Tippaporn

Continued . . . Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, our continued existence is in another reality, pathways exist which connect these two realities, we are constantly learning, or growing. Given the above, then, I propose this scenario as a valid possibility which cannot be waved off as not possible. Now it's assumed by many that all knowledge which is available to us humans has a single source; our reality. Which is a quite natural assumption to make if, indeed, our reality is all which exists. It could not come from anywhere else. Once the idea of multiple, interrelated realities is accepted, however, then the assumption that the source of all of our knowledge is our singular reality automatically gets sh!tcanned. For that assumption's very existence is dependent upon another assumption; a singular reality. It cannot exist without it. So, if knowledge also exists outside of our reality would the knowledge which exists there be able to intrude into our reality? Now that sounds like a reasonable and logical inference to make, does it not? After all, given the assumptions in my hypothesis then if our very consciousness is able to traverse forth and back, and forth an back multiple times in the case of reincarnation, then what is to prevent knowledge from doing the same? My proposition, therefore, is that knowledge exists both in our reality and outside of this reality and that knowledge does indeed flow in both directions. Bottom line is that what others who have left our reality have learned, and continue to learn, can be communicated back to us. What a shocker. I know. And now you know where the source of my information comes from. Of course that's not my sole source. There's me, too!! I joke. But then again I don't. Reality is much, much more than most understand it to be. And certainly there will be instances where the actual truth lies in the opposite direction of accepted truth. It's tough on people when that happens. To experience all of their seemingly sound reasoning and watertight logic of which they are so proud to fall to pieces. Of course I wouldn't think of omitting myself from that crowd. There are many things which block access to the knowledge which lays outside of us (but really within us). I've discussed a few of the major ones before here and elsewhere but another is the simple lack of patience. Long ago in another thread on a similar topic in this very subforum whilst discussing with another poster this other poster then asked me flat out, "Well, what's your idea on life, then? Explain it." My response was this: "To ask me to take such a vast and complex subject and attempt to distill it down to a single post would be unfair to me. And if I attempted to do it then that would be unfair to you." He replied in agreement. Though it was perhaps the only thing the two of us agreed upon I respected him for not only being able to admit to the truth of it but even more so that he was able to understand the truth of it. The point with my anecdote was to bring awareness to the fact that our experience in this world is so vast that it takes patience, and quite a bit of it, to assemble an accurate working which accounts for not some but all of experience. All of it must be tied together. Not an easy feat but still doable. Why am I telling you all of this, Vince? So that you can understand, and maybe even appreciate, that there exists knowledge of which we know little. To keep an open mind. And to not hold so tightly to preconceived ideas that it prevents you from seeing what else out there exists. With sincere respect, Vince.

Continued . . . Damn, I forgot a few more assumptions to round out my hypothesis. If our consciousness is independent of form and thus survives death, and if that inherently implies that our existence continues in another reality, then it would logically follow that for us to be in this reality and emigrate to another there must exist a pathway for us to move from here to there. Also, if our consciousness survives death then the question begs, did our consciousness exist before we came here? Now if we assume that our consciousness existed before death then the inherent implication there is that there must of existed a pathway for us to have been able to immigrate to Starship Mother Earth. Which means that if a pathway between realities exists then existence before birth and after death would mean that travel on this pathway is multi-directional. For the sake of clarity I'm afraid I'll have to recap my hypothesis once again. Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, our continued existence is in another reality, pathways exist which connect these two realities, we are constantly learning, or growing. Okay, I added the forks and knives to our table setting. My basic hypothesis is complete. So far so good? Any objections thus far? I'm relying on you, Vince, as you utilise well sound reasoning, to perform a reasoning check. Sound or no? Don't forget to kick the tires to make sure the logic is firm. Good there? Perhaps I should ask you first if you're still on board and playing. Asking because I know there's a lot of quitters in the world who aren't serious enough and their stamina wanes quickly. You've noticed by now, I'm sure, that I love to present serious ideas in a humourous fashion. And my sincere apologies if you don't appreciate the humour. So in all seriousness can you find any flaws in the reasoning or logic around which my hypothesis is structured? If not then I will continue.

Continued . . . So where is it that I'm getting my seemingly bizarre ideas from? What's my source of information? And how and why do I trust it and even rely upon it? To answer those questions it will be necessary to make a few assumptions, or working hypotheses if you prefer. Out of all of the unanswered questions which have stymied man for centuries perhaps one of the most pressing ones is that of what becomes of us at death. I say 'pressing' because given the seemingly thrust upon terms of our existence in this reality our mortality is limited. I could also say that it is one of our most concerning questions as, well, we all have to kick the pot sooner or later. Okay, so the first necessary assumption to be made is that of our continuing existence. The answer to the question of whether or not we survive death is actually to be found in another question: is our consciousness dependent on form? For if it is not then we can safely assume that we survive our physical demise and vacating our physical bodies, which are a necessity for interacting in this realm, means that we find habitat elsewhere - wherever that my be and in whatever form. Now for me continuing existence is not an assumption but fact. But since others are not so convinced as I we'll presume it to be an assumption. Our working hypothesis to make rational the rest of what I propose, to the end that I reveal my source of information. Now the concept of continued existence beyond this reality carries with it an inherent implication. For continued existence to be true then what also must be true is the existence of more than one reality. That much should be wholly self evident since logically if we are not here then we must be somewhere else. So the assumption that multiple realities exist is inherent in the assumption that our consciousness is independent of our human form and survives death. There's another issue that needs to be included in this hypothesis of mine. And I believe that issue is the fact, which I believe everyone here considers as 'fact', that whilst we are in this world we are engaged in constant learning. A synonym of (constant) learning would be (constant) growth. I could one more issue and that would be the question of mortality. Whilst it is beyond obvious that mortality applies in this world then if we survive death what becomes of mortality? The inverse of mortal existence is eternal existence. Yet that question is not necessary for my working hypothesis. One more assumption as true would need to be made. Given that we are learning in this existence can we safely assume we would be engaged similarly in any other existence? My hypothesis includes continued learning, or continued growth. So now the table has been set complete. To recap: 1) Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, or mortal existence, 2) our continued existence is in at least another reality, and 3 & 4) we are constantly learning, or growing. Ah, sh!t. I'm having to scroll again. Which means another 'continued' post. I'll leave it to Sylvester to express for me the minced oath of "Suffering Savior."

@VincentRJ and everyone else here for that matter. @Sunmaster @save the frogs @thaibeachlovers @Red Phoenix @Mike Teavee @Chris Daley @OneMoreFarang @xylophone @Walker88 There. That's the usual list of suspects. My apologies if I've included anyone who feels my invitation unwelcome. Please just ignore, then. And my apologies for those I've left out who may feel a bit spurned. But I am limited as to how many posters I can include as mentions. One more helpful explainer post before I respond to your recent post, Vince. The purpose of this one is to aid your understanding of where I am getting my peculiar positions from. For many of them are quite unconventional and, dare I say, even seemingly radical from the perspective of mass accepted beliefs about the nature of ourselves and the world. That will, hopefully, go a long way in helping you cope with the many seemingly outlandish propositions I make. I will try my best to keep this post short as my head is already filled with enough information which I feel applicable in sharing to fill a thin volume. Working towards that effort I'll dispense with my long personal history covering my journey of how I arrived at my ideas. Suffice it to say that I, like everyone else in this world - including yourself, Vincent, had many unanswered questions as to who and what I am, were I had come from (pre birth), why I find myself in this world without the slightest explanation given nor even a rudimentary primer of instructions, what I am intended to do whilst here, and whence I'm going after I take that ultimate final breath. Not to forget such questions as to what this world is, and I prefer to use the term reality, and how exactly it functions. We're all in the same boat, aren't we? To continue. As everyone is searching for their mystery answers some of us have noted something odd. All of those whom we had assumed were qualified to provide us with answers to our burning questions were found, after careful examination of their answers, to be sorely lacking. And oftentimes contradictory or just plain wrong. Too often. Whether it was our parents and teachers or our great and wise? institutions such as religion and science. Feeling unsatisfied some began to search for answers elsewhere. And as we had already looked under every rock and in every crevice the idea dawned that perhaps the answers were to be found where no one was looking - not in hidden places but rather in unexpected places. Which went a long way in explaining why, after may millennia, crucial answers still escaped us mortals to this day. Another fascinating discovery we've made is that true answers to some questions lay in the direct polar opposite of where the answers we've been given by almost everyone lay. In other words, so much of what has been accepted on a mass scale as not only true but self evident as well is false and what is actually true becomes a direct contradiction to that. And so in many instances the fallacious logic kicks in that consensus equates to truth. How is it even possible that 99 out of 100 can be wrong? In any case. this realisation which has dawned on more than a few also goes a long, long way in explaining how it is possible that the actual truth remains hidden for so long when it's actually been in front of our very noses all along. Now I oddly seem to refer to myself in the plural here but it is only because I am not alone. There are many who have stumbled upon these realisations so I speak not just for myself. I'm going to cut this post off here as it's just dawned on me that this post is, unfortunately, going to exceed even the most generous definitions of 'short'. As TBL has so wisely taught me, peoples' eyes tend to glaze over when confronted with long posts. Everyone's time is valuable and no one wants to waste it on a bunch of nonsense. So by truncating this post here to continue it in another post it affords the opportunity for folks to stop reading now. If they haven't done so already. By the way, I've come to invent my own device which I now use as a measuring system to gauge my post lengths. As I'm on a PC my reply box is fairly large. If I have to scroll with more than a single turn and a half of my mouse wheel in order to navigate the entire post then it is too long. Just trying to use a scientific approach rather than an entirely subjective one. To be continued . . .

@VincentRJ Before I reply to your latest post, Vince, I thought it important to first go off on a side issue of a general nature. Oftentimes during an exchange I'll pose some questions to a poster in order to understand better their viewpoints and where their particular viewpoints are coming from so that I might be better able to get to the crux of their thinking and thus be able to respond more appropriately. To my way of thinking, and per my experience, that saves time and needless back and forth exchanges that don't get us any closer to any mutual understanding. After all, isn't the entire purpose of these exchanges an effort to reach mutual understanding? Or to provide personal insights which others can then benefit from? Else to me this is all a waste of time. In my view if I'm asking a poster questions and receive no answers then I become wary of them in the sense that I tend to doubt their sincerity to expose their true thoughts or their intention to be utterly forthright. Now what I've just expressed is not to be mistaken as my demanding answers to my questions from any poster. I'm simply expressing what I feel to be fair in what I should be able to expect from a poster as a response. Others are certainly free to decide for themselves whether what I feel is fair is fair to them. Perhaps a real world example is in order to help clarify my position. Professionally I'm an independent engineer and designer. When I receive a new design oftentimes there is critical information missing which I absolutely require before I can proceed. In such cases I will send my customer an email requesting the missing information by listing it out in a numbered list so that nothing gets missed. It's been my experience that at times I may request 10 pieces of information and receive a reply providing me with only a single piece of missing information. I then have to go through the process of re-requesting that which is missing and oftentimes this may go several rounds before I have everything (and in many instances, too, with my customer asking if I had started on the job yet ). In any case, I hope that anecdote serves as a bridge to help understand that some of my questions, most of them actually , are to provide me with critical answers which I require in order to properly respond to a reply. Hey, ich bin ein Deutscher and we Germans love efficiency.

Thanks for the day off, @Sunmaster. I won't have to reply to any of your posts today since I'm sure you're still trying to figure out exactly what planet you're on after last night. Now we all do expect for you to report back in tomorrow as usual as the holiday will be over. And we're anticipating a full accounting of your experiences, along with detailed interpretations, of your altered state of consciousness. Where you anywhere in the vicinity of God's neighborhood? Or did they bar the gate when they saw you coming? Anyway, Happy 2024 and we're all anxious to get confirmation of your survival.

You're rackin' up the red hearts now, TBL.

Which "I"?

Ah, you're deserving of a big, ol' red heart, TBL.

Sir Conan Doyle. A remarkably perceptive individual as expressed through his character Sherlock. He had a knack for eliminating the possibilities that couldn't fit and come up with the only one that could. I, too, have read them all and love them dearly.

Depends on which version of Earth you're talking about.

Man, I would have given you a <red heart> reaction, TBL, rather than a thumbs up if it weren't for your defective (purposeful use of your own adjective ) sentiment regarding the humans species.

@VincentRJ Just an afterthought, Vince. I admittedly suffer tremendously from them. Only in the belief that physical objective reality is all that exists can the subordinate belief then follow that everything in that world can therefore be proved or disproved using the scientific method. In other words, the latter belief is wholly dependent upon the former. The latter belief vanishes into thin air as soon as the former is found to be false. Only in the belief that other realities exist can the belief in a God, or god, or Gods, or gods, or higher entities, or advanced beings exist. If other realities do indeed exist, and furthermore that these other realities have effects upon or interactions with physical objective reality, then the obvious conclusion would be what? That everything cannot be proven using the scientific method since the scientific method is strictly and inexorably confined to proving only that which exists in an objective reality. A singular reality. The truth is, Vincent, that not all things can be proven as you would like or demand. You will, therefore, never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god or what represents a god. You can, however, feel it's effects. And plenty of people do. Illogical???

You're 100% accurate with that statement, Vincent. Beliefs certainly can, and do, produce harmful effects. Very true. One side has more confidence in manifesting their desired outcome than the other side. Sports is a great example of that dynamic in play (pun intended ). And what is confidence? The belief that one's desire will be manifested, e.g. made r-e-a-l. From my point of view the nocebo effect isn't a partial reason but the whole reason. And I would expound on your example of two different religious groups and say that it applies to any conflict. Because a vast swath of the scientific world believes that the explanation for any and everything that exists in this world can be distilled to an objective explanation. Or said differently, every phenomenon in this world, including every subjective phenomenon, can be traced to objective source. Psychologically speaking, and subjectivity is considered purely psychological, that would be the physical brain. Not the mind, as the mind is nonphysical and the brain is it's physical counterpart. No, science doesn't ignore subjective reality but they certainly refuse to accept it for what it truly is. A totally different world. And science would be shocked and very unaccepting of the idea that the very source of the objective world is the subjective one. In other words, it would be impossible for the physical, objective world to exist if the subjective world did not exist. It would be the epitome of scientific heresy to suggest their precious one-reality objective-reality is dependent upon subjective reality. Say it's true, Vincent. I know it is. What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? Give answering that question a shot, Vincent. It's a vital question as it leads to some very critical understanding of the nature of our world. Presently you have no idea where the question will take you. You might be surprised. I ask that you don't ignore answering it. By the way, what is your definition of subjectivity? That would be interesting. And that basic characteristic would be? Hint: beliefs. We certainly have a set of senses for which to interpret this reality. They are in fact specifically tailored for that task. Now I could add that there are many more senses available to us but I would then be going off on a tangent. To be clear, our thoughts, though, are not one of our senses. Our senses work just as any scientific device which can detect and interpret phenomenon which our five senses are unable to detect. A sonar device, for instance. Sonar is a technique that uses sound propagation to navigate, measure distances, communicate with or detect objects on or under the surface of the water, such as other vessels. It is specifically tailored, or rather designed, to detect and interpret physical phenomenon. Hey!! I just had an idea. Boy, I hate to toss this at you, Vincent, but what if our five senses were specifically . . . designed? Now that's a comical notion if ever there was one. I'll let that one slide for now. Too much to delve into and it would lead to a tangential discussion. Your examples are still confined strictly to the examination of the material world. There are physical aspects to this reality which are not apparent to our usual five senses. It is fallacious logic to assume that because there are physical aspects not apparent to our five senses that these aspects are therefore non-material. By the way, I actually have a distaste for the term 'spiritual'. Too much baggage that is attached to the word. Too many interpretations. Though I do use the term myself at times. For the sake of maintaining accuracy I'd swap out 'mind' with 'brain'. Radiology Info - Functional MRI (fMRI) Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures the small changes in blood flow that occur with brain activity. Mayo Clinic - EEG (electroencephalogram) An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a test that measures electrical activity in the brain using small, metal discs (electrodes) attached to the scalp. Brain cells communicate via electrical impulses and are active all the time, even during asleep. This activity shows up as wavy lines on an EEG recording. Still strictly dealing only with the objective world. The effects of the brain on the body and it's effects on human psychology. Not investigating the mind itself. Or the subjective reality which produces the mind itself. You guys are still ignoring the beating heart.

Geezus!! 9:06 in the morning and I've the first post of 2024? Well, I'll take that as solid evidence that everyone had a great New Year's experience. Sunmaster, any rocks under the spot you passed out on? Hope you had a comfortable sleep.

I gave you a thumbs up for the clarity with which you express your reasoning. And given your beliefs your reasoning seems quite solid. Seems. Seems because you're missing much data in the mix of your current data set upon which your reasoning is based. Also, you presume that your assumptions are correct. And in the context of this discussion your prime assumption is the idea that our dear old mother earth, the entirety of our precious physical universe, and the 'you' that you see in the mirror is all there is. All of the data that you pull from the massive data set which exists and is currently available to you you then attempt to fit to make your assumptions true. Data which does not fit is discarded. Other assumptions which would show your assumptions to be false you reject as well. Reasoning can always, always be made very sound and the logic seemingly water tight given a) a certain, finite data set and b) the assumptions made upon which the entirety of reasoning is based. Every theory is based upon at least a single assumption, and usually many more assumptions. Here's an excerpt from NASA: Assumptions, or working hypotheses, are a major part of science. In fact, it is difficult to talk for long with a scientist about science without hearing the words, “If we assume.” In order to make sense of things, we usually have to make assumptions, which help structure our thinking. Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method Now here's where all reasoning, yours and everyone else's about anything, has the potential to fail. a) The data set is incomplete and b) the assumptions are incorrect. So what might prevent someone from recognising that their data set is incomplete or that their assumption may be false? Let's explore . . . Now tell me if this is sound reasoning by your rational and logical standards. A person's beliefs act like blinders. I think we can agree on that, right? Isn't that the very definition of bias - to wear blinders? You see only what you want to see? And aren't beliefs the very source of bias? The fountainhead of bias? I know you understand well the concept of bias since you've acknowledged it earlier. Though I'm not so sure you understand bias' source. Perhaps you do and maybe you don't. You'd have to tell me. Now take the example of someone who believes that the only reality which exists is the one they're in. For them there's no ambiguity on this point and their conviction is rock solid. So for the fun of it let's run an experiment where we assume that our working hypothesis - that other realities exist - is true. Let's assume that our example friend is wrong in his belief that there exists only a singular reality - which is believed to be purely objective. Your task is to convince this hypothetical friend otherwise. What you will quickly learn is this: your friend's belief that there exists only a single reality will be the very thing which will blind him to the existence of other realities. Neither reasoning nor logic nor any other data to the contrary will dissuade him. Though the persuasive logic of your reasoning is sound he will refuse to accept it. And even see it as illogical. By one method or another he will reject all data which does not fit his model. You may even be able to show him how he can enter other realities himself and thereby prove to himself conclusively that other realities do indeed exist. (Again, for the sake of this experiment we'll make another assumption - that no reality is a closed system and therefore any reality is accessible - and consider it to be true.) Since this friend is firm in his belief, comfortable with it, satisfied with it, and even threatened by the prospect that his assumptions may be in error and thus invalidate his reasoning and logic - which will automatically place him in a position where he's then not sure what to think about what's true and what's not, he will refuse to investigate himself. BTW, I have a real world story, from this very site in fact, which perfectly illustrates the outright refusal of people to investigate for themselves the truth of a thing despite bringing them to the very portal of where that truth lies. All they would have to do is enter yet they steadfastly and even vehemently refuse. This example was even more interesting because it involved not just a single individual but quite a number of people. I'll relate it if you're interested as it is solid proof that people will go to great, and frankly unbelievable lengths to reject anything and everything that they believe not to be true - sight unseen in fact. Ah, behold the mighty power of belief!! And that is not hyperbole in the slightest. Moral of the story? Or the conclusions, results of the experiment? Your beliefs are the very thing which will blind you to anything else which exists outside of the framework of your beliefs. And it works the same regardless of the subject matter. Be it issues of great weight, such as science and politics, or even the most mundane of issues, such as which option in a given situation of import would work given multiple options. It's been said that all issues are the same issue. Whether it's relationships, money, health, wealth or poverty . . . you name the issue. Why? Because the process by which all natively subjective issues are manifested, or translated into personal human experience of a physical nature, is the same. Your beliefs create your experience, or your personal reality. Kudos to anyone who can understand that truth with utter clarity. Now this will be the most important part of my post. You can forget everything else I've written and focus only on this: Every belief forces one into accepting the presumptions upon which a particular belief is rooted. When exploring the great unknown (of which the known is but a teensy tiny sliver) you had better be prepared to leave all of your current presumptions at home. If you don't then you will take your presumptions with you and they will act as the figurative blinders which prevent you from seeing anything else which exists. You can take that to the bank.

Just make sure you find a comfortable place to pass out, Sunmaster. Happy New Year, mate.

Geezus, save the frogs. Who is gonna read 28 pages of that? Just the idea that I would do that has me speaking in tongues, all of which would be censored here. Much better is a tutorial on how to do it. Give it a whirl.

WOW! I think I've just suffered from a religious experience. It took me three tries before I was successfully able to post a GIF. Thinking about that no doubt brought about my epiphany . . . all good things come in threes! It's TRUE! Think about it! The Holy Trinity The Three Kings Israel has three patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see Exodus 3:6 and Matthew 22:32) Noah has three sons (Genesis 6:10); Job has three daughters (Job 1:3; 42:14) Jonah is the whale three days (Jonah 1: 17) ;Matthew 12:!4) and it takes him three days to walk across Nineveh (Jonah 3:3) God appears to Abraham and Sarah as three persons (Genesis 18:1-15) Abraham and Isaac travel for three days on their way to Mt. Moriah (Genesis 22:4) Joseph puts his brothers in jail for three days (Genesis 42:17) Isaiah says that God is three-times Holy (Isaiah 6:3) God creates the world in three days. Well, no. I am just making sure you’re not just skimming through this. God creates the world in 6 days, which is 3+3. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and stays three months (Luke 1:56) The wise men bring three gifts to baby Jesus: gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:11) When Jesus is lost in the Temple, he is missing for three days (Luke 2:46) Jesus stays 40 days in the desert and tempted three times (Matthew 4:1-11) Three guys witness Jesus’ transfiguration: Peter, James and John (Matthew 17:1) Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane three times (Matthew 26:36-46) Peter denies Jesus three times (Luke 22:54-62) and confesses his love to Jesus three times (John 21:15-17) St Paul on his way to Damascus, after Jesus reveals himself to him, is left without sight for three days (Acts 9:9) There are 27 books in the New Testament: That’s 3x3x3. Perfection to the third power! A genie grants three wishes. The Three Bears - Papa Bear, Mama Bear and Baby Bear Three little pigs The three musketeers The three amigos Moe, Larry and Curly The good the bad and the ugly A tryst A tricycle. WOW!!! Just WOW!!! I feel like I'm in a cloud right now!!

BTW, where's the party tonight? Whose house? I'm not as yet booked so PM me with directions. I really don't want to go to sleep at 8 PM tonight. And can I bring my wife?

"It means nothing TO ME, and I don't think it exists." There, fixed it for you. It's free this time because I feel festively generous. And a Happy New Year to y'all!! I think a good New Year's resolution for some would be to learn something in the coming New Year. Now don't throw in the towel by mid-day Jan. 1. I went with a non-religious theme so as not to upset any of those living in a strictly objective world. Wait a minute . . . it's supposed to be a goddamned GIF (excuse me Lord). Damn it. Still not working. Lemme try again . . . There we go. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I'm a persistent prick. Actually, I like this one the best. It's got an image of my favourite beverage! This used to be one of the quotes in my signature: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” See, God does exist. Ben Franklin knows! And he had a scientific mind, too!

I was holding off thinking you'd have some comments to the body of Seth's quotes. I hadn't heard anything after the latest three. As to the other two replies of yours . . . There's no wading pool here. Just make sure your air line is long enough before you jump in. You're gonna need as much length as you can get. Partial response. I woke up this morning with the intention of replying to your two responses (actually three, as I count the Sam Altman post, too). But then I got interrupted by TBL. Blame him. Since then I'm just going with the flow. But a promise is a promise.

The placebo effect, the schmacebo effect. As long as it works what's the complaint? Why? Tough nut to crack in a singular objective world. Might it have anything to do with that other world? You know, that subjective one? The one that you ignore? Question: What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? Okay, I lied. Two questions. That gives you the option to cherry pick the easiest one to answer. By God (excuse the filthy term), I think you're on to something!!!

Why not just get it from your kitchen sink tap? It's cheaper.

"In the game of life the truth always wins." --Tippers, 2023 from The God Thread I admit I'm very fond of and given to using sage, astute and perceptive quotes of others. The above is my original. I fancy that some future poster on this thread, say 200 years from now, will come across that and quote me. They'll credit me with "Tippers, whoever the hell he was."