"The band took their name from the title of Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, itself derived from a line in William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite"." - wiki
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
"The band took their name from the title of Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, itself derived from a line in William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite"." - wiki
Bigga
Well-Known Member
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
So, when someone says 'something came from nothing', shouldn't there be evidence based explanation for this... Or is this a one way trip...??
Science explains with 'proof' and 'theory' is theory at whatever level you can muster. The 'evidence' of a Higher presence is 'theory' because the 'evidence' to the individual is personal.
It's all there in the text you quoted and, yet, wilfully ignored.
God initiated the Big Bang according to the Scriptures.
“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Qur'an 21:30)
I, too, have explained before now, the correlation between science and religious text on many levels.
It gets ignored and you get used to the gloss over.
So your saying your not of the intellectualised head then, if so why do you write in a style that comes across as if your trying to be exactly that. Are you saying your trying to be blissfully ignorant of science and education? You live on a higher plane of existence unlike us mere mortals. You come across as very condescending.
Can one be intellectual about 'emotional comfort' and in doing so, have the prose to emit those feelings?
If one can intellectualise those feelings in colour, what's the problem?
Interpretation of words effect everyone differently and if you choose to receive them in the way not intended, then who really is at fault?
I find @arfurclue explains a lot where few would do for some, BUT where I choose 3 colours, afur chooses 10.
Viva la difference.
Maybe you don't 'have to believe them' and I don't 'have to demonstrate them' - might that be a way through this?
Yes, you could say all sorts of things - like, say, a Donald Trump* - and I can choose whether this is something that
resonates within and you can carry on saying these things. If you are a Donald Trump I might ask quite how do people
believe what he says, as this doesn't make sense for me. And I used to write a lot of stuff on the Donald Trump thread
but just got to the point where I haven't written for a while. I still don't particularly believe him but, for one, it just
seemed to go around in circles. For two, one or two folk posted in such a manner that brought me to a point of
questioning whether there was a different way of me to relate to this.
Am not against science as such - their are some folk that I find really worth listening to. Perhaps it might be said
that I have found some approaches to science get in the way of dealing with everyday, practical life. Just doesn't
work, for me. If others wish to carry on with that then fair enough - but if it feels like folk are are trying to impose
this way on myself then no, thanks.
*I don't mean to say you are a 'donald trump' just this happened to fit in this moment (in part along with the posts on
the Trump thread, this thread has also brought me to question the way I wrote on the Trump thread)
i have to believe it to be true or else what is the point, how i arrive at my belief that's where we seem to differ
So, when someone says 'something came from nothing', shouldn't there be evidence based explanation for this... Or is this a one way trip...??
Science explains with 'proof' and 'theory' is theory at whatever level you can muster. The 'evidence' of a Higher presence is 'theory' because the 'evidence' to the individual is personal.
It's all there in the text you quoted and, yet, wilfully ignored.
the something from nothing is probably the biggest question scientifically and yes i don't think yet can be classed as a scientific theory in its truest sense yet
as you well know scientific theory is what can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. ala theory of relativity/ newtons law of motion etc which differs from my theory what arfur is on about etc.
i'm not having the highest presence is individual. why is it? give me one good reason
oh and you have no idea what i willfully do
Yes, that I agree with - and if we have to arrive at the same beliefs, isn't that a way of saying that there should be one dogma/doctrine that we all follow. Seems like people have been fighting over that for a long, long time - perhaps along with a 'win at all costs mentality' that isn't so great after all?i have to believe it to be true or else what is the point, how i arrive at my belief that's where we seem to differ
Bigga
Well-Known Member
the something from nothing is probably the biggest question scientifically and yes i don't think yet can be classed as a scientific theory in its truest sense yet
as you well know scientific theory is what can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. ala theory of relativity/ newtons law of motion etc which differs from my theory what arfur is on about etc.
i'm not having the highest presence is individual. why is it? give me one good reason
oh and you have no idea what i willfully do
Again, I gave examples of why it's difficult to explain something more than 'you' and more than the limitation of words.
Alright, let me try another way...
We know what exists, here and now, in this physical world by sight, smell, touch, taste and feel.
How would you explain 'thought' or a 'soul' using those definitions?
Science is an agreed upon "intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".
"We know what exists, here and now, in this physical world by sight, smell, touch, taste and feel" - this is science at its base. It, as you've said, is something tangible to go off.
If something as 'simple' and as presupposed as 'thought' cannot be scientifically proven, how do we know it exists, besides individual testimony? 'Electrical impulses/ signals'? And how does that translate into the complicated outcome of 'proof'?
So, how would one go about explaining a Higher Intellect through the limitations of Man and words?
I once wrote about an experience where it involved the absolute tiniest feeling of what it must feel like to be omnipotent, involving an event where I could see all around me/ every direction at the same time, whilst floating and being connected to the stars with no gravity to deal with or the man made concept of 'time'.
This is limited because you can't experience that moment nor can I explain the emotion involved. You have to KNOW what it feels to see your toes, see out your whole left side and right and stars around you, what it feels like to be connected to everything, to feel the weight and knowledge of 'more than Man'. Did I go through it for a second? An hour? 10? If 'time' didn't feel like 'time' as I know, how I explain that?
If you cannot equate, how can you be explained to?
Words are not enough!
If I could blame it on a doobie, drink or whatever I would, but being teetotal puts a new spin on things, eh?
Apologies as this is an emotive and exciting 'improvable' subject matter for me that I went through, never before or since.
An imprint that has been with me for 30 years.
Heh - sometimes when a river has been blocked by a dam it might have a 'normal' flow rate through it. Then if the dam begins to break down the water might flow through in a what could be called a high volume, rapid chaotic state. 'Put the dam back up!' This is weird and uncomfortable, confusing.' But what about if there is another choice - to allow the dam to fully break and trust that the water will eventually return to its natural flow and rhythm...enjoyable, a sense of freedom even?So, when someone says 'something came from nothing', shouldn't there be evidence based explanation for this... Or is this a one way trip...??
Science explains with 'proof' and 'theory' is theory at whatever level you can muster. The 'evidence' of a Higher presence is 'theory' because the 'evidence' to the individual is personal.
It's all there in the text you quoted and, yet, wilfully ignored.
I, too, have explained before now, the correlation between science and religious text on many levels.
It gets ignored and you get used to the gloss over.
Can one be intellectual about 'emotional comfort' and in doing so, have the prose to emit those feelings?
If one can intellectualise those feelings in colour, what's the problem?
Interpretation of words effect everyone differently and if you choose to receive them in the way not intended, then who really is at fault?
I find @arfurclue explains a lot where few would do for some, BUT where I choose 3 colours, afur chooses 10.
Viva la difference.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Heh - sometimes when a river has been blocked by a dam it might have a 'normal' flow rate through it. Then if the dam begins to break down the water might flow through in a what could be called a high volume, rapid chaotic state. 'Put the dam back up!' This is weird and uncomfortable, confusing.' But what about if there is another choice - to allow the dam to fully break and trust that the water will eventually return to its natural flow and rhythm...enjoyable, a sense of freedom even?
So, this is interesting.
I would say I fell somewhere between the two of your analogy; enjoying "a sense of freedom" that came with the caveat of 'put the dam back up!' afterwards, which is why I'm here.
And quite honestly I have no idea, to this day, if I say that with regret.
Like the opening up experience was the sense of freedom but the dam was the beliefs that you held before? Thus this was 'normal and the conditions that had helped create the life that you had?'So, this is interesting.
I would say I fell somewhere between the two of your analogy; enjoying "a sense of freedom" that came with the caveat of 'put the dam back up!' afterwards, which is why I'm here.
And quite honestly I have no idea, to this day, if I say that with regret.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Like the opening up experience was the sense of freedom but the dam was the beliefs that you held before? Thus this was 'normal and the conditions that had helped create the life that you had?'
Took some time to assess the questions, internally, so I will say only this...
I will PM you...