How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

[Age]

I already mentioned. I am looking for the truth that all other truths are derived from it.

That's not an identification, but only a description. It's like saying, "I'm looking for the man in the black hat." It doesn't describe anything specifically, only in the most general terms...and not by what it actually is, but only by what effect is has.

Can you be more exact?

That describes EXACTLY something specifically, well to 'me' anyway. But this is because I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

[bahman]

I already mentioned. I am looking for the truth that all other truths are derived from it.

That's not an identification, but only a description. It's like saying, "I'm looking for the man in the black hat." It doesn't describe anything specifically, only in the most general terms...and not by what it actually is, but only by what effect is has.

Can you be more exact?

The truth is a set of propositions that describe reality well. Like, there was a beginning. Like, we are interacting mind. Like, the mind cannot be created or annihiliated.

[bahman]

If the word 'was' here is replaced with the 'is' word, then this premise here is true.

Or, the 'point' word just refers to HERE-NOW, then the premise here is also true.

Here I am talking about the beginning which deals with creation rather than now which deals with sustaining.

You, OBVIOUSLY, STILL do NOT 'get it'.

That is; It is LOGICALLY and EMPIRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a beginning of Everything and for a beginning of Creation.

Everything has ALWAYS existed, just in a CONTINUALLY changing shape and form.

It is because of 'cause and effect', itself, that there can NOT be a beginning to Everything and to Creation, themselves.

Because of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, which effects and thus causes the way thee Universe works, then thee Universe could NOT have begun and thus has ALWAYS existed.

Now, because of the fundamental Nature of thee Universe, Itself, and the way that thee Universe NATURALLY works, EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY reaction is just another action causing another reaction, so on and so on, FOREVER and ALWAYS.

This ALWAYS REACTING action-reaction process is just One CONTINUAL 'Reaction', which is; ALWAYS and FOREVER, ETERNAL and INFINITE, is also more commonly known as Creation, Itself.

Through this ALWAYS Reacting process of thee Universe, Itself, thee Universe is thus actually Creating, Itself, ALWAYS (and in ALL ways some will say). And also through this ALWAYS reacting, and thus constantly-changing process, EVERY 'thing' that is created is ALSO Evolving, and even through this constant process of change, and Creation, thee Universe, Itself, is evolving.

Now, I suggest finding FAULT in this and talking about and critiquing 'that', instead of just talking about some 'thing', which is just an IMPOSSIBILITY anyway.

It the word 'creates' here is replaced with the words 'is creating, then the premise here is actually true.

No. I am talking about the beginning rather than now.

BUT, thee One and ONLY 'beginning' is NOW.

It is a LOGICAL and EMPIRICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for there to be ANY other, so called, "beginning".

Just because the words 'in the beginning' exist IN scientific AND IN religious literature and text, this is NO WAY means that there was nor ever even could be 'a beginning' to Everything.

WHY thee ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there is and/or was 'a beginning' to Everything is from a direct correlation between human beings themselves, how the brain works, and how human beings LOOK AT and SEE things.

Because human beings, themselves, individually and collectively came into being, and thus has 'a beginning', then they inadvertently ASSUME that so MUST EVERY thing else, including thee Creation and/or thee Universe, themselves. Therefore, these human beings LOOK FOR, and LOOK AT and SEE things from this perspective that there MUST BE 'a beginning' to Everything.

So, when they SEE the words 'in the beginning' in scientific literature and/or in religious literature, then they TAKE THIS to MEAN that there WAS and MUST OF BEEN 'a beginning' to Everything.

And now that they have this ASSUMPTION, and for some, this BELIEF, then this becomes the ONLY way they can and do LOOK AT and SEE things.

As CLEARLY EVIDENCE and PROVEN throughout human history.

By the way, when 'you' learn and understand EXACTLY how the Mind and the brain work, then ALL-OF-THIS just becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and thus just PLAIN OBVIOUS, with an underlying annoyance of how I just did NOT SEE thee PLAIN and SIMPLE Truth, which has been in front of me ALWAYS, previously.

But being 'in creation' ALWAYS is a premise which is true.

I am talking about the begininng.

SO AM I, if you EVER decide to LISTEN.

For your information, I am EXPLAINING and SHOW WHY YOUR 'beginning' IS a logical AND empirical IMPOSSIBILITY.

And I am SHOWING and PROVING this by SHOWING and REVEALING what is NOT JUST POSSIBLE but what is ACTUALLY thee Truth and REALLY DOES HAPPEN.

You are just STUCK in your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, so you are being PREVENTED from HEARING and SEEING what 'it' IS that I am actually SAYING and SHOWING/REVEALING.

Time is NOT a physical thing that is NOR could be created.

Time is a substance. At least within general relativity.

This is what is SAID to be TRUE.

Now, is EVERY thing that is SAID to be TRUE, actually True, or Right, or Correct?

Also, REMEMBER 'general relativity' CONFLICTS with OTHER human being constructed 'theories', which ALSO were derived from ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS as well.

The reason WHY ALL of these 'theories' conflict with each other and can NOT be combined with one another is because within them ALL are things that are just PLAIN WRONG and NOT CORRECT, including the 'theory' of 'general relativity'.

Now, if 'you' or ANY other human being wants to make the CLAIM that 'time' is a substance, then VERY SIMPLY; What is that 'substance', EXACTLY?

What will very soon be UNCOVERED is that 'time', itself, is NOT a 'substance' at all, which will help in EXPLAINING WHY the 'theory' of 'general relativity' has NOT YET UNIFIED with the 'theory' of 'quantum physics', which will in turn SHOW and REVEAL how to ACTUALLY UNIFY ALL-OF-THIS.

But, OBVIOUSLY, NO UNIFICATION can take place when one "side" is being BELIEVED or ASSUMED to be true and the other NOT true.

Also, how the word 'time', and its definitions was created, then what is sometimes referred to as time was passing and so in order 'time', itself, was created is another premises, which is again actually true.

Ok.

But what I have said is just a fact, and thus a premise, which is actually true.



Regress can be acceptable, but only when LOOKED FROM thee True and Right perspective.

No. We have been through this in-depth.

What has actually been dealt with here in, so called, "in-depth", is that you are just SHOWING how CLOSED 'you' ARE to, and from, your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is actually true.

LOOK, I have NO real interest if you are, or are NOT, OPEN. You are absolutely FREE to choose absolutely ANY thing you do.

But just consider what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are SAYING, which has to be OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect and WHY you could NOT get MANY to agree with and accept YOUR VIEWS here, let alone could NOT get EVERY one to agree with and accept YOUR VIEWS here?

I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY and EXPLAIN some 'things', your INABILITY SHOWS and REVEALS some of the REASONS WHY you could NOT get EVERY one "on your side", as some would say.

Creation is actually not just possible but is actuality. Otherwise, how could 'you' or ANY thing else be HERE-NOW.

Yes, we could be here without any intervention.

WHY do 'you', human beings, change the wording to DECEIVE or to DETRACT when doing so is just SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS?

Now, once again, just ANOTHER DETRACTION, but anyway, so what 'intervention' are you now talking about and referring to?

By the way, my CLARIFYING QUESTION did NOT involve a "Yes" NOR a "No" answer. My CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to 'you' here, (which admittedly does NOT have a question mark), but anyway my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you is answered, properly AND correctly, by and with you EXPLANING how 'you' or ANY thing else could be here, now, if there was NO Creation, Itself.

Please STOP LOOKING AT my questions from your currently held BELIEF, ONLY.

Depending on how the word 'God' is being defined, this will effect whether there is or is NOT a 'God'.

By God I mean the creaotr.

And what EXACTLY do you think thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, is doing right HERE, right NOW?

If thee Universe is NOT creating, and thus being the Creator, then what is It do HERE-NOW?

If by 'God', you mean 'thee Creator', and what is in fact ACTUALLY happening is 'thee Universe' is what IS Creating, then from this perspective, 'thee Universe' IS 'thee Creator', which could, would, and which does, in fact, make PERFECT SENSE with, and which fits in perfectly, with religious, AND with scientific findings and, literature.

There was a beginning. There are physical and metaphysical reasons for this. Physical: THe second law of thermodynamics. Metaphysical: You cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future.

[bahman]

NO.



Yes there is and this is because of what 'God' ACTUALLY IS and because of what God is actually creating.

We have been through this in-depth. There was a beginning. What God is is off-topic in here.

LOL So, your thread was created, 'in the beginning', in an attempt to PROVE that your BELIEF that there is NO 'God' is TRUE, but when challenged on this you then turn this around to 'What 'God' IS' is off-topic here.

Of course there 'was a beginning'. But 'a beginning' to 'what', EXACTLY?

There OBVIOUSLY is NOT 'a beginning' to that 'thing', which is INFINITE and ETERNAL. Surely, you can RECOGNIZE and SEE this Truth, correct?

Yes, the topic of this thread is why people believe in God rather than whether there is a God or not.

[bahman]

Is it POSSIBLE that the 'Creation' word just MEANS or just REFERS to something 'else' other than what you mean and are referring It to here?

No, there are three sorts of acts: 1) Creation, 2) Destruction, and 3) Change. Here we are talking about the first one.

So, here we have ANOTHER PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who is just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED that they can NOT see past their OWN assumptions AND beliefs.

They here have even appeared to NOT even SEE the ACTUAL question posed, let alone to understand what the actual question is actually asking for. Or, if they did see it and understand it, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that they ARE absolutely AND utterly COMPLETELY CLOSED.

Could you please give an example of another sort of act?

[Immanuel Can]

The truth is a set of propositions that describe reality well. Like, there was a beginning. Like, we are interacting mind. Like, the mind cannot be created or annihiliated.

Oh.

So when you asked, "What is truth?" earlier, you didn't mean it. You didn't mean it to be an actual question.

So I wonder why you phrased it as a question at all, or posed it to me...

I'm a little confused as to your intentions there. You're going to have to help me out.

[bahman]

The truth is a set of propositions that describe reality well. Like, there was a beginning. Like, we are interacting mind. Like, the mind cannot be created or annihiliated.

Oh.

So when you asked, "What is truth?" earlier, you didn't mean it. You didn't mean it to be an actual question.

So I wonder why you phrased it as a question at all, or posed it to me...

I'm a little confused as to your intentions there. You're going to have to help me out.

I as far as I recall, I asked what is the truth in your opinion. The discussion evolved to the point that I needed to explain what truth is in my opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

I as far as I recall, I asked what is the truth in your opinion.

You did. And I asked you what kind of "truth" you meant. Remember Kim and Kanye?

But you didn't really answer. Instead, you told me your own version of the truth, that all is mind. Of course, that didn't give me any help in understanding what you wanted ME to include in my answer...it only expressed the one you currently hold.

So what kind of an answer to do want from me? What kind of "truth" do you want me to talk about?

If it's ultimate Truth, I also gave you my sincere answer: Jesus Christ.

[Age]

Here I am talking about the beginning which deals with creation rather than now which deals with sustaining.

You, OBVIOUSLY, STILL do NOT 'get it'.

That is; It is LOGICALLY and EMPIRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a beginning of Everything and for a beginning of Creation.

Everything has ALWAYS existed, just in a CONTINUALLY changing shape and form.

It is because of 'cause and effect', itself, that there can NOT be a beginning to Everything and to Creation, themselves.

Because of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, which effects and thus causes the way thee Universe works, then thee Universe could NOT have begun and thus has ALWAYS existed.

Now, because of the fundamental Nature of thee Universe, Itself, and the way that thee Universe NATURALLY works, EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY reaction is just another action causing another reaction, so on and so on, FOREVER and ALWAYS.

This ALWAYS REACTING action-reaction process is just One CONTINUAL 'Reaction', which is; ALWAYS and FOREVER, ETERNAL and INFINITE, is also more commonly known as Creation, Itself.

Through this ALWAYS Reacting process of thee Universe, Itself, thee Universe is thus actually Creating, Itself, ALWAYS (and in ALL ways some will say). And also through this ALWAYS reacting, and thus constantly-changing process, EVERY 'thing' that is created is ALSO Evolving, and even through this constant process of change, and Creation, thee Universe, Itself, is evolving.

Now, I suggest finding FAULT in this and talking about and critiquing 'that', instead of just talking about some 'thing', which is just an IMPOSSIBILITY anyway.

No. I am talking about the beginning rather than now.

BUT, thee One and ONLY 'beginning' is NOW.

It is a LOGICAL and EMPIRICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for there to be ANY other, so called, "beginning".

Just because the words 'in the beginning' exist IN scientific AND IN religious literature and text, this is NO WAY means that there was nor ever even could be 'a beginning' to Everything.

WHY thee ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there is and/or was 'a beginning' to Everything is from a direct correlation between human beings themselves, how the brain works, and how human beings LOOK AT and SEE things.

Because human beings, themselves, individually and collectively came into being, and thus has 'a beginning', then they inadvertently ASSUME that so MUST EVERY thing else, including thee Creation and/or thee Universe, themselves. Therefore, these human beings LOOK FOR, and LOOK AT and SEE things from this perspective that there MUST BE 'a beginning' to Everything.

So, when they SEE the words 'in the beginning' in scientific literature and/or in religious literature, then they TAKE THIS to MEAN that there WAS and MUST OF BEEN 'a beginning' to Everything.

And now that they have this ASSUMPTION, and for some, this BELIEF, then this becomes the ONLY way they can and do LOOK AT and SEE things.

As CLEARLY EVIDENCE and PROVEN throughout human history.

By the way, when 'you' learn and understand EXACTLY how the Mind and the brain work, then ALL-OF-THIS just becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and thus just PLAIN OBVIOUS, with an underlying annoyance of how I just did NOT SEE thee PLAIN and SIMPLE Truth, which has been in front of me ALWAYS, previously.

I am talking about the begininng.

SO AM I, if you EVER decide to LISTEN.

For your information, I am EXPLAINING and SHOW WHY YOUR 'beginning' IS a logical AND empirical IMPOSSIBILITY.

And I am SHOWING and PROVING this by SHOWING and REVEALING what is NOT JUST POSSIBLE but what is ACTUALLY thee Truth and REALLY DOES HAPPEN.

You are just STUCK in your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, so you are being PREVENTED from HEARING and SEEING what 'it' IS that I am actually SAYING and SHOWING/REVEALING.

Time is a substance. At least within general relativity.

This is what is SAID to be TRUE.

Now, is EVERY thing that is SAID to be TRUE, actually True, or Right, or Correct?

Also, REMEMBER 'general relativity' CONFLICTS with OTHER human being constructed 'theories', which ALSO were derived from ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS as well.

The reason WHY ALL of these 'theories' conflict with each other and can NOT be combined with one another is because within them ALL are things that are just PLAIN WRONG and NOT CORRECT, including the 'theory' of 'general relativity'.

Now, if 'you' or ANY other human being wants to make the CLAIM that 'time' is a substance, then VERY SIMPLY; What is that 'substance', EXACTLY?

What will very soon be UNCOVERED is that 'time', itself, is NOT a 'substance' at all, which will help in EXPLAINING WHY the 'theory' of 'general relativity' has NOT YET UNIFIED with the 'theory' of 'quantum physics', which will in turn SHOW and REVEAL how to ACTUALLY UNIFY ALL-OF-THIS.

But, OBVIOUSLY, NO UNIFICATION can take place when one "side" is being BELIEVED or ASSUMED to be true and the other NOT true.

Ok.


No. We have been through this in-depth.

What has actually been dealt with here in, so called, "in-depth", is that you are just SHOWING how CLOSED 'you' ARE to, and from, your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is actually true.

LOOK, I have NO real interest if you are, or are NOT, OPEN. You are absolutely FREE to choose absolutely ANY thing you do.

But just consider what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are SAYING, which has to be OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect and WHY you could NOT get MANY to agree with and accept YOUR VIEWS here, let alone could NOT get EVERY one to agree with and accept YOUR VIEWS here?

I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY and EXPLAIN some 'things', your INABILITY SHOWS and REVEALS some of the REASONS WHY you could NOT get EVERY one "on your side", as some would say.

Yes, we could be here without any intervention.

WHY do 'you', human beings, change the wording to DECEIVE or to DETRACT when doing so is just SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS?

Now, once again, just ANOTHER DETRACTION, but anyway, so what 'intervention' are you now talking about and referring to?

By the way, my CLARIFYING QUESTION did NOT involve a "Yes" NOR a "No" answer. My CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to 'you' here, (which admittedly does NOT have a question mark), but anyway my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you is answered, properly AND correctly, by and with you EXPLANING how 'you' or ANY thing else could be here, now, if there was NO Creation, Itself.

Please STOP LOOKING AT my questions from your currently held BELIEF, ONLY.

By God I mean the creaotr.

And what EXACTLY do you think thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, is doing right HERE, right NOW?

If thee Universe is NOT creating, and thus being the Creator, then what is It do HERE-NOW?

If by 'God', you mean 'thee Creator', and what is in fact ACTUALLY happening is 'thee Universe' is what IS Creating, then from this perspective, 'thee Universe' IS 'thee Creator', which could, would, and which does, in fact, make PERFECT SENSE with, and which fits in perfectly, with religious, AND with scientific findings and, literature.

There was a beginning.

OF COURSE, there was 'a beginning'. For example, there was 'a beginning' to this sentence.

But without stipulation, just saying something like, "There was a beginning", is really NOT worth saying NOR stating at all.

So, to 'you', what was there, supposedly, 'a beginning' 'to', EXACTLY?

There are physical and metaphysical reasons for this. Physical: THe second law of thermodynamics. Metaphysical: You cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future.

What?

So, is this what 'you' are 'trying to' use for 'your' "rationalization" and "justification" that there was, supposedly, 'a beginning' to absolutely Everything?

If no, then what did you say this for?

And, did you already clarify what, "There is a beginning", supposedly, is in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, I can, and ALREADY HAVE, reached from, so called, "eternal past" to NOW, and, from NOW to, so called, "eternal future", which was, also by the way, VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

[Age]

We have been through this in-depth. There was a beginning. What God is is off-topic in here.

LOL So, your thread was created, 'in the beginning', in an attempt to PROVE that your BELIEF that there is NO 'God' is TRUE, but when challenged on this you then turn this around to 'What 'God' IS' is off-topic here.

Of course there 'was a beginning'. But 'a beginning' to 'what', EXACTLY?

There OBVIOUSLY is NOT 'a beginning' to that 'thing', which is INFINITE and ETERNAL. Surely, you can RECOGNIZE and SEE this Truth, correct?

Yes, the topic of this thread is why people believe in God rather than whether there is a God or not.

But I thought the topic of this thread IS; How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

That your ulterior motive of, and your True intention behind this, thread is some 'thing' else, was just something I wanted to make CLEAR.

WHY people BELIEVE ANY 'thing' I have ALREADY partly explained.

[Age]

No, there are three sorts of acts: 1) Creation, 2) Destruction, and 3) Change. Here we are talking about the first one.

So, here we have ANOTHER PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who is just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED that they can NOT see past their OWN assumptions AND beliefs.

They here have even appeared to NOT even SEE the ACTUAL question posed, let alone to understand what the actual question is actually asking for. Or, if they did see it and understand it, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that they ARE absolutely AND utterly COMPLETELY CLOSED.

Could you please give an example of another sort of act?

WHY?

What would that have to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that I have said and pointed out so far?

[Age]

The truth is a set of propositions that describe reality well. Like, there was a beginning. Like, we are interacting mind. Like, the mind cannot be created or annihiliated.

Oh.

So when you asked, "What is truth?" earlier, you didn't mean it. You didn't mean it to be an actual question.

So I wonder why you phrased it as a question at all, or posed it to me...

I'm a little confused as to your intentions there. You're going to have to help me out.

The True intention is 'trolling', in its real sense. That is; by asking questions, which one BELIEVES that they ALREADY KNOW the answer to, they ask questions which will hook and reel in those people with the EXACT opposite views, and/or BELIEFS, in the hope of just having an 'argument', with them, in the disputing, bickering, and conflicting sense, and NOT 'arguing' from the logical reasoning sense, at all.

Just like this thread question and opening post does.

[Age]

I as far as I recall, I asked what is the truth in your opinion.

You did. And I asked you what kind of "truth" you meant. Remember Kim and Kanye?

But you didn't really answer. Instead, you told me your own version of the truth, that all is mind. Of course, that didn't give me any help in understanding what you wanted ME to include in my answer...it only expressed the one you currently hold.

So what kind of an answer to do want from me? What kind of "truth" do you want me to talk about?

If it's ultimate Truth, I also gave you my sincere answer: Jesus Christ.

You say that what the "other" said, did NOT give you ANY help in understanding.

Do you REALLY think that just saying, "jesus christ", as the answer to the 'ultimate Truth' REALLY provides ANY help in understanding, to "another", who does NOT ASSUME and BELIEVE what 'you' do?

[bahman]

You, OBVIOUSLY, STILL do NOT 'get it'.

That is; It is LOGICALLY and EMPIRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a beginning of Everything and for a beginning of Creation.

Everything has ALWAYS existed, just in a CONTINUALLY changing shape and form.

It is because of 'cause and effect', itself, that there can NOT be a beginning to Everything and to Creation, themselves.

Because of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, which effects and thus causes the way thee Universe works, then thee Universe could NOT have begun and thus has ALWAYS existed.

Now, because of the fundamental Nature of thee Universe, Itself, and the way that thee Universe NATURALLY works, EVERY action causes a reaction, and EVERY reaction is just another action causing another reaction, so on and so on, FOREVER and ALWAYS.

This ALWAYS REACTING action-reaction process is just One CONTINUAL 'Reaction', which is; ALWAYS and FOREVER, ETERNAL and INFINITE, is also more commonly known as Creation, Itself.

Through this ALWAYS Reacting process of thee Universe, Itself, thee Universe is thus actually Creating, Itself, ALWAYS (and in ALL ways some will say). And also through this ALWAYS reacting, and thus constantly-changing process, EVERY 'thing' that is created is ALSO Evolving, and even through this constant process of change, and Creation, thee Universe, Itself, is evolving.

Now, I suggest finding FAULT in this and talking about and critiquing 'that', instead of just talking about some 'thing', which is just an IMPOSSIBILITY anyway.



BUT, thee One and ONLY 'beginning' is NOW.

It is a LOGICAL and EMPIRICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for there to be ANY other, so called, "beginning".

Just because the words 'in the beginning' exist IN scientific AND IN religious literature and text, this is NO WAY means that there was nor ever even could be 'a beginning' to Everything.

WHY thee ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there is and/or was 'a beginning' to Everything is from a direct correlation between human beings themselves, how the brain works, and how human beings LOOK AT and SEE things.

Because human beings, themselves, individually and collectively came into being, and thus has 'a beginning', then they inadvertently ASSUME that so MUST EVERY thing else, including thee Creation and/or thee Universe, themselves. Therefore, these human beings LOOK FOR, and LOOK AT and SEE things from this perspective that there MUST BE 'a beginning' to Everything.

So, when they SEE the words 'in the beginning' in scientific literature and/or in religious literature, then they TAKE THIS to MEAN that there WAS and MUST OF BEEN 'a beginning' to Everything.

And now that they have this ASSUMPTION, and for some, this BELIEF, then this becomes the ONLY way they can and do LOOK AT and SEE things.

As CLEARLY EVIDENCE and PROVEN throughout human history.

By the way, when 'you' learn and understand EXACTLY how the Mind and the brain work, then ALL-OF-THIS just becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and thus just PLAIN OBVIOUS, with an underlying annoyance of how I just did NOT SEE thee PLAIN and SIMPLE Truth, which has been in front of me ALWAYS, previously.



SO AM I, if you EVER decide to LISTEN.

For your information, I am EXPLAINING and SHOW WHY YOUR 'beginning' IS a logical AND empirical IMPOSSIBILITY.

And I am SHOWING and PROVING this by SHOWING and REVEALING what is NOT JUST POSSIBLE but what is ACTUALLY thee Truth and REALLY DOES HAPPEN.

You are just STUCK in your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, so you are being PREVENTED from HEARING and SEEING what 'it' IS that I am actually SAYING and SHOWING/REVEALING.



This is what is SAID to be TRUE.

Now, is EVERY thing that is SAID to be TRUE, actually True, or Right, or Correct?

Also, REMEMBER 'general relativity' CONFLICTS with OTHER human being constructed 'theories', which ALSO were derived from ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS as well.

The reason WHY ALL of these 'theories' conflict with each other and can NOT be combined with one another is because within them ALL are things that are just PLAIN WRONG and NOT CORRECT, including the 'theory' of 'general relativity'.

Now, if 'you' or ANY other human being wants to make the CLAIM that 'time' is a substance, then VERY SIMPLY; What is that 'substance', EXACTLY?

What will very soon be UNCOVERED is that 'time', itself, is NOT a 'substance' at all, which will help in EXPLAINING WHY the 'theory' of 'general relativity' has NOT YET UNIFIED with the 'theory' of 'quantum physics', which will in turn SHOW and REVEAL how to ACTUALLY UNIFY ALL-OF-THIS.

But, OBVIOUSLY, NO UNIFICATION can take place when one "side" is being BELIEVED or ASSUMED to be true and the other NOT true.



What has actually been dealt with here in, so called, "in-depth", is that you are just SHOWING how CLOSED 'you' ARE to, and from, your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is actually true.

LOOK, I have NO real interest if you are, or are NOT, OPEN. You are absolutely FREE to choose absolutely ANY thing you do.

But just consider what is 'it' EXACTLY that you are SAYING, which has to be OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect and WHY you could NOT get MANY to agree with and accept YOUR VIEWS here, let alone could NOT get EVERY one to agree with and accept YOUR VIEWS here?

I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY and EXPLAIN some 'things', your INABILITY SHOWS and REVEALS some of the REASONS WHY you could NOT get EVERY one "on your side", as some would say.



WHY do 'you', human beings, change the wording to DECEIVE or to DETRACT when doing so is just SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS?

Now, once again, just ANOTHER DETRACTION, but anyway, so what 'intervention' are you now talking about and referring to?

By the way, my CLARIFYING QUESTION did NOT involve a "Yes" NOR a "No" answer. My CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to 'you' here, (which admittedly does NOT have a question mark), but anyway my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you is answered, properly AND correctly, by and with you EXPLANING how 'you' or ANY thing else could be here, now, if there was NO Creation, Itself.

Please STOP LOOKING AT my questions from your currently held BELIEF, ONLY.



And what EXACTLY do you think thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, is doing right HERE, right NOW?

If thee Universe is NOT creating, and thus being the Creator, then what is It do HERE-NOW?

If by 'God', you mean 'thee Creator', and what is in fact ACTUALLY happening is 'thee Universe' is what IS Creating, then from this perspective, 'thee Universe' IS 'thee Creator', which could, would, and which does, in fact, make PERFECT SENSE with, and which fits in perfectly, with religious, AND with scientific findings and, literature.

There was a beginning.

OF COURSE, there was 'a beginning'. For example, there was 'a beginning' to this sentence.

But without stipulation, just saying something like, "There was a beginning", is really NOT worth saying NOR stating at all.

So, to 'you', what was there, supposedly, 'a beginning' 'to', EXACTLY?

I am talking about the process of nothing to physical. When the universe started to exist.

There are physical and metaphysical reasons for this. Physical: THe second law of thermodynamics. Metaphysical: You cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future.

What?

So, is this what 'you' are 'trying to' use for 'your' "rationalization" and "justification" that there was, supposedly, 'a beginning' to absolutely Everything?

If no, then what did you say this for?

And, did you already clarify what, "There is a beginning", supposedly, is in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, I can, and ALREADY HAVE, reached from, so called, "eternal past" to NOW, and, from NOW to, so called, "eternal future", which was, also by the way, VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

I am talking about the beginning of the universe. And you cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future. Infinite in principle, by definition, is unreachable. It is like saying that unreachable is reachable.

[bahman]

I as far as I recall, I asked what is the truth in your opinion.

You did. And I asked you what kind of "truth" you meant. Remember Kim and Kanye?

But you didn't really answer. Instead, you told me your own version of the truth, that all is mind. Of course, that didn't give me any help in understanding what you wanted ME to include in my answer...it only expressed the one you currently hold.

So what kind of an answer to do want from me? What kind of "truth" do you want me to talk about?

If it's ultimate Truth, I also gave you my sincere answer: Jesus Christ.

What is specific about Jesus that you consider Him as the truth?