Maggie's Farm

Notwithstanding contemporary scientific* revelations of the permanence of the spirit or soul, it's the mark of the small mind to demand proofs for deduced truths. Or did you want to give the mind's simple sensory input primacy over the mind's essential work?

Put another way, in a sense the best proof - if that's the word - of the eternal divine is that a purportedly accidental universe somehow randomly produced every rational, logical, supportable aspect of it. Evolution itself thereby proves G-d, even as much of an utter botch as the search for a Grand Unified Accident has turned out to be.

That makes the atheist a manifestation of a self-blind paradox: Insisting something cannot exist while being a loud product of it. Or, a necessary component of denial of the very construct that also produced the highest truths, among them transcendence.

*as with "evolution", a detestable word, too often the contemporary manifestation of smug certainty that this time, in this place, a human has determined an Absolute. Real science is the polar opposite which makes "scientific" nothing more than a casual observation that someone is working on something.

Given your reputation for bullshit I certainly wouldn't bother challenging you to prove a negative - that's closer to the demand you made on Rusty (and how mind-bogglingly senseless it is to expect someone else to pry one's eyelids open for them).

Granted, your expertise around here seems to run to graphically pornographic depictions of past conquests and other equally senseless tales and propositions, but even you should be able to see that this particular random association of matter we inhabit - assuming that isn't somehow inherently preposterous - eventually asks itself how it created the utterly rational, logical, and fair G-d that only the mind is equipped to grapple with.

Or are those principles generally associated with insanity? Even an ignorant, loud-mouthed prick is generally on about something roughly related to right and wrong while he's off making a name for himself; it's a little bit of a stretch to call the spiritual thinker a pathological liar while he's simply following the breadcrumbs.

Interesting how those crumbs came to be and how clearly they show the trail on the road less traveled. Almost by design and grace, you could presume.

Well, some minds grapple with higher principle and transcendence like that.

Others become defensively incensed at the prospect even before the question forms itself to assault their tender sensibilities, although I admit the rest of us with functional consciences and faculties don't really find that surprising...

Speaking of random, now you're just playing to the crowd, Anon, hiding behind entry-level internet argle bargle.

Thing is, nobody has to prove transcendence because it's self evident, which relates to the first point you just had to instinctively take a swing at, the one central to a "serious discussion/question" like this, (the illiterate slash and all).

And speaking of target, small minds consistently miss them while banging on, hoping that in all that darkness maybe they'll get lucky. (Pro tip: if you're really lucky one day it'll occur to you why the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a false construct right off.)

Whoops; get lucky. And there I go setting you off all over again. I'm told the only way to grasp female sexuality is through the Penthouse letters in a hedonistic Christian comment thread...

It all relates to what you elect to call random and what you decide to call order. G-d has no known compunction to force anything on you as you choose which, while reality has all apparent proclivities to confront you with the magical in the most distant places you stumble into.

It's almost like the whole thing is a gift and you get to decide how to regard the favor.

Welcome to the Projection Olympics, Bob. You and Anon make a nice mixed double.

As uncertain as you are of things it must be nice to be so certain of those you completely misunderstand, huh?

You're so dim you haven't even read the last line in the remark you're knee-jerking to. Man, you're obtuse. I never said what I believe in, IdiotBob, should that even matter, but the notion that nothing exists until materially proved is preposterous on its face.

That's what I got, if you'd care to read it, and it's a whale of a lot more than nothing.

I'm afraid you're much too dim to get it, IdiotBob, which also applies in spades to this arguing thing you're on about now.

Back you go to the Projection Olympics.