witchcraft

[Telora]

Is there any middle ground between the actions that can be considered supernatural witchcraft and the faiths that directly forbid it, what exactly is forbidden and why?

[Serpent Oracle]

I definitely do not see that as a worthy philosophy. There is nothing "intelligently designed" about the human body or condition. I could sit here and type in a myriad of reason why humans are stupidly designed, but I'll spare you that rant.

No need to explain to me anyway, the human bipedal form is not perfect, prolapses of the uterus, lower back problems and others all show how recently (evolutionary speaking) we evolved from brachiators and their quadraped ancestors.
The human eye is another example, with its blind spot caused quite unnecessarilly by nerve fibres being inefficently placed.
There are examples for every species.

I totally believe in semi-random evolution and I could also go into explaining concepts associate with that too, but I'll pass on that one as well. Other than I would like to say that we are, at least in part, responsible for our own evolution as we evolve. And of course this is true for everything that evolves.

Mutation is random, the driving engine of evolution, but the process of natural selection is entirely the opposite of random really.

Since I consider myself to be in harmony with my true self, then I must necessarily also be in harmony with the creator because I and the creator are one. As is true for you as well, assuming that your *I* has also recognized its true self.

I see no creator in any sense...
I only see a universe that 'strives' toward expressions of ever increasing complexity...

So in that sense you could abstractly say that I'm a "deist", however that would no doubt be extremely misleading label since most people would consider a "deist" to be someone who thinks that humans are superbly designed and therefore they must have been designed on a divine drawing board by an "intelligent designer".

I am not sure that is the definition of deist.
I thought essentially a deist God is a God who creates and then steps out and plays no more active part in creation.

I definitely don't support that kind of thinking.

Didn't think you were an ID proponent.

So technically, no, I'm not a 'deist' by the conventional meaning of the term.

Hmmm...well you do mention self identity with a creator...so I don't know really what you mean exactly..

Do you believe in a supernatural cosmic entity that you are an expression or part of?

How do you reconcile you belief in a creator with for example the big bang theory?

I don't mean to derail the thread again...I am interested in what Witches believe.

[Divine Insight]

I don't mean to derail the thread again...I am interested in what Witches believe.

I'm pretty sure that my personal views on spirituality are not representative of what "witches" believe in general. It would probably be more informative to think of me as a Taoist.

I see no creator in any sense...
I only see a universe that 'strives' toward expressions of ever increasing complexity...

I will certainly agree that this is all that meets the eye.

I am not sure that is the definition of deist.
I thought essentially a deist God is a God who creates and then steps out and plays no more active part in creation.

Well if that's the case then I'm certainly not a deist because I'm a pantheist. To believe that God "steps out" of the process implies that God is some sort of separate entity that had created a universe and then sits by somewhere else watching it unfold.

That's not how I think of "god".

A better picture of how I personally think of reality is to think of it as "the mind of God", and "life is but a dream". We are both the dreamer and the dreamed.

Life is like the ultimate Shamanic Journey (to put it in terms that a witch might best understand)

Hmmm...well you do mention self identity with a creator...so I don't know really what you mean exactly..

Well, if you're thinking of it like Christians view their relationship with God then I can see your confusion. Christians view themselves as egos, and they view God as a separate entity who "Lords over them".

Forget about the ego, and what's left is god.

This is the essence of Eastern Mysticism. Shed the ego and you suddenly realize that you are that which you've been imagining to be 'god'. And they call that experience "The Enlightenment".

The sankrit phrase for this is "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are that". Where "that" is what you had been seeking all along.

Do you believe in a supernatural cosmic entity that you are an expression or part of?

Good golly miss Moon Goddess, you've got it! It's a pantheistic view that's extremely hard to wrap our finite-thinking minds around. But it's not impossible to do. I don't pretend to understand precisely how it works in terms of physics.

But I do understand it in terms of higher dimensional abstract mathematics, which isn't really important to understand. But I'm just saying that there are ways of thinking of these things that do make some logical sense.

How do you reconcile you belief in a creator with for example the big bang theory?

I understand the Big Bang theory quite deeply. Alan Guth is one of my modern day heroes as his Inflation Theory is quite profound as a theory of physics.

I don't want to get side-tracked into the details of the Big Bang theory, but I feel compelled to mention a few things about it.

First off in Alan Guth's own words (I'm quote him off the top of my head but I'm sure that is what he basically said) "The Big Band theory says nothing about what banged or what caused it to bang".

Big Bang Theory is nothing more than the observation that the universe apparently started as a Hot Fireball of Pure Energy that expanded and cooled condensing into the matter and forces we see around us today.

There are speculative theories however concerning what might have "banged" or caused the bang in the first place. The most widely accepted theory is that it was the result of a quantum fluctuation permitted (and basically predicted) by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, that theory is very speculative with no real evidence that it could happen. In any case, if it did happen that would suggest that quantum fields must have then been present prior to the Big Bang.

To my way of thinking this mysterious "quantum field" substrate could be "the mind of God" and what appears to us as "The Big Bang" is basically a "dream unfolding in the mind of God"

Ok, I confess that it's a bit speculative. But I never claimed to have a firm scientific theory for my beliefs. None the less this is how I can easily imagine it working and thus reconcile the Big Bang with my spiritual philosophy.

~~~~

I might add also, while we're on this subject, that Inflation Theory predicts that this sort of thing happens all the time. In other words, it predicts that there should be "Big Bangs" going on all the time creating new universes all over the place. So if you believe that, this just shows how unimaginably huge and powerful "The mind of God" truly is. God is thinking about multiple universes all the time. It's truly beyond our comprehension for sure. But the fact that we are a part of the dream (a dream that is part of the dreamer) implies logically that we must then also be the dreamer. Because "in reality" the dreamer is all that truly exists.

That's the idea.

I don't think we could build something as simple as a particle accelerator to test this idea. But it's certainly within the realm of "reasonable speculation".

It's at least as reasonable as anything else.

I could actually go into deeper arguments for why I feel that the "mind of God" (or the quantum field) is more likely to be conscious that not conscious. But I've already rattled on here too long as it is.

And like I said at the onset, I seriously doubt that this view is representative of witches in general.

[Divine Insight]

Mutation is random, the driving engine of evolution, but the process of natural selection is entirely the opposite of random really.

I wanted to comment on this as well.

Yes, I agree the process of natural selection is not random at all, as you point out.

In fact, I take that a step further and suggest that what we call "natural selection" is often quite "purposeful selection" in organisms that have highly developed cognitive abilities. Our "choices" actually play a role in what is being "selected".

And of course, this becomes increasingly obvious in our modern time where medical intervention actually overrides genetics all together. And of course we already to "Genetic engineering" on plants as well as animals, and will most likely be doing genetic engineering on humans in the near future as controversial as this may be.

It's bound to happen even if only in the name of "medical health purposes".

At that point "natural selection" will have given way entirely to "purposeful manipulation" and we will indeed become the "Drawing-board Creators" that we have always dreamed of.

We can only hope that we will be "Intelligent Designers".

But my point is that we have already been the "Not-so-intelligent Designers" of our own current evolution via the not-so-intelligent choices that we've made during our evolution because those choices played a role in what we call "Natural Selection"

In other words, as a species we've already "designed ourselves" more than we realize just via our historical choices. One culture conquering another culture and wiping out the other culture's traditions, etc., played a role in what we have become today.

So we've been actively participating in the "design" of our evolution for thousands of years without even being aware of it.

[JohnPaul]

Divine Insight wrote:

This is the essence of Eastern Mysticism. Shed the ego and you suddenly realize that you are that which you've been imagining to be 'god'. And they call that experience "The Enlightenment".

The sankrit phrase for this is "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are that". Where "that" is what you had been seeking all along.

I suppose you know that the American poet Emerson was a believer in Eastern mysticism and his poem "Brahma" contains the lines:

They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings;
I am the doubter and the doubt,
And I the hymn the Brahmin sings.

[Divine Insight]

I didn't know Emerson was a mystic.

Cool.

[Ankhhape]

Mutation is random, the driving engine of evolution, but the process of natural selection is entirely the opposite of random really.

I wanted to comment on this as well.

Yes, I agree the process of natural selection is not random at all, as you point out.

In fact, I take that a step further and suggest that what we call "natural selection" is often quite "purposeful selection" in organisms that have highly developed cognitive abilities. Our "choices" actually play a role in what is being "selected".

And of course, this becomes increasingly obvious in our modern time where medical intervention actually overrides genetics all together. And of course we already to "Genetic engineering" on plants as well as animals, and will most likely be doing genetic engineering on humans in the near future as controversial as this may be.

It's bound to happen even if only in the name of "medical health purposes".

At that point "natural selection" will have given way entirely to "purposeful manipulation" and we will indeed become the "Drawing-board Creators" that we have always dreamed of.

We can only hope that we will be "Intelligent Designers".

But my point is that we have already been the "Not-so-intelligent Designers" of our own current evolution via the not-so-intelligent choices that we've made during our evolution because those choices played a role in what we call "Natural Selection"

In other words, as a species we've already "designed ourselves" more than we realize just via our historical choices. One culture conquering another culture and wiping out the other culture's traditions, etc., played a role in what we have become today.

So we've been actively participating in the "design" of our evolution for thousands of years without even being aware of it.

If I may add to this train of thought:

Evolution/natural selection etc. is a process more closer to how a meme works. It chooses the paths that work best for the survival of the species. You can call it Intelligent Design in that it is a design and 'appears' to be making intelligent choices, even if they are at first random and eventually select.

This all requires a little imagination, but nowhere near the imagination it requires to believe we were manufactured by some god. The lesser of the two implausibles wins out in my book.

[JohnPaul]

Divine Insight wrote:

I might add also, while we're on this subject, that Inflation Theory predicts that this sort of thing happens all the time. In other words, it predicts that there should be "Big Bangs" going on all the time creating new universes all over the place. So if you believe that, this just shows how unimaginably huge and powerful "The mind of God" truly is. God is thinking about multiple universes all the time. It's truly beyond our comprehension for sure. But the fact that we are a part of the dream (a dream that is part of the dreamer) implies logically that we must then also be the dreamer. Because "in reality" the dreamer is all that truly exists.

I noticed in a recent issue of "Scientific American" magazine that one of the early strong proponents (not Alan Guth) of the Inflation Theory (not the Big Bang itself) has now strongly retracted his support.

You may deny being a Deist, but you probably carry a symbol of it in your pocket. The Great Seal of the United States appears on the back of the one-dollar bill with not even one Christian symbol, but shows instead the ancient symbol of the pyramid with the "all-seeing eye" on top.

A majority of the founders and signers of the American Declaration of Independence, including most notably George Washington, were Deists, mostly Freemasons, and the words God or Jesus do not appear in our founding documents, but only "the Creator" and "nature's God."

I believe the "God" of Freemasonry is a very abstract concept, certainly not the "personal" God of Christianity. I know the doctrines of Freemasonry are deep dark secrets, but perhaps some Mason here could enlighten us on this issue.

[Divine Insight]

I noticed in a recent issue of "Scientific American" magazine that one of the early strong proponents (not Alan Guth) of the Inflation Theory (not the Big Bang itself) has now strongly retracted his support.

I'm not sure who you're referring to there. But there are some who suggest that the things that Inflation Theory solve can also be solved by string theory and a concept of "branes" colliding.

That is to say that a rapid inflation may not have been necessary to produce the same results given a "String Theory" beginning rather than a "point-like" bang.

I don't know if that fits in with the article you're referring to though.

The only thing is that String Theory with it's colliding "branes" ends up predicting multiple universes as well. In fact, it requires that at least two universes are born with each bang since the same effects would be produced in each "brane" that is colliding.

There are even stranger theories yet. Loop Quantum Gravity suggests that black holes may actually produce new universes, and that ultimately we may actually be living inside a 'black hole' that exists in another universe.

The idea there being that time actually "stops" at the event horizon (which is must according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Since time slows to a stop at the speed of light which is the speed that cannot be escaped from at the surface of a black hole.

Therefore, the idea is that on the "far-side" of the event horizon time actually begins to run in reverse. Assuming that this is true, then the physics of the inside of a black hold may be quite different from what we imagine. Instead of it collapsing to form a singularity it may actually being expanding "outward" to infinity (still within the black hold though).

In other words black holes may appear to us to have a finite size, but on the far side of their event horizon they are actually infinitely expanding universes.

Who knows what's really going on?

Branes, Black Holes, Big Bangs?

Just cast a circle and praise the Goddess. Jesus forgives everyone for not knowing what they're doing. The Buddha says that we'll all get out of this suffering called life eventually anyway. And the oracle of Athena promises to help us with our personal problems along the way. So we've got it knocked no matter what.

[JohnPaul]

I noticed in a recent issue of "Scientific American" magazine that one of the early strong proponents (not Alan Guth) of the Inflation Theory (not the Big Bang itself) has now strongly retracted his support.

I'm not sure who you're referring to there. But there are some who suggest that the things that Inflation Theory solve can also be solved by string theory and a concept of "branes" colliding.

That is to say that a rapid inflation may not have been necessary to produce the same results given a "String Theory" beginning rather than a "point-like" bang.

I don't know if that fits in with the article you're referring to though.

The only thing is that String Theory with it's colliding "branes" ends up predicting multiple universes as well. In fact, it requires that at least two universes are born with each bang since the same effects would be produced in each "brane" that is colliding.

There are even stranger theories yet. Loop Quantum Gravity suggests that black holes may actually produce new universes, and that ultimately we may actually be living inside a 'black hole' that exists in another universe.

The idea there being that time actually "stops" at the event horizon (which is must according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Since time slows to a stop at the speed of light which is the speed that cannot be escaped from at the surface of a black hole.

Therefore, the idea is that on the "far-side" of the event horizon time actually begins to run in reverse. Assuming that this is true, then the physics of the inside of a black hold may be quite different from what we imagine. Instead of it collapsing to form a singularity it may actually being expanding "outward" to infinity (still within the black hold though).

In other words black holes may appear to us to have a finite size, but on the far side of their event horizon they are actually infinitely expanding universes.

Who knows what's really going on?

Branes, Black Holes, Big Bangs?

Just cast a circle and praise the Goddess. Jesus forgives everyone for not knowing what they're doing. The Buddha says that we'll all get out of this suffering called life eventually anyway. And the oracle of Athena promises to help us with our personal problems along the way. So we've got it knocked no matter what.

I will try to find the Scientific American story about the retraction of the Inflation Theory. It was several months ago, perhaps even a year or more. I remember I was pleased to see it because I never liked Inflation Theory. It seemed to me to be completely artificial and even internally inconsistent, but who am I to say? My math education ended somewhere in differential equations when I dropped out of school because of a bad marriage and never went back.

In my opinion, physics started floundering in the 1970s and has never recovered. It has gone off into all kinds of speculation which explains nothing and offers no hope of any experimental verification. String Theory, Branes, Dark Energy? I had great hopes for Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Physics in the 1950s, but that has faded away now.

It was my understanding that time does not "stop" in a black hole. It only seems to stop to an outside observer, while to an observer actually entering the black hole, it would seem to proceed normally while time in the outside universe would be screwed up. Before we can make sense of time, it will be necessary to first define what time really is. Einstein's conception of time as merely a 4th dimension in addition and similar to the 3 observable space dimensions is quite different from the human perception of time as a flow or passage of events.

I am an agnostic, although I am attracted to some Eastern religious ideas and even the early Gnostic ideas. The God of the Bible is a vindictive irrational psychopath, suitable only for primitive tribal barbarians. However, I will wait for some experimental verification before I make a firm choice.