Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough.

Okay, let us go deep into philosophy and you can learn that there are 2 fundamentally different methods of how to describe reality.

The objective one and the relational one.
The objective aims to with objective truth to describe reality in rational, objective terms and eliminate subjectivity.
The other one is this one:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

The trick for this one, is to realize that there are several cognitive and non-cognitive measurement acts that humans do and they all have limits.
So I was told to use the first one and then I found the second one and then I learned to compare them and learned that they both have limits.

What then happens, is that when you in effect use the first one, I just find the limit and points it out. If you then point out that my method also have limits, I admit that and move on.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If it is obvious then why on Earth can't you support that claim at all? When I say that it is obvious that there never was a global flood I can show why it is obvious. Over and over and over again. There should be a surfeit of evidence and logic for anything that is obvious and all that you have is "look around". That is the sort of argument presented by someone that has only fooled himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@RestlessSoul , you only quoted me. Do you have a question?

 

[RestlessSoul]

@RestlessSoul , you only quoted me. Do you have a question?

If I did I must have thought better of it. And now I can't remember what it was.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL! Sorry, that does not work since, unlike you, I do support my claims.

Your comebacks are so lame, they earn you shame, not fame.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, let us go deep into philosophy and you can learn that there are 2 fundamentally different methods of how to describe reality.

The objective one and the relational one.
The objective aims to with objective truth to describe reality in rational, objective terms and eliminate subjectivity.
The other one is this one:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

The trick for this one, is to realize that there are several cognitive and non-cognitive measurement acts that humans do and they all have limits.
So I was told to use the first one and then I found the second one and then I learned to compare them and learned that they both have limits.

What then happens, is that when you in effect use the first one, I just find the limit and points it out. If you then point out that my method also have limits, I admit that and move on.

Interesting. I am not consciously aware of method in that context when describing reality, but I am acutely aware in terms of dualistic and non-dualistic ways of describing reality. The irony is that while describing reality in objective terms, dualistic conceptualization works fine, but in trying to describe the non-dual nature of reality, one still has to use dualistic conceptualization for the reason that non-duality realization is non-conceptual,

Sadly, religion has mainly lost their way and treats the transcendent non-dual reality as objective, which it is not, and can never be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting. I am not consciously aware of method in that context when describing reality, but I am acutely aware in terms of dualistic and non-dualistic ways of describing reality. The irony is that while describing reality in objective terms, dualistic conceptualization works fine, but in trying to describe the non-dual nature of reality, one still has to use dualistic conceptualization for the reason that non-duality realization is non-conceptual,

Sadly, religion has mainly lost their way and treats the transcendent non-dual reality as objective, which it is not, and can never be.

Well, the 2nd one as measurement acts is that there is no reality in practice without a description of reality. And in effect it is not dualistic nor non-dualistic. It is a triad of I know something, which accepts all 3 as parts that can't be reduced further down. In other worlds it is a relationship in 3 parts.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's not what I mean about the "religious-free".

I am saying Natural Sciences - not the internet forums - should be religion-free, as in "religious-neutral".

I think "religious-neutral" is better word in what I was trying to convey what I mean, in my previous reply.

Many religious people understand and accept that, because every scientific models needs to be falsifiable, and theistic religions aren't falsifiable, because you cannot test any deity or deities.

Being falsifiable mean being testable, to be able to refute with evidence. But there are no evidence of ANY deity, so you cannot test something that most likely don't exist.

As religion isn't science, and science isn't religion, religions have no place in science. And I am not just talking about creationism, I am talking about every religions.

There are many religious people here who are scientists too, and they accept the requirements for models to be "scientific":

• Falsifiability
• Scientific Method
• Peer Review

...requirements that no religions follow.

And you don't have to be atheist or agnostic to think that Natural Sciences should be religion-neutral. There are many religious people here who also agree with science needing to be religious-neutral: @metis, @Dan From Smithville, @Terrywoodenpic, @shunyadragon , @sojourner, @Levite, @Poisonshady313, etc

As a scientist and believer in the Baha'i Faith 'religious neutral' is the best way to state it simply. Science can investigate the physical attributes of God's Creation, but cannot falsify the subjective natural any religious beliefs. The constantly evolving and changing knowledge science is at present the only valid knowledge to understand our physical existence.

As per the topic of the thread. the title of the thread concerning the origins of out universe the 'Big Bang' is not a good term. because there was never a 'Big Bang.'

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, the 2nd one as measurement acts is that there is no reality in practice without a description of reality. And in effect it is not dualistic nor non-dualistic. It is a triad of I know something, which accepts all 3 as parts that can't be reduced further down. In other worlds it is a relationship in 3 parts.

Sure, there are levels of awareness, and the degrees in which conceptualization plays a role, here is little piece from the Taoist tradition that is meant to be a snapshot of a very complex array of awareness that is at its heart, the still mind, oneness.

As an exercise in understanding, allocate the following states of consciousness to the four characters,....Still Mind (Atma/Divine), Transitional Quiet Mind (Buddhi/Wisdom), Intuitional Mind (Higher Manas), and Thinking/Rational Mind (Lower Manas).

Kih Pei Yû, or 'Knowledge Rambling in the North.'

Knowledge had rambled northwards to the region of the Dark Water, where he ascended the height of Imperceptible Slope, when it happened that he met with Dumb Inaction. Knowledge addressed him, saying, 'I wish to ask you some questions:-- By what process of thought and anxious consideration do we get to know the Tâo? Where should we dwell and what should we do to find our rest in the Tâo? From what point should we start and what path should we pursue to make the Tâo our own?' He asked these three questions, but Dumb Inaction gave him no reply. Not only did he not answer, but he did not know how to answer.

Knowledge, disappointed by the fruitlessness of his questioning, returned to the south of the Bright Water, and ascended the height of the End of Doubt, where he saw Heedless Blurter, to whom he put the same questions, and who replied, 'Ah! I know, and will tell you.' But while he was about to speak, he forgot what he wanted to say.

Knowledge, again receiving no answer to his questions, returned to the palace of the the Yellow emperor, where he saw Hwang-Tî (Yellow emperor), and put the questions to him. Hwang-Tî said, 'To exercise no thought and no anxious consideration is the first step towards knowing the Tâo; to dwell nowhere and do nothing is the first step towards resting in the Tâo; to start from nowhere and pursue no path is the first step towards being one with the Tâo.'

Knowledge then proudly addressed Hwang-Tî, saying, 'I and you know this, but those two did not know it; which of us is right?' Hwang-Tî replied, 'Dumb Inaction is truly right, Heedless Blurter has an appearance of being so, but you and I are nowhere near to being so". As it is said, "Those who know do not speak of it, those who speak of it do not know it", and "Hence the sage conveys his instructions without the use of speech."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your comebacks are so lame, they earn you shame, not fame.

It was not a comeback. It was a fact. Have you forgotten already how badly you failed when it came to redshift? Or for that matter with what Polymath claimed. Facepalms should not be used by science deniers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it means that it is obvious. Seek and you will find, but if you're an atheist, you will not seek and thus you will not find.

Not a problem though. Peace and take care.

Most people seek and find what is comfortable with their desire for a sense of belong and identity and not an unbiased search for something that cannot be found. I believe in a ;Source; some call God(s), but realize any understanding of the possible 'Source' needs a greater sense of Universalism that goes beyond the beliefs of any one ancient tribal religion. The understanding of the nature and origins of our universe cannot be explained by ancient tribal religious beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I guess I just don't understand dualistic/non-dualism.

I'm with you on that one. I've never seen a clear description anywhere from anybody using that language of what they are referring to, so I've tentatively concluded that it's an effort to eliminate the self from thought. The theater of the mind is experienced as a self experiencing the various objects of consciousness - the sensations, memories, desires, etc. - as they come and go, the constant always being the self, or subject. Basic consciousness imposes a sense of self and other (non-self). So, I see all of this as an effort to make these two one and eliminate the self-other aspect of consciousness, but I don't see how that can be done or what the benefit would be.

Here's an interesting metaphor: When a star of a certain size burns up the last of its fuel, it collapses into a neutron star, which can be thought of as the orbiting, negatively charged electrons of its constituent atoms being forced into the positively charged protons in their nuclei to form uncharged neutrons. That reminds me of the geometry of consciousness, where the self is the proton and the electron plays the part of the other out there, becoming one. There goes your self-other, in here-out there duality, and I suspect with it subjective-objective duality.

But once again, so what? I don't see benefit in that type of thinking. Maybe its proponents are looking for some kind of sense of oneness with nature, which is often called by any number of names. We can do this without losing ourselves, and in my opinion, shouldn't try to quench the ego or self. The spiritual state is a mindful state, one in which we feel a pleasant sense of belonging or inclusion, but it's still a state of self-awareness.

So, once again, like you, I don't know what people referring to these things are actually doing or why. I suspect that there is a calming or soothing experience thinking like this, and if so, it's the same spiritual intuition as I just described characterized by a sense of belonging in the world, the opposite of the anti-spiritual experience of alienation. If so, others are doing something similar, but framing it differently as I have.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a scientist and believer in the Baha'i Faith 'religious neutral' is the best way to state it simply. Science can investigate the physical attributes of God's Creation, but cannot falsify the subjective natural any religious beliefs. The constantly evolving and changing knowledge science is at present the only valid knowledge to understand our physical existence.

As per the topic of the thread. the title of the thread concerning the origins of out universe the 'Big Bang' is not a good term. because there was never a 'Big Bang.'

The problem of our physical existence is that all of that can't be done objectively and thus for the everyday world even for the physical science has a limit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, there are levels of awareness, and the degrees in which conceptualization plays a role, here is little piece from the Taoist tradition that is meant to be a snapshot of a very complex array of awareness that is at its heart, the still mind, oneness.

As an exercise in understanding, allocate the following states of consciousness to the four characters,....Still Mind (Atma/Divine), Transitional Quiet Mind (Buddhi/Wisdom), Intuitional Mind (Higher Manas), and Thinking/Rational Mind (Lower Manas).

Kih Pei Yû, or 'Knowledge Rambling in the North.'

Knowledge had rambled northwards to the region of the Dark Water, where he ascended the height of Imperceptible Slope, when it happened that he met with Dumb Inaction. Knowledge addressed him, saying, 'I wish to ask you some questions:-- By what process of thought and anxious consideration do we get to know the Tâo? Where should we dwell and what should we do to find our rest in the Tâo? From what point should we start and what path should we pursue to make the Tâo our own?' He asked these three questions, but Dumb Inaction gave him no reply. Not only did he not answer, but he did not know how to answer.

Knowledge, disappointed by the fruitlessness of his questioning, returned to the south of the Bright Water, and ascended the height of the End of Doubt, where he saw Heedless Blurter, to whom he put the same questions, and who replied, 'Ah! I know, and will tell you.' But while he was about to speak, he forgot what he wanted to say.

Knowledge, again receiving no answer to his questions, returned to the palace of the the Yellow emperor, where he saw Hwang-Tî (Yellow emperor), and put the questions to him. Hwang-Tî said, 'To exercise no thought and no anxious consideration is the first step towards knowing the Tâo; to dwell nowhere and do nothing is the first step towards resting in the Tâo; to start from nowhere and pursue no path is the first step towards being one with the Tâo.'

Knowledge then proudly addressed Hwang-Tî, saying, 'I and you know this, but those two did not know it; which of us is right?' Hwang-Tî replied, 'Dumb Inaction is truly right, Heedless Blurter has an appearance of being so, but you and I are nowhere near to being so". As it is said, "Those who know do not speak of it, those who speak of it do not know it", and "Hence the sage conveys his instructions without the use of speech."

Yeah, I know nothing and I don't even know that.
You are one of tradition. I am of another and your oneness is different to my version. So you are wise and I am unwise, yet we are both here.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem of our physical existence is that all of that can't be done objectively and thus for the everyday world even for the physical science has a limit.

It has not been determined that anything in our physical existence cannot be fasified by Methodological Naturalism.

What are you referring to. It sounds like your presenting a vague ]arguing from ignorance' concerning what is not determined in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your comebacks are so lame, they earn you shame, not fame.

Not a good response to the issues of science involved in this thread. Please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has not been determined that anything in our physical existence cannot be fasified by Methodological Naturalism.

What are you referring to. It sounds like your presenting a vague ]arguing from ignorance' concerning what is not determined in science.

So if I say that everything is not objective, that is physical, objective and wrong and you can show all those 3 with science.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if I say that everything is not objective, that is physical, objective and wrong and you can show all those 3 with science.

Your response does not fit the very standard of objective and subjective. Based on the reasonable definitions of 'objective and subjective' in the real world of objective versus subjective where computers work and airplanes fly, Methodological Naturalism and science work.

'So I say, . . . is not a meaningful response. Anyone can assert anything as , 'So I say . . . ' without meaning.

"So if I say that everything is not objective, that is physical, objective and wrong and you can show all those 3 with science."

What are you referring to. It sounds like your presenting a vague 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what is falsified in science.

Is your response from your religious perspective of Taoism?

{;ease clarify in a meaningful way.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, I know nothing and I don't even know that.
You are one of tradition. I am of another and your oneness is different to my version. So you are wise and I am unwise, yet we are both here.

Huh?!?!?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting. I am not consciously aware of method in that context when describing reality, but I am acutely aware in terms of dualistic and non-dualistic ways of describing reality. The irony is that while describing reality in objective terms, dualistic conceptualization works fine, but in trying to describe the non-dual nature of reality, one still has to use dualistic conceptualization for the reason that non-duality realization is non-conceptual,

Sadly, religion has mainly lost their way and treats the transcendent non-dual reality as objective, which it is not, and can never be.

Religion? Does this include your religion? Actually all the conflicting diverse religions claim the other religions 'have lost their way!

Oh! . . . and some claim what they believe is not a religion and what everyone else believes is religion.