The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Ben Dhyan]

""" ultimate nature of reality """
There is no "absolute truth"
Even 'gravity' depends on relative attractions between other entities.
Everything is relative to every other 'existance' in the Cosmos.
We exist in the soup of the 'reality' of the kettle of everything.
Every photon is dependent on every other photon,
thense the kenitic relationship one to every other.
The 'end' of one wave connects to the next and on to another.
That's the Stuff of the reality of the nature of the ultimate existance.
~
Just a thought along those other thoughts.
~
'mud

Hey mud...you seem to be implying that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth....

 

[`mud]

 

[gnostic]

""" ultimate nature of reality """
There is no "absolute truth"
Even 'gravity' depends on relative attractions between other entities.
Everything is relative to every other 'existance' in the Cosmos.
We exist in the soup of the 'reality' of the kettle of everything.
Every photon is dependent on every other photon,
thense the kenitic relationship one to every other.
The 'end' of one wave connects to the next and on to another.
That's the Stuff of the reality of the nature of the ultimate existance.
~
Just a thought along those other thoughts.
~
'mud

Hey mud...you seem to be implying that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth....

Ultimate truth, absolute truth...call it what you want...are just meaningless philosophical concept...concept that some people applied to them, using circular reasoning and logical fallacies.

Like "eternity", there are no substance to absolute truth, just wishful thinking. There are no evidences to support any ultimate truth.

This ultimate truth is nothing more than ultimate delusion. I simply that people to freely, like to apply words to truth, with absolute or ultimate, so that no one would scrutinise what they have nothing to say, because their "truth" are simply childish wishful thinking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ultimate truth, absolute truth...call it what you want...are just meaningless philosophical concept...concept that some people applied to them, using circular reasoning and logical fallacies.

Like "eternity", there are no substance to absolute truth, just wishful thinking. There are no evidences to support any ultimate truth.

This ultimate truth is nothing more than ultimate delusion. I simply that people to freely, like to apply words to truth, with absolute or ultimate, so that no one would scrutinise what they have nothing to say, because their "truth" are simply childish wishful thinking.

You are projecting your finite human awareness onto the infinite....and to boot are implying your position is the ultimate truth by implying there is no absolute truth...

 

[gnostic]

You are projecting your finite human awareness onto the infinite....and to boot are implying your position is the ultimate truth by implying there is no absolute truth...

And you are projecting your la-la land upon reality.

If truth was ultimate or even absolute, then you should be able to provide irrefutable evidences to support your deluded notion that there is something "ultimate" or "absolute".

Instead you provide nothing more than your wishful thinking.

I want something more tangible (evidences) than what you wish for or your twisted logic that you persisted on spewing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you are projecting your la-la land upon reality.

If truth was ultimate or even absolute, then you should be able to provide irrefutable evidences to support your deluded notion that there is something "ultimate" or "absolute".

Instead you provide nothing more than your wishful thinking.

I want something more tangible (evidences) than what you wish for or your twisted logic that you persisted on spewing.

Everything that happens is true....simple as that...no projection there Jimmie..

So please explain to everyone why the words 'absolute' or 'ultimate' actually exists in the English language if it is deluded for someone to use them?

Haha...you want evidence for eternity Jimmie....then be patient....the cosmos will oblige...

 

[gnostic]

Everything that happens is true....simple as that...no projection there Jimmie..

Except that you are projecting.

You are projecting your wishful thinking belief that the universe is eternal.

But the truth is that NO ONE really know anything about the universe. Not the scientists, and not religious people, like yourself. No one.

But you are trying that make it so that as if you what you believe in, to be fact.

Me, I don't know too...and I am not going to presume anything to be fact, unless there are evidences for it.

And no scientists have anything beyond the observable universe.

As to your religion...whatever they may be...you don't know too, but you are projecting your belief, as if you know.

So please explain to everyone why the words 'absolute' or 'ultimate' actually exists in the English language if it is deluded for someone to use them?

You such an a@#.

Just because the words exist in the English language, this "ultimate" or "absolute" truth is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion or belief.

If the truth was the "absolute", then wouldn't it stand to reason that no one would or could disagree on this (very nonexistent) truth. If there were such thing as "ultimate" truth, then EVERYONE would agree on it.

And if your (version of the) truth was "absolute", then there would be no possible way for me to disagree with you.

But the fact is no one can agree on everything, with everyone. And if there are even single disagreement, then you don't have "absolute truth" or "ultimate truth".

But the only way that I can agree with you, if you provided me with a number of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES that I can verify, because that's the only truth that make sense to me.

Do you want to know how I view the world, ben?

The "engineer", the "realist" and the "agnostic" in me, would view life like this:

"No evidences, no truth."

It is that simple. What you have presented me is merely your personal opinion, your needs to play word-game.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I see all kinds of religious people pointing in all kinds of directions at things only they can see.

And atheists point at what only they see; static, eternal, steady state universes - Big Crunch, M theory, String theory, Multiverses...

We all believe in something, not all of us acknowledge our beliefs, faith as such though.

 

[Windwalker]

What exactly do you mean by "ultimate reality"? What do you think it looks like?

I had actually asked you the question first, what you imagine that to mean when you hear someone speak of it. Do you have an answer? I'll happily answer your questions, but I think I find it easy to answer first what it is not. So what is the objection you have when you hear people speak of it? What do you think in your mind that it is suggesting?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except that you are projecting.

You are projecting your wishful thinking belief that the universe is eternal.

But the truth is that NO ONE really know anything about the universe. Not the scientists, and not religious people, like yourself. No one.

But you are trying that make it so that as if you what you believe in, to be fact.

Me, I don't know too...and I am not going to presume anything to be fact, unless there are evidences for it.

And no scientists have anything beyond the observable universe.

As to your religion...whatever they may be...you don't know too, but you are projecting your belief, as if you know.



You such an a@#.

Just because the words exist in the English language, this "ultimate" or "absolute" truth is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion or belief.

If the truth was the "absolute", then wouldn't it stand to reason that no one would or could disagree on this (very nonexistent) truth. If there were such thing as "ultimate" truth, then EVERYONE would agree on it.

And if your (version of the) truth was "absolute", then there would be no possible way for me to disagree with you.

But the fact is no one can agree on everything, with everyone. And if there are even single disagreement, then you don't have "absolute truth" or "ultimate truth".

But the only way that I can agree with you, if you provided me with a number of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES that I can verify, because that's the only truth that make sense to me.

Do you want to know how I view the world, ben?

The "engineer", the "realist" and the "agnostic" in me, would view life like this:



It is that simple. What you have presented me is merely your personal opinion, your needs to play word-game.

Jimmie....if you would just learn to express yourself succinctly...you could help make the world a better place...

Jimmie....you are projecting upon me and others the limitations of apprehension of the universal bigger picture that you are confronted by... but ironically in the process come out claiming ultimate truth.... You claim....."But the truth is that NO ONE really know anything about the universe. Not the scientists, and not religious people, like yourself. No one."

Here you are claiming that you know no one knows anything about the universe when in fact you are simultaneously telling us categorically that you do know something about the universe...viz..that no one knows anything about the universe. Not the scientists, and not religious people, like yourself. No one.... Now how do you know this ultimate truth? I doubt there is anyone else in the universe who would agree with you Jimmie....you can start a religion of one person...the church of No One Knows Nothing....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are projecting your own level of evolutionary development on others....be humble....

I think that is advice you need to apply to yourself. I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims or implying superior knowledge.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I had actually asked you the question first, what you imagine that to mean when you hear someone speak of it. Do you have an answer? I'll happily answer your questions, but I think I find it easy to answer first what it is not. So what is the objection you have when you hear people speak of it? What do you think in your mind that it is suggesting?

No, I think the onus is one you to define the jargon you are using.

If you're claiming that there is an "ultimate reality" then you really need to describe what it looks like, provide a coherent definition and justification. And the same with "unitive consciousness".

I'm not disputing that there can be altered states of consciousness and different ways of knowing, what I'm questioning is the objectification and reification of these states, projecting them out, assuming they must correspond to some ultimate reality "out there".
And is "ultimate reality" supposed to be more real than plain old "reality"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What you have presented me is merely your personal opinion, your needs to play word-game.

There's nothing wrong with personal opinions, beliefs and speculations, the problem arises when these are presented as "facts".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no "absolute truth"

I think words like "absolute" and "ultimate" are entirely unhelpful in discussions like this.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No One Knows Nothing....

Ironically that would be much nearer the truth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims or implying superior knowledge.

Sounds like a reincarnation of outhouse....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ironically that would be much nearer the truth.

My apologies to gnostic....I underestimated his charisma, he has a follower....make that a two man church....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sounds like a reincarnation of outhouse....

I will take that as a compliment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I will take that as a compliment.

That is an unsubstantiated personal rhetoric. Not one of academia or credible...

 

[Windwalker]

No, I think the onus is one you to define the jargon you are using.

It wasn't meant as a "defend yourself" request, but as a point of clarification. I had asked you this before you asked me. I asked because I find what speaking about something in terms of absolutes, to say what it is not is far more productive than to attempt to say what it is. And the reason it is easier is because when you ask what I see it as in positive terms, you take that as me defining it. If it can be defined, then it is never ultimate or absolute. It's an idea at that point.

I can speak in positive language about it, but as I've said all along, it's highly metaphoric, not definitions. This whole business of concretizing language, as I call it ceases to be effective as far as point to something goes. If you've defined that "this is what it is", you're no longer pointing. It's no longer a metaphor.

You may be familiar with Nirguna? His approach was to deconstruct all our ideas of the absolute to the point we are actually opened to simply see it. Clearly you have some idea of what you think I think, and my point was to hear what those thoughts of yours were to say, without doubt I would, "no, that's not how I see it". Point in case, you call it "out there". That's an idea in your mind to begin with. "No, that's not it". Nonetheless, with all my qualifying statements, let's see how you hear my positive statements.

If you're claiming that there is an "ultimate reality" then you really need to describe what it looks like, provide a coherent definition and justification.

It looks exactly like what you are seeing in every moment of every day. It is a matter of perceptual awareness. You see, but don't see. Everyone who does says the same thing. "It was there the whole time". Put another way, it's always, ever, fully what is already. Ultimate reality is this reality. To borrow from the language of the Apostle Paul, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." It's "knowing" what is. It's pulling back the veil to see what is simply obvious. Ultimate reality is the "simply obvious".

(Finger pointing to the moon)

And the same with "unitive consciousness".

Ah, this is good. I've never thought of it like this, but again from the language of Paul, "I shall know even as I am known". That describes it well. Again, metaphors abound here. It is seeing and knowing who and what we are without the eyes of judgement, before and beyond the eyes of differentiation. Seeing and knowing, holding in awareness what is without naming it and judging it on that basis. "I shall know even as I am known", as I am, as you are, as all is, before and beyond boundaries we impose upon it. In such a knowledge, in such an awareness we see and know each beyond the masks we both wear and put on each other and the whole of creation.

Unitive consciousness is seeing through the same eyes. Another quote I think fits this well comes from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart, "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love." That expresses what that is like well. It's not just a unitive consciousness with others, but with the whole of creation in seeing, knowing, and loving. That is unitive consciousness.

(fingers pointing to the moon)

And is "ultimate reality" supposed to be more real than plain old "reality"?

It isn't. However, it is. How one sees or does not see is what makes it "seeing through a glass darkly", or the illusion of separation, the illusion of a linguist reality as reality itself, the illusion of judgments, the illusion of boundaries, versus "knowing even as I am known", or "seeing face to face". Face to face is a great description. Ultimate reality is everything that already is, known and seen within us and all that is. If it is not in our awareness, then we are living in illusion, asleep, seeing through glass darkly. So yes, it's "plain old reality", but it's hardly plain! It's vibrant, living, and full of love. That's ultimate reality. Seeing what is. Not imagining what it might be, speculating, calculating analyzing, investigating, etc. It is Being itself. Ultimate reality is this reality, with the veil pulled back and realizing we are That.