It is easy to dismiss because in the absence of both empirical evidence and necessity through language and logic to sway speculation it goes into the catagory of either unknowable, or simply impossible, as is the case when there is evidence and/or necessity to its opposite...as is the case with most "claimed facts" aka "hypothesis" surrounding religions...though they lack nothing in wisdom as to "how to lives one's life", well, most of the time anyway...

For example-
Me: "How do you know that Jesus was the son of god?"
Him: "I know because I believe"
Me: "But to know it, it must be true"
Him: "Indeed, and it is"
Me: "So belief is the tool you use to gain knowledge?"
Him: "Yes"
Me: "That's interesting because I believe Jesus was not the son of god, am I wrong?"
Him: "Um, yes you are"
Me: "How? I'm beliving it, therefore it must be true!"
Him: "No that's..."
Me: "Look I'm just using your tool! I'm doing exactly what you did."
Him: "It's true for you that he wasn't."
Me: "Ah! So truth is subjective then?"
Him: "Yes it's subjective"
Me: "Is that an objective claim? Is it true that truth is subjective?"
Him: "Yes"
Me: "How? How can it be true if truth is subjective?"
Him: "That's...oh..."
Me: "So by dint of truth being objective, how can Jesus be both son of god and not son of god? Because logic dictates that he can only be one or the other not both. Like a number can be finite, or infinite but not both, or something can be moving, or not moving. P or ¬P but not p&¬p cos that's impossible by necessity"
Him: "But that doesn't work, my tool for knowledge, belief is valid!"
Me: Obviously not, because it leads one to contradiction, therefore...
Him: Oh ****!

(The above does not proove that he wasn't the son of god obviously, it simply demonstrates that belief alone is not enough to constitute knowledge. For knowledge there must be logical necessity and/or empirical evidence, otherwise it is unknown or even (if such evidence and logic is not applicable) unknowable! & on top of that, if there is logic or evidence to a null hypothesis then the hypothesis is doubtless wrong!...and boy is there evidence and logic to the null, tons of it...)

What is objective revolves around what is true, or false. If something is true, then it cannot be false. Now by something, I mean a particular set of properties. So by this I do not mean, if something is true of one thing it is false of something else, because that isn't the point, of course it is false of something else, but that something else is not the thing in question.

My ruler is 40cm long according to the distance by which we define cm. It is true, that my ruler is 40cm long, which means that it is false that my ruler is 20cm, and so this ruler is both true and false at the same time, but not of the same thing.

It is not false that my ruler is 40cm because it is true that it is 40cm.

Now yours or my eyesight may be shody, and so to me it is true that it is 40 and to you 30, so that is the difference in truth according to one's subjective inner reality (how we perceive everything). However, according to the literal outer reality that we may or may not have accurate description of (and probably don't)& there is only one of it, it is still only one or the other, which means at least one of us is perceiving it wrong. It is either ultimately true that it is 40cm, or false that it is 40cm (by that standard that is cm).

You can't have your cake and eat it. P is exclusive of ¬p...and ¬p is exclusive of p! So to say p&¬p is invalid logic. It's the first thing I learned! You say contradictory properties can coincide...look the universe doesn't work like that! My logic isn't in error!

If you put two opposties togethar they cancel each other out, and thus, cannot exist!

Look, people can have conflicting beliefs that's fine, but they cannot have conflicting knowledge, because for it to be known it must be true, and though many have varying beliefs about what is true, ultimately there is only state of being.

Say I see a traffic light as red and you as green, who is right? I may believe it is true that it is red, and you may believe it is true that it is green. So you might say, that neither of us is more true than the other. But that is not so, because ultimately there is only one state of the light's true being in the outer reality. Either the light is red or it is green, which means one of us is wrong.

We may not know which one it is, but that doesn't mean it is both!

Outer reality does not care what we know or believe! It is what it is whether you like or know it or not.

Quantum mechanics says a lot of things, non of which I would actually think proof, moreover we cannot account for some really strange behaviour of photons and the like...But that's still not proof, more an area of knowledge that we have yet to work out.

Energy for example is closed system apparently, and yet our observations are that a photon can exist in multiple places at the same time, thus creating more energy out of nothing...this does not compute. So either, the laws of physics are wrong, or, our observations are...& I think its more likely to be the latter...

Now I know what many say, "but we have looked at this from every angle!", but surely, you cannot look at it from "every" angle because there are some angles we don't know about. The problem is in the observation, and of course if something is unobservable it cannot be prooven one way or another. Nothing has been proven in quantum mechanics because the whole point is it tackles that which is unobservable, which is, impossible to proove one way or another (if it is not necessarily one or the other that is, which it isn't).

But I don't put much stock in quantum mechanics as it sounds to me like a more complicated version of the flat earth hypothesis. "We have looked at every angle, even climbing high moutains. But from every angle it looks flat, so by dint of empirical observation, it is flat"...Well, actually it isn't, for the earth is to large to observe properly whilst on it.

So, just as there are things that are too large to properly observe, may also mean that there are things that are too small to properly observe. Maybe even things that are so small that they are unobservable no matter how much technology you have!

But if you think you understand quantum mechanics, chances are you don't.

I don't think it is about liars. Someone told me that reality is a three edged sword, your side, their side and the truth. A fence is painted, on one side it is painted white, and on the other black. I am on the white side, and you on the black side. I observe the fence using me senses, and I believe that it is 100% white. You observe the fence, and you believe that it is 100% black.

But what does the fence think? What is it's ultimate, outer reality? It's truth! Well, in reality it is not 100% black, it is not 100% white, and not 100% both at the same time. It is 50% black, and 50% white. Hence, both our beliefs about what the truth is, is inaccurate, our beliefs are false to outer reality.

For, observed reality, is not the same as universal reality. I know there is debate as to whether outer reality exists but that's an argument for another time, for the moment let us assume it does.

So we have observer Simon, and we have observer Ape. Both have a totally different position in space, and thus a completely different observed reality. You cannot be wrong about what you believe, you think it's real and to you it is, however the belief itself can be different from universal reality, and it is universal reality that wins...

For example, if you drive a car to the edge of a cliff, take a massive dose of DMT and just before you go into ego death and leave this world completely lift the handbreak...You are not oberving the outside world, all that is real to you is the world of the DMT...but that doesn't mean the real world won't kill you.

The real world is there whether your oberving it or not. Of course, you cannot observe it "as it is" because, "what it is" is not experiancable without an experiancer, so without you all it is, is particles acting and reacting, its just data...But it's still there.

Data can be interpreted many different ways, it depends on the observer. But that doesn't change the fact that the data itself is totally objective and is what it is, hence there is a universal truth to it.

Am I making any sense?

Just because space/time is finite doesn't mean it can't be self causal. For example, what if two initial things existed in first moment of time, and they caused each other to be at the same time? Time created space whilst it was itself being created by space for example.

Besides, what "outside" of space/time is there? Besides "other" space/times that is. How can you be "outside" of space if there is no "space" for you to be outside "in" and the same question for time. If you exist outside out time then "when" do you exist?

& How can god have existed "before" the big bang when there was no "before" for him to exist in?

Part of what defines existence is having a position in space and time, without that position a thing is merely an idea, it has no substance. So if substance cannot exist without space and time, it is only logical to conclude there there was no time when space & time did not exist. No time when time didn't exist huh? Um, no ****?

Such a "larger" reality (which is a contradiction in terms as for an object to be larger than the universe it must occupy more space than space...or take more time, than time...) is pure speculation. There is no evidence for or against, hence it is pointless to assume based on mere intuition. Nor is it necessarily true in the same sence that I think therefore I am. The non-existence or existence of god are not paradoxes, and are also unobservavle, hence they are unknowable. Hence, they are speculation, aka pointless to assume.

Nothing comes from nothing, so for there to be something, there must have always been something, and I ugess, from a mathematical point of view the only way for something to become nothing is for two opposites to come togethar and cancel each other out. However to destroy matter or energy, one would need the existence of anti-matter, or anti-energy. & I don't know if that is even remotely possible...

Anyway...Nothing comes from nothing...and yet, time does not appear to stretch back infinately...so...

Say you had a temporal camera that recorded the universe...rewind 13.6 billion years and what do you observe. The only thing in existence is a singularity of energy consisting of the four fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong physical forces etc...so essentially a bubble of space containing all the laws of nature and all the energy of nature that would ever be. As such this bubble is unimaginably hot, so hot that matter cannot exist...then, the bubble explodes, creating more space as the temperature decreases, and, has been expanding, creating more space and decreasing in temperature ever since...

Sooo...this leads one to two important questions...

1) Why was that bubble there 13.6 billion years ago, where did it come from?
Answer: Due to infinate regression there is no such thing as an ultimate answer, that would be like searching for a mamimum number...but, that is because numbers are an open system, the universe is not. Because the universe is finite, you will get an ultimate answer, in other words, an answer to qhich if you ask why to that answer, you will not get any further answers. The ultimate answer is, "because the singularity was there", and asking why it was there doesn't work, because that is far as the regression goes. For example, the maxmimum velosity is the speed of light, so if you ask, what is faster than the speed of light, you will get no answer, because, nothing is faster than the speed of light, because it is the maximum, hence, nothing caused the singularity to exist, because it is the initial state of being. Where did it come from is meaningless, because back then, there was no where else for it to come from.
2) Why did it explode?
Answer: It exploded due to a variety of physical laws to do with temperature and pressure etc. The real question is why the transition, in other words why does time exist?
Answer: For the same reason space does, time, like space, is ultimate, it is fundamental. There was no time, where time didn't exist, hence it has always existed. So rewind again your camera back 13.6 billion years. Now, try to rewind it further...you can't! Because, that is where time started. Why? There is no why, because that is far down the line of why you can get! How do you rewind a tape recorder beyond the start of the tape, how do you go before the beginning? Before the beginning is a contradiction in terms!

Becausr the universe is finite, it is inevitable that you will ask why, and for there not to be an answer. It's like any argument, a premise defines a conclusion, but what defines the premises, and for any argument to be valid one must use premises that do not themselves have premises, fundamentals in other words.

In short, asking why the universe exists is a meaningless question, nothing "caused" it because there is nothing "else" to cause it, and suggesting that there is is mere speculation based on no evidence and no necessary truths, and are thus a waste of everyone's time!

OTavern wrote:This last point is mere speculation on your part, just as I speculate that there was not nothing, but something greater than space and time existing transcendent to our space time bubble, you speculate that there is nothing beyond it. Both are equally speculative, at least admit that much.

I did, I said there was no evidence for or against. But when you have no knowledge for or against, you must back up your assumptions, which I did.

OTavern wrote: Prove they are "fundamental!" How can you possibly conclude that? Time and space are fundamental to your knowledge base, but they may in fact be only a "slice" of a larger reality.

"Larger" is a statement of size, size is a statement of spacial properties. All spacial properties lie within the domain of space. It would make more sense if you said reality is more "extensive" than the universe, but you have yet to define in what way it is more extensive. It is not "longer" because that is a statement of time, or "bigger" because that is a statement of space. There is no space but space and no time but time, that is a necessary truth by dint of linguistics.

OTavern wrote: Imagine an infinite mind where the thoughts of that mind are akin to visualizations of our minds but so complete that these thought have "substantial existence."

What does that even mean?

OTavern wrote: We have a scaled down version of this phenomenon in our own thinking. When we visualize or dream, we create a "world" with enough consistency that we can convince ourselves that it could be real. What if the space-time continuum is a "dream" or visualization of an infinite mind.

If said mind is infinite why can we only think one thing at a time, in fact why do we think in finite terms at all? & why does the dream affect us against our will? If I smack you in the face there is nothing you can do about it, why?

OTavern wrote: All of the aspects integral to the universe as conceived by this infinite mind come together to create a reality so complete and internally consistent that they are substantial and form the reality of the inhabitants (human beings) of this universe.

Explain, that makes no sense to me. To complete an infinite mind would take infinate conceptions, which is impossible because some concepts are exclusive of other concepts, so you cannot have infinite concepts in one mind.

OTavern wrote: Hence, as our own visualizations seem real at times, this God-conceived universe is so completely integral from within that it is substantial and apparently "fundamental," but in reality is conceived within a greater, absolute reality, i.e., the mind of God.

You listen to Plato to much. This is more speculative than my slightly more synical view. (I admit I'm synical but I also admit to common sense). If you want to get to the truth of something, you must be skeptical. I only conclude space and time as a whole to be fundamental because I see no unconditional or empirical alternative. In other words, no evidence, and no reason to speculate. Common, its not like this universe is not big & strange and wonderful & terrible enough without assuming even more stuff!

OTavern wrote: This conclusion of yours is like saying that asking why your dreamworld exists is meaningless because, you conclude, your dreamworld is "fundamental" and speculating about a dreamer is meaningless because dreams are all there are.

It's like it yes, it's not that counter intuitive or even that illogical if you think about it. It's not it because the universe is not a dream. Dreams are events they have cause, the cause if sleep, and the cause of sleep is fatigue, and the cause of fatiuge is work etc etc etc on and on...but the universe as a whole is not an event, it is not part of a transition, it is an entity. All the subsets within a set can be random or caused, but the universal set itself, must be fundamental. That's mathematics. If you say there is "more than the universe" then obviously the set was not universal, aka it wasn't all of the universe. Universal refers to all inclusive. If there is more "stuff" than space and time, aka more than 4 real dimentions, then the universe is more extensive than we realised but its still the universe.

OTavern wrote: Just the fact that we as conscious beings can "image" in our minds is perhaps a clue to a greater instance of this same phenomena, i.e., the mind of God "imaging" the universe.

It really isn't. You have an odd sense of logical implication. The only thing it is a clue to is that energy can be manifested in any physically possible form...& I mean any...that includes life and consciousness. What is a thought? It is a 3-d pattern of energy within biological matter...what else could it be?

OTavern wrote: In a sense this is the Hume-Descartes debate writ large. You, with Hume believe that consciousness is merely a stream of images and reality is merely a stream of space-time. I believe our thinker-thought paradigm is a limited transposition or reflection of a "larger" reality.

See, who is being more speculative here? All my assumptions are based on empirical evidence, that which is observable coupled with what makes sense, based on the premises provided by said empirical evidence. However, your premises are based on assumptions about the unobservable. Assumption is not evidence.

Like I said, one must be a skeptic to get at the truth.

I assume such correlation because in the absence of evidence all that is left is speculation which I prefer not to do. Indeed it would be a "leap of faith", except that I try to minimise such leaps because I don't think they are a good thing.

It makes more sense to assume there isn't, than to assume there is when evidence is not around.

I accept that it is plausible that others things besides space and time exist but if so, what are they? That and, many of OTaverns statements where contradictions in terms. For example, "the universe is part of a larger existence", that is a blatant contradiction in two respects. Firstly "universe" refers to a universal set. A Universal set is omni-inclusive. One cannot include more than a universal set by definition (albeit a universe may contain more than just space and time, but again, what?). Secondly "larger" is a statement of size. Size is a property of space. One cannot occupy more space than space. So again, it is plausible that the universe is more complex than we think or that other real dimensions exist, but it is not possible that something outside the universe exists because you cannot by definition be outside of a universal set and still be a thing. If your outside of existence then you don't exist.

So, how can something "create" existence when nothing can exist without existence to create existence? Which means, that as existence exists, existence must always have existed. Existence by its very nature cannot be "created", it can only be changed.

Jellen that sounds awesome. But, lets get back to reality here. Does a body trauma and shock induced hallucination constitute proof of the divine? Really? Besides, how do we define divine chaps? Not of this universe?

Well like I said, nothing can exist without existence, and the universe is the universal set of all existence. So supernatural things do not exist. That doesn't mean of course that really strange stuff doesn't exist, the universe is full of really bizzare stuff that we may not know about, but they are still natural and physical. They still obey the rules.

Nothing can break the rules of existence, albeit us humans get think we know the rules "laws of physics" we call them, but we might be wrong about what the rules actually are (and indeed that happens often)...but just because something goes against what we think are the true laws of physics, doesn't mean it goes against the true laws of physics, it doesn't mean that thing is divine.

It is very easy to assume that something bizzare or inexplicable is divine, but it is not, its just really awesome. The human consciousness it an amazing thing, and thus people assume it to be supernatural or divine, or non-physical. But it isn't, its just really amazing. Nor does explaining how it works in material terms dimeane it, it is still a beautiful thing aesthetically.

This is where I think people go wrong actually, using ethics (what they want to be so) and aesthetics (what would be beautiful to be so) to justify ontology (what is so) and truth...and sometimes not even getting said ethics and aesthetics right. &, common guys, the truth can be just as beautiful if you look at it in the right light.

I'm sorry I'm confused, is your friend alive or dead? & How did you intervene? & what does that have to do with the divine?

Like I said the mind is an amazing thing, and something like trauma induced hallucinations can radically alter it. Where once you may have been timid, suddenly you where brave...it happens.

The mind is determined by two things, genetics, and experiance. It is experiance that is the real changer though. A computer program does nothing unless you put information into it.

You said it yourself, without such an experiance things would be completely different. What does it matter if it was not real, it still made a real impact didn't it?

Why do people think that because dreams or hallucinations are not real they are not important. Everything is important, one change in your experiance and you would be someone else!

Many times, but on the whole they stand up to scrutiny. I think you are jumping to conclusions about the way I see the universe. I actually believe that most disagrements are not disagrements at all but misunderstandings. You misunderstand me.

There are two types of reality. The outer reality or, "true" reality as I call it is the stuff in between people (also include's people's bodies), it is the enviornment in which we dwell. This environment does not "look" like anything, and has no perception of time, no consciousness, it does not experiance itself. That doesn't mean nothing is in it, but what is in it is just particles reacting with each other by way of physical forces, there is nothing beyond that, it means nothing, it just is. This "true" reality, many people say doesn't exist, which I disagree with, because one may not be aware of what is going on in it, in other words may not observe it and it, it affects you. Falling asleep at the wheel of a car for example, you may not be aware of the world and it is not aware of you, but, it still kills you. In this reality we do have time, but no perception of time. In other words stuff happens one after the other in a linear way, but there is no perception of that order, past future and present all would appear the same, if there was any thing for it to appear to. The environment itself is without mind. All that exists in this environment in other words, is stuff, data, information. For the data to mean anything it needs to be interpreted by an observer. However, just because the interpretation of the data varies, doesn't mean there is no universal truth in the data itself. Whether the data of photons goes into your eyes or mine and is thus interpreted differently, the data is still the same data, there is a universal truth behind it.

The other reality is perceived reality. The data is received, observed and interpreted. The data receiver is subjective, hence the interpretation of fata varies from person to person. But, they all receive the same data. In a way, everyone is false, because it is impossible to perceive data as it genuinely is because perception is itself, a subjective thing hence there is no universal truth behind it. But there is universal truth behind the data, we just can't see it.

So let me kind of clarify that whole traffic light thing. The concept of red is not what red truly is. The concept is just an "artistic" (for lack of a better term) representation of what the data is, the data itself is a particular wavelength of photons. However, the data is supposed to lead to a particular interpretation. So one wavelength is supposed to evoke the perception of red, and another is supposed evoke green.

The data we both receive is a wavelength that is supposed to evoke red in both of us. But because of some mistake in your sensory receptors you receive the same data as me, and yet, interpret it is green.

Now there is no way to know what the truth of the data was, because our only way of knowing is logic and observation, and neither of those is applicable in something that is not necessarily one or the other and is not observable. However, just because we don't know which one it is, doesn't mean it is both. The data is supposed to evoke red, not green, so the fact that you saw green means that you are wrong. It's not your fault your wrong, because thats the fault of your eyes not you...but your still wrong...

The data 1+2 is supposed to = 3...but to interpret it as to get 4, is wrong. It's very simple.

Yes and no. Purpose is not the same as intension. A wave length ~625-740nm is not "intended" to evoke red in an observer because the wavelength has not itself a mind with which to "intend" anything at all. However that is the "purpose" of the wavelength, amoungst many many other physical functions. Light, is not only existing for our convenience, it is a form of energy, and thus forms a great many physical functions that make the universe work. As regards the purpose of allowing organisms to "see", "purpose", means a hypothesised result. In other words, the hypothesised result of the wavelength ~625-740nm is that it evokes the idea/concept of red in an oberver.

But why? What is the cause of this? Like you said the answer is in evolution. Red, is an artistic representation of a physical state. It is the brain's way of telling the conscious mind, that in a partciular area of space there exists a concentration of photons with the wavelength ~625-740nm. This knowledge is useful in many situations, for example it allows us to see when the traffic is coming, and when it has stopped. Those that receive the data, "light wavelength in area x = ~625-740nm" and interpret the colour as green incorrectly, think that the traffic has stopped, walks out into it and dies. The genetic defect in those eyes does not get reproduced where as the one's that see red does. The people who see red from ~625-740nm increases, it becomes the norm. So from an evolutionary standpoint, the act of seeing the right colour from the given wavelength allows us to survive.\

I fail to see how seeing the wrong wavelength could allow one to survive, there is a reason why colour blind people are more rare. It is also a fact that in the early days of human evolution, colour blind humans would invariably die due to not seeing dangerous things. It is important, from an evolution point of view, to interpret the data as it is supposed to be interpreted, because the data has universal truth in it, it is what it is whether we interpret it correctly or not. In order to survive we need to react to the world as it really is, and in order to tell what the world is we need to interpret the data correctly.

If in a maths exam you receive the data question 1+2 = ? and you think the answer is 4, you will fail the test.

As for evolution vs intelligeant design. Like I have said before, one cannot create existence, because noting can exist without existence to create existence. Just as there is no time without time, as to create time there must be a time in which there is time that has time to create time.

The fact that stuff exists means that there was never a point that nothing existed. Existence has always existed. This negates a being that created existence, for that being would need to exist to create existence, and by existing it lies within the domain of existence.

One cannot, ultimately create rules because one needs rules to create rules. Ultimately nothing can control, because either something controls the controller or nothing does, and if nothing does that thing is out of control.

On top of that, any designer of this universe, if the analogy was used as a graphics designer or modeler, they would probably be fired for being so usless, the amount of physical flaws in existence are amazing, and a necessarily perfect being by definition cannot make mistakes.

There are two ways in which a system can come into being, one is being designed, but, in order to design a system one needs system of design, systems to create systems to create systems. So it is impossible to create an ultimate system, because you would need another system to do it.

The other way is evolution, in order words trial and error. Trial and error is not itself a system, it is a purpose, and both purpose and cause have a kind of symbiotic relationship in that cause creates purpose and purpose creates cause. A system can evolve, all that is required is for a system to already exist by which the changes of that system can evolve. That system does exist, it is called the laws of nature.

The fact that everything has a cause, and everything has a purpose actually implies that reality cannot have been created, it merely implies that reality is causally circular. If you ask why enough times you will eventually get back to your origional question. Reality is a massive circular argument. Reality is not spacially or temporally circular as far as we know, because it all origionates from an intitial state of being. But nothing was ever created, only changed, and that initial state was caused by the purpose of everything that came later. In other words it kind goes likes this...

Why does the universe exist?
Because it needs to.
Why?
If it didn't exist nothing would exist.
Why?
Because the universe is the universal set of all existence.
Why?
Because that is what "universe" means.
Why?
Because that is the name we assigned that concept.
Why?
Because uni, meaing one and verse, which I guess means existence (I think)
Why?
Etc etc

As you can see the consistent why doesn't necessarily lead to "I don't know" if you know enough, what it leads to is one ultimately changing the subject such that you go round in circles, and if we follow this chain long enough you will eventually get back to where you started.

So ultimately the universe is self-causal and assigns it's own purpose by dint of not being one thing but a set of many things that cause each other to be. Perfect symbiosis!

Gearge wrote:

Scott wrote: "Why is it so easy to dismiss the existence of gods?"

Well I didn't read all six pages so forgive me if I'm simply repeating people, but I don't think religion is easy to dismiss.

The majority of the earths population follows a belief in some kind of supernatural force, Becouse like the tendency for children to create invisible friends (It has been proven that the same pats of the brain used for this are also used to comprehend faith), people have a tendency to look for answers outside of the natural realm. Even some forms of Humanism believe the human counciuousness is something that science will never comprehend.

How could something easy to dismiss be as sucsessful as it is, it's not simply an answer of following the beliefs of parents as that can hardly explain the rise of religion in the first place (I know thats a skechy point). Nor does it explain how 84% (aprox) of the earths population are religious

& what population of the earth has an education as extensive as yours or mine? Very few...

Do not under estimate the power of a parent's religion. A child gets almost everything from their parents, as it is the parents that entirely determine their child's nature (genetics) and significantly impact their nurture also. It is difficult to avoid becoming like one's parents, I am like my parents in many ways. With that in mind, coupled with the realisation that a majority of people in the world are uneducated, in fact a lot are illiterate, and, couple that with the sociological phenomenon called "tradition", in other words "we have been doing this for a thousand years and it hasn't let us down so I fail to see why we should stop now" attitude...then you begin to realise just how much old ways die hard!

As for how it began, that is easy. Before science we still had psychoactive drugs, mentally abnormal people, and rare spectacular natural events...but with one difference, then they had no explaination for them.

If you lived in a society without any science at all and you chewed on a salvia leaf, and then began to see mystical beings...how on earth are you supposed to know that what your seeing is actually a hallucination? How would you even know what a hallucination is!

Do not under estimate the ignorance of humanity.

But from an educated point of view called logic, one realises that actually the supernatural defines itself out of existence. Natural refers to what is, so, supernatural not being natural, isn't.

That doesn't mean that what is natural isn't really really strange and amazing and horrifying sometimes...but its still natural.

The difficulty is that for them, it is so counter-intuitive. It is in other words, just as hard for them to accept there isn't a god, as it is for you to accept that there is. This is exactly why intuition alone is not enough to constitute knowledge, there must be logic.

Buit logic alone is not enough either, for it must use true premises, which is why a lot of those very clever people believe. The use logic to justify what is false because their premises are flawd. That is what I believe anyway, I'm not certain of course. In reality the existence of god is unknowable because it is not necessarily true and it is also unobservable. So no amount of logic can proove or disproove with utter certainty. However, empirical reasoning (another form of logic) demonstraits that it is as unlikely as polytheism also...in other words no religion has any more evidence than any other, so to assume any one of them true is speculation and is thus not knowledge.

Your life would not necessarily be easier with god because you don't necessary need a real god to "look up to" as it where, all you need to look up such a being is the idea of god. Because ultimately that is what god is, an idea. God is a personifcation of the perfect ideal of humanity. Perfection is of course impossible, but nevertheless it gives us a direction to strive for. Hence religion is not useless, its just not true, nor does it need to be true to accoplish its mission.

The point of religion is to give one direction and purpose, it doesn't need to be based on facts to do that, ideas are enough.

& as for life after death, well, actually that depends on how you define "you". Because by "you" do you mean this state of mind or do you mean the substance that makes up your mind. Because your thoughts are basically 3-d patterns of energy within biological matter. When you die those patterns will never appear again for they where unique to that combination of energy and matter. You will no longer exist as this mind. But you will exist as others, because matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, nothing cannot create something, and something cannot create nothing. When your body decomposes the matter and energy that was your mind will separate and go travel to many places, manifesting itself in many different ways until finally, segments of matter and energy that where once parts of your mind will find themselves part of the mind of another, and whilst not part of a mind a particle or electron or whatever, has no concept of time and thus, from it's perspective one minute it was part of your mind and the next is was part of another, but with no memory of the previous mind...hence, you are reincarnated, but not into one mind, into trillions of different minds in trillions of places at trillions of different times, all with no memory of this existence and with no knowledge of each other. & indeed, your mind is made up with components of what used to be other people's minds. Part of your mind may have been part of Einstein's mind, another may have been part of Jack the Ripper's!

The fundamental stuff that is you, is immortal, even from a materialist perspective. How cool is that!?

Juice wrote:As demonstrated it is not easy to dismiss God when considering that one must consider God and then dismiss God. What is interesting is the absolute nature of some of the language without considering how one came to absolute conclusions.

God does not exist since no one can prove that God exists. What proof does one require and from what level of knowledge does the criteria originate and who decides what that criteria should allow to be considered proof that God does not exist?

It's not proof that god doesn't exist. You can't proove that anything doesn't exist because if it doesn't exist there isn't anything to disprove. A lack of evidence and necessity for truth simply demonstraits that there is no reason to believe it.