That is one profound conclusion, there, Miss Janie.

Mrrz, I would also offer the possibility that there are at least two -- perhaps many -- universes of discourse being confused here.

A scientist, totally aside from his professional activities, has to answer for himself whether or not there even EXISTS a spiritual universe of discourse. This is not an easy question, given (among other things) that the sphere is so subjective and that it has had so many strange items and attributes assigned to it.

The general undercurrent of most of these assertions from the whole spectrum of human spiritual assertions seems to be that it is not a realm contained by space-time as it is knwon and practiced on by scientists. That being liely, it is quite understandable that there may be things that function in such a domain that are completely, absolutely, demonstrably false in another.

In addition to the clear domain of matter and energy operating in space-time, which is the proper domain of sciences relating to phsyical universe phenomena, and a possible second domain of spiritual existence (and possibly interaction) outside (or co-imposed wholly or partially on or through) the ordinary space-time continuum, there is a third domain which is even more treacherous and hard to figger on than either of these.

This is the domain of human agreement, in which created ideas, opinions, and realities are erected based on persuasion free of proof, and usually quite free of heuristics or empirical measurement. All by itself this domain is a sticky, messy, volatile and irrational soup. When mixed up as it always is with domains 1 and 2, it gets even more so. All this adds up to some really disparate takes on what is or is not acceptable data, credible reality, or honorable methods of acquiring data and accepting or rejecting it.

That's my $,02 worth on the question. There may well be other domains in play I haven't mentioned or noticed.

Regards,


A