The sheep challenge

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:48 am

Bruv;1452461 wrote: ...............................Im out of here.

A wise man among us idiots.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:58 am

High Threshold;1452479 wrote: Let me reiterate something that I have stated time and time again .... albeit in a down-to-earth, layman's analogy - You can repeat your belief that the world is flat but until you offer some proof of it then you are talking nonsense.

Prove it "wrong"? Holy Jehoshaphat, that's a twist. Should I assume you've not understood that the burden of proof is yours?

The point of this thread is not to prove the existence of God, but to show that what we see is in question and by deduction: our existence is the only provable fact and therefore it is more reasonable to think we came from God then from nowhere.

If I am wrong: prove the universe you see actually exists and you win.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:00 am

Mickiel;1452468 wrote: Challenges from unbelievers don't help me learn about God ........

You consider me an "unbeliever"? Leave God out of it, what I do not believe is in your superstitious logic. If you actually read my replies to both you and sheep (and my overall contribution to this thread) you'd have understood that I'm not necessarily a "unbeliever", as you call it.

Mickiel;1452468 wrote: Now you don't consider God, when you look at the Universe, you think big bang or self made energy, or self creating happenstance matter; you see lucky self created power from nowhere.

So in essence, you haven't read a single one of my replies to this thread. May I ask why you are responding to me at all? Don't bother doing so in future unless you've read my words, otherwise I will not be answering you. :yh_frustr

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:04 am

High Threshold;1452489 wrote: You consider me an "unbeliever"? Leave God out of it, what I do not believe is in your superstitious logic. If you actually read my replies to both you and sheep (and my overall contribution to this thread) you'd have understood that I'm not necessarily a "unbeliever", as you call it.

So in essence, you haven't read a single one of my replies to this thread. May I ask why you are responding to me at all? Don't bother doing so in future unless you've read my words, otherwise I will not be answering you. :yh_frustr

Go in Peace.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:09 am

So far the only thing that has been determined by "The sheep challenge" is that neither consciousness, our existence, nor Mary's virginity are provable. Well, I could have told you that from the start. :yh_star

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:45 am

High Threshold;1452493 wrote: So far the only thing that has been determined by "The sheep challenge" is that neither consciousness, our existence, nor Mary's virginity are provable. Well, I could have told you that from the start. :yh_star

Our existence is the only thing that is provable and by default it is more reasonable to believe in God, then what you see and this is what was being challenged.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:54 am

sheep;1452496 wrote: Our existence is the only thing that is provable and by default it is more reasonable to believe in God, then what you see and this is what was being challenged.

And just how is it that you prove your existence?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:37 am

sheep;1452496 wrote: Our existence is the only thing that is provable and by default it is more reasonable to believe in God, then what you see and this is what was being challenged.

Unfortunately, our existence is unprovable, so the reminder of your hypothesesis are left hanging without any support.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:38 am

LarsMac;1452498 wrote: And just how is it that you prove your existence?

He pinches himself.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:25 pm

LarsMac;1452498 wrote: And just how is it that you prove your existence?

It is proven by one's own self-consciousness... the fact that one is consciously aware is therefore proof to them that they exist and that is all that one can prove as fact. As RenÃ© Descartes put it: "I think therefore I am".

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:31 pm

High Threshold;1452493 wrote: So far the only thing that has been determined by "The sheep challenge" is that neither consciousness, our existence, nor Mary's virginity are provable. Well, I could have told you that from the start. :yh_star

Then why didn't you? I thought you'd be a man I could count on!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:17 pm

LarsMac;1452498 wrote: And just how is it that you prove your existence?

sheep;1452526 wrote: It is proven by one's own self-consciousness...

Is that the same "self-consciousness" that hasn't been proven exists? Yes, that's what I thought. Sounds like Bible-bashing to me:

- "What proof is there that Jesus was the son of God, Tommy?"

-- "It says so in the Bible!"

- "But who wrote the Bible?"

-- "Uhhhhhhh.......".

- "And what about existence? How do we know it is real?"

-- "It's proven by one's own self-consciousness."

- "But no one knows if consciousness is real."

-- "Uhhhhh ..... believe me it's real."

- "But who says you're real?"

-- "Uhhhh ..... it is proven by my own self-consciousness."

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1452527 wrote: Then why didn't you? I thought you'd be a man I could count on!

Forgive me. I was at home with a stomach ache that day. :yh_pig

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:42 am

High Threshold;1452548 wrote: Is that the same "self-consciousness" that hasn't been proven exists? Yes, that's what I thought. Sounds like Bible-bashing to me:

- "What proof is there that Jesus was the son of God, Tommy?"

-- "It says so in the Bible!"

- "But who wrote the Bible?"

-- "Uhhhhhhh.......".

- "And what about existence? How do we know it is real?"

-- "It's proven by one's own self-consciousness."

- "But no one knows if consciousness is real."

-- "Uhhhhh ..... believe me it's real."

- "But who says you're real?"

-- "Uhhhh ..... it is proven by my own self-consciousness."

Why not try sticking to one subject at a time... The issue at hand is not to prove the existence of the universe as fact, as you have stated it cannot be proven, nor is it in proving the existence of the bible as historical fact... The issue is: is it more reasonable to believe in what you see, or the existence of God? I maintain, because you can only prove that you exist and not what you see, that it is more reasonable to believe in God: as the existence of what you see is in question.

Again I will state: the fact that one is consciously aware, is therefore proof to them that they exist and that is all that one can prove as fact. As RenÃ© Descartes put it: "I think therefore I am".

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:42 am

sheep;1452555 wrote: The issue is: is it more reasonable to believe in what you see, or the existence of God?

I've already fully dealt with that issue. I'm sorry if you don't understand what I've written (several times, in fact) but I cannot be responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. That problem you will have to deal with on your own.

sheep;1452555 wrote: .... the fact that one is consciously aware, is therefore proof to them that they exist and that is all that one can prove as fact.

Sorry again, but you cannot call that "fact" - as it simply isn't fact.

Descartes was from the 17th. century and so was his out-dated ideas. Using him as reference just displays your misunderstanding of the issue. So let me repeat, "There is no proof that consciousness is real". Now you know.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:46 am

High Threshold;1452557 wrote: I've already fully dealt with that issue. I'm sorry if you don't understand what I've written (several times, in fact) but I cannot be responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. That problem you will have to deal with on your own.

Sorry again, but you cannot call that "fact" - as it simply isn't fact.

Descartes was from the 17th. century and so was his out-dated ideas. Using him as reference just displays your misunderstanding of the issue. So let me repeat, "There is no proof that consciousness is real". Now you know.

There is no proof that what you are seeing in your consciousness is real, but you cannot deny your own awareness that you exist, therefor the awareness that you exists is proof to you that you exist: to yourself; you cannot prove it to others: as you cannot prove they actually exist.

P.S. For how outdated Rene Descartes' thoughts are, it is amazing how many universities today, that teach philosophy, study his books on it; a simple google search, using his name and the words university and philosophy, produce a number of prestigious universities.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:06 am

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:43 am

Bruv;1452568 wrote:

lol... keep screaming bruv, while it won't help you reason through this discussion, it may help you find a place of rest: after you have exhausted yourself enough physically.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:53 am

sheep;1452566 wrote: ..... you cannot deny your own awareness that you exist, therefor the awareness that you exists is proof to you that you exist...

You really, truly, honestly do not understand what I am saying to you. Go ahead and admit it.

sheep;1452566 wrote: For how outdated Rene Descartes' thoughts are, it is amazing how many universities today, that teach philosophy, study his books on it .....

What's really amazing is that you do not realize that philosophy is mere, speculative commentary. You think it's the sum of 4 by adding 2 plus 2.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:59 am

Bruv;1452568 wrote:

1:37 Did he actually say, "A good scream in the morning right before you wake up"?????

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:40 pm

High Threshold;1452573 wrote: 1:37 Did he actually say, "A good scream in the morning right before you wake up"?????

No, he was comparing his screaming to the songbirds in the morning. (?)

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:52 pm

Anyway...........................I feel a lot better now.......sheep, Mickiel......you ought to try it

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:08 pm

Bruv;1452578 wrote: Anyway...........................I feel a lot better now.......sheep, Mickiel......you ought to try it

Don't bother giving them advice. They exist to tell everyone else what to do, how to think. That's their function, that's their place. Waste of time.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1452580 wrote: Don't bother giving them advice. They exist to tell everyone else what to do, how to think. That's their function, that's their place. Waste of time.

ouch

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:28 pm

High Threshold;1452572 wrote: You really, truly, honestly do not understand what I am saying to you. Go ahead and admit it.

What's really amazing is that you do not realize that philosophy is mere, speculative commentary. You think it's the sum of 4 by adding 2 plus 2.

To A, the answer is no I don't: please explain...

To B, love your enemy is a philosophy, but when practiced it is much more then that... Philosophies are the bases for explaining truths. While they are only thoughts explained: they are the bases for understanding. Government is a philosophy: an idea that men have the right to control other men and when implemented it is the control of one man over another. 1 plus 1 does equal 2: unless one changes the concept of what 1 is or what 2 is.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:01 pm

LarsMac;1452577 wrote: No, he was comparing his screaming to the songbirds in the morning. (?)

Yeeeaaaah, that would make more sense.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:16 pm

sheep;1452584 wrote: ... Philosophies are the bases for explaining truths.

Is that why you're claiming the highest standard of Democracy is in the U.S. and why you're still searching for those WMD's in Irak? No. That is not the phrase that is relevant. What you ought to have said was, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually come to believe it".

by the philosopher Josef Goebbels

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:07 am

High Threshold;1452598 wrote: Is that why you're claiming the highest standard of Democracy is in the U.S. and why you're still searching for those WMD's in Irak? No. That is not the phrase that is relevant. What you ought to have said was, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually come to believe it".

by the philosopher Josef Goebbels

Now you just making stuff up... I don't claim what you have stated above at all and you failed to address my last post and explain what you mean by your previous post.

P.S. I think you are mixing up philosophies with theories. But again I never made any of the claims that you say I did in your last post get back to answering A: and show proof that we cannot prove our own existence to ourselves.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:02 am

sheep;1452616 wrote: ..... you failed to address my last post and explain what you mean by your previous post.

As I've already said, SEVERAL TIMES, you can show no proof that we can prove our own existence. That is the fact that negates your convictions, all of which are based upon your misconception of "existence" and "consciousness". Shall I repeat it again for you tomorrow? :yh_eyerol

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:54 pm

High Threshold;1452618 wrote: As I've already said, SEVERAL TIMES, you can show no proof that we can prove our own existence. That is the fact that negates your convictions, all of which are based upon your misconception of "existence" and "consciousness". Shall I repeat it again for you tomorrow? :yh_eyerol

LOL, you cannot deny your own existence, it is that you cannot prove it to another: because you cannot prove their existence; but you cannot deny your own.

Again, to take this thread back on topic, it is more reasonable to believe in God then what you see, because you can only prove your existence, not what you see. No one said you can prove your existence to another, but you cannot deny it to yourself.

The ball is in your court, now prove my statement wrong, or concede the argument and since you have failed to do A, B is assumed.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:15 pm

Ass.........umed ?

Just saying.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:20 pm

Bruv;1452629 wrote: Ass.........umed ?

Just saying.

So far I have yet to hear anyone disprove the argument.

Just saying.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:52 pm

sheep;1452632 wrote: So far I have yet to hear anyone disprove the argument.

Just saying.

You made the statement, the task is yours to prove.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:52 pm

sheep;1452632 wrote: So far I have yet to hear anyone disprove the argument.

Just saying.

What argument?

The topic was.......is......"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

My supposition at that time (so long ago now) was that it was a ridiculous statement, nothing you have said since then has altered my mind.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:57 pm

Bruv;1452635 wrote: What argument?

The topic was.......is......"I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

My supposition at that time (so long ago now) was that it was a ridiculous statement, nothing you have said since then has altered my mind.

Can you prove that what you see exists? No. Can you disprove your own existence? No. Case closed.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:27 pm

Logic only works when it is based upon verifiable assertions. Without such, logic fails.

You cannot prove my existence. I am merely a figment of your imagination.

So if I do not exist, then whatever I perceive is irrelevant, except to me.

So, in a sense, you are correct. It is certainly more reasonable for you to believe in God than for you to believe in the world that I see.

On the other hand, you opened the thread with "I can show..."

And you have yet to show anything.

Reiteration proves nothing.

Well, the rain has ceased. The Sun is showing its face. The weeds await. Of that, I am certain.

TTFN

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:37 pm

LarsMac;1452637 wrote: Logic only works when it is based upon verifiable assertions. Without such, logic fails.

Exactly and for that reason there was really no contest in the challenge: as you cannot prove what is seen, only one's own existence is provable. And because one is finite the infinite is assumed.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:56 pm

â€œWell that was the silliest tea party I ever went to! I am never going back there again!â€

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:14 pm

sheep;1452636 wrote: Can you prove that what you see exists? No. Can you disprove your own existence? No. Case closed.

."I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."

So you have proved I cannot prove what I see exists ?

So now it is more reasonable to believe in an unseen God ?

Don't give up your day job.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:19 pm

Bruv;1452641 wrote:

So you have proved I cannot prove what I see exists ?

So now it is more reasonable to believe in an unseen God ?

Yes and since the only undeniable fact is that you exist, as you cannot deny your own existence, and seeing you are finite and must have come from somewhere, it is more reasonable to believe in an eternal first cause, than to believe in something which may or may not be real.

What can you prove as real? Only your own existence. What is not a fact, but an assumption? that what you are seeing is real.

See previous posts for further clarity: if still needed.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:59 pm

sheep;1452642 wrote: See previous posts for further clarity: if still needed.

Further clarity ?............................right.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:56 pm

Bruv;1452644 wrote: Further clarity ?............................right.

I have seen a number of quantum physics studies, that I believed would lead to science coming to the same conclusions I have. Anyways here is an article on a scientist that is claiming the same thing I am stating. Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death | Spirit Science and Metaphysics

Here is another article that states that consciousness can exist apart from the physical body, but which fails to to conclude that consciousness actually is responsible for the physical universe.

http://endgametime.wordpress.com/the-aw ... ciousness/

I have no doubt that eventually quantum physics will lead to the absolute conclusion that only the first paragraph can explain the existence of the eternal and that all future sciences, in quantum physics, will be along that line.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:00 pm

LarsMac;1452637 wrote: .... you opened the thread with "I can show..."

And you have yet to show anything.

Reiteration proves nothing.

There it is. He is now asking for everyone else to "disprove" him but he hasn't yet realized the burden of proof is on him. I mean, never even mind common sense and the unwritten law ........ proving ("showing") he knows something is the foundation of his own proclamation, and that has fallen completely flat. :yh_shame

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:43 pm

sheep;1452642 wrote: ..... the only undeniable fact is that you exist .....

A "fact" is something that has been proven, and "undeniable" is something that has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. BUT, for God's sake man, you haven't yet proved a single thing. Yes, I know-I know, if the Bible tells me so ........ that's your thing - accepting an unproven notion as the fundamental foundation of all that you spew in sequential fashion. Exactly as the Bible-basher. HOWEVER, you really don't understand what I am saying to you so why do you insist upon jamming up the logic of this subject?

sheep;1452642 wrote: ..... you cannot deny your own existence

"Denial" has nothing to do with it. If you cannot prove existence (and you, sheep - clearly CANNOT) then denial is another thing all-together. Your English is lacking comprehensive understanding. To "believe" or "disbelieve" are bookends (so to speak) around which "not BELIEVING" is nestled. You very obviously do not understand this concept and it is causing you a mountain of frustration.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:55 pm

Bruv;1452644 wrote: Further clarity ?............................right.

Well, you see ...................

sheep;1452642 wrote: I have seen a number of quantum physics studies, that I believed would lead to science coming to the same conclusions I have.

First of all the underlying importance here is that we are to assume he understand these "numbers of quantum physics studies". Secondly, Sheep's supernatural abilities to understand the creation of life goes far deeper than what quantum physics has yet to derive ....... but eventually it might catch up to Sheep's superior knowledge.

sheep;1452642 wrote: I have no doubt that eventually quantum physics will lead to the absolute conclusion that only the first paragraph can explain the existence of the eternal and that all future sciences, in quantum physics, will be along that line.

Ah yes! Now there is now doubt about it! :wah:

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:17 am

High Threshold;1452657 wrote: A "fact" is something that has been proven, and "undeniable" is something that has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. BUT, for God's sake man, you haven't yet proved a single thing. Yes, I know-I know, if the Bible tells me so ........ that's your thing - accepting an unproven notion as the fundamental foundation of all that you spew in sequential fashion. Exactly as the Bible-basher. HOWEVER, you really don't understand what I am saying to you so why do you insist upon jamming up the logic of this subject?

"Denial" has nothing to do with it. If you cannot prove existence (and you, sheep - clearly CANNOT) then denial is another thing all-together. Your English is lacking comprehensive understanding. To "believe" or "disbelieve" are bookends (so to speak) around which "not BELIEVING" is nestled. You very obviously do not understand this concept and it is causing you a mountain of frustration.

Okay, you can deny your own existence, but I know that every sane person cannot. To the insane, nothing is impossible, but to the rest of us that are of sound mind we cannot deny our existence. You are right, I cannot prove anything at all to a person who is not willing to use reason to make any conclusions what so ever.

Anyone else claim they can honestly deny their own existence: out there...lol

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:06 am

High Threshold;1452657 wrote: ..... "Denial" has nothing to do with it. ......... To "believe" or "disbelieve" are bookends (so to speak) around which "not BELIEVING" is nestled. You very obviously do not understand this concept .......

sheep;1452660 wrote: Okay, you can deny your own existence .......

There! You see! I said you do not understand what is going on >>> and there's the proof. :yh_loser

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:32 am

High Threshold;1452661 wrote: There! You see! I said you do not understand what is going on >>> and there's the proof. :yh_loser

And the difference between to disbelieve and not believing is?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:51 am

sheep, your links to "Spirit Science & Metaphysics" & "End Game Times" are totally ridiculous sources. Give links to serious science journals & I'll read them..............otherwise, no.

sheep · Post by **sheep** » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:31 am

AnneBoleyn;1452665 wrote: sheep, your links to "Spirit Science & Metaphysics" & "End Game Times" are totally ridiculous sources. Give links to serious science journals & I'll read them..............otherwise, no.

My point was only to show that people, in the field of quantum physicists, are coming to the conclusions that have.

Here are a bunch of quotes from respected scientists, educators and professors on Roberts book Biocentrism:

â€œâ€¦ Robert Lanzaâ€™s work is a wake-up call to all of usâ€

â€”David Thompson, Astrophysicist, NASAâ€™s Goddard Space Flight Center

â€œThe heart of [biocentrism], collectively, is correctâ€¦So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say itâ€“or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in privateâ€“furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with itâ€¦Lanzaâ€™s remarkable personal story is woven into the book, and is uplifting. You should enjoy this book, and it should help you on your personal journey to understanding.â€

â€”Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University

â€œIt is genuinely an exciting piece of workâ€¦and coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesnâ€™t really move but we do (we are the active agents), so it is suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality.â€

â€”Ronald Green, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor and Director, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College

â€œ[Biocentrism] takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuriesâ€¦placing in perspective our biologic limitations that have impeded our understanding of greater truths surrounding our existence and the universe around us. This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.â€

â€”Anthony Atala, renowned scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, Chair, and Director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine

â€œHaving interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanzaâ€™s insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient traditions of the world which say that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world.â€

â€”Deepak Chopra, Bestselling Author, one of the top heroes and icons of the century

â€œItâ€™s a masterpieceâ€¦combines a deep understanding and broad insight into 20th century physics and modern biological science; in so doing, he forces a reappraisal of this hoary epistemological dilemmaâ€¦Bravoâ€

â€”Michael Lysaght, Professor and Director, Center for Biomedical Engineering, Brown University

â€œNow that I have spent a fair amount of time the last few months doing a bit of writing, reading and thinking about this, and enjoying it and watching it come into better focus, And as I go deeper into my Zen practice, And as I am about half way through re-reading Biocentrism, My conclusion about the book Biocentrism is: Holy ****, thatâ€™s a really great book!

â€”Ralph Levinson, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

From physicist Scott M. Tysonâ€™s book

The Unobservable Universe

â€œI downloaded a digital copy of [Biocentrism] in the privacy of my home, where no one could observe my buying or reading such a â€œNew Ageyâ€ sort of cosmology book. Now, mind you, my motivation was not all that pure. It was my intention to read the book so I could more effectively refute it like a dedicated physicist was expected to. I consider myself to be firmly and exclusively entrenched in the cosmology camp embodied by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, Brain Greene, and Edward Witten. After all, you know what Julius Caesar said: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.â€ I needed to know what the other camps were thinking so I could better defend my position. It became necessary to penetrate the biocentrism camp.

The book had the completely opposite effect on me. The views that Dr. Lanza presented in this book changed my thinking in ways from which there could never be retreat. Before I had actually finished reading the book, it was abundantly obvious to me that Dr. Lanzaâ€™s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking. Everything I had learned and everything I thought I knew just exploded in my mind and, as possibilities first erupted and then settled down, a completely new understanding emerged. The information I had accumulated in my mind hadnâ€™t changed, but the way I viewed it didâ€” in a really big way.â€

Here is Dr. Robert lanza's home page (Robert Lanza) and a link on his page to one of his books on biocentrism Robert Lanza, M.D. â€“ BIOCENTRISM ï¿½ ‘Biocentrism’: How Life Creates the Universe

His teachings don't change the fact that only consciousness can explain the existence of the eternal, as the physical universe cannot, it helps to explain it. the physical universe changes and therefore cannot just be/exist, which absolutely must be a characteristic of something that is. Anything that can be said to experience time is finite, as time is a measurement of something that has a beginning. Therefore it is totally impossible that the physical universe be eternal.

Consciousness, on the other hand, can explain the eternal without contradiction and it is for this reason that I have long since known and understood that the eternal could only be understood through consciousness: from our current perspective.