(January 30, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In other words, thus far Science = Mysticism when it comes to the core of understanding reality. The scientists aren't any closer to knowing truth than the Eastern Mystics were. In fact, the scientists have only shown that there does indeed exist a way for the Mystics to be right.

I seem to have a problem with that statement. I am no scientist but I would say science is quite different from Mysticism. Doesn't know everything about reality doesn't make it mysticism. The two approaches to understand reality of science and mysticism is also different. I think science is just a method using supportive evidence to explain the physical world. I see mysticism as something more religious and spiritual that doesn't seem to have much to do with investigating reality with hard evidence or reasonable theories.

I do not know what you mean by "truth", is there such thing as an "ultimate truth"? Are we talking about string theory? I would just say reality is a collective existence of physical matters of many different kinds that we are seeking to understand all of them. I don't know but science had helped create applicable things and invention while I do not see mystics being able to do that.

Would you kindly provide examples of how science had helped support mystics' belief?

(January 30, 2012 at 11:11 pm)passionatefool Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In other words, thus far Science = Mysticism when it comes to the core of understanding reality. The scientists aren't any closer to knowing truth than the Eastern Mystics were. In fact, the scientists have only shown that there does indeed exist a way for the Mystics to be right.

I seem to have a problem with that statement. I am no scientist but I would say science is quite different from Mysticism. Doesn't know everything about reality doesn't make it mysticism. The two approaches to understand reality of science and mysticism is also different. I think science is just a method using supportive evidence to explain the physical world. I see mysticism as something more religious and spiritual that doesn't seem to have much to do with investigating reality with hard evidence or reasonable theories.

I do not know what you mean by "truth", is there such thing as an "ultimate truth"? I don't know but science had helped create applicable things and invention while I do not see mystics being able to do that.

Would you kindly provide examples of how science had helped support mystics' belief?

Sure, I'll give you a couple examples. However first I would like to clear something up. You make a statement that isn't exactly true, yet you state it as though you believe it to be truth.

You say, "I think science is just a method using supportive evidence to explain the physical world. I see mysticism as something more religious and spiritual that doesn't seem to have much to do with investigating reality with hard evidence or reasonable theories."

That's actually incorrect. The methods used by "mystics" are indeed diverse. Mysticism never grew to become a "single method" of inquire. There are many different philosophies of mysticism. Some are far more pragmatic than others. Some are indeed outright guesses, and superstitious baloney. It's not my intent to actually support any specific religious dogma.

However, getting back to your question of how science supports various mystical concepts,.... To begin with, science is beginning to understand that the divisions between things are indeed superficial and not nearly as concrete as people used to think back in the days of classical physics.

Thus science supports one of the basic concepts of mysticism: "All is One".

If there's no "real" division between things that we can truly put a finger on, then the conclusion of the mystics that "All is One" is certainly supported.

In fact, even Einstein's discovery of E=mc² shows us that there really isn't even any real difference between what we perceive to be "matter" and what we perceive to be "energy". Moreover, science truly has no clue at all what "energy" even is. Sure, they have a name for it and they can give it a quantitative value. But trying to explain what it actually is eludes science completely.

So here we have science confirming that All is One.

Science arrived at this via many years of experiment and observation. The mystics arrived at it via nothing more than serious contemplation. They simply figured out that it could be no other way. That was no mistake on their part. They basically ruled out all other possibilities and that's all that was left. So there is a method to their madness.

Now Quantum Mechanics is revealing a similar situation.

Another thing also is that the mystics have concluded that mind give rise to what we see as physical reality (not the other way around).

Well, that's what I was getting at about "information" preexisting what we call "Physical Reality". Some sort of "information" had to exist prior to the Big Bang. Our best theories today actually assume that this is indeed the case. In fact they require that this is the case.

So there's at least two examples where scientific inquire has led to the very same conclusions that had been made by the Eastern Mystics.

The mystics are now just standing around telling the modern western scientists, "We told you so".

It's not news to them.

Quote:It basically means that I greet and honor the true essence of your primordial being.

My what? Please define what you mean and provide some sources for your proof.

By definition,a gnostic atheist is one who claims to KNOW there is no god. He will declare ''there is no god" or" I believe there is no god". This is hard atheism and rare here that may because most people here have grasped the concept of the burden of proof,which the hard atheist attracts. You have also attracted the burden of proof in your claim to believe in the spiritual. IE an obligation to prove your claim.

(etymology: gnosis=Greek;knowledge. Atheist= Greek; 'a'= without , 'theos'=God)


So far,all I've gotten from your posts is confused and confusing narcissistic sophistry.

Bored now.

PS being banned from a forum is nothing to boast about;it simply suggests you don't play well with others or are a bit of a dickhead.

Goodmorning Abra.

"Spiritual" can also have a meaning applied to one's emotional and imaginative state which of course science is striving to investigate

Agree with pad ..you do seem rather pompous and tedious with your replies.

and enjoy your stay here

(January 30, 2012 at 11:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Thus science supports one of the basic concepts of mysticism: "All is One".

If there's no "real" division between things that we can truly put a finger on, then the conclusion of the mystics that "All is One" is certainly supported.

In fact, even Einstein's discovery of E=mc² shows us that there really isn't even any real difference between what we perceive to be "matter" and what we perceive to be "energy". Moreover, science truly has no clue at all what "energy" even is. Sure, they have a name for it and they can give it a quantitative value. But trying to explain what it actually is eludes science completely.

So here we have science confirming that All is One.

Science arrived at this via many years of experiment and observation. The mystics arrived at it via nothing more than serious contemplation. They simply figured out that it could be no other way. That was no mistake on their part. They basically ruled out all other possibilities and that's all that was left. So there is a method to their madness.

Now Quantum Mechanics is revealing a similar situation.

Another thing also is that the mystics have concluded that mind give rise to what we see as physical reality (not the other way around).

Well, that's what I was getting at about "information" preexisting what we call "Physical Reality". Some sort of "information" had to exist prior to the Big Bang. Our best theories today actually assume that this is indeed the case. In fact they require that this is the case.

So there's at least two examples where scientific inquire has led to the very same conclusions that had been made by the Eastern Mystics.

The mystics are now just standing around telling the modern western scientists, "We told you so".

It's not news to them.

I'm sorry but I failed to grasp what you are getting at.

The idea of "all is one" is so vague that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. However I do not think it is a huge break through either such as what science were able to do. I can understand with contemplation why such idea is generally something that come into mind. I was an exbuddhist and I am familiar with that idea in Zen which deal with the psychological non-dualism idea. In many traditions it just simply mean everything is connected in some ways and I believe that is an obvious "duh" to anybody who can think. I do not see them going into details in explaining its process or complex relationship and then use such knowledge to actually invent or use it to our benefits. This is why science requires experiment and observation to confirm it. Mysticists also didn't pull such idea out of nothing, it is probably from observation as well and of course contemplation is something, though they failed to provide a clear and definite explaination for it so it is all iffy.

Also, many Mystics now (and in the past) take such idea literally as a union with a powerful supernatural being, similar to Hinduism's idea of becoming one with the god Brahma.

I think we tend to take such idea out of context to say that science is capable with it while leaving out all the other "attached" beliefs that initially go along with it.

I did not comprehend your second example at all.

(January 30, 2012 at 11:48 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:It basically means that I greet and honor the true essence of your primordial being.

My what? Please define what you mean and provide some sources for your proof.

What?

It was a polite gesture.

Can you not comprehend that?

No proof require.

Quote:By definition,a gnostic atheist is one who claims to KNOW there is no god. He will declare ''there is no god" or" I believe there is no god". This is hard atheism and rare here that may because most people here have grasped the concept of the burden of proof,which the hard atheist attracts. You have also attracted the burden of proof in your claim to believe in the spiritual. IE an obligation to prove your claim.

I'm going by the definition that was GIVEN by THIS FORUM in the thread entitled "Important Information for Theists"

Gnostic (strong) atheist

"Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods."

I have nothing to prove. I haven't made any claims other than what I've already backed up. I've given my definitions and justified them.

Quote:(etymology: gnosis=Greek;knowledge. Atheist= Greek; 'a'= without , 'theos'=God)

Yes exactly. And if you read the definition given above it all fits perfectly.

I'm "Gnostic" in the sense of my dismissal of certain "Gods". For example, I know that the God of the Bible cannot possibly exist. The reason I know that this is true is because the Biblical stories contradict the very character and nature that they claim their God possesses. Thus they are necessarily false. I can know that with absolute certainty. Thus I am "Gnostic" in my atheism toward those views of a "God". I have knowledge that the God depicted in the Bible cannot possible exist because those stories contradict their very own claims of what the God is supposedly like.

On the other hand I can (and am) agnostic toward other "Gods" that make more sense. So I fit the definition of a Gnostic Atheist perfectly according to how it is presented in the "Important Information for Theists" thread.

Quote:So far,all I've gotten from your posts is confused and confusing narcissistic sophistry.

Bored now.

Oh poor you. Well don't read my posts then. How long does it take you to learn not to read things that confuse and bore you?

Quote:PS being banned from a forum is nothing to boast about;it simply suggests you don't play well with others or are a bit of a dickhead.

I wasn't boasting. What made you think that?

I was just relating an experience. I got kicked off a religious forum for suggesting that the Hebrew stories of God don't make sense and that God would need to be stupid in order for those stories to be true.

They didn't like that view.

But apparently on this forum they allow people like you to go around suggesting that other people are dickheads?

Hmmm?

I must already be making a lot of sense on a topic that you'd rather sweep under the rug. What other reason would you have to be hostile toward me already?

What have I ever done to you?

Clearly any suggestion that a spiritual view of the world might actually be scientifically tenable really gets your dander up.

I can't imagine any other reason why you'd start calling me a "dickhead".

Where's the rolls eyes icon?

Seriously, if you think my posts are confusing and boring, then please do everyone a favor including yourself and don't read any more of my posts.

Thank you.

---

(January 31, 2012 at 12:04 am)passionatefool Wrote: I'm sorry but I failed to grasp what you are getting at.

Well, maybe you're taking things too seriously like as if this is a debate thread or something and that we're actually arguing over some topic.

This is actually just my "Introduction Thread" and all I originally intended to do here is to share my basic views and say hello to everyone. It was never my intent to "prove" my views in my introductory thread.

Moreover, I haven't made any concrete claims that would even require proof. All I've basically stated thus far is that science is incomplete, not well understood at the deepest level, and there is plenty of room for mystical ideas.

I've never even claimed that mystical ideas are necessarily true, only that they haven't even remotely been ruled out by science, and that some aspects of them have actually been postulated to be required premises of some of our most cherished scientific theories such as Quantum Mechanics and Inflation Theory.

That's really all I've said thus far, and none of that should require "proof" as it should be obvious to anyone who knows where modern science is today.

On the other hand, I can understand where there may be some confusion over this, especially by people who may not be fully aware of the true limitations of what science actually knows (and doesn't know).

I've only just joined this forum tonight. I didn't expect to start a "debate" in my introduction thread. I'd like to reserve that for threads in the proper forums where the actual topic of the debate is laid out a bit more clearly.

---

(January 30, 2012 at 11:55 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Goodmorning Abra.

"Spiritual" can also have a meaning applied to one's emotional and imaginative state which of course science is striving to investigate

Well, sure it can.

In that context we're all spiritual beings for sure.

Quote:For example, I know that the God of the Bible cannot possibly exist.

You 'know"no such thing;you believe it to be true,which is not the same thing.

Quote:Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist.

THAT is a positive claim, which attracts the burden of proof,which you have not met.

Quote:I wasn't boasting. What made you think that?

You made a point of mentioning it,as if it is relevant or praiseworthy.That my friend is boasting.

Quote:That's really all I've said thus far, and none of that should require "proof" as it should be obvious to anyone who knows where modern science is today.

Wrong in fact and an ad hominem attack. Science says nothing about the existence of gods or metaphysics generally.

Quote:But apparently on this forum they allow people like you to go around suggesting that other people are dickheads?

Seems you may have misunderstood. I don't go around calling just anyone a dickhead, indeedly doodly not. That is reserved for the deserving,based on evidence. Your post to which I have just responded in part reinforces my assessment.

.Still bored.

(January 31, 2012 at 3:22 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:For example, I know that the God of the Bible cannot possibly exist.

You 'know"no such thing;you believe it to be true,which is not the same thing.

Your wrong. I do know that no such "God" could possibly exist. Because it would be impossible. The doctrine that describes the God claims that it is "all-wise" and "all-merciful", yet that same doctrine has this God going around doing the most unwise and ignorant things.

So it's clearly false without any shadow of a doubt.

You may personally disagree with my logical conclusion, but it doesn't change the fact that my logic is sound.

Quote:

Quote:Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist.

THAT is a positive claim, which attracts the burden of proof,which you have not met.

But I have met it. You're just in denial of it. That's not my problem.

Quote:

Quote:I wasn't boasting. What made you think that?

You made a point of mentioning it,as if it is relevant or praiseworthy.That my friend is boasting.

Again, that's your own personal judgment. A judgement that you are not in any position to be making.

Quote:

Quote:That's really all I've said thus far, and none of that should require "proof" as it should be obvious to anyone who knows where modern science is today.

Wrong in fact and an ad hominem attack. Science says nothing about the existence of gods or metaphysics generally.

I'm sorry that you were unable to comprehend the points that I have made in this regard, but science most certainly does make statements about "metaphysics" whether you are aware of this or not.

These statements are made in the very premises of their theories.

The very concept of a "Quantum Field" is a metaphysical idea, yet the premise that such fields exist is foundational to Quantum physics.

You're ignorance is not my problem. So please don't attempt to make it such.

Quote:But apparently on this forum they allow people like you to go around suggesting that other people are dickheads?

Quote:Seems you may have misunderstood. I don't go around calling just anyone a dickhead, indeedly doodly not. That is reserved for the deserving,based on evidence. Your post to which I have just responded in part reinforces my assessment.

.Still bored.

You're not only bored, but you are extremely rude, ignorant, and immature.

Nothing I have done or said has warranted a label of "Dickhead".

In fact, that kind of childish name-calling is only proof of one thing.

Your immaturity.

Moreover, if you're so BORED, why are you so interested in reading my posts and responding to them?

Hmmmm?

Very strange behavior for someone who claims to be bored with my posts.

You don't fool me for a second. You're just out to insult people with no good reason.

I've done nothing to you.

Here I thought I might find some intelligent mature conversation on these boards, but after encountering you I can see that I'm going to have to search hard to find intelligent mature conversations.

Isn't calling someone a "Dickhead" against the rules around here?

Surely it must be.

Especially when all I've done is offer my views on things in an INTRODUCTION thread.

If you want to start an argument with someone why not start a thread on some topic and call people "Dickheads" there?

In the meantime you can keep your label of "Dickhead" for yourself. You created it, you can wear it.

What's the point in name-calling anyway?

How totally immature is that?

This is ridiculous.

Are their any grown-ups on this forum?

If your immature behavior is typical of this forum, you can rest assured that I want no parts of this place.

Quote:If your immature behavior is typical of this forum, you can rest assured that I want no parts of this place

Suits me.

Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out.

The new guy seems like one of these new age, spiritualist, vibrations and ascension types. They all go round saying "Namaste" and stuff like that.