Afterlife….How About For You?

[ding]

RE: Afterlife….How About For You?
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Let me step back for a moment so that I may explain myself in an alternative way. When considering the fundamentals of logic, leading to truth, there are three "Laws of Thought" that must be considered:

The three Laws of Thought​

​

(1) The Law of Contradiction, (it is impossible for "proposition" and "not proposition" to be true simultaneously). The "Proposition" cannot be true (T) and not true [False (F)] at the same time.​

​

(2) The Law of the Excluded Middle Ground (There are only two states for any proposition - it is either true or not true. There is no gray area.)​

​

(3) The Principle of Identity. (A proposition is equal to itself.) ​

As for your inability to not be able to look past the word inalienable, let me say that it should be logical that everyone has a duty and an obligation to the creator to behave with virtue.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of problems here.

◈ A proposition that something is "inalienable" (in this case "Natural Law") is either "True" or "Not True" for everyone → everywhere → simultaneously. Conditional Statement: IF North Korea is populated by "people," and the United States is populated by "people" THEN it is not possible for one population of people to have an "inalienable right" that the other population of people does not.​

​

NOTE: If it were truly inalienable...​

And if one doesn’t then there are logically consequences. But the key to the phrase inalienable is that the rights are granted for no other reason than we are God’s creatures.

(COMMENT)

This is flawed because it is based on an unverifiable statement of fact (Creationist Theory) for which the truth of it is not in evidence.

You don’t have to earn them. They are granted freely but they are not unconditional.

(COMMENT)

Granted freely by whom?

The Law of the Excluded Middle Ground (There are only two states for any proposition - it is either true or not true. There is no gray area.) preclude the possibility that one population is bound by conditions before granted inalienable rights that the other population is not. The Law of Identity must be the same for both populations. You cannot have conditions on one side of the equation that are not on the other side of the equation.

Maybe you should read more sources on nature’s law. I’m not the one making up these beliefs. These were commonly held beliefs for a very long time. Try reading Blackstone, Coke, Aquinas, ancient Greeks, Locke, America’s Founding Fathers. Or even wiki, lol.

(COMMENT)

Oh, for heaven's sake → yes! I'll do my very best to catch up with you. American Founding Fathers' thoughts on "natural law" are unique to America. That uniqueness is still obvious over two centuries later - looking at the COVID-19 pandemic treatment. The most recent example is the controversy over The Democrats’ Gamble on Health Care for the Undocumented. Or the controversy touched-off by the decisions to withhold fair treatment: She's an undocumented immigrant, a taxpayer and an essential worker. But she won't get a stimulus check.

​

The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. ​

​

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

I’m pretty sure my last explanation covered all of this but let me explain it again. Everyone has inalienable rights for no other reason than they are Gods creatures. So that would include North Koreans. These rights are not unconditional in that we all have an obligation and a duty to behave with virtue. So if a person or a people do not behave with virtue they have not met the conditions and are subject to experiencing the very predictable surprises that accompany not behaving with virtue of which there are many.

Now just because people have inalienable rights and meet their duty that does not mean that others or even their government will recognize their inalienable rights. When that happens their authority to take their inalienable rights which they are being deprived of is authorized by the creator himself.

Can you tell me how this explanation doesn’t answer your concerns?

 

[Hollie]

It is unconstitutional for public schools to hold/promote or teach religion as a part of their syllabus. If you believe that is misinformation or a misunderstanding of the Constitution, that argument is for the courts and the courts have ruled consistently.

No. It is not. No one can force a student into a religion class, but it may, indeed, be offered as an elective. Most schools who have gone this route usually do a general religion study.

What are you so afraid of? Parents and students can decide on whether to choose this course as elective, or choose one of the other many electives. Do you expect parents and volunteers to teach science to their child for an hour once a week? Or, do you prefer science to be taught by a professional? Why are you so eager to deny religion classes this same consideration?

Religion clearly cannot be taught as an elective in public schools. I’m not sure why you think it can.

I’m not afraid of religions being taught as part of the public school syllabus. That is a Constitutionally prohibited activity.

 

[Hollie]

The Establishment Clause is somewhat different than your interpretation. It prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress, a State religion, thus discrimination against those not holding the government religion.

That is my understanding. Government may not establish a religion. Teaching classes about religion(s) is not establishing a religion.

I provided a catalog of examples where the courts have disagreed with you.

 

[Blues Man]

Would you take exception at your religion being called a philosophy and that it was no more valid than any other school of philosophy?

Imagine a three columns with these headings: Science, Language, Philosophy.

Under science is Rocket Science any more valid than Marine Biology? Under Language, is Spanish more valid than Cantonese? Under Religion, is Catholicism more valid than Stoicism? Of course not. While all these examples are very different they legitimately fall under the same heading. Just as we would not teach Cantonese as a science, nor should we teach marine biology as a religion--and so on and so forth.

Philosophy is a very subjective area of study.

And Stoicism is not a religion. It is a philosophy.

It is my contention that all religions are merely different schools of philosophy.

 

[Blues Man]

Wow all those words to propose a false dichotomy.
[/QUOTE]
How so? Can you articulate how it is a false dichotomy?
[/QUOTE]
And i quote

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't"

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

 

[james bond]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

Atheism is a false dichotomy. While Jesus is real and the only way to salvation.

As for the universe and Earth and everything in it, Jesus was the one who created it all. We know because God the Father, the architect, said so. He was the only witness.



It wasn't that long ago that atheist scientists believed and taught the universe was eternal instead of God being eternal. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong so turned out to be pseudoscience. Now, they're claiming long time. What has been proven true is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and that showed the universe had a beginning. Now, the usually wrong atheist scientists are trying to prove a big bang hypotheses. They will be wrong again and it will be pseudoscience. The truth is in Kalam Cosmological Argument. The atheist scientists have no cosmological argument because there isn't any. That is your false dichotomy.

 

[ding]

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved....

^^^An example of something that is not a false dichotomy.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Afterlife….How About For You?
⁜→ ding, Blues Man, james bond, et al,

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a case where it is easier to express what we "don't know" then to make a categorical statement that we know something specific.

^^^An example of something that is not a false dichotomy.

(COMMENT)

This is merely a question with more than two correct answers. What is 42?

a. (-7 • -7) - 7​

​

b. (+6 • +6) +6​

​

c. The "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" found in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (by Douglas Adams) the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything."​

​

d. The sixth number in the Catalan Series.​

​

e. All the above.​

Atheism is a false dichotomy.

(COMMENT)

The disbelief in the existence of any deity can be a false dilemma

While Jesus is real and the only way to salvation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Faith-Based Belief System.

As for the universe and Earth and everything in it, Jesus was the one who created it all. We know because God the Father, the architect, said so. He was the only witness.

(COMMENT)

What is more credible?

a. Hearsay evidence from someone 2000 years ago...​

​

b. My word, given in person with just as much evidence to the creation (none).​

It wasn't that long ago that atheist scientists believed and taught the universe was eternal instead of God being eternal.

(COMMENT)

As a general rule, most scientists consider the concepts of "never-ending," "the eternal," "infinity," and "fractal detail" as problematic (The Continuum Hypothesis).

I don't know what is meant by "atheist scientist." They are not actually related. One (the scientist) is grounded in the concept of natural laws and the explanation of the observable and testable. The other (atheist) is the rejection of the supernatural; that which is unexplainable and beyond test and measurement. A notion of a "Supreme Being" or a "Deity" are also concepts that cannot be in the box of test and measurement.

Oddly enough, it is probably the mathematician, as distinguished from all the scientists, that can play with the "never-ending," "the eternal," and the "infinity." It is the mathematicians who can play with what with that which is unobservable, unexplainable, and beyond test/measurement. Albert Einstein came to some conclusion mathematically in 1905 that was not observable and able to be tested and measured until 1919.

Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong so turned out to be pseudoscience.

(COMMENT)

We will have to agree to disagree. Many (including myself) don't see this as incompatible with the scientific method (pseudoscience), but rather as the evolution of scientific knowledge that alters the scientific axioms and theories.

There will not be a time when all science pertaining to all aspects of the natural laws of the universe will be known. Science will always have a goal in the future to focus on.

The truth is in Kalam Cosmological Argument. The atheist scientists have no cosmological argument because there isn't any. That is your false dichotomy.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the relatively new Kalam Cosmological view really a crafted theological view that sounds like science, but is not really subject to the scientific method.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Afterlife….How About For You?
⁜→ ding, Blues Man, james bond, et al,

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a case where it is easier to express what we "don't know" then to make a categorical statement that we know something specific.

^^^An example of something that is not a false dichotomy.

(COMMENT)

This is merely a question with more than two correct answers. What is 42?

a. (-7 • -7) - 7​

​

b. (+6 • +6) +6​

​

c. The "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" found in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (by Douglas Adams) the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything."​

​

d. The sixth number in the Catalan Series.​

​

e. All the above.​

Atheism is a false dichotomy.

(COMMENT)

The disbelief in the existence of any deity can be a false dilemma

While Jesus is real and the only way to salvation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Faith-Based Belief System.

As for the universe and Earth and everything in it, Jesus was the one who created it all. We know because God the Father, the architect, said so. He was the only witness.

(COMMENT)

What is more credible?

a. Hearsay evidence from someone 2000 years ago...​

​

b. My word, given in person with just as much evidence to the creation (none).​

It wasn't that long ago that atheist scientists believed and taught the universe was eternal instead of God being eternal.

(COMMENT)

As a general rule, most scientists consider the concepts of "never-ending," "the eternal," "infinity," and "fractal detail" as problematic (The Continuum Hypothesis).

I don't know what is meant by "atheist scientist." They are not actually related. One (the scientist) is grounded in the concept of natural laws and the explanation of the observable and testable. The other (atheist) is the rejection of the supernatural; that which is unexplainable and beyond test and measurement. A notion of a "Supreme Being" or a "Deity" are also concepts that cannot be in the box of test and measurement.

Oddly enough, it is probably the mathematician, as distinguished from all the scientists, that can play with the "never-ending," "the eternal," and the "infinity." It is the mathematicians who can play with what with that which is unobservable, unexplainable, and beyond test/measurement. Albert Einstein came to some conclusion mathematically in 1905 that was not observable and able to be tested and measured until 1919.

Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong so turned out to be pseudoscience.

(COMMENT)

We will have to agree to disagree. Many (including myself) don't see this as incompatible with the scientific method (pseudoscience), but rather as the evolution of scientific knowledge that alters the scientific axioms and theories.

There will not be a time when all science pertaining to all aspects of the natural laws of the universe will be known. Science will always have a goal in the future to focus on.

The truth is in Kalam Cosmological Argument. The atheist scientists have no cosmological argument because there isn't any. That is your false dichotomy.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the relatively new Kalam Cosmological view really a crafted theological view that sounds like science, but is not really subject to the scientific method.

Most Respectfully,
R

I know three of the answers are correct because I’m a huge HH’s fan. I don’t know anything about the Catalan series and I am not interested enough to look it up. But given the wording of your question I will guess D is correct too. Which means that A, B, C, D and E are correct answers.

No doubt you are familiar with multiple root solutions, right? You do realize that even though both solutions satisfy the quadratic equation there is only one true answer.

Heres my favorite part about your “question”... in the ultimate act of irony, 42 is the number of generations identified in YOUR people’s religious texts from Adam to Jesus. At which point Douglas Adams vanished in a poof of irony.

I’m sorry but your logic is garbage in equals garbage out. No offense intended. When you can actually explain in detail my error in real terms, please let me know. Until then I am afraid that inalienable rights are God given and conditional and from time to time must be defended. And your response to that is a multiple root solution to the quadratic equation which is the incorrect answer.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

Atheism is a false dichotomy. While Jesus is real and the only way to salvation.

As for the universe and Earth and everything in it, Jesus was the one who created it all. We know because God the Father, the architect, said so. He was the only witness.



It wasn't that long ago that atheist scientists believed and taught the universe was eternal instead of God being eternal. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong so turned out to be pseudoscience. Now, they're claiming long time. What has been proven true is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and that showed the universe had a beginning. Now, the usually wrong atheist scientists are trying to prove a big bang hypotheses. They will be wrong again and it will be pseudoscience. The truth is in Kalam Cosmological Argument. The atheist scientists have no cosmological argument because there isn't any. That is your false dichotomy.

We're never going to agree and probably will never be able to agree to disagree.

 

[tycho1572]

When I was younger, I went through an experience that has me convinced that unexplainable things do happen. It was an experience I’ve posted about in the past.
It was also an experience I can recall like it happened yesterday.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Life is the thing that is in us that brings us to life. The majority of us are lifeless being. A person without a soul. And this life is not a physical being. But it is some type of intelligent energy that thinks independently.
Most people don't thinks for themselves but taught to think in a certain way what life has brought to them. Like if they touch something that is very hot. That it'll condition them to not touch it again. Like some steal in order to survive without thinking the harm they has caused. A lifeless person live by instinct, but a person who has life in them is able to think. And Life consist of good spirits that brings things to life.
Like when Jesus was talking to His disciples about preparing themselves for a spiritual battle. But they couldn't understand what He was saying. They thought that He was referring to a physical battle. Which it made Jesus upset, which He responded back to them angrily, by shouting ,"That's enough!"That he was tired of their behaviors. But He knew that they will not have the spirit in them until He has fulfilled the old covenant.

Luke 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

Ephesians 6:16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Exodus 33:3 Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.”

Exodus 32:22“Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone these people are to evil.

Matthew 18:26“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’

Matthew 18:22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Matthew 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

[Aletheia4u]

My response is plain and simple.

My mom died when I was a baby. (leukemia)

I would like to see my mom again.

It says that God will wipe away all memories of things that made you sad. But it also said that the only thing that those he chosen will be craving to meet Him. They will not have any memories of their past lives. But only having the desire to be back with Him.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’”

Deuteronomy 6:13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

 

[Chuz Life]

My response is plain and simple.

My mom died when I was a baby. (leukemia)

I would like to see my mom again.

It says that God will wipe away all memories of things that made you sad. But it also said that the only thing that those he chosen will be craving to meet Him. They will not have any memories of their past lives. But only having the desire to be back with Him.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’”

Deuteronomy 6:13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Well, so much for that idea.

 

[Aletheia4u]

My response is plain and simple.

My mom died when I was a baby. (leukemia)

I would like to see my mom again.

It says that God will wipe away all memories of things that made you sad. But it also said that the only thing that those he chosen will be craving to meet Him. They will not have any memories of their past lives. But only having the desire to be back with Him.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’”

Deuteronomy 6:13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Well, so much for that idea.

You will see them. But you will see them as your friend, not your parents. And it says that God has came to reclaim what is His.
That is why the people were to give up their first-born to Him. Raise them into believing that God is their Father.
The only reason why He worked first with Abraham's descendants because Abraham was willing to give Him his first-born. That Abraham was able to be circumcised from the world. And so God has kept the Hebrews from being accepted by other tribes or nations. They were the stone that the builders has rejected in society. That is why God don't want us to be conform to things of this world. And that's why Jesus told them that they all gives good gifts to their children, But what God have to give, is even more greater than theirs gifts.


Matthew 3:9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Matthew 10:34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Job 1:21 and said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised.”

Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Jeremiah 1:5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Matthew 22:21“Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

 

[Blues Man]

When I was younger, I went through an experience that has me convinced that unexplainable things do happen. It was an experience I’ve posted about in the past.
It was also an experience I can recall like it happened yesterday.

Inexplicable does not equal supernatural