The Age of Probability

a reply to: Alien Abduct

You know optometry and telemetry are only points or co-ordinates of light and light being vibrational "waves" can and are much more solid or dense than sound waves otherwise no "echo" would occur.

A sonic boom is heard when the sound barrier is broken by craft... it makes what is known as a "standing wall." anything traveling behind it like a bad fart won't want or can't go any further and is turned away hitting that wall... if one were to think of a basking shark that could swallow that fuel air dump as fast as that standing wall is made then it could hitch a free ride or "slip space" like driving behind a semi tractor trailer in the wind eddy so it pulls you along on an interstate you get a wobble right at the two-second following distance the trucks with the windshield up on top are best as it doesn't tail whip wobble at the two second rule of safe following distance... of course designed to push them along and in turn the pulling you with it.

That's the concept in a nutshell... leeches are a snail a slug basically a modified version of the same thing. This is where that person's concept of "GOD" being an inventor comes from. If they read this post then that is a door of how that works and no longer have to be a leech but can exercise the same thing(power) themself taking that delusion or bondage off of their life. Since most people that have no such power see "GOD" as a creator and they are doomed with all the beta crap breaking their banks hoping to one day be alpha paid enough not to beta their way around the fish tank or repair what shouldn't have been "plastic" knowing it''s cost them more than they want to spend in time and money they smartly avoid it and try to make do with what they have producing at best an artisan. Fighting over time and money is a waste of one an artist with a family is not only a starving one but one with greedy leeches looking to make bank on any and all ideas not their own or a 3rd party to go around them and steal to profit off of any and everything they didn't work for. Producing the warring class.

No concerned about the warring class knowing one is the emperor simply ceases all production or become "Zen Bones" Getting to one's feet was a struggle and the turd staring at you rbs your good feeling and accomplishment not caring how much effort it took to rise to it... best to appreciate the thing you were tugging on like a ladder to get to those feet than the face of the fool or "monkey falling in" expecting you to be the fool by wearing a purse to match their expression.

The sellouts play that game on purpose happy to dance around and be the fool for these sickos as they pay me well until new fool arrives "Don't you know who I am?" No says the couch and that dream of falling into one's bed occurs.(important point to recall) as it is the true archon or save spot to say deja vous in a different form as in complete circle or cycle. Time to "Zen Bones" or let go so the dogs have something to gnaw on but not enough to satiate so that they go elsewhere for it.

There is no entanglement it is an energy trail and the very same element that like what pulls the OBE person back to their form no matter how much they want to stay in the reality they were experiencing than the one they were in. On rare occasions such a thing occurs that cuts it and temporal beings arise existing in a quasi state like water not quite ice(solid) not quite(liquid) steam: not quite air, not quite fire, not quite water and yet it is at the same time as a paradox all of those and none of those making it exist as a three dimensional state and also a parallel state or "being" as it is "present" and yet not "present" like you said it is just H2O but simultaneously existing and not existing but the triple world it is in is missing two states for the five states one would be plasma and the other the solid... having plasma and solidity oneself is the only reason "we" as an elemental existence can experience steam at all. Since steam cannot experience plasma or solidity in us? It cannot know it as it knows itself as we are simply "contact" the same way "steam" is simply contact.

Religion and Science, is like a Greek epic about a father an son trying to kill each other, vying for dominance, with new in an old out.

History is chock full of ironic twists an turns, like it was some heathen, vengful God of Abraham(i didn't say which ether), watching an calculating our every move an thought. And punishing us by cause an effect, slowly planning an improvising on sending a bunch of monkeys that call themselves great to space.

a reply to: Proto88

In Greek and Roman times it was called a meme; Over done it is a trope; Falling for it? It becomes the same old tripe.

It is at that point of which in one's rulership; *It can become the most dangerous ...as seen in my bottom passage? Fiddler's Green.

*an undefined variable based on one's own life in total of all their experiences and no one else's aka Davy Jones locker.

I think it's a 'symptom' if you look at art: there's just so much of it.
Entropy, social entropy as can be seen in art, mostly music and everything visual down to TikTok. Yes that low down.
Personally I have strongly mixed feelings about that.
I think it's good because more people get an opportunity to express their thoughts on a kind of elevated level.
It's bad because it shows a little too much how many really dumb people are out there.
But it gives us an opportunity to find people who might intellectually be not so gifted but with a talent for their art.
Mostly it seems though as if there are people who can afford it, have had training in their craft, think they're smart because they went to a brand name school, giving us empty junk like 'I'm afraid of the darkness, are you afraid of the darkness...'
A whole litter of the medium rich caste pumped out to be the movers and shakers of tomorrow.
Amongst others. Like people who watch fart videos, porn addicts, gore addicts now broadcasting what sick sad society we are.
But you know the thing is people with the luxury of getting an actual education can afford to go to the edges of their own experience, while most just get job training if that.
And in a certain hormonal stage of growing up there has to be a leeway. It's just really aweful we have to see that.
The ugly face of anarchy. As in: the broken society where everybody is out to make it for themself. Only themself.
This time we almost had a chance in parts of the world to reach a lot of people not in immediate survival pressure.
There's a good chance the idea of a God is still supposed to keep on developing. The memes still floating on the tide of that symbol are basically lifeforms in our consciousness. I mean that as I say it, nothing more nothing less.
But the 'Creator' makes to me personally a lot less sense than how life happens. One cell and a second cell, sometimes only one cell giving birth to a multiverse.
Yes the 'litter' again, but on a more basic level and bigger.
So every cell is an universe, which means every god-like intelligence is probably the 'mind' of whatever body that cell forms.
Would be like the smaller you look after an 'event horizon' the more you find the bigger things, a loop. You gotta think scale on this one. But also true for the intelligence in it.
Which would mean a God is indeed everywhere, but from our perspective very chaotic, imagine what your cells think about you.
We should embrace the chaos. Within reason.

... I drifted a bit, but point is: how much we are going nowhere can be seen by how low the quality of our produced and consumed art is. Shopping is a cultural activity you can do on your sofa. And a day later you get presents!
The technology is not bad. What people do with it is.
Everybody can publish whatever. And we all get to see the ugly face of horny dumbasses.
The good news is there are still people who just live.
The bad news is we're all idiots.
On purpose I believe. But could totally be it's just the break down of society who causes it. Or they coincide unfortunately coincidentally at the same time.
Who really cares.
In the age of probability, suddenly we have to get locked inside.
The simulation. Like Simon?
But we're all just having fun.
There's nothing more liberating than just giving no # anymore. Zen.
Of course often that leads to suicide.
But there's a pill for that.
The simulation says you'll be less chaotic if you take it.
Hm... curious.
Another chicken or egg question. What was first the problem or the solution?
...And we just tell those numbnuts another guy will come to help them. Or an alien. Or great leader. There's something for every taste.
It's all obviously bs.
But that's just me. And I kind of can totally accept you think what you want to believe.
A thin line.
Because often it feels we forget to communicate that it's okay to have different opinions.
Diversity and entropy are great!
We just have to not give a # and be like we would want God to be.
And maybe find a better word for it? The old one is so loaded.
#LoveLife

So true. I love that movie. It doesn't change the reality that there still is a distinction though. And often, they don't match up. The major difference is that opinions are often wrong whereas facts can never be wrong (by definition). For example:

In general 'the truth' is on its way to become relative.

That, is an opinion. And by definition, it's wrong. Since the synonym for true/factual/certain is absolute, not relative. People's opinions about the concept of "truth" cannot change the meaning of the word, nor can it change a truth/fact/certainty/reality (all synonyms).

“What Is Truth?”

The two men facing each other could scarcely have been more dissimilar. One was a politician who was cynical, ambitious, wealthy, ready to do anything to advance his own career. The other was a teacher who spurned wealth and prestige and was prepared to sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. Needless to say, these two men did not see eye to eye! On one matter in particular, they disagreed absolutely​—the matter of truth.

The men were Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ. Jesus was standing before Pilate as a condemned criminal. Why? Jesus explained that the reason for this​—indeed, the very reason that he had come to the earth and undertaken his ministry—​came down to one thing: truth. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,” he said, “that I should bear witness to the truth.”​—John 18:37.

Pilate’s reply was a memorable question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Did he really want an answer? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!”* [According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.” Is this how you view the matter of truth? If so, is it possible that you have adopted this view without thoroughly questioning it? Even if you have not, do you know how much this philosophy affects your life?

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” For example, in an effort to make homosexuals feel more “comfortable” in the Episcopal Church, Spong wrote a book claiming that the apostle Paul was a homosexual!

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

The same thinking is promoted in countless other ways. For instance, TV and newspaper reporters often seem more interested in entertaining their viewers than in getting at the truth of a story. Some news programs have even doctored or faked film footage in order to make it appear more dramatic. And in entertainment a stronger attack is mounted on truth. The values and moral truths that our parents and grandparents lived by are widely viewed as obsolete and are often held up to outright ridicule.

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though? And what about its impact on you? Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time. Such an outlook will affect your future.

Why Search for Truth?

Many religious organizations claim to have the truth, and they offer it eagerly to others. However, between them they offer a dizzying profusion of “truths.” Is this just another evidence that all truths are relative, that there are no absolute truths? No.

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.

The Price of Relativism

It is in the moral realm, though, where the errors of relativism are most apparent, for it is here that such thinking has done the most harm. The Encyclopedia Americana makes this point: “It has been seriously doubted whether knowledge, or known truth, is humanly attainable . . . It is certain, however, that whenever the twin ideals of truth and knowledge are rejected as visionary or harmful, human society decays.”

Perhaps you have noticed such decay. For example, the Bible’s moral teachings, which say clearly that sexual immorality is wrong, are only rarely held as truths anymore. Situation ethics​—“decide what is right for you”—​is the order of the day. Could anyone claim that social decay has not resulted from this relativistic outlook? Surely the worldwide epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases, broken homes, and teenage pregnancies speak for themselves.

[continued in next comment]

What Is the Truth?

So let us leave the murky waters of relativism and examine briefly what the Bible describes as the pure waters of truth. (John 4:14; Revelation 22:17) In the Bible, “truth” is not at all like the abstract, intangible concept over which philosophers debate.

When Jesus said that his whole purpose in life was to talk about the truth, he was speaking of something that faithful Jews had valued for centuries. In their sacred writings, the Jews had long read of “truth” as something concrete, not theoretical. In the Bible, “truth” translates the Hebrew word “ʼemethʹ,” which signifies that which is firm, solid, and, perhaps most of all, reliable.

The Jews had good reason for viewing truth in that way. They called their God, Jehovah, “the God of truth.” (Psalm 31:5) This was because everything Jehovah said he would do, he did. When he made promises, he kept them. When he inspired prophecies, they were fulfilled. When he uttered final judgments, they were carried out. Millions of Israelites had been eyewitnesses of these realities. The inspired penmen of the Bible recorded them as indisputable facts of history. Unlike other books viewed as sacred, the Bible is not set against a backdrop of myth or legend. It is firmly grounded in verifiable facts​—historical, archaeological, scientific, and sociological realities. No wonder the psalmist says of Jehovah: “Your law is truth. . . . All your commandments are truth. . . . The substance of your word is truth”!​—Psalm 119:142, 151, 160.

Jesus Christ echoed the words of that psalm when he said in prayer to Jehovah: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) Jesus knew that everything his Father spoke was absolutely firm and reliable. Likewise, Jesus was “full of . . . truth.” (John 1:14) His followers learned as eyewitnesses, and recorded for all posterity, that everything he said was rock solid, the truth.* [There are over 70 places in the Gospel accounts where Jesus is recorded as using a unique expression to emphasize the truthfulness of his words. He would often say “Amen” (“Truly,” NW) to introduce a sentence. The corresponding Hebrew word meant “certain, true.” Notes The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: “By introducing his words with amen Jesus labelled them as certain and reliable. He stood by them and made them binding on himself and his hearers. They are an expression of his majesty and authority.”]

However, when Jesus told Pilate that he had come to earth to speak the truth, he had a specific truth in mind. Jesus made that statement in response to Pilate’s question: “Are you a king?” (John 18:37) God’s Kingdom, and Jesus’ own role as its King, were the very theme, the core, of Jesus’ teaching while he was on earth. (Luke 4:43) That this Kingdom will sanctify Jehovah’s name, vindicate his sovereignty, and restore faithful mankind to eternal and happy life is the “truth” in which all genuine Christians hope. Since Jesus’ role in the fulfillment of all of God’s promises is so pivotal, and since all of God’s prophecies become “Amen,” or true, because of him, Jesus could well say: “I am the way and the truth and the life.”​—John 14:6; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Revelation 3:14.

Recognizing this truth as completely reliable means a great deal to Christians today. It means that their faith in God and their hope in his promises are based on facts, on realities.

Truth in Action

Not surprisingly, the Bible links truth with action. (1 Samuel 12:24; 1 John 3:18) To God-fearing Jews, truth was not a subject for philosophizing; it was a way of life. The Hebrew word for “truth” could also mean “faithfulness” and was used to describe one who could be trusted to act on his word. Jesus taught his followers to view truth in the same light. He passionately decried the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the wide gulf between their self-righteous words and their unrighteous deeds. And he set the example in living by the truths he taught.

So it should be for all of Christ’s followers. To them, the truth of God’s Word, the exhilarating good news of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of Jesus Christ, is more, far more, than mere information. That truth moves them to action, compels them to live by it and share it with others. (Compare Jeremiah 20:9.) To the first-century Christian congregation, the way of life they adopted as followers of Christ was sometimes known simply as “the truth” or “the way of the truth.”​—2 John 4; 3 John 4, 8; 2 Peter 2:2.

A Treasure Worth Any Price

Granted, accepting the truths of God’s Word exacts a price. First, just learning the truth can be a shattering experience. The Encyclopedia Americana observes: “The truth is often disagreeable, because it fails to support prejudice or myth.” Seeing our beliefs exposed as untrue can be disillusioning, especially if we were taught by trusted religious leaders (or the 'gurus' of scientism for that matter). Some might liken the experience to finding out that trusted parents were, in fact, secret criminals. But is not finding out religious truth better than living under a delusion? Is it not better to know the facts than to be manipulated by lies?*​—Compare John 8:32; Romans 3:4. [*: The Greek word for “truth,” a·leʹthei·a, derives from a word meaning “not concealed,” so the truth often involves the revealing of that which was formerly hidden.​—Compare Luke 12:2.]

Second, living by religious truth may cost us the acceptance of some who were formerly our friends. In a world where so many have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie,” those who hold firm to the truth of God’s Word seem peculiar and are sometimes shunned and misunderstood.​—Romans 1:25; 1 Peter 4:4.

But the truth is worth this twofold price. Knowing the truth sets us free from lies, delusions, and superstitions. And when we live by it, the truth strengthens us to endure hardships. God’s truth is so reliable and well-founded, and it so inspires us with hope, that it enables us to stand up under any test. No wonder the apostle Paul likened truth to the wide, sturdy leather belt, or girdle, that soldiers wore into battle!​—Ephesians 6:13, 14.

The Bible proverb says: “Buy truth itself and do not sell it​—wisdom and discipline and understanding.” (Proverbs 23:23) To dismiss truth as relative or nonexistent is to miss out on the most thrilling and fulfilling quest that life offers. To find it is to find hope; to know and love it is to know and love the Creator of the universe and his only-begotten Son; to live by it is to live with purpose and peace of mind, now and forever.​—Proverbs 2:1-5; Zechariah 8:19; John 17:3.

Does the Truth Ever Change?

That question was raised by V. R. Ruggiero in his book The Art of Thinking. His answer is no. He elaborates: “It may sometimes seem to, but on closer inspection it will be found not to.”

“Consider,” he says, “the case of the authorship of the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis. For centuries Christians and Jews alike believed that the book had a single author. In time this view was challenged, and eventually replaced by the belief that as many as five authors contributed to Genesis. Then, in 1981, the results of a 5-year linguistic analysis of Genesis were published, stating that there is an 82 percent probability of single authorship, as originally thought.

“Has the truth about the authorship of Genesis changed? No. Only our belief has changed. . . . The truth will not be changed by our knowledge or by our ignorance.”

Reverence for Truth

“Reverence for truth is not simply the pseudo-cynicism of our own age which tries to ‘unmask’ everything, in the belief that no one and nothing can genuinely lay claim to truth. It is the attitude which combines joyful confidence that truth can indeed be found, with a humble submission to truth whenever and wherever it emerges. Such openness to truth is required of those who worship the God of truth; whilst a due reverence for truth ensures honesty in a man’s dealings with his neighbour, both in word and deed. This is the attitude, we have seen, to which both the O[ld] T[estament] and the N[ew] T[estament] bear witness.”​—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 3, page 901.

Scientific progress is based on the uncovering of scientific truths (the conveniently selective agnosticism and relativism so popular in scientism stands in opposition to this progress, but is an efficient tool if one wants to sell unverified philosophies under the marketingbanner "science"*). *: In that light, this playlist may be of help: Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories.

a reply to: whereislogic

Teenage pregnancies like Mary mother of a certain Jesus?
The bible is not the truth.
Even what people think God is is very relative.
I don't doubt there's a sum of facts that can be true.
But I doubt there's a single human brain that could contain and process enough facts to get anywhere near the truth.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

The bible is not the truth.

I think we can both agree that that is your opinion, but have you realized that by your usage of the word "is" (symbolized in absolute statements of mathematics by the symbol "="), you are stating that as if it is "true/factual/certain" that "the bible is not the truth"? Would it not be less contradictory in light of your OP if you rephrased that to: 'I think/believe (synonyms) that the bible is not the truth'? That way, no one can get confused as to the reality that that is your opinion/belief/philosophy about the matter. And that you're truly openminded to the possibility that your belief/opinion about that subject may be wrong.

Even what people think God is is very relative.

Of course what people think/believe God is, does not affect what God actually is. Beliefs/opinions are indeed relative, but cannot change the meaning of the concept of "truth", nor can they change the truth of the matter itself. Or in other words, the fact that beliefs/opinions are relative cannot make truth relative. Since they (beliefs/opinions and truths/facts) are already 2 different things to begin with. See also the section under "Does the Truth Ever Change?" towards the ending of my 2nd comment.

I don't doubt there's a sum of facts that can be true.
But I doubt there's a single human brain that could contain and process enough facts to get anywhere near the truth.

As per the philosophy of relativism and for example the statement quoted from Episcopal bishop John S. Spong in my comment (especially your 2nd sentence). How do you feel about being in agreement with an Episcopal bishop on this matter, or having the same view/opinion on this matter of "truth"? Or Pontius Pilate for that matter? Or that this view of truth is taught by other religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Any alarm bells ringing? Have you ever considered that this view/opinion might be a little too mainstream for your taste? Given the fact/reality that you are a regular poster on a conspiracy website that presents itself as being "alternative" to mainstream thinking. Or that this view of truth is perhaps not as openminded as you have been told or taught by those promoting it through these channels (schools, media, religion, philosophers and politicians)?

We truly are living in a culture of relativism as the title of that section puts it. This is what the Bible recommends regarding the current culture, described as "this system of things" (also sometimes referred to on this website as "the matrix"):

“And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”—ROMANS 12:2.

Do you think there may be some danger to having your thinking and opinions being molded by mainstream thinking and this system of things? I.e. what is the most popular at the time.

... They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: ...

Use discernment: ...

Put information to the test: ...

Ask questions: ...

Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. ...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

Synonyms for "right" and "wrong" are "true" and "false" respecively. There's someone described in the Bible who does not want you to train your mind like that (note the expression "through use"). He is described as "the father of the lie" (John 8:44) and as "misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Revelation 12:9). I think those descriptions are a major clue as to his motive why he doesn't want you to do that.

originally posted by: whereislogic

So true. I love that movie.

For those who haven't seen that movie, let me explain a little about the context there. The movie is about what goes on in someone's mind, depicted symbolically (the main characters in that movie are the feelings joy, sadness, anger, fear and disgust). In that particular scene (showing joy, sadness and an imaginary friend), they are on "the train of thought" (which is where facts and opinions often get mixed up, like Bing Bong says: "happens all the time").

Also, if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it, it's a fascinating movie, clever and creative, and beautiful in its depiction of the inner workings of the mind. It is quite the emotional rollercoaster though, so have your tissues ready and be prepared to feel quite tired or sleepy afterwards. I watched it for the first time yesterday evening on the BBC, and because I missed the beginning, another time right after online*, went to bed almost straight after. Slept like a baby. And whenever thinking about it, I just can't wipe my smile off my face (also when making this comment; 'joy' is taking over the controls in my mind now just like in the movie). *: in another thread in the "movies" subforum, I mentioned that I was tearing up already around what I guessed was about 20 minutes in, when re-watching it after I made that comment, I already teared up within the first 5 minutes (because it was so beautiful and positive, the opposite of so many shows and movies for adults filled with symbolic darkness pushing the buttons of the darkness that resides in humans, usually involving a love to be entertained with gory violence).

Because so many things in that movie are 'so true' (as I said there regarding that scene), the joy I'm feeling when watching or talking about this movie, also demonstrates the truth of the Bible quotaton at the ending of my signature. "[Love] rejoices with the truth." (1 Cor.13:6b)

Full chapter:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.* [Or “I am useless.”] 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.

4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, 10 but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially,* [Or “I have incomplete (partial) knowledge.”] but then I will know accurately,* [Or “fully.”] just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

a reply to: whereislogic

No I meant it as a fact. The bible is not true.
Since I'm not the one who believes and is stuck on any one thing as truth, I would say I'm in a lot less danger than you believing a lie.

a reply to: Peeple

Philosophy is sick, thinking it is wise.
The religions are sick, thinking they are medicine from the wise.
Science is sick, thinking it is the medicine for religion and philosophy.

In light of the scene I used from the movie Inside Out, let's try to analyze the OP and try to seperate facts/truths from opinions/beliefs/philosophies. Mind you, it can be quite tricky cause as the character joy says in that scene, they often look so similar.

originally posted by: Peeple
In short: in the only science that really can call itself science namely physics,

That is an opinion. Since "belief" is the synonym for "opinion", it is also a belief that is being expressed by the OP. Using the word "belief" instead of "opinion" is just another way of putting it, it means the same thing. Anyone who would argue that they do not believe anything, is basically arguing that they do not have opinions. Those sort of arguments are irrational since all human beings have opinions about a large variety of subjects, including their view of the concept of "truth". (by the way, "view" is another synonym for "opinion/belief"). Having opinions is what sets human beings apart from animals and machines like computers. Of course, those who are of the opinion, or who hold to the belief (and myth) that humans are animals (or apes, or evolved apes), may have some trouble digesting this reality/truth/fact, bringing us back to another truth/reality mentioned and quoted earlier in my commentary (demonstrated to be true on ATS quite often):

First, just learning the truth can be a shattering experience. The Encyclopedia Americana observes: “The truth is often disagreeable, because it fails to support prejudice or myth.” Seeing our beliefs exposed as untrue can be disillusioning, especially if we were taught by trusted religious leaders (or the 'gurus' of scientism for that matter).

Back to the OP:

particles are on their way out and probabilities about to become dominant.

That is an opinion/belief. It may perhaps be popular among philosophers who decided to call themselves and eachother "scientists" somewhere in the 19th century*, but that doesn't make it true/factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error (all synonyms; the article about propaganda from my signature mentions the phrase: 'popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth', I bolded it before when quoting from that article). *: because of the accumulation of failed philosophies proposed by philosophers in the past that were refuted by something Isaac Newton called "experimental philosophy" (which later became known under the term "modern science") at a time when what many nowadays refer to as "science" was still called "natural philosophy", and those active in that field were referred to as "natural philosophers". Because of this, the term "philosopher" became less and less effective at marketing one's philosophies as wisdom, knowledge (Latin: scientia), insight or understanding. Both the terms philosopher and philosophy became less popular as a result. So a new term was invented for (self-)marketing purposes (marketing is very similar to propaganda):

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Source: the wikipedia page for "scientist"

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

From the quotations above, one can see what methodology Newton proposed to make factual discoveries, in order to gain knowledge/science (from the Latin scientia) of realities/facts/truths/certainties. This methodology he termed "experimental philosophy", which as mentioned before, later became known as "modern science". He had many successes using this method, among which is his discovery of the facts/truths/certainties described in the Law of gravity. One could describe it as a proven effective scientific method. Note the main difference with what is nowadays often referred to as "the scientific method" (as if there is or should be only one that classifies under the term "science" or "scientific"), concerning the topic of hypotheses (proposed unverified philosophies/ideas). Also sometimes referred to as "the modern scientific method", one can see that it doesn't quite match up with what Newton called "experimental philosophy" and later became known as "modern science".

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Back to the OP:

In general 'the truth' is on its way to become relative.

Well, I already mentioned that this is an opinion, and I made one central point as to how one can tell it is a wrong opinon/belief/philosophy/idea/view. Then I further elaborated on this philosophy/belief of relativism, as it's called by the philosophers who promote it (market, propagandize or argue in favor of it, or simply express their belief therein as the OP did).

Look at history the present is a cacaphony of opinions, perceptions and experiences.

I'm looking at a lot of opinions/beliefs expressed here in this thread as well. So I am observing that this is indeed a fact/truth/reality. Unlike the earlier expressed opinions/beliefs in the OP.

The further back you go the more one finds the multitude of voices significantly reduced. Down to often a fracture of one opinion, perception, experience 'package'.

Perhaps, but I get the impression that human beings have always had a large variety of opinions/beliefs/ideas about a variety of subjects. So I'm somewhat on the fence on this one. Case in point, Pilate's opinion about the concept of truth, in particular religious truth. And the philosophy of relativism, which has been around for quite a while as well as demonstrated in my commentary about the subject (very popular amongst the Greek philosophers trying to sell their unverified philosophies to the public and getting people to listen to them and see them as wise persons worthy of listening to). I'm out of space now so I'll leave it there for now.

I do want to leave you all with one piece of advice from the article in my signature though before I move on (part of it is already quoted in the text under my profilename, with one minor adjustment because I had to take it out of context; it also relates to what I quoted in my signature itself):

Put information to the test: “Beloved ones,” said John, a first-century Christian teacher, “do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions.” (1 John 4:1) Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Source: see my signature

The standard or method that I value highly in my search for truths/facts, was already described by Newton in his description of experimental philosophy, it is also described more succinctly in the Bible (and I have a feeling that that is what motivated Newton to propose to take that approach to acquiring knowledge/science, since he was a diligent student of the Bible, he must have read it and apparently taken it to heart):

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I guess you can also sum it up with just one word if you must: verification. Newton elaborated on a good (proven) efficient method on how to do that. As that method also relates to the concept of 'putting information to the test'.

a reply to: whereislogic

lol a Christian talking about 'veryfication', that's absurde. You guys wait for 2000 years now for the Kingdom of god and Christ to return, at what point is it veryfied it won't happen?

And the thing about Physics is fact not belief, experimentally veryfied.
My philosophy is as of yet unwritten, I don't subscribe to oldschool relativsm either, so your point was absolutely mute. Again.

Add: fyi if your 'research' is nothing but encouraging yourself to keep on believing as you do it's called 'confirmation bias'

a reply to: Peeple

Physics is based in the physical the concept of metta is 'meta' phiscical to some peeple; it's a slur in passing.

Theosophy is the meta philosophy that tried to "Zeitgeist" everything together in one.

The koan(unanswerable riddle for FOO dogs) When the one s returnable to one what is the one returnable to? Is an example. The previous is a direct pointing to those trying to force all things to one not knowing the answer thinking it is some sort of trick or that there is one.

Why drown in a sea of philosophy based on the simple CONTACt of what you call physics? Easy to do when attached to the language thereof. When in all honesty people just want to be secure in their acquisitions of food clothing and maintaining their shelter from the elements aka wind, water, fire and air. Anthromophing those is where the "god" concept arose from and is an exercise of the imagination or creativity when nothing practical was left to be accomplished by the craving or desiring mind always insatiable like a beast wanting more when one is already fed, clothed, and housed or not making more sentient beings.

'Sentience' has been up for debate for a long time. Making it a vihara fit for both males and females of all sorts... when those not secure in themselves figure it out. Basically that they are being preyed on preditored on in the harvesting of sexuality saying it is "confused". Thinking that is a 'normal' makes those not confused victims of those evils just the same making for an ill functioning society.

a reply to: Peeple

..in the only science that really can call itself science namely physics, particles are on their way out and probabilities about to become dominant.

Why do you try to create this kind of weird-sounding limitation, and then choose the LEAST scientific 'supposed-science' as your shining example of 'true science'?

For a long time, I have told people what people call 'science' on this planet, is just another cult and religion. Its churches and doctrines are a bit different, but everything matches. It requires blind belief and oversimplifying things; people say 'trust the science' even in situations, where the so-called 'scientists' are clueless as to what's going on and why, and at the same time, they're in DISAGREEMENT with each other.

There are always massive disagreements about many topics in the so-called 'scientific community' - the purported 'scientists' themselves are not agreeing with the other gods.. I mean, 'scientists'. There are wildly fluctuating theories about the simplest things, and they can't even come out and tell us what a 'woman' is.

You call this 'science'??

Your precious 'science' has made mistakes throughout its existence and never been able to correct all of them, plus, people have been expected to blindly believe the 'current theory', no matter HOW wrong it has been later proven out to have been. And yet you call this 'science'?

This is dabbling in the dark while refusing to open your eyes, let alone use your flashlight, and then with pride, explaining your findings to the clueless masses in the most egotistical way possible, and then dying and having your theories proven wrong.

The people on this planet you call 'scientists' do nothing but theoretical guesswork that they get wrong, and then build more theories and guesswork on top of that, and call it a day. They take part in scamming the public and not rising needed criticism about the populist 'science theories'. They let NASA do and say whatever, regardless of how plausible it is, because it has power and money (stolen from the people) - so what, if they consisted mostly of Nazís..

In any case, a TRUE science doesn't close its eyes from the subtler flows of existence, just because they've been trained to be nihilistic-materialistic, to the extent that they simply DO NOT TAKE IN OR SCIENTIFICALLY PROCESS information that is in contradiction with the materialistic and Creatorless worldview.

Intelligent Design, no matter how good proof of its existence you have found, is NOT allowed in the 'academy'.

A true science would study, research and 'scientifically process' everything, not only the rocks and pebbles, but also the etheric plane, astral plane, the Creator of the Universe, spirituality, etc.

Ironically, what you call science behaves like a religion or cult, but it doesn't accept actual Creator-Spirit into its nihilistic and manipulatively materialistic worldview...it would be much better the other way around; acknowledging the Hand that Created All Existence, but behaving more rationally and less religiously. No dogma or doctrine should override the truth, but that's the core basis of what you call 'real science' (though I am paraphrasing, because your term was overly long).

There are more real and true sciences out there, yours is like toddlers debating about sandcastles in a tiny sandbox by comparison, while others are unlocking the very mysteries of existence.