Tippaporn

Can I assume that you are joking? No. Yes. Consciousness creates form. Form does not create consciousness. What is consciousness?

Science got the best of you, owl sees all. Indoctrination is what me calls it. We talk about all those lefties who can't see the truth if it gobsmacked them upside the head because they don't question any of the great lies they've been told. Evolution is a great lie. You just need to question it. Question everything. Especially, most especially when it agrees with you.

Harari certainly loves and cherishes his life. Harari certainly feels he has a sacred right to life. These people cannot hide their hypocrisy. Do they really believe no one sees it? Now that's dumber than dumb.

I totally agree. When I first read the Seth material I had very specific questions in mind. If the material didn't address those questions directly I didn't focus on it too much. As my questions changed over time other portions of the material appealed to me. There needs to be a blending of science (intellect) and spirituality (intuition and emotions). Since I see science as arising as a counter to religion (not in total, of course) then for science to incorporate spirituality would be seen as a return to religious precepts. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. This thread is evidence of that in spades. Seth does not focus merely on our material existence. Hence the book of exercises I posted. But we're here now and we're here for a reason. And so Seth certainly addresses that quite practical and real fact, too. The reason for our very existence here is missed completely by Swami Sarvapriyananda. I would say "in my opinion" but it's in his own words, which I transcribed from the video. You are that. Why should we be interested? Well because Vedanta tells us the way to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Which is after all what we are interested in. All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Lasting peace, happiness, security. The way to do that is to realize who you are. That's the big claim. Nowhere that I've seen yet is there any discussion of how specific experience is created. I do not see any talk of ideas or beliefs; what they are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are. Who is creating personal suffering? Who creates personal fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment? Is fulfillment in physical life something which is not attainable? Or only in the spiritual world once we become one with the One? Are we not spirits now, in this life, merely clothed in flesh, blood and bones? Lasting peace, happiness, security implies a final destination. There is no final destination to anything. That statement also implies an end to growth. Beyond which lies eternal repetition and true death. That is antithetical to All That Is and Seth explains how that works and why in granular detail in "Unknown Reality Vol. 1." Seth is not within the circle of Vedanta. All else emerges . . . for what reason, though? For what purpose? I've asked you before, why is Sunmaster in this world? For what? Where does Vedanta talk about creativity? What of reincarnational selves? If one reincarnational self attains connection with the One then what of those living the other reincarnational existences? Given that time is simultaneous and all exists at once then how does that work? Are the rest of the reincarnational selves liberated as well by default? What of probable selves? Trace selves? Counterpart selves? Now creativity would explain that. That's what puzzles me. There are huge contradiction which I see. How is it that you don't see them? Seth's material on the ego is one such contradiction. Yes, there are similarities. But nowhere does Seth ever denigrate the ego. And why relegate the ego to a lesser portion of the self? Some parts of your greater identity are better than others? Some, such as the ego, being kicked to the curb? A useful tool, when it works? Else it's only a hindrance? That's a huge contradiction between what Seth claims and what Vedanta seems to claim. Total opposite view points in major respects. Another major contradiction between Vedanta and Seth's material is one which I heard in another of the Swami's videos. He used the same whiteboard with the greater self, or the One, on the left side with a line drawn separating all else. He then claimed that everything existing on the right side of the line was not real and not eternal. Thet's 180 degrees from what Seth is saying. Those two disparities are not just minor, unimportant details to be brushed away (excuse the reference to painting pun ). There are no insignificant details as everything has meaning and importance. Anyway, I accept that our paths are different but I do object to drawing parallels from Vedanta to Seth such that they appear to be identical, if only in the "important" respects and class the differences as simple details that one can overlook. Lest people begin to falsely identify Seth with eastern religious thinking. In fact, Seth growing out of Vedanta as you now put Seth squarely into Vedanta's circle. Square <--> circle pun intended. Square pegs do not fit into round holes.

Sugar has killed me yet. Nor has it made me fat. So what's the problem again?

Utter rubbish. Only Austrians can hold a candle to Germans on cakes and pastries. You married a fellow artist? Forget the photos. Just send us the watercolours of them. Cosa ti succede?

I'll be the final judge on cake since being a German it is my automatic and God-given birthright. Just goes to show that Harari is full of sh!t on human rights. Which one is she making? I'd go for the cheese cake, but with raisins, made with authentic Quark from unpasteurized milk. I kid you not, my mother would smuggle it into the U.S., going so far as to pay bribes to customs agents if need be. Though I would be willing to die for some Streuselkuchen. And if I've gotta die for it then it better be no less than 1 meter in diameter. If your wife needs more recipes I can get her my mother's complete recipe book on cakes. 10,000 baht for a copy. But it's worth the price for it'll guarantee she's a winner every time. I know you can afford it. Need recipes for cookies and pastries, too?

The most astounding thing about Harari is that he has an audience. If he were to preach "you create your own reality" he would have none. What he preaches resonates with people. While the truth of reality does not. You get spat on for doing that.

Whenever you decide to get your lazy ar$e outta bed your coffee and pastries will be waiting for you, Sunmaster. Let your wife sleep for a change.

Uhm, can I get at least three reactions to that post so that my ego can feel that it's been popularly appreciated? Of course you know I could give to f's.

I'll address this to you as well, @Red Phoenix. What I think about Swami Sarvapriyananda doesn't really matter. If I tell you what I disagree with and why then you would only filter that information through your current beliefs and reject all that does not fit. You would then only defend what your beliefs are. We've been through this with the ego and so any analysis of mine of the Swami will only be same. You've accepted your path and are adamant that that is the path you will follow. Who am I to dissuade you with contrary information? Just an anecdote from my life which I had eventually come to recognise. My parents had their beliefs which they impressed upon their children. There was one in particular which threw me for a loop for a long, long time. Germans are a polite people very much like Thais. My parents stressed being considerate of others. To the point where we had to consider others in deference to ourselves. At least that's how I interpreted my parent's lesson to us. And my interpretation was how I then proceeded to interact with people. What that deference meant to me was that I had to consider the beliefs of others as valid over my own. Well, as you can well imagine that worked very poorly for me. And it would work poorly for anyone else, I would add. But there was a benefit there for me. A silver lining in a dark cloud. For this process of considering others over myself meant that I would suspend my own beliefs and adopt the beliefs of another. I would not only see the world through their eyes, through their beliefs, but also would identify with their beliefs as if they were my own. Now since I had my own beliefs about things, as I must, then this was extremely confusing for me. Since I was able to so strongly identify with the beliefs of others and, very importantly, accept their validity, their "truth," then that created the serious dilemma within me because it fostered immense doubt within myself about my own beliefs. I would think to myself often that perhaps my beliefs were just plain wrong. To this day, as I listen to the beliefs others express which are different from mine, it still fosters doubt within me about the truth and validity of my own beliefs. But, fortunately for me, I have recognised this dynamic and these days I have little issue with separating the beliefs of others from my own. That came through a lot of work though. A lot of work as it forced me to question the validity of each and every belief I held that conflicted with the belief of another and to then determine for myself which was "truth" and which was truth. Whilst in this process, though, I would experience confusion as to what was true and what was false. And that would be quite unsettling. Now that is a huge understatement. Sometimes it was even scary to think that what I believed, especially if I had maintained a particular belief for quite a length of time, may not be true at all. The idea was terrifying when I would consider that perhaps I might have been living a lie, or fooling myself. I'll toss in some Seth here. As he has explained, everyone has what he calls a world view. His definition of it is the totality of beliefs one holds at any given time. World views, however, are not permanent, or stagnant, for beliefs constantly change to one extent or another. World views are therefore dynamic. Another important aspect of a world view is that it is not merely ones dry, philosophical stance on everything about life, a world view which is without effect. To the contrary. A world view is highly practical because it literally defines ones modus operandi in life. It is upon that which one chooses ones actions. For action is an idea in motion and one acts only according to the ideas which make up their beliefs. A major upheaval in beliefs would, in practical terms, throw one into a state of confusion as to how then act, or respond to situations which had previously been handled automatically. You choose your parents, it is true, for your parents fit in with your intentions. And, of course, yours with theirs. My intention in this life is to understand who and what I am and the reality I find myself in. And so my parents assisted me in acquiring the skill of being able to suspend my beliefs, the "truth" of them, whilst I consider other ideas, other beliefs, and whether or not they have any real truth. You, Sunmaster, have accepted your beliefs as true, no different than anyone else. And so I'm telling you that in order to consider the validity of the Seth material you would necessarily have to temporarily suspend all of your current beliefs which you consider true whilst you adopt the ideas of Seth as true. To pretend for awhile that they are indeed true. Temporarily only whilst you try their truths on for size. Not permanently, mind you. Whether you decide to make them permanent or not is for you to decide by comparing and contrasting to see which is true for you. This process is, as has been described, the ideal method in which we are to play with ideas as children play with building blocks. And that play is supposed to be fun. Unfortunately, rather than a process of play it is approached with deadly seriousness. Now, if you attempt to understand the Seth material whilst bringing your current beliefs along with you then you will do nothing other than sift through the material and toss out anything which does not fit your current beliefs. Your beliefs will act practically as a filter. And those ideas of Seth which do agree with your current beliefs will be accepted and then give the appearance that Seth's ideas and your current ideas are indeed one and the same. I tell you, though, that overall they are not. There are radical differences between the two. As I've said often, you will no doubt find similarities between the Seth material and all religions. Do not, though, ignore the differences or pretend they do not exist. For those difference are meant to be entertained and questioned if one is truly interested in moving beyond their beliefs in order to divine true reality. I'm opting out of providing my views to everyone because I understand, perhaps more fully than I ever have, that everyone has there own ideas and their own paths which they have, with great intention, embarked upon. Overhauling ones beliefs to a great extent is not for everyone. That would be biting off more than most are willing to chew. Or able to chew given their level of understanding. Adopting any of the information I provide leads to a major overhaul. I can't legitimately and honestly expect that from anyone. You create your own reality. That is simply too much for folks to accept for too many reasons. Yet there's no right nor wrong about it. In the immortal words of Abraham, "life is not a horserace." We are not on a sprint to see how quickly we can attain "enlightenment," or "heaven," or a state of "bliss," or a true understanding of ourselves and our reality. That true understanding will come about naturally in due course and at ones own pace. In this lifetime or another. In this probability or another. We've been given the gift of the Gods; to create. In that sense we are Gods. No matter what reality our consciousness travels to we will still be creating our experience there. There is no reality in which experience is set for you, or predetermined for you, or chosen for you. There is no reality which exists apart from you. The basis of all realities is individual freedom. Freedom is inherent within our being. That will eternally be the case for Sunmaster and for every other consciousness, be it man, animal, stone or star. Challenge is implied in creation. Challenge is growth. To become something, to experience oneself as other than what one knows oneself to be now. And so you will eternally create and never be without challenge. And every challenge then implies "problems" to be overcome. Hence there is no state of existence where you are without challenges for that would indeed be a state where growth reaches a final destination. At that point you can only endlessly repeat yourself. And that is true death, which does not exist. Just so that it is clearly understood, the Seth material is not given to solve anyone's problems. It is not given as "a way of life." It is not given as a philosophy. It is not given as a religion. It is given to return oneself to ones own natural and inherent power to create ones experience, wherever and whatever that may be. My purpose is not to solve your problems for you, but to put you in touch with your own power. My purpose is not to come between you and your own freedom by giving you "answers," even to the most tragic of problems. My purpose is to reinforce your own strength, for ultimately the magic of your being is well equipped to help you find fulfillment, understanding, exuberance, and peace. Anyway, I do not intend to break off communication with either of you. I enjoy our conversations immensely and so wish to continue. Both of you are up for challenges in this regard. Both of you are willing to test out different ideas other than your own. It has been my experience that folks exhibiting that willingness are far and few between. And without that willingness then any engagement becomes little more than hopping on an endless merry-go-round, and one which is no fun at all. I'll take it private then. Whilst all religions teach that people are basically powerless science leaves no doubt. Science teaches that people have no power at all. I reject any idea which suggests that people are powerless. Or any idea which suggests that people do not create their lives, their experiences, down to the last insignificant detail.

It's coincidental that I had very much wanted to address the rest of your post from my perspective rather immediately, RP, but didn't. But, of course, there is no such thing as coincidence. There is such a thing as timing, though. There was something else which I needed to understand in order to respond to your most excellent, insightful post, RP. Which I again thank you for. So let me explain about this timing . . . @Sunmaster's Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? thread was revitalised for a short time. fusion58 had replied to one of my posts so I engaged him. We had a number of lengthy exchanges revolving around the usual "everything that exists must show evidence of itself in physical, quantifiable, sensory terms or else it doesn't exist" claim, which idea has it's foundation in the tenets of science and is widely accepted, especially in the west where science dominates as the curator of "truth." As is the typical outcome of so many of these discussions my "opponent" eventually exited the conversation. save the frogs chimed in after my last unanswered post to fusion58 to complain about my attempt to "take over" the conversation, as I had three posts in a row (as did fusion58 but since he aligned with save the frogs then that was okay ), and chided me over my " verbosity" (as did fusion58 but again since he aligned with save the frogs then that was okay ). I couldn't help but notice the contradiction between his reply, which clearly showed his irritation with me, and few of his recent replies to me in which he said: go for it. i don't want to interfere with whatever you need to be sharing. There's a lot of misinfo out there. So yeah, put your ideas out there. Not sure if a forum like this is the best place. Why not write a book? Or does anybody read books anymore? And: No, I shouldn't be discouraging you. Keep sharing your ideas. Next, Sunmaster posted a video entitled "Who Am I? | Vakya Vritti - Part 3" by Swami Sarvapriyananda. I watched a good portion of the video and portions of another select few of his videos. VincentRJ would pop in now and again and I quoted him a few times but received no reply to any of those posts. I've noticed, too, and maybe you guys have as well, that as Sunmaster and I were having some lengthy, very in depth exchanges there was almost a complete absence of other posters. Now I also post in another forum on a wide array of topics under the umbrella of current world affairs. The divisions between people are basically split in two and couldn't be much more black and white. So, as I consider the above I've come back to RP's wonderful words: And so when choosing which Path (if any) to follow on your individual journey towards Truth, it is only natural that you will be attracted to that religion / teaching which is most aligned with you current level of consciousness. For Tippa that's Seth, for Sunmaster it are the Hindu yogi's, sages and masters. For me it's Gurdjieff and the Sufi sages. Let me be clear > Imo there is no wrong or right Path, but it is the path that helps you on your journey which is the right one for you. And the closer you get to the Truth (or actual Reality as Tippa would say), the more you will recognize and appreciate the unspoken same undercurrent in all of these spiritual approaches. Now I've known the truth of this for a long, long time. It's given in Seth's material. It has been pointed out by Abraham. Yet throughout my spiritual journey I've always maintained the notion that what I know, which is based in both intellectual, intuitive and emotional understanding, could be understood by others. Despite having read don Juan telling Carlos that you can't take anyone with you. Perhaps I thought he might be in error. But now I know with certainty he is not. For in one of my replies to fusion58 I wrote this myself: That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise. It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true. And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to challenge the great power of belief. There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity. That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs. Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true." And so I've decided to shortly leave others to themselves. . . . you have to be opportunistic on your journey and opt for that which helps you further. So it is with everyone. There is no one who does not question deeply about the subject matter we talk about. And in the wise words of Abraham, "everyone is right were they're supposed to be." My only reservation for exiting all forums prior to the understanding which has been hammered home by RP and my recent realisations is this: Though what I offer seems to me to be of no help to others I've found the engagement to be helpful to me. And now I wonder if I need the engagement any longer. There is one concept I'd like to leave folks with, though it's lengthy and, sorry Sunmaster, it's quoted from the Seth material. So I'll post that separately. This information fits perfectly with RP's perceptive material which I quoted here. At least for me.

Both Seth and don Juan have explained that the never ending inner dialogue people engage in every waking moment is precisely what upholds the awareness of the world. Shut that off and the world literally disappears.

Quit whining.

Now there's someone who's thinking outside the box and shows perceptiveness. Bravo, Dave.

You made no claim at all (which is the point.) You simply pounded your fist on the table and cried "he's really, really wrong! He's wrong in more ways than I can count!" without actually offering any sort of counterargument and without naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong. Not exactly a winning formula for having your objections (whatever they may be) taken seriously. Seriously, dude? My claims were 1) Carroll hadn't thought things through and 2) the holes in his logic are big enough to drive a universe through and 3) this dude makes a lot of assumptions. If those aren't claims then what are they, fusion58? If that's not a counter argument then what it, fusion58? If that's not "naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong" then what is, fusion58? You want the rest? "If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find." Fallacy of argument. Conclusion does not logically follow as there could be any number of reasons why God would make it difficult for people to find him. "Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions." Another fallacy of argument. It assumes no interpretation of religious texts occurs and omits that small, but highly important detail. More assumptions regarding who received the "special messages" and why based on not thinking through any of the possible explanations. Very sloppy thinking. His naturalism comparison, though, is spot on. I'm fair and give credit where credit is due. "Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions." Firstly, both of these statements are strictly due to Carroll's interpretations. Secondly, the two statements are actually contradictory. Carroll argues in the first that religious doctrines fail to remain stable, hence implying that they change when they should be eternally consistent. Yet in his next statement he contradicts himself by claiming that religious doctrines fail to adapt, or change. Total idiocy. "Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good." If mores are true representations of the laws governing existence then they would not be transcendent nor progressive. The U.S. Constitution expresses one of those eternal laws. "God created all men equal." Progressivism can never improve upon the truth of that. If mores are not so good then they are obviously false representations of truths. His logic is inconsistent and faulty. So I maintain that Carroll has not thought things through. And I would argue that given his background he'll never be able to think things though properly. I would, therefore, not bother reading anything else he opines about. Carroll received his PhD in astronomy and, as with so many scientists these days, he began to opine on his personal views of life, no different than anyone else on the planet. But fame and fortune then transformed his personal worldview into a "philosophy." What magic! If he was a schmuck like everyone else here and posted his worldview on this thread his views would be treated just like the next schmuck's views are treated. No fame no credibility. Fame somehow produces instant credibility automatically. And the fanboys bow and glorify them. Now those are the true schmucks in my opinion. Google 'Sean Carroll' and this comes up: Sean M. Carroll American theoretical physicist and philosopher Now Google "Tippaporn' and this comes up: Tippaporn World traveler, husband, father, pet owner and philosopher Google any other poster here, including yourself, fusion58, and similar will come up, all ending with "and philosopher." For the Musk fanboys, here's one instance where's he's asked what the meaning of life is. (Not the first time he's been asked for his eloquent and flowing answer.) Hey, if you've got success and fame then everyone seems to think you must then have the answers to all of life's deep questions because, well, you're so brilliant and successful. Because so many believe in the God of Science then scientists in particular can turn the ears of their followers and awe them. Suckers.

Yeah, but I'm willing to entertain your opinions if they have some validity. You never answered my question. What were people's beliefs about Halloween (is Samhain) 1000 years ago and why did they turn it into a costume party? Whether what I say has validity, or even meaning for you or not is not a decision for me to make. That decision can only be made by you. Just as everyone here does they offer their ideas of what they believe to be true and what they believe to be not true. I'm like everybody else. And just as everyone here chimes in with dissenting voices over the beliefs others hold then I'm just like everybody else. I offer information. What you do with it is up to you. It is not my concern what you do with it and neither is it my interest. Just so you understand where I'm coming from. I never answered your question because it's an inane question. I'll answer serious questions, though. I conclude with a man who doesn't believe he's like everybody else. The incomparable Ray Davies of The Kinks with an awesome live version of I'm Not Like Everybody Else. And while it's true that I'm like everybody else in certain respects overall I'm not like everybody else.

LOL. Atheism has no "tenets" - just as atheism is not a "belief system." Atheism is simply the refusal to accept that which is offered without evidence - in this case, the existence of a supernatural sky monarch. I mistakenly used the plural form tenet. You are correct in that atheists have only a single tenet; they do not believe in the existence of a God or a Supreme Being. Since the definition of tenet includes 'opinion', and a strongly matched synonym is 'conviction', then the term is accurate. I'll concede that i should have used a more unambiguous term like 'belief'. LOL. "Hey guys! There's a leprechaun on a purple unicorn in the next room! Proof? What are you talking about? I don't need no stinking proof! Why not? Because no one can see them!" You fail to understand that it's impossible to place the onus of providing evidence on someone when that evidence does not exist in physical terms. And so you continue to insist that there must be physical proof for the existence of everything. Again, your insistence is due to your belief that our universe is all which exists. As long as you believe that premise, that assumption, to be true then you can only continue to insist that what you believe to be true is indeed true. Your logic is sound given your data set. Include more data into the data set and your logic becomes unsound. You fail to grasp that because you do not question your belief as you do not consider it to be a belief but rather accept it as "fact." You refuse to consider whether naturalism is true or false. You accept it as true, despite that truth being debatable. And to question it's validity is to commit scientific heresy. ". . . naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true." From another post: Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. That's the hard reality. The beliefs folks have come up with through the ages and into the present - about life, about God, about most everything - are literally unlimited. Most are distortions and/or outright false. The above is just another. Just an example. The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid. That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth." "Trust the science," was endlessly repeated everywhere you turned. You could not escape the trumpeting of that message if you tried. Trumpeted by the Gods of Science. That turned out to be a belief about reality and not hard reality. Yet millions upon millions upon millions believed that the belief was "true" and that the science was "true." Now we all know it was false. This is not an attempt to move this conversation to Covid. I'm merely using a very recent development as it's fresh in everyone's mind and it's an event we've all experienced on a very deep and personal level. And which illustrates perfectly how easily folks can be sucked into a false reality and believe it, even for a short time, with absolute, unconditional conviction. It was literally impossible, for a time, to convince people otherwise. That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise. It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true. And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to challenge the great power of belief. There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity. That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs. Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true." Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. Folks would do well to cultivate a thorough understanding of what beliefs are, how they function, what their purpose is, where they come from, how they're created and what their effects are. It would save one a whole lot of trouble. Don't take it from me. You are all free to find out for yourselves at your own pace and take as much time as you need to figure it out on your own via trial and error.

I've mentioned this issue in another thread and had other posters tell me they're experiencing the same thing. There are more of us than we know. Admittedly, that sounds kinda scary. In any case, it's been a few days now since my 'fix' and I've had no more issues. Except that I've noticed that all of my older posts before I implemented my 'fix' have reverted from emoticon images to text. Now that's spooky.

Had another poster claim the same issue using Edge. I just now there that it's odd that this problem has been experienced by many now and yet there's been no response from the Forum Support Desk folks. We may have to add this to the long list of "Unsolved Mysteries Of Life." At least they're working for me, though all of my older posts have reverted from emoticon images to text. But since I fixed the problem on my end my newer posts are fine. Edit: No sooner did I post this than I saw another reply in that Forum Support Desk thread in reply to my post that they haven't addressed it yet. . I know, It is unbearable!! I am reduced to using abbreviations instead of emojis. I send an LOL (Lots Of Love to someone whose loved one had passed away, and he also hates so much abbreviations he placed me in his "ignore " list Please bring back the cute little pictures, you all know how challenged we are with words.

Funnily, I posted this in the Forum Support Desk subforum and have yet to hear from anyone there. ??

It's easy to see the distortions of reality almost everywhere one looks. All distortions are due to beliefs. No exceptions. It has been said by someone once that the majority of what humans believe to be true is indeed false. Now a specific percentage wasn't given but 'majority' is enough to imply that it's much greater than 50%. And so this recurring point once again has me quoting that extremely perceptive and humourous author, Mark Twain: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.“ Mark Twain is clearly speaking of beliefs. Beliefs which are held to be true but are not. If true that the majority of the beliefs people hold as true are not true then the massive implications of Twain's quote become jaw droppingly apparent. Again, it's easy to recognise the false beliefs which others hold. But, ah, what about the false beliefs Frogs holds? Would Frogs dare to take Twain's statement to heart and turn it towards himself? The fact is that most people, whilst they are eager to gleefully protest the false beliefs of others, rarely examine their own beliefs as to their true validity. And in reference to this portion of Twain's quote, "that gets you into trouble," you can rest assured that your troubles, each and every one of them, are directly linked to those beliefs which you hold to be true that "just ain’t so.“

You wrote at quite some length over three posts covering quite a bit of ground. Rather than reply to each and every point you've made or raised I'll focus on the very root of all of it. Which is what I perceive to be your belief that everything in existence can be shown to exist via the production of physical, scientifically valid evidence. Do you deny that this is your belief? This is a 'must answer' question as it crucial for you to affirm or disaffirm your position in no uncertain terms. But before I do I want to clear up several of your misconceptions which you have about me. You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm. I believe in none of that. Your sarcasm then meanders to the absurd using a fallacy of argument by claiming that I, who believes in all of the former, would then be easily prone to believe in leprechauns, purple unicorns and any other such nonsense as well. Now the simple undeniable fact is you have no knowledge of what I know or believe and therefore to make any claim of that which you do not know would be practicing intellectual dishonesty. And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe. If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first. I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go. Are we clear? I will make clear what I do believe. And that is that existence is multidimensional. That our experienced physical dimension is but a single dimension of an infinite amount of dimensions. No Gods, no supernatural beings, no supernatural realms, no magic, no leprechauns, no unicorns. I believe that the reality is simply that more of them exist of which we are only aware of our own. As a concept it is not different than, and very much the same as, the age old question of whether life exists anywhere else in the universe other than on planet Earth. The article save the frogs offered just this morning states that Earth is the sole planet within the vastness of the universe on which life can be found to exist. Do you share that belief? Or do you believe it possible that life exists elsewhere? Similarly, do you believe our reality is the only reality which exists? Or do you believe it possible that other realities exist? Again, these are 'must answer' questions in order to make your position clear. I do not wish to be in a position where I must assume what you think or believe. So state it clearly. Granted, we have zero evidence thus far . . . thus far . . . that life exists anywhere else in the universe. Similarly we have zero evidence thus far . . . thus far . . . that other realities exist. Between the two we are, though, actually much closer to finding evidence that other realities exist. I'd point you to the theories laid out by quantum physics which postulate the existence of a multiverse. So the concept of more than one reality certainly have a foundational basis in theoretical scientific thought. So do not make claim that my position of existence as multidimensional is pseudo-science. It clearly is not. Unless, of course, you wish to claim that what is being postulated by quantum physics is pseudo-science. Now what I have been arguing all along is that the physical evidence you demand to prove existence of all things would be impossible given the existence of multiple realities. That demand can only, therefore, be a valid one given the idea, the paradigm, that our world, our universe, is the only one in existence. I've pointed out quite clearly that the naturalistic, or materialistic, view of the world has at it's core their "truth" that our world and our universe are all that exist. Here: "As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature." Here: ". . . the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality . . . " And here: "All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself." Those statements are unequivocable and unambiguous in their belief that what they call 'nature' is all which exists. In response to my statement: "Your view of a materialistic world is a belief. In the sense that it is a belief it is a belief, then, no different than a belief in God." You responded with: "False. Naturalism isn't a "belief." It's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence." And yet: ". . . naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true . . ." You argue: "Naturalism isn't a "belief" - it's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence." And I certainly agree that it's a method of inquiry. I do not refute that at all. It is, after all, stated with no uncertainty here: ". . . naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true . . ." When you say that "Naturalism isn't a "belief"" you are forgetting, or purposely ignoring, the portion of the above statement that clearly and unambiguously states: ". . . without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true . . ." And so, as long as there is a question as to the truth or untruth of naturalism then it is technically correct and intellectually truthful to say that naturalism is . . . . . . . . merely a belief which is held to be "true." If your premise is that naturalism is "true," that per naturalism all that exists is the nature we perceive and nothing outside of it exists, then within the paradigm of that belief it is only natural to conclude, as you seem to have, that everything which exists must therefore be able to be proven to exist via the methodology of science and thus produce scientific evidence. If your premise is false, however, then it is as I said: "But what if naturalism's premise, it's Great Assumption, is in false? Well, dear fusion58, then the rules of this game of life change quite dramatically and radically. That conclusion.is based on deductive logic. It's a priori." Now hopefully you will not fail to appreciate the quite solid logical reasoning of the above and respond with: "Frankly, it doesn't take much more than those to refute the pseudo-intellectual nonsense you've been slinging here, once we extract the gist of your arguments from the copious volumes of superfluous hot air which accompany them." For such a reply would be the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Nah. I'm not going to touch that distortion of reality. Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. That's the hard reality. The beliefs folks have come up with through the ages and into the present - about life, about God, about most everything - are literally unlimited. Most are distortions and/or outright false. The above is just another. Just an example. The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid. That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth." "Trust the science," was endlessly repeated everywhere you turned. You could not escape the trumpeting of that message if you tried. Trumpeted by the Gods of Science. That turned out to be a belief about reality and not hard reality. Yet millions upon millions upon millions believed that the belief was "true" and that the science was "true." Now we all know it was false. This is not an attempt to move this conversation to Covid. I'm merely using a very recent development as it's fresh in everyone's mind and it's an event we've all experienced on a very deep and personal level. And which illustrates perfectly how easily folks can be sucked into a false reality and believe it, even for a short time, with absolute, unconditional conviction. It was literally impossible, for a time, to convince people otherwise. That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise. It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true. And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to challenge the great power of belief. There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity. That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs. Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true." Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. Folks would do well to cultivate a thorough understanding of what beliefs are, how they function, what their purpose is, where they come from, how they're created and what their effects are. It would save one a whole lot of trouble. Don't take it from me. You are all free to find out for yourselves at your own pace and take as much time as you need to figure it out on your own via trial and error.

Seems like any time a small start up software company gets popular and gains enough market share they always go to the dark side. I still remember Google . . . Do no evil.