Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Are you the Head of some cult? Helter skelter ring any bells?
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
Matty
Well-Known Member
Not saying that I can 'prove this but as something to enquire into maybe? A hypothesis
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?
When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea
Matty
Well-Known Member
I'm sure this has probably been mentioned at some point in the last 80 odd pages but the "what was there before the big bang" question is flawed in concept.
It is a known scientific fact that the mass of a body has an effect on the passing of time. A planet is a huge celestial object, and it's mass actually warps time. An example of the effect of this is that the mass of the Earth actually makes time run slightly slower for a human on Earth's surface than a satellite in orbit. Equally much smaller items will still have an effect on the passage of time, the difference is far too small to be noticeable, however time will pass more slowly for someone standing next to a large rock than it does for a person standing alone out in the open with nothing around them. The singularity that became the universe due to the "big bang" actually consisted of the entire mass currently present in the universe, the effect of this being to bring time to a standstill. So, time as we know it didn't exist until the big bang, so what was there "before" the big bang is a question which doesn't make sense. Einstein's theory of relativity says as much.
It is a known scientific fact that the mass of a body has an effect on the passing of time. A planet is a huge celestial object, and it's mass actually warps time. An example of the effect of this is that the mass of the Earth actually makes time run slightly slower for a human on Earth's surface than a satellite in orbit. Equally much smaller items will still have an effect on the passage of time, the difference is far too small to be noticeable, however time will pass more slowly for someone standing next to a large rock than it does for a person standing alone out in the open with nothing around them. The singularity that became the universe due to the "big bang" actually consisted of the entire mass currently present in the universe, the effect of this being to bring time to a standstill. So, time as we know it didn't exist until the big bang, so what was there "before" the big bang is a question which doesn't make sense. Einstein's theory of relativity says as much.
More wanting to be free of the cult of the intellectualised head - that cult of which you appear to be a fully paid up member. AndAre you the Head of some cult? Helter skelter ring any bells?
what kinds of behaviours are cultists known for, if someone dare question there 'beloved' fraternity? Someone speaking of the Heart?
Get the pitchforks out!!
Agree that 'before' doesn't make sense - the limitations of language aren't so helpful here...especially if one agrees that language is 'of' time. Hence the use of 'before' not the right word but might point in the right kind of direction. So, 'before' time...might come try to use the words 'timeless' and/or 'eternal' to point to this?I'm sure this has probably been mentioned at some point in the last 80 odd pages but the "what was there before the big bang" question is flawed in concept.
It is a known scientific fact that the mass of a body has an effect on the passing of time. A planet is a huge celestial object, and it's mass actually warps time. An example of the effect of this is that the mass of the Earth actually makes time run slightly slower for a human on Earth's surface than a satellite in orbit. Equally much smaller items will still have an effect on the passage of time, the difference is far too small to be noticeable, however time will pass more slowly for someone standing next to a large rock than it does for a person standing alone out in the open with nothing around them. The singularity that became the universe due to the "big bang" actually consisted of the entire mass currently present in the universe, the effect of this being to bring time to a standstill. So, time as we know it didn't exist until the big bang, so what was there "before" the big bang is a question which doesn't make sense. Einstein's theory of relativity says as much.
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.
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)
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
He's got blisters on his fingersAre you the Head of some cult? Helter skelter ring any bells?
Matty
Well-Known Member
Agree that 'before' doesn't make sense - the limitations of language aren't so helpful here...especially if one agrees that language is 'of' time. Hence the use of 'before' not the right word but might point in the right kind of direction. So, 'before' time...might come try to use the words 'timeless' and/or 'eternal' to point to this?
Labelling it isn't the issue. Time didn't exist until the big bang. The question "what was there before the big bang" is a trick question thrown out to get the answer "we don't know", which then leads to a deity in the minds of those who posed the question. Science doesn't have all the answers. A lack of knowledge doesn't equate to attributing a phenomenon to a higher being.
Enjoy the Ayahuasca - the Vine of Death. Am sure she will appreciate your respect...He's got blisters on his fingers
"Science doesn't have all the answers." Sure and I'd agree that no religion has all the answers either. That might just be the point?Labelling it isn't the issue. Time didn't exist until the big bang. The question "what was there before the big bang" is a trick question thrown out to get the answer "we don't know", which then leads to a deity in the minds of those who posed the question. Science doesn't have all the answers. A lack of knowledge doesn't equate to attributing a phenomenon to a higher being.
"A lack of knowledge doesn't equate to attributing a phenomenon to a higher being." Agree, though perhaps what could be suggested is that
it is possible to have a 'higher' ('above' lack) knowing of the nature of our own being? From 'darkness', a lesser understanding - to 'Light', a greater understanding?
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)
and how do you prove they were
"Science doesn't have all the answers." Sure and I'd agree that no religion has all the answers either. That might just be the point?
"A lack of knowledge doesn't equate to attributing a phenomenon to a higher being." Agree, though perhaps what could be suggested is that
it is possible to have a 'higher' ('above' lack) knowing of the nature of our own being? From 'darkness', a lesser understanding - to 'Light', a greater understanding?
you have to demonstrate that this is the case not just say it
St.Pauli support
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 5,847
"Science doesn't have all the answers." Sure and I'd agree that no religion has all the answers either. That might just be the point?
No, it might not.
In fact, science has developed detailed answers to most questions mankind ever had.
Religions to every and any question have only 1 answer : God is great.
That's all.
The reason religion just ignore science is clear:
they can't agree to the fact that man is the end product of a billion year long evolution of biological species.
We are biological beings.
Our anatomy is similar to many animals, our DNA too, our brain, even our behaviour. All that is saved on our DNA.
Instead of accepting that you are a biological being you try to find something else that you even can't describe by words.
Mate, accept where you come from and where you go to and inbetween be kind to any other living creature and yourself.
Then be humble and happy.
Yet there are whole heaps of scientists that wouldn't agree with the conclusions that you have drawn. But I'll let you findNo, it might not.
In fact, science has developed detailed answers to most questions mankind ever had.
Religions to every and any question have only 1 answer : God is great.
That's all.
The reason religion just ignore science is clear:
they can't agree to the fact that man is the end product of a billion year long evolution of biological species.
We are biological beings.
Our anatomy is similar to many animals, our DNA too, our brain, even our behaviour. All that is saved on our DNA.
Instead of accepting that you are a biological being you try to find something else that you even can't describe by words.
Mate, accept where you come from and where you go to and inbetween be kind to any other living creature and yourself.
Then be humble and happy.
that our if you want for yourself.
I 'have to?' Says who? That sounds like your church stuff coming on again - trying to enforce a doctrine (you have to demonstrate...)you have to demonstrate that this is the case not just say it
from the outside rather than open to essence from the inside. How enjoyable was this for you, truly? Did your time in church
bring you great inspiration? If so, why did did you leave; if not, why on earth would you believe that I would want to follow this way?
Seem like you have taken the word 'religion' and substituted it with the word 'science.' Yet has anything changed apart from a bit of window dressing?
Drunken Boxing : Have a few beers then, when people try to place you 'safely' into the box of their own doctrine, find a way to slip/slide
above, beneath, around or even through it.
eg 'I thought I had arfur placed within this box but now it appears that I haven't.'
above, beneath, around or even through it.
eg 'I thought I had arfur placed within this box but now it appears that I haven't.'
St.Pauli support
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 5,847
Yet there are whole heaps of scientists that wouldn't agree with the conclusions that you have drawn. But I'll let you find that our if you want for yourself.
"Fake news", you mean? Some weak reply. Similar to what Galilei or Kopernikus had to face. Ignorance and negativity, and dogma.
Just to defend the own territory and not get involved with someone elses ideas.
Sure you need some knowledge to evaluate quality of sources. There is enough good advice out there.
If you don't want to study, stick to "be kind". You will have some positive feedback.
I 'have to?' Says who? That sounds like your church stuff coming on again - trying to enforce a doctrine (you have to demonstrate...)
from the outside rather than open to essence from the inside. How enjoyable was this for you, truly? Did your time in church
bring you great inspiration? If so, why did did you leave; if not, why on earth would you believe that I would want to follow this way?
Seem like you have taken the word 'religion' and substituted it with the word 'science.' Yet has anything changed apart from a bit of window dressing?
i know you don't "have to" but your inner feelings or whatever you have, for me to believe them, then they have to be demonstrated or they are just words
i could say all sorts that you wouldn't believe until they were demonstrated to be real, what's the difference
and why do you seem to have something against science
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
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.More wanting to be free of the cult of the intellectualised head - that cult of which you appear to be a fully paid up member. And
what kinds of behaviours are cultists known for, if someone dare question there 'beloved' fraternity? Someone speaking of the Heart?
Get the pitchforks out!!