Tippaporn

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.

Any product claiming to be No. 1 is obviously lying. Pure marketing. LOL Good analogy! Though, could the cook by the source?

Subjective reality is the source, and the creator of, objective reality. Full stop. That is the bedrock reality of our condition which thus far has gone unrecognised. And even when pointed out goes unaccepted. Now here's where I see the trouble many have. Subjective reality is translated into an objective universe. This does not happen magically. There is a definite and practical process by which this occurs. We have been able to recognise portions of these processes. Science has been instrumental in uncovering many of these processes. For instance, how stress releases certain hormones which then have a particular effect upon the body. Where it all goes wrong is that these mechanistic processes, the release of certain hormones in this example, are then believed to be the primary cause rather than merely the mechanistic vehicle of translating subjective reality into objective reality. The true cause of any detrimental effects on the body is the stress, which is subjective. The hormonal aspect is merely the functional aspect; the vehicle. This misunderstanding is what leads to a view of our reality as purely mechanistic, and therefore deterministic. Deterministic for the reason that it is the mechanistic, objective process which determines experience and not the subjective reality. Which then feeds the idea that people are powerless to determine their own experience. It's a wonderful illusion. You, Hummin, are struggling with this illusion. You recognise the fact of physical effects and therefore cannot deny that they play a role in the creation of our reality. If you drink bleach you will most certainly die, for instance. That is most obviously the undeniable physical effect of drinking bleach. What I believe you are missing, Hummin, or fail to include into your equation, is that there must be a trigger which initiates the act of drinking bleach. That trigger is an idea. The source is first and always subjective; the idea to drink bleach, which only then gets translated into an objective reality via taking action on the idea. Action is an idea in motion. Full stop. As much as one insists that ones ideas are correct, though they may not be, if they are not then the solution is to suspend the current beliefs long enough to play around with other ideas. The process doesn't require the abandonment a belief forever whilst playing with another idea. Only a temporary suspension. My advice is to play around with the idea that subjective reality is the source of objective reality. Pretend for awhile that this is the case, that this is how it works. Only then will you allow yourself to see what your current beliefs keep hidden from you.

"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." The science-minded love to throw out Russell's Teapot as their definitive argument to "prove" the non-existence of a God since the existence of a God cannot be proved using scientific methodology. You might want to read a good Wiki article on Russell's Teapot before claiming it's "water tight" logic to be irrefutable. From the Analysis section (bolded text is mine): In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters. Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot Now here's the closed-loop quandary which folks who outright reject even the possibility of the existence of a God unwittingly place themselves in. As long as one believes that something does not exist then for all practical purposes it does not exist for them (do keep plausibility in mind - purple elephants are a ludicrous, and deceptive, analogy). No one attempts to find something they believe does not exist. Furthermore, and importantly, any evidence which suggests the existence of what they believe does not exist will in one way or another be rejected. Either by ignoring the evidence, discounting it, or using fallacious logic to negate it. Put in other words, as long as one insists that something is either true or false they will not consider any evidence or argument to the contrary, no matter how real, sound or logically valid it is. They literally become irrational and yet can't recognise that irrationality within themselves. In my most humble opinion, Purdey, you are caught in this closed-loop predicament. "First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." " I understand that you do not have any familiarity with me and so you couldn't therefore be aware of any of my earlier scribblings. I have stated many times to many posters that I am not religious. I understand, too, that because I speak in defense of the existence of a God people will then automatically assume, incorrectly, that I am therefore religious. The two should not be conflated. One fact does not logically lead to the conclusion you assume. I do appreciate your raising the point of "the right one" for that provides the perfect segue into an important issue which lies at what I believe to be the heart of so many discussions here. "The right one," otherwise known as the "truth," would be the actual laws of nature. There are many laws of nature which are well known. Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws, the law of attraction, polarity, rhythm, relativity, cause and effect, perpetual transmutation of energy. and so on. The workings of our world, our universe, our reality are governed by laws. Full stop. And while some laws are clearly recognised and thoroughly understood, such as gravity, there exist many other laws which are yet unknown. I am not interested in what I "believe" to be right but rather I am focused on learning what the actual laws are which govern use. Those laws are irrefutable and eternal. They are what one might call bedrock reality. Like them or not. Agree with them or not. They are what they are and they are immutable. So to be wise and pragmatic my sage advice is to learn what those laws are and then play the game of life according to the actual "rules" rather than false rules made out of whole cloth out of an ignorance of what the real laws governing our existence are. Now I could continue addressing the rest of your excellent post but I fear it would become so long that it would deter anyone from reading the length of it. So I'll address the rest in subsequent posts.

I just had an Exorcist moment today. I've got a case of food poisoning. Had major runny sh!ts all day yesterday and again today. You know the type . . . there's no chance in hell holding it in when it first knocks on the back door. My wife gave me some elixir to drink to feel better. A 1/2 litre glass full, As it doesn't taste too good I guzzled the whole thing in one shot. Took about a minute before I felt hurricane grade swells in my stomach. I knew that my levee of will wasn't big enough and raced to the john. I started spewing just before I got to the toilet bowl. And then another uncontrollable heave all over the commode. And another. And yet another. Ah well, too late to kneel down in prayerful fashion now. Thank God for these practical Thai-style bathrooms. Just hose the whole frickin' thing down!! Clean up was a piece of cake. Image a pristine U.S. or European style bathroom replete with a throw rug. What a nasty chore that would be, sopping it all up with paper towels and wringing out the throw rug. My wife asked me how I felt. In all seriousness I told her to call the electric company. My battery had drained completely in an instant. I didn't have enough juice in me to fire up even one of those little hallway night lights. Starve a cold and feed a fever. Or do I have it reversed? I dunno but I'm not putting the slightest morsel in my gullet until my system has been flushed like a car radiator. Anyway, back to power lifting and a 20 km sprint tomorrow. I think. I hope . . . Sorry to have to gross everyone out. But it was fun!!!

Sorry Woof. My memory isn't that short.

Well, Hummin, maybe I am. And if so then my apologies. I've become thoroughly disillusioned with science these days, especially since Covid. Science has turned a very dark corner on that count. My disillusionment with science has equaled my disillusionment with organsied religion. And despite that I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I remain an ardent proponent of true science. And my gratefulness of science's accomplishments and it's advances in many areas of life is undiminished. When I popped a fingernail science was there to put me on the mend. When I caught a case of the shingles science was there to arrest it. I never attempt to negate those things simply because I see science's flaws at the same time. All the same, I still think the tweet I put up is spot on in it's portrayal of the current state of science. Too much tabloid science where even reading the headline is too much.

People will make statements as fact here. I tend to ask a lot of questions if I don't agree with someone's statement of fact. The questions are meant to bring out the logical flaws in the statement as I see them. Some take that questioning as an attempt to make them look stupid and to deliberately embarrass them. Not knowing you other than seeing you around this site I didn't want my questioning to be misinterpreted in that way by you. So I flat out stated it to preempt any misinterpretation on your part. I guess my intention didn't work out as planned. I admit I had reservations when I worded it but concluded it was worded well enough. Utter fail, huh? No offense meant, Neeranam.

Wrong. From that tweet we can see that almost anything can stop a heart. I'd love to see a study on how many hearts are stopped every year due to breakups in relationships. What's the ultimate point, though? If it's to protect against heart attacks during solar flares/storms should we institute public solar flare or solar storm health warnings? Warning: Remain inside for the duration of this solar event. Only go out with proper protection? I guess more than a mask would be required? And what about masks? Do they really protect against Covid? Science speaks out of both sides of it's mouth on that one. Which is the real science? As you say, too, it's only a "solar storms theory." Is it theory or fact? How was the study designed? Were there human trials? Are there any deaths which are positively confirmed to be caused by a solar storm? I'd ask a whole lot more questions than you seem to be asking. Are you asking any questions or is it that there's a modicum of rationale to the theory and since it's Scientific (capital "S") then sure, you've gotta believe it. Makes perfect sense, right? Now I could say that nobody dies unless they're ready and every death could technically be considered a suicide since death is always chosen and never forced unto anyone by any other power. I could even go into great detail using rationale and logic in my explanations of why those statements are true. But I don't get a sense that we could ever get to be on the same page with those types of ideas. What can I say, Hummin? If that's what you want to believe then you don't need my blessings nor approvals. Believe it.

To say that the dead are communicating to us earthlings is a bridge too far for some. But yes, it is as I stated it. For those who do not believe that life continues on after our earthly demise, or that we were alive before we entered this world, then there would be no acceptance of Seth in that group. For the belief that death is the end-all would make the existence of a Seth an impossibility. In wish case Seth is only rubbish. And perhaps rubbish of the worst kind as it would lead away from true answers, which can only be had using the scientific method. Why, it may even lead to self delusion! Now if one believes in life after death / before birth then it would only be logical that, well, if the deceased is no longer here then they must be elsewhere. If they must be elsewhere then it would logically follow that here, then, is not the only here of existence. And also, if continued existence is to be believed then again it would logically follow that consciousness is not dependent on form. And if existence continues and that continued existence is not here then, again, speaking logically, there must exist a pathway for the dear departed to move themselves (not their physical possession, we know ) from here to wherever there is. And if this move is not a physical one (again, all your money stays here . . . with your relatives - love 'em or not) then it is only logical that we are in truth formless creatures. And if a pathway exists for us to move from here to there then what prevents someone from there coming to here? Or communication from there to here? And vice versa? If pathways exist between our reality and another reality then that would open up questions regarding information. Does information only exist in physical reality? Or does it also exist in other realities? And if it does exist in other realities then is there a flow of information unbeknownst to us that occurs regularly between realities? Okay, so here is something to ponder then. If the above is true - we survive death, other realities therefore exist, pathways therefore exist, and information naturally flows between realities, then it begs the question, regarding Seth, that if someone were to communicate back to us then what might they have to say? These were questions I dealt with before I began reading what this someone, who calls himself Seth, might have to say. And since I have a fondness of logical thought the possibility then occurred to me that if this someone, Seth, had a perspective borne out of a much greater awareness then the information he was passing on to those who would read his words would be a literal gold mine. Especially for those seeking answers to the nature of ourselves and the nature of our reality. Since there was no fear on my part of getting misled by a bunch of nonsense I thought, given the potential involved, it would certainly be worth the while to check it out. Cost to me . . . the price of a book. If it was all a bunch of nonsense then I wouldn't feel too bad about losing a few dollar investment. Now far be it from me to try to twist anyone's mental arm to do or think anything other than what they want to do or think. I am, though, aware that there are always those kindred souls out there who might be grateful for the suggestion. Perhaps you. Perhaps not. But certainly only up to you. In the meanwhile, all of my posts on this thread are based on the information Seth conveys. If my posts come across to you as the incomprehensible ramblings of an idiotus stultus then stay away from Seth. If my posts seem intriguing, or even sensible, then you might want to give Seth a read.