I am very sceptical of that given that what you call affectance is really a vacuum and also that it is your personal theory
Light can be bent when passing close to massive objects but in empty space there is nothing there for it to interact with
You can call it “ultra-minuscule electromagnetic radiation”, if you prefer. Even you can know that all space is filled with EMR. Even the Quantum Magi don’t argue with that. And space is only a vacuum of particles. There is no absolute vacuum of everything.
And just as you pointed out, light visibly bends when passing large mass objects. The blue bends more than the red. And in fact, it bends any time it is in a gravitational field. And it is actually never outside a gravitational field. Look at the path of the Solar system. No matter how far away it is from that small black hole in the milky way, it is still swayed into an orbit. Now if the field is so effective as that on huge stars and massive planets at such a distance, imagine the effect it can have on light.
And still further, and more importantly, what you are calling “dark matter/energy” also has gravitational effect (that is why they proclaimed its existence). Billions of light years worth of gravitation, and you don’t think it has any effect upon light? Get real.
The idea of Red-shift is old and far outdated. It is no more accurate than Newton’s laws of motion. The idea of the Big Bang is similar, inspired for religious reasons, far outdated.
Electromagnetic radiation cannot exist everywhere because otherwise there would no darkness
The Big Bang does not represent the beginning of the Universe just the beginning of local cosmic expansion
What is outdated is the notion of a singularity which is physically impossible and also forbidden by quantum mechanics
Empty space is not an absolute vacuum but is nonetheless treated as a vacuum even though at the quantum level it is not empty at all
Oh come now. You know better than that. Visible light is a very small part of the EMR spectrum. And even with that, Science has never been able to establish absolute blackness. Every mass body emits radiation.
I see. So now we are at the stage of redefining it into existence, much like the Second Law. I am still not convinced of local expansion either.
Quantum Physics is fantasy fairyland. But yes, the original “singularity” is impossible, but it too is being redefined into something more real. I don’t think they have settled on what yet.
Even if you do not accept that the Big Bang actually happened that is the furthest point back in time that physics can go
That does not mean nothing happened before it just that what ever did happen [ if anything did ] is not currently known
Then why not just say that you had an eye operation? I would have given you some leeway. 
I do not intuit that we can come to know that God exists.
Can we do know more than just have that feeling and to speculate?
Of course, one’s human experience isS different than knowing. That sense of qualia which leads us down the path to belief is not actual knowledge ~ is it?
Of course, we can know what God is like to believers…the good and the bad.
A friend of ours dragged us to Christmas Eve Mass. The church was decorated beautifully. I so loved the trees on the alter (I love trees) and all of the decorations. I so enjoyed singing all of the spiritual Christmas songs especially Oh Holy Night since I grew up with them. That has always been my favorite. I cannot believe but I can sense the spirit within Christmas and that song grabs me at my core. I sang my heart out even though I cannot believe now. But I suppose that it is the residue that is left behind within me which caused me to enjoy it and to feel so good about it. At the same time, I realize that that there was a sense of loss trying to push through because of what I had at one time believed. Believers are the lucky ones to me BUT what I would compare the feeling to ~~ it would be similar to the loss of a great friend who I came to realize was not really there at all…not real at all. So you choke back the tear and move on.
But ask me if I prayed? But then again, they do say that singing is praying twice.
Happy New Year, Ierrellus.
Eyes repaired, I can now see the posts. I think the problem here amounts to discovering how words can convey meaning and communicate that meaning to another being. A word is a vehicle, it is not the essence of meaning, which has to do with qualia. As I stated earlier, an experience can be put into understandable words, hence communicated, only if the qualia of sender and receiver is synonymous. Denial is a personal admission; it does not relate to anyone but you. But I don’t really see a dearth of spiritual consciousness here, just college kids playing word games and boasting about what they will not to know. .
But can’t words be guides toward having the enlightenment experience? I realize they are not the experience in and of itself.
Yes. That’s why even the Zen Buddhists, who reject dogma and scripture, use words as tools. There are Zen stories and the famous koans. It’s why Jesus spoke in parables. Words take you to the edge. The fewer words the better. Adding more words can take you away from the edge.
What is problematic is when people [driven psychologically] reify what is beyond the normal and invent more complicated word to it, e.g. an reified God which is illusory.
In Zen, the Buddhist ‘progress’ towards an extreme state of emptiness, i.e. “Reality-is …” but simultaneously submerges, engages and entangles with reality-is via various Framework and System.
For those who have never experienced the presence of God all talk of God is about illusion. Nothing of a real presence is reified, just thoughts after the fact when one tries in vain to convince others that the experience can be had by anyone.
You have to excuse Prismatic. He’s a very persistent and irrational gadfly.
And Irrellus, You’d have to excuse them for the like reason of claiming the above.
For faith is prior to its negation, and its basically a logical fallacy to see it otherwise. At the very least, a disproof is as difficult as a proof, thereby.
I agree, all talk of God is about illusion. But even those who claimed to have experienced the presence of God, what they have is real experiences but what the experiences are supposed to be about, i.e. God is most likely an illusion as well.
It is very likely to be an illusion because those who claimed to have experienced God expressed the same feelings as those who had experiences of God due to mental illness, brain damage, drugs, meditations, chemicals, hallucinogen, electrical stimulation, etc.
I have given evidences, note this one [among many] again;
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]
Those who experiences ‘God’ due to temporal epilepsy get cured of the experiences when they are treated with drugs etc.
Btw, if you belong to the very senior citizen category, it best not to argue and get entangled on such topic. Just believe in whatever you are comfortable with.
That the experience of God can be had due to conditions mentioned above may just indicate that the Kingdom is Within.
BTW, I find your advice to the elderly to be quite immature and obnoxious.
That could lead to idealism and others may lead to accuse you of solipsism and nihilism if reality and God is merely between the ears.
It was with good intentions. I apologize if you are uncomfortable with it.
What I noted is this, research indicate there is a naturally tendency for the elder to veer toward theism.
As I had argued, the propensity to theism is due to psychological impulses to seek consonance and comfort against the arising subliminal angst. Theists will go the most extreme to maintain and sustain the keep the psychological stability and peace of mind. Note Abraham was even willing to kill his own son for God [which I had proven is illusory, do not exists and is an impossibility.
Thus for most theists [maybe you are the exception] they will have a terrible psychological reactions when their belief in a God is threatened. This is why jihadists are killing atheists for not believing in a God because the presence of non-theists is an automatic threat to their psychological security. Note how theists like JSS, Aminius, Snark attack me [rather than discussing rationally and philosophically] as if I am a serious threat [subconsciously] to their well being in arguing on the question of theism.
My point is, for the elderly it obvious their reasoning power is lesser than when they were younger. Facing arguments against theism can be rather stressful. Thus it would be better to retain the peace rather being stressed in arguing and defending theism.
Apparently, your agenda does not allow you to think clearly. Not all old people are senile or closed in mentally in their own peculiar existential awareness.
Nothing of the kingdom within suggests ideals, solipsism or nihilism. It simply suggests that you are partaker of what is also without. Schweitzer and others write of an inner knowing about God. It is no wish-fulfillment. We have evolved to believe in purpose that unites the inner and outer ways of being, becoming and belonging.
Ierrellus,
…
How do you define the kingdom within Ierrellus? Is it for you wholly religious/spiritual?
At the very least, I might suggest that your inner kingdom holds ideals to be important.
Perhaps there is a bit of solipsism within believing in a God simply because one thinks and feels that he/she has personally experienced that; ergo, God exists.
I do not know about that. That seems to be simplifying things. No?
I might say that the kingdom within is ALSO a part of the human psyche and then one might go on to describe their own.
What is happening within Paul’s life which gives us a clue to his kingdom within?
I personally greatly admired Albert Schweitzer but couldn’t you say that that inner knowing was no more than a combination of intuition and let’s say spiritual qualia? I have been there but it doesn’t mean that I know God.
It may be a part of unconscious wishfulness or a beautiful play between an awesome universe seen and our brain chemistry.
Why do we use the word “know” or “knowing” when clearly we cannot?
Believe…yes.
OMG. How vain and egotistical can a person be? Ever consider the possibility that you are obnoxious as well as too closed-minded and obstinate to acknowledge the possibility that others have refuted your “arguments” (which are really nothing more than groundless assertions) to their satisfaction so they’re no longer relevant? You can only repeat yourself so many times before people realize you have nothing to say. For example, you claim empiricism is fundamental to our understanding but refuse to explore its wider implications. You thereby close the door to new ideas and hitherto unknown possibilities. This makes your perspective too narrow to be of any serious concern to a rational person.
In a psychological experiment, a group of people of mixed ages was shown pictures of two yards, one slightly smaller than the other and irregular. They were then asked which yard would take less time to mow. Which age group was most likely to give the right answer and why?