Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

You really have a tendency to misunderstand what other people write.

You really have a tendency to intentionally distort the truth of what other people write. Be a man and cop on the chin when you are caught doing it, you will at least gain some respect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

The problem is that your meaningful is also subjective as meaningful has no objective referent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really have a tendency to intentionally distort the truth of what other people write. Be a man and cop on the chin when you are caught doing it, you will at least gain some respect.

No, and that is what you constantly do .

How many times did Polymath tell you that the universe did not come from nothing? That has always been your strawman and it was never anyone else's claim. Have you not noted that others have also pointed out that Polymath did not say what you claim that he said. I do not know if there is any way for you to correct this poor behavior of yours. And once again, this is why you are no longer able to demand evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh?!?!?!?!

It is the absurdity in Tao or strong skepticism. Those are different philosophical traditions than yours.
Now if you in the strong sense of meaningful can do that objectively, go ahead. But no one so far in recorded history has been able to do that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, and that is what you constantly do .

How many times did Polymath tell you that the universe did not come from nothing? That has always been your strawman and it was never anyone else's claim. Have you not noted that others have also pointed out that Polymath did not say what you claim that he said. I do not know if there is any way for you to correct this poor behavior of yours. And once again, this is why you are no longer able to demand evidence.

Here we go again, forget Polymath, we can debate this between you and me, once and for all.

1 When this BB universe did not exist, was there no existence or existence?

2 When this BB universe began until now, is there no existence or existence?

If you obfuscate in any way, you will be exposed for what you are!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go again, forget Polymath, we can debate this between you and me, once and for all.

1 When this BB universe did not exist, was there no existence or existence?

2 When this BB universe began, was there no existence or existence?

If you obfuscate in any way, you will be exposed for what you are!

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept your position and I do not expect you to understand the non conceptual way of apprehending reality. However due to experience with both conceptual (dual) and non-conceptual (non-dual), one can see the limitations of contemporary human science. Science itself admits that it can not experiment with 95% of the 'stuff' that constitutes the universe, so their contemporary models pertaining to the bigger picture of the universe, are naturally going to be relatively primitive.

Yes, science like all aspects of human evolution unfolds as it does, one step at a time (btw, so does accepted religious beliefs). Since this is a thread on religion and science, it is a good opportunity to see the mix.

All of those are first person subjective.
As long as you treat your first person understanding as in effect not that, we won't get anywhere.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

Attempted obfuscation, lack of integrity exposed, which I predicted btw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Attempted obfuscation, lack of integrity exposed, which I predicted btw.

No, that was an attempt to get you to see your error. You do not appear to understand the terms that you use.

Or perhaps you do not understand what a false dichotomy is. You already demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Who knows just how much that you do not know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Attempted obfuscation, lack of integrity exposed, which I predicted btw.

You really like your first person feelings and thinking, don't you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All of those are first person subjective.
As long as you treat your first person understanding as in effect not that, we won't get anywhere.

You are not paying attention, I never use I when referring to the experience of non-duality, for the personal self does not arise if there is no thinker. However, as with dreams, there is memory which the thinker can remember after the fact. The non-conceptual experience is not and can not be experienced by the personal I.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that was an attempt to get you to see your error. You do not appear to understand the terms that you use.

Or perhaps you do not understand what a false dichotomy is. You already demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Who knows just how much that you do not know?

I take that as a refusal to answer the simple questions that can resolve the issue of preBB no existence and post BB existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are not paying attention, I never use I when referring to the experience of non-duality, for the personal self does not arise if there is no thinker. However, as with dreams, there is memory which the thinker can remember after the fact. The non-conceptual experience is not and can not be experienced by the personal I.

Yeah, then you can't talk about it, because you are right now using a personal I.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take that as a refusal to answer the simple questions that can resolve the issue of preBB no existence and post BB existence.

Your questions were poorly formed. You used a false dichotomy. You should have understood that from my post.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You really like your first person feelings and thinking, don't you?

As long as one is trying to convey anything, there is no choice but to think, but if one has a good functioning intuitive faculty, the thinking part is mainly to do with language.
Do you like your first person feelings and thinking?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your questions were poorly formed. You used a false dichotomy. You should have understood that from my post.

Then you are running away as usual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As long as one is trying to convey anything, there is no choice but to think, but if one has a good functioning intuitive faculty, the thinking part is mainly to do with language.
Do you like your first person feelings and thinking?

Like no, dislike no. That is what there is. You are trying to do an end run around "I know something" and then you claim you can do that as not you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are running away as usual.

No, I gave you the answer twice. It was beyond your understanding. And I do not care to try to explain it to someone that appears to be thinking at a 5th grade level or even earlier. Just a reminder, you do not get to make demands. That is your fault. So even if I do not answer that is not "running away". All you need to do is to try to change.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, then you can't talk about it, because you are right now using a personal I.

I beg your pardon, do I have to once again explain that the conceptual reality (duality) is the way humans communicate, non-conceptual reality (non-duality) is pure realization. Non-duality can not be conveyed conceptually.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like no, dislike no. That is what there is. You are trying to do an end run around "I know something" and then you claim you can do that as not you.

It is not the ego=self present in non-duality, there is spiritual awareness present.