What do you believe preexisted the Big Bang?

[JFeatherston]

[Ren The Ryoko]

Interesting claim.
Can you prove it?

I can do my best, sure. Your senses can be deceived quite easily. Take two bowls and fill them with water. Same water, same temperature. Take one hand, put it in the freezer, put the other in a warm oven for a couple minutes. Then, place one hand into each bowl. The water is the same temperature, but you are sensing it as both warm (in the case of the cold hand) and cold (in the case of the hot hand). Obviously, the water, if it's the same temperature in both bowls cannot be both hot and cold at the same time, despite you physically being able to experience the phenomenon.

One bowl of water being both hot and cold is a contradiction of logic, as they are opposites of one another. Your senses told you that the water was hot or cold, depending on how you sensed it. Heat was not inherent of the water, it was only a quality that you had sensed.

[The New Wineskin]

Nathiuz

The New Wineskin

Nathiuz

I'll take a different approach.

There was no big bang, and there is no material universe.

Proof?

The material world is made up of perceptions, only appearing to exist. Pain does not exist without being sensed. Sound is only sound when it is sensed. Material matter does not exist, per se, they only exist as a number of perceptions. The only thing that really exists is spirit, and that has always existed and will always exist. Matter doesn't exist. Since matter does not exist, there was no big bang, and therefore, no material universe.

Proof is to provide... you know... evidence. There is no proof that a soul or spirit-like entity within us exists.

[[Ren The Ryoko]]

Nathiuz

[Ren The Ryoko]

Interesting claim.
Can you prove it?

I can do my best, sure. Your senses can be deceived quite easily. Take two bowls and fill them with water. Same water, same temperature. Take one hand, put it in the freezer, put the other in a warm oven for a couple minutes. Then, place one hand into each bowl. The water is the same temperature, but you are sensing it as both warm (in the case of the cold hand) and cold (in the case of the hot hand). Obviously, the water, if it's the same temperature in both bowls cannot be both hot and cold at the same time, despite you physically being able to experience the phenomenon.

One bowl of water being both hot and cold is a contradiction of logic, as they are opposites of one another. Your senses told you that the water was hot or cold, depending on how you sensed it. Heat was not inherent of the water, it was only a quality that you had sensed.

I'm fully aware that our perceptions of things can be altered by contrasts and other environmental effects.
Heat is the measurement of the kinetic energy in the molecules of a substance. That is measured independently of our personal bodily perceptions. That's how you know the temperature is the same in both bowls in the first place.

This does not prove that the material world does not exist.

[JFeatherston]

[Ren The Ryoko]

This does not prove that the material world does not exist.

Then it appears we're having a problem involving definition. What is "proof" to you? What qualities must it possess to be considered "real"?

[Fermionic]

What I know is nothing.

Therefore, any belief contrary to that is esssentially ignorant.

[[Ren The Ryoko]]

Nathiuz

[Ren The Ryoko]

This does not prove that the material world does not exist.

Then it appears we're having a problem involving definition. What is "proof" to you? What qualities must it possess to be considered "real"?

Let's talk definitions:

proof/pro͞of/
Noun:
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

evidence: Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Real:
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".

material:
Adjective:
Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.


Now, the established body of understanding for the universe, is that matter and energy interact with each other, forming solids, liquids, gases, etc. These objects exist. We are made of matter, and interact with other matter.

You seem to be suggesting that this is NOT the case. That: "There was no big bang, and there is no material universe."

What proof or evidence do you have that there is no material universe?

[JFeatherston]

[Ren The Ryoko]

Let's talk definitions:

proof/pro͞of/
Noun:
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

evidence: Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Real:
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".

material:
Adjective:
Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.


Now, the established body of understanding for the universe, is that matter and energy interact with each other, forming solids, liquids, gases, etc. These objects exist. We are made of matter, and interact with other matter.

You seem to be suggesting that this is NOT the case. That: "There was no big bang, and there is no material universe."

What proof or evidence do you have that there is no material universe?

Quite simply, because it is an illusion. What makes this world any more "real" or "truthful" than a dream? If in a dream, do you not detect things with the five senses? Can you not touch, see, smell, hear, and in some cases (for better or worse) taste things? Why are these things inherently less real than what we "perceive" in the real world? Just like in a dream, we can taste, feel, see, smell, and hear things and believe them to be true, correct?

Your definition of "material" is playing into what I'm suggesting. I am steering towards the mind or spirit. Why is this belief less valid than one supported by material sciences?

[[Ren The Ryoko]]

Nathiuz

[Ren The Ryoko]

Let's talk definitions:

proof/pro͞of/
Noun:
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

evidence: Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Real:
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".

material:
Adjective:
Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.


Now, the established body of understanding for the universe, is that matter and energy interact with each other, forming solids, liquids, gases, etc. These objects exist. We are made of matter, and interact with other matter.

You seem to be suggesting that this is NOT the case. That: "There was no big bang, and there is no material universe."

What proof or evidence do you have that there is no material universe?

Quite simply, because it is an illusion. What makes this world any more "real" or "truthful" than a dream? If in a dream, do you not detect things with the five senses? Can you not touch, see, smell, hear, and in some cases (for better or worse) taste things? Why are these things inherently less real than what we "perceive" in the real world? Just like in a dream, we can taste, feel, see, smell, and hear things and believe them to be true, correct?

Your definition of "material" is playing into what I'm suggesting. I am steering towards the mind or spirit. Why is this belief less valid than one supported by material sciences?

Well, I tend to be a lucid dreamer, actually. So I am normally very aware of when I'm dreaming. (For one thing, it's almost impossible to alter the lighting of a dream (like turning on or off a light), and electronics are often faulty.)
Also, many dreams have severe logical problems, things like cause and effect tend to break down.
I mean, dreams really aren't that convincing.

So, what evidence do you have that this world is really just an illusion?

[Astral presence]

The Yank

Just wondering. I'm simply a theist, I believe in God but I don't affiliate myself with any religion.
I'm not launching an attack on you guys, just want to know what you guys think! Thanks 3nodding

Time did not exist before the big bang so it's impossible for anything to have occurred.

[JFeatherston]

[Ren The Ryoko]

Well, I tend to be a lucid dreamer, actually. So I am normally very aware of when I'm dreaming. (For one thing, it's almost impossible to alter the lighting of a dream (like turning on or off a light), and electronics are often faulty.)
Also, many dreams have severe logical problems, things like cause and effect tend to break down.
I mean, dreams really aren't that convincing.

So, what evidence do you have that this world is really just an illusion?

You are absolutely right. Dreams are not really that convincing. When we truly wake up is what the real world is, right? How about dreams where you've woken up multiple times? "Waking up" from one dream, only to have your "awake" state to be a dream in of itself?

Wax, for instance, as in a wax sculpture or unlit candle has a set of characteristics. It is a solid, has a certain size, texture, shape, and what have you. However, if you melt that wax, it retains almost none of the same qualities. It has a much different size, shape, texture, and is no longer a solid.

Interestingly enough, even someone without fancy scientific equipment or knowledge can come to a conclusion: That the melted puddle of material is still wax. Understanding what "wax" is, is not something that can be understood by the senses. Were we to go by what we see, feel, touch, hear, and taste, solid wax and melted wax would be two completely different objects.

Instead, our mind (the rational process, not the "physical" entity) is able to bridge this gap that could not be interpreted with just the five senses. The physical understanding of wax has failed, the mind and spirit, are able to comprehend what "wax" is, though.

[[Ren The Ryoko]]

Nathiuz

[Ren The Ryoko]

Well, I tend to be a lucid dreamer, actually. So I am normally very aware of when I'm dreaming. (For one thing, it's almost impossible to alter the lighting of a dream (like turning on or off a light), and electronics are often faulty.)
Also, many dreams have severe logical problems, things like cause and effect tend to break down.
I mean, dreams really aren't that convincing.

So, what evidence do you have that this world is really just an illusion?

You are absolutely right. Dreams are not really that convincing. When we truly wake up is what the real world is, right? How about dreams where you've woken up multiple times? "Waking up" from one dream, only to have your "awake" state to be a dream in of itself?

Wax, for instance, as in a wax sculpture or unlit candle has a set of characteristics. It is a solid, has a certain size, texture, shape, and what have you. However, if you melt that wax, it retains almost none of the same qualities. It has a much different size, shape, texture, and is no longer a solid.

Interestingly enough, even someone without fancy scientific equipment or knowledge can come to a conclusion: That the melted puddle of material is still wax. Understanding what "wax" is, is not something that can be understood by the senses. Were we to go by what we see, feel, touch, hear, and taste, solid wax and melted wax would be two completely different objects.

Instead, our mind (the rational process, not the "physical" entity) is able to bridge this gap that could not be interpreted with just the five senses. The physical understanding of wax has failed, the mind and spirit, are able to comprehend what "wax" is, though.

That still doesn't support the theory that there is no material world.
And...understanding that melted wax is still wax is not an action of "spirit", but rather one of inquiry.

[JFeatherston]

[Ren The Ryoko]

That still doesn't support the theory that there is no material world.
And...understanding that melted wax is still wax is not an action of "spirit", but rather one of inquiry.

Is "inquiry" tangible? Can you take what "thought" is and manipulate it in free space?

Per your definitions, I believe I have given you sufficient "evidence". What I believe you want is for me to give you material proof that the material world does not exist. Unfortunately, this is not possible, since I am coming from the standpoint that matter does not exist.

Matter and not-matter, when deciding to only believe in one, are mutually exclusive. One cannot say that an object is both material and not-material at the same time. Likewise, one cannot suggest that something is not-matter unless it discards the idea of matter. The only way I can define the belief that the material world does not exist by using only material means is, quite frankly, that is it "not material". Anything else, is apparently discarded as "not evidence", despite it making logical sense.

1) The five senses detect material things.
2) I can touch/hear/taste/see/smell an object.
3) Therefore the object is material.

I am rejecting this notion on the basis of:

1) The five senses detect material things.
2) I cannot touch/hear/taste/see/smell my thoughts
3) Therefore, my thoughts are not material.
4) If my thoughts are not material, then what my senses detect are also not-material.

However, since I only know that I exist (but am not material), I suppose the point of arguing it is moot. I don't know you exist. Perhaps we're the same person in the same dream.

[[Ren The Ryoko]]

Nathiuz

[Ren The Ryoko]

That still doesn't support the theory that there is no material world.
And...understanding that melted wax is still wax is not an action of "spirit", but rather one of inquiry.

Is "inquiry" tangible? Can you take what "thought" is and manipulate it in free space?

Per your definitions, I believe I have given you sufficient "evidence". What I believe you want is for me to give you material proof that the material world does not exist. Unfortunately, this is not possible, since I am coming from the standpoint that matter does not exist.

Matter and not-matter, when deciding to only believe in one, are mutually exclusive. One cannot say that an object is both material and not-material at the same time. Likewise, one cannot suggest that something is not-matter unless it discards the idea of matter. The only way I can define the belief that the material world does not exist by using only material means is, quite frankly, that is it "not material". Anything else, is apparently discarded as "not evidence", despite it making logical sense.

1) The five senses detect material things.
2) I can touch/hear/taste/see/smell an object.
3) Therefore the object is material.

I am rejecting this notion on the basis of:

1) The five senses detect material things.
2) I cannot touch/hear/taste/see/smell my thoughts
3) Therefore, my thoughts are not material.

If my thoughts are not material, then what my senses detect are also not-material.

However, since I only know that I exist (but am not material), I suppose the point of arguing it is moot. I don't know you exist. Perhaps we're the same person in the same dream.

Surely you can see why this is not an impressive argument.

It all falls apart riiiiiight "If my thoughts are not material, then what my senses detect are also not-material." <- there.

Just because your thoughts are not material (though your brain, which produces and harbors your ability to think IS) does not mean that objects you sense with your sensory organs are not material.

[JFeatherston]

[Ren The Ryoko]

Surely you can see why this is not an impressive argument.

It all falls apart riiiiiight "If my thoughts are not material, then what my senses detect are also not-material." <- there.

Just because your thoughts are not material (though your brain, which produces and harbors your ability to think IS) does not mean that objects you sense with your sensory organs are not material.

Why not? How can something which is immaterial detect something which is material?

I do not know my brain exists, nor do I know that my sensory organs exist. I only know that my own thoughts exist, and everything else is an illusion. There is not enough "proof" otherwise.

[Heartfout]

Dunno.

If you want the answer, lobby your government for an increase in physics funding.