Feeling Stupid. . . . . .

[_SPG]

Where did you basically admit that your brain has serious doubts about the existence of God? That doesn't square with your comments below.

I thought I had mention shortly before and in other post that the Mormon God has eluded me. I have beliefs of what happened, that are God-Like but not God. But that is a different story.

In my search for God, I haven't found the Mormon God. I have met Archangels, Michael included, but none of them brought up Mormonism.

Yes, the human imagination is boundless. But most of what folks imagine could be true might as well be sugar.

I disagree. I have found from personal experience that pretending I am healthy doesn't work. But, believing we are special, believing we will triumph, believing we are righteous, believing God chose us, does have effect.

I was angry at God. Then I cursed God and went about trying to understand the world without God.

I didn't get far. A world without God made no sense to me. The more I tried to explain life without higher beings the more stupid it seemed.

I was never angry with God. I never cursed God. I never tried to understand the world without God. I just tried to understand the world. And after decades of reading and studying to try and figure out how the world worked, I gradually realized that God was not necessary to make the world work.

How do you explain consciousness? How do your explain existence from nothing? How you explain infinite universes from nothing?

I see so much more than what science tries to explain. Someone said that science admits they don't understand everything. But they don't even acknowledge stuff like the soul, memories of past lives, connection to higher beings through mediation, psychic visions of other beings.

You see? I think that every time you read of someone's anecdotal experience, you decide it must mean something other than something happening within their brain. Science studies evidence. And what science teaches us about memories of subjective experiences are about the least reliable evidence that exists.

This goes back to my definition of real. If it has influence, it is real. ie, if man crosses the road and sees a ghost of his Aunt Mary and is so overcome with amazement, he steps out to cross the street. He is hit by a bus and killed. His child grows up lonely and angry, starts a rock band that brings all countries together in peace and friendship, blah, blah, blah. The point is, regardless of what the man actually saw, a flash of light, a look alike, a memory, etc, it was the "idea that it was Aunt Mary" that caused him to cause the street.

If a man imagines himself a Son of God and goes on mission and changes the world, has is that imagining not real? If a person thinks themselves worthless and kills themselves, how is that imagining not real? Whether a belief in completely private or a shared public belief, it has influence. It is real. Whether you think it true or not doesn't matter, it influences that mind that it is in, it is part of the universe.
One electron might not have a lot of influence, but it adds. So do the effect of believing. Science can observe the effects of a lot of electrons at once, but not really considering that each electron plays a role in a electrical force. Such is the power of thought, belief, and faith.

I have tried to share my ideas and experiences with what I might consider parallel ideas or sciences. I am trying to discuss my ideas and perspective with a common language. I am not trying to convert anyone. But I have found a few people that seem to understand. I don't try to brain was them, they just seen to see what I see, in part.

It certainly appears to me that you've been trying to persuade people that your version of God is real and that people who leave the Mormon church shouldn't abandon God. I think that's different from simply discussing ideas. But that's not really even what I object to: what I object to is communicating false information and ideas as if it were fact. I could literally spend days on nonsense you've posted here tracking down and discussing the actual evidence that you continually exaggerate and misrepresent. The mermaid cave paintings is a great example. Tons of people like you have posted cave paintings of mermaids on their Pinterest accounts as evidence of mermaids, when what they are actually posting are CGI images created for the fake documentary. But you asserted it as fact. Based on what you've posted here, you simply latch onto anything that smacks of mystery and supernatural without any skepticism at all. But information backed by science and evidence, you flat out reject.

I'm skeptic as hell. But somethings are interesting to consider and pretty much harmless. Someone shows a me a picture ghost, I'm the first to debunk it. But, I'm still very open to the idea that conscious energy can manifest to humans.

That you guys think you have nailed me down and boxed me in, you haven't even come close. I admit I don't know much, but I believe a lot of things strongly enough I would be my life on.

I don't think I've nailed you down and boxed you in. It does look like you think it's important not to be nailed down on anything. You make strong claims, then you back away and say you know nothing. But I don't think you really believe that, because it doesn't show in how you post. I think it's a nice dodge when someone shows that one of your claims is nonsense.

Maybe, but I think that this is nonsense, to some degree. Or maybe not nonsense, but illusion. I'm not the first to suggest this, but I definitely see it. That doesn't mean that I can control the illusion, but I have thoughts about why.

Do I have doubts? Tons and tons. Do I want God to exist? Absolutely!

But one doubt I don't have: Is there a God? I could not find evidence that there wasn't a God. I could describe God several ways. But you cannot show someone God, they have to find him.

And that's the fundamental problem: You keep claiming that neither your nor anyone else can really know anything. Except you know there is a God. And you make up an excuse for God: that you can't show God to anyone. One thing that's neat about contradictory premises: you can logically prove anything.

Maybe I can be allowed to make a distinction between "knowing and having no doubt." Like, I don't know the sun will come up tomorrow, it could implode, or the earth could blow up. But I don't doubt that it will come up. I have not reason to doubt that it will come up like it always has. I don't KNOW exactly what God is, and I'm not sure how to explain him, but I have no doubt that consciousness is the root of existence. I cannot imagine that anything else could create stuff.

[_SPG]

SPG wrote:

Some doctors have recently tried to prove the gender roles are purely imaginary, lies. Women are not the weaker sex, they just play that role. And men, are not really men, but rather females with a special marker gene that give them an alternative or Option B sex of equipment. For men to be men, they must pretend to be men.

I agree with you in many ways, but stuff like the above concerns me. Have you fallen for insane herd mentality? Vagina-envy and hatred of all things masculine?

Are you suggesting you believe that gender is a lie - as if a man’s penis or a woman’s vagina are not objective facts? As if the brain and endocrine system that function uniquely in each gender - are lies?

Please tell me you haven’t fallen for lies that suggest little boys who find sticks and pretend they’re guns are told to pretend that...

LOL, No, I was referring to the some of the new "scientific approaches" to gender studies. But, regardless of what they say, you know that I believe that most of what we do here is illusion. So yes, being a "man" requires a lot of belief. Just because someone has penis doesn't automatically make them a man. On those grounds, I do agree with some of the new ideas. I think that manliness is more then just parts.

But on this point, I'm probably a little bi-polar. Just because a man decides he wants to be woman, I don't think cuts it either. But, if a man abandons all the things manly, and calls himself Barb. . . . maybe there is an issue with call him a man. I know that when he tries to go in the ladies room, he will be called a man. Ideas and beliefs are powerful. I've seen men rather die then go on as men. Confused me, but it was their life.

[_Dr. Shades]

Just because someone has penis doesn't automatically make them a man.

Yes it does.

Just because a man decides he wants to be woman, I don't think cuts it either.

He may not cut it, but his surgeon eventually will.

[_SPG]

I agree with you in many ways, but stuff like the above concerns me. Have you fallen for insane herd mentality? Vagina-envy and hatred of all things masculine?

Are you suggesting you believe that gender is a lie - as if a man’s penis or a woman’s vagina are not objective facts? As if the brain and endocrine system that function uniquely in each gender - are lies?

Please tell me you haven’t fallen for lies that suggest little boys who find sticks and pretend they’re guns are told to pretend that...

All things are relative, Amore. That includes penises and vaginas. it is all an illusion! You might think you have a vagina but that is just your perception and opinion, and the opinion of 7 billion other people. But so what? Your neighbor may believe and perceive that you have a penis and Bam! You now have a penis. It's a fact... that is how truth is created. You want a penis? Simply believe you have one. Bam! It's now a fact that you have a penis. It doesn't matter that 7 billion people might disagree with you. You want a vagina? You can have one of those too. Hell , in spg's world there are no objective facts so you can have a penis and a vagina at the same time simply just by believing you do!

Facts are not facts. Truth is not truth. That's what I have learned the last two days

I still don't believe in facts as things they claim to be, 'actual truth or the true nature of a thing or situation." Truth is truth, but who can really know truth? What you call truth is usually your own perspective, if not yours, your cultures. So yes, relative.

I understand what you call facts, and I use them most of the time, but I do not accept them as absolute truth. Just because cwald says the world is round, doesn't mean I can't think of other ways to look at it, see different aspect of it. They really get stuck on these little things. No, I will not submit to their reality, just because they have what they call objective facts.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is the loopiest thread I've read in a while. If it weren't for the lack of backslashes I'd swear MG were making an appearance.

So. To summarize:

Metamodernism.

We're now at a place where we find meaning and truth in a world absent of meaning and truth because navel gazing esotericism is as provable as the scientific method because why the “F” not.

It's pretty telling that Amore is the one poster gobbling this crap up.

- Doc

[Guest]

Just because someone has penis doesn't automatically make them a man.

Yes it does.

Just because a man decides he wants to be woman, I don't think cuts it either.

He may not cut it, but his surgeon eventually will.

Finally, we agree.


SPG,
Again, I can see truth in various perspectives and how all we see is subjective (illusion) to some degree. However, the feminist hatred for masculinity and associated lies are dangerous and I wish you wouldn’t spread it in any way. I don’t think you mean bad - but it seems in this regard that you’ve been influenced by ridiculous herd mentalities - please, at least consider that possibility.

I do appreciate your spirit - and sense you have a good heart. You might appreciate this clip (and if you get a chance - also check out Jordan Peterson’s Bible series lectures- he discusses symbolism, often in light of Carl Jung’s work)...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VV83U8MDl2c#action=share

[_cwald]

I still don't believe in facts as things they claim to be, 'actual truth or the true nature of a thing or situation." Truth is truth, but who can really know truth? What you call truth is usually your own perspective, if not yours, your cultures. So yes, relative.

I understand what you call facts, and I use them most of the time, but I do not accept them as absolute truth. Just because cwald says the world is round, doesn't mean I can't think of other ways to look at it, see different aspect of it. They really get stuck on these little things. No, I will not submit to their reality, just because they have what they call objective facts.

Classic mic drop SPG!

[_Chap]

Just because cwald says the world is round, doesn't mean I can't think of other ways to look at it, see different aspect of it.

That only works between people who don't know the basic methods of applying logic to observations of the world around us on the basis of agreement. Suppose we have a talk like this:

Chap: "Can we agree what an object has to be like in order for us to say that it is 'round'?

SPG (cautiously ... ): "OK"

Chap: "So when you say something is 'round', what do you mean that it is like?'

SPG: 'Well, maybe the same shape as a soccer ball, or an orange?'

[I leave out the possible step of dealing with other kinds of round, like dinner plates, dimes and most pizzas.]

Chap: 'OK, I'll go with that. So can we agree that we shall call a thing 'round' if - whatever its size is - it is basically the same shape (give or take a bit) as a soccer ball or an orange?'

SPG: 'OK' [If the answer is 'No', you would be contradicting yourself.]

Now our only problem in agreeing whether the earth is 'round' in the sense you have agreed to use the word (which is, I'd bet, the way you actually DO use it) is to agree on what tests we could do to find out whether the object we are standing on is or is not basically the same shape as an immense soccer ball. And if we are careful to check that we are using a few technical words in an agreed way, that is really not all that difficult.

If you are prepared to be open, sincere and consistent in your answers, a situation can be created in which it is (in practical terms) next to impossible for us not to be able to agree whether a given object in the material world to which we have access is round or not. It cannot then be 'round for me but not round for you'.

[Guest]

Chap: 'OK, I'll go with that. So can we agree that we shall call a thing 'round' if - whatever its size is - it is basically the same shape (give or take a bit) as a soccer ball or an orange?'

Now our only problem in agreeing whether the earth is 'round' in the sense you have agreed to use the word (which is, I'd bet, the way you actually DO use it) is to agree on what tests we could do to find out whether the object we are standing on is or is not basically the same shape as an immense soccer ball. And if we are careful to check that we are using a few technical words in an agreed way, that is really not all that difficult.

If you are prepared to be open, sincere and consistent in your answers, a situation can be created in which it is (in practical terms) next to impossible for us not to be able to agree whether a given object in the material world to which we have access is round or not. It cannot then be 'round for me but not round for you'.

I'm up to speed on the method of agreement and rationalization. I can compare the Earth to a soccer ball, or a pizza, or coffee stain of my utility bill. And to be honest with you, I have to try pretty hard to present an idea that the earth is different then round, because I really don't know much different. I have offered that magnetic field is donut shaped, a strange alien might think that the outer layer and consider that the shape. I have offered that gravity is flat, always pulling down, (which is what makes the earth round.)

But for all of this agreement fun, I continue to call this an illusion for the methods you and I came to agree that it was round. What is a soccer ball, or a pizza? These are cultural comparisons. There was a time the Vikings thought the Earth was like a big bowl, riding on a turtle's back. And now we think that was pretty silly. But we already know that gravity bends space. If you poured soup into a round bowl, would you call the soup round? Of course not, the bowl is round, it shapes the soup. The earth is like a soup, shaped by a bowl we might consider the bowl, gravity and the fabric of space.

I can't call myself a "flat earther" because it's too much work to imagine that it's flat. But I don't have to give up considering what it might be. If you dropped a soccer ball into space, (given that it didn't explode) it would stay round. If you could somehow pull gravity from earth, it wouldn't stay round.

But with all of that, we agree the Earth is round, but that doesn't necessary reflect its truth nature.

[_Chap]

I'm up to speed on the method of agreement and rationalization. I can compare the Earth to a soccer ball, or a pizza, or coffee stain of my utility bill. And to be honest with you, I have to try pretty hard to present an idea that the earth is different then round, because I really don't know much different.

So far as I understand what you are saying, your provisional view is that the earth's shape is more like a soccer ball than it is like a pizza or a random offee stain. Of course I agree,

I have offered that magnetic field is donut shaped, a strange alien might is that as the outer layer and consider that the shape.

That's not a big problem: you and I can agree that what we mean by 'the earth' is the continuous mass of (largely) rocky matter with a more metallic core and a thin smear of liquid on parts of its surface, on which we are standing. We should be able to come to an agreement on what the shape of that object is, don't you think? If the alien utters a word like 'blurzat' when he points at our earth, and draws a non-spherical shape to represent it, while making 'no-no' gestures when we point to a soccer ball, it may well be that 'blurzat' refers to something other than the rocky mass on which we stand - such as (in your example) our local magnetic field. So? The shapes are different because we are talking about different things. If we set up his language in Google Translate, we would make sure that the translation of 'blurzat' was not 'earth', but was instead something like 'geo-magnetic field'.

I have offered that gravity is flat, always pulling down, (which is what makes the earth round.)

I don't know what you mean by saying 'gravity is flat'. But yes, the mutual gravitational attraction between all mass particles is why the universe is sprinkled with more or less spherical masses of matter that have clumped together, each large enough to create sizeable gravitational fields in their vicinity.

But for all of this agreement fun, I continue to call this an illusion for the methods you and I came to agree that it was round. What a soccer ball, or a pizza? These are cultural comparisons.

The examples come from everyday objects, but every culture has its own set of ball shaped things, or pizza-shaped things. And people from any culture can be brought to agree on certain ways of talking about shapes that are more or less culture-free. Thus, instead of talking about 'soccer-ball shaped things' we can say ' solid objects whose outside surface is made up of all the points that are the same distance from one given point somewhere inside it. That's what mathematicians call a 'sphere'. So long as they are young enough to learn, people from any culture can and do learn maths and can understand what people from other cultures say about maths.

There was a time the Viking though the Earth was like a big bowl, riding on a turtle's back. And now we think that was pretty silly.

Not silly, wrong. Long ago, it made obvious common sense to think that the earth is flat - because to a fairly casual inspection it basically looks flat. Earthquakes might well be explained on the basis that the earth is being carried on some animal. We have better explanations nowadays, though.

But we already know that gravity bends space.

Yup. But near a body as small as the earth, such effects are mostly negligible for practical purposes, and Newton's 'flat' space is a very good approximation to reality.

If you poured soup into a round bowl, would you call the soup round? Of course, the bowl is round, it shapes the soup.

I'd say that parts of the outer horizontal boundary of the fluid mass in circular. The upper boundary of the soup is of course flat. You just have to use words precisely, and there need be no confusion.

The earth is like a soup, shaped by a bowl we might consider the bowl, (gravity and the fabric of space.)

That metaphor does not work in quantitive terms for a body the tie of the earth. You have a good imagination, but it needs training by a a solid and systematic education in maths and the physical sciences. Or have you already had that?