How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[ken]

Everything that is yet currently un-created in our physical realm
already exists, in its entirety, in the cosmic and Spiritual realm.
These un-manifested creations are simply waiting for our minds
and senses to reach the proper stage of development where we can
recognize them, understand them and re-manifest them in our
physical dimension.

This has already happened for Me.

[Dalek Prime]

Everything that is yet currently un-created in our physical realm
already exists, in its entirety, in the cosmic and Spiritual realm.
These un-manifested creations are simply waiting for our minds
and senses to reach the proper stage of development where we can
recognize them, understand them and re-manifest them in our
physical dimension.

By that token, everyone who will ever exist, exists now. I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on this.

[thedoc]

Here is one difference I can point out to you. The temperature at the big bang singularity was mathematically infinite. That does not mean the temperature was infinite. It could be infinite and it could not be infinite. The temperature at the black hole singularity is extremely low. This is just one of the differences. Then there is relativistic volume, density, etc that you will have to contend with. So read if you wish.

There is another difference, the singularity in a Black Hole does not spontaneously expand, as far as we know, but it does dissipate via Hawking radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[sthitapragya]

Here is one difference I can point out to you. The temperature at the big bang singularity was mathematically infinite. That does not mean the temperature was infinite. It could be infinite and it could not be infinite. The temperature at the black hole singularity is extremely low. This is just one of the differences. Then there is relativistic volume, density, etc that you will have to contend with. So read if you wish.

There is another difference, the singularity in a Black Hole does not spontaneously expand, as far as we know, but it does dissipate via Hawking radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

There are, in fact, a lot of differences, and thanks for helping.

[Dontaskme]

Everything that is yet currently un-created in our physical realm
already exists, in its entirety, in the cosmic and Spiritual realm.
These un-manifested creations are simply waiting for our minds
and senses to reach the proper stage of development where we can
recognize them, understand them and re-manifest them in our
physical dimension.

By that token, everyone who will ever exist, exists now. I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on this.

It's not BS ...it's for real. There is no you Dalek because there is no other than you.

There is only oneness being and knowing all which is unconsciousness becoming conscious (known) known not by the action but by the re-action after the event. You the named body character react the already known by the one as this one becomes known to itself...as and through the manifest of itself.

It works on the same principle as a blueprint for a house. A house cannot just erect itself out of thin air. An architectural detailed outline or plan of action has to already exist. Actions are ever only one unitary movement. The mind/body mechanism is a reaction of what's already happened subconsciously before it is become aware of.

Everything that could possibly exist exists right now in the eternal now simultaneously..... for where else can anything exist or happen? This immediate now is full of pure potential unmanifest pure awareness without form or attribute, when awareness knows sensation it becomes conscious of itself and so consciousness is born, but only the mind is born not you the personal body... anything known is a reaction... this is how the subject / object duality plays itself out....but it's one not two.

This is hardcore metaphysics Dalek. It cannot be refuted. I don't know if I've personally explained it well enough to be understood, but there are plenty of others on the internet that can do a better job than me...Bentinho Massaro who is about 28 years old can explain this perfectly.
The thing is, you have to really want to know this knowledge otherwise you'll just call it out as BS ..but it's up to you to find ultimate truth, if your happy with the status quo then that's fine too.

You can research the fact for yourself Dalek... it's hard for the mind to grasp at first, but once grasped you will kick yourself. I'm not making this up, I would never do that.

Normally we only see the manifest we believe our self to be that only, but we have a counter part of our self, and that is one without a second, but no one takes any notice of that one.

[ken]

The I is an appearance in IT not IT

To me an I appears in IT.

What do you mean by the I is an appearance in IT? Are we saying the same here?

What that IT is is unknown even by IT

How can 'you' be SO SURE of this?

JUST MAYBE, if who or what 'IT' is, is discovered, then IT would know what IT is.

Have you yet successfully discovered, and thus are you now able to answer the question, Who 'I' am or What 'I' is, yet?

If not, then 'you' are unable to speak for THE 'IT'. JUST MAYBE the 'IT' and the 'I' is the one and the same. Until 'you' know what 'IT' is 'you' are unable to say what 'IT' knows or does not know.

However, if you are able to answer those questions, then please feel free to do so right now. Then you can prove how IT is even unable to know what IT is.

If however you are just doing what the majority of people do when they do not know something, and that is just assume that because they do not know something, then others will not know also, then that is a very foolish thing to do. So, are you able to define what 'IT' or what 'I' am?

I know I am nothing, and that's all that is known.

Of course if I is conscious, then I is NOT a physical nor a visible thing, but by the very fact that the name/label 'conscious' (or 'I' or 'conscious') has been placed on some thing, then that in of itself makes that thing A thing, therefore 'I' or 'conscious' or 'IT' in this context is actually a thing. What IT is exactly and where IT is may be unknown by 'you', but that does not mean IT is unknown by everyone.

What is the 'nothing' you talk about here.

I'M REALLY ENJOYING THIS THREAD.

What is known is knowledge, which is illusory. No one wrote knowledge.

If what is known is written down on paper or written down in the words people are reading right now, then obviously it was wrote by a human body. Although ALL knowledge comes from the invisible thoughts, ideas, views, etc., within the human body, before it gets written down, that in of itself does not mean no one wrote knowledge. What it does mean though is no physical thing "wrote" knowledge. If by 'wrote' you mean what is known's (knowledge's) starting point that is.

What do you mean by "No one wrote knowledge"?

'You' can not expect 'us' to know what you actually mean and understand you fully when you just write down bold statements like "No one wrote knowledge", without any other information.

What do you mean by 'one'?

What do you mean by 'no one'?

What do you mean by 'wrote'?

And, What do you mean by 'what is known is illusory'?

I love talking about nothing it's the only thing I know anything about.

[/quote]

What is nothing to you? If nothing is the only thing you know anything about, then you should be pretty well informed to be able to provide a very simple and easy to understand definition of 'nothing'.

I have already provided my definition for nothing and also for no thing. I have also already explained the difference between the two and why the difference.

By the way, if nothing is the only thing I know anything about, then there is no use in I talking about anything else.

NOW, I am nothing, and nothing is the I know anything about, so that must mean I know what I am.

From under the label ken I can define I.

From under the label dontaskme can I define I?

[ken]

How can space expand? please explain.

Since sthitapragya readily admits they are not capable of explaining further, on what they themselves write, and usually just refers me "to read" I will give you my perspective.
'Space', means the distance between matter. So, space can very easily expand when pieces of matter move away from each other. This applies in the smallest quantum physics all the way up to the largest cosmological physics. The friction less distance between matter allows all matter to move freely. Obviously when matter moves freely around, which it is able to do because of friction less space, the universe itself can change into any shape and form.

It is this always changing in shape and form, which allows new things to continually come into being, evolve, move around, and pass on, into and creating another new shape and form.

I am telling you to read because no one in their right mind would take on the staggering job of explaining everything about the big bang theory to you. It is a vaaaaaaaaaaaast subject. And I literally do not have the time or the inclination to address the problems in your understanding.

sthitapragya WHY do you continue to direct this "explaining everything about the big bang" at me. I HAVE NEVER ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO ME. READ who it actually is who asked you to explain anything. All I have done is give my response to a question posed. I just asked you to clarify what you yourself have written. I NEVER ask you to explain any other thing.

I will however give you one thing to study.

At least try and find out if there is a difference between the singularity at the big bang and the singularity at the black hole. That will help you figure out whether you can really correlate the two like yo do in your theory. Then it is up to you. You claim you are here to learn. See if you really want to or you are just mouthing it.

What I have read already there is NO proof that they are not one and the same.

Also even if they are not one and the same. Singularity at big bang came from somewhere. So nothing at all changes in what I write. I have NEVER said big bang singularity and black hole singularity is one and the same.

However the more I do read the more correlation between the two and between what I came see prior comes to light. The more reading, writing and listening I am doing the more proof appears.

By the way what I want to learn may be completely different than, or even completely opposing from, what you are assuming here.

Here is one difference I can point out to you. The temperature at the big bang singularity was mathematically infinite. That does not mean the temperature was infinite. It could be infinite and it could not be infinite. The temperature at the black hole singularity is extremely low. This is just one of the differences. Then there is relativistic volume, density, etc that you will have to contend with. So read if you wish.

You say the temperature at the big bang singularity was mathematically infinite. Are you saying that temperature is extremely high?

If that is what you are saying and that is the difference you "can" point out from the black hole singularity, then what you are missing here is the big bang singularity is AT or AFTER singularity expansion, whereas, black hole singularity is BEFORE singularity expansion, i.e., compression, as I have already explained. SO, the temperature could have changed from low at and before A big bang, i.e., compression, to high at and after A big bang, i.e., expansion.

As I said previously I do not know anything about minor details, nor am I really interested in the minor details, but just maybe temperature and compression and/or expansion correlate somehow.

The difference between the two here, which you have forgotten, is we do NOT know what takes place AT singularity because time/space does not exist WITHIN singularity. The laws of science breakdown at singularity looking backwards at big bang expansion and the laws of science equally breakdown at singularity looking forwards into black holes. THEREFORE, you for one certainly do not know that a black hole singularity is or is not the same as a big bang singularity. We can only observe expansion of and/or compression of singularity. We can not, yet, observe singularity, itself.

Also you have expansion completely backwards. Pieces of matter are not moving away from each other.

Did I actually say pieces of matter are moving away from each other OR did i say space can very easily expand when pieces of matter move away from each other?

So, the statement, "you have expansion completely backwards" may be right or wrong or partly right and wrong. We will just have to wait and see. Just remember, this forum is open to a lot of observers and the word 'you' in that statement is very relative, depending on the observer.

When and if scientists say the earth and the moon are moving 'apart', away from each other, are they right, wrong, or partly right and wrong?

The space between them is expanding.

I have already defined 'space', as the distance between matter, from the smallest of micro to the largest of macro. Therefore if objects or matter are moving away from each other or the space between them is expanding this is still one and the same thing.

The pieces of matter are stationary.

Are you absolutely positively sure pieces of matter are stationary? Does that apply for ALL pieces of matter? (Again I am NOT asking you to explain anything else. I am just asking you very simple straight forward questions, so i can get some clarity from your perspective. Maybe one day you will answer the questions I ask of you. You only have to say "Yes" or "no". See, very simple and easy.)

Their scale simply changes with time.

If time is the measurement of events occurring, then their scale does NOT simply change with time. Time measures the scale of occurred events. That means time measures the expansion from one occurred event to another occurred event. Time just measures expansion. No thing changes with time.

By the way what are you saying 'their' is? What is 'their'?

Even the change of scale applies only beyond certain distances.

What is that certain distance? And, the distance from what exactly?

I have already asked questions for clarity, to a person who was NOT sthitapragya, in order to learn and understand how people can explain how apparently nearer the, what is called, "the outer edges of the universe" the scale of expansion is increasing and what would then be observed from that "area" of the universe looking back at earth in relation to the moon.

I asked for clarity and an explanation for that very reason of the saying, change of scale applies only beyond certain distances. Because what happens if an observer moves beyond a certain distance, then what is observed?

Have these questions been asked and thought about before?

Within those distances, objects could be moving towards or away from each other.

But you said previously, whilst suggesting that it is i who has expansion completely backwards, "Pieces of matter are not moving away from each other", BUT NOW, you are saying "objects could be moving towards or away from each other". If a 'piece of matter', is not an object, then what is it?

So, what is it going to be? What is going on here?

Are pieces of matter and/or objects NOT moving away from each other, or is it the case that they could be moving (towards or) away from each other? Contradictions are appearing, again.

Let us get an understanding of where you are coming from. Correct me if i am not understanding you correctly anywhere here:

1. The universe is expanding.
2. Pieces of matter are not moving away from each other.
3. Pieces of matter are stationary.
4. The space between matter is expanding.
5. Pieces of matter or space's? scale of expansion changes with time.
6. (Previously your said), time measures occurring events.
7. Only beyond a certain distance (from what exactly you have not yet defined) the change of scale applies.
8. Within a certain distance (again from what exactly you have not yet defined) objects could actually be moving towards or away from each other.

Maybe the best thing to do now is clarify with you, what is the difference between an 'object' and a 'piece of matter'.

[Dontaskme]

By the way, if nothing is the only thing I know anything about, then there is no use in I talking about anything else.

There is no separate Self there is only Self....separate selves are appearances of the one Same Self appearing as more of itself, but it cannot be more of itself than it is already, it can only pretend to be more of itself.
Self is not a thing, no one lives in Self, Self has to pretend to live in it's own dream of itself, it has no other way of existing, but no one is dreaming the dream of I exist except the dream character itself which is an illusory character in the dream dreamt by no one.
Appearances are known instantly one with the knowing - who or what that knowing is is unknown, except the story (knowledge knowing) that comes with every appearance as it arises but that knowledge is illusory since this knowledge is thought based. It's the 'I' thought or the 'separate self' thought. The separate self only thinks it knows, it does not know it is an illusion or just an invisible thought, it identifies the thought as belonging to it, but thoughts do not come from the body, no one knows what a thought is or even seen one...bodies don't know they exist, the heart or the liver or the arm they don't know they exist, only the thought does and that is not a thing....any knowing of any thing are simply thoughts arising from no where or no thing... Pure empty awareness or nothingness is the Self, from out of which appears everything. Awareness has no existence apart from the appearance of story it tells itself via the imagined separate self arising in itself as thought. No one knows how this is happening, only that it is. No one is actually alive or doing anything. There is just pure aliveness living itself...out of which a phantom emerges that says I am living this aliveness, but that I is illusory, it's just a thought arising in this aliveness that's already living itself. This doesn't mean there is nothing to do, or say, or be ... it just means no one is doing it, that the doing is done by the one, which is everything experiencing itself as everything, except there is no one having the experience, there is only the ''experiencing'' of this one. The separate I is an experience arising in one awareness... experiencing itself as a separate I being aware....it's the dream story of me, stories of I exist have no independent existence outside the one timeless unborn unmanifest awareness experiencing itself as that character living in time and space ... just like a dream character in a dream.
No one is story telling or knowing, or reading the story, it's happening all by itself appearing and disappearing in nothing. Thinking provides stories, explanations, theories, observations, assumptions, beliefs ...not truth and reality.
Thinking mind, thoughts and the inner narrative are immaterial existing as illusions (concepts), not as reality (separate things). What comes and goes in ever changing form and thought form is not real, what always is essential emptiness 'is'.
Is, is bare awareness absence of conceptual activity.
So what's written here exists as story, explanation, point of view, not as truth and reality. Know one knows what anything is except the story it tells itself, via the way I've already explained.... no one is reading, writing, being here, or knowing this ... for this is already the known, but not by the character, the character is the known appearing as and through the mind eye as an idea.
The importance of understanding mind as story-teller is recognising that when I look at 'what is' I am not seeing how it is but as I think, believe, assume it is, or how I want, prefer, believe it should be, or simply as it appears to me... without any thought about it is is simply nothing at all but this immediate not knowing pure aware aliveness. Life living itself.

I can't make this any clearer ken.

[Dontaskme]

The I is an appearance in IT not IT

To me an I appears in IT.

What do you mean by the I is an appearance in IT? Are we saying the same here?

What that IT is is unknown even by IT

How can 'you' be SO SURE of this?

JUST MAYBE, if who or what 'IT' is, is discovered, then IT would know what IT is.

Have you yet successfully discovered, and thus are you now able to answer the question, Who 'I' am or What 'I' is, yet?

This is known only as it appears.

No one knows what is appearing... only that it is..

It doesn't have to know what it is because it's already being what it is....what it is can't be known by any thing other than what it is....it only knows what it is by the sense it is...but a sense is not a thing to be known, no one knows what pain or pleasure is and from where this arise and falls away...same with every other intangible phenomena such as thoughts or beliefs... all arising in no thing .. falling into to nothing

[''JUST MAYBE, if who or what 'IT' is, is discovered, then IT would know what IT is.'']

But who would discover this? except an imaginary knower...?

[sthitapragya]

I will however give you one thing to study.

At least try and find out if there is a difference between the singularity at the big bang and the singularity at the black hole. That will help you figure out whether you can really correlate the two like yo do in your theory. Then it is up to you. You claim you are here to learn. See if you really want to or you are just mouthing it.

What I have read already there is NO proof that they are not one and the same.

And there you have it. You absolutely do not want to learn. You are here to teach your theory to other people. You know, I had a theory once too. And I told it to a lot of non-scientists and it blew them away too. So I started thinking that I was on to something really great. Which meant that I was something really great. So I too started interpreting everything I read to fit my theory. And it all fit. I even sent my theory to a friend who is a scientist. Very decent guy. His reply was restrained and very polite but the message that came through to me was that I needed to read. The point he made to me was that if you want to take something beyond an existing theory, you need to master the existing theory first. So I started actually reading stuff. And I was lucky that because of my father's training, I found that my theory was wrong and could easily accept it once my egotistic attachment to my theory was gone. My whole theory collapsed but I learned a lot of new things.

I am not saying your theory is wrong, but you are pretty much in the same boat as I was then. You think your theory is infallible. So does dontaskme. Well, you have two choices. Either continue as you are or try to see if your theory stands up to the test of new knowledge. If you want to move beyond the big bang theory, you will first have to master it. And I think there are probably only 10 people in the world who understand the whole theory. Good physicists dedicate their whole lives to a small part of it.

So best of luck, my friend. I have nothing more to discuss on this topic.

[Dontaskme]

And, What do you mean by 'what is known is illusory'?

What is cannot be known....what is known is illusory since nothing can be known of what is.

[Dontaskme]

What is the 'nothing' you talk about here.

Nothing or No thing is Everything. Everything without Beginning nor End .. Self's as they are imagined to be via knowledge begin and end. There is No one or thing to approach Oneness which is just another word for Self which is another word for Everything which is another word for No thing, there is no one to follow it to it's end ...and that's fine since it is all things and that which is all things is not a thing but arises as all things... things begin and end ...that in which things begin and end does not begin and end ..therefore cannot be any thing ...What begins ends, nothingness sustains.

What is nothing to you? If nothing is the only thing you know anything about, then you should be pretty well informed to be able to provide a very simple and easy to understand definition of 'nothing'.

Knowing nothing is the same as knowing everything, this is known but not by you or I ...you or I is an appearance in no thing already known. What this knowing is I've no idea. But it's obviously known else it could not and would not be appearing.

[Dalek Prime]

Everything that is yet currently un-created in our physical realm
already exists, in its entirety, in the cosmic and Spiritual realm.
These un-manifested creations are simply waiting for our minds
and senses to reach the proper stage of development where we can
recognize them, understand them and re-manifest them in our
physical dimension.

By that token, everyone who will ever exist, exists now. I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on this.

It's not BS ...it's for real. There is no you Dalek because there is no other than you.

There is only oneness being and knowing all which is unconsciousness becoming conscious (known) known not by the action but by the re-action after the event. You the named body character react the already known by the one as this one becomes known to itself...as and through the manifest of itself.

It works on the same principle as a blueprint for a house. A house cannot just erect itself out of thin air. An architectural detailed outline or plan of action has to already exist. Actions are ever only one unitary movement. The mind/body mechanism is a reaction of what's already happened subconsciously before it is become aware of.

Everything that could possibly exist exists right now in the eternal now simultaneously..... for where else can anything exist or happen? This immediate now is full of pure potential unmanifest pure awareness without form or attribute, when awareness knows sensation it becomes conscious of itself and so consciousness is born, but only the mind is born not you the personal body... anything known is a reaction... this is how the subject / object duality plays itself out....but it's one not two.

This is hardcore metaphysics Dalek. It cannot be refuted. I don't know if I've personally explained it well enough to be understood, but there are plenty of others on the internet that can do a better job than me...Bentinho Massaro who is about 28 years old can explain this perfectly.
The thing is, you have to really want to know this knowledge otherwise you'll just call it out as BS ..but it's up to you to find ultimate truth, if your happy with the status quo then that's fine too.

You can research the fact for yourself Dalek... it's hard for the mind to grasp at first, but once grasped you will kick yourself. I'm not making this up, I would never do that.

Normally we only see the manifest we believe our self to be that only, but we have a counter part of our self, and that is one without a second, but no one takes any notice of that one.

Was I waiting to be conceived? Is everyone yet to be conceived, waiting for that moment? Can you be as direct as possible with your answer?

[Hobbes' Choice]

[

If the 'universe', is ALL things, then EVERY THING, including Existence, is a part of the One universe.

But there are different types of things.
Some you can trip over, others you can only think about.

I said, If the universe is ALL things....

I did not state, the universe is ALL things.

But the Universe is ALL THINGS, by definition, obviously. But some things are not like other things. It's almost like you can't read. And I thought I'd offered you the most simple analogy

If can trip over your brain; but the shit you think about does not exist when your brain stops working.
Existence is an idea and your version of it dies when your brain falls out. It is then that I can trip over it.

Some of the "shit" we think about does continue to exist.

No the SHIT exists, not what we think about it.

For example the sentence, "... the shit that you think about does not exist when your brain stops working." is actually the type of "shit" you thinking when you typed that sentence. Now that you have typed the type of "shit" that you were thinking out, and have actually posted it on the internet for all to see, then for as long as the internet exists, or for as long as some other place that can hold the "shit" that you were thinking for, then that means possibly well past your brain stops working the "shit" that you were actually thinking WILL actually still be existing, for all of us to see. So, the "shit" you think does actually still exist when the brain stops working.

The "shit" I type and that exits on the Internet is not the same thing as the 'shit" I think about. You are confusing the signified with the signifier.

If, as you say, 'existence' is just an idea and not an actual physical state, then if you provided us with your version of existence here in writing, then as long as your idea can still be observed, then your version actually does not die, which could be many, many years after the brain dies.

Another example of this is when, as you call it, "the shit" that a person thought about roughly over 2000 years ago, i.e., the "shit" that jesus was thinking, is actually still existing today and obviously all of the brains in that day and age have long stopped working and have since decayed.

FUCKING DUH!

Also I would be very careful of saying, "It is then that 'I' can trip over it" [the brain]. Until you can answer, and thus know, Who 'I' am'?, you do not know what 'I' am capable or not capable of doing.


By the way, What IF there are different types of things?

DOUBLE FUCKING DUH!

IF, and only IF, the universe IS ALL things, then that means ALL and every different type of thing is included. For as long as the Universe exists then everything that has also existed within it is a part of the Universe. This includes every emotion, every thought, every idea, and absolutely everything. ALL IS The Universe. Surely this is not to hard to understand.

[thedoc]

Also even if they are not one and the same. Singularity at big bang came from somewhere. So nothing at all changes in what I write. I have NEVER said big bang singularity and black hole singularity is one and the same.

There is nothing to prove this, even though it is the common human experience that any object or event is preceded by some object or event, there is no reason to expect that the Universe will conform to human experience. Human experience is much more limited that the Universe. Common sense does not dictate how the Universe behaves.