http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/04/true.love.found/index.html

Chad @ sentient money´s last blog post..A Rebound Built on Sand

The physical cues are part of love, as love is a chemical reaction created in the brain. Take away these chemicals and love disappears. I didn’t look, but I would bet there is some type of physical ailment that prevents the appropriate chemical from being produced, thus no love. Every feeling we have is chemically induced and there is no evidence to suggest love is any different, just because it might be a little harder to define.

“Love itself is a non-physical energy which can not be proven or disproved in the linear world of form. It can only be experienced directly and then its presence is obvious. Perhaps the same could be said about God.”

Based on that definition I could just make anything up and say it is true because it can not be disproven. I don’t see how this can be used as a valid argument.

I like your example of the water blobs, as it made me think, but in the end it is incorrect. Addition in math does not denote the combination of objects, it denotes the counting of objects. Any object under the right amount of pressure would fuse with another object, so the water example isn’t unique. Just because the water blogs could be combined after they were counted does not mean the initial math was incorrect. On the contrary, the initial math is so absolutely true it shows an error in the use of the “blob” measurement system, which doesn’t add much to our discussion, but it does demonstrate how we could have found a need to devise accurate means of measure.

“We’re literally making up ALL our so-called “facts” about physical reality through our definitions, yet belief in these made up ideas actually creates the experience!”

I would agree we are inventing definitions to label/describe real facts, but we aren’t inventing the facts…we are just naming them.

“If we want evidence as “proof” of anything, bear in mind that we can always find evidence to confirm or deny ANYTHING!”

I would disagree. We can always believe that we have evidence to support something, but belief in something and actually having the evidence are two different things. The idea that belief is enough is hurting our society.

“Is there an all-encompassing Truth that’s valid under all contexts?”

I would say there is, but we are no where near finding it. We have found some of it (Einstein, Bohr, Hawking, etc.), but we haven’t been at the search long enough.

Chad @ sentient money´s last blog post..A Rebound Built on Sand

The lightbodies part was particularly interesting. I’d never really thought about it, but that makes sense.

Moving forth to the great discussion taking place:

@Christopher: I see you listen to Bashar!

@Chad: The physical expressions that often happen in the presence of Love aren’t proof of Love. Pupil dilation, heart rate changes, and so on can happen in other circumstances, and then can not happen when Love is present. Those physical attributes may be expressions of Love, but are not directly Love itself.

Love itself is a non-physical energy which can not be proven or disproved in the linear world of form. It can only be experienced directly and then its presence is obvious. Perhaps the same could be said about God.

It may also be helpful to understand the differences between Love and Lust. heh

Also, just to have a little more fun here, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a fact. It’s just some black squiggles on a white background. :p Now, the mathematical statement (which is what the squiggles represent) is only true because of our definitions.

For example, if we have two blobs of water and combine them with two more blobs of water, we have one big blob of water. In this case, 2 + 2 = 1. It’s not that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong. It’s just that that statement is only valid when we set up certain conditions, such as what it means to add discrete units of stuff. Isn’t it odd that the “fact” that 2 + 2 = 4 is both right AND wrong, depending on our definitions? It’s only sometimes true, which means it’s not absolutely true at all. Our whole world is set up around definitions and once we see this, we recognize that all our “facts” are built atop made-up definitions… which isn’t a very solid foundation for Truth. What’s actually true should be beyond all definition, is true no matter the definition. Then it’s Absolute Truth and not some limited relative truth. If something is really true, it should be true at all times, in all places, within all contexts, and so forth.

We’re literally making up ALL our so-called “facts” about physical reality through our definitions, yet belief in these made up ideas actually creates the experience! We are Creators of our reality! This is what it’s all about. Beliefs lead to experience, even if they’re not actually true.

Is person ABC good or bad? Well, whatever we believe about them is the aspect of them we will tend to experience of them for physical reality is nothing more than a projection of our mind.

If we want evidence as “proof” of anything, bear in mind that we can always find evidence to confirm or deny ANYTHING! If nothing else, we can always suspect one is delusional (haha), on drugs, or something else wacky, and we can’t fully trust our own minds. Even our own experiences, can we fully trust our memory? Is it infallible? Is something we’re experiencing right now really happening? Are we not asleep and just dreaming it? There’s no belief that we can know to be absolutely true, for sure, without a doubt.

For example, I don’t follow any organized religion or anything, but I’ll bet even if Jesus did walk on water, heal the sick, and perform all those miracles, some people would still have doubts. It wouldn’t be enough proof, it’s all a magic trick, it’s a trick of the devil, or whatever else. :p

I get what you guys are pointing to here. What’s beyond all belief? What is true no matter what you believe? Is there an all-encompassing Truth that’s valid under all contexts?

What would you guys say?

Ariel – You Are Truly Loved´s last blog post..What Is Your Life’s Purpose

Dot,
Thank you for your compliment.
You can take time. Or you can take a light hearted approach and just “try” it. Either way will serve you well.

Akemi – Yes to Mes last blog post..FunAdvice on Entrepreneurship: Jeremy Goodrich

Hunter, great questions! I had to laugh at the “read-only” one.

Akemi, you sound humble and sincere, which makes what you say more persuasive.

Perhaps someday I’ll manage to believe in an afterlife, but for now I only feel a kind of wish.

Dot

Hunter, I would also pick no. 3 in what we say and think of Akemi. I wouldn’t have my reading done right away with her if I didn’t feel comfortable with the person that I was going to work with. I could also tell that she has gone through some amazing transformation herself with her new line of work!

Evelyn Lims last blog post..My Abundance Mind Movie

Koinuma-san,
Right. I guess it simply boils down to the benefits of the open mind, while accepting the suspicions as suspicions.

Akemi – Yes to Mes last blog post..Gratitude Friday, Edition 12, Gratitude And Stepping Out Of My Comfort Zone

That was a fascinating read. I love discovering new things, new ways to understand things.

I apologize in advance, for I only skimmed through the great discussion here — but just the 2 cents I throw in whenever I see discussions on faith vs. science.

Someone once told me that humanity seems to go through major scientific break-through every 500 years or so. I didn’t verify this claim but I can certainly see the world is not the same after discovering that world is not flat. In the mean time, there are some religious or cultural doctrines that survive thousands of years, relatively unchanged.

This insight has kept me open to new, uncharted possibilities and from over-relying on science. That said, I should also confess that I’m INFJ personality type — apparently, we’re known to hold deep convictions and ignore what everybody else says.

Secondly, I like to use antenna analogy to explain people seeing/sensing different things. Radios are made to receive radio waves, whereas TVs are made to receive their signals. TVs can’t say to radios, well, I am not receiving what you are receiving, so what you’re broadcasting isn’t true. They are simply designed to receive different types of signals. As Akemi says, people are talented in different ways. But that said, it’s also true that some people are phony, delusional or inauthentic. When we don’t have means to evaluate the person’s claims ourselves, we just have to use our analysis and intuition about the person’s authenticity to evaluate the trustworthiness of the information.

ari

Ari Koinumas last blog post..Setbacks: Growth Is Not a Linear Curve

For me–my reality–is that all is energy and infinite, lasting forever and forever new. Consciousness is a filtration system, so as we believe, we give meaning to energy (creating ‘patterns’) and “make it so.” I find “defintions of reality” and ‘truth’ to be contextual–to the the individual–just as a look directly into the eye is a required courtesy in one culture, but an insult in another. There are many systems for coming to our personal awareness. This method seems to benefit very many.
Thank you for your work, Akemi.

blessings and continued inspiration,
CG

CG Walterss last blog post..Serialization of Sacred Vow: Dark Visits