million years and a minimum of 100,000. I don't see why human ancestor worshiping religions can't go back to scientific adam and scientific eve. You ought to look up those concepts because scientists actually recognize scientific adam and scientific eve. — christian2017

Cool

Oh so you were saying ancestor worship was more comforting than christianity (your original phrase was slightly vague). I disagree but whatever.
— christian2017

Christianity is immoral, ancestor worship isn't. Sure it's comforting to think a God would die for you in order to change you (not you personally) from a evil person to a good person. But it's a clear perversion of justice in the name of mercy. Mercy has to do with doing away with punishment in order to give someone a chance to make up for what they did. Christianity changes mercy into something else, saying that you can't make up for your sins so that your only salvation is for God to walla! change you into a good person. It's sick. It was created by sinners for sinners. Bad people created it. Weak people believe it. We all have weak moments though — Gregory

ok

Christians know their doctrines say you can't save yourself and that you can't make up for sins. Sure they say you need to repent, but repentance for them is an opportunity for God to take what is insufficient and add the merits of someone else (Jesus). Buddhism says "take responsibility". Christians say "allow God to take responsibility." You can die for someone, but you can't take away another's responsibility, even if you are the Second Person of a Trinity