I don’t know how it can be infinitely dense when there is a finite amount of energy et al in the universe. But that’s besides the point, where if we take all reality [and hence all time] then universe was singularity for a tiny duration of time. Equally, that was it, when reality became singular that is literally the form it took; singularity – and not God.
I could conceive that reality could become one in the infinite sense, and that that is ‘God’ [surely contains the divine feminine as well as masculine?]. but it cannot be that forever, because time and the universe do/will/did exist. An infinite nor finite singularity is the answer to ‘what reality entire’ resolves itself as being. For me there is only one word which describes it wholly, and that is nature. It isn’t one it is one and multiple at once.
Then there would be reality + illusion, ~ a duality. Something is making that differentiaiton, no? We can attempt to explain it away as illusion shaping what is otherwise a oneness, but that forces a third party, that which derives the illusion. Are we saying that reality is being shaped by illusion? What is the hand which denotes the split initially?
Interesting. As an artist I can see that reality is perspective based yes. Consider what an observer is, like a torch with a beam could we say, such that perspective is itself a fundament of observation. Thereafter all existent things are observers. Thing is, it is the act of observing which manifests the observed, - the object is the product of that. Thus instead of ‘illusion’, whatever that means specifically [?], it is observation which is forming the shape of existence. I do concur that if there were no observations being made, there would only be a oneness. Thing is there is! That’s what we are, and that’s what spirit and the soul are too.
God could perhaps be an universal observer, but that would have to be un-affecting one, which makes no sense; to observe is to make effect and read informational value. That is, unless we and all of nature are it, or aspects of that divinity doing that part of its observing. Which is like pagan philosophy. …but still no 3rd party observer except as a passive one somehow?
It is worse than that. If there was no time then we don’t have time, not even a tiny duration. But that is for others to speculate. I am just making an argument that the Big Bang could be read spiritually.
How do you know that the singularity is not the form of God?
The single Origin means that God, if equated with the singularity, is “in” all and is all. Time and space included.
I have no real objection to your conclusion. Again, for me, that is a form of pantheism.
Illusion is not a thing that is next to reality which then could be added (+) to reality. My illusion cannot exist without my own existence and my own existence is dependent on matter existing. It’s all connected and does take place with any voids in between, which would allow for “parties”. One is one but within One develops the consciousness of many.
Manifest an idea of the observed, not the observed in itself. Perception gives us a mental picture of the world, Reality-- for better or worse that is our product. I can write here about “Reality”, the “One”, but these do not necessarily correspond with the world and its reality apart from my senses. It is a concept, a reasoning, and as reasoning is itself dependent on reality, on matter, it is a function of reality as a whole, not the other way around.
I just don’t think that observation, passive or active makes any sense if one is. Does the eye observe itself? The observation of identity is not the same as the observation of a chair because the observation of the self is presupposed (felt) in the observation of the chair.
Assuming reality can be resolved, does resolution involve a history of gravity becoming the same as any personal identity?
Personal identities including Al Capone, or the UK singer Cheryl, or Steve Jobs.
God being everything has to include the entire history of electricity and gravity, and therefore it seems to be logical to think that God being one means those histories being the same as a history of thoughts. Alternatively, the history of all perceptions of life in the universe (including any soldier’s history in the US military, or an elephant’s history) need to be the same as mathematics.
Time is a measure of change, space is the area within which this change can occur.
A singularity would then be one point in space where all(?) possibility was confined. As it explodes, the result is the present observable universe, a process that is continuing to unfold.
I don’t see why there couldn’t be other singularities generating other explosions of possibility in some distant place. But besides that I don’t see how all space is confined to one point too, as this would necessitate the phenomenon to simultaneously generate space out of nothingness(?) as it expands, which seems rather ridiculous as it suggests an edge or boundary which it is expanding into, in turn suggesting another plane of existence or something which this idea doesn’t really seem to describe, nor can it.
Reality as I perceive it consists of interaction which follows the path of least to resistance to arrive at an equilibrium through struggle. This is not something that began or will end, it is eternal and will not be resolved by a singularity; if the big bang is accurate and the universe is the effect of an exploding singularity, then that singularity is itself the effect of past processes which brought it about.
As the background radiation reveals in its straight tangents that the universe is [or was] infinite, then I think there can only be one singularity, where the whole is being stretched or shrunk. Calculus will yield more than one infinity, but an infinite ‘object’ would be one infinite and hence singularity a compression of that.
Put all things into a cosmic blender and you get one thing, but that is not space, space is but one feature of that manifest. As I see it, there is both an infinity and a point in the overall picture as like any dimension or principle/law, and singularity is where nature is using both ~ same as it does any principle i.e. in the third party.
If it is eternal, it wont be arriving at equilibrium – and end result, or anything et al. I think it is following all paths and none in particular, nature just uses the shit it wants where it wants. It can’t have teleology prior to things can it, so there wont be any paths or rhyme & reason to it.
No-time/timelessness is outside of time, singularity is inside [all]time ~ so not spiritual then.
Then ‘God’ would be different one relative moment later? More than that, such notions require there to be a God first, such to become that [again something different].
Pantheism requires a plurality of gods, whereas I see a plurality of projections or expressions of the indescribable, which is completely different. I think Hindus kinda believed that, they refer to deity as personal and/or impersonal, which suggests that to me. The ancient celts/druids believed gods were manifest/unmanifest ~ projections.
gib
We say it is one collection and not an absolute, omnipotent and whole/complete single entity. If God is everything then it makes no difference that there is a god! everything is happening exactly how it is anyway.
Yes, you’re correct. I meant to say that interaction follows the path of least resistance towards attaining a state of equilibrium through struggle, without ever reaching this state of completion. Although it could be said that the flux is a state of equilibrium, as it is the prevailing normalcy; “complete states”, ie phenomena that do not interact, being nowhere in evidence.
The issue of time does not impede a spiritual narrative. No time outside? All time inside? Exactly what we would say when describing the Higher Power, the Highest Principle, etc., or G-d.
Different in some respects, but not in essensse. The singularity in the Big Bang theory is our entire observable universe conceived in a point before time and including time. The universe is difference in size, a size determined by Itself (to continue the spiritual narrative) because the explosion and expansion occur when potential energy is finally released. Nothing is created nor destryed in this conception, it is simply a transition from one form to another with the net value being the same, using the traditional theory.
No, you’re describing polytheism. Pantheism does not require many gods, only the equation of the Universe with God.
Pantheism has more than one god, and polytheism also does. Druidic philosophy sees gods as projections of the natural universal and infinite divinity [their word for it is ‘Cuagant’; the divine infinite and divine centre], which itself has no form. My ‘religion’ is based upon that and Taoism as they are both similar in that they both see a weightedness to the world, and that divinity IS indescribable, and undefined. The ‘God’ of Abrahamic religions, is an attempt to represent the divine infinite but sets it apart from nature. In Druidism [and physics] there is only nature, …and no such duality exists!
God doesn’t exist . . . ?
Read Bible and think realistically.
For example.
“When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai,
he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law,
the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.”
/ Exodus 31:18 /
It means at the Moses’ time (1393-1273 BCE) God was a sculptor
( look attachment) but after Moses’ death he lost all clients and decided
to choose another profession – to be preacher. The choice was successful.
From this time God tells to people the Bible’s stories.
=========…
God is a wholesome feeling. You will know this if you meditate and reach the first Jhana. Otherwise you will die and return to the source of wholesomeness and know it then.
At the root of the word ignorance is the act of ignoring. Ignoring what we know is true.
Yes, our senses place things in categories that make distinctions between differences. Which is what reasoning clings to. Sensory judgements. We eventually pass away from the five senses.
Again, God or the heavenly state or even supreme goodness is a feeling. But the word God is a distinction itself. Talking about it is not the same as feeling it.
Supreme goodness is the freedom from all body needs. You can look inside yourself in feel this as true. Or you can wait as a separate individual who feels the pain of body wants and needs.
Advice: meditate until you feel the present moment. It exists beyond the senses. For now, which is forever.
Beautifully put! That I understand. Didn’t understand your other comments over in the Schizophrenia thread. This I do.
Don’t you think human and wholesome are contradictory states? Why the rebelliousness, the acting out, the not wholesome then if not? Is this a condition, the human condition, we are supposed to overcome?
I wouldn’t say that we are contradictory, not completely. Just that supreme goodness is different and better from what we as humans think of as good on Earth. In human form, we judge things to be good for the body. Obtaining food and eating is good. Sex or having an orgasm is pleasurable or good. Having shelter and security is good.
But supreme goodness is not Needing those things. Not needing those things comes as a total relief. It feels wholesome, like true forgiveness.
I don’t think we are supposed to overcome it as much as we are meant to experience just having a body, before returning to a better existence without a body. I imagine lessons are learned simply by removing all sensory cravings.
I do think the soul is pure. However we are governed more by the body than the soul here. So it’s entirely possible to do and say bad things, but have a pure soul. I imagine that some of the worst of us have chosen to be tested, for the sake of the whole in the afterlife.
