Nobody said love is mysticism! Everyone here knows better- we've read Atlas Shrugged!!

Sensory evidence demonstrates the existence of air. One SEES the tress swaying, one FEELS (as in the sense of touch, not emotion) the pressure of moving air, one HEARS the air moving---and one loses consciousness if one does not breathe it into one's lungs periodically. So the concept and existence of air is derived---like all good concepts must be---from the evidence of one's senses. Oh, and we do not "accept" that "air is there," we each experience it directly, but our minds must discover what, exactly, it is. We do not have to accept it on blind (or nearsighted) faith.

Just asking "when" and "with whom" makes your question necessarily subjective. To understand the axiomatic concept of "existence exists" is to understand that nothing---neither time nor "whom"---can exist "outside" of existence. There is and cannot be any "outside" of existence.

You ask "What is mysticism"? Here's a rather simple answer: Mysticism is the claim to non-sensory, non-rational knowledge.

Good post!

Khaling, here is something I posted on a news blog a couple of years ago about atheism. I think you might enjoy it here because it touches on the (mistaken) ideas that atheism is a philosophy and a religion.

"There is such an enormous amount of misunderstanding and misconceptions in both this article and the comments that follow that it is impossible to respond briefly and ad rem to all of them, so I will comment on only two or three.
1) Atheism is not nor ever has been an alternate religion nor is it a philosophy of life. It is merely a single answer to a single question: Is there a such thing as God? Atheism does not prescribe what is right or wrong, good or evil, because atheism is no more an ethical theory than is chemistry or biology. It says nothing about morality because atheism is not a moral code. One needs to look elsewhere to determine what values (if any) one should uphold and practice.
If there are two more diametrically opposite philosophies (and concomitant moral codes) than the dialectical materialism of Hegel and Marx, on one hand, and the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, on the other hand, I could not fathom what they are; however, both Objectivism and communism are atheistic philosophies.
Now, how is that even remotely possible if atheism is a full philosophical system and is embraced by both communism and laissez-faire capitalism?
2) This leads us to the second point, viz., that atheism does not operate within a moral vacuum, but rather it's ethicism, to the extent which it even HAS an ethics, is fully and totally dependent upon the wider philosophical framework (and ethical codes) within which it, atheism, resides. For communism, that ethical code is altruism; for Objectivism, it is individualism.
Therefore, contrary what many religionists might claim, atheism does not and cannot operate "deuces wild" when it comes to morality. Rather, it is not even subject to a morality of its own and cannot be either praised or condemned by reference to any moral base whatsoever.
The above is not to be construed or implied to be the "last word" on atheism, morality, philosophy or religion."

You can find the first four of Branden's Lecture on the Basic Principles of Objectivism at www.TheCultureofReasonCenter.com . Downloads (in MP3 format) are available for purchase for around $3 or so. The first four lecture are, respectively, titled "The Role of Philosophy", "What Is Reason?", "Logic and Mysticism", and "The Concept of God." For anyone wanting a basic understanding of the tenets of Objectivism, these four lectures are, really, essential.
Your problem of "It sounds like it is saying God is impossible and illogical, but there is no proof or sound logical argument for that conclusion" is where the problem and your confusion lie. The reason? It is impossible to prove a negative. The reason no one can prove that God does not exist is because proof, logic, and reason pertain only to that which exists, and if there's no evidence, facts, or logical argumentation offered then there cannot be a refutation forthcoming, regardless of the proposition in question.

It is like being asked to solve a problem in arithmetic without being provided any numbers.

Another issue, related to the above, is that it is incumbent upon those making an assertion to provide some kind of factual evidence or logical argumentation is support of their statement. Merely proclaiming that, e.g., "God exists" then taunting others to "prove it isn't so" is the epistemology of a child: "Is too", "Is not"---is not a logical argument.

Nathaniel Branden stated it best: "The theist, in the absence of rational grounds for believing in God, believes in God on faith. The atheist, in the absence of rational grounds for believing in God, does not believe in God." from Lecture Four, The Concept of God.

Finally, atheism is a-theism, or not-theism, or against-theism. The pronouncements of theism come first. Perhaps we should call it "pro-theism" and "con-theism" or "anti-theism" to make the divide more clear. The arguments of the atheist are the counter to the arguments of the theist. It is true, as I have heard many Christians say, that "atheism cannot exist with a God". But that is only true in the sense that the concept of an orphan cannot exist without the concept of a parent. Atheism is a reaction, not to God, but to the theist, whose explanations are not explanations, whose logic is fraught with contradictions and fallacies, and whose facts are nothing more than the subjective "fact" of their own unnamed, unexamined, and blindly accepted emotion.

In closing this entirely too long response to you, mdant, let me say that I respect your search for truth, that I respect your mind, that none of my remarks are directed at you personal, and that I fully support your quest for understanding of Rand, of Objectivism, and hope that your future is endowed with that particular understanding which you seem so honestly to seek.

No AR was not infallible. Even AR said that human reason is fallible. Objectivists don't embrace religion because religion is irrational and ultimately the source of most of the evil in the world.

No AR acolytes do not believe she is infallible. Even AR stated that human reason is fallible. Ar and AR acolytes do not embrace religion because religion is irrational.

Incorrect. The core of Objectivism is the Primacy of Existence. If the universe was created then you are asserting the primacy of consciousness. A creator cannot exist before existence exists. You wind up with the infinite loop of who created the creator. Reason and faith are diametrically opposed to one another. If you accept faith then you reject the primacy of existence.

Certainly not. We should investigate them all.
Else why have science?

I heard once that many years ago, Bill Buckley interviewed Ayn Rand on his TV program "Firing Line." They had a lengthy discussion, including God vs. atheism. As I heard it, they were polite, it was a good discussion, and in the end they "agreed to disagree." Of course, Bill Buckley was a devoted Catholic, and founder of "National Review" magazine. I wish I could have seen the interview.

I would never say the difference between magic and magic tricks was based on how someone felt. I would say magic tricks are objective realities and involve sleight of hand and other maneuvers which obey all laws of physics. The mystic jumps to magic. Don't get me started on some of my religious friends thinking Ouija boards have some evil power.

"Would a match be "mysticism" if lit in front of a person from a society which had never been exposed to one? Would it have been mysticism for one in that society to have postulated that such a thing existed prior to being exposed to it?" It's only mysticism if one applies a mystical framework for explaining the physical act. We don't watch magicians doing their thing and say "magic!" we know there is no such thing as magic. Well I know there's no such thing.
We do gather more knowledge all the time, but that knowledge does not so fundamentally transform all knowledge you have gained before. For instance, the laws of gravity. You are still going to wear a jacket when it's cold and water your plants. You need calories in order to burn them. Godzilla is not going to come out of your pond and terrorize your family

why? what is the logical argument for beginnings when discussing the Universe? science is comfortable with the concept of infinity