Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[danieldemol]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, but obviously rudimentary.

So what do you mean by concious?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I guess thia is the bottom of your religious agenda which is false concerning the nature of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and your intentional ignorance of Physics and Cosmology.

I believe our dialogue has ended,

My only agenda wrt religion is to realize the unity of the source and its expression, or as Jesus would say, the unity of the Father and Son. What you do with your life is up to you and God, after all, you are an expression of God.

No it has not, because you have since replied to a comment of mine and I will respectfully address it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Citing scripture is not an argument from the perspective of a discussion on cosmology.

I was addressing your comment about God being in harmony of the universe, I understood your 'God' to mean the God of scripture.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So what do you mean by concious?

Awareness.

 

[danieldemol]

Awareness.

What is a rock aware of and how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is a rock aware of and how do you come to that conclusion?

Because electrons have rudimentary awareness, and the rock collective would be more complex. Wrt an electron, it would be emf interactions, the rock's awareness would probably be some form of detecting em radiation pressure variations, enough to be aware of the difference between water and air. Remember the plant kingdom emerged from rocks in the form of moss after mating with water and other minerals, which moss is even an order of higher awareness than the rock.

 

[danieldemol]

Because electrons have rudimentary awareness, and the rock collective would be more complex. Wrt an electron, it would be emf interactions

So in Dhyan language awareness is interacting?

, the rock's awareness would probably be some form of detecting em radiation pressure variations

I wonder if I could make big money selling EM radiation pressure variation detectors, although I suspect people would be disappointed with the product once they recieved it.

, enough to be aware of the difference between water and air. Remember the plant kingdom emerged from rocks in the form of moss after mating with water and other minerals,

A "mating", another word with an alternative Dhyan language meaning.

which moss is even an order of higher awareness than the rock.

Well I guess moss is capable of interacting.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So in Dhyan language awareness is interacting?

I wonder if I could make big money selling EM radiation pressure variation detectors, although I suspect people would be disappointed with the product once they recieved it.

A "mating", another word with an alternative Dhyan language meaning.

Well I guess moss is capable of interacting.

Awareness is that awareness. I presume you read the Abstract I provided to you in my comment #254 which proposes a test of the human mind's ability to interact with an electron. It is based on the hypothesis that the electron, not a human observer, precipitates the collapse of the electron's wavefunction when it is detected.

Naturally as an atheist, you must be true to your belief and reject the concept of a living conscious Cosmos, but true science is not to be held hostage to limited belief systems. The Cosmos wants to express itself to a greater degree than it presently can with a danieldemol vessel that rejects the notion of the very source of itself being pure awareness.

 

[danieldemol]

Naturally as an atheist, you must be true to your belief and reject the concept of a living conscious Cosmos, but true science is not to be held hostage to limited belief systems.

What is it with people digging at atheists when their not happy with the words of someone who believes in a different God today? I have to admit atheists don't P me off at all, but some people just think of the A-word and can't resist taking an irrelevant swipe in my view.

To me true science is that which follows the scientific method, semantic word-salad impressive in its creativity as it may be just doesn't cut it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is it with people digging at atheists when their not happy with the words of someone who believes in a different God today? I have to admit atheists don't P me off at all, but some people just think of the A-word and can't resist taking an irrelevant swipe in my view.

To me true science is that which follows the scientific method, semantic word-salad impressive in its creativity as it may be just doesn't cut it.

I apologize for mistaking you for an atheist and will also temper my irreverence towards their belief. I have nothing against atheists personally, it is only that.... wait... I'd better leave it at that as anything negative I say could be considered irreverent.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is it with people digging at atheists when their not happy with the words of someone who believes in a different God today? I have to admit atheists don't P me off at all, but some people just think of the A-word and can't resist taking an irrelevant swipe in my view.

To me true science is that which follows the scientific method, semantic word-salad impressive in its creativity as it may be just doesn't cut it.

The belligerence in this exchange and this thread, is not coming from @Ben Dhyan , as far as I can see.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was addressing your comment about God being in harmony of the universe, I understood your 'God' to mean the God of scripture.

Which scripture? The scripture of ancient religions lack the knowledge of science, Your response basically misrepresented the scientific knowledge, which you have very very limited knowledge,

There is nothing in the Bible scripture that describes the Physical existence as conscious or aware.

 

[shunyadragon]

The belligerence in this exchange and this thread, is not coming from @Ben Dhyan , as far as I can see.

You are limiting what you are willing to see

I am not sure you can describe either side as belligerent, but the misrepresent of the knowledge of cosmology, the association of atheism with science by @Ben Dhyan, and negative statements concerning atheists is indeed a problem that reflects a strong religious bias. All are fundamentally false and insulting to atheists and science.

The natural properties of our physical existence does not represent any evidence of consciousness or awareness,

From a less biased perspective science should be considered as science independent of any religious agenda,

 

[shunyadragon]

I apologize for mistaking you for an atheist and will also temper my irreverence towards their belief. I have nothing against atheists personally, it is only that.... wait... I'd better leave it at that as anything negative I say could be considered irreverent.

I think you need to apologize to atheists and science for your absurd accusations,

No rudimentary consciousness or awareness in the physical nature of our physical existence by simple definitions in the English language,

 

[danieldemol]

The belligerence in this exchange and this thread, is not coming from @Ben Dhyan , as far as I can see.

Ad-hominem certainly won't change my mind, it is less impressive than word salad in my view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which scripture? The scripture of ancient religions lack the knowledge of science, Your response basically misrepresented the scientific knowledge, which you have very very limited knowledge,

There is nothing in the Bible scripture that describes the Physical existence as conscious or aware.

Given your claim to be religious, I presumed you would read the bible. The bible is a religious document, not a scientific one.

If the universe was dead, ie., not alive, then no consciousness anywhere whatsoever could ever arise. From the panentheism pov, God and the universe are one, meaning that God's awareness and the universe's awareness are one and the same, there is no duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you need to apologize to atheists and science for your absurd accusations,

No rudimentary consciousness or awareness in the physical nature of our physical existence by simple definitions in the English language,

Atheist beliefs, and to some extent, a lot of science and theist beliefs, are a filter through which the mind of the adherents 'see' reality and thus prevents them from realizing the absolute reality laying outside their belief filter. I am doing a service if even one reader among them understands what is being said to them, for it may set in motion action that ultimately frees them of the deception of their limited belief.

The universe is alive and aware, if this planet was not alive, there would be no life. Look around, do you think you live on a dead planet, your body's life is the planet's life, your body didn't come from anywhere else except this planet, every atom in it came from this planet, your body is an integral of the planetary body. Only things that have beginnings have endings, life and death, but the life of the Cosmos/God is eternal, there was never a beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ha ha, what science doesn't know you don't either if we are to define knowledge as demonstrable truth in my view.

Your definition of knowledge is meant to limit reality to a dualist conceptual pov. A conceptualization concerning reality is not the same thing as the reality itself. Reality itself is non-dual, duality creates a form of delusion if one imagines the Cosmos to be separate from oneself.

 

[danieldemol]

Your definition of knowledge is meant to limit reality to a dualist conceptual pov.

No it isnt, it is meant to reserve use of the word knowledge for things we can show reliable evidence for.

A conceptualization concerning reality is not the same thing as the reality itself. Reality itself is non-dual, duality creates a form of delusion if one imagines the Cosmos to be separate from oneself.

I'm a part of the cosmos the way a toe-nail is part of a body. That doesn't make the properties of the toe nail the same as the properties of the brain or of the body as a whole in my view.

Calling it delusion suggests it is not knowledge, but I believe that what I have said is amply demonstrable with respect to the body. With respect to the universe as a whole I believe we are not currently able to observe its properties as a whole therefore I do not call things which may or may not be true such as the universe having conciousness as knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheist beliefs, and to some extent, a lot of science and theist beliefs, are a filter through which the mind of the adherents 'see' reality and thus prevents them from realizing the absolute reality laying outside their belief filter. I am doing a service if even one reader among them understands what is being said to them, for it may set in motion action that ultimately frees them of the deception of their limited belief.

The problem is this is an egocentric view of many beliefs that claim they are only ones to enlighten others of some sort of exclusive truth they believe.

The problem is you are one in Plato's Cave.

The universe is alive and aware, if this planet was not alive, there would be no life. Look around, do you think you live on a dead planet, your body's life is the planet's life, your body didn't come from anywhere else except this planet, every atom in it came from this planet, your body is an integral of the planetary body. Only things that have beginnings have endings, life and death, but the life of the Cosmos/God is eternal, there was never a beginning.

Simply no. Unfortunately you chose cosmology to argue your case where you have little or no basic knowledge