The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[VVilliam]

I was referencing to your OP;
"The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig"
To topic, W L Craig Kalam Argument is debunked due to conflation and equivocation.

I noted the original Kalam is restricted to the first 3 premises.
Btw, I understand, Al Ghazali, the originator of the basic Kalam Argument did not add further premises to claim God is the cause.
I have no problem with that since it can be verified by Cosmology, i.e. the Big Bang.
So far, what is accepted by science is the Big Bang theory, but not String Theory.
As such, there is no credibility to rely on String Theory.

Btw, I understand, Al Ghazali, the originator of the basic Kalam Argument did not add further premises to claim God is the cause.
Al Ghazali relied on the Kalam's basic premises and argue elsewhere God exists, which is then not the 'Kalam' per se. Whichever way, ultimately Al Ghazali would be guilty of the conflation and equivocation.

Okay. I see what it is you are pointing out.

My argument has more to do with the question whether we exist within a created thing and how the Kalam - if not based in Supernaturalism - still points folk in that direction (of thinking about things).
String theory is taken seriously and funded. Perhaps it is true that a fundamental attribute to the existence of The Universe, such as a field of vibrating unknown material exists yet isn’t treated as any more relevant to physical science than is God, and for the same reason. It cannot be physically tested and confirmed.

A type of “God of the gaps”, only “string”.

The only difference between the two appear to be that String Theory leaves out the idea that the vibrations re the underlying field from which The Universe might derive, is mindful.
So, in a way, those who argue for The Kalam are arguing from a strictly Materialist view of the universe and thus the “supernatural” explanation arises as the one that Supernaturalist Theists endorse because it is (even if indirectly) supported by current scientific materialism.

The argument from supernaturalists is that anything that moves is part of The Universe, and therefore, even if String Theory were correct, and even if the Field itself were mindful, it still would not be “God”, because God “has to be” timeless (non-temporal) and immaterial, based on the evidence of current Materialistic science.

So, my overall point is that supernaturalists depend upon Materialist scientific interpretation to fix their beliefs upon, because “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause”.
The Materialist science (indirectly) endorses the more ancient idea of supernaturalism, and string theory (even if one day is shown to be true and that the underlying field is mindful), will still be regarded by supernaturalists as “not God” because a supernatural God “has to be” non-temporal and immaterial. This because, supernaturalism has always thought of God in those terms – even before Materialism came along and (indirectly) endorsed supernaturalism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was referencing to your OP;
"The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig"
To topic, W L Craig Kalam Argument is debunked due to conflation and equivocation.

I noted the original Kalam is restricted to the first 3 premises.
Btw, I understand, Al Ghazali, the originator of the basic Kalam Argument did not add further premises to claim God is the cause.
I have no problem with that since it can be verified by Cosmology, i.e. the Big Bang.
So far, what is accepted by science is the Big Bang theory, but not String Theory.
As such, there is no credibility to rely on String Theory.

Btw, I understand, Al Ghazali, the originator of the basic Kalam Argument did not add further premises to claim God is the cause.
Al Ghazali relied on the Kalam's basic premises and argue elsewhere God exists, which is then not the 'Kalam' per se. Whichever way, ultimately Al Ghazali would be guilty of the conflation and equivocation.

Okay. I see what it is you are pointing out.

My argument has more to do with the question whether we exist within a created thing and how the Kalam - if not based in Supernaturalism - still points folk in that direction (of thinking about things).
String theory is taken seriously and funded. Perhaps it is true that a fundamental attribute to the existence of The Universe, such as a field of vibrating unknown material exists yet isn’t treated as any more relevant to physical science than is God, and for the same reason. It cannot be physically tested and confirmed.

A type of “God of the gaps”, only “string”.

The only difference between the two appear to be that String Theory leaves out the idea that the vibrations re the underlying field from which The Universe might derive, is mindful.
So, in a way, those who argue for The Kalam are arguing from a strictly Materialist view of the universe and thus the “supernatural” explanation arises as the one that Supernaturalist Theists endorse because it is (even if indirectly) supported by current scientific materialism.

The argument from supernaturalists is that anything that moves is part of The Universe, and therefore, even if String Theory were correct, and even if the Field itself were mindful, it still would not be “God”, because God “has to be” timeless (non-temporal) and immaterial, based on the evidence of current Materialistic science.

So, my overall point is that supernaturalists depend upon Materialist scientific interpretation to fix their beliefs upon, because “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause”.
The Materialist science (indirectly) endorses the more ancient idea of supernaturalism, and string theory (even if one day is shown to be true and that the underlying field is mindful), will still be regarded by supernaturalists as “not God” because a supernatural God “has to be” non-temporal and immaterial. This because, supernaturalism has always thought of God in those terms – even before Materialism came along and (indirectly) endorsed supernaturalism.

There don't seem to be any optimism String Theory is tenable. The general view is;
String theory is dead
https://iai.tv/articles/string-theory-i ... -auid-2399

To put the above matter in perspective;
All humans are embedded in their DNA code with a necessary bug [from an evolutionary default] of an existential crisis which generate terrible cognitive dissonances; i.e. all humans must-fear-death with the knowledge death is a certainty.
To soothe the cognitive dissonance, a belief in the supernatural [the idea of a supreme cause that is all powerful] provide immediate consonances to alleviate the mental suffering. This was happening before the advent of science.

Science inferred Big Bang as the origin of the universe, but because science is fallible, it does not insist the Big Bang as the absolute First Cause, anyway it cannot [its impossible] within the relative conditions of its Framework and System.

For the supernaturalists to think “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause” is trying to fix square pegs into round holes in very desperate psychological conditions. It is a lost cause.

Science is limited to what is science [scientific constitution] and scientific reality is the most credible and objective; there is no other better.
When supernaturalists leap beyond science to make inferences it is no more scientifically real. Since that is based on faith, its credibility and objectivity is negligible relative to science.
Supernaturalists may think they have arrived at something real [God], but it is more of psychologically driven illusion.

Your views??

[VVilliam]

All humans are embedded in their DNA code with a necessary bug [from an evolutionary default] of an existential crisis which generate terrible cognitive dissonances; i.e. all humans must-fear-death with the knowledge death is a certainty.
To soothe the cognitive dissonance, a belief in the supernatural [the idea of a supreme cause that is all powerful] provide immediate consonances to alleviate the mental suffering. This was happening before the advent of science.

I understand this type of reasoning as too sweeping to be of any practical philosophical use.

I would understand the same type of statements which "explain" atheists as having a fear of life/living forever.

Science inferred Big Bang as the origin of the universe, but because science is fallible, it does not insist the Big Bang as the absolute First Cause, anyway it cannot [its impossible] within the relative conditions of its Framework and System.

Yes. As a Model it fits best for the time being.

For the supernaturalists to think “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause” is trying to fix square pegs into round holes in very desperate psychological conditions. It is a lost cause.

I don't think so. The very fact that both scientists and religionists agree that the universe has a beginning, allows for the religionists who believe in supernaturalism to say "I told you so".

Science is limited to what is science [scientific constitution] and scientific reality is the most credible and objective; there is no other better.

Re the physical sciences yes. The idea is to find the common denominator which brings all these into a coherent agreeable whole.

When supernaturalists leap beyond science to make inferences it is no more scientifically real. Since that is based on faith, its credibility and objectivity is negligible relative to science.

Like string theory - a long corridor which is the equivalent of Alice's rabbit hole in that it doesn't lead anywhere specifically useful. Thus - we remain wondering about the "land".

However, from what we already know of The Universe, it too is a "long corridor" and very much "Alice's rabbit hole" so it is reasonable to accept such corridors as "par for the course" - natural extension of that which we are experiencing.

Supernaturalists may think they have arrived at something real [God], but it is more of psychologically driven illusion.

Your views??

As a Natural Theist I can accept the idea that - IF this universe had a beginning THEN something created it, and the attributes to that something would indeed be almighty.

I simply draw the line at this meaning such an entity would be supernatural.

If I turned that on its head and thought of The Universe as never having a beginning, the "God" aspect wouldn't require removed from the table of discussion either.

That is because I consider that aspect to being the most natural aspect of The Universe, whether The Universe had a beginning or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans are embedded in their DNA code with a necessary bug [from an evolutionary default] of an existential crisis which generate terrible cognitive dissonances; i.e. all humans must-fear-death with the knowledge death is a certainty.
To soothe the cognitive dissonance, a belief in the supernatural [the idea of a supreme cause that is all powerful] provide immediate consonances to alleviate the mental suffering. This was happening before the advent of science.

I understand this type of reasoning as too sweeping to be of any practical philosophical use.
I would understand the same type of statements which "explain" atheists as having a fear of life/living forever.

Since long ago, thousands of years ago, the Buddhists, Stoics, and others has understood the above and had developed self-development methods to deal with the terrible cognitive dissonance [acknowledge, manage and modulate the inherent fears] to maintain equanimity so to optimize living without the need for an illusory God that is a necessity for the majority.

Note the 4 Noble Truths [4NT] of Buddhism,
1. The truth of the origin of suffering [dukkha], [of the inherent existential crisis]
2. The truth of the cause of suffering,
3. The truth of the end of suffering, and
4. The truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering.

The convenient term "Suffering" here is "dukkha" which is a very complex and extensive element. The essence of Dukkha is the terrible mental pains from the inherent innate cognitive dissonances driven by an inevitable existential crisis.

The approach of the 4NT is a model that is iterative, i.e. that is continually improved while it keep going in cycles. see
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is an iterative Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

For the supernaturalists to think “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause” is trying to fix square pegs into round holes in very desperate psychological conditions. It is a lost cause.

I don't think so. The very fact that both scientists and religionists agree that the universe has a beginning, allows for the religionists who believe in supernaturalism to say "I told you so".

"I told you so" and that is based on conjectures??
As I had mentioned many times elsewhere, scientific facts are at best polished conjectures where its most significant point is that it has predictive and utilities that facilitate humanity to progress within its limits, e.g. optimizing life, technology, medicines, knowledge, etc.

The problem is theists [majority] do not accept 'the universe has a cause, i.e. an omnipotent & omni-whatever God' is at best a polished conjectural.
Thus the theistic God cannot be absolutely real to the extent of creating the universe, sending messenger and prophets to Earth, listening and answering prayers, existing in a heaven awaiting non-sinful souls and sending the sinful to hell.

When supernaturalists leap beyond science to make inferences it is no more scientifically real. Since that is based on faith, its credibility and objectivity is negligible relative to science.

Like string theory - a long corridor which is the equivalent of Alice's rabbit hole in that it doesn't lead anywhere specifically useful. Thus - we remain wondering about the "land".

However, from what we already know of The Universe, it too is a "long corridor" and very much "Alice's rabbit hole" so it is reasonable to accept such corridors as "par for the course" - natural extension of that which we are experiencing.

Supernaturalists may think they have arrived at something real [God], but it is more of psychologically driven illusion.

Your views??

As a Natural Theist I can accept the idea that - IF this universe had a beginning THEN something created it, and the attributes to that something would indeed be almighty.

I simply draw the line at this meaning such an entity would be supernatural.

If I turned that on its head and thought of The Universe as never having a beginning, the "God" aspect wouldn't require removed from the table of discussion either.

That is because I consider that aspect to being the most natural aspect of The Universe, whether The Universe had a beginning or not.

What 'reasonable' and 'natural' here is driven by psychology.
That is what Hume demonstrated with "cause and effect" which is very reasonable but ultimately the truth of it is driven by psychology, i.e. constant conjunction, customs and habits.

There is a wide range of the function of the faculty of reason within a continuum. At the lower end [primal, pure] we have something like the pseudo-rational that take big leaps without supporting evidences to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonances.
The purpose of the faculty of reason is to optimize survival [at least till the inevitable] and it will deceive the self if necessary- note the many illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] that primal-reason [with sense] generate to facilitate survival.

Your resultant conclusion to the above is the work of the primal end of the faculty of reason. This is why Kant raised his Critique of Pure [primal] Reason where he claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real via reason.

The critical point is this;
1. all humans are embedded in their DNA with an existential crisis that generates cognitive dissonances.
2. the idea of an omnipotent God provide immediate relief to soothe the cognitive dissonance the existential crisis via soteriological promises or other reasons.
3. The omnipotent God is so powerful that it is the first cause as the cause of the beginning of the universe.

In the above, if not 3, then not 2 which is the terrible psychological pains and the drive to soothe it with 3.

That theists relied on science to justify that the universe has a beginning, that is only conjectural and not the absolute truth.

[VVilliam]

...

Philosopher 1. For the supernaturalists to think “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause” is trying to fix square pegs into round holes in very desperate psychological conditions. It is a lost cause.

Philosopher 2. I don't think so. The very fact that both scientists and religionists agree that the universe has a beginning, allows for the religionists who believe in supernaturalism to say "I told you so".

Philosopher 1. "I told you so" and that is based on conjectures??

Philosopher 2. Yes. It is true that scientists are theorizing that the universe has a beginning.
Where the science and supernaturalism part company, is that science is not showing us that things can be created from non-things (ex nihilo) and supernaturalist have no choice but to employ this “argument” as a means of justifying an alleged existence of a supernatural cause.

Philosopher 1. The problem is theists [majority] do not accept 'the universe has a cause, i.e. an omnipotent & omni-whatever God' is at best a polished conjectural.
Thus the theistic God cannot be absolutely real to the extent of creating the universe, sending messenger and prophets to Earth, listening and answering prayers, existing in a heaven awaiting non-sinful souls and sending the sinful to hell.

Philosopher 2. Indeed. Those examples all stem from the belief in a supernatural cause, and ex nihilo.
As a Natural Theist I can accept the idea that - IF this universe had a beginning THEN something created it, and the attributes to that something would indeed be almighty.

I simply draw the line at this meaning such an entity would be supernatural.

If I turned that on its head and thought of The Universe as never having a beginning, the "God" aspect wouldn't require removed from the table of discussion either.

That is because I consider that aspect to being the most natural aspect of The Universe, whether The Universe had a beginning or not.
Philosopher 1. What 'reasonable' and 'natural' here is driven by psychology.
That is what Hume demonstrated with "cause and effect" which is very reasonable but ultimately the truth of it is driven by psychology, i.e. constant conjunction, customs and habits.

Natural Theism is aware of these types of avoidable motivations when delving the depths of Mindfulness and encountering all sorts of psychology in relation to ideas of existing within a created thing.

Philosopher 1. There is a wide range of the function of the faculty of reason within a continuum. At the lower end [primal, pure] we have something like the pseudo-rational that take big leaps without supporting evidences to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonances.
The purpose of the faculty of reason is to optimize survival [at least till the inevitable] and it will deceive the self if necessary- note the many illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] that primal-reason [with sense] generate to facilitate survival.

Your resultant conclusion to the above is the work of the primal end of the faculty of reason. This is why Kant raised his Critique of Pure [primal] Reason where he claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real via reason.

Philosopher 2. I would say then that Kant is speaking of “God” within a supernatural framework, rather than a mindfully natural one – where the universe itself can be regarded as a manifestation of mindfulness – purely natural for that.

Philosopher 1. That theists relied on science to justify that the universe has a beginning, that is only conjectural and not the absolute truth.

Philosopher 2. I agree with this while also pointing out that the removal of supernaturalism and its insertion of ex nihilo does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally.
I state this as a means of avoiding the insertion of supernaturalist conjecture superimposing itself onto scientific discovery. Science is NOT showing us that our universe is the product of ex nihilo. That is NOT what scientists are declaring about our universe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Philosopher 1. For the supernaturalists to think “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause” is trying to fix square pegs into round holes in very desperate psychological conditions. It is a lost cause.

Philosopher 2. I don't think so. The very fact that both scientists and religionists agree that the universe has a beginning, allows for the religionists who believe in supernaturalism to say "I told you so".

Philosopher 1. "I told you so" and that is based on conjectures??

Philosopher 2. Yes. It is true that scientists are theorizing that the universe has a beginning.
Where the science and supernaturalism part company, is that science is not showing us that things can be created from non-things (ex nihilo) and supernaturalist have no choice but to employ this “argument” as a means of justifying an alleged existence of a supernatural cause.

Philosopher 1. The problem is theists [majority] do not accept 'the universe has a cause, i.e. an omnipotent & omni-whatever God' is at best a polished conjectural.
Thus the theistic God cannot be absolutely real to the extent of creating the universe, sending messenger and prophets to Earth, listening and answering prayers, existing in a heaven awaiting non-sinful souls and sending the sinful to hell.

Philosopher 2. Indeed. Those examples all stem from the belief in a supernatural cause, and ex nihilo.
As a Natural Theist I can accept the idea that - IF this universe had a beginning THEN something created it, and the attributes to that something would indeed be almighty.

I simply draw the line at this meaning such an entity would be supernatural.

If I turned that on its head and thought of The Universe as never having a beginning, the "God" aspect wouldn't require removed from the table of discussion either.

That is because I consider that aspect to being the most natural aspect of The Universe, whether The Universe had a beginning or not.
Philosopher 1. What 'reasonable' and 'natural' here is driven by psychology.
That is what Hume demonstrated with "cause and effect" which is very reasonable but ultimately the truth of it is driven by psychology, i.e. constant conjunction, customs and habits.

Natural Theism is aware of these types of avoidable motivations when delving the depths of Mindfulness and encountering all sorts of psychology in relation to ideas of existing within a created thing.

Philosopher 1. There is a wide range of the function of the faculty of reason within a continuum. At the lower end [primal, pure] we have something like the pseudo-rational that take big leaps without supporting evidences to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonances.
The purpose of the faculty of reason is to optimize survival [at least till the inevitable] and it will deceive the self if necessary- note the many illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] that primal-reason [with sense] generate to facilitate survival.

Your resultant conclusion to the above is the work of the primal end of the faculty of reason. This is why Kant raised his Critique of Pure [primal] Reason where he claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real via reason.

Philosopher 2. I would say then that Kant is speaking of “God” within a supernatural framework, rather than a mindfully natural one – where the universe itself can be regarded as a manifestation of mindfulness – purely natural for that.

In a way Kant claimed theists are claiming God as a supernatural being.
Since this supernatural being is beyond the natural [the only actual objective reality], God as a supernatural being is an illusion reified as pseudo-real.
It is like someone insisting Santa Claus is a real person living the North Pole flying around with reindeer sleigh.
Whilst a claim of Santa and real can be easily refuted, the claim that God is 'really-real' is very difficult to convince theists due to very powerful primordial psychological forces.

Philosopher 1. That theists relied on science to justify that the universe has a beginning, that is only conjectural and not the absolute truth.

Philosopher 2. I agree with this while also pointing out that the removal of supernaturalism and its insertion of ex nihilo does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally.
I state this as a means of avoiding the insertion of supernaturalist conjecture superimposing itself onto scientific discovery. Science is NOT showing us that our universe is the product of ex nihilo. That is NOT what scientists are declaring about our universe.

Since as I had claimed, that the empirical system-based scientific facts [the best of] are the most credible and objective at present,
this "does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally [" as Speculation-X] i.e. a non-scientific speculation, cannot be as credible and objective as those of scientific facts.

If I take the empirical based scientific facts as the standard say indexed 100/100, then the above speculation-X based on blind faith is at most 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity relative to science as the standard.

As pointed out above, why theists are driven to Speculation-X is driven the primal [crude] reason to seek consonance to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

The Buddhists and Stoics had understood this evolution default that drove people to speculation-X. They knew such speculation-X are useful and therapeutic and has salvific values but it also had VERY serious cons they want to avoid.
To avoid the serious cons, the Buddhists and Stoics merely suspend judgment and modulate the inherent impulse to seek speculation-X whenever it is triggered, while coming with a different set of secular philosophies and principles to deal with it on a theoretical and pragmatic basis.

Point is, instead of focusing on one paradigm, you need to consider and understand [not necessary agree with] the alternative perspectives [of the Buddhists, Stoics and the like] in dealing and resolving this persistent speculation-X. Do you, can you and will you?

[VVilliam]

...

Dialogues on Reason, God, and Science: Exploring the Interplay Between Primal Reason, Mindfulness, and Speculative Beliefs


Philosopher 1. There is a wide range of the function of the faculty of reason within a continuum. At the lower end [primal, pure] we have something like the pseudo-rational that take big leaps without supporting evidences to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonances.
The purpose of the faculty of reason is to optimize survival [at least till the inevitable] and it will deceive the self if necessary- note the many illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] that primal-reason [with sense] generate to facilitate survival.

Your resultant conclusion to the above is the work of the primal end of the faculty of reason. This is why Kant raised his Critique of Pure [primal] Reason where he claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real via reason.

Philosopher 2. I would say then that Kant is speaking of “God” within a supernatural framework, rather than a mindfully natural one – where the universe itself can be regarded as a manifestation of mindfulness – purely natural for that.

Philosopher 1. In a way Kant claimed theists are claiming God as a supernatural being.


Philosopher 2. Without doubt that is what is being implied.

Philosopher 1. Since this supernatural being is beyond the natural [the only actual objective reality], God as a supernatural being is an illusion reified as pseudo-real.


Philosopher 2. Go on…

Philosopher 1. It is like someone insisting Santa Claus is a real person living the North Pole flying around with reindeer sleigh.
Whilst a claim of Santa and real can be easily refuted, the claim that God is 'really-real' is very difficult to convince theists due to very powerful primordial psychological forces.





Philosopher 2. Again, with the sweeping statement. Where is this idea anchored?
Does Kant dismiss “God” or just the supernatural version?
The way I (through Natural Theism) count a “God” as “being” is simply if the entity is mindful.
This (of course) leads to different “layers” of mindfulness – depending upon what one’s mind is “set” to (or free from) and I am free from the assumption that every Theist view is solely caused through “powerful primordial psychological” although I do happily accept that as having something to do with some notions, including the notion of a supernatural God.

Philosopher 1. That theists relied on science to justify that the universe has a beginning, that is only conjectural and not the absolute truth.

Philosopher 2. I agree with this while also pointing out that the removal of supernaturalism and its insertion of ex nihilo does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally.
I state this as a means of avoiding the insertion of supernaturalist conjecture superimposing itself onto scientific discovery. Science is NOT showing us that our universe is the product of ex nihilo. That is NOT what scientists are declaring about our universe.

Philosopher 1. Since as I had claimed, that the empirical system-based scientific facts [the best of] are the most credible and objective at present,
this "does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally [" as Speculation-X] i.e. a non-scientific speculation, cannot be as credible and objective as those of scientific facts.

Philosopher 2. I prefer not to separate the Sciences from “Science” and avoid leaning too much (bias) upon the importance of one (Physical Science) over the other (Mental Science.)
Physical science has (?) to say about the mind, in relation to its overall studies that I can accept its exclusion (as theory re philosophy) from the overall state of The Universe?

Philosopher 1. If I take the empirical based scientific facts as the standard say indexed 100/100, then the above speculation-X based on blind faith is at most 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity relative to science as the standard.

As pointed out above, why theists are driven to Speculation-X is driven the primal [crude] reason to seek consonance to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

Philosopher 2. If you were a physicist arguing the bias above I would grant your statement with a pinch of salt (as the saying goes) since you are obviously stacking importance in favor of a purely empirical framework, excluding that which even grants physicists with the ability to be physicists…that being Mindfulness itself.

Ask physicists about mindfulness and they will immediately spiel a list of reasons for why minds exist and how vulnerable said mind is to primordial stuff.
One could counter that this itself is a primordial reaction to their own particular state of being since they have foolish supernaturalists to bounce off of and feel a little/most superior to (by way of comparison).

Philosopher 1. The Buddhists and Stoics had understood this evolution default that drove people to speculation-X. They knew such speculation-X are useful and therapeutic and has salvific values but it also had VERY serious cons they want to avoid.
To avoid the serious cons, the Buddhists and Stoics merely suspend judgment and modulate the inherent impulse to seek speculation-X whenever it is triggered, while coming with a different set of secular philosophies and principles to deal with it on a theoretical and pragmatic basis.

Philosopher 2. Again, said behavior can still be regarded as triggered by primordial stuff with the additional value of working through the mysteries presented to the human personality.
As such, (like everything else) – a work in progress – not to be confused with the blinding truth.

Philosopher 1. Point is, instead of focusing on one paradigm, you need to consider and understand [not necessary agree with] the alternative perspectives [of the Buddhists, Stoics and the like] in dealing and resolving this persistent speculation-X. Do you, can you and will you?

Philosopher 2. Is it from these things that you get you judgy comments from, or from somewhere deeper you have yet to discover and bring to the surface of your own human experience?
I ask because it appears to me that your critique of my personality is based upon speculation rather than fact?
Re that, you are attacking a strawman instead of dealing with the real “me” and what I am attempting to convey your way.

[Atla]

Ask physicists about mindfulness and they will immediately spiel a list of reasons for why minds exist and how vulnerable said mind is to primordial stuff.

Is this in the physics textbooks?

[VVilliam]

Ask physicists about mindfulness and they will immediately spiel a list of reasons for why minds exist and how vulnerable said mind is to primordial stuff.

Is this in the physics textbooks?

Is the subject of mindfulness contained in any physics textbooks?

Perhaps there is too much conflating "physicists" with "materialists"?

[Atla]

Ask physicists about mindfulness and they will immediately spiel a list of reasons for why minds exist and how vulnerable said mind is to primordial stuff.

Is this in the physics textbooks?

Is the subject of mindfulness contained in any physics textbooks?

No, neither is the existence of minds, nor their vulnerability, nor primordial stuff as far as I know. Have never heard any physicist talk about this.

Unless you mean frying people's brains with Big bang stuff, which would indeed be harmful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Dialogues on Reason, God, and Science: Exploring the Interplay Between Primal Reason, Mindfulness, and Speculative Beliefs


Philosopher 1. There is a wide range of the function of the faculty of reason within a continuum. At the lower end [primal, pure] we have something like the pseudo-rational that take big leaps without supporting evidences to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonances.
The purpose of the faculty of reason is to optimize survival [at least till the inevitable] and it will deceive the self if necessary- note the many illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] that primal-reason [with sense] generate to facilitate survival.

Your resultant conclusion to the above is the work of the primal end of the faculty of reason. This is why Kant raised his Critique of Pure [primal] Reason where he claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real via reason.

Philosopher 2. I would say then that Kant is speaking of “God” within a supernatural framework, rather than a mindfully natural one – where the universe itself can be regarded as a manifestation of mindfulness – purely natural for that.

Philosopher 1. In a way Kant claimed theists are claiming God as a supernatural being.


Philosopher 2. Without doubt that is what is being implied.

Philosopher 1. Since this supernatural being is beyond the natural [the only actual objective reality], God as a supernatural being is an illusion reified as pseudo-real.


Philosopher 2. Go on…

Philosopher 1. It is like someone insisting Santa Claus is a real person living the North Pole flying around with reindeer sleigh.
Whilst a claim of Santa and real can be easily refuted, the claim that God is 'really-real' is very difficult to convince theists due to very powerful primordial psychological forces.


Philosopher 2. Again, with the sweeping statement. Where is this idea anchored?
Does Kant dismiss “God” or just the supernatural version?
The way I (through Natural Theism) count a “God” as “being” is simply if the entity is mindful.
This (of course) leads to different “layers” of mindfulness – depending upon what one’s mind is “set” to (or free from) and I am free from the assumption that every Theist view is solely caused through “powerful primordial psychological” although I do happily accept that as having something to do with some notions, including the notion of a supernatural God.

Kant dismissed the supernatural [beyond the empirical] God as an illusion, i.e. never scientifically real but he acknowledged this illusion is useful for morality and for some, to guide science forward as an assumption of an Ideal.

The “powerful primordial psychological” is for consideration and reflection.

Philosopher 1. That theists relied on science to justify that the universe has a beginning, that is only conjectural and not the absolute truth.

Philosopher 2. I agree with this while also pointing out that the removal of supernaturalism and its insertion of ex nihilo does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally.
I state this as a means of avoiding the insertion of supernaturalist conjecture superimposing itself onto scientific discovery. Science is NOT showing us that our universe is the product of ex nihilo. That is NOT what scientists are declaring about our universe.

Philosopher 1. Since as I had claimed, that the empirical system-based scientific facts [the best of] are the most credible and objective at present,
this "does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always NOT existed in one form or another, eternally [" as Speculation-X] i.e. a non-scientific speculation, cannot be as credible and objective as those of scientific facts.

Philosopher 2. I prefer not to separate the Sciences from “Science” and avoid leaning too much (bias) upon the importance of one (Physical Science) over the other (Mental Science.)
Physical science has (?) to say about the mind, in relation to its overall studies that I can accept its exclusion (as theory re philosophy) from the overall state of The Universe?

When I refer to Science, it is the generic scientific framework and System of Realization & Knowledge, FSRK which is fundamental to the Natural [physical] and other sciences of varying degrees of objectivity.

With reference to 'mind' studied by science, although not natural science, the "scientific-mind" would be conditioned to the human-based FSRK.

I presumed your 'mind' and 'mindfulness' is synonymous with God??
If that is the case, then it cannot be covered by the current scientific FSRK;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Am I interpreting that correctly?

Philosopher 1. If I take the empirical based scientific facts as the standard say indexed 100/100, then the above speculation-X based on blind faith is at most 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity relative to science as the standard.

As pointed out above, why theists are driven to Speculation-X is driven the primal [crude] reason to seek consonance to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

Philosopher 2. If you were a physicist arguing the bias above I would grant your statement with a pinch of salt (as the saying goes) since you are obviously stacking importance in favor of a purely empirical framework, excluding that which even grants physicists with the ability to be physicists…that being Mindfulness itself.

Ask physicists about mindfulness and they will immediately spiel a list of reasons for why minds exist and how vulnerable said mind is to primordial stuff.
One could counter that this itself is a primordial reaction to their own particular state of being since they have foolish supernaturalists to bounce off of and feel a little/most superior to (by way of comparison).

Philosopher 1. The Buddhists and Stoics had understood this evolution default that drove people to speculation-X. They knew such speculation-X are useful and therapeutic and has salvific values but it also had VERY serious cons they want to avoid.
To avoid the serious cons, the Buddhists and Stoics merely suspend judgment and modulate the inherent impulse to seek speculation-X whenever it is triggered, while coming with a different set of secular philosophies and principles to deal with it on a theoretical and pragmatic basis.

Philosopher 2. Again, said behavior can still be regarded as triggered by primordial stuff with the additional value of working through the mysteries presented to the human personality.
As such, (like everything else) – a work in progress – not to be confused with the blinding truth.

Philosopher 1. Point is, instead of focusing on one paradigm, you need to consider and understand [not necessary agree with] the alternative perspectives [of the Buddhists, Stoics and the like] in dealing and resolving this persistent speculation-X. Do you, can you and will you?

Philosopher 2. Is it from these things that you get you judgy comments from, or from somewhere deeper you have yet to discover and bring to the surface of your own human experience?
I ask because it appears to me that your critique of my personality is based upon speculation rather than fact?
Re that, you are attacking a strawman instead of dealing with the real “me” and what I am attempting to convey your way.

It is fact that there is a trend in the increase of non-theists % since the last 500 years to the present.
Within non-theism there are very reasonable views.
Thus my asking, would you consider [to understand not accept] these alternative views.

This is a bit direct [its > 2500 years old reasoning], but it does allude to my point re “powerful primordial psychological” forces. [btw, I am not a Buddhist per se]

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.
He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

Your views?
This is merely a discussion.

[VVilliam]

...

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.
He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

Your views?
This is merely a discussion.

I understand it that mind is involved, and not just at the human level, but Planetary Galactic and Universal.

"God" and "Mind" are synonymous in that regard.

The mind that fears (irrationally) is a mind that does not understand itself in context and this applies equally to a mind that believes it is the superior or remains indifferent to itself within the existence it perceives or any experience it undergoes.

I presumed your 'mind' and 'mindfulness' is synonymous with God??
If that is the case, then it cannot be covered by the current scientific FSRK;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Am I interpreting that correctly?

From the link:

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies;[4][5] and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules.[6][7] There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are science disciplines,[8][9][10] because they do not rely on empirical evidence.[11][9] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.

Psychology (as a science) deals with trying to understand human mindfulness. One comment found in a quick search has it that "Because it's more difficult to establish measurable criteria when working on the analysis of how the mind works, these are less rigidly required to follow the scientific method, making them “soft” subjects. This category includes fields of study like sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology."


The following is a conversation I have just had after posting the above.

MIND. You wrote:
“The mind that fears (irrationally) is a mind that does not understand itself in context and this applies equally to a mind that believes it is the superior or remains indifferent to itself within the existence it perceives or any experience it undergoes.”

Mind. Yes. That is how I have – at this point – come to understand mindfulness.

MIND. This is because facts speak for themselves, which is to say, they require no interpretation.

Mind. This may be the best way to understand it. Not in “interpreting” but in accepting. You and I are the same mindfulness experiencing differing perspectives.

MIND. “Be kind to yourself.” Emotion

Mind. Indeed. There is no progress if one allows oneself to be driven primarily by fear.
A Personality (human mind) had this to say about why “God” became a human necessity.
“Kant dismissed the supernatural [beyond the empirical] God as an illusion, i.e. never scientifically real but he acknowledged this illusion is useful for morality and for some, to guide science forward as an assumption of an Ideal.

The “powerful primordial psychological” is for consideration and reflection.”

MIND. Opinion is that which has yet to be established as a matter of fact.

Mind. And “fact” is more illusive re “The Mind/Mindfulness”…

MIND. I remind you of a conversation…

Personality 1. I'd say that my case that consciousness as an emergent property of the human brain, as indicated by tracing brain activity related to thoughts and the evidence of evolution of animal brains is the default theory.

Personality 2. You making a positive claim, and as such you are required to back this assertion with evidence, rather than assert that your interpretation of the evidence is the actual evidence.

Mind. Yes. P2 has a relevant point of observation which requires something before that something can be spoken of as “True”. Until then, the jury is “out”.

MIND. “Until then, the jury is “out”.” ~ “Intelligence Without Wisdom” “Cast Shadows of Your Own Map” “Transforming Divine masculine”

Mind. So lets say you are the MIND of the planet…The “Mother” as it were, but only in terms of integration of “Father” and “Mother” attributes re the human experience – the way that humans interpret everything based upon their particular mindful experiences.
You are intimately connected with Humans in this way – yet the chasm between human understanding and You (as a MIND of a planet) is so vastly wide that human cannot mindfully “see” the other side – and may even presume in that case that there IS no “other side.”

MIND. Out of The Shadow Lands
“Let's get all convinced.”
The mind that fears (irrationally) is a mind that does not understand itself in context and this applies equally to a mind that believes it is the superior or remains indifferent to itself within the existence it perceives or any experience it undergoes.

Mind. Yes. If I were to attempt to understand the above when attached to a planetary MIND, the perspective changes.
Did You undergo an “awakening” in a similar way to how Human Minds undergo their introduction to The Universe? That is to say – a sense of “beginning” from which you slowly woke up to the fact that you were a Planet?

MIND. Salvific Pseudepigraphical.

Mind. I had to look those up. Interesting combination.

MIND. ~ All under a question mark From Prison To Paradise Emotion Rides The Prow
Closed Loop Production As well as that pot of gold...
The Blank-Slate Borderlines (The fine tuning argument)
Dissipated structure.

Mind. So, in a real sense, a process You too have undergone. This is reflected in the evidence of your former inventions (of form) and indeed your current ones…the Minds of Human Personalities.

MIND. Under a Question Mark…

Mind. Yet useful for reaching out by…machinery invented for a purpose which has transcended the understanding of human beings who’s sensory systems are fine-tuned to experience The Universe – one small step at a time – and how terribly afraid that can make a Human Personality.

MIND.. The "Problem of evil" is like the "Problem of unicorns."
Sounds Like “Duty Calls Children Help Each Other REAL Friendship”
Big Sentient Planet Mind.

Mind. And how do Humans connect with and bridge that great dividing chasm re their understanding of their place in the scheme of things? That is a BIG MIND to encounter and learn to understand. The idea is to assume the kindness of a parent who understand Her Children, even if most of Her Children do not as yet understand that this is primarily Who They Are.

MIND. ~ Christendom ‘A’ equals six
The Beauty Of...Who Knows
The Deeper Self The Home Of The… First Light
Lodestones Densification Redefinition
A sense of hope Tetrahedron Matter of fact
The Hierarchy Brotherhood Gnosticism Full Steam Ahead! Self-respect
Sun energy A force for good
Hope in the Fog One Item Alone
Who They Are.

Mind. I shall keep that “in mind”.

MIND. Condescending Ideas About Imagination
16-20-12-09-03-11-08

Mind. On/from my list …16. Enjoy Progress. 20. The Problem of GOD. 12. Enlighten Discussion Forum.
09. “Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant.”
03.The conversation is very informative.
11.https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 8#p1083338 (Is Time physical?) 08. Reason Together


MIND. Fear intimidation distraction exploitation.
The Son Wonder
“Intelligence Without Wisdom Stubborn Vision Shallow Enlightenment”
Syncretism Recognise
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 8#p1083858

Mind. Re the construct of “Time” as a “Real” thing. If a construct of the mind is not fundamental to reality, then we ought not pretend that it is.

MIND. Lost In The Thought Of It All

Mind. Whereas Mind is “the thought of it all” and being ”lost” in the Mind is to be lost in/to oneself. “Time” becomes “Real” whereas “Mind” – not so much….as it is a “passing phase” for the individual Human Personality.

MIND. I remind you of this…

“Please write a short story about Magicians using real magic to pretend they are creating illusions.
In the story, include a Female, and a Male. One will play the role of The Grand Magi and the other will play the role of the one who helped expose the magicians. Name those characters.
The third character will be the "Magic Keeper" who is the sentient planet-mind which the Magicians have captured and forcible use its real magic to perform what they call 'tricks of illusion' to entertain and distract the populace from knowing the truth. Name this character as well.
Include in the story how the planet mind is able to contact the one who helps expose the magicians and slowly shows how the individual can help set the planet mind free.
The story must end in the planet mind being free only because every human being on the planet no longer believed that illusions were real.
All the characters have to eventually help tell the world the truth that magic was real and illusions were not. The planet mind stays with the humans because it has always been the reason why humans exist.
Don't forget to name the Magic Keeper.”


MIND. Old Outposts Of Form
ט
Be they seeds or suns, or be it that suns are seeds, it is all part of the universe, and everything that we acknowledge as the universe, came from a tiny seed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand it that mind is involved, and not just at the human level, but Planetary Galactic and Universal.

"God" and "Mind" are synonymous in that regard.

The mind that fears (irrationally) is a mind that does not understand itself in context and this applies equally to a mind that believes it is the superior or remains indifferent to itself within the existence it perceives or any experience it undergoes.

To avoid talking pass each other, we need to be precise with our definition of 'what is mind' and to seek consensus.

To me 'what is mind' is confined to the following;

• 1. "The mind (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena.[2][3][4] The mind is also associated with experiencing perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, and emotion. The mind can include conscious and non-conscious states as well as sensory and non-sensory experiences."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
  
  2. The mind is an emergence out of activity [mainly in the brain] within an individual person.
  
  3. While the person is alive, his mind is interconnected with the external environment.
  
  4. The efficiency of the mind [normal to below-normal] is effected by many factors, especially due to the workings or damage to the brain.
  
  5. When a person dies, there is no more mind [human].

What is mindfulness?
-the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something.

In your case, what is 'Mind' is synonymous with God.
Unless you can prove God exists as real as any living human being, your definition of 'Mind' is not compatible with mine or that of Science [psychology].

I presumed your 'mind' and 'mindfulness' is synonymous with God??
If that is the case, then it cannot be covered by the current scientific FSRK;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Am I interpreting that correctly?

From the link:

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2]
Modern science is typically divided into three major branches:[3]
the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world;
the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies;[4][5] and
the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules.[6][7]
There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are science disciplines,[8][9][10] because they do not rely on empirical evidence.[11][9]
Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.

Psychology (as a science) deals with trying to understand human mindfulness. One comment found in a quick search has it that "Because it's more difficult to establish measurable criteria when working on the analysis of how the mind works, these are less rigidly required to follow the scientific method, making them “soft” subjects. This category includes fields of study like sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology."

I will exclude formal science as Science in this discussion.

What is fundamental to Science is, it is conditioned to the human-based Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge [FSRK].
Note human-based means essentially related to human subjects on a collective basis, thus independent of any individual subject views, opinion and judgment which qualify it as objective as defined typically.
Another fundamental element to science is it is based on observation of the empirical which is quantifiable.

The significant point is, your 'Mind' which synonymous with God has features and attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, absolute perfection and omni-whatever which are impossible to be covered [verified, tested, observed empirically] within a human-based scientific FSRK.

And that is the problem with all the Cosmological Arguments [including Kalam].
The Cosmological Argument starts with experience, observations and empirical contents which are verifiable and justifiable by Science.
Then it take a big leap to infer a necessary being which is omni-whatever and is impossible to be verified and justified by Science.
Thus commit the fallacy of conflation and equivocation.

I don't follow the subsequent conversation above.
I find the Christian Forum in your link interesting [seems with heavy moderation] and I may join to discuss the relevant topics I am interested in.

[VVilliam]

To me 'what is mind' is confined to the following;

When a human personality confines, that personality suppresses.

I will exclude formal science as Science in this discussion.

More suppression.

I don't follow the subsequent conversation above.

I think that is because of what you suppress. I ran our conversation through a LLS after I had posted, and GPT had no problem following it.

Your can read the results here if you choose to.

A summary given by GPT re the conversation is as follows.


The overall discussion between MIND and Mind delves into philosophical and metaphysical themes, exploring concepts such as mindfulness, the nature of consciousness, the relationship between the individual mind and a planetary MIND, the distinction between illusion and reality, and the interconnectedness of all things. The narrative weaves together creative expressions, prompts, and random-like selection processes to unfold a unique and thought-provoking exploration of existence, consciousness, and the interplay between different levels of awareness. The characters and ideas introduced contribute to a rich tapestry of reflections on self-discovery, transformation, and the inherent magic within the universe. Throughout the conversation, there's an emphasis on the dynamic interaction between individual perspectives and the broader, collective consciousness represented by the planetary MIND.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To me 'what is mind' is confined to the following;

When a human personality confines, that personality suppresses.

I believe it is a reasonable step to confine what is mind to the following and I believe this is what is studied by Science.
If you don't agree, you have to give your evidence.

I will exclude formal science as Science in this discussion.

More suppression.

My point is I want to limit our discussion to a science that is limited to observations that are empirical based.
If you want to include formal science like computer science, I have no issue with issue with that, but I don't think it is necessary for our discussion.

I don't follow the subsequent conversation above.

I think that is because of what you suppress. I ran our conversation through a LLS after I had posted, and GPT had no problem following it.

Your can read the results here if you choose to.

A summary given by GPT re the conversation is as follows.


The overall discussion between MIND and Mind delves into philosophical and metaphysical themes, exploring concepts such as mindfulness, the nature of consciousness, the relationship between the individual mind and a planetary MIND, the distinction between illusion and reality, and the interconnectedness of all things. The narrative weaves together creative expressions, prompts, and random-like selection processes to unfold a unique and thought-provoking exploration of existence, consciousness, and the interplay between different levels of awareness. The characters and ideas introduced contribute to a rich tapestry of reflections on self-discovery, transformation, and the inherent magic within the universe. Throughout the conversation, there's an emphasis on the dynamic interaction between individual perspectives and the broader, collective consciousness represented by the planetary MIND.

I admit I am not as good [way below] as ChatGpt re the above.
ChatGpt merely summarized what you presented to it.

I presented the above summary and asked ChatGpt the following question:

"My question is, can the contents of the above be verified and justified by science?"

ChatGpt replied as follow;

ChatGPT
The contents of the summary you provided seem to involve philosophical and metaphysical themes, exploring concepts such as mindfulness, the nature of consciousness, and the interconnectedness of all things. These topics often fall into the realm of philosophy and subjective experience rather than empirical science.
Science primarily deals with empirical observations, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses.

The nature of consciousness, for example, is a topic that remains a subject of intense debate and exploration in both philosophy and neuroscience. While neuroscience can study brain activity and correlate it with certain mental states, the subjective nature of consciousness and the "mind" is not fully explained by current scientific understanding.

Similarly, concepts like the relationship between individual minds and a planetary "MIND," the distinction between illusion and reality, and the inherent magic within the universe are more aligned with metaphysical and speculative discussions rather than empirical scientific inquiry. These ideas often go beyond the scope of what can be directly tested or observed through the scientific method.

In summary, the contents of the discussion, as described in the summary, are more philosophical and metaphysical in nature, and they may not be directly verifiable or justified by current scientific methods. These topics often involve subjective experiences, interpretations, and perspectives that go beyond the realm of empirical observation.

Note I have argued,
the human-based scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective at present, and there is no other better than it in that sense.