Tippaporn

I admit I worded that badly. What I meant was science has not proven what happens to us when we die. That is what I intended to express. "But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us." I like you, Fat is a type of crazy. So don't take this the wrong way. That's your problem, not mine. I could care less about what proof science demands. If science wishes to invalidate my experience because they don't have their required proof then again, that's their problem and I could care less. Science does not hold a monopoly on discerning reality properly. When you make a statement such as that it exposes your belief that science does indeed have a monopoly on what is true and what is not. Remember, too, that facts are relative to the reality in which they exist. But since I imagine that you believe in the existence of only a single, solitary reality . . . this one . . . then that pearl of wisdom is worthless to you. "Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence." Hey, that's exactly what I do! The difference between us is what science accepts as valid evidence and what I accept as valid evidence. Science, as with politics, too often excludes all of the evidence. They throw away the bits and parts they can't get to fit. As to theorising . . . many of science's theories are, and I know VincentRJ takes particular exception to this phrase, little more than scientific fairy tales. I laugh at theirs and they, and you, laugh at mine. I guess that puts us on equal footing?

Point taken. Hierarchy definition : any system of persons or things ranked one above another. There's no ranking in creation. Again, each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part. A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar. No ranking. "You have the power to make the world a better, or a worse place to live, more power than a bird or an elephant." I totally disagree based on what I wrote above. I give much more credit, and power, to the rest of nature to make this world a better place. The idea of "lowly" creatures is a false one.

Easy. What is your belief about death? We know science hasn't proven that one. But assuredly you have your own belief about what becomes of you, or not, at that moment.

You hit the nail on the head, Hummin. Each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part. A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar.

"However, hierarchies exist, . . . " No pecking orders. No top to bottom or bottom to top. Does the fact that different roles are played amongst group member give the impression that hierarchy is the absolute structure within all existence?

I'd have to disagree with you, mauGR1. Life is, basically, an expression of who we are. The form we take is neither here nor there. Human, animal, plant, whatever. Life is also about value fulfillment. Each creature, each life form, seeks it's own value fulfillment. Each life form finds within it's own environment everything it needs to fulfill itself according to it's own unique characteristics. One life form is neither higher or lower than another in terms of expression. A soul is gestalt consciousness. From that gestalt all life forms emerge. The greater you sends out portions of itself. These portions are individualised and each is eternally valid and free to pursue it's own fulfillment. Therefore there is no collective soul versus an individual soul. When you consider another creature's life as boring it is only from your perspective.

I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., which is why I am an Atheist. However, there are certain basic issues that don't require scientific confirmation. For example, humans have understood for ages, before the scientific method evolved, that sticking one's hand in a fire would cause extreme pain and damage. There are many other examples, such as jumping off a tall cliff onto the hard ground below, as opposed to jumping onto an ocean or lake. "My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true." Not everyone. "Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure?" I'm not sure 'believe' is the best word. I'd say there are things that I accept are true, with a high level of confidence. For example, if I were to drink a whole 750 ml bottle of whisky, I'm very confident I would get drunk. However, I wouldn't be totally, 100% sure, because there's a remote possibility that the bottle of whisky could be a fake with a very low alcohol content. ???? "I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., . . . " That statement is so fantastically unbelievable that I truly don't know how to respond. "Not everyone." I can only conclude that a) you're not human or 2) I'll bite my tongue. While we are all absolutely unique we do share commonalities. Physical traits such as a body, a heart, a lung. Those kinds of things. Psychological traits would be feelings, imagination, creativity . . . thoughts. The definition of a belief is a thought that is much repeated. Are you trying to convince me that every single belief you hold is confirmed by science? Excuse me but I have to pick my jaw off the floor right now.

"The concepts of 'reason' and 'purpose' are human constructs and thought processes." One of the worst aspects of science, in my opinion, is given in your statement. You don't believe in reasons for being or, I suspect, any purpose to life. Only cause and effect. The world you describe is sterile. Lifeless. We're only here to breed? Is that it? Really? Reason and purpose are found everywhere. How is it that you're able to blind yourself from such obviousness? Tell me honestly that all of the actions you take in life are for no reason and serve no purpose to you. What, are they all random? The "accident" in which the guy who slid into the car in front of him caused him to miss his plane. Later that evening he learned the plane went down and all aboard died. I already know how you'll respond. That's not "proof" that the accident spared his life and so served a purpose for him. What an outlandish idea! There's so much more to life than you are willing to admit. Sometimes I get the feeling that your myopic views are meant to keep you safe from exploring the vast unknown. "An asteroid is not a living organism." Energy: Energy is the basis of the Universe. The same "stuff" that we are composed of is the same "stuff" the asteroid is composed of. There is nothing which exists which is "dead." Only to your current awareness, though. Attempting to personify that form of life would be a mistake. What's the reality of a virus like? A cell? An asteroid?

Take your pick, dude. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Church+burned&atb=v314-1&ia=web It's too easy to find info. I do know what you're on about.

People retaliate when they feel threatened. There are too many reports to list of the attacks on Christianity. Spirituality? Nah. Not a threat. We're good.

"I'll be happy to see you debate with them." Answer me this riddle: How do you debate without a free flow of information? Here's another riddle: How is it possible for someone to reach a correct conclusion when they do not look at all of the available information? And just a simple question: What is propaganda? I'll add a bonus question: How capable are you at recognising propaganda? All of the above can apply to this topic as well.

I'm about caught up with responding to replies, I think. Fortunately I've noticed, however, that my post count for today totals 13. That's an unlucky number. It could be as fateful as crossing paths with a black cat. I can't take the chance of that causing some sort of fluke accident to befall me. So even though I've nothing more to say there is, coincidentally, an idea that popped into my head of what I can use for this 14th post. Boy, what are the odds of that? Thanks be to Providence! The Beatles with Across The Universe off of their final '70 Let It Be album. Happy travels fellow star trippers. Say "hello" to God for me if any of you happen to run across him/her/it. And look for me in your telescope, VincentRJ. I'll be the brightest thing you'll see in the heavens, waving back atcha.

You wrote a long post, VincentRJ, and I appreciate it. It deserves more of a response. I'm happy to hear that you, too, demand that things make sense. I think all of us here prefer that. The comment I'd like to make regarding science's proofs, theories and hypotheses and their glacial march to the "truth" of it all is that for most of us we have a limited amount of time in this world. The pace at which science advances (not counting the number of steps they walk back) will mean that if we were to wait for science to figure life out our great-great-great-(to the power of 100's? 1,000's ?)-grand kids will have long been dead and buried. We don't have the luxury of time that science has. As far as the revised Big Bang theory that changed from the universe being created from nothingness to that of a small, indescribably condensed ball have you considered the medium in which this unbelievably (excuse the pun) compressed, universe-containing ball existed? Was that medium nothingness? And if it existed in nothingness was the nothingness larger than the universe which was ejected from this explosion? For it had to expand to somewhere, I would think. Maybe, if you allow me, I can assist in coming up with a hypothesis. This ball existed on the other side of a black hole and emerged out of it. Sounds sensible? Or maybe a white hole? I'm rather leaning towards a plaid hole, as was proven in the movie Spaceballs that things can go plaid when things approach Ludicrous Speed. Also, have scientists calculated the size of this ball? Beach ball sized? Football sized? Golf ball sized? Pin head sized? Just joking. Sorry, VincentRJ, I couldn't help but poke some fun. Getting back to utmost, deadly, Thai despised seriousness, you ask, "Addressing another of your points that I've highlighted above, 'what do you mean by a physical reality'?" Physical reality is what we term as objective reality. The same objective reality which science deals with. Within the post to which you replied is a mention of mine alluding to realities which are not physically based; or non-objective. Matter, as we know it, does not exist there. Nor space. Nor time. If that state of being, or existence, is difficult to imagine then I'd ask you to consider subjective reality. Time can be stretched or condensed. Feelings, for instance, are not physical. Nor are dreams. Or ideas. Or consciousness itself (which is why I have to laugh at those ultra smart folks who, in their delusional desire to cheat the Grim Reaper, believe they can "upload" their consciousness to a computer when they haven't even a clue as to the location of their consciousness). I've said it before and I'll repeat myself in case you've either missed it or forgotten it; consciousness creates form and not the other way around. Physical reality is one such form. And the various forms are literally infinite. And one last comment. You wrote, "However, such claims can be no more than a hypothesis, or a belief, or a Quale, until they are verified using the 'methodology of science'." Again, I'll remind you that for those folks who would like their answers sometime before their future unborn are stardust then we'll go it alone without waiting an eternity, if ever, for science to provide those answers.

I take your reaction as a hard pass.

A very nice post expressing the love and gusto for life. Hat's off to you, Hummin. May all your landings be safe (and they are even when they're not).

We are free to be here. Or not. That is our choice. That much should be clear. Every reality has it boundaries. These are accepted. But within those boundaries exist the means and the freedom to create anything we wish. The extent of our freedom in this reality is not well known (and again I'm donning my Cheshire cat grin as I write that). I can say that it is much vaster than most are aware of. But again, there are boundaries. You cannot, for example, lose a limb and regenerate it. Thought is indeed free. But, and this is imperatively important, it does come with consequences. Always. That is something that one cannot get around. It is true to say, therefore, that justice is always being served. Not in the hereafter but in the here and now. You cannot avoid the reality that you yourself create.

Energy: Energy is the basis of the Universe. Ideas: Ideas are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality. The first statement makes the claim that everything is, in essence, at base, energy. I think that concept is not objectionable to anyone here. Energy can never be destroyed, only transformed. That's another concept which, I believe, few would disagree. The second statement is the key. Thought is a synonym of idea. As is belief. What that statement is saying is that we transform our thoughts (energy) and that transformed energy is then manifest into the medium of physical reality. Following that logic through to conclusion means that what we are dealing with is not mind over matter but mind creating matter. So, my contention here is that the process of transforming our thoughts (energy) into both objects and events is what we do but are not aware of doing. Just as we are usually consciously unaware of natural bodily processes, such as breathing, which we can become consciously aware of anytime we wish to do so, the natural process of creation with which we are involved is something we are equally unaware of. Until that moment when we choose to become consciously aware of it. That, my friends, is a total game changer of unimaginable consequence. Think it can't be done? If your answer is "no" I have a Cheshire grin for you. I also have plenty of explanations as to how it works for any who have an ear.

My theory on the devolving is based on idea construction. Some ideas work well and others don't. If an idea is in alignment with the workings of reality then all is well. When it departs from the way reality works then you can rest assured that problems will follow. That's the tell. The current set of mass accepted ideas are so off the rails that problems keep amassing. Men can be girls and girls can be men is a good example of how far we've gone in the direction of fallacious ideas. To top it off, ignoring problems make them worse. From my 60,000 foot view I see it all as a clarion call that we need to drastically change the ideas (beliefs) we hold. And start accepting those ideas which are a true reflection of reality. There's no such thing as fate . . . we can go either way. I do have my preferred choice, though. I do what I can towards that end.

Please do so. I'm game. This thread could do with a good and apropos tune now and then.

Thanks, mauGR1, for the well wishes. At least someone here cared. It was over and done in two days. A scratchy throat the first day (the worst for me) and a feeling of supreme tiredness the next. And back to jumping jacks the following day.

Okay, so you're showing off your good taste in music. Freedom Of Choice wouldn't be my preferential choice (granted, it helped make your point). I'd prefer this one, off of that same '78 Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo! LP. Perhaps that album title is a fit for this thread, too? Perhaps we've been thoroughly and grossly mistaken all this time in that God created Man when in fact he did not. He created Devo. And we are all Devo! Anyway, it's something to ponder on in this mystery we call life.

I'll need to address this in a separate post. The sky is blue. That statement is not a statement rooted in bias. It's a statement which accurately reflects current reality. Am I biased in my posts about Trump or am I accurately reflecting current reality? If you want to take that question further I suggest we do that via PM. I would be more than happy to enlighten.

Freedom of choice is there but limited by our capacity to think, our life experience, and what it takes to get through the day. What we can actually do and what we are likely to do. I could do anything right now. No god to stop me. But I don't do stuff - why. Freedom of choice by Devo has the lines: Freedom of choice is what we got Freedom from choice is what we want I think the feeling of too much freedom can be difficult and upsetting. 20 choices of Muesli and soap powder at the supermarket. Starting a day of work right now rather than sitting on a beach in Thailand. For peace of mind many, if not all of us, limit our freedom so we don't think too much - we put blinkers on ourself, like for a horse, so we can stay somewhat focused. It's the same with politics - I see it in your Trump posts and you see it in the democrat posts. A self imposed internal bias and limitation. There is what we are too that explains that bias. Freedom to take action is limited by our bodies and circumstance e.g. physical attributes, ability, appearance, financial situation. Some can be altered some cannot. In the longer term our freedom and ability to think becomes limited. Our place in society, perception of our self that develops over time, having been hurt in relationships etc - they have an effect on us, make our shoulders slump or sit back confidently, our heart be a bit tired or full of spark, how 'open' our face is, and over time in reality this limits our likely decisions and options. Limits our ability to communicate and limits our actual thoughts and feelings. Hard to overcome this. So freedom becomes limited to avoid pain and maximise pleasure available to us. Different for different people. So we have absolute freedom in terms of thoughts but not actions. But even our thoughts and feelings become limited as we close off some parts and open up others so the sense of freedom becomes distorted. I'm going to set aside the entirety of your post, for now, and focus on the most important statement within it. Not only is it the most important statement but it's a kernel of absolute truth. You are to be commended for arriving at that most accurate of conclusions. ". . . we have absolute freedom in terms of thoughts . . ." No truer words have ever been spoken. Now here's the money question: What do thoughts do? In order to avoid having the question sound too ambiguous I'll ask it in a more pointed way. Do thoughts create real effects?

"Ask yourself how much you think you know to be true but it "just ain't so." How convinced are you that everything you think you know is indeed true? " As I've tried to explain, I believe in the 'Methodology of Science' which begins with a Hypothesis and can gradually develop into a Theory, if and when calculations and sound experiments, which must also allow a falsification process, eventually support the Hypothesis. Both Hypotheses and Theories can be shown to be wrong as new evidence and data become available, so it's quite possible I might be wrong about many issues. However, I tend not to change my mind until I become aware of new evidence that meets my own standards, based on my own interpretation of the 'Methodology of Science'. Regarding 'how much I know', I accept that I know very, very, very little, compared to the whole of human knowledge, and the whole of human knowledge is very, very little compared to what remains to be known. Okay? ???? Let's step away from your methodology of science, scientific theories and hypotheses for a moment. If the only things you would allow yourself to believe are true are those things that have been proven by science to be true then you would, I imagine, have an extremely difficult time discussing much of anything with anybody. Most of your discussion would be an endless refrain of "I don't know." In other words, would it be fair to say that, in practicality, there is much that you have an opinion or belief about as to it's truth despite the fact that science has yet to prove it? My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true. Now I never asked the question, "How much do you know." I asked specifically, "Ask yourself how much you think you know to be true but it "just ain't so." How convinced are you that everything you think you know is indeed true?" Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure? You can take it on faith that these questions are leading to other points. One step at a time.

Okay, I'll stop beating the dead horse over definitions and try a different tact. From my understanding, based on what you wrote and your offered definitions, you are saying that you believe there is a cause for all things. Can we take that further to say you also believe there is a reason for or purpose behind any cause? Say you were in a hypothetical automobile accident. You slid into the vehicle in front of you due to an icy patch in the road. The technical cause would obviously be the ice, thereby neutering your braking system. Would you be able to identify and assign a reason or purpose for the accident?