Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Define 'eternal'. I might agree with you, but there are several interpretations.

If 'eternal' means 'for all time', then the universe being eternal is consistent with it having a beginning.

If 'eternal' means 'for an infinite amount of time', it isn't clear that this is the case.

The two are very different concepts, with one word often used for both. That creates confusion.

And I would agree. When do you think it is claimed otherwise? If there is no 'before', then 'before' does not exist as well.

Just like there is no 'north of the north pole', and that means that 'north of the north pole' does not exist. There is nothing there because it doesn't exist.

Whatever *that* means.

Uh huh. Not thinking allows one to see/be the truth. I got ya.

Your conception of an eternal universe is not the same as an eternal universe. Your definition of God as the universe doesn't mean everyone else changes their language to suit your biases.

I'm not blaming the messenger. I am simply pointing out why I think your viewpoint is wrong.

Well, perhaps we disagree about definitions. I don't think the universe has a personality, and I think it an abuse of language to call something 'God' that doesn't have a personality.

That said, of all theisms, I am probably closest to pantheism.

Eternal means existing forever, no beginning, no ending. Only manifested/created things have beginnings and endings. Time is a human concept.

The concept of God as being all that is, is not new, Brahman is God, Brahman is all that is. The universe has consciousness, life, we live, move, and have our being within the eternal universal existence. Every manifested thing is an expression of God. God is the unmanifest and the manifest, when the mind is free from thought, there is no duality, the apparent two are one, that state is called 'enlightenment'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK. So? There is only one universe and we all are one with it. Yawn.

You are an expression of God, but you do not know that as the maya of the manifested part of God, ie., the material, has all your attention. A religious soul seeks union with the source, and if successful, a 'Father and I are one' state is realized.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good. That is the point.

To ask what is 'before the BB' is nonsense.

And I am pointing out that the question is (possibly) nonsense, just like asking what is north of the north pole.

No. I am saying that asking for a reason why it happened is nonsense. There is no 'before the universe' even if the universe had a start.

You seem to be so wedded to the idea of an infinite time that you can't even imagine that time itself might be finite. And, if that is the case, it both started and there is no process by which it started. There is no 'how and why' because asking for such is literally a nonsense question.

Think about it.

I don't buy it, it is not the same as the north of the North Pole nonsense. Reality exists, time is human a mental construct, instead of time let us use the concept of continual existence.

Ok, so let us say something exists, and this something continues to exist, and bar any interference, it may go on existing without end. Now forget about the human mental construct of time for now, if you say this something came into existence, and then continued to exist, it is a fair question to ask, where did it come from? How on earth did this something get to be existing? Time does not come into it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously, you do not understand the underlying unity of all the exists, aka God, science is fine when it does what it is meant to do, understand reality, but if the science is driven by atheism, it will fail.

Sorry, but you do not appear to understand that topic at all either. You seem to make up things in your head and decide to believe them regardless of evidence. If you could properly support your beliefs then I might give you a little more credit. But you seem to think that anyone that does not agree with you has not explore those possibilities. You need to learn how to support your claims properly if you want people to agree with you.

 

[gnostic]

So how and why did the BB occur, according to your knowledge?

According to physicists of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in the latest model of the big bang, the quantum fluctuations may be responsible for the initial expansion (big bang).

But my last reply to you, wasn't just about the expansion, but with your (FALSE) claims that the Big Bang theory proposed "nothingness" prior to the initial expansion (the Big Bang).

For one, there are no pre-BB in the Big Bang models, so that's a false claim too.

For another...

What we do know, again based on Quantum Field Theory, that even though you have what we call, "vacuum", it doesn't mean there are "nothing" in that vacuum:

• If there are "energies" in the vacuum, then the claim (your claim) for "nothingness" is false.
• If there are quantum fields or quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, then they are "something", not "nothing". Again, you have made false claim.

They say "may", which mean, they need more evidence & data, before they can verify it or rule it out. It is ongoing research and testing. That's what scientists supposed to do.

So they don't know, yet.

But you have already made up your mind about the "universal existence" being "eternal", but you have not presented a working model for your claim, to be tested at some future dates.

A claim without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ahem...no...the real is what the concept is meant to represent. 'Dog' is a concept, what is on the other side of the concept? You are seeing reality in a dualistic manner, through conceptualization. If you can learn to stop all thought,, only then will the real be present,

Yeah, now express that without concepts and stop thinking totally, you might have a point.
You are playing philosophy and you are special, because you have solved the problem of "das Ding in sich".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but you do not appear to understand that topic at all either. You seem to make up things in your head and decide to believe them regardless of evidence. If you could properly support your beliefs then I might give you a little more credit. But you seem to think that anyone that does not agree with you has not explore those possibilities. You need to learn how to support your claims properly if you want people to agree with you.

C'mon, you are an atheist, you've made up something up in your head along the lines of there is no 'higher consciousness' in the universe than human consciousness on planet Earth. If you believe that is not correct, name the 'higher consciousness'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to physicists of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in the latest model of the big bang, the quantum fluctuations may be responsible for the initial expansion (big bang).

But my last reply to you, wasn't just about the expansion, but with your (FALSE) claims that the Big Bang theory proposed "nothingness" prior to the initial expansion (the Big Bang).

For one, there are no pre-BB in the Big Bang models, so that's a false claim too.

For another...

What we do know, again based on Quantum Field Theory, that even though you have what we call, "vacuum", it doesn't mean there are "nothing" in that vacuum:

• If there are "energies" in the vacuum, then the claim (your claim) for "nothingness" is false.
• If there are quantum fields or quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, then they are "something", not "nothing". Again, you have made false claim.

They say "may", which mean, they need more evidence & data, before they can verify it or rule it out. It is ongoing research and testing. That's what scientists supposed to do.

So they don't know, yet.

But you have already made up your mind about the "universal existence" being "eternal", but you have not presented a working model for your claim, to be tested at some future dates.

A claim without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I feel you have not understood what it is I am trying to understand, which is where did the universe come from? If you can answer, please do. My position is that there was no beginning to eternal existence, Now if you believe that existence is not eternal and had a beginning, please explain why and how it began. At this point, nothing else is relevant, so please confine yourself to my question,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, now express that without concepts and stop thinking totally, you might have a point.
You are playing philosophy and you are special, because you have solved the problem of "das Ding in sich".

How many times do I repeat this same old explanation to folks, language is made of concepts, but the concepts themselves are not real in the sense that what the concept refers to is real. For example, the concept of 'dog' is meant to represent an actual real dog. Now you are confused that I am using concepts to convey the fact that concepts are not real in the way that what the concept represents is real.

Do you get it?

If not, we go to plan B.

Imagine someone is trying to show you the moon by pointing to it:

The Moon represents reality.

The Finger point at the Moon represent the conceptual teaching to understand that reality the moon represents.

Some people only look at finger, and not the moon.

You need to realize that on the other side of concepts, that which concepts are meant to represent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How many times do I repeat this same old explanation to folks, language is made of concepts, but the concepts themselves are not real in the sense that what the concept refers to is real. For example, the concept of 'dog' is meant to represent an actual real dog. Now you are confused that I am using concepts to convey the fact that concepts are not real in the way that what the concept represents is real.

Do you get it?

If not, we go to plan B.

Imagine someone is trying to show you the moon by pointing to it:

The Moon represents reality.

The Finger point at the Moon represent the conceptual teaching to understand that reality the moon represents.

Some people only look at finger, and not the moon.

Yeah, in philosophy that is called naïve realism.
You have an idea. Only that which you can point to, is real. But you can't point to that.
You are doing a first person cognitive evaluation and then claiming based on that cognitive evaluation, than only that which is independent of cognitive evaluation is real. The problem is the bold one is not real according to itself. You have made a self-referring contradiction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, in philosophy that is called naïve realism.
You have an idea. Only that which you can point to, is real. But you can't point to that.
You are doing a first person cognitive evaluation and then claiming based on that cognitive evaluation, than only that which is independent of cognitive evaluation is real. The problem is the bold one is not real according to itself. You have made a self-referring contradiction.

Philosophy is not religion fyi.

Here is another try.

The true teaching is that there is no true teaching, nevertheless this teaching that there is not true teaching is the true teaching.

 

[Subduction Zone]

C'mon, you are an atheist, you've made up something up in your head along the lines of there is no 'higher consciousness' in the universe than human consciousness on planet Earth. If you believe that is not correct, name the 'higher consciousness'.

You are back to your strawman version of atheism again.

You need to learn how to argue without using logical fallacies. It makes it too easy to refute you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy is not religion fyi.

Here is another try.

The true teaching is that there is no true teaching, nevertheless this teaching that there is not true teaching is the true teaching.

That is not real, because you can't point to it.
The last one can also be found in philosophy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not real, because you can't point to it.
The last one can also be found in philosophy.

It is not possible to convey understanding to another without concepts, and since the true understanding is non-conceptual, any and all conceptual teachings are flawed.

If you want to understand the goal of religious teaching, you must develop a mind that is free from thought, free from concepts, only then will the real be present to the mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not possible to convey understanding to another without concepts, and since the true understanding is non-conceptual, any and all conceptual teachings are flawed.

If you want to understand the goal of religious teaching, you must develop a mind that is free from thought, free from concepts, only then will the real be present to the mind.

Yeah, you are not the authoritative source for that and neither am I. But you act as if you are.

 

[Polymath257]

Eternal means existing forever, no beginning, no ending. Only manifested/created things have beginnings and endings. Time is a human concept.

Time is part of the geometry of the universe.

Forever simply means 'for all time'. If time is finite, so is forever. If time has a beginning and an end, then so does forever.

The concept of God as being all that is, is not new, Brahman is God, Brahman is all that is. The universe has consciousness, life, we live, move, and have our being within the eternal universal existence. Every manifested thing is an expression of God. God is the unmanifest and the manifest, when the mind is free from thought, there is no duality, the apparent two are one, that state is called 'enlightenment'.

OK, OK.....I just don't find this sort of mysticism useful for understanding. I prefer not to turn off my brain when trying to understand things.

Q: What did the Buddha say to the hot dog vendor?

A: Make me one with everything.

Q: How did the hot dog vendor reply when Biddha asked for money back?

A: Change comes from within.

 

[Polymath257]

You are an expression of God, but you do not know that as the maya of the manifested part of God, ie., the material, has all your attention. A religious soul seeks union with the source, and if successful, a 'Father and I are one' state is realized.

Yes, I have played that game. I found it boring and unsatisfying.

I don't buy it, it is not the same as the north of the North Pole nonsense. Reality exists, time is human a mental construct, instead of time let us use the concept of continual existence.

Sorry, but that is how the math works. You don't have to 'buy it'. But you should at least understand it and see how it undermines your position.

Yes, mathematically, it is *precisely* the same as asking what is north of the north pole. If you want me to go through the math, I can.

Ok, so let us say something exists, and this something continues to exist, and bar any interference, it may go on existing without end.

So you are assuming that time is infinite into the future.

Now forget about the human mental construct of time for now, if you say this something came into existence, and then continued to exist, it is a fair question to ask, where did it come from?

You are assuming causality. And time. And that they both apply to the universe as a whole.

How on earth did this something get to be existing? Time does not come into it!

Absolutely time comes into it. You even used time when saying to not do so. When you say 'come into existence', you are using time.

Time is NOT just a mental construct and more than north is. Sure, in a sense, both are. But both are also part of the geometry of their situation.

Once again, you are assuming that every point has a north. More specifically, you are assuming that every point in the universe has a 'later' and and 'earlier'.

If time itself has a beginning and an end (south and north poles), then, no, things don't 'continue to exist'.

 

[Polymath257]

C'mon, you are an atheist, you've made up something up in your head along the lines of there is no 'higher consciousness' in the universe than human consciousness on planet Earth. If you believe that is not correct, name the 'higher consciousness'.

I'm not sure what it even means to have a 'higher consciousness' than another. Some things (like humans) are conscious. Other things (like chairs) are not. I see no evidence that the universe as a whole is conscious.

There may well be beings in the universe that are more aware of many things than we are. For example, we are usually unaware of infrared light. We are usually unaware of neutrinos. We simply don't have the senses to detect those. maybe a being with better senses will be aware of more. Does that make then a 'higher consciousness'? I don't think so.

 

[Polymath257]

I feel you have not understood what it is I am trying to understand, which is where did the universe come from?

And when you stop asking that nonsense question, you will realize there can be no answer.

What is north of the north pole?

If you can answer, please do. My position is that there was no beginning to eternal existence, Now if you believe that existence is not eternal and had a beginning, please explain why and how it began. At this point, nothing else is relevant, so please confine yourself to my question,

My position is that latitude has no beginning or end: you can always go south and always go north. You have to explain how it is possible for there to be a place with no north. At this point, nothing else is relevant.

 

[Polymath257]

Philosophy is not religion fyi.

Here is another try.

The true teaching is that there is no true teaching, nevertheless this teaching that there is not true teaching is the true teaching.

Yep. That's the mysticism I played with when I was 18. I quickly figured out it was just me playing mind games with myself.