Re: Re: Questions for Zingdad and Friends

[Zingdad]

Hello Nekodos

What a wonderful rebuttal! I don’t AT ALL mind you “fighting back” a little. This is such fun!

May I begin by saying though, that I am making my own life difficult. My proposition is that one cannot prove anything. But if I am to defend this proposition then I am essentially trying to prove that we cannot prove anything! LOL!

But let me address some of your points and see if we might not come closer to agreement…
@Nekodos wrote:

Actually, a hypothesis leads to a theory, not a fact. That’s why it can change later on, it’s never a fact, “just” a theory. However these theories are usefull.

You are entirely correct, and on this we agree. I find myself in agreement with those who are doing “good science” who understand that there are only ever theories. Good theories are those that are useful in explaining our experiences of our universe.

What is not useful is when people begin to label these good theories as “scientific fact” and begin to entrench them and wish them to be unchangeable. This is what I was talking about. So I think we are in agreement.

@Nekodos wrote:

A scientific definition of time? It’s simply the measurement unit of change, just as we use feet/meters for small distances. If you’re talking about past, present and future…I’d think the general consensus is that only the (ever changing) present exists, past is memory and future has yet to come.
So if time in science is nothing more than a measurement unit, the theories created with them surely are valuable.

Okay… I like this a lot! I disagree on the details but I like the result anyway. Let me explain. I don’t agree that time IS the unit of measure. Just as I don’t agree that space IS the meters we are measuring it with. Space and time are, according to Einstein, one thing. But we don’t know what that thing IS. But that is less important than the understanding you have about time… it is just a measure of change. I agree with you very much on that count. I also agree that there is only the ever present NOW. Yes. We agree. And I also agree that scientific theories that are based upon time as a unit of measure are useful. If they describe our reality then that is wonderful. But none of this detracts from the point I was making. When we talk about time (as when we talk about distance) we are talking about the measurement of SOMETHING. And yet we have no idea what that something IS.

I am not arguing we should cease to do science! I am certainly not arguing that we should cease to examine our reality. Not at all. I am simply saying that it is equally useful to come to the realisation that what we have are theories built on theories built on theories. If you keep digging the “stuff” at the bottom of all these theories is… unknown! And that should give us pause for thought. TO ME this is quite a radical realisation. It means I should stop looking for THE TRUTH outside of myself. I should stop seeking THE TRUTH in external authorities. I should seek it instead inside in own heart and in my own experiences. This is what it means to me. But implicit in this understanding for me… is that it might mean something else entirely to someone else. Another person might come to the conclusion that it means science is just still busy finding the answers and will, in due course, solve all the mysteries! 🙂 So my proof that there is no proof really does prove nothing! 😆

@Nekodos wrote:

Why would a theory be irrelevant, just because you don’t fully understand all things involved. Take the theory of gravity for example. We know gravity exists, what it does and how it works. We don’t know what causes it or even what it actually is.
It’s a force that pulls with a constant power, for earth that is 11.1km/sec (escape velocity). Without this knowledge, we wouldn’t be able to send anything into orbit. So we don’t know it all, but we know enough to help us in life…That is pretty much the “proof” I’m looking for here as well, something that can help me in my life.

I think maybe I have explained myself a bit better already.

I don’t say scientific theories are not useful. Not at all. Without science I would not have a laptop upon which to type. There is very little in my life that is not provided to me by way of science. And I really actually love science and find it fascinating. Science is a very powerful tool for describing and understanding our reality. Particularly because it allows for every changing and expanding understandings… which is exactly what we call “scientific theories”. Right? So that is cool. What I am saying is that science will not offer us “ultimate proof”. All the theories are built upon other theories and ultimately, these theories do not rest upon anything that is absolute… that is concrete. There is nothing KNOWN and PROVED that cannot later change.

So science is a useful tool and we should continue to use it as such. Nothing more.

@Nekodos wrote:

I don’t know…That’s not how I feel about prove, sure you pin something down to one thing. But it could still very much change. If you don’t pin down a certain definition of something, it gets rather hard to communicate… Imagine everyone having their own definitions for what words mean, conversation would be utterly impossible!

Ah! Yes, absolutely! What you are talking about here is a “consensus reality”. We come to an agreement about certain things. We create definitions. As a silly example – we both look at all the infinite variations of colours in the light spectrum and we agree “THIS is blue, THAT is green and that over there is red”. It is so because we agree it is so. For no other reason. I believe is the same for the spirit beings that created this universe. They agreed certain things would be so. We that are incarnated here experience it as it is because we agree to it. We have created the rules by which we live… by which our reality functions. We experience it as being so because we agree to it before hand. Otherwise nothing would make sense at all.

But definitions and agreed-to concepts are not proof. Because, these too can change. They can be re-negotiated. Or you can meet someone that doesn’t agree to the consensus. Our little consensus reality is not the whole of all that is. It is just our little bubble that we have agreed to play inside.

So… yes… I agree 100%. We need to agree to stuff before hand or else there is nothing we can experience together… nothing we can share… and no point to this life. Without this there would BE no life. But these agreements do not constitute “proof”.
@Nekodos wrote:

How about if I ask you to prove it to me in such a way, isn’t that my free-will decision then? You obviously have the free-will right to decline such a request

I find this quite funny!
You are asking if it is possible to, as an act of free-will, give away your free will.
The answer is yes and no.
Yes, you can choose to experience the illusion of giving your free will away. It is called being a victim. This is discussed at great length in The Ascension Papers. We come here to this reality beyond the veil so that we can forget that we are creator beings. We remain in a state of forgetfulness by experiencing ourselves as victims. We enter into agreements with others that they will pretend to victimise us. In return we agree to pretend to victimise them. It is a big game. But when we are IN the game it is often anything but fun! It is sometimes very painful indeed. And while we are here being victims we believe we are not the creators of our own reality (for these two concepts are mutually exclusive). So we believe that we are not the holders of our own truth. The truth is “outside” of us. And so we search “outside” for this truth. We give our power away to institutions such as religion, politics and yes, even science. They must tell us what is The Truth.
Yes. We can do this. We can use our free will to give away our free will. We can ask other to prove to us that we are not the creators of our own reality. We can. We have. And we are, to one extent or another, continuing to do this all the time.

But if we want to awaken and remember who we really are… if we want to discover our true creator nature… then we should probably stop doing this.

Don’t you think?

It all depends what you want. If you want to experience yourself as a victim then give away your free will. If you want to experience yourself as a creator then claim it. And enact it. And own your own inner-truth. And CREATE! 🙂

@Nekodos wrote:

No no no, religions and governments don’t try to convince us with proof, they try to convince us without any proof, we simply need to have faith!!! Isn’t that much much worse? A religion telling me I need to believe in god, because they say so… It cannot be done! A government making cannabis illegal without informing the public about the possible uses of the plant…That is taking away my right to be a creator being WITHOUT giving me anything in return!
If religion would have any valuable proof, I’d be a believer. Taking things on faith just isn’t my game, believing that anything is true if I want it to be doesn’t really do me any good either…

And here we agree 100%. Religions and governments try to pretend they have proof. Certainly they tell us they are the holders of what must be true for all of us. We must do as they say. So they tell us. They know what is best for us. So they tell us. But, you are right, they have nothing and they do not know what is best for us. This is what they keep messing it all us so badly.

I agree 100% too that we should not take stuff on faith. That is exactly my point. Stop believing external authority. Trust YOURSELF, your heart, your intuition, you experiences. These are the things that will guide you to your truth.

If things outside of you are useful… then use them. Like science.

If ideas/ philosophies and beliefs outside of you resonate with your own truth then… agree with them. Some of the stuff inside some of the religions is pretty darn good! If you like it include it. But only because YOU say it’s good.

@Nekodos wrote:

I’m getting to that conclusion as well, just play with these ideas..Don’t try to prove them. Problem is that it’s all so wonderful I really want it to be “true”

OH BOY do I ever know where you are coming from! I really, really do understand what you are saying. For myself I have resolved it like this: if it works for me then I say it is true for me. But I agree with myself that I might at some point find a “better” truth. If I do then it is okay to let go of the previous truth and move on. Otherwise, if I don’t, growth will always be painful. Coming to new realisations will always mean hurting myself over the fact that I can’t let go of my old truth set.

@Nekodos wrote:

It’s not for me, but it sounds great!

…and I TOTALLY respect that! Not only am I willing to see that what is true for me no might not be true for me tomorrow but I am also willing to see that what is true for me might not be true for you. This does not make anyone at any time “wrong”. For me “truth” is dynamic and subjective.

@Nekodos wrote:

The thing I realized after I had read your post, was that I don’t think I need to ask any more questions to find this proof that I’m looking for. I believe if I would just take the time to actually try and get in touch with myself, I’d quickly discover if there is, indeed, more than meets the eye!

YES, my friend! So, so much more! Everything you need is already right there within you. “You are an infinitely powerful, eternal, immortal creator being.“

I believe this about you as I believe this about all of us.

Thank you so much for this discussion!