Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Total Power]

You may not like this and it goes against what I said earlier, but these were my thoughts years before I saw this video and deGrasse will get it through quicker than I would and ever so much more eloquently.

Just the first minute alone is hard to argue against, but deGrasse has made errors in some claims he has put forward.......there's one in here also.
Did you find it?

As i suspected, the senses are some of the worst data taking devices that exist, except for what we see in the lab ofcourse if you dont see the irony in that.......

Evidence is evidence, personal evidence is also evidence. As i said i had a dream last night, i have the evidence but i cannot prove it to you that i dreamt of Port winning a flag last night, doesnt mean i didnt have it. He might be a brilliant scientist, but he fails when it comes to mysticism.

M-theory predicts that there are 11 dimensions of spacetime at the string level. This is not physically observable. Similarly, the higher subtle dimensions are not physically observable (at this juncture in technology). But it does not mean that they do not exist.

From Wiki: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Given that atheists consider that the subtler realities are nothing but a figment of the mystic's brain chemistry, then that indeed fits in with the definition of belief. It may be even be the correct belief, but that's completely beside the point.

The primary senses cannot detect everything. For millenia we have spoken about atoms as being the smallest indivisble type of matter, only that has been whittled to death relatively recently.

I love the analogy of how big a 'string' is if it indeed exists as theoretical physicists proclaim, which is; if an atom was the Universe, a string would be as big as a tree.

What if there are subtler energies smaller than these...and then smaller...and then smaller again...vibrating at frequencies that we can't detect with our crude instruments and our crude five senses.

Where I am coming from, is that it may require investigation exclusive of our primary senses.(research on deep state meditation or samadhi) I may not be able to show you in a book, but I can show you how to experience it. We all need to become our own scientist!

 

[HARKER]

Where I am coming from, is that it may require investigation exclusive of our primary senses.(research on deep state meditation or samadhi) I may not be able to show you in a book, but I can show you how to experience it. We all need to become our own scientist!

Which is fine. Question everything.

You knocked me earlier for not having the scientific mind of a Einstein or Hawking and maybe you don't have one of deGrasse, but that somehow didn't stop you from knocking him.
I'm just being cheeky there and it's not a game of 'quote and counter quote' ping-pong I really want to play.

What all of us can do though is to weigh in to one view and ground ourselves, without really knowing we're doing so.
I've done it (still do it) and have had to later slap myself later for doing it. Sometimes here, we also just move things along for the sake of the conversation and find ourselves veer off from that grounding, but when it's all said and done, the fact....the real fact of the matter is: We have a lot to learn.

Maybe we'll find the answers through science and maybe through mysticism.
I'll leave myself open but unfortunately know my fate, in not having any answers to the questions I care about, in my own lifetime. Pity.

 

[Total Power]

Which is fine. Question everything.

You knocked me earlier for not having the scientific mind of a Einstein or Hawking and maybe you don't have one of deGrasse, but that somehow didn't stop you from knocking him.
I'm just being cheeky there and it's not a game of 'quote and counter quote' ping-pong I really want to play.

What all of us can do though is to weigh in to one view and ground ourselves, without really knowing we're doing so.
I've done it (still do it) and have had to later slap myself later for doing it. Sometimes here, we also just move things along for the sake of the conversation and find ourselves veer off from that grounding, but when it's all said and done, the fact....the real fact of the matter is: We have a lot to learn.

Maybe we'll find the answers through science and maybe through mysticism.
I'll leave myself open but unfortunately know my fate, in not having any answers to the questions I care about, in my own lifetime. Pity.

Sorry if you felt like i mocked you, but i was more directed at "orgsanised science" believers, not at you. Look, unlike most people in this thread being pro-religion i am not gonna knock science. Well, Buddhisim, which is often classed as 'science of the mind', is based on rigorous practice which, allegedly, can be replicated by other practitioners (just like a lab). That is as rigorous as any peer review... Yet science continues to insist on examining 'religion' and 'spirituality' on the basis of its own narrowly defined paradigm, which cannot acknowledge anything that doesn't have some tangible and material effect that can be recorded. By its very definition science cannot record something that is purely subjective by nature.

I think of science as a tool for understanding reality that is very specific. If you want to understand the material world through empirical observation then it is unsurpassed. But, if you want to understand the subjective experience of reality it is quite useless. And there are plenty of examples!

 

[HARKER]

I appreciate your opinion but I'm somewhat bewildered you feel that what we call spirituality today, will ALWAYS sit outside the realm of science.
i.e. It will never be understood. It can never be measured. There cannot be an objective understanding.

Also why can all the things we don't understand today, make for perfect and clear sense tomorrow?
I don't know how someone can be so resolute on this and I'm sure you have your reasons but can you be 100% certain?

Also, also, I care to understand the objective experience of reality, not the subjective one.

I will though familiarise with samadhi, but no matter where we seek our answers, we often find their origins in the hands of man....and it's man I don't trust.

 

[Total Power]

I appreciate your opinion but I'm somewhat bewildered you feel that what we call spirituality today, will ALWAYS sit outside the realm of science.
i.e. It will never be understood. It can never be measured. There cannot be an objective understanding.

Also why can all the things we don't understand today, make for perfect and clear sense tomorrow?
I don't know how someone can be so resolute on this and I'm sure you have your reasons but can you be 100% certain?

Also, also, I care to understand the objective experience of reality, not the subjective one.

I will though familiarise with samadhi, but no matter where we seek our answers, we often find their origins in the hands of man....and it's man I don't trust.

Very very good points, allow me to explain.

That "God" was a force not of matter, was and has been, a concept of spirituality superceding Democritus' first concept of the atom by thousands of years.

I cannot show you "matter" for something that is by definition "not tangible"

To state that there is retrospective fitting of this idea into "gaps" in science is bollocks. The idea stands absolutely, irrespective of scientific advancement. That we are getting better and better at observing the fine tunings of the Universe, does not mean anything in relation to disproving concepts of spirituality.

Whilst my opinions are based primarily on external sensory perceptions, it is wrong to state that they are 100% based on belief. Close, but not entirely.

You think that external sensory perceptions are all there is. You are entitled to that opinion. But you must have respect for others who have a contrary view.

Stay agnostic if you like, but your posts about overstating the importance of science wasn't especially "open minded".

You looked at all the negatives and concluded negative things about religion (and i don;t blame you, organised religion has done much damage). Granted, there are heaps of examples of attrocities caused in the name of religion, and I mention them all the time. There's no point not telling it how it is!

But if you allow the negative ego to override the fundamental questions of 'how' and 'why' religions came to be, one can hardly claim to be open minded. If in the negative mindset, one might collate all the information required to conclude agnosis, or 'not knowing', when the root of all religion is based on a specific kind of 'knowing' or gnosis.

And then you might say that gnosis, or meditational practices, might be delusionary or brain product. Hey, maybe it is, but to assume that it is, and then flat out saying that "we cannot know" (agnosis), without having undertaken the very well documented spiritual practices, is closed minded.

If you want to be reductionist about it, everything has its being within mind, and that Mind is the substrate of all being.

The first Hermetic Principle states as much.

But there are differences between the intellectual mind and the mind that I was referring to. To even access the latter, you need to completely still the intellectual mind (and emotional / physical centres). This is obviously meditation.

The intellectual mind can obviously bring forth profound truths and insight, but it can also bring about equally profound errors either individually or collectively. The stars, Sun and Moon orbiting the Earth once sounded reasonable and logical to a great wealth of scientists, and the theory would have once sounded pretty, if not even unarguable! Now it is of course ridiculous. We have many of these same epic fails today.

The state of Samadhi means "absence" of ego or "self". Only then you can see the "way things are".

Don;t believe in what "a man" tells you, like you stated above, be your own scientist

 

[HARKER]

I'll leave you with the final say, because I feel it to be honest, considered, creative and intelligent.

I like you. Thanks

 

[Total Power]

I'll leave you with the final say, because I feel it to be honest, considered, creative and intelligent.

I like you. Thanks

I enjoyed having the conversation with you, unlike some, you don't ridicule! i appreciate it

 

[Great 2008]

If you strip away all your prejudices, preconceived ideas, blind acceptance of evolution or a creator God you will find each proposition as equally ludicrous as the other.

 

[RupieDupie]

If you strip away all your prejudices, preconceived ideas, blind acceptance of evolution or a creator God you will find each proposition as equally ludicrous as the other.

Unfortunately not, what is ludicrous is the suggestion that a Creator God is an alternate scientific explanation to a natural process.

 

[Great 2008]

Unfortunately not, what is ludicrous is the suggestion that a Creator God is an alternate scientific explanation to a natural process.

Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs!

Someone buys a soft drink and accepts it was made in a factory. Evolution throws that basic premise out the window and accepts the world, though infinitely more complex, occurred by chance. A kids show recently hosted Richard Hammond recently described an occurrence as the 'genius' of evolution which made me laugh.

In any event the theory of evolution has become so convoluted its scientific 'basis' it is beyond the grasp of the average lay person. Much like all the uneducated believers out there I suppose.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs!

Someone buys a soft drink and accepts it was made in a factory. Evolution throws that basic premise out the window and accepts the world, though infinitely more complex, occurred by chance. A kids show recently hosted Richard Hammond recently described an occurrence as the 'genius' of evolution which made me laugh.

In any event the theory of evolution has become so convoluted its scientific 'basis' is beyond the grasp of the average lay person. Much like all the uneducated believers out there I suppose.

Oh FFS sake Wendy stfu you idjit,can we not go here again?
Evolution is as close to fact as gravity or that earth is a majority water covered planet 3rd from its parent star!

 

[chelseacarlton]

I'll leave you with the final say, because I feel it to be honest, considered, creative and intelligent.

I like you. Thanks

I enjoyed having the conversation with you, unlike some, you don't ridicule! i appreciate it

I also enjoyed

 

[Great 2008]

Oh FFS sake Wendy stfu you idjit,can we not go here again?
Evolution is as close to fact as gravity or that earth is a majority water covered planet 3rd from its parent star!

Evolution is just a vehicle for atheism. I suggest you read Darwins book again. It has as many gaps in it as the good book itself and is nearly as old.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Evolution is just a vehicle for atheism. I suggest you read Darwins book again. It has as many gaps in it as the good book itself and is nearly as old.

Idiot

 

[Great 2008]

Idiot

Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes. Idiot.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes. Idiot.

"A true fact"
Lol
I get it,you're young,you were indoctrinated,you've seen the "teach the controversy" side of the pseudoscience argument,but you're still an idiot.

 

[RupieDupie]

Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs!

Someone buys a soft drink and accepts it was made in a factory. Evolution throws that basic premise out the window and accepts the world, though infinitely more complex, occurred by chance. A kids show recently hosted Richard Hammond recently described an occurrence as the 'genius' of evolution which made me laugh.

In any event the theory of evolution has become so convoluted its scientific 'basis' it is beyond the grasp of the average lay person. Much like all the uneducated believers out there I suppose.

I think you need to understand what evolution is before you refute it, all you've demonstrated is your lack of understanding

 

[Snake_Baker]

If you strip away all your prejudices, preconceived ideas, blind acceptance of evolution or a creator God you will find each proposition as equally ludicrous as the other.

Aaaaah............no.

 

[DraftBalta]

Looking more and more like we are living in a simulation, not only does the math back it up, but physicists have found that telltale jitter down at the planck scale, a dead giveaway.

 

[Total Power]

Looking more and more like we are living in a simulation, not only does the math back it up, but physicists have found that telltale jitter down at the planck scale, a dead giveaway.

Its not a dead giveaway at all, far from it.

Measurable holographic noise could take a couple of different forms—quantum jitter or purely rotational quantum twists of space. Recently, the Holometer definitively eliminated the first possibility: There is no quantum jitter in space. News media around the world reported that the finding means there is “no evidence that the universe is a hologram,” but Hogan says the work’s broader significance is the window it opens into phenomena at the Planck scale.

https://www.uchicago.edu/features/experiment_probes_nature_of_space_and_time/

 

[DraftBalta]

Its not a dead giveaway at all, far from it.


https://www.uchicago.edu/features/experiment_probes_nature_of_space_and_time/

It is when you add the math, we are mere decades away from doing it, and once that geni is out of the bottle it basically proves there are infinitely more sims than original, it's inevitable.

 

[Total Power]

It is when you add the math, we are mere decades away from doing it, and once that geni is out of the bottle it basically proves there are infinitely more sims than original, it's inevitable.

Ok then, so you got it all figured out. Cool

 

[DraftBalta]

Ok then, so you got it all figured out. Cool

That's the math, bitch to the numbers.

 

[Total Power]

That's the math, bitch to the numbers.

And where is the math and the peer review? just because there is a hint of telltale jitter on a planck scale you concluded you must live in a hologram? my link above clearly states there is no evidence of hologram or quantum jitter in space.

 

[DraftBalta]

And where is the math and the peer review? just because there is a hint of telltale jitter on a planck scale you concluded you must live in a hologram? my link above clearly states there is no evidence of hologram or quantum jitter in space.

Wow you found one opinion to back up your belief in a magical sky wizard, good for you, but unfortunately as previously stated, if it's possible (and with quantum computers soon able to calculate complex problems in nanoseconds that would take conventional supercomputers billions of years to solve it's a given) then the chances of us being in the original make lotto odds look appealing.