I disagree. With wisdom and knowledge comes faith.

So wisdom and knowledge preceed/produce faith in a believer?

Faith is a realization that all is as it should be. Knowledge alone does not produce faith. Faith is a letting go of thinking that you can control things. It is accepting what is, was and will be. It is accepting things you cannot change, and knowing what you can change. It is wisdom and knowledge and understanding and acceptance.

That sounds good to me. I like the way you put that.

I guess... Sounds like giving up to me.

To each his/her own.

Yes it sort of does sound like giving up. I never did like the idea of "surrender" that the mystics teach. But once you understand what that is, and actually experience it... wow. What a powerful difference in your life.

Yes, we are like children. We all want what we want, and we want to do it ourselves. Some of the biggest break throughs I have had in life was when I was defeated, and surrendered and asked for help. Who did I ask? God? I don't know... my higher mind? I don't know. But when you give up the struggle... then comes enlightenment and the help you need.

We don't control the world, or other people. We can't always control the situation. We can't always solve all the problems in life, or fix other people we think need fixing. Sometimes we have to just surrender to what is and let it be what it is.

It is what it is. No need to be uptight about it.

Like I said... to each his/her own.

There are leaders and there are followers.

There are those that realize that they are the ones who make things right in their own minds and hearts. Therefore, they come to realize that they do not need to ask/look outwards. Then there are those devalue themselves by giving credit to some imaginary entity, based upon the notion that prayers have been answered. It's all in their head. Placebo.

Jb...

Have you read The Four Agreements by don Miguel Ruiz yet?

Yes.

That is not really what I am talking about.

Yes, everything is in your mind.

Neither follower or leader be..

That is me.

One need never ask/look outwards, this is correct.

Look within.

That is where you will find the power.

Did you not find the wisdom contained in The Four Agreement to be useful?

Of course. They are certainly good rules to practice.

So why don't you?

Why do you assume I don't?

Be impeccable with your word.
Don't take anything personally.
Don't make assumptions.
Always do your best.

--

I'm not assuming, I'm concluding based upon the amount of times that you've broken the first, second, and third in our conversations.

I was not being sarcastic I was just trying show you that you do have beleifs that are 100% connected to reality.

Forget the whole first part of my last post and PLEASE respond honestly to the following: If nothing else it should help you state your point of view.


You are certain you exist and since you only know the shape, form, and attributes of YOU as human, then you are admitting that YOUR existence corresponds to this physical reality. You are 100% certain that you exist.

By association you certainly must hold other beliefs that correspond to the reality of this physical existence.

EXAMPLES:
Why would you not jump from a 5 story building expecting to fly?

If you wanted to see if a gun you just found was loaded, why wouldn't you point it at a passerby and pull the trigger?

How do you know when you need to eat and why bother eating at all?

Behavior is tied to beliefs. If you don’t presuppose that what you believe is true (corresponds to reality) then you would not be able to take care of yourself and you could be a danger to others as well. Does that make sense to you considering the questions I asked?

So you are passing a personal judgement on me?

Interesting.

You are still assuming I don't practice the four agreements.

Di,

I understand where I am and the rules that apply to this physical reality. In answer to your questions:

1. I wouldn't jump off of a 5 story building because I believe it is very likely that I would be hurt or killed due to the laws of physics. The belief that I would be hurt is certainly overwhelming compared to any belief that I might have that I could fly.

2. If I found a gun and wanted to see if it was loaded I would not fire it at all. I would open it and see if it was loaded. Yes, I believe guns can kill people. I don't believe that 100% but why would I take the chance of pointing it at someone? I would have to believe that guns absolutely don't hurt people to do that.

I certainly hope that what I believe is true. As far as eating is concerned... How does anyone know what is good for them to eat? They keep changing the story on that. Milk is good, milk is bad. They can't make up their minds. What does a person decide to believe about that?

I eat because my stomach says to eat and because it tastes good. Do I believe that we have to eat to live? Not 100%. There is a guy in Florida who has not eaten in years. He lives off of the energy of the earth and the sun. Do I believe this is possible? It could be. They have been watching him for at least two or three years. mmmmm.

In the future, will humans be able to live off of energy from the sun and the earth? Maybe. Do I believe I could do that? Maybe. Do I want to try? Not really. I enjoy eating too much.

That I hold a common belief or that I agree to the laws of physics does not mean that I am 100% certain of any particular belief.

That I exist is the only thing I can honestly say for absolute certainty. 100%.

There may be things that certainly run a very close second. 999.9999999999999 --etc%

Exactly.

I won't even point an unloaded gun at a person. Even if I have personally unloaded in and verified to the best of my ability that it is indeed unloaded. I've experienced in the past where I can indeed be wrong about knowing that a gun is completely unloaded.

Besides, people keep coming back to the macro laws of classical physics.

I've studied physics and mathematics my entire life. All my careers have been in the physical sciences and/or technologies that depend upon the laws of physics.

I don't deny the macro laws of classical physics. But that's a totally moot point when speaking about philosophies concerning the potential nature of reality. Classical physics is obviously not all that exists. We already know this to be the case. We actually have technologies that make use of the modern laws of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Those laws are real. They are currently being used in technologies.

So this continual referral to classical objects, and classical laws of physics concerning jumping off of tall buildings, believing that a gun can kill a person, the observed freezing point of pure water, and cups on tables are all totally MOOT POINTS.

Those are all examples of Classical Physics.

Classical physics has been superseded. Classical Physics is restricted within a specific domain of applicability.

But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, to suggest that philosophies concerning the true nature of reality should be restricted to the Classical Domain of Applicability.

Therein lies the faulty logic with all these arguments based on examples of Classical Physics.

~~~~~

Moreover, what truly makes no sense at all is when people are in denial of the fact that this is indeed the domain that they are attempting to restrict their philosophies to.

I mean, if they want to deny the discoveries and observations of Modern Physics and hold out for a "Classical Picture" of reality, then I can understand that sentiment. There are indeed many people who feel that way. Even many physicists are hoping against hope that Modern Science will somehow be "mistaken" and we will eventually return to a Classical Picture.

But the chances of that coming to pass are extremely slim. Moreover, there most certainly does not exist any Modern Scientific evidence or indication that this should be expected. As it currently stands the sound mathematical theories and experimental observations predict that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are here to stay and there is no way back to Classical Physics.

So why do people keep using Classical Physics examples in philosophical if they aren't attempting to hold out that all of reality should is indeed behave Classically?

~~~~

That's what I truly do not understand.

Di, Perhaps you can address this question:

Why do people continually use Classical Physics examples in philosophical discussions, whilst simultaneously proclaiming that they are not holding out for a Classical resolution to philosophical questions?

~~~~

If a person wants to take the position that they reject the findings and observations of Modern Physics and would prefer to hold out for Classical resolutions to these things, then I say, "Fine, and Good Luck!"

But why pretend to embrace the findings of Modern Science whilst simultaneously holding out for a purely Classical Philosophy?

What is the point to that?

I ask this quite sincerely.

What Di and Creative seem to have a problem with is my issue of belief vs absolute certainty.

It is a question of what I believe vs. what I know.

Creative claims that if you believe it, then you hold it as true.
By that he demands absolute certainty.

I confess, I do not know what is absolutely true except that I do exist.

That seems to be a problem to them. They want a commitment.

True or false. No in between. No doubts. It must be decided. True or false.

I say no. We can only hope that what we believe is true or trust that what we believe is true and agree with others about what we and they believe is true.

The only thing we can be absolutely certain of, if we are all honest, is that we do exist.