Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

No you have never had one, nor has any mortal self. The mortal 'I' can not be present in a spiritual experience, oneness must prevail in the state of pure awareness.

Yeah, that is your belief. Could you learn to accept that others do it differently?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Stop using subjective evaluations and then demand that we can't do that in reverse. If you want to play really meaningless, that game works in both directions.

Your subjective evaluation of my subjective evaluation is an example of what you are saying I should stop doing!

 

[Polymath257]

But beliefs are not equally limited, the belief that there is no moon is more limited than the belief there is a moon.

But disbelieving in things that are not there (say, a dragon in my garage) is NOT more 'limited' than not believing in them.

It is not a matter of simply believing in more things.

 

[Polymath257]

You think you are making points, but you are gibbering. Do some yoga or some other efficacious religious practice and you will have your evidence. Until then, please stop your gibbering.

And what about those who are not convinced by the evidence of yoga? What, specifically, about yoga is the evidence that demonstrates your point of view?

He makes solid points, you just reject them with no evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, that is your belief. Could you learn to accept that others do it differently?

Sure, there are untold numbers of deluded souls.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, you are astute to not confuse the subjective with the objective, impressive.

Not sure what is so impressive about that.
We have different terms for both for a reason. It's because they are not the same thing.

Btw, do you think it possible to have a subjective experience without an objective manifestation, say like a dream experience?

Obviously

 

[Polymath257]

Just do it, religious practice and more practice, you will eventually have a realization.

Many people have practiced religion and have had realizations that are very different than yours.

So, the end result is that religious realization isn't a good method of discovering truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your subjective evaluation of my subjective evaluation is an example of what you are saying I should stop doing!

No, accept that we all do it including you and stop claiming everybody else do it, but not you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I said it is not obtuse to not understand, I underestimated the extent of obtuseness possible.

Not really interested in further drivel.
But still interested in your answers to @ratiocinator 's questions.

But I guess you lack the courage to address them head on.
I get it though.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Many people have practiced religion and have had realizations that are very different than yours.

So, the end result is that religious realization isn't a good method of discovering truth.

Sure,

Just what one would expect an atheist to say, but hey, freedom of speech.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, there are untold numbers of deluded souls.

Evidence not based on the assumption that you are special, not just to you, but for all humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure,

Just what one would expect an atheist to say, but hey, freedom of speech.

And this is the type of response an atheist would expect from a closed minded theist hellbend on sticking to his dogmatic unevidenced beliefs.
You are clearly doing your outmost best to avoid having to address that point head-on, are you?

 

[Polymath257]

No, there was a cause. It was that there was an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space which caused a spontaneous conversion of energy into matter (as mass-energy equivalence suggests) at the point of primordial singularity, an infinitely hot and dense single point that then, because of the associated energy, inflated and stretched (first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate) over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today. Such random intensifications of the energy which pervades space occur irregularly within infinite space, but certainly rarely result in the conversion to matter. I do not mean to suggest that the fact that there was a cause also suggests agency. This is the fallacy (one of them) which can lead to theism. Rather, the entire reaction was spontaneous, and ultimately the result of randomness.

As far as I am aware, this is NOT the scenario in any scientific description. There are versions of quantum gravity where the universe is produced by, say, colliding branes. There are others where it is produced by the decay of an unstable state of 'nothing' (which is, of course, a state that exists in that description). There are versions where the universe is the result of 'turbulence' in a larger expanding multiverse.

But I was staying within the standard BB model and was clear about that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, accept that we all do it including you and stop claiming everybody else do it, but not you.

Now you are doing it again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you are doing it again.

Yeah, I am deluded, because you say to so. Well, right back at you. Two can play that game.

 

[Zwing]

Your evidence for all these bare assertions is......... missing.

Hahaha…sorry! As usual, I am posting “on the run”, in this case, running out of the house to catch a bus.

As regards the concept within Physics of “space time”, I would note that Physics is merely the branch of mathematics that deals with real objects and their interactions. As with all maths, the postulates of Physics are held to be valid by physicists so long as they are mathematically valid and theoretically congruent. This does not make them true…”actually valid”. As, again, with all maths axia, they may possess at once mathematical validity and actual invalidity. Note that this is evinced by the argument 0.999…=1. We should always remain cognizant of the fact that the postulates of Physics are made for use within the mathematical field of Physics, and may or may not possess validity in the “real world”.
MaAs regards the unreality of time, I think it should be obvious to anybody who has thought about it deeply, but here, this should get you started:

The Unreality of Time - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“Time” is simply the mental construct by which the human mind orders and makes sense of the continual succession of events in the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And this is the type of response an atheist would expect from a closed minded theist hellbend on sticking to his dogmatic unevidenced beliefs.

You're triggered again, try some yoga or some other efficacious religious practice and realize the peace that passeth understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

Every tree is an expression of the forest, but not all trees are aware of the forest, just sayin!

And this also applies, awareness of the forest is only present when the tree self has temporarily ceased to self identify with the tree and united with the forest Self.

Now please, no word salad accusations or demands for objective evidence.

You made several claims (that there is a forest, that there are separate trees, etc). So why would we NOT want evidence that those claims are correct?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But disbelieving in things that are not there (say, a dragon in my garage) is NOT more 'limited' than not believing in them.

It is not a matter of simply believing in more things.

Belief is a conceptualization of something, the conceptualization is not actually that represented by the conceptualization. Get with realization, not conceptualization.

 

[Polymath257]

Hahaha…sorry! As usual, I am posting “on the run”, in this case, running out of the house to catch a bus.

As regards the concept within Physics of “space time”, I would note that Physics is merely the branch of mathematics that deals with real objects and their interactions.

Completely wrong. Physics is a quite separate area than mathematics. You *might* be talking about applied math, but that is a different subject than even theoretical physics.

As with all maths, the postulates of Physics are held to be valid by physicists so long as they are mathematically valid and theoretically congruent.

Not all physics is mathematical, although that is a goal. Experimental physics, for example, actually gets its hands dirty.

This does not make them true…”actually valid”. As, again, with all maths axia, they may possess at once mathematical validity and actual invalidity. Note that this is evinced by the argument 0.999…=1.

??? And how is this invalid? If you understand the definitions of both sides, it is a simple truth.

We should always remain cognizant of the fact that the postulates of Physics are made for use within the mathematical field of Physics, and may or may not possess validity in the “real world”.

Yes, physics produces models. And it then goes and tests them.

MaAs regards the unreality of time, I think it should be obvious to anybody who has thought about it deeply, but here, this should get you started:

The Unreality of Time - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A very influential work, but ultimately a confused one.