Jump to content

Primal Cause


PaulS
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm just wondering what are people's thoughts concerning the 'start' point of all 'this'? I understand this question as the question of Primal Cause.

 

What I mean to say is that generally speaking, most here probably accept the Big Bang Theory as the start point for this universe, but what was before the Big Bang? Was there God before the Big Bang? If you don't believe in the Big Bang but perhaps hold a creation belief or other belief, what was before that?

 

And by the term God I am not limiting God to the understanding of a supreme being, but God whether God be consciousness, love, or whatever else you may understand God to mean to you.

 

Perhaps you think that God didn't exist before the Big Bang - if so why did God come into existence at the time of the Big Bang, and why?

 

Also I'm wondering that if you answer that God was before everything, how do you come to that conclusion that God was that starting point and that nothing existed before God?

 

For me it's like this - I don't know. I believe the Big Bang makes sense and that prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. But to my consciousness, that 'nothing' still must exist inside of 'something' - or is that just a limited human way to rationalise it? To say there was nothing before the Big Bang doesn't seem true because at that point all of the molecules that comprise our universe were squashed into one tiny molecule - so that molecule on its own, did exist. So there wasn't nothing, there was that molecule!

 

Geez, I haven't even been drinking and this doesn't make much sense! :)

 

Anybody want to offer some thoughts on Primal Cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness, not matter, is the primal cause of the cosmos. Primal cause as relates to consciousness is non-conceptual to me and therefore has no conceptual explanation. It is beyond such concepts of time matter and space. Of course those are just words but good luck in finding a better explanation.. :)


Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human consciousness is what it is for very good reasons. The constructs of time, place and causation are built into the structure and function of the evolved mammalian brain. We could not function without them. At the same time, they are constraints or boundaries few humans, if any, can transcend. In a sense, this is what Micah meant when he said, "... do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the notions of “Primal Cause”, “First Cause”, or the “Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God fall into the category of the “vanity of metaphysics”.

 

We only arrive at the idea of a first cause as a result of our observation of the causal links that result in change over time. Without the illusion of “time”, speaking of any cause is impossible. I suspect that prior to the Big Bang there was no space, time or causation. There was literally nothing. People may call this void God, the Absolute, Universal Consciousness, or whatever, but it is literally the “unspeakable”.

 

Still, it is fascinating to ponder and discuss.

 

Peace.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are probably asking the same question they asked since man, sometimes I think God is the creative force that created the big bang. Everything is energy. The woman touched the hem of Jesus's garment and he felt it, he felt the energy leaving him. Everything has a opposite. God is everywhere, and the kingdom of heaven is within, were all connected to the same source of the divine, and Jesus knew that, in my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom,

 

I would have to agree with you concerning opposites. For me it is also one of the biggest illusions as i see things more in line with a continuum with imaginary human subjective lines of demarcation many call opposites which to me have no real existence in reality.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

I suppose this comes down to how big our picture of reality is, does it not?

 

For instance, going back to something I cited elsewhere, if someone came in my house with the intent to harm my family, I would defend my family and my home. If they had the opportunity, they could argue all day long that what they are about to do is not really wrong, that the problem is mine because my perception of right and wrong is not really right or wrong, but "imaginary human subjective lines..." that "have no real existence in reality". They could argue that because we live in one universe, there is no difference between giving my family life and taking their lives away. This is what moral relativism leads to, the notion that because there is no real right or wrong, anything is permissible. Nothing is forbidden. Do anything you like to anyone and let no one dare judge you or your attitudes/actions as wrong. Survive at all costs, no matter what it does to others. This is the heart of moral relativism and Darwinistic atheism. Frankly, Joseph, I'm surprised you can't see this.

 

I'm glad we live in a country that was founded upon the principle that we each have the right to life and the pursuit of happiness as long as we don't unwarrantedly harm another. I agree that the reality is that we live in one universe where everything happens under one big umbrella. But I reject the notion that all morality is but imaginary subjective lines, mere illusions. I can't prove any of my sense of morals. But as I said elsewhere, I will not allow someone who thinks there is no such thing as real right and wrong to attack my home and family unchallenged just because moral relativism is the "in" thing. They have the right to believe that what they are doing is not really wrong, that right and wrong is only illusion. But I have the right to defend my family, and I will exercise that right.

 

Not riding the "moral relativism" bus,
billm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph

I would be careful with the metaphor of continuum.

 

We are drawn to the ends ... good and evil, wet and dry, beautiful and ugly, right and wrong, cold and hot.

 

Me and not me.

 

In reality "I" stretches out to edges of creation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientist are baffled too. In my little mind I view the law of conservation that energy can't be created or destroyed. Energy only changes form so must be eternal, which compels me to say a very subtle energy called consciousness existed before and was transformed to matter in the Big Bang. I can go with nothing if we separate nothing to no-thing heading back to the subtle energy without the matter. I like the analogy an ocean of pure consciousness without qualities, characteristics, no-things. Everything is composed of this energy, which in the analogy is H2O. Now, add another analogy Father being the ocean of pure consciousness. The ocean of pure consciousness without qualities freezes due to temperature and has qualities. Icebergs appear thanks to the big bang and we have the formula E=MC2 and energy takes on the quality of matter. Now, back to the Christian analogy The Holy Ghost is the force that causes the temperature to drop producing qualities. In this mix of energy there are opposites, which unity in duality and duality in unity, or at another perspective H2O is in the ice and water. Back to the Christian analogy the creation aspect of the ocean of pure consciousness would be the Son. We see waves in the ocean and wave to each other at the end of another wave thinking we are separate, but if we dive deep within ourselves, within the ocean of pure consciousness we realize the waves and the ocean are one, similar to a proton and electron. Opposites create unity in the atom. The Christian analogy in my mind says duality in unity and unity in duality also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

It seems to me that one does not need to view opposites or argue 'right' or 'wrong' to defend ones family. No argument is necessary, only action. The illusion is that a conceptual judgement is required for action. Action can arise out of wisdom rather than judgement which to me sets one free rather than 'binds' one. Never-the-less, i do not fault you if you see it differently.

 

Peace,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

It seems to me that if there is no right or wrong, then no action is even necessary, is it? Why defend one's family if it is not wrong to kill another human being? Why defend my daughter against rape if it is an illusion that rape is wrong?

 

I don't want to derail the subject of this thread, so my questions are rhetorical. But, to me, wisdom is born out of discernment and correct judgments, not out of moral relativism and uncritical acceptance of everything for the sake of inclusion.

 

...on to other things. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Wisdom doesn't have to judge, it makes wise choices without conceptual thinking. At least that is my experience. It seems to me it was the tree of 'good' and 'evil' that brought judgement on man, metaphorically speaking of course and it will be choices made from the wisdom gained by a oneness with God that will free us from such. But that is just my take on it. Each to their own.

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As Paul said I don't know. I can say I am not conscious of it, or aware of it. I believe however that the Hindu belief that there is no end or beginning is more reasonable. All is nothing but God manifesting Itself. We then are eternal. But Buddha might be more reasonable to not address the questions - the Avyakrta - of time, space, personal existence, life after death. Christianity seems so fixed on all these issues because we believe or are supposed to believe in a personal intervening God. I believe in Jesus the Christ. I believe in God. But I also believe that I am an eternal being who has always been with God in whom I have my being. And I believe that the issues that Buddha refused to address aren't really helpful to being in the Now. Not when it blocks our realization of who we are and who God is (meaning really that we are all God.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Paul said I don't know. I can say I am not conscious of it, or aware of it. I believe however that the Hindu belief that there is no end or beginning is more reasonable. All is nothing but God manifesting Itself. We then are eternal. But Buddha might be more reasonable to not address the questions - the Avyakrta - of time, space, personal existence, life after death. Christianity seems so fixed on all these issues because we believe or are supposed to believe in a personal intervening God. I believe in Jesus the Christ. I believe in God. But I also believe that I am an eternal being who has always been with God in whom I have my being. And I believe that the issues that Buddha refused to address aren't really helpful to being in the Now. Not when it blocks our realization of who we are and who God is (meaning really that we are all God.)

I like what you said. I think we are to be like Jesus, all part of God, we are all his sons and daughters. We are like extensions of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service