There seem to be alot of atheists frequenting this site. I want to put a few questions up for debate...

1. Why do humans have "higher consciousness" and no other animals have a similar capacity (please don't let this denegrate into a "dolphins are smarter than humans" thread).

2. What happens to your conciousness when you die?

3. (Related, but not necessarily on target): Why didn't other precursor species to homo sapien survive? Why are we the only intelligent homonid?

How can you explain such exclusivity without the interference of an outside power?

Just curious, really...

I can't answer your questions with anything other than....nature works in mysterious ways, but that doesn't mean that I have to turn to the concept of a supreme being to answer those questions. It just means that, at present, I don't have that knowledge.

I believe there are two probables here. If there is no other "higher consciousness" out there in the universe, only humans, then our advanced brain structure is the result of mutations and evolution, perhaps akin to winning a powerball lottery - the odds are overwhelmingly against it, but it can still happen.

On the other hand, if there is intelligent life beyond earth, consciousness may be an inevitable evolutionary outcome. Perhaps, as a plant flowers, a certain planet may "people" as it travels its inevitable path of fulfillment. Perhaps I should explain that better. When I say that a planetary body, or a solar system, or what have you, seeks the fulfillment of its creation, I mean that the forces which caused the shape of the universe define, through the chain of cause and effect, the path to completion. Perhaps the evolution of intelligence, seen on a vast and meta-perceptual level, is an inevitable part of that movement. Is the force which started the ball rolling divine? To think so is, at least to me, beyond pointless. Our window into the universe is so completely limited, I think we are nowhere near close to grasping the number of factors in the equation. The nature of our universe is so fundamentally unknown to us at this time, to attribute it to a supernatural being is no more than the cargo cult writ large.

Ultimately, while debating whether or not the prime force is divine can be fun, it is also ultimately no more than a game - because we don't know, and as it stands presently we can't know - but that could change!



Nobody knows, of course. Is your consciousness real? Is it You? Who are you? What is the nature of self? Who is amlord? Who is Quarkhead? Are we collections of memories and habits? Is consciousness individual at all, in reality? Our bodies are inseparable from their environment. The sun, oxygen, and gravity are all just as important to our continued existence as are our hearts and lungs. We can't really view the body as simply ending at the skin, because nothing in this universe exists outside of its context.

I see consciousness no differently. Why should it be different? Why should consciousness alone be individuated? Of course, if you believe in a supreme being, the answer is obvious. The belief in the individual soul is to me a byproduct of our natural and evolutionarily handy fear of death, pain, and separation, or ultimately, the unknown.



I believe in the law of cause and effect. In my view, those we often see as "wise" or "enlightened" are those who understand this law, or can see farther down its chain than others. So when I say it was mere chance, I don't mean that it was random or unforeseen; only that the chain as it applies to the complexity of the macrocosm is almost impossible to see.

I am not attempting to disprove the existence of god. That's impossible, just as proving god exists is impossible. I merely state some simplified reasons for my own atheism. To me the argument of divinity can never be more than an interesting conversation, because it is not a shared reality. I am a practitioner of Zen Buddhism, and have been for some years. For us the question of a divine power is ultimately irrelevant. We must focus on this present moment, and on the chain of cause and effect. And seeing everything as a part of this chain, we must inevitably be tolerant and empathetic.

As for your last bit, just being unable to explain the universe without a god does not mean that a god must therefore exist. When firearms were brought to people who were a thousand years behind in scientific advancement, the working of the gun could only be seen as magical. We just don't know how the gun works. Yet.

Those questions are all quite easy to answer for me at least. The trick is to keep an open mind. I tend to advertise atheism by saying "Abandon all knowledge system, ye who enter here."

1. Why do humans have a higher consciousness? We don't, at least not in the manner you are suggesting. Human beings are simply more intelligent and have developed more complex lifestyles than other animals. We're not the only species that exist in complicated societies, we're not the only animals that use our intelligence; we just happen to have evolved them further than any species. I saw a national geographic special (can't remember if it was print* or televised) that documented how certain Chimp species have actually been known to LEARN certain behaviours such as domestic abuse and that these behaviours actually spread to other communities through social contacts.

2. I don't know. I THINK it blinks out of existence. I'll find out in five or six decades; and if the opportunity arises I'll let you know.

3. That's impossible to say with any certainty. One of the great joys of atheism is that instead of being handed all the answers to hard questions you have to explore and discover them. (Not to say that there is no element of this in religious beliefs.) A proto-human species would have most likely occupied similar geographic locations and competed for similar resources, and as such would most likely be ill-equipped for the inevitable struggle over said resources. As for the other species, who knows? A changing climate could have caught them at unawares, a disease could have ravaged the population; or they could have simply intermingled with homo sapien populations until they were eventually genetically assimilated.

* - If anyone needs a citation from a National Geographic; I have acess to every single issue published in the last 80 years or so, so don't hesitate to ask.

1. Why do humans have "higher consciousness" and no other animals have a similar capacity?
Something good to remember here is that humans are, by far, not the ultimate species to grace the face of earth. We are not some "end result," but rather the current trend. Thousands and thousands of years ago, hominids had a higher capacity than other animals; today we have a higher capacity than they did. As time rolls by, our capacity will be less and less impressive. Eventually, given enough time, hominids will likely not even be the dominant species.

2. What happens to your conciousness when you die?
The same thing that happens when we unplug the television set, as far as I'm concerned. Our consciousness is essentially the result of electrical impulses. When we die, those electrical impulses cease and the essence of who we are is no more.

As you might gather from this I don't subscribe to the notion of a soul. I see our character, or being, as being shaped both through nature and nurture. Who we are isn't a determined reality, as a soul tends to imply, but rather a constantly changing, observable force.

3. (Related, but not necessarily on target): Why didn't other precursor species to homo sapien survive? Why are we the only intelligent homonid?
It's not so much that they didn't survive, but phased out. With evolutionary change, genetics gave birth to new hominids. If the majority of neanderthal societies undergoes evolutionary changes from generation to generation, they can't control the change. In many cases these changes are responses to environmental factors such as diseases. If you or your offspring are not equipped to deal with these challenges, you die and cease to contribute to the societal gene pool.

How can you explain such exclusivity without the interference of an outside power?
When we set aside the common perception that we are it, the ultimate purpose behind the universe, it's quite easy. Once it's realized that we're just another link in the chain, that we will one day be gone and replaced on this earth, it's suddenly not so exclusive.

Thank you for asking. You seem to be genuinely interested in our opinions, and for that I am grateful.

1. I deny the premise of this question. I do not think that humans have a "higher consciousness" in the sense of anything that is different in kind, rather than in degree, from that possessed by other animals. It seems clear to me, from daily observation, that mammals, at least, possess some degree of self-awareness. Humans may possess this to a higher degree than other animals, but this is something we share with our fellow creatures.

2. Consciousness ends when the cerebral cortex stops functioning. Consciousness is just the name we give to the activity of the higher centers of the brain. (For an excellent discussion of the philosophy of consciousness, presented with great wit and style, read Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter.)

3. It may sound flip, but my only answer to this question is "Why not?" It seems perfectly plausible to me for homo sapiens sapiens to be the only remaining species within this tiny branch of the primates. I explain this "exclusivity" as sheer random chance.

well, i am an agnostic, i dont think that humans can see anything about beings or being above us.

and on the human side, this may seem radical but i think that humans being the dominant species on the earth are here for that reason. evolution takes to long, a simple change in an ecosystem and all advanced life dies. that is not a problem for us, we can build spaceships.

i cant speak for the athiests, i see that as the same as haveing a certin faith like being a muslim or a morman.

and when you die, who knows.

Actually, evolution isn't strictly a long process. As memory serves, the late Stephen Jay Gould addressed this with his theory of punctuated equilibrium, where evolutionary jumps happen over relatively short periods of time.

As for spaceships, that's still a very distant dream. We can't just build a capsule and float around like the Sci-Fi channel. There's the problem of oxygen and food supplies, unhospitable temperatures and the ever present cosmic radiation. A cataclysmic event here, whether climate or otherwise, would indeed be a problem for us.

Regarding humans being the dominant species: the dinosaurs were once the dominant species, too. I think we all know how that little venture turned out. I believe the phrase "dead man walking" sums it up.

Well, I once was an athiest, a natural outcome from early Catholic religious training. This due to the overly punitive god and lesser gods that I was supposed to put my faith into. Then later, agnostic as I learned more about philosophy and the various ways of approaching spirituality. Later still, after a number of years seeking through nature, travel by motorcycle, and some shamanistic experiences, a theist of sorts. But I have no theology or dogma.

What is consciousness? Here I head toward Buddhist thinking that we are little chunks of a bigger consciousness, or as Emerson put it, an Oversoul. Also, these little hunks of big consciousness link together into a web, and this web can be tapped given enough concentration, awareness, and practice. The third eye can open and we can see.

But that carries great burdens, so most of us, including myself, shut down if we get too far into the web.

I don't accept the idea that our consciousnesses are separate from the other spirits around us, either. Now that heads into Native American and ancient human thought that all things are alive--all things have spirit. Yes, we must kill to live, and sometimes we must kill to protect. Yet we never leave the circle: We too will be killed and become food for somethings else.

When I contemplate death, the soul who talks most convincingly to me is my father, who passed on in the mid-1970s. I suspect we create our own afterlife realities, just as we can create our own realities in the physical world. My mother, a staunch Catholic, found her heaven. My father, a freethinker, became a guiding angel.

Biology contradicts physics because it does not have entropy. Why do single cells join together into more complex organisms? Why is there even life at all?

Obviously, life must be built into the physics, else it would not exist.

Matter and energy, both of which can be neither created nor destroyed, are not good vessels for the spirit. Living things are good vessels. The more complex the living thing, the greater the spirit who can take the vessel. And so, biology becomes more complex over time, whereas other physical systems denegrate toward an unorganized state--entropy.

Is there a Big Plan, a Loving God, a Savior?

Sure, if you want it that way.

So, since neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (but may shift dimensions at quantum levels), I think the same goes for spirit. As an athiest, I believed that my consciousness would just blink out after physical death. Now I think it goes on, carries with it some of the things learned this time around, takes a vacation in spirit land, and comes back to raise some more ruckuss on earth or some other life-bearing planet, possibly in some other dimension.

But this is hard stuff to see within the vessel. The vessel itself carries burdens of illusion, and the more complex the vessel, the more complex the illusions. In addition, the physical circles blend with the spiritual in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle (think orgasm here), ways. Sure, chemicals can be manipulated in the brain to bring sensations and create distorted illusions--but think about natural highs, as when something really sweet happens in your life. Are your feelings just the result of chemical and electrical cues and impulses?

I suppose, if you want it that way Which, of course, heads into ideas about will--but I'm done with this thought. Have to do other things today

With all the talks of vessels, I have to ask you one thing, Author... promise me you won't eat a batch of poisoned pudding and catch the next comet that comes by?

In all seriousness, though, I like what you had to say. I loaned my physics book to a friend recently, or I might further address entropy as it applies to biology. From what I remember, though, biological systems don't actually violate the second law of thermodynamics anymore than a snowflake (example of order from disorder). As I recall, life is an open system, and when we factor in the sun it only appears to be a violation. Entropy still takes place, though.

I would say yes. If anybody wants my "cheerier" idea of what happens after death, I would turn to physics and, in particular, quantum physics. There we have that whole mess of parallel dimensions and universes. My most recent copy of Scientific American (on stands today!) claims laboratory experiements support the idea of such parallel universes. If this is indeed the case, I would see these universes as being part of a web, somewhat similar to what AM said. Only beyond each person being connected I would also say that perhaps each potential one of us, out of each of these infinite universes, is connected along the web as well. Perhaps this is the mechanism behind deja vu and what not.

This is, however, still only an "if" for me. For the most part I do still subscribe to the television analogy from before.

well in a sense evolution does not take very long for most un-complex life such as bacteria beating out medicines and so forth or those ants from south america changeing their dna in a sense to adapt to the colder north, but for complex life a quick change could very easily mean death, field mice have a 1in 300,000 or so genetic mutaion(in russia) rate and that is without entering the breeding populace, an ice age or even a meteor impact may kill all advanced life on the planet except for the more simple forms of it, then it takes millions of years to build back up if earth can still support that, so in the end i belive that is why the human mind exists. we build such complex tools compared to any lifeform on this planet, usually in order to better our survival or happines, however you want to look at it.

Abs,

Let me take the television analogy and go with it a little. I kinda like it.

When we turn on the tube, we tune into one of several consciousnesses, i.e., channels. If we turn off the television, our sense of this consciousness goes away but not the consciousness itself. It remains in existence until the tube is turned on again. Meanwhile, the broadcast has gone forward!

Wow man, and I'm not even stoned

No, I am not waiting for any aliens to come swoop me away, but pudding sounds awfully good right now

Hey, that's a good one on entropy. Yeah, like snowflakes in the bigger, broader picture. Finally someone has explained it to me where I immediately saw. Thanks!

1. Explain what you mean by this higher consciousness that we have. We have a much larger data base to draw on than our ape cousins, which for instance allows us to build houses, but I don't imagine that's what you meant by "higher consciousness."

2. Consciousness in the purist sense seems to exist outside the realm of scientific description since it has no weight, volume, speed or numbered dimension of any sort. I don't know what happens to it. I don't even know what it is. People talk about its contingency with the material but what's that supposed to do for me? Tell me that atoms can express love? Sorry I can't be of much help here.

3. This one's easy. Think of the program "Survivor." The other ones got progressively voted off, so to speak, until it came down to Neandertals and Cro-Magnons. Apparently about 35,000 years ago the latter walked off with the million dollars.

Perhaps our consciousness is like an ant colony. Each individual ant displays no "micro" intelligence at all, and yet the colony as a whole acts in a determined intelligent-like way. There is purpose and collective will, as it were. The individual ants are like nodes of an interconnected web. Consciousness or intelligent action in humans may be the collective survival instinct of the host of "nodes," be they chemical, or electrical, or ?, which makes up our physical beings. Since energy is only transferred and not lost, the "nodes" of energy that constitute your being are present for eternity, just not collected together in the web which constitutes "you."

Clear as mud! Just an idea... after all, the only evidence we have for the existence of "self" is purely subjective - we feel we are a distinct entity, so we think we must be.

The concept of the distinct or particular Self is the root cause of suffering, because it is the beginning of the perception of duality and hierarchy.

Quarkhead,



So Renee Descartes was having a mug of his favorite malt beverage in the local pub. Along comes the barkeep and asks Renee if he'd like another.

Renee says, "Oh, I think not."

And *poof*! Renee disappears.

I've got some time to kill, so permit me to ramble on about will. We've probably all heard the expression "will to live." Sometimes people lose their wills to live and end up dying. It's as if death is waiting to be let in and only stays away while there's still spit and vinegar in the person.

Or, like circling vultures, they will not approach until the chances of getting attacked are gone.

Do we will our existence? Certainly we know that we can exercise our willpower to bring about realities in this world. We can set goals and make our moves to attain them, and with enough perserverance, we can succeed. This is the basis of virtually every system, be it capitalism or socialism, that humans have designed.

As a newborn grows into self-awareness, the terrible twos come up. It's all about me, me, me--and the term "NO" takes on an overly aggressive usage.

So what energy is it that causes clay to get up, stomp around, and become an obnoxious vexation to parents? Oh, we can describe this all right. Yep, we know a lot about child development--how it works. It's like being presented with something mechanical and discovering that this turns it on, that turns it off, this makes it go, that makes it stop.

But where did this ego come from? This thing we sometimes call a life force? The thing that I'm referring to as will? It's not physical. We can't measure it but we sure can detect it.

But ask any parent of a two-year-old. It most definately exists.

I exist because I say so. There!

AM, what exactly do you mean by willpower? For instance, does a snake have willpower? How do you make the distinction? Contrasting instinct with cognitive thought would simply raise new questions. Even snakes learn some things which are then incorporated as survival cues. And whose to say learning isn't simply instinctive processing of environmental stimuli.

Our imagining and then building a house roughly based on our imagined specifications may be based on instinctive shelter seeking plus a lot of instinctively responding to previously incorporated environmental, social and cultural influences. The fact that our "thinking" includes a lot of abstraction and complexity doesn't necessarily make it different in kind from the mental-instinctive processes of our more primitive cousins.

As far as self-consciousness being a big deal I understand there is a species of bird that can look in a mirror and recognize itself as distinct from other members of its species. This used to be considered restricted only to those species with very high cognitive powers.

Is anybody sure they know what happens when you die? As an agnostic I don't claim to be able to explain that. Humans don't know nearly enough about the nature and history of the Universe to answer every question about it by the process of elimination.

After my death Ill probably end up where I was in the year 1190ad. I dont remember that year very clearly so it seems that the universe may have gotten along fine without me for around 10 billion years. i dont see any reason to see why ive suddenly become so indispensible that the universe couldnt go on for another 10 billion without me.

Maybe it wuvs me though. I am pretty special.

Dingo,

Yep, I'd go along with a snake having will. It's just not as free as ours. A snake's will is limited by its form.

So is our will limited by our form, but we have a lot more options.

Why arent early hominids around today?

I can look at the intolerance of minor skin differences today, and all the trouble that causes, and get an idea of what happened to those with more significant differences. Animal intolerance of those that are different doesnt seem like much of an evidence for the divine.

Yeah, we outbred and outkilled the neanderthals, therefore the jewish desert god is real, ummm....

In agreement, I find HUMAN to be less qualified in many ways than any other animal. We cannot swim well or survive on the ocean, we cannot run fast enough to outrun any other predator, we cannot jump high, climb, or swing from trees very well, we cannot survive extreme heat, sun or cold for any length of time, we cannot go more than 4 days without water.
Our sex drive is that of a rabbit, 24/7 with monthly gestation. Although we supposedly 'think' we know that many prefer no to. We are heavily prone to addictions of all kinds. We do not eat natural foods, we kill ourselves with toxins and pollution in pursuit of money, which buys things hich we will give up our health, welfare and happiness for endentured slavery. We invented bombs and energy sources that would eliminate every single living thing on the planet, and we believe in them! We make wars and kill each other over ideals and beliefs of a God and who is right and wrong.
We dont live well with others, and seek to eliminate beings on the planet that are part of a complete miraculous ecosystem, we still do not understand that trees and plants give us the oxygen we need to live and breathe. We dont maintain our resources, overfish the oceans leading to depletion of food and throw away all rotten product that wasnt bought for its going price. We waste, pollute and kill indiscriminately.

In fact, we NEED to use other beings and forces, wind, water, air, fire,metals, animals to make our life work on this planet, yet we disrespect them, as if we could survive without. We do have thought ,which enables us to do this, with a higher disregard, up to a point in time!

The Human being qualifies as a parasite as evolution goes. No other being is capable of such destruction. We got a thumb, and we got past, present and future thought, but it hasnt really done much to make the world a better place.

Artemise,

What you have written is all true. It is the basis of the idea of Deep Ecology, the notion that we are alien beings on this planet, and that we need to grow spiritually to live with this planet or we will perish as a species.

I just want to point out that human beings lived for many thousands of years in balance with this planet. Something happened that put us out of synch. We learned to support more people through agriculture, then much later, through technology. Perhaps religion had a lot to do with how we approached our enlightenments to these advancements, and I do tend to think so.

But, and there is always a "but" on this, the big lady hasn't sung yet. It may seem that we are careening on the brink of destruction, and right now I have the sense that huge mistakes have recently been made for which we will all pay--our children will pay, our children's children--if our species survives that long.

Still, we have enormous wills. What gets smacked up against our senses through media is one thing, and I call it propaganda. What we come to know through daily life, both our waking and sleeping times, is another. The political and economic powers can control only so much, and they know it.

Times can and must change. I believe they will, and they will for the better, beause we have will and we are, at our cores, survivors. We also have the knack of teamwork. Is this a warning to the holders of power? Oh yes, please get your acts together, else you will lose the reigns of power. And I give no promises as to who will replace you. That's beyond my will and my ken.

But a collective will is gaining strength. Better watch out! Some loose cannon somewhere is figuring out a better way of living. Don't ask me who this is; I don't know. Don't try to force me to give up secrets; I don't have them.

"But" it is happening. And they know it. Why else would they be so fearful of us?

Anyway, I agree with all you have written. It is just one side of the stone, and the stone must roll.

I agree with a lot of what you had to say but a correction is needed. Human beings caused species extinction long before the agricultural revolution. The Asiatic people who crossed Berengia slaughtered several mammal species in their travels and eventual settlements, including a sort of North American horse.

Yes , in fact one theory is the fact that when the Indians wiped out most of North American animals, that were subject to domestication, they sealed their own eventual fate. White Europeans, due to their contact with, domesticate animals, developed smallpox and acquired immunities to smallpox. When Indians were exposed to smallpox they had no such immunity

Hugo,

Huh, now that's a stretch. Sounds like someone's justifying European invasion. Why domesticate deer, grouse, fish? Buffalo? They do quite well on their own.

Conversely, perhaps domesticating animals sealed the fate of Europeans in that they had to become conquering nations for expansion to support their overgrown populations.

But, we drift off subject.

Back to spirit. What happens after we die? Is afterlife just a myth? Or could reincarnation be the reality? Have we lived before we were born? Must I believe in both a single god and afterlife, or can I believe any darn combination I want? Is atheism necessarily against afterlife notions?

Read Jared Diamond's "Guns,Germs and Steel" , an interesting read. I think only a fanatical PETA member would say the killing of animals justified the killing of Indians.

Back on topic, millions (billions?) of humans have claimed contact with God. If just one is not a liar or a lunatic then there is a God.

So your argument then is "well so many people say that there is a god, so how can there not be?"

First of all, I'm not sure if BILLIONS of people have reported a "contact" with God, and even if they had, so what? The subconscious can only manifest itself visually based on the input the conscious mind receives. The idea of a "god" is fairly universal on the planet in some capacity, so subconscious invasions into the conscious level can quite simply be explained as constructions of the mind's understanding of God from society without.

All I am saying is if one single person who claims contact with God is correct then there is a God. Obviously the atheist position is contact with God is a popular delusion.

How can anyone qualify their beliefs with "if"?

A belief, yes...a conviction, probably not.

Hugo's point was hypothetical. That IF just one person among those millions is correct, then God is proven. He didn't use the word "if" to describe his reasons behind his beliefs (in fact, I don't think he stated his beliefs).

Joe, hugo may correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling he may be playing "God's advocate" here. What he is saying is factually correct. If even one person has an actual, objective, scientifically verifiable contact with a Supreme Being, then that Supreme Being is real. That said, in all of human history that has, as far as I can see, never happened.

All of that aside, perhaps we can steer this thread back on topic - what atheists believe happens after the death of the body.

I believe that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Our bodies contain electrochemical energy. When we die, that energy is transferred to the surrounding cosmos - soil may be enriched, worms are given food, etc. All providing a part of the continuation of the universe. The air we breathe, the food we eat, all is built upon the energy which does not disappear but changes hands, over and over. In a sense, we are sustained by the constant "reincarnation" of energy from all animals and plants and cosmic radiation that have come before us. Even in life, we are constantly taking in energy and emitting waste which also provides energy. There is a constant energy transference, in life and in death.

It may be, though I do not zealously subscribe to this, that severe trauma or concerted will can cause a bulk of our body's energy to remain somewhat coherent after the body dies, at least for a while. The Tibetan Buddhists believe that the most advanced lamas can "direct" their will towards placing some bulk of their individually cohesive energy into the body of a newly conceived infant. It doesn't have to be a "soul," rather perhaps a function of the strength of will to keep that energy from immediately dissipating.

Does this really happen? I don't know, but it could fit into the theory I described above.

I have said this elsewhere: I practice Zen Buddhism, I have for some years now. I spend one hour every day sitting in meditation, and once per year I try and attend a sesshin (a week of intense meditation). I consider myself an atheist. To me, the question of god is fun to argue about, but really irrelevant. My concern is practicing compassionate ethics, in every moment. I often fail , but for me the central issue of our existence is how we treat one another. It is compassionate and benevolent thought and action which guide us toward peace, not our religious or political ideology.

I hate to answer your questions with references, but you must admit that they are very dense questions (and by that I mean weighty, not thick) and there are those who have answered them (for me) much more eloquently and in much more depth than I could manage here.

1. I don't believe that our consciousness is necessarily that much higher than that of other species. For a very good examination of what constitutes consciousness (what it is and is not) and how the "human" consciousness of self came about, I'd recommend Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

2. Regarding this question, Victoria has already made reference to Godel, Escher, Bach and I will second her recommendation here.

3. There are several volumes which address this question. One of the best, in terms of popularizing a number of more complex questions, is Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden.

All of the above are highly recommended - not only for answering the questions posed here, but also for raising (and often answering) many others.

My personal belief is that there is a continuum of consciousness throughout the universe which binds everything from the quantum level on up. Each of us as individuals participate in that consciousness, with a bit more awareness than lower animals or inanimate objects, perhaps, but it neither comes into existence with any discreet birth nor does it cease to exist with any individual death. At death, the individual physical body decays - the consciousness of which it was a part goes on as it always has done.

Here's something interesting I came across when job hunting. Focus on the Family headquarters is in Colorado Springs. They have a job opening for an AS/400 guy, and once I downloaded the Word doc to apply, it turns out you have to be Christian and provide a statement of Christian testimony and experience.

Does this mean that I must have experienced epiphany to work on their computers? Did Jesus have to open up my heart?

So if people have to claim to having met Jesus in epiphany, then is that evidence of the existence of God?

Or does this mean that people make things up to get employment there?

I mean, isn't native faith good enough? After all, as I understand it, epiphany pretty much sets you up for sainthood. Last time I checked, saints don't usually work with computers.

Anyway, the proofs of the existence of God have been pretty well shaken out by the classic philosophers. Wasn't it Pascal that had the bargain? Can't prove God's existence, can't disprove it, so better believe to be safe. I've seen bumper stickers that go to this argument: "If you don't believe in God, you BETTER BE RIGHT!"

Well, I suppose. See, I just don't believe in the Focus notion of god. My belief is a tad more complex.

Does having met Odin count?

Yes! I agree, Wertz. Perhaps your "continuum of consciousness" is a perceptual manifestation of the fundamental energy systems which constitute even the physical reality of the universe. What we call "consciousness" may be the way in which the physical body perceives the underlying energy interactions. As a plant flowers to "fulfill its equation," so the earth "peoples."

What many might perceive as "fate" or "karma" is a linear way of perceiving the perhaps infinitely complex equations of energy systems - because of the conservation of energy, there is clear reality to a causative chain, a sort of preordainment on a cosmic scale, pieces of which we can merely glimpse, but which we cannot solve (the equation has too many factors).

So perhaps death is merely a shifting in the factors of a grand equation which remains balanced...

OK, I flying without a tether now, I'd better alight for a rest!

If you are agnostic it is pretty easy.

Hugo,

The agnostic stance is fairly easy to grasp and hang onto. You don't have to commit to either or, so you leave yourself open to the possibilities.

I took that way in my younger years, and it ultimately did lead to epiphany--I met what we might call god, but it isn't anything like what most folks think. Eh, I don't want to get into that. Too much personal interpretation that just bores the doodles out of folks. Let's just say there really is only one, and it really, really finds us interesting. Love, if you will.

But don't get a big head. It finds ants interesting, too.

I'm with you, though. If the big IF isn't allowed, I'm not interested. But, that's just me