How very interesting is it

[Richard]

How very interesting is it that as I read through these post, it seem almost impossible to maintain individual categories for each topic line.

A discussion about Aliens ends in a conversation about faith and religion. A discussion about faith and religion ends in a conversation about UFOs. Even Dave's book starts with psychology, which leads to non-linear time, which leads to geophysics, which leads to scripture, which ends in a discussion of aliens and UFOs.

How interesting is it that all roads lead in the same direction. They all lead to the central theme of truth of our reality and our place within it.

I think I finally understand Dave's original point. All things are connected. All thing weave together to form the reality we find ourselves within.

[Dave]

If you believe that God created all - then all creation exist with God's reality - and all things must point back to the Creator.

This has always been the Confusion I Ponder. There is only ONE reality. I will share something I wrote years ago. It is from my paper on "The Psychology of Understanding" and my book:

Perspective

The basic knowledge we posses is the framework by which our minds process new information. We know more about space today and the idea of the earth being flat is ridicules. Everyone understands this common knowledge today, but on a personal level, our basic knowledge is the end product of our life experience, effected by our cultural and educational biases. Combined that with the revelation that persity among people today is greater than ever before. No wonder twenty people can see an accident and swear to twenty different versions of the same incident.

Just imagine how a college science professor might report the incident. 'After breaking, the momentum of Vehicle A was too great and carried Vehicle into Vehicle B with tremendous energy.'

The extremely upset student that was just graded poorly by that same professor thought that: 'Vehicle A just came out of no where and blew Vehicle B away.'

Yet, the empathetic lady saw that, 'The driver of Vehicle A tried their best to avoid Vehicle B by swerving and weaving.'

However, the lady standing next to the empathetic lady had lost her husband to a drunk driver years earlier and interpreted the swerving and weaving much differently.

The religious zealot may swear that if it wasn't for the hand of God, some one may have gotten hurt.

However, the wino sleeping buy the dumpster will swear that a bolt of lightning struck the two cars and caused them to explode. Which sounds absolutely crazy and is so easily dismissed, because of the predigest toward the wino's life style and the potential supernatural context of his statement, until the drivers of both vehicles admit that the sun was shinning in their eyes and reflecting off their windshields.

Detectives are trained to take all twenty statements and evaluate them side by side to search for a central truth. In essence, they are trying to look at the reported event from as many different perspectives as possible. I adopt this strategy/methodology in the search for a more meaningful truth. I intend to examine the issue from as many different perspectives as possible. Giving each perspective weight, yet understanding that any one perspective never includes the entire story.