OJBs Web Site: Instagram Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

(Go Up to OJB's Instagram Page)

Archangel Michael Debate

Entry 149, on 2023-08-06 at 20:11:36

This debate occurred on Facebook, between a person with mystical beliefs and me. I usually just let these things go, but this time I decided to try to make a point about technical sounding language with no real validity.

Opponent Archangel Michael, walking the 5D path.

This was the opening comment which started the debate. What does this mean? Is it meant to be taken literally? Is it really the Archangel Michael character from the Bible? And what is the 5D path? Are we talking about dimensions in the same sense as physics? Who knows, so I tried to get some clarification.

Me Word salad. I recognized the words, but not how they were used. Meaningless gobbledegook.

OK, I admit this was a somewhat aggressive opening, and maybe I could have been a bit more generous, but gobbledegook like this does annoy me!

Opponent Which is why you are still stuck in the matrix, Owen. You are still operating in a 3D mentality. If I asked you the question, "Who are you?" - What would you say?

Again, the very imprecise language, which at best means different things to different people, and at worst means nothing at all.

Me What is "the matrix" in this context? What is the alternative to a "3D mentality"? What sort of answer do you want to the "who are you" question?

Opponent The matrix is a 3D context with no spiritual dimension or understanding. The alternative to a 3D mentality is someone with a 5D mentality; which is someone who can answer a "Who are you?" question without sending it back, unanswered.

Again, a jumble of words with no specific meaning. I assume this person was trying to communicate some sort of idea, but either the underlying idea was poorly defined, or it was difficult to communicate.

Me Ah, so it's all mysticism then. OK. Why not just say so then, instead of waffling on about 5 dimensions?

So my point here is that using technical sounding words like "dimension" and "3D context" makes it look like these ideas might have some technical relevance, but they don't.

Me I'll try the "who am I" question, although we have to admit that the nature of consciousness is one of the great mysteries in both science and philosophy. I am an emergent property from the processes which occur in my brain. I am memories, instincts, experiences, and natural cognitive processes. That's about as good as I can do: as I said, consciousness is mysterious.

Opponent You are infinite energy; reincarnated lifetime after lifetime. You are a spiritual being, having a human experience.

OK, so at least I am beginning to get an idea of what this argument is now. This is a concept from philosophy, related to dualism, where our physical presence is a "container" for a non-physical consciousness.

Me Yeah, OK. How can I be infinite energy? I would have infinite mass, and quickly collapse into a black hole. Maybe you should express your mystic ideas in more meaningful terms.

Of course, I knew this person didn't mean me to interpret the idea of "infinite energy" literally, but I decided to try to make a point about using words with specific meanings out of context to see where it went.

Opponent Your spirit does not die. It leaves your body just before you die and it goes back to the fifth dimension; it's infinite. It cannot be destroyed.

Me Can you clarify what you mean by "infinite energy" though. That is problematic, as I said above.

They tried to avoid my trap about infinite energy by ignoring the question, and changing the subject. But I wasn't going to let it go that easily.

Opponent Your soul travels through different dimensions, timelines and worlds. It's the second law of physics, if you think about it; matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Me I'm interested in this "infinite energy" thing though. How can energy be infinite without creating a singularity?

Opponent I think it's Lavoisier who said this? I am not a physics person but a lot of spiritual principles are backed by physics, as in this one. For example, "karma" is another way of explaining "Quantum Entanglement"; the energy field that surrounds us all. So what you put in, is what you get back (karma) - which is why "we are all one", because what you do to others, comes back to you; if you do good, you do it to yourself and if you do evil, you do it to yourself. There is a link between Buddhism, Quantum Physics and Mathematics; it's the wisdom of understanding emptiness (link between the Quantum and meditation) which is that nothing has an absolute or concrete value.

Again a pile of fancy sounding words like "quantum" and "entanglement" which some people would just let go. But I have a better understanding than most about what they actually mean, so this trick didn't work. Also, notice the "infinite energy" thing has been ignored again.

Me Look, I don't want to be too critical but you're just putting random words into a sentence with no understanding at all. I cannot see how anyone could suggest a relationship between quantum entanglement and karma, for example. Believe in your mysticism if you want, but try to avoid silly comments like "infinite energy" (about which I notice you have conveniently ignored my request for justification).

Opponent I am just quoting the Coen Brothers; the directors of the matrix films. They were with ones who pointed out the link between Buddhism, Quantum Physics and mathematics - not me. And that was a thematic motif in their movies. I am not ignoring you, Owen. I am just not coming from a scientific background. But I could ask a physicist for you, if you like?

Yeah, it doesn't do your credibility much good when your sources for a discussion of metaphysics are science fiction movie directors!

Me OK, you were using scientific terms, so I assumed you were making a scientific argument. If you are making an argument based on fiction (a movie) then that is fine. I recognise the metaphorical value of myth, but prefer not to mix it up with science.

Opponent I don't think you can compartmentalise metaphysics into science versus spirituality? But maybe we just have to agree to disagree, on this one.

Well, I think spirituality and science are opposites, in many ways. At the very least, if you are making an argument based on spirituality, don't try to sneak in a pile of technical sounding science words.

Me I think you can. You can think, debate, etc in a scientific way (empiricism, falsification) or in a mystical way (imprecise language, vague concepts, no testing). If you want to use phrases like "infinite energy" then we need to know the context, because scientifically that is BS, mystically it might mean something (I have no idea what).

And that's where it ended. My main purpose here was to try to force my opponent into using more precise language, because by throwing around random words like "infinite energy" and not being challenged, a person can get away with all sorts of meaningless BS. Once the person is forced into using more precise language, the true lack of rationality in their claims often becomes obvious.