YonyGursho
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2019
- Messages
- 264
There is a difference between one who seeks the truth, and one who labels themselves as a "truther" (myraid of problems associated with such). As CP so poignantly expressed earlier.
Your demand for "evidence to support such claims" is evident of this. Do you believe every 'truth' that exists is found in concrete factual evidence that you can point to? Can the totality of what you find to be true of existence be compounded and reduced to a single piece of evidence, or what you call "proof"? How do you define such "proof"? What parameters are used? Under what conditions are such "proofs" acceptable as verifiable truth? Are all "proofs" for the totality of all things that exist evident at this very exact point in time?
What I said earlier, it either resonates with you or it doesn't. You may not understand it now, 6 months from now, or even 5 years from the time of writing it. When you do, if ever, then what? When it finally does, will it then be a truth? However, for all those years it was a lie?
Do you have to have a series of books, endless amounts of data, and an entire panel of commentators to "verify" a truth? Do you need such to validate your own experiences?
A problem within these circles, like everything else, is the lack of balance that has a tendency to happen. You look at "conspiracies" until you end up with a conspiratorial mind. The information is one thing. How you process it is another subject entirely. It is the minds (complexity of such) involved with the subject matters. Not the subject matters themselves.
Your demand for "proof" from a simple observation pretty much explains this.
Well are you trying to say that proof for a claim can be found in anything other than concrete data/evidence?