Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It seems to be a topic that interests only you. That's why you got little to no feedback the first time. 

I'm sure you're quite capable to do your own research, so why ask thaibeachlover to do it for you?

Haven't you advocated many times that those interested in the truth should pay attention to their own internal experiences and try to understand what's happening? Thaibeachlovers claims he is familiar with this concept of the mind projecting a conversion of a negative onto a ceiling, and that it's been a common phenomenon published in magazines. Since he is more familiar with this phenomenon than I am, isn't it reasonable for me to ask him to contribute his knowledge with a few internet links to magazines or scientific articles?

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Haven't you advocated many times that those interested in the truth should pay attention to their own internal experiences and try to understand what's happening? Thaibeachlovers claims he is familiar with this concept of the mind projecting a conversion of a negative onto a ceiling, and that it's been a common phenomenon published in magazines. Since he is more familiar with this phenomenon than I am, isn't it reasonable for me to ask him to contribute his knowledge with a few internet links to magazines or scientific articles?

Yes, but it should be obvious by now that it is only you who is interested in this particular truth. The more you push this issue, the more it looks like you just want to provoke him. 
But whatever..., he will take the bait or he won't. My money is on the second.

[VincentRJ]

41 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, but it should be obvious by now that it is only you who is interested in this particular truth. The more you push this issue, the more it looks like you just want to provoke him. 
But whatever..., he will take the bait or he won't. My money is on the second.

it's not a bait. It's a simple request. Why distort the situation? ????

[mauGR1]

46 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Haven't you advocated many times that those interested in the truth should pay attention to their own internal experiences and try to understand what's happening? Thaibeachlovers claims he is familiar with this concept of the mind projecting a conversion of a negative onto a ceiling, and that it's been a common phenomenon published in magazines. Since he is more familiar with this phenomenon than I am, isn't it reasonable for me to ask him to contribute his knowledge with a few internet links to magazines or scientific articles?

As I told you about 2 months ago , when you posted the same , or a similar image, asking the same question, I told you that it's absolutely normal. The image " rests" on the retina for a while, I'm not looking links on internet for you, even if there must be lots of interesting articles, but I have a book, in another continent, "theory of colours" by J,W.Goethe, written between, I think 1700/1800, which explains this and other marvellous things about the human eyes.

[VincentRJ]

18 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

As I told you about 2 months ago , when you posted the same , or a similar image, asking the same question, I told you that it's absolutely normal. The image " rests" on the retina for a while, I'm not looking links on internet for you, even if there must be lots of interesting articles, but I have a book, in another continent, "theory of colours" by J,W.Goethe, written between, I think 1700/1800, which explains this and other marvellous things about the human eyes.

Does the 'Theory of colors' by J.W.Goethe address this specific issue of the mind converting a negative image into a positive image which can then be projected, for a short period, onto a ceiling?

 

I never suggested this experience was abnormal, although it might be the case that those who do not experience this effect are in the minority. I admit I don't know, which is why I've raised the issue and attached the negative image twice. I'm surprised no-one appears to be particularly interested. I wonder if a member of an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle, who had never seen any photos before, would also experience this effect, and miraculously convert a negative image into a positive. ????

[Sunmaster]

@VincentRJ
Here is the video I told you about. 

Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had an opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: One morning, she realized she was having a massive stroke. As it happened -- as she felt her brain functions slip away one by one, speech, movement, understanding -- she studied and remembered every moment. This is a powerful story about how our brains define us and connect us to the world and to one another.
 

Found this quote in the comments of the video, erroneously attributed to Einstein, but beautiful nonetheless:

''The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.''

Edited October 6, 2020 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Does the 'Theory of colors' by J.W.Goethe address this specific issue of the mind converting a negative image into a positive image which can then be projected, for a short period, onto a ceiling?

 

I never suggested this experience was abnormal, although it might be the case that those who do not experience this effect are in the minority. I admit I don't know, which is why I've raised the issue and attached the negative image twice. I'm surprised no-one appears to be particularly interested. I wonder if a member of an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle, who had never seen any photos before, would also experience this effect, and miraculously convert a negative image into a positive. ????

Absolutely yes, of course we are talking about a normally functioning human eye.

Btw, I am quite interested in the subject, even if now I can't quite remember the nexus with the faith in God.

But yeah that book you would find very interesting, with wonderful images and explanations.

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

@VincentRJ
Here is the video I told you about. 

Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had an opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: One morning, she realized she was having a massive stroke. As it happened -- as she felt her brain functions slip away one by one, speech, movement, understanding -- she studied and remembered every moment. This is a powerful story about how our brains define us and connect us to the world and to one another.
 

 

Thanks, but I came across this video a few years ago and remember it as a confirmation of the different activities of the left brain and right brain. The right brain is associated with creativity, art, contemplation and religion, whereas the left side of the brain is associated with more practical issues involving logical reasoning, mathematics, practical chores, earning a living, and so on.

 

Her intermittent stroke in the left side of the brain revealed the differences between the two hemispheres. When the left side was temporarily cut off, she experienced great calm, and when the left side temporarily came back, she experienced the usual noise and worry.

 

For me, this was a scientific confirmation of the potential effectiveness of Buddhist practices and meditation, which I became interested in some time before seeing Jill Taylor's talk on TED.

 

I'll view the video again to see if there's anything I missed. Thanks again.

[VincentRJ]

59 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Absolutely yes, of course we are talking about a normally functioning human eye.

Btw, I am quite interested in the subject, even if now I can't quite remember the nexus with the faith in God.

But yeah that book you would find very interesting, with wonderful images and explanations.

Thanks for the reference to the book, but I get the impression you haven't understood the situation. I'm referring to the mind converting a photographic negative image, which is mostly black and white, with the exception of the three dots on the lady's nose, to a full color, immaculately processed image which is projected by the mind onto a ceiling, if one follows the procedures I've mentioned.

 

Having checked the long Wikipedia article on Goethe's book, there is no reference to such an experiment, nor could there be any reference because the film camera was not available in 1810 when this book was written.

 

"Theory of Colours is a book by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe about the poet's views on the nature of colours and how these are perceived by humans. It was published in German in 1810 and in English in 1840."

 

"The first commercial camera was built by the founder of Kodak, George Eastman, in 1888." 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks for the reference to the book, but I get the impression you haven't understood the situation. I'm referring to the mind converting a photographic negative image, which is mostly black and white, with the exception of the three dots on the lady's nose, to a full color, immaculately processed image which is projected by the mind onto a ceiling, if one follows the procedures I've mentioned.

 

Having checked the long Wikipedia article on Goethe's book, there is no reference to such an experiment, nor could there be any reference because the film camera was not available in 1810 when this book was written.

 

"Theory of Colours is a book by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe about the poet's views on the nature of colours and how these are perceived by humans. It was published in German in 1810 and in English in 1840."

 

"The first commercial camera was built by the founder of Kodak, George Eastman, in 1888." 

 

httpsf://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours

Yes, of course the book doesn't mention photography, invented decades later.

But I have the impression that your experiment is based on the complementary colours, and not necessarily with a photo.(not actually sure that complementary is the exact term, but for example, blue opposed to orange, or red opposed to green etc.)

You can do the same experiment looking at a yellow light bulb, 10 seconds should be enough, then close your eyes couple of seconds, and watch a purple circle appearing on the wall.

[partington]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Does the 'Theory of colors' by J.W.Goethe address this specific issue of the mind converting a negative image into a positive image which can then be projected, for a short period, onto a ceiling?

 

I never suggested this experience was abnormal, although it might be the case that those who do not experience this effect are in the minority. I admit I don't know, which is why I've raised the issue and attached the negative image twice. I'm surprised no-one appears to be particularly interested. I wonder if a member of an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle, who had never seen any photos before, would also experience this effect, and miraculously convert a negative image into a positive. ????

It IS interesting to me, and seems caused mainly by  "adaptation", that is sensory cells becoming less responsive to a continuous stimulus  (e.g. a strong smell disappears after a while because your smell receptors become adapted and turn down sensitivity.)  

 

The cells in the retina that respond to a particular colour, say green light for example, become less sensitive to that stimulus after you look at it for a long time. So when you look at a white wall (a mixture of all colours of light) the cells that respond to 'non-green' give a stronger signal than the green-responding cells (which are desensitised) so you see green's complementary colour.  

 

Nice article here:

https://www.illusionsindex.org/ir/negative-afterimages

 

It is interesting that some people who seem to be sustained by illusions are not interested in their origins...

[yodsak]

14 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The Adam&Eve creation story is not the only explanation contraposed to the theory of evolution. Plenty of other versions, and some make a lot more sense to me than the ToE.

There is more evidence for evolution that any other truth we have discovered, and the attack on evolution is not just an attack on Darwin, it's an attack on the whole of the sciences, because the evidence comes from all of these places.

 

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organised complexity. Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

 

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthology and others.  

 

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist  offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience or junk science. The US. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural  intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment , do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Edited October 6, 2020 by yodsak

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, yodsak said:

There is more evidence for evolution that any other truth we have discovered, and the attack on evolution is not just an attack on Darwin, it's an attack on the whole of the sciences, because the evidence comes from all of these places.

 

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organised complexity. Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

 

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthology and others.  

 

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist  offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience or junk science. The US. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural  intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment , do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

I find it disturbing when people claim there is evidence that goes against evolution as a truth, but still with evoloution, there is nothing that proves there have not been any intelligent design. 

 

Lets call the creator a creator, and the idea of creation is quite plausible, but I doubt the creator or creators did have humans or planet earth on their detailed design chart. Whatever they started out with it have for sure been a chain reaction where physics have shaped what we can see today right here and right now. Maybe even the creator doesnt exist anymore. The god is the nature of the laws in physics. 

[Peter Denis]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

...

@thaibeachlovers claims he is familiar with this concept of the mind projecting a conversion of a negative onto a ceiling, and that it's been a common phenomenon published in magazines. Since he is more familiar with this phenomenon than I am, isn't it reasonable for me to ask him to contribute his knowledge with a few internet links to magazines or scientific articles?

The concept of the mind projecting a conversion of a negative onto a ceiling, is an interesting phenomenon but it only scratches the surface of the matter.

Let's take it one (or actually several) steps further.

The idea that we 'reach out' by looking at things (instead of 'just' experiencing it in our brain) is not a new one.  Attached below some quotes from a short article by Rupert Sheldrake, on what he calls the Extended Mind.

 

The idea that the mind is more extensive than the brain is not a new idea, but is found in the ancient philosophies of Greece and India and in Buddhist traditions.

...

The conventional scientific view is that the mind is the brain or mental activity is only activity in the physical brain - in other words, that it is all inside the head.

...

An even greater mystery is that the experience you have happening before you is meant to be happening inside your brain, but you don’t experience it as being inside your brain. You experience the image you see before you as being in front of you!

I propose that the image you have of an object is located right in front of you.It is not inside your brain. Vision involves a two-way process: inward movement of light and an outward projection of images.So everything you see around you is where it seems to be. These images are projected out by the mind. They are in the mind because they are interpreted by your mind, produced by the mind, but they are not inside the brain.In other words, our minds reach out to touch what we are looking at.The images we project out coincide with what we are seeing. If they didn’t, we would be bumping into things all the time.(This would obviously be a disadvantage from the survival point of view.) The fact that everything goes along smoothly and we are not crashing into things is something we take for granted. This two-way vision is much more in accordance with our experience. It is what Hindus, Buddhists, sages, and Tibetan Masters believe and also what children, usually under the age of ten, believe.

 

I attached the 5-page article below - it's a good introduction to the subject.

When you are interested, here some other links that go deeper in the subject.

• https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/sense-being-stared-theories-vision
• https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/The-Sense-of-Being-Stared-At-Part-2-Its-Implications-for-Theories-of-Vision.pdf

And specially for @VincentRJ a link to a scientific study on your eyes literally emitting electromagnetic waves (providing some credulence to the 'ancient' belief of the evil eye).

• http://rossenergysystems.com/Downloads/Paper_The-Electrophysiological-Basis-Of-Evil-Eye-Belief.pdf

 

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf

[mauGR1]

8 hours ago, partington said:

is interesting that some people who seem to be sustained by illusions are not interested in their origins...

We are all interested in the origin of illusions.

That's why we are here discussing the theory of a God, or gods.

You can see millions of suns in a starry night, do you really believe that humans are the only thinking beings out there ? If they are not, would you believe that human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence ? Or the lowest ? And if scientists are unveiling the laws of the universe, would you believe that those laws were not there before the beginning of the human race ?

Do you believe that all of this came out from a big bang, which happened out of nothing ?  I wonder who is the one which is truly and well indoctrinated here.

[Tagged]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

We are all interested in the origin of illusions.

That's why we are here discussing the theory of a God, or gods.

You can see millions of suns in a starry night, do you really believe that humans are the only thinking beings out there ? If they are not, would you believe that human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence ? Or the lowest ? And if scientists are unveiling the laws of the universe, would you believe that those laws were not there before the beginning of the human race ?

Do you believe that all of this came out from a big bang, which happened out of nothing ?  I wonder who is the one which is truly and well indoctrinated here.

Just an interesting thought. Tomorow we get a visit from many thousands of light years away, and in front of us when it comes to innovations and technology As well they have evolved. Telling you great story about their history, how they finely solved conflicts among themselves, and how they solved the matter of god and faith, and how now everyone left on their planet believe in the same matter, and the same god. They are willing to share this information and make our planet in to the same faith to save us. How would you react? 

 

Hypothetical question of course, and simple question. 

[Peter Denis]

20 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Just an interesting thought. Tomorrow we get a visit from many thousands of light years away, and in front of us when it comes to innovations and technology As well they have evolved. Telling you great story about their history, how they finely solved conflicts among themselves, and how they solved the matter of god and faith, and how now everyone left on their planet believe in the same matter, and the same god. They are willing to share this information and make our planet in to the same faith to save us. How would you react? 

 

Hypothetical question of course, and simple question. 

Sounds like the story-line of Childhood's End, the novel by Arthur C. Clarke.

But that story had somewhat of a twist at the end...

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Just an interesting thought. Tomorow we get a visit from many thousands of light years away, and in front of us when it comes to innovations and technology As well they have evolved. Telling you great story about their history, how they finely solved conflicts among themselves, and how they solved the matter of god and faith, and how now everyone left on their planet believe in the same matter, and the same god. They are willing to share this information and make our planet in to the same faith to save us. How would you react? 

 

Hypothetical question of course, and simple question. 

No thanks, I would say.

I think that the other face of belief is disbelief, and i'd ask please, let me be free to experience both belief and disbelief, and let me decide by myself what is right and what is wrong.

It goes without saying that sometimes it's better to believe, and sometimes it's better to disbelieve, and surely you d agree that this is subjective.

If i d try to impose my beliefs on you, I would go against my beliefs.

Glad to help.

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Sounds like the story-line of Childhood's End, the novel by Arthur C. Clarke.

But that story had somewhat of a twist at the end...

I have to look in to that novel. However, this is quite simular to how Norway became christian, even many vikings already had been travelling and seen other part of the globe. 

 

But it took almost 800 years before the people became christians in hearth and soul, and it did not come without threats, violence or lost of lifes. 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

> Celebrating page 666 of this 'God' thread

 

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, yodsak said:

There is more evidence for evolution that any other truth we have discovered, and the attack on evolution is not just an attack on Darwin, it's an attack on the whole of the sciences, because the evidence comes from all of these places.

 

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organised complexity. Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

 

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthology and others.  

 

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist  offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience or junk science. The US. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural  intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment , do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

My mistake. I was thinking about the Big Bang theory but wrote ToE.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

We are all interested in the origin of illusions.

That's why we are here discussing the theory of a God, or gods.

You can see millions of suns in a starry night, do you really believe that humans are the only thinking beings out there ? If they are not, would you believe that human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence ? Or the lowest ? And if scientists are unveiling the laws of the universe, would you believe that those laws were not there before the beginning of the human race ?

Do you believe that all of this came out from a big bang, which happened out of nothing ?  I wonder who is the one which is truly and well indoctrinated here.

It's truly funny this. According to the Hindu tradition, what we see and what we take for "real" is nothing but an illusion (samsara), while the true reality is what is beyond the impermanent illusion.
So, in this sense, "some" people that are "sustained by illusions" are those who believe in nothing but the material world. ????

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It's truly funny this. According to the Hindu tradition, what we see and what we take for "real" is nothing but an illusion (samsara), while the true reality is what is beyond the impermanent illusion.
So, in this sense, "some" people that are "sustained by illusions" are those who believe in nothing but the material world. ????

Yes, that's exactly my point.

Everything is illusion, yet those ayatollahs of science demand to teach us their reality.

Oh, the irony ????

[mauGR1]

Have you ever talked to God ?Or in other words, the illusion of talking to God, this is matter for speculation.

Well, i did, once.

I asked him/her :

"What do I have to do ?"

The answer came loud and clear within my soul:

" You have to create "

it may be vague, perhaps true for every human being, perhaps true just for me, or for a few, and perhaps just temporarily true. 

Yet, despite my doubts, and despite my laziness, it's been true enough for me.

just saying ????

[VincentRJ]

21 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, of course the book doesn't mention photography, invented decades later.

But I have the impression that your experiment is based on the complementary colours, and not necessarily with a photo.(not actually sure that complementary is the exact term, but for example, blue opposed to orange, or red opposed to green etc.)

You can do the same experiment looking at a yellow light bulb, 10 seconds should be enough, then close your eyes couple of seconds, and watch a purple circle appearing on the wall.

Thanks for the explanation. What you've written appears to be correct. I've created a few different colored squares in Photoshop and gazed at them, one at a time, unblinkingly, before raising my view from the monitor to the ceiling and blinking once. Each time I saw a different colored square on the ceiling, something like violet for red, and a blueish color for green and yellow.

 

What's still a bit puzzling about the negative image of the lady I posted, is that it looks such a rough mess yet the projected image on the ceiling appears such a perfect conversion from negative to positive, and the lady has such a smooth complexion with no indication of any dots on the nose.

 

The dots are slightly colored and look as though they are very light shades of red, green and blue. I removed them in Photoshop to see what the effect would be. The projected image on the ceiling was then not quite as good, not as detailed and the skin color was fainter, so the dots are serving a purpose.

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

The concept of the mind projecting a conversion of a negative onto a ceiling, is an interesting phenomenon but it only scratches the surface of the matter.

Let's take it one (or actually several) steps further.

The idea that we 'reach out' by looking at things (instead of 'just' experiencing it in our brain) is not a new one.  Attached below some quotes from a short article by Rupert Sheldrake, on what he calls the Extended Mind.

 

The idea that the mind is more extensive than the brain is not a new idea, but is found in the ancient philosophies of Greece and India and in Buddhist traditions.

...

The conventional scientific view is that the mind is the brain or mental activity is only activity in the physical brain - in other words, that it is all inside the head.

...

An even greater mystery is that the experience you have happening before you is meant to be happening inside your brain, but you don’t experience it as being inside your brain. You experience the image you see before you as being in front of you!

I propose that the image you have of an object is located right in front of you.It is not inside your brain. Vision involves a two-way process: inward movement of light and an outward projection of images.So everything you see around you is where it seems to be. These images are projected out by the mind. They are in the mind because they are interpreted by your mind, produced by the mind, but they are not inside the brain.In other words, our minds reach out to touch what we are looking at.The images we project out coincide with what we are seeing. If they didn’t, we would be bumping into things all the time.(This would obviously be a disadvantage from the survival point of view.) The fact that everything goes along smoothly and we are not crashing into things is something we take for granted. This two-way vision is much more in accordance with our experience. It is what Hindus, Buddhists, sages, and Tibetan Masters believe and also what children, usually under the age of ten, believe.

 

I attached the 5-page article below - it's a good introduction to the subject.

When you are interested, here some other links that go deeper in the subject.

• https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/sense-being-stared-theories-vision
• https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/The-Sense-of-Being-Stared-At-Part-2-Its-Implications-for-Theories-of-Vision.pdf

And specially for @VincentRJ a link to a scientific study on your eyes literally emitting electromagnetic waves (providing some credulence to the 'ancient' belief of the evil eye).

• http://rossenergysystems.com/Downloads/Paper_The-Electrophysiological-Basis-Of-Evil-Eye-Belief.pdf

 

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf 3.28 MB · 1 download

Thanks for all these links, Peter. It'll take me some time to read them all and consider the possible flaws in the 'non-peer-reviewed' research by Rupert Sheldrake.  ????

 

I'll get back to you later.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks for the explanation. What you've written appears to be correct. I've created a few different colored squares in Photoshop and gazed at them, one at a time, unblinkingly, before raising my view from the monitor to the ceiling and blinking once. Each time I saw a different colored square on the ceiling, something like violet for red, and a blueish color for green and yellow.

 

What's still a bit puzzling about the negative image of the lady I posted, is that it looks such a rough mess yet the projected image on the ceiling appears such a perfect conversion from negative to positive, and the lady has such a smooth complexion with no indication of any dots on the nose.

 

The dots are slightly colored and look as though they are very light shades of red, green and blue. I removed them in Photoshop to see what the effect would be. The projected image on the ceiling was then not quite as good, not as detailed and the skin color was fainter, so the dots are serving a purpose.

Well, I was also wondering about the dots, and surely they must have a purpose.

Perhaps just direct the focus right in the middle of the image ?

At the moment I can't find another explanation, but I promise myself that I'll go deeper in this subject in the next days.

[Elad]

17 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Do you believe that all of this came out from a big bang, which happened out of nothing ?  I wonder who is the one which is truly and well indoctrinated here.

Scientific theories are based on evidence, and any theory is open to questioning or criticism. And should any new evidence come along that contradicts and goes against that theory, then scientists are willing to throw that theory out like yesterdays newspaper. 

That is NOT indoctrination. 

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, Elad said:

Scientific theories are based on evidence, and any theory is open to questioning or criticism. And should any new evidence come along that contradicts and goes against that theory, then scientists are willing to throw that theory out like yesterdays newspaper. 

That is NOT indoctrination. 

Ok, let's leave aside for a moment the absurdity of the big bang theory.

As a believer, I can discriminate the level of indoctrination of the believers, including mine.

So, do you admit that among the non believers someone may be, at least partially, indoctrinated, or on that side of the river there are only bright and free minds ?

Asking for a friend ????

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, let's leave aside for a moment the absurdity of the big bang theory.

As a believer, I can discriminate the level of indoctrination of the believers, including mine.

So, do you admit that among the non believers someone may be, at least partially, indoctrinated, or on that side of the river there are only bright and free minds ?

Asking for a friend ????

If you look at it as an mans orgasm who fertilize a woman's egg. Quite amazing it is, and that´s the start of a new human being with a brain, a body and a whole universe to so many other organism that will never know anything else, than right there, right now, doing what it have to do. They are wondering  what a hell is this all about, and,  it all started with one great explosion. With that in mind, I find the big bang quite resonable and plausable. 

 

Then we go from 666 to 667, a new start, a new vending, and new life

Edited October 8, 2020 by Tagged