Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

My understanding is that the universe at the macro level has omnipresent awareness, all that is happening in the universe in the micro quantum level is a due process maintaining integrity of the macro oneness. So where human science on planet Earth is at in their present state of evolution, is trying to understand the 'trees' of the forrest, the forrest remains outside their research and it is religion that persues understanding of the 'forrest'.

OK, but how does that relate to wha we have been discussing? What doesn't make sense about what I wrote above?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And only a crank believes a theory discarded because it doesn't fit the evidence. It is on par with a flat earth or a geocentric view.

The cranks are aware of a tree, the wise are aware of the whole forrest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is that the universe at the macro level has omnipresent awareness, all that is happening in the universe in the micro quantum level is a due process maintaining integrity of the macro oneness. So where human science on planet Earth is at in their present state of evolution, is trying to understand the 'trees' of the forrest, the forrest remains outside their research and it is religion that persues understanding of the 'forrest'.

Where did you get that "understanding" from? It appears to be a mere belief and a rather irrational one at that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but your mysticism has nothing to do with the science of cosmology.

It does in the sense that the mystic is aware of the forrest of trees, whereas human science is only aware of a tree, and not the forrest.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@Ben Dhyan

I know that you don’t accept the Big Bang theory.

You are not a qualified astronomer, astrophysicist or cosmologist, so you are only expressing your opinions or beliefs, on the subject, because of your own personal belief and whatever religion you follow...which as it should be - everyone are entitled to believe & follow whatever religions they want.

But the Big Bang theory as well as the other theoretical cosmologies are not religions.

What I do know is that you follow your religion where you would accept only eternal universe.

My questions are these:

If you already believe in eternal universe, why would saddle some of theoretical cosmological models?​

​

Do your belief really need to align with models, when you don’t need to?​

​

Aren’t you satisfied with your religion?​

First, I noticed that you seemed to spend time with the Multiverse model. But now it would seem to wasting your time on already-twice-debunked Steady-State models. Why the switch?

Keeping with the analogy of the forest, I am aware of both the forest and the trees, science is of the tree only and thus I take an interest in where human science and their 'tree' models are at in their understanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The singularity within a greater Quantum matrix.

I agree, a tree grows in the forest.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not likely that uniform. Uniformity in my view is that the underlying Laws of Nature uniformly apply to all of our physical existence.

Fine, agree.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, the BBT has problems, but at present in variations it offers the best explanations. The steady state theories have the greatest problems, and explains less of the observational evidence. I consider the underlying Quantum Matrix concept having steady state and uniformity properties, but also dynamic in the formation of universes.

Fair enough.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, but how does that relate to wha we have been discussing? What doesn't make sense about what I wrote above?

Time is only relevant to relative primitive sentience such as that which is associated with human science, macro awareness involves a timeless state, things like the speed of light, etc., are not relevant to the higher mind, except as an integral of the process of cosmic awareness.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where did you get that "understanding" from? It appears to be a mere belief and a rather irrational one at that.

It may well seem that way if you base your belief on conceptual models of reality. But reality is not a model, it is not conceptual, it has to be realized by a mind free from conceptualization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may well seem that way if you base your belief on conceptual models of reality. But reality is not a model, it is not conceptual, it has to be realized by a mind free from conceptualization.

Ah yes, word salad. The fall back argument on deniers of reality. How ironic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ah yes, word salad. The fall back argument on deniers of reality. How ironic.

When SZ doesn't understand, it's always a 'word salad' and 'denier' that is to blame. So given the regularity of your use the term 'word salad', it shows how often you can't understand what is being said to you. Perhaps the "last one to post is the winner' thread is a more appropriate place for you to make comments, I bet you hang out there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When SZ doesn't understand, it's always a 'word salad' and 'denier' that is to blame. So given the regularity of your use the term 'word salad', it shows how often you can't understand what is being said to you. Perhaps the "last one to post is the winner' thread is a more appropriate place for you to make comments, I bet you hang out there.

No, I understand that you cannot make a rational argument. Why not try to do that for once. Or learn how to properly support your claims. There does not appear to be any support for your personal beliefs. I do not know of anyone else that shares those.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I understand that you cannot make a rational argument. Why not try to do that for once. Or learn how to properly support your claims. There does not appear to be any support for your personal beliefs. I do not know of anyone else that shares those.

Now that is a veritable word salad, don't try and deny it. It is not rational, try to be rational for once. There does not seem to be any support among theists for your personal atheist beliefs, at least I do not know of any.

 

[gnostic]

Keeping with the analogy of the forest, I am aware of both the forest and the trees, science is of the tree only and thus I take an interest in where human science and their 'tree' models are at in their understanding.

I know the tree-forest metaphor for being too focused on detail and not seeing the big picture.

But you are dodging my questions to clarify your claims that life were brought here by the "seeds from space" that you brought up.

You are being evasive whenever anyone bring up, to explain yourself.

Also my other questions were as to why you want to mix your personal belief in your religion with some theoretical cosmologies?

You are also model-hopping, jumping from advocating for the Multiverse to already-twice-debunked Steady-State model. Why the switch from two completely different cosmologies?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know the tree-forest metaphor for being too focused on detail and not seeing the big picture.

But you are dodging my questions to clarify your claims that life were brought here by the "seeds from space" that you brought up.

You are being evasive whenever anyone bring up, to explain yourself.

Also my other questions were as to why you want to mix your personal belief in your religion with some theoretical cosmologies?

You are also model-hopping, jumping from advocating for the Multiverse to already-twice-debunked Steady-State model. Why the switch from two completely different cosmologies?

Being aware of different 'tree' models is not model hopping, all models have some truth in them, some more than others, but no single model has all the truth. Reality is always on the other side of the conceptualization of it, remember that, so all models have their limits.

I have no idea what you mean wrt "seeds from space" that I brought up. can you explain?

Wrt mixing religion and theoretical cosmologies, that is the forest and tree analogy. The student of the forest is naturally interested in the trees that constitutes it, but the student of the tree excludes the forest, hence the saying, gnostic can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that is a veritable word salad, don't try and deny it. It is not rational, try to be rational for once. There does not seem to be any support among theists for your personal atheist beliefs, at least I do not know of any.

How is that word salad?

You have not properly supported your claims. When you have tired and failed you refused to acknowledge it. And why would I go to theists to support my lack of belief. If others cannot make a valid argument a lack of belief is the correct path to take.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How is that word salad?

You have not properly supported your claims. When you have tired and failed you refused to acknowledge it. And why would I go to theists to support my lack of belief. If others cannot make a valid argument a lack of belief is the correct path to take.

See, you are a denier as well.

I am just speaking from my understanding, if you do not understand my understanding, it is because your narrow atheist belief prevents you from seeing reality as it is. Your conceptualization of an unconscious universe is an atheist belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, you are a denier as well.

I am just speaking from my understanding, if you do not understand my understanding, it is because your narrow atheist belief prevents you from seeing reality as it is. Your conceptualization of an unconscious universe is an atheist belief.

The problem lies in the words that you use. There would have been nothing wrong if you had said "my beliefs" but when you claim to understand something you put a burden of proof upon yourself. You would need to show that you actually understand what you claimed. It is rather clear from your posts that you have no real understanding, you have only a belief.

And you should not be ashamed of your beliefs, but you should also not try to make them something that they are not. When one does that it looks as if the person is actually ashamed of his beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem lies in the words that you use. There would have been nothing wrong if you had said "my beliefs" but when you claim to understand something you put a burden of proof upon yourself. You would need to show that you actually understand what you claimed. It is rather clear from your posts that you have no real understanding, you have only a belief.

And you should not be ashamed of your beliefs, but you should also not try to make them something that they are not. When one does that it looks as if the person is actually ashamed of his beliefs.

Now SZ, this is not the "last one to post is the winner" thread, you don't have to always have the last word. Your beliefs are pretty narrow, even you would admit to that, so a lot of what other people say goes either over your head or goes outside your belief, and you are triggered to respond. Let it rest, there you may find peace that passes understanding, God bless you SZ.
(PS. I bet he posts again )