What came before the Big Bang?

[idav]

Just thinking out loud again, got to stop doing that !
~
'mud

Quite frequently rather ensightful and truthful.

 

[godnotgod]

Soooooo....before the endless span of timelessness, coming from the limits of nothingness, into the boundry of negative infinity, then into the very beginning of what would become the origin of the void in which the nothingness existed, from where did the singularity come ?
~
Everybody say.......WHUT????
~
'mud

It didn't 'come' from anywhere. The potential for it being manifested is always present, just as the potential for light from a light bulb is always present. Only the switch must be turned on. IOW, the universe is a condition of 'now you see it; now you don't', an infinite pulsation of 'on/off', like everything else in nature. But the process is not linear, as you suggest, but cyclical.

Look at my avatar. Can the figure exist without the ground? Can Everything exist without the background that is Nothing?

The unfolding flower embodies the endless ocean of creation.

Because it has buds, blossoms and seed pods simultaneously on the same plant, it represents the past, present and future.​

​

 

[Robert.Evans]

You're confusing the description with the reality. In the case of Nothingness, it is indescribable. All we can do is to create a word-symbol to represent it, but in so doing, we then think the word-symbol is the reality. Nothing is exactly that. It cannot be Something.

It's like God: you cannot define what it is, only what it is not.

Negate Nothing, and then negate negation itself. That is Absolute Nothingness. But don't think of it as Some-thing. Don't think at all. Just see.

I still say it is a play on words.
Anything is something- even nothing. There has to be a singularity of Existence. Perhaps you just can't imagine what that might be so call it 'nothing'. It is not something, it is EVERYTHING.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It didn't 'come' from anywhere. The potential for it being manifested

See there you said it: "it".

'It' is something... that is why you called it, 'it'. It is not nothing. It might well not be something we can comprehend in physical terms, but it is not nothing. In the fullest extent of the word, is has to be 'something'.

 

[godnotgod]

I still say it is a play on words.
Anything is something- even nothing. There has to be a singularity of Existence. Perhaps you just can't imagine what that might be so call it 'nothing'. It is not something, it is EVERYTHING.

See there you said it: "it".

'It' is something... that is why you called it, 'it'. It is not nothing. It might well not be something we can comprehend in physical terms, but it is not nothing. In the fullest extent of the word, is has to be 'something'.

So how can you tell that It is Something, and not Nothing?

I am afraid you are still attached to the idea of what Nothing is. You still want it to be something you can wrap your mind around. You need to go in further, beyond mind and its conceptual mode.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So how can you tell that It is Something, and not Nothing?

I am afraid you are still attached to the idea of what Nothing is. You still want it to be something you can wrap your mind around. You need to go in further, beyond mind and its conceptual mode.

Sir, I think you are confusing yourself, and trying to confuse me also

Anything can be something, by definition. What exists just IS. That is the SOURCE of everything, and IS everything. It is not nothing, it is something. It is only 'something' that we can't comprehend. If it is totally nothing, then nothing can come from it as it does not exist.

You are saying it is nothing, I feel, as you can't get a handle on it. It is something, a Singularity of Existence. That IS, not, not is... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

I can tell it is something and not nothing as 'we' exist.
It is impossible to have nothing in the fullest extent of the word... as hard as it might be to think that there is something that just IS. By necessity there has to be an Existence, and that is ALL things.

 

[Thief]

How about Something not having a form?

void.

 

[Robert.Evans]

How about Something not having a form?

void.

Ok. But if are implying that 'that' something is nothing, it is not. It is just devoid of form. Form to us is different to how it would be within the Primordial-Existence.
To Exist in such a state should not be confused with how we see existing now. We come from 'it' not the other way round.

'That' is the Existence which is everything. The Name.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...it goes on and then off again..that's what you said...meaning GNG said that.
Everthing has been 'on' for quite a while now, I wonder what will turn it 'off' ?
Who has it's finger on that switch, or thumb as some would have.
What caused 'nature' to become "It", that entity that controls everything we sense, hear, feel, and see.
Such a mighty 'bulb', turning on and off like that, go on nature turn your switch.
~
You know....we still haven't found the flipper of the switch ?
What price is consciousness, where is the "I" that evolved, what is the purpose ?
~
Everyone can toss a salad, where's the olives ?
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

Sir, I think you are confusing yourself, and trying to confuse me also

Anything can be something, by definition. What exists just IS. That is the SOURCE of everything, and IS everything. It is not nothing, it is something. It is only 'something' that we can't comprehend. If it is totally nothing, then nothing can come from it as it does not exist.

You are saying it is nothing, I feel, as you can't get a handle on it. It is something, a Singularity of Existence. That IS, not, not is.

I can tell it is something and not nothing as 'we' exist.
It is impossible to have nothing in the fullest extent of the word... as hard as it might be to think that there is something that just IS. By necessity there has to be an Existence, and that is ALL things.

But when we take a closer look at what you call the existence of all things, we find that, in actuality, there are no such 'things'. That is to say, what you want to portray as 'things', are merely forms completely interconnected to all other forms, and these forms are always in flux; always arising and always subsiding. IOW, these 'things' have no real substance of their own, as their existence depends on the co-arising of all other phenomena. 'Things' are empty of any inherent substance. So where is this hard reality you call 'Something', other than a concept in your mind? Where does the subjective observer leave ofr and the objective world begin?

Your response sounds like existentialism: 'I think, therefore I am' ala Descartes. So when not thinking, you cease to exist?

Why do you say that there must be an existence? What is creating the necessity?

 

[Robert.Evans]

But when we take a closer look at what you call the existence of all things, we find that, in actuality, there are no such 'things'. That is to say, what you want to portray as 'things', are merely forms completely interconnected to all other forms, and these forms are always in flux; always arising and always subsiding. IOW, these 'things' have no real substance of their own, as their existence depends on the co-arising of all other phenomena. 'Things' are empty of any inherent substance. So where is this hard reality you call 'Something', other than a concept in your mind? Where does the subjective observer leave ofr and the objective world begin?

Your response sounds like existentialism: 'I think, therefore I am' ala Descartes. So when not thinking, you cease to exist?

Why do you say that there must be an existence? What is creating the necessity?

I like the last part. So when not thinking, you cease to exist. This is the Image. It is that which is the consciousness, the feminine, and therefore is evenutally, us. This thinking here is seen in physical terms. So our 'thinking' is past on in our genes. It is physical. Stop thinking and you cease to be.

There is, by necessity, the Existence of all things. Yhvh can be rendered as such a description.
There cannot be truly nothing, in the fullest sense of the word. It will not work.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think therefore I AM. That is good, is it not?

 

[Thief]

I think therefore I AM. That is good, is it not?

I think.....I LIKE IT!!!!!!!!

 

[godnotgod]

I think therefore I AM. That is good, is it not?

No, not good; circular thinking.

So when not thinking, you not-AM?

Søren Kierkegaard's critique

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
​

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.
Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.




Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thief]

No, not good; circular thinking.

So when not thinking, you not-AM?

Søren Kierkegaard's critique

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
​

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.
Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.




Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And 'who' is doing all of this 'ridiculous' wisdom?

'YOU' are!
oh!...that's right......?.......'you' don't exist!...........................?

 

[godnotgod]

And 'who' is doing all of this 'ridiculous' wisdom?

'YOU' are!
oh!...that's right......?.......'you' don't exist!...........................?

Would you like to have the bar lowered a bit more? Kierkegaard was a bit over your head, I'm afraid....quite a bit over, LOL.

 

[godnotgod]

I like the last part. So when not thinking, you cease to exist. This is the Image. It is that which is the consciousness, the feminine, and therefore is evenutally, us. This thinking here is seen in physical terms. So our 'thinking' is past on in our genes. It is physical. Stop thinking and you cease to be.

Are you barking mad? This is incoherent rubbish! Come again?

There is, by necessity, the Existence of all things.

Bouullchit! there is virtually zero necessity for the existence of anything.

Yhvh can be rendered as such a description

Buuulchit! Yahweh is merely a psychological concoction/projection of the male Jewish ego.

There cannot be truly nothing, in the fullest sense of the word. It will not work.

And yet, work it does. In fact, it can ONLY work if there is truly nothing. That way, Everything can work, because there is NOTHING that can get in the way. IOW:

"When Nothing is Special, Everything can be"

Stephen Batchelor
Buddhism Without Beliefs

 

[Thief]

Are you barking mad? This is incoherent rubbish! Come again?



Bouullchit! there is virtually zero necessity for the existence of anything.



Buuulchit! Yahweh is merely a psychological concoction/projection of the male Jewish ego.



And yet, work it does. In fact, it can ONLY work if there is truly nothing. That way, Everything can work, because there is NOTHING that can get in the way. IOW:

"When Nothing is Special, Everything can be"

Stephen Batchelor
Buddhism Without Beliefs

Look who's talking about rubbish and bulllllllllshhhhhhhit!

Well if there is no necessity for existence....then you might leave off and go pout.

oh! that's right.....you have to exist to pout!
nevermind.
oh! that's right ....you're barking mad!

 

[godnotgod]

Look who's talking about rubbish and bulllllllllshhhhhhhit!

hoo?...hoo?....wl:

My goodness! A proliferator of rubbish defending other people's rubbish, when he can't even demonstrate the existence of his own rubbish, though rubbish it be. :slap:

My, my...the rubbish we live and die for!

Tell me, o wise one: :bow:

Where is "I"?