Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must

[phyllo]

But everything he says about God is a myth anyways. So whether he says that God is supernatural or not makes no difference ... it's not something he knows, it's something he made up in his imagination. You know ... "everything we say about God is a lie".

[Karpel Tunnel]

But everything he says about God is a myth anyways. So whether he says that God is supernatural or not makes no difference ... it's not something he knows, it's something he made up in his imagination. You know ... "everything we say about God is a lie".

Sure, I get your point.

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for this.

If it was easy, there would not have been Inquisitions and Jihads and people using the sword to grow their immoral religions instead of good ideas.


I see natural as anything covered to the sub-atomic level and subject to the laws of physics. Anything undetectable I would put into the supernatural.

Thoughts and consciousness to me are natural. If something or someone is un-detectable to us, then we are foolish to let such phantoms influence us in any way.

Telepathy, which is thoughts, is real to me, --- not supernatural. This natural form, me that is, cannot do the supernatural.

Neither can anyone else.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

Thoughts and consciousness to me are natural. If something or someone is un-detectable to us, then we are foolish to let such phantoms influence us in any way.

The problem with this is that what is detectable changes over time. Things that were not detectable before are detectable now. I think it is extremely likely this will continue. So what some people experience now will only be later confirmed. This has been true in the past. Nature has not been completely detected. Up until the 70s it was considered irrational to speak about animal emotions and intentions in the scientific community. We had no way to confirm that animals were experiencers. This may seem obvious and it was, but in science it was considered anthorpomorphism. I think it was rational to believe that animals had emotions, desires, cognitive processes, plans, memories EVEN THOUGH this was not accepted or explained by science at that time. If someone followed your approach, they might decide that they cannot believe X, because it has not been accepted by scientists, when it is nevertheless real. Further there are many things that the scientific community consider real, but which they cannot explain (yet) using the laws of physics.

Telepathy, which is thoughts, is real to me, --- not supernatural. This natural form, me that is, cannot do the supernatural.

[/quote]Telepathy is natural for me also. But here we have at the very least a gray area. Mainstream science does not accept telepathy, for many of them, those willing to use a problematic term like 'supernatural', it would fall in that category.

You also mention only accepting things that are explained by subatomic stuff and the laws of physics. We have no explanation for conscsiousness. We do not know what this phenomenon is.

[Greatest I am]

Thoughts and consciousness to me are natural. If something or someone is un-detectable to us, then we are foolish to let such phantoms influence us in any way.

The problem with this is that what is detectable changes over time. Things that were not detectable before are detectable now. I think it is extremely likely this will continue. So what some people experience now will only be later confirmed. This has been true in the past. Nature has not been completely detected. Up until the 70s it was considered irrational to speak about animal emotions and intentions in the scientific community. We had no way to confirm that animals were experiencers. This may seem obvious and it was, but in science it was considered anthorpomorphism. I think it was rational to believe that animals had emotions, desires, cognitive processes, plans, memories EVEN THOUGH this was not accepted or explained by science at that time. If someone followed your approach, they might decide that they cannot believe X, because it has not been accepted by scientists, when it is nevertheless real. Further there are many things that the scientific community consider real, but which they cannot explain (yet) using the laws of physics.

Telepathy, which is thoughts, is real to me, --- not supernatural. This natural form, me that is, cannot do the supernatural.

Telepathy is natural for me also. But here we have at the very least a gray area. Mainstream science does not accept telepathy, for many of them, those willing to use a problematic term like 'supernatural', it would fall in that category.

You also mention only accepting things that are explained by subatomic stuff and the laws of physics. We have no explanation for conscsiousness. We do not know what this phenomenon is.

[/quote]

True but we know it is produced by our minds as we can control outside gadgets just with out mental power.

We know beyond a doubt that consciousness is expressed by our minds/bodies. So far, no one has shown any other source of it.

You might be right that the mainstream scientific community does not accept telepathy as it is hard to reproduce effectively. They are learning much these days.

This scientist developed what they have dubbed the God helmet. His experiments are reproducible, although his is only a low intensity telepathy while I know that it goes a lot deeper than what he has found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6VPpDublg

Regards
DL