For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
valkyrie101 – “You need to tackle the subject of defining the notion of what constitutes “existence”. By normal definition, nothing ‘exists’ before the big bang. No time and space, no matter or energy, no elements… Theorizing about such a place is fairy dust land. If you want to change the normal definition of ‘existence’ [here is one definition: ‘the fact or state of living or having objective reality.’] and expand that, then you can say that the pre-big bang Universe is just the Universe in its eternally existing dot faze if you want.^
We tend to think in terms of relativity.
Is the Big Bang something that happend in the past?
“The past”, having nothing to do with it, except from the relative point of view.
What does this mean, before and after?
“If you want to change the normal definition of ‘existence’ [here is one definition: ‘the fact or state of living or having objective reality.’] and expand that, then you can say that the pre-big bang Universe is just the Universe in its eternally existing dot faze if you want.“
Out of politeness I want to be satisfied with your framing of this, but would like to interject something about objective existence requiring a subjective witness.
Also there is the question about whether existence can be said itself to exist?
And the potential to exist?
This issue of the subjective, is very interesting and my understanding would have it that the witness co-arises with objective existence. The Sanskrit terms Purusha and Prakriti come to mind.
Singularity, as the infinite potential of “nothing”, becoming Self Aware, and from that, the complexity of infinite relationship.
The underlying nature of the foundation, permeating all aspects as the Entirety.
We might better ask, do dreams exist?
valkyrie101 -“How does an atheist, who claims to only believe in material stuff, posit ‘eternal existence’ outside of space and time and matter, while regularly ripping religious folks for positing stuff like an invisible spirit world? All your argument does is take the religious view of an eternal creator, something science has zero evidence for, and say no it was not created by an eternal creator (take my word for it), it eternally self existed, another supernatural theory that science has zero evidence for. Too ironic.“
I don’t identify as an atheist. So,.. not sure how important that is to your interpretation of what I said.
Basically it boils down to whether you agree that there is a difference between the finite version of infinity found in mathematical modeling, and the infinite infinity of Singularity.
Of course, my attempts to spark an intuitive insight about this, are crude and overly dependent on a generous reading by you.
If you have been able to entertain the distinction, then it should be clear that the infinitude of Singularity is a better understanding of Eternity than the conventional one of “an unending amount of time”.
As for science’s role in confirming this, my personal opinion is that it should be obvious. Though, expanding on it with references to Self Awareness, does indeed venture onto theological ground.
That being something I have no problem with, as it represents the missing discipline required, to pick up where science runs to the end of it’s leash.
valkyrie101 – “I know you are thoughtful, brm, but you are also a little cryptic (if not dry).* Yea, I frequently make the argument that being nothing is the correct state of mind.. Being ‘atheist’ as a default state of mind, is exactly like being religious. Both are god centered states of mind. A mind free of ‘God’, is free of concepts about god. Such a person is not fretting a god. He has no definition of god. He makes no blanket condemnation of ‘god’ because who denies what they have not heard? To be ‘atheist’ he relies on other folks definition. Indeed, one day he may hear one he agrees with.^“
I like this statement quite a bit. It is clear and illustrates the difference between us, as imagined by you.
There are elements expressed in it that I practice myself, but against a background of a purposeful inquiry.
The intention and integrity of the inquiry, being a work in progress, can be called contemplation of the religious sort. I don’t mind.
I know for certain that there is a Big Picture and that my life, as well as your’s, is integral to it.
valkyrie101 – “Welll sure, dude, you got your amazing randy hat on, that’s cool. A good state of mind. That is why it is perplexing you would go with the theory that mimics the religious folks. Its like your killing your father and replacing him with yourself. As opposed to stepping back and being objective. I suspect we are just meeting at a chicken or egg impasse. ^ Nice chatting with you. Your last word.“
“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of all things” – Lao Tsu
Thank you for the practice, and good night.
valkyrie101 – “How cool that you quoted one of my favorite passages from an ancient writing of the highest order that I love.^ However, when I put on my science hat, when I discipline my mind to be totally objective, I can not posit notions of eternity, or self creation, or self existence because science has not found any of that in existence.
Fun seeing you make a religious argument.“
You are right about chickens and eggs. And I am reminded of the Zen adage: “Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water.”
I play the hand I am dealt, and as long as there is a sense of other, then an awareness of the other as God is appropriate.
However, the intentional inquiry I mentioned earlier, does have its effect. It is pretty much akin to “disciplining the mind to objectivity”. But is centered around the nature of Self. “Who am I”? “Who is asking this question”? If you know Lao Tsu you probably know Ramana Maharshi, to whom I’ll give credit for my use of the technique.
But back to the “effect” of the inquiry, or of any authentic meditation, or successful dissolution of “Ego trance”.
The revelation and eventual abidance in the Prime Truth: There is “No Separation“. Self is a seamless identity clear to the foundation. Fractalized awareness. No God, because there is only God.
valkyrie101 – “You are one cool and complex dude. Nice, my friend.^^^“
Your appreciation is appreciated. And I’m glad we got it over the hump.
Hope you have and excellent day.