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

[Dontaskme]

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

Ken, just to let you know, I responded to all your replies to my last post this morning and was just about to preview to do some editing if needed, when it said I was not logged in so couldn't press the submit button. I'm certain I was logged in, so I don't know if there was a technological problem with the site or something but I ended up losing all my work that had taken me ages to write. I was confused because I couldn't find my work anywhere and didn't know how to retrieve it, maybe I'd deleted it by accident I just don't know what happened to it. So I wasn't ignoring you or anything. I've been reading your new posts here today and am enjoying them, they are quite eye opening, and informatively intelligent. I like to read intelligent stuff, so thanks for your thoughts about the universe.

Anyway regards the above quote by you, I would like to say the reason I picked that particular piece out is because you asked me a question over what I'd said about everything and nothing be the same one, you were confused about that. But you have said it yourself in your own words above, do you realise that you have said same in your quote above?
I mean if everything is one, then how could it know that...how could one thing exist and know it exists, if there is only one it would also be nothing because there would be no one to know this one exists, that's what I mean by something and nothing being the same one. Something and Nothing are the same one. ...people here,don't seem to get that, but it needs a shift in perception, it is actually very simple logic.

[thedoc]

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

Ken, just to let you know, I responded to all your replies to my last post this morning and was just about to preview to do some editing if needed, when it said I was not logged in so couldn't press the submit button. I'm certain I was logged in, so I don't know if there was a technological problem with the site or something but I ended up losing all my work that had taken me ages to write. I was confused because I couldn't find my work anywhere and didn't know how to retrieve it, maybe I'd deleted it by accident I just don't know what happened to it. So I wasn't ignoring you or anything. I've been reading your new posts here today and am enjoying them, they are quite eye opening, and informatively intelligent. I like to read intelligent stuff, so thanks for your thoughts about the universe.

Sometimes when you are typing a long post the system will log you out automatically, it has happened to me a few times that I needed to retype my post. One way around that is to highlight and copy your text, then if you do loose it, you can just paste it back into the quote, after you have logged in again. I do that now if there is any question, and if you don't need it, it will be gone with the next thing you copy.

[Dalek Prime]

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

Ken, just to let you know, I responded to all your replies to my last post this morning and was just about to preview to do some editing if needed, when it said I was not logged in so couldn't press the submit button. I'm certain I was logged in, so I don't know if there was a technological problem with the site or something but I ended up losing all my work that had taken me ages to write. I was confused because I couldn't find my work anywhere and didn't know how to retrieve it, maybe I'd deleted it by accident I just don't know what happened to it. So I wasn't ignoring you or anything. I've been reading your new posts here today and am enjoying them, they are quite eye opening, and informatively intelligent. I like to read intelligent stuff, so thanks for your thoughts about the universe.

Sometimes when you are typing a long post the system will log you out automatically, it has happened to me a few times that I needed to retype my post. One way around that is to highlight and copy your text, then if you do loose it, you can just paste it back into the quote, after you have logged in again. I do that now if there is any question, and if you don't need it, it will be gone with the next thing you copy.

Always keep an editor open for this, if on a laptop. Saves a lot of grief, and you can review all posts made, simply. Unfortunately, I'm using a phone at the moment, and it's a hassle.

[ken]

What I learned, I told you.not being a physicist I cannot explain it well but I know it took me a lot of reading and re-reading the same stuff to understand because it is all very counter intuitive.

Just maybe that is what my writings need, i.e., a lot of reading and re-reading and ...

My writings begin where the others left off.

Sorry, but I have severe pain in my arms so can't type long, but your questions and some f the things you challenged suggest that you need to read the stuff some more.

I just ask you questions so i can gain a perspective of where 'you' are coming from. I am not really that interested in reading all the details of what is written about this subject. I do not have the enthusiasm and I certainly do not have the brain for this stuff. I am only a very simple person.

I certainly do not disagree with most of what has been written so far on this topic. What do you think I am challenging? I am only expanding further on from what has been written, before singularity. I have also explained with relatively new ideas the reason why we can not see past singularity and what caused singularity. I do not want to challenge what is written about after the big bang, what i want is for my views about what took place before the big bang to be challenged.

Specially the part where you seem to suggest that the big bang was a n actual explosion.

I never intended to call the big bang an 'actual' explosion. Explosion is just a simple word I use. The word 'bang' seems to suggest a loud noise. The word 'big' seems to suggest the bang was a massive noise, like in a huge explosion. So the words 'big bang', in of themselves, seem to suggest an explosion also, for me anyway. What was the intent and purpose for using the words 'big bang'?

If the big bang was not in fact an explosion, but was in fact a quantum fluctuation, which caused singularity to rapidly expand, then at the point of quantum fluctuation in the big bang, with the "insane temperatures and pressures" and with the rate and speed of expansion, this, relative to anything a human has experienced previously, was like a massive 'explosion', for lack of a better word.

All the explosions I know of begin with 'temporary change in the amount of energy in a point', similar to what is sometimes referred to as a quantum fluctuation, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), then that change in energy causes everything at that point to rapidly expand, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), usually with a loud bang, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang). Some bangs are bigger than others, but all explosions act, and react very similar.

I do not challenge singularity rapidly expand in the big bang with subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

What I do challenge however is the way some people suggest that just because they do not know what was happening prior to singularity, and do not know that what caused singularity, then the universe must of began, at singularity. I do not challenge the view that there was absolutely no time nor space AT singularity and I gave reasons why there could be no time nor space thus no events AT singularity. I do challenge however that that in of itself does not mean there was not time and space still going on, around singularity itself. I suggested and have explained what could have been happening before the big bang, with proof of the present day universe and black holes as evidence. I challenge the use of the word multiverses instead of using the One word universe, and explained why. I challenge people when they use words like "in the beginning" as though it is correct. What I challenge most is the way people think. I especially like to challenge that what people think, and thus challenge the words they write and speak, which then negatively affects the way they look at, and therefore see, things.

If people feel like they want and could challenge me, then challenge me on anything. I love the challenge and would love to be challenged on my view that the present-day universe is still the exact same universe that was in existence prior to the big bang. The more I get challenged on my words and views then the more I learn and improve.

[sthitapragya]

I never intended to call the big bang an 'actual' explosion. Explosion is just a simple word I use. The word 'bang' seems to suggest a loud noise. The word 'big' seems to suggest the bang was a massive noise, like in a huge explosion. So the words 'big bang', in of themselves, seem to suggest an explosion also, for me anyway. What was the intent and purpose for using the words 'big bang'?

If the big bang was not in fact an explosion, but was in fact a quantum fluctuation, which caused singularity to rapidly expand, then at the point of quantum fluctuation in the big bang, with the "insane temperatures and pressures" and with the rate and speed of expansion, this, relative to anything a human has experienced previously, was like a massive 'explosion', for lack of a better word.

All the explosions I know of begin with 'temporary change in the amount of energy in a point', similar to what is sometimes referred to as a quantum fluctuation, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), then that change in energy causes everything at that point to rapidly expand, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), usually with a loud bang, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang). Some bangs are bigger than others, but all explosions act, and react very similar.

I do not challenge singularity rapidly expand in the big bang with subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

What I do challenge however is the way some people suggest that just because they do not know what was happening prior to singularity, and do not know that what caused singularity, then the universe must of began, at singularity. I do not challenge the view that there was absolutely no time nor space AT singularity and I gave reasons why there could be no time nor space thus no events AT singularity. I do challenge however that that in of itself does not mean there was not time and space still going on, around singularity itself. I suggested and have explained what could have been happening before the big bang, with proof of the present day universe and black holes as evidence. I challenge the use of the word multiverses instead of using the One word universe, and explained why. I challenge people when they use words like "in the beginning" as though it is correct. What I challenge most is the way people think. I especially like to challenge that what people think, and thus challenge the words they write and speak, which then negatively affects the way they look at, and therefore see, things.

If people feel like they want and could challenge me, then challenge me on anything. I love the challenge and would love to be challenged on my view that the present-day universe is still the exact same universe that was in existence prior to the big bang. The more I get challenged on my words and views then the more I learn and improve.

Well, like I said, you need to read. You still say that an explosion is like the big bang expansion. There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into. Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes. The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes. The explanation of expansion is so counter intuitive that it takes a lot of re-reading to understand. As long as your premises are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory, which in itself is a misnomer and was used sarcastically by a physicist who never accepted the theory, there really is nothing to challenge.

You claim your theory begins where others left off. That Implies that you assume the big bang theory to be true. Since you seem to suggest that you are taking this forward, your theory would have to be consistent with the original model. That is where the problem is. Like I said, you need to re-read the theory.

Also you are arguing with the wrong person. We both seem to suggest the same thing. I have also said that whatever existed during singularity was in such a state that we cannot possibly intuit what it was. So we can only say that it was existence in another state. You seem to be suggesting a theory of what the existence really was. Since your theory can neither be confirmed nor denied by anyone, including any physicist since it theorizes a situation beyond a point where the laws of science breakdown, it can only remain a theory for your satisfaction. It has no real relevance because it can never be proved to be true or false.

[Dontaskme]

Sometimes when you are typing a long post the system will log you out automatically, it has happened to me a few times that I needed to retype my post. One way around that is to highlight and copy your text, then if you do loose it, you can just paste it back into the quote, after you have logged in again. I do that now if there is any question, and if you don't need it, it will be gone with the next thing you copy.

Thanks doc

I did do the highlight and copy trick, but I must have highlighted all the stuff I was going to delete instead of highlighting the stuff I'd written in response to ken.
What I do is quote the whole conversation in one go.. then take only the bit's I want to answer, and transfer them to the bottom of the page where there is more space to work and think....and then when I've finished what I want to address I then delete all the stuff above what I've written below. But yesterday I must have done something the wrong way round or something, but it doesn't matter. I can come to an issue again if any one wants me to clarify a point for them, the problem I have is dealing with too much info at a time, I'm happy to respond to bite size pieces but to be overwhelmed by replies well I can't cope very well . People have replied like this to my posts before and I've just had to ignore them, it's too much for my brain to process and is very exhausting to keep repeating my ideas over and over. I'm happy to discuss particular key points but not stuff I regard as irrelevant to the conversation. I'm grateful for the interest don't get me wrong, I'm just rather slow when it comes to talking through every single point in a clear and concise way that can be fully understood. I'm not the best at spelling or good at typing and have to keep checking the dictionary which takes me even longer to write anything. Also the topic nonduality which is my definition for the word God ...is not easy to write about because it is paradoxical and contradicts itself and is therefore very time consuming and hard to convey. But I want to do it, it is my life's quest to do this, I'm doing this for myself, so that I can be of better service to the world. If people respond to me that's great, but I'm not forcing anyone to read or answer my posts or threads.

[Dontaskme]

There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into. Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes. The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes.

I resonate with this clearly, and is how I would see it. Thanks.

Do you think this would explain why the macro and micro idea must configure from the exact same stationary point? in that the observer never moves, only the perception moves?

[sthitapragya]

There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into. Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes. The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes.

I resonate with this clearly, and is how I would see it. Thanks.

Do you think this would explain why the macro and micro idea must configure from the exact same stationary point? in that the observer never moves, only the perception moves?

I have no idea. This is about how the expansion of the universe works.

[Dontaskme]

There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into. Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes. The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes.

I resonate with this clearly, and is how I would see it. Thanks.

Do you think this would explain why the macro and micro idea must configure from the exact same stationary point? in that the observer never moves, only the perception moves?

I have no idea. This is about how the expansion of the universe works.

Yes I agree. Nothing can move if there is just everything, it would be everywhere at once. The mountain at close proximity appears large, but at a distance it is tiny even though it is the same mountain, the mountain never changes. The perception changes, the perception is the singularity of zero point in which everything appears as perceived.

[sthitapragya]

Yes I agree. Nothing can move if there is just everything, it would be everywhere at once. The mountain at close proximity appears large, but at a distance it is tiny even though it is the same mountain, the mountain never changes. The perception changes, the perception is the singularity of zero point in which everything appears as perceived.

I don't see what you agree with. There is no connection with the expansion of the universe and what you wrote above.

[Dontaskme]

Yes I agree. Nothing can move if there is just everything, it would be everywhere at once. The mountain at close proximity appears large, but at a distance it is tiny even though it is the same mountain, the mountain never changes. The perception changes, the perception is the singularity of zero point in which everything appears as perceived.

I don't see what you agree with. There is no connection with the expansion of the universe and what you wrote above.

I see something in your idea that correlates with my idea that's all, never mind.

The point I am trying to make is who knows what happens, how it happens or why it happens, no one could ever possibly know anything, everything spoken about the universe is a story written by no author and spoken by complete silence...every idea is a fiction believed to be real, including my story.

The knower of any thing is light because there is only light everywhere at once. Light cannot be known or seen by any other thing outside of it. Physical matter is known as dark matter and the seer of dark matter is known as dark energy which is another terminology for light. Light doesn't move. All movement is from within itself which is always and ever stationary. Any movement would occur to be only surface level like the ripples on a pond appearing within itself, the pond never moves only appear to move caused by itself, beneath the ripple lies a much deeper reality, that of total silent still nothingness, and that's the totality of reality. I have intuited this because I am it.

[sthitapragya]

Yes I agree. Nothing can move if there is just everything, it would be everywhere at once. The mountain at close proximity appears large, but at a distance it is tiny even though it is the same mountain, the mountain never changes. The perception changes, the perception is the singularity of zero point in which everything appears as perceived.

I don't see what you agree with. There is no connection with the expansion of the universe and what you wrote above.

I see something in your idea that correlates with my idea that's all, never mind.

The point I am trying to make is who knows what happens, how it happens or why it happens, no one could ever possibly know anything, everything spoken about the universe is a story written by no author and spoken by complete silence...every idea is a fiction believed to be real, including my story.

The knower of any thing is light because there is only light everywhere at once. Light cannot be known or seen by any other thing outside of it. Physical matter is known as dark matter and the seer of dark matter is known as dark energy which is another terminology for light. Light doesn't move. All movement is from within itself which is always and ever stationary. Any movement would occur to be only surface level like the ripples on a pond appearing within itself, the pond never moves only appear to move caused by itself, beneath the ripple lies a much deeper reality, that of total silent still nothingness, and that's the totality of reality. I have intuited this because I am it.

You really need to address what you write. There is an inherent contradiction in everything you say. For example, you declare that every idea is a fiction including yours and you then expect that idea to not be a fiction. If every idea is a fiction, even the idea that every idea is a fiction is fiction. So there is no point in your saying anything at all because it is all fiction anyway.

There has to be something you assume to be true. You cannot say anything if you claim your assumption is itself false.

[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.

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.

[Dontaskme]

There has to be something you assume to be true. You cannot say anything if you claim your assumption is itself false.

The fiction is real.

Nothing is either right or wrong, false or true ...it just is what ever is appearing and disappearing in nothing.

If you can't see that then stay lost in your beliefs.

[sthitapragya]

There has to be something you assume to be true. You cannot say anything if you claim your assumption is itself false.

The fiction is real.

Nothing is either right or wrong, false or true ...it just is what ever is appearing and disappearing in nothing.

If you can't see that then stay lost in your beliefs.

See? You say the fiction is real. Well, then why call it fiction? And if the fiction is real, what is fiction?

I will accept nothing is right or wrong because everything is subjective.

But how can you say nothing is false or true? Your last sentence is " stay lost in your beliefs" which implies that my beliefs are false. How is that possible if nothing is false? And why are your beliefs true if nothing is true?

Do you see the problem here. I claim your theory is false.you say nothing is true or false. Then you claim my theory is false. But according to you, nothing is true or false. So my theory cannot be false. It cannot be true either. But your theory cannot be false or true either. So now which one of us is right? Oh, wait nothing is right or wrong.

However, you say your theory is not true or false. I say your theory is false. So I win two to one.


Why are you debating at all or telling anyone anything at all? You will always be wrong by majority.