[Aether Audio]

Dear Friends,

It has been brought to our attention that we have fallen short in our commitment to follow up on and respond to the questions posed by others on the religious thread that had been started in our circle earlier.  We sincerely apologize for this and hope the following will suffice in an effort to make amends.  Please excuse the length of it, but such matters require a thorough examination of the issues in order to accurately convey our position.

We are posting the following as a preface to any further discussion or responses on our part.  We feel it is necessary to lay this groundwork so as to avoid the pitfalls that are commonly encountered in such discussions.  We ask that everyone read this treatise before posing any further questions or responding to any further postings we may make.  If you have not read it, we will withhold our comments until such time as you have had a chance to review the following material.  We thank you for your attention to this and without further ado, we shall begin.


DEFINING THE AXIOM:

In order to have a discussion about any subject there is the requirement that all parties engaged in such come to an agreement with respect to a common language.  This language, by default, must contain a certain syntax or grammar, vocabulary and associated definitions.  Never the less, regardless of the rigor applied to establishing these protocols, at some point the system of communication will collapse if enough time passes and the discussion continues to delve deeper and deeper into the subject matter.  This breach can be repaired though, it only requires new thought.

A parallel to this has been succinctly defined in the branch of mathematics referred to as “Set Theory.”  Such mathematics concerns itself primarily with the most fundamental aspects of pure logic.  Its postulations have profound and far-reaching implications in every area of the sciences, as well as life issues and the human experience.  This “parallel” we refer to concerns Goedel’s “Theorem of Incompleteness.”  Even if by some elaborate manipulation of logic this theory is ever shown to fail in some purely academic way, it’s inherent simplicity and underlying beauty of reason is clearly evident with regard to its practical implications and application to the observable mechanics of our universe.  It is the logic of this theory which lies at the core of our position with regard to any further religious discussions.

In order to understand Goedel’s theorem one must have a basic understanding of Set Theory.  Its most fundamental concepts are relatively simple for most individuals to comprehend.  Therefore, we shall only describe the pertinent issues.

Within any organized system of thought, communication or analysis, there exists a set of “rules” or “truths” that the participants subscribe to.  For instance, any branch of mathematics is nothing more than a set of rules governing the relationships between variables and/or constants.  Every branch of science is built upon “truths,” whether they be unquestionably proven or widely accepted as fact-based theory.  Every aspect of human interaction and civilization has at its core a set of rules or truths that, to some degree, the constituent members agree upon.  In fact, every conscious thought is built upon a perceived interaction of facts, truths and rules.  Some simple examples would be that we all agree that water will freeze at some temperature and turn into a vapor at another.  Most of us would also agree that gravity has a tendency to draw two objects possessing mass towards one another.  It is evident that in the analysis of any system, a set of such truths must be accepted before any valuable analysis and resultant understanding can begin.  In Set Theory, all such rules or “truths” are referred to as “axioms.”

Goedel’s Theory of Incompleteness suggests that in one’s effort to describe any axiomatic system under analysis, one will find that the given axioms will only suffice in describing said system to a certain point.  Beyond that point, the analysis collapses and what appear to be paradoxes begin to manifest themselves.  If no further axioms are permitted, the analysis comes to a halt and little further understanding can be gained.  If on the other hand, new axioms are permitted, then new insight into the deeper workings of the system may be gained.  It should be noted that as the set of axioms evolves, the original axioms are not abandoned.  Rather, some modification may be made to them, but in general they retain the greater part of their original form.  It is more accurate to say that the original set of axioms has become a subset of a larger, more encompassing set.  The analogy of an onion, with each layer encapsulating the one preceding it, is often used to describe the concept.  There is no reason to believe or evidence to suggest that this process does not continue “ad infinitum.”

From a practical standpoint, the basic truths of Goedel’s Theorem surround us.  Every branch of science has proven this since at least the time of the Renaissance.  Some prime examples would be Leibnitz’ and Newton’s development of the Calculus.  Prior to this new set of axioms, mathematicians were unable to succinctly describe many of the complex workings of natural phenomena.  Never the less, simple addition and subtraction were not supplanted by the new axioms presented by this calculus.  Even more profoundly, Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” greatly surpassed Newtonian physics in its ability to accurately describe the behavior of matter at the extremes of speed, time and distance.  Even still, space flight engineers to this day use the principles and equations developed by Newton in planning the trajectories of their space craft.  It is this principle of knowledge building  and expanding upon knowledge which drives the wheels of advancement and progress.  The pure and simple logic of a rational mind cannot evade these truths.

So…with regard to the discussion of religion – we are limited.  You, the reader and contributor, will establish those limits to the degree that you permit new axioms within the context of the discussion.  If you are willing to set aside what you think you “know” and consider the possibility of your own limits, then we may discover more truth beyond those limits.  This may not be easy or even possible for some.  At the root of the matter we often find the greatest hindrance to such “thinking outside the box” to be an individual’s own vanity.  Knowledge is the source of great power and ability.  It is also the greatest source of pride.  Power and pride are familiar and committed  bedfellows.  The only problem…it is a parasitical relationship.  Pride feeds on power like a tapeworm and in so doing, limits power’s (i.e. knowledge’s) growth.


OUR POSITION:

There is a profound consequence to the above issue of infinity.  Based upon the principles of NATURAL LAW, one can easily project from the previous logic that there would be no end to discovery and the increase of knowledge.  It would seem then, that life takes on the characteristics of a journey.  It also seems obvious that there is no ultimate goal to be achieved because as one goal is attained, another beckons us onward.  We agree with, support and promote this view.  One only need encounter the small child that continually asks the question “why” after each preceding answer that is given, in order to comprehend our point.  

It is the greatest misfortune that many find themselves in a type of bondage that dictates their every action.  The fear of death is a paralyzing force that limits our freedom to freely experience and enjoy the “now” that we call our lives.  This fear is rooted in our psyche not only because of the “unknown” that death represents, but also its apparent “finality.”  The “end of time and existence” is the very definition of terror for most - and rightly so.  Fortunately, this need not be.  If each of us were to begin a process of developing a deeper awareness of our universe and the Natural Law that governs it, we would begin to see that the common view of death is in error.  This error is rooted in our very concept of time itself.

It can be shown that the concept of time is not natural to the human mind.  Rather, the perception of time is learned through experience.  The newborn infant has no concept of time.  It cries when taken from its mother as it has no comprehension that through and in the passage of time, its mother will return.  Only after multiple experiences of being removed from its mother’s presence and then reunited, does it learn not to fear the loss.  In this we can see that the perception of time is not natural or innate to the human mind.  All the infant understands is “now”… an endless and self perpetuating sensation of existence.  Considering the passage of time’s mercurial nature, is it not true that the only absolute we can ever really lay hold of is “the moment” or… “the now?”

The truth of the matter is that only after the observance of “cycles” do we come to sense the passage of time.  In fact, it is through the very process of counting cycles that we measure its passage.  Every clock ever invented has been based on counting the number of cycles of repetitive action within the natural operation of some physical system.  Whether it be the rate of  rotation of the earth upon its axis, the resonance period of a quartz crystal or the frequency of wobble of a cesium atom, they are one in the same.

Within the context of cycles we often observe a process that “appears” to exhibit a type of characteristic “finality” and/or irreversibility.  “Death” is a term we are all quite familiar with in one form or another.  Yet, as we step back from the individual object experiencing this “death,” we find that the cycle repeats in the form of a new “birth” within the system.  Stepping further back once again, even when entire systems are observed to experience a termination of their existence, new systems eventually arise to fill the void.  The principles of Natural Law would suggest that that these “life cycles” are a fundamental feature of the continuum and are manifest throughout its manifold orders.  Upon deeper analysis, it appears that the pervading concept of time, in its most common form, is a construct of mankind’s myopic intellect and his preoccupation with issues of his environment and survival.  The result of this is a very finite view of the continuum in which he finds himself.  The “finality of death” is just one concept that is the product of such finite thinking.  It flies in the face of the very evident nature of our universe and stands in stark contrast to the preponderance of evidence that surrounds us.  It seems our present world is lost in a great forest while insisting that there are no trees.

To be fair, modern man has been inundated for some time with erroneous information concerning one of the most fundamental aspects of nature.  Sir Isaac Newton, in his most profound grasp of physics and ultimate development of the Calculus, fell short of a complete understanding of its characteristics.  Although very comprehensive in its most fundamental forms, a key axiom was omitted from his calculus.  This omission led to what is commonly referred to as the “Second Law of Thermo-Dynamics.”  This law suggests that the universe is “winding down” and will eventually “run out.”  Newton was even quoted as proclaiming, “the clock is winding down.”  The term applied to describe this process is “entropy.”  Entropy has been observed to dominate almost every mechanical process in nature and has therefore been adopted as universal.  

One great and evident failure of this law is its inability to explain the growth and inherent expansion observed in all life processes.  Just as Newtonian Physics fell short in its ability to accurately explain relativistic effects, the Second Law fails to explain the “negentropy” exhibited by living systems.  Living systems violate this law by running backwards.  They grow and evolve from a state of lower energy and order to one of increasing energy and organization.  Recent research into the extreme micro and macroscopic realms of physical nature is beginning to reveal phenomena that seem to indicate that the Second Law holds true only for localized observations.  The universe has been shown to be highly non-linear in nature and this non-linearity is usually manifest when extremes of dimension, velocity or other conditions are encountered.  It is in these extremes where the new axioms are needed to describe such phenomena and provide a more comprehensive understanding of nature.  History will ultimately show that Einstein’s Relativity was the first of many new axiomatic systems soon to follow.

To be sure; at the forefronts of modern science our understanding of the universe rapidly races towards what appears to be a major paradigm shift. We are finding that the greater our ability to increase the resolution of our instrumentation and associated apparatus, the more complex and perplexing the continuum becomes.  As Hubble looks deeper into inter-galactic space, the more galaxies and super-clusters of galaxies are observed.  As our theories of the quantum world evolve, we find that increasingly added dimensions are required to describe the make-up of matter.  Point-Particle physics seems to have given way to Superstring Theory, only to find P-Plane Theory looming upon the next horizon.  And all this is as it should be - and we couldn’t be happier.

In order to explain, we offer an excerpt from the great writer, C.S.Lewis from his book “God In The Dock” CH3. p.42: “…And this drives me to say yet again that we are hard to please.  If the world in which we find ourselves were not vast and strange enough to give us Pascal’s  terror(1), what poor creatures we should be!  Being what we are, rational but also animate, amphibians who start from the world of sense and proceed through myth and metaphor to the world of spirit, I do not see how we could have come to know the greatness of God without that hint furnished by the greatness of the material universe.  Once again, what sort of universe do we demand?  If it were small enough to be cozy, it would not be big enough to be sublime.  If it is large enough to stretch our spiritual limbs, it must be large enough to baffle us.  Cramped or terrified, we must, in any conceivable world, be one or the other.  I prefer terror.  I should be suffocated in a universe that I could see to the end of.  Have you never, when walking in a wood, turned back deliberately for fear that you should come out the other side and thus make it ever after in your imagination a mere beggarly strip of trees?”

As Lewis so eloquently describes, a universe that is not infinite will ultimately become a prison.  We, as he, prefer to face the humility one experiences when forced to encounter the infinite rather than suffer the bondage of living within the confines of a finite existence.  To us, it is comforting to know that the only limit to our existence is governed by the limits of our mind and spirit – not the continuum in which we find ourselves.  We see the universe as a timeless source of limitless possibilities and frontiers.  In this there is hope, in the other there is only entropy.  The eventual blackness of the burned-out cosmic void and a consequential meaningless of existence is the palette upon which the mechanistic mind paints his world.  Is it any wonder our present global condition is filled with hopeless and desperate souls stumbling in their quest for fulfillment?  Could it be that the manic-depressive, the obsessive-compulsive, the neurotic, the psychotic, the addict and the cynic all suffer from the same underlying malady?  Hopelessness consumes the soul as melanoma consumes the flesh.

Since the beginnings of recorded history man has asked, “Is there a spirit and does it survive physical death?”  This, neither we nor anyone else can or has - as yet - been able to prove.  Never the less, we suggest it is the vain and self-glorifying mind that insists this is not possible.  In their vanity and folly, such individuals will not consider that which they cannot imagine.  These souls eventually become slaves to their own vain imagination, demanding that the universe and ultimately “God” conform to it. They are limited vessels and do not possess a true capacity for continued discovery and growth.  They are the “Silver Souls” of Plato.  Although they may contemplate and opine upon a subject, once they have formed a view they become completely closed to other possibilities.  Unlike Plato’s “Golden Soul,” they do not question or re-examine their own thinking processes.

So what evidence do we offer in our favor?  As we have already outlined above, every evidence suggests that the physical universe is manifest as an endless continuum.  Each field of study supports Goedel’s Theorem of Incompleteness as far as every observation to this point has been able to tell.  Nested subsets of infinity, increasing or decreasing by orders of infinity, abound and extend in every direction. .”  The continued identification of such orderings and their implications is the very cornerstone of NATURAL LAW.   We have no need to invent a new system to defend our view.  In this fact alone, Natural Law has already supplied a sufficient model. It does not require a major mental construct or leap of faith to assume this model continues to extend beyond the physical.  It would only seem natural that the realm we call physical, is itself a subset of a greater infinity or “Super-Universe.”

It is likely that the only way our species will ever find the peace and cooperation required to avoid the consequences of our self-serving ways, will be to discover in humility our true and proper place in this Creation.. It seems reasonable that having a greater understanding and knowledge of the nature of our universe would be  necessary in order to have any hope of finding that place.  This will probably not happen as a result of some organization’s efforts or a government program.  Instead, a  paradigm shift will be required and a new set of axioms must be admitted into our lives, one individual at a time.  History is filled with a preponderance of anecdotal information and accounts of the supernatural.  Research into the nature of the paranormal , based on the here-to-fore axioms of science, has and will undoubtedly continue to prove fruitless if new axioms are not permitted.  

And what do we make of organized religion?  Regardless of the conflicts and atrocities committed in the name of such, countless brave souls of the highest character and conviction have lived their lives devoted to truth and love while trusting in a form of Divine guidance.  Has all of this been the result of nothing more than mankind’s determination to deny his solitary condition in a purely mechanistic and accidental universe?  Is it a desperate attempt to deny his unavoidable fate of non-existence or make some sense out of a senseless existence?  We think not.  Skeptics of religion are often quoted as saying that those of religious faith are closed minded and simplistic. We respond, “Is it not the zenith of vanity and closed mindedness to automatically assume these devout souls lived their lives in vain?”  How can anyone make the claim that such individuals are worshiping a God that doesn’t exist, when they themselves have not traversed the expanse of the continuum in search of this god?  Neither can they offer any concrete evidence to the contrary.  The lame evidences and arguments that they do offer are circumstantial observations of very localized systems which they have taken out of context from the greater whole and mental constructs that are merely extensions of their own finite imaginations.

All that is ever offered in the atheist’s defense is a continual litany of postulations with regard to their own vain expectations of an “acceptable” god’s nature.  They quote endless scientific “facts” to support their view and then attempt to show how these facts refute some passage of scripture.  In this they are ignorant of the theologian’s understanding of scripture’s various literary styles and interpretations.  While simultaneously defining the rules that any acceptable god should live up to, they then pass judgement and ultimately convict this hypothetical god for failure to perform up to their expectations.  Considering the almost incomprehensible nature of physical reality alone, it seems doubtful that any god capable of manifesting such creative powers as to create it, would be subject to the finite musings of his created offspring.  Every child questions and passes judgement on his parents decisions, only to discover their sublime wisdom many years later.  Does the clay pot say to the potter, “Why hast thou made me thus?”  The thing that is made is always lesser than its maker.  Alas, “the creature is subject to vanity.”  The most that can be said by anyone is that they do not know if there is a god.  Even one of the great apes that had been taught to use sign language, when asked by researchers if there was a god, had the good sense to say, “I don’t know.”  The fool though, without any absolute proof to support his views whatsoever, has already said in his heart, “There is no God.”

In direct opposition to the skeptic and the atheist, we suggest that religious faith is a consequence of one’s primal sensitivity to and inner awareness of their citizenship in this infinite ordering of reality.  It seems reasonable to expect that there exists some unseen connection between our individual lives and that of the greater set.  Evidence of a similar sort is offered in physics by the “super-positioning” phenomena of light, amongst others.  At the forefront of physics we are discovering a level of “connectedness” in the universe that even challenges our mental capacities to visualize.  Also, every scientist and mathematician is well aware of the cross-connecting nature of mathematics.  Time and again, the same formulas and curves manifest themselves in seemingly unrelated fields and phenomena.  Natural Law would suggest this phenomena of connectedness would have a counterpart and extension into the next higher order of the continuum as well.  Even the casual observer is capable of seeing and understanding the gravitational attraction and interaction between all heavenly bodies.  Planets spinning on their axis while rotating around a sun, this sun rotating on its axis and around a galaxy, on and on the wheels spin and interact – sensing and reacting to each others presence.  We suggest that gravity itself is a force of connectedness that metaphorically represents our individual connectedness to the entire continuum and ultimately God.  And just as the “inverse square law” governs the strength of gravity’s force - the further we get away from God, the less we feel his presence and influence.  How many individuals do you know that seem to wander aimlessly through space?

And besides, if there is a God it may also be because He simply placed a longing in mankind’s heart to be in communion with Him. If life is a journey, is it this God’s intent to assist us in growing into an entity capable of transcending to the next higher order within the continuum?  If we are a “type of the Divine” but not fully developed, is further growth a requirement to successfully make this transcendence?  Is it possible that, in the Divine Order of the Continuum, we are essentially a type of seed that must be watered, fertilized, illuminated, de-weeded and grown to maturity before we can be “harvested?”  The implications boggle the mind and lie just beyond the grasp of the “Silver Soul.”  The only real difference between him and the “Golden Soul” is that the latter’s reach always exceeds his grasp.  The “gold” then, of this man is measured by his willingness to continue reaching out for more truth – VANITY BE DAMNED.

Logic along with a form of “primal intuition” suggests that in one form or another, life extends beyond the physical.  Orderings always follow in sequence.  Our order is defined by the fact that we are sentient and possess a form of the infinite.  How is this?  Because our minds are able to conceive of the infinite as well as manifold orders of infinity.  We have the capacity to extend our senses, communications and mobility beyond their natural limitations.  Amongst many other reasons, we do this in order to probe into, analyze and unravel the mysteries of those infinities that lie within, below and possible even beyond the set or ordering within which we reside.  Also, we are able to alter our environment, our world and even one day other worlds in order to accommodate our needs and desires.  We are able to do all these things with the availability of resources being virtually our only limitation.  By means of our innate creative nature we are able to apply the laws of physics in the development of various tools and apparatus that facilitate all of this.

It may be that the greatest manifestation of our divinity is our ability to communicate and express our deepest thoughts and emotions through an almost unlimited variety of abstract forms.  In all of our observations to this date, no other creature has manifested any form of art or language that can even be compared to the level of man’s.  All of these facts added together more than suggest evidence of a form of  “divinity of man.”  Yet, we are not transcendent so we cannot escape our ordering and place within the hierarchy of the continuum.  It would seem logical then that we represent a “type” of divinity that possesses a form or image of an as yet, greater Divinity – a subset of a greater set… if you will.

If possible, it is to every individual’s seemingly eternal benefit to seek out what form or image this may be.  One should consider the possibility that physical death may be the natural route of any transcendence to the next greater set (or lesser subset? – Yikes!) within the continuum.  In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, it seems obvious that one should attempt to discover whether or not they possess or can obtain any ability to influence the form of and/or determine their potential destiny resulting from that transcendental process.  In effect, is this not the most important question of all time?  Hasn’t this been mankind’s greatest and most profound enigma since the first humans walked this earth?  We pose that ultimate question in a slightly different form:  What if the axioms are infinite? - World within worlds and life without end?  Is this the meaning behind the metaphor of Ezekial’s “wheel within a wheel?” By an infinite order of magnitude beyond any other issue, our individual lives’ and ultimately our very species’ eternal destiny literally hang on the answer to that question.  

We believe the answers to all these questions will never be found through some complex mental process or any advanced scientific study.  No, the answers must be simpler than that.  In fact, we suspect they are so simple as to be completely overlooked by most.  They must also be closer than the capabilities of our instrumentation or even our own simple senses’ ability to detect.  We can say for certain, as far as our own experience is concerned, that they are closer than the very air we breathe.  As we suggested from the beginning, a new axiom is required here.  To find such ultimate truth we must transcend our set and adopt the axioms of the next.  Logic and the progression of order demand that the answers to the questions and needs beyond the reach of a divine mind must be “revealed” by the mind of the Greater Divinity – the greater set.  Dear friends, the answers begin in the heart of man and end in the heart of He that proclaimed to Moses that “I am that I am,” the Ancient of Days, the Alpha and the Omega - the Beginning and the End, the Son of Man, the Most High God, He whose name is above every name and the deliverer of man – Jesus Christ.

Bob Smith
SP Technology Loudspeakers, Inc.

(1) – Blaise Pascal, Pensees, No. 206

[John Casler]

Hi Robert,

While your verbiage is a bit overwhelming the logic and assumptions are not convincing.

The cycles and infinities and such, bear "no" proof of anything other than their own existance and in many cases comparisons.

If it were any other way, then "thats" the way it would be.  "Physical Laws" are only laws, because they are!!!  Not hard to accept and no God is needed to explain them or create them.

The concept of a "life" after death is an explanation and soothing ally to fear.

The reality of existance after physical death, is a certainty, in that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The error is in making the leap to "individuality" (that is I will still be "me") after physical death.  This, my friend, is an impossiblity and there is nothing in any cycle or science to support that a bodyless, sensoryless, brainless, existance can or is possible.

Without the senses, or brain, thought and existance as an individual is not possible, and again there is nothing to support such.

Without good, there can be no evil, without saddness, there can be no happiness.  So perfection is either "everything, or nothing".  It can be no other way.

While infinite exisitance is a certainty, infinite awareness is not known nor can it be even guessed at with any "real" evidence that we have at our disposal.

The concept of a Supreme Being playing such a game, with the Son dying for everyone's sins, and all that, is not only implausable, but down right silly.

The power and majesty of the the infinite is inate.  It is not something that only a few have access to and the rest shall perish or exist in a "burning hellish eternity".

"All this is that" is a very wise saying.  "Everything is Nothing" is too.

It is certainly OK for those who are afraid to face the realities of death and even life, to create a system of support, as long as they don't get carried away as is evidenced by our current world problems.

While we are astonished at what beleif system these "terrorists" have, to them it is "us" who are wrong and the enemy, since we threaten their very existance.  God made this!  Not your God of course, since he is right and their God is wrong.  Hmmm??  Why would God even permit such foolishness?  There is no intellectual argument sufficient to anser that.

There is no right or wrong, only perspective.

What I find really interesting is that some one as well read and as aware as you (judging by your essay above) would remain shackled to the constraints of an ancient "belief system" pieced together over time.

Surely you can't beleive the whole thing, so where do you draw the line?

Streets of Gold??? Can't see them, can't walk them, and it doesn't matter if they are gold or spider webs.

Heaven doesn't have a filter system.  That is, even that little church going, beleiving PIA will still be such in the biblical heaven.  Ex-wives and attorneys will be in heaven. (well maybe not attorneys)  Will you feel "love" for these enemies and adversaries?  Truth is you'll feel "nothing" since feelings are based on sensory perceptions and without eyes, ears, and a brain you won't have any.

Angels, Devils?  Floods? Burning Bushes?  Jesus dying and coming back to life?  

These have nothing to do with infinity and cycles.

And the concept itself is infinite to the fact the the "supposed" Higher Power, is himself/herself guided, controlled and worshipping a force beyond themselves and on and on.   Ad Infinitum

I think it is safe to say that "if" this whole thing were in the hands of such a "diety", that the sheer intricacies of worship and such to gain contact would not be considered ineffective methods of even primitive communication.

Communication through qualification.  Now if that isn't a Supreme Being concept

No, I think therefore I am.  Thinking is a product of awareness and the ability to compare and analyze experience.

I don't need anyone to tell me what "is", "was", or "will be".

Sharing is fun, and I hope you felt this note was a sharing of my concepts, but when I'm gone, my slate will be wiped clean and my energy will not be "me" from that point on.

Doesn't scare me in the least.

Just a few thoughts.  Hope you found them interesting.

[infiniti driver]

So, John!

Explain dreams for us please. You know, the ones so vivid you must seek them in the state of everyday life and they all fall in place.

Explain that force that happens to have us LIVE when we are asleep and do within them.

Just explain a dream.

[John Casler]

So, John!

Explain dreams for us please. You know, the ones so vivid you must seek them in the state of everyday life and they all fall in place.

Explain that force that happens to have us LIVE when we are asleep and do within them.

Just explain a dream.

Hi Infiniti,

Not being able to explain something doesn't require manufacturing something to explain it.

And the last thing I would do is try to reproduce the dreams I have in everyday life.  (Could cause problems )

Most of my vivid dreams are brought on by what I had to eat before retiring.

Maybe your dreams are more "vivid" than mine.  But even if they are, the subconcious mind is experiencing random brain activity depending on the alpha level or state, it may take the form of a dream.

Let me assure you, there is nothing mystical about it.

My daughter's cat dreams more than I do

[jfreeman373]

My daughter's cat dreams more than I do

That statement covers so many responses that come to my mind that all I can do is quote you and let the minds of the public design their own response........wouldn't want to be needlessly and blatantly derogatory towards an individual with so many obviously correct perspectives on the "smaller" and "larger" concepts regarding the mysteries of the universe; and the proper conclusions to them; with someone that has done such complete and exhaustive studies on these topics, and come to the absolute conclusive results stated therin your last post.  I don't know..... but to me your post  seemed a little near sighted, without complete comprehesion of the post previous to it.  Seemed to me to be more of an emotional response than logical ....seems like your "fired up".....if one is experienced in reading between the lines that is . Maybe my mind is "smaller" and yours is "larger".....I have been known to be completely idiotic at times which shows how small my mind has a potential of being.  I guess maybe I need to work on expanding my thought processes.  It's always a possibility

Then again it's probably more like a probablility that requires immediate attention

[JohnR]

I got as far as this:

Based upon the principles of NATURAL LAW

Could someone please post or point me to a brief definition or description of "natural law" (as it applies to Bob's treatise)? Thanks!

[John Casler]

 someone that has done such complete and exhaustive studies on these topics, and come to the absolute conclusive results stated therin your last post. I don't know..... but to me your post seemed a little near sighted, without complete comprehesion of the post previous to it. Seemed to me to be more of an emotional response than logical ....seems like your "fired up".....if one is experienced in reading between the lines that is ...

Hi Jfreeman,

Sorry, didn't mean to sound "condecending" or derogatory, but anytime one questions the "fundamental" belief system of others, or portrays their own, it seems that way.  

And I have no emotion involved in my assessments (nothing between the lines )

 Maybe my mind is "smaller" and yours is "larger".....I have been known to be completely idiotic at times which shows how small my mind has a potential of being. I guess maybe I need to work on expanding my thought processes. It's always a possibility...

Mental size is not a requirement of assuming, inate understanding.  I find that generally the more you attempt to move outside yourself for answers, the farther away you end up.

Confusion is an Epitaph

One's belief system need be secure and simple in order to establish piece of mind.

If it has to be supported and defended, then it may not offer true or reasonable answers (if the answers can be had at all)

While my posting might "read" like a challenge, it is merely a group of questions and assertions intended to stimulate thought.

[Carlman]

I appreciated the point:counterpoint from Bob and John.  I took it for what it is... things to consider.  

There's a lot of thought and consideration put into Bob's post that I will probably read again.  John's post doesn't consider ALL of Bob's points and doesn't explain his counterpoints with references or as much detail.

I've heard John's side many times.  I haven't read as much on Bob's side so I appreciated it.  More stuff to consider and think about....

Thanks,
Carl

[Tyson]

Bob,
I appreciate the effort you put in to your post, you have very obviously put a lot of thought and time in to these questions.  

I would like to make one observation.  It is that rather than infinite axioms, there is only one axiom with regard to god, the spirit, et al.  And it is this, either you accept the existence of god and the spiritual realm, or you do not.  

You accept it, and all of your reasoning flows from that (hence the term "axiom" is appropriate), I do not accept it, so all of your arguments are simply beside the point (to me).  I could address every single one of your points with a rebuttal, but it would simply be a waste of time as the basic axiom would dictate what is and what is not valid for any subsequent argument.  Since we disagree on the fundamentals, it is highly unlikely that arguing about the correlarries and extensions of the fundamental axiom will be fruitful.  As far as I can tell, when it comes to that fundamental question, you either accept it or you do not, and no ammount of arguing or convincing will affect a change at this level.

For the "accepting god" position, central to this axiom is the concept of "faith".  Faith being defined as believing in something without the need for "proof".  In fact as the concept of faith is explored, the very idea of proof is completely anathema to it.  A faith that required "proof" would not be any kind of faith at all, now would it?

It has been my observation that a person either has faith, or he does not.  It is a fundamental, axiomatic type of choice.  I don't have faith, and I cannot pretend to have it, or try to "force" myself to have it.  I simply don't have it, and that's that.

I suppose you could call me vain and prideful for not accepting your axiom (as is implied several times in your post), but on the other hand I could call you foolish and weak for not accepting mine.  You could call me "limited", but I could call you brazenly superstitous.  But IMO there is no need for such ad hominem attacks.  Once you understand your own position on the fundamental issues, further discussion is simply aimed at other people that may be reading this post but don't know what their own position on these issues are.  Sort of like watching a communist and a capitalist debate.  Neither one is going to convince the other of anything, but if it is a good debate, it will create "food for thought" in those observing it.

[nathanm]

Let's settle this all right now - by dying.  So on the count of three everybody that's reading this is gonna kill themselves, okay?  Then we'll see who's right.  If you're reincarnated please re-register at AC and tell us your former screen name and what happened after your death.  If you're not, please continue decomposing at your present rate.  Thank you all for your cooperation.

Ready?  One...two...

[Carlman]

Tyson .... what an articulate writer.  Nice way to succinctly and eloquently put it.  I really liked your point that arguing is pointless for the participants but not the observers.  I enjoy a little abstract thinking whenever I hear arguments from 2 sides.  It's the same in religion, politics, and other issues.  Abortion is a similar argument... with similar 'Axiom dichotomies'.

I know what I believe but it doesn't fall into a defined side.  I have faith but it's not defined to what the Bible says.  But, I don't go to the extreme and say that the afterlife is a product of a Physics law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  Nor do I want to say that when I die I'll still be 'Carlman' and into heavenly hifi.

I have a faith there is a spiritual world but I also know I cannot comprehend it.

-C

[Tyson]

Carlman, thanks I really appreciate that

The fundamental axiom is not "Christianity vs. atheism", but rather "Any religion or spiritual belief vs. non-belief".  Or, more succintly, "Believer vs. non-Believer", but with the pariticular belief system not specified.

From past experience, when I had tried to accept the idea of god and spirit, it put me awash in a sea of uncertainty.  I had no way to direct my own belief system.  The problem was that religions tend to be mutually exclusive (we are right and everyone else is wrong), but none of them offer any reason for them being right, only promises of punishment if you don't follow them (if you are not with us, you are against us, or put another way, if you don't follow our doctrine, our god will punish you severely).  

So, I turned away from organized religion and turned inward to myself, trying to develop some relationship with god (or whatever you want to call the higher being).  It was not long after this that I realized that I simply don't have any faith, and my attempts in this direction proved to be entirely fruitless.  So, I've simply recognized these facts, and here I am, a non-believer.

[Smeggy]

Yes, I think I have very similar views to Tyson in this respect in that I have absolutely no religeous or spiritual faith or beliefs of any kind. It's entirely correct to say you either have it or you don't. It's not a choice or decision, people don't choose to believe or disbelieve. They can deny, but that is an entirely different thing and people often confuse this. Bob's post could well be talking about Elves or Pixies, I find these no less or more credible as a God in that I don't believe in them either. A person's beliefe system is just that, their own. I'm not really interested in it and all the arguments in the world cannot help either side of these issues. I also have no interest in arguing the absence of god's or whatever because as a non-believer it doesn't make sense. I would feel just as daft arguing against the existence of talking cheese and someone telling me that because I've never heard cheese talk it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.   Way too many people use religeon as a crutch and as an explanation for what they don't understand. Personally I like mysteries and hate the idea that everything can be explained away so flippantly with the brush of a God.

I guess my real problem with it all is that I'm always seeing people extolling the virtues and good graces of something that doesn't exist (to me) and even thanking that said something for helping with or fixing a problem that was patently fixed by a person or persons. Give credit where due.  It's sometimes very irksome. Your speakers are a product of your knowlege and skill, nothing more and that's what I would like to see emphasised on your site rather than some religeous babbling, no-matterhow deeply felt. Your religeous agenda has no business on a business site and will undoubtedly offend many non christians visiting. Of course the site is your's and you are free to do with it as you see fit, I'm just saying it's not necessarily a good business choice.

[John Casler]

Tyson .... what an articulate writer. Nice way to succinctly and eloquently put it. I really liked your point that arguing is pointless for the participants but not the observers.

I agree 100%.  Tyson what brand Gingko are you taking?  Do you chase it with a good scotch?

While arguing is pointless, discussion "can" occasionally be stimulating and thought provoking.

[Tyson]

I agree 100%. Tyson what brand Gingko are you taking?

I forget.

[nathanm]

It's entirely correct to say you either have it or you don't. It's not a choice or decision, people don't choose to believe or disbelieve.

Err...of course it's a choice.  How can it not be a choice or decision?  Nobody was born with faith in the supernatural, it was taught to them or they actively pursued learning about it.

However, if there were such a divine creator it would probably make sense to instill each person with this intrinsic awareness of god from birth wouldn't it?  If there is one god believing in him shouldn't even be a question at all.  There'd be no religions, and god's involvement with our lives would be completely normal and unspectacular.  We would all understand one language too.  But no, god's attendance record has been pretty pitiful you might say.  All we've got is this old book.  Not even a decent photo or nuthin'.  How cryptic can ya get?

One major problem I have with religion, and this in regards to Catholics as I know it, is that they put you through religious 'training' when you are too young to know better.  At that age you really do not give a shit one way or the other.  All you're doing is toeing the line and pleasing your parents and the church folk.  You're in like 6th grade or whatever and already you're "confirmed" into this huge pack of lies.  Well no, it's even worse.  When you're a helpless infant already they're dunking you in tanks and shoving you along this path from the get-go.  I would have more respect for someone who decided to believe the Christian dogma as a mature adult with a more developed mind than someone who has been completely surrounded by it their whole young life.  But really, I see little difference between a child and an adult christian's mind - one believes in Santa Claus and the other in God.  Both expect rewards for being good.  One shows up at least once a year, the other never shows up at all.  Both have white beards, we're pretty certain about that part.

Oh, and faeries ARE definitely real by the way.  People who don't see faeries, who don't believe in faeries... well, how can I explain it?  They just wouldn't understand the faerie world like I do.  Once you open your heart to the realm of faerie you'll understand.

[Smeggy]

Sorry Nathanm, choice is a concious desicion. As brat's we're usually brainwashed with all this crap before we know any better. In most cases  people are just programmed to accept and believe. I was not and never accepted any of it. Beliefe cannot be a choice, you cannot 'choose' to believe the sky is green any more than you can choose to believe there is a god. Many who 'find religeon' don't make a concious decision one day by saying 'I think I'n going to believe in god today'. It doesn't work like that. You either do or don't, the fact that some don't one day and do another is not a choice they make, it just happens. Choice has nothing to do with it. Most who lose their faith haven't necessarily lost it but instead choose to deny it. That is a choice.

And BTW, I said Elves and pixies, I never said anything about Firies     .

[Tyson]

Err...of course it's a choice. How can it not be a choice or decision? Nobody was born with faith in the supernatural, it was taught to them or they actively pursued learning about it.

Can you truly say that without being inside the head of someone that does have faith?  I don't think you can.  Your assumption is that there is no god, so therefore the whole faith thing is a crock.  But if your assumption is that there "is" a god, then faith is indeed part of your make-up as a human, and you can either turn away from it, or not.  

Personally I can't say one way or the other if someone's "faith" is learned or is simply part of them.  What I can say with certainty is that I do not have faith.  Since this is a fundamental (axiomatic) thing, then I agree with you, the whole faith thing does indeed seem like a crock, "to me".  In fact it seems blindingly, patently obvious.  But the problem is that someone that starts of with a different fundamental position (that there is a god), has the exact opposite viewpoint.  What is ridiculous to you is perfectly natural to them, and it is your position that seems preposterous.

That's the problem with fundamental, axiomatic differences in belief systems.  You simply can't find common ground.  You can merely yell at each other across the chasm that seperates you.


On a side note, Nathan, were you raised in a religous home?  You seem a little bitter, or at least are taking the discussion fairly personally.  Speaking for myself, I was raised to be a Christian, but I just couldn't reconcile it with what I saw with my own eyes and mind, so I abandoned it.

[nathanm]

I can say with certainty that a person's beliefs come from their surrounding social environment.  It is a learned behavior.  I don't see why the religious would object to this idea.  There's nothing particularly objectionable about it is there?  If you're born into a family of christians you'll be surrounded by that ideology.  If you're born in a Muslim family you'll probably end up a Muslim.  So yeah I can see what you mean by that not being a choice because the ideology is so overwhelming.

But I just don't buy the idea that any human being is born with beliefs in the supernatural any more than they are born knowing how to read, speak english or play the tuba.  It's something they learn and grow up with.  Take an infant from christian parents and have it adopted by a family of a different faith - how likely is it that he's gonna be still be christian?

These fundamental, axiomatic positions or whatever you want to call them are learned.

Many who 'find religeon' don't make a concious decision one day by saying 'I think I'n going to believe in god today'.

Sure they do, you hear that all the time, people being "saved" by Christ. It's what they decided to do.  No, it wasn't plotted and calculated in such a manner, but they made a decision nonetheless.  It is not an instinct you're born with.  Like I said before, if god was smart he WOULD make people be born with knowledge of his existence.  Newborns would come out of the womb with their hands folded in prayer, knowing god's language (whatever it may be) and saying "Thank god I'm out of that stuffy womb! Whew!".  But it doesn't work that way. What you ARE born with is atheism, though you don't know the word for it at the time.  You're born believing in your mom, and believing she better get the food over here right quick or I'm gonna scream as hard as I can until she does!

If faith is a natural part of humans why aren't some of us still worshipping the old gods?

[nathanm]

On a side note, Nathan, were you raised in a religous home? You seem a little bitter, or at least are taking the discussion fairly personally. Speaking for myself, I was raised to be a Christian, but I just couldn't reconcile it with what I saw with my own eyes and mind, so I abandoned it.

Sure I was, Roman Catholic.  I'm not any more bitter than usual, though!   I do feel that religion is a slow-working poison for the mind and a threat to the progress of humanity though.  Getting away from it can be such a difficult process though, and it can't be forced.  But religion does offer huge oppotunities for satire, which is a good thing.  Sometimes it is frightening living in a world full of people living for the next one though.