What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Keep banging your head.
And you keep asking the wrong question....where?
It's not where......it's whom?

'I' think 'you' are on the edge of your life and not aware the pending fall.

Next scene.....descent into the bottomless pit.

...which is nowhere else but in your terrified mind.

So then, 'whom' is this "I" you persistently claim exists, and for which so far have not come forth with a single shred of evidence.

(The banging head guy = you in Checkmate!)

 

[godnotgod]

IT'S FOR REAL!
Your typical black hole (the outer space kind) has no bottom.
so to speak.

The terrified mind, like yours, has no bottom.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Motion is real enough. Time is only a cognitive device....in your head.

Time does not exist. I do.

Twenty or so pages of rumination on time and motion and reality and ego have run without success in even defining these concepts. I suspect that's why physicists don't bother to define them. Instead, they assume that time, whatever it is, can be measured quantitatively, and give protocols for doing so in the laboratory, calling the result a clock. They don't define ego either, but they do assume point of view in the observer concept. Motion involves position, again undefined but measured with rulers. Each observer has a clock and a ruler. Different observers, moving relative to one another, get different measurements of the same observable events when they use their clocks and rulers.

The Big Bang is a mathematical formulation meant to explain observations made with measuring instruments, such as the sky microwave background and red-shifted spectra of galaxies. As such the Bang is not an object of belief. As explanation it's only as long as it remains consistent with the observations, so it can be disconfirmed. The math involved is way above me, so I can't really critique the theory or tell you what black hole vents are - although I don't think people of faith need quail, provided they don't stick noses into rumps of denial, and acknowledge that ancient religious explanations of creation are hardly scientific. Faith understands the universe on different terms than physics does. On that point I agree with Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria."

 

[godnotgod]

Twenty or so pages of rumination on time and motion and reality and ego have run without success in even defining these concepts. I suspect that's why physicists don't bother to define them. Instead, they assume that time, whatever it is, can be measured quantitatively, and give protocols for doing so in the laboratory, calling the result a clock. They don't define ego either, but they do assume point of view in the observer concept. Motion involves position, again undefined but measured with rulers. Each observer has a clock and a ruler. Different observers, moving relative to one another, get different measurements of the same observable events when they use their clocks and rulers.

The Big Bang is a mathematical formulation meant to explain observations made with measuring instruments, such as the sky microwave background and red-shifted spectra of galaxies. As such the Bang is not an object of belief. As explanation it's only as long as it remains consistent with the observations, so it can be disconfirmed. The math involved is way above me, so I can't really critique the theory or tell you what black hole vents are - although I don't think people of faith need quail, provided they don't stick noses into rumps of denial, and acknowledge that ancient religious explanations of creation are hardly scientific. Faith understands the universe on different terms than physics does. On that point I agree with Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria."

Unfortunately, both the religious and the scientific are extreme, highly conditioned views of Reality. Luckily, there is an unconditioned view available to us, one which says that:

"The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

 

[Thief]

Twenty or so pages of rumination on time and motion and reality and ego have run without success in even defining these concepts. I suspect that's why physicists don't bother to define them. Instead, they assume that time, whatever it is, can be measured quantitatively, and give protocols for doing so in the laboratory, calling the result a clock. They don't define ego either, but they do assume point of view in the observer concept. Motion involves position, again undefined but measured with rulers. Each observer has a clock and a ruler. Different observers, moving relative to one another, get different measurements of the same observable events when they use their clocks and rulers.

The Big Bang is a mathematical formulation meant to explain observations made with measuring instruments, such as the sky microwave background and red-shifted spectra of galaxies. As such the Bang is not an object of belief. As explanation it's only as long as it remains consistent with the observations, so it can be disconfirmed. The math involved is way above me, so I can't really critique the theory or tell you what black hole vents are - although I don't think people of faith need quail, provided they don't stick noses into rumps of denial, and acknowledge that ancient religious explanations of creation are hardly scientific. Faith understands the universe on different terms than physics does. On that point I agree with Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria."

And from this I can assume you do not consider time as force or substance?
Only a means of measure and calculation?

 

[Thief]

Unfortunately, both the religious and the scientific are extreme, highly conditioned views of Reality. Luckily, there is an unconditioned view available to us, one which says that:

"The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

Ha!...I don't have a religion.
and time does not exist!

 

[godnotgod]

Ha!...I don't have a religion.
and time does not exist!

For you, yes it does, since you insist on "I", which can only exist in time, which does not exist, and so, alas, neither does "I". Boo hoo.

Your religion is your belief in standing up from the grave and enjoying an afterlife, deny it as you may.

Come, now, Thief: you can do better than this....or can you?

 

[Thief]

For you, yes it does, since you insist on "I", which can only exist in time, which does not exist, and so, alas, neither does "I". Boo hoo.

Your religion is your belief in standing up from the grave and enjoying an afterlife, deny it as you may.

Come, now, Thief: you can do better than this....or can you?

You've resorted to shallow denial and misleads.
Time does not exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Time does not exist.

Right, and since "I" can only exist in time, it is, therefore, an illusion.

Case closed.

 

[Thief]

Right, and since "I" can only exist in time, it is, therefore, an illusion.

Case closed.

This last post demonstrates your difficulty in getting on with this thread.

 

[godnotgod]

This last post demonstrates your difficulty in getting on with this thread.

Your last post demonstrates YOUR difficulty in accepting what cannot be denied: that the "I" you claim exists cannot exist via your own assertion of time not existing. Without time, no such "I" is to be found. You want to force the issue by claiming that no time exists, while you, as a unique self, does.

You are the roadblock, as you have failed miserably to provide an intelligent response to my repeated promptings. I refuse to continue to ask the same question of someone who takes pleasure in providing foolish answers, or evades the question entirely. And so, this case is now closed. I cannot make you see that which you go out of your way to deny, but which is as plain as day.

 

[Thief]

You are the roadblock, as you have failed miserably to provide an intelligent response to my repeated promptings. I refuse to continue to ask the same question of someone who takes pleasure in providing foolish answers, or evades the question entirely. And so, this case is now closed. I cannot make you see that which you go out of your way to deny, but which is as plain as day.

You're just ego tripping....hoping to have the last post.

 

[godnotgod]

You're just ego tripping....hoping to have the last post.

More smokescreens to cover up the fact that, after tons of pages, you fail to provide a simple answer to back up your claim for the existence of "I", and when you do make the attempt, your answers reveal your ignorance, as when you tried to equate Jesus' "I Am" to Descartes' cogito ergo sum. To top it all off, you force a square peg into a round hole by the egotistic assertion that, in spite of the fact that time does not exist, you somehow do, knowing full well that "I" must always be understood as existing in time and space, all of which leaves you high and dry and wallowing in......

Checkmate!

Case closed.

 

[godnotgod]

Many are probably wondering what the discussion of "I" has to do with the Big Bang, but it has everything to do with it. If you see the universe via of an 'observer' called "I" in a subject/object relationship, then the universe is an object comprised of many separate 'things', existing in Time, Space, and Causation. But to see the universe as it is, without an observer-self, so that subject/object dissolve into One, where there is no observer of the observation, is to see the universe as pure, uncaused consciousness, not in Time or Space. The Big Bang is an ongoing event in consciousness that is occurring in this timeless Present Moment. IOW, the universe itself is none other than

" the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation."
Vivekenanda

 

[Thief]

kinda hard to say...I AM!....without so much as a singularity to show for it!

and once the universe (one word) was set into motion.......BANG.

this isn't chess, btw.

 

[idav]

Many are probably wondering what the discussion of "I" has to do with the Big Bang, but it has everything to do with it. If you see the universe via of an 'observer' called "I" in a subject/object relationship, then the universe is an object comprised of many separate 'things', existing in Time, Space, and Causation. But to see the universe as it is, without an observer-self, so that subject/object dissolve into One, where there is no observer of the observation, is to see the universe as pure, uncaused consciousness, not in Time or Space. The Big Bang is an ongoing event in consciousness that is occurring in this timeless Present Moment. IOW, the universe itself is none other than

" the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation."
Vivekenanda

Nice post, I am with you I think. Before the big bang I did not exist.

 

[Thief]

Nice post, I am with you I think. Before the big bang I did not exist.

So who did?
( that 'other guy' doesn't seem to get it)

 

[idav]

So who did?
( that 'other guy' doesn't seem to get it)

He says I cant exist before time. Pure awareness gets rid of the ego concept, "I" does omniscience no good it would be redundant.

 

[Thief]

He says I cant exist before time. Pure awareness gets rid of the ego concept, "I" does omniscience no good it would be redundant.

And to say I AM...repeatedly.....does not good when you are the First.
You would be talking to your Echo.

So here we are.

 

[idav]

And to say I AM...repeatedly.....does not good when you are the First.
You would be talking to your Echo.

So here we are.

Is it I or we are first.