And believing in those is different how? Besides, in your opinion, that your mythical beliefs are good while theirs is evil?
Both are unsubstantiated, unprovable, goofy nonsense.

To be honest, I think "theirs" is evil while yours, if I have discerned it correctly, is more benign.

"Make the lie big. Repeat it often enough. And it becomes the truth."--Stalin(I think)

NO! Truth is not philosophy. The truth is the truth, regardless of how many people believe it.
It was once believed by most people that the Earth was flat. It is not.
It was once believed, by most, that slavery was a good and proper thing. It is not.
ect
ect
ect

an argument for another day,,,,but briefly speaking,,,I agree, very few of us know the truth, we accept the truth on faith

for instance, no way for me to KNOW that Franklin 'discovered' electricity because I didnt WITNESS it for myself,,,but through faith in the integrity and honesty of what others have WRITTEN, we generally accept as truth (for instance) that he did. the FACT is that he wrote down information about electricity that he claimed were his own ideas, I have no reason to think this wasnt true, but I dont KNOW it wasnt,, I accept the integrity of the information as truth,,,,,as most people do in their formal education

Oh my dear Arcamedees, you are jumping to conclusions here based on assumptions and misconceptions that aren’t even close to reflecting the reality of the situation.

You write: “in your opinion, that your mythical beliefs are good while theirs is evil?”

I have no “mythical beliefs”. This is the error you are making. Although I confess that it may often appear that I do because sometimes I refer to things like a “Moon Goddess”, but I’m not viewing this as a mythology. I fully recognize that it’s a psychic archetype. I’m totally aware of this. Moreover, were have I ever claimed that it’s important for anyone else to use this particular psychic archetype. I’m sure that I never have suggested any such thing because that would be contrary to my understandings and beliefs.

So, I have no ‘mythical beliefs”. That’s just a misconception on your part because you don’t fully understand my spiritual philosophy. And I certainly don’t blame you for that, I’ve never written any books on the topic, nor have I even truly tried to explain it to anyone in any great depth. But fasten your seat belt because I’m about to make an attempt just for you.

This is going to be a short ‘thesis’ of sorts so grab a cup of tea (or whatever drink you prefer) and settle in for a cerebral journey. I’ll break this up with bold headings to make it easier to digest.

The Secular Scientific View

This view stems mostly from the biologists’ and geneticists’ communities. The idea seems rather simple and straight-forward (although I assure you that this is a falsehood already), and the idea is as follows: Human consciousness and awareness (our ability to perceive and experience) is nothing more than an emergent property that arises from the physical complexity of our physical brains, body and nervous system. This is there current stance and “Theory of Mind”, if you will. (not to be confused with the psychologist’s “Theory of Mind” which is a totally different concept altogether.

In other words, they are suggesting (almost demanding) that from a scientific point of view our conscious awareness is nothing more than an emergent property of the complex physical patterns and activities of our physical brains.

That sounds real good on the surface. Almost to the point where it seem foolish to reject it. But that’s hardly the case. An ‘emergent property’ itself is nothing more than a human abstract concept. So is that the explanation of the true nature of our conscious awareness? That it’s merely an abstract concept? That’s a bit circular is it not?

In other words, what is it that is actually doing the perceiving and experiencing? The emergent property itself? That’s a pretty abstract almost “mythical” philosophy right there. And if its not the emergent property itself that is doing the actual perceiving and experiencing then what is the fundamental entity that is having the actual experience of perception? The physical brain itself? What sense does that make? How can a physical brain actually experience anything if all it amounts to is a mass of atoms. Are the atoms themselves experiencing this form?

In other words, this explanation is not rock solid by any stretch of the imagination. It leaves many questions unanswered. Plus it ultimately relies upon a Classical or Newtonian picture of physical reality which has indeed been shown to be false. (more about that below, in the section entitled “My Scientific Spiritual View”)

But first let’s visit the Easter Mystics again

The Fundamental Philosophy of Eastern Mysticism

Please notice that this is not a mythology. This is a philosophical view. Yes, it is also a spiritual view of life, but that just happens to be where this philosophy leads.

Rather than speaking in terms of “pantheism” which is taken to assume a concept of “spirit” prior to the philosophy, let’s think in terms of “animism” where an underlying animating force is simply observed to be apparent in everything.

Let’s go back now and consider the Biologist’s view that consciousness (which the Eastern Mystics see as ‘spirit’) is nothing more than an emergent property of form.

Well, the Eastern Mystics say, “Sure, you can view it that way”, however, they also point out that if this is true of human brains then it’s also true of all forms. Every form in the physical world has some essence of an ‘emergent property’ associated with it. In this sense “consciousness” or “spirit” is present in everything.

No you may argue the semantics of using the term “consciousness” here. But in this context that’s a trivial argument. The bottom line is that consciousness is an emergent property of form, then all forms have some emergent properties and therefore some essence of “consciousness”. It is important to at least consider this on an abstract level especially considering where I’ll be taking this in the next and final section of this thesis.

The Eastern Mystics (philosophers) then conclude that “all is consciousness, and you are it”. Tat t’vam asi.

Please keep in mind that this is not a ‘mythology’ at all. It’s a very well-thought-out philosophical approach to answering the riddle of life. It makes sense. And it certainly makes every bit as much sense as the Biologist’s secular notion that human consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain. Once that’s been recognized then the Eastern Mystic view that all forms must have emergent properties to at least some degree must necessarily follow.

So in a sense the Eastern Mystics have taken what modern Biologists have observed and have simply applied this observation to the entire universe and everything in it.

My Scientific Spiritual View

At first glance the title of this section may appear as an oxymoron to what science is supposed to be. But in truth, it really is a scientific explanation of spirit. At least it’s every bit as valid and competitive with the Biologists observations that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of form.

And here’s the scientific explanation:

The Biologists claim that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of physical form. So the next obvious question is quite straight-forward. What is physical form? Well that’s the study of physics right? So we turn to physics.

What does physics have to say about physical form? Well, in Classical or Newtonian physics, form was believed to be the result of configurations of little tiny hard balls. Balls that basically behave like billiard balls. That’s the foundation of physical form.

Well, that was the picture back in Classical physics. However, in modern physics which includes the observations of the quantum world and Quantum Theory, physicists have lost their balls. We have no observed that at a fundamental level there is no such thing as physical form. All that appears to exist is some sort of truly weird “quantum soup” or “quantum foam” that itself does not even obey the laws of ‘physics’.

Sure, we’ve created a model of potentiality and probability that appears to assign some statistical mathematical descriptions as long we don’t focus in on any single event, but only on large numbers of events. But still, the bottom line is that physical form is not at all what we had first thought. It’s not merely a configuration of hard balls. Instead it’s a very dynamic well of infinite possibility emerging from a soup of apparent chaos.

So what do we have now? Now we have precisely the opposite of what the Biologists see. We have form as an emergent property of something far deeper and mysterious. Mysterious? What’s that? Well, that’s Mysticism! Mysticism is simply a belief and observation that the world is truly a mystery beyond our ability to comprehend.

This is what the Eastern Mystics have concluded. The world is an emergent property of the divine mystery and you are that. Tat t’vam asi.

No mythology required.

And the Eastern mystics take this all one step further. Like the Biologists the Eastern Mystics recognize that consciousness is one of the many things that emerge from this infinite sea of potentiality. Therefore consciousness must be innate to the cosmic sea. And we are but a wave on the ocean of cosmic consciousness.

Summary and Conclusion

The Eastern Mystical view of life is every bit as grounded in philosophical thinking and scientific knowledge and observation as the Biological Secular view is. No need for mythology here. It’s just as well-grounded as secularism.

I have personally taken the Eastern View and recognized that this same view is consistent with various practices and traditions of witchcraft and shamanism. I’ll be the FIRST to grant that this won’t apply to all practices and schools of thought associated with witchcraft and shamanism. I personally have to roll my eyes when I see what some people have turned those ideologies into. And I will grant you that many of them have indeed turned them into hardcore beliefs in particular mythologies. They have lost sight of the value of psychic archetypes and have indeed become idol worshipers, of the mythological legends instead.

I probably should never even mention witchcraft and shamanism or concepts like the Mood Goddess on these boards because I’m certain that no one can possibly have the psychic archetypical understanding of them that I do (save for a few very special Witches).

This is why it’s far better for me to speak in terms of Eastern Mysticism. That’s really the bottom line anyway. That’s where the ideas of witchcraft and shamanism actually came from original anyway. Witchcraft and shamanism is really nothing more than Eastern Mysticism romanticized. And it’s the romantic aspect that attracts me.

I hope the effort I put into this post was worth it and you now have at least some understanding why it is that I don’t believe in, or rely upon any mythical beliefs. I do however use them as tools for the manifestation of psychic archetypal thought-forms. And I find that to be quite valuable and constructive. It has practical value for me that I cannot deny.

it shows the dangers of only understanding parts of scientific principles.
I stand by my original statement. You can call it whatever makes you happy. It's still a fantasy and wishfull thinking. As artfully conceived as your mythos is, it's still not real. Just exactly the same as everybody else's mythos.

I find almost my arguments with religious people the conversation ends with.. "well you just gotta have faith". Arguing logic with people religious people is like discussing algebra with a brick.

perhaps, its just a matter of patience really,

I understand alot of the 'logic' of non believers, and I would never tell them to have faith, becuase that kind of counteracts with their need to have something already be 'proven' ,,, I can only say, many things werent understood , until they were,,,,,there will be a time when we will all understood


historically, people asked how an object as large as a plane could fly,,,and the average person still doesnt really 'understand' the how of it

we wont ever be all knowing,, so , whatever the topic, people can discuss with respect and 'logic' but most people have a limit of how often they can answer the same question without figuring that they just wont be able to get the concept through to the listener,,

the most difficult part for many a religious person in debating with a non believer is a different in concepts. Basically, the non believer wants to insist God is put in the same category as man, that the same rules and restrictions and capabilites should apply


It is kind of like saying, the robot maker should not logically be able to do anything different than his creation,,, and that is not logical to me either,,,,but the debate goes on,,,until people start shutting others down by making it personal and insulting,,,

I think the discussion with the brick would be more worthwhile.

sorry, i was distracted by Debrahlee Lorenzana

You say, "it shows the dangers of only understanding parts of scientific principles."

Exactly what "dangers" are you attempting to convey?

All I'm basically saying is that until science can RULE SOMETHING OUT, then it can't be dismissed. And all I've done is explain why Science cannot rule out my philosophy.

Now if you are under some impression that science can rule it out, then I think you're the one who misunderstand science.

Unlike a lot of atheists, I'm not foolish enough to say that I will only believe what science can PROVE. That would indeed be foolish, because we know that science does not know everything. In fact, science discoveres new things all the time that it never dreamed existed prior to that. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two prime example.

In fact, if you look back over history science made a lot of wrong assumptions along the way that it later discovered were different from the way it actually thought things might be. Does Relativity ring a bell. Or even Quantum Mechanics itself?

So being an intelligent person I recognize that unless science can actually rule something OUT, then neither can I.

And at this point science cannot rule out the spiritual philosophy that I have developed. In fact, I know it can't because science was a guiding principle that helped me to rule out many things.

So, in short, if you take the stance that you refuse to believe something just because science has yet to prove it, then I'd say that you are totally dependent on science to discover everything for you because you are incapable of thinking outside of that box.

In fact, if all scientists thought that way science would come to a screeching halt. Even string theorists would be SOL. Because they postulate the existence of entities that science has not yet proved to exist.

The whole stance, "I won't believe anything until science can prove it", is truly the epitome of stupidity. No scientist worth his salt would even think like that.

I agree. And especially if the religious person is attempting to convince you to believe something that you don't want to believe. That's absurd.

If belief is a matter of faith, and you aren't interested in having faith, then the conversation is over right there. There's nothing left to argue about.

Also, the next time a Christian suggests that you need to have faith, just ask them:

"Why would I want to have faith that some guy had to be nailed to a pole to pay for my sins?"

"Why would I want to have faith that I'm at odds with my creator and that all of mankind fell from grace?"

"What would I want to have faith that there is some evil demon running around trying to steal souls from my creator?"

Surely you can think up some more on your own.

indeed.

To get this back onto the topic of the OP...

There are millions (or billions) of other planets in our galaxy, there are a huge amount of other galaxies in our universe, our universe could very well be a part of a bigger multi-verse.

So, there are billions upon billions of chances for it to be "just right". So much so that it really isn't a miracle at all.

hmm, kind of a different spin,, I would think that something having a one in a million or one in billions chance of happening, could actually VERY WELL be considered a miracle,,,

You're wrong.

My belief in the possiblity of a supernatural essence to the universe is no different than a String Theorist's belief in the possiblity that strings exist.

Where you are making a grave error is in thinking that my "beliefs" represent some sort of DOGMA.

The Christians believe in DOGMA. They beleive in Zeus! Well, actually it's Yahweh, but do you see where there is no difference?

In other words, Christians aren't believing in the possible existence of strings they are demanding that strings exist and that they have all the information that describes them in every detail

So there's no comparison between my 'beliefs' and the kind of beliefs that Christians claim to hold.

My 'beliefs', are precisely the same kinds of 'beliefs' that any scientist worth his salt must necesssarily have.

So yes, you're wrong, because if you are comparing my 'beliefs' with those of the Christians, then you clearly do not understand where I'm even coming from.

And this would also be true of most Eastern Mystics. Although some Eastern Mystics to get carried away and claim to know precise details, but that's truly a farce with respect to Eastern Mysticism is it not?

The Tao is that which is unknowable. Spirit is that which is unknowable. Therefore for anyone to claim to have any concrete knowledge of spirit whilst simultaneously claiming to be a "Mystic" is doing nothing other than revealing a completely ignorance of Mysticism.

Mysticism is a belief that life is indeed an unknowable mystery. This is why it's called "Mysticism".

I study Mysticism in the very same way that a String Theorist studies Strings. On the PURE FAITH that the information I have so far can indeed be applied to the concept I'm studying. And it does! There is nothing in all of science that conflicts or denies anything that I believe, and therefore science may very well eventually prove the things I beleive.

My belief in spirit is no different from a string theorist's belief in strings.

If you can't see that, then this is a shortcoming of your comprehension and undersanding of what science does and doesn't know.

If you think that science supports atheism, then you better think again, because it does no such thing.

Actually there something far more interesting going on if you pay close attention.

How large is the universe?

Well, in truth we don't know. What we do know is that the visible universe is extremely huge. Far larger than the human mind is even capable of comprehening actually. I mean we can talk about it containing about 70 sextillion stars. But what human mind can truly phathom what 70 sextillion even means intuitively?

Yes in that entire visible expanse we only see the existence of (about) 100 naturally occuring elements. And those elements can only bond together in finite ways.

So just for a moment let's just pretend that the universe truly is infinite in scope, yet still finite in terms of it's constitutent elements that can only come together in finite many ways.

What does that mean?

That means that not only has life evolved on Earth, but it must have also evolved infinitely often throughout the infinite universe because there are only finite many elements that can only be combined in finite many ways.

So if all of that is true, then life is not only NOT an accident, but it is necessarily an integral part of the very nature of the universe.

Now. all of a sudden, numbers become meaningless, and all that has meaning is the very nature of the unvierse itself. And its nature is obviously to naturally evolved into living sentient beings. This is the very essence of it's finite components.

In fact, if I were to accept that the universe was just some sort of random accident, I wouldn't expect it to only contain a fininte number of elements. Esepcially so FEW in comparison to it's vastness.

Why only about 100 elements in an infinitely large universe? Why not infinitely many elements, with NO CHANCE of anything recognizably evolving into something meaningful and consistent?

That would be random chance.

A universe that only contains such a small handful of precisley defined elements is suspiciously NOT very RANDOM.

The point being, there are billions of planets in that area of "just right". Right now, we only know of 1 planet with life on it. (I personally find it absurd to think that we are the only planet in the "life zone" with life on it.)
I think the best analogy I can use is this: The "miracle of life" is looked at like a lottery, have to match each number correctly to win, but there are so many planets out there, that it is more like you don't have to be exact, you can be within 10-20 of that number to win.. At that point it is not a miracle.

I would say that Science does not support anything in theism, whether theist or atheist. Science deals in the real word, Theism deals with belief.

“Real world”?

Define “real”.

This has become a very “Real” problem for science in general.

If you define “real’ as only that which can be measured, then you run into all sort of problems. Including problems associated with Quantum Mechanics.

However you don’t even need to get all that technical. All you need to do is speak of love. Can love be measured? If you think it can you’re probably thinking about sexual lust. I’m not speaking about sexual attraction here, I’m speaking about love, compassion, empathy. Can it be measured and physically defined?

If not, then by your definition of “real”, love is not real.

It shouldn’t take an Einstein to see the folly in that one. Even Einstein believed in “god”, albeit a pantheistic view of “god”.

The very idea that the entire world can be reduce to nothing more than the science of physics is truly a very shallow and lame idea, IMHO.

To call that idea “real” whilst dismissing everything else as not being “real” is genuinely to do nothing more than reduce yourself to being a “Brick”.

My point being that "Science backs Atheism" is just as absurd as "Science back Christianity" or "Science backs theism" (My fault for not choosing the correct words the first time)

They are, and should be, different arenas.

That being said, I will trust a scientists words on Quantum Physics long before I will trust a preacher.