Believers: Why is Atheism Irrational?

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by CaDreamer
wow this is the most intelligent well spoken discussion on this subject i have read to date on this site. bravo, unfortunately it is the exception not the rule.

Considering this as a merit of Awake-and-aware, I agree. I have learned much from him.

Thank you both for the kind comments - I feel you're being modest, bogomil; it is I who is learning from you.

Peace

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You wrote:

["I'm not sure what you mean by trans-cosmic;"]

To avoid going back to square one (we've been here before, on this thread), I'll try a new approach, which maybe better suits your requests. The option of causality breaking down beyond 'event horizon' is strongly (but definitely not conclusively) indicated in quantum mechanics.

The consequences of the double-slit experiment transcends some of the otherwise acknowledged 'natural laws' of cosmos. E.g. instantaneous communication in contradiction with Einstein's light-speed limit.

That the 'event horizon' eventually MAY move to include more of cosmos, is a possibility I'm open for. But presently there appear to be an existential level beyond what's known as 'cosmos'. That's 'trans-cosmic'.

Quote: ["I think it's the metaphysical claims that have been conjured from abstraction, with no logical or empirical grounds to be conjured, and relying on semantics and cold reading to infer the "supernatural"."]

That's a tough one. Because when causality (as we know it) breaks down, science/logic becomes invalid, which is the basis of the common theist: "Anything goes" in a vacuum-knowledge situation. So I'm extremely careful in my own direction of metaphysics. 'Evidence' is a MUST; the really tricky part is: What will be considered 'evidence'?

Quote (on othodox scientists): ["Could you re-state your suggestion?"]

An 'official' diminishing of strict empiricism/reductionist materialism and an updating of criteria of 'logic'.

Quote: ["There does seem to be confusion over gnostic and agnostic. Most rational scientists don't make the positive claim that there is no God unless God is specifically defined (intervening, omnipotent, loving)"]

You are the one originally introducing me to these distinctions, and I do my best to include them as often as I can to make them 'public knowledge' (after all they are not 'arguments', only definitions benefitting everybody).

Quote: ["I think it's rather easy to be a Gnostic atheist to falsifiable Gods. Agnosticism is over the cause of the universe, or the reason, or the force - again - unknowable, unfalsifiable."]

In the long run, I believe the intellectual honesty of agnostic atheism will be appreciated by most for several reasons. Black/white hard-core positions are getting a bit 'last week' apart from their academic uselessness.

Quote: ["I find myself jumping from agnosticism to gnosticism depending on how God is defined."]

It's likely, that I am far more 'gnostic atheist' than you, when it comes to the point of peopling (or deiting) trans-cosmic existence with specific 'gods'.

Quote: ["Again, it's an intricate game of semantics, and the pragmatics of which is like treading on egg-shells."]

It took me years and years just to identify the various 'positions' on it.

Quote: ["Again, science has never been about satisfying everyone, I think if you are unsatisfied with methodology or a theory that you should state why, the methodology and the theory should speak for itself. I think you just need to set the goal of discovery of truth, how we can apply that practically is another matter."]

My personal position operating with 'relative realities' makes this a lesser problem for me.

Quote: ["I agree somewhat, but especially in areas such as Medicine, effectiveness gets funding, not what's in "vogue" - For example, a lot of money is being put into cancer research."]

I was an active part on the european scene, when 'modern' medicine was confronted with 'natural' medicine. There was (and is) a lot of cr*p in modern medicine, which we're better without. And then there is a fantastic and useful progress in it. It's a question of introspection and self-criticism (e.g the misuse of medication, in my youth people ate strong anti-biotics for a common cold).

Quote: [" We can only stand on the shoulders of giants (gallileo, newton, tesla, einstein etc.)"]

Without resorting to 'authority' arguments, requests of objective procedure can easily be demonstrated even including 'giants'. I strongly support your comment.

Quote: [" Obviously Einstein predicted many things about the universe, of course we were taking his word for it, but it's mathematical theory was convincing, and some of his fundamental theories are being conclusively demonstrated today (gravity probes etc.)"]

Actually Einstein was a mediocre mathematician, and he even 'cheated' on one occasion before his dispute with the Copenhagen-school finally was settled.

And personally I have some doubts on the value of his 'twin paradox'. It looks somewhat fishy to me.

Quote: ["I'm not sure you would call this "science" as such, more investigation of subjective accounts."]

That's the problem with all the 'soft' (social) sciences. But the analyses can be performed on comparative bases.

Quote: ["Again, as an Atheist i don't say these phenomenon are not worth investigating. All i say is that subjectve accounts can often be incorrect or mistaken due to an ignorance of a natural phenomenon (or drugs and alcohol lol )"]

I will not draw any light-swords to insist on a real research on the trans-cosmic (from a metaphysical position): I'm actually very content with being able to have it as my individual interest without risks of being torched.

Quote (on the Copenhagen school): ["Forgive my shortcomings again - What is no co-incidence?"]

The liberalism in Denmark (and similar countries) has encouraged education and research. And education and research then naturally manifest to a greater extent.

Quote: ["I think that's part of the human condition to ask why; we always think in terms of causality, i've often thought because we're so used to a perception of cause and effect. (being in the space-time continuam) but perhaps it's a mistake to think in accordance with our perception."]

That's ONE relative reality. Another one (which I also include in my life) is the asian way of going beyond/negating space-time (e.g. meditation). I live comfortable with two such parallel 'realities'; I may even some day find their meeting/transmission point.

Quote: [" I understand what you mean. Again, infinity could mean many things, reality could have a "beginning" and have no ending, preceeding to be infinity, like counting from 0 to infinity.

It could have no beginning and no end- a closed loop. Or an open-infinite loop. Some "philosophers" have described reality as a "search engine" forever learning new possibilities, sometimes repeating itself etc.

Sorry for my vague response, perhaps you can make my answer more consise even if you do have disagreements with it."]

In many ways being speculative for me, with my best reference-point being the 'direct (mystic) experience', I'm not eager to go too far in that direction. Sofar it's very 'subjective'.

Quote: ["Why do we have to call that "mystical" though? Isn't that just one way of looking at reality on a very profound level?"]

I don't know, and it's not a good label. It unjustified indicates some elements of mumbo-jumbo.

Quote: ["....and thanks for the discussion."]

The pleasure is mine.

reply to post by bogomil

To avoid going back to square one (we've been here before, on this thread), I'll try a new approach, which maybe better suits your requests.

Please don't play everything on my terms, i just didn't understand "trans-cosmic"

The consequences of the double-slit experiment transcends some of the otherwise acknowledged 'natural laws' of cosmos. E.g. instantaneous communication in contradiction with Einstein's light-speed limit.

By no means was i implying that Einstein's relativity theory is of grand-unification class. Only that his theory had been verified by probes ( i guess it could be proved wrong later, or quantam mechanics could explain perception of relativity)

The speed of gravity has been measured for the first time, revealing that it does indeed travel at the speed of light.

It means that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has passed yet another test with flying colours.

And by no means would i state that we have everything perfect, i was merely backing up my response to this:-

Not a bad word about advanced combinations of astro-physics/quantum mechanics, I love the curiostity in it, but the knowledge acquired is knowledge according to what the pundits accept as knowledge, and in any case often pure knowledge for the sake of knowledge, with few immediate mundane benefit

Which i agree, but what other choice do we have but to trust the pundits? Trusting Einstein turned out to have massive benefits for us, and has opened up many gateways to other theories, even if they are opposing or what may seem to be "conflicting" theories.

That the 'event horizon' eventually MAY move to include more of cosmos, is a possibility I'm open for. But presently there appear to be an existential level beyond what's known as 'cosmos'. That's 'trans-cosmic'.

I find myself hessitating though, can't we just call it the universe, if another level of "existence" is in fact true, can we not encompass that as part of the universe?

That's a tough one. Because when causality (as we know it) breaks down, science/logic becomes invalid,

Isn't the double-slit experiment an example of causality being thrown out of the window?, and causality even being affected by an potential observer?

What do you think the implications for free will are with quantam theory? Are we just beings who might respond in a number of different ways, of course, it's argued by many that free will is simply an illusion.

Quantam theorem is still scientific, i wouldn't call it invalid, there are ways to logically gain data and work from that data to form new theories.

Please correct me if i am wrong here btw.

'Evidence' is a MUST; the really tricky part is: What will be considered 'evidence'?

Good question, i guess when the theory becomes practical. When we can use that particular theory to predict things.

Think about the debate between Gallileo and the Theists, what will they consider evidence? Will they deny that evidence because it doesn't suite there worldview? I guess it would be quite easy to reject the man's claims based on the fact the Sun does APPEAR to travel around the earth.

I guess it's the case of who's got the best math

Math is going to be universal language. And should inherently be embedded into any technological civilisation (in the universe)

The liberalism in Denmark (and similar countries) has encouraged education and research. And education and research then naturally manifest to a greater extent.

Oh i see, thanks for explaining that. (i'm all for that.)

That's ONE relative reality. Another one (which I also include in my life) is the asian way of going beyond/negating space-time (e.g. meditation).

I often meditate myself, but should we consider it "another reality"? Isn't it a little bias as there's no way of escaping the space-time, we are a product of it.?

It's like saying an "NDE validates afterlife theories" - Well it would if it wasn't "near-death".

In many ways being speculative for me, with my best reference-point being the 'direct (mystic) experience', I'm not eager to go too far in that direction. Sofar it's very 'subjective'.

So to keep things simple (for my benefit) isn't mysticism just an enjoyment and ethusiasm for how the universe is mechanically operated, and what might pontentially happen after our existence in the space-time contiuam?

It's not that i don't want to know, it's just seems rather over-romanticised label, and not that it shouldn't be. But i seems like some of the investigatory desire is fueled by wishful thinking. (afterlife or something else)

Is parapsycologically something that is paramount to mysticism?

I don't know, and it's not a good label. It unjustified indicates some elements of mumbo-jumbo.

Much like Atheism, i don't think there should be a name for my lack of belief in one particular theory. I think too easily does prejudice and stereotype come with labels.

But heck, we need the labels for debate, right? Maybe not - haha.

Thanks for your explanation, i think i can understand the need for a word to describe what we've been discussing, as a reference point, as "grouping" word.

The pleasure is mine.

A scholar AND a gentleman i see!

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You wrote:

["Please don't play everything on my terms, i just didn't understand "trans-cosmic""]

It's of mutual interest that communication/understanding is reciprocial. After all you and I are here at the limit of human knowledge, understanding and specualtion. Talking vaguely about 'thingumajics' would be unsatisfying.

Quote: [" By no means was i implying that Einstein's relativity theory is of grand-unification class. Only that his theory had been verified by probes ( i guess it could be proved wrong later, or quantam mechanics could explain perception of relativity)"]

I didn't take that way either. But there do exist a frindly rivalry between the macro- and micro-models of cosmos. A few years ago I had some correspondance with a professional physicist, who had lectured on zero-point physics for 10 years. He claimed that ALL the answers already are manifest in zero-point physics. Something I ofcourse can't dispute on a specialist level, but from logics could reject. The popping on/off of cosmic manifestations at zero-point level must assume some special conditions to explain cosmic 'historical memory', i.e. why cosmos after all stay the way it is. Sorry, somewhat off-topic.

Quote: ["Which i agree, but what other choice do we have but to trust the pundits? Trusting Einstein turned out to have massive benefits for us, and has opened up many gateways to other theories, even if they are opposing or what may seem to be "conflicting" theories."]

There's as much prestige, conservatism and 'doctrinalism' in academesia as everywhere else. The pundits need some challenges also. It took Bohr-Einstein almost 40 years to agree on some of the central points.

Quote: ["I find myself hessitating though, can't we just call it the universe, if another level of "existence" is in fact true, can we not encompass that as part of the universe?"]

I use the word 'cosmos' on purpose, as it encompasses the observable, measurable and ordered part of the universe. Presnt knowledge strongly indicates a certain amount of 'chaos' in the universe, so I find a distinction necessary, as these two perspectives (cosmos/chaos) seemingly aren't identical or with the 'missing link' clear.

Quote: [" Isn't the double-slit experiment an example of causality being thrown out of the window?, and causality even being affected by an potential observer?"]

I'm not familiar with the latest interpretations, but from those I know: Yes, to your question.

Quote: ["What do you think the implications for free will are with quantam theory?"]

I have on and off speculated on this the last few days. My conclusions sofar are, that it depends on the possibility of 'order' in the trans-cosmic situation. The 'theist' doctrinal position, that there IS order (the divine), ......the ultimate observer-creation (where consciousness is THE reality, without any restrictions of order) .... or the possibility that the quantum uncertainty isn't uncertainty, but a manifestation of sofar unknown 'natural laws'. So you see, the answers depend on position/perspective. While this isn't answer in itself, it at least has defined some of the options.

Quote: ["Quantam theorem is still scientific, i wouldn't call it invalid, there are ways to logically gain data and work from that data to form new theories."]

For sure. But some of the speculations derived from it are still just speculations.

Original quote from me: ["'Evidence' is a MUST; the really tricky part is: What will be considered 'evidence'?"]


Your answer: ["Good question, i guess when the theory becomes practical. When we can use that particular theory to predict things."]

For good or bad, we need philosophy (in close co-operation with science) to approach that. My own repetitive inclusion of epistemology relates to it.

Quote: ["Math is going to be universal language. And should inherently be embedded into any technological civilisation (in the universe)"]

I LOVE math, and formerly having an activated talent for it, it brought me through college, where I otherwise was so study-lazy, that it was a disgrace.

Quote: ["I often meditate myself, but should we consider it "another reality"? Isn't it a little bias as there's no way of escaping the space-time, we are a product of it.?"]

'Another reality' is just ONE interpretation of it, which suits me, as I believe the meditational state is a cessation of the asymmetric polarities being the reason for cosmic dynamics. But I'll take it pragmatically and accept any reasonable conclusion on it. The benefits will still be there, no matter the how and why behind it.

Quote: ["It's like saying an "NDE validates afterlife theories" - Well it would if it wasn't "near-death"."]

From a materialist position NDE could be said to be residual electrical brain activity. As Madness recently has created a thread on, it will truly take a real miracle (transgression of natural laws) to demonstrate the existence of trans-cosmic existence satisfying present objective criteria.

Quote: ["So to keep things simple (for my benefit) isn't mysticism just an enjoyment and ethusiasm for how the universe is mechanically operated, and what might pontentially happen after our existence in the space-time contiuam?"]

That's how I take it in an objective context (including communication). Subjectively and personally I'm a tad more conclusive, but then we all have our private preferences, which are not to be imposed on others.

Quote: ["It's not that i don't want to know, it's just seems rather over-romanticised label, and not that it shouldn't be. But i seems like some of the investigatory desire is fueled by wishful thinking. (afterlife or something else)"]

A comparative study could bring some more clarity. My own research ideal would be groups of scientists, philosophers, unbiased theologians, experienced 'mystics' and some middle-men with general knowledge to act as interpretators between the different groups of specialists. Ahhhhh, what a pipe-dream.

Quote: ["Is parapsycologically something that is paramount to mysticism?"]

Guess it's a personal defintion deciding that. I consider the main part of parapsychological phenomena as cosmic, and mysticism as trans-cosmic. I believe it's important not to mix the two. Parnormal phenomena isn't really considered housebroken in esoteric/mystic perspectives and are often a blind alley.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


PS An afterthought.

Isn't it peculiar, that it's only the two of us (and sometimes Mysticnoon) who are interested in this stuff.

Becuse while we often get close to the metaphysical/philosophical perspective the religious implications are clear. Besides the simple fact, that we are able to communicate from different positions without mud-throwing, should have attracted some.

reply to post by bogomil


I tend to dodge these discussions...but I only do so because I have enough of them in real life. I mean, at least the metaphysics ones. Also, you and a_a_a tend to...you know...say enough for me to not have any point to contributing.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

PS An afterthought.

Isn't it peculiar, that it's only the two of us (and sometimes Mysticnoon) who are interested in this stuff.

Becuse while we often get close to the metaphysical/philosophical perspective the religious implications are clear. Besides the simple fact, that we are able to communicate from different positions without mud-throwing, should have attracted some.

Hey! What about me.

I do consider myself an Atheist or Agnostic/Atheist. I don't believe there is any Omnipotent Creator.

I consider along the lines of the Terra Papers - - possible/probable/logical. Humans and their world - - could have been Created or partially Created by beings much more advanced then we are. But not a God - - in the religious sense.

It is possible they monitor us and prod us along in various ways - - just like a pet science project.

I also believe we are Energy Beings - - that everything is thought created. But from a science standpoint - - - not a spiritual/religious standpoint.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Thanks for your courteous input, and I understand your reasons for not joining here.

Should you and I ever agree to meet on the present direction manifested here between A_a_a and me, it would be in a different frame, not suited for this sub-forum. Though I'm convinced, that we wouldn't turn it into a conflict.

And as it is now, we both have our hands full.

reply to post by Annee


On my part, I would welcome you. I remember your sympathetic posts from earlier.

PS But Awake_and_aware is 'ringmaster' and decides on topic-relevance. I don't want to derail his excellent thread contrary to his wishes.

reply to post by bogomil

It's of mutual interest that communication/understanding is reciprocial. After all you and I are here at the limit of human knowledge, understanding and specualtion. Talking vaguely about 'thingumajics' would be unsatisfying.

Can't agree more.

Words like spiritual and energy are meaningless (to me personally), especially in the context of subjective experience. I would never claim that subjective experience isn't worth investigating or detailing.

I didn't take that way either. But there do exist a frindly rivalry between the macro- and micro-models of cosmos. A few years ago I had some correspondance with a professional physicist, who had lectured on zero-point physics for 10 years. He claimed that ALL the answers already are manifest in zero-point physics. Something I ofcourse can't dispute on a specialist level, but from logics could reject. The popping on/off of cosmic manifestations at zero-point level must assume some special conditions to explain cosmic 'historical memory', i.e. why cosmos after all stay the way it is. Sorry, somewhat off-topic.

Interesting, it comes to a point in that arena of academia where language becomes useless for trying to "describe" the physics, or theory.

In relation (and off-topic again) i saw an interesting article today that you may enjoy, BBC though so prepare for some stripped down journalism:-

www.bbc.co.uk...

Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment

There's as much prestige, conservatism and 'doctrinalism' in academesia as everywhere else. The pundits need some challenges also. It took Bohr-Einstein almost 40 years to agree on some of the central points.

The difference being, that in the academic arena, it's alot easier to challenge "tradition" or the "norm" - Providing you have a cogent theory.

I use the word 'cosmos' on purpose, as it encompasses the observable, measurable and ordered part of the universe.

Why don't you just state the "observable universe"?

Presnt knowledge strongly indicates a certain amount of 'chaos' in the universe, so I find a distinction necessary, as these two perspectives (cosmos/chaos) seemingly aren't identical or with the 'missing link' clear.

I'm not sure i follow you, Cosmos is just everything, as "World" described everything before we knew of space, and gallaxies. Universe suffices for me, although i guess it could be a multiverse, but that's another unfalsifiable hypothesis.

I have on and off speculated on this the last few days. My conclusions sofar are, that it depends on the possibility of 'order' in the trans-cosmic situation. The 'theist' doctrinal position, that there IS order (the divine), ......the ultimate observer-creation (where consciousness is THE reality, without any restrictions of order) .... or the possibility that the quantum uncertainty isn't uncertainty, but a manifestation of sofar unknown 'natural laws'. So you see, the answers depend on position/perspective. While this isn't answer in itself, it at least has defined some of the options.

I undestand, but it's anyone's guess to what is within this "trans-cosmic" realm, it could just be...more cosmos, or at least, another explanation other than a being with similar characteristics of a life-form that evolved by a series of mutation over many many cosmic years.

For sure. But some of the speculations derived from it are still just speculations.

Are the data patterns there. It does seem "evident" that light travels in both waves and particles, is that really a speculation.

Again, probably worth taking a look at that link i sent you above:-

www.bbc.co.uk...

(breakthrough time)

For good or bad, we need philosophy (in close co-operation with science) to approach that. My own repetitive inclusion of epistemology relates to it.

I guess i'd go as far to asy that science is a double edged sword. Science could be used for the ultimate torture machine or a machine to save someone's life. How we apply science is up to us.

When you say science needs philosophy, do you mean ethical and moral discussion? Could you further expand?

Sam Harris has attested, and i agree, that science can answer moral questions.

I LOVE math, and formerly having an activated talent for it, it brought me through college, where I otherwise was so study-lazy, that it was a disgrace.

Perhaps your like Einstein, but the other way around?! (based on what you mentioned Early regarding Einstein's math skill)

'Another reality' is just ONE interpretation of it, which suits me, as I believe the meditational state is a cessation of the asymmetric polarities being the reason for cosmic dynamics. But I'll take it pragmatically and accept any reasonable conclusion on it. The benefits will still be there, no matter the how and why behind it.

I see, i guess i'd just call it a "state of mind", but even that is a loose term.

From a materialist position NDE could be said to be residual electrical brain activity. As Madness recently has created a thread on, it will truly take a real miracle (transgression of natural laws) to demonstrate the existence of trans-cosmic existence satisfying present objective criteria.

It seems almost impossible, as we're confined to the observable universe, and we're confined to life until we ACTUALLY die. Maybe somehow we'll prove it, somehow we'll find the means, perhaps never.

The religious certainly rely on these facts to preach their unfalsifiable claims.

That's how I take it in an objective context (including communication). Subjectively and personally I'm a tad more conclusive, but then we all have our private preferences, which are not to be imposed on others.

Of course not, but people should challenge and give their reasons for their particular private preferences. I think that's an important aspect of democracy that you can say what you want, you can challenege people's private preferences, but by no means can you enforce them to think or believe a certain way; we'll leave that to Theocratic countries, or even thanatocratic countries.

A comparative study could bring some more clarity. My own research ideal would be groups of scientists, philosophers, unbiased theologians, experienced 'mystics' and some middle-men with general knowledge to act as interpretators between the different groups of specialists. Ahhhhh, what a pipe-dream.

It would be nice to have compartive group sessions like that, i don't think it's such a pipe dream!

Guess it's a personal defintion deciding that. I consider the main part of parapsychological phenomena as cosmic, and mysticism as trans-cosmic. I believe it's important not to mix the two. Parnormal phenomena isn't really considered housebroken in esoteric/mystic perspectives and are often a blind alley.

So on a simple level; mysticism is the study of the unknown, and parapsycology is the study of experience?

Isn't it peculiar, that it's only the two of us (and sometimes Mysticnoon) who are interested in this stuff.

Well i certainly thought there would be more input from believers, it seems they're keaner to respond when i'm offering direct criticism of the logic or reasoning behind their beliefs.

It does seem to be dialogue del duo in this particular thread!

But there are many "Spiritual" Atheists or spiritual Deists out there, and again, it's not something i'm against as long as they don't preach unprovable or metaphysical claims that have been conjured from abtraction, especially claims that cause prejudice.

PS But Awake_and_aware is 'ringmaster' and decides on topic-relevance. I don't want to derail his excellent thread contrary to his wishes.

Again, you're a gentleman - but all i ask for is an open, honest discussion - The mods can take over where they see fit

reply to post by awake_and_aware


After some years experimenting with various words, I decided on 'cosmos' as it

Fits perfectly into a context with 'chaos' which automatically pops up, when cosmos does....

and because the 'observable universe' is too imprecise. Some would believe, observation to be visual, some to be all senses, some that it necessitates the existence of 'consciousness' to observe it, while the whole thing actually is ( for mankind: measurable) interaction. Cosmos does well on its own, without complex 'life', and 'observation' is just a special way of saying reaction.

Two stones bumping into each other are 'observers' so far as they both react in some way to it, though without being able to be aware of it.

I read the article you linked, and the only new thing is, that it's a refining of measurement, not of the conclusions of the original experiment. That cosmos is a statistical average has long been considered reasonable.

So what happened here is, that a strict deductional analysis used in the original experiment, now was exchanged for an analysis of averages, moving it towards the area I have proposed: Induction (looking at a whole category).

**************

Cosmos isn't everything (at least presently); when particles communicate instantaneously, they break cosmic laws and sofar this appears to be from 'outside' cosmos. So there is 'somewhere' (preferably called 'beyond event horizon'), where there are new or no laws.

Quote: ["I undestand, but it's anyone's guess to what is within this "trans-cosmic" realm, it could just be...more cosmos, or at least, another explanation other than a being with similar characteristics of a life-form that evolved by a series of mutation over many many cosmic years."]

Exactly, but the theists haven't got the patience to wait for that. They just fill it with premature guesses of no value.

Quote: ["Are the data patterns there. It does seem "evident" that light travels in both waves and particles, is that really a speculation."]

That seems certain. It's the resulting speculations which are uncertain. Parallel universes etc.

Quote: ["When you say science needs philosophy, do you mean ethical and moral discussion? Could you further expand?"]

There actually exists a branch called the 'philosophy of science', which evaluates the systematic methodology of science/science's procedures.

Most sciences have their own version of such (at least to some extent), also the soft social sciences, which can have changing fads of methodologies.

In philosophy it's one version of epistemology or another.

*************

Quote about meditation: ["I see, i guess i'd just call it a "state of mind", but even that is a loose term."]

A working name. The important thing is to explore it.

Quote: ["It seems almost impossible, as we're confined to the observable universe, and we're confined to life until we ACTUALLY die. Maybe somehow we'll prove it, somehow we'll find the means, perhaps never."]

The hard evidence is so far on micro-cosmic level, not useful for the macro-cosmic human being. The consciousness-method of arriving to trans-cosmos has never been demonstrated, only allegedly approached by comparative methods. We have neither the concepts not the methods to do it more precisely now.

Quote: ["So on a simple level; mysticism is the study of the unknown, and parapsycology is the study of experience?"]

Don't take my word for it, but I define it as phenomena outside and inside 'natural laws'.

reply to post by bogomil

After some years experimenting with various words, I decided on 'cosmos' as it

Fits perfectly into a context with 'chaos' which automatically pops up, when cosmos does....

It's not that i dislike the word, i've heard Carl Sagan use it (and often promoting the word "agnosticism" and coining phrases such as "absence of evidence it not evidence of absence") and i'm still not sure where i stand on it.

Could you explain the etymology of cosmos further? I'm interested in it's descriptive use.

Universe:

The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists

So we could say at minimum the universe is the observable 3d "realm" but the cosmos is the system behind it, that governs it, or allows for it's self sorting?

Wouldn't evolution be the micro-cosmos of material formation? or even universe formation? By being a product of the system, in essense it MUST be? To have just the right [goldilocks] conditions by a series of chaotic "laws".

Perhaps the meaning of life really is 42 . Some profound mathematical key!

I was thinking somewhere along the lines of Pi; The circle; The closed loop where finity has become a product of infinity, much like the "mandelbrot set". Sacred geometry really seems to ring true to me, i get a buzz from looking at it and looking at the mathematical beauty in them.

Richard Dawkins has suggested a metaphysical theory whereby other universes on a larger scale compete, where it's survival of the fittest universe, some dying out and not expanding, some having unmaintainable laws of physics, all this happening on a scale beyond our imagination. On a scale very much larger than evolution.
There does seem to be this equillibrium to our "cosmos" whereby you may say it's random or chaotic, but it's not, it's very much a self sorting system of chaos?

Is this what you're getting at? That black holes may lead to other realms or universes? The "networks" of the "cosmos"? Could you say "trans-cosmos" is a metaphysical word? An unfalsifiable concept?

If i have understood correctly, i still don't see the need for the word "transcosmic" - Again, there's theories such as the holographic universe, or some that suggest nature is very much a computer, Someone suggested that we are simulated universe in a laboratory of the future. Of course this is complete conjecture.

But if we say the cosmos is the system behind the realm we exist in, why TRANS-cosmic? Can't we call the unknown just the cosmos, because in essense that is the "driver" whether we can see it or not?

I read the article you linked, and the only new thing is, that it's a refining of measurement, not of the conclusions of the original experiment. That cosmos is a statistical average has long been considered reasonable.

I thought you'd enjoy the link, it wasn't in support of any query or pondering i had regarding etymology.

Again, still not sure why "trans-cosmos"? Doesn't the cosmos encompass everything, (IF there more than just one universe or realm within the cosmos if you follow me?

You've explained about event horizon/black hole concept, but why would that be trans-cosmic? How do you know it goes elsewhere (to other [hypothetical] "realms" or "verses") Why not trans-universe? They could just be worm holes to the same cosmos that we exist in, and that is expanding?

Quote: ["Are the data patterns there. It does seem "evident" that light travels in both waves and particles, is that really a speculation."]

That seems certain.

I agree.

It's the resulting speculations which are uncertain. Parallel universes etc.

But these are metaphysical theories.

It's not metaphysical when you have the means to test and observe. Metaphysical theories can't be demonstrated, only conjured from abstraction, or predicted based on gathering information from our universe.

As you can see neither i'm neither excellent at Philosophy of Science nor Science itself, i'm just interested in it, as i can see the benefits of it's use are utterly transcending. So many apologies for my ignorance in advance. ALso, sorry for the repetition.!!

How interesting it would be to see a similar species, who've had billions of years of technological endevour and discovery, what dead ends might they come across? Are there any? It's all intriguing and gaining more knowledge must be paramount to change the zeitgeist, to change the global conversation of our civilisation here; and we've come far already, but it's just a drop in the ocean on universal timescales.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Dear awake_and _aware,

Lets start with why do you care what believers think. Lets see your profile says anti-theist and you waste your time posting on the faith forum, sounds like a major troll to me. Then you use a straw man argument by putting words into our mouths, did mommy and daddy make you go to church and you didn't want to. Give it a break, believe what you want. Don't go out of you way to have arguments, you don't care what the answer is to your question so how can I?

All that science logic and reason can do is explain things so we known, so we can understand. But what are we really understanding? What is it that we now know through this understanding?
What i have come to know after coming here to Ats is that everyone seems to KNOW!!
All these individuals that 'know' have something in common. They know how to fight and conflict. The fact that there is so much conflict must mean that what is worth 'knowing' is worth fighting for.
Each conflict, each fighter is struggling for survival. Each individual is suffering the fear of annihilation. The individual believes, without question, that the solid lump of beliefs that they 'have' is them. They have attached themselves to ideas, concepts and theories and will do as the human machine is programmed to do, fight to the death over other peoples ideologies.

This is the only knowledge worth having.
Be willing to not know.
Be honest and admit that no one KNOWS.
There is the mystery.
There is compassion and there is love.
That is all.

Namaste.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
All that science logic and reason can do is explain things so we known, so we can understand. But what are we really understanding? What is it that we now know through this understanding?
What i have come to know after coming here to Ats is that everyone seems to KNOW!!
All these individuals that 'know' have something in common. They know how to fight and conflict. The fact that there is so much conflict must mean that what is worth 'knowing' is worth fighting for.
Each conflict, each fighter is struggling for survival. Each individual is suffering the fear of annihilation. The individual believes, without question, that the solid lump of beliefs that they 'have' is them. They have attached themselves to ideas, concepts and theories and will do as the human machine is programmed to do, fight to the death over other peoples ideologies.

This is the only knowledge worth having.
Be willing to not know.
Be honest and admit that no one KNOWS.
There is the mystery.
There is compassion and there is love.
That is all.

Namaste.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Dear Itisnowagain,

Sorry, growth takes conflict, perhaps we can stop growing; but, why would you want to, this life is just temporary for the believer and non-believer.

reply to post by AQuestion


How is growth conflict? And what is it that needs to grow?
The knowledge of spirit is all that is needed, the seeing of self, the recognition that it no longer wants pain and suffering.
That is all.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by AQuestion

 

How is growth conflict? And what is it that needs to grow?
The knowledge of spirit is all that is needed, the seeing of self, the recognition that it no longer wants pain and suffering.
That is all.

Dear Itisnowagain,

Think of nature, growth is pushing and compromise so that all are better off, remaining ourselves while adjusting to each other. Understanding self is just the beginning (this life if you will), we must define ourselves before we can have deeper relationships, that means define not with words but with risk, with consequences. To fear all pain is to fear all growing pains, to fear learning.

reply to post by AQuestion


To me, the only 'thing' worth knowing is love.
All this conflict eventually leads to the love anyway. Only when we have suffered enough will we be willing to stop fighting.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by AQuestion

 

To me, the only 'thing' worth knowing is love.
All this conflict eventually leads to the love anyway. Only when we have suffered enough will we be willing to stop fighting.

Dearest Itisnowagain,

Love is the thing most worth knowing, without it we could not find understanding, that does not make understanding now worth knowing, we can know more than one thing. Be well and be loved.