To me it epitomizes that some scientists have reached a degree of boredom due to permanent objectification of reality. Have a nice weekend.
Wow, was just gone for a day or two and couldn't even find where I posted my post and what happened from there! Anyway, the condescension in this thread is rather destructive to open discussion. I think, just like the religious people, science followers need to see that their models (and to each his own) are just that, models, which is another way of saying 'belief construct'. It is not so much about the methods and findings of scientific endeavor, the results of which we are all using every day. It is more about when people use science to actively shape their world view and the role of consciousness and the nature of people, etc., that you can clearly see that much more is projected into that world view than science actually provides. One might call someone like that a 'science devotee'. What I mean is that the urge or need of man to understand the universe and his place in it is, one way or other, somewhat 'religiously' inclined. Many scientists have actually commented on this, that this is to an extent inescapable. As such some of the tone in this discussion (snarky, condescending, etc.) is not merely based on perceiving a 'lack of rationality' among the 'arrogant spiritual people', but rather that the arrogance that can come along with the scientific-religious model is not unlike the religious pedantic attitudes of 200 years ago (much of which still exists in contemporary religious -- and scientific -- mindsets). As far as scientific models being the only way we could perceive anything meaningful about the universe (remember, 'true' cannot exist in any scientific discussion, just models that fit rather well with what is perceived) that is another matter. People have talked about directly experiencing reality with their own consciousness, and by directly I mean without the sensory faculties and analytical intellect and its models. I don't think the spiritually inclined people are saying that the findings of science are at opposition to the way they perceive reality, but rather that those findings are interpreted by what they have experienced in their own lives, and therefore become supplemental to it. However, they might not feel it is up to par to actually completely shape their world view. It is rather astonishing to me to see how many scientific thinkers apply such mechanistic ways of thinking to a universe that is clearly completely energetic and dynamic. The mechanistic train of thought actually has deep roots in (Greco-)Christian thinking, which is to say the model of God being the clockmaker and the universe being the clock. Once set in motion, it just ticks away and God is aloof -- and a bit later not needed at all anymore Many, many elements of this basic clockmaker idea are still present in the 'scientific' thinking of modern people. Yet, the scientific knowledge available today completely undermines such attitudes -- yet, they persist almost undiminished. What I mean is not that science followers believe (or don't believe) in a clockmaker God; what I mean is that the whole illusion of the 'objective observer' is still maintained, which is clearly a thick delusion. Quantum science has taught as this many times over, yet the mechanistic thinking method persists almost undiminished. I understand this is a pitfall (or side-effect) of objective reasoning, which certainly has its place. But objective reasoning does not and cannot provide direct experience of the things studied, and it is so by definition. It is a thinking exercise for model creation, it is not the method to personally understand and experience reality. So it has a solid place in scientific research, but fails by default in the exploration of consciousness (which merely entertains such 'objects'). If rationality was purely followed, it would be rather easy to see what causes certain trains of thought and how a person might come to these. Instead, condescension and frustration and superiority is often expressed, proving that rationality is NOT the motivation behind such thoughts. As such, snarky, condescending posts by frustrated people cannot be perceived as propagating integral thoughts about the universe we all live in. If you would say that statement was arrogant, then you have truly missed my intention. But my rational mind might understand why you felt the need to willfully misinterpret it I would say that discussions like these are more often than not as fruitful as they set out to be, and overly practical people might even call them 'pretentious'. But if you can manage to be relatively unchanged in your world view both when sober and when using psylocyin or LSD, I think you can claim to have an integral mind I would not generally promote the use of such (be they eye-opening) substances, but I also know its rather easy to maintain dry world views untested by all the experiences life can offer you. So perhaps I say it more as a challenge. Try to maintain your world view while on those substances. I'm not talking you tried it when you were 16, 20 years ago. I mean right now. And see how your model crumbles before your eyes like a toy constructed from lego bits. But don't worry, something better can be built But you won't be building it to 'understand', you'd be building it to use. Just to be clear, I have experimented with substances, but don't actively use them. They don't 'create' or 'produce' those experiences, they merely jolt you out of what is constructed and throw you right into the stream of consciousness itself. And it is much more than you can imagine, and many things are known without precursors. There are other ways to access the same, but those are much harder and require more 'faith' in between experiences (to keep going), although those ways would be preferable and are sustainable. Still, I would maintain that cultured world views crumble easily before the totality of consciousness.
@parapher: Many years ago when I was learning about Mysticism, I was taught that drugs are to be tried once, to allow the minds' eye to have the experience. Then, the mystic could call upon that particular mind state at any time. @Yen: Thank you. And you as well.
Not ignorant but relative given athiests and scientist have no bases for posting in an God thread other than to invalidate and be destructive towards what they can't prove or realize Hence your ignorant in thinking they can...lol Excellent observation
Trusting gorski with relaying any spirtual endevors is like the indians trusting the U.S. as they raped, murdered and stole the indigenous land and destroyed their culture except for what the rare shaman keeps in his heart for those who listen ...lol And no one here except a couple are listening cause they are too busy thinking ...lol...never emptying their cup so it can be filled with complete knowledge and sacred wisdom ...lol Careful MJ for a sith lord or agent can hide in anyone till their unplugged from the matrix and gorski is like cypher who betrayed morphius ...lol
What if we are just like the bacteria we see in drops of water. And our Universe is just another drop of water in someones pond out there.
This thread seems to have really gone off track......... Fistly my opinion in answer to the original question. If and i do mean if there is a "God", then logically speaking he would have to be all knowing conidering the fact that he created everything that we are and that surrounds us. If God is all knowing and free will does not exist infers that every decision you think you make has actually already been made for you by the all knowing. Personally i struggle with that......... Free will has to exist because i can simply choose to believe or not ......... Secondly, my opinion on thi entire thread. Yet another discussion in which intellectual debate has slipped into narcism, insults and the overwhelming inabillity to accept others views and their right to express them. I find it appalling and for me it sums up why i am completely and utterly not religous. Let me be very clear here. I am not trying to insult anybodys beliefs or faith and i fully respect the views of you all. That said i find religion full of hatred, inequality and hipocracy. All over the world humans with different religious belief are in conflict and have been through the ages of mankind. Yet those very same humans will preach their religious teachings and proclaim peace to all. Inequality. This exists in a number of religions. Men treated to differently to women. Women having to cover themseleves from the eyes of others and walking behind their men. Other religions where the clergy struggle to accept women as priests / practioners of that religion. Refusal to allow gay marriage under the eyes of God, Yet we are all Gods children..... Extremism and intollerance. There are those that feel and actively preach that people of other religions should be converted to believe in their own one true God and portray utter hatred to those who refuse to bend to their will. Locally to me there were Christmas light in the town centre which had to be removed because they caused offence to the local minority who were of differing religious belief. Absolutely intollerant, unwilling to allow others to celebrate their own God in their own way. Take Northern ireland, years upon years of conflict. Catholic versus Protestant. So many injuries and deaths, yet they were all men women and children all made from the same skin and bones. War , conflict , hatred, lies , extremism, allegations of sexual impropriety to name a few things that all centre around various different religions yet we are expected to believe God is good. Well in that case what on earth happpened to those that practise religion in his name ? Ive been watching this thread a while now and aside of a handful of enlightened and educated posts , i find it appalling yet somehow reminiscent of life. So many differing views and the accompanying unwillingness to accept and respect them. Shame on you........ In closing. I am in search of nothing. I do not need enlightenment. I live in the here and now. I enjoy what i have and am given. I enjoy giving to others. I love my family and my friends and i know that they love me. Both them and i prove this to each other all the time in our collective actions. We respect each other we are not in conflict. I accept theories and believe in facts. I am a man of science and engineering. When i am gone i will degrade and return to the earth as dust and chemicals. The only one who knows al there is to know about me is me.
Ok I admit my misunderstanding of the "idea" of gravitation not there but the force was. It is the language problem and if Newton would name it say ABC force we will call it ABC force instead of gravitational force.
You mean to say the God is in everything or an universal Energy, Please refer to the dictionary for the meaning of a god. Universal energy cannot be god for many reasons, the main being that universal energy is constrained by the laws of physics. Secondly universal energy does not exhibit sentience of any form for it to be construed as a god. Finally, universal energy is not really universal, we only need to study the COBE CMBR readings to realize that energy was unevenly distributed across space and time.
This IS enlightenment! @sid_16 A 'current' example of my rather 'fictive' 9th century example. (Fictive in the aspect that one already is familiar with the term gravitation) I had posted that at another thread. It could be an example how a new object / 'law' of science is born as it had been with 'gravitation'. http://strangepaths.com/the-quantum-eraser-experiment/2007/03/20/en/ Further experiments: http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~jkofler/Files/Publications/pnas_110_1221.pdf According to Einstein's special theory of relativity can a cause never faster spread / communicate its effect than the speed of light (original own reality). This phenomenon shows that the 'information' is obviously transmitted faster than light, actually in no time. Means there is an observable phenomenon where cause and effect cannot be differentiated. The state now is: A phenomenon is observed. Now individuals are assigning an idea to it, a term, a new paradigm? They use already present knowledge, theories, calculations to figure if it matches in some way. Or another experiment disproves it later in future, or it is swept under the table, who knows? BEFORE the idea did not exist, but it changes OWN reality now, if allowed. The reality itself is unchanged though. (Means it is in the present moment already reasoned, it can be reproduced all the time = ever presently.) That is meant with omniscience of 'god'. It is really more reasonable to replace god = the present / presence. And that shows that own reality is dependent on the individuals, accepting it or not. It is never THE reality. 'Our' reality would be different if different phenomenons would have been objectified or objectified in another way. (by science). Extraversion of science ends when it comes to the question Who is the owner of reality! In other words: Who knows god. They 'own' god by saying: God does not exist. (Ignoring that god= the reality as it is and not what they say it is). Physicist Thomas Campbell http://www.matrixwissen.de/index.ph...nt&catid=125:quantenphysik&Itemid=105&lang=en It is up to you to ask him the same question : Are you sure you are a 'real' scientist? Don't get me wrong I do not want to convince the one or the other way. It's all about the question: Does one's mind accept (or when does it, if at all) that this experiment is evidence 'enough' that there are phenomenons at which cause and effect are not distinguishable (that 'they' only could with the illusionary idea of time). How many 'established' scientists are needed to? That is the 'pressure' of established science, posted at the end of the PDF. We will see how it 'ends'. The word 'believe' and science?
I too have followed this thread and others which have a similar pretext and have participated in some .. What is absent in this form of communication, which has been mentioned by some previously, is voice tonal qualities and body language or facial expression .. The importance of the choice of our words becomes exceedingly significant if we are to communicate with each other in this manner .. We are in a unique position in our global history where which our social interactions are digitized .. The content and qualities of those interactions even on a rudimentary level can and will be mapped by data sets .. Real time interpretation of data concerning our global communications is already underway .. How this evolves is up to us .. Make no mistake a simple thread starter or blogger can inject love, hate, peace, and unrest wherever and whenever they choose and because of amplification it can overtake the collective consciousness of any geographic or online community .. For any Democracy in the world in this day and age beware of forces asserting themselves through social media which try to manipulate/control the effective aspirations of your collective will .. For those who think my words are off topic I am a sentient being, please forgive me ..
you are heartily forgiven, as far as yours truly is concerned. it is a thought the world has not learned to live with yet, i think. it is no so much off topic as an illustration of why things happened as they did in this thread.. [not an excuse, but an explanation at least.. ]
The last sentence is the 'why' in why we need to promote open, friendly discussion, because ignorance generalizes people into categories and boxes, while it may very well be that they are living open and in the light of consciousness, while we ourselves are digging in some dark pit and don't know it yet. Sometimes, even when we want to compliment people we degrade others, like when saying 'finally, some sanity', thereby implying that, thus far, there hasn't been any or much sanity, when some people might have just expressed an intimate thought or two I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, but still if it is about taking care then we certainly don't want to compliment someone by negating/degrading others, or it wouldn't be a real compliment. Especially not when taking the time to comment on how the thread degraded as it did