I could also say that this thread can be like a massage, though some might not like that. As I read through the thread I may come to become aware of resistance within, that this may be released.Just to look back at just the tenets written before - naturalness, inner balance ('ie groundedness,) relaxation...as resistance is let go, then all all of these come to be known on a deeper level (though it can take while to move through the resistance - so things might seem more unnatural, unbalanced, tense for a while). So I can sot here and say that this is what is what I have practically experienced through this thread. Some might say this process has similarities with practices of the inner strength . Cheers for that!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
Sometimes, my friend, 'proof' is personal. Much like what we call the 'soul', if you believe that kind of thing. If I asked you to prove your 'soul' existed, how would you do it in a tangible sense? What evidence could you possible show?
If you didn't believe in a 'soul', how would you prove your 'thoughts' exist as something tangible? Solid and evidence, based? How would you show how your 'thoughts' exist?
"I think therefore I am" isn't 'evidence', it's personal and very hard to break down and explain.
So, to the question that absolutely EVERYONE fails on; what existed before the 'Big Bang'?
There's no evidence provable to this fact REGARDLESS of what people chunter on about on here as 'proof'.
It's the equal and opposite 'gotcha' question to the existence of a higher presence.
No argument, just observation.
That’s the same bollocks as me asking you to prove the Spahgetti Minsters doesn’t exist. It doesn’t but you couldn’t prove it. It’s tap dancing.
The onus is on the person to prove a supernatural being rather than the person who doubts it. It’s how religious people try to get out of their delusion. Because I can’t prove it isn’t real doesn’t in any way prove it is. They take that because they have literally fuck all else.
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,817
Now, where in my text, did I say that...?
It's simple ask and answer like many of you do to followers of a faith/ belief.
And, you've just deflected.
As you've accused others of doing!!
Hmm...
The question what everyone fails on ‘what happened before the Big Bang ?’ Presumably as we do not have the affinitive answer then it must be God ? In your opinion.
Just like hundreds of years ago, no one knew why there was a Sun in the sky that went up and down ... so they presumed it must of been God.
Couldn’t explain why rain fell. So it must of been God. So on and so on.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
That’s the same bollocks as me asking you to prove the Spahgetti Minsters doesn’t exist. It doesn’t but you couldn’t prove it. It’s tap dancing.
The onus is on the person to prove a supernatural being rather than the person who doubts it. It’s how religious people try to get out of their delusion. Because I can’t prove it isn’t real doesn’t in any way prove it is. They take that because they have literally fuck all else.
My point is simply this; there are some things for which 'words' do not contain enough nuance and expression to explain.
If I use the original argument about the earth's existence being mooted from '7 days' in the Bible, 6000 years by some religions and 6 million years by science, you should understand that time holds a different construct for each phase of interpretation.
What would be classed as a 'Day' when trying to explain a Higher Being in the concept of man made 'time'. Is a 'day' the same concept for a snail as it is for a bear? How do you really measure it outside of man? I've never seen a dolphin discuss the time! I think people have fallen into the trap of trying to explain times for 'Biblical events'. Genesis might try to explain a 'Day' concept that was really a million years for a Higher existence which, in turn, makes it closer to the scientific assessment of 'time'.
As for explaining a Higher existence with 'evidence'? Well, a simple phrase of 'it's like floating on water' has many different absorption levels for the receiver and those that have never stepped into the sea, might not ever know what that feels like, so therefore the experience with that 'specific' special something becomes personal and immeasurable to anyone else.
I have had 'personal experiences' I have no chance on earth of ever explaining, so I won't even try here. My 'experiences' have been listed on these boards with inadequate words for the experience.
I'm not religious, so there'd be no point in asking me about anything specific. I am, however, very open minded enough not to close the door on dimensions and existence as we know it and open minded enough to understand that science and belief are not mutually exclusive.
I ranted a bit, but, ho hum...
Bigga
Well-Known Member
The question what everyone fails on ‘what happened before the Big Bang ?’ Presumably as we do not have the affinitive answer then it must be God ? In your opinion.
Just like hundreds of years ago, no one knew why there was a Sun in the sky that went up and down ... so they presumed it must of been God.
Couldn’t explain why rain fell. So it must of been God. So on and so on.
You presume a lot of what I'm talking about and prove your inflexibility to think in broader terms.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,316
Is that a model of York Minster made out of spaghetti?That’s the same bollocks as me asking you to prove the Spahgetti Minsters doesn’t exist. It doesn’t but you couldn’t prove it. It’s tap dancing.
The onus is on the person to prove a supernatural being rather than the person who doubts it. It’s how religious people try to get out of their delusion. Because I can’t prove it isn’t real doesn’t in any way prove it is. They take that because they have literally fuck all else.
Genuine question here. When you are with your wife would you rather demand that she proves herself to you or is it more like you allow yourself to enjoy her beauty, her love, her...almost...indefinable feminine essence? As though how you experience her - and life - is down to how open or closed you choose to be? In a similar manner do you ever jam as a musician with others? Do you sit there and demand that the others tell you what they are going to play, along with notes as to any improv stuff that they might planned? Or do just sit there and play and almost time into each other, all playing differently but together in an enjoyable way, as though there is an unheard yet felt connection that expresses itself ever more fluently?....Stop! Stop!, Stop! This cannot be possible, this felt connection thing - I am no longer going to play until you prove how this is happening once and for all. In scientific terms. Strictly logical. Deadly serious in tone. Til then I will either not play at all or, if you're lucky, I will play in such a way as to 'prove' that this connection couldn't possibly exist?That’s the same bollocks as me asking you to prove the Spahgetti Minsters doesn’t exist. It doesn’t but you couldn’t prove it. It’s tap dancing.
The onus is on the person to prove a supernatural being rather than the person who doubts it. It’s how religious people try to get out of their delusion. Because I can’t prove it isn’t real doesn’t in any way prove it is. They take that because they have literally fuck all else.
Maybe this is more how I would experience the questions you speak of generally - obviously not your wife or your music but as I experience different aspects of this life.
Genuine question here. When you are with your wife would you rather demand that she proves herself to you or is it more like you allow yourself to enjoy her beauty, her love, her...almost...indefinable feminine essence? As though how you experience her - and life - is down to how open or closed you choose to be? In a similar manner do you ever jam as a musician with others? Do you sit there and demand that the others tell you what they are going to play, along with notes as to any improv stuff that they might planned? Or do just sit there and play and almost time into each other, all playing differently but together in an enjoyable way, as though there is an unheard yet felt connection that expresses itself ever more fluently?....Stop! Stop!, Stop! This cannot be possible, this felt connection thing - I am no longer going to play until you prove how this is happening once and for all. In scientific terms. Strictly logical. Deadly serious in tone. Til then I will either not play at all or, if you're lucky, I will play in such a way as to 'prove' that this connection couldn't possibly exist?
Maybe this is more how I would experience the questions you speak of generally - obviously not your wife or your music but as I experience different aspects of this life.
When I am with Magic's wife I enjoy her feminine essence :)
Sometimes, my friend, 'proof' is personal. Much like what we call the 'soul', if you believe that kind of thing. If I asked you to prove your 'soul' existed, how would you do it in a tangible sense? What evidence could you possible show?
If you didn't believe in a 'soul', how would you prove your 'thoughts' exist as something tangible? Solid and evidence, based? How would you show how your 'thoughts' exist?
"I think therefore I am" isn't 'evidence', it's personal and very hard to break down and explain.
So, to the question that absolutely EVERYONE fails on; what existed before the 'Big Bang'?
There's no evidence provable to this fact REGARDLESS of what people chunter on about on here as 'proof'.
It's the equal and opposite 'gotcha' question to the existence of a higher presence.
No argument, just observation.
you are right, no one yet knows what happened/existed before the big bang, not sure anyone has said there is proof, there would be a nobel prize up for grabs if they did
but there is plenty who say a higher presence exists and in this thread for a starters they have. yet when asked for the proof we get not a lot in some cases and a whole lot as in arfurs case
no argument, just questions
Not saying that I can 'prove this but as something to enquire into maybe? A hypothesisyou are right, no one yet knows what happened/existed before the big bang, not sure anyone has said there is proof, there would be a nobel prize up for grabs if they did
but there is plenty who say a higher presence exists and in this thread for a starters they have. yet when asked for the proof we get not a lot in some cases and a whole lot as in arfurs case
no argument, just questions
What if the Big Bang happened within what could be called 'awareness.' Being within this awareness, everything that was 'born' of this Big Bang is also actually made from the essence of awareness. So we might then have awareness that is still is in its state 'before' the Big Bang (maybe call this the Unmanifested) yet also also this awareness in forms as made 'after' the Big Bang (maybe call this the manifested).
Now in this model, would it be possible to question whether the intellectual mind could possibly be that which contains all of awareness or is it more likely that the intellectual mind is like a filter for this awareness, that divides things into a 'this' versus 'that' s (some might call this polarity) so as to try and understand?
In this way, could the intellect ever really understand the whole of awareness given that its nature might be to divide awareness into this and that? I'm not so sure...Maybe something closer to understanding would involve letting go of the intellect and beginning to feel/tune into* the awareness 'before the intellect (call this the intuitive if you want) then this can join and play with the logic of mind - this joining that might then be called the truly rational mind.
A final question might be : Is it possible that the intellect that needs proof of awareness might eventually be found to be that which gets in the way of knowing awareness - that as one lets go of the need to prove awareness, then awareness will reveal itself to, and through, us in our own unique way?
And this is only one way of looking at these questions. Not THE way and certainly not 'if you don't agree with what I wrote then you will surely go to hell' way. either Just a way, is all. Maybe not the 'best' one. Or even particularly one I might choose to use often...
*Some might say 'tuning into' is what prayer is really for but who knows?