What is tangible? I have studied and studied. I have questioned my college professors of many things. I have research ancient oracles; they all did not appear tangible. What I was taught to be history was not accurate. I then began to reason. What if there are some in this world that has the upper hand on all?

This may seem unreal, but it’s possible. Why would history as we know it be false? Is it possible that what we experience is in some way controlled? Not only controlled by ourselves, but at times control by others. Satanist employs free will. But, the choices can cause others to intervene.

If this is so, can free will be tangible? Who really has the upper hand? These questions I have reasoned with. It was because I have noticed that many of what I have been told in school and now college are not tangible information (i.e. History, Religion). Has anyone else experienced this?

The victors write the history books.

Priests make up bullshit and the masses follow.

Research, verify and then decide what is tangible for yourself.

The tangibility of something is determined by the individual. It's belief in or doubt of something. All this boils down to how you percieve the world around you.

History is indeed written by the victors, in which a lesson about strength can be drawn. Being a mediocrity will only get you a foot note at best instead of an epic.

Just remember to apply doubt and analyze everything you can. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must certainly be the truth.

Great advice! However I feel that it is also important to remember that you might not know everything that remains you can assume you have arrived at the truth through elimiating the facts you know, the one's you don't are the problem.

We might say eliminate the possibility of Swans being anything but white over the course of hundreds of years of observation. Only to find a continent crawling with black ones down the line. (As detailed in the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, a great book.).

So what we define as tangible is in my opinion certain enough to act on but never certain enough to consider it an absolute.

Here is another example from earlier this year.

To be sure. I use the term truth in context to the discussion. I prefer the term idea simply because ideas change with evidence. Evidence being proof that either supports or is contrary to an idea.

A perfect example is science. It has countless theories but very few laws simply because some things may be irrefutable in their reliability but there's always that small chance it could be proven wrong.

I try not to deal in absolutes. Religionists are absolute in their beliefs and look at the damage they've caused. In nature, the inability to evolve leads to nothing but extinction, whereas adaptation leads to survival and eventual fruition.

I read an interesting article about this today:

Science and Religion aren't Friends

One will constantly hear an argument that in and of itself is a quite good one: That having "faith" in science is really no better than having religious faith, because the submissive ipse dixit reference to authority amounts to the same - yet the premise for the principal body of ideas is vastly different (although it can be argued that much of what religion is about is benevolent and thus socially useful -- in the sense that it keeps people in line and gives them a motive to not behave quite so stupidly that they would otherwise perhaps have done). Science, however, has no ulterior motive beyond being the study of that which is, and can be predicted - so there's a qualitative difference, some (like Professor Coyne) will even say so much so that science and religion are anathema to eachother.

A very crude comparison can be made to sticking your hand into boiling water. You may reasonably assume that you will burn yourself, based in simple theory about temperature and its effect on biological compounds, even if there are people who claim this can be done with no harm to your hand. The experience of actually trying it - which is what an experiment is about - will make you able to predict what will happen the next time you do that; and even every time anybody does the same thing. That's how science works.

The religious mindset, on the other hand, demands that you accept without questioning the premise that "special people" are able to stick their hands into boiling water without this having any effect on them whatsoever. If you're of the religious mindset you'll just smile sheepishly and nod instead of demanding that they show you. (I shall admit that I'd be pretty fucking impressed if anybody could actually do that -- and I'd probably spend a considerable amount of time on pondering about what the trick was -- but I'd just think "wanker!" if someone said they could do it but refused to show me.)

Indeed Tier Instint, thank you for your response.

O.K inky, I will. Thanks for responding.

Absolute, indeed a thought to consider. Thanks for your input MisterPaisley.

Absolute survival. That would be the most tangible thing to experience inky. I guest when it boils down to it, survival would be tangible in thought and deed. Thank you inky.

Accepting without questioning leads to sheepish. You said it best XUL. I would argue that with you. Thanks for responding.

A wonderful example Tier Instint. I'm pleased that you've added it to the topic. A subjective view of what's tangible. Thank you.

I have to go to classes for now family. I will try to respond to all inputs to this topic when I return...Forever Satanic family (Youngwolf).

I'll admit that philosophically speaking, you can't prove anything with 100% certainty. That's because no matter what explanation you have for anything, it's always possible to come up with some alternative explanation for it, no matter how silly or complicated it has to be.

Spiritualists often like to think that this gives equal probability to any explanation, and thus their beliefs are as credible as any others. Of course, this is just another one of their stupid ways the rationalize clinging to whatever emotionally-rooted belief they have. Having n explanations for something doesn't necessarily mean that each has a probability of 1/n of being real. In short, such spiritualists are trying to use solipsism to lend objective credibility to their claims, which makes their argument a complete contradiction.

I'm a Satanist, not a solipsist. While I may not be able to 100% disprove, say, the idea that I'm trapped in a world like The Matrix, where all of my thoughts have been pre-programmed, etc., that doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time entertaining such a notion.

While it's true that the scientific method allows for science to be revised when new, significant data shows up, this isn't what "theory" and "law" refer to. In science, the term "theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis", and a "law" is not some sort of graduated theory. A law just describes a consistent observation. An educated guess is called a hypothesis. When one or more hypotheses withstand the rigor of the scientific method, and can sever as a model that explains the observations, then that's a theory. Newton's Second Law of Motion is a law (F=ma) and gravitational theory is a theory, but it has nothing to do with difference in certainty.

Personally I thought biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it best:

...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. [...] In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

You argue a very good point Bill_M. I am hardpressed to agree with you. Thanks for responding.

What's this "family" business?

It's ancient. Thanks for responding.