Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

I am trying to go beyond what the joint and Herbert Spencer are saying:

If I succeed in proving the afterlife while failing to prove God, it is fine with me; at least the truth is known!

Phoenix Journals have refuted many long-standing lies.

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi Joint, the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

You can conclude, but you would be wrong.

You're committing an inductive fallacy.

Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it.

1. Try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy.
2. Have you ever tried READING MY TRUTH?
3. Your statement is little different from the Problem of the Criterion, but here I am giving you God's WORD and the references to "the content-source problem" so that you may decide for yourself if Phoenix Journals contain the truth you would rather have on your side--every time!
4. There is strong evidence for the afterlife, in Journals and in parapsychology, so what comes next for science? Take a look at the "Quantum Parapsychology" page on FB.
5. What you are saying to me in this thread is not more important than what is said right here in this quote; that is why I am saying it to you, because I wish to draw your attention to something important (about God and Truth)...

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

[BADecker]

I am trying to go beyond what the joint and Herbert Spencer are saying:

If I succeed in proving the afterlife while failing to prove God, it is fine with me; at least the truth is known!

Phoenix Journals have refuted many long-standing lies.

The Phoenix Journals might suggest that they have refuted something, and they might act like they have refuted something, but they have refuted nothing. Why not? Because the sources of information that is recorded in the Phoenix Journals may be liars. Thus, the whole of the Phoenix Journals may be lies, and the main theme of the Phoenix Journals may exist to be a lie.

Of course, if the main theme of the Phoenix Journals is to be and maintain a lie, then the Phoenix Journals are being truthful in that one area, even though the truth is not very evident to its followers.

[Mike Christ]

You can very easily prove God exists; all you must do is determine what constitutes as God.  "I say God is the universe, and the universe is real, therefore God is real"--that sort of thing.  But as far as the biblical descriptions of God go, no, he's a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit.

[BADecker]

You can very easily prove God exists; all you must do is determine what constitutes as God.  "I say God is the universe, and the universe is real, therefore God is real"--that sort of thing.  But as far as the biblical descriptions of God go, no, he's a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit.

On the other hand, the many definitions of the word "God," show that God might be something like infinitely greater than we are... at least in some ways. So why would we think that something like God is or might be "a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit?" After all, nobody knows the limits of the space we inhabit. Science and scientists are gaining understanding, but they are a far distance away from knowing all that there is to know. Maybe, just maybe, God knows and uses it all. The Bible descriptions could easily be not only accurate, but fairly understating about the greatness of God, and it is simply mankind that is extremely weak in understanding nature and the universe around him.

[Bardman]

You can very easily prove God exists; all you must do is determine what constitutes as God.  "I say God is the universe, and the universe is real, therefore God is real"--that sort of thing.  But as far as the biblical descriptions of God go, no, he's a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit.

On the other hand, the many definitions of the word "God," show that God might be something like infinitely greater than we are... at least in some ways. So why would we think that something like God is or might be "a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit?" After all, nobody knows the limits of the space we inhabit. Science and scientists are gaining understanding, but they are a far distance away from knowing all that there is to know. Maybe, just maybe, God knows and uses it all. The Bible descriptions could easily be not only accurate, but fairly understating about the greatness of God, and it is simply mankind that is extremely weak in understanding nature and the universe around him.

Or maybe god doesnt exist. I mean the bible is the stupidest book ever, in its time yeah it may have looked like an incredible book but now we know that a lot of things it says are false like the earth age, the earth being flat, the pi number and many many more

[BADecker]

You can very easily prove God exists; all you must do is determine what constitutes as God.  "I say God is the universe, and the universe is real, therefore God is real"--that sort of thing.  But as far as the biblical descriptions of God go, no, he's a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit.

On the other hand, the many definitions of the word "God," show that God might be something like infinitely greater than we are... at least in some ways. So why would we think that something like God is or might be "a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit?" After all, nobody knows the limits of the space we inhabit. Science and scientists are gaining understanding, but they are a far distance away from knowing all that there is to know. Maybe, just maybe, God knows and uses it all. The Bible descriptions could easily be not only accurate, but fairly understating about the greatness of God, and it is simply mankind that is extremely weak in understanding nature and the universe around him.

Or maybe god doesnt exist. I mean the bible is the stupidest book ever, in its time yeah it may have looked like an incredible book but now we know that a lot of things it says are false like the earth age, the earth being flat, the pi number and many many more

Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

[the joint]

Hi Joint, the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

You can conclude, but you would be wrong.

You're committing an inductive fallacy.

Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it.

1. Try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy.
2. Have you ever tried READING MY TRUTH?
3. Your statement is little different from the Problem of the Criterion, but here I am giving you God's WORD and the references to "the content-source problem" so that you may decide for yourself if Phoenix Journals contain the truth you would rather have on your side--every time!
4. There is strong evidence for the afterlife, in Journals and in parapsychology, so what comes next for science? Take a look at the "Quantum Parapsychology" page on FB.
5. What you are saying to me in this thread is not more important than what is said right here in this quote; that is why I am saying it to you, because I wish to draw your attention to something important (about God and Truth)...

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

1)  Please reread what you just said, here.  It's ridiculous.  Make an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy?   Yes, I'm sure it would be convenient for your argument if we just ignore the fallacy of it altogether.  Heck, why talk about fallacies at all?  Why don't we just say that nothing is subject to logical scrutiny and we just all end up accepting everything BADecker has been saying, too?

Your argument is fallacious.  It is impossible for there to be empirical proof of God.  To think there is necessitates that you commit a logical fallacy.  

Here's an analogy:  The logical axiom of identity states that 'x=x.'  Based upon knowledge of this logical axiom, we don't need to go about trying to find evidence for something that isn't itself.  To do so would be idiotic and a complete waste of time.  We already know it's a logical impossibility to find an 'x' that isn't an 'x,' e.g. finding an apple that isn't an apple, a person that isn't a person, etc.

The same goes for inductive fallacies.  We already know with 100% confidence (such that we absolutely know that we cannot possibly be wrong) what the limits of empirical exploration are.  Accordingly, we know what empiricism can't explore or concluded upon.  Intelligent Design/God is one of those things.

Deal with it.  You have no empirical proof for God, and you never will.

It.  Is.  Impossible.

2)  I already know that whatever empirical evidence you have is not proof of God.  I would be happy to read whatever evidence you have, but I will always draw the conclusion that it does not constitute proof of God, and I will be correct 100% of the time.

3)  Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy.  You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists.  You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem.  If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God.  If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.

No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work.  Sorry.

4)  There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive."  However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists.

5)  The difference it makes is that valid =/= sound.  Unfortunately, your argument isn't even valid because we already know with absolute confidence that Intelligent Design/God falls outside the scope of empiricism, and therefore you will never have empirical proof.  

[bl4kjaguar]

Thank you and congratulations for understanding that a rational faith may exist.

[XinXan]

You can very easily prove God exists; all you must do is determine what constitutes as God.  "I say God is the universe, and the universe is real, therefore God is real"--that sort of thing.  But as far as the biblical descriptions of God go, no, he's a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit.

On the other hand, the many definitions of the word "God," show that God might be something like infinitely greater than we are... at least in some ways. So why would we think that something like God is or might be "a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit?" After all, nobody knows the limits of the space we inhabit. Science and scientists are gaining understanding, but they are a far distance away from knowing all that there is to know. Maybe, just maybe, God knows and uses it all. The Bible descriptions could easily be not only accurate, but fairly understating about the greatness of God, and it is simply mankind that is extremely weak in understanding nature and the universe around him.

Or maybe god doesnt exist. I mean the bible is the stupidest book ever, in its time yeah it may have looked like an incredible book but now we know that a lot of things it says are false like the earth age, the earth being flat, the pi number and many many more

Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

Dont we all agreed that your "proof" was only fallacies? I think we all did but you, i dont know if you have some sort of problem but you better check it with a doctor

[BADecker]

Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

Dont we all agreed that your "proof" was only fallacies? I think we all did but you, i dont know if you have some sort of problem but you better check it with a doctor

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So is proof.

In a jury trial, often the evidence is sufficient to convince some of the members of the jury, but not enough to convince other members.

Perhaps the majority of forum members who have viewed the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, have indeed concluded that it is not enough evidence to be proof. Yet there are non-forum members all over the world who adhere to this evidence as proof.

If the evidence at the link were the only evidence - for example, the evidence of probability for the complexity of the universe coming about in some other form, strongly suggests that God is the only thing that could have done it - then you detractors of the proof for God might have some little strength. But since the evidences at the link are only 3 or 4 evidences when there are many others as well, the amazing thing is as follows.

It is amazing that you folks who express that you want to believe the real truth, are so willing to believe such falsehood regarding God... the falsehood that He does not exist. I'm sure you aren't retarded in the regular sense of the word. But what is it that blinds you so extremely much, that you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the evidence that is right in front of your eyes?

That's what some people are like, I guess.

[the joint]

Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

Dont we all agreed that your "proof" was only fallacies? I think we all did but you, i dont know if you have some sort of problem but you better check it with a doctor

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So is proof.

In a jury trial, often the evidence is sufficient to convince some of the members of the jury, but not enough to convince other members.

Perhaps the majority of forum members who have viewed the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, have indeed concluded that it is not enough evidence to be proof. Yet there are non-forum members all over the world who adhere to this evidence as proof.

If the evidence at the link were the only evidence - for example, the evidence of probability for the complexity of the universe coming about in some other form, strongly suggests that God is the only thing that could have done it - then you detractors of the proof for God might have some little strength. But since the evidences at the link are only 3 or 4 evidences when there are many others as well, the amazing thing is as follows.

It is amazing that you folks who express that you want to believe the real truth, are so willing to believe such falsehood regarding God... the falsehood that He does not exist. I'm sure you aren't retarded in the regular sense of the word. But what is it that blinds you so extremely much, that you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the evidence that is right in front of your eyes?

That's what some people are like, I guess.

No, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder."

Proof is proof.  If I believe that some evidence constitutes proof for something but you don't believe the same, then neither one of us can be certain if proof is "in the eye of the beholder."

Fortunately, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder."  Our opinion is irrelevant.  All we need to do is look to the logical rules of sound inference to determine whether the evidence actually constitutes proof.  Specifically, we look to these rules and ask the question, "Is it logical that our conclusion necessarily follows from the evidence?"

The answer is either that it does or doesn't.  There is no middle ground.  The evidence you keep referencing is not proof for God, and that won't change no matter how hard you try to convince yourselef.

[Tlee88]

Well , scientifically proven i dont know , but certainly somethings are very impressive to be true that could lead people to think about a god (creator of everything) existence. Check out , 3 orbits filmed on airplance , that cant be explained , doesnt seem fake video or manipulated. God or not , there is something very power about life .

[the joint]

Well , scientifically proven i dont know , but certainly somethings are very impressive to be true that could lead people to think about a god (creator of everything) existence. Check out , 3 orbits filmed on airplance , that cant be explained , doesnt seem fake video or manipulated. God or not , there is something very power about life .

It's impossible for there to be empirical proof for God.

Imagine this is a real scenario: 

Some guy with a shiny white aura floats down from the clouds.  He points a finger and kills a living person with a fireball he shoots from his fingertips.  He points a finger at a dead person and resurrects him before your eyes.  He points yet another finger, and a million loaves of bread pop out of thin air and fall to the ground for the hungry to eat.  Then, he points to the sky, snaps his fingers, and makes a new star constellation.  Then he says, "I am God."

^^Even this does not constitute empirical proof for God.  Simply put, it isn't even possible to imagine what would constitute empirical proof for God.  There is simply nothing that would ever suffice, for you would always need make assumptions that cannot be backed by evidence in order to reach your conclusion that God exists.

[bl4kjaguar]

Knowledge that is not your own is dangerous, more dangerous than ignorance.

The Phoenix Journals "suggest" that God's WORD has been published here on Earth; to start that conversation, it helps to understand what "suggest" means in the context of hypnosis.

IT IS THE MASSES WHO MUST RECOGNIZE SOURCE.

Before we move into the steps of How and What, etc., let us visit a bit about ego self. This IS the manifestation of greatest sensing in the human being. It IS that which causes the separation and to simply "override" that ego is totally an incapability for it IS your humanness! You will never override it--you will train it to willingly give access to higher influence--you will mold it to set aside of itself to allow and welcome God within. It is the ego which stands at the door of the soul and allows or disallows passage within.

There are methods of causing that ego to step aside--that human consciousness to bow to higher input--to negate self unto higher knowledge--but it requires knowing the "how-to". But a hint-- this is WHY the orthodox doctrines of religions will deny use and pronounce hypnosis as EVIL. It is the ONLY route to accomplish the setting aside of that ego through YOUR OWN POWER. Again, man has ruined the very term and caused something which is THE TOOL of God to be pronounced evil and to be avoided at all costs--again, so that the "would-be rulers of your destiny" can remain in total control of your physical aspect and likewise keep your soul entrapped in the lie. If MAN can keep you from communion with GOD, he can control you! If you are ever to find God and be WITH GOD--YOU MUST COME INTO COMMUNION WITH GOD--AND BYPASS THE INPUT OF MAN. Since your time as man is short indeed and your time with God is long indeed--infinite, would it not be worthy to learn to talk with God and get His instructions for passage and cease and desist listening to the misguided and misguiding ones from the pulpits and thrones of "authority" and "expert blatherings"? If they be MAN--THEY DO NOT KNOW! THEY ONLY PRESENT THAT WHICH IS ALREADY THRUST UPON THEM AND YOU--BY MAN! I AM NOT MAN IN FLESH--AND DHARMA IS NOT ME. YOU SEEM TO BE ABLE TO BELIEVE THAT WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY, SAY, ABRAHAM--DID HE PROJECT WHAT HE HEARD FROM GOD OR DID HE CLAIM TO BE GOD? IT IS IMPORTANT ABOVE ALL, THAT YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. DHARMA CLAIMS TO BE NOTHING SAVE A SPEAKER AND A TYPIST. IT IS THE CONTENT OF THE MESSAGE WHICH IS TRUTH OR FALSE AND YOU WILL DISCERN THAT FOR SELF--NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR TELLS YOU--FOR THAT IS ONLY WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR PROJECTS.

Moreover, you who read the work--KNOW IT! Also, if you are touched after reading, say, one JOURNAL and an EXPRESS or two--you also KNOW that if you read and study the others as already presented--YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS WHICH YOU ARE ASKING! It is the questions asked AFTER READING ALL WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU--THAT YOU HAVE VALID CAUSE TO INQUIRE OF THE TYPIST OR AUTHOR. IF YOU WERE "TOUCHED" BY THE TRUTH OF THE ONE VOLUME--THEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER YOU SEEK IN ONE OF THE OTHER VOLUMES--OR, IT WILL BE FORTHCOMING--FOR THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH GOD WOULD SEND HIS INFORMATION.

It is beautiful that truth is not transferable in any way.
My "suggestion" that God's WORD has been published in the Phoenix Journals surely deserves discussion by selves so that each can determine the truth of the matter; there is no way to find the truth--except through finding it. Unless you become it, you never have it.
More on this theme from earlier:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=825077.msg9258307#msg9258307

So, I urge BADecker, username18333, the joint, and any seeker to consider that it is the content of the message which is truth or false; does either BADecker, username18333, or the joint have any knowledge that the content is false or that it is lacking in some adequate answer to an important question?

[username18333]

there is no way to find the truth—except through finding it. Unless you become it, you never have it.

1  :  a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes plain that “truth” (bl4kjaguar) does not exist, only the disparate elements of the real wherefrom the hyperreal is an uncollapsible abstraction.

[bl4kjaguar]

there is no way to find the truth—except through finding it. Unless you become it, you never have it.

1  :  a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes plain that “truth” (bl4kjaguar) does not exist, only the disparate elements of the real wherefrom the hyperreal is an uncollapsible abstraction.

Truth does not exist?
You are admitting that you are not telling us any real truth?

Paradoxes are the "atoms of philosophy" because they constitute the basic points of departure for disciplined speculation.

Heisenberg and Schrödinger apparently came to conclusions different than you:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_erwin
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_heisenberg

[username18333]

Heisenberg and Schrödinger apparently came to conclusions different than you:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_erwin
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_heisenberg

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

1. Perception doesn’t provide for “know[ing] for a fact” (BADecker).

2. Did you look over the linked article, “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to be Conscious”‽

[bl4kjaguar]

Nevertheless, from time to time the values we inherit are deemed no longer suitable and the continued enforcement of them no longer stands in the service of life.

Nihilism is not in the service of life.

The writer Roget equates “license” with “anarchy, interregnum, mob rule, mob law, lynch law, nihilism, reign of violence”, in other words, the acts of the Canaanites

There IS TRUTH to some extent in all things--IN FACT, ALL THINGS ARE ALL TRUTH--JUST NOT THE TRUTH OF GOODNESS AND LIFE. I am denounced because I often offer "truth" from the Native American "Ancients" who are "PAGAN". Say what?? "Pagan" is representative of false gods and bunches of them. The Ancients have ONE GOD, good friends--JUST ONE--and still they can honor all the other ideas of truth to allow for focus on that energy through familiar bonding and reverence. If you think they be "PAGAN" in the "Christian" reference--you had better go look again--and see just WHO set such a definition on their beings. Your speakers of authority over such definition show their own ignorance of truthful manifestation of God and singular intent. In other words--you are listening to stupid non-informed hot-air machines with no notion as to what is righteous and/or Truth.

How can I know that this is SO? LOOK AT YOUR WORLD AND CHECK IT OUT. ARE YOU INTO CHAOS AND TROUBLE OR ARE YOU IN THE MIDST OF HARMONY AND BALANCE IN GODLY TRUTH? Maybe your way and "wisdom" didn't work? So what gives you right to pounce and pound on MINE? SO FAR, EVERYTHING I HAVE TOLD YOU IS PROVING TO BE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND IS CONFIRMED AND I PRONOUNCE NOTHING "ON" YOU. Therefore, why do I seem to bother so many people?

Do you believe in truth, username18333? If what you say is not truth, then it seems to me that you believe the lie.

We come, we identify individually, we offer specific truth, no magic or terror and still WE ARE THE ONES DENOUNCED. Why would you ones RATHER believe the LIE than the TRUTH? Ponder it and look within at WHY THIS IS SO? Who puts on the better show? Look again! Go forth on a star-filled night and look around and tell me again--who puts on the BETTER SHOW? You are NOT going to make a safe, physical transition to anywhere, cloud or otherwise, through MAGIC. If you don't like
my suggestions--go do your thing and blessings rest upon you--also a lot of sympathy and sadness at such blindness and foolish perceptions.

[username18333]

If what you say is not truth, then it seems to me that you believe the lie.

Physicality is real, but “truth” (bl4kjaguar) is hyperreal: one cannot perceive physicality insofar as one conceives “truth” (bl4kjaguar).