What came before the Big Bang?

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

No but I accept the evidence for it.

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

No. We created the "superior being" concepts because we didn't understand the evidence

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

It's one among many that seem to be just as good as the next....(i.e. multiverse...string theory..etc.)

Was it something else?

Other than the Big Bang Theory.....not that we know of.

 

[Thief]

No but I accept the evidence for it.



No. We created the "superior being" concepts because we didn't understand the evidence



It's one among many that seem to be just as good as the next....(i.e. multiverse...string theory..etc.)



Other than the Big Bang Theory.....not that we know of.

The 'evidence' is evidence of Something Greater.
All things have a Cause.
(unless you dismiss the principle of cause and effect.)

And a statement of ignorance is not a winning notation.

 

[Thief]

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.

Not as I read your posts....'a wave is not a wave'....

I accept God as Absolute.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

That's already been laid out:

If the universe is Everything, then it is also the Absolute.
If it is not Everything, then it is not the Absolute.

Simple as that.

So which is it?

 

[Thief]

That's already been laid out:

If the universe is Everything, then it is also the Absolute.
If it is not Everything, then it is not the Absolute.

Simple as that.

So which is it?

Not so simple.
You keep leaving God out of it.

 

[godnotgod]

Not as I read your posts....'a wave is not a wave'....

I accept God as Absolute.

You keep answering questions that were never asked. The question is not about God; it is about the universe, which has to do with the topic of the Big Bang.

The question at hand is: Is the universe Everything, or not?

Really, really simple.

If you don't understand the question, OK. Just say so, and I will try to explain.

 

[godnotgod]

Not so simple.
You keep leaving God out of it.

The statement, and the question about the statement, is not about God, but about whether the universe is the Absolute or not.

Very simple.

 

[godnotgod]

universe

The broadest definition of the Universe is found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher and theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that is created and everything that is not created.

More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist). According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

Wikipedia

So the universe, as defined above, also includes space.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's already been laid out:

If the universe is Everything, then it is also the Absolute.
If it is not Everything, then it is not the Absolute.

Simple as that.

So which is it?

Well, but in many contexts (but not all), "universe" means "everything that exists": so for any X that we find that is existing, it would, by definition, be part of the universe. Thus, this tells us nothing, because it is simply a tautology- "the universe (everything that exists) is everything that exists (the universe)". True, but trivially so, like A=A; it tells us no less and no more than we knew before.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, but in many contexts (but not all), "universe" means "everything that exists": so for any X that we find that is existing, it would, by definition, be part of the universe. Thus, this tells us nothing, because it is simply a tautology- "the universe (everything that exists) is everything that exists (the universe)". True, but trivially so, like A=A; it tells us no less and no more than we knew before.

Right, and all Vivikenanda is saying is:

"The universe is [none other than] the Absolute...."

IOW, he's just pointing out a way of looking at it that we are not normally accustomed to, even though, as you say, it seems redundant. But it only seems that way, as I explained earlier to you, simply because we are only looking at part of the statement. The bottom line here is this:

What you see as 'the universe', is actually the Absolute;
What you think of as a collection of separate 'things' you call 'the universe', is actually One Reality, which is the Absolute.

To put it in metaphorical terms:

What you thought was a snake, is really a rope.

As I explained several times, I am using the word 'universe' to mean 'Everything that exists'.

So with that in mind, can we continue?

 

[Thief]

Right, and all Vivikenanda is saying is:

"The universe is [none other than] the Absolute...."

IOW, he's just pointing out a way of looking at it that we are not normally accustomed to, even though, as you say, it seems redundant. But it only seems that way, as I explained earlier to you, simply because we are only looking at part of the statement. The bottom line here is this:

What you see as 'the universe', is actually the Absolute;
What you think of as a collection of separate 'things' you call 'the universe', is actually One Reality, which is the Absolute.

To put it in metaphorical terms:

What you thought was a snake, is really a rope.

As I explained several times, I am using the word 'universe' to mean 'Everything that exists'.

So with that in mind, can we continue?

There's the kick in your technique.
You kick the nouns to mean whatever you like.

The universe can be described as absolute.
God can be described as absolute.
They are separate....as Creator and creation.

 

[godnotgod]

There's the kick in your technique.
You kick the nouns to mean whatever you like.

metaphor...metaphor...

The universe can be described as absolute.
God can be described as absolute.
They are separate....as Creator and creation.

'God' is not the question here. God is a matter of belief. We cannot prove God's existence, so to interject a God into the mix here does not work.

However, 'universe' can include God, if you wish, 'uni' meaning One.

There cannot be two Absolutes. You have not paid attention to the definitions that were provided, where 'Absolute' means there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

 

[gnostic]

The universe can be described as absolute.
God can be described as absolute.
They are separate....as Creator and creation.

'God' is not the question here. God is a matter of belief. We cannot prove God's existence, so to interject a God into the mix here does not work.

However, 'universe' can include God, if you wish, 'uni' meaning One.

There cannot be two Absolutes. You have not paid attention to the definitions that were provided, where 'Absolute' means there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

Codswallop! :foot:

While I may agree with godnotgod's "God is a matter of belief." ...and being a belief or someone's imagination, God is so not absolute. This is where I disagreed with you, thief.

Nothing can be absolute if there are no physical manifestation that can be seen, heard, felt, measured or tested to see if god is real. Confirmation and verification are always nice - to find out what is real. God or any other deities don't fit that bill, because it only required faith, and faith alone, for their belief in its existence.

Seriously, how can god be "absolute" when you can't prove his (or her) existence?

But I think it is nonsense that there can only be ONE ABSOLUTE. This is where I disagreed with you, godnotgod.

 

[godnotgod]

But I think it is nonsense that there can only be ONE ABSOLUTE. This is where I disagreed with you, godnotgod.

I think I understand your meaning. Certainly there are many absolutes within whatever categories we are referring to, such as temperature, color, size, weight, etc., but when we are talking about the universe, there is only one Absolute, because the there is only one universe, and it is Everything. Think of it as THE Absolute of all absolutes, ultimate Absolute, or absolute Absolute. Again, the criteria here is that there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

 

[Thief]

metaphor...metaphor...



'God' is not the question here. God is a matter of belief. We cannot prove God's existence, so to interject a God into the mix here does not work.

However, 'universe' can include God, if you wish, 'uni' meaning One.

There cannot be two Absolutes. You have not paid attention to the definitions that were provided, where 'Absolute' means there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

'Your' definitions?

Nothing Greater than 'You'?
Assuming 'your' intellect as greater is an error.

I would assume Something Greater with greater confidence.

Someone had to be First.

That would be God.

 

[Thief]

Codswallop! :foot:

While I may agree with godnotgod's "God is a matter of belief." ...and being a belief or someone's imagination, God is so not absolute. This is where I disagreed with you, thief.

Nothing can be absolute if there are no physical manifestation that can be seen, heard, felt, measured or tested to see if god is real. Confirmation and verification are always nice - to find out what is real. God or any other deities don't fit that bill, because it only required faith, and faith alone, for their belief in its existence.

Seriously, how can god be "absolute" when you can't prove his (or her) existence?

But I think it is nonsense that there can only be ONE ABSOLUTE. This is where I disagreed with you, godnotgod.

That can also be applied to you.
Going to survive your last breath?......doesn't look that way with such denial in hand.

Almighty is an absolute term and 'self'-explanatory.
Absolutely.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Going to survive your last breath?......doesn't look that way with such denial in hand.

Silly.

 

[Thief]

Silly.

Not at all.
You are not your own handiwork.
And you know your chemistry will fail.

Your only leverage is your mind and heart.

If you're determined to fail (die) altogether....then likely you will.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not at all.

Of course it is. Whether we um, die when we die is hardly up to us- as if by merely believing some fairy tales will make death something other than death. This is called "wishful thinking", and is completely delusional as well.

 

[Thief]

Of course it is. Whether we um, die when we die is hardly up to us- as if by merely believing some fairy tales will make death something other than death. This is called "wishful thinking", and is completely delusional as well.

That part was correct.
Heaven decides the continuance.
I believe in judgment.
I suspect that judgment can reflect your belief...or lack thereof.