Weah96:


Wait, I've been under the impression that the being instructed the so called scribes to write something down. Am I wrong? The being was the creator of the universe, allegedly, so I'm guessing that it considered every difficulty. Btw, the entire story makes ZERO sense. I was created by the being who also left a message for me with some of his other products?

The bible isn't perfect. The humans that wrote it are not perfect.

Imagine I shared a vision with you telepathically. I shared my vision with you about Buhari, the president of Nigeria, in a dream.

In that vision, you would see Buhari as a very short man. Why? Because I am tall. But Buhari is not short- you are only seeing something from my point of view.

God showed these men signs and wonders but their descriptions of these signs were not perfect. The bible gives a description of these signs and wonders. Have you ever wondered why the bible uses so much metaphors?

,

DeepSight:


Thumbs up. We are getting somewhere. But Plaetton and Wiegraff know this elementary fact Watson.

I agree with AllNaijaBlogger 100%, and I have said similar things many times before.

The important thing is that 99% of bible thumpers like Anony1 can never ever see the bible for what it is trying to tell us, no matter how many times or how many ways you prove it to them.

I also want to correct AllNaijaBlogger that the bible was talking about beings, not a being. That little ommision is the fraud of monotheistic religions.

I have little doubts about the story that these ancient sheep herders were trying to tell in their own language.
It is the re interpretation, the social engineering that forces the masses to look at reality away from the facts being presented by history, not just from the bible, but from many other historical texts and sources.

AllNaijaBlogger:



The bible isn't perfect. The humans that wrote it are not perfect.

Imagine I shared a vision with you telepathically. I shared my vision with you about Buhari, the president of Nigeria, in a dream.

In that vision, you would see Buhari as a very short man. Why? Because I am tall. But Buhari is not short- you are only seeing something from my point of view.

God showed these men signs and wonders but their descriptions of these signs were not perfect. The bible gives a description of these signs and wonders. Have you ever wondered why the bible uses so much metaphors?

,

AllNaijaBlogger,
You are heading in the right direction, but many many ways to go. You need to purge your mind of the falsehoods and frauds perpetuated by the yahweist.

There was no one God.
There is were many many Gods (or beings or whatever you choose to call them).

Yahweh was just one among about 600 or so of them present in the Earth at that time.
Yahweh was even a junior God in the Canaanite pantheon.

Even the ancient hebrews served and wirshipped other Gods. Its all there in the bible.

So the idea that Yahweh is the Creator of the universe is the biggest crock of Bullshyte ever served.
This where mankind has perpetually decieved.
This is where truth should start.

MrAnony1:

You are confusing many things my friend. Let me see if I can help you

1. The ultimate reality by definition is the absolute nature of all things i.e. things as they really are.

2. It may or may not be an alternate reality.

3. There is nothing is it's definition that suggests that it cannot be known with our senses.

The fallacy you are committing with your argument is petito principe. You have assumed that the ultimate reality has certain properties in order to argue that it has same assumed properties. Circular reasoning.

Properties like??

If you think it is easily perceivable how do you perceive it?

wiegraf:


Have i been promoted from 'moral slime' to 'soulless moral slime'? High praise indeed

That asides, look at this. I doubt even $hitte from an Ebola ward could be this perverse

You also seem to be admitting you've nothing but 'intuition' going on for you. This sounds mightily like some feeling to me...

So, is that all you have? Some feeling and some poetry? And you expect to be taken seriously?

Why aren't you a Muslim sef? Plenty feeling, poetry, appeals to emotion and - most importantly - unbridled, arrant nonsense in the Koran. You should feel at home there



And please stop pretending you've a decent counter to the toothfairy, FSM, Santa etc analogies we use. You've never once shown how the great cassava isn't analogous to the infinite finite oneness everythingness nothingnessess.

Once...


Why do you insist on believing in nonsense in order to accommodate this your need for 'spirituality'? There are many creeds and people that live 'spiritual' lives without the bs. Why do you need to add the toothfairy into the mix?

Lol.
My redeemer cometh.

Weah96:


Wait, I've been under the impression that the being instructed the so called scribes to write something down. Am I wrong? The being was the creator of the universe, allegedly, so I'm guessing that it considered every difficulty. Btw, the entire story makes ZERO sense. I was created by the being who also left a message for me with some of his other products?

Thank you for pointing out that contradiction.

What people don't seem to realise is that in ancient times, the art and skill of writing were considered a magical art, supposedly brought down and gifted by the Gods.
Every ancient text repeats this same legend about Gods teaching humans how to write and read a language.

Therefore, every literary work was said to be inspired and dedicated to one deity or another.
It is not surprising that The bible, as the work of ancient scribes trying to tell their story, their own Versions of the story , is also said to be inspired.

The fact is that every literary work is usually inspired by whatever the writer believes in.

Kay17:


Properties like??

Absolute imperceptibility

If you think it is easily perceivable how do you perceive it?

Don't try to shift your burden of proof. You are the one claiming that the true nature of things (ultimate reality) is necessarily imperceptible to us. How do you know this?

KingEbukasBlog:


creation is a process . WTH did you call creation "magic"

"Let there be light, and there was light " was a process ?

UyiIredia:


I don't listen to quantum physics mumbo-jumbo. The universe is no illusion.

@Deepsight

He also doesn't agree that there are 360 degrees in a circle.
He doesn't believe that the earth is 4.7 billion years. He believes 6000yrs is the right age of the earth.
He doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution.
He doesn't believe that the big bang occurred.

And yet,
He feels competent and at ease, and you hail him, to publicly pontificate on critical existential issues like the origin of life, the Genetic code and Consciousness .

Do you see your folly ?

MrAnony1:

Absolute imperceptibility

Because I have already justified with the limitation of our senses. But you don't seem satisfied solely because the dictionary meaning of ultimate reality does not include imperceptibility.

Don't try to shift your burden of proof. You are the one claiming that the true nature of things (ultimate reality) is necessarily imperceptible to us. How do you know this?

Haven't I tried?! Since you don't find my arguments convincing, you can as well prove otherwise.

plaetton:

@Deepsight

He also doesn't agree that there are 360 degrees in a circle.
He doesn't believe that the earth is 4.7 billion years. He believes 6000yrs is the right age of the earth.
He doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution.
He doesn't believe that the big bang occurred.

And yet,
He feels competent and at ease, and you hail him, to publicly pontificate on critical existential issues like the origin of life, the Genetic code and Consciousness .

Do you see your folly ?

About quantum physics mumbo jumbo.


Quantum physics deals with the behaviour of subatomic particles, the smallest conceivable particles in the universe, and of course, the building blocks of atoms.

It is these small particles that we have the greatest confidence of precise and accurate predictions of reality.

There is no doubts that quantum physics holds the keys to life and the universe.

Quantum mechanics is essential in exploring many of the important processes in life, especially consciousness, and may even underpin the very existence of life itself.

For example, very much and intriguing is that when plants capture sunlight, their cells are invaded by waves of photons that could be everywhere at the same time.

even our human senses, our consciousness are perpetually tuning in to strange vibrations of quantum dynamics.

A certain species of birds, the Robin, and perhaps all birds, utilizes a trick of science, a quark of quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, to navigate during their migrations.
Therefore, quantum mechanics, or quantum mumbo jumbo, are already embedded in the very core of life processes.

But then, of course, all this is mumbo jumbo , because , the toothfairy, sorry, god did it.


On The Genetic Code


DNA is not a code in the real sense of the word, talkless of being similar to a computer code.
DNA is called the genetic code because it is an archive of 4.7 billion years of evolutionary information, arranged in molecular(geometrical) sequences of protein molecules with biochemical doors and locks, passwords, activators and shutters. Hence ,the term code.
It is a chemical library of life information, accumulated for over 4 billion years. It is not a written code.
If it was a code, were mere codes, then all the errors contained within the DNA would have inevitably caused the entire sequence to crash and self-destruct, and of course, the cessation of life, all life , would have occurred way back in its nascent satges in the first few million years.

So, stop with this god the toothfairy code writing nonsense.

Sorry for responding late.

undercat:


Lucky me.



I'm assuming that there are things that can't be accounted for, mainly because assuming otherwise leads to the infamous infinite regress. As we demand for an account of existence we have to keep in mind that there might simply be no account. That being said, I don't know what accounts for the existence of the universe.

Okay. I have proposed God. Do you have any problems with it ?

undercat:

Being lawless entails permissibility, or a lack of prohibitions (I actually doubt that there is a tidy definition of randomness or lawlessness). Also, randomness implies unpredictability. If you know what to expect from a random universe, is it truly a random universe?

No, it isn't. And since we know what to expect from our universe it certainly isn't random.

undercat:

If codes are laws, then they are similar to the natural laws. What is the basis of distinguishing them from any other natural law?

Natural laws are about physical phenomena outside man's control. Codes are about how a given system represents another.

undercat:

Given that consciousness is strictly always found in material or physical things, it is preemptive to label it immaterial.

No. The fact that it's associated with physical things doesn't make it less immaterial. Matter has properties like mass and momentum, such properties can't be meaningfully applied to consciousness.

Sorry for not responding on time.

Kay17:


Regardless, the basic form of all codes is order. It is impossible to say that a code lacking order and coherence and then say it is a form of language.

I have doubts about this but I'll assume it's true. So what ? How does this refute my argument ?

Kay17:
The issue in contention is the cause of consciousness not just in humans.

What other examples do you have in mind aside from humans ?

MrAnony1:


Dear Uyi,

The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself. Interestingly what I have never heard are reason's to doubt God's existence. It is wearisome to argue with people who have no reasons for their positions but would rather argue for the sake of arguing and not for the sake of arriving at truth.

Many atheists have presented reasons to doubt God's existence, you can Google it. However, I agree it is truly wearisome to argue with atheists.

Kay17:

Because I have already justified with the limitation of our senses. But you don't seem satisfied solely because the dictionary meaning of ultimate reality does not include imperceptibility.

I see. So you insist on using a wrong definition of the term.

Haven't I tried?! Since you don't find my arguments convincing, you can as well prove otherwise.

No you haven't tried. I have nothing to prove. I have already done the best I can for you which is to point you to the correct meaning of the terms. If you insist on defining it wrongly and then expecting me to "disprove" your wrong definition then I really can't help you.

You are welcome to have the last word.

UyiIredia:


Many atheists have presented reasons to doubt God's existence

Valid reasons?

MrAnony1:

Valid reasons?

No. But I do find some of their arguments convincing. The arguments against God's benevolence and the arguments against Pascal's wager are examples.

MrAnony1:

I see. So you insist on using a wrong definition of the term.



No you haven't tried. I have nothing to prove. I have already done the best I can for you which is to point you to the correct meaning of the terms. If you insist on defining it wrongly and then expecting me to "disprove" your wrong definition then I really can't help you.

You are welcome to have the last word.

OO.KK I agree.

Back to the original question, how is God perceived?

plaetton:
@ Deepsight.

It's time to take a much closer look at the op. Time to deconstruct this rubbish, and sanction you for ever supporting this type of intellectual mediocrity.

I see.

plaetton:
Please dwell on this carefully.

Demands an Explanation or demands an Investigation ?

This is a trivial point. Whether it's to be explained or investigated the important thing is that the universe's existence must be accounted for.

plaetton:
An Explanation can be in the form of an ignorant statement, deliberate falsehood, legend or superstition, fantasy or half-truths.

The same applies to investigations, slowpoke.

plaetton:
Yes, so Uyi's Explanation can come from any of the above-mentioned.
Infact, Uyi's explanation comes from all of the above.


I would like to remind Uyi that ancient people Demanded an Explanation [/b]for thunder, lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes,floods and disease epidemics. Their priests did indeed give them the [b]Demanded Explanations. It was Angry gods. imagine how many million babies may have been sacrificed because ancient people, just like Uyi here, Demanded an Explanation.

This is why we are here arguing about his Explanations.

And scientists don't seek for explanations, right ?

plaetton:
An investigation, on the other hand, is different. Investigation involves asking questions and seeking facts and truths. An investigation is far more tedious and time consuming than throwing up quick explanations.

Your pathetic attempt at deriding 'explanations' for 'investigations' would be amusing if not for how stupid it is.

plaetton:
So, obviously, Uyi, Deepsight and co and I are very different in the manner in which we approach existential issues . They prefer ready-made answers, legends and superstitions, fantasies,etc, while I prefer the long tedious road to facts.

Many explanations also involve facts.

plaetton:
This is Meaningless either due to bad grammar or just ignorance.
But, I will try to deconstruct it.

First, there is only one universe that we know for sure. There is no non-physical universe. To use the term physical universe would imply that there is a known non-physical universe. A non-physical universe is purely speculative.
The universe operates on mathematical laws. Simple.
For example,
Speed = Distance/Time is an expression a mathematical law. The universe expresses or speaks the laws of mathematics .

No one mentioned a non-physical universe. I don't believe in such.

plaetton:
To infer than an extraneous intelligence manufactured this equation in this universe is childish and silly, because, first you must show an alternate universe where this law does not apply.

Looking at this, we can see that once again, Uyi and his gang, in demand of an explanation, simply cooked up a phantom intelligence to give them their much needed explanation.

You totally bypass the thrust of my argument which is based on the fact of order in the universe, despite (if I may add) a tendency towards chaos.

plaetton:
Here we go again.
Another assemblage of ignorant and false statements.

You mean the one you spew out.

plaetton:
First, I would like to ask UYI and Deepsight if the words Code, Law, Arrangement all mean the same or have different meanings.

They have different meanings.

plaetton:
For example, is a natural Law a code?
Are patterned arrangements codes ?
Are mathematical equations codes ?

No.

plaetton:
Speed = distance /time a code, a law ?

No.

plaetton:
The reason I ask is that natural processes are patterned in tandem with the natural laws being expressed .
The genetic code does not violate any natural laws. Therefore, we can say that the genetic code, just like every other patterned processes in nature is an expression of natural laws, using , of course, the language of mathematics.

You misunderstand. Consider part of the genetic code. GGG, for example, codes for the peptide glycine. That means GGG represents the chemical glycine. No natural process transforms the triple guanines into glycine. And no natural law can explain why processes in the cell use three guanines to represent and make glycine.

plaetton:
Therefore, to infer , as before, that the genetic code DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY is very very silly.
What makes this op soo sad is that we have known how the genetic arose for nearly a century now. Is the op stuck in a time loop?

Actually, that problem has not been solved. There are only hypotheses. If it is known how genetic codes arose as you claim please provide the evidence.

plaetton:
As humans ?
If by humans, you are referring to stone-age humans, then I agree. But not me.

What humans and all other animals do is pattern recognition. Infact, many animals do it much more better than humans.

Not just pattern recognition but encoding and decoding.

plaetton:
what you meant to say is that it takes a conscious effort to recognize patterns and codes in nature.
Since we are products of the very same nature, we too are able to make patterns, the very same patterns that we recognize in nature.

So, once again, pattern recognition and creation is not a good enough reason to infer a magic toothfairy, sorry, god.

Don't confuse patterns with codes please.

plaetton:
Read this link.
https://www.nairaland.com/2152446/much-ado-human-intelligence-rat

I won't waste my time on it, even if I had time to kill. Your threads are that asinine.

plaetton:
My first question is : Is consciousness in man unique or different from consciousness in animals ?

It is unique.

plaetton:
Second question is : Is the consciousness of a cockroach different from the consciousness of man ?

Definitely. I doubt cockroaches and other insects are even conscious.

plaetton:
If yes, then, do you think that the difference might have something to do with the size of the brain, the neural networks , brain chemistry or environmental adaptability ?

I think the neural networks are the crucial factor in play.

plaetton:
If the answer is yes to the last question, then BINGO!
Daahhhhh !
Then consciousness corrolates ,and is explainable by materialistic means.

Again you miss the point. No one misses the fact that brains are crucial to consciousness. It is the fact that consciousness isn't a property of matter and the distinction between what the brain does and consciouness that begs the question of how it is effected in the brain. By the way, there are still things about consciousness that are unknown.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience

plaetton:
Lol.

Pls Uyi, Deepsight and Anony1 should read this statement over and over again to see what is wrong with this statement.

Let me help out.

The above argument is a perfect argument for evolution. LOL.

SMH.

plaetton:
Evolution doesn't deal with emergence. Creationism does.
Evolution is about slow complex interactive processes that take a long time to take root, grow and mature.

Consciousness could not have instantaneously emerged from creation because consciousness requires interactive information, instincts honed and perfected over eons and eons of time .
You see?

Doesn't information always require intelligence ?

plaetton:
Physical things lack consciousness ?
Are you serious ?

This is you at your most dumb. Water, sand, corpses, rocks, air, stones etc. are physical and they aren't conscious.

plaetton:
I guess you and Deep Sigh are either non-physical or that you both lack consciousness ?
That might explain a lot.



Obviously, all these falshoods and half-baked crap can give anyone any number of grounds to believe in the Toothfairy that affects consciousness. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE HERE.
Self-massage is what this op is all about.

Well , since you desperately demand an explanation for the mysteries of existence, I give you the toothfairy .

God and the toothfairy, give 4 ways that they are different.

More plaettonic mumbo-jumbo.

^^^
Lol.

You have to understand that apart from having to flog you for bad thinking patterns, I also want you to learn and grow.
You Won't do that by getting a pat on the back from Depardo, the master Chef of wordsalads.

UyiIredia:
Sorry for responding late.

Okay. I have proposed God. Do you have any problems with it ?

That's okay. Man must wack.

I find it extraneous. What is it needed for? I see it as a mere transfer of inexplicability.

No, it isn't. And since we know what to expect from our universe it certainly isn't random.

True. The problem is that you also know what to expect from the universe you regard as random. It's just the degree of predictability that differs. For example, you expect a "random" universe to continue existing, which implies a certain stability or order in its fundamental laws.

Natural laws are about physical phenomena outside man's control. Codes are about how a given system represents another.

The laws themselves are not physical. Also, what genetic codes do are outside our control. Are you giving codes a special status because you say they are about how systems represent other systems?

No. The fact that it's associated with physical things doesn't make it less immaterial. Matter has properties like mass and momentum, such properties can't be meaningfully applied to consciousness.

You can not identify the mass or momentum of the force gravity this minute, if asked. Besides, physical laws would also fit your definition of immaterial. That hasn't stopped people from coming up with theories involving them. You need a better basis for your objection to a theory of consciousness.

Kay17:


OO.KK I agree.

Back to the original question, how is God perceived?

The same way reality is perceived. Uyi provides some good examples in his OP

MrAnony1:

The same way reality is perceived. Uyi provides some good examples in his OP

Hence you can subject God to be proven by empirical evidence?!

Kay17:


Hence you can subject God to be proven by empirical evidence?!

Can everything in reality be proven by empirical evidence?

MrAnony1:

Can everything in reality be proven by empirical evidence?

If detectable by our senses, yes.

Kay17:
If detectable by our senses, yes.

Not necessarily, the material/physical is not the only aspect of reality that exists and hence sticking to strict empiricism (i.e. trusting only your five physical senses) doesn't give you a wholesome understanding of reality.

For instance, I know that your mind exists in reality not because I have empirically tested it with any of my 5 senses but because I have made logical deductions.

....Or is it the case that your mind does not really exist?

MrAnony1:

Not necessarily, the material/physical is not the only aspect of reality that exists and hence sticking to strict empiricism (i.e. trusting only your five physical senses) doesn't give you a wholesome understanding of reality.

For instance, I know that your mind exists in reality not because I have empirically tested it with any of my 5 senses but because I have made logical deductions.

....Or is it the case that your mind does not really exist?

Deductions from what premise?! So you think God is beyond the five and associated senses of the human, right?!

Kay17:


Deductions from what premise?!

The premise is that information such as is the category in which your very question falls is produced by a mind

So you think God is beyond the five and associated senses of the human, right?!

I didn't say that, rather I said that reality is not limited to what you can detect with your five physical senses. Do you agree or do you disagree?

And I asked you a question which you have tried to dodge away from i.e. Seeing that you cannot detect your mind with any of your five physical senses. Is your mind real?

Please answer my question. Thank you.

MrAnony1:

The premise is that information such as is the category in which your very question falls is produced by a mind


I didn't say that, rather I said that reality is not limited to what you can detect with your five physical senses. Do you agree or do you disagree?

And I asked you a question which you have tried to dodge away from i.e. Seeing that you cannot detect your mind with any of your five physical senses. Is your mind real?

Please answer my question. Thank you.

Mranony,

Right now, I am very eager to see how you intend to establish God's existence which to you, is as obvious as reality. In your endeavor in doing so, you have talked about making logical deductions from unnamed premises in order to prove the mind and God. Now I ask what are these premises?! The premises cannot be information from the mind, the mind you are trying to prove with the deductions!

In respect to the five senses which all (most) of humanity has, I have already stated my position. The senses are limited to our reality and they are not conclusive of what reality holds for us. I mentioned an ultimate reality which is possible and can be beyond our senses. Since humans are capable of introspection, we can find a rational capacity within ourselves. Is that a mind? Maybe. Does that exist in other humans? I can assume so because of my empathetic capacity. Just the same way, I assume a beggar or a wounded person is in pain, a pain I can not but due to empathy, I can imagine it.

Kay17:

Mranony,

Right now, I am very eager to see how you intend to establish God's existence which to you, is as obvious as reality.

I am not trying to "establish" God's existence. My claim is that God is as obvious as reality. However, reality is something which you don't seem to properly understand what it means and I am trying to help you grasp it (though it seems that you don't even want to grasp it either).

In your endeavor in doing so, you have talked about making logical deductions from unnamed premises in order to prove the mind and God. Now I ask what are these premises?! The premises cannot be information from the mind, the mind you are trying to prove with the deductions!

Unnamed premises you say? I thought I clearly stated the premise. Anyway, if you know of any other thing that is capable of authoring information apart from a mind, you are more than welcome to share.

In respect to the five senses which all (most) of humanity has, I have already stated my position. The senses are limited to our reality and they are not conclusive of what reality holds for us. I mentioned an ultimate reality which is possible and can be beyond our senses. Since humans are capable of introspection, we can find a rational capacity within ourselves. Is that a mind? Maybe. Does that exist in other humans? I can assume so because of my empathetic capacity. Just the same way, I assume a beggar or a wounded person is in pain, a pain I can not but due to empathy, I can imagine it.

I asked you if your mind is real but judging from this your long-winded answer, it appears that you don't even know if you have a mind or not.

Lady, I have had this sort of conversations with you for so long so I can tell when dishonesty comes in. The reason you are reluctant to answer is because you want to define reality as subject to the five senses and then proceed to claim that God is outside the detection of the five senses and therefore cannot be said to be obviously real.

It was for this reason that you tried so hard to argue that the ultimate reality is an alternate undetectable reality even after you had been clearly shown that that is not how it is defined. Knowing the truth you insisted on arguing for a lie.

My presentation of your mind (and I know you have a mind because you are reading and comprehending this message) to you makes it difficult for you to define reality based only on what can be tested by your five physical senses because you have no way of testing your mind with your five senses and yet you cannot deny its reality because to do so would be to deny your own very existence. Once again knowing the truth, you choose not to readily embrace it.

There was a time in the past when I would have been happy to entertain these sorts of pussyfooting around in prolonged dances of wit but these days I have less time and as a result, less patience.

So my friend, since you will not answer whether or not something as obvious to you as your mind is real, I too will not continue to engage you.

Good night madam.

I don't see the point of trying to guess the intentions of another poster and then attempt to castigate and in turn derail the thread. Please try to avoid that imputing false intentions on other posters, it is provocative.

MrAnony1:

I am not trying to "establish" God's existence. My claim is that God is as obvious as reality. However, reality is something which you don't seem to properly understand what it means and I am trying to help you grasp it (though it seems that you don't even want to grasp it either).

Both arguments arrive at the same destination. As soon as you show how obvious God is to reality, you have more or less proven his existence.

Unnamed premises you say? I thought I clearly stated the premise. Anyway, if you know of any other thing that is capable of authoring information apart from a mind, you are more than welcome to share.

Is the premise "all information is from a mind"?

Lady, I have had this sort of conversations with you for so long so I can tell when dishonesty comes in. The reason you are reluctant to answer is because you want to define reality as subject to the five senses and then proceed to claim that God is outside the detection of the five senses and therefore cannot be said to be obviously real.

Couldn't God as well reside in the ultimate reality and still be real?!!

It was for this reason that you tried so hard to argue that the ultimate reality is an alternate undetectable reality even after you had been clearly shown that that is not how it is defined. Knowing the truth you insisted on arguing for a lie.

My presentation of your mind (and I know you have a mind because you are reading and comprehending this message) to you makes it difficult for you to define reality based only on what can be tested by your five physical senses because you have no way of testing your mind with your five senses and yet you cannot deny its reality because to do so would be to deny your own very existence. Once again knowing the truth, you choose not to readily embrace it.

Within the meaning herein https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mind, yes I do.

Looks like the usual suspects are back in full force.