What was the Big Bang

[Cockadoodledoo]

If one can accept the notion of time travel,
Then ‘the beginning’ can be an idea,
From which everything is spawned.

For example, here’s an idea......
“We will bring into existence our own reality”.
So scientists implement this idea,
And come up with........
“The design and control of the singularity”.

So the beginning isn’t the Big Bang....
It’s the new idea.
Everything starts as an idea.....
Why should the Big Bang be any different.

We will create a seed from which everything will come into being.....
The great cosmic tree will grow and produce fruit....
We are the fruit and designer of the seed.....
The beginning was the idea....
The solution was this reality.

 

[Thief]

If one can accept the notion of time travel,
Then ‘the beginning’ can be an idea,
From which everything is spawned.

For example, here’s an idea......
“We will bring into existence our own reality”.
So scientists implement this idea,
And come up with........
“The design and control of the singularity”.

So the beginning isn’t the Big Bang....
It’s the new idea.
Everything starts as an idea.....
Why should the Big Bang be any different.

We will create a seed from which everything will come into being.....
The great cosmic tree will grow and produce fruit....
We are the fruit and designer of the seed.....
The beginning was the idea....
The solution was this reality.

ok.....now consider....
Someone had to be First
in mind and heart

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

ok.....now consider....
Someone had to be First
in mind and heart

And there will be many who work it out for themselves.....
And realize that from looking at science,
The ‘scientists’ didn’t actually make it obvious that this was the plan to the layman!

Ps. Maybe the first was an alien, and humanity has been duped by the alien race.
Perhaps religions are the spawn of the alien race,
And human scientists are only catching up now.

 

[Thief]

And there will be many who work it out for themselves.....
And realize that from looking at science,
The ‘scientists’ didn’t actually make it obvious that this was the plan to the layman!

Ps. Maybe the first was an alien, and humanity has been duped by the alien race.
Perhaps religions are the spawn of the alien race,
And human scientists are only catching up now.

not so fast......

think regression

then put that First Person before the formation of light

no one seems to think.....it's obvious to me

Someone had to be First
and before the creation of light
He lived in the darkness of the void

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

not so fast......

think regression

then put that First Person before the formation of light

no one seems to think.....it's obvious to me

Someone had to be First
and before the creation of light
He lived in the darkness of the void

not so fast......

think regression

then put that First Person before the formation of light

no one seems to think.....it's obvious to me

Someone had to be First
and before the creation of light
He lived in the darkness of the void

He lived in the darkness of the void if he created light down the time stream.
But he lived in the light if he created light up the time stream, did he not?
Time is a funny old thing, and I have a hard time explaining things at the best of times.

If it’s 3 am and he creates light at 1am, he’ll be in the light.
If it’s 3 am and he creates light at 5 am, he’ll be in the dark for 2 hours!

 

[viole]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

I think scientists found what happened before the Big Bang.

It is a new theory. They call it the Big Foreplay.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

He lived in the darkness of the void if he created light down the time stream.
But he lived in the light if he created light up the time stream, did he not?
Time is a funny old thing, and I have a hard time explaining things at the best of times.

If it’s 3 am and he creates light at 1am, he’ll be in the light.
If it’s 3 am and he creates light at 5 am, he’ll be in the dark for 2 hours!

time does not exist

and if God is god......then He did dwell in the void ....in the dark

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think scientists found what happened before the Big Bang.

It is a new theory. They call it the Big Foreplay.

Ciao

- viole

You resurrected this thread for that! * * * * * infinite mirror eyes to the ceiling facepalm* * * * *

Of course, if a septabajillion angles were involved, it would have been an epic simultaneous orgiastic orgasm for the ages. The ubiquitous background radiation noise must then be the sound of all those bells being rung at once.

Be careful with what you suggest. There'll always be some sicko who'll take it and run with it. Lesson learned I hope.

 

[Cacotopia]

I like to think of it as a reset button for the universe. But that is just science fiction in my head, a point where all is known and been discovered and that the only path is to start over.

This is all speculation I don't honestly know what caused the big bang.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I like to think of it as a reset button for the universe. But that is just science fiction in my head, a point where all is known and been discovered and that the only path is to start over.

This is all speculation I don't honestly know what caused the big bang.

And if you're right, as an atheist, it doesn't matter.

 

[Cacotopia]

And if you're right, as an atheist, it doesn't matter.

If evidence were to be provided of that being a reality? I would believe in that. Atheists can change their minds. We don't believe in nothing as a credo, I like to think we withhold belief because of a lack of evidence. So far I am not convinced but I think it is healthy to speculate. The imagination is a fun place to explore, knowing where reality and fiction meet is equally as important. Of course the line where they meet is blurred. It's important to remain skeptical especially in the grey zone.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If evidence were to be provided of that being a reality? I would believe in that. Atheists can change their minds. We don't believe in nothing as a credo, I like to think we withhold belief because of a lack of evidence. So far I am not convinced but I think it is healthy to speculate. The imagination is a fun place to explore, knowing where reality and fiction meet is equally as important. Of course the line where they meet is blurred. It's important to remain skeptical especially in the grey zone.

What you describe appears to be agnostic-atheism. One of two reasonable positions on the existence of God, along with the only other reasonable one, agnostic-deism. From our standpoint, living this life, with no evidence for or against either, they are both irrelevant--with the only difference being the hope for something more than oblivion.

 

[Cacotopia]

I am confident that man made constructs of gods are not existent, but this does not rule out the possibility of a god(s) And is the prime reason I do not state my identity as a de-facto atheist.

 

[Thief]

I am confident that man made constructs of gods are not existent, but this does not rule out the possibility of a god(s) And is the prime reason I do not state my identity as a de-facto atheist.

so you ......sort of ...kind of......but maybe.....

don't believe in God?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am confident that man made constructs of gods are not existent, but this does not rule out the possibility of a god(s) And is the prime reason I do not state my identity as a de-facto atheist.

Which is why I define God as Truth, wherever that leads, whether there's a supernatural consciousness or not.

 

[Cacotopia]

Then use of the term god then is misleading. IMO

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Then use of the term god then is misleading. IMO

God/god can be any object of worship, adoration or of the greatest worthwhile pursuit, i.e. a monotheistic god, pagan gods, idols, money, power, sex, art, justice, love, knowledge, honor, or as in my case, Truth. Mine encompasses the positive aspects of all.

 

[Cacotopia]

Not including your definition is what confuses people, when you say god is truth, god already has the presupposition that is not bound to reality, and the only actual truth in terms of definitions concern being able base conclusions found within reality to determine truth. THe term "god" only serves to muddy the waters and is unnecessary.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not including your definition is what confuses people, when you say god is truth, god already has the presupposition that is not bound to reality, and the only actual truth in terms of definitions concern being able base conclusions found within reality to determine truth. THe term "god" only serves to muddy the waters and is unnecessary.

Not unless you're talking about the gods of the various religions. If you equate Truth with God (or god), the idea is crystal clear if you can delineate what Truth is, which I can. It's actually very simple, but nobody ever really sat down and studied it, I guess for fear of what they'd find. Truth isn't in the Dewey Decimal System, and there's not even a Truth 101. Yes there's epistemology, the study of the nature of knowledge, but that's only one aspect of Truth. There's also justice, love and beauty (art), all from the purely objective through to the purely subjective.

 

[`mud]

hey Cac,
Be fearful with all that `mud`,
I don't want any clarity here !