Do you believe in God and why

[John8]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Religion offers much more than that and thus serves a greater purpose in the lives of those who follow it.  It at least grants an individual purpose and worth in life.  Science does neither.

And no one, least of all the science types, considers the effects of teaching an entire world that there is no purpose in life, that one is no more than a leaf blowing in the wind with no control over their life's direction, that fulfilling their most heartfelt desires is a coin toss decided by chance, that their only value lies in their ability to breed, that life is nothing more than the survival of the fittest, that their emotions are due only to chemical interactions in their brains, that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, that a person's sex is not determined by biology but by their subjectivity, and perhaps the worst new fad in scientific thinking which postulates that personal choice is a mere defective mental illusion.  And these same people then wonder how it is that the world slides into madness in so many respects.

Dumb and dumber.

Well you better hope you choose the right religion because the odds are against you ???? heaven or hell might not be the one you wanted

[Hummin]

14 minutes ago, John8 said:

Well you better hope you choose the right religion because the odds are against you ???? heaven or hell might not be the one you wanted

It is like voting for one fotball team! After all it is just football no matter who you choose, and simple as that is it. 

 

As we all know, fotball is not everything in life. 

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, John8 said:

Well you better hope you choose the right religion because the odds are against you ???? heaven or hell might not be the one you wanted

No worries.  I'm not religious.

[Tippaporn]

23 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

What I was saying in my previous post is that if you are correct about your theory, but can't prove it to others, that doesn't make it less correct. But what is affected is your ability to communicate to and convince others. That may not worry you but to do that requires a rigorous scientific analysis to show others that it can be proven.

There have been many throughout history who had a correct idea but not the proof because technology or their own brains  could not keep up. So when you say there is so much more to evolution or other theories you are basing that on thought and feelings. Not something that can be proven by science. So either your theories are wrong, or they are right and you have to cop it that the concept remains a feeling or a faith or an idea, and that it is quite reasonable that others don't believe it too.  

I never said there was much more to evolution.  What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that evolution, as it is scientifically accepted, is a scientific fairy tale.  Evolution has not been proven despite your insistence.

[Tippaporn]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:46 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Science is what it is. Of course science should not have special rules or conditions. It doesn't look at your idea and think about it. It is just a mechanism that says likely or not likely based on proof.  

 

As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others. For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined. Not in terms of known and measurable forces. But if you can show that your theory is a better fit, without knowing exactly what is causing it, then that's something. A few words on this page are cheap. 3 pages on this page are too much.  If you are serious that you have a complete formed theory then write a book, explain how it works as far as you can, be succinct and explain why your theory is necessarily a better fit to reality. 

 

Or thirdly accept your idea is just at the idea stage.  You say you don't care what others think so no worries.

"Science is what it is."

 

Science is what men have made it.  The same with religion.  You'd be amazed at the parallels between the two.  From rigidity of thought all the way to fanaticism and more.

"As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others."

 

My ideas do resonate with some here.  Evidenced by the reactions to some of my posts.  They'll never resonate with everyone but that's only common sense.  I'd be foolish to have such an expectation.  I do fully understand the types of people my ideas wouldn't resonate with.  Those people who restrict themselves to their self made, limited boxes and never dare to tread foot outside of their confines.

"For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined."

I've never suggested that science's theory of evolution and freedom are intertwined.  My point was that the theory is based on a select set of information and that it does not account for any other information.  Nowhere does the practical application of the theory take into account freedom.  Evolution is said to be determined by the theory of natural selection.  Natural selection, by it's own definition, cannot incorporate freedom.  So what happens to the idea freedom?  It's conveniently excluded because it's a puzzle piece that can't be made to fit into the theory of evolution puzzle as constructed.  Too many of the puzzle pieces would have to be rearranged.  Or even discarded and replaced.  Personally, I'd discard all of it.

Now since you're the science guy and you believe that the theory of evolution is correct then where does individual freedom fit in?  Now this is the important part.  You will refuse to answer that question.  You'll ignore it.  Or you'll argue that freedom doesn't exist.  Or it doesn't apply in this instance.  Or you'll make up some reason or another which will not be backed up with proof.  Better to just not answer it.

Your non reply will be no different than the correction VincentRJ made to patch together the theory of the Big Bang.  First it was a Big Bang created from nothing.  Well, that couldn't hold logic so the theory was changed to a condensed ball which contained the entire universe-to-be.  When I asked VincentRJ what medium this ball existed in I got no reply.

That's what you science type folks do when challenged to explain in greater detail your own scientific held beliefs.  You can't show how they actually work so you quietly move on.  But then you turn around and suggest to me that perhaps I should take a different aim to make my ideas more plausible?  When challenged to make yours plausible you skedaddle.  I address any questions.

Here's another point regarding my ideas.  Do you really think it possible that I could cover the entire ground of an alternate view of reality and provide full explanations as to how it all works in a few posts?  How many books do you think one needs to read just to get a PhD in physics, or astronomy, or biology, or in any other branch of science?  By the way, the books on the theories I present have already been written.  Would you care to download them if I supplied them to you?

And another point?  Do you think anyone who takes these courses asks questions?  Isn't questioning a vital part of learning?  A vital part to discovery?  Again, I don't see you asking any questions about anything I write.  Here's yours, and all of the other science types cookie cutter response to different ideas:   "Ah, duh, where's your proof, fella?"  Sometime I feel like I'm talking with one of those dolls with the pull ring coming out of it's back.  You know, you pull the ring and the doll says something.  You pull it again and it repeats what it said the first time.

Let's just be blunt.  You wouldn't give a new idea more than a sideways glance, let alone put any real thought into it.  Why?  For one, because if it's not proven then it automatically receives the stamp of rejection and gets unceremoniously tossed into the rubbish bin.  For another, it's the belief that many science types fanatically subscribe to:  only science, using only the scientific method, can discern the truth of reality.  No one, and I mean no one else who is not in the field of science can.  What a load of rubbish.

I'd genuinely be surprised to get a reply to this post.

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"Science is what it is."

 

Science is what men have made it.  The same with religion.  You'd be amazed at the parallels between the two.  From rigidity of thought all the way to fanaticism and more.

"As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others."

 

My ideas do resonate with some here.  Evidenced by the reactions to some of my posts.  They'll never resonate with everyone but that's only common sense.  I'd be foolish to have such an expectation.  I do fully understand the types of people my ideas wouldn't resonate with.  Those people who restrict themselves to their self made, limited boxes and never dare to tread foot outside of their confines.

"For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined."

I've never suggested that science's theory of evolution and freedom are intertwined.  My point was that the theory is based on a select set of information and that it does not account for any other information.  Nowhere does the practical application of the theory take into account freedom.  Evolution is said to be determined by the theory of natural selection.  Natural selection, by it's own definition, cannot incorporate freedom.  So what happens to the idea freedom?  It's conveniently excluded because it's a puzzle piece that can't be made to fit into the theory of evolution puzzle as constructed.  Too many of the puzzle pieces would have to be rearranged.  Or even discarded and replaced.  Personally, I'd discard all of it.

Now since you're the science guy and you believe that the theory of evolution is correct then where does individual freedom fit in?  Now this is the important part.  You will refuse to answer that question.  You'll ignore it.  Or you'll argue that freedom doesn't exist.  Or it doesn't apply in this instance.  Or you'll make up some reason or another which will not be backed up with proof.  Better to just not answer it.

Your non reply will be no different than the correction VincentRJ made to patch together the theory of the Big Bang.  First it was a Big Bang created from nothing.  Well, that couldn't hold logic so the theory was changed to a condensed ball which contained the entire universe-to-be.  When I asked VincentRJ what medium this ball existed in I got no reply.

That's what you science type folks do when challenged to explain in greater detail your own scientific held beliefs.  You can't show how they actually work so you quietly move on.  But then you turn around and suggest to me that perhaps I should take a different aim to make my ideas more plausible?  When challenged to make yours plausible you skedaddle.

Here's another point regarding my ideas.  Do you really think it possible that I could cover the entire ground of an alternate view of reality and provide full explanations as to how it all works in a few posts?  How many books do you think one needs to read just to get a PhD in physics, or astronomy, or biology, or in any other branch of science?  By the way, the books on the theories I present have already been written.  Would you care to download them if I supplied them to you?  LOL

And another point?  Do you think anyone who takes these courses asks questions?  Isn't questioning a vital part of learning?  A vital part to discovery?  Again, I don't see you asking any questions about anything I write.  Here's yours, and all of the other science types cookie cutter response to different ideas:   "Ah, duh, where's your proof, fella?"  Sometime I feel like I'm talking with one of those dolls with the pull ring coming out of it's back.  You know, you pull the ring and the doll says something.  You pull it again and it repeats what it said the first time.

Let's just be blunt.  You wouldn't give a new idea more than a sideways glance, let alone put any real thought into it.  Why?  For one, because if it's not proven then it automatically receives the stamp of rejection and gets unceremoniously tossed into the rubbish bin.  For another, it's the belief that many science types fanatically subscribe to:  only science, using only the scientific method, can discern the truth of reality.  What a load of rubbish.

I'd genuinely be surprised to get a reply to this post.

 

I'll give it a go. Evolution and freedom. To be free suggests a choice.

Historically they were not linked. An amoeba doesn't choose but reacts - one was born more sensitive to light and became better adapted and evolved and became in a sense more free.  

In the recent past humans could train their brains or something to become better adapted and in a sense freer but that's not evolution or genetic change but just working to become better adapted in our lifetime. Not passed to kids.

In the short term future or maybe now we can genetically manipulate ourselves to become better adapted and increase our freedom. So by using science we may be able to evolve and become more free. I am not sure if I am addressing your point about the connection between freedom and evolution. 

I have said before that this forum does not require proof as long as people acknowledge they have an idea they want to share that is just that - an idea. I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology. I have had a look at some of the information put forward on this site and it was interesting but too much swirling around with words and abstract ideas - life's too short to go there. The small amount I read about Seth was a bit that way. Stop playing games Seth. Tell us what is - no need to be poetic or wistful - if you know you know.  If my approach to this is deemed limited that's fine. I spend all day with complex things at work. A theory has to inspire, resonate, draw me in - I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there. Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial. 

[Sparktrader]

Help others as it helps yourself

[mauGR1]

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

No worries.  I'm not religious.

Interesting to see that in these days, "being religious " has become a negative, a symbol of ignorance and stupidity. 

 

 

[mauGR1]

11 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Help others as it helps yourself

You're not a believer, if i remember correctly, yet what you say is correct from a Christian point of view. 

Thing is, the deepest sea is between "say" and "do".

[Sparktrader]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You're not a believer, if i remember correctly, yet what you say is correct from a Christian point of view. 

Thing is, the deepest sea is between "say" and "do".

Maybe god is in all humans

[ivor bigun]

5 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Maybe god is in all humans

maybe we are all Gods?

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Maybe god is in all humans

That's true, without exception. 

God is in everything imho.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

maybe we are all Gods?

In a way, yes.

[Tippaporn]

On 8/25/2022 at 10:06 PM, Sparktrader said:

Help others as it helps yourself

What a pearl of wisdom you laid on us, Sparktrader. 

[Tippaporn]

19 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Maybe god is in all humans

Good.

 

19 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

maybe we are all Gods?

Now that hits the nail on the head.

[Tippaporn]

On 8/25/2022 at 8:17 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I'll give it a go. Evolution and freedom. To be free suggests a choice.

Historically they were not linked. An amoeba doesn't choose but reacts - one was born more sensitive to light and became better adapted and evolved and became in a sense more free.  

In the recent past humans could train their brains or something to become better adapted and in a sense freer but that's not evolution or genetic change but just working to become better adapted in our lifetime. Not passed to kids.

In the short term future or maybe now we can genetically manipulate ourselves to become better adapted and increase our freedom. So by using science we may be able to evolve and become more free. I am not sure if I am addressing your point about the connection between freedom and evolution. 

I have said before that this forum does not require proof as long as people acknowledge they have an idea they want to share that is just that - an idea. I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology. I have had a look at some of the information put forward on this site and it was interesting but too much swirling around with words and abstract ideas - life's too short to go there. The small amount I read about Seth was a bit that way. Stop playing games Seth. Tell us what is - no need to be poetic or wistful - if you know you know.  If my approach to this is deemed limited that's fine. I spend all day with complex things at work. A theory has to inspire, resonate, draw me in - I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there. Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial.

Years ago when I was still actively using the Ouija board and my daughter was about 4 years old I asked, for fun, what, if any, advice our friendly contact might have for her.  This was his reply:

"Life is like a game.  Learn to play by the rules."

My contention here is, and has always been, that reality is what it is and that it functions as it does . . . despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

Given the above then what are the rules of the game?  And are we playing by the actual rules or have we made up our own?

I'll quote Twain again:

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know.  It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

That statement is confirmation that we have made up our own rules.  So why does it seem so difficult to recognise the fact that some of the rules we make up about the way reality works aren't in fact the real rules?  Part of the answer lies in another eloquent and perceptive Twain quote:

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

The way I would interpret that statement using different terms is to say that we all have beliefs about reality and that the fatal mistake we often make is not recognising that we treat our beliefs as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality.  Once we conclude that a particular belief is a bedrock condition of reality we 1) no longer question it's validity and 2) due to the unwavering conviction we hold about a particular belief then any idea which opposes it is automatically labeled "false" and rejected without further questioning.

That, my friend, is the textbook definition of close-mindedness.  It is when one does not question the validity of their own ideas and rejects all others out of hand.

 

So why would anyone want to learn what the real rules of the "game" are?  Well, if you're going to play a game wouldn't you want to "win?"  If playing the "game" gets you results you don't like ("losing") because you're playing by rules which are erroneous and made up, and therefore can never produce the desired results, and you're scratching your head wondering how things could go so horribly wrong, wouldn't you be interested in dumping those erroneous rules and then adopt and follow the actual rules which would produce the results you want ("winning")?

The question really is that simple.  What's your answer?

Following are two widely held beliefs:  1) the rules of life cannot be known and 2) anyone who claims to know is a liar.  Again, these beliefs are not seen as beliefs about reality but rather viewed as conditions of reality.  So, if I, or anyone else, were to claim that I know what the rules are no one would believe.  Not only that but anyone making such a claim would be severely critised and ridiculed.  Perhaps even nailed to a cross.

 

Now to address the content of your post, Fat is a type of crazy.   I'll begin with your provided explanation that you gave in which you attempt to fit individual freedom into the theory of evolution.  Everything you wrote is, in essence, "making up the rules" since all of it is 100% conjecture and contains little logic.  Ultimately none of it reflects how reality truly works.  Given that verdict I won't try to point out any of the fallacies of your explanation via posing any of the many questions which your thesis prompts.

 

Next would be this quote:

"I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology."

Fortunately you've qualified your belief with the word "doubt" and so left yourself some wiggle room for being wrong.  I'm here to say that you couldn't be more wrong.  The Seth material goes into excruciating and extensive detail.  But I understand that since you've never read any of it then you wouldn't be aware of the extent of it's detail.  In fact the material is detailed to the extent that there were a number of scientists so intrigued that they had personal sessions with Seth.

 

The quality of the Seth material is considered such that the University of Yale, not by any means an insignificant university as it is ranked No. 5 in the U.S., houses the Seth material in it's archives.  This is anecdotal but I've heard that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale.  Take a peek if you wish.

Yale Archives - The Seth Material

 

And now this final quote:

"Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial."

 

What you're asking can and can't be done.  I can provide a Cliff Notes version of the rule book that can run a page.  But the rule book is, in fact, much more extensive than what can be fitted onto a single sheet of paper.  There's more to consider though.  Do you play chess?  The rule book for chess isn't that great in length.  Any one wanting to play the game can easily read and understand the rules.  Actually playing the game is quite another thing.  Especially if one's intention is to master the game.  That would require perhaps a great dealing of reading.  Reading which would explain in minute detail how to play the game.  Actually playing the game is obviously instructive, too.  And for some they may excel without every reading a single book.

 

Now if you're still asking whether or not learning rules of the "game" would be beneficial then reread the above.  But who knows, you might prefer to just wing it in life.  Take things as they come and deal with whatever as it pops up.  To me that's living life as a leaf blowing in the wind.  It's a reactionary approach.  My preference would be to be the captain of my own ship.  That's a proactive approach.

In closing I'll satisfy your request for a one-pager listing some of the rules of the "game."  Some of it you may find intriguing but you will also find that in and by itself it's quite useless for the purpose of utilising it in practical terms.

The Physical Universe As Idea Construction

 

Energy...
... is the basis of the universe.
Ideas...
...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality.
Idea constructions...
are transformations of ideas into physical reality.
Space...
... is where our own idea constructions do not exist in the physical universe.
The physical body...
...is the material construction of the entity's idea of itself under the properties of matter.
The individual...
... is the part of the entity or whole self of which we are conscious in daily life.
It is that part of the whole self which we are able to express or make "real" through our idea constructions on a physical level.
The subconscious...
... is the threshold of an idea's emergence into the individual conscious mind. It connects the entity and the individual.
Personality...
... is the individual's overall responses to ideas received and constructed.
It represents the emotional coloration of the individual's ideas and constructions at any given "time".
Emotions...
... are the driving force that propel ideas into constructions.
Instinct...
... is the minimum ability for idea constructions necessary for physical survival.
Learning...
... is the potential for constructing new idea complexes from existing ideas.
Idea complexes...
...are groups of ideas formed together like building blocks to form more complicated constructions in physical reality.
Communication...
... is the interchange of ideas by entities on the energy nonphysical level.
Action...
is idea in motion.
The senses are channels of projection by which ideas are projected outward to create the world of appearances.
Environment...
...is the overall idea constructions with which an individual surrounds himself.
Physical time...
..is the apparent lapse between the emergence of an idea in the physical universe (as a construction) and its replacement by another.
The past...
...is the memory of ideas that were but are no longer physical constructions.
The present...
...is the apparent point of any idea's emergence into physical reality.
The future...
... is the apparent lapse between the disappearance of one idea construction and its replacement by another in physical reality.
Psychological time...
...is the apparent lapse between the conception of ideas.
Aging...
...is the effect upon an idea construction of the properties of matter of which the construction is composed.
Growth...
... is the formation of an idea construction towards its fullest possible materialization following the properties of matter.
Sleep...
... is the entity's relative rest from idea construction except the minimum necessary for physical survival.
The physical universe...
... is the sum of individual idea constructions.

I'll add a few more:

There are only two things to think about:  what is wanted or what is unwanted.

All issues are the same issue.  They all work by the same principles.

Argue for your limitations and they're yours.

Freedom is the basis of all life.

 

More closing comments . . .

"I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there."

You are in the process of solving that puzzle every single day simply by living life.  In life all of the answers are contained.  You figure it out as you go along.  That's one of the reasons you are, granted thoroughly unbeknownst to you, here in this world to begin with.  Now if you'd like to use the fact of leading a busy and demanding life as an excuse to not further your "education" then you would have to explain me.  My life is no less full than yours.  You may be amazed to learn how much reading one can get done sitting on the crapper. 

Advice on how to live one's life?  This simple statement encapsulates it in a nut shell.

"Don't worry, don't hurry, and don't forget to smell the flowers."

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

On 8/25/2022 at 10:06 PM, Sparktrader said:

Help others as it helps yourself

What a pearl of wisdom you laid on us, Sparktrader. 

I wanted to explain partly why I find this a pearl of wisdom.  Help is often in the form of advice.  As one is giving advice it may be realised that the advice being given isn't being followed by ones self.

Every one is student and teacher alike.

[Tippaporn]

22 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

maybe we are all Gods?

If being a creator is a function of God then creator describes us as well.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If being a creator is a function of God then creator describes us as well.

Creation, preservation and destruction (which implies creation) is the holy trinity in Hinduism.

A proper balance of those forces is essential for a good journey imho.

Notice the importance of the number 3.

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Creation, preservation and destruction (which implies creation) is the holy trinity in Hinduism.

A proper balance of those forces is essential for a good journey imho.

Notice the importance of the number 3.

I'm not familiar with Hinduism.  Or any other religion.  I prefer reality explained in contemporary terms and without having to sift through religious teachings that are ripe for the potential of dogma.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm not familiar with Hinduism.  Or any other religion.  I prefer reality explained in contemporary terms and without having to sift through religious teachings that are ripe for the potential of dogma.

Creation, preservation and destruction are not only contemporary, but eternal forces. Those same forces are active, and permeate everything. 

.. and the potential of dogma is everywhere, not just in religion... just look at what they try to pass as science in these days...

I understand that religion has no appeal to you, my point is not throwing away the baby with the dirty water, so to speak.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Years ago when I was still actively using the Ouija board and my daughter was about 4 years old I asked, for fun, what, if any, advice our friendly contact might have for her.  This was his reply:

"Life is like a game.  Learn to play by the rules."

My contention here is, and has always been, that reality is what it is and that it functions as it does . . . despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

Given the above then what are the rules of the game?  And are we playing by the actual rules or have we made up our own?

I'll quote Twain again:

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know.  It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

That statement is confirmation that we have made up our own rules.  So why does it seem so difficult to recognise the fact that some of the rules we make up about the way reality works aren't in fact the real rules?  Part of the answer lies in another eloquent and perceptive Twain quote:

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

The way I would interpret that statement using different terms is to say that we all have beliefs about reality and that the fatal mistake we often make is not recognising that we treat our beliefs as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality.  Once we conclude that a particular belief is a bedrock condition of reality we 1) no longer question it's validity and 2) due to the unwavering conviction we hold about a particular belief then any idea which opposes it is automatically labeled "false" and rejected without further questioning.

That, my friend, is the textbook definition of close-mindedness.  It is when one does not question the validity of their own ideas and rejects all others out of hand.

 

So why would anyone want to learn what the real rules of the "game" are?  Well, if you're going to play a game wouldn't you want to "win?"  If playing the "game" gets you results you don't like ("losing") because you're playing by rules which are erroneous and made up, and therefore can never produce the desired results, and you're scratching your head wondering how things could go so horribly wrong, wouldn't you be interested in dumping those erroneous rules and then adopt and follow the actual rules which would produce the results you want ("winning")?

The question really is that simple.  What's your answer?

Following are two widely held beliefs:  1) the rules of life cannot be known and 2) anyone who claims to know is a liar.  Again, these beliefs are not seen as beliefs about reality but rather viewed as conditions of reality.  So, if I, or anyone else, were to claim that I know what the rules are no one would believe.  Not only that but anyone making such a claim would be severely critised and ridiculed.  Perhaps even nailed to a cross.

 

Now to address the content of your post, Fat is a type of crazy.   I'll begin with your provided explanation that you gave in which you attempt to fit individual freedom into the theory of evolution.  Everything you wrote is, in essence, "making up the rules" since all of it is 100% conjecture and contains little logic.  Ultimately none of it reflects how reality truly works.  Given that verdict I won't try to point out any of the fallacies of your explanation via posing any of the many questions which your thesis prompts.

 

Next would be this quote:

"I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology."

Fortunately you've qualified your belief with the word "doubt" and so left yourself some wiggle room for being wrong.  I'm here to say that you couldn't be more wrong.  The Seth material goes into excruciating and extensive detail.  But I understand that since you've never read any of it then you wouldn't be aware of the extent of it's detail.  In fact the material is detailed to the extent that there were a number of scientists so intrigued that they had personal sessions with Seth.

 

The quality of the Seth material is considered such that the University of Yale, not by any means an insignificant university as it is ranked No. 5 in the U.S., houses the Seth material in it's archives.  This is anecdotal but I've heard that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale.  Take a peek if you wish.

Yale Archives - The Seth Material

 

And now this final quote:

"Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial."

 

What you're asking can and can't be done.  I can provide a Cliff Notes version of the rule book that can run a page.  But the rule book is, in fact, much more extensive than what can be fitted onto a single sheet of paper.  There's more to consider though.  Do you play chess?  The rule book for chess isn't that great in length.  Any one wanting to play the game can easily read and understand the rules.  Actually playing the game is quite another thing.  Especially if one's intention is to master the game.  That would require perhaps a great dealing of reading.  Reading which would explain in minute detail how to play the game.  Actually playing the game is obviously instructive, too.  And for some they may excel without every reading a single book.

 

Now if you're still asking whether or not learning rules of the "game" would be beneficial then reread the above.  But who knows, you might prefer to just wing it in life.  Take things as they come and deal with whatever as it pops up.  To me that's living life as a leaf blowing in the wind.  It's a reactionary approach.  My preference would be to be the captain of my own ship.  That's a proactive approach.

In closing I'll satisfy your request for a one-pager listing some of the rules of the "game."  Some of it you may find intriguing but you will also find that in and by itself it's quite useless for the purpose of utilising it in practical terms.

The Physical Universe As Idea Construction

 

Energy...
... is the basis of the universe.
Ideas...
...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality.
Idea constructions...
are transformations of ideas into physical reality.
Space...
... is where our own idea constructions do not exist in the physical universe.
The physical body...
...is the material construction of the entity's idea of itself under the properties of matter.
The individual...
... is the part of the entity or whole self of which we are conscious in daily life.
It is that part of the whole self which we are able to express or make "real" through our idea constructions on a physical level.
The subconscious...
... is the threshold of an idea's emergence into the individual conscious mind. It connects the entity and the individual.
Personality...
... is the individual's overall responses to ideas received and constructed.
It represents the emotional coloration of the individual's ideas and constructions at any given "time".
Emotions...
... are the driving force that propel ideas into constructions.
Instinct...
... is the minimum ability for idea constructions necessary for physical survival.
Learning...
... is the potential for constructing new idea complexes from existing ideas.
Idea complexes...
...are groups of ideas formed together like building blocks to form more complicated constructions in physical reality.
Communication...
... is the interchange of ideas by entities on the energy nonphysical level.
Action...
is idea in motion.
The senses are channels of projection by which ideas are projected outward to create the world of appearances.
Environment...
...is the overall idea constructions with which an individual surrounds himself.
Physical time...
..is the apparent lapse between the emergence of an idea in the physical universe (as a construction) and its replacement by another.
The past...
...is the memory of ideas that were but are no longer physical constructions.
The present...
...is the apparent point of any idea's emergence into physical reality.
The future...
... is the apparent lapse between the disappearance of one idea construction and its replacement by another in physical reality.
Psychological time...
...is the apparent lapse between the conception of ideas.
Aging...
...is the effect upon an idea construction of the properties of matter of which the construction is composed.
Growth...
... is the formation of an idea construction towards its fullest possible materialization following the properties of matter.
Sleep...
... is the entity's relative rest from idea construction except the minimum necessary for physical survival.
The physical universe...
... is the sum of individual idea constructions.

I'll add a few more:

There are only two things to think about:  what is wanted or what is unwanted.

All issues are the same issue.  They all work by the same principles.

Argue for your limitations and they're yours.

Freedom is the basis of all life.

 

More closing comments . . .

"I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there."

You are in the process of solving that puzzle every single day simply by living life.  In life all of the answers are contained.  You figure it out as you go along.  That's one of the reasons you are, granted thoroughly unbeknownst to you, here in this world to begin with.  Now if you'd like to use the fact of leading a busy and demanding life as an excuse to not further your "education" then you would have to explain me.  My life is no less full than yours.  You may be amazed to learn how much reading one can get done sitting on the crapper. 

Advice on how to live one's life?  This simple statement encapsulates it in a nut shell.

"Don't worry, don't hurry, and don't forget to smell the flowers."

Thanks for the detailed response. I guess you are saying freedom is the basis of life given the concept that we create our own reality.

There's 2 steps I see - 1 can you control or influence what's inside you and 2 if you could is there evidence that that could influence the outside world.  

1 The concept of controlling thoughts, or whatever mental or emotional inner ideas one might control, has seemed impractical to me because it's like and endless game of 'Whack a Mole'. I think our thoughts and emotions are totally tied to our bodies and an attempt to higher consciousness or whatever,  is liking trying to control our arms and legs and toes and fingers. I think it's best to let things be, but be aware of ourselves, and see what can be learnt. Learning probably just satisfies our logical mind anyway, and if anything is going on through life, it is at a deeper level that I can't influence and control. 

2 I don't see indications of my thoughts or direction influencing the outside world  though there have been serendipitous events which give me pause. My conclusion, like for 1, is that it is not something I would look into further as I don't see it as a likelihood of being correct nor something I am likely to be successful at even if it was correct -  if anything just being a hopefully good healthy person might send out a better feeling than otherwise. But I don't have an indication that that's a thing.

So it's not simply say laziness or busyness as such that makes me look no further but a belief that it would not be productive.

 

On a different topic we used to use a ouija board as kids - I saw it work..no one was pushing as we used an object that would fall over if pushed and there were different people - though I didn't think it was spirits,  it did make me consider that our deeper thoughts could transpose into spelling certain messages, at the time. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Thanks for the detailed response. I guess you are saying freedom is the basis of life given the concept that we create our own reality.

There's 2 steps I see - 1 can you control or influence what's inside you and 2 if you could is there evidence that that could influence the outside world.  

1 The concept of controlling thoughts, or whatever mental or emotional inner ideas one might control, has seemed impractical to me because it's like and endless game of 'Whack a Mole'. I think our thoughts and emotions are totally tied to our bodies and an attempt to higher consciousness or whatever,  is liking trying to control our arms and legs and toes and fingers. I think it's best to let things be, but be aware of ourselves, and see what can be learnt. Learning probably just satisfies our logical mind anyway, and if anything is going on through life, it is at a deeper level that I can't influence and control. 

2 I don't see indications of my thoughts or direction influencing the outside world  though there have been serendipitous events which give me pause. My conclusion, like for 1, is that it is not something I would look into further as I don't see it as a likelihood of being correct nor something I am likely to be successful at even if it was correct -  if anything just being a hopefully good healthy person might send out a better feeling than otherwise. But I don't have an indication that that's a thing.

So it's not simply say laziness or busyness as such that makes me look no further but a belief that it would not be productive.

 

On a different topic we used to use a ouija board as kids - I saw it work..no one was pushing as we used an object that would fall over if pushed and there were different people - though I didn't think it was spirits,  it did make me consider that our deeper thoughts could transpose into spelling certain messages, at the time. 

Choices are dependent on freedom.  Without freedom choices cannot exist.  Life is an endless series of choices.  Existence cannot be possible without freedom.  This is why "chance," "accident," and so forth have no true reality.  Those concepts are in direct opposition to freedom.  Again, those are all terms used to provide an explanation for what can otherwise not be explained.  As humans we demand explanations for everything.

To answer your first step, absolutely yes.  To answer your second step, absolutely yes.

The process of creating ones own reality is done with thoughts.  I've previously made the analogy, hat tip to Seth, that an artist uses paints to create his 2-dimensional painting.  Thoughts, in this analogy, are the artist's paints.  Our thoughts are manifested into a 3-dimensional medium rather than paints applied onto a 2-dimensional canvas.  Yet the 3-dimensional medium, unlike the canvas, is an interactive medium as well.  Not only do we get to create the living picture but we are in that living picture, also, and can then react to what we've created.  In movie terms we are the producer, the writer, and the actor of our productions.

I'll go off on a tangent here but It's important to mention that just as the paints are not the artist neither are our thoughts who we are.  They are simply, well, the tool for lack of a better word.  The reason I want to emphasise this point is to give awareness to the prevalence in mass society to conflate thoughts with people. If you were to express an idea that someone disagreed with then you may very well be labeled with an expletive.  You may even be physically attacked.  You see this occur especially in the political realm where the ideas are not attacked but rather the individual who is expressing the ideas.

Now we do have absolute control over our thoughts.  Whether or not we use that control is, as you say, another matter.  There is nothing preventing us from exerting control, however, except ourselves.  So it is something which can be achieved.  I need to add that controlling ones thoughts is something that everyone already does.  It's nothing new.  Nothing you haven't done before.  It's what you're doing now and what you'll be doing in all of your tomorrows.  It's only a matter of degree.  There is much information readily available which can assist one in that endeavour.  Reading can be of great assistance.  Once you understand how it works you can, for example, be a lifelong smoker, one day quit and thereafter never entertain another thought about smoking.  To quit smoking can become the easiest of accomplishments.

In truth it's not really a matter of 'controlling' thoughts as it is choosing them.  Trying to police what ideas go through ones head is not the proper approach and I wouldn't recommend it.  Choosing thoughts, on the other hand, is not difficult.  There can be impediments with that as well but again it's just a learning process no different than any other learning process someone goes through in life.

One of the major roadblocks to paying attention to and showing discrimination as to what ideas flow through ones head is the fallacious yet well accepted, and learned I might add, belief that thoughts do nothing.  That they do not produce any physical effects or possess even any power of influence.  If I were to identify and rank the leading misconceptions we have about reality then the mass belief, which is held almost universally, that thoughts create no physical effects would take one of the top spots due to the idea's negative impact.  It completely strips and robs one of their personal power and is the main cause of the feelings of helplessness, despondency, and rank and unnecessary misery.

 

If you wish for evidence that your thoughts create your experience then the evidence is all around you.  As long as the belief is held that thoughts do nothing then it's only logical that one would never attempt to connect the dots.  There are times, though, as you've just admitted, that one can't help but connect the dots.  They become plainly visible.  To see the evidence requires one to look for it, though.  If you look for it then it will become apparent.  Yes, that garage angel of mine, the same one that Sunmaster uses, does exist.  And she's hot, hot, hot, too!!!  Of course she's Thai!! 

If I may hammer it all home once more . . .

"So it's not simply say laziness or busyness as such that makes me look no further but a belief that it would not be productive."

To this I say that your belief is a belief about reality and not a condition of reality.  Physical reality is changed from the inside out.  Change your subjective reality and the physical, outside version must mirror the subjective, inner one.  That is law.

You're absolutely correct about the Ouija board.  It moves on it's own.  I've had it literally fly off the board.  Both my partner and I were only gingerly touching it.  What makes it move?  That's for another time.

[Tippaporn]

One more thing, Fat is a type of crazy.

You create your reality whether or not you believe you do, whether or not you agree with it, whether or not you like it.  Again, reality is what it is and works the way it does regardless of what you may believe.

So, you have two choices.  Continue to create your life by default, which is to say you exert no control over what's in your head, allow any idea in without discrimination, and allow yourself to entertain whatever idea . . . meaning you hold the thought for a length of time.  Or, you can be discriminating in your choice of thoughts and choose them on the basis of beneficence to you.  If it's merely a belief which is holding you up then simply get rid of that belief.  Done and dusted.  That simple.

Good luck to you, mate, even though there is no such thing. 

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

snip>

The concept of controlling thoughts, or whatever mental or emotional inner ideas one might control, has seemed impractical to me because it's like and endless game of 'Whack a Mole'.

<snip>

Sorry but this humourous thought just popped into my head.  When you live the life of a leaf blowing in the wind aren't you playing an endless game of 'Whack a Mole'?  But in this case it's the constant putting out of fires?  

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

One more thing, Fat is a type of crazy.

You create your reality whether or not you believe you do, whether or not you agree with it, whether or not you like it.  Again, reality is what it is and works the way it does regardless of what you may believe.

So, you have two choices.  Continue to create your life by default, which is to say you exert no control over what's in your head, allow any idea in without discrimination, and allow yourself to entertain whatever idea . . . meaning you hold the thought for a length of time.  Or, you can be discriminating in your choice of thoughts and choose them on the basis of beneficence to you.  If it's merely a belief which is holding you up then simply get rid of that belief.  Done and dusted.  That simple.

Good luck to you, mate, even though there is no such thing. 

There's so much value in your last posts, one could forget about the almost 500 previous pages and just focus on this last one. Practical, logical, real world application....no religious or scientific dogma....simple. 

Well done.  ????

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Creation, preservation and destruction are not only contemporary, but eternal forces. Those same forces are active, and permeate everything. 

.. and the potential of dogma is everywhere, not just in religion... just look at what they try to pass as science in these days...

I understand that religion has no appeal to you, my point is not throwing away the baby with the dirty water, so to speak.

Thanks, mauGR1.  To my mind there exists no force which can dictate my reality.  Every last stitch is created by me via my thoughts, emotions and imagination.  I'm 100% free.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, mauGR1.  To my mind there exists no force which can dictate my reality.  Every last stitch is created by me via my thoughts, emotions and imagination.  I'm 100% free.

That's amazing and i can only congratulate you for your self confidence ????

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's amazing and i can only congratulate you for your self confidence ????

There was a lot of push and pull involved. 

[Hummin]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, mauGR1.  To my mind there exists no force which can dictate my reality.  Every last stitch is created by me via my thoughts, emotions and imagination.  I'm 100% free.

Thats brave, and reminded me of this one

 

not that you are a fool, and I do not call you a fool, but still somehow I wantedcto argue with you, but I know you believe you are 100% in control of your self, your thoughts and your feelings, so no need to argue with you, to try to see it my way