What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Consciousness that is not in touch with reality is known as "madness."

The world is a 'troubled voyage in calm weather', simply because we mistake the illusion for reality, and then proceed to act upon it. As Yeshu said: 'There is a way which seems right to man that ends in death'; or Lao tse saying 'He who aims at life achieves death'.

"I think, therefore I am deluded", LOL

You called these concepts earlier, and therefore maya.

Yes. "The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space and Causation"

These are also concepts. Are you sure these are not also maya?

They are based on maya. But you can only identify maya when it is seen via the Absolute.

Or if your consciousness is altered by drugs, you might not feel the pain when you walk into the "unreal" brick wall, instead of through it.

I do agree with you that social conditioning can create biases regarding how we view things. Would you consider the pain you experience when walking into a brick wall social indoctrination?

No, but the reason you walking into that wall in the first place, and how you experience the aftermath of the experience is determined by your social indoctrination. You weren't paying attention. You were asleep. Initially, in the moment of the experience, there is no experiencer of the pain; there is only pain itself. Immediately afterward, when realization sets in, one thinks: 'Oh, I hurt!". We create the experiencer of the experience, but it is an illusion. Then there is the pain itself. Ghandi once said about a toothache he had: "I don't know whether to suffer or enjoy it". Of course, we know that pain and pleasure are intertwined. But if there is, in reality, no experiencer of the experience, who is it that feels the pain? Where there is the idea of a 'sufferer', the pain is only prolonged.

Oh goody. I think I'll go back to sleep.

You clever dog! Then you can experience the joy of awakening all over again!

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Of course, but they are still temporal; they had, as you say, a 'beginning', didn't they?

How can something have a beginning if it exists before time itself?

How can something that existed infinitely (as it was out of time itself) be temporal?

I'm sorry if i broke your little cute "omg i'm so smart because i can just ramble on and on and nothing means anything and i'm still making arguments that make no sense and getting away with it" shtick, try to answer directly this time.

 

[godnotgod]

How can something have a beginning if it exists before time itself?

That was my point to begin with, no pun intended, but my answer about a beginning was only in response to your statement that there was a beginning and an end, as quoted here:

Originally Posted by ImprobableBeing
So, until the universe itself ends then?

You do realize that the protons in your atoms have been here since the beginning of the universe?

Did I break your "little cute "omg i'm so smart" shtick-y-poo? Awwww! Try again, but this time read your own posts before lunging at other people's jugulars, DUH!:slap:

How can something that existed infinitely (as it was out of time itself) be temporal?

Because the temporal doesn't actually exist. That's why it's temporal.

I'm sorry if i broke your little cute "omg i'm so smart because i can just ramble on and on and nothing means anything and i'm still making arguments that make no sense and getting away with it" shtick, try to answer directly this time.

Aw, shuckky-poo! godnotgod drive wedgey-poo into The Brain that thinks there's 'something to figure out'. Oh, I know! It wants Reality to be spoon fed to it in nice, bite size manageable little predictable, measurable, perfectly sensible and scientifically approved chunks, nicely packaged right off the shelf. Heh..heh...heh....mebbe that's the reason it's udders are all in a bunch... Awww!

 

[egcroc]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

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

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

I read before that there is another theory about 2 types of space, black space (the dark empty one we live in) and another white space surrounding it (a space of infinite amount of energy where every point in it can be considered a singularity of near infinite energy and density)... now sometimes a point of the white space falls into the black space where it rapidly expands to fill it with energy and matter (the event known to us as the big bang).... kinda intresting theory, similar to panentheism...

 

[crossfire]

The world is a 'troubled voyage in calm weather', simply because we mistake the illusion for reality, and then proceed to act upon it. As Yeshu said: 'There is a way which seems right to man that ends in death'; or Lao tse saying 'He who aims at life achieves death'.

"I think, therefore I am deluded", LOL

Enjoy your delusion.

Yes. "The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space and Causation"




They are based on maya. But you can only identify maya when it is seen via the Absolute.

You do recognize that these are both absolutely relativistic statements, no?

No, but the reason you walking into that wall in the first place, and how you experience the aftermath of the experience is determined by your social indoctrination. You weren't paying attention. You were asleep. Initially, in the moment of the experience, there is no experiencer of the pain; there is only pain itself. Immediately afterward, when realization sets in, one thinks: 'Oh, I hurt!".

Oh, so you do assert that feeling pain from walking into a brick wall is social indoctrination.

We create the experiencer of the experience, but it is an illusion.

I can agree with this.

Then there is the pain itself. Ghandi once said about a toothache he had: "I don't know whether to suffer or enjoy it".

I wonder what he would have said about experiencing the pain of childbirth?

Of course, we know that pain and pleasure are intertwined.

Pain is pretty objective. Pleasure is a subjective call.

But if there is, in reality, no experiencer of the experience, who is it that feels the pain?

That does not dismiss the reality of the pain.

Where there is the idea of a 'sufferer', the pain is only prolonged.

I can agree with you that clinging to the pain will delay its passing.

You clever dog! Then you can experience the joy of awakening all over again!

I'm one of those obnoxious people who wake up annoyingly cheerful.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

That was my point to begin with, no pun intended, but my answer about a beginning was only in response to your statement that there was a beginning and an end, as quoted here:

Well, the universe clearly had a beginning, the protons existed before that (in the singularity) even before time itself, that would be for infinity.

You think you are witty and clever but it seems that the only reason you think you have got me on this is because you can't comprehend what i write.

And you were so happy too, i almost feel bad for breaking your bubble of joy now.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

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

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

Before the Big Bang, we had the Steady State. Then red shift measurements combined with elitist academic snobbery, and BANG! A new theory. This was followed by hot debate, and the Big Chill has been proposed, to try to cool tempers.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, the universe clearly had a beginning, the protons existed before that (in the singularity) even before time itself, that would be for infinity.

I don't think current scientific theory states the protons existed in the singularity. If I remember right (it was a few years ago that I read these things), protons didn't come into existence until a few moments after the actual event. The singularity (I'm not even sure that's the current theory either) was a super hot state of energy, only quarks (maybe), or something. (But I could be wrong. This is how I remember it.)

The concept of time is indeed a tricky thing. There are some scientists maintaining the idea of "virtual time", which probably could be considered other time vectors outside our own "arrow of time." A guess a form of n-dimensions of time.

 

[godnotgod]

Enjoy your delusion.

Then I discovered that it was not MY delusion!

You do recognize that these are both absolutely relativistic statements, no?

No. The Absolute has no opposite. Maya is not its opposite.

Oh, so you do assert that feeling pain from walking into a brick wall is social indoctrination.

Walking into the brick wall may be, but the pain is not. How you deal with the pain may or may not be.

I wonder what he would have said about experiencing the pain of childbirth?

For the most part, women obviously experience intense pain during childbirth, but almost immediately afterward there is not only great relief, but great joy. It is all one experience in which the two are intertwined.

That does not dismiss the reality of the pain.

It dismisses the illusion of the experiencer of the experience.

I'm one of those obnoxious people who wake up annoyingly cheerful.

[youtube]mMRrCYPxD0I[/youtube]
The Real You - Alan Watts - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

Well, the universe clearly had a beginning, the protons existed before that (in the singularity) even before time itself, that would be for infinity.

You think you are witty and clever but it seems that the only reason you think you have got me on this is because you can't comprehend what i write.

And you were so happy too, i almost feel bad for breaking your bubble of joy now.

Let's not be silly, shall we? I am perfectly aware of what I am saying to you. You cannot break the kind of joy I am in touch with, because it is not relative, but Absolute. So get over it already.

You are contradicting yourself. There cannot be a 'before time itself', because that would require the existence of time. This only goes to demonstrate that time is illusory. You are still thinking in linear fashion. There is no such linearity. The fact is that the BB is merely a point on an endless continuum, like a wave arising out of the sea, and then returning to it in one continuous motion. The unfolding of the universe and its eventual dissolution is one single event that only occurs in this present moment, and at no other time, this present moment being essentially timeless.

You think I am being witty and clever because you fail to take the time to understand what is being said here. It only sounds witty and clever to ears still hearing through the conceptual filters of the thinking mind.

According to your view, what is the origin of the primal material out of which protons emerged?

footnote: If the universe did indeed have a 'beginning', such an occurrence can only be determined to have come about against the background of something beginingless. Otherwise, how would we know it to have had such a beginning? But this is an impossible situation, because one would need to include both in the idea of what a universe is. The fact of the matter (no pun) is simply that the background in question is consciousness itself. It is consciousness that is beginingless, endless, and therefore, timeless, as well as being without space or causation. In this sense, consciousness is Absolute. And so:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

 

[crossfire]

No. The Absolute has no opposite. Maya is not its opposite.
Relativity does not require opposites. Is 3 the opposite of 5 because they are separated by 2? Are both 3 and 5 the opposite of zero because zero is the "absolute" frame of reference for the relativity, whereas 3 and 5 are relative to zero?
Let's look at your statements again:

Yes. "The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space and Causation"




They are based on maya. But you can only identify maya when it is seen via the Absolute.

"Only" locks in the absoluteness of the relativity between what you are calling "the Absolute" and maya. However, 3 and 5 can discern each other because they are "2" away from each other. They don't need to "see through" zero for that.

For the most part, women obviously experience intense pain during childbirth, but almost immediately afterward there is not only great relief, but great joy. It is all one experience in which the two are intertwined.

Um, no. I speak from experience.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Let's not be silly, shall we? I am perfectly aware of what I am saying to you. You cannot break the kind of joy I am in touch with, because it is not relative, but Absolute. So get over it already.

You are contradicting yourself. There cannot be a 'before time itself', because that would require the existence of time. This only goes to demonstrate that time is illusory. You are still thinking in linear fashion. There is no such linearity. The fact is that the BB is merely a point on an endless continuum, like a wave arising out of the sea, and then returning to it in one continuous motion. The unfolding of the universe and its eventual dissolution is one single event that only occurs in this present moment, and at no other time, this present moment being essentially timeless.

You think I am being witty and clever because you fail to take the time to understand what is being said here. It only sounds witty and clever to ears still hearing through the conceptual filters of the thinking mind.

According to your view, what is the origin of the primal material out of which protons emerged?

I don't think the semantics argument is all that much fun since it's clear what i meant and you did understand it (even if you pretend you didn't).

To the last question, i've already answered that and that concludes my participation in this less than fruitful discussion.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think the semantics argument is all that much fun since it's clear what i meant and you did understand it (even if you pretend you didn't).

To the last question, i've already answered that and that concludes my participation in this less than fruitful discussion.

Fine, but as far as I am concerned, with the argument you are presenting, we are still back at square one, which is a question both theists and scientists have failed to adequately answer to date.

I would suggest to you that the problem lies at the very point of departure itself.

 

[godnotgod]

No. The Absolute has no opposite. Maya is not its opposite.
Relativity does not require opposites. Is 3 the opposite of 5 because they are separated by 2? Are both 3 and 5 the opposite of zero because zero is the "absolute" frame of reference for the relativity, whereas 3 and 5 are relative to zero?
Let's look at your statements again:

"Only" locks in the absoluteness of the relativity between what you are calling "the Absolute" and maya. However, 3 and 5 can discern each other because they are "2" away from each other. They don't need to "see through" zero for that.

But your analogy is incorrect, because you are comparing like things. maya is illusion. What it seems to be is non-existent. Only the Absolute is real, and maya comes out of it. It is one experience, not two. IOW, what maya seems to be cannot be relative to the Absolute because it does not exist to begin with.

Either one sees things as they are, or as they are not. There is no other possibility. Seeing a rope as a snake does not mean there are two things that are relative. There never was a snake in the first place.

 

[crossfire]

But your analogy is incorrect, because you are comparing like things. maya is illusion. What it seems to be is non-existent. Only the Absolute is real, and maya comes out of it. It is one experience, not two. IOW, what maya seems to be cannot be relative to the Absolute because it does not exist to begin with.

If it does not exist then how can it be discerned? As per your previous post:

They are based on maya. But you can only identify maya when it is seen via the Absolute.

Either one sees things as they are, or as they are not. There is no other possibility.

There is another possibility: one can see nothing at all.

Seeing a rope as a snake does not mean there are two things that are relative. There never was a snake in the first place.

So, is the rope real or not then? Revisiting this post:

I'd llke to add that:

from the point of view of ordinary, everyday reality, the world is real; but from the point of view of higher consciousness, it is not.

Ordinary reality is temporal, changing, finite, relative, and is perceived via of the senses.

True Reality is timeless, changeless, infinite, absolute, and is perceived via of a consciousness that lies beyond the senses.

Therefore, how we see the world, real or unreal, is dependent upon consciousness. If our consciousness is altered, for example via our social indoctrination and learning, (ie knowledge), we will see the world as 'real'.

If we transcend the conditioned mind, and learn to see beyond the confines of Time, Space, and Causation, the world is seen as illusory. Only awakened consciousness is real.

 

[godnotgod]

If it does not exist then how can it be discerned? As per your previous post:

There is no snake that actually exists; there is only the rope. Even though one is in the midst of delusion, true nature is always present. It is what reveals the 'snake' as actually being the rope.

There is another possibility: one can see nothing at all.

Which is to not see things as they are.

So, is the rope real or not then? Revisiting this post:

In the rope/snake metaphor, the rope represents the Absolute, while the snake represents maya. The metaphor is limited, because the Absolute is eternal, while ropes, of course, are temporal. But in the context of ordinary reality, yes, 'rope' as representing the Absolute, is real. It is the only true reality. All else is maya. See here for expanded explanation, in terms of the Absolute and the universe:

The Equations of Maya

Ultimately, one can neither say that the snake is real, or not real:

The snake appears on the rope; the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning that, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: "Where is the snake?", the answer is: "it is in the rope."

To the question; "Is the snake there?", the answer is: "there is no snake; the snake was never in the rope.

See expanded discussion here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/83861-true-nature-universe-what-maya.html

 

[garrydons]

I don't think there was evidence for the Bigbang theory is was just pure colossal assumption. But assuming there was that Bigbang, or if this theory is true then I would prefer to believe that there was a God who created it otherwise it will left us hanging in the air. the big question will remain what happened before or why there was a Bigbang.

 

[metis]

There's plenty of evidence for the BB, but that doesn't really answer the question as to whether there was a god or gods behind it.

BTW, why is it that theists almost always insist the "God" must have caused it but they don't say "Gods", or at least "God or Gods"?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There's plenty of evidence for the BB, but that doesn't really answer the question as to whether there was a god or gods behind it.

BTW, why is it that theists almost always insist the "God" must have caused it but they don't say "Gods", or at least "God or Gods"?

Being Christian it's hard to think of multiple Gods. I know I could never be a polytheist my brain just can't grasp that particular idea. For me it's either A God or No God. Lol years of conditioning.

 

[godnotgod]

Being Christian it's hard to think of multiple Gods. I know I could never be a polytheist my brain just can't grasp that particular idea. For me it's either A God or No God. Lol years of conditioning.

Why restrict yourself to one or the other? Think about it as One God, but many faces of the One God. IOW, God relegates power to sub-gods. Like:

"One Light, though the lamps be many"

Get it?

Now think of yourself as having been relegated.

This scenario is not perfect, but can help to get you a better view other than a black vs. white one.

Step Two: Now think: God decides to become a full participant in his creation, so he gets into the cockpit and BECOMES the Big Bang. Remember: "And the Word BECAME flesh"

Step Three: You spiritually awaken to find that YOU are the godhead him/herself, along with all the other forms in the universe.

Hello God.