Excuse me? Have you not understood a single word I've ever posted?
I made that quite clear at the very outset. And repeated it many times.
And it's only just now sinking in? I just don't know what to say at this point.
That is nowhere near what I'm saying.
On the contrary that's your position.
Just rephrase it in terms of spirit instead of airplanes and you'll see what I mean.
"It is ludicrous to propose a spiritual world. As we know, the world is made of leptons, quarks and bosons, that can't have any experience. Have you ever met a quark who had an experience?"
Yet at the same time you expect me to believe that a property that emerges from combinations of leptons, quarks and bosons CAN have an experience?
Talk about magic! That right there would be a proven scientific example of magic if it could even be proven to be true. However, the truth is that is truly nothing more than very limited unimaginative and uncreative speculation.
But that's an unreasonable question to ask me. I'm not claiming to know ever detail of how this cosmic mind works. It's a mystery that's why it's called mysticism. I don't understand how an entire universe can pop into existence out of nothing either, and neither do scientists yet they accept that it happened. They really have no choice, their very existence forces this upon them.
And besides, what make you feel that you have some sort of 'upper-hand' in this conversation? Can you explain how an emergent property of a collection of leptons, quarks, and bosons, can have an experience when you believe that these very things themselves are not capable of experiencing anything?
The current secular speculations do not have a leg-up on the mystical cosmic mind speculation. That is the folly in the arguments of atheists who claim that certain things can be 'ruled out'.
I haven't "failed" at anything other than to convince you that you don't have sufficient reason to rule out my speculations of what the true nature of reality might be.
But that doesn't prove anything other than to demonstrate your lack of creativity and imagination to be able to come up with theories that are compatible with everything we currently know.
Clearly you are content to rule things out without sufficient reasons.
Why should I accept your cerebral resignation to creative and imaginative theories.
All you're asking me to do is to become as closed-minded as yourself.
And I'm supposed to swallow that nonsense? Pft.
Three in a row now on what? You seem to be "keeping score" on a game that I'm supposed to be "proving" something to you.
I have no desire to prove anything to you, and I never even claimed to wish to do so.
I'm 62 years old. I have an entire lifetime of experience and contemplation in both the sciences and in the realm of spiritual philosophies that has led me to my current views. And now you expect me to convince you in a couple of posts on a internet bulletin board that is extremely hostile to my views so that you can magically and suddenly fully comprehend everything that I understand precisely in the way that I understand things without any ambiguity at all?
You've got to be kidding me. Your request is utterly absurd.
All I'm saying is that I can provide 'reasonable doubt' for any and all objections you can come up with concerning my spiritual philosophy. And that's all that I require to know that it cannot be ruled out.
And that was the only claim I ever made was it not?
You are totally trying to turn the tables on me UNFAIRLY.
You are trying to demand that I prove my spiritual philosophy to you, or convince you that it cannot be ruled out based on what you believe you know.
That was never my claim. My claim is that my spiritual philosophy cannot be ruled out by any Current Scientific Knowledge.
I'm really not concerned with what you might personally believe, or be convinced of.
And I keep repeating to you that my reasons are vast. I can't point to any one thing and say, "Hey this one thing has convinced me".
I also never claimed that "I believe, I believe, I believe". That again is your blatant misrepresentation of my position.
I've confessed spiritual agnosticism from the very start.
My only claim is that it can't be ruled out.
I your are suggesting that "I believe, I believe, I believe that it can't be ruled out". Then yes I most certainly do believe that.
I don't question that brains are indeed biological computers and that they "THINK" or process information.
You're computer processes information. Does that mean that is experiences those "thoughts".
What you are objecting to here is totally covered in my spiritual philosophy.
In fact, the Eastern Mystics have already covered this aspect of things long ago.
Yes, absolutely brains are biological computers. That a very intrinsic part of my spiritual model.
This is what creates POVs for the cosmic mind to experience.
This is precisely why the cosmic mind does this in the first place.
You keep wanting me to explain everything but how is that even remotely possible. I could write an entire book on this topic alone!
Just for kicks I'll try to address it briefly here, although since you are so hostile to my spiritual views I really don't know why I bother.
Christians believe that when a body is born God places an individual "soul" in that body. That soul is completely separate from God.
That's not how it works in my spiritual model. Or more accurately, that's not how it works in the Eastern Mystical view.
What happens is this:
A biological computer is created (i.e. a brain)
God (the eternal cosmic mind) is the only entity that can truly experience what these computers are "thinking".
There are two facets to these computers. An "ego" which is just the computer itself. And God, the actual entity that experiences these thoughts.
Which is the real you? Well, that's the question that the Eastern Mystics raise.
The ego is nothing more than the illusion that is created by the biological computer. (i.e. the brain)
The entity that experiences this illusion is God (the true eternal entity that has created this situation in the first place)
Can the ego die? Well in a sense it can. And in another sense it can't.
It can die by simply ceasing to exist and being totally forgotten about by the mind of God.
Or it can achieve "eternal life" by becoming such a desirable POV that God decides to keep it in memory and maintain it eternally.
However, it can't truly "die" in any real sense because it is nothing but a biological computer program to begin with.
When you shut your computer off has it "died"?
It can only 'die' in the sense of not being remembered by the Cosmic mind.
Yes, yes, yes, I know,.... This seems really out there. Where am I coming up with all this seemingly utter nonsense?
Well duh? Did I not always claim that I'm considering Eastern Mystical Philosophies as the foundation of these ideas?
I've never made any secret about this.
All I'm saying is that given enough thought, I can personally imagine a scenario where all of this can indeed be made to work in a way that cannot be "ruled out" by current scientific knowledge.
How many times do I need to harp on that before it's finally understood?
That is my only position. And it's a totally valid position.
I'm asking you questions for a couple of reasons. Firstly, so that we're discussing what you believe and not common uses or definitions of the words that you use to describe your beliefs since they are clearly not the same thing. This helps me to try and avoid straw-manning you. Secondly, I'm asking you questions so that you can respond with explanations or claims which are specific and cannot be backpedaled out of, which helps me to insure that you won't be moving any goalposts (or at least, if you do, that it is very visible). I know enough to make the claim that science has ruled out magic, and I know enough to realize when someone is using sciencey sounding words to describe magic, which you are. I'm not a physicist, I'm a farmer, so you should probably be a little disappointed that your claims haven't made it passed my bullshit filter.[/quote][/hide]
Ok Mr. Farmer let's talk about moving goalposts, etc.
First off, let me say that I have a deep respect for farming. I homesteaded myself in a very back-to-basic way for about a decade between about the mid 70's to the mid 80's. I had horses, bees, chickens, and I did a lot of gardening. Huge gardens which I worked using the horses. In fact, it was during that period of my life when I really studied Buddhism, Yoga, Taoism, and the fundamental ideas of the eastern mystics. I was still in touch with the scientific world at that time too, but you might say that I was on sabbati from it at that time in terms of career.
But let's get back to moving goalposts. Who's moving goalposts? You are! You must have a fantastic post-hole drill.
All I've ever done is claim that my spiritual philosophy cannot be "ruled-out" by current scientific knowledge. Yet here you are acting like I should have a testable scientific hypothesis to offer and that if I can't produce one that should represent failure on my part to back up my claims.
Where did that come from? Who's goalpost is that? I certainly never set that as a goalpost.
My only claim is that people who jump on me stating "Your philosophy has been ruled-out by science" are making claims that they can't support. Moreover, they clearly aren't even in a position to make any such claim. To begin with they can't possibly understand my philosophy well-enough to make that claim, and secondly many of them that make this claim don't even truly understand just how limited the science truly are when it comes to making definitive statement about the state of reality.
Science truly isn't in a position to rule out much of anything actually.
Can they rule out unseen undetectable spacial dimensions? No, not only can they not rule them out but they are even proposing them!
Can they rule out parallel universes where entire kingdoms can reside? No. Again, they are actually proposing them!
In fact most people are aware that Inflation Theory actually predicts the existence of multiple universes.
In other words, there are plenty of places for unseen "gods" to hide.
This idea that science has 'ruled out' these kinds of philosophies is utter nonsense.
Moreover, this "Cosmic Mind" that I'm calling "God" doesn't even necessarily need to be a single entity.
For all we know it's a whole advanced civilization of beings who are creating this universe as a sort of amusement park.
I make no claim about the "true nature of God".
All I claim is to have a philosophy that cannot be ruled out by science.
So please don't move that goalpost and then try to accuse me of moving it.
My only claim ever is that my spiritual theory has not yet been ruled out by scientific knowledge
That is the GOALPOST.
It's the only goalpost I've ever set. And I'll stand by this goalpost firmly. If you intend on setting other goalposts that's a totally different issue. But don't accuse me of moving my goalpost.
So I'm glad you brought that issue up.
You're getting far too excited, have cup of herbal tea and relax.
I can explain away your concerns easily.
You ask for a list of processes that are on 'auto-pilot'
Well, clearly all of chemistry and physics are on 'auto-pilot' that should be obvious.
The laws of physics are constant and dependable. If they weren't there could be no such things as science.
Also the universe most likely wouldn't evolve into anything with structure if it had no consistent laws of behavior.
So the 'auto-pilot' processes are a given.
Don't misunderstand this to mean that something like evolution necessarily had to create something like human beings.
That not what I mean by 'auto-pilot'. I'm not saying that things necessarily had a specific 'goal' but rather that they simply had to unfold by certain laws (i.e. they do not require the baby-sitting guidance of a conscious mind)
The 'auto-pilot' concept is indeed totally compatible with science. It's basically required for science to work.
So that's a given.
In other word, given enough gas and gravity as star will form, live, and die according to the laws of physics.
That's what I mean by 'auto-pilot'. No baby-sitting consciousness required.
Now for processes not on 'auto-pilot'?
Well, how about free will of conscious beings?
If by "auto-pilot" I mean processes that are not being baby-sat by consciousness, then clearly any process that is the result of free will choice is being 'baby-sat' at least by the consciousness that is making that free will choice.
So it can't be said to be on 'auto-pilot'.
Now if you are asking me to give a firm hardcore list of exact processes that I feel are either on 'auto-pilot' or a result of 'free-will' conscious intervention, I can't do that. I don't know precisely where that line is myself. However, I do hold that it's vague precisely where that line might be drawn. In fact, contemplating precisely where that line might be drawn is indeed a question of just how far-reaching "magic" can be isn't it?
Basically we consider "magic" to be consciousness overriding things that we feel should be on 'auto-pilot'.
So that very concept is indeed at the heart of questions concerning precisely what is 'magical' and what is not.
But let's go back to the goalpost concept. Have I set any goalpost of what I believe is possible with magic?
No, I'm sure I haven't because I'm not even certain myself how far that can be taken.
My only claim is that my spiritual philosophy cannot be ruled-out by science.
In fact, I personally haven't even brought up the concept of "magic". Everyone else has been jumping on that term.
Precisely how much a conscious mind can control the universe is a mystery to me.
We can obviously control who things evolve.
I mean computers would have never 'evolved' on auto-pilot if we hadn't consciously invented them.
So clearly a free will consciousness can indeed affect things that are on 'auto-pilot'.
The question there has more to do with precisely what mechanisms might be required to achieve that task.
First off, who are you to say that the universe is not designed? Who is anyone to say that the universe is not designed?
Any scientist who proclaims that science has ruled out that the universe could have been designed would be a fool.
Although, I confess, that if you are thinking in terms of "Christian Theology" that fable can be disproved.
I thought I had explained this before.
It's like dice.
If you "Design" a pair of dice and you toss them and the number 4 comes up. Did you "design" the 4?
Well, yes, indirectly you did. Because you "designed" the dice.
But you didn't "design" specifically the outcome of any given throw.
In other words, Christian Creationists are proclaiming that God "designed" planet Earth precisely, and that he "designed" each and every animal species, and in particular he "designed" humans.
I'm not supporting that kind of "designing God".
I'm saying that the laws of physics were 'designed' even before the Big Bang. And thus precisely what could or could not evolve from that Big Bang was predetermined just like the roll of dice are predetermined based on the design of the dice themselves.
And yes, I fully understand that science speculates that the "laws of nature" in this universe might have "evolved" differently as the primordial big bang expanded and cooled. That may or may not be a correct speculation by science. Maybe the laws could have only unfolded in one particular way, they don't know for sure yet. In fact, String Theorists are hoping that String Theory will explain why these forces and particles could indeed only be the way they are.
But it doesn't really matter to me. Even if multiple laws of physics could have evolved, all that says is that the original dice had very rich potential. My spiritual philosophy only requires that the cosmic mind knows the limitations of what might possibly come up. In fact, I intuitively hold that the spiritual mind doesn't even need to consciously "design" these dice. They just are what they are. This very idea is just a metaphorical idea that I'm attempting to convey as an analogy of dice being tossed. All I'm really saying is that the cosmic mind can only create what it creates and therefore it's not going to be utterly shocked by anything that arises from this process. In other words, nothing can happen in the universe that's going to surprise God. And it is only in that sense that God is "omniscient". (i.e. God understands the true nature of the dice)
Just like you aren't going to roll a 13 when tossing a pair of dice. If you rolled a 13 it would totally blow your mind and you couldn't explain it because the dice you "designed" cannot possibly produce a 13.
That a fundamental principle of my spiritual philosophy. Nothing can happen that will surprise God because God designed the dice.
I think you are totally misunderstanding my dice-tossing-God metaphor.
I'm not suggesting that we should be able to predict the toss of any dice.
All I'm saying is that God tossed dice to create a universe and that the 'design" of the universe is on the faces of the dice (and not in the toss)
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with any humans being able to predict a given toss of any dice.
Again you are misunderstanding. This is not a testable hypothesis. If it were testable it would be a scientific question.
The only way you could "test" it is if you new the true nature of the dice and could show that the current universe fits one possible combination of a toss.
To begin with you have to understand that "God dice" have extremely large numbers of faces. As a practical matter than fact alone would make it beyond the reach of science even if we understood the nature of the dice.
So this philosophy is not scientifically testable. And therefore it cannot even be 'ruled-out' by science.
Again, you're trying to move the goalpost.
I'm claiming to have a spiritual philosophy that has not been ruled out be science.
That's my ONLY claim.
If I believe that I can do something using "magic" and science can rule out that specific thing, then clearly I'm wrong.
Evidently you're trying to PIN ME TO THE WALL, on some specific claim of magic.
But isn't that moving the goalpost?
That wasn't what I was originally complaining about.
I was originally complaining that atheists are over-zealous about claiming that science can rule out anything spiritual.
When it comes to things like 'magic' that's an extremely loose term.
I don't claim to know precisely what is and isn't magically possible.
Moreover, even if I had a particular specific belief in some particular specific "magic" and that turned out to be wrong, that wouldn't collapse the entire philosophy. All it would do is show that I was wrong concerning how far I thought magic could go.
That's a totally different issue altogether.
My spiritual model actually provides good reasons why it would not be easy to scientifically measure magical abilities.
In fact, look at what the eastern mystics are claiming,.... Only a Buddha (or spiritually awakened person) would actually be in harmony with the "mind of God". Therefore only these people would be able to actually 'perform' magic. A biological ego couldn't preform magic on it's own. Only the cosmic consciousness can do that. So only FEW people would make it into the kingdom of this cosmic consciousness anyway. (ha ha)
Seriously, many of the things taught by Jesus are actually Eastern Mystical views being expressed in a culture that believed in a Zeus-like Godhead. Yet, in a very foundational way they are expressing these same things.
Well, your imagination is important to these things just like it's important so scientists. Scientist need to imagine hypotheses before they can even propose testing them. You'll never make any progress on anything without imagination and creativity.
And consider this; If you are considering that a divine being of "infinite knowledge" might exist and be the basis for reality, why should you not stretch your imagination to the very limits of your capacity? Surely anything that you can imagine a God of infinite knowledge could easily trump you.
Therefore take the most imaginative theory you can possibly muster and realize that it probably doesn't even scratch the surface of the truth of reality.
In fact, apparently this same thing is true in science. If the string theorists are right, then reality is not only wilder than we have previously imagined, but it's far wilder than we are even capable of imagining!
If you're going to try to imagine a spiritual philosophy of an infinitely knowledgeable "God", then where is there any justification for holding anything back?
The only 'case' I need to make is that science can't rule out my spiritual philosophy.
Because that is the only "goalpost" I've set.
And as far as I'm concern my goalpost is still firmly planted in the ground and no one has uprooted it yet. Nor do I see how they possibly could.
I think people have been over-reacting to my signature line stating "You are God".
So I've taken that down and replaced it with a far more realistic signature line. (ha ha)
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
