How long before creation of the self and big bang - coming into existence

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by TattieHowker

With respect, what do you have to support your claim other than an opinion?

I have to go with what makes sense to me. And I do not regard Jung as being the ultimate authority on these questions.

Peace

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I have to go with what makes sense to me. And I do not regard Jung as being the ultimate authority on these questions.

Peace

At least his psychology paved the way for what has become the science of today and is taught widely. There are also a large number of people who agree with him both on a psychological and Spiritual level. If you're going on what makes sense to you - as in your opinion - how does that compare?

[inavalan]

Using science as a yardstick isn't a good measure of truth. Same for any other religion, including atheism. It's all faith.

EDIT: Sorry. I initially wrote "is a good measure", but I intended to write "isn't a good measure".

[Altair]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Using science as a yardstick is (corrected later to 'isn't) a good measure of truth. Same for any other religion, including atheism. It's all faith.

But it's not all the same. If a religion says the sun goes down in the evening and sleeps in a literal cave, and then science says it's just the earth moving around the sun, and when we can actually observe that and measure that then it is no longer a matter of faith.

So painting it all with the same brush doesn't work.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Altair

But it's not all the same. If a religion says the sun goes down in the evening and sleeps in a literal cave, and then science says it's just the earth moving around the sun, and when we can actually observe that and measure that then it is no longer a matter of faith.

So painting it all with the same brush doesn't work.

I corrected my post. I meant to say "Using science as a yardstick isn't a good measure of truth. Same for any other religion, including atheism. It's all faith."

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by TattieHowker

At least his psychology paved the way for what has become the science of today and is taught widely. There are also a large number of people who agree with him both on a psychological and Spiritual level. If you're going on what makes sense to you - as in your opinion - how does that compare?

You, me, Jung - we are all just expressing opinions. So we choose those opinions which make sense to us. I accept different teachings, also shared by a large number of people, which have a different perspective.

And I wonder how much of the science of today will be consigned to the bin by the science of tomorrow.

Peace

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Using science as a yardstick isn't a good measure of truth. Same for any other religion, including atheism. It's all faith.

For ancient Catholics the earth was the centre of the known universe as small as it was then and the sun sun was at the centre. That was the truth as decreed by the church at the time. Thankfully we know differently nowadays. Science is a long way from faith. Science goes through what is essentially a validation process before it's accepted as science, and granted it evolves over time. Like the law of gravity, it's come a long way since Newton as human understanding grows.

Your mobile phone didn't come into existence because someone had nothing more than an opinion they thought was a fact, it came into being because of people like Tesla who worked so hard on the science of electricity and scientific inventions like Alexander Graham Bells' telephone.

You can say anything you like and call it the truth - just like the Catholics and the earth at the centre of the Universe. It doesn't make it fact.

Spirituality on the other hand? Well, what can I say.

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by iamthat

You, me, Jung - we are all just expressing opinions.

Psychology isn't a teaching it's a science, regardless of your opinion. Nor is it opinion-based, as all accepted science it's based on verifiable evidence and research. so, I'll ask you that question in a different way since I'm still waiting for an answer. Other than your opinion, what do you have to contradict the science? And yes science evolves, as does every other human endeavour but is that a reason to dismiss it out of hand?

By the way, Spirituality is an entropic system and is falling into chaos slowly but surely. If Spirituality is based on opinion as truth, the future doesn't bode too well.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by TattieHowker

... is a long way from faith. Science goes through what is essentially a validation process before it's accepted as science, and granted it evolves over time. ...

I disagree.

(I use the impersonal "you" here) You believe what you are told. You directly perceive only very little. You filter everything through your beliefs, and level of understanding (evolvement). Your mind isn't able to really discern truth from false in absolute terms.

Everything that you describe happens in your dream too, and it is as "real", and it is as much "facts".

I don't think there is anything more that we could talk about this.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I corrected my post.

So I've noticed. But for me it does not change anything. Science is very different from religion. Believing the sun goes to sleep in the underworld is not the same as observing and measuring what's going on.