The Afterlife

[Divine Wind]

Funny, many believe that IS THE LIFE! But they call it the after life... anyway.

Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, what do you think it is?
If not, why do you think we are here - or is there no reason?

I look at life as writing a book

You add to it every day. Some books are interesting, some are quite dull. At the end of your life you are evaluated on how good your book was

Some books are just put on the shelf and forgotten, others live on long after you are dead

Agreed in concept. Who does the evaluating?

For most people it will be your friends and family. They will periodically discuss your book for the good and the bad. Eventually, your book will be forgotten outside a title and when you were born and died

Some books are timeless and they are discussed for centuries

But even "friends and family" pass. What percentage here know a lot about the life and effect a great-grandparent had on their friends and family? I'm guessing it will be a very low percentage unless you're related to a very famous historical figure.

Such is life
That is why you need to make a difference while you are here

I wrote my family history going back over 200 years. I know quite a bit about my great grand parents

:"There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere." -- William James, Pragmatism

You are an exception in knowing about your great grandparents since most people do not know much about their. What drove you to research them? A drive for the meaning of life? A drive for identity?

Even if one does know everything about every one of their ancestors, what difference does that make? Solace? A sense of identity? The self-satisfaction of coming from a "good" line of people? The Universe is over 13 Billion years old. Percentage wise, going back 2000 years, much less 200, is insignificant. So, again, what does it matter?

 

[rightwinger]

I look at life as writing a book

You add to it every day. Some books are interesting, some are quite dull. At the end of your life you are evaluated on how good your book was

Some books are just put on the shelf and forgotten, others live on long after you are dead

Agreed in concept. Who does the evaluating?

For most people it will be your friends and family. They will periodically discuss your book for the good and the bad. Eventually, your book will be forgotten outside a title and when you were born and died

Some books are timeless and they are discussed for centuries

But even "friends and family" pass. What percentage here know a lot about the life and effect a great-grandparent had on their friends and family? I'm guessing it will be a very low percentage unless you're related to a very famous historical figure.

Such is life
That is why you need to make a difference while you are here

I wrote my family history going back over 200 years. I know quite a bit about my great grand parents

:"There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere." -- William James, Pragmatism

You are an exception in knowing about your great grandparents since most people do not know much about their. What drove you to research them? A drive for the meaning of life? A drive for identity?

Even if one does know everything about every one of their ancestors, what difference does that make? Solace? A sense of identity? The self-satisfaction of coming from a "good" line of people? The Universe is over 13 Billion years old. Percentage wise, going back 2000 years, much less 200, is insignificant. So, again, what does it matter?

When I die....My "book" will be the one that recorded all my ancestors

 

[Divine Wind]

Agreed in concept. Who does the evaluating?

For most people it will be your friends and family. They will periodically discuss your book for the good and the bad. Eventually, your book will be forgotten outside a title and when you were born and died

Some books are timeless and they are discussed for centuries

But even "friends and family" pass. What percentage here know a lot about the life and effect a great-grandparent had on their friends and family? I'm guessing it will be a very low percentage unless you're related to a very famous historical figure.

Such is life
That is why you need to make a difference while you are here

I wrote my family history going back over 200 years. I know quite a bit about my great grand parents

:"There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere." -- William James, Pragmatism

You are an exception in knowing about your great grandparents since most people do not know much about their. What drove you to research them? A drive for the meaning of life? A drive for identity?

Even if one does know everything about every one of their ancestors, what difference does that make? Solace? A sense of identity? The self-satisfaction of coming from a "good" line of people? The Universe is over 13 Billion years old. Percentage wise, going back 2000 years, much less 200, is insignificant. So, again, what does it matter?

When I die....My "book" will be the one that recorded all my ancestors

An normal materialistic point of view. In a thousand years, what will it mean? A million years? A billion?

"All conditioned things are impermanent" - Buddha

 

[rightwinger]

For most people it will be your friends and family. They will periodically discuss your book for the good and the bad. Eventually, your book will be forgotten outside a title and when you were born and died

Some books are timeless and they are discussed for centuries

But even "friends and family" pass. What percentage here know a lot about the life and effect a great-grandparent had on their friends and family? I'm guessing it will be a very low percentage unless you're related to a very famous historical figure.

Such is life
That is why you need to make a difference while you are here

I wrote my family history going back over 200 years. I know quite a bit about my great grand parents

:"There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere." -- William James, Pragmatism

You are an exception in knowing about your great grandparents since most people do not know much about their. What drove you to research them? A drive for the meaning of life? A drive for identity?

Even if one does know everything about every one of their ancestors, what difference does that make? Solace? A sense of identity? The self-satisfaction of coming from a "good" line of people? The Universe is over 13 Billion years old. Percentage wise, going back 2000 years, much less 200, is insignificant. So, again, what does it matter?

When I die....My "book" will be the one that recorded all my ancestors

An normal materialistic point of view. In a thousand years, what will it mean? A million years? A billion?

"All conditioned things are impermanent" - Buddha

In a billion years....people will still be reading my posts on USMB

They are eternal

 

[anotherlife]

Well the spirits say we are a family of souls and Humans are part of one family but animals are a part of another.
In any case you don't need to be an eagle in the spirit world because it is said spirits can fly by willing it.

.

Well the spirits say we are a family of souls and Humans are part of one family but animals are a part of another.

well, I do not believe 4th century christians, the desert religions so I'm going to go out on a limb and say I do not believe those that separate the spirit world into an apartheid demeaning all other life -

In any case you don't need to be an eagle in the spirit world because it is said spirits can fly by willing it.

and what if a spirit on top of their game plan simply choose to become physical again in Garden Earth maybe it does not make sense but why not an Eagle or the opposite sex what's a spirit good for if it can not be anything than it already is, do they return as the same person, I think not.

I repeat, I do not think we incarnate as animals. That is what the spirit guides I have listened to teach
But we can, and do change sex many times during the course of our cycle of reincarnations.
I believe we develop new personalities in each life and of course, we cannot usually remember past lives because we do not normally have access to the spirits memories. In incarnation we remember only what is stored in the brain. But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body. We ultimately reach a state of enlightenment and complete our incarnations, then we gain access to all past life memories.

"But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body."

And, according to scientific determinism and materialism, every thought and memory we have is an electrochemical impulse, spurred by same, which cease to exist when the brain dies.

The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism, self limiting. We haven't even worked out gravitational measurements yet. And then scientific measurements carry the further limitation of mathematical axioms during interpretation.

To Dajjal's observation: ... But the Buddha himself we know had many lives of animals, stones, plants, even gods, countless many, amongst his human lives. This seems very logical, I think.

"The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism"


Why is that a problem? Seems to me that has actually worked out very well for us. The "problem" was when we DIDN'T have science, and so any fool could make any magical, nonsensical claim he wished, and there was no way to tell if he was lying or not. Like, demons causing disease. Or claiming one is the "Son of God".

Science is not designed to deal with non-deterministic, magical nonsense. Nothing is, because there is no way of knowing any claim you make about this non-deterministic, magical nonsense is right or wrong.

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

 

[anotherlife]

Funny, many believe that IS THE LIFE! But they call it the after life... anyway.

Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, what do you think it is?
If not, why do you think we are here - or is there no reason?

I don't believe anything. Believing is thinking I know something I don't.

When I find out the truth, I'll then know.

Some people believe based on available information. The mind is a funny thing. There are things I believe - even simple things like whether or not the person in the office is having an affair. NOMB, but, still, the mind keeps going.....

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

 

[anotherlife]

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Agreed, we don't know. Now, can we agree that it seems utterly absurd?

"it" being what?

The idea to which you correctly referred as being one we do not know the truth of. Absurd, right?

No because it discards physical evidence and it destroys curiousity, without which humans would still live in caves.

 

[anotherlife]

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

And why not keep an open mind on what you don't know?

Who siad I wasn't keeping an open mind?

Saying "I don't know what happens in the afterlife, there are many possibilities, but I won't say one is right" is keeping my mind open.

Okay, okay, I was't implying anything. Just suggesting that accepting what you don't know is good but one should also keep an open mind about what actually is possible.

I know. The problem is most people aren't like that. They decide what they want the truth to be.

Scientists too decide what they want the truth to be. That is why science moves in trends. By the way, everything I wrote in this thread is a physical fact.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't believe anything. Believing is thinking I know something I don't.

When I find out the truth, I'll then know.

Some people believe based on available information. The mind is a funny thing. There are things I believe - even simple things like whether or not the person in the office is having an affair. NOMB, but, still, the mind keeps going.....

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.
well, I do not believe 4th century christians, the desert religions so I'm going to go out on a limb and say I do not believe those that separate the spirit world into an apartheid demeaning all other life -


and what if a spirit on top of their game plan simply choose to become physical again in Garden Earth maybe it does not make sense but why not an Eagle or the opposite sex what's a spirit good for if it can not be anything than it already is, do they return as the same person, I think not.

I repeat, I do not think we incarnate as animals. That is what the spirit guides I have listened to teach
But we can, and do change sex many times during the course of our cycle of reincarnations.
I believe we develop new personalities in each life and of course, we cannot usually remember past lives because we do not normally have access to the spirits memories. In incarnation we remember only what is stored in the brain. But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body. We ultimately reach a state of enlightenment and complete our incarnations, then we gain access to all past life memories.

"But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body."

And, according to scientific determinism and materialism, every thought and memory we have is an electrochemical impulse, spurred by same, which cease to exist when the brain dies.

The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism, self limiting. We haven't even worked out gravitational measurements yet. And then scientific measurements carry the further limitation of mathematical axioms during interpretation.

To Dajjal's observation: ... But the Buddha himself we know had many lives of animals, stones, plants, even gods, countless many, amongst his human lives. This seems very logical, I think.

"The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism"


Why is that a problem? Seems to me that has actually worked out very well for us. The "problem" was when we DIDN'T have science, and so any fool could make any magical, nonsensical claim he wished, and there was no way to tell if he was lying or not. Like, demons causing disease. Or claiming one is the "Son of God".

Science is not designed to deal with non-deterministic, magical nonsense. Nothing is, because there is no way of knowing any claim you make about this non-deterministic, magical nonsense is right or wrong.

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

 

[anotherlife]

Some people believe based on available information. The mind is a funny thing. There are things I believe - even simple things like whether or not the person in the office is having an affair. NOMB, but, still, the mind keeps going.....

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

No, because the definition in your post doesn't restrict the scientific method to physical applications only. In physical applications as well as paranormal applications, the scientific method is sometimes inadequate. Scientific mysteries exist. Even science has developed a model for example, where life is represented as a process mostly outside the observable physical universe, thus converging with religion, and all this supported mathematically.

 

[anotherlife]

I repeat, I do not think we incarnate as animals. That is what the spirit guides I have listened to teach
But we can, and do change sex many times during the course of our cycle of reincarnations.
I believe we develop new personalities in each life and of course, we cannot usually remember past lives because we do not normally have access to the spirits memories. In incarnation we remember only what is stored in the brain. But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body. We ultimately reach a state of enlightenment and complete our incarnations, then we gain access to all past life memories.

"But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body."

And, according to scientific determinism and materialism, every thought and memory we have is an electrochemical impulse, spurred by same, which cease to exist when the brain dies.

The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism, self limiting. We haven't even worked out gravitational measurements yet. And then scientific measurements carry the further limitation of mathematical axioms during interpretation.

To Dajjal's observation: ... But the Buddha himself we know had many lives of animals, stones, plants, even gods, countless many, amongst his human lives. This seems very logical, I think.

"The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism"


Why is that a problem? Seems to me that has actually worked out very well for us. The "problem" was when we DIDN'T have science, and so any fool could make any magical, nonsensical claim he wished, and there was no way to tell if he was lying or not. Like, demons causing disease. Or claiming one is the "Son of God".

Science is not designed to deal with non-deterministic, magical nonsense. Nothing is, because there is no way of knowing any claim you make about this non-deterministic, magical nonsense is right or wrong.

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

What are collies?

 

[Votto]

I don't know. But, it must be fantastic. Very few people come back.

Somebody has to vote

 

[Votto]

If there really are 72 virgins for Muslims, I'm going to be so pissed that I picked the wrong religion!

Yes, but it gets worse.

You have to marry all 72 and then live forever.

 

[Divine Wind]

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

No, because the definition in your post doesn't restrict the scientific method to physical applications only. In physical applications as well as paranormal applications, the scientific method is sometimes inadequate. Scientific mysteries exist. Even science has developed a model for example, where life is represented as a process mostly outside the observable physical universe, thus converging with religion, and all this supported mathematically.

I've been involved in paranormal psychological studies. There is nothing there. Makes for good reality TV shows though!

 

[Votto]

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

No, because the definition in your post doesn't restrict the scientific method to physical applications only. In physical applications as well as paranormal applications, the scientific method is sometimes inadequate. Scientific mysteries exist. Even science has developed a model for example, where life is represented as a process mostly outside the observable physical universe, thus converging with religion, and all this supported mathematically.

I've been involved in paranormal psychological studies. There is nothing there. Makes for good reality TV shows though!

I disagree.

I heard of one chap who was blind from birth and had a NDE. When he was revived he described his surroundings perfectly and said he could see for the first time.

He even told of a conversation that went on in another room.

When he was revived, he was blind again.

 

[anotherlife]

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

No, because the definition in your post doesn't restrict the scientific method to physical applications only. In physical applications as well as paranormal applications, the scientific method is sometimes inadequate. Scientific mysteries exist. Even science has developed a model for example, where life is represented as a process mostly outside the observable physical universe, thus converging with religion, and all this supported mathematically.

I've been involved in paranormal psychological studies. There is nothing there. Makes for good reality TV shows though!

After you mix it with marketing and organize studies to profit, you have diluted the whole thing to the point that you original question is now just a needle in a haystack. So everything disappears. This is why conspiracy theories are written too, they hide things excellently.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"But according to the theology I have studied all memories of past lives are perfectly retained in the causual body."

And, according to scientific determinism and materialism, every thought and memory we have is an electrochemical impulse, spurred by same, which cease to exist when the brain dies.

The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism, self limiting. We haven't even worked out gravitational measurements yet. And then scientific measurements carry the further limitation of mathematical axioms during interpretation.

To Dajjal's observation: ... But the Buddha himself we know had many lives of animals, stones, plants, even gods, countless many, amongst his human lives. This seems very logical, I think.

"The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism"


Why is that a problem? Seems to me that has actually worked out very well for us. The "problem" was when we DIDN'T have science, and so any fool could make any magical, nonsensical claim he wished, and there was no way to tell if he was lying or not. Like, demons causing disease. Or claiming one is the "Son of God".

Science is not designed to deal with non-deterministic, magical nonsense. Nothing is, because there is no way of knowing any claim you make about this non-deterministic, magical nonsense is right or wrong.

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

What are collies?

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

No, because the definition in your post doesn't restrict the scientific method to physical applications only. In physical applications as well as paranormal applications, the scientific method is sometimes inadequate. Scientific mysteries exist. Even science has developed a model for example, where life is represented as a process mostly outside the observable physical universe, thus converging with religion, and all this supported mathematically.

I've been involved in paranormal psychological studies. There is nothing there. Makes for good reality TV shows though!

After you mix it with marketing and organize studies to profit, you have diluted the whole thing to the point that you original question is now just a needle in a haystack. So everything disappears. This is why conspiracy theories are written too, they hide things excellently.

Proof is proof. There's no proof of the paranormal. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

[anotherlife]

The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism, self limiting. We haven't even worked out gravitational measurements yet. And then scientific measurements carry the further limitation of mathematical axioms during interpretation.

To Dajjal's observation: ... But the Buddha himself we know had many lives of animals, stones, plants, even gods, countless many, amongst his human lives. This seems very logical, I think.

"The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism"


Why is that a problem? Seems to me that has actually worked out very well for us. The "problem" was when we DIDN'T have science, and so any fool could make any magical, nonsensical claim he wished, and there was no way to tell if he was lying or not. Like, demons causing disease. Or claiming one is the "Son of God".

Science is not designed to deal with non-deterministic, magical nonsense. Nothing is, because there is no way of knowing any claim you make about this non-deterministic, magical nonsense is right or wrong.

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

What are collies?

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.