[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
John, it's known for decades that pairs of particles called virtual particles pop into existence from nothingness in vacuum, and then immediately annihilate each other. In fact, Stephen Hawking found out about the emission of black holes using this phenomenon. It's quite possible that our bubble universe has a negative mirror bubble universe. They may annihilate each other. I remember one lady scientist on the discovery channel stating that there are indications of a parallel universe lurking close to our universe and it's gravity is pulling galaxies to one side of the universe. They call the region cold spot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot However, please note that there is a huge difference between an actual parallel universe and alternate reality. They are two different things altogether. Dr. David Deutch's universes are alternate realities existing simultaneously with our universe. Imagine our universe as a quantum particle having many states. Each state represents a reality or history. Dr. Micho Kaku's parallel universes are the actual parallel universes, infinite bubble universes floating in a sea of nothing. In actual parallel universes, each universe would have its own laws of physics and completely different particles. Even the structure of space would be different. The particles in our universe cannot even exist in that other universe. If you step into that universe, you would simply disintegrate. However, alternate universes are different. They are actually our own universe, existing in many quantum states. Each state is an alternate history. Thus, maintain that distinction between 'parallel universe' and 'alternate universe'. Now coming to the big bang, if we can find out how all these 'virtual particles' pop into existence from nothingness, I am sure we can get vital clues from it. Einstein proved that space and time are interlinked in a space-time continuum. If time is an illusion, space too has to be an illusion. We know the universe is finite for a number of reasons. If it's infinite, there will be an infinite number of stars in the sky. The sky would appear white in color. The radiation levels would be so high that the earth would be vaporised in seconds. An infinite universe would also mean that the universe is eternal, ie never created. An infinite universe would also bring in infinite possiblities, ie after a particular distance another identical earth would exist and everything that happened here would also happen there and after another particular distance, yet another identical earth with same history and so on ad infinitum. Fortunately, the universe is finite, which means there is only one earth. The chances of another identical earth existing on our own space is implausible. --- jr_esq@... wrote: Xeno, You stated that: Scientists on the other hand, with the Big Bang, think that time also began with the Big Bang, that is, nothing came before the Big Bang because that is a meaningless question to ask. It just happened. Nothing made the universe, it just happened. There are other conceptions, such as multiverses, etc., which I am not going to wade into. There are actually some scientists who are trying to prove that they know what happened before the Big Bang. There's a research group called the Perimeter Institute in Canada which is proposing the Brane Theory. This is alternately called the Big Bump. Essentially, the theory states that the universe began due to the collision of two membranes in the 11th dimension. However, most of the scientific circles have not accepted this idea to be plausible. Also, your statement that the universe just happened raises some questions for logical and scientific reasons. As stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, your statement cannot stand further logical scrutiny. Basically, the KCA states that the Prime Mover is the cause of the universe. In science, Roger Penrose, the professor-emiritus from Oxford University, believes that the universe is a product of endless explosions that occur after eons of time. However, he has not been able to produce a scientific paper to prove that this idea is true.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Love it, love it, love it. And here I thought it was just an idiotic TV show! Watch out for those subliminals, folks! They're everywhere (-: On Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:38 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island, said he patterned the 'seven stranded castaways' after the seven deadly sins but he didn't admit it until years later in his book about the show. (There is that number '7' again, as in seven states of unconsciousness) The sins and their associated characters: The Professor – Pride Thurston Howell III - Greed Ginger - Lust Mary Ann - Envy (of Ginger's looks) Mrs. Lovey Howell - Gluttony The Skipper - Anger Gilligan – Sloth Some have speculated that the castaways were in Hell and Gilligan, who always wore red, did all he could to ensure they stayed there by sabotaging their escape plots, thus Gilligan is Satan. And everybody panned it as a dumb show. Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where a man dies, goes to heaven and then gets totally bored by old folks talking about their vacation or something like that. Then he finds out this is not heaven, it's hell, and it lasts forever. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: [Xeno]: It is really cold here, because I have the heat turned down to save $$. Maybe I will make some hot cocoa and watch a totallyfrivolous TV show. [Ann highlight and below]: Is that what one would term a redundant statement? There are occasionally TV shows with more depth, but you have to search around. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Barry, It's logical to say that there is a Prime Mover if one reaches an infinite regression situation. It isn't arbitrary. Specifically, space and time are mental constructs. They cannot exist without a Knower. Without a Knower, there is NOTHING, NOWHERE, NOTIME. How is it possible for the universe to start in the past and to exist as it is now? As such, the Knower is the Prime Mover. As a human being, you're supposed to find out and understand the world around us since you too are a knower. You cannot force everyone to accept what you believe is true without making any inquiry-- scientific is the best--to get the right answer. Otherwise, you become a dictator. Although some church thinkers do not agree, there are some scientists who believe that it's possible to know what happened before the universe began. These include Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind. Are you criticizing these scientists for making an inquiry that you believe is unnecessary? IMO, human beings are knowers and should use their full intelligence and reason to find out how the world works, including how the universe started, and if possible to know what happened before it started. What is wrong with that? There is no greater enjoyment and bliss than knowing the Truth. If you enjoy your day today, there is nothing wrong with that. But is it enough?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
What Barry means is that he's way too ignorant of theology to discuss it rationally, and he isn't interested in learning anything that would make it possible for him to do so even enough to make a decent case against its arguments. Instead, he'll stick with the potshots that make his ignorance obvious. He didn't read my post, he simply assumed (speaking of assumptions), entirely erroneously, that I was attempting to steer him into making assumptions contrary to his own certainties. If he'd read the post, he'd know that my only certainty is about the depth of his ignorance, incuriosity, and arrogance. But he's well and truly stuck with the illusions he's chosen about my perspective as well. He really doesn't care to have them threatened either. Xeno at least is willing to take a shot at discussion, but he needs to inform himself about the concept of Prime Mover. He's got it pegged badly wrong, as the questions Barry quotes below make all too clear. Barry, quoting Xeno, tells us what he'll graciously allow others to believe: Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test? Thanks for your comments on all of this, Xeno. As should be obvious, I don't feel like entering into a discussion with either jr_esq or the Judester about any of this because it feels a little like getting into an argument with a retard. No one wins in a situation like this, and nothing is to be accomplished because they simply cannot step beyond their assumptions about the world and how it works. Their idea of a debate about such matters is to always try to steer the other person into making the same assumptions they do, so they can then declare, Aha! I won. :-) As for knowing, and the truth, I think I've stated my opinion about such myths often enough in the past to not have to do so again. I prefer to allow those who believe that they know things to live in the illusions they have chosen. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What Barry means is that he's way too ignorant of theology to discuss it rationally, and he isn't interested in learning anything that would make it possible for him to do so even enough to make a decent case against its arguments. Instead, he'll stick with the potshots that make his ignorance obvious. He didn't read my post, he simply assumed (speaking of assumptions), entirely erroneously, that I was attempting to steer him into making assumptions contrary to his own certainties. If he'd read the post, he'd know that my only certainty is about the depth of his ignorance, incuriosity, and arrogance. But he's well and truly stuck with the illusions he's chosen about my perspective as well. He really doesn't care to have them threatened either. Xeno at least is willing to take a shot at discussion, but he needs to inform himself about the concept of Prime Mover. He's got it pegged badly wrong, as the questions Barry quotes below make all too clear. Barry, quoting Xeno, tells us what he'll graciously allow others to believe: Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test? Thanks for your comments on all of this, Xeno. As should be obvious, I don't feel like entering into a discussion with either jr_esq or the Judester about any of this because it feels a little like getting into an argument with a retard. No one wins in a situation like this, and nothing is to be accomplished because they simply cannot step beyond their assumptions about the world and how it works. Their idea of a debate about such matters is to always try to steer the other person into making the same assumptions they do, so they can then declare, Aha! I won. :-) As for knowing, and the truth, I think I've stated my opinion about such myths often enough in the past to not have to do so again. I prefer to allow those who believe that they know things to live in the illusions they have chosen. :-) Yes, isn't this gracious of Barry? From the mouth of someone who believes so stringently in what he believes in that he even allows his beliefs to forever close him off from the possibility that he is wrong or has something else to discover in his life. He may as well be dead but I guess he wants to stick around because he gets so much pleasure from looking down on others who do not share his blinkered vision of the world. You know, it all stops when you think you've got it all figured out and Barry's got it all figured out.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
I recall going through such a phase, about twenty years ago - I was always right, judgmental as hell, had it all dialed in, knew exactly where everyone else was coming from - a lot like this dude's current trip - and I was the loneliest, most miserable soul on the planet, as a result. I doubt he enjoys himself much, either.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I recall going through such a phase, about twenty years ago - I was always right, judgmental as hell, had it all dialed in, knew exactly where everyone else was coming from - a lot like this dude's current trip - and I was the loneliest, most miserable soul on the planet, as a result. I doubt he enjoys himself much, either. I can totally relate. I think many of us go through this phaseof things, where we have this chip on our shoulder, love to find fault in just about anything, are as judgmental as hell as you so aptly put it and simply isolate ourselves due to our need to be 'independent and original' in our stance (or at least to imagine we are). I think this was me in grade 8 through about the time I got shmucked and rolled and squashed and stomped on at the end of my time with WTS. Coming through those end of days I literally transformed into a much kinder, gentler human being. It took a steamroller but it worked. However, I know it can turn out the other way too; it can turn people bitter and hard and cynical. I think which way it transforms us is part grace and part choice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Jason, It appears that you're up to date to the latest popular theories in cosmology. You may also be familiar with John Haglin's cosmological theory. I believe this theory would explain the virtual particles that you're wondering about. These particles could come from the unified field. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the space-time continuum is based on consciousness. IOW, it takes a Knower to conceive of length, width, height and time. Without this Knower or consciousness, no thing, no where, no time can exist. You've pointed out very well the weaknesses of the infinite universe concept. However, it does make me wonder what it would be like to have an infinite duplicate of ourselves. Be that as it may seem, it's more likely that the universe is finite. As theorized by Leonard Susskind and other scientists, the universe may be based on holograpic principles as well as being finite. For this reason, I believe that you, me and all the other humans are holographic reflections of the universe. As such, there may be billions of other humanoids living in earthlike planets throughout the universe. Unfortunately, due to our present technology, it may be almost impossible to have contact with them or even to visit the nearest star in the Milky Way. But if a warp drive can be developed, then the ideas in Star Trek can be realized.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
jr_esq, I have read it, less interested in rereading it at this point. The meaning between absolute and relative is only relevant when you are experiencing waking consciousness and you are interested in spiritual things; when you are experiencing TC and you are having your first taste of 'absolute'; When you are experiencing CC or GC, when experience contains inner 'absolute' along with 'relative' experiences. But what happens in unity or BC? - these supposedly two different qualities merge, you do not have them as separate entities so to speak any more. TM is kind of an analytical tool. It separates out qualities of experience that we did not notice before. According to M, the TM-Sidhi programme helps stitch things back together again, and meditation can help with this too, supposedly takes longer that way. Other meditation systems have also led to this unification. The absolute and relative shake hands so to speak and become forever pals, so much so that they become inseparable, and so talking about them as if they were somehow distinct entities or states or qualities no longer makes any sense whatever. Like salt. You can break salt down into Chlorine (Cl) and Sodium (Na). This is analogous to having only known waking consciousness and then experiencing CC. When you recombine these two, Cl and NA, you again have just plain salt, but now you know it's more interesting than that, but you do not see the two separately any more. Likewise with relative and absolute, when in experience they recombine, you just have ordinary plain experience, just like waking, only you know it's more interesting than that because you went on this little journey of experiencing different states, and you will never have to go on that journey again; you remember the journey, but there is no point to re-experiencing the separation again, or even using that model to describe your experience. Others, wanting the experience of unification, may find the model of absolute and relative useful, for a time. But if you stay with the absolute and relative model of reality, it will hinder your progress once your experience advances beyond that point. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Anartaxius, You should reread MMY's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita to understand the meaning between the absolute and the relative. He stated that human beings live both the absolute and the relative at the same time. Specifically, the juncture of the absolute and the relative is located in the human brain. It is at this juncture that bliss consciousness is experienced. By definition, it is not possible to experience the absolute in the relative world. But the bliss is attained when thoughts are transcended at the junction between the relative and the absolute. Also, the absolute is located at the junctions between the waking, sleeping and dreaming states of consciousness. Similarly, the absolute can be found in between the syllables of the mantra. Further, once bliss consciousness is attained it can be experienced and can co-exist along with the waking, sleeping and dreaming states of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@ wrote: Also, your statement that the universe just happened raises some questions for logical and scientific reasons. As stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, your statement cannot stand further logical scrutiny. Basically, the KCA states that the Prime Mover is the cause of the universe. This KCA is a variation of the standard cosmological argument. It results in infinite regress when you ask the question 'Who caused the Prime Mover'. Stopping at a prime mover is simply arbitrary. And rather feeble-minded, if you ask me. :-) It's just one of those arguments that God-freaks trot out to prove the existence of the Big Man In The Sky they believe in. The whole *point* of the thesis I proposed is that there was *never* a Creation of the universe. Take that away, that the notion of who or what created it becomes moot. And my comment that one of the possibilities is the universe just happened, that is, arose spontaneously, obviously does not allow further logical scrutiny. We could only investigate scientifically what happened after it began. This is the thing that I think freaks the God-freaks out so much. They (or at least many of them) want to believe that the universe *didn't* just happen, that there is a purpose or meaning for it. They want to believe this, of course, because they feel it gives *their* lives and existence some kind of meaning. I've never really understood this need to feel as if there was a Plan or some kind of Intelligence behind All That Is. It's just *fine* with me if it simply Is. ... Suppose we could never, ever find out how the universe began? Would that be so bad? There is no need to suppose. That IS the reality within which we find ourselves existing. If in fact we really exist. :-) Because, as you point out, what happens before or after the supposed beginning or end of the universe exists outside of space and time, the *only* way that one could observe that is to be outside of space and time oneself. And that's not likely to happen anytime soon. :-) I think that people like jr_esq rely too much on authority figures for their theories of how the universe works. He, for example, has stated many times that he feels that certain scriptures are Truth, Damnit, and cannot possibly be challenged because they sprang forth from some level of cognition that is itself Truth, Damnit. Me, I think that's a load of crap. :-) I've never met a single individual -- living or dead -- who I would hold as an authority about The Universe And How It Works. Whoever they are, whenever they lived, they were just spouting OPINION. We know so much less than we think we do anyway, what is so dismal about not knowing? Exactly. I simply don't *understand* how the God-freaks can get their panties in such a twist over someone believing that their God is a fairy tale. Are they so convinced of His/Her/Its existence that they feel affronted by someone not convinced of that existence, or someone like myself who has no need to even *postulate* the existence of a God? That sounds like attachment to me. To me the universe is a source of infinite wonder and mystery. The fact that it seems to have *always* been around, and *always* been a source of wonder and mystery just makes it all more wonderful and mysterious. To me, life as we know it happening by accident is FAR more wonderful and mysterious than it happening as the result of some design or Plan. Let's face it. Look around, for fuck's sake. If this world was Planned, then God is at best an underachiever and at worst totally incompetent. Obviously, some people hold incompetence to be worthy of reverence. I am not one of them. :-) Beautiful day today and yesterday here. Everything is white. Maybe that kind of enjoyment is ultimately enough. And why wouldn't it be? Who needs more than the simple enjoyment of each moment we find ourselves in?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Barry ranted: It's just one of those arguments that God-freaks trot out to prove the existence of the Big Man In The Sky they believe in. Sheesh, you're even more ignorant than Richard Dawkins. Get that Straw Man in the Sky before he gets you! The whole *point* of the thesis I proposed is that there was *never* a Creation of the universe. Take that away, that the notion of who or what created it becomes moot. Yes, John is saying you can't take that away, not and make any sense. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but we sure haven't seen an intelligent counterargument from you. And my comment that one of the possibilities is the universe just happened, that is, arose spontaneously, obviously does not allow further logical scrutiny. We could only investigate scientifically what happened after it began. This is the thing that I think freaks the God-freaks out so much. Clearly John isn't a God-freak, then, because it doesn't freak him out. They (or at least many of them) want to believe that the universe *didn't* just happen, that there is a purpose or meaning for it. They want to believe this, of course, because they feel it gives *their* lives and existence some kind of meaning. I've never really understood this need to feel as if there was a Plan or some kind of Intelligence behind All That Is. It's just *fine* with me if it simply Is. Smell you. What you're incapable of understanding is that your sense that it simply is is the same type of sense others have of an intelligence behind the universe. I don't have the latter type of sense myself, but I'm not appalled or outraged by it, and I've read enough theology to know that those who do--even if they're wrong--are by no means feeble-minded. (Well, some are, but so are some ignorant know-it-all atheists.) I simply don't *understand* how the God-freaks can get their panties in such a twist over someone believing that their God is a fairy tale. No, Barry, you've got your panties in a twist because they don't believe God is a fairy tale. Are they so convinced of His/Her/Its existence that they feel affronted by someone not convinced of that existence, or someone like myself who has no need to even *postulate* the existence of a God? That sounds like attachment to me. No, you feel affronted by someone who is convinced of God's existence. You are quite obviously at least as attached to your idea that God doesn't exist as they are to their idea that God does exist. You are completely unable to discuss it rationally. You get hysterical every time you try. To me the universe is a source of infinite wonder and mystery. The fact that it seems to have *always* been around, and *always* been a source of wonder and mystery just makes it all more wonderful and mysterious. To me, life as we know it happening by accident is FAR more wonderful and mysterious than it happening as the result of some design or Plan. Sez you. What makes you think you're so smart you know what could be more wonderful and mysterious than life happening as a result of a design or Plan? Let's face it. Look around, for fuck's sake. If this world was Planned, then God is at best an underachiever and at worst totally incompetent. Sez you. You are so bereft of conceptual imagination. You can't even conceive of the possibility--whether or not you think it's likely--that your ideas of How the World Should Be might be faulty. The issue of whether an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc., God can be reconciled with the human perception of evil has been faced and discussed and debated by religious people (many of them a whole lot smarter than you, or me, for that matter) ever since there was such a concept of God. The problem here isn't that you deny the existence of God; the problem is that you're such a complete--and arrogant--ignoramus about issues of religion, and that you are so firmly attached to your ignorance. Whatever happened to Russell's wish to find out?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Barry ranted: It's just one of those arguments that God-freaks trot out to prove the existence of the Big Man In The Sky they believe in. Sheesh, you're even more ignorant than Richard Dawkins. Get that Straw Man in the Sky before he gets you! The whole *point* of the thesis I proposed is that there was *never* a Creation of the universe. Take that away, that the notion of who or what created it becomes moot. Yes, John is saying you can't take that away, not and make any sense. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but we sure haven't seen an intelligent counterargument from you. And my comment that one of the possibilities is the universe just happened, that is, arose spontaneously, obviously does not allow further logical scrutiny. We could only investigate scientifically what happened after it began. This is the thing that I think freaks the God-freaks out so much. Clearly John isn't a God-freak, then, because it doesn't freak him out. They (or at least many of them) want to believe that the universe *didn't* just happen, that there is a purpose or meaning for it. They want to believe this, of course, because they feel it gives *their* lives and existence some kind of meaning. I've never really understood this need to feel as if there was a Plan or some kind of Intelligence behind All That Is. It's just *fine* with me if it simply Is. Smell you. What you're incapable of understanding is that your sense that it simply is is the same type of sense others have of an intelligence behind the universe. I don't have the latter type of sense myself, but I'm not appalled or outraged by it, and I've read enough theology to know that those who do--even if they're wrong--are by no means feeble-minded. (Well, some are, but so are some ignorant know-it-all atheists.) I simply don't *understand* how the God-freaks can get their panties in such a twist over someone believing that their God is a fairy tale. No, Barry, you've got your panties in a twist because they don't believe God is a fairy tale. Are they so convinced of His/Her/Its existence that they feel affronted by someone not convinced of that existence, or someone like myself who has no need to even *postulate* the existence of a God? That sounds like attachment to me. No, you feel affronted by someone who is convinced of God's existence. You are quite obviously at least as attached to your idea that God doesn't exist as they are to their idea that God does exist. You are completely unable to discuss it rationally. You get hysterical every time you try. To me the universe is a source of infinite wonder and mystery. The fact that it seems to have *always* been around, and *always* been a source of wonder and mystery just makes it all more wonderful and mysterious. To me, life as we know it happening by accident is FAR more wonderful and mysterious than it happening as the result of some design or Plan. Sez you. What makes you think you're so smart you know what could be more wonderful and mysterious than life happening as a result of a design or Plan? Let's face it. Look around, for fuck's sake. If this world was Planned, then God is at best an underachiever and at worst totally incompetent. Sez you. You are so bereft of conceptual imagination. You can't even conceive of the possibility--whether or not you think it's likely--that your ideas of How the World Should Be might be faulty. The issue of whether an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc., God can be reconciled with the human perception of evil has been faced and discussed and debated by religious people (many of them a whole lot smarter than you, or me, for that matter) ever since there was such a concept of God. The problem here isn't that you deny the existence of God; the problem is that you're such a complete--and arrogant--ignoramus about issues of religion, and that you are so firmly attached to your ignorance. Whatever happened to Russell's wish to find out? I loved absolutely everything about this reply. This is not because I necessarily agree with all of it but because it comes from a place of such intelligence and openness and clarity that it makes me feel good and it makes the points Judy writes seem true and real. For me it is not so much about whether there is a God or no God, a beginning or no beginning, infinity or something finite, it is about if and how we allow the truth of this (whatever is the truth) to someday, somehow pierce us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Thanks for da kind woids, Ann. snip Ann wrote: I loved absolutely everything about this reply. This is not because I necessarily agree with all of it but because it comes from a place of such intelligence and openness and clarity that it makes me feel good and it makes the points Judy writes seem true and real. For me it is not so much about whether there is a God or no God, a beginning or no beginning, infinity or something finite, it is about if and how we allow the truth of this (whatever is the truth) to someday, somehow pierce us. Be fun to see Barry get pierced despite his best efforts. I'm not holding my breath, though. Cluelessness, incuriousness, and arrogance are a pretty effective defense.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Barry, It's logical to say that there is a Prime Mover if one reaches an infinite regression situation. It isn't arbitrary. Specifically, space and time are mental constructs. They cannot exist without a Knower. Without a Knower, there is NOTHING, NOWHERE, NOTIME. How is it possible for the universe to start in the past and to exist as it is now? As such, the Knower is the Prime Mover. As a human being, you're supposed to find out and understand the world around us since you too are a knower. You cannot force everyone to accept what you believe is true without making any inquiry-- scientific is the best--to get the right answer. Otherwise, you become a dictator. Although some church thinkers do not agree, there are some scientists who believe that it's possible to know what happened before the universe began. These include Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind. Are you criticizing these scientists for making an inquiry that you believe is unnecessary? IMO, human beings are knowers and should use their full intelligence and reason to find out how the world works, including how the universe started, and if possible to know what happened before it started. What is wrong with that? There is no greater enjoyment and bliss than knowing the Truth. If you enjoy your day today, there is nothing wrong with that. But is it enough?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test? With regard to experiences that result from meditation etc., I have had a number of really interesting experiences in my life in this regard, but I can only relate them, but I can't show them to anyone. If I speak about them they are simply data which can be believed or disbelieved, i.e., opinion. These experiences fall into two categories. 1) awakening experiences and 2) spiritual experiences, and they are very different. The spiritual experiences have shall we say a religious flavour, while the awakening experiences make the religious like experiences seem like straw, unreal and also do not reveal anything other than what I previously thought about these things was insubstantial, that is spirlitual experiences are in the nature of very nice hallucinations, and awakening experiences have a rock solid sort of effect that cannot be doubted, but they are empty, tautological. What those awaking experiences reveal is the idea of a prime mover is not real, nor is the idea there is no prime mover real. There is experience, but if you call it anything, that calling is not it. People who push religious explanations either believe what they say based on what others say, or they have spiritual experiences. Atheists on the other hand either simply do not have such a belief or some have an active not-theistic belief. Those that have awakening experiences are probably more at a loss at what to say because nothing can be said about it that is true. The experience is undefined, you cannot call it a prime mover or anything, as no label will stick. There is no proof except in experience, so no proof can be offered. We humans are well noted among ourselves for pursuing phantasies. As I have said before, enlightenment is the resolution of the ultimate confidence game. The joke is on us, for it answers a question that need never have been asked. But as we are kind of dumb, we do ask it. Now you could call this experience finding God. But that word is so pale and inadequate. Rather it is more likely you would call a spiritual experience something like God or personal evidence of God because those experiences happen when the mind still thinks it is a person acting in a larger universe that is bigger than the mind and person rather than simply a function that runs within a larger framework of the entire range of experience. You can tell people of both types of experience, but only the awakening kind is really useful for living and feeling fulfilled. This is the kind that the term enlightenment applies to. But as I said, that reveals nothing other than whatever idea you had of enlightenment was, it was not correct, and that you had always been living the full value that enlightenment reveals. Very paradoxical. It is really great though. But this is just my opinion. Are you stupid or smart enough to pursue enlightenment? If you want to find God, or a prime mover, you are going to fall short, because those terms, in spite of what you might think about them, set certain kinds of limits, in other words, using those words structures the mind with boundaries. If you visulaise a prime mover, those boundaries create a prime mover in you mind that has a constipated value. This is why spiritual disciplines use meditation techniques, to break those boundaries down. Not to have spiritual experiences, but to get away from them, even though as the mind is breaking up, releasing stresses as it were, you may have spiritual experiences, hallucinations, and so on. You treat them like thoughts in TM, no big deal. They become an obstacle to clear experience if you remain attached to having had them. It is pretty hard to avoid attachment to spiritual experiences, so it takes a while to get over them, but an awakening experience is different, there will always be something about it that cannot be grasped; you cannot pin it down or hold onto it. Because at this point you realise that awakening is just another experience. It will pass. Some other value takes hold in life, and gradually the whole edifice of spiritual chotskies falls away; religion falls away, beliefs fall away. It is no longer necessary to care about these things. If you want others to have this experience, though, you can create a religion, and if you are good, it might work for a while until your followers screw it up. How many gods has mankind come up with in the last 10,000 years? Even when someones comes up with just one over mastering god, other come up with another version of it. And then they fight over it. Great sport. This can be said in so many, mostly misleading ways. When you finally give up all your ideas about this particular weird path of seeking, you end up with the absolute being, but it is not a god,
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test? With regard to experiences that result from meditation etc., I have had a number of really interesting experiences in my life in this regard, but I can only relate them, but I can't show them to anyone. If I speak about them they are simply data which can be believed or disbelieved, i.e., opinion. These experiences fall into two categories. 1) awakening experiences and 2) spiritual experiences, and they are very different. The spiritual experiences have shall we say a religious flavour, while the awakening experiences make the religious like experiences seem like straw, unreal and also do not reveal anything other than what I previously thought about these things was insubstantial, that is spirlitual experiences are in the nature of very nice hallucinations, and awakening experiences have a rock solid sort of effect that cannot be doubted, but they are empty, tautological. What those awaking experiences reveal is the idea of a prime mover is not real, nor is the idea there is no prime mover real. There is experience, but if you call it anything, that calling is not it. People who push religious explanations either believe what they say based on what others say, or they have spiritual experiences. Atheists on the other hand either simply do not have such a belief or some have an active not-theistic belief. Those that have awakening experiences are probably more at a loss at what to say because nothing can be said about it that is true. The experience is undefined, you cannot call it a prime mover or anything, as no label will stick. There is no proof except in experience, so no proof can be offered. We humans are well noted among ourselves for pursuing phantasies. As I have said before, enlightenment is the resolution of the ultimate confidence game. The joke is on us, for it answers a question that need never have been asked. But as we are kind of dumb, we do ask it. Now you could call this experience finding God. But that word is so pale and inadequate. Rather it is more likely you would call a spiritual experience something like God or personal evidence of God because those experiences happen when the mind still thinks it is a person acting in a larger universe that is bigger than the mind and person rather than simply a function that runs within a larger framework of the entire range of experience. You can tell people of both types of experience, but only the awakening kind is really useful for living and feeling fulfilled. This is the kind that the term enlightenment applies to. But as I said, that reveals nothing other than whatever idea you had of enlightenment was, it was not correct, and that you had always been living the full value that enlightenment reveals. Very paradoxical. It is really great though. But this is just my opinion. Are you stupid or smart enough to pursue enlightenment? If you want to find God, or a prime mover, you are going to fall short, because those terms, in spite of what you might think about them, set certain kinds of limits, in other words, using those words structures the mind with boundaries. If you visulaise a prime mover, those boundaries create a prime mover in you mind that has a constipated value. This is why spiritual disciplines use meditation techniques, to break those boundaries down. Not to have spiritual experiences, but to get away from them, even though as the mind is breaking up, releasing stresses as it were, you may have spiritual experiences, hallucinations, and so on. You treat them like thoughts in TM, no big deal. They become an obstacle to clear experience if you remain attached to having had them. It is pretty hard to avoid attachment to spiritual experiences, so it takes a while to get over them, but an awakening experience is different, there will always be something about it that cannot be grasped; you cannot pin it down or hold onto it. Because at this point you realise that awakening is just another experience. It will pass. Some other value takes hold in life, and gradually the whole edifice of spiritual chotskies falls away; religion falls away, beliefs fall away. It is no longer necessary to care about these things. If you want others to have this experience, though, you can create a religion, and if you are good, it might work for a while until your followers screw it up. How many gods has mankind come up with in the last 10,000 years? Even when someones comes up with just one over mastering god, other come up with another version of it. And then they fight over it. Great sport. This can be said in so many, mostly misleading ways. When you finally give up all your ideas about this particular weird path of
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island, said he patterned the 'seven stranded castaways' after the seven deadly sins but he didn't admit it until years later in his book about the show. (There is that number '7' again, as in seven states of unconsciousness) The sins and their associated characters: The Professor – Pride Thurston Howell III - Greed Ginger - Lust Mary Ann - Envy (of Ginger's looks) Mrs. Lovey Howell - Gluttony The Skipper - Anger Gilligan – Sloth Some have speculated that the castaways were in Hell and Gilligan, who always wore red, did all he could to ensure they stayed there by sabotaging their escape plots, thus Gilligan is Satan. And everybody panned it as a dumb show. Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where a man dies, goes to heaven and then gets totally bored by old folks talking about their vacation or something like that. Then he finds out this is not heaven, it's hell, and it lasts forever. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: [Xeno]: It is really cold here, because I have the heat turned down to save $$. Maybe I will make some hot cocoa and watch a totally frivolous TV show. [Ann highlight and below]: Is that what one would term a redundant statement? There are occasionally TV shows with more depth, but you have to search around. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Barry, It's logical to say that there is a Prime Mover if one reaches an infinite regression situation. It isn't arbitrary. Specifically, space and time are mental constructs. They cannot exist without a Knower. Without a Knower, there is NOTHING, NOWHERE, NOTIME. How is it possible for the universe to start in the past and to exist as it is now? As such, the Knower is the Prime Mover. As a human being, you're supposed to find out and understand the world around us since you too are a knower. You cannot force everyone to accept what you believe is true without making any inquiry-- scientific is the best--to get the right answer. Otherwise, you become a dictator. Although some church thinkers do not agree, there are some scientists who believe that it's possible to know what happened before the universe began. These include Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind. Are you criticizing these scientists for making an inquiry that you believe is unnecessary? IMO, human beings are knowers and should use their full intelligence and reason to find out how the world works, including how the universe started, and if possible to know what happened before it started. What is wrong with that? There is no greater enjoyment and bliss than knowing the Truth. If you enjoy your day today, there is nothing wrong with that. But is it enough?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Re I have the heat turned down to save $$.: If you're so smart why aren't you rich? Sorry, just being cute. But aren't awakening experiences with their rock-solid sort of effect that cannot be doubted more amenable to explanations that prioritise idealism (mind is more fundamental than matter)? Perhaps you don't trust philosophical explanations; but as we're animals that enjoy speculating why knock it? Don't be a party-pooper. (PS: aren't you in the States? Isn't gas dirt-cheap over there?)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
This is very humorous and I see the fit. However, I think Gilligan as Satan is a bit of a stretch. Gilligan's Island was the only show I was allowed to watch growing up in that it fit the 30 minute timeframe and was on just before dinner and didn't have any real violence in it. All that subliminal messaging took its toll, I must admit. :)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island, said he patterned the 'seven stranded castaways' after the seven deadly sins but he didn't admit it until years later in his book about the show. (There is that number '7' again, as in seven states of unconsciousness) The sins and their associated characters: The Professor – Pride Thurston Howell III - Greed Ginger - Lust Mary Ann - Envy (of Ginger's looks) Mrs. Lovey Howell - Gluttony The Skipper - Anger Gilligan – Sloth Some have speculated that the castaways were in Hell and Gilligan, who always wore red, did all he could to ensure they stayed there by sabotaging their escape plots, thus Gilligan is Satan. And everybody panned it as a dumb show. Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where a man dies, goes to heaven and then gets totally bored by old folks talking about their vacation or something like that. Then he finds out this is not heaven, it's hell, and it lasts forever. Sounds like Florida or Palm Springs. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: [Xeno]: It is really cold here, because I have the heat turned down to save $$. Maybe I will make some hot cocoa and watch a totally frivolous TV show. [Ann highlight and below]: Is that what one would term a redundant statement? There are occasionally TV shows with more depth, but you have to search around. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Barry, It's logical to say that there is a Prime Mover if one reaches an infinite regression situation. It isn't arbitrary. Specifically, space and time are mental constructs. They cannot exist without a Knower. Without a Knower, there is NOTHING, NOWHERE, NOTIME. How is it possible for the universe to start in the past and to exist as it is now? As such, the Knower is the Prime Mover. As a human being, you're supposed to find out and understand the world around us since you too are a knower. You cannot force everyone to accept what you believe is true without making any inquiry-- scientific is the best--to get the right answer. Otherwise, you become a dictator. Although some church thinkers do not agree, there are some scientists who believe that it's possible to know what happened before the universe began. These include Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind. Are you criticizing these scientists for making an inquiry that you believe is unnecessary? IMO, human beings are knowers and should use their full intelligence and reason to find out how the world works, including how the universe started, and if possible to know what happened before it started. What is wrong with that? There is no greater enjoyment and bliss than knowing the Truth. If you enjoy your day today, there is nothing wrong with that. But is it enough?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Re: There is no you. You are gone. There is just life. Sounds crazy doesn't it. Xeno, how are you defining you? What is writing this? What makes the choice to have hot chocolate instead of some other drink and watch a frivolous TV show? Seems like an individual choice. Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test? With regard to experiences that result from meditation etc., I have had a number of really interesting experiences in my life in this regard, but I can only relate them, but I can't show them to anyone. If I speak about them they are simply data which can be believed or disbelieved, i.e., opinion. These experiences fall into two categories. 1) awakening experiences and 2) spiritual experiences, and they are very different. The spiritual experiences have shall we say a religious flavour, while the awakening experiences make the religious like experiences seem like straw, unreal and also do not reveal anything other than what I previously thought about these things was insubstantial, that is spirlitual experiences are in the nature of very nice hallucinations, and awakening experiences have a rock solid sort of effect that cannot be doubted, but they are empty, tautological. What those awaking experiences reveal is the idea of a prime mover is not real, nor is the idea there is no prime mover real. There is experience, but if you call it anything, that calling is not it. People who push religious explanations either believe what they say based on what others say, or they have spiritual experiences. Atheists on the other hand either simply do not have such a belief or some have an active not-theistic belief. Those that have awakening experiences are probably more at a loss at what to say because nothing can be said about it that is true. The experience is undefined, you cannot call it a prime mover or anything, as no label will stick. There is no proof except in experience, so no proof can be offered. We humans are well noted among ourselves for pursuing phantasies. As I have said before, enlightenment is the resolution of the ultimate confidence game. The joke is on us, for it answers a question that need never have been asked. But as we are kind of dumb, we do ask it. Now you could call this experience finding God. But that word is so pale and inadequate. Rather it is more likely you would call a spiritual experience something like God or personal evidence of God because those experiences happen when the mind still thinks it is a person acting in a larger universe that is bigger than the mind and person rather than simply a function that runs within a larger framework of the entire range of experience. You can tell people of both types of experience, but only the awakening kind is really useful for living and feeling fulfilled. This is the kind that the term enlightenment applies to. But as I said, that reveals nothing other than whatever idea you had of enlightenment was, it was not correct, and that you had always been living the full value that enlightenment reveals. Very paradoxical. It is really great though. But this is just my opinion. Are you stupid or smart enough to pursue enlightenment? If you want to find God, or a prime mover, you are going to fall short, because those terms, in spite of what you might think about them, set certain kinds of limits, in other words, using those words structures the mind with boundaries. If you visulaise a prime mover, those boundaries create a prime mover in you mind that has a constipated value. This is why spiritual disciplines use meditation techniques, to break those boundaries down. Not to have spiritual experiences, but to get away from them, even though as the mind is breaking up, releasing stresses as it were, you may have spiritual experiences, hallucinations, and so on. You treat them like thoughts in TM, no big deal. They become an obstacle to clear experience if you remain attached to having had them. It is pretty hard to avoid attachment to spiritual experiences, so it takes a while to get over them, but an awakening experience is different, there will always be something about it that cannot be grasped; you cannot pin it down or hold onto it. Because at this point you realise that awakening is just another experience. It will pass. Some other value takes hold in life, and gradually the whole edifice of spiritual chotskies falls away; religion falls away, beliefs fall away. It is no longer necessary to care about these things. If you want others to have this experience, though, you can create a religion, and if you are good, it might work for a while until your followers screw it up. How many gods has mankind come up with in the last 10,000
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Anartaxius, You should reread MMY's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita to understand the meaning between the absolute and the relative. He stated that human beings live both the absolute and the relative at the same time. Specifically, the juncture of the absolute and the relative is located in the human brain. It is at this juncture that bliss consciousness is experienced. By definition, it is not possible to experience the absolute in the relative world. But the bliss is attained when thoughts are transcended at the junction between the relative and the absolute. Also, the absolute is located at the junctions between the waking, sleeping and dreaming states of consciousness. Similarly, the absolute can be found in between the syllables of the mantra. Further, once bliss consciousness is attained it can be experienced and can co-exist along with the waking, sleeping and dreaming states of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Anartaxius wrote: Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test? Thanks for your comments on all of this, Xeno. As should be obvious, I don't feel like entering into a discussion with either jr_esq or the Judester about any of this because it feels a little like getting into an argument with a retard. No one wins in a situation like this, and nothing is to be accomplished because they simply cannot step beyond their assumptions about the world and how it works. Their idea of a debate about such matters is to always try to steer the other person into making the same assumptions they do, so they can then declare, Aha! I won. :-) As for knowing, and the truth, I think I've stated my opinion about such myths often enough in the past to not have to do so again. I prefer to allow those who believe that they know things to live in the illusions they have chosen. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not atheists. I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on this. I will only point out that trying to claim anything about What Buddhists believe is ludicrous. Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity. Each of them drew from local religions and traditions in the areas in which they sprung up, and some of them can be as different as night and day. Even though the historical Buddha would be as horrified by this as Jesus would be at some of the things taught in his name, some sects even revere *him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to keep this from happening, but it happened anyway. Go figure. The same is true with issues such as whether Buddhists believe in a God or not. Many do not believe in one sentient entity who runs things, although some sects seem to believe in sorta demi-gods who might exist on subtle planes and run limited aspects of creation. Few Buddhists I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they tend to believe that the universe was never created. Thus they have no need to posit a Creator. That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about things you'd like to believe can be defined well enough that someone could actually win an argument about them. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he sucks, when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone knows that Buddhas are supernatural beings, not real people that can fly up in the air like Rama supposedly did. All Buddhist believe in Buddhas - there's no denying this fact, otherwise they would not call themselves Buddhists. Buddhists don't believe in a creation, but at the same time they don't believe that something can come out of nothing. For an effect there has to be a cause. The Buddha taught Causation - everything that happens, happens for a reason - there are no chance events. Buddhists the world over believe in supernatural beings, but Buddhist don't believe these entities to be Buddhas - there are no enlightened beings in heaven, because the gods are not enlightened. Go figure. On 12/11/2013 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not atheists. /*I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on this. I will only point out that trying to claim anything about What Buddhists believe is ludicrous. Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity. Each of them drew from local religions and traditions in the areas in which they sprung up, and some of them can be as different as night and day. Even though the historical Buddha would be as horrified by this as Jesus would be at some of the things taught in his name, some sects even revere *him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to keep this from happening, but it happened anyway. Go figure. The same is true with issues such as whether Buddhists believe in a God or not. Many do not believe in one sentient entity who runs things, although some sects seem to believe in sorta demi-gods who might exist on subtle planes and run limited aspects of creation. Few Buddhists I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they tend to believe that the universe was never created. Thus they have no need to posit a Creator. That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about things you'd like to believe can be defined well enough that someone could actually win an argument about them. :-) */
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are from the rest of the blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that you espouse of there having been no creation or creator and that those who believe in such silliness are simply too pathetic to live is giving me my first chuckle of the day. That is like saying the beer you buy at your local bar had no creator, was not created, always existed because by the time you get to your table and order it it just magically appears from some back room. You weren't there to witness the brewing, you didn't see who harvested the hops or who put it all in a big vat or who bottled it but you are drinking it nevertheless at that very moment just like you are living life at this very moment. You weren't there at the beginning of that either just like you weren't there for the brewing of the beer so what makes them different? It is like anyone who believes in some higher force or, horror of horrors, God makes them in some way simpletons. The inability to conceive of creation before it existed or to somehow be able to hold the possibility of a personal or even impersonal God in one's imagination or heart is the sign, IMO, of a very stunted, very poor man indeed. I don't need science or religion to tell me what is what. My experiences on this planet and, perhaps, elsewhere have allowed me glimpses of such a thing as a creator and what animates that force.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
See what I mean about minds too small to conceive of eternity? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are from the rest of the blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that you espouse of there having been no creation or creator and that those who believe in such silliness are simply too pathetic to live is giving me my first chuckle of the day. That is like saying the beer you buy at your local bar had no creator, was not created, always existed because by the time you get to your table and order it it just magically appears from some back room. You weren't there to witness the brewing, you didn't see who harvested the hops or who put it all in a big vat or who bottled it but you are drinking it nevertheless at that very moment just like you are living life at this very moment. You weren't there at the beginning of that either just like you weren't there for the brewing of the beer so what makes them different? It is like anyone who believes in some higher force or, horror of horrors, God makes them in some way simpletons. The inability to conceive of creation before it existed or to somehow be able to hold the possibility of a personal or even impersonal God in one's imagination or heart is the sign, IMO, of a very stunted, very poor man indeed. I don't need science or religion to tell me what is what. My experiences on this planet and, perhaps, elsewhere have allowed me glimpses of such a thing as a creator and what animates that force.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Well, c'mon now, Ann, it's not as if Barry ever suggested that mainstream science was any more than adolescent twaddle. I mean, he's been rock-solid consistent about mainstream science having its head up its ass, just like the rest of us. Can't call him a hypocrite on that score, no siree bob. Ann observed: Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are from the rest of the blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that you espouse of there having been no creation or creator and that those who believe in such silliness are simply too pathetic to live is giving me my first chuckle of the day. That is like saying the beer you buy at your local bar had no creator, was not created, always existed because by the time you get to your table and order it it just magically appears from some back room. You weren't there to witness the brewing, you didn't see who harvested the hops or who put it all in a big vat or who bottled it but you are drinking it nevertheless at that very moment just like you are living life at this very moment. You weren't there at the beginning of that either just like you weren't there for the brewing of the beer so what makes them different? It is like anyone who believes in some higher force or, horror of horrors, God makes them in some way simpletons. The inability to conceive of creation before it existed or to somehow be able to hold the possibility of a personal or even impersonal God in one's imagination or heart is the sign, IMO, of a very stunted, very poor man indeed. I don't need science or religion to tell me what is what. My experiences on this planet and, perhaps, elsewhere have allowed me glimpses of such a thing as a creator and what animates that force.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck. Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You turn men back to dust, saying, “Return to dust, O sons of men.” For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.--Psalm 90:1-4 The gracious, eternal god permits the spirit to green and bloom and to bring forth the most marvelous fruit, surpassing anything a tongue can express and a heart conceive.--Johannes Tauler (1300-1361) Pain and foolishness lead to great bliss and complete knowledge, for Eternal Wisdom created nothing under the sun in vain.--Khalil Gibran A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is.--Bertrand Russell Barry steps in it again: See what I mean about minds too small to conceive of eternity? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are from the rest of the blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that you espouse of there having been no creation or creator and that those who believe in such silliness are simply too pathetic to live is giving me my first chuckle of the day. That is like saying the beer you buy at your local bar had no creator, was not created, always existed because by the time you get to your table and order it it just magically appears from some back room. You weren't there to witness the brewing, you didn't see who harvested the hops or who put it all in a big vat or who bottled it but you are drinking it nevertheless at that very moment just like you are living life at this very moment. You weren't there at the beginning of that either just like you weren't there for the brewing of the beer so what makes them different? It is like anyone who believes in some higher force or, horror of horrors, God makes them in some way simpletons. The inability to conceive of creation before it existed or to somehow be able to hold the possibility of a personal or even impersonal God in one's imagination or heart is the sign, IMO, of a very stunted, very poor man indeed. I don't need science or religion to tell me what is what. My experiences on this planet and, perhaps, elsewhere have allowed me glimpses of such a thing as a creator and what animates that force.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in it are,: I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in *believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck. Love it! This would be awesome, stitched into a sampler, with a border of roses around it - excellent!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Buddhists don't believe in eternity, that would be considered an extreme view. Buddhists follow the Middle Way, believing neither in the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. Buddhists ascribe to the view of dependent origination - everything happens for a reason - and that emptiness transcends opposite statements about existence. On 12/11/2013 8:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: */See what I mean about minds too small to conceive of eternity? /*--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are from the rest of the blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that you espouse of there having been no creation or creator and that those who believe in such silliness are simply too pathetic to live is giving me my first chuckle of the day. That is like saying the beer you buy at your local bar had no creator, was not created, always existed because by the time you get to your table and order it it just magically appears from some back room. You weren't there to witness the brewing, you didn't see who harvested the hops or who put it all in a big vat or who bottled it but you are drinking it nevertheless at that very moment just like you are living life at this very moment. You weren't there at the beginning of that either just like you weren't there for the brewing of the beer so what makes them different? It is like anyone who believes in some higher force or, horror of horrors, God makes them in some way simpletons. The inability to conceive of creation before it existed or to somehow be able to hold the possibility of a personal or even impersonal God in one's imagination or heart is the sign, IMO, of a very stunted, very poor man indeed. I don't need science or religion to tell me what is what. My experiences on this planet and, perhaps, elsewhere have allowed me glimpses of such a thing as a creator and what animates that force.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Yeah, the whole Big Bang theory is based on the measurement of cosmic background radiation, similar to tuning a satellite dish, and staying away from the earth noise. So, we've built instruments to measure the background radiation, out there. We have reached a point of measurement, where, the background radiation, drops to nearly nothing. Because that location is furthest away from us, we conclude that, there is nothing beyond it, and then theorize, using the speed of light as a constant, that everything here, came from there, and is accelerating away from that point. Now we also recognize that 96% of the matter in the universe, is invisible. wtf? The Big Bang starts to look like the Big Bluff, doesn't it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
But Richard, do Buddhists believe in ONE supreme being? On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:29 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he sucks, when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone knows that Buddhas are supernatural beings, not real people that can fly up in the air like Rama supposedly did. All Buddhist believe in Buddhas - there's no denying this fact, otherwise they would not call themselves Buddhists. Buddhists don't believe in a creation, but at the same time they don't believe that something can come out of nothing. For an effect there has to be a cause. The Buddha taught Causation - everything that happens, happens for a reason - there are no chance events. Buddhists the world over believe in supernatural beings, but Buddhist don't believe these entities to be Buddhas - there are no enlightened beings in heaven, because the gods are not enlightened. Go figure. On 12/11/2013 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not atheists. I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on this. I will only point out that trying to claim anything about What Buddhists believe is ludicrous. Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity. Each of them drew from local religions and traditions in the areas in which they sprung up, and some of them can be as different as night and day. Even though the historical Buddha would be as horrified by this as Jesus would be at some of the things taught in his name, some sects even revere *him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to keep this from happening, but it happened anyway. Go figure. The same is true with issues such as whether Buddhists believe in a God or not. Many do not believe in one sentient entity who runs things, although some sects seem to believe in sorta demi-gods who might exist on subtle planes and run limited aspects of creation. Few Buddhists I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they tend to believe that the universe was never created. Thus they have no need to posit a Creator. That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about things you'd like to believe can be defined well enough that someone could actually win an argument about them. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
If Curtis were here, he would almost certainly note that what may seem to us laypeople to be common sense (e,g., the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars couldn't possibly have been squashed into a point) is not a reliable basis for evaluating scientific theories. After all, if it were, we would be fully justified in immediately tossing quantum mechanics onto the trash heap, along with Darwinian evolution. (Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain,' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.--Richard Feynman on quantum mechanics) In any case, scientists don't usually tell us the Big Bang theory is the gospel truth. Rather, they say it's the best theory we have currently. Seraphita wrote: Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in it are,: I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in *believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in it are,: I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in *believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth. I think I was riffing more off of jr-esq's kneejerk putdowns of Stephen Hawking and anyone who doesn't believe in 1) a Big Bang and 2) that God was the banger. :-) I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, admittedly) who suggests that no such concept as God is necessary to explain the universe, or even the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-) Me, I find the notion of an infinite, eternal universe with no God or intelligence behind it FAR more interesting and inspiring than I find the silly notion that it was all created by a God. But then again, I have no need to believe that there is a Plan or a Reason for all of this -- for the universe, for the earth, or for each of us. I am completely comfortable with it all being a form of chaotic controlled folly, reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Maybe Share would make him one. ;-) DoctorDumbass opined: (I wrote:) God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck. Love it! This would be awesome, stitched into a sampler, with a border of roses around it - excellent!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Well, I thought it was a very tantric comment so I'd probably use the yin yang symbol rather than roses! And it kind of made turq the father of God! On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Maybe Share would make him one. ;-) DoctorDumbass opined: (I wrote:) God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck. Love it! This would be awesome, stitched into a sampler, with a border of roses around it - excellent!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Actually, it isn't what you believe that's the problem. It's your thought-free, scornful dismissal of the beliefs of others (as in this and your earlier posts today). Barry, panties well twisted, lashes out: But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about. :-) Says Barry, ignoring it. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Wow, turq, what the heck do you mean by: a form of chaotic controlled folly, reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:11 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in it are,: I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in *believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth. I think I was riffing more off of jr-esq's kneejerk putdowns of Stephen Hawking and anyone who doesn't believe in 1) a Big Bang and 2) that God was the banger. :-) I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, admittedly) who suggests that no such concept as God is necessary to explain the universe, or even the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-) Me, I find the notion of an infinite, eternal universe with no God or intelligence behind it FAR more interesting and inspiring than I find the silly notion that it was all created by a God. But then again, I have no need to believe that there is a Plan or a Reason for all of this -- for the universe, for the earth, or for each of us. I am completely comfortable with it all being a form of chaotic controlled folly, reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
I mean, turq, maybe this is what God is really, the combined sentience, etc. BTW, yahoo is being wonky today so if I take to long to write a reply, it refreshes all by itself! On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:41 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Wow, turq, what the heck do you mean by: a form of chaotic controlled folly, reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:11 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in it are,: I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in *believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth. I think I was riffing more off of jr-esq's kneejerk putdowns of Stephen Hawking and anyone who doesn't believe in 1) a Big Bang and 2) that God was the banger. :-) I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, admittedly) who suggests that no such concept as God is necessary to explain the universe, or even the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-) Me, I find the notion of an infinite, eternal universe with no God or intelligence behind it FAR more interesting and inspiring than I find the silly notion that it was all created by a God. But then again, I have no need to believe that there is a Plan or a Reason for all of this -- for the universe, for the earth, or for each of us. I am completely comfortable with it all being a form of chaotic controlled folly, reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
While I'm at it: I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, admittedly) who suggests that no such concept as God is necessary to explain the universe, or even the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-) Many folks don't believe in the Big Bang because of religious indoctrination but rather think it's probably correct because of all the scientific evidence for it (many of the Big Bang's scientific proponents, FWIW, are themselves atheists).
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
It's a bit more complicated than that, actually. The Wikipedia article is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang And dark matter is still just inferential; we haven't yet been able to identify any dark matter particles. No, the Big Bang doesn't really look like the Big Bluff. At this point, it looks like a theory that requires refinement to account for some apparent anomalies. Way too early to say whether that can be accomplished. DoctorDumbass wrote: Yeah, the whole Big Bang theory is based on the measurement of cosmic background radiation, similar to tuning a satellite dish, and staying away from the earth noise. So, we've built instruments to measure the background radiation, out there. We have reached a point of measurement, where, the background radiation, drops to nearly nothing. Because that location is furthest away from us, we conclude that, there is nothing beyond it, and then theorize, using the speed of light as a constant, that everything here, came from there, and is accelerating away from that point. Now we also recognize that 96% of the matter in the universe, is invisible. wtf? The Big Bang starts to look like the Big Bluff, doesn't it?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Barry, You're making statements based on your own faith (Buddhist, non-theist or whatever) which cannot be accepted as scientific. The current scientific discoveries in cosmology do not support your position. Specifically, 1. Scientists have accidentally found the existence of the cosmic background noise which is the evidence that the Big Bang occurred. 2. Edwin Hubble found that the universe is expanding. 3. Researchers from UC Berkeley found that the universe is expanding and at an ever increasing rate. 4. Leonard Susskind, a physics professor from Stanford University, teaches that the universe's rate of expansion may eventually reach the speed of light. He is currently formulating a theory which states that the universal expansion is similar to the Black Hole mechanics--BUT in reverse. He is also working with another researcher to show that everything in the universe will end up as holographic bits of information. 5. Roger Penrose, professor-emeritus from Oxford University, has his own pet theory which states that after eons of time the universe will eventually explode again. He says that he can prove it by experiment. But so far I have not heard of any published works regarding this endeavor. So, in short, do you have any scientific works that support your position? Otherwise, you're puffing smoke. IMO, the publication you have referenced by link is not commonly accepted by leading scientists in physics and cosmology.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Re The current scientific discoveries in cosmology do not support your position [Big Bang dissing].: That's true. But modern physics has only been around for a century or so. We're still at the baby-crawling stage. You no longer think your siblings stop existing when they walk out the room. It's rather like those Christians who claim that the New Testament accounts prove that Jesus rose from the dead. They can make some good points - principally the implausibility of alternative explanations of the Gospel accounts. Eg, if the disciples were making the whole thing up, would they be prepared to die for their faith? As intriguing as those ideas are they don't get over the initial hurdle, viz: the extreme improbability that a man could come back from the grave. Big Bang theory is science not theology but when you consider it it has that same implausibilty factor at the get-go. Re everything in the universe will end up as holographic bits of information.: Maybe that's all it was to begin with? And the definitions in my dictionary only become info when interpreted by an intelligent consciousness. Idealism rules.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Buddhists believe in many Buddhas and that in your essential nature you are a Buddha too. On 12/11/2013 9:58 AM, Share Long wrote: But Richard, do Buddhists believe in ONE supreme being? On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:29 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he sucks, when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone knows that Buddhas are supernatural beings, not real people that can fly up in the air like Rama supposedly did. All Buddhist believe in Buddhas - there's no denying this fact, otherwise they would not call themselves Buddhists. Buddhists don't believe in a creation, but at the same time they don't believe that something can come out of nothing. For an effect there has to be a cause. The Buddha taught Causation - everything that happens, happens for a reason - there are no chance events. Buddhists the world over believe in supernatural beings, but Buddhist don't believe these entities to be Buddhas - there are no enlightened beings in heaven, because the gods are not enlightened. Go figure. On 12/11/2013 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not atheists. /*I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on this. I will only point out that trying to claim anything about What Buddhists believe is ludicrous. Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity. Each of them drew from local religions and traditions in the areas in which they sprung up, and some of them can be as different as night and day. Even though the historical Buddha would be as horrified by this as Jesus would be at some of the things taught in his name, some sects even revere *him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to keep this from happening, but it happened anyway. Go figure. The same is true with issues such as whether Buddhists believe in a God or not. Many do not believe in one sentient entity who runs things, although some sects seem to believe in sorta demi-gods who might exist on subtle planes and run limited aspects of creation. Few Buddhists I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they tend to believe that the universe was never created. Thus they have no need to posit a Creator. That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about things you'd like to believe can be defined well enough that someone could actually win an argument about them. :-) */
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
A cup of water will look like an ocean, if you are small enough. This Big Bang theory is all about dynamics, and nothing about context. I don't doubt the measurements, but the theory is full of holes - black ones.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
S3, The Big Bang Theory is constantly being tested for validity. For example, Michio Kaku, a physics professor at CUNY, states that there is something fundamentally wrong with the equations that are being used to describe the Singularity or at the Bang. His analysis shows that the equations end up in infinities, or zeros in the denominators of the equations. As such, the equations are hogwash, according to him. But he believes he can find the equation to answer the puzzle. To date, he hasn't nor has anyone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary
I was thinking of it more in terms of say an 1823 sampler, on Antiques Roadshow. Cheers!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
The Big Bang. The question of eternity and the beginning of the universe has been approached in different ways. It's a mystery, and as human beings, we like to solve mysteries. Maybe this one cannot be solved. Eternity seems to be approached in two different ways. 1. As endless time (this seems to be the most common way), and 2. As a timeless now. This second idea does not make any sense verbally because 'now' as a concept implies a 'then' and a 'to be', but this is because the concept leaks beyond our ability to imagine, in thought, what it could be, though there are those (me among them) that would say this is a particular kind of experience, which for use of a better term we could call (as in the TMO) Brahman. People experiencing Brahman (or Buddha nature, for another term to describe it) is an eternal now, even though those people having this experience can remember things we call past (memory of the past), and also have an experience we could call anticipation of the future, a thought that imagines an event that is not happening, but will. Maybe an Alzheimer's patient might be the only person who could experience an eternal now without memory of the past or anticipation of something called 'the future'. We of course could not have a meaningful conversation with such a person about the nature of eternity. Alzheimer's usually is not total destruction of all memory, as these patients can remember words, and often seem to speak fairly normally, but they have a very narrow time window of experience. It is a really fascinating experience to talk with such an individual. Scientists, by the nature of science, investigate the nature of change and the relationships that occur with change, so science is a time-based discipline conceptually, they have to think of eternity as extension in time. With the Big Bang, what comes before is meaningless in this conceptual world, and if there is a Big Crunch, the opposite of the Big Bang, the end of the universe, what happens after is also meaningless. This is because space-time comes into being with the Big Bang, so time does not exist before or after. So this concept does not fully match what most people think of as eternity. So you can be in Brahman consciousness, or be a Buddha, and experience eternity of the one kind, but if you have to make a cup of coffee, there is a sequence of changes you have to experience in order for that to work out properly, and for that you need a time-based conception. The point here is these are conceptual mappings the mind makes to understand particular facets of our experience. The conceptual worlds we use vary depending on how we approach what we want to understand. What we want to understand is what we experience from the deepest recesses of our mind to the ends of space outwardly, but the mappings of our understanding are always adequate only to a particular degree and then they fail, in the same way a topographic map might show you the general terrain but cannot show you that there is a particular tree at a particular location, or even what kind of trees are generally found in a location. Experience always has more to it, more data if you will, than our thoughts can encompass with description and logic and mathematics. And we can imagine things that exist only in our minds but have no analogue in the physical world. As for Buddhists, I once was reading a history book in the MIU library that mentioned that (supposedly) when Buddha died, his followers split into some two dozen different sects. It did not provide a time line for that. For example, the Mormon church has split six times since its origin in the 19th century, so if you want to know what an individual Buddhist thinks, probably you should ask them, one at a time. As for the word 'god', it has many connotations. If you have a time-based conception of eternity, then you have to think of things as having to have a beginning in time. If you have a dualistic sense of the universe, then you also probably will have to think that something had to make it. Scientists on the other hand, with the Big Bang, think that time also began with the Big Bang, that is, nothing came before the Big Bang because that is a meaningless question to ask. It just happened. Nothing made the universe, it just happened. There are other conceptions, such as multiverses, etc., which I am not going to wade into. So which of all these scenarios that have been discussed in this thread are 'true'? Show me.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Xeno, You stated that: Scientists on the other hand, with the Big Bang, think that time also began with the Big Bang, that is, nothing came before the Big Bang because that is a meaningless question to ask. It just happened. Nothing made the universe, it just happened. There are other conceptions, such as multiverses, etc., which I am not going to wade into. There are actually some scientists who are trying to prove that they know what happened before the Big Bang. There's a research group called the Perimeter Institute in Canada which is proposing the Brane Theory. This is alternately called the Big Bump. Essentially, the theory states that the universe began due to the collision of two membranes in the 11th dimension. However, most of the scientific circles have not accepted this idea to be plausible. Also, your statement that the universe just happened raises some questions for logical and scientific reasons. As stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, your statement cannot stand further logical scrutiny. Basically, the KCA states that the Prime Mover is the cause of the universe. In science, Roger Penrose, the professor-emiritus from Oxford University, believes that the universe is a product of endless explosions that occur after eons of time. However, he has not been able to produce a scientific paper to prove that this idea is true.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Doc, Some scientist like Michio Kaku, professor at CUNY, thinks that the universe is a white hole. Thus, he's implying that our universe was a spin-off from an older universe. He believes this can be proved by analyzing the WMAP data, which is essentially the baby picture of this universe. So far, he --or anyone else for that matter-- has not published a scientific paper to prove this theory.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
And another thing . . . Judy said: If Curtis were here, he would almost certainly note that what may seem to us laypeople to be common sense is not a reliable basis for evaluating scientific theories. After all, if it were, we would be fully justified in immediately tossing quantum mechanics onto the trash heap, along with Darwinian evolution. Although I've got no problem with Darwin I've always found the conventional view of the Scopes Monkey Trial amusing. My knowledge of the trial is limited to the classic Spencer Tracy movie, but what struck me is the way the defenders of evolutionary theory are presented as rational, empirical scientists whereas their opponents are portrayed as superstitious country hicks. One of the biggest obstacles to accepting naturalistic explanations of how we got here is that the universe seems to require fine-tuning of its physical constants that is too unlikely to have arisen by chance. Moderns like Dawkins have developed a soft spot for the idea of multiple universes (various possible theories); if you have enough goes at fashioning a universe one of them will eventually include beings like us. That maybe works. But at the time of the Scopes trial no one had the faintest idea of multiple worlds; to them this was a one-shot universe. That means the hicks were *right* to regard the theory they were presented with as lacking in plausibility and the scientists were *credulous* in accepting it. (Yes, I know that advances in knowledge depend on the scientists - but laypeople ain't always dumb.)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
See Wikipedia for the various inaccuracies in the play's account of the trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind The movie may have been worse. The playwrights maintained they never intended the play to be historical. Rather, it used the trial as a political metaphor, specifically pro-free speech and anti-McCarthyism. But it would be interesting to do an adaptation in which the evolutionists and creationists were portrayed as at least equivalently bright and well informed, or even with the creationists having the edge. That would sure mess with folks' heads. Seraphita wrote: Although I've got no problem with Darwin I've always found the conventional view of the Scopes Monkey Trial amusing. My knowledge of the trial is limited to the classic Spencer Tracy movie, but what struck me is the way the defenders of evolutionary theory are presented as rational, empirical scientists whereas their opponents are portrayed as superstitious country hicks.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
I'm kinda thinking the universe is more like an endless piece of swiss cheese, with each hole akin to a small bang (or a Big Bang, if viewed myopically, like the earth scientists do...). My more compelling issue, is that my space heater stays on - it is cold outside!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Re I'm kinda thinking the universe is more like an endless piece of swiss cheese.: You were anticipated by Menocchio, an Italian miller. He was burned at the stake in 1599, at the age of 67, on orders of Pope Clement VIII. Wiki quotes him: I have said that, in my opinion, all was chaos, that is, earth, air, water, and fire were mixed together; and out of that bulk a mass formed – just as cheese is made out of milk – and worms appeared in it, and these were the angels. See Carlo Ginzburg's book, The Cheese and the Worms.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
Everyone sounds insane in that story. :-(
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Also, your statement that the universe just happened raises some questions for logical and scientific reasons. As stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, your statement cannot stand further logical scrutiny. Basically, the KCA states that the Prime Mover is the cause of the universe. This KCA is a variation of the standard cosmological argument. It results in infinite regress when you ask the question 'Who caused the Prime Mover'. Stopping at a prime mover is simply arbitrary. And my comment that one of the possibilities is the universe just happened, that is, arose spontaneously, obviously does not allow further logical scrutiny. We could only investigate scientifically what happened after it began. As what seems to be experience, i.e., consciousness associated with a human body, I have no idea when or where I began directly; only after some years, when I was 4 or 5 years old do I have any direct memories, and what when before is second hand information from parents, documents in government offices etc., and even memory is second hand information, since memory is often quite faulty. Suppose we could never, ever find out how the universe began? Would that be so bad? We know so much less than we think we do anyway, what is so dismal about not knowing? Beautiful day today and yesterday here. Everything is white. Maybe that kind of enjoyment is ultimately enough.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in it are,: I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in *believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth. I think I was riffing more off of jr-esq's kneejerk putdowns of Stephen Hawking and anyone who doesn't believe in 1) a Big Bang and 2) that God was the banger. :-) I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, admittedly) who suggests that no such concept as God is necessary to explain the universe, or even the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-) Bawwy, your amusement resembles a twisted sense of perversity fueled by some strange need to distance yourself from the human race. Does it ever get lonely out there? Me, (I always love how Bawwy starts these sentence, with the infinite and all-powerful Me) I find the notion of an infinite, eternal universe with no God or intelligence behind it FAR more interesting and inspiring than I find the silly notion that it was all created by a God. But then again, I have no need to believe that there is a Plan or a Reason for all of this -- for the universe, for the earth, or for each of us. I am completely comfortable with it all being a form of chaotic controlled folly, reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. Of course you are, dear boy, because you believe yourself to be egoless, needless, totally comfortable within the chaos that is your mind and your life. You literally stew in its juices and because you have no ability to extricate yourself from the soup you have to claim you are happier than a pig in shi, er, stew. But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. Hee, if you think that was lashing out you are one big sissy boy. There is a funny term, what is it, a panty waist? Only I think you have a bit of a thing for the twisting of the knickers, n'est-ce pas? It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about. :-) Oh Bawwy, sweetie pie, you're breakin' my twisted heart.
