It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by TheMagus
that the BIG BANG was preceded by the HUGE FART
You have no idea how many hours I've put in to that thought. Why would the process of a Big Bang be any different than the process of creating a fart?
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ
I want you to respond to it the way YOU want to respond to it.
This is literally a proven scientific fact. All matter descends into nothingness. It's not just empty space I'm talking about either. It is, in fact, the absence of both space AND time. Nonlocal nothingness.
This whole idea sounds like nothing to me.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by jiggerj
I would think that if you were in "nothing" that you would move more freely because there would be no resistance to your movement. If you were unable to move then "something" would be preventing said movement, therefore "nothing" would in fact be "something". Perhaps there is no such thing as "nothing".
What you're saying is that something has always existed and no matter how far you stretch reality you cannot find a ultimate creator.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by jiggerj
A god or gods could still have created our observable universe or a portion of our universe or the universe itself, IF there were other universes or a larger universe outside this one - something exists already and therefore our universe would not be created from nothing. What you're saying is that something has always existed and no matter how far you stretch reality you cannot find a ultimate creator. And if the Big Bang means something from nothing then the Big Bang didn't happen. However, if the Big Bang can come from something then it might have happened.
Even if this whole universe is just a dream created by our mind it's still something because our mind is something. In that case, the universe wouldn't exist on its own, though. But I don't believe our mind can exist on its own without something else because something can't come from nothing. The existence of self implies the existence of other things that it came from.
If there's no ultimate creator then my mind can't be the ultimate creator of reality.edit on 29-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
All of eternity is contained in a single, infinite moment. There is no such thing as time, just the beingness of the present (the only moment). There is no 'passage' of 'time' in the Absolute. There is nothing to 'remember' in an eternal moment. All 'things' are 'happening' Right Now.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
The reason to my mind on why it would be difficult to justify the logicality of an intelligence or awareness always existing would be; That consciousness would have an infinite past, temporally, of awareness, there would always be an event in time before the last event it can remember and it experienced, and it would be able to do this indefinitely.
Your mind will never be able to understand the Absolute. It is a process of the relative, built specifically not to be able comprehend anything transcendent. You may, however, experience the Absolute as who and what you are, always 'were' and always 'will be'.
How can some consciousness have always been aware, but have no beginning, how can it have been aware of an infinite past? The idea of non conscious somethingness always existing is hard enough to grasp (I cant...even though it is the most logical conclusion).
There is only one consciousness. You are it. You are the Absolute experiencing itself as itself. There is naught but You.
*a personal thought of mine; perhaps the ways of life and nature reflect 'ancient' histories involving these topics discussed. Like how our consciousness has a beginning, and is brought to us by other consciousnesses. Maybe all that can ever be is control and lack of control on infinite varying levels, 'control' almost being synonymous with intelligence.
And these laws just popped out of nowhere? Or, they came from some dumb and inanimate entity? That simply does not make sense.
The universe is controled by laws, but it is so vast and powerful and chaotic, that it also embodies lack of control, or as many would view as a sign of non intelligence, and then this lawful system and chaotic system as one, can create something like life, and something like humans.
The awareness simply is. There was no 'endowement', it has always just been. You're trying to assess the Absolute as if it were governed by the laws of the relative. It is not, and in fact, is the source of these laws.
Who possess a mighty amount of control for their stature. So the idea of a God would imply, an awareness that was indowed by (itself? nature? reality? awareness before it? absoluteness?) something giving it existence, and would God be a dictator? would God feel fortunate for its privilege of being God? Would God be just like any personality we know if it were endowed with primary existence and an eternal past?
So the Absolute is limited to the finite? No, I think your question answers itself.
Would this God be all knowing? (I dont think thats possible, to be all knowing, ever, because infinity does not end)...
Morals are subjective. The Absolute is objective.
Would there be such thing as right and wrong absolutely, or what ever God said would be right and wrong?
There is no doing and there is no 'why'. There is just being, for no reason. Does God have a purpose?
What would it do and why?
I think you can answer this for yourself now.
would it have restrictions (laws of physics or reality holding it back?... I think restrictions or laws, rules, are necessary for any order, organization or running system.
What?
What materials would God use, how would he choose how much to use, and for how long?
What?
Would those decisions be determined by Gods limits and circumstances?
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by jiggerj
0 equals infinity. Everything 'in between' is just an illusion, created by the relative.
Originally posted by jiggerj
If there was ever a time of nothingness, there would still be nothing because this state wouldn't have the qualities necessary to move aside to allow the universe to fill it in.