When/ how did you become an atheist?

[420Joey]

Besides I believe in science not religion. Im not exclusively limiting my belief system to science because were talking about a concept thats not a closed system. Science can only be done in closed systems.

Religion has too many boundaries, contradictions and the concept itself bleeds with absurdity since this religious reality would render existance to be meaningless in the most respects especially in the sense that it is all some "test".

I'll even go further and explain to you why science isnt applicable relating to the question at hand.

Through science we understand what appears as solid is not. (Exchange of "data" from senses, enviorment and various triggers)

That the universe at some point was "contained" and somehow expanded or continues to expand.

That something "physical" even if it appears "still" is essentially energy in constant motion.

These three points among many more lead me to believe that I cant approach the question of what is the premise of origin without considering one thing.

This could just be a *possible perspective* based on our senses and the data available. This could all just be an "illusion".

Infact its most likely an illusion because quantum physics does not seem to conform to the "natural" laws of science though it can be said it makes the composition for these constructs to exist in the first place.

There is a "universal" science that applies to the natural and the "un-natural" I would suspect its (acceleration, constant motion) the intergration of the physical and consciousness is some consequence of this constant motion evolving itself to be more efficient. Under this pretense I believe there is a god but not many would define the construct of evolving matter as such.

I just cant see how a monkey could throw a bunch of auto parts against a wall and eventually make a car.

 

[The Esotericist]

Correct.
X is one. Y is another. Z is the third. That would make time the fourth. This is standard physics, standard geometry... hell, even standard engineering.

My bad. I had a migraine and wasn't thinking straight that day. Basic high school edumacation. bah ahah hah ahah

 

[universaldistress]

Besides I believe in science not religion. Im not exclusively limiting my belief system to science because were talking about a concept thats not a closed system. Science can only be done in closed systems.

Religion has too many boundaries, contradictions and the concept itself bleeds with absurdity since this religious reality would render existance to be meaningless in the most respects especially in the sense that it is all some "test".

I'll even go further and explain to you why science isnt applicable relating to the question at hand.

Through science we understand what appears as solid is not. (Exchange of "data" from senses, enviorment and various triggers)

That the universe at some point was "contained" and somehow expanded or continues to expand.

That something "physical" even if it appears "still" is essentially energy in constant motion.

These three points among many more lead me to believe that I cant approach the question of what is the premise of origin without considering one thing.

This could just be a *possible perspective* based on our senses and the data available. This could all just be an "illusion".

Infact its most likely an illusion because quantum physics does not seem to conform to the "natural" laws of science though it can be said it makes the composition for these constructs to exist in the first place.

There is a "universal" science that applies to the natural and the "un-natural" I would suspect its (acceleration, constant motion) the intergration of the physical and consciousness is some consequence of this constant motion evolving itself to be more efficient. Under this pretense I believe there is a god but not many would define the construct of evolving matter as such.

I just cant see how a monkey could throw a bunch of auto parts against a wall and eventually make a car.

Where is you EVIDENCE to support the idea that existence could be an illusion?

 

[spidergoat]

We could be living in a computer simulation. It's possible. In fact, it's more likely than not. Consider that in the future, if we can simulate a universe, there could be many more copies existing than the actual universe.

 

[universaldistress]

I did not say I dont believe in evolution. It co-exists with my theory of physical reality the way I understand it.

I dont believe in anything physical. I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way.

Are you trying to say the theory that the universe computes is evidence for a belief in god? I could go along in principal that the universe computes. But to attribute wholesale or individualistic intelligence is untenable as it is a, without evidence, b, unproven.

I think after all the physical matter has expanded to every possibility this contigent matter created intervals of time (due to its onward expansion) contained in arrays of universes as "units" of a measurement with no coordinates.

Ok to theorise, but we can't prove it. To discuss this as philosophical possibility has intellectual benefit. But to wholeheartedly BELIEVE your theory, and refuse to present it as a possibility is a tad hopeful. Hopeful that we are going to a, buy it, b, not blow your stance out of the water.

I have a theory too. But I do not pedal it as fact.

Due to the expansion or motion the eventual consequence would be an "overlapping of layers" after a certain point creating consciousness to experience or "create" reality so it could instantaneously 'collapse the vaccum' or create based on this evolution of matter or god.

No evidence to support this. Is this a fanciful theory or fact?

I believe evolution is a consequence of time and contigent matter in constant motion (following certain laws created to ensure the survival of experience) and this is a deliberate action of "god" to "experience" in a more meaningful way the emulation. It's like an emulator playing roms versus a simulation of nothing or everything. The universe does not have to be as uniform as it appears and its not, its just the illusion. I think that every type of reality exists and that we will "experience" every one. In increments of time to provide temporary meaning to physical reality which would be negated if we truly understood anything.

You are not a god, and are restricted to the observable. 'Think' is to strong a word. 'Think that maybe' is more the appropriate phrase?

Again im not exclusive to any belief and I dont ascertain this as the truth. Its my best guess or "belief" versus stating I dont know. Its a given we dont know.

Ok, so now you are saying you do not believe your belief. Sounds very mixed up. You would get a much better response here, from members like myself and Sciwriter if you worded your whole theory in a more possible-maybe-type way.

I believe because I think our thoughts are powerful + pascals wager it makes me think the moment I die my ultimate will is going to transfer me to a favorable experience

You have got to get a handle on reality, and waht it means for your stance within, and the way to present it externally. Then you would be able to have a more meaningful conversation here.

 

[universaldistress]

We could be living in a computer simulation. It's possible. In fact, it's more likely than not. Consider that in the future, if we can simulate a universe, there could be many more copies existing than the actual universe.

Yeah, sure, could be. But it needs to presented as a maybe and not as a belief, or even a fact.

For a claim to be made it needs support of evidence of substance. Cobbling together something and presenting it too strongly will result in no assessment of its potential, and instead a knee jerk 'shut the hell up'.

 

[420Joey]

There is no emperical evidence supporting that reality is an illusion since it would negate the point of the assertion.

Relativity has to decieve us in order to exist.
Our reality can verywell be a mere illusion. Physical properties are soley determined by subjective thought from our senses and the material we interpet to be physical due to its properties and our interactions with this property that has evolved to current extents.

Your eyes have the power to absorb an immense amount of sights. Relative distances, colors, speeds, and weight can all be instantaneously determined just with the eyes alone. They absorb all of this matter and send it to the dense matter right behind them and this creates a still image. The process of absorption, brain taking a picture is what creates the illusion of existence.

The eyes take in the information, the brain has to create a picture. The brain is too dense to process motion in the micro levels and it has to process one frame at a time. Our bodies are able to move faster than this process that’s why when you watch a kinetic dancer his motion seems blurred. He is moving so fast that your brain cannot keep up and stores a series of images that are hybrids of two frames hence the blur. If a high-speed camera sensitive to true properties was present, since it stores frames at a rate faster than our brains, it would be able to capture the true watery motion.

[ENC]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hGhjFGKdTEM[/ENC] Watch this bee.

We have to use a sensitive high speed camera to capture this motion. The true speed of true interactions cannot be said. We think we’re moving along at a certain pace due to relativity when we’re actually not going anywhere. It takes a a lot of energy to create our seemingly fluid motion just as it takes a lot of energy to create the seemingly fluid motion you see above
Air or space is the baddest substance out there. Remember the faster our high-speed camera or artificial eye moves, the slower the motion. In actuality, the truer the motion. If we had a camera that could capture an infinite number of frames we would never see the actual motion. The bee would seem to sit in one place our entire lifetime. Now what if we lived in this state for an eternity? Our perception of the world around us would jive with the images captured by or infinite-frame capturing camera. We would see every last movement the bee made if we sat there forever. Even if the film was a two-second jaunt atop a flower if shot a camera that recorded in an infinite frame rate would play it back for infinity. Matter of fact it would still be recording it as you watched it. Don’t even try to wrap your head around that. We literally cannot, that is why we have this relativity thing going so we don’t have to. If it wasn’t for relativity we would just sit in one place forever or explode in a millisecond.

The faster our camera captures images the slower they appear to move. In its frame could be a humming bird, a snail and jet. If the speed of the camera is fast enough, when you watch the film back all three of these objects will not seem to move at all. They just stay still for eternity. If the camera moves ridiculously slow, say one frame every one billion years you would get to see how evolution really works. You would see the true nature of our LIVING celestial bodies. Imagine viewing our solar system at this speed.

Consciousness and interpretation have to exist for the universe to appear the way it does.

But is the way we percieve something make it an absolute? Is the universe truly the way it is? Or one possible interpretation due to our senses??

Could an ant ever truly understand the world?? Is a good analogy if well ever truly understand reality. Its not meant to be understood. It would negate free will and render everything to be meaningless.

 

[The Esotericist]

“

Reasoning??? What utter bullshit! The faith of the scientist is a reasoned faith. The faith of the religionist is an unreasoned faith. My wife has stood by me for thirty-three years, so I reasonably assume that she will continue to do so. The faith of the religionists is based on instinct, stories passed down from the elders, and the overwhelming desire to have a Big Daddy In The Sky who will make everything turn out all right.


Hmm. Someone else who got an F in Science 101A. Reasoning and empirical evidence are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Although peer review also plays an important role and that's where the religionists fall face down in the mud. None of their assertions stand up to the most cursory examination.

I think you took what I said to the extreme. I agreed with you on your post almost in it's entirety. All I was meaning to point out was that the scientist that has faith, that is humble, is aware of the limits of human perception is different than the arrogant atheist that is self assured of his supposed infallibility. The scientist that isn't, has not belief beyond what can be perceived by his senses and beyond that what can be measured, reproduced, calculated, and predicted. This was not meant to be an attack on all scientists or all empiricists. I was just pointing out the differences in the willingness to employ reasoning in the lack of empirical evidence. For when we speak on matters of faith, do we not have to leave behind matters of evidence and science?

The blind man who believes there is only one earth and one star, the sun, because that is all he can feel upon his skin, is the atheist. The blind man that has faith that there may be many more because he has an open mind and can imagine a universe with more though he cannot see more, has no way of perceiving any others, but only has faith that it may be possible, is the theist.

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."
-- Albert Einstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

 

[420Joey]

Are you trying to say the theory that the universe computes is evidence for a belief in god? I could go along in principal that the universe computes. But to attribute wholesale or individualistic intelligence is untenable as it is a, without evidence, b, unproven.

It is inevitable (intelligence) if you believe in evolution.
If you believe the anthropotic principle explained by sheer probability you must also consider god in the equation. The universe computes ??? Is there a better description of god.... I think not. Perhaps I'll steal that.

Ok to theorise, but we can't prove it. To discuss this as philosophical possibility has intellectual benefit. But to wholeheartedly BELIEVE your theory, and refuse to present it as a possibility is a tad hopeful. Hopeful that we are going to a, buy it, b, not blow your stance out of the water.

I whoreheartedly believe in god, not the theory itself. Its mere speculation to elevate ourselves from "I dont know so your stupid if you ascertain something as the truth" Lets elevate or stay away from the religious subfora if your not interested in progressing the ideas.

I have a theory too. But I do not pedal it as fact.

So does science. Illustrate how I pedaled it as fact if every possible moment I could I included that nobody knows, its mere speculation and that it is simply a belief in god that I hold as true.

No evidence to support this. Is this a fanciful theory or fact?

Fanciful theory that is more sound than one you can conjure up, perhaps....

You are not a god, and are restricted to the observable. 'Think' is to strong a word. 'Think that maybe' is more the appropriate phrase?

Nope we are all god. Omnipotent is oxymoron basically. Doing anything would negate meaning I suspect experience transcended from contigent matter were based on and god is the source of origin, in my interpretation.

Ok, so now you are saying you do not believe your belief. Sounds very mixed up. You would get a much better response here, from members like myself and Sciwriter if you worded your whole theory in a more possible-maybe-type way.

Screw Sciwriter. He is even more off base than athiests who dont have an opinion. We essentially have the same beliefs and are arguing about labels. God had to be. Nothing can explain the dynamics of survival, will and consciousness especially in a vaccum state.

You have got to get a handle on reality, and waht it means for your stance within, and the way to present it externally. Then you would be able to have a more meaningful conversation here.

I suspect you have a handle on reality? Care to enlighten us?

 

[universaldistress]

I do accept it as fact sir.

Simply put I just believe in god as experience. It is more simple than to believe that one came from a fluke or matter than to all of us. Consciousness in a sterile universe is not needed. So if we simplify this in a meaninful way - we can come to understand that if we do not have a frame of reference - we cannot move foward meaningfully. I believe there is a god as the frame of reference for consciousness. I can't understand the purpose behind having consciousness in a sterile universe except than I conclude that the universe itself is alive through consciousness and that there has to be more. I just believe the mind is so powerful that one day we will manafacture reality like we do with dreams. I take this all as hints that physical reality is an illusion based on some quantum bonding of experience and focal points intertwined with the same type of contigent matter.

Without evidence to support a creative intelligence's means of control (transfer of data between matter to maintain a scheme) it is going to be hard to move your theory away from theory to believable fact.

Quantum physics essentially states that everything is deprived from thoughts. From god? By god I mean - the first sense of matter that organized itself evolving to an extent on a cosmological scale and consciousness is some consequence of this evolution.

This is based on the idea that an observer affects a change in quantum states. There are other interpretations of the evidence as D highlighted yesterday.

Is religion and god different? What is your definition of god? Don't worry you are most likely god, maybe everything is thats why we dont feel bad eating each other Maybe we all just know life and death is more or less a game that doesent matter. I suspect that if we all were independant of reality that consciousness wouldent have been this organized, uniform andfollowinglaws. Actually let me ask you this,

You can't present this without a smile on your face. A god could be everything, but i for one do not want to eat my neighbour lol. I have learned that this is wrong. Where is free thought in all this? And where is the straight jacket? I wouldn't want you as my neighbour LOL.

If consciousness and physical reality (and the laws that it conforms to) is exclusive than consider what happens when we dream. Surely we are still conscious and we manafacture a reality within our own by a simple mental process alone. It doesent adhere to the laws in this physical reality. Than we wake up. Does that make any scientific sense when you really think about it??

The mind constructs dream imagery in absence of the strong sensory input of the day. The mind uses this time to process and store (change the nature of the storing) of the days input. To say dreams are evidence to anything outside the laws of physical reality is just uneducated.

How about those who lucid dream and control there enviorments in dreams, etc.?

How about that.

I'll be eager to hear that response as to why it exists in the first place. Can evolution explain a complex level of consciousness to this extent? I suspect we are all one. That one is god. Universe, me, you, a blade of grass, and that perverted thought you have when you see a certain somebody, I think it's all god.

Evolution isn't the study of consciousness.

But you can't prove it is all god, so no one here is listening to you.

If reality was any different (If we knew god existed, if physical requirements were not in place for consciousness, all the usual arguments against) would life be meaningful in the way it is now??

I am unable to pin down a coherent point to this questing. If I ignore the incoherence of the extra in brackets, then I can answer that if reality was different then chances are anything meaningful within said altered reality would be composed of aspects different to this reality. Does this answer your question??? (where is Dwayne?)

Could you even imagine yourself as lets say a butterfly? Or a monkey? Do you think it would be as meaningful? I think it would to an extent. If you have no frame of reference surely death is something to be wanted. I mean, you fall asleep right??? Why wake up when you don't have to? Sounds sweet to me. I just dont think this is the case. I think we will resurface as this consciousness is all in the same fabric and we don't know what we will resurface as!We cant experience "death"inevolution just sleepwhichis deprived from the construct. Hopefully we will be animated. This is what god is about. It's about will + experience which isnt neccessitated by evolution

Again you are hoping, and believing without evidence. You have cobbled together BITS of science and BITS of religion to make one incoherent whole.

I am still not getting a formed picture of your theory so i must assume there isn't one, and you are just 'stream of consciousness' waffling.

Isnt it perfectly balanced, can you think of how you would be otherwise?? If things were even a little different, suppose everybody always got what they want, wouldent it defeat the purpose of want and render the associated feelings null untill pain and happiness was synomonus?

Is reality the ultimate state? No way of knowing. Maybe something more complex and efficient exists out there in infinity. Just don't base your psychology on incomplete evidence. One must always maintain and project a healthy scepticism.

 

[universaldistress]

It is inevitable (intelligence) if you believe in evolution.
If you believe the anthropotic principle explained by sheer probability you must also consider god in the equation. The universe computes ??? Is there a better description of god.... I think not. Perhaps I'll steal that.



I whoreheartedly believe in god, not the theory itself. Its mere speculation to elevate ourselves from "I dont know so your stupid if you ascertain something as the truth" Lets elevate or stay away from the religious subfora if your not interested in progressing the ideas.

So does science. Illustrate how I pedaled it as fact if every possible moment I could I included that nobody knows, its mere speculation and that it is simply a belief in god that I hold as true.



Fanciful theory that is more sound than one you can conjure up, perhaps....



Nope we are all god. Omnipotent is oxymoron basically. Doing anything would negate meaning I suspect experience transcended from contigent matter were based on and god is the source of origin, in my interpretation.



Screw Sciwriter. He is even more off base than athiests who dont have an opinion. We essentially have the same beliefs and are arguing about labels. God had to be. Nothing can explain the dynamics of survival, will and consciousness especially in a vaccum state.



I suspect you have a handle on reality? Care to enlighten us?

I am not here to enlighten anyone with a possibility.

You HAVE pedalled this theory as fact with the wording you have used. They fact you rescind this now is great.

But to then say you wholeheartedly believe in god shoots you down once more.

My theory is much more comprehensive than this mixup of science and fringe philosophy used to fudge the science, coupled with borrowed theist teaching.

 

[420Joey]

Without evidence to support a creative intelligence's means of control (transfer of data between matter to maintain a scheme) it is going to be hard to move your theory away from theory to believable fact.

Beliefs have to be based on facts? It cant be reduced to logical reasoning infered from contemporary understandings and truths?

Furthermore, what is your belief relating to the premise of reality?? Is it the convinient position "I dont know so shut the fuck up for thinking you know something even though your not ascertaining what you know as truth" ?

This is based on the idea that an observer affects a change in quantum states. There are other interpretations of the evidence as D highlighted yesterday.

Who cares does it make his alternative interpretation anymore valid than mine? Who is to say? A particle is not sufficient in observation it has to be a conscious system.

The mind constructs dream imagery in absence of the strong sensory input of the day. The mind uses this time to process and store (change the nature of the storing) of the days input. To say dreams are evidence to anything outside the laws of physical reality is just uneducated.

See myabove post about the strong sensory input and how brains interp. it


How about that.

Evolution isn't the study of consciousness.

How do you know? How are you sure?

But you can't prove it is all god, so no one here is listening to you.

You are. I dont care.

I am unable to pin down a coherent point to this questing. If I ignore the incoherence of the extra in brackets, then I can answer that if reality was different then chances are anything meaningful within said altered reality would be composed of aspects different to this reality. Does this answer your question??? (where is Dwayne?)

Incoherence? Speaking of which. Your reply doesent make much sense.

Again you are hoping, and believing without evidence. You have cobbled together BITS of science and BITS of religion to make one incoherent whole.

Which is better than nothing? Or a irrational reservation because of labels and association?

I am still not getting a formed picture of your theory so i must assume there isn't one, and you are just 'stream of consciousness' waffling.

Sure. Can you explain how a vaccumn state creates said "streams of consciousness" or furthmore can you explain how come our brain (you and I) arent conscious of an event untill after it takes place?

Is reality the ultimate state? No way of knowing. Maybe something more complex and efficient exists out there in infinity. Just don't base your psychology on incomplete evidence. One must always maintain and project a healthy scepticism.

I do maintain healthy scepticism. I dont ascribe to any belief exclusively. Say something that makes more sense and you got me.

 

[420Joey]

I am not here to enlighten anyone with a possibility.

Obviously not just obstructions eh?

You HAVE pedalled this theory as fact with the wording you have used. They fact you rescind this now is great.

Cite an instance or retract this statement. I dont rescind anything.

But to then say you wholeheartedly believe in god shoots you down once more.

Do you have a belief ? My concept of god is irrefutable in my eyes. Sadly you disagree. If you dont have a better theory that negates god as unnecessary than I would rather not hear from you.

My theory is much more comprehensive than this mixup of science and fringe philosophy used to fudge the science, coupled with borrowed theist teaching.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US

 

[JuNie]

Why so angry. things happenas they do. Why attribute blame for the world when it is our decisions that mould it. If you want to punch anyone punch yourself, or me

An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

 

[quinnsong]

JuNie this will absolve him/her--IT DOES NOT EXIST!

 

[universaldistress]

Beliefs have to be based on facts? It cant be reduced to logical reasoning infered from contemporary understandings and truths?

If you wish sciforums members to take you seriously you have to base your belief on proven facts.

Furthermore, what is your belief relating to the premise of reality?? Is it the convinient position "I dont know so shut the fuck up for thinking you know something even though your not ascertaining what you know as truth" ?

You offer no proof. And you are still mixing up. Do you believe your belief, yes or no???

Who cares does it make his alternative interpretation anymore valid than mine? Who is to say? A particle is not sufficient in observation it has to be a conscious system.

You can't use an unproven interpretation to base a theory on, not if you pedal it as fact, or believe in it. How can we take you seriously when you say you believe your theory?

You are. I dont care.

I am not listening to your theory because it isn't fully formed. I am listening to your words but they make no sense. This in effect is not sinking in. So in that sense I am not listening.

Incoherence? Speaking of which. Your reply doesent make much sense.

how could it when it is replying to the nonsensical?

Which is better than nothing? Or a irrational reservation because of labels and association?

So you are saying you believe your theory. this is not science.

Sure. Can you explain how a vaccumn state creates said "streams of consciousness" or furthmore can you explain how come our brain (you and I) arent conscious of an event untill after it takes place?

Explain the relevance then I will tackle this. It is only relevant to your belief. Science is about uncovering facts.

I do maintain healthy scepticism. I dont ascribe to any belief exclusively. Say something that makes more sense and you got me.

Again you are saying you do believe. Then you are saying you don't. Mixed up. Very.

 

[universaldistress]

An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

A lot of anger here. You should look to make your life rewarding.

 

[universaldistress]

Cite an instance or retract this statement. I dont rescind anything.

I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way.

This is pedalling your belief as a fact. For you to say you believe in this unproven BS, you must be asserting this is a fact.

I have had enough of this BS. Seems all you have is BS.

There are stalwart theists on this forum who present better than you.

Later.

 

[420Joey]

:m:

An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

What would intervention look like? Regrowth perhaps for some would be sufficient in terms of a reaction? For me the implications of what is neccesitated for life could be considered a reaction. We basically live off death. If you want god to manifest as an entity and help save the world I would rather be asleep or "not conscious" because that would negate "free will" and the world would eventually blend the values of good and bad untill they were obsolete happy fat california cows singing and all. Like a dream being an emulator instead of whats being emulated which would kindof suck ass afterawhile if we were to lets say dictate what will happen in the dream completely as a system. What if this was one out of infinite reality systems based on interactions that will always evolve relating to contigent matter and its expansion with its mirroring of layers forming different properties. Like life and death really being nothing but entropy/energy and relativity in a purely biological experience eventually we go back to the vaccum state and collapse again...which is instaneous not eternity and resurface.

He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

Would you rather keep your children ignorantly blissful? Or give them the true low down in lieu of certain consequences that will result from doing so...

 

[JuNie]

A lot of anger here. You should look to make your life rewarding.

Even a foolish child can grow up when he knows what Pain is.