What came before the Big Bang?

[outhouse]

Sorry, but God does not fit into your nice, neat little firmly packed model of Reason, Logic, and Analysis as you think IT should.

because it lives in human imagination, like it does in yours.


Mythology of ancient men is easily tracked and recorded, there is no mystery here, other then how people can hold primitive beliefs so long. And when we look at human history, there is no surprise.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sorry, but God does not fit into your nice, neat little firmly packed model of Reason, Logic, and Analysis as you think IT should.

God does not fit which is exactly the point, why on earth do you think I am an atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why must that be so?

Because that's what our experience shows us.

The term consciousness has that definition.

Perhaps you just need to find another term with another definition to better fit the concept you're talking about. Consciousness means "a state of being aware."

You can only "be aware" if you process input and thoughts. Being aware is to be aware of ones place in time and space and what is going on around one's being. The eternal "awareness" you're talking about is the state of non-awareness. You can't be aware of being eternal. Just like you can see yourself in a spot somewhere in an infinite space and at the same time being that same infinite space. You're either or. To be aware is to be that spot. It's in the unawareness you can find the eternal and infinite.

The problems I have with the First Cause argument for God also applies to "Spirit First" (Thief) or "Consciousness First" (you). There is no first. It's all folded in an eternal and infinite process where all things meld together. In their separations, things come into existence, but together, they're everything and nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

because it lives in human imagination, like it does in yours.


Mythology of ancient men is easily tracked and recorded, there is no mystery here, other then how people can hold primitive beliefs so long. And when we look at human history, there is no surprise.

Originally posted by Philotech:
God does not fit which is exactly the point, why on earth do you think I am an atheist.

Both of you are referring to the God of the imagination, of projection of the ego, and I agree that these notions of God are illusory. So when I use the word 'God', I am not referring to these popular religious images. I am referring to an experience beyond the mind, beyond the senses, beyond any thought or belief about what God is. So, no. I am not referring to 'the gaseous vertebrate' floating in the heavens with a white beard and flowing sheet.

You are an atheist because you are responding to a polarized view of Reality, making yours also a polarized view. Both are black and white views.

 

[godnotgod]

Because that's what our experience shows us.

But universal consciousness is impersonal by definition. It is not the experience of a finite self.

 

[Ouroboros]

But universal consciousness is impersonal by definition. It is not the experience of a finite self.

Universal consciousness means that it's still temporal and spatial. Being conscious is to be finite in some sense. You can't sense being in something and at a certain time without space and time actually existing. Consciousness is to be aware. To be aware is to sense and interpret input, which is both temporal and spatial.

I suspect you're looking for another word than "consciousness." The word, and it's definition, does not fit for what you want to refer to.

 

[godnotgod]

Universal consciousness means that it's still temporal and spatial. Being conscious is to be finite in some sense. You can't sense being in something and at a certain time without space and time actually existing. Consciousness is to be aware. To be aware is to sense and interpret input, which is both temporal and spatial.

To know that something is temporal and spatial, you must also know the intemporal and non-spatial. How do you determine that without consciousness in both cases?

 

[outhouse]

I am referring to an experience beyond the mind, beyond the senses, beyond any thought or belief about what God is.

You mean imagination.


What your describing is something that does not exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

To know that something is temporal and spatial, you must also know the intemporal and non-spatial. How do you determine that without consciousness in both cases?

To be conscious is to be within temporal and spatial restrictions. I'm totally convinced about this. Nothing has ever given me any indication that it's not so.

 

[godnotgod]

You mean imagination.


What your describing is something that does not exist.

I said that it is an experience beyond the mind, beyond thought. Imagination is in the mind; it requires thought. So no, it is not imagination.

Try again.

 

[godnotgod]

To be conscious is to be within temporal and spatial restrictions. I'm totally convinced about this. Nothing has ever given me any indication that it's not so.

OK. Let's look at that. Temporal and spatial consciousness is what we call 'self' or 'I', or what I am referring to as an agent of consciousness. Is that correct?

 

[Thief]

OK. Let's look at that. Temporal and spatial consciousness is what we call 'self' or 'I', or what I am referring to as an agent of consciousness. Is that correct?

Not if it leads to further denial.

 

[godnotgod]

Not if it leads to further denial.

You're confusing denial with negation.

 

[JM2C]

You could actualy use a search engine and learn about this before posting.

A simple I don't know is good enough for me.
search engine? you gonna wiki your argument all the time, Huh.

 

[Ouroboros]

OK. Let's look at that. Temporal and spatial consciousness is what we call 'self' or 'I', or what I am referring to as an agent of consciousness. Is that correct?

To be an "agent" is to exist as well, temporally and spatially in some kind of world even if it's not this one.

 

[Thief]

You're confusing denial with negation.

'I' am not confused.
'You' are just trying to get the last word of a lengthy thread.

That's ego for 'ya'!

 

[godnotgod]

To be an "agent" is to exist as well, temporally and spatially in some kind of world even if it's not this one.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that, for you to identify the finite agent of consciousness you refer to as being in space and time, such entity must be seen against some sort of background to provide the necessary contrast. What is that background?

Other world? What 'other world'?

 

[godnotgod]

'I' am not confused.
'You' are just trying to get the last word of a lengthy thread.

That's ego for 'ya'!

That you think that is ego.

All I want is for you to show me this so called "I" you claim exists. So far, after many posts, you have failed, and can only try to put it on me. There is no such claim being made on this end of the conversation, so there is no "I" here whose existence I need to demonstrate.

Denial says that what actually exists does not.
Negation is to demonstrate the illusory nature of something.

At least, these are my working definitions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that, for you to identify the finite agent of consciousness you refer to as being in space and time, such entity must be seen against some sort of background to provide the necessary contrast. What is that background?

Other world? What 'other world'?

I prefer the 'background' over consciousness.

I've used the term 'substrate' myself. The fabric of existence. It's not consciousness specifically. It's neither here nor there. What it actually is, we might never know or understand. It just is. To give it a name is to reduce it to a thing itself inside the framework instead of being the actual framework. It's like Plato suggested, you know the sun is there, and you can see all the signs of the sun, but you can't really look straight at it (unless you want to ruin your eyes).

 

[godnotgod]

I prefer the 'background' over consciousness.

I've used the term 'substrate' myself. The fabric of existence. It's not consciousness specifically. It's neither here nor there. What it actually is, we might never know or understand. It just is. To give it a name is to reduce it to a thing itself inside the framework instead of being the actual framework. It's like Plato suggested, you know the sun is there, and you can see all the signs of the sun, but you can't really look straight at it (unless you want to ruin your eyes).

OK. Can we say that it is necessary for this phenomenal world as we know it, including any finite agents of consciousness?