Does the Universe Have a Purpose? feat. Neil deGrasse Tyson

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I'll read up on the links and replies. You're the first person to call me polite in a long time. People commonly see me as thick skinned.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ForwardDrift
 




Again, yes, but maybe no. And here is why. Let's assume (for the sake of progressing the discussion) you are correct and these experiences that people are having (OBE's, NDE's, past-life experiences) are, in fact, occurring. Who is to say that these experiences can not be explained under current or expanded models of science?

They can be explained by science and will be explained by science one day. But right now, all of this stuff I discuss is laughed at and deemed taboo, so no one wants to touch it. Just like, just 30 years ago, consciousness and the study of it was deemed taboo and no one in science was willing to touch it. How things change. This is when we will make HUGE leaps, when spirituality (devoid of religious dogma) is studied and proven by science, particularly that consciousness is non-local and does not depend on a physical body/brain structure. There is already a small handful of scientists theorizing non-locality of consciousness.


Why do they necessarily have to exclusively some vague "spiritual and moral-based" system that science is unable to comprehend or comment on?

Science is Mind/Logic/Reason based. Spirituality and experience God/Spiritual realities is intuition/heart based. There is a schism between the 2. There are thousands year old cultures that have been saying this for hundreds of years now, that our world will lose it's way to the head, being cut off from the heart. The heart is where Enlightenment happens and where there is already a built in set of morals and spirituality based on egolessness/selflessness?Universality. It's not so vague anymore. The head/ego is what debates morals and makes them relative. But in the heart/enlightenment, they are built in. Universally there waiting to be discovered and lived by


What would prevent these experiences from being a new way in which information is discovered to interact through time and space, instead of "spirits" or some-such thing.And even assuming these phenomena existed, why would they necessarily mean that their is an inherent purpose of meaning to life?

Like I said above, science is not yet, or just barely looking into these experiences. The Spiritual will be proven eventually anyway through technology when we finally have consciousness-based interfacing. I gurantee you if you grow a human brain in a petri dish and connect it to a set of communication based devices, there will be a non-local consciousness that can attach to it or use it to communicate to us. That's what the brain is, a consciousness interface. We're all basically avatars here, and just don't know it yet, albeit the select few that awaken to that as reality.

So when we finally have consciousness interfacing, is when we will have non-local consciousness able to communicate to us from the the spiritual realms letting us know all the stuff that goes on, on the other side.



They wouldn't--all they would tell us is that these events occur and that they have some physical law of basis in reality, known or unknown by us from our relative position and understanding. People are making way too many assumptions with few facts.

That's the thing. The stuff I talk about here, I experience directly. I can leave my body as non-local consciousness and remember existing prior to being born, and seeing other units of consciousness descending to enter fetuses for the sake of being born in bodies. I've met a handful of other sane, reason/logic based folks who have also awakened to these realities and see what I do. Some are professors with Phds.

Because what I experience is not yet considered scientific fact, so what? Science hasn't caught up to it yet. Its going to be a slow grind to finally prove all these things. Take direct experience itself for example. We all live through direct experience, yet this single moment itself, you reading these words for the first time, can never be recreated ala the scientific method, which requires an experiment to be recreated to be proven. Yet you can't recreate the first time you experience reading this reply, which means that by the rules of the scientific method, that direct experience itself is not fact ....the same direct experience with which we live all of our lives and use to even be able to witness any scientific method in action.

Some things are outside of the bounds of the "rules" of science.

Anyway, we're heading there anyway. What's keeping us from proving the spiritual is the whole left vs right, atheist vs. believer, taboo vs. science schisms and politics. Although at the end, I have to concede that "science" is the best method we have thus far to figure out just whats going on around us. Still, it has its faults



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


All good points, its just I can't quite agree with the statement "science will catch up with spirituality". You say it as if you definitely know all statements made about spirituality are already knowable, true and confirmed. You seem to downplay the vital role that actually confirming and repeating something in a physical environment, rather than simply proclaiming it as "true" has. You may have had a spiritual experience, but I have not. So what does that say about my version of reality? Also, there are many contradicting aspects of spiritually among a vast array of cultures. How do yo reconcile that? I'm sorry---I just can't be as confident about it as you. Too much darkness and such a small candle I have. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks for the response.

edit on 5-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 

One more thing,

I was going to ask you whether "non-local consciousness" has actually be proven to be true. However, the fact that you don't see proof through reproducible means as a valid way of explaining phenomena, so I'm curious as to how I could even really ask you that question. Which is shame since you used it as a supporting evidence in your argument. What is young rationalist like me to do??
(O.k., now I'm just messing with you)
edit on 5-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ForwardDrift
 



All good points, its just I can't quite agree with the statement "science will catch up with spirituality".

In context: Everything that is true, that exists, is already there, waiting to be discovered. Everything science uncovers, is just that, uncovering what has always been true, and there, and eventually evident no matter the means. Science is basically catching up to what already exists and is true. Atoms have always been, basically the pixels of reality, but have only in the last 100 years been proven beyond a doubt. That's what I meant by catching up.


You say it as if you definitely know all statements made about spirituality are already knowable, true and confirmed.

Yes, because they are being experienced, true, and confirmed all over the world. There are countless blueprints to reach enlightenment and confirm through direct experience whether or not enlightenment is real or not. People follow the blueprints and reach in direct experience such realities which confirm they are true. Only problem with this to science is that in this case, the consciousness of the individual is the laboratory where this can be tested. Even in brain scans of enlightened individuals there are parts of the brain lit up that are not lit up in the non-enlightened.


You seem to downplay the vital role that actually confirming and repeating something in a physical environment, rather than simply proclaiming it as "true" has.

The scientific method does not validate subjective experience, even though, ironically, the scientific method itself is composed of a collective of subjective observers combined to create objectivity and repeatability. Subjectivity(Consciousness) itself is still slowly crawling out of the realms of science considering it taboo. Yet who would be dumb enough to say that they do no experience reality subjectively?

Consciousness is also non-physical, as are the spiritual realms. So we are now in a bit of a quandary in regards to strict materialist based science, which by the way is in its death thralls with the advent of quantum physics and and all the non-physical states that involve in wave collapse functions. All the new findings show that underneath it all, the foundations of reality are built on some non-physical type state anyway.


You may have had a spiritual experience, but I have not.

Understood, and because you haven't had one, your only choice is Atheism/Agnosticism and what science says. I know cause I was there also for the first 24 years of my life. The freedom of reality allows for people to go their whole lives without ever having a spiritual experience. However one can also harden their hearts and live in such a strictly built materialist based bias bubble, that then there is never even allowed a second for the possibility of a spiritual experience to occur.


So what does that say about my version of reality?

It's as valid as everyone else's version of reality. Yet keep in consideration what Enlightenment says about all of this, which is that everyone lives in a subjective bias bubble built on illusion, and that Enlightenment is living and experiencing all of reality without bias, illusion, and seeing it as clearly as possible while fundamentally united to it. It is like living objectively through everything. Subjectivity in sense is destroyed in Enlightenment.


Also, there are many contradicting aspects of spiritually among a vast array of cultures. How do yo reconcile that?

That's all the exoteric outer shells of all the various paths to enlightenment. If you look at the esoteric inner core, they are all the same and discuss Uniting with reality via Enlightenment. Similar to how science can't agree to how many glasses of water we should be drinking per day. Used to be 8-12 glasses, and now its drink when thirsty. Those are minor details compared to what the underlying foundation of reality is.



I'm sorry---I just can't be as confident about it as you. Too much darkness and such a small candle I have. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks for the response.

That's fine. Just remember to be like water, flexible with your views and not to be hardened into any biased corner.


I was going to ask you whether "non-local consciousness" has actually be proven to be true.

In science this is a new theory w/ a handful of supporters. On the path towards Enlightenment, it is an ability that is eventually gained along the way.



However, the fact that you don't see proof through reproducible means as a valid way of explaining phenomena

Science needs to update itself to include phenomena that by it's very nature, will never repeat itself. Just like Time never repeats. This moment is already gone, yet who would doubt it?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   


In context: Everything that is true, that exists, is already there, waiting to be discovered. Everything science uncovers, is just that, uncovering what has always been true, and there, and eventually evident no matter the means. Science is basically catching up to what already exists and is true. Atoms have always been, basically the pixels of reality, but have only in the last 100 years been proven beyond a doubt. That's what I meant by catching up

Alright, agreed.



Yes, because they are being experienced, true, and confirmed all over the world. There are countless blueprints to reach enlightenment and confirm through direct experience whether or not enlightenment is real or not. People follow the blueprints and reach in direct experience such realities which confirm they are true. Only problem with this to science is that in this case, the consciousness of the individual is the laboratory where this can be tested. Even in brain scans of enlightened individuals there are parts of the brain lit up that are not lit up in the non-enlightened..


Meh, the brain-scans could, possibly, only indicate a certain physical part of the brain is being used during a particular chemically induced emotional experience and nothing more than that.



The scientific method does not validate subjective experience, even though, ironically, the scientific method itself is composed of a collective of subjective observers combined to create objectivity and repeatability. Subjectivity(Consciousness) itself is still slowly crawling out of the realms of science considering it taboo. Yet who would be dumb enough to say that they do no experience reality subjectively?


Mostly agreed, but do you really believe that there is no real true reality? Isn't that actually one of the tenants of reaching Englightenment to know and understand the total truth of things? Even if that truth is a set subjective truths that all exists in a state of some sort--isn't their collective totality still a truth? Wouldn't that point to some type of extant objectivity, outside of all the individualized subjective experiences, even if we can't know it by any physical or non-physical means? An objectivity that is at the heart of scientific pursuit?



Consciousness is also non-physical, as are the spiritual realms. So we are now in a bit of a quandary in regards to strict materialist based science, which by the way is in its death thralls with the advent of quantum physics and and all the non-physical states that involve in wave collapse functions. All the new findings show that underneath it all, the foundations of reality are built on some non-physical type state anyway


Not really sure what non-physical states you're referring to. The wave-collapse function has not been shown to be "non-physical", as far as I know

Linkage: www.nature.com...




That's all the exoteric outer shells of all the various paths to enlightenment. If you look at the esoteric inner core, they are all the same and discuss Uniting with reality via Enlightenment. Similar to how science can't agree to how many glasses of water we should be drinking per day. Used to be 8-12 glasses, and now its drink when thirsty. Those are minor details compared to what the underlying foundation of reality is.



Meh, not really. There is a big difference between excepting Jesus Christ as a personal spiritual savior and the moral ambiguity of the Roman/Athenian deities and their mythology. In fact, there is quite a huge subjective gap that, I would argue, complicates, if not goes against your "esoteric inner core" idea.




Science needs to update itself to include phenomena that by it's very nature, will never repeat itself. Just like Time never repeats. This moment is already gone, yet



Fair point. But come on. How else are we practically supposed to go about testing phenomena? I can't think of a single suitable method of replacement that isn't simply "Hey believe me, because I said its true."It isn't really.practical. And in a reality where I am forced to make once choice out of many potential choices. And have a perception out of many different perceptions. Why not pick the one that is the most practical, and applicable to a broader range of subjective experiences (though, admittedly, not all subjective experiences)?

edit on 5-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I feel like the ancient Hebrew mysticism of Kabbalah
has a good answer;
The Universe exists to know itself.

The Ein Sof was a single bright vessel of light
that shattered into trillions of pieces, to know physical space.

The idea is to bring (know) these pieces back to their original source.
When we observe and appreciate the beauty of a flower, this releases a
tiny fraction of its life (light) back to the vessel .
We are the experincers for the ALL.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The universe is the process by which randomness becomes slowly absorbed over billions of years and incorporated into life, which is anti-randomness. Once the entire universe is part of a living thing, then it observes itself and quantum shoestrings itself into existence at the beginning of time.

I would say that this is a loop (a torus, really), but it's more a constant flow backwards and forwards through time and space that produces the illusion of singularity.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
The universe is the process by which randomness becomes slowly absorbed over billions of years and incorporated into life, which is anti-randomness. Once the entire universe is part of a living thing, then it observes itself and quantum shoestrings itself into existence at the beginning of time.

I would say that this is a loop (a torus, really), but it's more a constant flow backwards and forwards through time and space that produces the illusion of singularity.


That's a thought, but it is predicated upon the assumption that the universe can in fact become part of a "living thing". Not sure if that is actually possible, or how such an event could actually occur, or what it would look like. Crazy to imagine; interesting to try and grasp.
edit on 5-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForwardDrift
That's a thought, but it is predicated upon the assumption that the universe can in fact become part of a "living thing". Not sure if that is actually possible, or how such an event could actually occur, or what it would look like. Crazy to imagine; interesting to try and grasp.

It probably wouldn't look much like the life we have here on Earth, but the principles would be the same. Consume raw materials and energy, convert those into other duplicate structures that do the same thing. The biggest challenge would be for it to exist in time "stretched out," but since we have such a poor grasp of the concept of time that might still be possible. Something that pushes galaxies into cosmic DNA strands and then can think past lightspeed and observe itself from its own point of view. Which creates itself, just like you and I create our own universes by existing in them and having a point of view.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

'I'm not sure' is a good enough opening statement for Mr deGrasse Tyson and it's good enough for me.

I'm not sure.

Logically, the universe doesn't have a 'purpose' in any anthropic sense and, in theory, multiple universes could exist without a beating heart or conscious life-form in any of them. Empty abstractions of the Laws of Physics and purposeless expressions of energy and entropy might be all a universe represents.

Sure enough, our 10 acres of space could be interpreted as 'custom-built' for Life and especially sentient life. On the other hand, Tyson's 99.99999% figure might well describe the rest of the Cosmos where the prospects for Life are non-existent or so ephemeral that life doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

So if someone was to put a gun to my head, I'd have to opt for the *probability* that the Universe has no purpose. By extension, a meaningless universe would render all our lives meaningless - without purpose. I can live with that.

Subjectively, 'I'm not so sure.'

We're all biological expressions of the fundamental matter that was (as far as we know) created in the Big Bang. We're sentient and consider our lives as having a purpose. As microcosms of the larger Cosmos, it could be argued that it does have a purpose and that we are like tiny islands of meaning signalling to each other that we all exist.

As living expressions of an arguably purposeless universe, we could each represent the argumentative recyclings of a larger entity's existential crisis. Who knows?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Intelligent life is THE pinnacle of the universe. Nothing that we can even try to fathom overcomes this. And in a universe of laws and order that gives birth to intelligent life that loves, dreams, and creates, the real hubris is the assumption that the universe is just a random machine that looks pretty, but in reality, is just a random mess of things. Things that we stare at, take measurements of, and pay attention to.

Does the universe have a purpose? It's purpose is ultimately intelligent life. Intelligent life that has evolved to the point where it can stare into the cosmos and truly comprehend and appreciate its wonderment and majesty.

Fie on anyone who mopes around, thinking that we're not special. We absolutely are special, and fortunate to have been given consciousness.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
Intelligent life is THE pinnacle of the universe. Nothing that we can even try to fathom overcomes this. And in a universe of laws and order that gives birth to intelligent life that loves, dreams, and creates, the real hubris is the assumption that the universe is just a random machine that looks pretty, but in reality, is just a random mess of things. Things that we stare at, take measurements of, and pay attention to.

Does the universe have a purpose? It's purpose is ultimately intelligent life. Intelligent life that has evolved to the point where it can stare into the cosmos and truly comprehend and appreciate its wonderment and majesty.

Fie on anyone who mopes around, thinking that we're not special. We absolutely are special, and fortunate to have been given consciousness.


Oh, how I wish I could believe the last bit, FWTR, but my signature has other ideas on that subject.
I don't know, i would like to believe were special...but all seems to narcissistic to me.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ForwardDrift
 


It's only narcissistic if you're selfish about it.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ForwardDrift
 



Meh, the brain-scans could, possibly, only indicate a certain physical part of the brain is being used during a particular chemically induced emotional experience and nothing more than that.

Enlightenment is the experience of reality and Unity with Absolute Truth prior to any Thoughts or Emotions. Itself, it is not an emotion, but part of the observer that observes emotions happening. Also, you can view the brain scans of someone eating an orange, an orange that everyone can see is there and being eaten. We can say certain areas of the brain light up in scans, when one experiences, "eating an orange". So too when someone experiences enlightenment.


Mostly agreed, but do you really believe that there is no real true reality?

All of reality is "true" however the biased and seemingly separate sense of self is the illusion and unreal part of it. All reality inherently One Infinite Beingness with no separation and no boundaries. This is experienced directly in Enlightenment. This Beingness is alive, aware, changing, evolving yet always the same.


Isn't that actually one of the tenants of reaching Englightenment to know and understand the total truth of things?

It's more so to experience directly the underlying Absolute Truth of the foundation of existence as being the undivided Oneness that is self aware and Infinitely present. In a sense, the truth of things can be known as well because they are experienced from a state of empathic filterless objectivity.


Even if that truth is a set subjective truths that all exists in a state of some sort--isn't their collective totality still a truth?

There are small relative truths, like "the grass outside of my window is green." And there is the underlying Absolute Experiential truth of unified Oneness of all things. While the experience is subjective, it is something that many various individuals experience all over the world and there is no disagreements amongst them in the experience itself.


Wouldn't that point to some type of extant objectivity, outside of all the individualized subjective experiences, even if we can't know it by any physical or non-physical means? An objectivity that is at the heart of scientific pursuit?

Yes!!!! This is what I believe is happening. That the experience of Enlightenment, is the disappearance of the subject into the totality of objective reality, yet that reality is without borders/distinctions. I believe in science the same thing occurs in various quantum phenomenon, when an atom turns into a wave and is non-locally in various locations all at once, yet can't be pin pointed anywhere. The quantum state underlying all of physical reality could be argued is God and is the same as experience of the Enlightened person. Many Enlightened beings have been claimed to be able to bi-locate by various witnesses. Bi-location is also a function of an atom/string in the effects of Bose - Einstein Condensate. As you freeze bosons to as close to absolute zero as possible, then they turn into strings, then they are everywhere and no-where all at Once. I believe this Entangled non-local quantum state is both God and what Enlightened persons are experiencing.



Not really sure what non-physical states you're referring to. The wave-collapse function has not been shown to be "non-physical", as far as I know Linkage: www.nature.com...

I meant the entanglement phenomenon in Bose-Einstein condensate as the primary non-physicality which then can be transferred over to all underlying quantum principles. If you keep zooming in micro-cosmically speaking on the inside of atoms, then bosons, then strings, then the inside of strings .....your going to find a non-physical entangled united space like infinity that is the foundational underlying principle of it all.


Meh, not really. There is a big difference between excepting Jesus Christ as a personal spiritual savior and the moral ambiguity of the Roman/Athenian deities and their mythology.

What I mean is go after all paths that in there exoteric core (Christianity included) have a step by step basis that leads to Union w/ God or Enlightenment, and you will find various ways there. The Christians get there through mystical grace, meditation, and Jesus Prayer mantra in Eastern Orthodoxy (arguably the purest form of the faith). Go to the buddhists, you find systematic schematic towards ENlightenment. Hinduism also as well as certain Greek philosophers, the natives, shamans, etc. Those that revolve around experiencing God/Enlightenment thrive and will continue to do so. Eerything else like the Roman/Greek/Demigods never produced systematic enlightenment and so falls away.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
There is a purpose. Just ask anyone that experienced an NDE. It's a cross cultural phenomenon. You can't tell a person who has experienced this very unique experience any different. If you haven't experienced it, you won't believe it. Our consciousness survives. We can detect quarks, but our science doesn't allow us to capture consciousness in it's ever existing state. We are tangible after death. Science won't catch up to this anytime soon I'm afraid. Maybe in a few hundred years.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ForwardDrift
 



Fair point. But come on. How else are we practically supposed to go about testing phenomena?

the testing also has to evolve and people have to consider the limits that exist within the scientific method. Keep testing, evolving, instruments get more sensitive, more and more breakthroughs in understanding consciousness, and we'll slowly crawl into finally proving God and the afterlife. I concede science is the best we got, but is incomplete.


I can't think of a single suitable method of replacement that isn't simply "Hey believe me, because I said its true.

Well we have to at least keep into consideration these experiences as a possibility than we can study more. In many of my debates, people would bring up fairies, unicorns, and the famous spaghetti monster. My answer to that is that no one claims any of these in NDE's/OBE's. But they do claim an afterlife, non-physical spiritual realms, angels, those who have died already being there, an all knowing Light, and a Unity of all existence amongst various other claims.

For myself, I could not remain an Atheist when I was offered by a person I was debating to see for myself through direct experience whether or not Enlightenment is true. As was also the Buddha's retort (paraphrased) "to not take anything he says in faith or on his word, but to test for one's self if he was right). The more time I spent in meditation and looking within, the more things that various mystics claimed, began to be revealed to me within consciousness, until I myself eventually experienced merging with an Infinite Reality/Beingness, an experience so real and direct that it made all my previous years of life on this planet seem like one big illusion based dream. Now I can never go back to any other stance besides the one I live in daily, an ever Present Timeless Now that transcends all things, while seeing that the ego/bias is illusion.

Science is based on 99% of individuals who have not taken the leap to test if Enlightenment is real or not, and so they are operating on the premise of 5 sense logic/reason based unenlightened reality. But it's all good. We need head-strong folks to be the engineers to build bridges, sewers, buildings, societal infrastructure in general. But we also need the enlightened monks, mystics to remind us and show us that there is an experiential Absolute Reality that is prior to Thought, prior to Awareness, and is the root foundation of existence. Too much head, and we lose our way in Western culture based on ego-centric selfish ways. Too much heart, and infrastructure remains a third world country like Tibet was/is. Balance


"It isn't really.practical.

But it is practical. As practical as any pioneer first brought up a subject. The 1st man to invent the wheel, the first combustion engine, the first computer. It all eventually becomes part of society.

Enlightenment is practical because it is peace, contentment, truth, self-mastery, timelessness, real, transcendent, and so much more. You become a beacon, revolutionary, light, a foundation of truth and steadfastness in a world of swift change. You reach a point of evolutionary completion psychologically and spiritually, while everyone else is trying to figure it all out. No more worries, no more stress, no more sweating the small stuff, and most importantly no more fear of death as you directly experience that the body is an avatar for life here on earth and is not who you truly are.

Logic & reason dictate that logic & reason are both limited. Experiencing a beautiful sunset in the moment free form troubles is beyond logic and reason and prior to it. Even experience itself, happens split seconds prior to what the mind thinks of it. These are things that begin to be noticed and lived in through enlightenment. Everything else is illusion and madness


And in a reality where I am forced to make once choice out of many potential choices.

who's forcing you to make a choice? Be like water, open to any possibility. There can be a discovery in physics that comes out any day, that can literally destroy the foundations of which we label scientific knowledge. For example our universe can have it's set of reality laws/rules and they may find another dimension or universe with no laws of physics evident anywhere.


And have a perception out of many different perceptions. Why not pick the one that is the most practical, and applicable to a broader range of subjective experiences (though, admittedly, not all subjective experiences)?

No need to pick. Openness and flexibility. After my Spiritual Experiences, I fell in love with science even more and see the details of a grand designer behind scientific findings. Perception itself is actually a way to enlightenment. Where is the perceiver in you located?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Phoenix267
 
'I'm not sure' is a good enough opening statement for Mr deGrasse Tyson and it's good enough for me.

I'm not sure.
Yes that seems more like an agnostic than an atheist reply to me. Until you get to the 99.9999% figure where it sounds a little less agnostic.


So if someone was to put a gun to my head, I'd have to opt for the *probability* that the Universe has no purpose. By extension, a meaningless universe would render all our lives meaningless - without purpose. I can live with that.

Subjectively, 'I'm not so sure.'

...As living expressions of an arguably purposeless universe, we could each represent the argumentative recyclings of a larger entity's existential crisis. Who knows?
If the universe has no purpose, I'm not sure it follows that all our lives are meaningless and without purpose. Even if the purpose doesn't come from some deity, our lives can and I think do have purposes that we ourselves can, and sometimes do, define. It's just an internally defined purpose instead of an externally defined purpose.


Originally posted by SinMaker
There is a purpose. Just ask anyone that experienced an NDE. It's a cross cultural phenomenon. You can't tell a person who has experienced this very unique experience any different. If you haven't experienced it, you won't believe it. Our consciousness survives.
I haven't experienced it, and I believe the people experienced what they say. However, there is more than one way to interpret these experiences as this article explains:

How Near-death Experiences Work



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


I actually have more rebuttals and clarifications of points. But I'll choose to end this discussion here. Anyway, interesting thoughts. I will say this last thing though, I agree that "I don't know" was the best answer.
edit on 6-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForwardDrift
reply to post by dominicus
 


I actually have more rebuttals and clarifications of points. But I'll choose to end this discussion here. Anyway, interesting thoughts. I will say this last thing though, I agree that "I don't know" was the best answer.
edit on 6-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)

i hear ya brother!!!!

at the end of the day that was my final conclusion ....until the experiences hit.

either way, the great equalizer, physical death, will reveal to us all all who was right, an impending eventuality for us all to see the "other side" regardless of who believes or doesn't believe what.

great talks!!!





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum