Does everyone have a developed a belief system?

FreedomFromAll said:

In reality we are talking about apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here.

The problem lies in making one the equivalent of the other.

Click to expand...

Apple and oranges are comparable as long as the level of evaluation is based on them both being fruits.

In this case, we can easily identify apples.

We have apples and non-apples.

Not all non-apples are oranges = true.

But, apples have these properties which distinguish them from a generic fruit.

So my statement, is reflecting I like talking about fruits including apples and non-apples. All non-apples are different granted. That doesn't mean non-apples can not also be arranged into oranges, Melons, Nectarine, Dates….Based on working up from the fruit level.

given claim is too incoherent to apply reason too, then there isnt going to be much rational debate.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but given my Alien example. I can still have rational discussion and debate about the events he thinks are caused by aliens despite our disagreement on their existence.

Religious beliefs involve a great deal of willing suspension of disbelief. Religious belief is contrasted by one believing that 2+2=4 is correct. The later is not part of a belief system.

Click to expand...

Let me give you an example,

I use a process called a k-test. It nothing fancy it's a little physical test I do which measures a 'gut response: yes or no. I think this test although far from perfect is more telling than deduction based on the facts. I believe so based on my k-test results beating the results of deduction alone in testable conditions.

k-testing is not a fact. k-testing is not perfect. It is an observation.

You likely use deduction alone. Deduction is imperfect.

Proving k-testing wrong by deduction is not evidence against the premise I use to be confident in it.

If I said, deduction is based in a belief that doesn't mean I need you to accept that based on k-testing. It doesn't mean I don't accept facts.

It simply is to say deduction is imperfect. Just as k-testing is imperfect. The degree debatable.

<alt>doxygen said:

I'm agnostic, but i don't have that negative a view of theists. I can see how my post would lead some to think that I view them as childish, but that really isn't the case. Some are, but so are some atheists. I look for open minds. Those exist in both realms. but probably not at the poles.

Click to expand...

:mrgreen: I don't doubt it. That "in so much" part is important. You likely don't care very much people waste time on silly activities and cross path with it very little. To you it's more like a hobby, not to dissimilar to that of a trekkie?

I can see how my bolder statements can make it seem like I think atheists are evil. I really just see them as another flavour of human struggling like all of us. I could be wrong in my theories. It really wouldn't matter all that much if I were. I just want to be sure I speak honestly (for my own sake) and get challenged when I might be going too far with my speculations and predications. Vigilantly test everything.

rjay said:

I cannot respond without knowing what you define as morals. I use Sam Harris's definition. When we talk about morals we are really talking about well-being. If we can agree on a definition, then we can discuss whether specific actions are moral or not, based on our understanding of whether they promote well-being. This is not necessarily individual well-being, but rather well-being to humans as a whole.

Click to expand...

Do you by chance know a book or lecture(on youtube) by Sam Harris that expands on this idea? In the broadest sense an outcome of well-being sounds like a good start to a common reference point. I am not however familiar with his approach, but do respect him and would no doubt learn something familiarizing with his statements on the topic.

In terms of my own frame, my passion is working in restorative justice. So my outcome to 'morals' would be prosocial behaviour with two main requirements. Within the context of a generally antisocial environment (e.g. war, attack, violence, verbal abuse) and within the context of a generally pro-social environment (e.g. interactions with other pro-social elements/actors friends, community and family). I would reorientate the rules differently but to be 'moral' a methodology must work in both. My tangible test basically a 'thought experiment' in my educated opinion how said 'method' or 'principle' would play with those I know to have antisocial tendencies. Would it have lead them on a path to rehabilitate? This obviously is very subjective and would be very difficult to build a meaningful conservation around although of course game if you're on a similar page.

Angel said:

Says anyone who's done any thinking worth the name on the human condition, that's who.

Click to expand...

Do you care to give me a single name ?

Conaeolos said:

I agree with you here.


Apple and oranges are comparable as long as the level of evaluation is based on them both being fruits.

In this case, we can easily identify apples.

We have apples and non-apples.

Not all non-apples are oranges = true.

But, apples have these properties which distinguish them from a generic fruit.

So my statement, is reflecting I like talking about fruits including apples and non-apples. All non-apples are different granted. That doesn't mean non-apples can not also be arranged into oranges, Melons, Nectarine, Dates….Based on working up from the fruit level.


Agreed, but given my Alien example. I can still have rational discussion and debate about the events he thinks are caused by aliens despite our disagreement on their existence.


Let me give you an example,

I use a process called a k-test. It nothing fancy it's a little physical test I do which measures a 'gut response: yes or no. I think this test although far from perfect is more telling than deduction based on the facts. I believe so based on my k-test results beating the results of deduction alone in testable conditions.

k-testing is not a fact. k-testing is not perfect. It is an observation.

You likely use deduction alone. Deduction is imperfect.

Proving k-testing wrong by deduction is not evidence against the premise I use to be confident in it.

If I said, deduction is based in a belief that doesn't mean I need you to accept that based on k-testing. It doesn't mean I don't accept facts.

It simply is to say deduction is imperfect. Just as k-testing is imperfect. The degree debatable.

Click to expand...

Just stop with the strawmen crap; it does not make for good conversation much less debate.

FreedomFromAll said:

Just stop with the strawmen crap; it does not make for good conversation much less debate.

Click to expand...

Let me just recap here:

"secular belief system" doesn't give enough distinction because you do not have an affirmative position. Let alone a belief.

"secular reasoning system" doesn't give enough distinction from "collective thought" which I assume means dogma.

"theism verse ignostic, is like apple and oranges, but I like studying fruits including how Oranges, Melons, Nectarine, Dates... are like apples"

fruits being psychology.

And that is apart of a "stawman"? I am guessing since I take a personal tone. And you don't 'buy' my later argument I am focused on the "deduction" part of the question not the facts or where we agree or don't.

Yeah. Let's move past this ridiculous "technicality game" on what should or should not be labeled systems of secular reasoning?

Here is my new affirmative, if you are ready to push forward into more meaningful territory:

I am interested in both secular and theistic religions. I hypothesize in the absence of a "theistic religion" a secular one may form to take its place. I am fully aware not all belief systems have a religious structure. I am fully aware I have biases from a different outlook. I try my best to minimize those and utilize universal psychology to frame and better understand both systems. To do so, I start with a secular explaination of my own beliefs. How a belief becomes central and eventually sacred. I reject the idea religion has to be dogmatic. Religion is simply a system that exists when an abstract concept is deemed sacred in the mind.

I have two questions:

As someone, who has said "my brain is equipped with a (natural) sense of right and wrong". I agree we all have ethical capicity. What ideas do you find plays most heavily into your own ethical reasoning?

As someone, who has said "The entire supernatural claim is neither coherent or even relevant to me at all". How do you view the concept of sacred from a psychological view? Do you think generally speaking what one finds "sacred" deserves to be honoured? Examples and analogies welcome.

Conaeolos said:

Let me just recap here:

"secular belief system" doesn't give enough distinction because you do not have an affirmative position. Let alone a belief.

"secular reasoning system" doesn't give enough distinction from "collective thought" which I assume means dogma.

"theism verse ignostic, is like apple and oranges, but I like studying fruits including how Oranges, Melons, Nectarine, Dates... are like apples"

fruits being psychology.

And that is apart of a "stawman"? I am guessing since I take a personal tone. And you don't 'buy' my later argument I am focused on the "deduction" part of the question not the facts or where we agree or don't.

Yeah. Let's move past this ridiculous "technicality game" on what should or should not be labeled systems of secular reasoning?

Here is my new affirmative, if you are ready to push forward into more meaningful territory:

I am interested in both secular and theistic religions. I hypothesis in the absence of a "theistic religion" a secular one may form to take its place. I am fully aware not all belief systems have a religious structure. I am fully aware I have biases from a different outlook. I try my best to minimize those and utilize universal psychology to frame and better understand both systems. To do so, I start with a secular explaination of my own beliefs. How a belief becomes central and eventually sacred. I reject the idea religion has to be dogmatic. Religion is simply a system that exists when an abstract concept is deemed sacred in the mind.

I have two questions:

As someone, who has said "my brain is equipped with a (natural) sense of right and wrong". I agree we all have ethical capicity. What ideas do you find plays most heavily into your own ethical reasoning?

As someone, who has said "The entire supernatural claim is neither coherent or even relevant to me at all". How do you view the concept of sacred from a psychological view? Do you think generally speaking what one finds "sacred" deserves to be honoured? Examples and analogies welcome.

Click to expand...

I did not say this:"my brain is equipped with a (natural) sense of right and wrong"

Is aid that there is a part of the brain that deals with empathy and compassion. When that part of the brain is damaged people have problem with empathy and compassion. Right and wrong is at best subjective and thus not really relevant to truths. You can have empathy and/or compassion and still be considered doinf actions that are ethical or otherwise wrong.

What people consider sacred is also subjective and mere opinions and therefor not that important to anyone both those with the belief that something is sacred. If a culture, religion, group or individual deems something sacred, I have no horse in the race, so to speak. Depending on the thing that is sacred it can be anywhere from senseless, to benign or offensive. One acts accordingly to the information at hand.


You seem to have an habit of making large assumptions that you refuse to explain in a valid rational way. Perhaps those assumption are due to your bias, I do not know. None the less the position that you have taken is to make unfounded claims, brush off attempts for a request for explanations. All in all you are sounding dogmatic. I encourage challenges to my own assertions and positions in order to check and see if there are any faults, but again strawmans do not good.

Beyond that your interest in your hypothesis seems to ignore scientific method. So far you should be marking one for me being a non-believer who does not have secular belief system that replaces a religious belief system. Your hypotheses for me is absolutely not tru. You can accept that or keep trying to dogmatically force me into your hypothesis but doing so will make it entirely invalid.

Rich2018 said:

Do you care to give me a single name ?

Click to expand...

I say "anyone who's done any thinking" and you want a name? Are you asking for an authority for my opinion or just yanking my chain?

FreedomFromAll said:

I encourage challenges to my own assertions and positions in order to check and see if there are any faults, but again strawmans do not good.

Click to expand...

Problem is good faith. I have made quite clear I am outlining my affirmative not critiquing your affirmatives. I do so because I still think we tend to talk past each other. A stawman generally applies the other way due to showing 'bad faith'.

So let's talk about just that core argument:

I simply do not have a belief system. Of course, you can try to tell me that I do (have a belief system), but that will get you nowhere fast. But thats what theists do; they assume that everyone is like them.

Click to expand...

My critique is pretty simple: I don't disagree. I just don't care that you feel that way.

The fact you think you do not have a belief system is evidence of nothing. I do think you have similar structure. I also think you're right it is difficult to impossible for me as not-you to tell you what you believe. I have your word verses my opinions.

I don't think you care either that I feel you have a belief system. Perhaps you find it rude. The reason, I am engaging further is I am interested in what you have instead of a belief system!

I am indifferent to your criticism, although who knows maybe you can catch an error I missed(so far not). I am looking for your alternatives. Not for god or religion. In general. The difference in language. The difference in cognition. I am interested in how you view the 'spiritual' topics exactly because you are ignostic and have a different outlook. Of course we are more tha same than different, but the difference is what is intresting.

Beyond that your interest in your hypothesis seems to ignore scientific method.

Click to expand...

It does takes time to craft the right methodology.

So far you should be marking one for me being a non-believer who does not have secular belief system that replaces a religious belief system.

Click to expand...

Correct. You have shown no signs of a secular religion within the confines of this thread or the previous one.

Your hypotheses for me is absolutely not true.

Click to expand...

It's undetermined.

You can accept that or keep trying to dogmatically force me into your hypothesis but doing so will make it entirely invalid.

Click to expand...

Why would I care that it's valid? My goal here is to better understand myself as to better interact with world and those I encounter in life. I accept what I observe. I obverse a claim you do not have a central belief, let alone a sacred one. I observe you say even if you did it still likely wouldn't become systematic nor dogmatic unless you let it.

I have not heard an alternative psychological model for faith, at least beyond general criticisms that my belief in God biases my logical deduction via dogmatic faithbased nature.

Again. What I call God, you may call mystery(everything). You may measure it with statistics or simply accept it. Whatever. The point is you do not think it is conscious or meaningful whereas I do. Further, I have highlighted that mystery and made it subjectively sacred. This servers for me a personal purpose.

I enjoy identifying structures and patterns. So I am always looking for similar structures and patterns in others. To compare and contrast. And if I like theirs better than mine. I integrate it.

In the end, no I do not accept your claim, but neither do I refute it. I find it an honest and valid challenge. I don't have enough data to really answer. I am however interested in that data, your opinions and exploring the ideas.

For now my opinion remains atheism / ignostic is a rebellion against authority due anger/pride and that secular religions I've observed in others appear in some form absent a 'supernatural' basis. Morally, most behaviours are determined by society/temperament and individually ego related negative-idenity such as atheism is always a disadvantage as one is more easily pulled in by the current. Antisocial belief systems of course remaining far greater moral danger due to their power to fight the current.

Ultimately these opinions could be proven right, wrong or modified. They are full of plenty of untested assumptions.That's life, the chance of them being wrong certainly not worth not holding or expressing strong opinions. I am not going to respect a person any less for a disagreement. I argue and I improve. The greatest power of truth is its ability to overpower falsehood. I trust, if I am honest in my opinions, seek honesty in others, conflicts will always give way to greater truths.

I will say you are a tad dogmatic about logic. Not to the level of religion our anything, but it does give the impression you learned nothing in this whole exchange, but then maybe I missed something and that is the allure which will have me continue to explore outlooks different from my own. I do question though its utility if more obstacle than tool.

Conaeolos said:

This disagreement in question: what constitute a personal belief system? Do non-religious people have anything resembling the type of personal belief system held by the religious or spiritual?

Click to expand...

I think there is a fundamental categorisation error here. Put simply, does every religious/spiritual people have anything resembling the same type of personal belief system held by every other religious/spiritual person?

Every induvial has a “belief system” or “world view”, based upon the combination of their knowledge, experiences and the underlying processing of all that by their own mind. And ultimately, regardless of any specifically religious upbringing or background and certainly regardless of where we ultimately end up in adult life, we all share a lot of the same knowledge, experiences and mind processes. Clearly for some people, specific religious beliefs and experiences might be more immediately and obviously relevant to their world view but plenty of people will have been taught the same beliefs and had the similar experiences but ultimately gone in a different direction in their own world view.

We’ve all got a vast amount more in common than we do differences, we just don’t notice all of the commonalities and focus on the differences. Of course, some people would suggest that is the intended purpose of religion in the first place.

Sorry, I did reread the thread and there were a lot more core arguments I should re-address if I true to my previous point:

FreedomFromAll said:

You have claimed that everyone has a belief system whether they like it or not. It seems that you need to back that claim before we can proceed.

Click to expand...

All people use cognition.
Cognition is made up of beliefs.
Logic is a structure for cognition.
Faith is a different structure.
Religion is a shape.

The question is not does everyone have give devotion to the same faith based belief systems. That's general to the point of meaninglessness. It's can logical structure still have the shape of a religion?

Yes, example: 'extreme environmentalism'.

A belief system implies that you believe in something; what exactly do you think that everyone must believe, in order to have a belief system?

Click to expand...

Belief literally is any abstract concept. To reference the above: faith though is a different structure. So I do accept Tim's suggested correction that in secular terms this is better phrased as reasoning. A reasoning can still take the form of the religious. See above.

Let me make clear though when I said "secular belief system" it was in context.The context of a 'replacement' for reglious faith. Replacement implies 'not'.

Not-reglious faith is undefined. It can be anything, although with some generalized similarities.

one may believe that doing X is wrong; while another might not believe that X is wrong, but rather that X has been proven wrong so therefor it a truth whether you believe it or not. Just as you believe (and many other people believe) that everyone has some type of belief system, but is it a truth or just your belief? WHy should I believe you or anyone unless it can be shown to be true?

Click to expand...

In the context of a debate or discussion: concordant verification.

Without a third party judge. You can not prove truth without an agreement except in the subjective sense. All disagreements can trace back to a point of agreement(facts). From there logic can help get one to same conclusion since logic is agreed by both as fact.

In other words the concept of belief system require that you believe in belief systems. It seems more logical that beliefs do not need to be organized into systems.

Click to expand...

If you can not agree the world/thoughts are made up of pattrens than you live in chaos. And I agree, there is no productive conversation to be had.

When asked if you believe in X and you do not, the believer in X tends to then claim that, then you believe that you do not believe in X. But in reality you lack belief in X. So it is possible that people who describe them self as a believer is biased into believing that everyone has a system of beliefs just like they do.

Click to expand...

There is a glaring logical flaw there.

Both "you do not believe in X" and "I lack belief in X" are true. They are different only in so much as you are changing the frame of reference.

They are different, but we are able to understand them as the same as we are more than capable of perceiving other frames of reference.

Not X. Is undefined. But undefined is not zero.

FreedomFromAll said:

The problem lies in making one the equevolent of the other.

Click to expand...

Equivalent in function!!!

It doesn't take believing in the supernatural to assign to religion some purpose or recognizable structure. It's something we humans all do. For TV it's entertainment or …. Maybe for you religions are most often about feel goods. Again it doesn't matter, but it would be highly shocking if you said they were just happenstance. Or argue, they were irreverent even after people started acting on it.

So again. That purpose is going to be filled by something period. The thoughts about that are going to take on pattrens. Those pattrens are my interest. A patten of thoughts is often called a belief system. If I wanted to just say relgion. I would have said, I like learning about theistic religions and secular religions. Why else do you think I would include reference to "belief systems" if not to place them on equal footing outside the spiritual framework?

Conaeolos said:

Yes that is an example of talking past one another. I am aware of all those distinctions and why they exist. The context should make clear which meanings to use.

Click to expand...

I disagree, that is a point well worth the making. The religious give themselves credit where no credit is due. Often demanding that their bible is a book of history or science when actually it is fairy tales badly told. Or in this case pretending theirs is a philosophy when in fact it is no such thing. It is a theology not a philosophy. It is concerned with making something appear true rather than exploring a truth.

Nope. A supernatural God is a position of faith. As the closer approximations in secular terms might be "universal mystery". So hence why there is never reasoning for Universal Mystery. There doesn't have to be from our POV. Reason itself is a gift of universal mystery (more specifically consciousness).

Now, psychologically God might be approximated in secular terms the "absolute highest truth". The absolute highest truth for atheist is something other than Universal Mystery. And certainly not conscious(more goo less mindful). I gave the example Reason/Logic/Observation. Reasoning likewise doesn't need reasoning. In such a model "universal mystery" on the other-hand most certainly does.

Click to expand...

Of course god is a position of faith. And there are some who actually practice that. But that is hardly ever the case with any theist who appears on a debate site. There we have a theist determined to demonstrate that a god is very much a reasoned proposition. Or that the laws of a god need be obeyed.
And again you equate atheism with a purpose other than intended. You need to remember that all theists are also atheists when someone else has a higher truth that does not match theirs. Atheism is not about having a higher truth you are making an association rather than discussing atheism.

Does that help make it any clearer why we tend to talk past one another?

Click to expand...

Is taking past one another another way of saying you do not have to deal with a disagreement.

<alt>doxygen said:

I think that when we are young we all experiment with magical thinking. It's pleasurable and comforting. Over time, many of us drop it, at least to a large degree.

Click to expand...

I would agree. But very few become so obsessed that it becomes a religion to them.

Angel said:

Belief is the basis of human experience. The human condition is grounded in belief.

Click to expand...

Precisely. That why I laugh at self-professed nihilists who embrace nihilism as a path of rejecting ideologies.


OM

soylentgreen said:

Is taking past one another another way of saying you do not have to deal with a disagreement.

Click to expand...

No, it’s essentially saying the same as I would if I highlighed particular portions of a post and wrote: strawman. It reflects in reading a reply or set of replies the arguments against does not hit ones intended point/concept/intentions, but rather a superficial or misinterpreted version of it or something entirely unrelated. Often based in semantics.

Generally speaking, one style is used when it is suspected the responder is doing it on purpose(suspect bad faith) and this more passive form when it is likely entirely unintentional due to differing frames of reference(suspect good faith). This of course is not always true.

The religious give themselves credit where no credit is due. Often demanding that their bible is a book of history or science when actually it is fairy tales badly told. Or in this case pretending theirs is a philosophy when in fact it is no such thing. It is a theology not a philosophy. It is concerned with making something appear true rather than exploring a truth.

Click to expand...

I will give you I have seen the kind of deception you are referring. A conflation of fact with opinion. The problem here is merely you have overgeneralized and thus misapplied its application.

All Theology is a branch of Philosophy.
Not all Philosophy is a branch of Theology.

One is capable of having Philosophy accordant with a Theology and that which has nothing at all to do with it.

If my claim was all people have a Theology (a common argument) your point hits home.

I have made quite clear however I mean "secular belief system" in terms of philosophy not theology. And what those who do not have a theology have are forms of philosophy (similar) but only following its general shape. More importantly, in many cases addressing the same practical questions/concepts.

Of course god is a position of faith. And there are some who actually practice that. But that is hardly ever the case with any theist who appears on a debate site. There we have a theist determined to demonstrate that a god is very much a reasoned proposition. Or that the laws of a god need be obeyed.

Click to expand...

At best this would be a technical win. In complex thought systems, belief and reason are not mutually exclusive. Of course people would have a reasoning for God. See any aforemented Theology.

The fact you feel theology "is concerned with making something appear true rather than exploring a truth" is just poising your view of the intention of why one might want to share forms with a non-believer.

I can use myself for example. I am interested in secular interpretations of theological questions and philosophical forms which reject it. I do so as I find them helpful to my own understanding.

You think this really fits your model of "is concerned with making something appear true rather than exploring a truth"? Or is that perhaps being projected on it?

And again you equate atheism with a purpose other than intended. You need to remember that all theists are also atheists when someone else has a higher truth that does not match theirs. Atheism is not about having a higher truth you are making an association rather than discussing atheism.

Click to expand...

I would certainly agree atheism is not about having a higher truth. Which you'll notice I specifically related to God, hence do not take for granted in a non-God categorization.

not-X is undefined. Not zero.

I am interested not in that fuzzy category(not-X) but the many forms which that takes shape and their relation to X.

Conaeolos said:

:mrgreen: I don't doubt it. That "in so much" part is important. You likely don't care very much people waste time on silly activities and cross path with it very little. To you it's more like a hobby, not to dissimilar to that of a trekkie?

I can see how my bolder statements can make it seem like I think atheists are evil. I really just see them as another flavour of human struggling like all of us. I could be wrong in my theories. It really wouldn't matter all that much if I were. I just want to be sure I speak honestly (for my own sake) and get challenged when I might be going too far with my speculations and predications. Vigilantly test everything.

Click to expand...

Agree with all of that.

I really loved that contribution you made to my thread asking "what is god and why would he(?) do this". That really made me think, which is what I like to get out of interactions here. That idea is more plausible to me than the idea of a god that is "the greatest thing possible" - which is a paradoxical idea - aside from seemingly making that god's need to create this universe a paradox. The god(s) you described were limited, and that explained the need for our universe better than the typical apologist attempts I've run across.

No matter what, there always seems to be a paradox.

<alt>doxygen said:

No matter what, there always seems to be a paradox.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

btw, I personally would explain that paradox as simply observation bias.

Observers can't properly view themselves, and hence their relationship to the outside, if they are apart of their environment in non-dualistic system. They start seeing twos, where there is only one by a third-party observer. Think a computer AI. It made up of algorithms, yet on being activated, there is one set which produces the observer(via interpretation) and another which produces thought/form(data). The AI observes two realities(inside and outside) By we see only one complete system we label AI.

Like that, we perceive two realties: outside and inside our minds. We know however from simulating systems that is only an illusion and both can be true at once. We are thus looking to where they converge. A limit not either or.

So in a question of: do we exist in the patten of our physical brains[outside][objective] or in our non-corporal minds[inside][subjective]. The answer seem to me to be both, as they are expressions of a single unified system.

This is generally rejected around here as apparently what is inside is not real, only what is outside. I disagree. I think both equality perceive unified reality with "I" at the junction between the two. The limits of both observations systems leading by to a me-ness.

Yes you and I only interact outside. Almost like its a nexus/internet. Inside the 'supernatural' ideas are the norm, anything possible, it truely infinate, limited only by structure and yet more we can even manifest anything we find there on the outside if we so intend with just one catch: we must play by the rules.

Conaeolos said:

Thanks.

btw, I personally would explain that paradox as simply observation bias.

Observers can't properly view themselves, and hence their relationship to the outside, if they are apart of their environment in non-dualistic system. They start seeing twos, where there is only one by a third-party observer. Think a computer AI. It made up of algorithms, yet on being activated, there is one set which produces the observer(via interpretation) and another which produces thought/form(data). The AI observes two realities(inside and outside) By we see only one complete system we label AI.

Like that, we perceive two realties: outside and inside our minds. We know however from simulating systems that is only an illusion and both can be true at once. We are thus looking to where they converge. A limit not either or.

So in a question of: do we exist in the patten of our physical brains[outside][objective] or in our non-corporal minds[inside][subjective]. The answer seem to me to be both, as they are expressions of a single unified system.

This is generally rejected around here as apparently what is inside is not real, only what is outside. I disagree. I think both equality perceive unified reality with "I" at the junction between the two. The limits of both observations systems leading by to a me-ness.

Yes you and I only interact outside. Almost like its a nexus/internet. Inside the 'supernatural' ideas are the norm, anything possible, it truely infinate, limited only by structure and yet more we can even manifest anything we find there on the outside if we so intend with just one catch: we must play by the rules.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to accept that reality may (very likely) consist of more than we can 1) take in through our senses, and 2) understand with our native human cognitive abilities. I'm still not sure the paradoxes are resolved, but I need to ponder it more.

God has always seemed to me to be partially an attempt by us silly mortals to come up with an explanation for things that are simply beyond our understanding. We can keep trying to conceive of where this all came from, but no matter how far we peel the onion, there is more left. Calling that "more" God works, but doesn't solve the origin of God.