I call the inflation of space prior to the disambiguation of energy/matter (aka the "Big Bang") the "Big Slap and Tickle," (where "space" was being teased out.")
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And what can you posit as evidence for this?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
An interesting description of the tubesteak boogie.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The fact of being aware of your indoctrination. It is with this unaltered consciousness that you are able to see your altered state. You know when you take a paint chip to Home Depot to match some paint, they put the chip under a scanner. The scanning eye compares what it sees with a neutral chip in order to determine which colorants are contained in the sample.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Being awake and aware of your surroundings, and being able to discern objects or ideas.
Yes, but is this awareness a 'thing', as has been suggested?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Because it is given definition - it IS a thingy. Try to deal with it.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Wrong. Because it is given a definition, it is a concept; an idea. But this concept is held via consciousness itself. Therefore, we have two 'things' here, if you will: the underlying reality of consciousness, and the definition of consciousness, which you call a 'thing'.
If you still think consciousness is a thing, then tell me what this thing is seen against, since all things can only be ascertained as such when seen against that which is either not-thing, (ie: nothing), or other things.
In addition, please tell me, since you are defining consciousness as a thing, where this thing leaves off and that which is not consciousness begins.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I mention Genesis....not as reference.
I mention it as it speaks of things in the beginning....as science should.
Science can't deal with the beginning.
When science takes you to the singularity....it then stalls at the brink of it.
No equations.
No number system.
One point by itself cannot be examined.
At the inception of a secondary, infinity 'pops' into existence.
Theoretical physicists (like Dr. Kaku) claim infinity to be a 'problem'.
But meditation of the void....seems also to be a problem.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Infinity doesn't pop into and out of existence.
Infinity is not the problem; the physics is.
[youtube]tH5xYvUsd8o[/youtube]
Science v's God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube.flv - YouTube
Only when it is seen as a 'thing'. Any problem exists only in the mind.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
godnotgod
Thou art That
Two things:
The perfectly still moment you now find yourself in, is infinite timelessness.
The universe is the Infinite itself, but when seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation, appears as the universe.
I wonder if Kaku's multitudinous 'infinities' are a function of a holographic universe.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Consider your first line without the highlighted word.
The universe (one word) is not infinite.
The void would be 'infinite'...for lack of a better 'word'.
The moment of 'I AM!'....the universe begins.
Before the bang...
And this is where scripture and I part company.
John takes us to the beginning...and the Word.
But he does not make effort to the discussion as we do now.
Ineffability might be nebulous, but being aware that we can't wrap our mind around it just means we can't wrap our mind around it--it doesn't mean that it is or isn't a thing/process. Nameless and named emerge together. See Tao Te Ching 1
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
Well yeah, since if you try to add "space" to it in order to tease a concept out of it, you will get distortions, as it really is spaceless/formless.
godnotgod
Thou art That
"in the Beginning was the Word;
and the Word became Flesh"
What precedes 'the Word'?
Breath.
Breath is Consciousness; the Spirit.
'Flesh' is a metaphor for the phenomenal world.
In the East, God spoke (the Word) the world (the Flesh) into existence.
Because God is Consciousness, or Breath, itself, God BECAME the World.
IOW, God, the Infinite, is the Universe itself.
But because we superimpose the concepts of Time, Space, and Causation over Reality, we see only the manifestation that is the universe. We see the rope as a snake, rather than as the rope that it is.
The universe is the Infinite God playing all the parts of the universe, all at once, in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek, in which the forms appear to be changing all the time. That is why you don't see the universe as the Infinite; because it is hidden from your view, while being right in front of your very eyes. And so the Zennists say:
'Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor.'
IOW, the Miraculous and the Ordinary are One and the Same, which, again, is the reason you miss seeing the Infinite in the Mundane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlfVjKzyN5Y
The Singularity and the BB is just a manifestation of what has always been there, like a light bulb that is off and then switched on, the potential for light, for the world, being in place in totality. The Singularity 'appears' out of Absolute Nothingness, and then expands as the Big Bang. And so, as Alan Watts says:
"Everything comes out of Nothing"
Last edited:
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
consciousness is very much a thing. Even if you say it is a product of a biological brain it is still a thing. Your body is very well synced with time, light, it impacts your emotions, moods, personality. How do you claim that the mind is an illusion?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Actually there are equations based on models that help to explain the expansion. Secondly, as time has gone on, there is more of a general consensus as far as what was likely there at the point of singularity, however nothing is written in stone. Some cosmologists like Leonard Susskind believe we may know what caused the BB within the next 10 years because of the study of the "afterglow" (radiation given off during the early expansion).
Most cosmologists do tend to think that something likely goes back into infinity whether that be sub-atomic particles and/or strings, but it's simply too early to tell yet. However, as new research keeps coming in, it tends to do two things simultaneously: if may help to answer some questions but then it tends to generate more questions.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
godnotgod
Thou art That
This part of the discussion is a classic example of how we, as humans, mistake the description of something for the reality.
In this case, we can't wrap our mind around it because the mind is a self-created principle attempting to encapsulate the infinite. It cannot be done, except when we make consciousness a concept. But the moment we do, it must be realized it is consciousness itself with which we are doing it. So we're back to square one.
The named are what we call 'things'. The nameless are not-things. Yes, they emerge together. We cannot know 'things' unless they are seen against the background of 'not-things', or nothingness. But even things are not real. All such 'things' are interconnected and interdependent with all other 'things'. This is Buddha's Law of Interdependent Origination. 'Things' are conceptual as a convenient means of the rational mind to deal with a reality it does not truly understand.
'the name that can be named is not the eternal name': IOW, the Infinite cannot be encapsulated by the mind.
'The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth':
IOW, 'Everything comes out of Nothing'
'The named is the mother of myriad things': But the named is the nameless before being named. Only then are there 'things'. Until named, everything is still One. When named, the One becomes separate 'things', but again, that is only conceptual, which is the condition of: 'Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations'.
If consciousness is a thing, as you and others say, then please define where it leaves off as being a thing, and no-thing begins. That is to say, show me the outer boundaries of it as a finite thing, as all things have a finite boundary.