True Life/ True Death > Life/ Death

Originally posted by jiggerj

The things I believe have been validated by the only method that matters. Science. The fact that I can't give that validation to you makes it no less real.

reply to post by GodIsRelative

 

You can't show scientifically what has been proven by science? What a curious statement.

Darwins 'theory' cannot be proved. The 'big bang' cannot be proved. You cannot prove that man has stood on the moon but many believe it.
Belief is a curious thing.

reply to post by jiggerj


I can't validate for you what I have validated internally. I can tell you that 2+2 = 4, but you can't know it's true unless you do the math yourself.

You can't show scientifically what has been proven by science? What a curious statement.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Darwins 'theory' cannot be proved. The 'big bang' cannot be proved. You cannot prove that man has stood on the moon but many believe it.
Belief is a curious thing.

Even if all the things you mentioned were still just a theory, they all have physical evidence that CAN lead to such a possible conclusion. We can say of evolution, just compare various species that look an awful lot alike, and look at ancient bones of a species that has changed over time. Science tells us that all the galaxies are moving in a direction that, if reversed, would bring them back to a specific point. Also, we have left material on the moon, so if we wanted to go there now we would be able to find out if that material is really there.

Science must always show what has been proven scientifically. And once something has been proven scientifically you can't have a differing opinion on it. Like, you can't say that 2+2 doesn't equal four, or that some living things don't have DNA.

The reason why everyone on the planet can have a different opinion on god is because he's never been proven to exist, and no physical evidence has ever directly linked such a being to anything.

Originally posted by GodIsRelative
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I can't validate for you what I have validated internally. I can tell you that 2+2 = 4, but you can't know it's true unless you do the math yourself.

First, you can't scientifically validate something internally. Science is not a personal activity where a conclusion is different for you than it is for someone else. Either a truth is a universal truth, or it is false.

As for doing the math, even working it out on paper doesn't prove 2+2=4. In order to prove it you must take physical objects and arrange them: two oranges plus two oranges = four oranges. You can't just THINK that it's right.

Originally posted by jiggerj

You can't show scientifically what has been proven by science? What a curious statement.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Darwins 'theory' cannot be proved. The 'big bang' cannot be proved. You cannot prove that man has stood on the moon but many believe it.
Belief is a curious thing.

Even if all the things you mentioned were still just a theory, they all have physical evidence that CAN lead to such a possible conclusion. We can say of evolution, just compare various species that look an awful lot alike, and look at ancient bones of a species that has changed over time. Science tells us that all the galaxies are moving in a direction that, if reversed, would bring them back to a specific point. Also, we have left material on the moon, so if we wanted to go there now we would be able to find out if that material is really there.

Science must always show what has been proven scientifically. And once something has been proven scientifically you can't have a differing opinion on it. Like, you can't say that 2+2 doesn't equal four, or that some living things don't have DNA.

The reason why everyone on the planet can have a different opinion on god is because he's never been proven to exist, and no physical evidence has ever directly linked such a being to anything.

All 'physical' evidence has to be perceived. When is it perceived? Is it perceived in the past?
Everything perceived is perceived within presence. Only your verification can verify. Nothing can appear outside presence. You may hear a story about what may have happened and the hearing of the story is true but the story is just words. Those words that tell the story are believed.
What those words appear in is missed but is ever present and does not have to be believed to be true.

reply to post by jiggerj

You state:

I would rather have no idea than to live with the wrong idea.

You are what all ideas appear in. You are the space in which all concepts arise and subside. You might have the idea that you are 'something' that you are not - and not know it yet.
When you realize that you have had an idea about yourself but now see that no idea is true, that the space in which ideas arise and subside is true then nothing will be seen as the truth - literally, the nothingness is true.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

All 'physical' evidence has to be perceived.

No, it doesn't have to be perceived at all in order to be scientifically true. Even if mankind or any kind of intelligence didn't exist, everything that has happened, is happening, will happen, or might happen is scientifically true. So, we don't need to perceive something to be true; it either is true or it isn't, regardless of us.

The only time our perception comes into play is when we perceive something to be true when it is, in fact, false. The unicorns we imagine could never fly the way we perceive them (wingspan too short, no hollow bones...).

Some of us perceive time as having a starting point, a time before time. But in order for time to have a starting point there had to have been a time to START time. To perceive it is to think: there is no time, and no time after that, and no time after that, TIME starts now. Totally illogical.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You state:

I would rather have no idea than to live with the wrong idea.

You are what all ideas appear in. You are the space in which all concepts arise and subside. You might have the idea that you are 'something' that you are not - and not know it yet.
When you realize that you have had an idea about yourself but now see that no idea is true, that the space in which ideas arise and subside is true then nothing will be seen as the truth - literally, the nothingness is true.

edit on 3-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I disagree. Even if my perception of reality is false, somethingness is still true. If nothingness were true, then I couldn't perceive anything because I wouldn't exist in physical form, in thought, or even energy. We are something.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You state:

I would rather have no idea than to live with the wrong idea.

You are what all ideas appear in. You are the space in which all concepts arise and subside. You might have the idea that you are 'something' that you are not - and not know it yet.
When you realize that you have had an idea about yourself but now see that no idea is true, that the space in which ideas arise and subside is true then nothing will be seen as the truth - literally, the nothingness is true.

edit on 3-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I disagree. Even if my perception of reality is false, somethingness is still true. If nothingness were true, then I couldn't perceive anything because I wouldn't exist in physical form, in thought, or even energy. We are something.

Reality is what is happening right now - existence is what is appearing to exist.
Because thought tells you there is something other than this you believe it. Thought is an appearance that leads one to believe in something other than what actually is.

What is appearing presently is true but it has to be seen - what is seeing goes unseen!
There appears to be something but that which sees and knows this, is not a thing and it is not seeing a thing.
However, within the non conceptual concepts arise and deceive.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What is appearing presently is true but it has to be seen

Think about all the places in the universe that aren't being seen right now.

Because thought tells you there is something other than this you believe it.

This is backwards. The something other (previous events and time before now) has led up to my thought that tells me there is something other. You posted this reply at 9:31. While I was out having a smoke I had no thought of this reply. Does that mean it didn't exist before now? If I had dropped dead while having that smoke, would your reply never have existed without my thought?

reply to post by jiggerj


All is perceived presently.
Nothing can be perceived where there is nothing knowing.

All seeing, all knowing and ever present.
Nothing can be written or read any other time. But words tell a story which makes believe there is something other than presence.

Originally posted by jiggerj
The something other (previous events and time before now) has led up to my thought that tells me there is something other. You posted this reply at 9:31. While I was out having a smoke I had no thought of this reply. Does that mean it didn't exist before now?

Only now is appearing to exist - the rest is a thought that appears to exist now.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by jiggerj
The something other (previous events and time before now) has led up to my thought that tells me there is something other. You posted this reply at 9:31. While I was out having a smoke I had no thought of this reply. Does that mean it didn't exist before now?

Only now is appearing to exist - the rest is a thought that appears to exist now.

How does this have any meaning or value? I just ate half a jelly sandwich. I cans still taste it, so I'm tasting a taste now that tells me nothing of when I ate the sandwich?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by jiggerj
The something other (previous events and time before now) has led up to my thought that tells me there is something other. You posted this reply at 9:31. While I was out having a smoke I had no thought of this reply. Does that mean it didn't exist before now?

Only now is appearing to exist - the rest is a thought that appears to exist now.

How does this have any meaning or value?

The mind wants meaning and value but can it actually find any? The mind wants to grasp hold of everything to secure itself but there is nothing.

reply to post by jiggerj


I could tell you that I've seen God in the flesh, but you wouldn't believe me unless you saw for yourself. That's why no validation I can give you would matter. You may have no idea, but that doesn't mean that we don't.

Originally posted by GodIsRelative
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I could tell you that I've seen God in the flesh, but you wouldn't believe me unless you saw for yourself. That's why no validation I can give you would matter. You may have no idea, but that doesn't mean that we don't.

You are right. I wouldn't believe it because certain questions would have to be answered. Such as, why would a god appear to one person and not everyone? Why would a god appear to that particular person and not someone else with an equal or greater faith in that god? Or, to a person with less faith? Was this god a person that walked up to someone and said, I am god, or did he appear right before the person's eyes? Why was this person alone and without reliable, reputable witnesses?

For a god to appear, the reason would have to be beyond human understanding. Meaning that this god would impart some knowledge or wisdom that mankind couldn't have figured out on his own. Why would a god appear in order to tell someone (I dunno, how about) 'All you need is love', or 'Don't drive on the highway today.'