Is God All In The Mind?

[Leonardo]

Whaaaaa. You observe Gravity by observing it's effects. You have no clue what Gravity is. It could be a graviton which would end up being a force carrier, it could be virtual Higgs bososns pushing on particles that carry mass like a casimer effect, it could be a complicated interactiion through a fourth dimention. You have no possible way to know if it is a secondary phenominon of mass or not. If you do, you just won yourself a Nobel prize.

When it comes to the uncertainty principal it's describing something. But it potentiates the esistance of matter itself there is no way it's a secondary phenominon of matter anymore than code is a secondary phenominon of the computer program it creates.

WCF,

You present a mish-mash of words from the scientific domain as if they are authoritive, but they are only a word-salad of no meaning. Gravity is known to be a secondary phenomenon of mass interacting with spacetime - plentiful evidence for that has been gained from experiment. The proposed existence of the graviton - the carrier particle for the force - has no bearing on what gravity is or how it is produced.

I cannot see any future in debate with you over this particular topic as we do not seem to have the same understanding of it. I won't be so arrogant as to suggest I can deny you your right to reply but I will no longer continue to respond to your posts on this subject because there would be no point.

[White Crane Feather]

WCF,

You present a mish-mash of words from the scientific domain as if they are authoritive, but they are only a word-salad of no meaning. Gravity is known to be a secondary phenomenon of mass interacting with spacetime - plentiful evidence for that has been gained from experiment. The proposed existence of the graviton - the carrier particle for the force - has no bearing on what gravity is or how it is produced.

I cannot see any future in debate with you over this particular topic as we do not seem to have the same understanding of it. I won't be so arrogant as to suggest I can deny you your right to reply but I will no longer continue to respond to your posts on this subject because there would be no point.

Hahah I understand Leo and I feel the same, but we are still friends.

Edited January 21, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[psyche101]

Nevertheless, that is what I meant when I said that science was unable to answer the question as to a supernatural universe.

I could however say "there is no such thing as a Supernatural Universe" and not a soul could prove me wrong. I understand that you do not back this scientifically, but it seems to be faith built upon faith? It strikes me as an extraordinarily shaky premise? The data used to regard God as redundant is far more convincing and can be checked and double checked, it seems strange to discount all that gathered information for faith based faith?

So you believe the meaning of life is to leave the place in a better state than when you came. While I admit that is a laudable goal, in my opinion the meaning of life is to worship God. The fact that you think the meaning of life is something different means nothing to that. And on that note, science does not say that the meaning of life is to leave the world a better place than you found it, that is a philosophical outlook.

And so I maintain that your continual assertion that science has made God redundant is entirely steeped in your own philosophical outlook and has nothing at all to do with science.

I mean no disrespect when I say I find that abhorrent. To exist just to worship a greater being seems an incredible waste of life, and considering everyone is recommended to do so in order to gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven is even worse, what sort of God blackmails his children? It seems to me that a benevolent God would not make life so hard for so many and then demand worship for existence, and that you will burn in hellfire for eternity of you do not worship!! Honestly, that concept strikes me as something that could not be more wrong. He hates gay people, but created Freewill. It seems something of a twisted joke at times to me. I might be homophobic, but recognise what a better place thus world is because of James Randi, whom God would strike down for his sexual preferences.

Science making God redundant is not philosophical, it is based on gathered data from the WISE mission, observed results such as the expansion of space, the LISA mission and the evidence supporting the Big Bang Hypothesis. The Universe came into being without God, it does not need God, to exist, nor do we. We are an organic process that has evolved into the Universes conscious matter - we are the Universe wondering where it came from. This is not philosophy mate. That is a conclusion reached by studying the results of many sources of gathered data.

I guess you could see leaving the world a better place as philosophical either, but more a responsibility. I have kids, I have to feed them and cloth them and educate them, that is my responsibility, that is not why I am here, that is the role I have created for my existence.

I think you know that I was referring to a supernatural realm, one where spirit beings allegedly exist. I wasn't referring to various models of different universes that have been theorised.

I honestly was not sure, with all the links and talk of God being QM, I thought that might be the only place you might be able to refer to? Outside of the Universe and all?

Once again you are theologically mistaken. In the Bible there are actually three heavens, not just "clouds", and the heaven was "outer space". The first heaven is the domain of the birds (what you referred to as the clouds). This is where the birds lived (or at least spent a large quantity of time, being that they had to roost while at rest. The second heaven is the domain of the stars, this is what you referred to as outer space. The third heaven is the domain of God, and that is beyond either of the first two heavens.

Yet he is always "near us" which means heaven has to be an alternate dimension in this spacetime continuum yes??

I wasn't "slamming" politics. What I was doing was pointing out that there are multiple factors here. You note in your first sentence of this quoted section that "apologetics keep slamming politics", so I'll reply that counter-apologetics keeps slamming religion. There's not just one factor involved here, it's a whole milieu of different factors working together to create this. Educating atheism into the people isn't going to change it, neither is removing politics.

I'm not sure I have a realistic answer to the question, but "remove religion" is not it, and it is naive to think otherwise.

But if politics and their religion are symbiotic, how do you draw the line? How is a political issue not a religious one? It's not like all the CT morons say, that the US created the war and they are murdering civilians, which is the impression I get from your post as an excuse form these animals to slaughter, as the statistics show, these people kill their own in accidents, or as human shields. They are the one causing their own political unrest. It's much more a civil issue.

And we see religious leaders inciting war as per the supplied examples, how is that not completely religiously orientated? How do religious leaders even speak like that about others? The leaders of Islam are a real worry, they cause controversy all the time, and for really stupid and nasty things.

If you like, not sure Badeskov will approve

I dunno, Bade is awesome, I bet he would get a chuckle out of it. Franks a good guy.

Agreed, nobody lived that long. But then, the genealogy that suggests they do is from the exact same part of Genesis that I argued was poetic in that link from a year or so back.

Could be, as I suggested, perhaps it is the influence of these people that is bong portrayed, either fictional or factual, that could well apply.

It may make more sense for Methuselah but very little sense for some others. Mahalalel (Gen 5:15) was 65 when he fathered his first child. If months are years, then he was the ripe old age of 5 years and 3 months (touch more, to be exact). Isn't that a little young to be a daddy?

Indeed, that's why I said people like him, but to be honest, it sounds like a massive stuff up in the story to me. Like the Flood or Adams rib.

Edited January 22, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Funny how people make decisions about others on such little information

That you are supplying, perhaps your verbosity might be improved upon?

To make my point about my mother, again. (Because it is only in this way that we begin to see our own thought processes and how we apply them.)

WHY?? (What are the purely logical reasons) should we keep my mother alive, when it will cost me personally a couple of hundred thousand dollars in lost inheritance (eaten up by medical costs) to do so, and the government a million or two in hospital and other nursing costs?

And would you have that couple of hundred thousand if she did not have the wisdom to help you gain that? Of course not, would yo be here to collect it without her, of course not, can she continue to provide you with wisdom?

Even from a logic point your straw-man falls down, no, logically you should not kill your own mother for the sake of dollars, and not a soul would agree that is good logic, it is sensationalism is what it is. Logically your mother would die if you were destitute and could not afford the care she requires to extend her life comfortably. She may depart wisdom to your children that might make them the next Steve Jobs.

What you are doing is illustrating greed, not logic. And religion is as greedy as any other thing I can possibly think of.

Of course i wont have her put down or just let die. The reason for my decision is, however spiritual. It is about; love, honour, duty, compassion. These are VALUES, based on underlying BELIEFS, not on logic or rationality. These are counter loglc and a part of our human spiritual thinking, where we value humans for what we are, not for our economic value. The logical/ material thing to do would be to kill her off (like an unborn baby), when she becomes a nuisance or ceases to have a greater economic benefit than cost, or is no longer able to argue for her own survival, or has no political /voting power. I mean, if we use this logic for unborn, then why not for other non-productive or totally dependent humans?

Your logical assessment of logic is greatly flawed.

No it is not spiritual, it is moral. You know, what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. You certainly have yourself on a very high pedestal, it's going to be a long way back to earth. Your perceived spirituality has given you a monumental ego, but no special caring ability.

Cavemen showed compassion long before anyone had religion or concepts of spirituality.

You can keep trying to ascribe logical people as unfeeling monsters and your "spiritual self" as some sort of saint, but I cannot see a single soul believing you. All you are doing is telling us how good you think you are, I get the size of your ego, you can get over yourself for now.

I am atheist and I would not advocate abortion for a whim. But as a logical person, I can see that a deformed child who can never live a full life that puts a mothers in serious danger is a good reason for abortion, so might be a 14 year old girl who became pregnant by being pack raped. Your compassion stops short due to your elevated sense of benevolence. I have noticed your broad brush makes sweeping generalisations that have massive holes in them before.

You need to think again. Your position does not make you a more decent person at all, in fact, seeing how you see yourself, it seems to have ascribed the very opposite. Spirituality and Religion did not make you a more compassionate caring and feeling person. It just made you full of yourself and seems to have given you a skewed perspective of logic.

[psyche101]

Hahah I understand Leo and I feel the same, but we are still friends.

You may feel the same, but from an outside standpoint, Leo's posting seems to have far more solid grounding to someone like me.

[Occult1]

I could however say "there is no such thing as a Supernatural Universe" and not a soul could prove me wrong. I understand that you do not back this scientifically, but it seems to be faith built upon faith? It strikes me as an extraordinarily shaky premise? The data used to regard God as redundant is far more convincing and can be checked and double checked, it seems strange to discount all that gathered information for faith based faith?

I would say we don't exactly know what our Universe is and whence it might possibly come from. Yes, strong evidence suggest there was a big bang at some point but what was before, if anything? A Multiverse, a Deity, a quantum vacuum? Saying that there is no such things as a the ''supernatural'' is entirely a matter of beliefs. For all we know there is a commitee of powerful beings, or 'Gods' watching the whole show, the inventors of this reality, like you and your friends would do when playing The Sims but at a cosmic level. I don't believe it but I can't prove it wrong. So making the non-supernatural, no-God claim is irrelevant on a scientific basis, and that is why scientists don't bother with The God Theory either, this is left instead to the philosophers and theologians.

Science making God redundant is not philosophical, it is based on gathered data from the WISE mission, observed results such as the expansion of space, the LISA mission and the evidence supporting the Big Bang Hypothesis. The Universe came into being without God, it does not need God, to exist, nor do we. We are an organic process that has evolved into the Universes conscious matter - we are the Universe wondering where it came from. This is not philosophy mate. That is a conclusion reached by studying the results of many sources of gathered data.

While I tend to agree with you that certain theoritical and cosmological models are making certain definitions of God (such as the Abrahamic God) looks less likely than others, you are nonetheless making claims you cannot support with solid proofs. Circumstancial data that may or may not suggest a certain model is far from convincing. No one can answer the question of what was before the big bang, if anything and back it up with irrefutable proofs so if you want to believe there was a 'God', or nothing at all before the Beginning and provide some arguments for it then you are entitled to do so. Real scientific research should be left unhindered in the meantime.

I see no need of depriving the world of it's meaning. In my view, Pantheism fully accounts for human experiences and observation of the natural world. To be honest, I fail to see how Atheism provides a satisfying worldview. Ultimatly, it is a non-belief providing a non-answer.

We are are indeed a way for the Cosmos to know itself (like Carl Sagan once said!) but the Universe isn't a pointless machine, It clearly looks more like a great Thought with it's own self-determination. I am inclined to refer to it as 'God'.

Edited January 22, 2015 by sam_comm

[psyche101]

I would say we don't exactly know what our Universe is and whence it might possibly come from. Yes, strong evidence suggest there was a big bang at some point but what was before, if anything? A Multiverse, a Deity, a quantum vacuum? Saying that there is no such things as a the ''supernatural'' is entirely a matter of beliefs. For all we know there is a commitee of powerful beings, or 'Gods' watching the whole show, the inventors of this reality, like you and your friends would do when playing The Sims but at a cosmic level. I don't believe it but I can't prove it wrong. So making the non-supernatural, no-God claim is irrelevant on a scientific basis, and that is why scientists don't bother with The God Theory either, this is left instead to the philosophers and theologians.

That's not why religion is left to philosophers and theologians, it's because philosophers and theologians make stuff up and pretend it is true with an air of authority.

You are just wrong, sure we cannot put a finger on what the cause of the big bang was, but we do have several viable models, nobody is qualified to pick and choose. B Polarisation seems a very workable theory, so does eternal inflation (such a huge outrush would have smoothed any gross irregularities from the primordial cosmos, leaving it homogeneous and geometrically flat), and Dr Hawking proposes imaginary time to resolve the equation, we are getting closer, no doubt about it, and there does not seem to be room for God anywhere to do anything. I am an atheist because the burden of proof relies on religion, and according to scientific method, God is now redundant, we do not need a deity to explain the Universe, physics can do that for us, all we need do is observe carefully.

While I tend to agree with you that certain theoritical and cosmological models are making certain definitions of God (such as the Abrahamic God) looks less likely than others, you are nonetheless making claims you cannot support with solid proofs. Circumstancial data that may or may not suggest a certain model is far from convincing. No one can answer the question of what was before the big bang, if anything and back it up with irrefutable proofs so if you want to believe there was a 'God', or nothing at all before the Beginning and provide some arguments for it then you are entitled to do so. Real scientific research should be left unhindered in the meantime.

One might be entitled to do so, but religion impacts on the entire world in modern times, and in a bad way, as part of a global community, it is indeed my right to protest, and point out the damage I see religion doing, and point that out. As far as data goes, there indeed does seem to be a better way of understanding that which is around us. And I would be remiss to the rest of the community if I do not point that out, and that we have better knowledge that explains these models far more satisfactorily then reliance on a deity. Refusing to let go of tradition can only halt progress.

I see no need of depriving the world of it's meaning. In my view, Pantheism fully accounts for human experiences and observation of the natural world. To be honest, I fail to see how Atheism provides a satisfying worldview. Ultimatly, it is a non-belief providing a non-answer.

And I fail to see how anyone can find comfort in something that is no more than a warm fuzzy ideal. I want to know, not feel good about that which is around me. Pantheism is just an open view, everything is the same, I honestly fail to see how that compares to the models noted above.

We are are indeed a way for the Cosmos to know itself (like Carl Sagan once said!) but the Universe isn't a pointless machine, It clearly looks more like a great Thought with it's own self-determination. I am inclined to refer to it as 'God'.

You can refer to it that way, but that seems very lazy to me. Like giving up halfway.

The Universe is chaotic, I do not see how you see it as a great thought, it is not a machine, it is the Universe, unlike anything we can imagine, and when we try to ascribe our tiny accomplishments next to that grand scale, we will only end up with a flawed understanding, look at this conversation, people say something cannot exist without cause and think God fills that hole, but that still leaves the Universe without cause as God had to come from someplace.

[Leonardo]

Yes, strong evidence suggest there was a big bang at some point...

Depends on what 'version' of BBT you subscribe to. The only actual 'evidence' there is to support BBT is the observations by Hubble that objects in the universe are moving away from us at a greater velocity the more distant they are. This implies an expanding universe leading some to the somewhat narrow conclusion that spacetime was, at a point in the distant past, a much smaller expanse of concentrated energy.

However, an expanding universe does not necessarily mean the universe was once 'smaller', relativity put the kibosh to that.

[Mr Walker]

That you are supplying, perhaps your verbosity might be improved upon?

And would you have that couple of hundred thousand if she did not have the wisdom to help you gain that? Of course not, would yo be here to collect it without her, of course not, can she continue to provide you with wisdom?

Even from a logic point your straw-man falls down, no, logically you should not kill your own mother for the sake of dollars, and not a soul would agree that is good logic, it is sensationalism is what it is. Logically your mother would die if you were destitute and could not afford the care she requires to extend her life comfortably. She may depart wisdom to your children that might make them the next Steve Jobs.

What you are doing is illustrating greed, not logic. And religion is as greedy as any other thing I can possibly think of.

Your logical assessment of logic is greatly flawed.

No it is not spiritual, it is moral. You know, what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. You certainly have yourself on a very high pedestal, it's going to be a long way back to earth. Your perceived spirituality has given you a monumental ego, but no special caring ability.

Cavemen showed compassion long before anyone had religion or concepts of spirituality.

You can keep trying to ascribe logical people as unfeeling monsters and your "spiritual self" as some sort of saint, but I cannot see a single soul believing you. All you are doing is telling us how good you think you are, I get the size of your ego, you can get over yourself for now.

I am atheist and I would not advocate abortion for a whim. But as a logical person, I can see that a deformed child who can never live a full life that puts a mothers in serious danger is a good reason for abortion, so might be a 14 year old girl who became pregnant by being pack raped. Your compassion stops short due to your elevated sense of benevolence. I have noticed your broad brush makes sweeping generalisations that have massive holes in them before.

You need to think again. Your position does not make you a more decent person at all, in fact, seeing how you see yourself, it seems to have ascribed the very opposite. Spirituality and Religion did not make you a more compassionate caring and feeling person. It just made you full of yourself and seems to have given you a skewed perspective of logic.

I think am verbose enough. But complex questions require a lot of words to describe and reply to.

My logic is impeccable Explain what you mean.

WHY WHY WHY should I not kill my mother for dollars? el me WHY using logic alone. It s logical to do so if I desire dollars and the things dollars bring

The reason I do not let her die goes to spiritual values. EG NOT desiring dollars, loving my mother, and, having a set of moralities and ethics which ban killing of any other human being because we all contain the same spiritual dimension and thus are all of equal value.

Cave men DID NOT have compassion before spiritualty /religiosity. That is physically impossible BECAUSE compassion and spiritual awareness evolve together from our self aware sapience. Thus we find as archaeologists an anthropologists that the first evidences of compassion and of religious awareness are found TOGETHER in neandertals and cromagnons

My point is not that logic is bad because it is unfeeling, but that if we ONLY use logic we are unfeeling. Logic does not have any emotional content of it.self.

My logic /concluson agrees with yours on abortion because we are both using spiritual thinking, not just logic.You just did not read my opinion on abortion.l I support legal abortion paid for by the state but am against he principle that at woman simply has a unilateral right to take her own child's life because hers is more important. Abortion on demand is a right in some countries of the world where a woman needs only ask for an abortion for it to be given.

Again, your judgement about my life and personal qualities is incorrect as those who know me can testify.MY question is, what is it in your own character which causes you to form and to give such negative opinions of someone you do not know at all.What creates such negativity, bordering on personal animosity? What are you afraid of?

[White Crane Feather]

You may feel the same, but from an outside standpoint, Leo's posting seems to have far more solid grounding to someone like me.

It dosnt. He is acusing me of scientific "word salad." I was makeing a valid point and I wasn't talking out of my ass. Each possability i set forth of what gravity could be are actual proposals. I have been reading/studying physics since I was a young teen. My first acutual set of whole books that i ever read was "black holes and time warps" and "brief history of time" both written by Stephen Hawking. I spent a large portion of my youth deeply interested in physics. I have seen many proposals of what gravity could be. Leo suggesting that he knows for sure gravity is secondary phenomenon of matter is frankly asinine. I was not just throwing scientific jargon around I was pointing out a number of things gravity COULD be that absolutely have other cuases and only interact with matter in that way. In no way can any of us tell if it's a secondary phenomenon of matter or not. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces..... the weakest one, if it's like any of the other 3 fundamental forces it has a force carrier it would be called a gravitron but really would be some kind of gauge boson..( I think). We just don't know it could be something we havnt even thought of or matter can cause it some how like Leo suggests. The only thing that I know for near certainty is that Leo dosnt know either. I'm sorry. Leo is a smart guy, I like him, but this time it went over his head, so I agreed to leave it at that. it's actually common for people to have all kinds of misconception about physics even really smart people like our good friend. Hell I have even seen physists them selves get stuff wrong that hawking himself would chuckle about.

Edited January 22, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Orcseeker]

Orcseeker

I understand "neurotoxin" to be a kind of "toxin" which is a kind of "poison." If your understanding of the relations among these common terms is different from the previous sentence, then that restricts the usefulness of further discussion between us about a neurotoxin.

As a general observation, you seem to think that encounter with species-specific unconscious contents requires disordered cognition, and conversely that disordered cognition will somehow put you in touch with something other than species-specific unconscious contents. The first is simply not the case. As you might expect from a stereotypical Swiss academic, Carl Jung worked out the first one (although it is very doubtful that he was the original innovator - see below), and the second is a speculative hypothesis at best.

Even before Jung, Freud (his guru turned nemesis) had observed that people routinely confront unconscious contents while fully awake and fully functional. That's what "projection" is all about. All that disordered consciousness adds is a (possibly retrospective) awareness that something unusual happened. The same can be achieved simply by learning what projection is and paying attention. "Sit down, shut up, and stay that way for a while" exaggerates the difficulty involved.

----------------

Here is a specific antecedent to Jung, in which entirely orderly cognition and no hallucinations accompany a vivid "spiritual experience," intentionally sought and spiritually interpreted. The article discusses the relationship between this and Jung's "active imagination" (searchable).

http://uncertaintist...-jungs-science/

Oh, and while I ws visiting the blog to capture that link, I stumbled across a more recent post, where people get pretty much the same results, including the disordered perception you apparently prize as the mark of spiritual achievement, by looking at themselves in a mirror using dim lighting.

http://uncertaintist...halloween-1914/

Well I guess different areas can seperate the terms, poison & toxin (further neurotoxin) but whatever way you wish to detail it then thats all good.

I read through the articles and they were interesting. I am not familiar with Yeates and I have yet to read more in depth on Jung. I am aware of the mirror scrying practise.

When I mean to say these entities were conceptualised. It comes with just more than a perceived image of an entity. If you read my other post in reply to white crane feather my focus is on the influence it leaves with the subject afterwards. Where ones beliefs are turned on their heads simply due to the intensity of the experience. I am unaware of how these other visions affect the subject and to what degree.

[Occult1]

Depends on what 'version' of BBT you subscribe to. The only actual 'evidence' there is to support BBT is the observations by Hubble that objects in the universe are moving away from us at a greater velocity the more distant they are. This implies an expanding universe leading some to the somewhat narrow conclusion that spacetime was, at a point in the distant past, a much smaller expanse of concentrated energy.

I was refering to the standard model of the Big Bang.There is quite a lot of observational evidence suggesting an evolution of our Universe, Hubble's law and the expension of space is one of them but you forget that in 1964, radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic radiation background (CMB) pervading the Universe. Since the Big Bang theory predicted that the initial condition of the Universe must have been very, very hot, there had to be some remnant to be found. This was another confirmation supporting the theory, Penzias and Wilson both won a nobel prize in '78. This has been reconfirmed by subsequent NASA and ESA findings.

Without going into details here (you may want to do your own research) the abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, primordial gas clouds all support a Big Bang, it strongly suggest the Universe ought to have a beginning. However, the standard theory is not without it's own problems, Inflationary models may provide some answers to that.

However, an expanding universe does not necessarily mean the universe was once 'smaller', relativity put the kibosh to that.

According to a Scientific American article:

''Einstein's general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density. But the theory does not capture the fine, quantum structure of spacetime, which limits how tightly matter can be concentrated and how strong gravity can become. To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity.''

Source: http://www.nature.co...rse0814-82.html

The tradional BB model is so far the best theory we have to explain the birth of our Universe and it's evolution.

*Post was Edited after Leonardo posted. Sorry.

Edited January 22, 2015 by sam_comm

[Leonardo]

I was refering to the standard model of the Big Bang.There is quite a lot of observational evidence suggesting an evolution of our Universe, Hubble's law and the expension of space is one of them but you forget that in 1964, radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic radiation background (CMB) pervading the Universe. Since the Big Bang theory predicted that the initial condition of the Universe must have been very, very hot, there had to be some remnant to be found. This was another confirmation supporting the theory, Penzias and Wilson both won a nobel prize in '78. This has been reconfirmed by subsequent findings by NASA and ESA.

Without going into details here (you may want to do your own research) the abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, primordial gas clouds all support a Big Bang, it strongly suggest the Universe ought to have a beginning. However, the standard theory is not without it's own problems, Inflationary models may provide some answers to that.

According to Stephen Hawking:

''Although the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe must have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. It would initially expand at an ever increasing rate.''

Source: http://www.hawking.o...e-universe.html

I'm not at all casting doubt on the expansion of space, only the assumption that necessarily means that the universe was somehow 'smaller' in the distant past - as orthodox BBT theorists often claim. As I said, relativity seems to have cast significant doubt on that assumption.

Local spacetime may have started from a period of high curvature, but local spacetime is not the universe.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Leonardo

[White Crane Feather]

I'm not at all casting doubt on the expansion of space, only the assumption that necessarily means that the universe was somehow 'smaller' in the distant past - as orthodox BBT theorists often claim. As I said, relativity seems to have cast significant doubt on that assumption.

Local spacetime may have started from a period of high curvature, but local spacetime is not the universe.

You are right to question it. There are some gaping holes. Hawking says that asking what came before is like asking what is south of the south pole, but at the same time goes on to say there have been quantum bubbles creating all kinds of universes. He is guilty of a common switching between definitions of time. One type of time... Call it proper time encompasses any and all multiverses the other is simply about our recognizable spacetime and energy. This is completely inconsistent that there is "no time" before the BB. Becuse there obviously was proper time even under his own theory. I love Mr. hawking, and I like his idea. Of quantum bubbles, but sometimes it seems like he is spinning his wheels and contradicting himself constantly. This simply makes me suspiciois of any science that is makeing obvious contradictions.

[eight bits]

Orcseeker

Thanks for looking at those links.

my focus is on the influence it leaves with the subject afterwards. Where ones beliefs are turned on their heads simply due to the intensity of the experience. I am unaware of how these other visions affect the subject and to what degree.

OK, that's enantiodromia. It is true that it can be accompanied by overwhleming and temporarily disabling experiences (whether it happened as reported or not, the conversion of Paul as narrated in Acts has that quality, and is "psychologically realistic"). But it doesn't follow that inducing an overwhelming and temprarily disabling experience is going to result in enatiodromia, or even if it does, that that is the most cost-effective way to proceed.

I am also unsure that enantiodromia itself is the best response to an unrealistic and single-minded conscious stance. Again, Paul in Acts is the often mentioned example, possibly fictive, but realistic. Paul went from being a menace to people, Jewish proto-Christians, who merely disagreed with his opinions about things, all the way around to being a 24-7-365 flack for his very own version of their views, and (again, according to Acts) became a roving meance to a different set of people, especially pagans, who merely disagreed with his new opinions about things.

It is difficult to overlook the possibility that the better stance for Paul might have been one of balance, rather than gung-ho in either direction.

[psyche101]

I think am verbose enough. But complex questions require a lot of words to describe and reply to.

And yet here you are telling me you supplied little information, and then complaining when I comment on it.

My logic is impeccable Explain what you mean.

Your logic is nonexistent it is overshadowed by your ego. I am sure you have a high opinion of yourself, but that does not extend to others. Compassion betters our lives and offers greater understanding, that is growing the brain and being human, it is not a spiritual aspect, but a requirement. Nobody is born wanting to suffer, as a community we survive better, and with compassion in a community the community grows in number and knowledge and knowledge is power.

WHY WHY WHY should I not kill my mother for dollars? el me WHY using logic alone. It s logical to do so if I desire dollars and the things dollars bring

Already covered this, perhaps you were to busy nursing your bruised ego, I am not sure. Your mother has a life experience that you do not. She has knowledge that you do not. She can bring this valuable commodity to your family and make it greater. If you kill your mother, you will be cutting of that source of experience that might make your son or f\daughter the next president or the next queen of the trailer parks. She can tell you the mistakes she made bringing you up so that you do not make the same ones with our own offspring, she has accessed skills and areas of life you may yet learn of, and she might hear you plan to terminate her, get the pos on with you, and leave the money to the Church leaving you not a single cent, you need to start to understand these things are valuable commodities, and what many tribes would trade as currency before a monetary system was brought in. You are too materialistic to understand your own logical problem. And even a dirty unfeeling atheist who chuckles at spiritual entities can see that.

The reason I do not let her die goes to spiritual values. EG NOT desiring dollars, loving my mother, and, having a set of moralities and ethics which ban killing of any other human being because we all contain the same spiritual dimension and thus are all of equal value.

BS, you cannot get your head out of a monetary world and see the value in the world around us. That's not something to be proud of IMHO.

Morals are something we cannot touch or feel, but we know they exist, and have nothing to do with spiritual BS. If you get robbed by a person, you recognise that it is morally wrong, and God has nothing to do with that, what happens is you recognise that the thief has done something objectively wrong, which is a thought process guided by the values your culture imparts upon you.

Cave men DID NOT have compassion before spiritualty /religiosity. That is physically impossible BECAUSE compassion and spiritual awareness evolve together from our self aware sapience. Thus we find as archaeologists an anthropologists that the first evidences of compassion and of religious awareness are found TOGETHER in neandertals and cromagnons

It is not impossible and it has happened, bones of dwarves and children have been found as well as the elderly, cared for by entire tribes and no religious artefacts nearby to suggest the implicit link as you do. They just found bones.

Where are the Homo Florensis religious indicators and artefacts? And with Neanderthals, burying the dead does not imply spiritual connection, many people bury the dead to keep animals from desecrating the body, there seems to be indicators that the Neanderthal people had a Bear Cult, and that is about as far as it goes, so again, you are using poetic license to expand your view. The connections to animism and burial my also be indicators of when man decided that it was disheartening to see a loved on torn apart by predators - even if dead. That does not mean they believed in a God, or anything like that.

You are putting 2 and 2 together to come up with 5.

My point is not that logic is bad because it is unfeeling, but that if we ONLY use logic we are unfeeling. Logic does not have any emotional content of it.self.

That is why a social situation creates a culture that in order protects the people in it by setting certain standards for behaviour, Again, nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

My logic /concluson agrees with yours on abortion because we are both using spiritual thinking, not just logic.You just did not read my opinion on abortion.l I support legal abortion paid for by the state but am against he principle that at woman simply has a unilateral right to take her own child's life because hers is more important. Abortion on demand is a right in some countries of the world where a woman needs only ask for an abortion for it to be given.

Nonsense, it has nothing to do with your spiritual thinking hippy nonsense. It has to do with common sense, what s best for a community, and how to instinctually preserve it. A tribe is not going to do well with a selfish person in it that kills for personal advantages. A tribe needs social order and productive members, Modern technology has made so many people so damn lazy that they forget this. We are driven to be top predator, a goal that makes life easy, as I mentioned before, nobody want a tough life. Our mindset is to basically survive, some people decide to take that too personally is all and do not consider the impact on others, that will reflect back upon them at a later date. Instinctually we are of a mindset to go forth and propagate, spread the eggs as wide and far as the species can, not to put al the eggs in one basket. It's why we have such trouble with things like QM. We are not wired to understand that world, we are wired to hunt, gather, and climb trees to escape predators, not consider an event without a seeming cause.

Some countries a woman may only need ask for an abortion, OK, you would rather they tried to do it at home themselves? That is how it used t happen in "The good old days" you know. I have heard horror stories form my mother in WWII about regular home abortions with stairs, hot baths and all sorts of sick twisted methods.

Again, your judgement about my life and personal qualities is incorrect as those who know me can testify.MY question is, what is it in your own character which causes you to form and to give such negative opinions of someone you do not know at all.What creates such negativity, bordering on personal animosity? What are you afraid of?

Maybe I could just ask the aliens you fly around to solar system with every now and then?

The only negative opinions are those I see in your words, what my character is describing is what you are describing, you are trying to place yourself on some pedestal over your perceived spirituality, that is patent BS man. Yes, you do have a high opinion of yourself, have a look back at your posts and how you describe yourself, you speak as if you have an insight into this benevolent spiritual nature that makes you see things lovingly and open. You do not, you are no better than any dirty old unfeeling atheist who manages to get by in this world without the comfort of a God and the elevated opinion that spirituality makes one a more complete person. Your words are condescending and egotistical, secular morality is based upon humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Greg Epstein probably said it best with:

"conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counterstrategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists."

Seems not much has changed to me. As Dawkins said:

" religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other"

Even Einstein quipped:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Whilst I am sure religiously oriented people would agree with you that you require this spirituality guided by religion, as far as I can see, it is most certainly not the case. It's just an ego trip.

[psyche101]

It dosnt. He is acusing me of scientific "word salad." I was makeing a valid point and I wasn't talking out of my ass. Each possability i set forth of what gravity could be are actual proposals. I have been reading/studying physics since I was a young teen. My first acutual set of whole books that i ever read was "black holes and time warps" and "brief history of time" both written by Stephen Hawking. I spent a large portion of my youth deeply interested in physics. I have seen many proposals of what gravity could be. Leo suggesting that he knows for sure gravity is secondary phenomenon of matter is frankly asinine. I was not just throwing scientific jargon around I was pointing out a number of things gravity COULD be that absolutely have other cuases and only interact with matter in that way. In no way can any of us tell if it's a secondary phenomenon of matter or not. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces..... the weakest one, if it's like any of the other 3 fundamental forces it has a force carrier it would be called a gravitron but really would be some kind of gauge boson..( I think). We just don't know it could be something we havnt even thought of or matter can cause it some how like Leo suggests. The only thing that I know for near certainty is that Leo dosnt know either. I'm sorry. Leo is a smart guy, I like him, but this time it went over his head, so I agreed to leave it at that. it's actually common for people to have all kinds of misconception about physics even really smart people like our good friend. Hell I have even seen physists them selves get stuff wrong that hawking himself would chuckle about.

You are I assure you, not the only one who has taken a great interest in physics at a later stage in life. It sounds to me like what fringe does, takes a hypothesis and extracts ideals based upon textual nature as opposed to result.

I read a brief history of time back in 1998 myself. And still, I would agree with Leo's evaluation. I honestly do not think it is over his head at all, I think you are just expanding a bit to suit your own belief system.

[White Crane Feather]

You are I assure you, not the only one who has taken a great interest in physics at a later stage in life. It sounds to me like what fringe does, takes a hypothesis and extracts ideals based upon textual nature as opposed to result.

I read a brief history of time back in 1998 myself. And still, I would agree with Leo's evaluation. I honestly do not think it is over his head at all, I think you are just expanding a bit to suit your own belief system.

Well if you want to skipp over the facts, then go right ahead. You are welcome to. peoples beleifs have nothing to do with logical discussion.

[+joc]

Well if you want to skipp over the facts, then go right ahead. You are welcome to. peoples beleifs have nothing to do with logical discussion.

In fact...peoples beliefs have nothing to do with the truth. And...a logical discussion is had for only one reason...to find the truth. I haven't even been following what ya'll are talking about...but...there are facts...and there is belief. Many confuse the two. Belief is not fact. Truth is fact. Fact is truth. Belief is not either one of those. Okay, I'll crawl back into my bottle of Merlot and slink back to the fireplace...

[psyche101]

Well if you want to skipp over the facts, then go right ahead. You are welcome to. peoples beleifs have nothing to do with logical discussion.

I am not skipping over the facts, it seems to me that you are generalising them into a hypothesis that fits your view of the Universe with an unknown realm. I agree with Leo in that without "material" fields cannot exist, but you have already had this debate. I was just mentioning that what Leo says seems more sound to me.

[psyche101]

In fact...peoples beliefs have nothing to do with the truth. And...a logical discussion is had for only one reason...to find the truth. I haven't even been following what ya'll are talking about...but...there are facts...and there is belief. Many confuse the two. Belief is not fact. Truth is fact. Fact is truth. Belief is not either one of those. Okay, I'll crawl back into my bottle of Merlot and slink back to the fireplace...

Well, the real Universe is fact, and the spirit world is belief.

[Occult1]

In fact...peoples beliefs have nothing to do with the truth. And...a logical discussion is had for only one reason...to find the truth. I haven't even been following what ya'll are talking about...but...there are facts...and there is belief. Many confuse the two. Belief is not fact. Truth is fact. Fact is truth. Belief is not either one of those. Okay, I'll crawl back into my bottle of Merlot and slink back to the fireplace...

Exactly, and even if rationalists and materialists don't like the word 'belief', they are not exempt from it. A 'belief' is, put simply, a mental act of placing your trust in another, and/or, the mental acceptance and conviction of the truth in something. The mental acceptance of unproved conjectures and hypothesises is still in the realm of beliefs, whether you are talking about a God, a Multiverse, or quantum vacuum.

Let's face it, when definitive claims are made, there is a burden of proof and since both can't be proven, the fact remain: Theism is the belief in a God(s) and Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of God(s).

''We do not know what we do not know and it is a mistake to conclude that we do know something when we do not know it. With a lack of knowledge we can not reach a definite conclusion.

Humans need to proceed carefully in reaching conclusions. There should be evidence to support conclusions. Humans need to be patient and accept ignorance and hope it is temporary and work to acquire more evidence and knowledge. There is the continuing process of careful and critical inquiry that has moved humans to the acquisition of reliable claims of knowledge. Humans who hope to retain their rationality and the value it has proved to the species would do well to observe the principle of the Burden of Proof.''

Source: http://www.qcc.cuny....en-of-Proof.htm

Edited January 23, 2015 by sam_comm

[White Crane Feather]

I am not skipping over the facts, it seems to me that you are generalising them into a hypothesis that fits your view of the Universe with an unknown realm. I agree with Leo in that without "material" fields cannot exist, but you have already had this debate. I was just mentioning that what Leo says seems more sound to me.

It's not my hypothesis. It's observations others have made. I'm not a scientist. I told everyone already that I'm not talking out of my ass..... I'm a parrot. I'm only repeating information I have learned about and has tremendous empirical evidence for. Even the gravity thing was something I learned from stidy. I don't have a view of the universe other than what the evidence tells me nor am I the one generalizing I'll leave you with this.

"It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe." (John Archibald Wheeler 1990)

Edited January 23, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

Well, the real Universe is fact, and the spirit world is belief.

Incorrect. its a belief for some.

[psyche101]

It's not my hypothesis. It's observations others have made. I'm not a scientist. I told everyone already that I'm not talking out of my ass..... I'm a parrot. I'm only repeating information I have learned about and has tremendous empirical evidence for. Even the gravity thing was something I learned from stidy. I don't have a view of the universe other than what the evidence tells me nor am I the one generalizing I'll leave you with this.

It's your representation of the claims that I disagree with, whilst they might represent dimensional aspect, but I don't see your argument against a material Universe. It's more like getting to a level beyond our comprehension as Gluons once were.

"It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe." (John Archibald Wheeler 1990)

"So ordinary computational descriptions do not have a cardinality of states and state space trajectories that is sufficient for them to map onto ordinary mathematical descriptions of natural systems. Thus, from the point of view of strict mathematical description, the thesis that everything is a computing system in this second sense cannot be supported"

David Deutsch