Jump to content

Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Joshpantera last won the day on September 1

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,192 Holy Cow!

5 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    General Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 25 year deconvert. Gone off exploring a lot of science, religion, philosophy, biblical criticism, archaeology, eastern mystical content, and esoteric comparative content. Atheistic about gods with a spiritual side about nature.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I don't believe in god(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,216 profile views
  1. Oh, I see it's Krauss. We did cover that. When most physicist's refer to something coming from nothing, the term nothing is just a figure of speech. The formula's they are proposing turn out to be something coming from something after all. Like sub atomic particles bursting into existence. They didn't come from a literal, or absolute nothing. There's a few pages about this in the other thread. So what we wind up with is a situation where the source material is eternal. Or some factor involved is necessarily eternal. The something, which is referred to as nothing, goes back. Roger Penrose, in debate with William Lane Craig proposed that the big bang is likely a recurring event, one that had a previous existence behind it and one which will likely occur again in the distant future. I'm going leave citation to both of these debate topics here, because both are relevant to the thoughts that I was having previously and tying it all together. I'm taking the main content of these two issues and then applying the content to this thread on the importance of the hard problem and the idea of a "spectrum of consciousness." Because as I was saying earlier, they all seem to meet and merge. Basically, we have a situation where (1) something comes something and (2) Hawking and Penrose's fixed beginning of the universe proposal has been falsified by confirmation of a positive cosmological constant. Penrose now thinks that the big bang is not a one off event, but something that naturally happens in series (that's in the video debate in the above citation). Basically, this is where I get the ideas behind my last big post. If I add the content of Hoffman, Radin and Surprise to this, the situation opens up into how fundamental consciousness or awareness is to existence itself. I've heard these claims and allegations from way back but never understood how it would all work. But it seems very clear now. It's not exactly what the Hindu's have been saying all along, but it's close. Very close. There seems to be awareness inherent in all aspects of existence. It's not Brahman, not literally a deity, but there does seem to be a fundamental level awareness interconnected into the existence of anything. So it looks to me as though Hindu mythology is at least partially right. I had a PM going with Deepok Chopra years ago and I had the handle, "tat tvam asi." He really liked the handle due it's meaning in Advaita Vedanta. It's states, "you are that." You are existence - consciousness itself. They are the transcendent, you are the transcendent. How that may be correct eluded me at the time. But to Chopra it was just a given. I understood how it applied to existence, but I had yet to figure out how or why it also applies to the spectrum of consciousness. It wasn't clear how existence and awareness could be necessarily interconnected and inseparable. But now I'm beginning to see it.
  2. I'll have to check it out because we have a topic about this going at the moment in the debate section:
  3. I joined the World Pantheism Movement (WPM) several decades ago, while researching eastern religions. I figured, what the hell. I understand it. But I understand it from a philosophical, not religious belief perspective. The philosophical issues surrounding unity and interconnectivity are what interest me. The leaf is a manifestation of the eternal god. The form or manifestation of the eternal god that looks like a leaf, is what comes and goes. Appears to live and die. Now you see it, now you don't. But the underlying essence which is the existence of the leaf, is always there. That is pantheistic philosophy in a nut shell. Ancient religious oriented pantheism. In the Upanishad's (off the cuff as well, I'll have to find the citation) you'll encounter a man asking a boy to break open a seed of a banyan tree - in order to direct the boys attention towards the eternal, transcendent. He asks the boy what he sees. The boy says more seeds, increasingly small. They get down to the final seed. He tells the boy to break it. Then asks what he sees. 'Nothing,' the boys says. Then man says, ' from that which you do not see, this great banyan tree arises.' Everything is a manifestation of Brahman, this transcend, energy conscious which pervades all space and time, and transcends it all. You don't directly see the transcendent informing energy consciousness - which is the eternal source of everything and IS everything. But you do see it through everything in existence. The leaf is no different than the banyan tree example. This is religion for a lot of people east of the Suez. This is what spirituality entails. And that which is transcendent is immanent in all things. It's existence itself. So existence is eternal, no beginning or end. Everything that exists, IS a manifestation of existence itself. To them it's Brahman. That's the placeholder term for ultimate reality. There is no sense of the eternal being absent from anything according to pantheistic philosophy. No need that the eternal should come down to earth from some far off place. There can't be some far off place where the eternal dwells (heaven), because the eternal dwells everywhere and through everything. No coming down to the earth as a one off event. No second return as a one off event, either. This is not reconcilable with orthodoxy christianity. What sense does it make, raising dead bodies, or raising spiritual bodies, or any type of "body" for that matter? These bodies weren't anything other than the god producing leaves out of itself. It's a process, an ongoing process of forever producing out of itself, over, and over and over again forever without end. Why back track and pull up physical manifestations (bodies) that have already come and gone? This is why ancient religious pantheist's have the doctrine of reincarnation. It's the underlying primary "consciousness" that keeps moving as new bodies arise and fall, like leaves falling from a tree. Reincarnating as bodies continue to arise, over and over across Aeons of time (see Yuga's). But the bible's plan of salvation has nothing to do with reincarnating, primary consciousness taking on new bodies all the time. It's about raising up physical bodies out of graves, which, parts ways with how pantheistic philosophy plays out. The christian "plan of salvation" doesn't gel with pantheistic philosophy at all.
  4. No, I have not ignored the scope of the plan. I made very clear what the bible presents as this plan of salvation per the book of Revelation, which is what you're referring to above. The plan doesn't make any sense against what you believe, though. 1) The god is eternal, he's always had eternal life. All along. The whole time. 2) The god is omnipresent, meaning he's "all", and leading to your pantheistic notions of god. 3) The god is omniscient, meaning he's all knowing, therefore doesn't have to experience anything or learning anything, because he necessarily already knows it all. If god has always had eternal life, and god is everything, then everything is just as eternal as god is. Because god is everything, and god is eternal. People living and dying, is an illusion in this sense. They are not really living and dying. They are just the god bubbling up forms and images out of itself which have the appearance of everything visible - planets, star systems, elements, life forms, and finally human beings. It all has to be the omnipresent god. And omnipresent god is eternal, hence, there isn't anything in existence which is actually finite or non-eternal. Do you follow this? All of the generations of people from adam to jesus, and from jesus to now, can not be anything OTHER than the god who is "all." What is resurrected? Nothing ever died to begin with? Nothing could have died, if EVERYTHING is nothing more than the god itself. It's not as if god had to come down to the earth in human form - the omnipresent god had been on the earth in human form all along, in every human that had ever existed. As well as everything else in existence. To suggest striving towards a time ahead in the future when everything will be ice cream and peachy, when eternal life is finally made available to humans, makes no sense. The plan of salvation is nonsense against philosophical pantheistic framework. What exactly do you think the scope of this plan is? The bible is contradictory across the board, including it's presentation of a plan of salvation, by an omnipresent god. It's never going to all work together and line up. It's not possible for it to work together and line up. Because we're talking about differing opinions written about by differing personality types over the course of at least 500 years, if not a 1,000 year period of various writing. Who all saw in terms of small pieces of a puzzle, which, put altogether do not amount to a full picture. It is impossible for you to reconcile the bible as internally consistent when it never was to begin with. That's the big picture here, Edgarcito. That's what we've all come to realize, each in our own ways. The bible is nonsensical from beginning to end. Pantheism doesn't solve the bible's contradictions, it only creates more of them. The fall of man, plan of salvation, cross, resurrection, ascension, and return are part of the nonsense included in the bible. We're aware of the details surrounding that conclusion.
  5. Craig is wrong, then wrong again, then wrong again...... And he tends to pile one wrong on top of the next from his foundation levels up. His theology lacks depth and understanding. His philosophical comprehension lacks depth and understanding. His comprehension of straight forward science lacks depth and understanding. He's the perfect poster boy for christianity!
  6. 14:50 - Penrose: The Big Bang was not the beginning. So there was something prior to the Big Bang. Immediately refuting the foundation of WLC's Kalam based assertions about Penrose and Hawking's singularity. 24:50 - WLC appeals to a pantheistic, not monotheistic conclusion the for the "unity" underlying the "one and the many." And it's pansychism, basically. Not monotheistic, orthodox christianity. But then flounders around unsuccessfully trying to get Penrose to agree with him about this direction, which, is not christianity but a christian heresy presented by WLC as if it lays the foundation in favor of christianity - WLC personal belief system. 45:50 - Penrose goes into the science. 117:00 - WLC, when faced with the science from Penrose himself, shows his ignorance in understanding what Penrose is even talking about. WLC makes appeals to popularity within cosmology to try and dodge the past eternal, or cyclical model assertions that Penrose feels the modern evidence is pointing towards now. 137:00 - No agreement from Penrose on WLC's fine tuned universe assertions.
  7. You're going with the option that I've all but falsified several fold now? There's nothing perfect about a plan of evident, demonstrable, self contradicting nonsense. And yet, that's what you reach for. Pretty UNREASONABLE, wouldn't you think Edgarcito?
  8. So this missing girl I know, several developments. Probably not raped. Looks like her dad has taken her out west towards Colorado or thereabouts. She contacted her mother and said that she's gone for good. She's alive. But doesn't want to come home. The father had kid napped her before and run to California, so this isn't left field. It looks like some time after the mother gained full custody around a year ago, the father probably began scheming up a plan. The girl prefers to live with the father because there's zero rules and she literally can do whatever she wants. Whatever the case, tough situation for her mother right now. To all of the prayer warriors on facebook, I would like to propose the same questions as the questions Edgarcito faces here. Why and WTF???
  9. Falsified before he even started. That's the big take away I'm seeing which should be understandable to just about anyone. Regardless of his persistence and certainty, WLC is nothing more than a big blow hard. A bluff.
  10. We tend to get christian outliers who end up sticking around here for a while sometimes. Not the church crowd. Leary of organized religion for the most part. But of the opinion that they're still christian and enjoy trying to argue on behalf of it. Not us, not the church crowd, just somewhere in between. And who likely get a lot of flack from ex christians and the church crowd alike. Your god ideas are pretty much things that I've already thought of years ago, on my own. They arise from basically anyone trying to think through scenarios involving the possibility that pantheism might be how it really works, and then how that might then apply to christianity. But you're sort of in the make it up as you go along stage. What I did was follow each of these potential ideas down each rabbit hole until I discovered where they would each dead end. Seeing them all dead end, I moved on and never revisited these ideas. I remember once thinking about framing the sin situation as a cancer within the body of god. God would eradicate the cancer, sin, from within himself, god being the all, the totality. It's all god, and yet god would be wanting to remove some cancerous aspect of himself, from within himself. This was something of a thought experiment to see where that reasoning could go. Then I proceeded to look at everything that I could find wrong with the proposal. First of all, the issue of "all knowing." Why allow such a cancer to arise within yourself to begin with? Especially when you have the "all power" to prevent any such thing from ever happening in the first place. And the nonsensical aspect of allowing it to happen anyways, or giving the cancer within yourself "free will" only to eradicate the cancer down the line after it's festered for a long, long time according to the experience of time? None of it adds up. I'm sure there's tons more wrong with the assertion. But that's enough to toss it aside from what I can tell. Do you check yourself like this, Edgarcito?
  11. This reminds me of the Pirate Counsel binding ole' "Calypso" to human form, for smoother seas. The idea of scientifically suppressing tropical cyclones has been around for a while. If it could be done, yes, I'm sure a rather large pay day would be in store!
  12. To take all of the content of the thread so far into consideration: It looks to me like the "consciousness spectrum" seems to be the frontier ahead for science. With Hoffman working on mathematically precise formula's, Radin running all variety of tests, and Surprise working out the animal sense of awareness could have informed the human evolutionary process and early man, they are making it a scientific issue. The "consciousness spectrum" suggests that primitive forms of awareness (which are increasingly simple as you down scale) can be recognized down to sub atomic particle levels. Something like the awareness of distance and location between particles in space through energy / wave based interaction between particles - would be an example of how something like this would work that far down scale. No thoughts by particles. No thinking by particles. But an awareness in existence at every possible level of any experience of any type. I don't know where this will go for the scientists working on the "consciousness spectrum" front, but it's as interesting to me as the frontier of cosmology or any other big scientific issue. If this is correct, then we exist in a universe that for all intensive purposes has no beginning, so to speak. We have threads in the Den about that. Cataloging the details that go into the issue. Those who have tried to fix a beginning have failed, been falsified. Apologist's who have tried to use science to try and fix a beginning have failed in like fashion. Instead we're facing an existence in a universe where existence itself can not be alleged any fixed beginning. There's a very literal, eternal aspect to existence itself which is not easily hand wave dismissed or refuted, by any one. Scientist, philosopher, theologian or otherwise. That all ties in to this business about awareness in very obvious ways. Because if existence itself is eternal, and awareness is something which is inherent within the scheme of mere existence, then an inherent awareness factor interconnected with existence itself would be necessarily eternal in scope - in the exact way that existence itself is eternal in scope and depth. The two, mere existence and inherent spectral awareness (shall we say) come as an interconnected unity existing hand in hand. Years ago I was starting to get a glimpse of this possibility from reading Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts. But the content was never taken down to these levels of consideration. Nonetheless, the over all situation is the same. When Campbell was noticing how raw protoplasm behaves, his thoughts were that energy and consciousness may be two aspects of the same thing. And in this focus, that would be correct. Because energy and awareness would be interconnected aspects of existence itself. He would have been noticing something fundamental about existence itself, through the satori concerning how raw protoplasm behaves. Alan Watts often pointed out that we are merely the fabric and structure of existence itself, as our deepest identity. These two thoughts run parallel and are interconnected according to this line of reasoning and focus. The scientific, theoretical and philosophical issue here is when did existence begin? Did it just pop up out of non-existence? There are deep problems involved in the non-existence route. I've watched people fail one after the next while trying to argue it. Hawking was falsified along the way while trying to fix a beginning to the universe. Everything tends to point towards an unbroken, past eternal (pardon my terminology) type of existence that can likely never be fixed an absolute beginning. The same issue is before us concerning spectral awareness. Did it just pop into existence all of a sudden without any previous existence? That summarizes the opening post and the questions posed. And these two questions about existence and awareness seem to run together. If existence can not be fixed a firm beginning, then I don't see how awareness taking place within the scheme of existence can be fixed a firm beginning either. Both seem necessarily past eternal , and interconnected from this angle. As in existence will always exist in one form or another, and awareness will always exist in one form or another as long as existence itself, exists. This seems to be where philosophy, spirituality and science all intersect and merge. Maybe I'm dead wrong. But this seems much more likely than just fanciful speculation in my opinion. It seems like the simplest explanation is that awareness in it's various, spectral oriented forms, has always been and will always be. And that's why it becomes nonsensical to look at conscious as something magically appeared out of nowhere, with no prior basis for it's existence.
  13. This summarizes the thrust of all the points made in the video interviews. Very interesting stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.