Before the Big Bang

[SeaPriestess]

I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

[Divine Insight]

Although I would need to read up on Hindu beliefs more to see what they would make of the formless energy that is co-existing on another plane with this universe.

When you do this you quickly run into the same problem with all theistic ideas. And that is that you quickly discover that the more you try to reach to the core of a philosophy the more you discover that even the strongest supporters of those philosophies start to disagree with each other when it comes right down to putting their finger on anything concrete, crystal clear, or meaningful. The more you drive for answers, the more evasive and abstract their "apologies" become. Hinduism ultimately isn't any different from any other man-made guess about the true nature of reality when it comes to actually having anything clear to offer.

On another note, I could argue though that a creator God IS in fact outside of time and always existed JUST LIKE the energy that has always existed outside of time. Just because we can't observe it like we do, in quantum theory, the energy, doesn't mean that it's an illogical thought to think of a creator God the same way, as a basic premise only. That's my only real argument on it at this point.

I agree. You are certainly free to put forth any "premise" you like. There isn't even a scientific objection to putting forth arbitrary premises.

In science, the only thing that matters is whether or not you can provide any evidence, or make any testable predication, that could demonstrate that your premise is meaningful, or was even "warranted".

In other words, if you are making a premise and cannot provide a rational reason for having made it, then the scientists would simply say to you, "That's cute. But I see no reason to embrace that premise since you haven't shown any rational reason for having even proposed it."

In other words, they have absolutely no reason to invest any time or effort exploring your premise when they see no reason for having even suggested it.

I mean, what would be your reason for suggesting this, other than perhaps because you would 'Like for it to be true" for some reason?

Not only this, but how would this different from a person next you suggesting that we should instead embrace her premise that it is actually a "Fairy Godmother" that has always existed?

And then we could always ask you and this other person to explain the difference between your idea of "God" and her idea of a "Fairy Godmother", etc.

And then we could have someone else proclaiming that it was actually the "Boogieman" that has always existed.

What is the point to any of these "premises" when we don't even have a meaningful or working definition for what constitutes a "God", a "Fairy Godmother", or a "Boogieman"?

How are these concepts meaningful when they aren't even well-defined in what they are supposedly referring to?

~~~~~

I would suggest that no matter what we do, we always end up coming back to the very same question:

Why are we even proposing this new premise in the first place?

Apparently it seems to be fundamentally based on an idea that this will somehow explain how "intelligent consciousness" can arise in our current universe.

But this takes us full-circle right back to the original question of why we think that postulating the existence of "intelligent consciousness" settles the question of how intelligent consciousness came to be.

It wouldn't settle that question since we would then need to answer the question of that original "intelligent consciousness" came to exist.

In other words, when it's all said and done, all we will have succeeded in doing is pushing an unanswered mystery one step further beyond our reach.

Like Carl Sagan says, "If we can't explain how the universe came to be, what good does it do to propose the existence of a God that we can't explain? All we've done is move an unexplained problem one step further beyond our reach. Why not save a step and just accept that we can't explain how the universe came t be?"

I don't see where there is anything to be gained by trying to "explain" the existence of our universe by proposing an "unexplained explanation".

In other words, an unexplained God is no explanation for anything.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by brunumb]

"universal or cosmic consciousness"

What exactly does that mean? What is it that is conscious, what is it conscious of, and how is it conscious?

From what I understand, "CC" imbues the whole universe and is the reason the universe is unfolding as it has, and is and will continue to do so.

It is consciousness which is conscious. If one is to assign a label as to 'what IT is' in terms of what it does, then it is the Universal Entity. [UE]

As to 'how is it conscious' it has always been conscious. Thus there is no 'how' because only things which have beginnings require 'how' explanations.

As to how it can retain its self awareness etc as a conscious entity, this would be done in a similar manner in which the human brain operates in regard to human consciousness. The stuff of the universe itself acts as the 'brain' in which the consciousness can experience its reality through.

One might regard that as being the 'body' of the UE.

Humans are many step/levels removed from the UE, but our bodies are essentially made up of the same stuff, and our consciousness is of the UE...not separate from or 'created'.

[Divine Insight]

Humans are many step/levels removed from the UE, but our bodies are essentially made up of the same stuff, and our consciousness is of the UE...not separate from or 'created'.

This is what I consider to be "True Pantheism". Not that I consider it to be true, but rather I'm saying this is the correct idea of Pantheism.

The only thing is that if this is the correct picture of reality, then humans are not separate from this conscious entity that we call "God". Therefore it would be meaningless for this "God" (or cosmic consciousness) to judge, condemn, reward, or punish any conscious human, since it would basically be doing this to itself.

In other words, if Pantheism is true, then every human criminal and psychopath on planet earth is nothing other than "God" (cosmic consciousness) playing out a role.

I actually have no problem with this philosophical guess concerning the potential true nature of reality. However, if it is indeed true, then no human can possibly be a sovereign soul (i.e. a conscious entity in its own right) since every human would be nothing other than an aspect of this cosmic consciousness.

This also makes the concept of "evil" meaningless, since this cosmic consciousness would be nothing nothing more than acting out a huge cosmic play where it does everything unto itself. In other words, it is not only the perpetrator of all harm, but it is also the recipient of all harm. And apparently it had agreed at the beginning how much pain it was willing to tolerate and no "human" (which is nothing other than God consciousness itself) would ever tolerate anymore pain that God (the cosmic consciousness) is willing to tolerate.

In the end the whole things becomes nothing more than a cosmic consciousness playing games with itself apparently to relieve its own incurable loneliness by pretending to be something other than itself (i.e. pretending to be humans).

Like I say, as a philosophical guess (a stab in the dark) at what we might imagine the true nature of reality to be like it probably merits quite a few points as an ingenuous creative guess. It would surely be as impossible to disprove as solipsism.

It would, of course, be different from solipsism since solipsism is the idea that only one individual is having an experience and everyone else is a figment of this one person's imagination. In pantheism all humans are having an experience, the only difference is that all humans are also one in the same "God" (cosmic consciousness).

I can only speak for myself, but I'm fully aware of the philosophy of Pantheism. But understanding the details of this philosophy doesn't make it true.

Like I say, I understand the details of Solipsism too, but it doesn't then follow from this that Solipsism must then be true.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 30 by brunumb]

"universal or cosmic consciousness"

What exactly does that mean? What is it that is conscious, what is it conscious of, and how is it conscious?

From what I understand, "CC" imbues the whole universe and is the reason the universe is unfolding as it has, and is and will continue to do so.

It is consciousness which is conscious. If one is to assign a label as to 'what IT is' in terms of what it does, then it is the Universal Entity. [UE]

As to 'how is it conscious' it has always been conscious. Thus there is no 'how' because only things which have beginnings require 'how' explanations.

As to how it can retain its self awareness etc as a conscious entity, this would be done in a similar manner in which the human brain operates in regard to human consciousness. The stuff of the universe itself acts as the 'brain' in which the consciousness can experience its reality through.

One might regard that as being the 'body' of the UE.

Humans are many step/levels removed from the UE, but our bodies are essentially made up of the same stuff, and our consciousness is of the UE...not separate from or 'created'.

Thank you William. I must be a bit thick because that really doesn't explain anything for me. It all just sounds like made up woo.

[William]

[Replying to post 34 by brunumb]

Thank you William.

You're welcome Brunumb. Anytime you have such questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

This is what...

Yes.

Divine Insight.

Always read the back cover as well.

The universe, the ultimate adventure attraction only a GOD would ride.

Of course some of Its aspects are going to complain about that, and feel all victimized and abandoned and get bitter and twisted about that. That's just GODs 'girly' side leaking through...

They will no doubt want a go at being their own GOD, just to show everyone how it is done. Wishes can be granted...

But, whatever, 'no pain no gain'. It is all part of the ride, and we are that which made the original choice so no sense in complaining about it. I hear that most souls end up not complaining at all, and soon enough forgetting the experience altogether, because it doesn't bear worth clinging on to for the sake of some mal-informed sense of justice.

The 'grumpy old codger' mansion Jesus prepared for such, is relatively empty these days, such is the power of enlightenment.

Be assured though, when it comes to the consciousness of One, the aspects are not in any way 'figments of its imagination' and are as real as they imagine they think they are, and more besides.

And no matter the number of down spirally turtles, between you and The Source, all aspects are real, even if the adventures they create for themselves are not as real as they think they are, while within them.

One cannot say for sure that it was loneliness which propelled The First Source to make 'copies' of Itself in which to scatter throughout the Potential of All That Is, or thirst for experience and knowledge or just because It wanted 'kids' and 'family' and 'friends' so It could play hide and seek on a GOD-like scale, or whether It is simply having a dream and when it wakes up all 'us' will be 'gone'.

But then, watch out when GODs have dreams *wink wink* -

This one goes out to the Divine Insight in all of My Selves....

[center][font=Comic Sans MS]SLEEPING DRAGON

So sleeps the Dragon - and dreams us alive
Form is illusion and so are the thoughts
Which persistently tell us we need to survive
In a world of unkindness - where fear is supreme
If we need to recall even one thing at all
remember we live in a dream

Ooh ooh ooh ooh

But this dream is for real - or so it appears
And we're not sure what love is
But we heard - it could scare away fears
There's no need to fear me - I'm not hear to kill
And I wasn't around when the hammer came down
And Jesus was hung on that cross on the hill

Ooh ooh ooh ooh

I dream with the Dragon - to help things along
And she give me the gifts and the words
And the heart and the feel and the song
Dream Sleeping Dragon - you're the heart of the Earth
And I dream of the time and the place and the light and
The life and the love of your birth

Ooh ooh ooh ooh

So sleeps the Dragon and dreams us awake
And she shows us the wonder of chaos
And the fact that there's been no mistake
Why did I cry then - when I learned not to laugh
Could I not se the forest for trees
Could I not seem the dream of this unfolding path

Ooh ooh ooh ooh[/font][/center]

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

This is what...

Yes.

Divine Insight.

Always read the back cover as well.

The universe, the ultimate adventure attraction only a GOD would ride.

Your premise is faulty and unfounded. I find no reason to continue reading further.

I did however, and wish I could have my time back.

[Divine Insight]

Of course some of Its aspects are going to complain about that, and feel all victimized and abandoned and get bitter and twisted about that. That's just GODs 'girly' side leaking through...

It would also just be God feeling victimized by itself.

They will no doubt want a go at being their own GOD, just to show everyone how it is done. Wishes can be granted...

Who are "they"?

You seem to want to demand that there are entities in pantheism that are not God.

If you're going to embrace Pantheism (i.e. ALL is God), then you need to do that. Pretending that there would exist other entities that are not an aspect of God would be to violate the very Pantheism that you had claimed to embrace in the first place.

So as a Pantheist, anytime you complain about the behavior of any human, all you are doing is complaining about the behavior of the God that you claim to believe in.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]

Of course some of Its aspects are going to complain about that, and feel all victimized and abandoned and get bitter and twisted about that. That's just GODs 'girly' side leaking through...

It would also just be God feeling victimized by itself.

Pretty much that is how it can be interpreted from the victims point of view. GOD does not victimize Itself as the view is different from that perspective.

Thus, dropping the victim mentality places ones perspectives directly related to GODs.

GOD is not the victim = I (the individual) am not the victim.

You seem to want to demand that there are entities in pantheism that are not God.

On the contrary. Panenthism simply acknowledges that there are entities that think they are not GOD and this because they think GOD does not exist.

I simply am acknowledging these entities exist.

There are entities who also think they are not GOD but not because they think GOD does not exist, but that they are created by GOD.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]

Of course some of Its aspects are going to complain about that, and feel all victimized and abandoned and get bitter and twisted about that. That's just GODs 'girly' side leaking through...

It would also just be God feeling victimized by itself.

Pretty much that is how it can be interpreted from the victims point of view. GOD does not victimize Itself as the view is different from that perspective.

Thus, dropping the victim mentality places ones perspectives directly related to GODs.

GOD is not the victim = I (the individual) am not the victim.

That's all fine and dandy. In fact, this is the gist of what Buddhism teaches.

However, this still doesn't change the fact that "the individual" was never anything other than God to begin with.

That's the part you don't seem to be acknowledging.

All you would be talking about here is different perspectives on life that God itself would be taking.

You seem to want to demand that there are entities in pantheism that are not God.

On the contrary. Panenthism simply acknowledges that there are entities that think they are not GOD and this because they think GOD does not exist.

I simply am acknowledging these entities exist.

There are entities who also think they are not GOD but not because they think GOD does not exist, but that they are created by GOD.

Sorry, but now you are still proclaiming that some entities exist that are "not God" but actual individual sovereign entities that were "created" by God.

But that would no longer be Pantheism. Now you have God creating entities that are supposedly separate from God and exist as their own individual entities. This violates Pantheism which is the idea that ALL is God.

So apparently you are trying to mix non-pantheistic ideas in with pantheism.

But that's no longer pantheism.

If pantheism is true, then every character in this great cosmic play is God playing out the role of each and every character. You can't then claim that some characters in this play are not "God". That would require that you abandon pantheism.

So I stand by my position that your ideas are not supported by Pantheism.

Pantheism agrees that God deceives itself by allowing itself to forget that it is God. But this doesn't "create" a new entity. The entity is still just God having allowed itself to forget that it is indeed God.

You need to remember that Buddhism teaches that the ego is an illusion, not that the ego is a real entity that is somehow separate from God.

In fact, you could say that an enlightened Buddhist is just God having realized the nature of his own game whilst playing that particular human role.