Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

a reply to: midicon
Hi Midicon,
I see you live in Scotland so lets go closer to home, from the start of joining the E.U. to Brexit mostly all dates have been aligned to Sirius and Alnilam, as well as both World Wars, are you saying this is unconscious alignments, for if you are, then we would have to look further into if astrology really works, you can't have it both ways!
I have always tried to say much of this is deliberate action by high ranking politicians due to hermetic beliefs, but if you want to say astrology actually works then you will open up a big can of worms as to the entity that controls the human race, please note i can go through 2,000 years of history.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, our natural state is to be ignorant. We are born ignorant. Ignorance is part of our human condition. Everything we think we know today has been meticulously built and arranged in order to make sense to our human brain. For example right now I am writing a message to you that you will be able to read as soon as I click "reply". The language I am using to write this message, I wasn't born with it. I was ignorant. Then the computer I am using is also a human built machine, and no one was born with that knowledge. And then there is telecommunication. No one was born with the necessary knowledge to make all that work together. Ignorance is our natural state.

For example, if I say "ljsdfjsdhzejr osdljsdj lsjljf hsdjlfjsldjf", it's gibberish, it's not language. Do you see that there is a difference between ignorance and knowledge ? It is easy to let go and to let our imagination do its thing. We can imagine anything and everything, our imagination has very few limits.

So, when I say "we don't know", I am talking about our inherent ignorance. And so instead of screaming "straw man straw man straw man", you should try to address what I say in a philosophical manner.

The fact is that in the videos you link here, the only argument I see is "we are ignorant, therefore it must be god". I agree that we are ignorant, but to jump from this to that, I need justification.

originally posted by: Astronomer62
One more post to do with modern day "atomic particle research", please scroll down down to "History and background of ISIS neutron and muon source" on link below:-
en.wikipedia.org...

Please note Didcot used as a fix.
So by looking at link below you will note that ISIS was opened by Margaret Thatcher P.M. on 1st October1984:-
www.isis.stfc.ac.uk...
At that location on date, Egyptian sunrise day marker was chosen, the ISIS star, Sirius was Culminating:-

Just trying to tidy up, Isis was marked twice, firstly by opening date already mentioned, and by when first neutron was produced, it was probably staged to happen on date, midnight day marker was used when Alnilam the Osiris star was culminating, link below:-
www.isis.stfc.ac.uk...

Perhaps we need to know what gods and goddesses science believes in, and why they use hermetic philosophy?

Can we maybe keep the astronomy posts on the astronomy thread.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Nothin

Yeah a lot of times the search for the truth can feel like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The more you try to make it a tangible exactitude, the less you know about it. Which is a great lesson: Let go of trying to control things.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Laws aren't aware.

Tell that to the wave-function collapse - it "knows" when it's being watched.

They are symptoms of a natural force or a collection of forces operating without any form of data interaction, conscious or otherwise. It is purely fundamental reflex at the most innate level of existence.

Stop belittling the forces that keep your body intact and the cosmos in order.

I'm not belittling anything, I'm questioning the notion that the laws of physics and subatomic particles are "thinking" and "deciding". Because they aren't.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Hi TzarChasm,
What are your thoughts about "The Mandelbrot Set Fractal" that Scientists call "The Thumb Print of God"?
www.misterx.ca...

originally posted by: Astronomer62
a reply to: TzarChasm

Hi TzarChasm,
What are your thoughts about "The Mandelbrot Set Fractal" that Scientists call "The Thumb Print of God"?
www.misterx.ca...

It's a cute exercise in geometry but very much sensationalized. People are easily impressed I guess.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Nothin

Yeah a lot of times the search for the truth can feel like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The more you try to make it a tangible exactitude, the less you know about it. Which is a great lesson: Let go of trying to control things.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Laws aren't aware.

Tell that to the wave-function collapse - it "knows" when it's being watched.

They are symptoms of a natural force or a collection of forces operating without any form of data interaction, conscious or otherwise. It is purely fundamental reflex at the most innate level of existence.

Stop belittling the forces that keep your body intact and the cosmos in order.

I'm not belittling anything, I'm questioning the notion that the laws of physics and subatomic particles are "thinking" and "deciding". Because they aren't.

there maybe a higher set of laws outwith our dimension that controls these laws in our dimension

it's like the hermetic principles say, there is no such thing as chance or blind luck , but laws operating beyond our understanding outwith our realm of perception.

So to say that these particles arent aware , maybe false , they may well have some yet unknown awareness of everything

Like how humans have a collective consciousness that Jung spoke of , maybe we have a sort of universal consciousness that underpins every physical law that governs matter

I mean how exactly does a photon interact with observation , its almost as if its detected that it has been measured or observed and reacts then collapses

is the photon some how reacting to the action of measurement or observation on a quantum level and in quantum timescales so it appears instant

a reply to: TzarChasm

we are just really good at seeing patterns in nature right

a reply to: TzarChasm
You have an interesting opinion, in math and numbers the Mandelbrot set is highly thought of, but obviously you have a right to express your idea's
plus.maths.org...
The Mandelbrot set is based on numbers and math, the visual geometry is based on that and graphs.

originally posted by: Astronomer62
a reply to: midicon
Hi Midicon,
I see you live in Scotland so lets go closer to home, from the start of joining the E.U. to Brexit mostly all dates have been aligned to Sirius and Alnilam, as well as both World Wars, are you saying this is unconscious alignments, for if you are, then we would have to look further into if astrology really works, you can't have it both ways!
I have always tried to say much of this is deliberate action by high ranking politicians due to hermetic beliefs, but if you want to say astrology actually works then you will open up a big can of worms as to the entity that controls the human race, please note i can go through 2,000 years of history.

Hi Astronomer,

I don't want it both ways! I don't believe in astrology. I think it's natural that we use auspicious dates and alignments to mark big occasions.
However I do agree that behind the scene there does seem to be something going on with politicians and power brokers using occult principles.
I haven't really thought of it in any long term historical way. In my mind I had put it down to groups like Freemasons perhaps pulling strings from positions of power throughout the past few centuries.
Anyway I don't want to derail this thread further but it would be interesting to take part a thread about this.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: TzarChasm

we are just really good at seeing patterns in nature right

It's fascinating what people are able to decipher from pure gibberish. Entertaining as an artform, unreliable as a method of investigation and factual analysis. Take the Rorschach test for example. It's much more revealing as a psychology profiling tool than a measuring stick for quantum physics.

originally posted by: Astronomer62
a reply to: TzarChasm
You have an interesting opinion, in math and numbers the Mandelbrot set is highly thought of, but obviously you have a right to express your idea's
plus.maths.org...
The Mandelbrot set is based on numbers and math, the visual geometry is based on that and graphs.

I can think of a hundred pieces of music, painting, sculpture, kinetic/laser displays, dance, poetry, etc that all incorporate elements of mysticism and math in various proportion. Geometry can be beautiful in that way but it's not a message from the universe reminding us how important we are. That is our imagination providing context and drawing conclusion based on our own emotional reaction to a diagram.

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: whereislogic

...
The fact is that in the videos you link here, the only argument I see is "we are ignorant, therefore it must be god". ...

Because that's the straw man you want to read into it and paint on it. But that's not the subject James Tour was talking about and applied the phrase "we don't know" to*, nor does it fit your twist or spin. And now you're painting with a broad brush as well, cause initiallly you were only responding to one of the videos about the use of the phrase "we don't know". Now you want to paint the same straw man on all the videos I've linked here? No matter the subjects actually discussed?

*: he actually applied that phrase to 2 subjects, the first 2 times referring to the supposedly yet unknown (undiscovered) force or "mechanisms of nature we don't fully understand" (to be described by a yet unknown law or laws of nature) that you invoked. It's part of your:

...more of an argument from fantasy and imagination, making use of current ignorance (or feigned ignorance regarding the actual effects of the forces of nature that we have discovered, which cause things to move in the opposite direction).

That I mentioned before on page 21.

You can keep pretending that using a straw man fallacy in response to an argument of induction is not a big deal and I shouldn't harp about it, but it is the honest truth of the situation. And as long as you keep doing that, the argument of induction regarding at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how, stands unopposed by anything you have to offer. You haven't even really responded to the argument of induction and conclusion by induction that I proposed as an explanation for the origin of the machinery and technology life is made up of. Let alone properly spell out a reasonable alternative explanation, let alone a "simpler" one. Wanna distract us some more with your supposed use of occam's razor? Try letting go of the straw man fallacy first.

a reply to: whereislogic

It seems you objected to the response from gosseyn and then promptly confirmed their interpretation, namely the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: whereislogic

...
The fact is that in the videos you link here, the only argument I see is "we are ignorant, therefore it must be god". ...

Because that's the straw man you want to read into it and paint on it. But that's not the subject James Tour was talking about and applied the phrase "we don't know" to*, nor does it fit your twist or spin. And now you're painting with a broad brush as well, cause initiallly you were only responding to one of the videos about the use of the phrase "we don't know". Now you want to paint the same straw man on all the videos I've linked here? No matter the subjects actually discussed?

*: he actually applied that phrase to 2 subjects, the first 2 times referring to the supposedly yet unknown (undiscovered) force or "mechanisms of nature we don't fully understand" (to be described by a yet unknown law or laws of nature) that you invoked. It's part of your:

...more of an argument from fantasy and imagination, making use of current ignorance (or feigned ignorance regarding the actual effects of the forces of nature that we have discovered, which cause things to move in the opposite direction).

That I mentioned before on page 21.

You can keep pretending that using a straw man fallacy in response to an argument of induction is not a big deal and I shouldn't harp about it, but it is the honest truth of the situation. And as long as you keep doing that, the argument of induction regarding at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how, stands unopposed by anything you have to offer. You haven't even really responded to the argument of induction and conclusion by induction that I proposed as an explanation for the origin of the machinery and technology life is made up of. Let alone properly spell out a reasonable alternative explanation, let alone a "simpler" one. Wanna distract us some more with your supposed use of occams razor? Try letting go of the straw man fallacy first.

Ok then, give me one argument that is not about our current state of ignorance and let's discuss that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You can keep trying to read your favorite straw man, an argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance, into whatever I or others have to say about these subjects, but it won't change the fact/reality that what I said about where machinery and technology comes from and some of the minimum logical requirements involved are well-established facts/certainties observed and thus confirmed on a regular basis. Therefore it's dishonest to paint the argument from ignorance, or appeal to ignorance fallacy on it, or just completely ignore it altogether to look for a better match in something someone else like James Tour has said, like gosseyn did. Talking past it to do the painting a straw man-routine and look for things that can be better twisted to sound like one is justified in painting a straw man, an argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance, on it (in order to discredit whatever is being said or the person saying it).

Just to distract from one's own (or gosseyn's) appeals to ignorance hidden behind the belief that 'nature has accomplished it, somehow, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards'.

a reply to: TzarChasm
There is certainly debate how Mathematics fits into the whole:-
en.wikipedia.org...
I like Mario Livio myself as obviously i like astronomers.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: whereislogic

Complaining about what I posted is not the same as refuting what I said.

a reply to: gosseyn

Good post Go-Sane.
The unknown, unknowns...

And yet: we find ourselves so very clever...

We 'believe' in 'things', and then call them 'true' ?

So clever: are we ?

a reply to: gosseyn

Do you think that not knowing or ignorance is part of this creation? Intentionally implemented into this reality as part of the package?

Would you say that actually knowing what we are and why we are here would cheapen this most excellent ride? Knowing what comes before and after our time in this physical reality would ruin everything.