romansh

Joseph Campbell ... a great theological thinker.

To me these two statements are contradictory ... the substrate effectively is the universe so how could it not be part of the universe? Frankly this does not make sense to me. Plain language please. Your use of ontological does not make sense. Are concepts objects? Are concepts within the scope of scientific inquiry? Does God have an effect in this universe. If "yes" then God is subject to inquiry. If no then God is totally irrelevant. That is how the word is used. Most dictionaries claim that the etymology of the word comes Latin Re Ligare ... re has the common English use, again and ligare is connect as in ligament or ligand. The question reconnect to what? Society, community church, nature, the universe? Then why do we insist on a upper case G? And can you show me the working as to how we get to this point? I don't think they are disregarding the difference, they are just hoping for a discussion based on some rational basis. Otherwise we throw in a few ontologicals and epistemologicals for good measure and quote good theological thinkers who have thought about that which cannot be thought about or at least any conclusion they may come to is without basis ... ie stuff that is not part of this universe.

Then treat the word illusion as not as it seems And I won't need to give examples of the unmentionable. It would appear "God" is not an object; but we still can comment on?

What did you think of Krauss's A Universe from Nothing? where the sum total of energy in the universe is hypothesised to be zero. Interesting no?

I am thanks. The agitation you sensed was an illusion on your part. So post modernism rules. So when I point out the illogic you use (an opinion admittedly) there is no problem. Good. Double down? Really I tried to walk away from my comment yet you insisted a few times on an explanation. Really thormas. I was giving an example of what might be considered on bordering on delusion. I left to the reader to which side it is. Plainly you think of it as delusional. Interesting? I don't care what modern writers think. I was thinking of a nice lady (my opinion) who demonstrated her ability. I sat through the episode politely and expressed my doubt politely. There was no point on pressing the issue. Again it is you who pressed for an explanation ... I tried to walk away. You still are pressing. Opinion? Based on evidence. Based on assertion. But are we using it to the full? Are we ignoring the way the universe appears to tick.? But there is evidence against Gods if we give them properties like loving. There is no evidence against Roman and Norse Gods. Really? Quite. But is there evidence? Then it becomes more than just opinion. If everything is opinion and belief can be discounted as that, then why on Earth express your opinion? Are all opinions equally invalid? This is a debate and discussion forum. If we are simply going to stick to our opinions no matter how much contrary evidence is brought to bear, and we simply discount the evidence and effectively say ... there is no evidence for what I believe and that is OK. This is OK as a personal belief but in a debate and discussion forum?

Note these are not questions Thormas ... For the most part assertions. For example: Depending on the context possibly true. Do you believe two people can hold diametrically opposing views and at least one of them is not mistaken? The delusional comment is pure nonsense. But certainly I do think certain views are bordering on the delusions. eg the ability to speak in tongues is one of the milder ones. To be clear ... I did not say they [people] were delusional. Yes science is limited ... but it [scientific method] is a really good method to test our intuitions. Again you will have to explain ... unconditional reality ... if you mean bits of the universe that don't respond to cause and effect, then I am at a loss unless you are referring to a universe where there is no cause and effect. And that too has some implications. Where did I call anyone deluded? I think certain positions are deluded. Possibly some of mine. But I can put a rational argument for most of mine. For example saying God is Love. And God is in everything. One has to jump through tortuous pathways and exclusions to try and make any sense of it. If we look at the evidence, the evidence is against such propositions. I also understand that the positions we hold can be extensions of ourselves sometimes very deeply held extensions. Now I can see how someone might come to such a position and whether that position is deluded is in the eye of the beholder and to some degree a semantic debate.

Which question? ... I searched the question marks and replied to them.

Perhaps ... it appears you missed my two points too. Yes I have views about certain opinions. Don't you? My second point ... there appears to be a contradiction between separateness and "contingent reality".

cf You seem to believe in separateness yet you think ... every-thing, every object - is dependent.

Energy = mass x length (squared) / time (squared). ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

I am not arguing here ... being saying that all along

It is as good as any. Science describes reality. We can debate how accurately. And ... we get better descriptions so what? I never said science give us knowledge in the sense of absolute certainty. For example the fact that our GPS works is because time is not what it seems. And the relativity that our GPS calculations are based is likely wrong. Ultimately science does not sift out the truth. It sifts out what is not true, Personally I go with cause and effect ... but I also understand with our relativistic and quantum phenomena, it is not as simple as that. Having said that it does not help your arguments one iota. Now if you can have a go at answering my questions please.

What are your beliefs based on Thormas?

Perhaps my question to Joseph needed more detail ... For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? His reply was: For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen. This to me implies a separateness, and here I can't agree with Joseph if indeed this is what he means. Now when I consider myself or "I", I draw a very useful boundary around myself. But this boundary is flexible and arbitrary. Imagine an average carbon atom ... through the magic of photosynthesis it is plucked out of the air, converted into glucose and then converted into nutrition. Occasionally through an intermediary ... quite often lamb in my case. That carbon atoms briefly becomes "me". It took a whole universe to make that carbon atom and the pattern it fits into. Now I am describing all this dualistic terms. It is very easy to fall into the trap of separateness. Eventually that carbon atom goes back to the air. The Great Circle of Life. Whatever it is - reality - universe. We have a limited array of tools to assess the universe. But science is expanding our array. Are energy and reality the same as being universe? Strange question. Energy is a descriptor of reality. Not the only one. Force, power, tension are also descriptors. There are many more ... they are called words. What? I am not sure what time is ... I have a perception of sequential cause and effect. But something travelling at [approaching] the speed of light will be affected by time differently than me that is at an arbitrary rest. If Joseph is right this universe has come into existence whole (and there is no cause and effect) then your question makes no sense. I do live my life as time exists but I certainly don't think it is at it seems. The universe is in the now, wherever that now might be. Really? If we truly believe we are separate and all the evidence is against it, then how should you describe our belief in separateness? If I had an opinion and someone described it as deluded, I would weigh and debate the evidence and come to a conclusion. But I still maybe deluded regarding my opinion.

To be clear - ground of being, for me is the universe or whatever it is actually. For me the substrate and universe are one. If as I understood Joseph to imply the substrate is some separate then I don't agree. Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion. Scholars like Joseph Campbell have described "eternal" as now.

Who's the odd man out?

Time being an illusion does not say anything about substrate or the eternal. I don't understand your "then". We function regardless whether we recognize that time is an illusion or not.

If we apply any sort logic to this statement we can only come up with the conclusion is unjustified. This energy argument is akin to New Agers and the ilk talking of vibrations. Again remember you are talking to an agnostic here. If I were writing this sentence it would go something like ... We don't actually know anything, but science gives us more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks. Alternatively we just fall for the memes that abound.

This begs the question of time being what it seems.

That is not what it seems either. This as far as we can tell, personal opinion is a product "memes" and the ability for "chemistry" to replicate them. And yet energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) ... which is the real substrate energy or mass/distance/time?

Yes mass is an illusion. I personally do think mass can be thought of as having physical properties. In my interpretation energy flow is from concentrated to dilute ... bit of a metaphor. General relativity ... is one example. I am not sure we can ever be sure. Evolution and evolution is a description. let me quote Hawking and Mlodinow one time. I am not sure I but into this interpretation though: Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.

I could go with that. For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? Is being existence?

They are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality. an afterthought If we wish to think of energy as sustaining all ... it is the energy differences that appears sustain change; if we assume time as real but illusionary. If we take something akin to Joseph's view then we have to have a completely different view in that time and energy are simply constructs. We simply flip from one reality to another and we don't have to worry about time and energy.

Breitbart? Interesting ... what does he say about the acidification of the oceans?

Yet all the constituent parts of this hopefully happy event are not as they seem. Does not seem like that the baby has been plucked out of the air, water and soil and fueled by the sun. Seem too amazing!