What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

Before the supposed "Bang", where was the god of all that believe,
inside the "containment", or "container", or outside of it ?
Was this entity now known as "god",nothingness or everyness ?
~
I think the preist that wrote this synopsis was stangely minded at best.
But....there had to be beginning....doesn't there ?
I know, I know.....God did it !
~
still confused am I !
~
'mud

Just hold to that thought a bit longer.
Don't let go.
The confusion will fade.

 

[metis]

There won't be a photo, fingerprint, equation, or experiment.
No evidence.

You just have to think about it.

I have done much so over my 69 years, especially since I used to teach theology and comparative religions.

Instead of believing something that has zero evidence to support it, I have taken the position that whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that.

 

[metis]

However, it is this very 'I don't know' mind that is the pathway to the realization of Enlightenment, which is the knowledge of the nature of Reality beyond logic. The 'I don't know' mind is the end of thinking and the beginning, or resumption, of seeing.

I tend to think that "I don't know" isn't the pathway to Enlightenment but is within Enlightenment itself. It's a matter of cutting through the myriads of unfounded beliefs to realize that our ability to know the answers is limited-- that's real Enlightenment.

 

[godnotgod]

After the big bang, the universe is all that CAN be contained.

Contained in what? Containment implies that there is something to be contained. The atom is over 99.9% empty space. The rest is energy. The universe is an illusion. How do you contain illusion, when an illusion is something that doesn't exist?

And if you're the only Voice in that container......it's solitude confinement.
No matter how large the container might be.

Hello? Anyone in there?

The bigger the container, the more lonely you feel, right? Thief, sometimes you are just hilarious.

 

[Thief]

Contained in what? Containment implies that there is something to be contained. The atom is over 99.9% empty space. The rest is energy. The universe is an illusion. How do you contain illusion, when an illusion is something that doesn't exist?



Hello? Anyone in there?

The bigger the container, the more lonely you feel, right? Thief, sometimes you are just hilarious.

Contained in and by the will of God.

laugh all you want...for now.

 

[Thief]

I have done much so over my 69 years, especially since I used to teach theology and comparative religions.

Instead of believing something that has zero evidence to support it, I have taken the position that whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that.

I leave out the multiverse part.
That is a result of theoretical math that had to be tweaked.
Heard someone say so on a science documentary.
There's really no other cause to believe in it.

I say the universe we have on hand is 'proof' sufficient.

 

[Ouroboros]

We don't prove God. God is axiomatic. Proving God usually means to define personal and subjective ideas about God rather than actually proving God.

 

[godnotgod]

Contained in and by the will of God.

laugh all you want...for now.

There's no better time to laugh than now. Choreographed laughter never comes off quite right.

Now you're just being silly. If God is 'containing' the universe, then what is outside of the containment? If there is an outside, then what is being contained cannot be the universe, because by definition, the universe is everything, which would include what is on the outside. There is no inside and outside. Those are just ideas the rational mind superimposes over reality in a feeble effort to try to make 'sense' out of something that is non-rational in nature. Some, like you, must invent a God to explain away the inexplicable. Because you cannot conceive of the Infinite, you invent a 'contained' universe which the rational mind feels comfortable with.

 

[godnotgod]

We don't prove God. God is axiomatic. Proving God usually means to define personal and subjective ideas about God rather than actually proving God.

A God that can be proven via logic and reason is a dead God.

 

[Thief]

A God that can be proven via logic and reason is a dead God.

That's not logical!

 

[Thief]

There's no better time to laugh than now. Choreographed laughter never comes off quite right.

Now you're just being silly. If God is 'containing' the universe, then what is outside of the containment? If there is an outside, then what is being contained cannot be the universe, because by definition, the universe is everything, which would include what is on the outside. There is no inside and outside. Those are just ideas the rational mind superimposes over reality in a feeble effort to try to make 'sense' out of something that is non-rational in nature. Some, like you, must invent a God to explain away the inexplicable. Because you cannot conceive of the Infinite, you invent a 'contained' universe which the rational mind feels comfortable with.

Not where or what......but how.

The laws of nature....which He created.

 

[metis]

I leave out the multiverse part.
That is a result of theoretical math that had to be tweaked.
Heard someone say so on a science documentary.
There's really no other cause to believe in it.

Actually, the cosmological drift towards believing that a multiverse may exist is mostly based on what we now know about how quantum mechanics works and not so much on "theoretical math".

 

[Thief]

Actually, the cosmological drift towards believing that a multiverse may exist is mostly based on what we now know about how quantum mechanics works and not so much on "theoretical math".

Maybe the science documentaries vary.
The last guy I saw giving speech was clear though....
The current flow of numbers are an effort to explain what we cannot do in a laboratory.
The experiment would be too large.

And example would be a subatomic collider.
The machine would be so large, you could not build it on Earth.

So that particle is not going to be 'found'.

 

[metis]

Maybe the science documentaries vary.
The last guy I saw giving speech was clear though....
The current flow of numbers are an effort to explain what we cannot do in a laboratory.
The experiment would be too large.

And example would be a subatomic collider.
The machine would be so large, you could not build it on Earth.

So that particle is not going to be 'found'.

Which "particle"?

Did the documentary cover how quantum mechanics may relate to the multiverse concept? Did they cover "M-Theory" and "String Theory"?

What was the name of the documentary and on which station did you see it, btw?

 

[Thief]

Which "particle"?

Did the documentary cover how quantum mechanics may relate to the multiverse concept? Did they cover "M-Theory" and "String Theory"?

What was the name of the documentary and on which station did you see it, btw?

As I recall....the dialog bounced over each item.
That's a lot of territory in one hour!

I think it's called....Through the Wormhole.
Morgan Freeman narrates.

The scientist interviewed have odd names.....sorry I can't recite them.

 

[metis]

As I recall....the dialog bounced over each item.
That's a lot of territory in one hour!

I think it's called....Through the Wormhole.
Morgan Freeman narrates.

The scientist interviewed have odd names.....sorry I can't recite them.

I've seen at least some of these, and they're pretty good overall, imo. However, some points are a bit overdramatized plus, as you say, there's only a limited amount of time to cover an area that highly complex and very contentious.

 

[Ouroboros]

A God that can be proven via logic and reason is a dead God.

Yes.

It's a less-than-God god. It's like trying to give a number to infinity. Which numbers is ∞? 9 million? 10 sixtillion? 100 fantazillions? There's no number to describe ∞. And there's no definition that completely describes God.

I think it was Plato that had the allegory of the sun (not the cave right now), where we know that the sun exists. We can feel its heat. We can see it, but never head on. The exact truth of existence, reality, God, etc, is like the center of the sun. It's there. We know where it is. We can experience and feel it. But we can't look straight at it. Defining God is to set a point and look at it, and in effect not looking into the true sun.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's not logical!

It's a singularity.

A singularity by definition has infinite mass and time. It's division by zero. Describing and defining God is to claim that 1/0 is defined instead of undefined.

God is only axiomatic. You can't prove God or God's properties. God is the base, source, foundation, substrate, or scaffolding to existence itself. God is "causing" us, the world, atoms, reactions, energy, magnetism, though, all of it, at once, right here, right now. There's no a first cause, but a constant causes at any given point of existence. That's how God can theoretically be omniscience, knowing everything, because knowing is to experience. Through the world going through the process, and we experiencing the world, God is learning and knowing all. A crude analogy would be that we're the neurons, the cells in God's brain.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes.

It's a less-than-God god. It's like trying to give a number to infinity. Which numbers is ∞? 9 million? 10 sixtillion? 100 fantazillions? There's no number to describe ∞. And there's no definition that completely describes God.

I think it was Plato that had the allegory of the sun (not the cave right now), where we know that the sun exists. We can feel its heat. We can see it, but never head on. The exact truth of existence, reality, God, etc, is like the center of the sun. It's there. We know where it is. We can experience and feel it. But we can't look straight at it. Defining God is to set a point and look at it, and in effect not looking into the true sun.

It is for this reason that mystics can only infer God in negative terms. We can only really say what God is not, because any definition is an attempt to encapsulate God, which is impossible.

 

[Thief]

It is for this reason that mystics can only infer God in negative terms. We can only really say what God is not, because any definition is an attempt to encapsulate God, which is impossible.

God is!

How's that for positive?

God is the Almighty!

How's that for unlimited?