Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.

Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means

It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding. If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition, it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us, and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.

There is no need to make real real, real as is truth just is.

That said
I have often wondered...if One can teach the blind to see.
So far the answer to my own question is (there is that is word) unfortunately no.
That said I will keep trying.
Because once One is fortunate enough to find the truth it is only right to share.
Oh and bye and bye, I have also found that in some cases the blind can see better than those who can see.

=

lancek4 wrote:Some would say: that is a contradiction.

True!
A 'contradiction' is a matter of Perspective (or lack thereof).

Within 'truth is' is an assumption of human potential defined along particular lines.

All assumptions are 'within' Truth! There is no 'without'.
The notions of 'potential' and 'probability' is another way of declaring one's lack of vision, of Perspective. Every moment of existence, exists Now! There is or there ain't, there is no 'probability' other than as our own inherent limitations. All Perspectives (us) are unique and necessarily limited in 'scope'.

A cloud is, at the same moment, both dark and cold and bright and warm. How?
Ponder the great winter cloud; it covers the sky, is cold, dark, slightly threatening...
Now imagine that you are in an airplane, rising through the cloud.
From the cold darkness into the cloud. It gets a bit brighter and brighter until you burst through the top side!
It is breathtaking how blue the sky above, the sun dazzling in it's brilliant glare as is the top side of our cloud! Brilliant white with not a shadow to give hint of it's other side, or the vast shades of 'grey' in between.
Now imagine that there are billions and trillions of folks (Perspectives) all around and throughout the cloud, at the same moment!
If asked to describe the cloud, all Perspectives would describe that which he uniquely perceives; one declares the cloud dark and cold, another would declare it's brilliance,. one a particular shade of grey, another doesn't perceive a cloud at all, and so forth.
They all describe One Cloud! One Reality!
No Perspective is 'wrong', yet, ignorantly, we do fight so over who is 'right', while everyone else is 'wrong'.
Yet the complete cloud is fully defined, described, by the sum total of all Perspectives!
All these different Perspectives perceiving the same One Reality!

In order for there to be a knowing of such 'truth is', a concordant 'doubt' must exist: thus togther they must be True - yet this too must be doubted.

Perhaps you have missed the critically updated definition of 'knowledge' (that 'settles' epistemology rather nicely);
"Knowledge is that which is perceived!"
All inclusive! Simple!
Whether you believe everything or doubt everything, one eventually finds the same Truth!
'Thought' is a feature of Reality, thus 'thoughts' (of anything... flying pigs, contradictions...) are Real! 'Thoughts' are a real feature of Reality!
Truth is non falsifiable. The foundation of 'classical science' has been replaced by quantum physics! There is no 'independent observer' possible...

Hence the contradiction which find itself resolved by an Absolute -

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium ("contradiction") must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

which cannot be except in reflection of the potential for relativity.

Everything is relative to everything else!
The only way that anything can be completely defined is to include context. Ex; red.. is not blue.
So, the complete definition of anything, must, perforce, include the entire Universe!
One!

Hence the asserted position of 'god': the Absolute Object at which we cease to be human, a purpose by which I am negated for my own comfort.

No idea what you mean.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You're talking about everybody getting along, which is awesome, but

Sounds pedantic and dismissive.

it has no bearing on truth.

From your Perspective, perhaps.
From here, all "has bearing" on Trurh, all IS True!
As your statement is 'true for you', that makes it a feature of Truth! We cannot perceive anything that is not Truth/Reality.
"There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true! - Neils Bohr

Truth is all about resolving conflict.

I haven't heard that definition, but that is True!
It is also True that every other definition is also True!
It is simply that Perspective that 'qualifies' Truth!
That is a violation of Occam's razor! The more that you must add to make something 'True' within those strictures violates the razor.
The simplist definition, which incorporates all other definitions is the most scientifically and philosophically 'valid'.
Everything is True incorporates all other 'theories'/definitions of Truth, and is, therefore, the 'superior' definition/theory.

And there is a difference in saying that: "it is true that everyone has their own beliefs as to whats true," and: "it is true that despite everyone's conflicting ideas of whats true, all are equally true."

I don't see that 'difference. Truth unites all "apparent" 'conflicts'! (See; 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum')

The former is true, while the latter is a falsehood!

The 'idea' (all it is is an idea, a 'thought') of 'falsehood' is also True!
All 'thoughts' exist and are features of the One Reality.
In a thoughtless state of awareness, Zen, there is no 'falsehood' to be perceived!
All 'thoughts' of falsehood are true thoughts. That is where 'falsehood' exists, in thoughts, the eye of the beholder, which is another feature of Truth!

On this we agree! Truth just simply IS. It is all that IS without human interpretation.

Yet 'thoughts' (human interpretation) are features of Truth/Reality, also!
Everything Is! Everything exists!

MJA wrote: Reality:
Truth is One as I am One.
One truth,
True One,
=

Not anything can exist independent of being perceived (by/as Perspective).

"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

Existence = the complete Universe = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

Everything Exists!
Everything is Real!
Everything is True!
Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive!
'One'!
That which is perceived exists!
That which exists is perceived!
Not a thing exists (notice that I didn't say that 'nothing' exists, 'cause it don't! *__- ) that is not perceived!
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist!
(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
All inclusive!!!

Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.

The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Every moment of existence is a moment of 'Self!' Knowledge!
We are all (many Perspectives of) One Omni- 'Self!'!

lancek4 wrote:I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality.

This then is an example of a word that we completely see differently and therefore cannot speak of absolutely as it's relative to our particular understanding.

Here is the Random House 2011 Definition:
(remember that definitions are ranked in a more correct hierarchy from the top)

realize [ree-uh-lahyz]  re·al·ize /ˈriəˌlaɪz/ [ree-uh-lahyz] verb, -ized, -iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
3. to bring vividly to the mind.
4. to convert into cash or money: to realize securities.
5. to obtain as a profit or income for oneself by trade, labor, or investment.
6. to bring as proceeds, as from a sale: The goods realized $1000.
7. Music . to sight-read on a keyboard instrument or write out in notation the full harmony and ornamentation indicated by (a figured bass).
8. Linguistics . to serve as an instance, representation, or embodiment of (an abstract linguistic element or category): In “Jack tripped,” the subject is realized by “Jack,” the predicate by “tripped,” and the past tense by “-ed.”

Thus according to my understanding (1st def) nothing can be both realized as truth and then argued as not truth unless they be fools, because that which is 'realized' (to grasp or understand clearly) is that, that is 'real' (true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent). What is real, is 'true' (being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact) What is real, true and exists is 'absolute' (viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic).

Dear noname,

I concure with many of your thoughts, but some I question.
Perhaps you would be so kind an answer a couple of questions for me.

"Everything is true"?
If someOne tells you an untruth, a lie, and you know what he tells you is untrue,
Would you not ask him for the truth?
Surely not everything we are told is true, is it?

And as for QM, you must certainly agree don't you that the flaw of science is measure,
And measure is only probable at best?

Oh and for fun, did the big bang make any noise???

Thanks,

=

..nameless.. wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You're talking about everybody getting along, which is awesome, but

Sounds pedantic and dismissive.

it has no bearing on truth.

From your Perspective, perhaps.
From here, all "has bearing" on Trurh, all IS True!
As your statement is 'true for you', that makes it a feature of Truth! We cannot perceive anything that is not Truth/Reality.
"There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true! - Neils Bohr

Truth is all about resolving conflict.

I haven't heard that definition, but that is True!
It is also True that every other definition is also True!
It is simply that Perspective that 'qualifies' Truth!
That is a violation of Occam's razor! The more that you must add to make something 'True' within those strictures violates the razor.
The simplist definition, which incorporates all other definitions is the most scientifically and philosophically 'valid'.
Everything is True incorporates all other 'theories'/definitions of Truth, and is, therefore, the 'superior' definition/theory.

And there is a difference in saying that: "it is true that everyone has their own beliefs as to whats true," and: "it is true that despite everyone's conflicting ideas of whats true, all are equally true."

I don't see that 'difference. Truth unites all "apparent" 'conflicts'! (See; 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum')

The former is true, while the latter is a falsehood!

The 'idea' (all it is is an idea, a 'thought') of 'falsehood' is also True!
All 'thoughts' exist and are features of the One Reality.
In a thoughtless state of awareness, Zen, there is no 'falsehood' to be perceived!
All 'thoughts' of falsehood are true thoughts. That is where 'falsehood' exists, in thoughts, the eye of the beholder, which is another feature of Truth!

On this we agree! Truth just simply IS. It is all that IS without human interpretation.

Yet 'thoughts' (human interpretation) are features of Truth/Reality, also!
Everything Is! Everything exists!

Obviously with your thinking you'd fail a college level logic course as false does in fact exist. Truth tables would seriously kick your arse.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Gentlemen...

On 'Truth';
The entire Universe (only is One!), every moment of existence, constitutes the entirety of Existence.
Existence is all inclusive!
I would equate the entirety of existence, with Reality Realityh is all incusive!
'Truth' must, being 'based' on the Universe/Reality, must also be all inclusive!
Thus, everything exists, everything is Real, everything is True!
Every unique Perspective, every moment of existence, perceives a true feature of the complete Truth/Reality...

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
All inclusive!

It's ALL True!
We no longer need to reinvent the wheel in questioning anything's Reality or Existence or Truth! We can accept that it is True, and, if we are interested, find out 'how' it's True!
That would be a win/win/win... rather than a battle of egos. All would have 'greater Perspective' of Reality/Truth/'Self!'!

How you ask:

Simply remove any measure, uncertainty or doubt.

Truth is All that remains.

Truth is

=[/quote]

LK4: Some would say: that is a contradiction. Within 'truth is' is an assumption of human potential defined along particular lines.
SOBHPlease explain how you see this is a contradiction as I see no "assumption of human potential defined along particular lines," in the statement "Truth Is."


LK4:In order for there to be a knowing of such 'truth is', a concordant 'doubt' must exist: thus togther they must be True - yet this too must be doubted.
You say an "agreeing doubt; a harmonious doubt." "Doubt" implies potential disagreement. It's like saying a black white or a white black.

Hence the contradiction which find itself resolved by an Absolute - which cannot be except in reflection of the potential for relativity.
SOB: It sounds like you're trying to say that there can be no black because there is a white; there can be no up because there's a down.
---LK4: just the opposite: there must be both.


Resume:
Hence the asserted position of 'god': the Absolute Object at which we cease to be human, a purpose by which I am negated for my own comfort.
SOB: Why you think even for a second, that absolute has anything what so ever to do with a god is beyond me. Sounds like presumption based upon archaic belief to me.
[/quote][/quote]

I am saying that when we include 'eVerything' or 'all that is' in our proposition/idea of what is real, reality, then the inherent contradictions are solved by positing the 'real' as "contradiction means that point of incorrection or absolute falsity or falacy". Where this point 'exists' as 'the Real' or 'absolute truth' (point of contradiction=point of falacy or non-truth) a denial of part of reality is operative. This 'space' or 'position' that is denied functions for the 'true/real' as that which Allows for that which is now True: the effect of this 'silence' can be, or is often come upon by default, God.

The idea of God (spirits, mutilple gods, etc..) arrives, likewise, in three forms:

1. The denied space is 'come upon': this is the 'religious' type positing oof God (or gods) as a spiritual, supernatural or otherwise anthropomorphic entity or animismistic entity. This is the typical route likewise of arguments for atheism.

2. The denied space is not come upon, or is 'fully denied'. This is the 'position' from which atheists make their claim. But, to our knowledge and logic, there is still this space which informs that which we might know. When we say 'there can be no black without white' we are relying upon a logical proposition of sufficient inclusion. Where we draw this logic and apply it to every position (positing), we cannot but bring it upon our own 'knowledge' ('knowledge' as another 'thing', another position) and see it too must have another 'position' which informs its ability or capacity to exist.
If we do not admit this 'other position', or include it in a potential of an unknown (that is 'to be or will be known), then we are in effect of a 'god' element: in as much as the term 'god' implies a operateing element which must be 'in-itself' in the same way and character as black must be to white or vice versa. Here, it makes no difference for meaning whether we term the 'in-itself' as "god" or "absolute truth" or "absolute true obejct", because the relation is the same.

3) The space is come upon as denied. This is the sythesis of 1 and 2 as dualistic holding for 2 through the logic suspended in and which defines 2. Her is the rationalist/empricist who adopts a 'nautural spirituality' as a sort of practice which supports the 'truth is' type proposition. But this (3) is also the 'zen-bhuddist' type 'god', which uses the term 'god' ambidextrously (sp?), at once to deny it in a positing of an 'enlightenment', and then to posit it in the 'accepting fully that is said to be denying' achievement of such enlightenment. But the effect is still that of an 'outside' or 'unaccounted for' or 'silent' space which allows for and thus informs us what knowledge may be as true/false.

But this is discursive space, a necessity of how we may know.

..nameless.. wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Some would say: that is a contradiction.

True!
A 'contradiction' is a matter of Perspective (or lack thereof).

Within 'truth is' is an assumption of human potential defined along particular lines.

All assumptions are 'within' Truth! There is no 'without'.
The notions of 'potential' and 'probability' is another way of declaring one's lack of vision, of Perspective. Every moment of existence, exists Now! There is or there ain't, there is no 'probability' other than as our own inherent limitations. All Perspectives (us) are unique and necessarily limited in 'scope'.

A cloud is, at the same moment, both dark and cold and bright and warm. How?
Ponder the great winter cloud; it covers the sky, is cold, dark, slightly threatening...
Now imagine that you are in an airplane, rising through the cloud.
From the cold darkness into the cloud. It gets a bit brighter and brighter until you burst through the top side!
It is breathtaking how blue the sky above, the sun dazzling in it's brilliant glare as is the top side of our cloud! Brilliant white with not a shadow to give hint of it's other side, or the vast shades of 'grey' in between.
Now imagine that there are billions and trillions of folks (Perspectives) all around and throughout the cloud, at the same moment!
If asked to describe the cloud, all Perspectives would describe that which he uniquely perceives; one declares the cloud dark and cold, another would declare it's brilliance,. one a particular shade of grey, another doesn't perceive a cloud at all, and so forth.
They all describe One Cloud! One Reality!
No Perspective is 'wrong', yet, ignorantly, we do fight so over who is 'right', while everyone else is 'wrong'.
Yet the complete cloud is fully defined, described, by the sum total of all Perspectives!
All these different Perspectives perceiving the same One Reality!

In order for there to be a knowing of such 'truth is', a concordant 'doubt' must exist: thus togther they must be True - yet this too must be doubted.

Perhaps you have missed the critically updated definition of 'knowledge' (that 'settles' epistemology rather nicely);
"Knowledge is that which is perceived!"
All inclusive! Simple!

----LK4: Oh, does that mean that perception is that which is known? I can agree with this version, but I would have to ask how we know what perception is.



Whether you believe everything or doubt everything, one eventually finds the same Truth!

-----LK4-- platitude. Great. Where's Typist? he'd dig this.



'Thought' is a feature of Reality, thus 'thoughts' (of anything... flying pigs, contradictions...) are Real! 'Thoughts' are a real feature of Reality!
Truth is non falsifiable. The foundation of 'classical science' has been replaced by quantum physics! There is no 'independent observer' possible...


----LK4: got my hopes up there for a second...

Hence the contradiction which find itself resolved by an Absolute -

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium ("contradiction") must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon
----wonderful.

which cannot be except in reflection of the potential for relativity.

Everything is relative to everything else!
The only way that anything can be completely defined is to include context. Ex; red.. is not blue.
So, the complete definition of anything, must, perforce, include the entire Universe!
One!

Hence the asserted position of 'god': the Absolute Object at which we cease to be human, a purpose by which I am negated for my own comfort.

No idea what you mean.

-----LK4: there is no effective difference between an Absolute Object and God; only in definition.

So great we're gathering a little 'ooooohhhhhhmmmm zzzzzeennnnn' constituency on this thread. Bill and Z (sanjay) and mjb and typist will be so happy !

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Perhaps a good reason is the toxically poor notion of 'either/or', 'true/false', me/you'... (Western philosophy) that is obfuscating our perception of the Truth that Truth/Existence/Reality is One, all inclusive.
That is the complete 'set', all other definitions that include your 'distinctions' and 'conditions' are subsets. Just as 'everything exists' is the complete 'set'. All definitions depending on 'exclusions' are 'subsets'.

We always see Truth, That which Is, a reason that we doubt it is that thoughtful dualistic perspective.
All the different descriptions/definitions of elephant are correct perceptions of the one Truth od Elephant! Though the ego's argue who's 'right', the complete elephant is defined as the sum-total of all Perspectives!

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

All duality is ego. All ego is thought.
Thus the religious teachings that thought/ego must be transcended to perceive our One-ness (enlightenment), Truth.

It is the inability of many to perceive 'That-which-Is', sans 'thought', that cannot see further than the dualist Perspective; "Me vs you sukka!"
Yes, dualism exists, and so does the One from which the duality has been, in 'thought', schizophrenically fragmented.

That schizophrenic rift that has been the hallmark of homo (schizo-) sapiens is finally healing, and we are become (evolving into) homo-novus, New Man. We are witnessing a world shaking (literally) birth right Now! Globally!

We are One and we will all see it and all live it. The schizo-sapiens will evolve or die off.
Either way, good riddance!

lancek4 wrote: Oh, does that mean that perception is that which is known? I can agree with this version, but I would have to ask how we know what perception is.

Took me a moment to translate your format..
Perception? Existence. Reality. The act/moment of 'Self!' Knowledge.
How do you know what an itch is?
How do you know when you are hungry"
Next time you itch, doubt your perception and don't scratch it. Same when you are hungry. That we perceive is evidence a'plenty of it's existence.

Whether you believe everything or doubt everything, one eventually finds the same Truth!

-----LK4-- platitude. Great. Where's Typist? he'd dig this.

If you have nothing to say, please do.
If you have some sort of viable refutation, let's hear it. Personal attacks and remarks are amateurish and not philosophy.
Your ad-hom attack by calling what I said some 'name' is meaningless, philosophically or scientifically.
If someone says something that bothers your delicate sensitivities here, ask for clarification before declaring ignorance and wildly attacking. To tell you the truth, i expected more from the folks here. So much for expectations. Are you all divided up into your own corners of the schoolyard? Someone comes with a different Perspective and gets marginalized and bullied? Homey don't play that!

----LK4: got my hopes up there for a second...

And with that sad juvenility, welcome to my ignore list.

***************************

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Obviously with your thinking you'd fail a college level logic course as false does in fact exist.

Perhaps if you unclenched a moment and read what I wrote!

..nameless.. wrote: Everything Is! Everything exists!

I have witnessed the mediocre mindless parrots regurgitating the same crap, like zombies, spewing from the hallowed halls. Your unphilosophic ad-hom insult is meaningless and juvenile.
Nor does it refute anything.

Truth tables would seriously kick your arse.

Again, you don't manage to refute an iota of what I have said. Are you the best that those hallowed halls produce?
Going 'personal' is a sad sign of inability to philosophically refute something said that 'bothers' you (usually a 'belief').
If there is any particular point that you wish elucidated, that I have offered, if you care, just ask, but lets keep the disrespectful cheap personal stuff out of this. Philosophy is about 'critical thought', not personalities.

A good place to start;

Critical Thinking Mini Lessons
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

Thanx

Chrono-synclastic infundibulum (which is mis-spelled) is from a novel (fiction) and the book of fudd isn't even acknowledged in any reference book I've come across. All your points are just so much BS. So I've come to the conclusion that you are not serious, you're new here and it would seem that you have no newbie manners, this is a sign that you're a troll, but off to a bad start because this fish just noticed that your using artificial bait. Later Mr novice fisherman. Talk to yourself for a while and let me know if you ever want to get serious. I have no time for the class clown of a troll.

I should have initially payed more attention to your nym. It says everything I need to know about your psyche! I can't wait to see your avatar.

MJA wrote:Dear noname,

I concure with many of your thoughts, but some I question.
Perhaps you would be so kind an answer a couple of questions for me.

My pleasure!

"Everything is true"?

If someOne tells you an untruth, a lie, and you know what he tells you is untrue,
Would you not ask him for the truth?
Surely not everything we are told is true, is it?

As I said, everything being Truth is the complete Universal 'set'.
'Exclusive truths', such as you have offered are 'local' subsets of the complete set. Also real and true.
Useful locally, under certain conditions. Hence all the 'subsets' due to so many 'localities/perspectives'.
Ultimately 'lies' are True as they are subsets of Truth. Locally, with definitional limitations ('exclusivity' rather than the 'inclusivity' (Oneness) of the 'Set') there are 'falsehoods'.

And as for QM, you must certainly agree don't you that the flaw of science is measure,
And measure is only probable at best?

The flaw of classical science is the assumption of empiricism, which has been refuted by quantum, as has the obsolete notion of the 'independent observer'.
'Consciousness' cannot be 'measured' as it "is the ground of all being", the ground of all 'measurement'! Heck, science has just finally discovered Consciousness! (Mystics have known this for millennia)!

Oh and for fun, did the big bang make any noise???

Do you mean if the Big Banged in the woods and there was no one there to hear it?

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

All existence ('Self Knowledge') is one timeless Planck (almost 10^-43/sec; one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!) moment, Now!

Every moment of existence is a moment of 'Self!' Knowledge.
All (Planck) moments ('moments' are 'percepts', a unit of perception) ever, are moments of 'Self!' Knowledge! All happening synchronously!
Like the bulb that lights over our cartoon head when we have a sudden epiphany or revelation, talk about a "Big Bang"!!
Our heads are full of 'noise', so it exists! The Big Bang event (of 'Self!' Knowledge) is also a revelation of the noisy features of 'Self!'!

The 'Big Bang' didn't create/make anything. Existence is not created, linearly, it is 'perceived' holistically ('thought' unzips the files!).
Of course 'creation' exists as/in 'thought'; no thought = no creation; what is, Is! Now!
That was fun, thanks! I needed the air to lighten a bit.
*__-

Thanks,

My pleasure.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have no time for the class clown of a troll.

Such a fragile ego.
Well, me neither, so you may join '4' on my ignore. Bye.

..nameless.. wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have no time for the class clown of a troll.

Such a fragile ego.
Well, me neither, so you may join '4' on my ignore. Bye.

Obviously your mind is so full of presumption, it blinds you!