Scientific facts do not exist

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

belief does not equal facts idiot


if you believe that is not the same as whether a fact is a fact


why do you religious clowns always hate facts?


because you believe fantasy over facts


its why its called faith goomba


its your belief and has NOTHING to do with facts

lmfao, that one makes me laugh, so obviously delusional and eager to lie ... There are times when such ignorance has really pissed me off over the years though and for excellent reason. Good to see you have passion against such rubbish

 

[bhaktajan]

Material energy exists in a flux of 3-modes (as per Vedanta):

Maintenance, Creation, destruction
[literally, Goodness, passion, ignorance. Sanskrit: Satva, Raja, Tamas]

All matter and energy transition and transmutes ceaselessly through
the "three modes" of material energy
[similar to Chinese Ying/Yang duality principle...but extended to three]

All the above is call "Manifest" energy.

The "un-Manifest" energy [as per Vedanta] has three aspects,
the "un-Manifest" energy is called "Sat-chit-ananda" [aka, eternal-conscious-blissful]

When all varigated phenomena is erased,
when all Space is erased,
when all time is erased . . .

A] there still exists the potential for "Three-Dimensions".

B] there still exists the potential for "Locomotion"

By my use of the appellation "Potential", I am saying that even in a situation devoid of matter & energy & time & Space . . . there is still Potential for "Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion" ---irregardless of who/what/how initiates creation or whether there is an absolute state that transcends material phenomena ---there exists as a pre-creation/substratum/pre-requisite meta-physical blank page that ALLOWS for even empty space to occupy itself before its creative play:

"Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion" lay fallow until it is utilised ---yet interestingly, never are these "3-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion" actually a manifest; they don't manifest as entities unto them selves and yet they underlie all potential possibilities.

You can't measure "Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion".
You can't make them under your control ---they are a nuetral state that allows even the void to come and go as epochs pass into oblivion again and again.

When all is erased there sits "Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion"; selflessly, or as the prime self?

C] there still exists the potential for "onomatopoeia"
[onomatopoeia = the naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it (such as buzz or hiss). Onomatopoeia may also refer to the use of words whose sound suggests the sense.
from Gk. onomatopoiia "the making of a name or word" (in imitation of a sound associated with the thing being named), from onomatopoios, from onoma (gen. onomatos) "word, name" (see 'name') + a derivative of poiein "compose, make" (see 'poet').]

According to the Vedas the soul is part and parcel of the "Supreme-Soul".
The Grand surprise is the the "Supreme-Soul" is a Person ['Bhagavan' ('the possessor and source of all opulences')]. According to the Vedas the soul is a person. According to the Vedas the soul is active by nature ---so the buddhist sense of Nirvana as the "Goal of merging the soul into a state of non-being" is a myth borne of a lack of knowledge that the "nature of the soul(s)", of all living entities, is "Persona".

The life-force in all animate bodies is the precence of a "Soul", and that soul is striving birth-after-birth seeking the supreme soul ---this is the mystery of life.

 

[bhaktajan]

Here are some questions that I serve to you for your pleasure:

Which came first: ‘Consciousness’ or ‘Un-Consciousness’?

Do both “Consciousness and Un-Consciousness” simply exist side-by-side, always?

Do we ‘souls’ vacillate between ‘Consciousness’ and/or ‘Un-Consciousness’ always, in samsara?

Are such endless vacillations in samsara a ‘Sad*’ thing? [*One of the 4 Emotions: Sad, glad, mad, afraid]

Does the repeated expense of time & effort, in samsara, reward us? En-mass? In any real tangible everlasting way, ever?

 

[bhaktajan]

BEFORE all Phenomena is erased:

"The Material World according to the Vedas & Bhagavad-gita"
The "8 elements" (From gross to Subtile) that compose all creation:
Earth,
water,
fire,
air,
ether,

Mind,
intelligence,
false-ego.

The above 8 elements all exist within an all-encompassing void ---that cannot be seperated from these "Elements" ---these two comprise the topic called "Duality".

The 8 "Elements" are thrown into flux by [as per vedanta writ] the ever fluxing influence of the "Three Gunas":

(This is Bhaktajan's comparison):
"Raja-guna = YING" //+//
Tama-guna = YANG . . . //+// . . .
Sattva-guna = Maintenance]

In the material world there are these 8 elements and the space that it occupies.
The Three modes-of-nature [the "Three Gunas"] are the underlying mechanics of the combination(s) of these elements . . . all thus, causing TIME to transpire.

ADD TO THE ABOVE SCHEMATIC:
Jiva-atma [lit. individual-soul] The Conscious Individual Soul = animated self-centered sensual-gratification seeking creatures whose bodies are composed of the above delineated inanimate 8 elements.

Brahman = the void/Space
and/or
Brahman = the individual 'knot' of an individual soul [1/10,000th the size of the tip of hair & brighter than Ten Suns]

Param-atma = [lit. supreme-soul aka God omnipresent as the life-force nucleus of each animate soul].

Bhagavan = The Suprema Persona of Godhead Transcendental.

The Hindu Trinity [3-Aspects of God self-expansion that comprises the Material (and BTW, the Spiritual Energies too)]:
1 Brahman
2 Param-atma
3 Bhagavan

The Jiv-atma (and BTW, the Spiritual Energies too) is composed of three qualities ---
"Sat-chitta-ananda":
1 Sat = Eternality (non-material 8 elements)
2 Chitta = Cognisance (aka, consciousness)
3 Ananda = Bliss

The Jiv-atma is free to seek out ABSOLUTE HELL and its many permutations
or
The Absolute Personality of Godhead as revealed in the Vedas

 

[bhaktajan]

The void is eternal and it is simply a name.

The hidden intellectual concept that I am showing is that the thought
of the Void is an accessible and easily understood concept.

Brahman is the next higher level of the meaning of the Void ---
tantamount to The Supreme Personality of Brahman.

The logic is that the void is devoid of qualities yet beyond that
fact where does the qualities come from?
And what is the reservoir fountain-spring of qualities?

All Attractive = is those qualities that spring forth and are
appreciable by persons ONLY, that includes appreciable by bestial persons too.

When the reservoir fountain-spring of all qualities in full par excellence
IS SEEN BY AN ASPIRANT [or even known as 'na asat'] ---
then the All Attractive Persona of the Godhead has pulled back the
curtain of the Void to reveal the luminescence of His Body luster know as the effulgent Light Brahman.

Brahman is the luminescence of the Body of the All Attractive embodiment of all personal qualities.
Such qualities are universally sought by all living beings throughout the RELATIVE WORLD.

The All Attractive personal qualities are outside Brahman's "Field of Relativity" ---
that area of The All Attractive personal qualities "Sphere of Influence" is the Absolute Realm
where all is constructed of Brahman and is so is called 'sat-cit-ananda'.

That is the Vedic version hidden from humanity since Lord Brahma was born with his eyes still closed.

 

[bhaktajan]

Ah yeah, desperately scrambling to make irrelevant rhetoric the issue perhaps because you have not one valid example of scientific fact because none exists.

Absolute maxim:
"When you want to know who your real father is . . . ask your mother."

 

[bhaktajan]

In other words, if the planned result of the process is successful then it becomes recognized as fact through the success of a formula thus no longer a scientific process to find out the result.

Consciousness is Absolute.

Zero is Absolute.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Below is from Lao Tsu's Tao te ching Aphorism #1 ---Is what it says absolute?
IMO it is absolute [and that which is beyond what it speaks of can be revealed "as it is" only from "Above"; only from "Outside" ---if "it" was so magnaimous as to do so during our short life span] :


The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

 

[bhaktajan]

Consciousness is Absolute.

Zero is Absolute.

AND

DIMENSION(S)

I now believe in dimensions ('Width, Length, and Depth')

What I meant by "DIMENSIONS"? is the basic three that we are all, as created entities, are beholding to: "Width, Length, and Depth" --the '3-Dimensions'.

No matter what state of stasis or mutating form energy may take ---even before there is any sort of manifestation ---or even when all variety is desolved and wiped away from history, where existence & non-existence are terminated to a pre-zero state before time began . . . we would still have dimensions ('Width, Length, and Depth') . . . yes, in a dormant state yet, dimensions never manifest, they are just there awaiting an architech to grace his 'inspiration' to take form.

Irregardless of the design and function ---just like the blank page and white light and the uncarved block contain all the spectrum of the rainbow--- erase the rainbow, remove the Sun and Outer Space and vanquish it all, but still the Three Dimensions would selflessly wait until the creative pricinciple desided to enact something.

Dimensions, as I am utilising the concept here refers to parameters that pre-date the most elementary level of existence ---upon which all possibility is encompassed.


Again, by the term 'Dimensions' I am NOT refering the "Other Diemensions" as in the Lingo-banter of "Doctor Who", or, "Alice in Wonderland", or "Star-Trek-Science-Fiction" nor that of Quantum physics ----I just mean the three dimensions known as Width, length & depth.

 

[bhaktajan]

'Absolute’
Nirvana (Nir, without; Vana, qualities) = a Zero empty vacuum field (aka, brahman).

NOTE: Matter and Energy cannot be separated from the Field that it occupies ---
it is the two polar opposites famously known as Duality
(the world is composed of Opposite; hence the principle of Duality, ie: the Ying-Yang Symbol).

Brahman (the underlying vacuum) is absolute’ ---ie:
Two men possess a box of 'Nothing'.
Each goes to court to sue the other for theft.
The Judge says, 'Both owners have the same items inside their boxes'.
The two men agree that each box contains the same thing!
There is no 'Difference' between one bit of NOTHING and another bit of NOTHING ---
they are absolutely the same without any distinguishing qualities.

Nothing here is the same as nothing over there ---this absolute-ness is omni-present.

The deity that is the personification of Absolute Nothingness could only be one entity ---
He would be that which BEYOND NOTHINGNESS ---and the truth of HIS Existence
could only be revealed by him upon his causeless reasoning.

If There is such a deity.

If There is such an Absolute deity.

I am not "proving" yea or nay ---I am postulating the requisite properties of the
Land-lord-Impresario of the whole Big Show, where we are just working spectators.

 

[bhaktajan]

A "vacuum" is a vacuum.

When I say vacuum, I am referring to a vacuum.

A vacuum is devoid of all things ergo it is called a vacuum.

It is the intellectual idea of the principle of a vacuum that I refer to when I say "vacuum".

I am interested in the vacuum, incontradistinction of 'varigated forms of matter & energy' that occupy the underlying space ['Space' aka, the cosmic vacuum].

To say that there is no Vacuum is to say:
a] the manifest creation is an occurence existing in the mind of God or Somebody incharge of God's Mind.
or
b] There is no final Zero Stratum 'underlying space, matter & energy' ---But this would be contra-instinctual or inother words, Mental Speculation.

Science-fiction is Mental Speculation.
Shakespeare is Mental Speculation.

Zero is Absolutely beyond Mental Speculation.

Make "Hay while the Sun Shines" was taught father to son.

The Sun too, can be compared to the Zero-State-Vacuum in its contradiction to the varigatedness of cosmic phenomena.

So too can God the Transcendent be compared . . . in its contradiction to the varigatedness of cosmic phenomena.

 

[bhaktajan]

God, the transcendant persona, who, in his own personal right,
is known to be unlimitedly full in 6-Opulences [whence: Bhagavan, sanskrit] ---
all Wealth, all Strength, all Beauty, all Intelligence, all Fame and, most interestingly, all renunciation ---
yet, outside his own persona, whilst expanding His own potency to created the manifest material-cosmos,
God exists in three features, as preceivable by us Human-Beings (if we cared to see it):

God exists in three features:
1 The Void
2 The life/being-force in each individual speck of matter or energy.
3 God, the transcendant persona

aka,
1 Brahman
2 Param-atma
3 Bhagavan

 

[Into the Night]

Heat is and is re created by energy matter and time re creating energy and matter, and melting ice is yet another example of energy matter and time re creating energy and matter ... melting sand into glass, another example ""

WRONG. Heat is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which also gives it its direction. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Nothing more.

 

[Into the Night]

You can show me all of the sick and twisted excuses for lame ass so called definitions of fact on the planet, yet none of them will ever contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes time for an asteroid to get from "a" to "b" no matter whether or not there is someone that exists with a system devised to measure the time it takes or no one exists with a system devised to measure the time that it takes for the asteroid to get from "a" to "b" because whether or not there is someone there with a system devised to measure the time that it takes, the fact remains that it still takes time for an asteroid to get from "a" to "b" whether there is someone there to acknowledge the fact or not.

so simple ... years of experience

Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

Facts are what verify or falsify belief and theory. Science is a process that determines recognition of fact. Truth is the garbage that crumbles when pit vs fact every single time.

A fact is not a proof. It is simply an assumed predicate, nothing more.
Science is not a 'process' or 'method'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
Truth is not garbage.

 

[Into the Night]

I see your response, I quoted your response and am now responding to your response which is not a belief, or a truth, or a theory it's a fact, factually recognized right here right now.

Not a fact. A proof.

you also try and force words into my mouth to try and base an argument

No, you do that all by yourself.

lmfao (you and thousands of others over the years), where did I ever claim universal truth in my lifetime> I never would because I already know that the truth is the garbage that crumbles when put vs fact every single time.

A fact is not a Universal Truth. You just tried to use it that way again.

facts are not agreed upon,

Yes they are, or they are not facts. They are arguments.

they are either recognized or ignored such as the fact that I am responding to you right here right now.

Proof by identity. Not a fact.

You see to think I should be wasting my time answering for your deliberate ignorance so smarten up I advise.
You don't realize how lucky you are I take the time.

Argument of the stick fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

All religions are factually proven

A fact is not a proof or a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.

to be based upon foundations of lies

Circular argument fallacy. It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods.

(some ridiculous story of how we / everything came into existence)

There are two popular theories, neither of which are theories of science since they are not falsifiable:

Theory of Creation: which states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. Nothing about this theory requires that intelligence to be a god or gods. Christianity uses a god. This theory is not falsifiable, and therefore is not a theory of science. It remains a circular argument (or an argument of faith).
Theory of Abiogenesis: which states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events. This theory if not falsifiable, and therefore is not a theory of science. It remains a circular argument (or an argument of faith).

of which you cower from that very factual evidence

A fact is not a proof or a Universal Truth.

and continue to do what religion teaches you to do which is quite obviously lie

Circular argument fallacy.

and deceive compulsively and obsessively.

Bigotry.

Again, that factual evidence can be found in this video or a brief version in the text photo below,

Not a fact. Not evidence. An argument.

watch how this on cowers from facing fact

Fact is not something one faces. It has no sides.

and ignorance, selfishness and greed are their only excuse.

Bigotry.

It seems you are an atheist. A religion.

 

[Into the Night]

You discovered that there lays latent Absolute Truths that common folk ignore?

"necessity is the Mother on invention"

"Science" actually connotes "The Scientific Method" ---the means of perfecting a RECIPE [aka formula].

Science actually connotes the process of performing an act in a repeatable controlled sequence so as to obtain a planned result.

Your marquee watchword is "FACT".

You are codifying the word "FACT" ---yet you are not doing any codification. Tangential flowery words are skewing your tack.

Science is not a 'procedure' or a 'method'. It is not a formula. It is not an invention. It is not repetitious experiments. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

I stick with genuine meaning of fact, not false garbage used by imbeciles to replace valid definition.

The word 'fact' is defined by logic. It is simply an assumed predicate, nothing more.

 

[Into the Night]

Lets talk Large Hadron Particle Accelerator.

A marvelous instrument.

It is a successful formula

It is not a formula. It never was. It is an instrument.

thus is no longer a science to create it

It never was science to create it. It is engineering to create it.

because it exists thanks to a successful forumla

It is not a formula.

making it fact.

Proof by identity. Not a fact.

Usig it to conduct several collision experiementasa doesn't dtract from the fact that the large hadron particle accelrator is not itsef in scientific process

Science isn't a process.

becase again the fact remains that it exists.

Not a fact. A proof.

what you are referring to as scientific process to obtain a planed result is really following an already completed formula because the process already proves the success of the formula as fact thus you follow the process and if you change the formula then it become scientific process again.

it is not a formula. It never was.

All this aside, I still see not one valid example of scientific fact because no such thing exists.

Here you are correct. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not any fact.

 

[Into the Night]

Truth and fact is always always always is received via a chain of authorities.

Neither is.

The cosmic manifestation is composed of "Opposites" [aka, duality. hence, ying & yang]

No authority is required to recognize that.

Every fact existed since time immemorial un-known

Void argument fallacy. No fact is a void.

---until it was perceived and used and methodically [aka scientifically] improved upon.

Science does not improve any fact. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Here's one oxymoron: why did it take so long for the bicycle to be invented?

Define 'long'. Why are you assuming it could have been earlier? Why are you assuming it never was invented earlier, then lost to obscurity?

Absolute maxim:
"When you want to know who your real father is . . . ask your mother

What if your mother lies?