Once again, science confirms Gnostic thought

[nazz]

I am always astounded when modern science confirms the teachings of the ancient gnostics. I watched a program on PBS last night where a scientist was discussing the first moments after the Big Bang. He stated that in the first nanoseconds there was perfect symmetry in the universe. Had things stayed that way the universe as we know it would never have come to be. But something disrupted that original perfection and as a result matter was formed! As to what caused that something scientists don't have a clue!

Here is the episode if you want to watch it. They start talking about it at around the 40 minute mark...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/big-bang-machine.html

 

[Iti oj]

And what Gnostic belief does that confirm?

 

[Parsimony]

But something disrupted that original perfection and as a result matter was formed! As to what caused that something scientists don't have a clue!

The uncertainty principle/quantum randomness would seem like a good candidate to me.

 

[nazz]

The uncertainty principle/quantum randomness would seem like a good candidate to me.

Doesn't really matter what the cause may be. It still confirms the Gnostic teaching of a fall from original perfection.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Any random primate that has a camera on him can talk about the origins of the universe, but I highly doubt PBS can state what happened within the first moments of the big bang. In the first moments, time and space must've been too distorted to make any sense of it anyways, let alone matter.

 

[Skwim]

I am always astounded when modern science confirms the teachings of the ancient gnostics. I watched a program on PBS last night where a scientist was discussing the first moments after the Big Bang. He stated that in the first nanoseconds there was perfect symmetry in the universe. Had things stayed that way the universe as we know it would never have come to be. But something disrupted that original perfection and as a result matter was formed! As to what caused that something scientists don't have a clue!

But They do have a clue. As stated in the video, "The Higgs field is the first clue as to what broke the symmetry of that perfectly balanced universe."

 

[Skwim]

Any random primate that has a camera on him can talk about the origins of the universe, but I highly doubt PBS can state what happened within the first moments of the big bang.

Which is why it doesn't. In fact, the linked video makes this very point, that a whole lot of research lies ahead before we really know what happened, if we ever will.

In the first moments, time and space must've been too distorted to make any sense of it anyways, let alone matter.

Why? If you watch the video you'll see that in the very beginning it appears the universe was incredibly symmetrical---lacking any disorder whatsoever.

________________________________________________

Doesn't really matter what the cause may be. It still confirms the Gnostic teaching of a fall from original perfection.

Curious as to what those teachings actually say. Got a link or something?

 

[nazz]

But They do have a clue. As stated in the video, "The Higgs field is the first clue as to what broke the symmetry of that perfectly balanced universe."

Yes, but they don't know why that field came into being

 

[nazz]

Curious as to what those teachings actually say. Got a link or something?

You'd have to browse the Nag Hammadi library

 

[nazz]

And what Gnostic belief does that confirm?

that something disrupted that original perfection and as a result matter was formed

 

[Skwim]

You'd have to browse the Nag Hammadi library

Do you know how totally lame this is?

You make a bold claim

"Once again, science confirms Gnostic thought"​

And when asked what this thought is you essentially say "Go look it up."

​

 

[frangipani]

I am always astounded when modern science confirms the teachings of the ancient gnostics. I watched a program on PBS last night where a scientist was discussing the first moments after the Big Bang. He stated that in the first nanoseconds there was perfect symmetry in the universe. Had things stayed that way the universe as we know it would never have come to be. But something disrupted that original perfection and as a result matter was formed! As to what caused that something scientists don't have a clue!

You know I have always thought the BIg Bang was when the Ineffable Spirit first manifested His thought creating the Pleroma and at that point indeed there was perfection, and at a point later, whether minutes or years later the creation of matter took place because of Sophia.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It still confirms the Gnostic teaching of a fall from original perfection.

Some more detail on this would be helpful. Do you know where and when this teaching came from?

 

[nazz]

This is a DIR, bu

Do you know how totally lame this is?

You make a bold claim

"Once again, science confirms Gnostic thought"​

And when asked what this thought is you essentially say "Go look it up."

​

This is a DIR, bub

 

[nazz]

Some more detail on this would be helpful. Do you know where and when this teaching came from?

It is found throughout Gnostic writings. It's on the foundational principles of Gnostic teaching. Here is just one of many references:

"Instead of perfection, he saw a defect; instead of unification, he saw division; instead of stability, he saw disturbances; instead of rests, tumults" (Tripartite Tractate 80:15-19)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Instead of perfection, he saw a defect; instead of unification, he saw division; instead of stability, he saw disturbances; instead of rests, tumults" (Tripartite Tractate 80:15-19)

Thanks. So would this have been the result of meditation or contemplation?

 

[nazz]

Thanks. So would this have been the result of meditation or contemplation?

In part. But it should be obvious to anyone who observes the material universe that it is far from perfect.

 

[Skwim]

This is a DIR, bub

Didn't seem to matter when you took the time to answer my previous request. Now why do you think that was. Could it that that you thought you had a clever way out of your dilemma? Hmmm? In any case, just because a forum is a DIR doesn't mean it's completely off limits to non-members. From the rule book.

"-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored blue, non-members of that area are limited only to respectful questions, and are not allowed to make any non-question posts.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments."
​

Unfortunately, in as much as DIR forums are no longer designated blue or green, and the powers that be have yet to straighten out this wrinkle---I've even asked them to---we are left to interpret them as we wish. For myself, I take the more liberal green approach. I asked a respectful question and later on made a knowledgeable comment.

 

[nazz]

Didn't seem to matter when you took the time to answer my previous request. Now why do you think that was. Could it that that you thought you had a clever way out of your dilemma? Hmmm? In any case, just because a forum is a DIR doesn't mean it's completely off limits to non-members. From the rule book.

"-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored blue, non-members of that area are limited only to respectful questions, and are not allowed to make any non-question posts.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments."
​

Unfortunately, in as much as DIR forums are no longer designated blue or green, and the powers that be have yet to straighten out this wrinkle---I've even asked them to---we are left to interpret them as we wish. For myself, I take the more liberal green approach. I asked a respectful question and later on made a knowledgeable comment.

You were quite dismissive and disrespectful. Sorry you can't see that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But it should be obvious to anyone who observes the material universe that it is far from perfect.

I look at nature a lot and have an interest in astronomy, but I haven't really thought about it in terms of perfection and imperfection. Is that a Gnostic theme?