Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

A fair question for you, could it be you are communicating with yourself? 
 

As we know, or believe we carry memories in our DNA, and also called genetic memory since genes are built up on dna, and the dna memory have been formed by your very first ancestors all the way up to you. Can it be your answers lays inside you, and not outside? 

It's a good question, but I'm not sure from what level of understanding it comes from, so it's difficult to give an answer that would be of value to you. I must therefore keep the answer on a general level.

You can seek to access that memory if you like, and I think it's good to talk to your body. Genetic memory is a part of something much bigger though.
 
 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I guess @Tippaporn is not referring to the real science, but to the so called science which they are trying to push down our throat, so to speak.

I know already that you don't see the difference, and i don't know if you do it on purpose.

Try harder.????

You guess that Tippaporn is not referring to 'real' science?? Why are you guessing?? I'll give you a hint. You're guessing because Tippaporn is not clear in his use of language, which causes confusion. A fundamental requirement of all science is precision of terminology and the meaning of words.

 

If one is referring in one's post to 'scientific propaganda', or 'fake science' that is not based on data and experimental evidence, then one should make that clear and not just use the general word 'science'.

Edited May 24, 2022 by VincentRJ

[mauGR1]

36 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You guess that Tippaporn is not referring to 'real' science?? Why are you guessing?? I'll give you a hint. You're guessing because Tippaporn is not clear in his use of language, which causes confusion. A fundamental requirement of all science is precision of terminology and the meaning of words.

 

If one is referring in one's post to 'scientific propaganda', or 'fake science' that is not based on data and experimental evidence, then one should make that clear and not just use the general word 'science'.

Fair enough, my mistake, I'll take the blame.

 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I've never said that science denies the existence of subjective reality.  Science recognises it's existence but does not treat it as real in the same way it considers a physical object to be real.  What comes from subjective reality carries no weight with science.  Science not only grants subjective reality zero credibility but it has a great distrust of subjective reality as well.
 

Let's focus on the part of your post I've highlighted. I think the problem here is that you've lumped all types of sujective reality into one category. For me, subjective reality is what I interpret through my senses of sight, hearing, feeling, taste, smell and intellect. Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to all these interpretations? Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to my claim that I enjoy or dislike the taste of a particular food, or the sight of a particular painting, or the sound of a particular piece of music?

 

I understand if I express an opinion, that there is a Creator God for example, that is not supported by a shred of evidence that meets the requirements of the 'methodology of science', then a qualified scientist might claim that my opinion has zero credibility, but that my opinion still exists in my mind, and/or in written text. Is this what you mean?
 

[Elad]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You don't go from
1+1=2
to
(z2+2zy√+y−1)2((1+y)(z+y√)−y√(z2+2zy√+y+1))21z+y√=(1−y)2−4y√(1−y)z+O(z2)((1−y)z−y√z2)2(1y√−zy+O(z2))=1−4y√1−yz+O(z2)z2(1−2y√1−yz+O(z2))1y√(1−zy√+O(z2))=1z2y√(1−zy√−2y√1−yz+O(z2))=1z2(1y√−1+yy(1−y)z+O(z2))
in a day.

Well I don't know what that is but its not calculus, if its supposed to be algebra then its very, very poorly written, its unreadable.   

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

11 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I guess @Tippaporn is not referring to the real science, but to the so called science which they are trying to push down our throat, so to speak.

I know already that you don't see the difference, and i don't know if you do it on purpose.

Try harder.????

You guess that Tippaporn is not referring to 'real' science?? Why are you guessing?? I'll give you a hint. You're guessing because Tippaporn is not clear in his use of language, which causes confusion. A fundamental requirement of all science is precision of terminology and the meaning of words.

 

If one is referring in one's post to 'scientific propaganda', or 'fake science' that is not based on data and experimental evidence, then one should make that clear and not just use the general word 'science'.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the other party for your own "user error."    It's not so difficult to divine the meaning of the words I use given the context.  Scientific fairy tales completely went over the head of your understanding.  By your own words:

"The concept of a 'scientific fairy tale' is no more than a false interpretation of the 'real' science by the scientifically illiterate."

When some refers to someone else's truth as a fairy tale the meaning is perfectly clear.  At least to most others.

Here's another recent example of your "user error."
 

"Another excellent example of great confusion. Well done!  ????

 

"Of course science accepts the existence of subjective reality." <snip>

I've never stated that science denies subjective reality it's existence as I'm only too well aware that science does recognise it.

Also, I corrected you on your mistake in a reply to which you never acknowledged your error.  Here you are making another.  mauGR1, on the other hand, feels no shame to admit to erring.

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Elad said:

Well I don't know what that is but its not calculus, if its supposed to be algebra then its very, very poorly written, its unreadable.   

Good catch.  The math symbols commonly used in calculus prevent copying and pasting so I chose any old math equation that appeared complex enough to provide the intended illustrative contrast to the simplest of addition equations.  It was artistic license on my part.  I never expected or intended for anyone to try and recognise or perhaps solve the problem.  And yes, the equation I chose did not paste it's formatting well at all.  It's an unsolvable mess. 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I've never said that science denies the existence of subjective reality.  Science recognises it's existence but does not treat it as real in the same way it considers a physical object to be real.  What comes from subjective reality carries no weight with science.  Science not only grants subjective reality zero credibility but it has a great distrust of subjective reality as well.

I believe the confusion is on your end has has to do with reading comprehension.

Let's focus on the part of your post I've highlighted. I think the problem here is that you've lumped all types of sujective reality into one category. For me, subjective reality is what I interpret through my senses of sight, hearing, feeling, taste, smell and intellect. Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to all these interpretations? Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to my claim that I enjoy or dislike the taste of a particular food, or the sight of a particular painting, or the sound of a particular piece of music?

 

I understand if I express an opinion, that there is a Creator God for example, that is not supported by a shred of evidence that meets the requirements of the 'methodology of science', then a qualified scientist might claim that my opinion has zero credibility, but that my opinion still exists in my mind, and/or in written text. Is this what you mean?

If it can't be proven by science then it's not accepted as real.  That is science's general stance, is it not?  It's certainly the stance taken here by every disciple of science, including yourself.

 

Since you express incredulity at the preposterous idea that science would dare not bestow credibility on whatever interpretation of reality you receive via your five senses then what credibility would science bestow on the following?  One hears God's voice using the physical sense of hearing.  One sees God with their physical eyes.  One feels God's embrace.  Not sure if there have been any reports in our history of anyone claiming to smell or taste God. 

I've never known that the intellect is one of the five senses.  Or is that the sixth sense?  Just having some fun.    Hopefully you can laugh at yourself as well.  As the old adage goes, "If you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at?"  Or as Groucho Marx would say, “If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you.”

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

If it can't be proven by science then it's not accepted as real.  That is science's general stance, is it not?  It's certainly the stance taken here by every disciple of science, including yourself.

No it's not. You've fallen into the 'either/or' trap. That is, something is either good or bad, hot or cold, credible or not credible at all. You seem to dismiss the obvious fact that there is a range of varying qualities and quantities.

 

'Zero credibility' is at the bottom of the range of degrees of credibility, which is why I interpreted your statement that 'science considers subjective reality to have zero credibility', as equivalent to 'science considers subjective reality as non-existent'. How can anything that is accepted as existing have 'zero credibility?

 

Science is an ongoing process and nothing is fully settled, although many issues are sufficiently settled to be of practical use in developing successful technology.

 

"Since you express incredulity at the preposterous idea that science would dare not bestow credibility on whatever interpretation of reality you receive via your five senses then what credibility would science bestow on the following?  One hears God's voice using the physical sense of hearing.  One sees God with their physical eyes.  One feels God's embrace.  Not sure if there have been any reports in our history of anyone claiming to smell or taste God."

 

There are many examples of people hearing or seeing things which exist only in the mind. An example would be the fairly common condition of Tinnitus, which is a ringing, or buzzing, or clicking in the ears and which is not based on any external source of sound. I can imagine that someone who is totally unaware of such a condition, might believe he is being surrounded and followed by swarms of Crickets or Cicadas.

 

Every experience has to interpreted in some way, whether automatically, unconsciously, instinctively, or through some processing by the intellect. It's the interpretation that can sometimes be given 'zero credibility', as in the example of a person interpreting his Tinnitus as the sound of crickets or cicadas, or a person interpreting a voice in his head as a communication with an 'Almighty Creator of the Universe'. Got it?

[Skeptic7]

23 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You are stating this as a fact.
How would you able to determine if one had communion with God or not? 
 

The above you rightfully asked of @ivor bigun

Then later you made the following claim...

 

13 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Genetic memory is a part of something much bigger though.

So now you've done the same and stated the above as fact. Why haven't you applied that very same standard to yourself? Since you didn't...then back at ya.

 

How were you able to determine this? Where's your evidence?

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

The above you rightfully asked of @ivor bigun

Then later you made the following claim...

 

So now you've done the same and stated the above as fact. Why haven't you applied that very same standard to yourself? Since you didn't...then back at ya.

 

How were you able to determine this? Where's your evidence?

Dear Skeptic7
We've had long and heated discussions on this thread about this very issue.
Judging from our past exchanges and the way you word this last post, I can see you're (still) not open for a debate, but out to start an argument. Like I said in a previous post: Once debate becomes an argument, it's useless. 

I have no intention of starting that vicious cycle again. Make of it what you will and I wish you good luck.
 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

If it can't be proven by science then it's not accepted as real.  That is science's general stance, is it not?  It's certainly the stance taken here by every disciple of science, including yourself.

No it's not. You've fallen into the 'either/or' trap. That is, something is either good or bad, hot or cold, credible or not credible at all. You seem to dismiss the obvious fact that there is a range of varying qualities and quantities.

 

'Zero credibility' is at the bottom of the range of degrees of credibility, which is why I interpreted your statement that 'science considers subjective reality to have zero credibility', as equivalent to 'science considers subjective reality as non-existent'. How can anything that is accepted as existing have 'zero credibility?

 

Science is an ongoing process and nothing is fully settled, although many issues are sufficiently settled to be of practical use in developing successful technology.

 

"Since you express incredulity at the preposterous idea that science would dare not bestow credibility on whatever interpretation of reality you receive via your five senses then what credibility would science bestow on the following?  One hears God's voice using the physical sense of hearing.  One sees God with their physical eyes.  One feels God's embrace.  Not sure if there have been any reports in our history of anyone claiming to smell or taste God."

 

There are many examples of people hearing or seeing things which exist only in the mind. An example would be the fairly common condition of Tinnitus, which is a ringing, or buzzing, or clicking in the ears and which is not based on any external source of sound. I can imagine that someone who is totally unaware of such a condition, might believe he is being surrounded and followed by swarms of Crickets or Cicadas.

 

Every experience has to interpreted in some way, whether automatically, unconsciously, instinctively, or through some processing by the intellect. It's the interpretation that can sometimes be given 'zero credibility', as in the example of a person interpreting his Tinnitus as the sound of crickets or cicadas, or a person interpreting a voice in his head as a communication with an 'Almighty Creator of the Universe'. Got it?

Got it!  Except . . .

Words may be synonymous but not identical in meaning.  Here are some synonyms for 'credible.'  Non-existent is not listed because the meaning is not close.  So no equivalency.  (You can, alternately, look up the definition for each to see the difference in meaning.)

By the evidence of your own admission that you made that erroneous equivalency it stands to reason that my assessment of "user error" is indeed correct.  I did not say 'non-existent' and my use of the word 'credible' does not infer 'non-existent.'  Do you agree?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/credible
 

I gotta skip the rest of your post.  Outta time.

[Skeptic7]

52 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Dear Skeptic7
We've had long and heated discussions on this thread about this very issue.
Judging from our past exchanges and the way you word this last post, I can see you're (still) not open for a debate, but out to start an argument. Like I said in a previous post: Once debate becomes an argument, it's useless. 

I have no intention of starting that vicious cycle again. Make of it what you will and I wish you good luck.
 

Seriously? I've absolutely no idea what unrelated tangent (planet) you're off on. To cordially reiterate...

 

YOU correctly and rightfully held someone to a burden of proof for a claim. Then when YOU are held to that same standard...you dodge, whine and run. Why? And more importantly, why are you not subject to the same standard to which you held Ivor?

 

It's a very fair, simple and nonconfrontational question. Yet for some inexplicable reason, you find it insulting, argumentative and unfair. 555

 

I don't get it, but typical and totally not surprising after 3+ years of this very thing. 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

YOU correctly and rightfully held someone to a burden of proof for a claim. Then when YOU are held to that same standard...you dodge, whine and run. Why? 

That's exactly what you have being doing since 3 years.

From time to time, just for a change, you might consider trying to be intellectually honest. 

An example?

Just few posts above, you were complaining about the length of this thread and its 'nothingness', even wishing it will not last any longer... yet you are always here with your repetitive blabber. 

Don't forget also that when you hit the 'confused emoji ', (there must be more than 100 from you in my posts) without honestly debating the issue, you are showing your true colors ????

[VincentRJ]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Got it!  Except . . .

Words may be synonymous but not identical in meaning.  Here are some synonyms for 'credible.'  Non-existent is not listed because the meaning is not close.  So no equivalency.  (You can, alternately, look up the definition for each to see the difference in meaning.)

By the evidence of your own admission that you made that erroneous equivalency it stands to reason that my assessment of "user error" is indeed correct.  I did not say 'non-existent' and my use of the word 'credible' does not infer 'non-existent.'  Do you agree?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/credible
 

I gotta skip the rest of your post.  Outta time.

Dear me! You've got things the wrong way round. ????

 

I've never associated credibility with non-existence. I've associated 'zero credibility' with non-existence.
Zero credibility means there is no credibility whatsoever, of any type or degree. That which is claimed to exist, without a shred of scientific evidence supporting its existence, can rationally and sensibly be described as non-existent. If you were to claim that there is a 12th century Chinese teapot orbiting Saturn or Jupiter, then that could be described as non-existent, due to 'zero credibility'.
 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Dear me! You've got things the wrong way round. ????

 

I've never associated credibility with non-existence. I've associated 'zero credibility' with non-existence.
Zero credibility means there is no credibility whatsoever, of any type or degree. That which is claimed to exist, without a shred of scientific evidence supporting its existence, can rationally and sensibly be described as non-existent. If you were to claim that there is a 12th century Chinese teapot orbiting Saturn or Jupiter, then that could be described as non-existent, due to 'zero credibility'.
 

Of course this is absolutely correct and this very thing has been explained in myriad ways over the life of this thread. More than a few times by little ol' me. Even my postscript, ever since joining TV/AN (and long before this thread), delivers this very message. Somehow rational, reasonable, basic common sense still falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.  

Common sense is, apparently, not so common after all. Willful ignorance, unfortunately, in abundance.

 

Hitchens Razor: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

- Christopher Hitchens ????

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Skeptic7

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Of course this is absolutely correct and this very thing has been explained in myriad ways over the life of this thread. More than a few times by little ol' me. Even my postscript, ever since joining TV/AN (and long before this thread), delivers this very message. Somehow rational, reasonable, basic common sense still falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. ???????? 

Common sense is, apparently, not so common after all. Willful ignorance, unfortunately, in abundance.

 

Hitchens Razor: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens ????

 

Having no doubts eh. 

Either you know everything or...

????

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That's exactly what you have being doing since 3 years.

From time to time, just for a change, you might consider trying to be intellectually honest. 

An example?

Just few posts above, you were complaining about the length of this thread and its 'nothingness', even wishing it will not last any longer... yet you are always here with your repetitive blabber. 

Don't forget also that when you hit the 'confused emoji ', (there must be more than 100 from you in my posts) without honestly debating the issue, you are showing your true colors ????

Just to give you a helping hand, keep this famous quote handy to insert when appropriate:

"You can never debate with a dishonest man."  - Tippers

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Dear me! You've got things the wrong way round. ????

 

I've never associated credibility with non-existence. I've associated 'zero credibility' with non-existence.
Zero credibility means there is no credibility whatsoever, of any type or degree. That which is claimed to exist, without a shred of scientific evidence supporting its existence, can rationally and sensibly be described as non-existent. If you were to claim that there is a 12th century Chinese teapot orbiting Saturn or Jupiter, then that could be described as non-existent, due to 'zero credibility'.
 

Here's the definition for credible:

adjective

capable of being believed; believable:a credible statement.

worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy:a credible witness.

 

Per the definition above 'zero credibility' would translate to 'not to be believed at all,' 'lacking all belief and confidence', and 'not at all trustworthy.'  You can insist all you like about making a rational or sensible argument that would allow you to substitute the word 'non-existent' for 'zero credibility' but honestly you can't.  Ring up Merriam-Webster and have them add 'non-existent' to the definition of 'credible.'  They've recently edited the definitions of a few other words to accommodate certain pressure groups to help them continue to deceive.  They might oblige you.

Your entire argument is fallacious.  You're insisting that you have the license to change the meaning of words because, well, it supports your argument.  And sans that support you have to admit to "user error."  And you can't bring yourself to admitting you erred.  Perhaps because any admission of error on any point would bring into question whether any of your other points made throughout this thread were in error, too.  Why, you'd lose credibility!  Can't have that!

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Dear me! You've got things the wrong way round. ????

 

I've never associated credibility with non-existence. I've associated 'zero credibility' with non-existence.
Zero credibility means there is no credibility whatsoever, of any type or degree. That which is claimed to exist, without a shred of scientific evidence supporting its existence, can rationally and sensibly be described as non-existent. If you were to claim that there is a 12th century Chinese teapot orbiting Saturn or Jupiter, then that could be described as non-existent, due to 'zero credibility'.

Ideally, I'd like to conclude this discussion with mutual understanding.  So, after a bit of thought on how else I might convey clarity I had the thought of elaborating on my the intended meaning when I used 'zero credibility.'

 

When I say that science attaches zero credibility to subjective reality my intended meaning is that science gives zero validity to subjective reality.  In other words, Science accepts subjective reality but considers it's products to be strictly in the realm of the imagination.  And that which is imaginary is not real.

FYI, valid is a synonym of credible.

Would you accept that?

[xylophone]

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.

 

And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.

 

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, xylophone said:

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.

 

And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.

 

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

Now come up with a list of all of the fallacies science would convince you of.  It works both ways.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, xylophone said:

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.

 

And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.

 

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

After nearly 3 years, some people still don't understand what we're talking about on this thread.

That's funny in some way ????

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

After nearly 3 years, some people still don't understand what we're talking about on this thread.

That's funny in some way ????

“Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?”

Was the OP question? 
 

How many post in this tread is off topic? ????

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

“Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?”

Was the OP question? 
 

How many post in this tread is off topic? ????

Surely many off topic, that's true.

Yet some posters are stubbornly repetitive.

Nobody here is preaching dogmas.

I understand that some old folks may feel lonely and bored, perhaps they have some problem with alcohol, but it's not my fault. ????

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Surely many off topic, that's true.

Yet some posters are stubbornly repetitive.

Nobody here is preaching dogmas.

I understand that some old folks may feel lonely and bored, perhaps they have some problem with alcohol, but it's not my fault. ????

I believe there is more serious than just alcohol, but thats another topic. 
 

I believe we as humans carry genetic memories that actually leads us through life for good and bad, and sometimes make unconsciously decision’s for us without we even know it. Also a reason for why some more than others feel, see, and believe in something higher than us, and also make us feel miserable about what we do and not do. 
 

We do not really have a complete free will even we like to believe so. But again, nothing new to this conversation, we have been there many times before. 
 

For me there is no father good, only mother, and thats Mother Earth also called Gaia but not a new age thing or old mythology, just the name Gaia. 

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I believe there is more serious than just alcohol, but thats another topic. 
 

I believe we as humans carry genetic memories that actually leads us through life for good and bad, and sometimes make unconsciously decision’s for us without we even know it. Also a reason for why some more than others feel, see, and believe in something higher than us, and also make us feel miserable about what we do and not do. 
 

We do not really have a complete free will even we like to believe so. But again, nothing new to this conversation, we have been there many times before. 
 

For me there is no father good, only mother, and thats Mother Earth also called Gaia but not a new age thing or old mythology, just the name Gaia. 

That's a fair post, actually i tend to believe that the spiritual in us is a sort of a mirror of our physical traits. 

It would be interesting to study the spiritual aspects of DNA, actually some are doing that already. 

Like someone said a few posts ago, it will be not too long before the existence of a soul ,or spiritual "body", will be considered real by the science. 

Perhaps a few centuries I'd guess.

Edited May 25, 2022 by mauGR1

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a fair post, actually i tend to believe that the spiritual in us is a sort of a mirror of our physical traits. 

It would be interesting to study the spiritual aspects of DNA, actually some are doing that already. 

Like someone said a few posts ago, it will be not too long before the existence of a soul will be considered real by the science. 

Perhaps a few centuries I'd guess.

If you can relate the soul to something physical like dna, I can believe that, and you transfer parts of your soul to next generation if you have children. You also will constantly as long you live leave physical dna that mother earth takes back from you via water, trees, plants, which we also eat and drink from. An endless recycling of life as long it last. 
 

Far fetched and Im aware of it. 
 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Hummin

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If you can relate the soul to something physical like dna, I can believe that, and you transfer parts of your soul to next generation if you have children. You also will constantly as long you live leave physical dna that mother earth takes back from you via water, trees, plants, which we also eat and drink from. An endless recycling of life as long it last. 
 

Far fetched and Im aware of it. 
 

 

Well, while we are in a physical body, we have to deal with a dual reality, and everything looks separated, but if we look a bit further, everything is in fact connected.

So, not far fetched at all imho.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

  Ring up Merriam-Webster and have them add 'non-existent' to the definition of 'credible.'  They've recently edited the definitions of a few other words to accommodate certain pressure groups to help them continue to deceive.  They might oblige you.

Why would I do that when I've already tried to explain to you that it's 'Zero Credibility' that can be associated with non-existence? ????