What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

I'm not sure it's a creationist thing so much as a New Age thing. There's a lot of New Age hype about quantum mechanics and the whole "consciousness causes collapse" debacle that happened for a bit.

Misinterpretations of energy or using woo-soaked contexts of the word "vibration" are two of my biggest pet peeves as a physics student and a skeptic. I'd certainly contribute to a thread on the matter (see what I did there?)

You only call such things 'woo' simply because your own consciousness has been conditioned into paradigm, though you are unaware of it. IOW, your consciousness is in an altered state which automatically (knee-jerk type) causes you to see views other than the sanctioned 'scientific' one as bogus.

 

[godnotgod]

So how did matter get energy?

For that matter, (no pun) what is the origin of the matter which 'gets' matter? The problem is the fact that we see 'matter' as 'real', when, in fact, it is an illusion.

The answer, of course, is consciousness, which solves all of these 'problems'. All we have been doing is nibbling around the edges, around the appearance, rather than piercing to the heart of the...heh, heh....uh.... matter. :banghead3

 

[godnotgod]

How can I come to such a realization that there is no "I"?

How can water flow if there is no 'flow-er'? By seeing, without thought, exactly what the true nature of this "I" actually is. That which sees is not "I", but is seeing itself. If you get this far, then the question becomes: 'Who, or what, then, is it that is seeing, if there is no agent of seeing?"

Uh..you do realize that seeing still occurs without an "I" (no pun), don't you?

See?

Now when you see that, you will also notice that this "I", is self-creating. You can actually watch as it happens. Be quick, though. It is extremely sly and tricky! It hates being found out, and once that happens, will do everything in its power to resist your newfound vision.

This is merely a simple action of the total system. We have an accord.

Well, you're a very smart straw dog who is beginning to see, indeed!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MEWWN-qJrA

 

[godnotgod]

Hello Legion,



I've been more mindful lately about energy flow and work. It has become my mystical practice. Sometimes I feel like I'm here to transform energy into new forms and maximize net entropy over time. Can there be a physical-mysticism?

Can Reality actually be such that there are no such things as the physical vs. the non-physical; that these are merely conceptual overlays to make the rational mind comfortable with its methodology?

Once you get a handle on this, you will see that what we call the physical and the mystical are transformed one by the other. In Zen especially, the ordinary everyday world is the miraculous, and so we might say something like:

'Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor'

or...

"Chop wood;
Carry water.
How miraculous!"

 

[crossfire]

Hello Legion,



I've been more mindful lately about energy flow and work. It has become my mystical practice. Sometimes I feel like I'm here to transform energy into new forms and maximize net entropy over time. Can there be a physical-mysticism?

Mindfulness immersed in the body (see Buddhist sutta of this name) will induce lucid dreaming, as will any type of mindful physical motion/work. :yes:

(The mind-body connection is well documented, so having mind and body working well together can intensify this: as the body develops from the skillful physical activity, so the mind will also develop along with the body through skillful mindfulness.)

 

[Thief]

So 7billion copies of a device....that can only produce spirit (unique not special)
means nothing to you as evidence?{/quote]

What you present is not evidence, just outcomes of biological forces existennt long before we were around to take any notice whatsoever...

That's my current observation and understanding...yes. You are always invited to otherwise overwhelm me and persuade me with recent evidences to the contrary...

It is.
There is no evidence of any kind to suggest it does, ever, beyond utterly faith-based speculations and claims alone... no.

And that is why you fail

Your "message of hope" will only ever apply to any that yet retain a willing suspension of disbelief that magic or grandfatherly omniscient eternal spirits exist eternally and invisibly... kinda like Santa Claus.

Allow me to entertain your best case arguments (rooted in logic and science) proving that an earth-bound Santa exists... then I may consider the notion of an all-powerful and omniscient "god-like" entity being, that manipulates the entirety of 100s of billions of galaxies in the cosmos, is veritably as "real" as Santa.

Is that not a fair enough starting place?

No it is not....and it was foolish to offer it as such.

This thread is not about physics.
It's about God's relationship with physics.

What existed before the bang?...Spirit.

I won't let go of the basic...cause and effect.

Nothing moves without a Cause to move it.

 

[Thief]

Yes, water, but you're forgetting one other element that is found in every tissue or flesh, every organ and every bone, and even in our blood - carbon.

Carbon is just as essential compound that make every body parts that make us a living matter, along with all other creature and even plant life.

And Genesis is not the only one that all life come from water. The Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian religions have been writing of the first humans being made out of earth and water, centuries before the Genesis was ever conceived and composed. Likewise, humans were said to be created from the tears of the sun god Ra.

So, the Genesis didn't provide anything unique. The ancient Hebrews were doing the same things, writing of things, like creation, but without understanding the biology, chemistry or physics of life. The Hebrews had most likely borrowed myths from older cultures, in which Abraham was said to come out of Babylonia and Moses out of Egypt, if we are to believe in the stories of Genesis and Exodus.

Didn't forget the carbon.
It was included when I said the other elements be in place.

so what if Genesis is not unique?...all the better.
Same story?....many sources?.....less excuse to say...'nay'

 

[Thief]

Once again, Thief: you still linger in the dual world of 'dead' and 'not-dead'. You are attached to the illusion that the Absolute is manifesting called 'the universe', rather than going directly to the source itself, which is non-dual, absolute, and deathless. The paradox is that the universe is actually the Absolute itself, but as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation. You still think the rope is a snake, and that is because you are still attached to the dust that is the rational mind.

Let the dead bury the dead....so it is written.

And you would then say there is no difference between 'you' as 'you' make 'your' next response?...
as compared the dead body you will someday soon be?

Dead men don't type....or do they?

 

[godnotgod]

Let the dead bury the dead....so it is written.

And you would then say there is no difference between 'you' as 'you' make 'your' next response?...
as compared the dead body you will someday soon be?

Dead men don't type....or do they?

Who and what you are now does not become the dead body. You are identifying with the body, when you are not your body, nor are you your history. Your true nature is transcendent of both, and therefore, deathless. The only reason you continue to identify with your body and its termination is because you are still attached to fear. Once you see that there is nothing to fear, you will no longer cling to your body, and so your mind won't follow it into the grave, of which you are so terrified. There is no one called 'Thief' that lives or dies. There is only the consciousness which you have identified with someone called 'Thief' and his body. Bring your identification with them to an end and you will be happy and fearless, because your true nature will then come into play.

You can continue to frighten yourself silly, or awaken so that you can be free.

But you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Thief]

Who and what you are now does not become the dead body. You are identifying with the body, when you are not your body, nor are you your history. Your true nature is transcendent of both, and therefore, deathless. The only reason you continue to identify with your body and its termination is because you are still attached to fear. Once you see that there is nothing to fear, you will no longer cling to your body, and so your mind won't follow it into the grave, of which you are so terrified. There is no one called 'Thief' that lives or dies. There is only the consciousness which you have identified with someone called 'Thief' and his body. Bring your identification with them to an end and you will be happy and fearless, because your true nature will then come into play.

Try NOT association with your body.
Going to awake up in that body until it fails.....aren't 'you'

Continuance?...sure....I believe.
And the true nature of what we are is what stands from the dust.
Some of us will take wing and fly away.
Some of us will crawl away.
Some of us will fail altogether.

Guess 'you' don't.

 

[godnotgod]

No it is not....and it was foolish to offer it as such.

This thread is not about physics.
It's about God's relationship with physics.

What existed before the bang?...Spirit.

I won't let go of the basic...cause and effect.

Nothing moves without a Cause to move it.

Your mind is the only thing moving.

 

[Thief]

Your mind is the only thing moving.

By movement you must also imply.....proximity.

Similar to the 'point' of origin (Genesis)?...and God said...'I AM!'
or more localized......here 'I' am.

 

[Poeticus]

Your mind is the only thing moving.

You have an extra "neti". Grammatically, it doesn't make sense...Sanskrit-wise.

 

[crossfire]

You have an extra "neti". Grammatically, it doesn't make sense...Sanskrit-wise.

[satire] LOL! Par for the course, if you consider his other language threads. (Pe****ta primacy, etc.) [/satire]

 

[Mycroft]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

It's funny you should ask that. Science is constantly questioning itself and one of the current things science is questioning is was there actually a big bang? As well as what is nothing?

It seems difficult to wrap your head around what was there before the universe because it's just so incomprehensible. It almost demands a supernatural explanation....but not quite. The science of lightning was once incomprehensible and demanded a supernatural explanation, too.

We know fairly certainly that the universe grew from a single point with some rapidity because we can measure this. But was it really a big bang? Theoretical science is currently toying with the idea that it was actually caused by a black hole after a four dimensional star collapsed.

So Big Bang theory is under scrutiny again. And has always been under scrutiny. Nobody is saying there was a big bang for sure, there are several holes in the theory for a start: such as how could the big bang have produced a universe of almost uniform temperature? And how could it have expanded faster than the speed of light when it's not possible to travel faster than light?

Quite simply, nobody really knows what happened before the beginning of the universe. But that not knowing doesn't lend itself to affirming the existence of any god or gods. It just means we don't know yet.

But there are problems with the god theory, too. For example why create the entire universe just for human beings? To marvel at god's creation? We can only see a fraction of it and it took us 150 million years to be able to see that fraction. There's no point in creating such a vast space for one species that can't even see it or go to it (yet).

 

[Thief]

It's funny you should ask that. Science is constantly questioning itself and one of the current things science is questioning is was there actually a big bang? As well as what is nothing?

It seems difficult to wrap your head around what was there before the universe because it's just so incomprehensible. It almost demands a supernatural explanation....but not quite. The science of lightning was once incomprehensible and demanded a supernatural explanation, too.

We know fairly certainly that the universe grew from a single point with some rapidity because we can measure this. But was it really a big bang? Theoretical science is currently toying with the idea that it was actually caused by a black hole after a four dimensional star collapsed.

So Big Bang theory is under scrutiny again. And has always been under scrutiny. Nobody is saying there was a big bang for sure, there are several holes in the theory for a start: such as how could the big bang have produced a universe of almost uniform temperature? And how could it have expanded faster than the speed of light when it's not possible to travel faster than light?

Quite simply, nobody really knows what happened before the beginning of the universe. But that not knowing doesn't lend itself to affirming the existence of any god or gods. It just means we don't know yet.

But there are problems with the god theory, too. For example why create the entire universe just for human beings? To marvel at god's creation? We can only see a fraction of it and it took us 150 million years to be able to see that fraction. There's no point in creating such a vast space for one species that can't even see it or go to it (yet).

Just this very morning I was watching a rerun of this topic on History channel.

The conclusion was much as you say....

No one seems willing to deal with the notion that the universe (one word) might have been preceded by Something having thought and feeling.

But if substance first.....then Man is a mystery without purpose or resolve.

 

[YmirGF]

But there are problems with the god theory, too. For example why create the entire universe just for human beings? To marvel at god's creation? We can only see a fraction of it and it took us 150 million years to be able to see that fraction. There's no point in creating such a vast space for one species that can't even see it or go to it (yet).

It might just be the nitpicker in me, but I believe you may have inadvertently provided an answer to this.

It just means we don't know yet.

On the topic of "What came before the Big Bang?" the wiggle-room must remain a universal constant as there is almost no chance that any hypothesis can be shown to be correct. That said, that doesn't mean we cannot establish a probability curve for each possible scenario. Thus far, the scientific explanation(s) certainly have a higher probability than the non-scientific explanation(s).

 

[Thief]

It might just be the nitpicker in me, but I believe you may have inadvertently provided an answer to this.

On the topic of "What came before the Big Bang?" the wiggle-room must remain a universal constant as there is almost no chance that any hypothesis can be shown to be correct. That said, that doesn't mean we cannot establish a probability curve for each possible scenario. Thus far, the scientific explanation(s) certainly have a higher probability than the non-scientific explanation(s).

And the experiment for a singularity would look like what?

At some 'point' a Sentient Being must be dealt with.

That he might be the Cause makes a difference?
Only if you insist on denial.

If Spirit First...and I think so....then some meeting of the minds will happen.

 

[YmirGF]

No one seems willing to deal with the notion that the universe (one word) might have been preceded by Something having thought and feeling.

That's probably because there is no reason to assume a nuclear plasma soup had any thought or feeling...

 

[YmirGF]

And the experiment for a singularity would look like what?

At some 'point' a Sentient Being must be dealt with.

That he might be the Cause makes a difference?
Only if you insist on denial.

If Spirit First...and I think so....then some meeting of the minds will happen.

I like you too much to argue, Thief, but I think I'll pass on nailing this one back into its coffin.