TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Big bang is out!,

Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.


Closing Statement from Dave McManus

Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 20 2013: Let s take stock of the situation.As soon as we come into this world we are confronted with insuperable mysteries that neither science nor philosophy can solve! Why is there something rather than nothing? how do life and consciousness emerge from inanimate matter? What s the point of emerging from this gigantic universe,of living a nanosecond to return to nothingness? Even Occam s razor principle fails to provide an answer.Indeed,it postulates simplicity,snccinctness,parsimony and urges us to select among conflicting hypoth√®ses that which makes the fewest assumptions.This principle has been used successfully to justify uncertainty in quantum physics.Apparently,it doesn t work for our universe as we can logically assume that NOTHING is SIMPLER than SOMETHING! Something demands a creative act and a supernatural being.Hence the appeal of religions and the necessity of a god . Not being susceptible to the trappings and dogmas of religions which to me are nothing more than superstitions,I do believe in a GOD to account for our world.Our spacetime universe is ruled by causality and necessarily has a beginning however distant in time it might be..All scientists now think that our world was born 13.4 billion years ago in a BIG BANG.Could it happen by chance out of nothing?I don t think so.It required a primary cause that is uncaused and so eternal,and all powerful.It gave rise to the laws that explain the extraordinary finetuning of a universe climbing the ladder of ever increasing complexity.That being said,it doesn t solve puzzling enigmas such as the presence of EVIL.One explanation can be that to be free man may choose among several courses of actions.OBEsthat sometimes attend NDEs support this thesis as experiencers report a being of light asking them what they did with their life and showing them the cons√©quences of their actions!.Nevertheless,we can assume that,being all powerful,god could have created a free man choosing good!
    • Oct 20 2013: Fully agree with you Mike, the big question is why did God not create people that could only do good. Why did God create people in the first place?? We are not here just to be entertained and have a good time.

      We believe we were created with the means to return God's love, or to not return it, in freedom. Love can only exist and have value if applied and used in freedom.
      Humanity was created to become heavenly angels, so God (who is love itself) can love others outside of Himself, to become part of them and make them happy.

      The way that was done, creation, is just details. If anyone tries to impress others with 'this is how nature did it' I just see that as a way out to becoming spiritual. For whatever reason that road is taken, is not good and, to me, does not make sense.
      Maybe you don't mind me sharing with you this approach to creation. My expression is that God created the universe from His love. That approach shows many relationships, attractions, and parallels on many levels.
      The booklet is the 'story' of creation that I very much support, at least the part I understand :)
      • thumb
        Oct 21 2013: Centuries ago men believed the earth to be a plane with the sun circling around it. If people were to see (at that time) a simple lighter would have cried "Magic" or "Miracle". The fact that one doesn't understand everything is not proof of god, it's just proof of inadequate culture.
        • Oct 21 2013: As you say:
          --"The fact that one doesn't understand everything is not proof of god,"--
          Neither is it dis-proof of God.

          One of the strongest points I tried to make is that any proof or evidence lessens our freedom of choice what to love.

          That's why there is not one single post anywhere on this site or on any single forum on this planet, that can proof or provide evidence of the existence or non-existence of God.

          'God protects our human freedom of choice, as the apple of His eye.' E. Swedenborg.
      • thumb
        Oct 24 2013: Adriaan, it's not the non believer's job to dis-proof god but the believer's job to proof him.
        What would you think about somebody asking you to dis-proof the existence of the tooth fairy ?
        • Oct 24 2013: If you've read my posts it should be clear that you have nothing to worry about regarding proof.
        • Nov 4 2013: Why would it be the believer's job to prove to the non believer what the believer knows?

          If the non-believer chooses to reject the truth and not to believe the truth that the believer tells that's the non-believers business and responsibility. By the same line if someone chooses to believe a lie considering it as truth because 'someone' said it was true, well it's their business and responsibility. BTW the statements validity does not change because of the proof given... statements validity depends on the congruence between what is claimed and what is regardless of the fact that one can prove what is.

          Adriaan ... the poof or evidence or knowledge does little to our freedom to love for one can freely choose to embrace or reject the truth or something else.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Et sure there is no moral imperative for believers to convince others about what they claim to know.

          just that people claim to know lot of things without compelling evidence. some claim to know Allah is real, or Jesus I s god, or Mormon god, or Moonie god, or the Hindu goods or nature spirits, ancestor spirits,. In the past people claim to know Zeus, Thor, maxim, or the great juju were real.

          I respect people's right to believe what they want. Just accept beliefs like these with no evidence, that can not all be correct all belong in the same. Basket.

          No argument you can believe what they want. I would argue that they really don't know if their interpretation of their experience is correct.

          Surely logic and reason indicates at best only one of the mutually exclusive beliefs could be correct.

          we can redirect the freedom to believe unreasonable beliefs but we don't have to respect these sorts of belief
        • Nov 12 2013: Obey,

          One does not have to respect nor embrace the truth nor the evidence... it is what it is... one chooses to embrace and respect what be or reject it... infinite upon infinite possibilities and just one better way ... one truth... those who get it right get it right .... the rest well they didn't get it right... though many believe they did...
      • thumb
        Oct 25 2013: Adriaan, I don't worry about proof but the lack of it. The only thing I see in your posts are lots of assumptions that lack any scientific foundation.
        • Oct 25 2013: If you are looking for scientific foundation, great. There is an extremely detailed book about the relationship between our spirit and our body. E.g. how our spirit, as will and understanding, have a relationship which is, to the tiniest details, exactly like the interaction between our heart and lungs. Our digestive system is precisely as our way to except and manipulate information. And possibly reject it without even trying...
          The title is The Natural Basis of Spiritual Reality by Norman Berridge.

          Here is a link to a book that explains what the Tabernacle of Israel means. It is a detailed layout, including material and even colours and how items were placed and used, of the spiritual human mind. Our mind has three layers, and how they interact (if we activate them). There is even a reason behind the camping and marching order of the Israelites etc.

          Just saying "The Big Bang is out" does not mean much without some alternative. So if there was a creation, we should have some idea why and how. The literal words in the Bible don't do justice to that. However, their spiritual level do in every detail, literally word for word, The creation story has absolutely nothing to do with how humanity started. That story is an index or overview of the whole Bible. Which is entirely about our human, spiritual, start and development. Humanity and each individual is on its way from 'Egypt' to 'Canaan'.
          This is the first volume of 12 giving a word for word interpretation and explanation. For some this may all be proof there was no Big Bang.

          And questions are encouraged.
      • thumb
        Oct 25 2013: Adriaan, the problem already starts with making the mind something like an organ. What we call mind is just the product of countless chemical reactions in out brain. The moment our brain stops working, no mind, no consciousness, no soul, nothing is left. It's really that simple.
        • Oct 26 2013: For the many millions of people that have had a Near Death or Out Of Body Experience, the reality is reverse. The mind is not a bodily organ, just as 'the Law' is not just letters.

          Our mind consists of our will and our understanding, and as said earlier, their relationship and interaction on the spiritual level is exactly the same as how our heart and our lungs interact.

          When you drive into a friend's driveway and he sees your car, when he says "There is Harald" does that mean you are your car??
          The way you see yourself and life, you're saying 'yes,' it's that simple.

          BTW death of the body is not going to change your mind. During his 29 years of daily spiritual experiences Swedenborg met several people that had died and were convinced they had not died. One he asked "then how come you are standing 2 feet of the ground??" The guy looked down and went nuts :)
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Ab I'm not aware of any evidence that proves nde or oobe aren't hallucinations..
          I understandthere is some testing underway but nothing conclusive yet.
          I have friends who claim to have had oobe while on drugs. I believe they had an experience but just a hallucination
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2013: Adriaan, people believe what they like to believe. I just find it astonishing that apparently you and millions of others have no problem believing in afterlife, god and other esoteric stuff, but I assume that if somebody tells you he seriously believes in the tooth fairy, you'd think he's nuts.
        But et the end what is the difference ? In either cases we are talking about things that have no scientific foundation of any sort.
        Btw, there are explanations for OBEs without having to resort to the supernatural or spiritual.
        I don't understand your story about the car. The only thing I can say is that what you call the mind or consciousness are the results of chemical reactions in our brain.
        The human body is amazing in the way it works, but then, considering that evolution had billions of years for trial and error, it shouldn't surprise us that much.
        • Oct 26 2013: --"but I assume that if somebody tells you he seriously believes in the tooth fairy, you'd think he's nuts."--
          It would depend on the age of the talker. At a certain age ideas are used to make it easier for us to decide to behave properly.

          --"I don't understand your story about the car."--
          That does not surprise me at all. So if we change our mind, is that done by our neurons, the chemicals in our brain, or what?

          So you do not believe in a free will either.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2013: ok, I should have clarified that I was talking about adults. Thought that was obvious in the context.
        Now that this is clarified, can you tell me why a belief in god is considered something acceptable while believing in the tooth fairy (talking about adults) would be considered a bit weird ?
        Where do you draw the line ?
        A human organism doesn't function in a vacuum. We do whatever we do as a result of outside stimulus through our senses. Changing your mind is not a single activity but a series of brain processes that end with you changing your mind about something; And yes, all these processes are electrochemical in nature.
        About free will: it depends on how you define free will.
        I believe, and we demonstrate constantly that we can make free decisions. We choose what to eat, what to wear, where to work, what TV program we watch, etc.
        So in this sense we are free. But at the same time their are limits to our freedom. These limits are defined by laws of nature and the limits of our own organism.
        • Oct 26 2013: You see no difference between an entity that creates a universe, and the tooth fairy?? I guess not. I draw the line between what I consider is divine, and what is created by a finite person.

          You seem to believe that it all happens in the brain.. and call them "series of brain processes." What does start those processes and what is part of any of those processes??
          Again, and I'm glad you say we're free to choose, if we change our mind, what does the changing? The neurons, the wiring or what?
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Ab I guess the point is there is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy, Zeus, maduk, Bacchus, Odin, Allah, the 9000 universe creating demons of bunkum as there is for your universe creating god concept
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2013: No, I don't see a difference. Both are products of imagination as far as I'm concerned.
        To make a claim credible, you have to show proof or at least evidence.
        Yes, everything does happen in the brain. Take out the brain and all bodily functions will cease.
        As I said, changing mind is not like pressing a button. You are changing your mind because you might have received (through your senses) information that brings you to a different kind of conclusion which leads to change of mind. So, on one hand you have external stimulus and on the other the internal processing of those stimuli. You can't say it happens in this neuron or that wiring as you can't say the engine of your car runs because of its cylinders or valves or injection. All components are necessary to make the system work.
        If you are interested in how the brain works I suggest you read some books about neuroscience.
        Pretty interesting stuff and a field growing rapidly.
        • Oct 27 2013: But in our cars we can say what changes when we back up, or causes a change in speed.
          But you have chosen to accept only the words of those that say "The brain does it all", while you can not say what it is.

          I rather believe in a system that can be explained, in detail, and has existed for thousands of years and makes sense. That we are just our brains and that micro-particles 'decide' our future, that does not make sense to me at all.
          BTW in your profile you say you're an Agnostic. You sound more like an Atheist.. You may have to change your neurons :)
          Any way it's been nice talking to you
          Have a nice weekend.
      • thumb
        Oct 27 2013: The workings of a car a simple compared to a brain. If we knew everything we wouldn't need anymore scientific work done.
        Science is work in progress. Scientists don't just sit back on their laurels and accept what somebody said thousands of years ago.
        If that were so, people would still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolving around the earth.
        I cannot detail all the physiological processes that happen in the brain, but there is abundant literature you can consult if you really have interest to learn.
        As to agnostic: agnostic means I don't know and open to receive new information and knowledge, adjusting my view of reality accordingly.
        Not knowing, is not the same as not existing, but as long as there is no evidence for the existence of something it's not worth to lose sleep over it.
        Maybe, somewhere unicorns actually exist. I'm open to this possibility. Just show me proof.
        The same is true for god and any other products of human imagination.
        You too, have a great weekend !
        • Nov 4 2013: Haraid

          With the beliefs you hold its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality. Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it). I am almost certain you seen examples of this in others. The question will be if you will give up what you believe and do what ought to be done, or will maintain what you believe doing what ought to be done without appreciating it.

          Hoping that the following experience will help you... A while back I was in a dialogue to discover something based on something rather than the individuals beliefs preferences related to something. Given the situation and belief differences I had a plan to create a shared model that would then be used to show how a certain belief was reasonably untenable while an alternate belief was more reasonably acceptable. The idea was to then proceed to explore the implications of holding the alternate belief. To do this I resorted to a shared belief which we agreed upon. The thing was that this shared belief was linked to certain reasonably untenable belief so that its existence or 'inexistence' corresponded to this shared belief existence or 'inexistence'. For clarity sake the shared belief was 'the existence of identical copies of knowledge within separate minds'. To this day I prefer to think that 'identical copies' are inexistent, though I have managed to accept the notion of the existence of 'identical copies'. Unfortunately my counterpart in that dialogue could not accept this notion, I think it had to do with initial starting conditions. Realizing how difficult it has been to give up and accept this insignificant belief provided me with some appreciation for the challenges involved to give up and accepting other more significant beliefs.

          At that time I also learned to translate when someone who is wrong tell me I am wrong.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2013: Esteban, what you propose is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, (argument from ignorance), a typical logical fallacy.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2013: Funny, Esteban, it's exactly the other way around. I'm fighting against unfounded beliefs.
        Exactly because I try to avoid a world view that is based on blind faith in beliefs for which existence there is no evidence, I think I'm open to new information and knowledge.
        However, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not enough.
        As to your story of the 2 identical copies of knowledge, I don't really know what to do with it.
        Why don't you believe that 2 identical copies in 2 different minds of the same piece of knowledge exist ?
        Take a simple example: The earth is round. This is knowledge and I'm pretty sure that it is identically for the vast majority of minds.
        If I misunderstood your point, please clarify.
        • Nov 5 2013: The notion of the copy being identical to the originals just seems plain wrong... the copy is the copy and the original is the original. Likewise the notion that what I think actually corresponds to what you think 'exactly' just seems plain wrong (unless we ensure thats the case).

          Harald do note that your position believes in something while denying it, it all boils down to what each choose to believe in. For example you seem to have considered that what I proposed is called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' rather than being factual feedback for you to consider, process and integrate. Your response proves to me how 'With the beliefs you hold its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality. Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it). I am almost certain you seen examples of this in others".

          Lets do an exercise of logically analyzing those statements.
          1- Have you seen examples of Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it).
          2- Do you concur that - Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it) - is a factual valid statement?
          3- I am letting you know that : With the beliefs you hold its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality. As I said from your response it seems evident to me you have validated what I said (without appreciating it).

          Most likely your beliefs will lead you to argument and reject my comments rather than engage in an enriching dialogue... for the record I hope that you do engage in an enriching dialogue. Those who believe that they don't believe have the hardest time dealing with their beliefs.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2013: Esteban, ok let's see if I understand what you mean.
        Yes, a copy always is a copy hence it is not identical to the original. However, the information content is the same. For example. you copy a page from a book. Obviously the copy is physically different from the original page, but the informational content on the page didn't change.
        There is a definition for "argumentum ad ignorantam" and you asking me to prove the non existence of something is exactly what this fallacy is about. It's not something I have "chosen"
        If you claim something to be then it's you who has the burden of proof and not me having to disproof it.
        As to your questions:
        1) sure, happens all the time even in the scientific community
        2) yes again, you can call that bias
        3) Your comment clearly proves that you don't know what beliefs I hold. You don't even explain what exactly you are referring to. Specify.

        Your last paragraph is just a groundless assumption. Make a point and explain what you mean and I will engage. Just don't expect me to read your mind ;-)
        • Nov 6 2013: Harald,

          Just to clarify the informational content isn't the same thought both share similar arrangements that in principle enable the reproduction of identical ideas. Note that the physical stuff does not contain ideas its just an arrangement with a set code to recreate the ideas. Many consider words as conduits of meaning when they just are arrangements individuals use as maps to recreate meanings.

          (I did just realize that the "argumentum ad ignorantam" referred to the position you choose to hold, rather than apply to the position I held). The critical point here has to do with the burden of proof. You assert that if I claim something to be then it's me who has the burden of proof and not you having to disprove it. I simply state that if I claim something its up to you to investigate it or not to accept it or reject it, to validate it or not, to believe it or not, to prove it or to disprove it. What you choose to do with it is up to you and your responsibility and burden. We could get into wether it is my responsibility to convince you to change or your responsibility to convince yourself to change... In principle you would have to prove why you claim its my burden but that distracts us from focusing on the topic at hand.

          your claim "Your last paragraph is just a groundless assumption" seems quite evident to me to stem from what you hold to believe. From my side what I said is actually based on observations that lead me to consider something will happen. Your response provided some reaffirming evidence, though I am glad you choose to engage further into exploring the point I made. Does labeling it as 'a groundless assumption' facilitate rejecting my comment? does that label lead to engage in an exploratory enriching dialogue? I could have considered such notion as an insulting demeaning remark from you though I consider them produced by your beliefs to derail the interaction. With the belief you hold that I have the burden of proof to convince you...
        • Nov 6 2013: ... its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality.

          I think I got your belief about the burden of proof in line with what you hold to believe. Validating one of the notions I considered you believed. Yes I did not explain which beliefs I was referring to and that wan't necessary to make the point. Hopefully this will suffice and lead to more enriching interchanges. BTW there are other beliefs and stories you seem to hold which can hinder seeing what be going on... I see that Adriaan sought to show you and from the interaction I saw its quite evident to me that the stories you hold didn't allow you to see what Adraan was telling you.Maybe now you will reconsider my first comment to you here... as feedback for you to reconsider what Adriaan stated using a different more open inquisitive attitude...
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2013: if the universe needs a cause, Why not a natural cause?

      Why jump to some supernatural agency.

      if some supernatural agency was involved how do you know there is only one. Could be 17 or 17 billion working together.

      what caused these causal agents.

      seems fallacious to say a universe needs a cause but universe creators don't.

      If there were gods then there wasn't actually nothing.

      if a universe can't come from nothing how can gods make one from nothing.

      To sum up resorting to supernatural agency is akin to saying it was magic. And magic things can do anything. Resorting to magic explains nothing. You actually end up with more questions. Like how can a mind exist without a brain. How can a universe creator exist and there be nothing.
      • Nov 11 2013: Obey,

        It seems you are asking : why jump to this cause rather than that cause?
        How about because the cause be the cause... is it natural is it supernatural... it is what it is... regardless of the notions one would like to cultivate.

        You state : if some supernatural agency was involved how do you know there is only one...
        Well evidently because of the given premise in the conditional put forth ... agency implies just one... agencies implies more than one :-)

        I understand it seems fallacious to say certain things, though that does not change the facts involved. you said if a universe can't come from nothing how can gods make one from nothing... well they are gods and the universe would come from them. In principle they could create matter and anti-matter and produce two identical universes in slightly different phases such that each existed in parallel domains.

        With the right knowledge I am sure one can do just about anything ... some would call it magic some would called applied knowledge some would call it other things... yea we can end up with more questions... and science sort of tends to feed and work that way too... so shall we call science magic too?
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: So basically your gods are defined as being able to do anything.

          mean while there is not a single shred of reliable evidence any gods or goddeses exist.

          in fact they are usually defined as being invisible most the time. Almost like they don't exist.

          I just don't find resorting to invisible magical gap filling agencies very convincing.

          Others do, and they are welcome to their contradictory mutually exclusive beliefs as long as they accept they are most likely wrong.
      • Nov 11 2013: Obey,

        Basically, some see the evidence that exists and ...
        - consider it as evidence 'for'
        - consider it as evidence 'anti'
        - consider it as not evidence (though it is evidence of)

        I will go out on a limb hoping that you will perceive the following in good light...

        To sort of reflect back at you what you said...

        Well, as long as you accept that you are most likely wrong, you are welcome to your contradictory mutually exclusive beliefs.

        Personally I would rather we focused on being right and mutually supportive inclusive believes that resort to seeing what is as it is even when it's invisible ...
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2013: I guess there are observations and there are feelings and then there is the interpretation.

          I guess scientific explanations and general skepticism looks for evidence to support claims, and evidence against the claims.

          To me that seems more reliable and reasonable than jumping to conclusions or fitting the facts to billions of different religious or spiritual beliefs.

          I believe in invisible things. I can not see atoms or far away galaxies. I can not see gravity or electromagnetic forces. I can not even see light beyond the visible spectrum. But I believe in these based on evidence. Can you see all the different god concepts are not supported by this type of compelling evidence.

          What you are calling evidence is "my all powerful universe creating being that can not be tested" could fill these gaps. I guess we have a different definition of evidence.

          Invisible gods that create universes and invisible unicorns that provide gravity can not proven not to exist. They can be used to explain phenomena because its magic, and magic can do anything you want hypothetically. We are just a long way from proving they exist and the did what it is claimed they do.

          I'm interested in what is reasonably demonstrated to conform with reality, what is supported by evidence. While open to various supernatural explanations and beings, even beyond what humans have so far imagined, I try suspend belief until there is supporting evidence.

          I also accept different propositions have different levels of confidence and supporting evidence. Whatever is the cutting edge, the wave front of scientific understanding is more speculative than what is been supported by evidence and observation over decades.

          Just to clarify, your asserted god concept universe creator is one of many with no compelling evidence. They can not all be correct. At best one is correct. The odds are your specific god belief is wrong. Open to evidence that supports your version, but currently nothing compelling.
      • Nov 12 2013: Obey,

        We seem to have a different definition related to the validity of claims,
        ---You seem to uphold the validity of the claims depends on what can be proven by the evidence
        --- I uphold that the validity of the claims depends on what happens to be the validity of the claims.
        Under these conditions
        you will only hold true what you can validate to be true
        I will hold true what happens to be true

        Of course I am leaving aside the issue of how does one determine is something is true or false for thats a bit of a different issue (that has to do more with your position than mine) ...

        A simple example may illustrate the differences...
        lets say there is a tunnel with a sign that states "if you enter the tunnel you will not come out alive"
        Then as you approach the tunnel someone comes close and tell you 'that sign stated the truth. a person will try to deceive you into entering to find the truth and telling you that I hidden a treasure inside, never enter that place"
        a little bit latter another individuals comes close and tell you "if you enter the tunnel you will find out the truth. someone hid a treasure there and put up that sign to scare people away, sometime even approaches and tells people to never enter that place"

        Under the conditions above its likely you will seek to validate the truth only to discover it was true. Me I would likely walk away and forever live with the uncertainty if there was a treasure there or if I would had died there...

        Personally I prefer to live and discover other treasures

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.