Freedom From Atheism

You've stated that the universe has human life in mind (which in itself is an unsubstantiated claim). If you are unsure of the existence of alien life, how can you state that the universe is either in one direction (completely aware) or another direction (completely ignorant) of such forms of life?

As for the part I've underlined... Once again, you've mentioned evidence but haven't brought forth any.

The statement "science just can't go there" is simply an attempt to put up a blockade from opposing views.

If you could convince me on your point, I'd stand up and fight with you.

 

Because if Alien life exists, then its very existence shows that it is part of the Universe. The life-generating force showed that not only can it manifest as a human, but as an Alien intelligent being as well, and most likely an endless amount of other beings.

The fact that the ecosystem and all of planet Earth is interdependent already shows how life 'has itself in mind'.

 

You've put the underlined section in quotations for a reason (clearly nature does not have a mind in the classical sense or you would have been comfortable saying just that). You're looking for something to compare/relate to. You've chosen the mind and ecology. The last step is to produce evidence. If you aren't going to do so, you may as well not respond.

 

Would you say that you are ultimately separate from everything or not? Can you actually exist as an island unto yourself?

If you say yes you are separate, then you'll have to prove that. You came from your parents, and your entire life is reliant upon all that surrounds you.

Once you've realized that there is no separation, then the Cosmic Mind becomes obvious. There's already Scientific yet ignored evidence of Non-Local Consciousness. https://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Consciousness/the_quantum_brain.article

So if psychic quantum non-locality exists in Nature, then how is Nature not aware of itself, and taking care of itself? Ants already send non-local signals to each other to bring in more ants while hunting prey. All the animals in the animal kingdom balance each other out by doing their function in the ecosystem, and if there is an un-balance somewhere, then Nature will do its thing to restore the balance, even if that means violently killing off a species.

 

No, of course I am not separate. None of us have any control over that. I would be rather unique if I were somehow separate. However, since I'm no more than a collection of atoms (roughly the same as everyone else), you could say my personal identity is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

The link you've shared is simply a collection of emails. I'm at a loss for words for what you consider evidence.

The beginning of your last sentence in the third paragraph begins with "so if", which Indicates that you haven't even convinced yourself that "spooky action at a distance" exists. You're mashing up basic principles of physics with mumbo jumbo. If I were you, I'd get the physics right before trying to go any further.

 

Jesus. The email is regarding a study that has been done, which shows Psychic communication in a lab. I can find another link that looks "nicer" for you.

So you're just going to nitpick my language as your argument?

This "rather insignificant" conclusion is nothing but a conclusion and a belief of yours. It's like an old man telling a child that "life is shit" because that's the conclusion he has come to. What would be satisfying for you to be able to say that your manifestation IS significant?

 

There's a great video in the recommendations from that video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccReLF6M62Y&feature=youtu.be

Freedom from these ignorance demons is exactly what we need.

There are minions polluting these threads.

 

Yes, I'm aware of the contents of the email. I'm quite sure every student of physics is aware of the author of that paper (if they are not, I weep). The study drew inconclusive results. My mind is boggled as to why you wouldn't simply post a link where Sarfatti got something right. He's done much more than this, however, I'm not surprised that you'd deliberately choose an article like this one to represent your opinion.

I have not chosen to nitpick your language. Your ideas are nonsense, your grammar is excellent.

As for the last part; I'm not sure why you're so hung up on significance.

 

I believe in "the Truth", but consider it to be unattainable, or at least impossible to discern definitively with any confidence. At best, we can grasp bits and snatches of it thru propositions that seem plausible enough and grounded in enough substantial evidence to place informed bets on. Since the seventeenth century, we've been aware that we are prisoners of our perceptions. As Dawkins puts it: "What we see of the real world is not the unvarnished real world but a model of the real world, regulated and adjusted by sense data--a model that is constructed so that it is useful for dealing with the real world."(The God Delusion, p. 5). For all we know, we could be brains in a jar or characters in a virtual reality computer program. And certainly general relativity and quantum mechanics have given us a universe that seems strange and counter-intuitive. Given those facts, how do we make sense of it all? I'm persuaded that the best way out, other than a surrender to solipsism, is to embrace what Santayana calls "animal faith". We must somehow take a chance on the version of reality that rings truest to us, using risk-based intuition. There is no other way out. I do it. Scientists do it. Dawkins does it. You do it. And we could all be wrong. How do we do it? We place our bets on our judgment of what seems intuitively plausible in light of the available evidence. To say that the universe simply "appears to be integrated" borders on the solipsistic.

Most informed observers, including atheists like Dawkins, think that it actually is integrated, the question being how did it get that way? We can conclude that it's the result of a series of improbable flukes or random events on the order of winning numerous Power ball lotteries --a "universe from nothing"-- or that instead some ordering principle or force was actually involved. I'm willing to accept natural selection as a satisfactory explanation of the complexity of animal and human species, although not necessarily life, consciousness, nor the universe itself. We have the laws of physics, but how did they originate? Admittedly, invoking the name of an ineffable being doesn't tell us much, but it's a start, as one possible line of explanation--even in the minimal deist or pantheist formulations by Paul Davies and Einstein, respectively. There may be as yet unknown naturalistic explanations comparable to Darwin's theory that apply to these problems. Complexity theory offers intriguing possibilities, but so far it strikes me as little more than hand waving. M-theory and the wave function of the universe, likewise, seem limited as a source of refutable hypotheses. I'm inclined to agree with physicist Paul Davies that the natural universe "is not just any concotonation of entities and forces but a marvelously ingenius and integrated scheme."

 

Wow...yup and Atheism isn't a Religion? "These heretics are polluting our children, people, and way of life. Off with their heads and out they go, so that we can huddle back up in our correct little bubble."

Sorry that my ideas make people so angry so much of the time, but it just shows me that I'm on the right path; as all that I'm doing is clashing with people's beliefs on what reality is, so much to the point that they can't just disagree with me, but have to put me on ignore lists, suggest that I leave, etc. Really just shows how much that one can cling to their world-view if I make you that upset.

 

Are you serious? The results showed that there is a correspondence and it is something that has been repeated in the lab outside of this one time. If anything, it should be further explored, not shrugged off as "inconclusive" and back onto the shelf to collect dust.

You're the one who brought up insignificance. That's fine if you feel that way, but it's ultimately just your conclusion about what life is.

Now I showed you evidence of the existence of non-local interaction of consciousness. So why wouldn't that also be happening in Nature? Humans are Nature, afterall.

 

It is not logical or reasonable to conclude that being extremely annoying to others is proof of being right.

 

- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

 

Yeah and what's annoying to me is the stubborn skepticism on this forum even in the face of evidence.. You don't see me asking you to leave. I've been here since 2006, so you'll just have to deal with it unless you want to come up with more ridiculous reasons to give me warning points, just for expressing my opinion. It's your choice to be a tyrant I suppose.

 

And meanwhile, Science is attempting to bring back Determinism because it can't accept the implications posed by Bell, Bohr, and Aspect in regards to Quantum Non-Locality, and spooky action at a distance, which is just reiterating what Hermeticism has known for Millenia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfj4R52Q6I

 

I suspect a lot of people do what I do, which is skim over your posts or skip them completely, due to lack of interest. I can find better things to do with my time.

Also, see rule #10, pertaining to public debates about moderation.

 

Hmm...too bad people are so close-minded

 

Do you have time to read every post on Hip Forums? Would you want to, if you could? Not me.

 

Oops! I almost overlooked this being an alias account for ChinaCat. Goodbye.

 

^ditto