A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

Ah ha....so you are now saying that you thought the context in which I referred to still mind meditation as a religious practice was not related to my personal position...what a waste of time this has been.

No i am saying what you posted (transcendence is a religious tool) was general with no reference to the narrow field of your personal belief. To which i posted the reply and link that disproved your claim. Only after you realised your error did you go into firelighting mode in a sad attempt to save face

 

[gnostic]

So how does this is criteria that tells you that the universe is real?

They are real because they are evidences.

They are more real than the faith-based mythological Cosmic Consciousness or transcendence or nonlocal communication or remote viewing or Brahman, all of which, we have zero evidence for.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You lied about what a posted, you stated that i said you posted the comment which is total tosh. You want to to hide behind bs then god luck to you

Edit: this is not the first time you have deliberately misrepresented my comments in your pathetic attempt to prove your balls are bigger than a woman's

Wait...if you claim I lied about something you posted, it is only fair that you let me and everyone else know what I have supposedly said that you deem the lie. I can't defend against a claim that is your little secret.

Please quote my exact words that you deem a lie?

 

[Nakosis]

I assume the universe came from a singularity.

Before that, a previous universe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scientists-find-imprint-universe-existed-big-bang

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No i am saying what you posted (transcendence is a religious tool) was general with no reference to the narrow field of your personal belief. To which i posted the reply and link that disproved your claim. Only after you realised your error did you go into firelighting mode in a sad attempt to save face

I never said transcendence was a religious tool, I say transcendence is the goal of religious practice, and you apparently disagree?

 

[godnotgod]

They are real because they are evidences.

They are more real than the faith-based mythological Cosmic Consciousness or transcendence or nonlocal communication or remote viewing or Brahman, all of which, we have zero evidence for.

Was I comparing Cosmic Consciousness, transcendence, non-local communication, remote viewing, or Brahman to what telescopes reveal? No, so why do you bring them up? .

I am asking you how you know that what those telescopes reveal is real. You tell me it is because of 'evidences'. However, we know from past history in the sciences, that 'evidences' can be misleading, and even discarded as new 'evidences' emerge, sometimes creating an entirely new paradigm, such as Quantum Physics overturning classical Newtonian Physics. As for 'evidences' regarding the origins of the universe, we have at least 10 current theories, none of which are definitive. So how can you tell me that what we detect via telescopes tells us that what we are looking at is 'real', in spite of 'evidences'? What is the difference between your experience of a dream-scape and that of your environment in your waking hours?

 

[godnotgod]

I never said transcendence was a religious tool, I say transcendence is the goal of religious practice, and you apparently disagree?

(the problem with Christine is that she still sees things via the subject/object split, and as a consequence, sees your position in the same way; therefore, your transcendent experience cannot be anything more than mere belief, belief being no more than a mental construct.)

 

[Ponder This]

OK, and when you awaken, you realize the dream was just a dream, and was not real, correct?

Of course it's not real to me if I realize that it is not real! That is correct!
But why should I say my dreams are not real? What awareness is this that causes me to say such a thing?
It comes from my understanding that things that are real are things that are not imagined or supposed.
So it is my awareness of the fact that I was merely imagining those things that allows me say that I realize that they aren't real. This refers to the content of the dreams rather than the existence of the dreams.

The dream occurred, but the contents of the dream did not necessarily occur. For example, science can actually observe when dreams are occurring in sleeping subjects. The things that I dreamed while I was sleeping didn't actually occur in the waking world, although scientists may be able to determine what I dreamed about by analyzing my brain patterns.

So there's definitely some linguistic nuance to be aware of that is taking place here when I associate the word 'real' to something.

If you reread what both of us posted, we're pretty much saying the same thing.

Where a difference seems to lie is when one uses a word like "universe". It's important for us to remember that the word "universe" is not the actual universe itself, as the term is merely an abstract labeling of something. It's like the Buddhist teaching that, when we point our finger at the moon, it's important to remember that the end of our finger is not the moon.

The issue of "infinity", therefore, has it that nothing appears to have a true beginning or end.

I'm glad that we cleared that up. When we toss words around, we often assume that everyone knows exactly what we mean, but the reality is that language is a wibbly-wobbly thing.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course it's not real to me if I realize that it is not real! That is correct!
But why should I say my dreams are not real? What awareness is this that causes me to say such a thing?
It comes from my understanding that things that are real are things that are not imagined or supposed.
So it is my awareness of the fact that I was merely imagining those things that allows me say that I realize that they aren't real. This refers to the content of the dreams rather than the existence of the dreams.

The dream occurred, but the contents of the dream did not necessarily occur. For example, science can actually observe when dreams are occurring in sleeping subjects. The things that I dreamed while I was sleeping didn't actually occur in the waking world, although scientists may be able to determine what I dreamed about by analyzing my brain patterns.

So there's definitely some linguistic nuance to be aware of that is taking place here when I associate the word 'real' to something.

To be clear: the dream itself is not real, because dreams are illusions. What I am saying is that, when you are inside the dream itself, you don't know you are dreaming and it is perfectly real to you. You may dream you are a dragon slayer, for instance, and should someone approach you in the dream and ask you: 'Are you really a dragon slayer?', you would respond in the affirmative: 'Of course! Don't you see?' But when you awaken, should someone ask the same question of you, you might say: 'Of course not! It was just a dream!'.

The awareness that causes you to realize the illusory quality of the dream is that firstly, it vanishes, and secondly the environment of the awakened state can be 'verified' as the real version via the five senses. It does NOT vanish. And it can be tested via science.

Is this agreeable to you so far?

 

[ChristineM]

Wait...if you claim I lied about something you posted, it is only fair that you let me and everyone else know what I have supposedly said that you deem the lie. I can't defend against a claim that is your little secret.

Please quote my exact words that you deem a lie?

Done that, twice, you chose to ignore it or even pretend it never happened. Its as easy for you to backtrack as me and considering your obnoxious behaviour, accusations and misrepresentation from the very beginning of this discussion, i chose you do the search, I'm done doing work to satisfy your perversions

 

[ChristineM]

I never said transcendence was a religious tool, I say transcendence is the goal of religious practice, and you apparently disagree?

Lets get your bull into perspective

Post #4255 you wrote
There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice.

Post #4262 you wrote
Haha..I said it was a religious practice to realize transcendence, and you say no it is not a religious practice, religion must be involved...

Feel better now?

@godnotgod
Perhaps you should take a look at the reality of what i see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Done that, twice, you chose to ignore it or even pretend it never happened. Its as easy for you to backtrack as me and considering your obnoxious behaviour, accusations and misrepresentation from the very beginning of this discussion, i chose you do the search, I'm done doing work to satisfy your perversions

You made the claim, you provide the proof, failure to be able to do so exposes who the liar is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Lets get your bull into perspective

Post #4255 you wrote
There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice.

Post #4262 you wrote
Haha..I said it was a religious practice to realize transcendence, and you say no it is not a religious practice, religion must be involved...

Feel better now?

Thank you for my quoted posts, it proves my point, I have quoted those same posts before to try and show you that the religious practice of stilling the mind is meant to bring about the realization of transcendence.

Are you now conceding that still mind meditation practice to realize transcendence is a religious one?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

(the problem with Christine is that she still sees things via the subject/object split, and as a consequence, sees your position in the same way; therefore, your transcendent experience cannot be anything more than mere belief, belief being no more than a mental construct.)

Yes, I suspect Christine, as an atheist, can not admit there is anything more to reality than the maya of the mind's duality perspective. For to step out and actually practice transcending duality would risk showing herself to be in great error.

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you for my quoted posts, it proves my point, I have quoted those same posts before to try and show you that the religious practice of stilling the mind is meant to bring about the realization of transcendence.

Are you now conceding that still mind meditation practice to realize transcendence is a religious one?

They actually verify my claim that you did say transcendence was a religious practice despite your repeated denials you never said that.

If you recall i stated and provided evidence that it was not only a religious practice but used by several other categories.

Which you denied.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I suspect Christine, as an atheist, can not admit there is anything more to reality than the maya of the mind's duality perspective. For to step out and actually practice transcending duality would risk showing herself to be in great error.

And i suspect that ben d has no clue what he says most of the time

And he also seems to talk total irrelevant bull when he is trying to belittle a woman who has shown him up for the failure he is.

Is such a way to try and save face a result of religious transcendence?

 

[ChristineM]

You made the claim, you provide the proof, failure to be able to do so exposes who the liar is.

Told you I'm not using my time for your gratification. But will say, the first time your response post contained nothing but your your silly purple with embarrassed contrition emoji , surely you remember that?

Second was only yesterday, do you not remember feigning incredulity when i pointed it out to you. Not too far for you to look.

 

[gnostic]

Was I comparing Cosmic Consciousness, transcendence, non-local communication, remote viewing, or Brahman to what telescopes reveal? No, so why do you bring them up? .

I am asking you how you know that what those telescopes reveal is real. You tell me it is because of 'evidences'. However, we know from past history in the sciences, that 'evidences' can be misleading, and even discarded as new 'evidences' emerge, sometimes creating an entirely new paradigm, such as Quantum Physics overturning classical Newtonian Physics. As for 'evidences' regarding the origins of the universe, we have at least 10 current theories, none of which are definitive. So how can you tell me that what we detect via telescopes tells us that what we are looking at is 'real', in spite of 'evidences'? What is the difference between your experience of a dream-scape and that of your environment in your waking hours?

WE ARE NOT TALKING about which cosmology model of the universe is real or not.

WE ARE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENCE.

No. What we talking about is, hypothetically-speaking, just how many stars a man, like Abraham, could possibly count the number in the sky?

If he could see and meticulously count the maximum number of stars that were VISIBLE to him, it would be just under 9100 stars.

Abraham would not see any star that were too far away from his vantage point in Canaan.

And what he would see, would not be limitless or countless. The stars that would be visible to him, would be 9096 stars.

You can't ask a man, any man, without even a basic telescope, like the one used by Galileo or Kepler, to count stars that not visible to him.

Abraham would only be able to count the stars that are VISIBLE TO HIM.

That what the verses were asking Abraham.

A person like Abraham wouldn't even bother to count the stars, because I doubt that he would have the patience to do so.

And if Abraham did exist, he would "think" that there would be too many stars to count, therefore he would believe it to be countless, but the fact of the matter, is that what a person can see, unaided, is not as many stars that he was led to believe.

It is not logical for you to claim that Abraham have to count stars NOT VISIBLE TO HIM.

The passages are only logical that god was asking if he could count stars that were visible to him and not the ones not visible to him.

It was only in 1919, that astronomers around the world, would know from Edwin Hubble, that the Milky Way that there are many more galaxies out there.

At that time, the Hooker Observatory had the largest optical telescope in the world, and Hubble saw that the Andromeda was not a nebula as part of the Milky Way, but an even larger spiral galaxy, 2 million light years away, containing billions more stars than the Milky Way.

And my previous reply is correct, what stars were visible to a Bronze Age person is not limitless, countless or infinite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They actually verify my claim that you did say transcendence was a religious practice despite your repeated denials you never said that.

If you recall i stated and provided evidence that it was not only a religious practice but used by several other categories.

Which you denied.

Close, but to clarify, I did not say transcendence is a religious practice, I said religious practice leads to transcendence.

Yes, you did post a link that includes a claim that transcendence can be realized by events other than religious practice, but as I've been showing you, it is irrelevant and as it does not claim that still mind meditation is not a religious practice as you maintain. The only way it would be relevant is if it claimed that transcendence can not be realized by religious practice, which it does not.

 

[Ponder This]

To be clear: the dream itself is not real, because dreams are illusions. What I am saying is that, when you are inside the dream itself, you don't know you are dreaming and it is perfectly real to you. You may dream you are a dragon slayer, for instance, and should someone approach you in the dream and ask you: 'Are you really a dragon slayer?', you would respond in the affirmative: 'Of course! Don't you see?' But when you awaken, should someone ask the same question of you, you might say: 'Of course not! It was just a dream!'.

This is acceptable.

The awareness that causes you to realize the illusory quality of the dream is that firstly, it vanishes, and secondly the environment of the awakened state can be 'verified' as the real version via the five senses. It does NOT vanish. And it can be tested via science.

Is this agreeable to you so far?

This is not acceptable. Magicians make things vanish all the time. It doesn't mean those things don't actually still exist (in other words, those things may still be real).

I don't see how the five senses create a means by which to verify that this 'waking world' is not a dream, nor do I see how science is able to establish that. The reason we use the word 'real' to describe our environment is that we've come to a mutual contextual understanding. We understand that we use the word 'real' to refer to things that actually exist rather than things we imagine or suppose.

Although we may use the five senses and science as tools for establishing certain facts about the relative reality of our waking world for us and for each other, it does not establish that the waking world is not a dream. The reason this isn't an issue for us is that we have the contextual understanding that we are awake rather than sleeping. We distinguish dream events from awake events and this allows us to distinguish real from not real in our conversations about real and not real things.

If we want to talk about the waking world as being yet another dream rather than a reality, then we have to talk about what it means to wake up from this waking dream, but the five senses and science aren't going to help with that because they only tell us about this waking dream. They don't tell us about a reality beyond this reality.