Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[shunyadragon]

See my post #282 above, please stop wasting my time.

I saw post #282 and you are wasting your own time.

Your statement concerning the 5% re[resents intentional ignorance of what science knows about the cosmos. This represents a common 'arguing from ignorance' fallacy of those that tend to reject science based on a religious agenda. It is sort modern mythology. The limits of our direct observation of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter problem is like gravity we cannot directly observe them but we understand Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Gravity by their effects on the Matter of the Universe Of course there are unanswered question in all science, and that is motivating force behind science.

the myth scientific knowledge of of 5% of the cosmos - Google Search

The "myth" of scientists only knowing 5% of the cosmos refers to the fact that while we can directly observe only a small fraction of the universe's matter and energy, which is primarily composed of ordinary matter like stars and galaxies, the vast majority of the universe is made up of mysterious substances called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we can't directly detect, meaning our understanding of the universe as a whole is significantly limited.

Key points about this "myth":
What we can see:

• Only about 5% of the universe's total mass-energy is made up of ordinary matter that we can directly observe with telescopes.
• Dark matter and dark energy:
  The remaining 95% is thought to be composed of dark matter (around 27%) and dark energy (around 68%), which are only inferred through their gravitational effects on visible matter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I saw post #282 and you are wasting your own time.

The people in Plato's Cave looking at the shadows represents scientific understanding, duality, and the one who sees the light source casting the shadows represents religious understanding, non-duality. Now both have their place, atheists and the like though are fixated on the shadows to find the meaning of reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

Funny how anyone who cites Plato’s Cave thinks the allegory applies to everyone but themselves.

Not true

The point is that none of us see reality; we all see approximate representations of reality. Recognising this, and applying this knowledge to ourselves not to others, is the beginning of enlightenment; but only the beginning.

The problem observed in this thread is the intentional ignorance of science to justify a religious agenda, and that is dwelling Plato's Cave Big Time.

I am willing to consider any viable objective consideration of science and potential different philosophies and theologies, but living in the past to justify an agenda is not one.

 

[shunyadragon]

The people in Plato's Cave looking at the shadows represents scientific understanding, duality, and the one who sees the light source casting the shadows represents religious understanding, non-duality. Now both have their place, atheists and the like though are fixated on the shadows to find the meaning of reality.

Your perspective here is from Plato's Cave. Present something viable instead of anti-science rhetoric and I will consider it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your perspective here is from Plato's Cave. Present something viable instead of anti-science rhetoric and I will consider it.

I'm not anti-science, I worked in hi tech most of my life, avionics, radar, radio, satellite coms, satellite imaging, etc., it's just that I see beyond what orthodox science is able to prove in some areas. I understand the universe is eternal, but I cannot prove it, except by pointing out that there is no non-existence anywhere ever as a matter of logic.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not anti-science, I worked in hi tech most of my life, avionics, radar, radio, satellite coms, satellite imaging, etc., it's just that I see beyond what orthodox science is able to prove in some areas. I understand the universe is eternal, but I cannot prove it, except by pointing out that there is no non-existence anywhere ever as a matter of logic.

Your technical work experience has absolutely nothing to do with your view toward basic sciences

There are other issues in your posts that indicate you are anti-science based on a religious agenda, Your aggressive attitude toward the possible existence of a singularity is very questionable considering the unknowns as far as the origins of our universe and any possible universe,

Do you consider the sciences of evolution the explanation for the physical history of life on earth?

The universe is potentially eternal not known to be eternal. Again, again and again NOTHING is proven in science. Careful on referencing subjective matters of logic. which can lead to the self justification of beliefs in a logical black hole. It is NOT science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your technical work experience has absolutely nothing to do with your view toward basic sciences

There are other issues in your posts that indicate you are anti-science based on a religious agenda, Your aggressive attitude toward the possible existence of a singularity is very questionable considering the unknowns as far as the origins of our universe and any possible universe,

Do you consider the sciences of evolution the explanation for the physical history of life on earth?

The universe is potentially eternal not known to be eternal. Again, again and again NOTHING is proven in science. Careful on referencing subjective matters of logic. which can lead to the self justification of beliefs in a logical black hole. It is NOT science.

Science does not do religion, it does the material universe, religion on the other has something to say about the reality of the Divine whole.

Having said that, it is understood that that the spiritually less evolved are not to blame for their present status, they are just where they are in the spiritual evolutionary process.

 

[Pogo]

Science does not do religion, it does the material universe, religion on the other has something to say about the reality of the Divine whole.

Having said that, it is understood that that the spiritually less evolved are not to blame for their present status, they are just where they are in the spiritual evolutionary process.

No, it is your assumption that there is something called the spiritually less evolved and that assumption is exactly what you have been unable to demonstrate.

Any number of variations on look at yourself before judging others.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it is your assumption that there is something called the spiritually less evolved and that assumption is exactly what you have been unable to demonstrate.

Any number of variations on look at yourself before judging others.

That's what I explained, you are of that opinion because of your present evolutionary state. All is ok.

 

[Audie]

Science does not do religion, it does the material universe, religion on the other has something to say about the reality of the Divine whole.

Having said that, it is understood that that the spiritually less evolved are not to blame for their present status, they are just where they are in the spiritual evolutionary process.

Theist arcne knowledge is all show and no go.

Usually they are devolved w regard to real world
knowledge- a deficit for which they very much to blame.

 

[Pogo]

That's what I explained, you are of that opinion because of your present evolutionary state. All is ok.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is conceptual knowledge about reality and there is reality, to the less evolved, conceptual reality is reality and spend most of the waking state time thinking. Whereas the religious soul will always try to find and spend time in the thoughtless solitude of oneness with the source of reality.

 

[Audie]

Just witnessing such causes loss of brain cells.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Theist arcne knowledge is all show and no go.

Usually they are devolved w regard to real world
knowledge- a deficit for which they very much to blame.

The real world is on the other side of knowledge, true religious practice involves ceasing thought about reality to be one with it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just witnessing such causes loss of brain cells.

The irony is, you may be wiser for it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok folks, let's not stray off topic, the thread title is "Understanding Cosmology".

 

[Pogo]

There is conceptual knowledge about reality and there is reality, to the less evolved, conceptual reality is reality and spend most of the waking state time thinking. Whereas the religious soul will always try to find and spend time in the thoughtless solitude of oneness with the source of reality.

Yes we know that you believe that you have a better and more significant understanding than anyone else and that we are incapable of achieving your level because we do not believe as you do which makes it impossible for you to communicate it.
No big deal, you are hardly the first with your complex.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science does not do religion, it does the material universe,

True

religion on the other has something to say about the reality of the Divine whole.

Eaxh different diverse and conflicting religion has something different to say about the Divine as a whole.

Having said that, it is understood that that the spiritually less evolved are not to blame for their present status, they are just where they are in the spiritual evolutionary process.

Claims of spiritual evolution is subject to vey subjective standards depending on which religion or belief system one belongs to, Every different conflicting belief system or religion claims to be the most evolved. There is no traction in this argument.

Unanswered question: Do you consider the sciences of evolution the explanation for the physical history of life on earth?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

True

Eaxh different diverse and conflicting religion has something different to say about the Divine as a whole.

Claims of spiritual evolution is subject to vey subjective standards depending on which religion or belief system one belongs to, Every different conflicting belief system or religion claims to be the most evolved. There is no traction in this argument.

Unanswered question: Do you consider the sciences of evolution the explanation for the physical history of life on earth?

Not completely. Concerning evolutionary adaptation to environment, science, yes. Concerning consciousness arising purely from matter, no way.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not completely. Concerning evolutionary adaptation to environment, science, yes. Concerning consciousness arising purely from matter, no way.

Selective consideration of objective evidence to justify a religious agenda. Your "no way" clearly indicates inflexibility and stoic denial of science.

Consciousness varies in increasing complexity the animal kingdom in harmony with the degree of the development of a complex nervous system, and evolved independently as in the cephlepods such as as octopi.

Also you did not respond to to post #301 coherently concerning the Urban 5% Myth,

Your habit of 'arguing from ignorance' and not considering science as science demonstrates an anti-science agenda,