What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

So shall we conclude that, in spite of your persistent claim that "I" is real, you are incapable of demonstrating it's existence?

Calling yourself "I" does not make it real;

Pointing in the direction of my consciousness to indicate 'you' does not make 'you' real.

Calling a whirling body of water a 'whirlpool' does not make it a thing called a whirlpool.

Calling a flowing body of water a 'river' does not make it a thing called a river.

Everything in your body is in movement. 'You' are not an entity, but an action. At what point can this action be pinned down to call it a static "I"? It cannot. Your illusory mind only thinks it can, and because it does, it thinks it has an afterlife. It wants the illusion of self to go on forever.

'You' will demonstrate the 'I' for me.
'You' can't help 'yourself'.
'You' will post a reply.

 

[godnotgod]

'You' will demonstrate the 'I' for me.
'You' can't help 'yourself'.
'You' will post a reply.

Your reference to 'you' does not tell me what it is. It is just a placeholder for something you think is real. Your reply is a poor showing for what you claim to be real. Case is closed as you have failed miserably to show us what, where, or who this "I" you believe to be real and goes on to an afterlife. Far worse, you expect others to believe you on faith alone.

Conclusion: "I" is a hallucination.

 

[Thief]

Your reference to 'you' does not tell me what it is. It is just a placeholder for something you think is real. Your reply is a poor showing for what you claim to be real. Case is closed as you have failed miserably to show us what, where, or who this "I" you believe to be real and goes on to an afterlife. Far worse, you expect others to believe you on faith alone.

Conclusion: "I" is a hallucination.

oh no......after all.....'you' could be talking to 'yourself'.

How would 'you' know?

hehehehehehehehehehe

 

[godnotgod]

oh no......after all.....'you' could be talking to 'yourself'.

How would 'you' know?

hehehehehehehehehehe

I can't talk to myself: "I" don't exist.

To know that "I" is a hallucination is to see from a place that is "not-I". It's kinda like when you take a paint chip to Home Depot and they put it under a scanning eye to read the colors in the chip. The scanning eye compares what it sees to a resident color-neutral chip. It determines what colors exist via non-color.

 

[Thief]

I can't talk to myself: "I" don't exist.

To know that "I" is a hallucination is to see from a place that is "not-I". It's kinda like when you take a paint chip to Home Depot and they put it under a scanning eye to read the colors in the chip. The scanning eye compares what it sees to a resident color-neutral chip. It determines what colors exist via non-color.

Considering your stance in previous posts.....
'you' cannot be sure of anything.

'You' just like to post.

 

[idav]

Your reference to 'you' does not tell me what it is. It is just a placeholder for something you think is real. Your reply is a poor showing for what you claim to be real. Case is closed as you have failed miserably to show us what, where, or who this "I" you believe to be real and goes on to an afterlife. Far worse, you expect others to believe you on faith alone.

Conclusion: "I" is a hallucination.

I exist as a reference to another entity, other entities can see I am an object. I also exists as reference to the entity known as me. So I is a reference to an object that exists via perceptions of that entity. I exist as everyone else does from an outside obsever perspective.

 

[godnotgod]

I exist as a reference to another entity, other entities can see I am an object. I also exists as reference to the entity known as me. So I is a reference to an object that exists via perceptions of that entity. I exist as everyone else does from an outside obsever perspective.

Just as we see separate existing objects in the universe, we also see each other that way, as you describe. But this view is inaccurate, because in reality, there are no such separate objects existing independently of each other nor of the universe. That they do is just an illusion. The reality is that you and I and all other so called 'objects', or 'things', are 100% completely integrated with each other and with the universe. It only seems as if there is a separate existence. But that just covers the physical view of such objects. Partly because of this illusory view, we also form the idea of "I" as compared to 'you'. Add to this our social indoctrination which gives us the sense of individuality and uniqueness, and the picture of a separate entity known as "I" is complete. But underneath this seeming separation is total oneness. All 'objects', as well as every single person is not only connected totally to his environment inside and out, but interconnected to one another as well. And that is why the universe can be called a uni-verse.

 

[Thief]

Just as we see separate existing objects in the universe, we also see each other that way, as you describe. But this view is inaccurate, because in reality, there are no such separate objects existing independently of each other nor of the universe. That they do is just an illusion. The reality is that you and I and all other so called 'objects', or 'things', are 100% completely integrated with each other and with the universe. It only seems as if there is a separate existence. But that just covers the physical view of such objects. Partly because of this illusory view, we also form the idea of "I" as compared to 'you'. Add to this our social indoctrination which gives us the sense of individuality and uniqueness, and the picture of a separate entity known as "I" is complete. But underneath this seeming separation is total oneness. Every single person is not only connected totally to his environment inside and out, but interconnected to one another as well. And that is why the universe can be called a uni-verse.

Universe....as in 'one word'.

Whose Word?

Who did say ....I AM!....?

 

[godnotgod]

Universe....as in 'one word'.

Whose Word?

Who did say ....I AM!....?

Why, Thief, of course. He said:

"Help! I Am in....

CHECKMATE!"

 

[Thief]

Why, Thief, of course. He said:

"Help! I Am in....

CHECKMATE!"

Now you're just being silly.
See?...there 'you' are....being silly!

 

[godnotgod]

Now you're just being silly.
See?...there 'you' are....being silly!

Who's silly? I'm not the one in Checkmate. You're in checkmate because you place stock in something that is an illusion. You are bound by chains that don't exist to begin with, which is the very reason you cannot get out of those same chains. There are no such chains to get out of!

Now run along and play. :slap:

 

[idav]

Universe....as in 'one word'.

Whose Word?

Who did say ....I AM!....?

So vocal cords existed even before the bang was big?

 

[RichardParker]

To ask what came "before" the big bang is non-sensical.
It's like asking what's north of the north-pole.
Given that our current understanding about the big bang also includes the idea that time started with the big bang, to think about something that came "before" misses the point. How could there be a "before", before there was time?

Yes, the big bang and the origin of the universe is probably the most un-intuitive thing one can possible talk about! All the laws we take for granted as being part of this universe don't (necessarily) apply anymore... a concept we simply can't grasp.
That's why it always baffles me, when people explain that a god has caused this universe to exist.

Seriously, the professional cosmologists, the guys who study these things, are having trouble to grasp what's going on beyond the plank-wall... and yet we have people who, without having any training or education on the subject, not only tell us that they believe that there is a god beyond this point, but they often also claim that there HAS to be a god there! Because it's the only thing that makes sense!
No, the clear answer when it comes to the origin of the universe so far is "We don't know".

 

[Thief]

So vocal cords existed even before the bang was big?

oh...please!.....

 

[outhouse]

Imagination and mythology only guides some people

It never guides reality

 

[RichardParker]

oh...please!.....

It's a legit question.
After all, when somebody says that it all started with somebody having said something, then this claims implies that not only were there vocal cords at the beginning, but also sound, which means that there were sound waves, which also implies a medium in which they can move.

 

[godnotgod]

It's a legit question.
After all, when somebody says that it all started with somebody having said something, then this claims implies that not only were there vocal cords at the beginning, but also sound, which means that there were sound waves, which also implies a medium in which they can move.

...and ears to hear, and bodies the ears are attached to, and.....

just another load of crap.

 

[RichardParker]

...and ears to hear, and bodies the ears are attached to...

Hm, not necessarily.
I mean, if a tree speaks in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it... ;-)

I don't think that "speaking" or "saying something" necessitates also somebody hearing it, does it?
But it does necessitate sound, otherwise it has nothing to do with "speaking" as we know it.

 

[godnotgod]

Hm, not necessarily.
I mean, if a tree speaks in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it... ;-)

I don't think that "speaking" or "saying something" necessitates also somebody hearing it, does it?
But it does necessitate sound, otherwise it has nothing to do with "speaking" as we know it.

In the context of Thief's meaning, God speaking 'I Am' when no one is yet created makes no sense. Thief is confused, as usual, making things up to suit his pleasure. Pay him no heed.

 

[RichardParker]

In the context of Thief's meaning, God speaking 'I Am' when no one is yet created makes no sense. Thief is confused, as usual, making things up to suit his pleasure. Pay him no heed.

Well, I agree that it seems pretty non-sensical.
I always try to leave the door open for somebody to justify his claims, because maybe there actually is a way to make sense of such a weird proposition, so I'm entirely willing to let him explain himself.
After all, I would wish the same degree of curtecy given to me, when I say something that other people consider invalide.