Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Likewise, though Sanders of the River was my real hero, not forgetting Alan Quartermain of course.

 

You're rackin' up the red hearts now, TBL. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Which "I"?

 

The one typing this.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

 

You seem to view Nietzsche as an Author & I'd never put that label on him even though he's written books. 

 

My favourite author has to be Conan Doyle, I grew up on Sherlock Holmes stories & love them to this day :) 

 

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge. As said I never read a word he wrote. All I know is that some people think he knows stuff.

[thaibeachlovers]

Great discussion, but I have things to do and I haven't been doing them because I've been on here, so it's good night from me.

[Mike Teavee]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Sir Conan Doyle.

 

A remarkably perceptive individual as expressed through his character Sherlock.  He had a knack for eliminating the possibilities that couldn't fit and come up with the only one that could.

 

I, too, have read them all and love them dearly. 

Sorry one of my "quirks" is I refuse to use honorifics so he's "Arthur" to me :)

 

Brilliant Author & mind

 

 

[Mike Teavee]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge. As said I never read a word he wrote. All I know is that some people think he knows stuff.

A simple comparison would be when you think of Stephen Hawking, do you think "Author" or Genius who was so far ahead of everybody else with his thoughts on Time & Space.

 

I am comparing Nietzsche with Hawkins because, in his field, Nietzsche was so far ahead of everybody else.

 

Camus is a much easier read though (says he as he scoots to find the remote control so he can watch some Sherlock Holmes on New Years Day - Life is Good)  

 

Happy New Year :) 

 

[Tippaporn]

Thanks for the day off, @Sunmaster.  I won't have to reply to any of your posts today since I'm sure you're still trying to figure out exactly what planet you're on after last night.  Now we all do expect for you to report back in tomorrow as usual as the holiday will be over.  And we're anticipating a full accounting of your experiences, along with detailed interpretations, of your altered state of consciousness.   Where you anywhere in the vicinity of God's neighborhood?  Or did they bar the gate when they saw you coming? 

 

Anyway, Happy 2024 and we're all anxious to get confirmation of your survival. 

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I gave you a thumbs up for the clarity with which you express your reasoning.  And given your beliefs your reasoning seems quite solid.  Seems.    Seems because you're missing much data in the mix of your current data set upon which your reasoning is based.  Also, you presume that your assumptions are correct.  And in the context of this discussion your prime assumption is the idea that our dear old mother earth, the entirety of our precious physical universe, and the 'you' that you see in the mirror is all there is.  All of the data that you pull from the massive data set which exists and is currently available to you you then attempt to fit to make your assumptions true.  Data which does not fit is discarded.  Other assumptions which would show your assumptions to be false you reject as well.

 

I think you should begin by making a specific reference to what I've writtem that you interpret as my having a prime assumtion 'that our dear old mother earth, the entirety of our precious physical universe, and the 'you' that you see in the mirror is all there is'.

 

Perhaps we should start with the definition of 'assumption'. The following definition is the most common.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof"

 

Didn't I give two examples in my post that you are responding to, which distinguish between an estimate of probability, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist as an explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, and the certainty of religious people that God exists?

 

Perhaps the problem is the paradoxical way we sometimes use language. I recall stating in a previous post that 'I believe in the true methodology of science, which requires repeated experimentation that produces consistent results before something can be accepted as true, but true only with a high degree of probability.'

 

However, the word 'believe' is a synonym for 'assume', which is to accept that something is true without proof. Therefore, if I say, 'I believe in a methodology which requires proof', it's equivalent to saying, 'I assume without proof that there exists a methodology which requires proof.' 

 

Also, I don't know why you are accusing me of cherry-picking data that fit my assumptions, and discarding other data which do not fit my assumptions. I agree that many people do this, but I am not one of them. I try to consider all sides of the argument that are availabe to me, and use my nous (capacity for rational thinking) to assess what seems most probably true.
 

[save the frogs]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's just a book. Was WW2 started by Hitler's book, or by bad people?

The men in funny hats that run religion are just using it to control people.

It's not just a book. It's the main reference human beings have on God. 

And most people come away after reading it thinking God is a joke.

What if "Satan" wrote the Bible to deceive man?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

It's not just a book. It's the main reference human beings have on God. 

And most people come away after reading it thinking God is a joke.

What if "Satan" wrote the Bible to deceive man?

 

That's the problem with religion which doesn't have much in common with the God I believe in. They tell people that they have a book which they can use to communicate with God and get God to help them, as long as they believe in that book, which IMO is a nonsense.

God created the universe, and God doesn't need a book to communicate with anyone.

Want to find God, just look inside yourself. Don't need men in funny hats to act as an intermediary.

Want to live a good life, listen to your conscience. Don't need a book to tell what is right or wrong.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

A simple comparison would be when you think of Stephen Hawking, do you think "Author" or Genius who was so far ahead of everybody else with his thoughts on Time & Space.

 

I am comparing Nietzsche with Hawkins because, in his field, Nietzsche was so far ahead of everybody else.

 

Camus is a much easier read though (says he as he scoots to find the remote control so he can watch some Sherlock Holmes on New Years Day - Life is Good)  

 

Happy New Year :) 

 

Perhaps I'm missing out on something because I give no thought whatsoever to people like Hawkings that may be geniuses in their field, but make no difference to my life in any way, shape or form. I have enough going on in my head without such as him and Nietzsche inhabiting it as well. I may well be, but I got by for over 70 years not knowing and I guess I'll get by whatever number of years I have left not knowing as well. Sorry if that is disappointing to you, but my heroes did things like winning the Battle of Britain, or exploring Antarctica, and my authors wrote things like Lord of the Rings, or Sherlock Holmes.

BTW I suspect I'm not the only one on the planet that thinks like me on that either.

 

So, to answer your question, I don't think anything about them at all as sources of information, though I do feel sorry for Hawkings being afflicted like that. That's because I'm familiar with such situations on a personal level. I spent a fraught day looking after an unfortunate man in a similar situation. Not something to wish on anyone. Of Nietzsche, I know nothing beyond the name.

[Tippaporn]

@VincentRJ

 

Before I reply to your latest post, Vince, I thought it important to first go off on a side issue of a general nature.

 

Oftentimes during an exchange I'll pose some questions to a poster in order to understand better their viewpoints and where their particular viewpoints are coming from so that I might be better able to get to the crux of their thinking and thus be able to respond more appropriately.  To my way of thinking, and per my experience, that saves time and needless back and forth exchanges that don't get us any closer to any mutual understanding.  After all, isn't the entire purpose of these exchanges an effort to reach mutual understanding?  Or to provide personal insights which others can then benefit from?  Else to me this is all a waste of time.

 

In my view if I'm asking a poster questions and receive no answers then I become wary of them in the sense that I tend to doubt their sincerity to expose their true thoughts or their intention to be utterly forthright.  Now what I've just expressed is not to be mistaken as my demanding answers to my questions from any poster.  I'm simply expressing what I feel to be fair in what I should be able to expect from a poster as a response.  Others are certainly free to decide for themselves whether what I feel is fair is fair to them.

 

Perhaps a real world example is in order to help clarify my position.  Professionally I'm an independent engineer and designer.  When I receive a new design oftentimes there is critical information missing which I absolutely require before I can proceed.  In such cases I will send my customer an email requesting the missing information by listing it out in a numbered list so that nothing gets missed.  It's been my experience that at times I may request 10 pieces of information and receive a reply providing me with only a single piece of missing information.  I then have to go through the process of re-requesting that which is missing and oftentimes this may go several rounds before I have everything (and in many instances, too, with my customer asking if I had started on the job yet ).

 

In any case, I hope that anecdote serves as a bridge to help understand that some of my questions, most of them actually , are to provide me with critical answers which I require in order to properly respond to a reply.  Hey, ich bin ein Deutscher and we Germans love efficiency. 

[thaibeachlovers]

PS. whatever caused the blue background on my previous post it wasn't intentional on my part.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Didn't I give two examples in my post that you are responding to, which distinguish between an estimate of probability, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist as an explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, and the certainty of religious people that God exists?

I'm not getting into whatever is going on between you two, but the bit I quoted caught my eye.

 

If one believes in God the creator, the maker of the universe and everything in it to the last electron, one believes that the universe is expanding, or not expanding ( as the case may be ) because it was designed that way. The exact mechanism of such expansion, or contraction ( as the case may be ) may be of interest to those that get paid lotsacash to find out, but pretty irrelevant to the rest of us. Personally I'd rather all that intelligence was put to better use such as finding out how to stop us killing each other, or a cure for cancer or such like, though perhaps that doesn't pay as well.

 

 

and the certainty of religious people that God exists?

I'm glad that you put a question mark on that, as IMO religious people may ascribe to the idea of God, but they mainly, IMO, don't follow their own rules ( at least in the case of Christianity ). Plenty of people turning up at Church that have 2 coats, haven't sold all they own and given it to the poor etc.

If I had a guess, I'd say non religious people that have a spiritual side are more likely to believe in God as a being than those that go to Church/ Temple/ Mosque on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday, and behave like a heathen the other 6 days of the week.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Sorry one of my "quirks" is I refuse to use honorifics so he's "Arthur" to me :)

 

Brilliant Author & mind

 

 

I'm with you on that. Abominable hangover from the Middle Ages IMO.

 

I once had to spend a day in a London private hospital specialing some "lord", and didn't speak to him the entire day so I didn't have to call him "my Lord". Only time I worked in the "nobs" hospital, so never happened again.

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God created the universe, and God doesn't need a book to communicate with anyone.

Want to find God, just look inside yourself. Don't need men in funny hats to act as an intermediary.

Want to live a good life, listen to your conscience. Don't need a book to tell what is right or wrong.

yeah but at some point we need to crack the code and figure out how this universe got created, by whom, and why?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

yeah but at some point we need to crack the code and figure out how this universe got created, by whom, and why?

 

God isn't a whom, and we will all find out when we pass over to the other side as to why. I doubt God cares if we know or not while we are here.

Would knowing make any difference to your life?

[save the frogs]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God isn't a whom, and we will all find out when we pass over to the other side as to why. I doubt God cares if we know or not while we are here.

Would knowing make any difference to your life?

Ok, God is a what, not a whom.

You better believe it would make a difference man. Life seems meaningless at times, but if we could understand the big picture, we might not be so pessimistic. 

 

 

Edited January 2 by save the frogs

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God isn't a whom, and we will all find out when we pass over to the other side as to why. I doubt God cares if we know or not while we are here.

Would knowing make any difference to your life?

Surely, in order to 'find out when we pass over to the other side as to why', there must be a thinking and conscious mind that continues to exist after the body has died. That is, a mind that functions without a brain. Wow! How miraculous! 

 

What seems more plausible to me is that death is like going to sleep without ever waking up. It's the end. It's all over for the individual. There's nothing to worry about and nothing to think about any more. It's equivalent to perfect and everlasting peace, which is why I prefer this idea, in the absence of any sound, contradictory and scientifically valid evidence..

[Tippaporn]

@VincentRJ and everyone else here for that matter. 

 

@Sunmaster @save the frogs @thaibeachlovers @Red Phoenix @Mike Teavee @Chris Daley @OneMoreFarang @xylophone @Walker88

 

There.  That's the usual list of suspects.  My apologies if I've included anyone who feels my invitation unwelcome.  Please just ignore, then.  And my apologies for those I've left out who may feel a bit spurned.  But I am limited as to how many posters I can include as mentions.

 

One more helpful explainer post before I respond to your recent post, Vince.

 

The purpose of this one is to aid your understanding of where I am getting my peculiar positions from.  For many of them are quite unconventional and, dare I say, even seemingly radical from the perspective of mass accepted beliefs about the nature of ourselves and the world.  That will, hopefully, go a long way in helping you cope with the many seemingly outlandish propositions I make.  I will try my best to keep this post short as my head is already filled with enough information which I feel applicable in sharing to fill a thin volume.

 

Working towards that effort I'll dispense with my long personal history covering my journey of how I arrived at my ideas.  Suffice it to say that I, like everyone else in this world - including yourself, Vincent, had many unanswered questions as to who and what I am, were I had come from (pre birth), why I find myself in this world without the slightest explanation given nor even a rudimentary primer of instructions, what I am intended to do whilst here, and whence I'm going after I take that ultimate final breath.  Not to forget such questions as to what this world is, and I prefer to use the term reality, and how exactly it functions.

 

We're all in the same boat, aren't we? 

 

To continue.  As everyone is searching for their mystery answers some of us have noted something odd.  All of those whom we had assumed were qualified to provide us with answers to our burning questions were found, after careful examination of their answers, to be sorely lacking.  And oftentimes contradictory or just plain wrong.  Too often.    Whether it was our parents and teachers or our great and wise? institutions such as religion and science.  Feeling unsatisfied some began to search for answers elsewhere.  And as we had already looked under every rock and in every crevice the idea dawned that perhaps the answers were to be found where no one was looking - not in hidden places but rather in unexpected places.  Which went a long way in explaining why, after may millennia, crucial answers still escaped us mortals to this day.

 

Another fascinating discovery we've made is that true answers to some questions lay in the direct polar opposite of where the answers we've been given by almost everyone lay.  In other words, so much of what has been accepted on a mass scale as not only true but self evident as well is false and what is actually true becomes a direct contradiction to that.  And so in many instances the fallacious logic kicks in that consensus equates to truth.  How is it even possible that 99 out of 100 can be wrong?    In any case. this realisation which has dawned on more than a few also goes a long, long way in explaining how it is possible that the actual truth remains hidden for so long when it's actually been in front of our very noses all along. 

 

Now I oddly seem to refer to myself in the plural here but it is only because I am not alone.  There are many who have stumbled upon these realisations so I speak not just for myself.

 

I'm going to cut this post off here as it's just dawned on me that this post is, unfortunately, going to exceed even the most generous definitions of 'short'.  As TBL has so wisely taught me, peoples' eyes tend to glaze over when confronted with long posts.  Everyone's time is valuable and no one wants to waste it on a bunch of nonsense.    So by truncating this post here to continue it in another post it affords the opportunity for folks to stop reading now.  If they haven't done so already. 

 

By the way, I've come to invent my own device which I now use as a measuring system to gauge my post lengths.  As I'm on a PC my reply box is fairly large.  If I have to scroll with more than a single turn and a half of my mouse wheel in order to navigate the entire post then it is too long.  Just trying to use a scientific approach rather than an entirely subjective one. 

 

To be continued . . .

[Tippaporn]

Continued . . .

 

So where is it that I'm getting my seemingly bizarre ideas from?  What's my source of information?  And how and why do I trust it and even rely upon it?

 

To answer those questions it will be necessary to make a few assumptions, or working hypotheses if you prefer.  Out of all of the unanswered questions which have stymied man for centuries perhaps one of the most pressing ones is that of what becomes of us at death.  I say 'pressing' because given the seemingly thrust upon terms of our existence in this reality our mortality is limited.  I could also say that it is one of our most concerning questions as, well, we all have to kick the pot sooner or later. 

 

Okay, so the first necessary assumption to be made is that of our continuing existence.  The answer to the question of whether or not we survive death is actually to be found in another question: is our consciousness dependent on form?  For if it is not then we can safely assume that we survive our physical demise and vacating our physical bodies, which are a necessity for interacting in this realm, means that we find habitat elsewhere - wherever that my be and in whatever form.  Now for me continuing existence is not an assumption but fact.  But since others are not so convinced as I we'll presume it to be an assumption.  Our working hypothesis to make rational the rest of what I propose, to the end that I reveal my source of information.

 

Now the concept of continued existence beyond this reality carries with it an inherent implication.  For continued existence to be true then what also must be true is the existence of more than one reality.  That much should be wholly self evident since logically if we are not here then we must be somewhere else.  So the assumption that multiple realities exist is inherent in the assumption that our consciousness is independent of our human form and survives death.

 

There's another issue that needs to be included in this hypothesis of mine.  And I believe that issue is the fact, which I believe everyone here considers as 'fact', that whilst we are in this world we are engaged in constant learning.  A synonym of (constant) learning would be (constant) growth.

 

I could one more issue and that would be the question of mortality.  Whilst it is beyond obvious that mortality applies in this world then if we survive death what becomes of mortality?  The inverse of mortal existence is eternal existence.  Yet that question is not necessary for my working hypothesis.

 

One more assumption as true would need to be made.  Given that we are learning in this existence can we safely assume we would be engaged similarly in any other existence?  My hypothesis includes continued learning, or continued growth.

 

So now the table has been set complete.  To recap:  1) Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, or mortal existence, 2) our continued existence is in at least another reality, and 3 & 4) we are constantly learning, or growing.

 

Ah, sh!t.  I'm having to scroll again.  Which means another 'continued' post.  I'll leave it to Sylvester to express for me the minced oath of "Suffering Savior." 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Continued . . .

 

Damn, I forgot a few more assumptions to round out my hypothesis.    If our consciousness is independent of form and thus survives death, and if that inherently implies that our existence continues in another reality, then it would logically follow that for us to be in this reality and emigrate to another there must exist a pathway for us to move from here to there.  Also, if our consciousness survives death then the question begs, did our consciousness exist before we came here?

 

Now if we assume that our consciousness existed before death then the inherent implication there is that there must of existed a pathway for us to have been able to immigrate to Starship Mother Earth.  Which means that if a pathway between realities exists then existence before birth and after death would mean that travel on this pathway is multi-directional.

 

For the sake of clarity I'm afraid I'll have to recap my hypothesis once again.

 

1. Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death,
2. our continued existence is in another reality,
3. pathways exist which connect these two realities,
4. we are constantly learning, or growing.

 

Okay, I added the forks and knives to our table setting.  My basic hypothesis is complete.

 

So far so good?  Any objections thus far?  I'm relying on you, Vince, as you utilise well sound reasoning, to perform a reasoning check.  Sound or no?  Don't forget to kick the tires to make sure the logic is firm.  Good there?    Perhaps I should ask you first if you're still on board and playing.  Asking because I know there's a lot of quitters in the world who aren't serious enough and their stamina wanes quickly. 

 

You've noticed by now, I'm sure, that I love to present serious ideas in a humourous fashion.  And my sincere apologies if you don't appreciate the humour.  So in all seriousness can you find any flaws in the reasoning or logic around which my hypothesis is structured?  If not then I will continue.

[Tippaporn]

Continued . . .

 

 

1. Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death,
2. our continued existence is in another reality,
3. pathways exist which connect these two realities,
4. we are constantly learning, or growing.

 

Given the above, then, I propose this scenario as a valid possibility which cannot be waved off as not possible.

 

Now it's assumed by many that all knowledge which is available to us humans has a single source; our reality.  Which is a quite natural assumption to make if, indeed, our reality is all which exists.  It could not come from anywhere else.  Once the idea of multiple, interrelated realities is accepted, however, then the assumption that the source of all of our knowledge is our singular reality automatically gets sh!tcanned.  For that assumption's very existence is dependent upon another assumption; a singular reality.  It cannot exist without it.

 

So, if knowledge also exists outside of our reality would the knowledge which exists there be able to intrude into our reality?  Now that sounds like a reasonable and logical inference to make, does it not?  After all, given the assumptions in my hypothesis then if our very consciousness is able to traverse forth and back, and forth an back multiple times in the case of reincarnation, then what is to prevent knowledge from doing the same?

 

My proposition, therefore, is that knowledge exists both in our reality and outside of this reality and that knowledge does indeed flow in both directions.  Bottom line is that what others who have left our reality have learned, and continue to learn, can be communicated back to us.    What a shocker.  I know. 

 

And now you know where the source of my information comes from.  Of course that's not my sole source.  There's me, too!!    I joke.  But then again I don't.

 

Reality is much, much more than most understand it to be.  And certainly there will be instances where the actual truth lies in the opposite direction of accepted truth.  It's tough on people when that happens.  To experience all of their seemingly sound reasoning and watertight logic of which they are so proud to fall to pieces.  Of course I wouldn't think of omitting myself from that crowd. 

 

There are many things which block access to the knowledge which lays outside of us (but really within us).  I've discussed a few of the major ones before here and elsewhere but another is the simple lack of patience.  Long ago in another thread on a similar topic in this very subforum whilst discussing with another poster this other poster then asked me flat out, "Well, what's your idea on life, then?  Explain it."  My response was this:  "To ask me to take such a vast and complex subject and attempt to distill it down to a single post would be unfair to me.  And if I attempted to do it then that would be unfair to you."  He replied in agreement.  Though it was perhaps the only thing the two of us agreed upon I respected him for not only being able to admit to the truth of it but even more so that he was able to understand the truth of it.

 

The point with my anecdote was to bring awareness to the fact that our experience in this world is so vast that it takes patience, and quite a bit of it, to assemble an accurate working which accounts for not some but all of experience.  All of it must be tied together.  Not an easy feat but still doable.

 

Why am I telling you all of this, Vince?  So that you can understand, and maybe even appreciate, that there exists knowledge of which we know little.  To keep an open mind.  And to not hold so tightly to preconceived ideas that it prevents you from seeing what else out there exists.  With sincere respect, Vince. 

[OneMoreFarang]

@Tippaporn 

There is no reason to address me (and maybe others) to then write pages of whatever you want to write.

If anybody cares about this subject, then they will read it. And if not, then not.

At least for me it was a waste of time to click on that and then see that you wrote page of whatever to whoever.

I don't care! 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The point with my anecdote was to bring awareness to the fact that our experience in this world is so vast that it takes patience, and quite a bit of it, to assemble an accurate working which accounts for not some but all of experience.  All of it must be tied together.  Not an easy feat but still doable.

Thanks @Tippaporn for the always interesting posts. Im a bit jealous that you are responding to VincentRJ before finishing the ego topic, but maybe you have a plan to join the 2 threads at some point.

And don't worry about the length, I can handle them long posts quite easily. 😄

 

So, I'm back... but man, sobering up is taking longer with each passing year. 😢

 

Just to add to the paragraph I quoted... Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for: a theory of everything. If science can't explain certain phenomena or tries to soothe us with the promise that "one day we certainly be able to explain it", then that's just not good enough and anyone who settles for such a incomplete theory is not only doing a disservice to reason generally, but first and foremost to himself.

 

During my search for a theory of everything I came across Ken Wilber and Spiral Dynamics, who tried to do just that. His theory incorporates all fields of human existence, the spiritual and the material. He doesn't just cherrypick whatever is convenient and ignores the rest. Nudge nudge, science guys. 😉

 

I can see a theory or framework where one doesn't exclude the other. It's not about whether science or spirituality have the right answers. Both have correct answers in their respective fields and both must be included when explaining reality. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Now to reply to your post.

 

On 1/1/2024 at 2:58 PM, VincentRJ said:

I think you should begin by making a specific reference to what I've writtem that you interpret as my having a prime assumtion 'that our dear old mother earth, the entirety of our precious physical universe, and the 'you' that you see in the mirror is all there is'.

 

Okay.  I'll grab the most recent one.  It's still warm.  Barely a few hours old.  Not buried yet. 

 

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Surely, in order to 'find out when we pass over to the other side as to why', there must be a thinking and conscious mind that continues to exist after the body has died. That is, a mind that functions without a brain. Wow! How miraculous! 

 

What seems more plausible to me is that death is like going to sleep without ever waking up. It's the end. It's all over for the individual. There's nothing to worry about and nothing to think about any more. It's equivalent to perfect and everlasting peace, which is why I prefer this idea, in the absence of any sound, contradictory and scientifically valid evidence..

 

While your response to TBL does not flat out say "I believe in a single reality" it is, however, implied.  It is impossible to express such sentiments while holding to the belief that other realities exist for the two are contradictory.  Your nous would tell you that, correct?  Nous.  I like that British slang.  As much as I do I prefer Sherlock Holmes' 'deductive reasoning'.  Or one of my favourites, "the proof is always in the pudding."

 

Now if you still object then we can settle this very quickly with a direct yes or no answer to a simple question.  Do you believe other realities besides ours exist?

 

I have to make one thing clear, though.  Quantum physics proposes the idea of a multiverse where basically every probable variant of an event exists.  And some hypothesize of an infinite number of such universes.

 

From Wiki on Multiverses:

The multiverse is the hypothetical set of all universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "flat universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", "multiple universes", "plane universes", "parent and child universes", "many universes", or "many worlds". One common assumption is that the multiverse is a "patchwork quilt of separate universes all bound by the same laws of physics."

 

Here's an interesting article which explains the concept in very basic terms.

 

The Many-Worlds Theory, Explained

 

“Every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself.”

 

I disagree with much of their speculations but I do commend them as they are exploring the idea of probable realities and alternate realities, which are quite valid propositions.  I hesitate to explain that concept in any great detail as it would take quite a bit to explain and it would also necessitate the introduction of so many other concepts for it to be understood.

 

Yet sadly even the multiverse theory is confined to only physical reality.  When I ask you if you believe in the existence of more than one reality then I'm inferring that not all realities are physical.  Subjective reality, for instance.  Briefly, physical reality is considered a camouflage reality.  The definition of a camouflage reality is the appearance reality takes as it expresses it's larger reality in a different medium.  No different, really, than art in which it's expression can take different forms depending on the medium - paintings upon a canvas or a model in clay or a pencil drawing on paper.  The variety of camouflages reality can take is infinite.  Just wanted to make that clear so that you know what you're answering to.

 

On 1/1/2024 at 2:58 PM, VincentRJ said:

Perhaps we should start with the definition of 'assumption'. The following definition is the most common.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof"

 

Good enough.  I can agree with that definition.

 

I'll have to go through the rest of your post later.  Outta time for today.  Cheers, Vincent. 

 

Edited January 2 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

54 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

@Tippaporn 

There is no reason to address me (and maybe others) to then write pages of whatever you want to write.

If anybody cares about this subject, then they will read it. And if not, then not.

At least for me it was a waste of time to click on that and then see that you wrote page of whatever to whoever.

I don't care! 

 

No problem. 

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Thanks @Tippaporn for the always interesting posts. Im a bit jealous that you are responding to VincentRJ before finishing the ego topic, but maybe you have a plan to join the 2 threads at some point.

And don't worry about the length, I can handle them long posts quite easily. 😄

 

So, I'm back... but man, sobering up is taking longer with each passing year. 😢

 

Just to add to the paragraph I quoted... Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for: a theory of everything. If science can't explain certain phenomena or tries to soothe us with the promise that "one day we certainly be able to explain it", then that's just not good enough and anyone who settles for such a incomplete theory is not only doing a disservice to reason generally, but first and foremost to himself.

 

During my search for a theory of everything I came across Ken Wilber and Spiral Dynamics, who tried to do just that. His theory incorporates all fields of human existence, the spiritual and the material. He doesn't just cherrypick whatever is convenient and ignores the rest. Nudge nudge, science guys. 😉

 

I can see a theory or framework where one doesn't exclude the other. It's not about whether science or spirituality have the right answers. Both have correct answers in their respective fields and both must be included when explaining reality.

 

Yeah, when you get to a certain age the sobering up process becomes so taxing that you give up drinking.  At least that's been my experience   I still enjoy a beer or a whiskey, soda & coke now and again (prefer Southern Comfort to Black Label but Southern Comfort is a liqueur, not a whiskey, though it's colouring is similar and thus can confuse).  But one of the last times I had more than a few bottles of beer whilst at home i tried to feel my wife up.   

 

The trouble with waiting for science is that, in my humble opinion - which certainly has a lot of unspoken basis to it, 'one day' will never come.  Simply because science has hogtied themselves with their methodology über alles making it's task literally impossible.  But, you just can't explain it to 'em so that they'll understand.  Well, the problem isn't that you can't explain it well enough.  Rather they can't hear the explanation with the palms of their hands covering their ears. 

 

And I fully agree with you that there needs to be a melding of science and spirituality. One or the other alone just isn't enough.

 

As to replying to your other posts I have to say that I oftentimes hold off on replying immediately for a number of reasons.  My prime reason is that too often my initial on-the-fly response is not my best.  Depending on the subject matter I may wait a day, or even more, to allow insights to bombard me.  When that happens my fingers are extremely challenged with hitting the keys fast enough to keep up with my thoughts.  And I'm a fast typer.    Also, I prefer to get to the heart of an issue.  Giving it some time allows for that to expose itself to me.  And, in our particular case, I need to hear more from a poster on a particular topic.

 

But I did arrive at a response for your posts.  I'll be typing that out as soon as I hit "Submit Reply" to this post.  Don't go to sleep too early tonight. 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Oops!!  I hate getting caught in lies.  I'm being taken away from my computer by my family.  My wife grabbed my arms and my daughter my legs.  I tried holding on to the keyboard but I had to let go to prevent ripping out the chord.  I'm afraid I won't be back until tomorrow.    I hate when life gets in my way. 

[Sunmaster]

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Oops!!  I hate getting caught in lies.  I'm being taken away from my computer by my family.  My wife grabbed my arms and my daughter my legs.  I tried holding on to the keyboard but I had to let go to prevent ripping out the chord.  I'm afraid I won't be back until tomorrow.    I hate when life gets in my way. 

No worries, I've been waiting for over 6 months, one more day won't kill me. Enjoy family time. 👍