Great, no "Afterlife"?

[Navigator]

And there is no proof either way for the existence of faeries. So, am I to hold no position on faeries as well?
Without evidence, we should disregard faeries and afterlife. And God.

Somewhere in this vast infinity of a universe, it is likely that Faeries exist.
However, in relation to our own plantary reality, these may have no bearing on us.
It is far too hasty to disregard possibilities just because there is no evidence.
This is especially significant in regards to the 'God" question...To disgard such is as ignorant as to attach any particular human like traits onto it (as religion does) and/or use the natural concept as a means of having power over many individuals (as religion,science, culture and politics do in varing ways.)
You are free to choose to disregard all posibility in favour of what is tangable.
As I am free to investigate the possibilities, using the talents IO have.
It is like music. I can create music out of my imagination because it is there and tangable to me.
Music is not the only thing...


I try to live both for the moment (or in the present) but with an eye to the immediate future and an awareness that I have about seventy years in total. I would like to have more but not eternity.

Why not?


I do not have to deal with eternity because there is no evidence for it.

Apart from the physical universe, I guess not.
Chances are that reincarnation without prior memories will be the result...you will be 'reprocessed' and effectively who you are will be blank slated...until you find the 'personality' which trancends such belief systems as finality.

(At least that would be more just than the 'oops - you made a mistake - off to hell for eternity' tripe.)

Then again...maybe 'afterlife is simply dependant upon personal belief systems this side of the misty veil...so that everyone gets what they imagine.

In that case we can all be correct (that would be fair)


I will continue not to believe that I will live forever unless and until I see evidence for it.

Okay - so even if you discover you are still aware and intelligent and esentially you - when you have left the body you identified yourself as being, while this will prove there is more to 'life' than you were ever willing to investigate prior to the event...this will still not show you evidence for eternal beingness.
If it happens, then you still will not believe because according to every belief system you endorsed for yourself, IT IS NOT SPOSED TO BE HAPPENING...so you might find yourself beliving that it is a prolonged hallucination wrought by a stressed brain, and when you body finally snuffs in total, mecifully the hallucination will die with it.
End of story.


How do know that this whole earth aint a molecule in some other universe? Who cares? No evidence, no need to consider it.

I disagree.
Science (or anything else) cannot prove or disprove such a possibility, and to not consider it, is mere perpetuated ignorance.
If we considered it possible, then we could examine at length the nature of that possibility and determine that this changes everything we thought we knew about us.
The first question to consider would be "Why" I chose to explore this holograme?
Was it to forget myself forever, or remember myself from a point of origin, one which prior to the experience, I was unaware of, because I had no beginning ...How do you know that this whole earth reality aint just some holograme which gives something eternal something to do with eternity?


Other answers must remain legitimate in the realms of possibility, because the realms exist in human thought and awareness and contemplation.

Without evidence, anything is possible but without any reason to choose one above the other.

It is not about choosing one above the other. What is evident is not discarded in favor of what is not...rather what is not evidenced is neither discarded in favor of what is.


Without evidence there are no answers.

This is not true. Always there are answers...evidence or not.
True answers are not always a given thing, even based upon evidence presented.


Possibilities without evidence are indistinguishable with respect to truth
Without evidence, anything goes.

That seems to be the nature of the Universe yes...anything goes.
The best stance to assume is one which embraces all things posible, regardless of whether the body senses can detect these things or not.


What deep reasons can there be for belief without proof in anything except a deep desire for it to be true. And how does "a deep desire for it to be true" lend any weight to anything actually being true. Hence afterlife is on the same level as invisible pink unicorns

What evidence supports anyone's deep desire for world peace to being true?
Deep desire alone does not manifest reality.
It is one thing to wonder at the possibility of 'God" existing, another to have a desire to contact that possibility, another to actually do so.
All Subjective.
All Real.



I am proposing that subjective is not irrelevant simple because some branch of science declares it irrelevant.
Subjective has it's place.

Well, I would say what evidence do you have that this is true.

My life.
But I understand we each are far too busy having our own individual subjective lifes, to be wondering to deeply the significance of any others who are having their subjective realities...how else could subjective reality be proved unless we each were able to live the lives of each other.
That is something God does simultaniously - save us having to do it.
This is also what causes "God" to be in this Universe...the ability to venture into every concievable subjective reality and transpose the inforamation of these experiences into one of coherancy and direction.
This Coherancy is indeed Objective.
This is about knowing one's 'place' in the sceme of this...without dishing oneself, or others...without dishing the whole idea of 'that which isnt so evident, in favour of 'my one and only chance at 70 years of doing whatever I like with my sujective reality, uncaring even about all the other subjective realities which I might take advantage of, not realising that all these planetary subjective realities together create the planetary objective reality.

Subjective may not be irrelevant but it is unreliable. Subjective beliefs must be tested through objective evidence that there is any basis for them. Otherwise anything goes.

Fine. Easier said than done. I find that I have a system which can help measure my subjective reality with objective tools.
There is always work to do, and the system demands a certain amount of study time and commitment to details and a necessary unbiased framework.
All too often, those who already are convinced, make presumptions which further inhibit them from using the system in order to see for themselve.
I am wondering why this is so.
I think it is a product of two things mainly.
1: I have not skillfuly developed a way of presenting the system which would give it maximum interest.
2: Some individuals are seriously calling out for evidence which they really don;t believe exists, so if evidence comes along, it has to be in the form of some 'superhuman' intervention, rather than a boring little tool which insists upon personal imput and evaulation and application.


You are a mystic.

I am?

Imagination is not the be all and end all. Imagination is very useful for generating ideas but hopeless for deciding things.

What is to be decided?
Imagination is not serarate from reality. The two are one, and exist together for a reason.
Always reality says "I have a Question" and Imagination replies "I have a possible Answer"


Ideas are many, diverse and contradictory. The only way to sort the wheat from the chaff, is evidence for one above the other.

Which is always done through actions...Trying out the ideas to see if they work, and work for the purpose they were manifested for.
Yes - ideas are manifested as thoughts - and progress from there.
Someone had an idea for seeing if indeed a mirror could be created and sent into orbit, which could help us discover the origins of this Universe.
While it has discovered much more than even the imagination could imagine, it has yet to discover 'origin'.

So it wasn;t a bad idea.

Anyhoo, ideas they will keep flowing, but really the best idea is to get everyone to agree on 'why' we are here.
In the long run, I think it a bad idea to suggest that we don;t require a reason (as a collective obejective) for being in this reality.
Science, Religion, Culture and Politics all have ideas about a great deal many things, but these 'Houses' are not altogether in anything other than competition.

I could be incorrect, but my imagination informs me that if these 'Houses' continue to compete, the results won't be pleasant for the majority of those who support these 'Houses' as the fragmented organisations they are.

But anyhoo...you have 70 years as an individual intelligent awareness, so what is that to you if the world craps itself?

 

[BillyJoe]

Navigator,

Somewhere in this vast infinity of a universe, it is likely that Faeries exist.

Likely? Now why would that be likely. I would say, considering the complete lack of evidence , very UNlikely.

It is far too hasty to disregard possibilities just because there is no evidence.

I am all for imagination and fantasy. It's good fun . But I am no about to base my life on something for which there is no eason to believe it exist other than in my imagination.

This is especially significant in regards to the 'God" question...To disgard such is as ignorant as....

It is especially relevant to the "God" question. Belief in God has grave implications for the way you live your life. So it better have some basis in fact, otherwise you whole life may be lived on the basis of an illusion.

It is like music. I can create music out of my imagination because it is there and tangable to me.

The basis of music is both scientific and mathematical. Imagination can create beautiful music which can give great pleasure. What relevance has this to your point about God and faeries?

Why [do you] not [wish to live for eternity]?

I have lost count the number of times I have answered this question.

Apart from the physical universe, I guess [there is] not [any evidence for eternity].

The physical universe had a beginning and most likely (according to the evidence ) will have an end. An all indications are that the physical universe (spacetime) is not infinite.

Chances are that reincarnation without prior memories will be the result...you will be 'reprocessed' and effectively who you are will be blank slated...until you find the 'personality' which trancends such belief systems as finality.

Sorry, this is mystical mumbo jumbo to me.

(Then again...maybe 'afterlife is simply dependant upon personal belief systems this side of the misty veil...so that everyone gets what they imagine.

I see you have a sense of humour (at least I hope that's what this is)

I will continue not to believe that I will live forever unless and until I see evidence for it.

Okay - so even if you discover you are still aware and intelligent and esentially you - when you have left the body you identified yourself as being.....

All the evidence is that materialism is true. By this philosophy, *you* cannot leave your body. *You* are an integral part of your brain and necessarily die with it. There are other possibilities that I am willing to entertain but I'm not basing my life on it untill there is evidence that they are more than just possibilities.

Science (or anything else) cannot prove or disprove such a possibility, and to not consider it, is mere perpetuated ignorance.

All possibilities should be considered....initially. But if continued consideration continually fails to reveal any basis for such a possibility, then sooner or later it should be discarded as being not worthy of further consideration.

If we considered it possible, then we could examine at length the nature of that possibility and determine that this changes everything we thought we knew about us.

It could only do so if examination of that possibility provided evidence that it was more than a mere possibility.

The first question to consider would be "Why" I chose to explore this holograme?

What holograme?

Was it to forget myself forever, or remember myself from a point of origin, one which prior to the experience, I was unaware of, because I had no beginning

You are beginning to sound all mystical again.

How do you know that this whole earth reality aint just some holograme which gives something eternal something to do with eternity?

How do you know that it does?
I am under no obligation to prove your hypothesis true. It is the originator of the hypothesis who must show why others should give it any consideration.

Other answers must remain legitimate in the realms of possibility, because the realms exist in human thought and awareness and contemplation.

That is not enough for me. Just thinking up a fantasy world does not give it any legitimacy.

It is not about choosing one above the other. What is evident is not discarded in favor of what is not...rather what is not evidenced is neither discarded in favor of what is.

I was not talking about choosing between what is evidenced and what is not evidenced. That is a lay down misere in favour of what is evidenced. I was saying that there is no basis for choosing between all those multiple and various ideas that are not evidenced.

Always there are answers...evidence or not.
True answers are not always a given thing, even based upon evidence presented.

And how do you arrive at these answers if you are not going to rely on evidence?

That seems to be the nature of the Universe yes...anything goes.

You have no basis for saying this. Anything does not go however much you may wish it to be true.

The best stance to assume is one which embraces all things posible, regardless of whether the body senses can detect these things or not.

Initially, yes. Consider everything when it first occurs to you. However, sooner or later you must shift the wheat from the chaff.

What evidence supports anyone's deep desire for world peace to being true?

You are kidding me aren't you?

Deep desire alone does not manifest reality.
It is one thing to wonder at the possibility of 'God" existing, another to have a desire to contact that possibility, another to actually do so.
All Subjective.
All Real.

How do you actually "contact that possibility". Subjectively? Subjectively there are about as many possibilities as there are thinking beings in this universe. So we can every thinking being in the universe trying to sujectively contact their possibilities or we can objectively shift the wheat form the chaff.

I am proposing that subjective is not irrelevant simple because some branch of science declares it irrelevant.
Subjective has it's place.

Subjective is a starting point but it is a starting point only. Objectivity is the way forward from this starting point.

I understand we each are far too busy having our own individual subjective lifes, to be wondering to deeply the significance of any others who are having their subjective realities...how else could subjective reality be proved unless we each were able to live the lives of each other.
That is something God does simultaniously - save us having to do it.
This is also what causes "God" to be in this Universe...the ability to venture into every concievable subjective reality and transpose the inforamation of these experiences into one of coherancy and direction.
This Coherancy is indeed Objective.
This is about knowing one's 'place' in the sceme of this...without dishing oneself, or others...without dishing the whole idea of 'that which isnt so evident, in favour of 'my one and only chance at 70 years of doing whatever I like with my sujective reality, uncaring even about all the other subjective realities which I might take advantage of, not realising that all these planetary subjective realities together create the planetary objective reality.

Nice philosophy. But what has led you to believe in this philosophy? And why should anyone blieve in it with you over and above other competing philosophies.
Everyone goes about their own subjective experiences leaving it to God to objectively weld it all together into a universal whole.
Frankly, it sounds like a cop out to me. pardon me saying so.

I find that I have a system which can help measure my subjective reality with objective tools.....etc....etc....etc

Then, according to you previous paragraph you believe you are God?

I am [a mystic]?

You certainly sound like one in parts, relying on subjective experiences rather than objective evidence. But I see now that you have "objective tools". Hmmm, I wonder what that nature of these could be consdering that you are interested in only one subjective experience (your own). What, pray tell, are you going to measure your subjective experiences against with you "objective tools"?
(If I am talking gobbledegook here, its possibly because you are not particularly clear yourself)

What is to be decided?

Truth. Imagination is very useful for generating ideas but hopeless for deciding truth.

Always reality says "I have a Question" and Imagination replies "I have a possible Answer"

And science says here is the evidence for why this "possible answer" is preferable to other "possible answers". "Possible answers" are what science calls hypotheses. "Possible answers" plus supporting evidence are what science calls theories.

[Sorting the wheat from the chaff] is always done through actions...Trying out the ideas to see if they work, and work for the purpose they were manifested for.
Yes - ideas are manifested as thoughts - and progress from there.

How do you try out ideas to see if they work, other than through the scientific method?

Someone had an idea for seeing if indeed a mirror could be created and sent into orbit, which could help us discover the origins of this Universe.
While it has discovered much more than even the imagination could imagine, it has yet to discover 'origin'. So it wasn;t a bad idea.

I have not heard about this. Do you have any further information?

Anyhoo, ideas they will keep flowing, but really the best idea is to get everyone to agree on 'why' we are here.

On the contrary, there is no evidence that there is a given reason why we are here and this, consequently leaves everyone free to find their own personally satisfying reason.

In the long run, I think it a bad idea to suggest that we don;t require a reason (as a collective obejective) for being in this reality.

It is your life. Why should you subject (using this world in its other meaning of course) your life to some "collective objective meaning" (which I assume is equivalent to my "given meaning")?

But anyhoo...you have 70 years as an individual intelligent awareness, so what is that to you if the world craps itself?

Well, I am a father as well.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Navigator]

Somewhere in this vast infinity of a universe, it is likely that Faeries exist.

Likely? Now why would that be likely. I would say, considering the complete lack of evidence , very UNlikely.

BillyJoe - you rely on objective evidence, which is fine. That obital mirror shows us a tiny portion of an infinite wonder.
It is in having seen this evidence which propels me to disregard altogether the notion that somewhere out there it is IMPOSSIBLE for Unicorns and Faeries (etc) to exist...'unlikely' is a word which no longer serves any logic in regards to the vastness of this Universe.

It is far too hasty to disregard possibilities just because there is no evidence.

I am all for imagination and fantasy. It's good fun . But I am no about to base my life on something for which there is no eason to believe it exist other than in my imagination.

If I was to base my Life on Science, Religion, Culture Politics, Faeries or Unicorns, then yes, I would agree with you.
The Base of my Life is First Source - aka - 'God'

This is especially significant in regards to the 'God" question...To disgard such is as ignorant as....

It is especially relevant to the "God" question. Belief in God has grave implications for the way you live your life. So it better have some basis in fact, otherwise you whole life may be lived on the basis of an illusion.

How far has Science come in revealing the illusion? What are these 'grave implications' you speak of?
Let us examine them together...I will start by pretending that I have 70 odd years of experiencing life before I snuff it am am no longer.
Ah oh...already I see that it does not matter...'grave implications' are meaningless - as meaningless as my 70-odd years...


It is like music. I can create music out of my imagination because it is there and tangable to me.

The basis of music is both scientific and mathematical. Imagination can create beautiful music which can give great pleasure. What relevance has this to your point about God and faeries?

First Source is manifest through individual human life.


Apart from the physical universe, I guess [there is] not [any evidence for eternity].

The physical universe had a beginning and most likely (according to the evidence ) will have an end. An all indications are that the physical universe (spacetime) is not infinite.

Look again...it is unknown if this Universe even has an origin...the 'Big Bang' could be one of a series of pulses which have always been and will always be.


All the evidence is that materialism is true. By this philosophy, *you* cannot leave your body. *You* are an integral part of your brain and necessarily die with it. There are other possibilities that I am willing to entertain but I'm not basing my life on it untill there is evidence that they are more than just possibilities.

'All evidence is that the materialsim is true.' (chuckle)
If you are happy then that is all that the wolrd requires.


All possibilities should be considered....initially. But if continued consideration continually fails to reveal any basis for such a possibility, then sooner or later it should be discarded as being not worthy of further consideration.

You are speaking of First Source, then what 'continued consideration' have you given to this that it has failed to be revealed to you, that you can now satifactorily discard it?

If we considered it possible, then we could examine at length the nature of that possibility and determine that this changes everything we thought we knew about us.

It could only do so if examination of that possibility provided evidence that it was more than a mere possibility.

When it comes to questions re First Source, then the evidence is already everywhere.
Examining is thus possible.


The first question to consider would be "Why" I chose to explore this holograme?

What holograme?

This is another way of looking at what we call 'real'...we do not know for sure that this vast Universe is not in reality a clever hologram, and there is no yet way to prove it is or isn't.
However, I am quiet okay with the concept, for it does not alter my being, or change the way I might react to being real.
First Source is vaster than the Universe, yet intimately able to commune with individual awareness.


You are beginning to sound all mystical again.

Well, concidering most everything in this Universe is a mystery, I guess I am.

How do you know that this whole earth reality aint just some holograme which gives something eternal something to do with eternity?

How do you know that it does?
I am under no obligation to prove your hypothesis true. It is the originator of the hypothesis who must show why others should give it any consideration.

I don;t KNOW - I am simply saying that it is a possibility...consider it or not, makes no difference to the fact that we all believe it is real.

Other answers must remain legitimate in the realms of possibility, because the realms exist in human thought and awareness and contemplation.

That is not enough for me. Just thinking up a fantasy world does not give it any legitimacy.

What fantasy world?


It is not about choosing one above the other. What is evident is not discarded in favor of what is not...rather what is not evidenced is neither discarded in favor of what is.

I was not talking about choosing between what is evidenced and what is not evidenced. That is a lay down misere in favour of what is evidenced. I was saying that there is no basis for choosing between all those multiple and various ideas that are not evidenced.

The basis is subjective - no Science, Religion, Culture or Politics can alter subjective reality. An individual who experiences "mystical" things can have these things 'explained' to them by any of the above four houses of power, but so far...none have been able to conherantly do so.
In the 'meantime' My own explainations from First Source are doing rather splendidly...all subjective, all still real.

Always there are answers...evidence or not.
True answers are not always a given thing, even based upon evidence presented.

And how do you arrive at these answers if you are not going to rely on evidence?

Subjective reality...I have befriended First Source as part of my 70 or so allotted years as a human being.
This was/is and will be worthwhile to me and has proven itself as real and relevant to me.
Where it becomes also relevant to others, is in the way I interact with them.


That seems to be the nature of the Universe yes...anything goes.

You have no basis for saying this. Anything does not go however much you may wish it to be true.

Tell me something that does'nt fit into the 'anything goes' trueism of this Universe...It is our nature.

The best stance to assume is one which embraces all things posible, regardless of whether the body senses can detect these things or not.

Initially, yes. Consider everything when it first occurs to you. However, sooner or later you must shift the wheat from the chaff.

Interesting - he whom was quoted as having said this saying first - Spoke often of 'God'.
Tell me, (so I won;t assume) - for you BillyJoe, Is 'God' equivalent to 'chaff'?

What evidence supports anyone's deep desire for world peace to being true?

You are kidding me aren't you?

No...It was a serious question.

Deep desire alone does not manifest reality.
It is one thing to wonder at the possibility of 'God" existing, another to have a desire to contact that possibility, another to actually do so.
All Subjective.
All Real.

How do you actually "contact that possibility". Subjectively? Subjectively there are about as many possibilities as there are thinking beings in this universe. So we can every thinking being in the universe trying to sujectively contact their possibilities or we can objectively shift the wheat form the chaff.

The wonderful thing about the nature of the Universe is that it supports the notion of exceptional variation.
There are infinte possibilities, and we have no idea how many 'thinking beings' there really are in this Universe.
(Also - here is a true mystery...there are as many Galaxies in this Univers as there are atoms)

Okay - "wheat from chaff' is more or less as unto...'useful from useless'
You may have no use for First Source, but this does not equate to First Source having no use for you.
Your experience is used regardless of wheather you chose it or not.
YOU are useful, or you wouldn't be.
Objectively saying 'what is useful and what is not' cannot be done succesfully until the chaff of segregated houses of power continue to exploit their supporters and arrange themselves in compertition with the other houses of power.
Otherwise history repeats.
In order to see the objective reality that we all share, and determine what is useful and what is not, we have to sacrifice our own subjective realities in favor of the objective one we all share., if indeed that personal subjective reality is provably working against the Whole.
Also, the very fact that you see 'wheat from chaff' signifies that you have some Coherant understanding as to 'reason for being' which may overlap your subjective with our objective realities.
If you are asking me to Dump First Source from my subjective, you will first have to prove that it is chaff...that is...that It damages our objective reality.


I am proposing that subjective is not irrelevant simple because some branch of science declares it irrelevant.
Subjective has it's place.

Subjective is a starting point but it is a starting point only. Objectivity is the way forward from this starting point.

The starting point is also the origin. For me this equals First Source.
It empowers me to live with Objectivity, and gives me 'reason' for being.
(not just 'you are here as a product of your parents mating)


I understand we each are far too busy having our own individual subjective lifes, to be wondering to deeply the significance of any others who are having their subjective realities...how else could subjective reality be proved unless we each were able to live the lives of each other.
That is something God does simultaniously - save us having to do it.
This is also what causes "God" to be in this Universe...the ability to venture into every concievable subjective reality and transpose the inforamation of these experiences into one of coherancy and direction.
This Coherancy is indeed Objective.
This is about knowing one's 'place' in the sceme of this...without dishing oneself, or others...without dishing the whole idea of 'that which isnt so evident, in favour of 'my one and only chance at 70 years of doing whatever I like with my sujective reality, uncaring even about all the other subjective realities which I might take advantage of, not realising that all these planetary subjective realities together create the planetary objective reality.


1: Nice philosophy. But what has led you to believe in this philosophy?

2: And why should anyone blieve in it with you over and above other competing philosophies.

3: Everyone goes about their own subjective experiences leaving it to God to objectively weld it all together into a universal whole.
Frankly, it sounds like a cop out to me. pardon me saying so.

1: Yes it is. That is a long story...

2: This question is irrelevant...I have already shared my thoughts on those whom compete.


3: I don;t mind you saying so. It is inacurate. I never suggested that everyone goes about their own subjective experiences - on the contrary.
The Universe is whole already. That is real. The way our specie subjective/objective perceptions of it is what needs redifining.


I find that I have a system which can help measure my subjective reality with objective tools.....etc....etc....etc

Then, according to you previous paragraph you believe you are God?

Depends. What is your definition of 'God'?


You certainly sound like one [a mystic] in parts, relying on subjective experiences rather than objective evidence. But I see now that you have "objective tools". Hmmm, I wonder what that nature of these could be consdering that you are interested in only one subjective experience (your own). What, pray tell, are you going to measure your subjective experiences against with you "objective tools"?
(If I am talking gobbledegook here, its possibly because you are not particularly clear yourself)

Subjective experience is far greater than objective evidence. Especially when that evidence can be sourced at any of the four houses of power.
There are the motives behind those powers to consider, and while I am not ever inclined to automatically reject any of their 'evidence' I certainly don;t do myself the disservice of beliving the offering as actual truth...just becuase they say it is so...(that is your wheat from chaff priciple)
Always personally investigate the evidence before consigning ligitimacy to it.
(That is subjective - but still real good advise)
If it is not possible to do so, then leave it in the 'wait and see' compartment...

What is to be decided?

Truth. Imagination is very useful for generating ideas but hopeless for deciding truth.

Truth in itself is a very broad thing. What truth are you suggesting?
If it is the truth about what we should could would do as a collective objective specie, then expand on this truth.
(you will require imagination to do this expanding).
In fact, imagination is quiet able to be used in conjunction with any truth.


Always reality says "I have a Question" and Imagination replies "I have a possible Answer"

And science says here is the evidence for why this "possible answer" is preferable to other "possible answers". "Possible answers" are what science calls hypotheses. "Possible answers" plus supporting evidence are what science calls theories.

In relation to First Source (as a possible reality) why would science have a problem with this?


[Sorting the wheat from the chaff] is always done through actions...Trying out the ideas to see if they work, and work for the purpose they were manifested for.
Yes - ideas are manifested as thoughts - and progress from there.

How do you try out ideas to see if they work, other than through the scientific method?

Scientific methods seems to denounce subjective reality.
Thus making it 'unscienetific' (untruthful?) to put any personal importance upon personal experience, or consign to those experiences something OTHER than what science can prove objectively.


Someone had an idea for seeing if indeed a mirror could be created and sent into orbit, which could help us discover the origins of this Universe.
While it has discovered much more than even the imagination could imagine, it has yet to discover 'origin'. So it wasn;t a bad idea.

I have not heard about this. Do you have any further information?

Sure thing:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter12/hubblemirror.jpg

Anyhoo, ideas they will keep flowing, but really the best idea is to get everyone to agree on 'why' we are here.

On the contrary, there is no evidence that there is a given reason why we are here and this, consequently leaves everyone free to find their own personally satisfying reason.

This is pertinant and very truthful...you are now showing very promising development.
"...consequently leaves everyone free to find their own personally satisfying reason. " is support for subjective reality.
However, (and with the advent of the internet it is now a conceptional possibility) that in sharing our maps (subjective realities) together we may discover in this a hidden and 'mysterious' objective reason for 'why we are here'.
Otherwise your house of science falls over.
Why?
Because The House of Science is all for objective truth and reality as being the mainstay of 'what is real' in comparison to subjective reality.
The reason will be discovered, has been discovered subjectively - and will be discovered objectively, based upon the collective subjective evidence.
Deny that evidence and expose a hidden agenda.
Talk people out of that subjective evidence and cook your goose.

That the reason is a 'given' is part of the mystery...the fact is - it will appear to be 'discovered' -
How is The House of Science (and the other three houses) going to encourage objective coherancy and reason while honouring subjective reality?
I will offer some advise. Don't dish First Source - certainly dish any God concept (or concept in general) which encourages disunity, hatred and general lack of reason for being - but try taking God off those whom know subjectively better, and Science will never succeed.

In the long run, I think it a bad idea to suggest that we don;t require a reason (as a collective obejective) for being in this reality.

It is your life. Why should you subject (using this world in its other meaning of course) your life to some "collective objective meaning" (which I assume is equivalent to my "given meaning")?

Again - so pertinant!
IT IS MY LIFE.
This is subjective. However, it does not gel well with your stand regarding Science which is apparently all for honouring the Objective.
Ah...but perhaps not the Collective Objective...
I subject my Life only to First Source...from this point I can then satisfactorily assume that giving the energy of that life to myself (subjective) and others (objective) is all really the same thing.


But anyhoo...you have 70 years as an individual intelligent awareness, so what is that to you if the world craps itself?

Well, I am a father as well.

[Your Signature]
It is in love that we are made;
In love we disappear.

Do you really believe this Dad?


regards,
BillyJoe

Regards returned
(William)

 

[matteo72]

To Billy Joe

Billy Joe,
regarding the fact that it all " depends on your [my] definitions of both "atheism" and "faith" and "proof" ", those were not my definitions, but definitions taken from Merriam Webster Dictionary.

I also do not know if people who believe there is no God ( how Merriam Webster defines atheists ), are in short supply

But Randi says that " to make everything clear to all, I do not believe in any deities, ghosts, angels, demons, devils, goblins, banshees, Hell or Heaven, Purgatory, saints, imps, sprites, fairies, gnomes, bunyips, or bogey men. In that short list I've missed a lot of other things of which I doubt the existence, as I'm sure you can see " ( link: http://www.randi.org/jr/053003.html ) .

I think this is a mistake, he should have said " there is no evidence that there is God, so we do not have proofs ( do we ? ) neither that God exists nor that He doesn' t ".

I think there is a slight difference, or maybe I have wrongly intended Randi' s words.

Matteo

 

[BillyJoe]

Matteo,

Randi said "I do not believe in any deities..."

This does not mean that he believes that they do not exist. All he is saying is that he does not believe in Deities. In other words he does not hold a belief in Deities, or, if you like, he is not one of those people who believe in deities.

And this is because there is no evidence for them.

BillyJoe.
(at least, this is what I mean when I say I do not believe in Deities)

 

[BillyJoe]

Navigator,

If we keep this up, our post are going to stretch to infinity before long.
I will be back soon

BillyJoe.
PS: L.C. (Leonard Cohen) is a mystic as well!

 

[matteo72]

To Billy Joe

Billy Joe,
I think you are right, I also saw a commentary from Randi in which he states he is an atheist " of the second kind ", that is believes that there is no evidence that proves that there is any God - not that he believes that God does not exist.

Still, many Christians assume evidence ( miracles, etc. ) is not required in order to believe in God and their belief in God comes internal considerations, seeing small things in life, facts that they assume that come from God but can not be proven by Randi' s standards ( i. e. million dollars challenge ).

For example, a priest close to where I live, after being suggested to open orphans kindergarden in Brazil, decided to build it and two or three days after got a " present " from a Brazilian lady of a certain piece of land fit for the use - at least that was what I was told.

He considered this as a " sign " from the Almighty that he was in the right direction ( he is currently managing this center, I can provide the web link if asked ), but this is not the kind of evidence that can prove sopernatural intervention according to Randi and scientific standards.

I am still confused about the difference that there is between Randi' s " atheism of the second kind " and agnosticism.

If someone knows, I' d glad be informed.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: To Billy Joe

matteo,

Still, many Christians assume evidence ( miracles, etc. ) is not required in order to believe in God and their belief in God comes internal considerations, seeing small things in life, facts that they assume that come from God but can not be proven by Randi' s standards ( i. e. million dollars challenge ).

This is knowledge by revelation. The trouble is how do you know that the message you are receiving is a revelation...a message form God. Also it assumes the exsitence of a Deity in the first place.

For example, a priest close to where I live, after being suggested to open orphans kindergarden in Brazil, decided to build it and two or three days after got a " present " from a Brazilian lady of a certain piece of land fit for the use - at least that was what I was told.

He considered this as a " sign " from the Almighty that he was in the right direction ( he is currently managing this center, I can provide the web link if asked ), but this is not the kind of evidence that can prove sopernatural intervention according to Randi and scientific standards.

Well, it isn't is it?
I hope that priest, in his haste to thank God, didn't forget to thank the Brazilian lady.

I am still confused about the difference that there is between Randi' s " atheism of the second kind " and agnosticism.

Agnosticism is a belief that it is not possible to prove whether or not God exists. In other words, it's no use trying because it can't be done. God, by his very nature cannot be proven or disproven.

The difference?
(This is my take on it, of course)
An agnostic is a sort of fence sitter. There is no proof and there cannot be any proof either way, so he has no opinion either way.
An atheist (second kind) waits for evidence FOR God to be provided by people who believe in God. Until he sees that evidence for God, he does not hold a belief God.

If you lean towards agnosticism, you will need to consider whether you would be as non-committal about the existence of faeries.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Navigator]

Navigator,

If we keep this up, our post are going to stretch to infinity before long.
I will be back soon

BillyJoe.
PS: L.C. (Leonard Cohen) is a mystic as well!

Hmmm...Okay BJ

(Ya - Leonard is Awsome)

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Agnosticism is a belief that it is not possible to prove whether or not God exists. In other words, it's no use trying because it can't be done. God, by his very nature cannot be proven or disproven.

While I agree with you that agnostics in general as a group of people do seem to tend towards the fence sitters, I think should add that being an agnostic proper doesn't tell one way or the other as far as religious beliefs go.

There is no contradiction, after all, between believing that it would be impossible to prove whether or not God exists to an extent that would merit a knowledge claim and believing the God does in fact exist. I would expect that there are many christians who do in fact believe just this - and they are, technically at any rate, agnostics. (They just happen to be agnostic theists.)

What I think this reveals is that what we have is not 3 catagories (Theist, Atheist, Agnostic), but 4 catagories. People can be divided up by both their epistemic belief about god (Gnostic, Agnostic) and their ontological belief about god (Theist, Atheist). In addition, then, to the group I pointed out above there would also be Gnostic Theists (who believe that it is possible to know that God exists, and believe that God exists), Gnostic Atheists (who believe that would be possible to know that God exists if he did, and don't believe that he does), and Agnostic Atheists (who believe that if God existed it wouldn't be possible to know that he did, and don't believe he does to boot).

Of course, as with so many things, clearly dividing up your terms along carefully delineated lines removes so many possibilities for avoiding questions, hedging your bets, or resolutely resisting taking any particular stance on a matter for fear of offending others. I don't know that thats a particularly bad thing though.

Someone who doesn't believe that enough evidence could be found to demonstrate the existence of a God and similarly doesn't believe in the existence of a God would be an agnostic atheist.

 

[BillyJoe]

Eleatic Stranger, that sounds about right to me. BJ

 

[matteo72]

Back from Medjugorje

This thread is about the paranormal facts happening ( well, said to be happening ) in Medjugorje and my inquieries about them ( updated to today ).

( and I still do not have the videotape with the sun pulsing in my hands, but after this trip my opinion has changed, please keep on reading )

I have just arrived home ( 5 hours ago ) from the trip to Medjugorje with a priest friend of mine ( it has been a 25-hour round trip by car ).

The trip has been very interesting for the reasons I will explain later, I have also met many people including two Americans who built a castle two km. away from the center of Medjugorje which should be the reproduction of the castle described in the works of St. Therese.

I have also been on the Mt. Podbrdo and met a very nice guy with a shop next to the central church who gave me a book for free and talked to me for half an hour.

I have also met a woman who works for free with ill people, met priests, nuns, etc.

But let' s start from the beginning

Arrived to Medjugorje on the first, me and my friend got up on the 2nd to go to see the apparition of the Holy Lady to Mirijana.

We went under a ( very big ) tent at 7 a. m. with some other 500 people, we singed and prayed for 2 hours and at about 9 Mirjiana came.

What happened ?

At once, she stopped looking around and fixed one point in front of her, started to move her mouth but no sound was heard.

And her eyes blinked all the time.

After about 5 minutes looked up, and a tear came down her face.

That was all.

I saw nothing really paranormal here, I think you can cry somehow if you want to ( this does not seem any proof of paranormal )

Then I spoke with the woman I told you above ( the one who helps ill people ) and asked about the strange effects of the sun that are said in many sites to happen in Medjugorje.

Every person I tried to speak to about the sun said " this is not really important ", " what is important is faith ", ..

But I kept asking so they ( this woman and later the guy I met in the shop close to the church ) told me that something strange with the sun happens every afternoon, even if those effects are not quite as visible now as they were twenty years ago at the beginning of the apparitions of Medjugorje.

So I took my videocamera and went close to the church at about 5 p. m.

From time to time I looked at the sun but nothing particular was happening. Then it was six, six thirty and nothing was happening.

Then I looked at my right and saw an ( Italian ) family staring at the sun.

The daughter was saying " don' t you see the it is spinning ? " and the father " yeah ! And it is becoming a little bit blue too ".
Then the daughter again " and now it seems like it is falling down to the earth ", etc.

I looked at the sun and it was not spinning nor falling and it was of the same colour I saw it in the last 30 years.

I filmed everything with my camera and tomorrow I will watch at my video one more time but nothing was happening and I was standing 1 meter from that family.

Two minutes passed and then I saw some ladies standing 20 meters from me and staring at the sun.

They were saying more or less the same things " the sun is falling ", " the sun is spinning ", etc.

The sun was not falling nor spinning.

Then looking at the sun again, I realized that, after staring at the sun for 15 to 20 seconds, you actually see the sun a little bit different, maybe moving a little bit and changing of colour.

But those are the same optic effects that you may happen to see if you stare at the sun a little bit too much even in Munich, Rome, New York and London.

Before the sunset I was able to recognize at leat fifteen of these suckers, err.. , I mean, of these witnesses.

I came close to the family above and started to say " it seems to me that there is something black on the lower part of the sun now " and the father said " yeah ! That is true ! " and " it seems to me that now the sun is splitting a little bit into two .. "

It was hard to avoid laughing

I will come back to Medjugorje, there is still the mystery of the water coming down from the big statue of the Christ and I would like to take some other good video of the suck.. , err .., of the witnesses.

 

[matteo72]

Well, I know what many of you may say now.

Had not I been a sucker as well, before actually seeing that the sun was not pulsing ?

Well, I may well have been, but at least I tried to prove / disprove the whole thing.

And now I have facts to support my opinion.

Still, I want to go back again to look after some other stuff there ( there is a statue which is said to be with some unknown liquid on )

And I am actively searching for that video with the sun pulsing which I am sure I saw.

 

[BillyJoe]

Matteo,

Perhaps you should let you fingers do the walking.

There must be numerous references to these things on the internet. You can't go personally to find the evidence yourself for every little delusion that people come up with to fill their shallow little lives. There are estimated to be a dozen new delusions every week around the world.

How will you ever keep up?

regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[matteo72]

BillyJoe,
Yeah I will not be able to see and test all the untested claims on the paranormal which go out on the net, on the press and on TV every day.
I only looked after this because I was interested in and it has been fun.

I think that in any case something can be done.

Why shall not we put some videos on the net with the people looking at the sun and saying that the sun is pulsing and then show that the sun is not pulsing ?

Just an idea but it would be very impressive to see this !!

 

[Diamond]

Like Vikram (page 1), I find no evidence for an afterlife, and therefore why worry about things that don't exist?

On the other hand, I'm a little disappointed that my consciousness won't continue beyond my death, because there's always something new to learn and something wonderful to experience.

The heaven of Christians and Moslems seems incredibly dull compared to the life that it supposedly supercedes. Heaven would be an inifinite time to read and learn and experience.

 

[Joe_Black]

Diamond you assume that heaven conforms too time and space as we understand it.

 

[BillyJoe]

matteo,

Why shall not we put some videos on the net with the people looking at the sun and saying that the sun is pulsing and then show that the sun is not pulsing ?

Yes, that would be very impressive indeed. You might find, though, that conveniently the effect would happen as soon as your video camera battery ran flat.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Diamond you assume that heaven conforms too time and space as we understand it.

And are you assuming heaven exists?

BJ


BTW, Joe Black as in the movie?
My wife loved that movie AND Brad Pitt (we should have a grimacing bulldog smily)

 

[merphie]

I agree. It would be nice if heaven exists. There's just no proof.

I would love to be able to live beyond my years and see the progress of the world. There is so much to learn. Right now I would like to learn to play to Violin. I never seen to have to time. It would be nice to know that I didn't have just 60 years to cram everything into.