>>> Part 2 of 3...
 I am convinced your conclusion depends on what you mean by "spirit world",
 doesn't it?  What do you mean by "spirit world"?  If you meant what
 Paul meant, by default, then you must honor that definition.  Otherwise,
 you are talking utter rubbish, and not Paul.  
 MB>  In fact, at first glance at the Greek, it would seem
 MB>  Paul was contradicting himself: 'faith is seeing the unseeable'.
 MB>  But it is still "seeing" - whether or not it is a seeing that will
 MB>  pass peer review or not - and this is the crucial point about what
 MB>  faith means.
 RT> That it is entirely subjective.
 
 And that is entirely correct.  So?  What's your point?
 
 MB>  It is not to be understood in the contextual processess
 MB>  of a scientific approach - it loses its purpose in such a restriction.
 RT> You mean, there is no basis for it in the cold light of day.
 
 Not the day you see with your eyes, no.  But is it possible the day you 
 see with your eyes, is even remotely the only "day" that exists in the 
 vast universe?   There is a basis for it in the cold light of a 
 different day.  But that depends upon how closely you have been
 paying attention, and not from a lack of explanation.
 
 MB>  It comes from the breath of man, so to speak - and it cannot be
 MB>  _disavowed_ because of its compelling nuomenal evidence.  
 RT> There is no numenal evidence. 
 
 Of course not.  You can't see something you can't believe in.  That's
 the only way it works.  And it works.  I know.  But that is entirely
 subjective, isn't it.  How do you know you would believe there was 
 a sun, if you were a blind fish living at 30,000 leagues.  Indeed,
 how _could_ you, being the very throughly objective scientist that
 you are, even if you are a blind fish.  You aren't a fish, of course,
 and you are not blind either.  I take that on faith, of course.
 No physical evidence, but enough nuomenal stuff to go around and then
 some, that you are a male, living somewhere in Europe, there is,
 however, based upon demographic evidence taking into account gender
 participation in computer telecommunications to warrant that there is
 a %7 chance you are female.  Therefore, I conclude by nuomenal evidence
 alone, that you have these qualities at least, and conform to a certain
 scope of knowledge and comprehension.  
 
 MB>  A very unfortunate state.  But that is our nature - because of each
 MB>  person's perspective.  I do not say it is "right" to believe something
 MB>  without physical evidence - I only say that everyone _does_ believe
 MB>  _something_ without physical evidence - because of personal _and_
 MB>  subjective experience.  This is not only philosophical - it is a fact
 MB>  of life.
 RT> So it is a bit pointless you asserting that god exists then.
 
 Unrelated.  I do not understand the reason you concluded in this
 manner.  I did not "assert" that God exists.  I asserted that I 
 cannot comprehend God not existing, because God is a symbol for
 that Life-that-is-Not-Dust, and of which all of us partake, yet
 we are only Dust.  That spirit is the Breath of Life.  It is
 not a thing, like a ghost, or a Old Man with White Hair, whose 
 voice is really deep.  Nor is it meaningful at all to bolster 
 my argument with supercilious attributes, effectively anthropo-
 morphising God.  It can't be done.  "God is not a man, that He
 should lie."  We aren't talking about a human.  We aren't even
 talking about an animal of some kind.  And what does it mean:
 "in Our Image We shall make Man".    His Image is Life itself!
 And Life that is Not Dust, He Is.  So in that breath of life that
 is not dust, is the image of life.  And we have that life now,
 until we are dust.  But the part of us that is the life that
 is not dust goes on forever.  Our Reflectivity isn't forever,
 because it is a result of accumulated eons of production on a
 planetary scale.  We have much much MUCH further to go.  But 
 we are producing it even as we speak.  Either to life eternal,
 or to extinction we go.  Just like all the rest of the dinosaurs,
 we shall follow them into oblivion, else we do something else.
 The only alternative to extinction, is eternal life.  Therefore,
 it exists, and the part of me that is part of that is evidence
 within me.  It is subjective because it is ME that has to make
 the determination for ME.  I do not know what it is about me
 that goes on forever, only I know it is in me, I was produced
 by it, therefore it encompasses me, and filters through me,
 and into my grandchildren's grandchildren.  Or not.  But it
 produced me still, and I am a part of it.  You are too.
 
 { EditSnip Robot, v9*1000^10 }
 
 RT> Mark. God demands that he be unevidenced. You are clearly stating here
 RT> that personal confirmations are available. This contradicts gods own
 RT> demands. Either you are lying or your god is. Which? 
 
 Not at all.  As the Life which Is, encompasses all of us, we are one
 with It, and It with Us.  If He is one with Us, and you are not
 aware of it, does this make the one who is aware, a liar?  But how
 should they make you aware?  How should they convince you?  By what
 manner of proof could they show you?  What would you accept?  Nothing
 except the physical evidence which can be peer reviewed, testing,
 prodded and experiemented with.  And it's right there in front of you
 the entire time; You are Alive, and you were Produced by _fill_in_the_
 blank_, and that _fill_in_the_blank_ is Life itself.
 MB> - God has not evidenced Himself to anyone, except purportedly to them,
 MB> in their own personal experiences.
 RT> This is a feeble attempt to pretend that god can give evidence without
 RT> giving evidence. He either does or doesn't give evidence of his
 RT> existence _regardless_ of whether we believe it or not. Either you are
 RT> lying or god is. Which? 
 
 I suppose you must convict me, then, if you should see your purpose
 edified by doing so.  For certainly it can be proven that Life does
 not lie.  You are either alive or you're dead, which is it?  Is it
 raining or sunny, or cold, or hot, or misting, or snowing, and are
 you wearing socks, and what did you taste when last you supped?
 
 RT>> Likewise, if you DO believe there is a god, then you have faith in
 RT>> something that you can never see, or have confirmation from, by
 RT>> definition. You have no proof of his existence and by your statements
 RT>> above you never can. 
 RT>> Please provide evidence of your god.
 
 MB>  I just did.
 RT> Liar. You CANNOT provide evidence of your god because he demands that
 RT> he be unevidenced. 
 
 Perhaps my first response did not completely convey a structured 
 process by which nuomenal evidence is procured, or how it is used
 to demonstrate a truth.  However, when I say nuomenal evidence - I
 am entirely positive I MEAN EVIDENCE of a kind, and am not thereby
 dissembling in the least.
 MB> He exists because it would be impossible for my limited
 MB>  imagination to understand a universe _without_ God.
 RT> No. You think he exists because of your limited imagination.
 
 I believe that's precisely what I said.  Yes.  You are incorrect
 to correct me when we doth agree so verily.
 
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------