why couldn't Thought and the Spiritual world not have spawn from the Physical since the The spiritual can not be proved beyond faith

There are some scientists who have theories that the world we live in is indeed a projection and they even offer an idea that black holes are the projectors!

Now that might sound at first glance to be non-scientific since it has been shown scientifically that "no thing" can escape from a black hole. And thus it seems at first glance to be unscientific to suggest that black holes could be "projectors" of anything.

However, these theories are based on Quantum Mechanical principles. And the projection fields that are being proposed on quantum fields that do not need to obey the laws of classic physics. Nor are they physically delectable. In other words, we're not going to detect these quantum fields as 'radiation' coming from black holes because those fields are simply undetectable via physical means of observation.

These scientists are quite serious, although, clearly their theories are difficult to confirm using the scientific method because of the non-physical nature of the quantum fields that they are working with.

However, having said that, their theories do have mathematical merit supported by the indirect observations of the properties that Quantum Mechanics postulates that quantum fields must have.

So their theories have some scientific and theoretical grounds. I find them rather interesting but I confess that I have not read up on them in detail. I'm personally at at place in my life where I don't need any further proof that reality is 'weirder' than we can even imagine. So I've decided to just imagine what it "might" be like, and that's good enough for me. Clearly we aren't in an epoch where science can answer these questions yet.

In fact "science" as we know it will never answer these questions. Science is going to need to undergo some major transformations if it want to keep up with the universe.



I too believe that our physical bodies in the universe are indeed an extension or expression of some deeper underlying non-physical 'conscious mind'.

Life is but a dream and we are the dreamer.

Precisely what that means, or what the "dreamer" is like in its true nature is anyone's guess.

Although in truth, the Eastern Mystics have it right. They cannot be wrong.

Why? Because at the core foundation of their belief is "mysticism".

They don't claim to know the true nature of "The Dreamer", they confess that it is a Mystery and this is precisely why their spiritual philosophy is indeed called Mysticism.

The only thing they claim to be sure of is that we are this dreamer in our truest essence, "Tat t'vam asi", You are it.

Precisely what that means "on the other side of reality" is anyone's guess. Is there just one dreamer? (one God) Or are their infinitely many dreamers? (infinitely many Gods). Are we each a god in our own right, or are we all facets of a single divine mind?

No one knows. And that is the "mystery"

~~~~

Or are the atheists right? Science is simply confused right now and will sort out the quantum mess. We'll eventually prove that there is nothing more to the universe than clouds of smoke and dust, and that we evolved out of that random mess by pure random chance. AND that where the cloud of smoke and dust came from is an irrelevant and unscientific question because the atheists can't answer it using their physical method of inquiry.

That's an interesting question. And if Newtonian physics had turned out to be true, I think I would still believe in the pantheistic "God" of Spinoza.

In other words, if the universe is nothing but a cloud of smoke and dust, then that's our true essence. We are this cloud of smoke and dust perceiving itself via the complex forms that it takes on.

That's Spinoza's Classical Physics view of reality.

However, we already have scientific reasons and evidence to believe that there are indeed forms of non-physical information.

So it's actually our study of science itself that has lead us to the observation that non-physical information can indeed exist.

So personally, it's easier for me to imagine that the true nature of reality springs from some non-physical "mind" or "computer", that we can't even imagine, rather than to try to continually beat the dead horse of classical views of a purely physical clockwork universe.

To me, it seems like that's just an outdated view is all.

We now have reasons to believe those old classical ideas just aren't sufficient to describe the true nature of reality.

So why continue to cling to them?

What's the point to that?

Fear of the unknown?

I have actually thought this myself but never dared mention it. I had no idea that some scientists had any similar theories. Interesting.

scientific evidence to believe something still points to belief not fact

Current evidence points to my theory. Yours leaves no explanation for how physical reality came to exist. Mine does.

Mine also is correct in its description of what physical reality its made up of. Light and sound and vibration. Fields within fields.

or a black hole could be a vent...a way the universe displace energy

curent evidence points to the physical since it is the physical that you exist in....the spiritual is just a belief of yours which you can provide no factual evidence that it even exist

But that's a faleshood.

Current modern scientific evidence does not point the 'physical'.

On the contrary are very best modern scientific theory we have, Quantum Mechanics, actually points the idea that everything we experience as being physical actually arises from a non-physical place.

That's the current theory of scientific physics, and it's been the most successful theory that we have come up with yet in terms of actually being able to predict with probabilities only what might happen next, and even THAT is depending upon an assumption that there are 'laws of some sort' that exist in a non-physical form beneath the facade that we call "physical".

So your stance that science points to a 'physical existence' and nothing else is actually an outdated notion. It's not in agreement with modern scientific theories and experimental evidence.

You say, "current evidence points to the physical"

But that's not true at all.

On the contrary "current evidence" points to a non-physical dimension giving rise to what we observe and perceive to be "physical".

Atheist who try to use science to back up their views are grossly mistaken about what science actually supports!

can't imagine me ever saying something does not exist. saying 'there is no evidence' i suppose is a poor choice of words again. a real issue here it seems. so how about this? 'i know of no evidence'

That's a good way to put it. But that just means that you are a person who does not think or imagine what might be, you just sit and observe. You don't seem curious at all. That's okay, but seems rather dull.

quantum mechanics is in question too but never mind. when someone starts thinking they know what i'm hoping or betting i consider them now arguing with themself and i bow out. but do carry on.

I exist both in the physical and the non-physical.

There are those who imagine and seek the answers to mysteries and there are those who just sit there and say "Prove it." or, "I see no evidence of that..."

This is really all very fine and okay but not very progressive.

you'll stay confused about what i mean to say until you stop saying what you think i mean and simply read my words. i can imagine winning the lottery and finally buying the yatch i've always wanted. i can think of what the parties might be like on my new yatch and the chicks that would be there. i stated that i can't imagine a soul or spirit and you conclude i cannot imagine or think of what might be????? can you imagine yourself sprinting around the equator in the time carl lewis ran a hundred meters in the eighty four olympics??? if not, should i conclude 'that just means that you are a person who does not think or imagine what might be'???? you'd think me absurd to say that, would you not? and rightly so. it'd be absurd for me to even suggest such a thing. absurd for you to even suggest such a thing.

Abracadabra...if you have proof of the spiritual then present it...if you have no proof then that classifiy it as being nothing more than a religious belief that you have faith in.....so far all you've been doing is preaching The Christian's Version of Scientology.....

it's fun for me when a thread becomes all about jrbogie but i'd think it gets boring for others here. perhaps we might return to addressing the substance of the post and get away from personal innuendo about the poster. the author of this thread asks if atheists can sit and chat without such elementary schoolyard, personally offensive antics. i suppose he has his answer by now.

in women's jargon that could mean that you are on a diet

I don't think its all about jrbogie. What makes you think that? I have just heard that answer "There is no evidences to support that....." so many times it just puts me to sleep.

Its like there is this whole group of people who just sit around waiting for 'someone' to find evidence for them.

Until then, they just watch football.

(The author of the thread has disappeared.
To him, anyone who was not a Christian was an atheist.)

Then you are a great agnostic. You don't believe in anything.. except maybe what you see evidence for.

So discussing possibilities would just bore you.