Why does God >insert your grievance here<....?

[sipi]

How the hell did a Thai forum come to this?

[Sunmaster]

A better angle...

[Sunmaster]

Sorry, you said "no beard."...

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, sipi said:

You spelt "stroll" wrong.

No he didn't.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, sipi said:

How the hell did a Thai forum come to this?

Some Thais believe in God too. They are welcome to post about it.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:38 PM, Mike Teavee said:

In fairness & playing Devil's Advocate (If the Devil didn't exist would he have an advocate ), it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist so the onus is really on proving that it does.

One only has to look at what is going on around the planet to know that there is a blackness of pure evil in humans. I call that blackness the Devil.

[Tippaporn]

Looks like this God thread spin-off thread has just met it's maker. 

[StreetCowboy]

On 1/9/2024 at 6:39 PM, sipi said:

How the hell did a Thai forum come to this?

It was God's will

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, StreetCowboy said:

It was God's will

 

No...

Actually...

It is the will of the demigods on this forum, obviously....

 

[sipi]

Why does God have such a really big nose?

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:45 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

You lost me there. If an atomic self does not exist, how can you and I even be here to put writing on the screen?

 

I'm not taking the position that you and I don't exist; I'm simply challenging the notion of an incorporeal "self" which exists independent of one's physical body, cognitive processes, etc.

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:43 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

Sean Carroll hasn't thought things through.  And so he appeals to others who haven't thought things through.  How can I have the gall to say this?  Because the holes in his logic are big enough to drive a universe through.  I'd point them out individually but the sheer quantity of fallacious logic makes it too time consuming.  Man, this dude makes a lot of assumptions.  It'd be a pity if they're wrong. 

 

"I'd point them out, but..."

 

LOL.

 

If there are so many glaring holes in his logic, then surely you could name just one?

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:42 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If you do not believe in a creator God, you must believe in an alternate reason for your existence. Do you think the universe just happened, just popped into existence for no reason at all- one minute it wasn't there and the next minute all the matter in the entire universe just existed, and came from nowhere, or do you think it was magic?

 

Not necessarily.

 

It's possible that there is no reason for my existence and/or that of the universe in general.

 

The principle of sufficient reason is a product of a bygone age in both physics and philosophy.

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:18 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

Proof thing?  What proof thing?  Let's consider that by going a bit deeper, shall we?

 

Your reasoning is based on a false assumption.  The assumption is that everything can be proven.  Well, yes and no.  So to clarify.  Everything can be proven but not everything can be proven by providing physical evidence.  So to restate more accurately, your reasoning is based on the false assumption that everything can be proven with physical evidence, or in physical terms.

 

Before you take offense at me for having the impudence to suggest that your assumption is wrong then consider this:

 

Now I was just chided by @pomchop for being condescending as he interpreted me "to be pretending to "understand" something that others can't grasp" and having the temerity and hubris to think my thoughts run deeper than others.  Well, in this case my thoughts do run deeper than those who think and believe that everything can be proven via physical evidence.  Those who do believe that haven't thought it through yet.  Now just because I have doesn't mean that I'm smarter, or deeper than anyone else.  Anyone can think things through if they want and come to the same conclusions and therefore come to know what I know.  It's simply stating a fact that I've thought things through on this issue whereas others have not yet.  No judgement here; just an accurate assessment of reality.

 

Perhaps the most obvious example that not everything can be proven is thoughts.  Thoughts are purely subjective and not at all objective.  Would it be possible to prove what someone is thinking via physical evidence?  Not if the thoughts don't provide any physical evidence.  "You handsum man."  How many farang have been taken to the cleaners with that line?  You could be with a Thai lady for years believing that she loves you despite the fact that she's only boning you dry and has a Thai guy on the side.  For years there may be no physical evidence of her thoughts.  But that physical evidence may come only after she's drained your bank account and left you high and dry as she skips town with her Thai true love.  Then, and only then, will you have physical evidence of her thoughts.  But never as long as she's keeping her thoughts private.

 

Here's another example of what cannot be proven.  Some people believe that life happens to you.  Some people believe the opposite; that you create your life.  Who is correct?  Now prove it.  You'll quickly find out that you cannot prove either theory to be either true or false.  Which theory is correct can only be proven by you to yourself.  And once you've proven it to yourself, whichever of the two doesn't matter, you will never be able to convince another by placing the physical evidence of proof in the palm of their hands.  And so it is with God, or what God represents.  Which is what Sunmaster was explaining.  You couldn't process what he was telling you precisely because you held a false assumption that everything can be proven in physical terms.  Once you understand that the assumption is false then, and only then, can you begin to understand what Sunmaster is explaining.

 

A long-winded attempt to evade the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being.

 

Bottom line:

 

Two types of proof:

 

1. Empirical.

2. A priori philosophical.

 

You have yet to offer either one.

 

If you wish to try your hand at the former, (empirical) then feel free to present your evidence that God is the best theory when it comes to explaining the universe we see.

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:04 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

That brings us back to the old "confusing religion with God" fallacy. IMO religion as a man made construct conforms to human desires, which are all different and all about humans, and God conforms to nothing except God. We don't "know" about God because we are IMO of no more importance to God the creator of the universe and everything in it down to the smallest particle, than a microbe. God created the organisms that became both humans and microbes, and both are part of the planetary existence- neither of more importance than the other.

IMO it's only the arrogance of humans that think we are important on a cosmic scale that leads some to think God gives a <deleted> about us.

 

I admit that my opinions are probably not in accordance with the OP's concerning such.

 

Then, by your reasoning, God has no explanatory power and is superfluous when it comes to our understanding of how reality works.

[fusion58]

On 1/8/2024 at 7:41 PM, Sunmaster said:

This is funny. 🤣🤣

First of all, I don't have the burden to provide you or anyone with jack sht. Maybe you confuse me with someone who believes in a Godman sitting on a cloud. 

 

Second, are you saying you have no self? Wow! Are you a robot? An AI bot? 😂😂

Hey, prove to me that I am alive! 

 

And you say "incorporeal", as if there were a corporeal self. Where is this corporeal self? Can you point it out to me? 

 

You seem to be missing my point as my position is that neither one of these exists.

 

We observe physical, chemical and biological processes along with emergent cognitive processes.

 

Nowhere do we observe some sort of fixed and unchanging "man behind the curtain" who exists independently of said processes.

[fusion58]

On 1/8/2024 at 5:32 PM, sipi said:

Why does God have a beard?

 

And why does his son look like Kenny Loggins? 😂

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 4:42 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you think the universe just happened, just popped into existence for no reason at all- one minute it wasn't there and the next minute all the matter in the entire universe just existed, and came from nowhere, or do you think it was magic?

 

Your question assumes that which you're trying to prove, i.e., that the universe was "created" like some sort of artifact or construct.

 

(And, of course, the corollary to the assumption is that God is some kind of cosmic architect, builder, etc.)

 

However, it's entirely possible that the universe is uncreated, self-contained, self-sufficient and in no need of anything (or anyone) external or ontologically distinct from itself to hold it up or to keep it running.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

"I'd point them out, but..."

 

LOL.

 

If there are so many glaring holes in his logic, then surely you could name just one?

 

Oh, dear.    Since I didn't point out any of Sean Carroll's specific logical flaws then I must be merely making a fraudulent claim since my claim was only in the general.  Hence your "gotcha" expressed by your "LOL."     And so you now challenge me to point out just one . . . if I can . . . in the hope that I can't and thus, well, you get to rejoice in your "gotcha" moment.  "I proved Tippers wrong!!!"    So let's have some fun. 

 

The Sean Carroll quote you provided clearly identifies his belief in naturalism, as he uses it to contrast it with theism in all of his examples.  For the benefit of the audience let's define 'naturalism' so we're all on the same page.  The bolded text in all quotes is mine.

 

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe. In its primary sense it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.

 

For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This stronger formulation of naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism. On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism.

 

Naturalism makes one basic assumption around which the idea achieves it's singular validity.  That assumption is that of a single objective personhood, a single objective world, and a single objective universe . . . all a part of "Nature."  Objectivity, or materialism, is all that exists.  Stated by Charles Albert Dubray in 1911:

 

"Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning"

 

Naturalism, therefore, by it's very definition must deny the existence of any phenomenon outside of a single, objective, materialistic reality.  I admit that there is another option to outright denial, though.  And that is to fit, or squeeze, all unexplained phenomenon into naturalism's narrow confines by explaining it in a way that makes a modicum of rational sense.  And logical explanations which are seemingly solid given only naturalism's premises.  All mental machinations necessary, of course, to make it fit.

 

But what if naturalism's premise, it's Great Assumption, is in false.  Well, dear fusion58, then the rules of this game of life change quite dramatically and radically.  That conclusion.is based on deductive logic.  It's a priori.

 

Sean Carroll's arguments are logical only within the framework of naturalism.  Framework equating to paradigm as given in the first quote.  Outside of the framework of naturalism the arguments are illogical.  Again refer to the first quote, "Naturalism should be assumed [to be true]. . . without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true."  How convenient, eh?  Lets' assume it true and not consider whether it is or not.  Sheesh!!    Which is why I made the general statement that his arguments, all based on the idea of naturalism being true, contain holes in their logic.  But again, those holes can only be perceived if his assumption is not taken as Bible (pun intended ).  You have to take the "naturalism" blinders off to see them.  Which you obviously don't.

 

"You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner."

 

Here Carroll offers a fallacy of argument which exists even within the paradigm of naturalism.  For his theistic conclusions do not logically follow.  Here he is willing to go to disingenuous lengths to "prove" his point.

 

Now I'll leave you to the one, two, three-liner short posts.  As you consider your snippet statements to be overwhelming self-evident and self-explanatory then there's simply no reason for you to provide long-winded rationales and logic which support your self-evidential statements.  You assume them to be true, after all.  And, according to your logic, so should everyone else.    You can leave it to me to provide the verbose rationales and logic necessary for clear understanding that, if nothing else, question your assumptions as true.  To your dismayed chagrin, of course. 

[JackGats]

On 1/8/2024 at 8:06 PM, Mark Nothing said:

....

Other gigantic problems like natural disasters and accidents are beyond our scope of comprehension.  Maybe it makes us appreciate good times more.  Or a future gain comes from a current catastrophe that otherwise would not be possible.

Well, I don't think natural disasters and accidents are beyond comprehension. They are further proof that physics and Earth sciences are correct, and that we are, alas, subject to physical laws AND NOTHING ELSE. There is no gain or future gain to be had from any suffering. Suffering of any kind is evil, period.

[Tippaporn]

14 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

A long-winded attempt to evade the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being.

 

Bottom line:

 

Two types of proof:

 

1. Empirical.

2. A priori philosophical.

 

You have yet to offer either one.

 

If you wish to try your hand at the former, (empirical) then feel free to present your evidence that God is the best theory when it comes to explaining the universe we see.

 

I'm sorry to have to serve as the messenger who delivers the unwelcome news to you that no one is required to provide anyone else with any proof, especially given in the acceptable terms of another.  You've failed to understand my previous post regarding physical proofs in reply to your insistence that everything which exists can be proven with physical evidence.  So I'll link to it so that you can reread it.

Only within the framework, the paradigm of naturalism, which is a strictly materialistic worldview, can one ask for physical proofs.  Physical proofs for what lay outside of that paradigm cannot in all cases be given.  It is impossible.  And the materialistic view of the world . . . one objective personhood, one objective world, one objective universe, is your present worldview.  Hence your stubbornness to continually ask for proof of a kind which does not exist.

 

You simply don't understand the quandary which you have created for yourself.  I'll put it to you this way:

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

 

That is the hard reality.  Your view of a materialistic world is a belief.  In the sense that it is a belief it is a belief, then, no different than a belief in God.  For neither are accurate representations of reality as it exists apart from beliefs.  And it should also be understood that reality does not change what it is or how it functions to conform to anyone's beliefs about it or it's functioning.  Reality is supremely consistent, utterly reliable, entirely dependable and makes no exceptions.

 

A belief is an idea considered by the subscriber to the idea of being "true."  As long as one considers their belief to be "true" they will not question it.  Now that is common knowledge known for ages.  You believe that one objective personhood, one objective world, one objective universe is "true."  Thus you would never dare question it's validity.  As per Wiki from my previous post, naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true.  You do not, and will not, consider whether naturalism is true or not.

 

Therefore it seems beyond your imagination, in defiance of your logic, which logic is derived from a limited data set, that anyone could believe other than you do.  Cannot see what you do.  The very idea that someone can refute what you believe to be true is seen as an assault upon your very intellect and a direct renunciation of your "truths."

 

Now I see what you see.  On the other hand you do not see what I see.  As long as you are unwilling to question the validity of your beliefs they will blind you to what I see.  That is the quandary you've created for yourself.  No amount of argument or rationale or logic which you can provide others who see what I see can convince them that they do not know what they know.

 

All I'm telling you, fusion58, is there exists more, much more, than what you are currently aware of.  You claim that only that which you are aware of is all that exists.  I say, "no."  Accept it or reject it.  Up to you. 

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Well, I don't think natural disasters and accidents are beyond comprehension. They are further proof that physics and Earth sciences are correct, and that we are, alas, subject to physical laws AND NOTHING ELSE. There is no gain or future gain to be had from any suffering. Suffering of any kind is evil, period.

 

You forgot to add the disclaimer:

 

These beliefs are mine and are not meant as a claim that they are accurate representations of bedrock reality.  I am not responsible for the effects upon any other for adopting my beliefs.  Subscribe to these beliefs at your own risk.

 

[save the frogs]

In the weeks prior to his death, J.M.W. Turner is said to have declared (to John Ruskin) ‘The Sun is God’ –  what he meant by this, no-one really knows ...

 

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

In the weeks prior to his death, J.M.W. Turner is said to have declared (to John Ruskin) ‘The Sun is God’ –  what he meant by this, no-one really knows ...

 

 

When you die there's a guy shining a floodlight in your face so as you follow it you can see and so not trip in the dark.  Turner interpreted the floodlight to be the sun.  Mistakes happen. 

[fusion58]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm sorry to have to serve as the messenger who delivers the unwelcome news to you that no one is required to provide anyone else with any proof, especially given in the acceptable terms of another. 

 

So your position is that you're operating outside of any sort of formal logical or philosophical framework where the burden of proof is a thing?

 

Or are you simply so grandiose as to believe your claims are self-evident and/or that we should simply take your word for them because you have "faith" in the existence of supernatural agencies?

 

Good luck being taken seriously by anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty.

 

Quote

You've failed to understand my previous post regarding physical proofs in reply to your insistence that everything which exists can be proven with physical evidence. 

 

If you can't support your contention that God is the best theory we have for explaining how reality works with physical evidence, then what sort of evidence do you propose to offer?

 

The only other category of proof is the a priori philosophical or logical kind.

 

Theists have historically fallen on their faces in their attempts to produce evidence or sound arguments in either arena.

 

Quote

Your view of a materialistic world is a belief.  In the sense that it is a belief it is a belief, then, no different than a belief in God.

 

False. Naturalism isn't a "belief." It's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence.

 

When naturalists form hypotheses or scientific theories, then, unlike theists and other magical thinking types, they actually go out and look to see whether those hypotheses or scientific theories fit the data, i.e., match the world we see.

 

Quote

All I'm telling you, fusion58, is there exists more, much more, than what you are currently aware of. 

 

This is almost tautological as far as science is concerned. Not exactly a bombshell there.

 

The problem here, however, is that (a) your ontology includes supernatural agencies or entities which, by definition, are outside the realm of observable or verifiable phenomena, and, more importantly, (b) you (and most theists) claim to have certainty re: the existence of such agencies and/or entities despite having zero evidence for them.

 

You could probably make life a lot easier for yourself by just accepting that your belief in the supernatural is a matter of faith vs. a matter of fact.

[fusion58]

On 1/9/2024 at 8:20 AM, Tippaporn said:

Just as no one there could prove the existence of God in physical terms neither could he prove the tenets upon which his atheism is founded upon in real terms. 

 

LOL.

 

Atheism has no "tenets" - just as atheism is not a "belief system."

 

Atheism is simply the refusal to accept that which is offered without evidence - in this case, the existence of a supernatural sky monarch.

 

Quote

The onus can't be placed on the person making the claim if the claim involves something which cannot be proven with physical evidence that can be placed in one's hand, metaphorically speaking.

 

LOL.

 

"Hey guys! There's a leprechaun on a purple unicorn in the next room! Proof? What are you talking about? I don't need no stinking proof! Why not? Because no one can see them!"

 

[fusion58]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Since I didn't point out any of Sean Carroll's specific logical flaws then I must be merely making a fraudulent claim since my claim was only in the general. 

 

You made no claim at all (which is the point.)

 

You simply pounded your fist on the table and cried "he's really, really wrong! He's wrong in more ways than I can count!" without actually offering any sort of counterargument and without naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong.

 

Not exactly a winning formula for having your objections (whatever they may be) taken seriously.

 

Quote

The Sean Carroll quote you provided clearly identifies his belief in naturalism, as he uses it to contrast it with theism in all of his examples.

 

There you go with that false equivalence fallacy again.

 

Naturalism isn't a "belief" - it's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence.

 

Quote

Naturalism, therefore, by it's very definition must deny the existence of any phenomenon outside of a single, objective, materialistic reality.

 

Inaccurate definition.

 

There's no need to deny something the sole burden to prove the existence of which rest solely on the proponent, e.g., a supernatural realm, supernatural agencies, etc.

 

Moreover, naturalists are normally too busy studying the world and the universe we actually observe to waste time with people who claim, for example, that unicorns exist and no proof of their existence is required because unicorns belong to some kind of different or special ontological category.

 

Quote

Sean Carroll's arguments are logical only within the framework of naturalism.

 

A logical argument (or mathematical axiom) is either true or false, valid or invalid, independent of any "framework." What's next? Are you going to argue for the existence of some supernatural realm in which 2+2=5? 😂

 

In any case, you speak of a "framework of naturalism" as if there were some other type of "framework" for studying how the world works...which brings us full circle to your burden (and repeated failure) to establish the existence of a supernatural realm (or "framework.')

 

Quote

Now I'll leave you to the one, two, three-liner short posts. 

 

 Frankly, it doesn't take much more than those to refute the pseudo-intellectual nonsense you've been slinging here, once we extract the gist of your arguments from the copious volumes of superfluous hot air which accompany them. 😀

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

When you die there's a guy shining a floodlight in your face so as you follow it you can see and so not trip in the dark.  Turner interpreted the floodlight to be the sun.  Mistakes happen. 

 

Christian Mass is on SUN-day. 

Christmas = winter solstice (SOL = SUN)

St John the Baptist = summer solstice

Easter is a celebration of the Sun being reborn every year after a long dark winter.

 

https://steemit.com/science/@kanggary/the-sun-is-the-real-god-as-proven-by-science-and-confirmed-by-the-narrator

the Sun was worshipped, honoured and revered by all ancient civilizations and cultures on earth ... In Hinduism, Sun is called the soul of the universe ... 

 

People are still worshipping Sun and Moon all over the world ... But, without knowing the Truth ... all religions, religious or cultural festivals circle around the Sun and Moon

 

All religions have Pagan roots ... all our today's religions worship Sun as well ... But, Indirectly and without knowing the Truth Unfortunately ... worshipping Sun indirectly has disconnected mankind from our God

 

It is a long story ... how childrens of the Sun forgot their god and created so many gods, divided the mankind and caused destruction on earth ...

 

 

 

 

[save the frogs]

6 hours ago, fusion58 said:

A logical argument

 

But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible
Logical, oh, responsible, practical
Then they showed me a world where I could be so dependable
Oh, clinical, oh, intellectual, cynical

 

 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Christian Mass is on SUN-day. 

Christmas = winter solstice (SOL = SUN)

St John the Baptist = summer solstice

Easter is a celebration of the Sun being reborn every year after a long dark winter.

 

https://steemit.com/science/@kanggary/the-sun-is-the-real-god-as-proven-by-science-and-confirmed-by-the-narrator

the Sun was worshipped, honoured and revered by all ancient civilizations and cultures on earth ... In Hinduism, Sun is called the soul of the universe ... 

 

People are still worshipping Sun and Moon all over the world ... But, without knowing the Truth ... all religions, religious or cultural festivals circle around the Sun and Moon

 

All religions have Pagan roots ... all our today's religions worship Sun as well ... But, Indirectly and without knowing the Truth Unfortunately ... worshipping Sun indirectly has disconnected mankind from our God

 

It is a long story ... how childrens of the Sun forgot their god and created so many gods, divided the mankind and caused destruction on earth ...

 

Nah.  I'm not going to touch that distortion of reality.

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

 

That's the hard reality.  The beliefs folks have come up with through the ages and into the present - about life, about God, about most everything - are literally unlimited.  Most are distortions and/or outright false.  The above is just another.

 

Just an example.  The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid.  That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth."  "Trust the science," was endlessly repeated everywhere you turned.  You could not escape the trumpeting of that message if you tried.  Trumpeted by the Gods of Science.  That turned out to be a belief about reality and not hard reality.  Yet millions upon millions upon millions believed that the belief was "true" and that the science was "true."  Now we all know it was false.

 

This is not an attempt to move this conversation to Covid.  I'm merely using a very recent development as it's fresh in everyone's mind and it's an event we've all experienced on a very deep and personal level.  And which illustrates perfectly how easily folks can be sucked into a false reality and believe it, even for a short time, with absolute, unconditional conviction.  It was literally impossible, for a time, to convince people otherwise.

 

That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise.  It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true.  And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to  challenge the great power of belief.  There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity.  That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs.  Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true."

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

 

Folks would do well to cultivate a thorough understanding of what beliefs are, how they function, what their purpose is, where they come from, how they're created and what their effects are.  It would save one a whole lot of trouble.  Don't take it from me.  You are all free to find out for yourselves at your own pace and take as much time as you need to figure it out on your own via trial and error.