Reality Defined by Physics - The Truth is Obvious - Only on ATS! The Mirror Revealed.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I know you were/are agreeing with me....I just had to continue on for other readers.

Your words are with love and for that.....I love you!





Peace and love to you and yours!!!! xoxoxo

Jenn

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["The Bible is central to our progress to this day, our freedoms and our technology."]

Plain propaganda.

Quote: ["Other wisdom traditions, inspired by faith, virtue and struggles against evil are equally reflective of who we are today."]

And the winner is: The FSM.

Quote: ["Truth preexists us by infinity. We are well advised to listen to the wisdom of the ages and not discard it on the alter of irrational reason."]

Irrational reason? You mean such as pseudo-science. I'm more uncertain as to 'the wisdom of the ages'. It appears to have had no small amount of identity-crises, changing from this to that all the time.

Quote: ["Mans reason cannot compare to collective wisdom;"]

And let me guess....who IS the referee on what's wisdom.

Quote: ["Faith is the hope leading to the overall point--love."]

Having its supreme expression in a mythological character who is a bloodthirsty sociopath. And in spite of several sermons, still not proved by physics.

Quote: ["Physics demonstrates love by design and perfectly tuned laws."]

Isn't it about time to get around to the real scientific evidence instead of just talking about it?

Quote: ["Its all here to tell the story of love from the reflection of degrees and opposites."]

Sofar physics hasn't said much on this thread. You are the one delievering stories.

Quote: ["As I state in the OP, we are the mirror of God."]

Because you state something, this doesn't make it true.

Quote: ["Physics comes at a price. For free will to be given, there must be a possibility for evil. God is precicely what he reflects as he protects us from ourselves. History is His Story. We witness it as an education."]

I shall pray for you to the flying spaghetti monster. It will do you good..

reply to post by bogomil


I want you to type this statement, and question, then answer it.




I believe in God, the Creator of ALL.

How did He do it?





The reason I would like to see this is to see how you would rationalize the question upon answering it.

One really does not need to be Christian or to know what the Bible says to believe in God.

I am curious how an intellectual like yourself would answer ....the how.



Peace and love to you and yours!!!! xoxox

Jenn

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

As per yorr reply, I suggest you read this LINK suggested by user Oilse. Very impressive writing and thought.

Drowning a thread in links to material, where the answer is made on assumptions and premises constructed to 'prove' something circle-argumentatory, is a waste of time.

They have the same (what's basically preachings) rephrased. If something is questioned the first time, repeating it in other words, doesn't make it more true. Overusing such a method only results in people ignoring such links.

Anyway a debate forum should be between individuals mainly being able to carry their own claims. Not just being a passive directory to external sources conflicting with each other.

Beloved "bogomil",

To start with, my thread is NOT based on, to use your words, "assumptions and premises constructed to 'prove' something circle-argumentatory"; and even if it is, at least it is constructive. You of all people should now that Reality is not an assumption; and neither is it a premise: I do not need to prove anything, nor do I need to debate you or anyone for that matter. If what I write does not make sense to you, then don't blame me for your blind mind: and this is not a personal attack, but a fact, in that you choose to limit your perceptibility.

You love to debate; and this is a fact based on both your words above and your every post on every thread you have been on: this is not to imply there is something wrong with it, especially if being considerate of others; but if it aggravates you when someone expresses their belief, why do you do the same with your belief?

You believe in metaphysics, which is based solely on speculative philosophy: you have no hard facts and no testimonies whatsoever in your belief, making it dead faith: for according to the way you carry on about it, it is a religion to you. You are constantly seeking proof, investigating principles of reality, meanwhile the proof you seek is starring back at you when you look in the mirror: and there is nothing speculative about that, except in the basic principles of what you might term as Physical and the reality of its structure.

That which is contained in my thread is beyond principles, ABCs if you will, of reality. It starts with the principles, which in itself your metaphysics cannot understand, being based on the so-called physical world, and delves deeper into the NOW and on into the FUTURE, which your metaphysics cannot discern. Go back and read my thread, and tell me that it is based on religion or external sources; and read through it again, this time without bias, and tell me if it is not real to you! I am not on ATS to debate; I am simply delivering that which was committed to me to deliver. ATS is not simply a debate forum; as its name clearly states.

Why limit yourself to principles of reality when there is a vast reality from which you are that transcends the physical? There is a difference between seeking out answers and trashing other people's realities: it is not in your authority to condemn people's realities, just like it is not in their authority to condemn yours.

If you seek what they have found, ask; and if they seek what you have found, they too should ask: condemnation is destructive, and ego is counter-productive. There is illimitability in knowledge, derived daily through experiences by those who seek the silver-lining in a storm instead of focusing on the destruction left behind by the storm; don't limit yourself to principles: then again if you choose to, that's your prerogative.

Either way, bogomil, I still and will always love you; and do not misconstrue this as condescending!

Peace be with you!!!

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["I want you to type this statement, and question, then answer it. I believe in God, the Creator of ALL. How did He do it?"]

Can't oblige you there. I don't find such simplistic mind-experiments or mind-acrobatics creative. In any case I would never accept a reasoning chain, starting from the answer, as valid.

Quote: ["The reason I would like to see this is to see how you would rationalize the question upon answering it."]

I have for decennia tried to discipline myself not to rationalize, I'm not going to start doing it again now.

Quote: ["One really does not need to be Christian or to know what the Bible says to believe in God."]

I know; there are 3.500 'god' options to choose between, if you start without any specific criteria for what a 'god' is. Apart from the flying spaghetti monster, the most appealing 'god' is Brahma, because the associated doctrines etc, are not 100% worthless. There are a few percent sense in them.

Quote: ["I am curious how an intellectual like yourself would answer ....the how."]

With "the how" I take it, that you mean the usual combination of the regressed 'god' argument and the 'intelligent design'-concept.

It's very simple.....in a context similar to this (but not assuming any 'gods' from the start), I LOOK for an answer, I don't invent one. I've never had that much existential 'angst', that I needed to violate rational reasoning a la Soeren Kierkegaard.

reply to post by Olise


You wrote:

["You of all people should now that Reality is not an assumption; and neither is it a premise:"]

Unfortunately this doesn't prevent millions of people from inventing fake reality-models and push them on mankind.

Quote: ["I do not need to prove anything, nor do I need to debate you or anyone for that matter"]

With free speech and all, one can just preach instead, exposing oneself to the risk, that there are grumpy old men like me in the audience, who will take any opportunity to be quarrelsome. Or rational. Or representing liberal principles. ....Your choice.

Quote: ["If what I write does not make sense to you, then don't blame me for your blind mind: and this is not a personal attack, but a fact, in that you choose to limit your perceptibility"]

For the sake of 'manner and decorum', I will not go into details about how this situation ALTERNATIVELY could be considered, except that delusions of grandeur seem to be part of it.

Quote: ["You love to debate; and this is a fact based on both your words above and your every post on every thread you have been on: this is not to imply there is something wrong with it, especially if being considerate of others; but if it aggravates you when someone expresses their belief, why do you do the same with your belief?"]

I will give you, that this is some steps up from the common pop-psychology theists like to use as a last resort (a kind of disguised character-defamation), but you haven't quite pinpointed my motives. It you find it worthwhile to use time on such, feel free; but it usually ends in a blind alley.

Quote: ["You believe in metaphysics, which is based solely on speculative philosophy:"]

The inclusion of 'physics' in the term, should be a clue, and as to 'believing' this rather belongs to a complex part of epistemology, where I have the position of 'scepticism'.

Quote: ["you have no hard facts and no testimonies whatsoever in your belief,...."]

True, there is very little 'hard facts', which I always am the first to point out; but the general direction is promising. Not least because there DO exist a LOT of observations, which in a comparative study could turn out to be significant.

Quote continued: [".......making it dead faith: for according to the way you carry on about it, it is a religion to you."]

Well, now THIS is pop-psychology.

Quote: ["You are constantly seeking proof, investigating principles of reality,....."]

As it has turned out, that this is a reliable method, instead of

Quote continued: [".....meanwhile the proof you seek is starring back at you when you look in the mirror: and there is nothing speculative about that, except in the basic principles of what you might term as Physical and the reality of its structure."]

which appears to ascribe a reductionist-materialistic position to me, from where I am supposed to operate. Turning the whole situation into guesses of where people come from, and what that implies.

Quote: [" Go back and read my thread, and tell me that it is based on religion or external sources; and read through it again, this time without bias, and tell me if it is not real to you!"]

I will, and in the meantime I suggest, that having SuperiorEd promoting anything, could have the opposite effect. Initially I spent some time following up his links, but only found massed repetitive preachings.

Quote: ["I am not on ATS to debate; I am simply delivering that which was committed to me to deliver. ATS is not simply a debate forum; as its name clearly states."]

That remains to be seen. I do not take prophets, gurus, saviours etc on their self-proclaimed words. I've met too many.

Quote: [" Why limit yourself to principles of reality when there is a vast reality from which you are that transcends the physical?"]

What do you think, I define 'reality' as? There appear to be some misconceptions on that point.

Quote: ["There is a difference between seeking out answers and trashing other people's realities: it is not in your authority to condemn people's realities, just like it is not in their authority to condemn yours."]

Preachers usually don't like to be interrupted, questioned or gainsaid. If you want to silence my opposition, you'll have to do better than trying to label me as an intolerant busybody. This only profiles the tactical attitude of: "Don't interrupt me"-preachers.

Quote: ["If you seek what they have found, ask; and if they seek what you have found, they too should ask:"]

And where do you position yourself in such a rosy scenario? Do you have any special dispensations to not follow these 'rules'?

Quote: ["condemnation is destructive, and ego is counter-productive."]

I am familiar with both authentic buddhism and its somewhat deformation into western new-age models.

Quote: ["There is illimitability in knowledge, derived daily through experiences by those who seek the silver-lining in a storm instead of focusing on the destruction left behind by the storm; don't limit yourself to principles: then again if you choose to, that's your prerogative."]

I put almost no trust in such aphorisms. I find it banal to run my life on platitudes.

Quote: ["Either way, bogomil, I still and will always love you; and do not misconstrue this as condescending!"]

As long as it doesn't interfere with my life, such is of no consequence for me.

reply to post by bogomil


You wrote:

Quote: [Can't oblige you there. I don't find such simplistic mind-experiments or mind-acrobatics creative. In any case I would never accept a reasoning chain, starting from the answer, as valid].

Why not be creative.....what do you have to lose?


Quote: ["I have for decennia tried to discipline myself not to rationalize, I'm not going to start doing it again now."]

You try not to rationalize??? I hate to tell you.....you do anyway. I see it and its not a case of want...you just do...we all do.

Quote: ["I know; there are 3.500 'god' options to choose between, if you start without any specific criteria for what a 'god' is. Apart from the flying spaghetti monster, the most appealing 'god' is Brahma, because the associated doctrines etc, are not 100% worthless. There are a few percent sense in them."]


Choose wisely. ;-) It sounds as if Brahma is the "One" then for which you can choose. Also, I would love for you to tell me how long you have been reading and or researching Ancient Texts and how you do not see the similarities within ALL Scriptures and texts? Surely you see them as I have.??


Quote: ["With "the how" I take it, that you mean the usual combination of the regressed 'god' argument and the 'intelligent design'-concept.
It's very simple.....in a context similar to this (but not assuming any 'gods' from the start), I LOOK for an answer, I don't invent one. I've never had that much existential 'angst', that I needed to violate rational reasoning a la Soeren Kierkegaard"].

You are assuming there is no "Gods" from the start??? In your opinion there is not a beginning singularity? Rationalizing is something I didn't think you did?

If you LOOK at Jesus works and his words you would most assuredly learn something. He came, he taught, and he left saying he WOULD come again. He will be here soon.

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote (on my trying your method):

["Why not be creative.....what do you have to lose?"]

Time and energy. The net is filled with suggestions of trying this or that; I have to make priorities.

Quote: ["You try not to rationalize??? I hate to tell you.....you do anyway."]

Be it far from me to claim perfection. But I have a goal and a will to go in its direction. 45 steady years so far.

Quote (on choosing a 'god'): ["Choose wisely. ;-) It sounds as if Brahma is the "One" then for which you can choose."]

That is, IF I want or need to have a 'god'...which I don't.

Quote: ["Also, I would love for you to tell me how long you have been reading and or researching Ancient Texts and how you do not see the similarities within ALL Scriptures and texts?"]

Comparative religion being one of my searching 'tools', I have ofcourse seen some similarities. And I have also seen far more disagreements at such a fundamental level, that compatibility is impossible.

Quote (on the 'how' of finding, possibly theist, answers): ["It's very simple.....in a context similar to this (but not assuming any 'gods' from the start), I LOOK for an answer, I don't invent one."]

Searching for answers, one eventually comes around to searching for a proper methodology for doing so also. My examples of the 'regressed god'-argument and 'intelligent design' were meant to demonstrate worthless methodologies.

Quote: ["You are assuming there is no "Gods" from the start??? In your opinion there is not a beginning singularity?"]

That would be an 'absolute' position with no evidence either way. I don't deal with 'absolute' positions, but with the approximative truths of relative realities.

Quote: [" Rationalizing is something I didn't think you did?"]

Not as I define 'rationalizing'. You may define it differently though.

Quote: ["If you LOOK at Jesus works and his words you would most assuredly learn something."]

Been there, done that. But ofcourse not on your premsises and with your methodology.

Quote: ["He came, he taught, and he left saying he WOULD come again. He will be here soon."]

That's been said for 2.000 years. So I rely on "seeing is believing", instead of "believing is seeing".

reply to post by bogomil


I also believe in Quantum Mechanics and for this reason I do take note that seeing is not believing for as far as we know its all an illusion. Based on what we can measure and what we know....two particles can indeed be at the same place at the same time and once observed it becomes one. I could go on and on why I do take both science and ancient texts wisdom to equal God....but I will not force my 38 years of study on you....seeing and experiencing through my eyes is how I got here....I wish you luck in your goals and all you do.

Peace and love to you and yours!!! xoxox

Jenn

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["I also believe in Quantum Mechanics and for this reason I do take note that seeing is not believing for as far as we know its all an illusion."]

For the duration ...."believing in quantum mechanics" is as good a working terminology as any in this context; if it stays in this context and isn't carried over into epistemology.

'Observation', as it was defined and used by earlier strict empirical science, isn't as valid these days, as it used to be. A lot of the 'observation' is done with the help of rather esoteric mathematics, but my initial statement on this still stands. However 'observation' is performed now, it outweights belief-speculations.

'All' being an illusion would either lead to including theist speculations also, so theist absolutes would be as much illusion as anything else, or to the functional 'relative reality' approach. Wishy-washy relativism is meaningless as an epistemological reference-point.

Quote: ["Based on what we can measure and what we know....two particles can indeed be at the same place at the same time and once observed it becomes one."]

I'm not being intentionally contrary, but I am honestly unfamiliar with this. Some details or a reference, please.

Quote: ["I could go on and on why I do take both science and ancient texts wisdom to equal God"]

A simple demonstration/explanation of the basic methodology you use, would probably give me a fair idea of what you're doing. While I haven't seen everything, I've seen much.

Quote: ["but I will not force my 38 years of study on you....seeing and experiencing through my eyes is how I got here....I wish you luck in your goals and all you do."]

I can respect a personal, subjective 'perspective' as a legitimate basis for an individual position. In a collective context though, a common communication-platform is unavoidable (one way or another... and including social-structure models) unless subjective differences eventually are to be settled with violence.

reply to post by bogomil


You can read all available texts from science and the like...religion material....and the like....and come up with an analysis based on the knowledge you receive from said texts.

I did the above for over ten years by reading about two books a day. I read and still read A LOT. Collectively the texts I mention can bring about an awe feeling especially when your intentions are to seek a Creator, otherwise in my opinion I do not think you can see the ALL without such intentions.

This is where I stand....however I know you do not stand beside me and thats ok. I am not harmed by your belief as you are not harmed by mine.

My journey has lead me to believe this way:

Only in a realm of time do we need a beginning.
We are spirit (energy and light), therefore we inhabit a body. We can be in two places at once. We are that cool.
This existence we are both dead and alive.
When our light/energy goes back "home" we are fully alive, aware, and perfection of creation is revealed....we remember.
Jesus is the main Light/Energy for our "type" of Energy/Light. He is the closest to God as a manifested "form" for when we go back home. He is the light we are greeted by and at that time we are then able to watch in an instant the lessons learned and what we do now....it is a huge reunion. The darkness is where the light energies go who have yet to learn what their goal was and possibly these spirits are from lower realms.... by calling on Jesus they can be picked up from the darkness. The light/energy entities may go toward the light or darkness....and consciousness is fully aware which way their energy went. No control over which way....the energy is lead by how they lived here on Earth (guiding the vessel by spirit) or like I said above....darker spirits from lower realms. This energy goes the direction by the light it has obtained thus far.

Know this my friend, when you go back home.....if you are not in the light and find yourself aware and scared....look for the light and yell for Jesus. He may come quickly for you even though you had nothing to do with his spirit here on this Planet.

After years of witnessing death and reading so much it would make your head spin....this is my own (in short) theory of who we are, what we are doing here and where we are going when our days are over as a human being.

You can analyze my every word, sentence or not. It makes me no difference because we are ALL learning about the above in our own way. This is just my conclusion thus far and as I grow and learn more I may indeed change my mind....its (my conclusion/theory) actually gotten a lot cooler over the years.

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["You can read all available texts from science and the like...religion material....and the like....and come up with an analysis based on the knowledge you receive from said texts."]

That's more or less correct (with some reservations on my part), but not what I asked for.

Quote: ["Collectively the texts I mention can bring about an awe feeling especially when your intentions are to seek a Creator,"]

Seeking a creator will naturally taint the search, even with the best intentions.

Quote: ["Only in a realm of time do we need a beginning."]

True, and the observation gives you honour. Many theists are hopelessly lost in semantics on this.

Quote: [" We are spirit (energy and light), therefore we inhabit a body."]

Had you used 'consciousness/awareness', I would be inclined to agree with it as an attractive hypothesis.

Quote: ["We can be in two places at once."]

There are claims of such. I'm neutral.

Quote: ["When our light/energy goes back "home" we are fully alive, aware, and perfection of creation is revealed....we remember."]

As an overall model...reasonable. I disagree with the details.

I will not comment on the rest of the post, as you get into personal 'truths' of no or little value to me (not meant in a derogatory way, it's just outside my sphere, and I do not want to 'grump' at you).

reply to post by bogomil


Ha! Thanks for not "grumping" at me.

You could be on to something though......details may not matter but the main theme may matter....? Its conceivable therefore it could be. The possibilities are endless so I encourage an open mind. If the mind can conceive "it" then its possible and even so may have been created.

The ALL should be looked at in a non biased way....this is when Truth can be revealed.

reply to post by MamaJ


You wrote:

["If the mind can conceive "it" then its possible and even so may have been created."]

My mind just conceived "%¤l)3...oops and tomorrow, mr Teapot.\&" which ofcourse then also is possible.

reply to post by bogomil


As mind boggling as it is.....yes.

If every particle there is NOT an antiparticle science says that's more anti than regular. So that's false.


When he says that a vacuum is not empty, that's common sense. Anyone who knows anything about Quantum Physics knows about virtual particles...

reply to post by arpgme


You wrote:

["If every particle there is NOT an antiparticle science says that's more anti than regular. So that's false."]

Correct. Different types of particles have different qualities.

Quote: ["When he says that a vacuum is not empty, that's common sense. Anyone who knows anything about Quantum Physics knows about virtual particles..."]

Virtual particles only indicate either a trans-cosmic existence-level or an extension of cosmos beyond the presently known. They have nothing whatsoever to do with theist specific speculations.

reply to post by Olise


Read the OP on the link supplied in post 19/7 06.36 AM.

Didn't find anything beyond any other preachings.

reply to post by arpgme


And your point is? I am not trying to be mean AT ALL.....
2nd

reply to post by bogomil


I still think you are doing a dis-service to your intellectual abilities. Have you EVER been open to combining what you know and taking other information from all aspects of knowledge available ( including Ancient Spiritual texts) to come up with a theory that does indeed include God?

Can you possibly think outside the box with a more open mind to see what new ideas you come up with? I think it would be most interesting.

I guess you could just be "grumpy" but what fun is that?