@jamie, regarding the "flat Earth:"

jamie said:



I am not sure where you got that idea. I thought it was common knowledge that the ancients thought the Earth was flat. It's actually a very reasonable belief, given the fact that it does SEEM to be flat. In fact, here's something from the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth:"

"I am not sure where you got that idea. I thought it was common knowledge that the ancients thought the Earth was flat. It's actually a very reasonable belief, given the fact that it does SEEM to be flat. In fact, here's something from the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth:"

I got that idea from my time in college as a student of cultural anthropology. Wikipedia is a joke. The idea that ancient cultures thought the earth was flat is silly. Anyone with even a little knowledge of ancient cultures would know this...

Greek philosophy is Egyptian..

There are old astrological depictions of spheroid bodies in the solar system.

if you really want to resort to wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...i/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

@jamie, regarding my "inability to explain anything at all:"

First, please allow me to very gently point out that saying "you are full of bs...no offense," can still certainly be construed as offensive. I came to this site with the understanding that this site was meant to be a kind and supportive environment, and that has been my mindset and approach throughout all of my exchanges, as well as that of everyone else I have dealt with on here. There certainly has been quite a bit of "philosophical debate," but I believe that such debate can and should take place in the context of furthering our mutual understandings, without being rude or offensive, either explicitly or implicitly. If I have said anything to offend you I can assure you it was unintentional, and I apologize for any such unintentional slight. That said, if you find yourself unable to talk to me without giving offense, it might be better not to address me at all. I would prefer, however, that we do communicate, but that we carry out all such communication in the positive spirit that we should.

That said, I will address the issues you have raised. Many of these issues have a sort of "anti-knowledge" approach, as though you are sort of denying our general ability to know. Obviously, this is a viewpoint I disagree with, and I will address various specific things you have said.



"One plus one equals two" is a statement of absolute mathematical truth. Mathematical statements and purely logical arguments can be statements of absolute truth. Certain existential statements can also be statements of absolute truth, such as Descartes's famous "I think therefore I am."



This is nonsense. Logic is by its very nature LOGICAL...how or why would it be otherwise? What is illogical about "one plus one equals two?" The same goes for rationality, which is simply logic applied to thinking. And by "linear modalities" I am assuming you mean logical, rational, and perhaps linguistic statements. (Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption, please.) I do not know why such things would "break down," as you put it, and I therefore do not see the paradox to which you refer.



By "big bag," I assume you are referring to the "big bang." And I agree it is not an origin. This iteration of the universe, and the event we call the "big bang" is merely one in an infinite series of such events. Reality actually has no "origin:" it always existed and it always will, although it has and will continue to go through all sorts of transformations. "Meaning" in the universe is something that is not "given," but something we must each construct for ourselves. (We can also help one another to construct meaning.) As for being "clueless," I never said I was omniscient, but I do think I have more "clues," so to speak, than some others...and am willing to learn from those who may have more clues than me.



As I said above, I don't know why such "linear modality" would break down. I don't think it breaks down at all.



Appearances can be...or is that just another little dig at me personally? If so, it is inappropriate. In any event, appearances can sometimes actually be quite accurate, but it is you who have said I appear to know so much, not me. I try to be mindful of both my strength and limitations, and also to keep my ego (and any masks it might wear) out of places it does not belong...or is that, again, just another inappropriate personal dig at me?



Again, existence always existed. Regardless of whether or not that can be explained does not take away from the fact that SO MUCH of our reality CAN be explained. And, of course, there is no possible way to explain the cause of the causeless...and a thing which always existed can, of course, have no cause. Yet, every moment is caused by the one before it...ad infinitum, thus leaving no "issues to address."

" It's actually a very reasonable belief, given the fact that it does SEEM to be flat."

Umm..anyone near the ocean can look out and see the curve of the horizon. Ive spent 30 years on the shores of the pacific...it does not seem to be flat.

"First, please allow me to very gently point out that saying "you are full of bs...no offense," can still certainly be construed as offensive."

Sure it can be..but Id say it again all the same. Context is important. I really believe that anyone who thinks they can explain absolute truth is talking bs. It's my opinion and I can have it.

@jamie:



I never said that the people of the Middle Ages saw the earth as flat. I said that the ancients saw the Earth as flat. No one says "ancient" Europe, when referring to the Middle ages. (That's why they are "Middle," and not "Ancient." ) People do refer to Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome, however, and the prevailing view of the ANCIENTS was that the Earth was flat.

"This is nonsense. Logic is by its very nature LOGICAL...how or why would it be otherwise? What is illogical about "one plus one equals two?" The same goes for rationality, which is simply logic applied to thinking. And by "linear modalities" I am assuming you mean logical, rational, and perhaps linguistic statements. (Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption, please.) I do not know why such things would "break down," as you put it, and I therefore do not see the paradox to which you refer. "

Dude, physics defies logic...it's why so many physicists end up as mystics...

"Reality actually has no "origin:" it always existed and it always will, although it has and will continue to go through all sorts of transformations. "Meaning" in the universe is something that is not "given," but something we must each construct for ourselves."

Umm..can you back any of that up with verifiable evidence?

Thats silly. There is something called the equinox...and knowledge of it goes far far beyond the middle ages...as does complex knowledge of solar cycles, solstices, astrological ages etc...I mean come on man..you claim to be a person who values knowledge..so think about it...

You really think the vedic culture thought the earth was flat?

@jamie: I am asking this not to be mean at all, but how much physics do you personally REALLY understand? There is no shame in not being very well acquainted with modern physics...it's very heady, complex stuff, and most people don't have the time or inclination to really study it in the depth required for a comprehensive understanding.

Physics does't defy logic...but it is very complex and often does defy our "common sense" assumptions about how things work, but that's sort of a different thing from "defying logic." It DOES obey its own logical structure, which corresponds to the logical structure of reality (or at least of this universe).

explain to me this one thing. How is it logical that anyTHING exists at all? How?

James Hillman hit the nail on the head when he said..

“It was only when science convinced us the Earth was dead that it could begin its autopsy in earnest.”

No hard feelings Zon..I like a good discussion, and even better when they get heated at times..beats television and fox news. You have no need to apologize for sticking to your convictions. I have a lot of respect for the role science has played in our world and for the atheist movement for bringing the dogma of fundamentalism crumbling to it's knees where it belongs..I just don't think it explains anything in terms of absolutes. I honestly feel like in part it's sort of run away with itself and at times the baby ends up thrown out with the bathwater.

In some ways, I see both atheism and rationalism as a necessary evil in the role it has played...

@jamie:



The equinoxes and solstices, in modern times, are understood as being related to the tilt of the axis of our ball-shaped planet, and the shift of that axis in relation to the Sun as the Earth makes its year-long orbit around the Sun, such than in the north pole is at its maximum orientation towards the sun during the summer solstice, and the south pole is at its maximum orientation towards the sun during the winter solstice. At the equinoxes they are both at equal orientation from the sun.

One effect of this yearly shift in orientation of the northern and southern poles is that the sun shifts the position where it rises each day. On the day of the summer solstice it rises at its maximum northern point, and on the day of the winter solstice it rises at its maximum southern point; at the equinoxes it rises at a point between these two extremes.

The ancient Vedics (and many other cultures from around the world) observed this cyclic change in the position of the rising sun, and that is how they came to identify the solstices and equinoxes. They did not, however, know the cause for this phenomenon, because they thought the Earth was flat, rather than a globe, and that the Sun moved around the Earth, rather than vice versa.



Again, I make no claims to omniscience. But let me put it this way: religious people, when asked where the "world" comes from, will say that "God made it." When further pressed and asked where God came from, they are very happy to say and accept that "God always existed." God, logically, does not need a "cause" or "explanation" if he/she always existed.

As an atheist, I understand that there is no need to fall back upon the God concept, when asked where the "world" comes from. Instead of saying "God" always existed, I simply assert that "Reality always existed." There is no need to bring in some "extra" extremely unlikely entity (God). "Reality always existed" is both sufficient and simpler as an explanation than "God always existed and created the world."



Well, there is the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, which states that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed from one form to another.

And where is the "verifiable evidence" of an eternal "god" who created the world, as opposed to the simple, logical concept that reality always existed? I may not have "verifiable evidence" because that would require gathering evidence from an infinite past (pretty damn hard to get one's hands on that kind of evidence! ); on the other hand, the logic of this is infallible, unless someone can show me something better.



Rationalism -- or to be more precise, if I may, the integration and skeptical application of rationalism (logic) and empiricism (observation), which is essentially what science is -- and atheism are not "necessary evils" at all, but wonderful liberators of humanity from the shackles of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, and authoritarianism. Science and atheism are actually powerful tools...but often we humans lack the wisdom to use these tools properly. We are sometimes like children with useful but dangerous tools in our hands.

It is time we honestly assessed ourselves and our relationship to one another and to reality in general...and grew up. It is time for us to embrace honest, reality-based wisdom, and to maturely and wisely proceed forward as individuals and as a species.

@jamie:


Actually it would be extremely difficult with the naked eye to discern the difference between, a flat, disc-shaped Earth, and a globe-shaped earth. When looking out at the ocean, both situations could create a curve-shaped horizon...except that you could fall off the edge of the flat, disc-shaped Earth!

"And where is the "verifiable evidence" of an eternal "god" who created the world, as opposed to the simple, logical concept that reality always existed?"

There is none.

"Again, I make no claims to omniscience. But let me put it this way: religious people, when asked where the "world" comes from, will say that "God made it." When further pressed and asked where God came from, they are very happy to say and accept that "God always existed." God, logically, does not need a "cause" or "explanation" if he/she always existed."

That's pretty much the same as a scientist simply stating that existence/multiverse/"thing" etc always existed when asked where it all comes from. We can say that within the confines of time it always existed...but time as we know it seem to be just our perception of cosmic metabolism or something. If you could stand back and look at the universe as a whole thing, I think time as we know it would not even make sense anymore outside of the (apparent)perceptually closed system of an individual observer within that universe. Time may only be subjectively true.

Aside from that, we can only say the universe comes from the multiverse, and the multiver from..and that from ...and that from...and then..what?

Neither finite systems or infinite systems make much sense as absolutes. The only explanation I have heard for such things is infinite recursion..but that implies a template that is not deviated from..and so not exactly infinite in the way most of us would imagine it to be.

I get what people mean when they talk about something always existing...but I just think that really that does not do it justice...of course it always existed if you are framing it in reference to the absolute....to quote a teacher of vedanta "what else is there other than god"?

What else is there other than the cosmos? If we are talking about the cosmos as the absolute, then of course it was always there, if you want to frame it that way..but that is still a linear framework because it invokes the idea of time again, and the concept of a before/after to even conclude that there is an always. The truth might be something like that, but to quote R.A. Wilson "the map is not the territory"...

Forgive me if I'm wrong but a reality-based wisdom of which you speak should logically encompass the entirety of human experience. Including every flawed theory, dogmatic theology, speculative nonsensical thought paradigm etc, because the root of these examples are planted firmly within reality (out of the minds of man) they must be included into the umbrella of wisdom of a species moving forwards. Not to be left behind and forgotten, but dragged along for the ride in case of an unforeseen future people(s) requiring a "left of Feild" perspective on a problem that otherwise rational thought cannot solve.
That, to me seems the most rational use of (subjectively) irrational information.

@jamie:



Actually, there may or may not be a "multiverse," although it does seem likely, based upon current physical models. If we could "stand back and look at" the universe or multiverse as a whole thing, outside of time, so to speak, we would see an infinitely large and eternal structure. From within it, however, "inside time" it would be experienced as an eternally evolving and transforming structure (of which we could only experience a very small portion).

There doesn't need to be anything beyond the multiverse, from which the multiverse "comes from." It could simply be that existence IS the multiverse...and that which is not of the multiverse simply does not exist.