What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

I'm not saying its necessarily false, its that it tells us next to nothing we didn't know already, and so its hardly some startling revelation.

Right. But that is just the first part of the statement. We haven't finished.
So it sounds like you agree, the universe is the absolute. If you 'already know' it to be true, then it can't be false.

Actually, I don't think most people think about the universe in these terms.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

[/COLOR="Indigo"]Right. But that is just the first part of the statement. We haven't finished.

If you're referring to what you said already, about the universe being the absolute filtered through time, space, whatever, then it still doesn't tell us much.

So it sounds like you agree, the universe is the absolute.

Actually, I don't think most people think about the universe in these terms. [/COLOR]

I don't like to think about the universe in those terms either, because, as I said, its pretty much vacuous. Tell me, what would the truth-conditions for "the universe is the absolute" be- how could this statement, in theory, be falsified?

 

[idav]

The universe needs 2 qualifiers to be the absolute. It has to be the only universe in existence and it has to be it's own source.

Actually, I don't think most people think about the universe in these terms.

I do/would but it is pure speculation.

and....

"The Tao that is named is not the eternal Tao"

 

[godnotgod]

If you're referring to what you said already, about the universe being the absolute filtered through time, space, whatever, then it still doesn't tell us much.


I don't like to think about the universe in those terms either, because, as I said, its pretty much vacuous. Tell me, what would the truth-conditions for "the universe is the absolute" be- how could this statement, in theory, be falsified?

Via argumentation and logic.

All I want to do at this point is to establish the first part of the statement, as obvious as it may sound to you, and regardless as to whether you like to think about it in these terms. It is not a personal statement.

 

[godnotgod]

I do/would but it is pure speculation.

and....

"The Tao that is named is not the eternal Tao"

Well, how could the universe NOT be the absolute, 'absolute', being 'everything' in which there is no other to compare to?

I am not referring to the name of the universe, but to its state.

If we cannot name it, then we cannot call it a 'universe' either.

Vivikenanda is saying that the universe is absolute, which is just another way of saying that it is Everything.

The simple question at this point is: 'Is the universe the Absolute, or not?' That is all.

(Even Lao tse names the Tao as 'the eternal Tao')
.

 

[idav]

Well, how could the universe NOT be the absolute, 'absolute', being 'everything' in which there is no other to compare to?

I am not referring to the name of the universe, but to its state.

If we cannot name it, then we cannot call it a 'universe' either.

Vivikenanda is saying that the universe is absolute, which is just another way of saying that it is Everything.
.

I mentioned two qualifiers for seeing the universe as the absolute. Can you say with certainty that the universe is the only universe in existence (That might make it everything)? Can you say with certainty that the universe is its own source (That would also make it everything)? It could just need to be its own source but then more than one universe could have come from whatever source that is.

 

[godnotgod]

I mentioned two qualifiers for seeing the universe as the absolute. Can you say with certainty that the universe is the only universe in existence (That might make it everything)? Can you say with certainty that the universe is its own source (That would also make it everything)? It could just need to be its own source but then more than one universe could have come from whatever source that is.

In both cases, the universe would still be the Absolute.

If there are multiple 'universes', their totality is still Everything, which would be Absolute.

If there is a creator of the universe, Everything includes both, and that is the Absolute.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Via argumentation and logic.

That's really vague; I have no idea what that would mean in this particular case. Could you be more specific?

 

[godnotgod]

That's really vague; I have no idea what that would mean in this particular case. Could you be more specific?

Is that really necessary, in light of what you already said, which was:

'it tells us next to nothing we didn't know already'

So if you already KNOW it to be true, why do you need clarification?

 

[Slapstick]

Comparing the universe to an absolute is like comparing your burnt out candle to the wind. Once its out, it stays out and there isn't no getting it back again.

 

[godnotgod]

Comparing the universe to an absolute is like comparing your burnt out candle to the wind. Once its out, it stays out and there isn't no getting it back again.

I'm not comparing the universe to anything; I'm saying the universe IS the Absolute itself.

Once the candle is out, we don't WANT to get it back. The point is to extinguish the flame of the self once and for all.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Is that really necessary, in light of what you already said, which was:

'it tells us next to nothing we didn't know already'

So if you already KNOW it to be true, why do you need clarification?

I didn't say I know it to be true, I said that my reservations have more to do with how informative it is than with whether it is actually false. And whether it is informative at all could be clarified by whether it actually has any truth-conditions; if it does not, it would seem to be vacuous.

 

[godnotgod]

I didn't say I know it to be true, I said that my reservations have more to do with how informative it is than with whether it is actually false. And whether it is informative at all could be clarified by whether it actually has any truth-conditions; if it does not, it would seem to be vacuous.

At this point, whether it is informative or vacuous is not what the issue is.

Tell me: what does the word 'universe' mean to you?

 

[idav]

In both cases, the universe would still be the Absolute.

If there are multiple 'universes', their totality is still Everything, which would be Absolute.

If there is a creator of the universe, Everything includes both, and that is the Absolute.

In those two scenarios the universe isn't all there is so the universe can't be everything.

 

[godnotgod]

In those two scenarios the universe isn't all there is so the universe can't be everything.

I am using the word 'universe' to mean just that: Everything, and everything is all that there is, which would include multiple universes as well as a creator-god.

If the universe is not everything, then what is it?

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature."
Wikipedia

I am NOT using the word to mean only the OBSERVABLE universe.

 

[idav]

I am using the word 'universe' to mean just that: Everything, and everything is all that there is, which would include multiple universes as well as a creator-god.

This fits the word universal but not universe?

If the universe is not everything, then what is it?

I'm not saying that it isn't, we just can't prove it.

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature."
Wikipedia

Notice in that definition there is no mention of anything outside the universe.

I am NOT using the word to mean only the OBSERVABLE universe.

Yet that is what universe entails.

Correction: It is anything that is part of what we know as the universe whether we are able to observe it.

 

[godnotgod]

This fits the word universal but not universe?

The one is derived from the other.

I'm not saying that it isn't, we just can't prove it.

If 'everything' is the universe, then that proves it beyond any doubt.

Notice in that definition there is no mention of anything outside the universe.

If there were, it would not be 'the universe', because what would be 'outside the universe' would still be part of the universe. Besides, the universe has no 'outside' or 'inside'. Notice that the way I am using the word 'universe', as 'everything', it would include anything 'outside', even if that were possible.

Yet that is what universe entails.

Correction: It is anything that is part of what we know as the universe whether we are able to observe it.

That's just another way of saying that the universe is Everything, and if it is Everything, then it is not just absolute, it is THE Absolute, because there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. If there were an 'other', then it would cease to be the universe, and would then be a relative, rather than an absolute.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

At this point, whether it is informative or vacuous is not what the issue is.

It is to me; why are you avoiding the question?

 

[godnotgod]

It is to me; why are you avoiding the question?

I'm not. I cannot show the informative part until we agree that the universe is the absolute.

You want to make up your mind before we're finished.

Use your head. It's simple logic.

If you can't accept that the universe is the absolute, then say so, but do tell why you take that position.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not. I cannot show the informative part until we agree that the universe is the absolute.

Don't worry about that; just tell me, as specifically as possible, what the truth-conditions for your statement would be, or, alternatively, under what circumstances it would be falsified.