What came before the Big Bang?

[Dirty Penguin]

The 'evidence' is evidence of Something Greater.

Such as....?

All things have a Cause.
(unless you dismiss the principle of cause and effect.)

And so now you're about to share with us what the "cause" was...using evidence correct?


OH.....

"And a statement of ignorance is not a winning notation."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That would be God.

You don't know so you assume.

You assume then you believe.

You believe because you don't know.

You don't know so you assume.

You assume then you believe.

You believe because you don't know............

This is known as "circular reasoning".....and it's what you're displaying. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your beliefs nor am I bashing them....All I'm saying is.....your reasoning isn't germane to the subject at hand......:sad:

 

[idav]

It doesn't make me feel any better or worse. It's just a belief regardless of how I feel about it. However, please understand that when you say 'God is the cause; the universe is the effect', you are splitting reality in two, where there is no such division in truth. That split exists ONLY in your mind.

Panentheism allows for a god that lives outside of time and space but am comfortable with a natural deity.

But if it is a 'creation', you have yet to explain the origin of the original material from which it was created. Theology hasn't done it; Science hasn't done it. And that's because it is not real. The only scenario that adequately explains what the world is, is that it is an illusion.

A creator is the creationist attempt to explain origins as a creation. Saying the world is an illusion doesn't explain anything.

Then we have no problem 'explaining' the origin of the 'material', simply because the material isn't material. And what do we find when we look inside this mateiral? Over 99% empty space! And the 'matter' we DO find eludes us. It behaves more like a wave than a particle.

No there is a dual property of particles in that they act like a wave and a particle depending on what your trying to test for. Just being mostly space doesn't mean its an illusion. Those particles still exist.

Add to this the paradox of Quantum Mechanics, and 'matter' appears more an illusion than ever.

There is no paradox, just something behind he curtain. People think it only exists when looking yet nobody can say for certain that it didn't exist as such before we pulled the curtain. I see no proof of non locality just conjecture.

 

[metis]

You don't know so you assume.

You [Thief] assume then you believe.

You believe because you don't know.

You don't know so you assume.

You assume then you believe.

You believe because you don't know............

This is known as "circular reasoning".....and it's what you're displaying. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your beliefs nor am I bashing them....All I'm saying is.....your reasoning isn't germane to the subject at hand......:sad:

Hey, I did much the same until about a dozen years ago when I really had a heart to heart conversation with myself (heavy doses of NoDoz was needed) asking why do I believe? After a long time in my internal debate, I concluded:
I believed because I wanted to believe, and...
I believed because I was brought up to believe.

Then I realized that I was really only fooling myself, thus leading my onto the path of being an agnostic.

 

[godnotgod]

No there is a dual property of particles in that they act like a wave and a particle depending on what your trying to test for. Just being mostly space doesn't mean its an illusion. Those particles still exist.

But being mostly empty space means that what we call 'the material world' is an illusion. It is an illusion in that it only appears to be material, when, in fact, it is almost totally empty space.

I believe the term used for 'particles' that sometimes behave like waves are called 'wavicles'.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no paradox, just something behind he curtain. People think it only exists when looking yet nobody can say for certain that it didn't exist as such before we pulled the curtain.

However, Reason may not be the means by which the answer becomes available to us. It may require another form of knowledge in order to understand the nature of the phenomena.

As Kant pointed out, Reason has ineluctible limits, and it appears we are approaching those limits both on the micro and the macro scales.

 

[godnotgod]

Panentheism allows for a god that lives outside of time and space but am comfortable with a natural deity.

Time and Space being only concepts, the unity of creator and created still remains, the split being only mental.

A creator is the creationist attempt to explain origins as a creation. Saying the world is an illusion doesn't explain anything.

It explains everything. It means there is no need to explain the original material, because there was none. The world is then not a creation, but a manifestation.

Neither science nor theology have been able to provide an adequate explanation for the original material from which the universe originated. Only a world based on illusion does. Otherwise, the universe is a result of magic, which, of course, is the essence of illusion itself.

 

[gnostic]

Time and Space being only concepts, the unity of creator and created still remains, the split being only mental.

It explains everything. It means there is no need to explain the original material, because there was none. The world is then not a creation, but a manifestation.

Neither science nor theology have been able to provide an adequate explanation for the original material from which the universe originated. Only a world based on illusion does. Otherwise, the universe is a result of magic, which, of course, is the essence of illusion itself.

More nonsense.

If material, space and time are only illusion or magic, then would consciousness and your precious higher consciousness also be nothing more than magic or illusion?

And if that true, then you're not real; you're nothing more than figment of someone else's imagination?

Where do the illusion end and reality begin?

 

[idav]

Time and Space being only concepts, the unity of creator and created still remains, the split being only mental.

Indeed thry are philosphical constructs, mental.

Both of you are talking like panentheists, a sort of dualism. Only your god is stuck in the matrix dreaming us into existence. you both are agreeing the source is conscious.

 

[godnotgod]

More nonsense.

If material, space and time are only illusion or magic, then would consciousness and your precious higher consciousness also be nothing more than magic or illusion?

And if that true, then you're not real; you're nothing more than figment of someone else's imagination?

Where do the illusion end and reality begin?

At the point where you recognize illusion as illusion, and reality as reality. When you are in delusion, you cannot recognize illusion as illusion, because the mind is not yet awakened. It is the awakened mind that sees illusion for what what it is.

If we have already established that the universe is the Absolute, as Vivikenanda tells us, and that the Absolute is changeless, then it is clear at this point that Time is an illusion, because change takes place only in Time.

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed thry are philosphical constructs, mental.

Both of you are talking like panentheists, a sort of dualism. Only your god is stuck in the matrix dreaming us into existence. you both are agreeing the source is conscious.

It is the dream that creates the duality of dreamer and dream. Upon awakening, however, it becomes clear that there is no such duality. There is only awakening. The dream vanishes. There is no dreamer of the dream.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

At the point where you recognize illusion as illusion, and reality as reality. When you are in delusion, you cannot recognize illusion as illusion, because the mind is not yet awakened. It is the awakened mind that sees illusion for what what it is.

If we have already established that the universe is the Absolute, as Vivikenanda tells us, and that the Absolute is changeless, then it is clear at this point that Time is an illusion, because change takes place only in Time.

But that doesn't answer his question

 

[YmirGF]

If we have already established that the universe is the Absolute, as Vivikenanda tells us, and that the Absolute is changeless, then it is clear at this point that Time is an illusion, because change takes place only in Time.

Certainty of Absolutes is perhaps the greatest of illusions.

 

[godnotgod]

But that doesn't answer his question

He asked: "Where do the illusion end and reality begin?"

At the point of awakening. It's a matter of consciousness. The dreamer's consciousness is an altered one. Awakened consciousness is unaltered. It sees things as they are, which is what Reality is.

 

[godnotgod]

Certainty of Absolutes is perhaps the greatest of illusions.

It can be. However, for you to make that statement means you are not seeing things via illusion. What condition of mind allows you to do so?

re: the universe as the Absolute: do you wish to go over the argument again?

 

[idav]

It is the dream that creates the duality of dreamer and dream. Upon awakening, however, it becomes clear that there is no such duality. There is only awakening. The dream vanishes. There is no dreamer of the dream.

A person waking up was the person dreaming but your not saying we are dreaming. Your saying consciousness is dreaming and we are the ones waking up. So what I picture is a conscious entity having a bunch of mini consciousness's waking up to find the absolute conscious reality. That is where I'm hearing a deity in your rhetoric, when you say that all of reality is consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

If we have already established that the universe is the Absolute, as Vivikenanda tells us, and that the Absolute is changeless, then it is clear at this point that Time is an illusion, because change takes place only in Time.

New stars and new planets are born formed at some parts of the galaxy/galaxies or the universe, from turning to red giant then fading away into white dwarf (the most likely fate of our Sun), or exploding stellar materials into deep space, or collapse in itself and turning into either neutron star or a black hole. New star can usually from stellar materials of dead stars, hence a rebirth.

If the absolute mean nothing changes, then the universe is not the Absolute, because the universe is ever-changing.

The universe is never changeless.

 

[godnotgod]

New stars and new planets are born formed at some parts of the galaxy/galaxies or the universe, from turning to red giant then fading away into white dwarf (the most likely fate of our Sun), or exploding stellar materials into deep space, or collapse in itself and turning into either neutron star or a black hole. New star can usually from stellar materials of dead stars, hence a rebirth.

If the absolute mean nothing changes, then the universe is not the Absolute, because the universe is ever-changing.

The universe is never changeless.

As I said, it is all illusion. It only appears to change. That is the nature of illusion: appearances. However, the illusion that there is a universe that is changing is of a higher order than say, that of a rope moving in the wind seen as a 'snake'.

That is why the statement says: 'as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.' When these conceptual filters are removed, one sees the universe as it actually is: the Absolute; the Changeless.

From the point of view of unawakened conscious awareness (ie; Waking Sleep; 3rd level) this universe is real as 'the universe'.

But from the point of view of awakened consciousness (ie Self Transcendence; 4th level and above) only the Absolute is real.

 

[YmirGF]

It can be. However, for you to make that statement means you are not seeing things via illusion. What condition of mind allows you to do so?

Who says it is a "condition of mind" and why should we heed this narrative?

re: the universe as the Absolute: do you wish to go over the argument again?

No need to my friend, I'm an adherent of M-theory and have little interest in the primitive ramblings from the metaphysical camp.

 

[godnotgod]

Who says it is a "condition of mind" and why should we heed this narrative?

I don't know....I was merely saying that your comment comes from a place where you are pointing out illusion. If you know what illusion is, then the mind which detects it is obviously not in illusion. If you understand this, what, then, is that state of mind?

No need to my friend, I'm an adherent of M-theory and have little interest in the primitive ramblings from the metaphysical camp.

So why did you choose to ask questions from it?

All I am saying is that the universe, being Everything by definition, is necessarily the Absolute. There is no question about this, no matter what you 'adhere' to.