What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

We are talking about two completely different things. Big-Bang and Prior to the Big-Bang. I'm not a physicist or an expert on the Universe, but I'm sure the two have a lot more in common than saying nothing came before the big bang.

BB is not a beginning, but a continuum of that which already is, and always is. There is no origin, no cause, no time, no space. There is just this timeless Present Moment and all that is manifested in it that you are now experiencing purely through consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

A

No. Coming up with a bunch of flimsy arguments and nonsensical, patently false bare assertions, in favor of some romantically mystical view, is crap. As is dismissing the "method of science" which has, as noted above, provided you with the very instruments you are using to spew your blather. Talk about irony.

The method of science can only be applied when there is consciousness, so consciousness is at the root of everything. However, the consciousness that science utilizes is an altered state of consciousness; it is shaped by Reason, Logic, and Analysis, all of which operate on predefined premises, such as the notion that the phenomenal world is real. QM is showing us that these classical views are not as advertised. It's as if Reality is in color, but you choose to only see it as Black and White. Science provides a myopic view of Reality. It is the analysis and prediction of behavior, but not of the origin of the behavior, which is essence. It is a dead view. It squeezes the blood from the living and analyzes the dead corpse and then says that constitutes reality. It does'nt. It's crap, even though it is useful for the development of technology. However, technology without understanding is also crap, as the use of it for selfish and destructive means testifies to.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sour grapes always taste bad.

 

[godnotgod]

Which translates to: The illusion is present whether you see the illusion or not?

Not exactly. The Absolute is present, whether you see it as the universe or not.

That is where the metaphor is limited, because, unlike the visible rope, the Absolute belongs to the world of the invisible, while the universe, unlike the snake, is an illusion of a higher order.

Here:

"..Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[godnotgod]

Sour grapes always taste bad.

Mine are still nice 'n sweet. I have tons extra. I offer Higher Consciousness to you free of charge. All you need do is open your eyes and your mind.

 

[Slapstick]

Mine are still nice 'n sweet. I have tons extra. I offer Higher Consciousness to you free of charge. All you need do is open your eyes and your mind.

You couldn’t sell snake oil to a six year old without getting kicked in the shin and stomped on the toe.

 

[godnotgod]

You couldn’t sell snake oil to a six year old without getting kicked in the shin and stomped on the toe.

No, but they don't hesitate to accept my free, succulent, sweet, fruits of Higher Consciousness, which, once eaten, and the eyes are opened, shows them not to buy the snake oil of rigid authoritarian science, just because it prances around as *ahem*: 'The Authority'.

Now they understand what Yeshu meant when he said: "Become ye as little children, or you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"

So how about it, Lipschtick, old buddy: Like some nice, sweet, fresh Higher Consciousness? No charge for sincere chilluns.

 

[Slapstick]

No, but they don't hesitate to accept my free, succulent, sweet, fruits of Higher Consciousness, which, once eaten, and the eyes are opened, shows them not to buy the snake oil of rigid authoritarian science, just because it prances around as *ahem*: 'The Authority'.

Now they understand what Yeshu meant when he said: "Become ye as little children, or you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"

So how about it, Lipschtick, old buddy: Like some nice, sweet, fresh Higher Consciousness? No charge for sincere chilluns.

If the story of Adam and Eve has any reflection on society you would be the first snake or weasel to get kicked out of the garden. Elusive as you think you are, you aren’t fooling anyone other than yourself.

And Yes! I just used to the Bible as a reference.

BTW: Keep your fruit to yourself. I don’t know want to know anything about it. I have fluffy on standby.

 

[godnotgod]

If the story of Adam and Eve has any reflection on society you would be the first snake or weasel to get kicked out of the garden. Elusive as you think you are, you aren’t fooling anyone other than yourself.

And Yes! I just used to the Bible as a reference.

BTW: Keep your fruit to yourself. I don’t know want to know anything about it.

Sure you don't....sure you don't. Just stay in Plato's Cave with your brain enslaved and locked onto those scientific dancing cave wall shadows you call 'reality'. Never mind that I came to you and freely offered to show you how to go upstairs to see the Radiant Sun.

I have fluffy on standby.

[/QUOTE]

(Shhhhhhh.......Last night, I managed to sneak some secret luscious, irresistible Higher Consciousness treats to good old Fluffy. Now Fluffy's my friend, 'aren't you Fluff?', LOL.):run:

Such a pity that, in your exposure to the Bible, you failed to understand what it was you were reading. If you had, you would have known that God wanted A & E to eat of the 'Forbidden Fruit', which is why he forbade it, and which is nothing but a symbol for Higher Consciousness. In fact, He so wanted them to eat of it, that he reappears to them as a cute little serpent to make sure that they do. Once they did, their eyes were, of course, opened, whereupon they magically could now 'see as God saw', which is none other than the Gift of Divine Union. Story end. But those who did not understand the meaning of the story, thinking God meant what He said, were driven from Paradise, where they hit every bump in the road. We Buddhists call that 'The Long Way Home'.

So when 'ya gonna come home, Schlapschtickenhausen? Hmmmmm?

(We'll leave the light on for 'ya, and won't let on to the others...heh...heh...heh...shhhhhh!):candle:

 

[ruffen]

The method of science can only be applied when there is consciousness, so consciousness is at the root of everything. However, the consciousness that science utilizes is an altered state of consciousness; it is shaped by Reason, Logic, and Analysis, all of which operate on predefined premises, such as the notion that the phenomenal world is real. QM is showing us that these classical views are not as advertised. It's as if Reality is in color, but you choose to only see it as Black and White. Science provides a myopic view of Reality. It is the analysis and prediction of behavior, but not of the origin of the behavior, which is essence. It is a dead view. It squeezes the blood from the living and analyzes the dead corpse and then says that constitutes reality. It does'nt. It's crap, even though it is useful for the development of technology. However, technology without understanding is also crap, as the use of it for selfish and destructive means testifies to.

So, if peer-review, testing of hypotheses, using hypotheses to predict results, discarding hypotheses that don't agree with observed data, and following the evidence wherever it may lead, is not a good source for understanding how Reality really is, then what is a good source?

It's interesting that you need to refer to Quantum Mechanics to prove your point, as QM itself wasn't arrived upon through meditation or relvelation, but through hard scientific work. At first it sounded so absurd that many scientists rejected it, but the evidence was and is there, and cannot be ignored.

How else can one learn of nature, if not by studying and probing and interrogating nature in a methodical, disciplined and skeptical way?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Mine are still nice 'n sweet. I have tons extra. I offer Higher Consciousness to you free of charge. All you need do is open your eyes and your mind.

Slapstick was right on; you're a snake-oil salesman, no more, and not even an especially good one. All you've got are your bare assertions, and hollow ones at that, when you use them to condemn science and logic (all the while using science and logic to do so). Also, all your assertions about the state of science and the evidence for various forms of physicalism are not only not supported by the data, they are directly contradicted by it.

Anyways, as I noted already, it should come as no surprise that once you (try to) eschew logic and science, you can only offer flimsy and slipshod arguments, which do not admit of any evidence, for your views.

 

[godnotgod]

Slapstick was right on; you're a snake-oil salesman, no more, and not even an especially good one. All you've got are your bare assertions, and hollow ones at that, when you use them to condemn science and logic (all the while using science and logic to do so). Also, all your assertions about the state of science and the evidence for various forms of physicalism are not only not supported by the data, they are directly contradicted by it.

Anyways, as I noted already, it should come as no surprise that once you (try to) eschew logic and science, you can only offer flimsy and slipshod arguments, which do not admit of any evidence, for your views.

But I don't condemn science and logic; only when they are offered as the only valid views of reality. Both need to be understood in the context of a higher state of mind that is beyond mere fact and data. When this happens, the scientific view becomes transformed and fully fleshes out. Right now, it is just skin and bones. In this format, it gives us all the facts, but says nothing. It needs Higher Consciousness to interpret those facts. You can't do it with the rational mind alone. Not gonna happen.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But I don't condemn science and logic; only when they are offered as the only valid views of reality.

It sure sounded like it, and they were never offered as "the only valid views of reality"- there's art, for instance; they are, however, our best and most reliable means to finding out truths about the world around us.

Both need to be understood in the context of a higher state of mind that is beyond mere fact and data. When this happens, the scientific view becomes transformed and fully fleshes out. Right now, it is just skin and bones. In this format, it gives us all the facts, but says nothing. It needs Higher Consciousness to interpret those facts. You can't do it with the rational mind alone. Not gonna happen.

This is more just vague, flowery language that doesn't appear to mean a whole lot, and is certainly not substantiated. Unless you can be more specific, and offer some reasoning or evidence supporting these contentions, you're basically just writing fiction here.

 

[godnotgod]

So, if peer-review, testing of hypotheses, using hypotheses to predict results, discarding hypotheses that don't agree with observed data, and following the evidence wherever it may lead, is not a good source for understanding how Reality really is, then what is a good source?

Ever consider Reality itself? It IS right under your nose, you know.

It's interesting that you need to refer to Quantum Mechanics to prove your point, as QM itself wasn't arrived upon through meditation or relvelation, but through hard scientific work. At first it sounded so absurd that many scientists rejected it, but the evidence was and is there, and cannot be ignored.

Right, but I only referred to it because QM is kind of a bridge that the ordinary mind might get a handle on, since it is science. QM, however, cannot make the necessary leap which tells us exactly what QM actually IS.

How else can one learn of nature, if not by studying and probing and interrogating nature in a methodical, disciplined and skeptical way?

By the cessation of the probing, analytical mind and the integration of one's consciousness with nature itself.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ever consider Reality itself?

What does that even mean? How do you "consider reality itself", apart from observing and thinking about it, i.e. exactly what science does?

 

[godnotgod]

It sure sounded like it, and they were never offered as "the only valid views of reality"- there's art, for instance; they are, however, our best and most reliable means to finding out truths about the world around us.

Not so. Who told you that? Science? How convenient!

This is more just vague, flowery language that doesn't appear to mean a whole lot, and is certainly not substantiated. Unless you can be more specific, and offer some reasoning or evidence supporting these contentions, you're basically just writing fiction here.

Yeah, that's exactly what the prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the one prisoner who escaped and went topside to see the Sun.

Look. Stop your skepticism and go see for yourself. Your science will be there when you return, but I guarantee you one thing: it will pale in comparison.

 

[godnotgod]

What does that even mean? How do you "consider reality itself", apart from observing and thinking about it, i.e. exactly what science does?

Uh....experiencing it directly? But first you need to put your discriminating mind to bed.

nightie night....

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not so. Who told you that? Science? How convenient!

We hardly need anyone to tell us that science is by far our most successful line on truth about the world around us; the proof of the pudding is, as they say, in the eating. And judging by the ridiculous variety of things science allows us to do, typing on our computers over the internet not least of which, I'd say the pudding tastes pretty good.

Yeah, that's exactly what the prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the one prisoner who escaped and went topside to see the Sun.

Nice try. Presumably, the escapee is able to avail himself of his reason and offer sound reasoning and good evidence for his claims; citing Plato in favor of anti-evidentialism and anti-intellectualism is an irony of mind-blowing proportions. The point of the allegory of the cave is precisely the opposite of one of your pet claims, about the impotence of reason- Plato thought the exact opposite.

Look. Stop your skepticism and go see for yourself.

This is just an empty refrain; we can hardly "see" any of these entities you keep talking about, which is the problem- its hard to see how "higher realms", "higher consciousness", and all the rest are distinguishable from mere fictions. If they are, on what grounds?

 

[godnotgod]

We hardly need anyone to tell us that science is by far our most successful line on truth about the world around us; the proof of the pudding is, as they say, in the eating. And judging by the ridiculous variety of things science allows us to do, typing on our computers over the internet not least of which, I'd say the pudding tastes pretty good.

No, no. That's the Pudding Menu you've been eating. A common mistake. In order to get to the pudding itself, you've got to put the description aside, and experience it directly.

Nice try. Presumably, the escapee is able to avail himself of his reason and offer sound reasoning and good evidence for his claims; citing Plato in favor of anti-evidentialism and anti-intellectualism is an irony of mind-blowing proportions. The point of the allegory of the cave is precisely the opposite of one of your pet claims, about the impotence of reason- Plato thought the exact opposite.

There is no other way to prove the existence of the Sun other than for the prisoners to go see for themselves.

This is just an empty refrain; we can hardly "see" any of these entities you keep talking about, which is the problem- its hard to see how "higher realms", "higher consciousness", and all the rest are distinguishable from mere fictions. If they are, on what grounds?

Awakened consciousness.

Right now, your consciousness is not awakened; it is conditioned.

 

[Slapstick]

Uh....experiencing it directly?

You aimlessly throw words around like you are wielding flimsy quacking rubber duck.

You wouldn't be able to describe a science or a theory in science without referencing a Yogi.