What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast
Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread. . . .

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

Glenn, my sincere apologies . . . I actually read more of other people's posts, and focused more on the one of yours I quoted because it was addressing empirical issues. After going back and carefully reading your posts, I see I was careless in chosing your last post to represent the materialist position.

That last paragraph of mine definitely was NOT directed at you, but rather was a frustration I have accumulated from debating with materialists here (I think had over 500 posts at the old site, and most of them were long posts too). Yet I would add I don't believe what I said was an ad hominem argument because it is an accurate description of what has gone on.

Just to be clear, I think science is awesome, and does a wonderful job revealing the nature of the physical world. I also do not think science will ever prove or disprove whether or not there is a God, or soul or anything spiritual. They are two distinct realms, each with its own avenues for knowing.

 

[radagast]

Hi Les,
I wasn't offended by your post. I've made the same type of error, I guess we all have.

Our views on science seem to be quite similar.

I shouldn't have used the ad-hominem phrase. I took your general statements personally. I guess I was getting a little frustrated and fatigued at Iacchus's 'debating' tactics. I consider ceasing all debate with a person, my action of last resort. As such, I go to some extremes to give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess I took much too long to pull that plug. I shouldn't have taken it out on you. My apologies.

 

[Royce]

Les, my friend, I am surprised to read that even you are losing patients with the objective materialist's arguements. You the epitome of logical reasoning. I am crushed. My idol has feet of clay. Mr Spock is somewhere sadly shaking his head! Oh well, it proves that you too are only human. I had thought that it was only me with my shortcomings who was losing patients.

radagast, Glenn, is a friend of open mind and logical reasoning too.
I find it amusing that we three, as well as others, all setting on or on opposite sides of the fence, feel the same frustration.

There must be some way that we can keep from mixing up science and meta-physics while we discuss both and yet find a common ground for both. I know you and I as well as M.Gaspar and Iacchus32 as well as other do not see any real conflict between science and religion or better meta-physics. The conflict come from mixing apples and organge and both 'sides' including myself are guilty of that.

My point, other than chatting with friends, to continue the metaphor, is that, while yes, it is apples and oranges, both are fruit. Even if we keep them in separate baskets they both reside in the same fruit stand along with still other friuits. This universe, as well as we humans, is truly a fruit salad containg and ample supply of nuts also just to make it even better.

 

[Zero]

The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

 

[Iacchus32]

Rational Thought

In order to believe, it has to be plausible. And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's science, religion or whatever. And if I can't bring any plausibility to my case, then I have no business stating anything on this forum.

By the way, how can you possibly get anybody to believe in anything, without speaking about it first?

And yet if you can't speak about it, because science can't/won't conceive of it, then there's not much point in thinking about it now is there? What? An idea is not considered rational unless science says it is rational? Hmm ... this seems to be the problem right here. And indeed this is how it feels!

Therefore if I can't think about it, using the exact same process science uses to conduct its analysis -- "through rational thought" -- then what's the point in attempting to know anything?

Seems like a great way to discourage people from practicing religion, especially when the only way you can truly understand it, is by thinking about it "rationally."

Of course science seems to have its own idea about religious thinking, that it is anything but rational and yet, what if it were possible? Hmm ... we might even be able to present a case now wouldn't we?

 

[Zero]

When all else fails, pull out the 'science suppresses religion' card? All we're asking for is evidence, and since you don't have any, why can't you admit it?

 

[Royce]

Iacchus32, I have tried both rational and natural approches in threade here and the religion forum. Didn't work and got little response.
I was told long age to never discuss religion or politicts as it led to nothing but arguments, rising tempers and frustration. Seems my Dad was right again.
I am constantly amazed at how successful people can be at ignoring the obvious and seeing what only they choose to see. This of course includes us.
Surely there is a common ground where both science and meta-physics can be discussed rationally and logically without conflict or rising tempers and frustration.
This is what I get for being a bit of an idealist I guess.

Zero. one man,s poison is another man,s necter. Intentionally or not you have just admitted that you are seeing illusions. There may be hope for you yet. It is said that seeing is believing.

 

[Zero]

Whatever, Royce...go back to listening to the voices in your head, ok?

There is no such thing as meta-anything. Either it is real, or it isn't. Show me the evidence, and I'll accept anything as provisionally true. Without any evidence, don't expect me to take an idea seriously.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Whatever, Royce...go back to listening to the voices in your head, ok?

There is no such thing as meta-anything. Either it is real, or it isn't. Show me the evidence, and I'll accept anything as provisionally true. Without any evidence, don't expect me to take an idea seriously.

And yet until we invented the microscope, there's no way we could have foretold such a "meta-thing" as people being created by "two germs" getting together.

So maybe it's just a matter of developing a better way to look at it?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055 ...

Simple experience would have told Igorant Ug the Caveman that going outside during an electrical storm would increase his chances of being struck by lightning, even if he thought it came from the big bad Storm God. People tens of millennia back weren't stupid, just ignorant. Thus for thousands of years before anything was known about electrons and valences and such, people used tghe noble metals as coins.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Simple experience would have told Igorant Ug the Caveman that going outside during an electrical storm would increase his chances of being struck by lightning, even if he thought it came from the big bad Storm God. People tens of millennia back weren't stupid, just ignorant. Thus for thousands of years before anything was known about electrons and valences and such, people used tghe noble metals as coins.

Even so, just because a person believes in a power greater than onself, does not make a person ignorant, unless you can prove otherwise. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? And what if I were to suggest there was a means by which to prove it to yourself?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet until we invented the microscope, there's no way we could have foretold such a "meta-thing" as people being created by "two germs" getting together.

So maybe it's just a matter of developing a better way to look at it?

Until you determine that "better way", we are justified as disregarding what you have to say on teh subject(from a rational standpoint)

It is like ESP: as soon as someone can show a laboratory effect that matches teh claims, I will be behind it 100%. Until then, I am fully justified in my lack of belief.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Until you determine that "better way", we are justified as disregarding what you have to say on teh subject(from a rational standpoint)

It is like ESP: as soon as someone can show a laboratory effect that matches teh claims, I will be behind it 100%. Until then, I am fully justified in my lack of belief.

Ignorance is no excuse for the law. Isn't that what they say? ...

Actually I'm not sure how much it really matters anyway, just so long as we learn the lessons of life and try to remain reasonable as human beings. I don't think the guy upstairs -- "if He exists" -- expects any more than that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

Odd. Only opinions that agree with you are well-supported, huh?
Try again bub, your own bias is showing.

First, prove conclusively that Buddha or Jesus existed. Then, PROVE that the reported experiences are historically accurate, and not hyped-up myth created after the fact. Then, you are still stuck with the burden of proving that their experiences really happened.
I've done plenty of research, most of which points to probable historical existence, but no confirmation proving anything supernatural in nature.

 

[Iacchus32]

How do you know that God exists? Through cause and effect. It's just like anything else, it's all a matter of understanding how it works.

Now why should it be more difficult than that?


From the thread, The search for truth ...

Truth is just "awareness" that comes about through consciousness. Even scientific discoveries don't become truths, unless someone has been made "aware" of them.

The truth is of "the moment" ... and now I ask is that we all meditate.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How do you know that God exists? Through cause and effect. It's just like anything else, it's all a matter of understanding how it works.

Now why should it be more difficult than that?

What has cause to do with the issue of God?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What has cause to do with the issue of God?

I think what you mean is what "doesn't" it have to do with the issue of God?

Which is all I'm saying, that if you can't understand God from the standpoint of cause and effect, then you "can't" understand God. It would be impossible.

Granted it might require you to look at how it affects you "interiorly," but it still boils down to cause and effect.

 

[Zero]

What do you mean SPECIFICALLY by cause and effect?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think what you mean is what "doesn't" it have to do with the issue of God?

Which is all I'm saying, that if you can't understand God from the standpoint of cause and effect, then you "can't" understand God. It would be impossible.

Granted it might require you to look at how it affects you "interiorly," but it still boils down to cause and effect.

God has nothing to do with "cause" and "effect" cause God is just a concept of the mind.

But to explain causality, it is obvious that it means that all events exists as causes and effects simultaniously, only not in the same causal relationship. This means that there is no 'primal' cause, because it would also be a 'primal effect' which also has a cause.
That therefore means that there is no begin of causality.

And thus, no need for God either, to give the 'first push'.

Got it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What do you mean SPECIFICALLY by cause and effect?

I think it's a lot like establishing a relationship with someone, where to the extent that you begin to understand who they are, on a "personal level," then you can begin to anticipate what's going to happen next in the relationship.

The only difference here is that I'm speaking of a personal relationship with yourself, where you become familiar with the processes going on within yourself -- be it thought patterns, emotions, etc. -- and begin to establish a raport with this sense of "inner-awareness."

It isn't really altogether different than understanding yourself on a psychological level, except the experience I'm referring to here is a little more "personalized" in nature.

 

[Zero]

I am HUGELY self-aware...what does that have to do with the existence of gods?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I am HUGELY self-aware...what does that have to do with the existence of gods?

Do you mean like from the standpoint of being detached, as if you were just an observer? Or, would it be more a matter of being "self-engrossed?"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean like from the standpoint of being detached, as if you were just an observer? Or, would it be more a matter of being "self-engrossed?"

Neither.(nice dig, btw)

I know what is going on within my body and my brain pretty well. I understand what I am thinking and feeling, and the rational reasons for it. Again, what would any of that have to do with gods?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
God has nothing to do with "cause" and "effect" cause God is just a concept of the mind.

And if He wasn't just a concept?

But to explain causality, it is obvious that it means that all events exists as causes and effects simultaniously, only not in the same causal relationship. This means that there is no 'primal' cause, because it would also be a 'primal effect' which also has a cause.
That therefore means that there is no begin of causality.

And thus, no need for God either, to give the 'first push'.

Got it?

And yet what if God were the cause (existence itself) of which everything else is the effect? (the continuance of existence). In which case I think it would suffice to say that God just "IS."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And if He wasn't just a concept?


And yet what if God were the cause (existence itself) of which everything else is the effect? (the continuance of existence).

What if I am the god of all the universe, and everything is secretly made of cheese(gouda, most likely...nummy!)? Asking a 'what if' question is fine...but simply presupposing an answer because of the existence of the question is not.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What if I am the god of all the universe, and everything is secretly made of cheese(gouda, most likely...nummy!)? Asking a 'what if' question is fine...but simply presupposing an answer because of the existence of the question is not.

Huh? ... And yet everything has a beginning and all I'm suggesting is that could be God.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Huh? ... And yet everything has a beginning and all I'm suggesting is that could be God.

Well, first off, we don't know that there was a begining, and secondly, you can insert whatever word you like into there, and it means exactly the same thing. You are looking, and seem to have decided on, a final answer. You don't really have any reason to, though, do you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, first off, we don't know that there was a begining, and secondly, you can insert whatever word you like into there, and it means exactly the same thing.

Except that if we refer to God, we would have to assume that He was here all along. That kind of answers heusdens' question in both respects now doesn't it?

You are looking, and seem to have decided on, a final answer. You don't really have any reason to, though, do you?

And what would your final answer be? Or, are you saying a final answer doesn't exist? Ha!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that if we refer to God, we would have to assume that He was here all along. That kind of answers heusdens' question in both respects now doesn't it?

And what would your final answer be? Or, are you saying a final answer doesn't exist? Ha!

If you refer to me as a god, it gives you exactly the same answer, doesn't it?

And, as far as a final answer, well...you don't know any more than anyone else, do you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Neither.(nice dig, btw)

Actually for myself, like I think it is with most people, it's somewhere in the middle.

I know what is going on within my body and my brain pretty well. I understand what I am thinking and feeling, and the rational reasons for it. Again, what would any of that have to do with gods?

If you understood that the "you" you think you are is not just you, that it's a make up of "psychological forces" which enact upon experience, then you may begin to discover the nature (origin) of these forces and how they interact with consciousness.

Have we really dived into the depths of the psyche? ... If we were to look at the work of Jung, who was more "spiritually inclined," I would say yes.

 

[Zero]

I think you are going too far-afield. None of this has to do with the existence of supernatural entities.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
If you refer to me as a god, it gives you exactly the same answer, doesn't it?

Except most people by default, would assume you weren't.

And, as far as a final answer, well...you don't know any more than anyone else, do you?

I know a lot of things other than this. Are you suggesting I don't know anything?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I think you are going too far-afield. None of this has to do with the existence of supernatural entities.

Except that if they do exist -- "as spirits" -- how else would they interact with us? ... except perhaps through our "subconscious."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that if they do exist -- "as spirits" -- how else would they interact with us? ... except perhaps through our "subconscious."

Then they would cause measurable physical changes, that could be measured. In fact, why don't you call that your homework? Go measure the spirits, and get back to us?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Then they would cause measurable physical changes, that could be measured.

Either that or they got us pretty well fooled into believing they don't exist. Of course that doesn't include all of us now does it?

In fact, why don't you call that your homework? Go measure the spirits, and get back to us?

One way of "measuring it" would be to examine the effects it has on the mentally ill -- i.e., before they get pumped full of drugs. In fact I know of at least one clinical study which has done just this, where the clinical psychologist who conducted it had no difficulty drawing these conclusions. Or, at least he was inclined to "speculate" that such was the case. What else could you expect him to say without flat out agreeing with it?

There's a booklet called, "The Presence of Spirits in Madness," by Wilson Van Dusen which, if it's still available (try the http://www.swedenborg.com/), you can probably get for about a buck. Van Dusen wrote this as the Chief Psychologist at Mendocino State Hospital in California where he worked among the mentally ill for 17 years.

 

[Zero]

So demons cause mental illness? Thanks, for taking science back 1000 years.

You really do hate reality, don't you?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
So demons cause mental illness? Thanks, for taking science back 1000 years.

You really do hate reality, don't you?

Ahh I see Zero is back in the philosophy forum. Haven't seen you around much. Still bitter at religion, as usual, I see

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ahh I see Zero is back in the philosophy forum. Haven't seen you around much. Still bitter at religion, as usual, I see

Not in the least bit...plenty frightened of believers, though. You folks can justify anything with your big black books.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Not in the least bit...plenty frightened of believers, though. You folks can justify anything with your big black books.

Lol, "you" folks. You still think anyone who disagrees with you is lumped into the black category eh? And everyone else is in the white. How simple the world must be to you. Anything I justify will be based on reason btw. Also I haven't disagree with anything you've said lol.

All I was saying is that I see you're apparent agenda hasn't changed. I never see you contibute on any deep thread until someone throws "god" in the title and then here you come. The obvious animosity that you have for people who disagree with you on this topic is what makes me think of bitterness. I've heard what you've claimed in the past. But I still think someone made you go to vacation bible school when you were young and you recent it . Sorry about that. But stop taking it out on these poor folks!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol, "you" folks. You still think anyone who disagrees with you is lumped into the black category eh? And everyone else is in the white. How simple the world must be to you. Anything I justify will be based on reason btw. Also I haven't disagree with anything you've said lol.

All I was saying is that I see you're apparent agenda hasn't changed. I never see you contibute on any deep thread until someone throws "god" in the title and then here you come. The obvious animosity that you have for people who disagree with you on this topic is what makes me think of bitterness. I've heard what you've claimed in the past. But I still think someone made you go to vacation bible school when you were young and you recent it . Sorry about that. But stop taking it out on these poor folks!

LOL
I've been an atheist since I was 6. Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with that crowd. And, of course, it IS true that people who rely on faith instead of reason can support any position they choose to, no matter how little logic supports it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL
I've been an atheist since I was 6. Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with that crowd. And, of course, it IS true that people who rely on faith instead of reason can support any position they choose to, no matter how little logic supports it.

Yet only the afterlife will tell. And even then there are still those who will deny it. This is why there's hell ...

Don't mind me, I'm just a poet.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yet only the afterlife will tell. And even then there are still those who will deny it. This is why there's hell ...

Don't mind me, I'm just a poet.

UGH...more assumptions!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL
I've been an atheist since I was 6. Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with that crowd. And, of course, it IS true that people who rely on faith instead of reason can support any position they choose to, no matter how little logic supports it.

Whether it is true that they can support anything without logic or not has nothing to do with me. And also, I don't have a problem being "lumped" in with anyone. Just use reason to justify the lumping. That's all I asks.

And I would say that the word "atheist" is not the word to describe you. You believe that there isn't a god, right? I could be wrong but after so many hundreds of posts accusing people of making up fairy tales I assume this is what you believe. If so then is atheist the right word?

Also, I have found that people who developed an opinion on any topic as a child and then never change it tend to have more closed-minded views than those that have changed their minds as an adult. I wouldn't trust a 6 year old to decide the truth of the universe. Lol.

 

[Zantra]

I see stones being thrown on both sides here- I stil see the bible thumpers saying those who don't believe are going to hell. I've been told that since I was a child- and it sounds like threatening the more I learn and the older I get. Religion and Science will never reconcile, and that is a fact.

I used to believe in God- But then I also believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too. But then maybe they're up in heaven with God already

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zantra
I see stones being thrown on both sides here- I stil see the bible thumpers saying those who don't believe are going to hell. I've been told that since I was a child- and it sounds like threatening the more I learn and the older I get. Religion and Science will never reconcile, and that is a fact.

I used to believe in God- But then I also believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too. But then maybe they're up in heaven with God already

It is a shame this forum is so shallow.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Fliption
It is a shame this forum is so shallow.

Hardly shallow- I've given the subject of God much thought over the years. And I started out as one of you-religious that is. And I cannot reconcile God in the face of all logic- it just doesn't make sense. Yes sometimes there's a part of me that would love to believe that someone's up there looking out for me. Maybe the same space that would like to believe in things like "destiny" and "fate". But the reality of it is that we have to look inward for salvation, not upward. True Salvation lies within ourselves, and we are the masters of our own destinies. To believe otherwise, is to accept that we have no conttrol over anything, and I can never ever accept that. I could easily seguway into determinism, but I won't.

Anyhow, I'm comfortable in my belief, and I don't have to "fear" going to hell, or leading my life according to the dictations of other's interpetations of some book. As someone once said to me, I am where I am, because that's where I'm supposed to be. Nothing more, nothing less. And I do find peace and comfort in that fact. Because instead of looking upward when life throws a curveball, I look inward and know that if something's going to change, it's up to me, not God or anyone else.

And that's that

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
One way of "measuring it" would be to examine the effects it has on the mentally ill -- i.e., before they get pumped full of drugs. In fact I know of at least one clinical study which has done just this, where the clinical psychologist who conducted it had no difficulty drawing these conclusions. Or, at least he was inclined to "speculate" that such was the case. What else could you expect him to say without flat out agreeing with it?

There's a booklet called, "The Presence of Spirits in Madness," by Wilson Van Dusen which, if it's still available (try the http://www.swedenborg.com/), you can probably get for about a buck. Van Dusen wrote this as the Chief Psychologist at Mendocino State Hospital in California where he worked among the mentally ill for 17 years.

So here we have the possibility of clinical evidence, and no one so much as bats an eyelash! Okay ...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Whether it is true that they can support anything without logic or not has nothing to do with me. And also, I don't have a problem being "lumped" in with anyone. Just use reason to justify the lumping. That's all I asks.

And I would say that the word "atheist" is not the word to describe you. You believe that there isn't a god, right? I could be wrong but after so many hundreds of posts accusing people of making up fairy tales I assume this is what you believe. If so then is atheist the right word?

Also, I have found that people who developed an opinion on any topic as a child and then never change it tend to have more closed-minded views than those that have changed their minds as an adult. I wouldn't trust a 6 year old to decide the truth of the universe. Lol.

Good call, accusing me of close-mindedness. How open minded are you, to the fact...FACT!...that there is no evidence for any sorts of gods, spirits, ghosts, UFOs, etc. It takes a special kind of closed mind to ignore the facts.

Oh, and it is funny how people won't trust people whon use reason, but will trust a fairy tale about talking animals and shrubbery.

 

[Royce]

Zero, I have used reason and logic to support my conviction that God exists and created the universe though not in the way shown in the christiasn Bible, Genisis. There is in my mind literally and figuretively mountains of evidence that this is so. None of this evidence is what you would accept as scientific or matialistic. Some of it is but you nor others of your mind set would accept it as such.

There is alway an alternative way to explain anything and everything including religious or spiritual phenomena or physical scientific phenomena. Who can honestly say which way is the right way. We all have at best opinions and beliefs which may or not be supported by evidence which may or not be real or relevant.

While I see no conflict between science and my spiritual or religous beliefs I see no way to reconsile the to that is acceptable by most much less all of us. There will always be the question of First Cause whether religious or scientific. There will always be the question of objectivity vs aubjectivity and physical vs meta-physical.

It is very easy to say that only the physical exist and the met-physical or subjective does not exist in reality. It only exists in our mind/brains. Is not that a contradiction? It either exists or it doesn't exist. It is either real or it is not real. The fact that something exists in our minds only does not mean that it is not real and can not have any effect or influence on the real physical world. Choose in your mind to move your real physical finger. Have a purely mental intention, idea, thought to move your finger.

It can and does move if you let it or make it move. This is the subjective realm of the mind influencing and effecting the objective physical world. It is as simple and natural and easy and everyday as that. It is so natural that we never think of it as such. It is irrefutable physical evidence the the subjective mental world of pure thought can and does exist and has an effect of the physical objective material world of science. From this simple obvious proof anything is possible and can follow whether you or I or anyone else chooses to believe it or not.