Do you believe in God and why

[Hummin]

38 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

None of that has anything to do with spirituality, IMO. The most spiritual people had nothing to do with "money", living lives without greed. The most spiritual people lived without trying to get rich off of it.

The people that use spirituality to get rich off others are no more spiritual that the pie I ate for breakfast, IMO.

In matter to spread religion and spiritualism to inspire others, and  let other people know there is a way, it is necessary to take ownership and capitalize it. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

In matter to spread religion and spiritualism to inspire others, and  let other people know there is a way, it is necessary to take ownership and capitalize it. 

There is nothing wrong if wealth comes as a result from spreading beneficial ideas. It is only wrong if you misuse those ideas for the sole purpose of making money. 

[Hummin]

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

There is nothing wrong if wealth comes as a result from spreading beneficial ideas. It is only wrong if you misuse those ideas for the sole purpose of making money. 

Thats my point, but there is no control mechanisms or quality control or standard of who should be allowed to guide people like other critical institutions where harm and exploiting is a risk.

 

Im sure we can agree there is a jungle out there of charlatans who benefits of peoples trust in their practice. Abuse is a common problem when it comes to belief systems no matter what it is.

 

Anyway this is a roundabout discussion with no end and no answers except it is a norm, and we are manipulated to believe what we want to believe and make that as our truth. 

 

We make our own Illusions, and thats why everyone of us should be careful to say we know the truth. 

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Thats my point, but there is no control mechanisms or quality control or standard of who should be allowed to guide people like other critical institutions where harm and exploiting is a risk.

 

Im sure we can agree there is a jungle out there of charlatans who benefits of peoples trust in their practice. Abuse is a common problem when it comes to belief systems no matter what it is.

 

Anyway this is a roundabout discussion with no end and no answers except it is a norm, and we are manipulated to believe what we want to believe and make that as our truth. 

 

We make our own Illusions, and thats why everyone of us should be careful to say we know the truth. 

Agree 100%

[Purdey]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rubbish. Even when I was religious it wasn't the one my parents were in.

 

Every child is born knowing nothing, an empty slate that will be written on by everyone that they come to know in life.

Rubbish. New born kids know nothing. Superstition comes by listening to others. 

[Hummin]

34 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Rubbish. New born kids know nothing. Superstition comes by listening to others. 

You do not believe in genetic memory? While listening they/some recreate memories passed on from their anchestors? 

[ozimoron]

29 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You do not believe in genetic memory? While listening they/some recreate memories passed on from their anchestors? 

Not even slightly.

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Not even slightly.

Well, it might be, we do not know, and conflicting theories have been out there for awhile, debunked, and maybe there is some truth to it. I would keep my mind open for it. I would say nature shows us every day it is the case, because how would nature exists without dna memories? Call it preprogrammed individuals or lifeforms.

 

In a new study from the University of Michigan (U-M), researchers have found evidence that all living organisms – from bacteria to humans – have a genetic memory of their ancestral surroundings that helps them adapt to changing environments

 

https://www.earth.com/news/animals-have-a-generic-memory-of-their-ancestral-environments/

Edited February 27, 2023 by Hummin

[Tippaporn]

I've been on sabbatical these past months.  Would someone quickly fill me in on what I've missed? 

[Sunmaster]

34 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've been on sabbatical these past months.  Would someone quickly fill me in on what I've missed? 

Welcome back!

We found all the answers to the mystery of life. Apart from that, not much. ????

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Welcome back!

We found all the answers to the mystery of life. Apart from that, not much. ????

Then I can return to my sabbatical!  Good work all around, fellas!! 

[Tippaporn]

I see a familiar face lurking below.  Someone with the keen eyes of an owl. 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

And my dear Norwegian friend. 

[Tippaporn]

Okay!!  Shall we begin with a headbanger? 

 

I've watched the Sheldrake video and can now put him to bed.  Here are my comments and observations.  My apologies for another long read but I simply cannot find a way to shorten it up.

 

I vigorously applaud Sheldrake for realizing that the world is not mechanistic, according to the view of physicalism, which is sometimes known as materialism.  He subscribes instead to the idea of panpsychism, which ascribes a primitive form of mentality to entities at the fundamental level of physics but does not ascribe mentality to most aggregate things, such as rocks or buildings. the truth that everything is conscious.  Overall, though, it is my view that he's missing much.

 

From the video description:

 

The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living world.  The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits.  Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and plants.  Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of this idea.

 

The entire talk basically revolves around the attempt to explain the working model of the world and universe based on panpsychist theory.  Since so much is yet unknown then any proposed working model must therefore make assumptions to fill in the gaps.  And the assumptions made are precisely what needs to be the focus of anyone considering the overall validity of the model being constructed.  For wherever those assumptions are erroneous that is where you will find the flaws in the model.  Or where the model is faulty either in whole or in part.  I would caution anyone to first examine the assumptions made as to their validity and not just assume that the assumptions are correct lest you end up believing in a faulty model.

 

What I found oddly missing from his talk was any direct mention of objective and subjective reality.  Perhaps because panpsychism ultimately recognizes only the objective world?  Subjectivity appears to be nothing more than an aspect of consciousness per the article I read on panpsychism.

 

All in all panpsychism is simply one scientific theory, as opposed to materialism/physicalism, which is meant to explain our reality and provide us with a working model.  My assessment is that it is inaccurate in many respects and falls short for many reasons.

 

For one, consciousness is not an attribute of mind.  Consciousness is what we are.  The mind is that portion of consciousness which deals with physical reality.  Consciousness creates the mind.  The reverse of what panpsychism assumes.

 

For another, they are stuck on the idea that there exists only one reality, the only one which they have any awareness of . . . the physical one.

 

And since they think only in terms of an objective universe then subjectivity is stripped of it's reality.  As per panpsychism's relegation of subjectivity to be no more than an appendage of consciousness.

 

I find within panpsychism no firm definition as to what consciousness is, other than consciousness being an attribute of mind.  And neither is there a definition or explanation of what mind is.  Or mentality, for that matter.  These seem to be words which have no meaning, no definition, and no explanation of what they are.  And so I come away thinking that these scientists don't quite know what they're talking about.

 

From where I come from there is a definite and very real objective reality.  There is also a definite and very real subjective reality.  The source of objective reality is subjective reality.  It's the other way around from the accepted view.  Subjective reality creates objective reality.  Without subjective reality objective reality would not exist.  Consciousness creates form.  Again, not the other way around as is supposed.

 

With any philosophy or any world view here is what I look for above all else.  Cohesion.  When the individual components of most all world views, scientific or otherwise, are put together you will find that they are extremely ill fitting.  For instance, the conclusions of one branch of science are contradictory to the conclusions of another branch of science.  Here's a quote from the source of information that I've adopted:

 

"The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of “past” civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: “This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perception.”"
—NotP Chapter 1: Session 752, July 28, 1975

 

What I find humorous and ironic is that I often get laughed at and derided for the unconventional ideas I express for they fly in the face of conventional thought.  I am told that my ideas are so far out in left field, run counter to mass accepted ideas, and thus can't be true.  And then I am assailed by all of the conventional ideas of how the world works, all of which I am thoroughly familiar with since they've all been taught to me throughout my life as well.  Yet when I drill down on their beliefs and ask them to explain how their world views actually work in practical detail not a one can provide even a partial rational explanation.  The devil is always in the details and ultimately they have none.

 

A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience.  And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly.  I've come across only one source which has thus far been capable of fulfilling that very tall order.  And that source is not of this world.  At least no longer.  But only in our terms.

Kudos to anyone who is able to stay awake for the entirety of the talk.  Get ready to reference Wiki so you can understand the jargon. 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

57 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Okay!!  Shall we begin with a headbanger? 

 

I've watched the Sheldrake video and can now put him to bed.  Here are my comments and observations.  My apologies for another long read but I simply cannot find a way to shorten it up.

 

I vigorously applaud Sheldrake for realizing that the world is not mechanistic, according to the view of physicalism, which is sometimes known as materialism.  He subscribes instead to the idea of panpsychism, which ascribes a primitive form of mentality to entities at the fundamental level of physics but does not ascribe mentality to most aggregate things, such as rocks or buildings. the truth that everything is conscious.  Overall, though, it is my view that he's missing much.

 

From the video description:

 

The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living world.  The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits.  Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and plants.  Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of this idea.

 

The entire talk basically revolves around the attempt to explain the working model of the world and universe based on panpsychist theory.  Since so much is yet unknown then any proposed working model must therefore make assumptions to fill in the gaps.  And the assumptions made are precisely what needs to be the focus of anyone considering the overall validity of the model being constructed.  For wherever those assumptions are erroneous that is where you will find the flaws in the model.  Or where the model is faulty either in whole or in part.  I would caution anyone to first examine the assumptions made as to their validity and not just assume that the assumptions are correct lest you end up believing in a faulty model.

 

What I found oddly missing from his talk was any direct mention of objective and subjective reality.  Perhaps because panpsychism ultimately recognizes only the objective world?  Subjectivity appears to be nothing more than an aspect of consciousness per the article I read on panpsychism.

 

All in all panpsychism is simply one scientific theory, as opposed to materialism/physicalism, which is meant to explain our reality and provide us with a working model.  My assessment is that it is inaccurate in many respects and falls short for many reasons.

 

For one, consciousness is not an attribute of mind.  Consciousness is what we are.  The mind is that portion of consciousness which deals with physical reality.  Consciousness creates the mind.  The reverse of what panpsychism assumes.

 

For another, they are stuck on the idea that there exists only one reality, the only one which they have any awareness of . . . the physical one.

 

And since they think only in terms of an objective universe then subjectivity is stripped of it's reality.  As per panpsychism's relegation of subjectivity to be no more than an appendage of consciousness.

 

I find within panpsychism no firm definition as to what consciousness is, other than consciousness being an attribute of mind.  And neither is there a definition or explanation of what mind is.  Or mentality, for that matter.  These seem to be words which have no meaning, no definition, and no explanation of what they are.  And so I come away thinking that these scientists don't quite know what they're talking about.

 

From where I come from there is a definite and very real objective reality.  There is also a definite and very real subjective reality.  The source of objective reality is subjective reality.  It's the other way around from the accepted view.  Subjective reality creates objective reality.  Without subjective reality objective reality would not exist.  Consciousness creates form.  Again, not the other way around as is supposed.

 

With any philosophy or any world view here is what I look for above all else.  Cohesion.  When the individual components of most all world views, scientific or otherwise, are put together you will find that they are extremely ill fitting.  For instance, the conclusions of one branch of science are contradictory to the conclusions of another branch of science.  Here's a quote from the source of information that I've adopted:

 

"The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of “past” civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: “This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perception.”"
—NotP Chapter 1: Session 752, July 28, 1975

 

What I find humorous and ironic is that I often get laughed at and derided for the unconventional ideas I express for they fly in the face of conventional thought.  I am told that my ideas are so far out in left field, run counter to mass accepted ideas, and thus can't be true.  And then I am assailed by all of the conventional ideas of how the world works, all of which I am thoroughly familiar with since they've all been taught to me throughout my life as well.  Yet when I drill down on their beliefs and ask them to explain how their world views actually work in practical detail not a one can provide even a partial rational explanation.  The devil is always in the details and ultimately they have none.

 

A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience.  And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly.  I've come across only one source which has thus far been capable of fulfilling that very tall order.  And that source is not of this world.  At least no longer.  But only in our terms.

Kudos to anyone who is able to stay awake for the entirety of the talk.  Get ready to reference Wiki so you can understand the jargon. 

 

 

I agree with what you say about a model of reality that must include and make sense of every aspect of reality. Both objective and subjective. 

 

I'm not so versed in panpsychism to comment on that, and regarding Sheldrake, I think it would be interesting to hear what he thinks about your criticism. 

Still, with all the faults his model may have, I think he's doing a good job at shaking things up. It's a step in the right direction and makes people think that there is more than what conventional science tells us.

The world is not quite ready for Seth. I wish it were.

[Purdey]

14 hours ago, Hummin said:

You do not believe in genetic memory? While listening they/some recreate memories passed on from their anchestors? 

I also don't believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Purdey said:

Rubbish. New born kids know nothing. Superstition comes by listening to others. 

You said I was speaking rubbish, yet you said the same as I did! Did you read it wrong?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Hummin said:

Well, it might be, we do not know, and conflicting theories have been out there for awhile, debunked, and maybe there is some truth to it. I would keep my mind open for it. I would say nature shows us every day it is the case, because how would nature exists without dna memories? Call it preprogrammed individuals or lifeforms.

 

In a new study from the University of Michigan (U-M), researchers have found evidence that all living organisms – from bacteria to humans – have a genetic memory of their ancestral surroundings that helps them adapt to changing environments

 

https://www.earth.com/news/animals-have-a-generic-memory-of-their-ancestral-environments/

Genes hold instructions so a new born can survive ( except for some species where the new born are dependent on their parents. A butterfly has no parental care after it emerges from the cocoon- it's genes tell it what to do.

I doubt genes even have the ability to "learn" in individual cases.

 

It is claimed that a foetus can "learn" in the womb- IMO a near term foetus has a working brain so that may be so, but not at conception.

[Hummin]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Genes hold instructions so a new born can survive ( except for some species where the new born are dependent on their parents. A butterfly has no parental care after it emerges from the cocoon- it's genes tell it what to do.

I doubt genes even have the ability to "learn" in individual cases.

 

It is claimed that a foetus can "learn" in the womb- IMO a near term foetus has a working brain so that may be so, but not at conception.

All animals receive genetic material from both parents, and I would keep my mind open for it!

[Hummin]

40 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I also don't believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. 

It is more plausible wi heritage memory there is a father christmas than there is a physical father christmas?

 

Only fools are sure, often to sure about things they do not know anything about. 

 

I keep my mind open for new science proof in the future about our dna and its function

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I agree with what you say about a model of reality that must include and make sense of every aspect of reality. Both objective and subjective. 

 

I'm not so versed in panpsychism to comment on that, and regarding Sheldrake, I think it would be interesting to hear what he thinks about your criticism. 

Still, with all the faults his model may have, I think he's doing a good job at shaking things up. It's a step in the right direction and makes people think that there is more than what conventional science tells us.

The world is not quite ready for Seth. I wish it were.

I, myself, wouldn't be interested in hearing what Sheldrake thinks about my criticism.  I would, though, be interested in a discussion with him.  But that will never happen.  I listened to the entire talk, including the Q & A.  During which he revealed that he's since become a Christian and even attends mass.  He'd have to have a mass conversion before he would accept any Sethian concepts, LOL.  I believe Sethian concepts would be a bridge too far.  Also considering his profession.  He's already taken a lot of heat for changing his stance from one of materialism to that of panpsychism.

Everyone has a different level of understanding regarding who we are and how the world works.  (And just to ensure that no one takes that statement as a holier than thou attitude I'll point out that life isn't about climbing up the rungs of the ladder towards any kind of enlightenment where those nearer the top look down on those below.  That's a childish perception usually stemming from a lack of self worth which I hope folks here don't buy into.)  There are many explanations of reality out there; from watered down versions to in-depth versions.  People will gravitate to whatever degree of expansiveness of an explanation that best suits their own purposes.  Which is why I began by applauding Sheldrake and do not poo-poo him even though in my opinion he misses much.  As you mention, Sunmaster, he opens people up to think differently about how the universe is constructed and he does take them in the right direction.  Nothing but kudos for Sheldrake from me.

As to the world not being ready for Seth's explanation of ourselves and the self created reality we find ourselves in.  I share your sentiment . . . sometimes.  Only when I feel frustration, though.  For one, I recognise that statement as a belief and not a condition of reality.  For another, I know also that it is not within my purview to decide such things.  One the other hand I do admit that I yearn for more kindred souls.

[Purdey]

4 hours ago, Hummin said:

It is more plausible wi heritage memory there is a father christmas than there is a physical father christmas?

 

Only fools are sure, often to sure about things they do not know anything about. 

 

I keep my mind open for new science proof in the future about our dna and its function

I fear you are now making things up. All of this has been debated and Santa does not exist.

However, children with cancer do exist, thus eliminating the concept of a living, all powerful and merciful God. 

[Purdey]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You said I was speaking rubbish, yet you said the same as I did! Did you read it wrong?

Generic memory goes as far as basic reflexes, not a whole religion. Fight or flight is a generic memory for instance.

Neuroscientific research on mice suggests that some experiences can influence subsequent generations. In a 2013 study, mice trained to fear a specific smell passed on their trained aversion to their descendants, which were then extremely sensitive and fearful of the same smell, even though they had never encountered it, nor been trained to fear it.

Changes in brain structure were also found. The researchers concluded that "the experiences of a parent, even before conceiving, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations"

Scientists speculate that similar genetic mechanisms could be linked with phobias, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as other neuropsychiatric disorders, in humans.

All of which goes to show that you aren't born with a complete religious belief. You are born with curiosity and may self educate about a religion. However, having read the Bible there is no way i believe in a god or any religion based on such easy to disprove writing. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Purdey

[Tippaporn]

I just had a conversation with a friend whose current view is that "indeed EVERYTHING has a level of consciousness," as stated in his own words.  My reply to him is perhaps a better and more detailed explanation of the point I made in my above post on the perception of someone having a holier than thou attitude towards others.

 

So here it is.  Thoughts are always welcome.

 

I would say that there are no levels of consciousness.  Consciousness is what we are.  There are obviously infinite types of consciousness.  The consciousness of a man is not the same as that of a cat, or dog, or plant, or rock.  They are different types to the end that each type of consciousness provides for a different kind of experience.

 

Man has a penchant for making comparisons.  And in making comparisons he can't help but categorize.  And so he may attempt to categorize the various aspects of consciousness by intelligence, for example.  Higher intelligence then being erroneously thought of as an indication of a greater degree of consciousness and so on.  And his comparisons then also extend to making comparisons and categorizations of different consciousnesses of the same type.  Usually in terms of higher and lower as promoted by currently held ideas about evolution.  There is no such hierarchy in real terms.  That is a man made construct.

Basically, consciousness seeks to know itself in as many ways as possible through it's experiential expression of itself in as many ways as possible.  What would it be like to be a doctor?  A lawyer?  A politician?  An athlete?  A musician?  A bricklayer?  A garbageman?  A mundane floor sweeper?  A famous scientist?  Each occupation in these examples provides for a different type of experience and through that experience consciousness knows itself in ways that were previously unknown to it.  A floor sweeper is no more higher or lower than a renowned and accomplished scientist in those terms.

What would it be like to be a bat, a cat, a rat, a gnat?  An amoeba, a fly, a plant, a fish?  A rock, a hat, a mountain, a table, a planet, an atom, a cell?  Each form which  consciousness takes provides for a new and different experience and thus a greater knowing of itself.  No different than any desire we may have to experience flying, or playing a guitar, or performing card tricks, or visiting another country.  There's no hierarchy within any of that.  No up or down, higher or lower, better or worse, more advanced or less advanced.

And so it is, too, in the pursuit of knowledge.

[Hummin]

24 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I fear you are now making things up. All of this has been debated and Santa does not exist.

However, children with cancer do exist, thus eliminating the concept of a living, all powerful and merciful God. 

I have to inform you about reading and understanding what people write! Since early days humans had an affection with the supernatural that might be heritaged through dna memory like animals who we believed  and described as pure instincts, now later we researching dna memory.

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I just had a conversation with a friend whose current view is that "indeed EVERYTHING has a level of consciousness," as stated in his own words.  My reply to him is perhaps a better and more detailed explanation of the point I made in my above post on the perception of someone having a holier than thou attitude towards others.

 

So here it is.  Thoughts are always welcome.

 

I would say that there are no levels of consciousness.  Consciousness is what we are.  There are obviously infinite types of consciousness.  The consciousness of a man is not the same as that of a cat, or dog, or plant, or rock.  They are different types to the end that each type of consciousness provides for a different kind of experience.

 

Man has a penchant for making comparisons.  And in making comparisons he can't help but categorize.  And so he may attempt to categorize the various aspects of consciousness by intelligence, for example.  Higher intelligence then being erroneously thought of as an indication of a greater degree of consciousness and so on.  And his comparisons then also extend to making comparisons and categorizations of different consciousnesses of the same type.  Usually in terms of higher and lower as promoted by currently held ideas about evolution.  There is no such hierarchy in real terms.  That is a man made construct.

Basically, consciousness seeks to know itself in as many ways as possible through it's experiential expression of itself in as many ways as possible.  What would it be like to be a doctor?  A lawyer?  A politician?  An athlete?  A musician?  A bricklayer?  A garbageman?  A mundane floor sweeper?  A famous scientist?  Each occupation in these examples provides for a different type of experience and through that experience consciousness knows itself in ways that were previously unknown to it.  A floor sweeper is no more higher or lower than a renowned and accomplished scientist in those terms.

What would it be like to be a bat, a cat, a rat, a gnat?  An amoeba, a fly, a plant, a fish?  A rock, a hat, a mountain, a table, a planet, an atom, a cell?  Each form which  consciousness takes provides for a new and different experience and thus a greater knowing of itself.  No different than any desire we may have to experience flying, or playing a guitar, or performing card tricks, or visiting another country.  There's no hierarchy within any of that.  No up or down, higher or lower, better or worse, more advanced or less advanced.

And so it is, too, in the pursuit of knowledge.

As usual, i partly agree with your conclusions,  i think that a hierarchy exists, but i fully agree with the intent of exploring what we call " consciousness ".

Thanks for the thought provoking posts though, and thanks extended to the other valuable posters  of this thread too .

( i guess you know who you are )

[Tippaporn]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

As usual, i partly agree with your conclusions,  i think that a hierarchy exists, but i fully agree with the intent of exploring what we call " consciousness ".

Thanks for the thought provoking posts though, and thanks extended to the other valuable posters  of this thread too .

( i guess you know who you are )

If man creates hierarchy then surely it exists.  All I'm saying is that hierarchy is not an inherent feature of reality.  And perhaps, too, when observing animals what appears to be a hierachal order may be nothing of the sort.  Only interpreted as such through belief.

Glad to hear from you again, mauGR1. 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If man creates hierarchy then surely it exists.  All I'm saying is that hierarchy is not an inherent feature of reality.  And perhaps, too, when observing animals what appears to be a hierachal order may be nothing of the sort.  Only interpreted as such through belief.

Glad to hear from you again, mauGR1. 

Does the man creates hierarchy,  or is hierarchy already there, with or without the man ?

It reminds me of the question,  was the egg before the chicken,  or vice versa..

My answer would be, they exist at the same moment, as time itself appears to be real in the physical world, but doesn't necessarily exist not in the same way, in more subtle realities. 

( everyone who understands what I'm trying to say' deserves a medal, Lol)

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

I fear you are now making things up. All of this has been debated and Santa does not exist.

However, children with cancer do exist, thus eliminating the concept of a living, all powerful and merciful God. 

Those that believe that God has human emotions are IMO not thinking for themselves.

Why is cancer in children worse than building nuclear bombs to kill millions?

God created a universe with black holes that consume entire solar systems- so why does anyone assume that God is "merciful".

 

BTW Santa is based on a real person that did exist.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Does the man creates hierarchy,  or is hierarchy already there, with or without the man ?

It reminds me of the question,  was the egg before the chicken,  or vice versa..

My answer would be, they exist at the same moment, as time itself appears to be real in the physical world, but doesn't necessarily exist not in the same way, in more subtle realities. 

( everyone who understands what I'm trying to say' deserves a medal, Lol)

Genes dictate as always and genes dictate that the strongest get the best women to breed in. Thus the human race will survive, which is one of the top genetic imperatives.

Hierarchies, IMO, were created by humans to ensure the top dogs get the women with the best genes.

 

NB Strongest has never implied "goodness".