BnaturAl Forum Posts (6,811)

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

In an ontological way you are always making cognitive sense and I totally appreciate the laughter you bring because of it ...

sorry, mancrushing again

RE: Say Something ... Blah ...

Wouldnt it be nice if we were bolder
Then we wouldnt have to wait so long
And wouldnt it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together

Wouldnt it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through

Happy times together weve been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldnt it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldnt be a single thing we couldnt do
We could be married
And then wed be happy

Wouldnt it be nice

You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But lets talk about it
Wouldnt it be nice

RE: God vs. Science

a Jihad -Mikehad

RE: God vs. Science

crazies huh... you're still talking about people who can only "imagine" god is reality, not people who can prove he/she/it is reality.

RE: God vs. Science

balance young starbuck.... balance..

You're fine the way you are, my fav right brained maniacal friend. Keeps me in touch with my right side

RE: God vs. Science

prove it.

There's a HUGE difference between proving a real object exists and an emotion exists Mike. I assume your alledged god is not an emotion, but rather a being?

we can all testify to emotions, no one can testify to god as a real being.

nice curve ball but it's another non sequitur that shows nothing relative to the existence of a supreme being

its anecdotal at best

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

somehow, the vision of you on your toes is pleasant one

RE: Randomly Post The First Thing That Pops Into Your Head Thread

delusions of grandeur

RE: God vs. Science

well there's a chance they've gone to IM or further by now. I mean, can opener was mentioned. It's like an invitation for stressless

RE: God vs. Science

its now Levity vs Horniness

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

During flat earth times, 'everyone' (as a general term) operated within the same parametres of that flat earth belief.

The thrust of my arguement is just that. We know (generally as humans) there is a more universally accepted defintion of love that for most of us, when we are truthful with ourselves, we understand that definiton to be true, no matter how much we decide or choose to personally colour it.


Everything outside is relevant. What use is love if there nothing to find it in?

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

There's a strong case for what she says I think Jeff. I don't disagree with the intent of her arguement. It is fundamentally workable the way she presents it, provided love is a muteable array of desires and thoughts, and that is the only part I take issue with.

Having said that; I just think by and large one must keep to the purest most truthful definition of love, in answering this OP. Removing or expanding the limits and accepting all personal and or homogenized interpretations of love makes it too muddy to come up with anything but 'qualified' answer.

Sounds rather legal and sterile doesn't it?

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

I think it goes beyond simple belief. We can create any number of love scenarios in our heads, but in reality there will be recognition as real, some truth that says "yep that's real love". I accept your assertion that belief can be a factor because belief does not require any sort of substantial proof to be a belief.

For it to be true however, is another thing and in this case, from my perspective, true love requires truth with oneself and your counterpart, and that negates belief, more so if the belief is unsubstantiated. That sort of love is illusory, ephemeral and too whispy to be true love.

It would be like telling myself I can hit a baseball two hundred miles away.. Belief may be present, but no amount of belief affects the truth that I will not achieve this. Belief has no limitations, truth is bounded and undeniable. True (truthful) love is not muteable or changeable.

People alter the defintion of love by adding or subtracting criteria and personalizing it so as to make love something that makes them "feel" loved". I humbly submit that that is a deviation from truth, a deviation from real love. We do it to appease our desires and delude ourselves into feeling loved or beliveing that we love others. Believing that deviation doesn't make it reamin as love, it makes it our acceptable redefined form of love....far from what true love is. .

belief is strong elixir but useless in presence of truth.

RE: God vs. Science

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

that happens to smart people all the time

RE: God vs. Science

while very minimum there are indeed amounts of mass in the vacuum of space. There is enough to fascillitate energy travelling from one spot to another; but enough to fascillitate sound? I will take your word for it. I admit, it seems implauseable to me but I have no data to affirm or disaffirm.





His communication is primarily right brained. How's that? It is not meant to demean the individual, nor diminish the other side of their faculties; he just leans to the right in communication most often. Not a bad thing or good thing, just a thing. While I take notice of such things, I would hope others aren't seeing it as demeaning, brain duality is an interesting subject, and we all have particular leanings and tendencies in that regard, complexities not withstanding.

RE: God vs. Science

Yep sound can use gases, liquids, solids as a medium. I never suggested anything about humans being there, that's your tangeant my friend.

big bang zealot No, I'm not a zealot, I am just more prone to following proven scientific data, criteria and guidelines than blindly accepting the faery dust creator fable and trying to impose it on others. There is a difference between imparting known facts and unsubstantiated claims.

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

If the subject matter is truely about love alone ... here is one question that will perhaps stymie your friend.

I love my son. If I applied his assertions in this case; could I end up in a situation where I did not love my son? Nope. Love is love right? If your buddy is being picky about it being a different kind of love, then the love that he suggests can be willfully undermined, was not love in the first place. It was a love with conditions and that's not love, that's some personal contract with your subconscious desires that someone happened to fit into. If it's real love, its too innate to change or undo it.


Undoing a 'conditional love' like that would be and is relatively easy. Simpy find or apply deal breakers and you're out.

RE: The Limits of Free Will: Can one will oneself in and out of love?

I tend to agree with your friend, self talk is life forming and reaffirming. How we get to be who we our is a confluence of our environmental influences. We even gravitate to people who share our particular stance in life. We simply allowed those influences to take precidence in our makeup.

Surely if subconscious compliance happens, then conscious assessment and deliberate restructuring of ideals and notions is also available. "Who I am" is just a character we we tend to reaffirm, rather than change.

I do however think that innate characteristics are more difficult to change.

As for loving someone we wouldn't ordinarily choose, I think that is also possible, though I wouldn't venture to say probable, so I would add that to the catagorie of innate traights that are more difficult to change.

RE: Wheh to fight, when not to, how to decide?

only one's ego needs recognition. who's the boss of 'me', is a great starting question

RE: Say Something ... Blah ...

I haven't seen any today, I am still at the wubba wubba stage..

RE: God vs. Science

dont you read?



I did not suggest the big bang was sound waves

RE: God vs. Science

yep .... or magnetic possibly.

I doubt however they would be a "meduim" for travel in any spirit sense as SF is trying to create. It is well known that it can be used to accelerate travel in space, but that's in a real sense, (spacecraft often use a planet's gravity to sling the ship further and faster. Atool for travel, not a medium

Light is the most efficient and since "spirit" is energy/light, it has the most likelyhood of being the medium for travel. I think scientists are working on this, but I don't recall the experiments. If I recall they involve laser technology but my hiemers is setting in again

RE: God vs. Science

I doubt sound waves have any application in 'travel', not sure if sound even exists in a vacuum

RE: Say Something ... Blah ...

wubba wubba

RE: God vs. Science

sure you were
nah, probably not


ummm, actually by 'sound' I meant the theory is- secure, strong, stable. I'm sure the potential for sound in a big bang is there but if a tree falls in the forest... :laugh

Sound waves forever in their own space wtf are you on about


You want to remember one thing when ever you get on about vibrations, very important you see. E=mc2 . Energy because it equals the speed of light squared, is already vibrating at the highest rate known in the universe. We exist with energy and that means we vibrate at the highest rate known. You keep speaking about moving to diff levels of consciousness and unless we move to lower levels such as sound vibrations I think your 'theory' is rife with unproveable data even if I give you that our energy field retains some personal memory imprint ...and I don't as you know.



I keep telling you, you should write science fiction. You 'thoughts' are preposterous, expansion and contraction of a body is object centred. An expanding or contracting piece of metal does so within itself, it doesn't become something else in contraction.

If you're trying to impart some sort of crash scenario, I know that a couple of galazies are destined to crash into one another, I have no information that there are other universes so that scenario is conjecture as best. Recent assessments by cosmologists suggest the universe isn't forever expanding, that it is bounded, finite and round as are most objects in space, planets, galaxies etc.. Energy is streaming in what they call plasma rivers from the boundary of our universe in all directions..(the 'bounded' assessment, oddly supports 'other' universe theories, funny how that works) You might want to dabble in observer mathematics which (for some christian adherents) purports theories of gods outside the boundaries, I am inclined to think there more universes, not gods.. Energy is god, and its everywhere. if you know the characteristics of god you can't remove one and still have a god. Same for the charcteristics/properties of energy. If god is outside the boundary of our universe, he is no longer everywhere is he? by removing any of the properties of an object in this case god, it is no longer god.



Without artifacts and archeological finds, it is difficult to reconcile aliens being here. You would think we'd find their toothbrushes of bones etc. However the fact that the sumerians had information unattainable without advanced tech (like we have today, which may no be so advanced in the bigger scheme of things) or help from another alien race who had that knowledge, it becomes a very curious question how they came by the info, one that won't go away for some time. A visit from, seems more likely in the absence of artifacts; but, conjecture is my only ally in that postulation.

RE: God vs. Science

ooooooooh I would for 7 of 9

RE: God vs. Science

the Big man is really Bill Nye the science guy,so both are winning. I know, it's technical

RE: God vs. Science

I wish this was a real beer and real dube but hey it's the best I can do

RE: God vs. Science