Life, The Universe, And Everything

[BuddyFerris]

Just consider, nearly 100% of the universe is uninhabitable and deadly to “his” creations – i.e. his centerpiece - humans. The message of this so-called God is so ambiguous as to be nearly unintelligible and what we can understand is totally contradictory and makes no sense at all. We never see him or his works, nor do we get something like an “out-of-office” message indicating that he does in fact exist but is away from his desk currently and busy with something else. What we do see can be explained by natural forces. What we can understand (if we’re bothered to) looks perfectly normal and rather un-miraculous. And like any abusive relationship, he never talks to us, his supposed beloved creations, and the rumor is, he’s going to punish us (AGAIN) for not believing in him even though he’s never here to help us believe in him. If there was a Multi-universal court of law, these would be sufficient grounds for divorce!!

Everything can be explained by natural forces. Except the natural forces themselves.

'He never talks, he's never here, he never helps.' While I do understand your complaint and recognize periods of my own life in the list, I'm persuaded otherwise on each point. I haven't arrived at my position by an easy path, nor do I suggest that you have. Intellectual honesty is a lifetime's work.

 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think you're the centerpiece of creation?

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

I've not questioned the value of science or reason, only the validity of the many final conclusions based on science (a limited data and rule set) and reason (by which most here mean rationalism, also limited from my point of view). For instance, the beginning of our universe offers us the beginning of space-time and physical laws to which we apply our reason. Yet inexplicably, our reason doesn't suggest to us that a beginning point for all which we depend upon by way of structure and predictability should have an antecedent! What preceded the beginning? We are quite sure that the physical laws with which we are familiar did not precede that beginning. We are emphatically sure that none of the life forms with which we are familiar did not precede that beginning. The only thing we do know is that science tells us nothing about that which precedes the laws on which science depends. Reason, freed from exclusive dependence on science, may well provide assistance.

 

It would be an assumption of cosmological magnitude to insist that the trigger mechanism for this universe be describable according to laws which did not apply (exist) at the instant of the event or prior to it.

Buddy

 

 

It seems like this is just another form of the cosmological argument, in basic it is the idea that universe and its laws must have had a creator because things do not come into existence out of nothing. On the surface this may look like a good argument, hell, most physicists believe that the basic laws of physics formed at the time of, or slightly after the big bang.

 

There is a major logical problem with the argument though, that can be summed up with one simple question. If God created the universe, who created God? I'm being serious here.

 

In order for the cosmological argument to hold any water it must be implicitly stated that all things must have a creator...this would include god. If you argue that god is self existent then you have no logical reason to doubt that the universe it self might also be capable of being self existent. To argue otherwise would be special pleading.

 

Can I explain how we got here? no I cannot, and I admit it freely...the universe is a large and wonderful place and we humans may never know for sure how we got here. Yet, that we are here is an indisputable fact (unless one is a philosophical skeptic)

 

The problem with the god explanation is it isn't an explanation at all, rather it just moves the question from "how did we get here?" to "how did god get here?"

 

neither of us is certain of how we got here...you just like to pretend you are more certain.

[Vigile]

God cannot exist ... nor can we. But we do, don't we. But wait, you protest, we were inevitable in this universe from its' inception, we're here because life happens, is aggressively adaptive and persistent. Precisely.

 

This is a nice little twist of words, but it misrepresents the issue at hand greatly.

 

No one here (at least most of us) claims that god cannot exist. We claim merely that there is no valid reason for believing he does.

 

On the other hand, we know that we exist. Evidence is legion, to borrow words of the gospel figure.

 

 

This is what is called a false dillema Buddy.

[Kuroikaze]

Everything can be explained by natural forces. Except the natural forces themselves.

'He never talks, he's never here, he never helps.' While I do understand your complaint and recognize periods of my own life in the list, I'm persuaded otherwise on each point. I haven't arrived at my position by an easy path, nor do I suggest that you have. Intellectual honesty is a lifetime's work.

 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think you're the centerpiece of creation?

Buddy

 

 

again you word this as if to say that since we don't know how the laws got here "god" must have put them there. I restate myself, if god can be self existent why not the laws themselves?

 

If you cannot provide a reason for god being a different case (which you can't because you can't even offer a definition for god) then it is special pleading to claim otherwise.

[Sparrow]

Everything can be explained by natural forces.

 

Sure looks that way presently.

 

Except the natural forces themselves.

 

Who says? You say! That’s all.

 

Even if we don’t presently know “how the natural forces came into existence” – this is a long way away from “God did it!!”

 

You don’t have any evidence, but what the evidence that is mounting up tends to a natural trigger – that may or may not be cyclical

 

'He never talks, he's never here, he never helps.'

 

While I do understand your complaint and recognize periods of my own life in the list,

 

I'm persuaded otherwise on each point.

 

I haven't arrived at my position by an easy path, nor do I suggest that you have.

 

Intellectual honesty is a lifetime's work.

 

Yes Buddy, intellectual honesty is a lifetime’s work and thanks for understanding Buddy but to be honest this looks more loyalty to an idea and rather than honesty at all.

 

It looks more like pig-headedly clinging to position rather than seriously considering an alternative.

 

It looks more like stubbornness than tenacity.

 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think you're the centerpiece of creation?

Buddy

 

Buddy, c’mon. You know what I mean -> “God made man in his image”.

 

Don’t play dumb – you’re speaking to a group of people who were once christians and in some cases quite fundamental about it.

 

We know the bible as well as you and we know doctrine as good as, and seemingly better than you.

 

Stop playing dumb – you know very well what I mean.

 

Regards

 

Spatz

[webmdave]

WM,

I was with you right up to the Napoleon part.

 

You claim to have experienced a reality that you are unable to share with any other human being because there is no verifiable or falsifiable evidence attached to said "experience" outside your mind. Your angel experience claims are similar to an otherwise normal person claiming to have been Napoleon in a previous life.

 

"...and there is no physical evidence...": States a requirement for a particular type of evidence that represents only a subset of reality. Still seems like blinders.

 

Rather, physical evidence from a physical universe represents the ONLY KNOWN subset of reality. You have made a big ZERO on your assignment to convincingly show that there is anything "meta-real" that resides outside of the physical, natural, real universe.

 

As to the rest of your comments, you seem uncomfortable with the idea that our minds are the measure of reality. Well, how did you come to the conclusion that there is a meta-reality outside of known reality that is populated by warring angels and demons watched over by a god and his devoted un-dead son? Didn't you come to this conclusion using your mind? Surely if your brain were to be removed from your head, there wouldn't be much more discussion about reality anymore, right? The truth is, we all measure reality by our minds, Buddy. We all make our individual daily decisions based on our perceptions and interpretations about reality. Think about this: Sometimes dreams feel real. And upon waking, we can feel celebratory that it was only a dream, or sad that the dream ended. Ever woke up in the nigh in a full sweat, yelling out? Then you found out it was only a dream? Some people can talk on and on in great detail about the experiences they have in their dreams. For many long centuries dreams believed to messages from gods. Now we know that dreams are just the mind's way of processing information.

 

So, we all measure reality by our minds, and we attempt to share our observations of reality with each other. But when it comes to sharing so-called realities that include UFOs, Big Foot, Gods, intelligent talking donkeys, or dancing angels, more than words is necessary. Physical evidence must be provided that can be tested before it leaves the realm of cute story devoid of substance. Without some corroborating evidence, your cute little non-verifiable personal fables are empty. The reality you experienced exists, but only in your mind. There are books filled with sincere people who seem sure they've seen flying saucers. Why shouldn't I believe that UFOs exist? It's not that the people who tell these stories are lying, necessarily. However, the human mind being what it is...

 

Buddy, have you ever been driving and suddenly become aware that you weren't paying attention to your driving? That you were on "auto-pilot?" I do an immense amount of driving, and it happens to me on occasion. I'm lost for time in a world of thought that has no physical borders, no substance, is completely IMMATERIAL. Wherever I was during that lost time, it was all happening in my mind. When something is immaterial, Buddy, it means it doesn't matter. Your imaginary creatures are immaterial. They don't matter to anyone but you, because they only exist in your mind.

 

When a person accepts belief in a god, then that god now exists in another person's mind. As people spread the god concept to their children and communities, the god exists in more and more people's minds. God is a mind virus and IT wants to spread.

[dano]

Hey brothers and sisters in reason!

This sums up Buddies theology!

....and he keeps calling us narrow minded!

 

The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles' Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.

 

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

    the Creator of heaven and earth,

    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,

    born of the Virgin Mary,

    suffered under Pontius Pilate,

    was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [see Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven

    and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,

    whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,

    the communion of saints,

    the forgiveness of sins,

    the resurrection of the body,

    and life everlasting.

Amen.

[dano]

Everything can be explained by natural forces. Except the natural forces themselves.

'He never talks, he's never here, he never helps.' While I do understand your complaint and recognize periods of my own life in the list, I'm persuaded otherwise on each point. I haven't arrived at my position by an easy path, nor do I suggest that you have. Intellectual honesty is a lifetime's work.[/i]

 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think you're the centerpiece of creation?

Buddy

 

Intellectual confusion is more like it!

[Grandpa Harley]

On the subject of the origin of the Universe.

 

"What happened before the beginning?"

 

Is a little like asking 'What is South of the South Pole?" It's an answer that, from inside the bubble of space time we call 'The Universe' is without meaning... from anything inside space time, there can't be a 'time' before... since time didn't exist. Imaginary time ehnnnn! maybe, but that is a mathematical construct that reflects what we see...

 

as to

 

"...and there is no physical evidence...": States a requirement for a particular type of evidence that represents only a subset of reality. Still seems like blinders.

 

Our 'blinders' are pretty broad... the smallest thing we can watch is a shade larger that 10^-35mm and the largest thing we can observe is 46.5 billion light-years (the edge of the observable universe due to the limits on the speed of light, and there are some oddities in that number based on 'co-moving co-ordinates' that I'm still trying to see in my head... I usually had a 3d image of most puzzles I can 'play' with, but that one is a mind fuck...)

[Grandpa Harley]

"Sprituality" - something that inspires a transcendental sense of awe,wonder, and peace in equal measure...

 

This does

 

 

This doesn't

 

[alanh]

It's been an education for me in trying to understand the points of view represented here

You're never going to really understand these points of view unless you can consider how Christianity might be false. That is your set of blinders - your "unshakable" faith.

Restated; material evidence for something which is by definition immaterial.

Yet you claim you saw a "spirit" dancing. Is that not material evidence?

[dano]

 

 

Dave---Webmaster!

 

Who was that guy who hung around for so long who more or less was preaching a slightly more militant form of Buddyism, and even has a website dedicated to it? I used to have it in my favorites but I lost it.

 

Remember, he spent a couple of weeks trying to tell us that our problem was that we limit ourselves to only what we can understand with our rational minds, but he had discovered a whole new reality beyond our reality?

 

I know that there have been a bunch of similar "Designer Christian" posters, here over the past couple of years, with buddies "special pleading" inclinations, but this one stood out to me because of his militancy, and his whacky website!

 

There hasn't been one as much fun as buddy though, because of his ability to "squirm like a Texas lawyer"

[Grandpa Harley]

If Trashy is looking in... Sorry about panning Texas again! I love you really....

[dano]

"Sprituality" - something that inspires a transcendental sense of awe,wonder, and peace in equal measure...

 

This does

 

 

This doesn't

 

 

Amen Brother!

[Antlerman]

I'll accept your use of 'spirituality' without complaint, although it still suggests the existence of a spirit apart from the mere physical existence.

There are many words in our language that are based on false assumptions of the past. The words have evolved beyond those earlier ideas to include a broader, more general sense. I have no problem using the word to speak of those ineffable-type qualities that were applied to something supernatural in the past. I’ll even use the word “God” sometimes to describe the forces of the universe, however not in any sort of mystical, supernatural, sense, but in a purely naturalism meets poetry sense – in the same way Einstein and Hawkins have used it. It’s poetry, not a literal belief in spirits or a literal God.

 

The things you describe push the limits of a rationalist's philosophical framework. To the rationalist, there seems little left of awe in the presence of things so well understood and explained.

I’m curious why you say this Buddy? Is it an assumption on yours or others that someone who looks at how something is constructed rationally is missing it’s beauty? I’ve heard atheists who are far more towards the hard-core rationalist materialist sort of atheism like Richard Dawkins express these same senses of awe and wonder at the universe.

 

On the opposite side of the question, you have those in religion who can be so legalistic, and so literalist in their reading of myth that they have little to no experience of the “magic” of life as those you might assume being rationalists don’t have. They are a stiff and joyless lot! So I think it really boils down to the individual and their personality, and the system of religion or naturalistic philosophies has little to do with it. Wouldn’t you say?

 

On imagination: in the world as I see it, imagination runs in one of two directions, generally up or generally down. You describe the up-side, and describe it well. The limits of our lives are defined by the limits of our imagination, whether self-inspired or God-breathed.

I agree with the exception that it’s all self-inspired. With “God”, it’s just a matter of using that symbolism for inspiration of self. The point I’m suggesting is that “God” has so much baggage and limitations in it’s historical connotations that it limits where understanding reality could otherwise take us.

 

I'll agree with you that Western Christianity may well be more of a hindrance than a help to a creative mind or an imaginative spirit. In the art world (my sister is an art professor at a university up north), creative expression frequently runs afoul of both the politicos and the preachers. Her students have sparked some campus fun with their work, causing havoc for the university public relations department. Local community churches are frequently bastions of the status quo, perhaps because the members are looking for a little stability and security. The possibility of change is a problem for them; inevitable change is a continual stressor. The one I attend is a fair cross section of folks, and is accustomed to high-speed change.

Here’s where I’m really impressed with your observations, and they parallel my own thoughts in many regards. I agree that the institution of church acts as a sort of “police force” or a type of government for those social values. But it is a fallacy that it does a good job. They see themselves as the guardians of truth, as the dispensers of it so to speak, but what they really are is “servants” to the society.

 

As societies change so does their needs, and holding onto inflexible “truths” works against society. On the opposite side, if it gets ahead of society with new ideas, it can lead to a backlash, and a creation of a new “guardian of the sacred ways” – hence the birth of Fundamentalism in America. The irony with literalism and fundamentalism is that they aren’t the original beliefs and values of the early church. They themselves change and evolve, just at a far more retarded rate than modernity moves.

 

Both sides are necessary for progress and stability. You can’t get rid of the ultra-conservatives, and you can’t get rid of the ultra-progressives. Societies will continue to evolve and nothing can stop it. Like it or not, God himself as it were, evolves. People are the creators of God.

 

I think what we’re experiencing with fundamentalists resisting what science teaches, is simply a reactionary movement rooted in fears of change. But change will come. The gaps are disappearing more and more every day. My recommendation to the religious is to remove God altogether from the natural world where science can never probe. No miracles, no incarnations, no UFO’s, no Bigfoot, no Creationism, etc. The second you bring God into this world, you expose him to scrutiny and reduce the power of the symbol. This is why literalists and fundamentalists kill God, they kill the pursuit of spirituality through mythology by bringing it down from heaven to earth. It was all good and fine when we couldn’t reach above the clouds, but now we see the edges of the Universe itself!

 

Something to consider?

 

"Why are "religious" people the first to deny the things science discovers? What does this say? What are they interested in, and what are they not interested in, and why?" --- The answer is probably in the question. 'Religious' people are ideologists like all others, perhaps as many atheists are as well. In such a mindset, things which appear to threaten will provoke a strong denial. Things which counter will elicit attack. The difficult task is to hold to the precepts without forfeiting humanity, something you seem to have done reasonably well.

Thanks, that’s a kind compliment. It’s amazing to hear someone in evangelical Christianity make such a concession. I would only hope that all individuals can hold their ideals, without being married to them or worshipping them. I’ve said many times to visiting Christians here that I hear them more worshipping their beliefs than they are worshipping God. In other words, they cannot consider possibilities, and somehow think they have arrived at truth to such a degree that there is no room for them misunderstanding or overstating something. That comes across as sheer arrogance, and I have heard it from both the Christian and the atheist. Again, it comes back to personality.

 

I’ve said many times that people who join up with fundamentalist churches did so because it suited their black and white thinking. These same people who later become atheists bring this thinking with them and now claim to have the *real* truth, exactly the same way they did when they were Christians. Each case to me limits possibility. Possibility holds the power of the universe to our minds, to our imagination. You limit possibility by putting a ceiling on it in a closed system like religion, and you put a cap on imagination.

 

I've done my best over the years to avoid becoming religious; I've done better on some issues than others, obviously. I don't think God is religious; from what we know of his thoughts on the subject, it's an annoyance.

 

Buddy

It’s funny actually, I read the Jesus character chastising the hell out of the religious Pharisees of “Matthew’s” day in the late 70’s in the area where the Gospel was being composed, as being the ancient equivalent of what we see with modern fundamentalism. In this vein I see that the early Church in that area that has Jesus spending so much time on this religious power at that time, must have been a much looser group of devotees to the message of Christianity. The minute that institution gets created, you have what we see in Evangelicalism today as with the Pharisee’s of old: “White washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones.

 

Personally, I see individuality and humanism as being more immune to this sort of transformation from small sects of “faith” and philosophy to a power on earth. This is where the dream of a Church ruling the earth damns the world to slavery. It’s release from religion that “saves”.

 

Your kind thoughts sir?

[Thackerie]

The things you describe push the limits of a rationalist's philosophical framework. To the rationalist, there seems little left of awe in the presence of things so well understood and explained.

 

I’m curious why you say this Buddy? Is it an assumption on yours or others that someone who looks at how something is constructed rationally is missing it’s beauty? I’ve heard atheists who are far more towards the hard-core rationalist materialist sort of atheism like Richard Dawkins express these same senses of awe and wonder at the universe.

 

On the opposite side of the question, you have those in religion who can be so legalistic, and so literalist in their reading of myth that they have little to no experience of the “magic” of life as those you might assume being rationalists don’t have. They are a stiff and joyless lot! So I think it really boils down to the individual and their personality, and the system of religion or naturalistic philosophies has little to do with it. Wouldn’t you say?

 

If I may, I'd like to break from my usual habit of just reading these forums and only posting the rare snarky comment to interject something I've been thinking about lately. That is, it seems to me that I have a much greater sense of awe and wonder now that I no longer believe in the existence of god as an interactive personality. When I had a belief in an interactive god (nebulous though it was), I always had a sense of disappointment and questioned why this world that we live in was the best an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving deity could create. Remove the big man-behind-the-curtain from the equation, however, and what's left are raw forces of nature and to observe what has developed from them, and what continues to develop, is overwhelming.

[Sparrow]

Speaking of the "blinders of reason":

 

In the immortal words of Bruce the logical meanie -> A Christian *KNOWS* God exists the same way a schizophrenic *KNOWS* his cat is plotting to steal his car.

 

In other words, why use reason when you're absolutely convinced of something that goes against all evidence, common sense, logic and everything that is true?

 

By definition, you can't reason with the unreasonable - and this thread is really looking like a "go-nowhere" item with constant-waste-of-time banter from another "go-nowhere" christian who can’t even articulate why he is here.

 

With his splitting-hairs on doctrine, canon and biblical content, he’s hasn’t yet realized he lost the match by the end of the second page of postings.

 

What’s even more telling is that he’s in the Lion’s Den and no one is yelling at him and calling him something excruciatingly insulting for no other reason that it’s something to do.

 

I mean, it’s not as if something staggeringly brilliant and mind-numbingly original has been painfully extruded through deep and meaningful conversation with him. In reality, it’s SSDD (same-shit-different-day).

 

I know some people here really enjoy the verbal jousting with the odd christian (pun intended). I can respect that and the near infinite calm that would require. Unfortunately, my tolerance is low and I don’t like being ignored even once, let alone twice or three times, by a fifty-plus year old with an imaginary friend, an arrogant demeanor and a patronizing attitude.

 

Bye Buddy! I would like to say it was good discussing with you, but I honestly can't. We haven't really discussed anything and nothing you've answered, when you've actually bothered to reply, has been a real answer.

 

Spatz

[Grandpa Harley]

As I said a while ago, it's like wrestling a greased pig, just without the frission of the gentle brush of ten nipples when the pig gets the upper hand...

[dano]

Speaking of the "blinders of reason":

 

In the immortal words of Bruce the logical meanie -> A Christian *KNOWS* God exists the same way a schizophrenic *KNOWS* his cat is plotting to steal his car.

 

In other words, why use reason when you're absolutely convinced of something that goes against all evidence, common sense, logic and everything that is true?

 

By definition, you can't reason with the unreasonable - and this thread is really looking like a "go-nowhere" item with constant-waste-of-time banter from another "go-nowhere" christian who can’t even articulate why he is here.

 

With his splitting-hairs on doctrine, canon and biblical content, he’s hasn’t yet realized he lost the match by the end of the second page of postings.

 

What’s even more telling is that he’s in the Lion’s Den and no one is yelling at him and calling him something excruciatingly insulting for no other reason that it’s something to do.

 

I mean, it’s not as if something staggeringly brilliant and mind-numbingly original has been painfully extruded through deep and meaningful conversation with him. In reality, it’s SSDD (same-shit-different-day).

 

I know some people here really enjoy the verbal jousting with the odd christian (pun intended). I can respect that and the near infinite calm that would require. Unfortunately, my tolerance is low and I don’t like being ignored even once, let alone twice or three times, by a fifty-plus year old with an imaginary friend, an arrogant demeanor and a patronizing attitude.

 

Bye Buddy! I would like to say it was good discussing with you, but I honestly can't. We haven't really discussed anything and nothing you've answered, when you've actually bothered to reply, has been a real answer.

 

Spatz

 

Ditto!

I can understand him ignoring me, because I got tired of him right after I realized he was trying to craft himself as the humble, indispensable, salt of the earth, servant of God who has been slightly more important to mankind than us less gifted folk, as well as every one he knows, and everyone he is related to.

 

I don't mind saying that I enjoy the banter though, because if I hadn't continued reading I would never have read the beautiful stuff like you and most of the banterers have written.

 

Buddy will continue saying stuff backward, so he can inject a bunch of his vocabulary into it, on the way to completely not answering your questions.

 

He can't help himself. But you gotta love someone who will stick around so long after the second page when it was obvious to most that he really didn't have anything else to add, after he said "I believe God did it, but I don't know why, I don't know how, and I don't know what God is." (Not a direct quote, poetic license)

 

Stick around Sparrow. I love your sensitivity, and vulnerability.

[BuddyFerris]

... Rather, physical evidence from a physical universe represents the ONLY KNOWN subset of reality. You have made a big ZERO on your assignment to convincingly show that there is anything "meta-real" that resides outside of the physical, natural, real universe.

 

As to the rest of your comments, you seem uncomfortable with the idea that our minds are the measure of reality. Well, how did you come to the conclusion that there is a meta-reality outside of known reality that is populated by warring angels and demons watched over by a god and his devoted un-dead son? Didn't you come to this conclusion using your mind? Surely if your brain were to be removed from your head, there wouldn't be much more discussion about reality anymore, right? The truth is, we all measure reality by our minds, Buddy. We all make our individual daily decisions based on our perceptions and interpretations about reality. Think about this: Sometimes dreams feel real. And upon waking, we can feel celebratory that it was only a dream, or sad that the dream ended. Ever woke up in the nigh in a full sweat, yelling out? Then you found out it was only a dream? Some people can talk on and on in great detail about the experiences they have in their dreams. For many long centuries dreams believed to messages from gods. Now we know that dreams are just the mind's way of processing information.

 

So, we all measure reality by our minds, and we attempt to share our observations of reality with each other. But when it comes to sharing so-called realities that include UFOs, Big Foot, Gods, intelligent talking donkeys, or dancing angels, more than words is necessary. Physical evidence must be provided that can be tested before it leaves the realm of cute story devoid of substance. Without some corroborating evidence, your cute little non-verifiable personal fables are empty. The reality you experienced exists, but only in your mind. There are books filled with sincere people who seem sure they've seen flying saucers. Why shouldn't I believe that UFOs exist? It's not that the people who tell these stories are lying, necessarily. However, the human mind being what it is...

 

Buddy, have you ever been driving and suddenly become aware that you weren't paying attention to your driving? That you were on "auto-pilot?" I do an immense amount of driving, and it happens to me on occasion. I'm lost for time in a world of thought that has no physical borders, no substance, is completely IMMATERIAL. Wherever I was during that lost time, it was all happening in my mind. When something is immaterial, Buddy, it means it doesn't matter. Your imaginary creatures are immaterial. They don't matter to anyone but you, because they only exist in your mind.

 

When a person accepts belief in a god, then that god now exists in another person's mind. As people spread the god concept to their children and communities, the god exists in more and more people's minds. God is a mind virus and IT wants to spread.

WM,

Well formulated and thoughtfully presented; helpful. Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

 

I've probably been imprecise in my 'man is the measure' and 'mind is the measure' statements. The heart of the issue for me centers perhaps on the man's assertion that he is the top of the hierarchy, without peer or superior, capable of judging the veracity of all things on the basis of superior intellect applied to evidence all of which is within his grasp. The individual human being, rather than a god or an unchanging moral law, is the ultimate source of veracity and value.

 

Your assertion that we exist within the confines of our own minds is perhaps over played. For instance, "now we know that dreams are just the mind's way of processing information." Nothing new there except the implied final conclusion, that dreams can not under any circumstances have any origin except within the mind of the dreamer; but where did the provocative information originate. The implied acceptability of every information source except a divine origin fails to extract the issue from the basic question of whether or not God exists. A fallacious argument based on precipitous conclusion; by the same logic, children learn language exclusively from their parents, friends, and teachers. Not true, of course, as television has superseded most sources as most significant formative instrument. Dreams come from the minds need to process information; perhaps an adequate statement, but from where might information emerge? In the presence of both natural and supernatural influence, the information emerges as reasonably from either.

 

I'm appreciate your writing on the subject of the mind. "The truth is, we all measure reality by our minds, Buddy. We all make our individual daily decisions based on our perceptions and interpretations about reality." True; we each by conscious act (mind) observe and evaluate (mind, again) the circumstances of our lives. We consider (mind) options and choose (mind) a course of action, a response, or a course among options. It's all in the mind; or perhaps just our perception of things is all in our mind, but the things themselves are generally elsewhere. My appreciation for the sunset may well be in my mind, but the sunset isn't. My affection for my daughter and wife may well be all in my mind but they are not. My knowledge of God may be all in my mind, but the truth of that statement bears not at all on your assertion that he therefore doesn't exist. My perception of you is all in my mind as well.

 

In each case, the issues are reduced to the original question of God's existence. They serve not at all as proofs.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Yet, you've shown nothing to prove an extrinsic god of any sort, and much about the mental landscape of a man who uses the identity 'BuddyFerris'.

 

As you say, mentation is not proof, and you present only subjective content as proof of an objective fact. You then make claims about 'could so many people beleive a 'lie'?' yet you can't prove they actually believe what you believe in toto... any more than I see turquoise as the same tone of greeny-blue as someone who thinks it's bluey-green...

[Grandpa Harley]

and what is Supernatural?

[Mankey]

and what is Supernatural?

Hehe! Well Buddy?

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm not holding my breath for an answer...

[Mankey]

I'm not holding my breath for an answer...

Yea....

 

...me either