>>> Part 3 of 3...
 I should mention perhaps, my imagination is NOT limited, since I
 can believe in a spirit realm, a Life that Is Not Dust.  And those
 who are unable to imagine such a possibility are actually the one's
 whose imagination is so narrow it must depend SOLELY upon an 
 unreliable human eye to see with.  You see, we have a basic
 difference in our philosophical approach to life, and our existence.
 It's much deeper than this explanation of my beliefs, and your
 defense of how stupid I am.
 
 MB>  A universe like
 MB>  this simply would not exist without some Thing from which it had
 MB>  emanated.
 RT> Plainly.
 
 Quite plain, indeed.  How astute of you.
 
 MB>  Since the universe has certain attributes, such as
 MB>  consistent laws governing its behavior - then likewise that from which
 MB>  it emanated must of a kind have consistent laws governing Its 
 MB>  behavior.  One can't have an infinite regression - so whatever Force
 MB>  drives the existence of... existence itself - is God. 
 RT> Where did god come from?
 
 We can't have an infinite regression.  Our minds can't take it.  That
 is all.  "We look through a glass darkly."  I believe it is possible
 "we", Life, that is, will come to know this eventually.  But as we are,
 in the evolutionary stage we are in, none ever get the chance to get
 that far in our understandings.  But some of us learn to use eyes
 which see a reality unbeknownst to our physical eyes.  It is not
 a different reality than the one we see with our eyes - rather it
 is seeing it as from a distance, from a new perspective, seeing
 things we cannot see being so close to the action.
 
 RT>> Up above you state that belief in god must be unevidenced for it to be
 RT>> belief. This, as you state above, is how god made it. Now you're saying
 RT>> that there are somehow people around who are able to listen to god. How
 RT>> is this possible if god, by his own demands, will never show any sign
 RT>> of himself? 
 
 I did not mean by "unevidenced" that God would not ever show any sign of
 Himself.  In fact, He is evidenced by your very existence, but you will
 not accept this as evidence, so I am left without further recourse but
 to say "I am subjective"  but it's good enough for me.  So, every moment
 I take a breath, that is evidence of the Life that Is Not Dust, that is,
 it doesn't die - it goes on and on and on, for infinite eons.  And in
 every breath I also have the evidence that I am dust, that I shall die
 and ceast to exist... in this form.  It is attributed to Jesus that He
 used a seed being planted as an analogy here.  You must die before you
 can receive the life that is eternal.  You must die, like a seed in 
 the ground which becomes a tree, you must be buried to be reborn of
 the breath of life.  So my evidence is certainly not physical, because
 it transcends the physical - and not because God is just being 
 reluctant.  That's just the way life is.
 
 MB>>  His purpose is known to us in the fossils and in the nucleus of the
 MB>>  atom, it is known to us in our DNA, and in our water, and in the
 MB>>  velocity of light.  How can you say nature itself lies?
 
 RT>> First of all you must provide evidence that your god created nature
 RT>> before you can argue that the existence of nature is proof of gods
 RT>> existence. Can you? 
 
 That one is easy.  If God did not create nature, then He is not God,
 but an imposter.  It is not my definition of God that is crucial, but
 how nature defines God, which is.
 
 RT> No, you have to provide evidence of god _first_ *before* you can claim
 RT> that nature is created by god. 
 
 That's a bit like trying to get evidence of your physical mother, before
 we may accept that you were born of a woman.  No insult to your 
 mother, of course.  I'm _positive_ you had one.  It's an absolute
 truth.  It will never change.
 MB> Therefore, since it is impossible for me to concieve of
 MB>  Existence without God, then whatever reality is, is _of_ God and _by_
 MB>  God.
 RT> I CAN conceive of an existence without god. By your logic, god does
 RT> not exist.  
 
 We do.  And since we do, then God exists too.  Or do we?  Maybe we
 don't exist.  That's the answer.  That's the only way you can 
 convince me there is no God, by proving that we don't exist.
 MB>  How can I provide evidence that "my" God created nature?
 RT> You can't. God demands he remain unevidenced. Any claim to evidence of
 RT> god is therefore a lie. If it is not a lie then god is a liar. 
 MB>  Because that is His definition.  If God did not create nature - then
 MB>  I don't exist and nothing else exists either, and then there would be 
 MB>  no need for evidence anyway.
 RT> You don't exist then Mark.
 That's as you say.  But then, neither do you, and we are back to 
 square One yet again.  God did not demand He remain unevidenced.  It
 is His Nature, because that is what Nature is, and Nature is the
 relevant part of existence so far as you are concerned.  And whatever
 was first cause is God; but you say there is no God.  If there is
 no God, there there is no first cause, and nothing whatever exists
 because there is no cause.  Since we exist, there is cause, and
 by cause, purpose, and by purpose, peace and life.
 
 Mark
 
... Life is like an analogy.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------