Before The Beginning There Was...

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Existence is based on opposites and comparisons.

at one point there obviously must have been nothing, nothing at all, [...]they both had to exist at the same point in time...they just always were.

Exactly. "Before" the distinction of duality, there was timeless nonduality.

So, what if there was no 'beginning?" What if everything always "was," or rather, "is" nondually and outside "time." Only awareness (bound in time and space) allowed for distinction.

How did that occur though?

Another perplexing (and non-answerable) pholosophical question is this:

"Why does anything exist to begin with?"

Not "how?" but "why?"

Whether existence has always been around forever (in some form or another), or just since the Big Bang -- or something in between -- why should that existence even exist in the first place? Why isn't there nothing instead of something?

I realize that "nothing" is difficukt to define, but just because we can't fathom what "nothingness" could possibly mean, that doesn't mean that "something" must automatically exist instead.

This is by far the most interesting post I've ever seen on this site.

I have pondered this too.
If you really think about it, existence is weird. It really shouldn't kind of happen, if you get my meaning.
It's messy, uses up energy. "Things" would be easier if there was nothing.
Hard to express it...

Thanks. The question is hard to express.

And "Why?" may not be the right word, because "why?" seems to be asking for a purpose, and I don't think existence needs to exist for a purpose. A better question might be "Why does existence even bother to exist in the first place?"

Like you said, it seems like a messy prospect.

I just had a kind of answer. As I was typing it out my mind completely unravelled, gah!
Fundamentallly it's a ridiculously simple answer to do with nothing /non-existence by definition cannot be a state, so existence just simply has to be.
I just can't express it properly without falling into a thought loop.
It's as if it's so simple that the dial suddenly flips to the other end of scale to extreme complexity.

It just has to be, and always has been, always will be.
There's no such thing as nothing. Non-existence doesn't exist.

But "Something" needed for there to have been a "Nothing" in order for "Something" to exist and vice versa at the same time so they just always were however we are only capable of perceiving "Nothing" as a concept.
And "why" is there existance at all? Simply because it's Good. With a capital g. That's all I got for now.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Sorry, I don't watch posted videos unless they're reruns of the Psych tv show. Love me some Shawn and Gus.

Funny you should mention "Psych". A new Psych TV movie is on tonight (I think the first new Psych since the series ended). 8:00 EST on USA Network.

I know that's right.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
Before the Beginning there was only Chaos. And this perpetual Chaos, always changing...always random, prohibited the formation of any "things". .

In the beginning was the word.
Before 'the word' there was nothing.
The 'word' means concept.

What do you think was the 'first concept' that got it all started?

The word beginning has an opposite - the belief in beginning gives rise to the belief in the end. All 'things' have a beginning and end. Prior to the 'word' there was no beginning or end. No thing ever forms - no thing was ever created.
Words just make believe that there is something.

The first concept was self awareness that chose to continue to exist.

The concept of Chaos(before, during, and after) did not come to be before infinitely far....
which came first - chicken or egg?.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Existence is based on opposites and comparisons.

at one point there obviously must have been nothing, nothing at all, [...]they both had to exist at the same point in time...they just always were.

Exactly. "Before" the distinction of duality, there was timeless nonduality.

So, what if there was no 'beginning?" What if everything always "was," or rather, "is" nondually and outside "time." Only awareness (bound in time and space) allowed for distinction.

How did that occur though?

Another perplexing (and non-answerable) pholosophical question is this:

"Why does anything exist to begin with?"

Not "how?" but "why?"

Whether existence has always been around forever (in some form or another), or just since the Big Bang -- or something in between -- why should that existence even exist in the first place? Why isn't there nothing instead of something?

I realize that "nothing" is difficukt to define, but just because we can't fathom what "nothingness" could possibly mean, that doesn't mean that "something" must automatically exist instead.

This is by far the most interesting post I've ever seen on this site.

I have pondered this too.
If you really think about it, existence is weird. It really shouldn't kind of happen, if you get my meaning.
It's messy, uses up energy. "Things" would be easier if there was nothing.
Hard to express it...

Thanks. The question is hard to express.

And "Why?" may not be the right word, because "why?" seems to be asking for a purpose, and I don't think existence needs to exist for a purpose. A better question might be "Why does existence even bother to exist in the first place?"

Like you said, it seems like a messy prospect.

I just had a kind of answer. As I was typing it out my mind completely unravelled, gah!
Fundamentallly it's a ridiculously simple answer to do with nothing /non-existence by definition cannot be a state, so existence just simply has to be.
I just can't express it properly without falling into a thought loop.
It's as if it's so simple that the dial suddenly flips to the other end of scale to extreme complexity.

It just has to be, and always has been, always will be.
There's no such thing as nothing. Non-existence doesn't exist.

But "Something" needed for there to have been a "Nothing" in order for "Something" to exist and vice versa at the same time so they just always were however we are only capable of perceiving "Nothing" as a concept.
And "why" is there existance at all? Simply because it's Good. With a capital g. That's all I got for now.

Yeah the duality of it is where my mind gets a 404 error.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

There are a few claims now that the big bang has been disproven.

As to the relative quieteness of the Universe; once a civilization has Nuclear technology and space flight then it is doomed.
The Destroyers have been awakened.
We may have 100 years or 1000 before the Planet is destroyed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Plot: The novel features scenes and events including the discovery of a near-dead alien in the desert, who clearly says in English, "I'm sorry, but there is bad news," and this alien's subsequent interrogation and autopsy; the discovery of an artificial geological formation and its subsequent nuclear destruction by a desperate military; and the Earth's eventual destruction by the mutual annihilation of a piece of neutronium and a piece of antineutronium dropped into Earth's core.

There is another alien faction at work, however, represented on Earth by small spider-like robots that recruit human agents through some form of mind control. They frantically collect all the human data, biological records, tissue samples, seeds, and DNA from the biosphere that they can, and evacuate a handful of people from Earth. In space, this faction's machines combat and eventually destroy the attackers, though not before Earth's fate is sealed. The evacuees eventually settle a newly terraformed Mars while some form the crew of a Ship of the Law to hunt down the home world of the killers, a quest described in the sequel, Anvil of Stars.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Maybe as according to Dr Norman Bergrun's Ringmakers of Saturn, they're closer than we think.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

The beginning "was" watery chaos.

And before that, nothingness. Our true state.

Everything in between is subliminal.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
Before the Beginning there was only Chaos. And this perpetual Chaos, always changing...always random, prohibited the formation of any "things". .

In the beginning was the word.
Before 'the word' there was nothing.
The 'word' means concept.

What do you think was the 'first concept' that got it all started?

The word beginning has an opposite - the belief in beginning gives rise to the belief in the end. All 'things' have a beginning and end. Prior to the 'word' there was no beginning or end. No thing ever forms - no thing was ever created.
Words just make believe that there is something.

The first concept was self awareness that chose to continue to exist.

'What is' is aware of itself. 'What is' is not a thing - it is everything.
It is a self watching movie.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
"Things" would be easier if there was nothing.

The thing is there are no things (no thing = nothing). However, because you have bought into the idea that you are separate from what is appearing, that straight away makes two. 'You' and 'what is appearing' (two).
What is, is.

If you are anything at all you are 'observing' - but 'that' is not a thing - no apparent existence can appear without 'observingness'. The seer and seen are not two.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
"Things" would be easier if there was nothing.

The thing is there are no things (no thing = nothing). However, because you have bought into the idea that you are separate from what is appearing, that straight away makes two. 'You' and 'what is appearing' (two).
What is, is.

If you are anything at all you are 'observing' - but 'that' is not a thing - no apparent existence can appear without 'observingness'. The seer and seen are not two.

T'is all an illusion?

gotta love how mankind always has an explanation of what they don't understand or will ever know.

the curse of the reflection is what defines our species.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
Before the Beginning there was only Chaos. And this perpetual Chaos, always changing...always random, prohibited the formation of any "things". .

In the beginning was the word.
Before 'the word' there was nothing.
The 'word' means concept.

What do you think was the 'first concept' that got it all started?

The word beginning has an opposite - the belief in beginning gives rise to the belief in the end. All 'things' have a beginning and end. Prior to the 'word' there was no beginning or end. No thing ever forms - no thing was ever created.
Words just make believe that there is something.

The first concept was self awareness that chose to continue to exist.

'What is' is aware of itself. 'What is' is not a thing - it is everything.
It is a self watching movie.

Yes. Love Creation as you love yourself. Because it is you and you are it.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
Before the Beginning there was only Chaos. And this perpetual Chaos, always changing...always random, prohibited the formation of any "things". .

In the beginning was the word.
Before 'the word' there was nothing.
The 'word' means concept.

What do you think was the 'first concept' that got it all started?

The word beginning has an opposite - the belief in beginning gives rise to the belief in the end. All 'things' have a beginning and end. Prior to the 'word' there was no beginning or end. No thing ever forms - no thing was ever created.
Words just make believe that there is something.

The first concept was self awareness that chose to continue to exist.

'What is' is aware of itself. 'What is' is not a thing - it is everything.
It is a self watching movie.

Yes. Love Creation as you love yourself. Because it is you and you are it.

Yes, however there isn't anyone that can love - when it is found that there is just what there is......it is found to be unconditional love - because there is no condition on what is arising/subsiding. The absence of separation (a separate you) is love.
When there appears to be a 'separate you' there is seeking for love - which creates the illusion of time - seeking in time for that which will complete you.
No time = completeness.

There was no beginning - so there will be no end.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
"Things" would be easier if there was nothing.

The thing is there are no things (no thing = nothing). However, because you have bought into the idea that you are separate from what is appearing, that straight away makes two. 'You' and 'what is appearing' (two).
What is, is.

If you are anything at all you are 'observing' - but 'that' is not a thing - no apparent existence can appear without 'observingness'. The seer and seen are not two.

T'is all an illusion?

No not an illusion but an image. An corporeal image projected from the mind of our Creator.
We enter physical existance as identical fractals of the mind of our Creator. Each one of possessing the same free will as our Creator and each one of us occupying our own unigue vantage point in space and time from which to experience physical existence. It is in this way we become individuals for our eventual return to the multi dimensional existence (simply meaning more dimensions in addition to the four dimensions that we currently perceive, you know height, width, depth and time).

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
"Things" would be easier if there was nothing.

The thing is there are no things (no thing = nothing). However, because you have bought into the idea that you are separate from what is appearing, that straight away makes two. 'You' and 'what is appearing' (two).
What is, is.

If you are anything at all you are 'observing' - but 'that' is not a thing - no apparent existence can appear without 'observingness'. The seer and seen are not two.

T'is all an illusion?

No not an illusion but an image. An corporeal image projected from the mind of our Creator.
We enter physical existance as identical fractals of the mind of our Creator. Each one of possessing the same free will as our Creator and each one of us occupying our own unigue vantage point in space and time from which to experience physical existence. It is in this way we become individuals for our eventual return to the multi dimensional existence (simply meaning more dimensions in addition to the four dimensions that we currently perceive, you know height, width, depth and time).

Your mind is actually located in this multi dimensional existence and your brain is the quantum receiver/transmitter which enables your body to communicate with your mind.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Existence is based on opposites and comparisons.

at one point there obviously must have been nothing, nothing at all, [...]they both had to exist at the same point in time...they just always were.

Exactly. "Before" the distinction of duality, there was timeless nonduality.

So, what if there was no 'beginning?" What if everything always "was," or rather, "is" nondually and outside "time." Only awareness (bound in time and space) allowed for distinction.

How did that occur though?

Another perplexing (and non-answerable) pholosophical question is this:

"Why does anything exist to begin with?"

Not "how?" but "why?"

Whether existence has always been around forever (in some form or another), or just since the Big Bang -- or something in between -- why should that existence even exist in the first place? Why isn't there nothing instead of something?

I realize that "nothing" is difficukt to define, but just because we can't fathom what "nothingness" could possibly mean, that doesn't mean that "something" must automatically exist instead.

This is by far the most interesting post I've ever seen on this site.

I have pondered this too.
If you really think about it, existence is weird. It really shouldn't kind of happen, if you get my meaning.
It's messy, uses up energy. "Things" would be easier if there was nothing.
Hard to express it...

Thanks. The question is hard to express.

And "Why?" may not be the right word, because "why?" seems to be asking for a purpose, and I don't think existence needs to exist for a purpose. A better question might be "Why does existence even bother to exist in the first place?"

Like you said, it seems like a messy prospect.

I just had a kind of answer. As I was typing it out my mind completely unravelled, gah!
Fundamentallly it's a ridiculously simple answer to do with nothing /non-existence by definition cannot be a state, so existence just simply has to be.
I just can't express it properly without falling into a thought loop.
It's as if it's so simple that the dial suddenly flips to the other end of scale to extreme complexity.

It just has to be, and always has been, always will be.
There's no such thing as nothing. Non-existence doesn't exist.

But "Something" needed for there to have been a "Nothing" in order for "Something" to exist and vice versa at the same time so they just always were however we are only capable of perceiving "Nothing" as a concept.
And "why" is there existance at all? Simply because it's Good. With a capital g. That's all I got for now.

Yeah the duality of it is where my mind gets a 404 error.

Sometimes you just have to feel it with your right brain and that's as close as you can come.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

There was no beginning - so there will be no end.

If our specific universe exists in a multiverse, or exists in some other "thing" that is separate from our universe, then our specific universe could have had a beginning and could have an end, but the multiverse in which our universe exists might not have a beginning or end.

However, that "multiverse" with its infinite time of existence would make little difference to our specific universe and the habitants within it. Our universe (everything we know) could still have a finite time period of existence.

Put it this way -- the standard Big Bang Theory does NOT say that there was nothing before our specific universe began with the Big Bang. It is silent on that matter. The Big Bang only describes the start/growth our universe, not what was before it, or where the bang came from.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

There was no beginning - so there will be no end.

If our specific universe exists in a multiverse, or exists in some other "thing" that is separate from our universe, then our specific universe could have had a beginning and could have an end, but the multiverse in which our universe exists might not have a beginning or end.

However, that "multiverse" with its infinite time of existence would make little difference to our specific universe and the habitants within it. Our universe (everything we know) could still have a finite time period of existence.

Put it this way -- the standard Big Bang Theory does NOT say that there was nothing before our specific universe began with the Big Bang. It is silent on that matter. The Big Bang only describes the start/growth our universe, not what was before it, or where the bang came from.

Thank you for your thought provoking post. Something new to ponder. Hmm...