Isn't that argument about God basically as argument about what can be known?

Do you also consider the existence of Zeus or Hormaz or Shiva as one of the toughest?

I think you see my point. The reason this question is especially relevant to you— understandably — is because you have been raised in the Christian faith and live in a predominantly Christian culture. — Xtrix

Well yes, that is where I began at about age 8. I have attempted to know all the different understandings of God with the hope of determining what is true. Kind of like the Romans took all the common beliefs and brought them together into one religion with one God.

With what we know today, I do not understand how anyone can read the Bible and believe those stories are better than the stories of Zeus and other gods.

am not sure you would settle for such a situation Athena. We all need help to care for ourselves sometimes. Have you not cared for many others in your life, would it be so wrong to expect a little care in return? When I imagine myself homeless and on the streets, especially if I cant figure that it was completely my fault then I think my sense of injustice would kick in. I would try to organise my fellow homeless and move into or protest in a local theistic building (church, chapel, mosque, temple, cathedral etc) or I would try to occupy my local town hall or live/die outside the door of my local MP etc.
I would make as much of a political nuisance of myself as I could, to call for better protection of the elderly. I would die happier knowing that I lived true to myself until my last breath. — universeness

Good morning love. I did all of that during the Reagan years. When I owed a home. I did it because I wanted to get people out of my home and they needed help. I opened my home to many young people during the great recession and then to add insult to injury, as soon as the recession ended, rents skyrocketed, and that put even more people on the streets! I joined with homeless guys and we did things to get media coverage. We stormed public hearings and when we got political the city used the police to drive them from town.

My granddaughter did, even more, a few years ago before she was given a campground to manage. My sister is still extremely active rescuing people on the streets and dealing with people in the seats of power. My sister lives in a different city with much less to offer. Where I live, those in power finally accepted we can not house everyone in regular housing so they started building tiny homes in little clusters all over town and they are supervised. We have added counseling services to our mix of assistance. Today I am hunting for a homeless man I met yesterday because he has to get hooked up with a hospital to get help getting off the streets- he had a stroke and his head is not working! I am advocating for the man and his daughter who are camped in front of my apartment. :lol: I know a little about being homeless and a little about being political, and I am glad you would take action if you became homeless.

As for allowing others to help me. If I could live in retirement apartments where there is a dining room and weekly housekeeping, and I was allowed to do something useful, then I would do that. It is about quality of life. If I can no longer be useful it is time for me to go. We all die and we need to accept that gracefully.

:lol: OMG, yes, living to see Trump jailed may qualify as something worth living for. A change in my family would be super, not just for me but the children. There would be no big problem if the situation with children did not trouble me. Oh and speaking of that, it has everything to do with what education for technology has done to our culture. Values are so changed and this is a serious social problem that has torn families apart. This is especially hard for grandparents. They all advised me to hold my tongue and don't try to change anything. Fine, but I am not living for my family beyond my ability to be independent. My son and daughter were at home when I cared for my grandmother with Alzheimer's and we have an agreement that I can leave this world if I get like that. I just have to act on that decision before I can not act on it. It all hinges on my independence and usefulness.

Oh, have you seen the movie, Harold and Maude? Maude kills herself on her 80th birthday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mz3TkxJhPc

5. He was always curious or impatient to find out if heaven and hell really existed. He had prayed and prayed to his god and in a dream, he received (perfectly rational in his opinion) permission from his god (no suicide exclusion clause) to come join his god now and enjoy the heavenly paradise as he had done enough in his life lived so far to qualify under well established god criteria. — universeness

That is the one I will choose. Except it would really suck if death were not much different from life. I have read that if we are stuck in a bad place in our lives, it is much easier to get through that and move on to a good place in this three-dimensional reality. In the next realm, it takes much longer to pass through a bad spot. I think it is pretty important to have our heads in a good space when we cross over.

Does the 'something really cool could happen and you will miss it,' not do anything for you?
I am always amazed by some of the cases of people I have read about who live with disabilities that would probably overwhelm me yet they still fight so hard for every moment of life.
What do you think of a life such as Helen Keller's? — universeness

I think Helen Keller is an awesome example of a courageous human.

I have always believed our elders are valuable people, but when we can not take care of ourselves and be useful perhaps it is our duty to leave life to the young? Do you realize an increasing number of homeless people are elderly people and they are at a higher risk of dying on the streets than the young? For sure I would rather be dead than be one of them and the way rents are going up, I could be one of them.

I can not imagine anything really cool happening that I would want to stay around for. I am full of life and don't need anymore. I was living to write a book about education and democracy, and now my brain just will not handle that. That is the last straw. I cared for my grandmother with Alzheimer's disease and see no good in living like that. If my family loved me I would have a life purpose, of being a sweet old lady giving love to them the best that I can, but my family does not love me. They think I am a really awful person so I have no contact with the children. That wouldn't matter if I could complete the book but I can not do that either, so what is the point? It is not that life sucks but mine is not getting any better. :lol:

Well today I am in Hades contemplating ending my life. And trust me I have done my best to learn and I do my best to be of service to others. I suppose I could think of all those who would prefer I stay alive, but I am kind of stuck on family issues and at the moment nothing else seems to matter. Besides, I am old and I don't want to live with Alzheimer's disease, nor without my sight and hearing, and in general the increasing problems with my mind and body, and I am not accomplishing what I want to accomplish regarding democracy and education so what is the point of living now? To me, death means no more fear and no more pain, and that seems pretty good to me. Another plus, I would no longer be part of the scarcity and global warming problems.

— javi2541997

Is correct about the complexity of our states of mind.
I believe it was Plato's parents who intentionally ended their lives. I have read the opinion that it is the duty of the elderly to end their lives. That is not because life sucks but being old and having family issues can suck.

I also love make-believe. — universeness

Thank goodness.

I can actually make up some good stories myself. — universeness

You proved that. I thought your story was a very good one about being balanced and I think with some effort a whole lot of philosophical ideas could embellish that story.

I would get rid of Santa Clause and Christmas — universeness

:gasp: You can't do that! I love Christmas and all the pagan trimmings that go with it. Can we settle on Christmas being a pagan holiday marking the winter solstice and the huge feast is the celebration of turning that corner and heading back into longer days and growing crops? I don't think we should give up our ties with nature. I think it is better to feel like we a part of nature. I resent what Christianity has done to our pagan connection with nature.

I think that's because they are so FAKE! — universeness

I would argue the sad problem is being disconnected from nature and the whole of humanity. For me, I am sitting with all those people who are hungry and fearful and very relieved when the days start getting longer. Knowing if they have made it this far, chances are good they will make it until the food is growing again. I feel a connection with them and traditions make us conscious of our connection with humanity.

During care week, we have street festivals and street parties and events that celebrate our differences and our common needs and hopes for the future — universeness

We have an annual Asian Celebration as Spring approaches. Asian people from around the world have booths and sell things, there is a stage for all of them to share their dances and music, and there is a room for children with craft projects. We also have a Scandinavian Festival that is pretty much the same thing but from a different part of the world.

I do not like what we have done to the fair! In the past, the fair was a community event, not a commercial event. Please, please may I have the old-fashioned fair where we showed off our handwork, produce, hobbies, ect. and met with our neighbors.

Sure, go ahead and do that, and allow me to shout over your shoulder that all these 'similar stories' are made up LIES! Now let's study how the Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc actually lived day to day. Let's talk about the REAL moral dilemma's they faced. We don't need to use their fantasy god stories or their Minotaur or titan fables to exemplify human moral dilemma's or injustice or how to establish decent sociopolitical systems. We just need to use examples of REAL people and how they lived and what they decided to do and why.
We have examples from every generation from Julius Caesar to everyday romans like Petronius Artibus (Grafitti on a wall in Egypt, 'Petronius Artibus got me pregnant') to Soldier stories from the Napoleonic wars to Ann Franks Diary to Mrs Jones down the road who cant pay her bills!
We need to debate real life not rake over old BS fairy stories as a conduit to grown up discussion.
I type this 'with all due respect,' for your different viewpoint. — universeness

Wow, to me that judgment is about attitude. It is like getting crazy because you don't like chocolate ice cream. I love make-believe and would never want to be as ridge as you. From a very young age children can distinguish between make-believe and reality. Einstein imagined he was riding a beam of light and he considered imagination very important. Interesting all this arguing and all along the real issue seems to have been our different attitudes about make-believe.

Explain to me the following two Messiah labeled dictates: — universeness

I think the answer to that question is more about attitudes than anything else. When I realized there is no Santa Claus I was displeased with my mother for "lying" to me. She explained Santa Claus is real because it is the spirit of that time of year. Is that spirit real? It sure is. It is like morale, that good feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing. It is creating a celebration and enjoying all the good feelings that go with it. Santa Claus is real because we make it real. Or we can be grumpy and sit on the curb all by ourselves and be miserable knowing all that good feeling isn't real. It is just a lie.

Realizing people need those celebrations and the good stories that go with them, isn't a bad thing to me. When my grandchildren needed comforting I created a story about a bird family having the same problem. It is very much a Jewish tradition to handle problems by telling a story. This way a person gets the message without feeling insulted. And besides, what do we know of metaphysical reality? It might be a good thing to have an unknown god and awareness that we do not know everything. The first step to wisdom is realizing we do not know it all.

On the other hand, is logos. If polluting the air and oceans is harmful, we need to know that so we can stop the damage. The Greeks were very worried about getting things right. What is the universe made of and how does everything work? What is the reason, the controlling factor? We need to know so we can make good decisions and that is what democracy is about. Making good decisions and lifting the human potential to make life better.

Do you think I could sell this BS — universeness

Obviously to me, the story of Orga and Qubit is a moral tale and I judge it worth repeating.

Someone asked Jesus why he speaks in parables and he replied because people pay attention to the stories. We used to read children moral stories and at the end would ask, what is the moral of that story, The expected answer is cause and effect, "The Little Engine that Could" made it over the hill because it did not give up. The fox did not get the grapes because he gave up. The Little Red did not share her bread because no one would share the work with her. Orga and Qubit became a good balance. The truth of these stories is there when they are not taken literally. It is clearly the storyteller's job to prepare the young to be good members of the group.

If we want to argue against Christianity, point out how people around the world have similar stories and there is nothing special about the Christian ones, but in fact, their Garden of Eden story started in Ur and is the translation of a Sumerian story. Christian holidays are seasonal pagan holidays given a Christian interpretation. Jung studied the symbolism of these stories and the stories seem to use the same symbolism because we share the human experience, and Campbell picks up from Jung to explain the importance of myths and Bolen helps us see the Greek gods and goddesses as archetypes.

The reason for these stories is not fear, but bonding people together and teaching the young how to be good members of the tribe. But in some places, the stories got tied to political power and the lack of it and then they a bad for us.

What?? Have you ever tried personally to perceive 'everything?' You do know that cannot be done, right? — universeness

Do you mean it was not one-upmanship to question if I forgot about Lilith? This is my last response to a post that makes me the subject.

What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.
3 hours ago — universeness

What if not all God stories are untrue, but we simply don't know enough to interpret them correctly? Personally, I think superstition came late in human evolution. One reason for telling stories is to transmit information essential to survival. The information we remember best is information about ourselves and to this day we name our machines and cars and imply they have personalities of their own. We do not believe that is true, but it is fun to humanize our machines. Or in the case of nomadic people, it is much easier to find the stone formation of 3 sisters who identify an area where water can be found. Whatever started the story is forgotten over the years, and then the sense of the story becomes nonsense to all those except the people who have a cultural identity with them.

In the case of the story of Eden. It is a story of a flood and very, very long drought for which there is geological evidence. A flood caused the river to overflow and it ate a goddess's plants. That made her very angry so she condemned the river to death. That was the years of drought and the river almost died but a fox convinced the goddess to let the river live. A few goddesses gathered to heal the river and the river ask the main one to give him helpers so he would not overflow the river banks and kill her plants again. That is when she made a man and woman of mud and she breathed life into them.

Indigenous people around the world have similar stories and the cultural lesson is in part history mixed with imaginative storytelling that makes the information more interesting and rememberable, and part, an explanation of how life works and of man's purpose. We must help the river stay in its banks, or care for the land so the sacrad buffalo is well cared for and does not mind sacrificing some of their lives for ours.

I am quite sure the storytellers knew what they were doing. And fear is not the only motivator for telling and retelling stories. Which is getting this thread back on track. Our lives do have purpose and meaning and if our lives are not doing well, perhaps we need to ask why.

Thank you for motivating me to look for the Etymology of "God". This information proves there is so much more for me to learn.

The English word god comes from the Old English god, which itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked". — Wikipedia

Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'? — universeness

Ninti is a Sumerian goddess who healed the river that is the center of the Sumerian story of Eden. "The Sumerian word for rib is ti, and the rib-healing goddess came to be called Ninti, which translates both as "the lady of the rib" and "the Lady who makes live". This play on words does not work in Hebrew, but the rib did enter the Garden of Eden story in the form of Eve, the mother of the human race."

Let me confirm my knowledge is limited and I know nothing of Lilith. Should we assume you know everything and are superior? :blush:

I have no particularly christian concept of god, — universeness

Perhaps you live in China? Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god". That is true because all the stories from the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Christians are all part of our consciousness, however, individuals can be completely unaware of how they came to think as they do, and if they think those who came before us have nothing to teach us, they will ignore them, therefore, they will remain ignorant. And being unaware of the effect of their own intentional ignorance of information, they will assume those who do not agree with them are in the wrong.

But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing. — universeness

Perhaps the word "epistemology" can be used to explain the importance of the gods? Epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse". Exactly where did our ideas come from, and how were they changed as they moved from place to place and throughout time? That is a very different study than theology.

I choose to use epistemology to argue against theology. Rather than refuse to talk about what theorist believe as the atheists do. Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas.

universeness — universeness

We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it.

Yes, the gods are the foundation of our laws, democracy and western civilization. The book "Laws, Gods, & Hero's Thematic Readings in Early Western History" by H.A. Drake and J.W. Leedom explains the human story and should not be confused with theism.

And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me. Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause. My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy, an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning.

If you don't ask the right questions, you won't get the right answers.

But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing. — universeness

Yes, we do. However, we do not have to apply superstitious notions to them.

I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists. — universeness

I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths. If we don't ask the right questions, can not possibly get the right answers.

I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange. — universeness

I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange. — universeness

You may not have intended to attack or insult but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization. They are the substance of liberal education and our laws. As you found fault in what I said, I find fault in you appear to not know.

I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species. — universeness

Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted.

It looks like a beautiful day outside. I think I will go enjoy it.

I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational? — universeness

:heart: Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life.

Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god". To be absolutely sure there is no god, one has to define what a god is, and boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible.

I was banned from a science forum simply because I used the word "god". I was saying we could consider universal law as god, and my goal was to open discussion as good as the ancient Greeks and do all the blending you have said I am trying to do. :grin:

I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible. Those bad people will deny the existence of God. On the other hand, if we remain open-minded and work with the notion of a God, that weakens the Christian argument and if we are lucky we get to ideas that are more reasonable. Did God create all plants and animals with mud or just humans? Let us ask "how does God do that", instead of ending the discussion with "there is no god". Now you are moving into science and away from superstition. We are moving in the direction of reason instead of emotionalism. We walk people over the bridge to our side, instead of standing with our swords drawn and preventing anyone from crossing the bridge. That behavior is emotional. It is not the way of reason.

Let's try this. We determine if a person does or does not have covid with a chemical test that produces one line if a person is negative or two lines if a person is positive. With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample. So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist? On the other hand, what reasonable person can believe through the powers of reason that God created man like a child creates mud pies? Back in the day of Sumer that may have seemed reasonable, but we laugh at other people's creation stories because they seem so silly to us, so how can know what we know today and believe we were made of clay? Human- moist soil.

I know they will reject most or all of these but their rejection is based on rational thinking imo. — universeness

Reason, what must we have for good reasoning? How much time do you believe you are being rational? I think this video can change the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQutgSwY88

there is no need for a first cause such as a god — universeness

Why reject the concept of a god here? How are you defining god? Back to the test for covid, you seem to know what you have to look for. What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe?

quote="universeness;732295"]There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.[/quote]

You are being delightfully rational and you did not conclude new evidence means what we believed about the speed of light is false, and that is that, and we will never again speak of it except to repeat over and over again what we have believed is false; ending any further discussion. Instead, you said It is in question. :lol: That is putting it lightly. I think new evidence has put our most obvious understanding of our 3 dimensional reality, in question.. What the heck is the reality of 12 dimensions?
The point being it is one thing to say something is in question and quite another to insist it does not exist and to make all discussion of it impossible.

The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like. — universeness

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I am not attracted to the limited knowledge of ancient Greeks, but rather fascinated by the uniqueness of thinking that came out of Athens. Aristotle was not 100% correct and there was a huge backlash against him after the Church through Scholasticism raised awareness of logical thinking, but who else gave us something equivalent to his explanation of logical thinking? His understanding of logical thinking was problematic and that hindered the advancement of science, with Bacon correcting the problem and pole vaulting us into the modern age. :heart: But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens, the reasoning of the gods? Gods had powers, but the power of reason? Does not the power of reason create a whole new universe? Well, that could be an exaggeration but it could be fun to talk about it. :wink:

The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS. — universeness

:cheer: :cheer: :grin: You might be the people but we are the real people. I am referring to the tribal notion that "my tribe is the best and most deserving" which is no different from opposing chimpanzee troops crossing paths in the forest except humans can come up with more arguments than the chimps. :lol:

This is perhaps the best reason to argue against a God creating humans from the mud on the banks of a river that flowed threw Sumer. If we are going to be rational and have arguments about humans that can progress to better understanding and therefore better reasoning, we need to go with the science of evolution and drop the mythology. And we need to stop pointing fingers and being blind to our own blindness.

Yes, I believe polytheism is less problematic because believing in many gods is more apt to lead to believing the other guy also has a god even though his god is not the same as yours. Now you may both go to war and test which one of you has the strongest god, or we might sit down and argue in favor of our gods without the blindness of believing there is only one god and this god favors you. :lol:
in an effort to know truth.

MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades. If there is only one god there is no correction of errors. This is the democratic issue! Are we powerless under the tyranny of a god, or can we appeal to other gods? The Greeks asked a lot of important questions of the gods and in so doing had arguments with many different points of view. Each god had a different point of view, and a different way of handling things, and in dealing with all of them, the Greeks expanded their consciousness. Conscience is "con"-coming out of, "science".

"How do the gods resolve their differences?" They argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. This thinking did not come with the first storytelling of the gods, but wherever people had many gods, every time they realized a new concept, they created a god, like we now name new atomic particles every time we have to explain a new observation of atomic particles. Apollo was a late comer coming a of time chaos and reasoning was essential, so whala! there is a god of reason. This learning of new gods, forced many to search for truth and limit the number of gods they had. Egypt, for a time, turned to the one and only god Ra. The point is gods organize our thinking and advance our understanding of life and the universe. If you have only one god you learn His truth and may discover new technology, butthat is not equal to science and advancing higher-level knowledge.

Here is a great Hindu example of what I mean by the gods advancing our higher-level knowledge.

A deeply religious Hindu, Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity, and said the mathematical knowledge he displayed was revealed to him by his family goddess Namagiri Thayar. — wikipedia

We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham.

That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.
— Athena

I don't think this is true, certainly not for any secular person or atheist. The internet has a great deal of inaccurate information on it and it can be quite time consuming to validate and confirm the truth of all documentation on it but you can find out as much as is known about an earlier civilisation. — universeness

I want to address this separately because I don't want my point lost in too much verbiage. Have you spent much time arguing whether there is or is not a "God"? I don't care how rabid the atheist is, the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling it "god" just for the sake of argument. Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth? Thus, getting away from some of the hair-brain notions about a God who has favorite people. Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings.

Secondly, the US and Christians do dominate the internet. The problem could be I use google and evidently, google ranks things according to popularity, so the one person who has a better argument of truth becomes almost impossible, if not completely impossible, to find because the 5 million idiots crowd out the one good argument.

Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.

Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).

There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean! — universeness

I have bolded the statement I want to reply to. I think there are examples of untouchables in many cultures however, not every culture would have institutionalized this common human behavior in the same way. I have read some ancient yoga practices are extremely concerned with cleanliness, Hebrews were also concerned with cleanliness but I don't think to the same extent. When the US had outhouses there were people who were paid to tend to outhouses. The owner of an estate surely would not want his daughter associating with such a person, especially if this person looked different, or if outhouses were associated with disease. The US has had some very prejudiced laws!

Hebrews for sure saw themselves as different from others and they institutionalized that aspect of being Hebrew. Kind of like, all people have engaged in war, but not all of them created an economic and social organization around their military, such as Prussia was organized around its military. These human behaviors being common, but more or less, formal and defining. The point is, knowing what I know about human behavior and organizations, I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. In the US a young man of color could be killed just for speaking with a White woman. We had a huge segregation problem! We just call it racism instead of Hinduism. :lol: Bad behavior isn't funny but on the other hand it can be pretty ridiculous, especially when we point fingers at others as though we don't think and act just as badly or worse.

I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s). — Seeker

I don't think that is possible for a conscious being. I also have no desire to go to heaven. I think it is our nature to want stimulus and that leads to wanting what we don't have and then doing what we have to do to get what we want. If we are in heaven where a God takes care of our every need and there is nothing for us to do but enjoy, that sounds like hell to me. There would be no great movies or novels. We would be satiated and have nothing to strive for. Boring!

No question. And another big one is doing something for others. — Tom Storm

Oh yeah, My mental health program is being a Senior Companion. I pick people up and take them where they want to go, we have lunch together and play games. The lockdown was terrible! I was sure I was loosing my mind and feared I was on the way to loosing my independence. I love being alone and writing and the forums, but I have to have that face-to-face human contact too. Now I am so busy caring for others I really appreciate my time alone. It is strange how making others happy means our own happiness too.

Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste. — baker

Not enough fat, salt, and sugar to make food as unhealthy as it is today, and chances are good the meal had to be worked for with real physical labor. Next to that, surviving was so demanding people did not have time to fret about how much better their lives would be if only they had made different choices, so in way, there was less stress.

Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear. — universeness

I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? I don't think it was like the Hebrews who took the land that was Isreal with the belief a God had told them to do so and to kill everyone who was already there. Christians have carried for centuries as though a god has told them the land is theirs and they should kill everyone else. That fearsome Christian god has only recently become a god of love. However, when people feel threatened they become defensive, so was the killing a justified act of defense? This matters to me. I tend to be too Polyann and not realistic and I want truth,

So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism? — universeness

I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. I do not think my mind is capable of giving me a good understanding of ancient times and foreign places. I can reason that some people may live unhealthy lives and for one's own safety it is best to avoid contact. They did not have a government that can take care of them as well the US government has started caring for its people, and they sure did not have the economic opportunity we have today. Cleanliness for those who had the luxury of practicing cleanliness was very important.

I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today. — universeness

I think Christianity is a barrier to learning not only for those who identify with the religion, but they have defined God, and that God is a supernatural power that can violate the laws of nature. That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.

I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archétypon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ἀρχή archḗ, "beginning, origin", and τύπος týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.

Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother. — universeness

I love your argument and especially the Latin and Greek words. I seriously wish I could learn those languages. But in argument to your argument, nature molded all things. Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. The writer of the stories based them on a study of human nature and all our different approuches to problems. Darn, I am too tired for the mental work that is needed for an argument, and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. We need another thread for this. I really would like to look deeper into the gods.

I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them — javi2541997

Wow, I have to agree with that. When I get in the creative space of writing it is the only thing that matters. It is not that I am totally confident in myself but that the creative experience or that moment of enlightenment when we see the bigger picture is better than good sex. I want to explain the hormonal experience so I don't sound like an egomaniac.

For a quick recap; estrogen rises in your midluteal phase (the first half of your cycle) and a few days after ovulation. As estrogen increases in these areas of your cycle, your brain is better able to wire itself off dopamine – which means that your creativity skyrockets.Dec 10, 2019
shleymargeson.com/estrogen-creative-superpower/#:~:text=For%20a%20quick%20recap%3B%20estrogen,means%20that%20your%20creativity%20skyrockets . Why Estrogen Is Your Creative Superpower - Ashley Margeson — Ashley Margeson

How Being More Creative Improves Your Mental and Physical ...https://www.lifehack.org › articles › lifestyle › how-bei...
Studies show how creative pursuits alter our brain chemistry, help improve attention, decrease stress, and can boost our physical and mental health. — Colette DeDonato

There is a lot to say about creativity and our physical being and I have heard that some people who have been depressed for years have broken free of that when they start doing something creative.

The "you" in the last post is the universal "you", not you specifically. It's a hypothetical "you". — schopenhauer1

Thank you for clarifying that point. I have covid and want to avoid things that pull me down.

If one thinks life is wonderful or that it sucks may depend on psychological matters. I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D..

"To feel authentic means to be free to develop traits and potentials that are innate predispositions. When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy. From childhood on, first our family and then our culture are the mirrors in which we see ourselves as acceptable or not. When we need to conform in order to be acceptable, we may end up wearing a false face and playing an empty role if who we are inside and what is expected of us are far apart....

When life feels meaningless and stale, or when something feels fundamentally wrong about how you are living and what you are doing, you can help yourself by becoming aware of discrepancies between the archetypes within you and your visible roles. Men are often caught between the inner world of archetypes and the outer world of sterotypes. Archetypes are powerful predispositions; garbed in the image and mythology of Greek gods, as I have described them in this book, each has characteristics drives, emotions, and needs that shape personality. When you enact a role that is connected to an active archetype within you, energy is generated through the depth and meaning that the role has for you. "

Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death. — universeness

Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. The Romans with their superior military force were winning wars so obviously they have the strongest god, right? Except the Germans in their forest. Whoo, those guys were badasses and you didn't want to get too close to them. People from the south feared the forest and the way the Germans defended their territory was terrorizing. Eventually, they accept the God of Abraham but then they claimed the Holy Roman Emperor as their own, and when the Church in Rome did not give them the power of authority they protested and started their own religion built on the God of Abraham stories. This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace.

I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to. — universeness

Yes, that is exactly the point. Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god.

I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats. — universeness

Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. You might like reading Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book Gods in Everyman" or "Goddesses in Everywoman". The God of Abraham religions have given the gods a bad reputation. I can see I need to work on this explanation. A blog might be the best way to handle what the gods have to do with democracy and why they are in a painting at the US Capitol Building and science instead of superstition. The God of Abraham mythologies are perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to humanity.

Thoughts control our behavior and even our physical condition. It is not necessary to attach superstition to the stories. We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we are not superstitious we can appreciate all the others. My point is these stories hold truths and good moral lessons. They all work the same, even if the story is folklore or a native American explanation of life. Being open to the stories of others is also a path to knowing truth and learning science. The question can be more important than the answer. Greeks and Romans didn't believe they had a revealed god's truth. They learned of the gods of others and created their own in their image.

Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity — universeness

They stole the religion from others. 5 of the Biblical stories are from Sumer, so the mythology begins in Ur a Sumerian city and it was plagiarized by Abraham and his people who he lead from Ur to Egypt. In the beginning, everyone had many gods and it is curious how the idea of one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god caught on spread. A nation at war might desire such a war god. Constantine meant well but making Rome and Christianity the same thing, created a monster. Important is the idea that a god chooses the king and gives the king power, and everything relies on inheritance. That is Judaism not a family of gods. There is no one to correct that god as Greek gods could argue their case.

Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people?

So why do people need to be here? — schopenhauer1

Because "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." Chardin.

I am less familiar with the Mayan Factor explanation of our light bodies and the universal entrance.

Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss.

The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one. — universeness

May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? Each one is a concept and concepts are powerful. Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods.

The Greeks slowly began slipping out of this superstition with questions like "Is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do they say it is bad because it is bad?" If it is the latter, something exists besides the gods. Now we are creeping into universals and the laws of nature. And we have Hippocrates who says the conditions of the body are not caused by the gods. But before those who love knowledge replaced superstition with universals, people experienced their gods as very real. If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. :grin:

There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit. — universeness

And there we become the gods. It is as we create it. :grin: It is as Zeus feared. With the knowledge of the technology of fire, we have discovered all other technologies and now rival the gods. However, as you hint, with concepts such as socialism and humanism we can create a reality that encourages happy families, or we can feed the beast and make the beast strong.

I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump. — universeness

Oh burn, ssssss- :fire: That was nicely said. I could totally off topic with you what you said, but maybe if we focus on your lead in statement we can have a very meaningful discussion!

Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies. These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates. — universeness

Yes, and what does the Bible have to say about that? :naughty: The Bible is a very complex book with something for everyone in it, but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. The Council of Nicaea was all about power. The Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. The God of Abraham gave man kings, not democracy, and one's life's work was defined by inheritance, not the merit system of the Greeks that enable any qualified person to have a government position.

Some conversations can not happen until someone opens the door so we can see what there is to talk about. Your statement about we are organized as we are organized opens a door. Conservatives want to cling to tradition but democracy is not a Christian tradition.

The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species. — universeness

Are you aware that

Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment - Independent Institutehttps://www.independent.org › publications › article
Wills observes that the study of Scottish Enlightenment thought played a prominent role in American education in the second half of the eighteenth century. https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2790 — RONALD HAMOWY

We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy.

If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative. — universeness

Might that be what democracy is about? It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. You know, like the Greek gods.

A geologist showed me a cartoon explaining exponential growth. You begin with a couple of frogs in a pond and then increase the number of frogs exponentially. Everything appears fine until the last day when the pond goes from half full to completely full. That is what happened to us. When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need to know.

:rofl: In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts.

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin:

They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book. — schopenhauer1

I totally like that explanation.

Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do. — ssu

The Greeks had a concept of what is public and what is private. Liberty depends on respecting what is an individual, private decision, and unfortunately, Evangelicals are determined to impose their notions of how things should be on everyone, just as much as some Muslims believe it is God's will to make everyone live as they believe their holy book defines how people should live.

Rocks don’t feel pain and don’t need joy. — schopenhauer1

We question if animals have self-awareness. For sure rocks do not, any more than the tires on my car want different things. But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be?

What if industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model? How might that change our reality? How many industries would move to China if the employees were making the decision? Who should have the power to decide our joy? What industry would pollute the environment causing their own families disease?

Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process. — javi2541997

I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun! — universeness

I have mixed feelings about relationships and having children. Today, I don't think I would want to bring a child into this world. Our present technological society is very different from the society and culture we had when I came of age. Back in the day we wanted to grow up and prove we were capable adults and that meant getting married and having children. It was especially important for a woman to be married and have children because there were not a lot of good options for women when our society was strongly based on the Bible and the ancient Greeks. Pythagoras and Plato were in favor of women having equality but allowing women equality was a radical idea that so broke tradition it could be met with some hostility.
Aristotle thought a man should have a slave, an ox, and a wife. I am not so sure he saw having a wife as different from having an ox and a slave. Our culture didn't seem to think having a wife was different from having an ox and a slave. Economically, women were held dependent on the man.

There was a time when having a family would improve a man's chances of getting a job and getting advancements. A married man was thought to be a responsible and more stable person. In some cases, his wife could advance his career by having the boss over for dinner and making social connections with the right people. She was not "just a housewife" but a very valuable part of the social and economic order we had.

I am not saying there were no problems. I am saying things were different back then and being married and a parent was part of our identification and social status. We also saw the world getting better and better. We believed we could make the world a better place and that was a much happier situation for having children. Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children.

There are not benefits. Marriage is a community of sacrifices. Raising and maintaining a child is complex as hell and you do not how the tables would turn out in the future. Probably I can end up being cheated by my wife or mistreated by my own kid. So no... I prefer live in loneliness rather than being married. — javi2541997

I am sorry. Everything in life has some risk. You could have the best job in the world and a lovely house, great car, and loose it all. Then who will you be without everything that once defined you?

For sure marriage and family involve risk. It surely is not something anyone should do without a lot of talking! That piece of knowledge comes from hindsight. I took so much for granted and that was a mistake. So if you ever change your mind about marriage and family please remember to talk about everything that is important to you. There is really good information in books and on the internet and the more we know the better are our chances of doing well. This video is really good and perfect for you. It is about why we marry the wrong person. Please give it a try and tell me what think.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+we+marry+the+wrong+person&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=Why+we+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0i512l2j69i57j0i512l5j0i390l2.4428j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think fear and curiosity are the two main drivers.
Each has subcategories or synonyms, love being a subcategory of fear.
Its the desire for things to stay the same vs the desire for change. Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear. Making friendships(love) helps protect us from dangers — Yohan

Hum, I thought getting married and having children was how to actualize myself as a woman. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. I have noticed in my later years, that many older people chose to live near a son or daughter and grandchildren. I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family.

I'm wondering if you can add your notion of non-interference to those three ideas and scenarios. — schopenhauer1

The math has no meaning until we give it meaning. I don't think there is any empirical evidence of your ethical considerations. Exactly how do we come to a consensus on the best reasoning? Like I didn't mean to be insensitive. I was just very busy and had to stay focused on my goal.

Interesting you should say that. I still do minor research and write short notes. Just last night I was dabbling with my current project and the thought came to me, All I'm doing is moving symbols around. The create/discover part of the process was missing. :chin:

Later: An idea came to me and now the symbols have meaning. :cool: — jgill

What you said is very exciting. I just spent the morning with a deceased friend's daughter and carried over the discussion we are having here with her. She has one of those super high-paying jobs as a computer chip engineer. What you said perfectly fits in the discussion we were having, the difference between manipulating the symbols and understanding their meaning. You expressed that very well.

Logical thinking is far more disciplined than what most of our thinking is. Math must be logical but can be devoid of meaning. Blending the logical with a sense of meaning is uniquely human don't you think?
Animals may have a concept of 4 wolves and distance and the best escape route. That would happen instantaneously without much deliberation. But figuring out the best design for a computer chip or the knots in DNA is a whole different ball game.

:chin: Does our understanding of such matters require better words for explaining? Do our thoughts become none existent when we stop thinking them, or might they infect others and grow and become more permanent and yet changing?