Tippaporn

My apologies, Mike. I interpreted your response as being directed specifically towards me as it could have been read that way. Now I understand you were referring to preachers. I can't blame preachers for preaching, though. They can't really do otherwise. I cut them slack as a matter of understanding. Given that Christianity teaches that the Lord and Jesus Christ are our saviors then a preacher, out of love for his fellow man, must therefore attempt to save others. It's the Godly thing to do. It's his calling. Of course, God isn't our savior as there is nothing to save anyone from. Christianity doesn't know that, though.

Hummin, I'll second Sunmaster's sentiment. You wrote a very beautiful post. Whether one agrees or disagrees with you, you can't take that beautiful post away from you. Cheers! Although you could perhaps consider me your chief antagonist I fancy that I've played some small role in helping you put your self realisations to words. I know I've asked you more than enough questions to clarify yourself when your expressions of how life works for you were severely ambiguous. Or hounded you to the ends of the earth to finally answer all of those unanswered questions I've put to you. I'm still waiting for many of those answers, BTW. And it was good of you to admit outright at one time that you do like to cherry pick. Which is perfectly understood. Now it's absolutely true that no one needs to have the answers to life, or even to have found their God, in order to live a happy and fulfilling existence. No one needs a God or a Seth or a guru nor a master for those conditions have never been hard coded requirements which must be met before happiness and fulfillment can be had. There are innumerable people living in the world right now who lead glorious existences without ever having searched for answers. Many who simply have an innate sense and understanding of what brings happiness and where true happiness comes from. I'll again salute you and end it here. An uncharacteristic short post for me.

BTW, I liked your Worf avatar better. Those Klingons were true warriors. Tough stuff.

Jai yen yen. What I wrote is true, Neeranam. You first gave me a "huh" reply. Okay, it was obvious that you were insulted. So I immediately wrote you a nice post to explain not only my thinking but an admission that I obviously f'd up my wording so that it ended up having the reverse effect of what my intention was. Which was to ensure you wouldn't be offended. And I ended to point blank state that no offense was intended. Any reasonable person, I would think, would have concluded, oh, no intended offense. Just an unfortunate mix up. Not a problem. But none of that was good enough for you. Though it was an innocent misunderstanding, well, no matter. The only thing that could appease your hurt feelings was an outright "I'm sorry." But what the hell should I be sorry about? As it was an innocent misunderstanding then where's the crime? The reality is that I never did insult you. So why the brouhaha over an innocent misunderstanding, Neeranam? Is it that difficult for you to understand? So you're insulted that I would suggest that you would be embarrassed for what you believe. And you're insulted because I didn't apologise to your satisfaction. The polite reply I gave you to clear the air was unsatisfactory without a formal apology. Nope, not good enough. So i give you a curt reply and have again insulted you. Now it's your intelligence. And lastly I insulted you about your sensitivity. To which you admit flat out that you are sensitive to other's criticism and you're not ashamed of being sensitive. Perhaps you're even proud of it. I dunno. Some people are. Here's being a man in my book, Neeranam. Be so confident in yourself and what you believe that no man could ever insult you. About anything. It would be an impossibility. You will have just cut the umbilical chord thru which others control your emotions. No one could ever trigger you any longer and make you feel any way other than how you want to feel. You're now in control of your emotions rather than those who may inadvertently bump your arm as they were passing by. And you're now free to respond with forethought rather than a simple, uncontrollable knee-jerk response. I'm sure you've heard about the rage these days, especially on college campuses, where students suffer from constant micro-aggressions, where every interpretation of a word they deem harmful and hurtful triggers them to the extent that they double over and have to scurry to the nearest "safe place" to be comforted by furry, stuffed animals. These poor kids have been convinced that they don't even control their own emotions. Everyone else does. And everyone else, therefore, needs to change. Not them, though. They wouldn't think of changing themselves. Despite the fact that changing themselves is the only thing they can change. They can't change other people. Now, I've apologised more often than I can remember on this forum. Why, just recently to Hummin. But when someone demands an apology for an incident as trivial as an inadvertent arm bump, in which no harm was intended, then I say no. I did nothing wrong that deserves an apology. But that wouldn't be my only reason for not apologising. For if I were to apologise I would be condoning and supporting your sensitivities. I'd be treating and appeasing you like those unfortunate grown-up college kids. Which is not helpful to you. What would be helpful to you would be to take the advice I gave above. Learn to have supreme confidence in your own being, in your own knowledge. Learn to have an unshakable sense of self worth such that no one's words could ever again cause you to lose control of your own emotions to where you would blame them for making you nilly willy feel so and so. You said you were interested in learning. Well, take this as a lesson. And yes, you are intelligent enough to understand what I've written here. Though this doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence. But it does have everything to do with belief. Cheer up, Neeranam. I'm not your enemy. So don't make me one.

They're not the only knuckleheads.

This video title was just too intriguing to pass on. I just had to watch how someone who can't tell the difference between the mind and brain can conflate the two. I mean, that's gotta be one helluva trick. I just had to know how he performed this impossible feat. "The identity theory is a "scientific hypothesis" which cannot be dismissed on logical grounds." He had to give warning that this was so important that he had to repeat it slowly and write it down. "Okay, what does that mean. Well, I can't tell you. I'd have to spend about 3 or 4 minutes on what the word "is" is. Maybe you didn't know but there are certain kinds of "is'es." They do very different things but they look and sound the same." After 3 or 4 minutes of explaining all of the different "is'es" while talking to the audience like they're 2-year old toddlers he comes up with, "You need to believe me, and not because I'm an authority figure or something like that . . . " I'm scratching my head thinking why the hell he just didn't ask Bill Clinton about what "is" is? I guess he felt he just had to reinvent the wheel. I could go through the entire video and pick it apart but the above gives a good general idea of the inanity. While it was utterly laughable it was, on the other hand, quite sad. This guy was lecturing to students at one of the "higher" education institutions. If this is where science is heading then God help us all. This is from the video description: This is a video lecture about a the 1956 paper "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?" by U.T. Place. This lecture distinguishes the "is"s of identity, prediction, definition, and composition. And I explain how Place uses these distinctions to defend the identity theory from a common line of attack. The central idea is that the mind-brain identity theory is a scientific hypothesis, which cannot be rejected or disproven on logical grounds alone. This is part of an introductory philosophy course. Even sadder were the comments: "Oh my goodness, this was so helpful for my Phil of Mind class. You explained it in such a coherent manner. I can’t wait to check out the rest of your channel, thank you!" "I love the way it's impossible to describe the word 'is' without using the word 'is''." "You save us.. Thank you...very good class..Tomorrow is interanal xam." (Can't even bother to spell correctly . . . maybe hasn't learned yet.) This was my favourite comment: "For my Philosophy 101 college class, I offered a very simple explanation for the "mind-brain" theory. It wasn't elegant, but it seems to have sufficed. It went like this: to the students who offered endless theories as to why the mind and the brain were indeed separate entities, I asked one question: "If they are totally separate, then why when I get drunk or stoned does both my brain and my "mind" get drunk or stoned at the same time?"" mikebike, I gotta think that you were pulling my leg when you posted these "educational" videos. This was all a joke, wasn't it? Anyway, it was good for a laugh . . . and a cry, too. Small wonder that the idea that girls can be boys and boys can be girls . . . and get pregnant, too!!, is flourishing in a society which can no longer tell the difference between sexes. Picking up on the idea that the mind and brain are indistinguishable will be a snatch for them to pick up on that concept.

The irony couldn't be greater. When the reality is that objective reality wouldn't even exist were it not for subjective reality yet according to Science subjective reality is unreliable and not to be trusted. And folks wonder why we have so many problems in the world.

I just caught your edit. Personally, I don't care whether you or anyone else believes in God or not. My idea of God is not the same as any conventional portrayals of a father figure with a long beard, etc. In fact I prefer the term All That Is. Which I think is a more apt description. A lot less preconceived notions around that label, for sure. In any case, whatever your idea of God is it's looking you in the face all the time. You either recognise it or you don't. The evidence is everywhere but nowhere if you're blind to it. Or rather it's in your face but again, you take it as something else. Or discount it. Anyway, up to you. Either way is fine.

Are the mind and brain identical? That is one of the dumbest questions you could ask. If you can't tell the difference you've have no business lecturing about it. But I'm sure you're all ears, Mike. Good for you. Learn anything? Come on, share it with us.

Lemme see. After 300+ years of science the only consensus amongst scientists regarding consciousness is that it exists. And you want me to learn from these knuckleheads? How about you share some of your wisdom with us? Or aren't you an expert?

How about this one. Two objects cannot occupy the same space. Not a Law? I'll tell ya what. You try placing two steel objects, preferably hardened, in line with each other in a 600 ton press and forcing them to occupy the same space. See what happens. Oh, and here's an important tip. Make sure you're standing right in front of the press. I'd hate for you to miss the fireworks. Some advice for ya. Better to think before you expose yourself with some cutesy quip.

You've never heard of gravity? How can I take you seriously?

Who's preaching? A high level of insecurity? If that's your personal interpretation Mike you couldn't be more wrong. Let me see. I twist no one's arm here to believe anything. I offer what I know. I exchange ideas. I debate ideas. I speak with confidence. In a forum where people are questioning everything. And you end up interpreting all of that as nothing more than preaching to people not asking and all out of a sense of insecurity? You gotta explain yourself, Mike. Because what you wrote doesn't fly.

"Belief is a belief, because there is no evidences . . . " Not always true. If you believe in God and yet have no evidence to show that doesn't mean there is no evidence. It means only that there is no evidence that would be acceptable to someone who doesn't believe. I believe in life after death but cannot provide evidence to hold in my hand to show another. Despite that I know it to be true. But I could never convince someone with a lights out theory of death. That person would tell me that I'm full of sh!t. And probably spit on me as well. ". . . and Im comfortable to use the word I do not know." Again, it strains credulity that a person would claim to know nothing or anything without certainty. I don't believe you, Hummin. "What I feel, what I see, taste smell, and how my mind as well physical body reacts is more important for me, than live in another reality." Who's even talking about living in another reality? Not I. Nor would I. Reference please. "I'm happy to learn more about the reality we live in." I've yet to hear you agree with me on anything I've posted, let alone show even the slightest interest in what I have to say. So one the one hand I have my doubts. At least in learning any concepts with which you are unfamiliar. I'll grant that you're learning but that that learning follows the very narrow lines of established, conventional thought. "Be it Materialistic or far fetched spirituality, bot distracts us from what is essential to succeed as good human beings cultivate this planet for the best of all living creatures. So much energy and resources spent on egoistic purposes." Materialism is no good. Spirituality is no good. What's left then? And these distract us how? And what is it that is the essential ingredient required to succeed as a "good" human being? "Good" in quotes since good is absolutely relative. So what exactly is this essential thing or quality? Can you define it? Does it have a name? Is it an essence? And if so an essence of what? I do agree with you wholeheartedly that we have not been good stewards of this earth. Well, I have been in many ways. Ego bad. Uhm, we do have egos. Are you saying that an inherent portion of us is undesirable and inherently destructive? Would it be true to say that you don't understand what the ego is, or what it's function is? That your misunderstanding of it has led you to believe that the ego is bad? In my humble opinion I would say that that is the case. Perhaps it might be worthy to understand where your misunderstanding of the ego comes from? The ego plays a crucial role within the structure of personality. It could be fairly said that the ego's ideal role has been distorted. But inherently the ego is not only necessary but good. "I also good things in materialism, religion as well spirituality as tools to improve peoples health and well being as well build societies and create necessary bonds, but there will always be a cross point, where it becomes toxic." Cross point where it all becomes toxic? If your assessment is accurate then what would be the cause of that? Would it be ignorance? Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the true nature of who we are and of our reality? A spiritual disconnect? Everything I've ever posted here was meant to be used as a tool to improve people's well being. Good health is a natural part of well being. I've mentioned it here before. I'm an engineer. I design things. For my designs to perform as intended they must follow the laws governing our reality. If they don't then they don''t work. How do I know when they don't work? Because if I don't adhere to the laws governing our reality then problems arise. The problems are the indication that I'm not following the laws governing our reality. Those problems can be minor or catastrophic, depending on how grossly I failed to adhere to the laws. Now I'm telling you what happens, the results I encounter when I fail to follow the laws which govern our reality relative to my specific work. What do you think happens, Hummin, when other laws aren't followed in other areas of life? You can be assured of problems. Problems are always the telltale that your ideas aren't in sync with the laws governing reality. So, all I've been trying to do here, Hummin, is to explain to folks that it's important to know what the laws governing our reality are. Because if we don't follow them we will be ensured of suffering all of the problems that bad ideas produce as a natural result. Ideas are not inert. They create. Garbage in , garbage out. Do you get it now? Do you understand now where I'm coming from? Yet no one seems to want to hear any of it because, for heaven's sake, my "truths" are not their "truths" and how dare I speak of what I know. It's so petty. It really has nothing to do with "truth." Rather, it has everything to do with what is. Call "what is" truth if you like. I don't care what label you give it. Our reality is governed by laws. End of story. If you don't know what those laws are you will be in a position to implement ideas which do not work. And again, how would anyone know if an idea is good or bad? Problems. So keep fighting me, Hummin.

"You forget one important thing, I have never claimed I know!" Oh, come now, Hummin. You present your ideas of how reality works and yet you claim that you know nothing? You have no firm beliefs as to what is true and what is not? Your beliefs are your "truths." You do know what you know. Every time someone claims to know something then what they know represents their "truth." It is automatically implied. That's what beliefs are. That's the very definition of belief. Your premise is absurd and beyond my belief. I've never ridiculed or disrespected you, Hummin. Your person, never. Your ideas? Absolutely. But you are not your ideas. A painter paints a painting using paints. The paints are not the painter. The paints are the paints and the painter is the painter. They are two separate things. The thinker thinks thoughts. The thinker is not the thoughts that he thinks. The two are separate. Only someone who mistakes his thoughts for who he is does then feel his personhood threatened when his ideas are questioned. Or ridiculed. Or attacked. "As said before lack of confidence often expose the mirror effect as we talked about before." Yes, we discussed that earlier. And I said then and I'll repeat myself, while I certainly agree on the concept of a mirror effect it is not the case here. You obviously didn't agree with my assessment when I first stated it since you are again repeating it. I don't lack confidence about what I know and so I speak with great confidence. Is that wrong? Should people not feel confident about what they know? Do you feel zero confidence about what you know? Is that why you claim to never claim to know? Because in truth you really know nothing? Is that what you're saying? "What I believe there is really nothing to criticize, because it there right in front of us right here right now, and it is the world we live in, that is pure magic and we should put more energy into it, instead of ruining it. It is what gives is everything thing we need to live a good life if we just cut the <deleted> and respected the true Nature." I'm happy that you understand what you wrote above but it's Greek to me. You're alluding to all sorts of things without ever defining anything, nor explaining anything in any detail whatsoever, nor providing any reasoning behind any of it. To me it's all just a bunch of fluffy happy talk that doesn't convey much of anything. I'm not saying that it doesn't hold meaning for you. I fully grant that it does. I'll quote myself here: "A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience. And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly." Ask yourself, if you were to assemble all of your disparate beliefs in one place and then try to fit them all together to present a cohesive picture of reality, of who we are and how it all works do you think that the whole of your beliefs would be able to accomplish that? I'm not trying to ridicule you here, Hummin. But for God's sake admit that you have at least some things to learn. And perhaps even more to unlearn if you were honest and objective about it. I know I do. I'm not ashamed to admit that there is much that I have to learn. But for Christ's sake, whatever I learn has to at least have more than a modicum of sense before I accept it. And it's workings must be shown. If I were not to care about common sense, logic, functionality, then I'd be extremely prone to believing in purple elephants or any other such fantasy. As to the "really nothing to criticise" it smacks of woke ideology. Everyone gets an "A" for effort. No one can be questioned lest they feel shamed and butt-hurt. I've got a great Pretenders song for you. Off topic but Chrissie Hynde is hot.

Huh? "You really don't get that the flying teapot was just a method of reducing the question of how do we know God exists if we can't see him in the same way we cannot see the teapot or prove it is there (but it is)." I guess you didn't take up my suggestion to read the Wiki article. This is what it states: Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. And you wrote earlier: "Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist." Your use of Russell's Teapot certainly fit perfectly what you wrote above as it is the very definition of Russell's analogy. If your intention was, as you say, to use Russell's Teapot as a method of reducing the question then you picked an absolutely wrong analogy. Now it seems I've offended enough sensitive souls out there lately so I'll be careful with this question. Are you trying to walk back the understanding that your writing conveys? My sincere apologies in advance if the question bruises your ego. "Not sure how you think that if laws of god that the universe revolves around the earth were irrefutable when they later were refuted by science. Or that what people believe to be true about Newtonian laws were later changed by Einstein. " I'm not sure that the laws of God were the source of the idea that the universe revolved around the earth. Was that written in the Bible? Just asking because I can't claim to know. But since it's your claim I'll ask you as you seem to know. As to Newtonian laws, specifically gravity, yes, a more comprehensive theory was given by Einstein. But Einstein's theory didn't negate Newton's law entirely. In Newton’s view, all objects — from his not-so-apocryphal apple to planets and stars — exert a force that attracts other objects. That universal law of gravitation worked pretty well for predicting the motion of planets as well as objects on Earth — and it's still used, for example, when making the calculations for a rocket launch. But Newton's view of gravity didn't work for some things, like Mercury’s peculiar orbit around the sun. The orbits of planets shift over time, and Mercury’s orbit shifted faster than Newton predicted. Einstein offered a different view of gravity, one that made sense of Mercury. Instead of exerting an attractive force, he reasoned that each object curves the fabric of space and time around them, forming a sort of well that other objects — and even beams of light — fall into. Think of the sun as a bowling ball on a mattress. It creates a depression that draws the planets close. This new model solved the Mercury problem. It showed that the sun so curves space that it distorts the orbits of nearby bodies, including Mercury. In Einstein’s view, Mercury might look like a marble forever circling the bottom of a drain. In any case, my entire point in bringing up the physical laws which science has discovered was to illustrate that there are known laws governing the workings of reality. And to know those laws which are yet unknown are my interest. I did write this: The workings of our world, our universe, our reality are governed by laws. Full stop. Do you disagree with that statement? You didn't specifically address the general point I made. I wonder why? "As i said, go on believing in your invisible friend." But you wouldn't know whether a God or Gods exist or not. You can't state God's non-existence as a definitive declaration of truth. At least not if you cared to be honest. You may believe God or Gods don't exist. And that is your unquestionable right. But that's simply your personal belief. And it's a belief grounded in part because, as I stated earlier, you recognise no evidence of a God or Gods. But you know as well as I do that you cannot disprove a thing solely due to the absence of the thing. Also, I could take your statement as a slight against my intelligence. An insult. And I could use it as an excuse to feel butt-hurt. But I am not so sensitive as some others here appear to be. I'd rather use rational and logic to counter your idea. "I cannot prove the existence of blue elephants because i have never seen one, . . . " I also wrote this: "(do keep plausibility in mind - purple elephants are a ludicrous, and deceptive, analogy)" And despite my warning you went straight to using the same utterly ludicrous analogy yet again. And why would you use an utterly ludicrous analogy? Because by referring to something so ludicrous as believing in the existence of purple elephants you wish to imply those believing in God or Gods are just as ludicrous. You wish to twist reality in order to paint "believers" in a disparaging way. I told you it was a deceptive tactic. Why did you think you could fool me now? And so I'm calling you out on it. ". . . but according to your logic, we should believe in them because you and many others do." If you want my opinion then I'd say you didn't understand any of my logic. Or anything that I wrote, for that matter. I was logically pointing out that beliefs act as a filtering mechanism for information. Hence you see what you want to see. And often only what you want to see. If the conviction of a belief as "truth" is strong enough you will ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit your belief, even though it has undeniable validity. Even stone cold facts can be ignored, dismissed, or refuted. It's commonly known as bias. I'll ask you another question. Are you ignorant as to the term bias and/or the definition of bias? Or how bias operates? Okay, the questions are truly rhetorical. But this one is not. Would you claim that you have no biases? One last point. Since I can't seem to shake the odd feeling that you're a science acolyte I have to ask you, since you brought it up, about long established scientific "truths" being refuted. Doesn't it bother you that an established scientific law from 1687, and one with great practical use, had been refuted nearly 300 years later? Does that instill confidence in what science believes today? What else might they be in error of? And what might you believe to be absolute "truth" which is nothing of the sort? I'll leave you with one of my favourite quotes from a very astute guy. Ponder the implications of that statement for awhile. “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

You should be intelligent enough to know that my explanation served as an apology. Sorry to hear you're so sensitive.

"A relationship is more than just physical, but still there is chemicals involved, and without chemicals no reaction on our physically self. " Well, that's more than obvious, isn't it? If subjective reality is translated into physical reality then of course it makes sense that for physical reality to function it needs the means by which it can function. Physical reality isn't produced magically, you know. You have a physical organism with all of it's systems designed to mirror your subjective reality. It has to have the means to do so. Hence hormones, for instance. But without the subjective self there are no physical chemicals for any reactions as there would be no physical self. Which comes first? The subjective reality or the physical reality? It's a good question to ask yourself. "Your claims and how you educate others is out of order, as well the claim you know the the truth. " Sorry if I'm being tough on you. I'm just trying to get you to think past your beliefs. And you are resistant to do so. Didn't you write this sometime earlier? Anyone changed their belief during this tread? Modified their belief, changed their belief? I believe I have become more aware the roots of my belief, and stronger in my opinion. Not much change but maybe matured in my true faith. Thanks to everyone involved, it have been a great tread, even alot of bickering and reputations, we managed to keep it civilized most of the time without to much modification. Sounds to me to be an admission that rather than consider new ideas you just cling ever tighter to the beliefs you hold. As to truth, do you deny that the world follows laws? And if I claim to know some of these laws I'm a charlatan? Or do you believe that no one can know and understand these laws? And how dare someone "impose" their "truths" if they do actually know some of the laws and speak of them with confidence? In the meanwhile you have no problem with opining your views as to your "truth." Which I don't have a problem with at all. In fact I encourage you to do so. But you are sensitive if someone questions your "truths" or asks you to justify them. Especially if someone outright opposes them. Then you cry and stomp your feet in indignation that someone is trying to impose their beliefs onto you. "I have my beliefs and they're good enough for me. They serve me well. Who are you to say I shouldn't believe what I believe and I should rather believe what you believe. Who are you to dare to say you have any real "truths." And dare to suggest that my "truths" may be faulty." Hummin, you can believe anything you want. I really don't care. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But if this thread is to be an exchange of ideas for the purpose of learning through an examination of what one beliefs in order to ferret out the false ones and replace them with ideas more representative of actual reality to our benefit then I am not at all shy to pit my ideas against another's. Nor am I afraid to mete out honest criticism. Or to receive criticism myself. In fact, I welcome it. For we all know that it's often easier for someone else to see about ourselves that which we are blind to. Are you afraid of having your ideas challenged? Of constructive criticism? If you can't handle that then just say it and I'll be more than happy to leave you alone.

I, for one, would like @Neeranam to divulge the rational behind his conclusion.

It's not that humans are imperfect. Human experience is a perfect reflection of exactly those ideas humans entertain. Always has been and always will be. It's not the people. It's the ideas. And the further the ideas move towards how things don't work the greater the failures. It cannot be otherwise for it is law that we create through our ideas. Every idea produces a result. Whether it's beneficial or destructive. Doesn't matter. We get to experience the results of our ideas and decide from there where we want to go given the results.. It's as simple as that. Life is all about learning how to use the energy we've been gifted.

My personal assessment of our current world is that it keeps moving further and further away from any sense of true reality. Some lay the blame on a shift to agnosticism or atheism. My view is that science is much to blame for the ideologies it promotes. In any case, it's stunning to see how this madness continues to proliferate. And it begs the question in my mind as to where this will lead if it continues. And what will it take to bring people back to reality. The physical universe as idea construction. And there are a lot of very unwholesome and bizarre ideas out there with which to create the most grotesque and unspeakable contructs. Thankfully, this one never got acted on. The point of this post is simply to illustrate what can, and does, happen when people have no idea of how reality works. But think they do. Government considered killing all Britain's pet CATS at the start of the Covid pandemic because they feared they were spreading virus, claims former health minister https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11809247/Ministers-considered-killing-Britains-pet-cats-start-Covid-pandemic.html

By that logic why talk to anyone about anything?

If one of the definitions of a God is a creator then we are all Gods. All answers lie within us.

In truth there are no barriers between realities. Whether it's the environment we find ourselves in after death or a reincarnational reality. As long as one believes their are barriers which cannot be pierced then for all practical purposes so there are. One of the great fallacies taught us is that our dear objective universe is all that exists. That belief is precisely what prevents anyone from exploring any other reality. Even our own subjective reality. Not many will, therefore, seriously consider an inner explorative journey.

The evidence is always available. Direct evidence, if you like. But do not expect the evidence you find to satisfy another. Especially science. It is not evidence that one can hold in one's hand and show the rest of the world.