"Our universe" is all we can perceive but does not preclude the existence
of multiple universes. The subject is in itself infinite by default. As humans we can posture theories, but that is what they remain- a theory. This discussion has encompassed an extremely vast range of theories and philosophies. However, there is no absolute, no proof of any one theory. Personally, I want to believe that the "spirit", the "anima", does not die with the death of our physical body but continues infinitely in whatever universes, whatever time structure that there might be in the cosmos.

I also entertain the idea that it is highly likely that the human race was "jump started" by visiting aliens at some time in the past... The human DNA is only a fraction of a fraction different than that of a chimpanzee and yet we are where we are today and they remain where they are in the line of evolution. This is a phenomenal difference. In respect to the constant yet slow course of evolution we, humans, have made leaps and bounds above all other animals. It is not unfathomable that we have DNA from an alien race. This does not preclude that a "universal creator" could be behind it all. Why should a "god" create only one mankind? Or, why would not different substances in different quantities in different surroundings not make for a different species?

To remain open to all possible theories and choose not one could be construed as prevaricating but I think not. We seek order and rationale to what is essentially chaotic and instinctive.

The "Which God should I worship?" point is a very good one, and is one that any person of faith should be prepared to answer.

Heaven implies an afterlife. What sacrifices must I make to get there? Which God should I worship? Wouldn't want to be dammed for all eternity just for choosing the wrong one.

Sorry, it is hard to be non-sarcastic when you claim that the supernatural infinite is above logic.

Regarding Monticello, send me an e-mail at jbrenner@fit.edu, and I'll put you in touch with an old friend of mine who just started working there pretty high up on the chain of command. Maybe he might be able to get you a special behind-the-scenes tour.

My wife and I are making tentative plans. I am hopeful we may be able to check it out later this summer.

Not rejecting that heaven and hell might exist is far different from accepting this as a likelihood It is far more rational to live one`s life according to one`s own values rather than out of fear of offending the possibility of an existing deity. If there was a deity in possession of reason and self-worth, it is far more likely *he* would have a higher regard for someone who acted according to what he/she had internalized as good and right and just and productive rather than someone who was motivated more by fear than principle.

Well, even if you subscribe to "alien seeding," there is still no addressing the question of where those species evolved from. If you employ your imagination, you should have no trouble being able to imagine how any of these proposed scenarios are possible (creationism versus evolution versus "alien seeding," though the last would still have to look further to explain its own existence.) That there are always so many "missing links" when tracing the path of an evolutionary line could be explained by the notion that they might not have had the chance to populate too excessively, they might again have produced new mutations to accelerate their evolutionary line yet again. But if you consider that every human being begins as (for all intents and purposes) a mingling of body fluids, it doesn`t seem so far-fetched to consider the path of evolution as feasible.

I agree with your description of science! I am constantly being updated and corrected in that regard. However, I am not certain if these electromagnetic waves and particles are literally "popping in and out of existence" or whether they are merely converting into another form of energy within the vacuum...or whether they are even transporting into a new place altogether.

Your premise and conclusion both assume the existence of God, so they are not evidence of this assertion. And there are multiple religions, contradictory to each other, claiming revelation from God that theirs is the "true" religion. What makes one religion's revelation claims superior to another's?

Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the first name of God mentioned in the Bible: Elohim!

Good. That'll do just fine.
Most of the problems that arise in human relationships stem from reacting to a created false conflict and subsequently not thinking the situation through to the end.
Not getting involved is an excellent choice when it comes to chaos creation and the ensuing conflict resolution. Good choice.

And you are equally wise and reasonable, O.A., perhaps even moreso after quoting Thomas Jefferson. A visit to Monticello is well worth the trip.

I prefer, live and let live. Less loop holes.

I can see that this concept is as hard for some to objectively think about as the “Virtue of selfishness”

I'll give another more understandable example,
If I would like to have people let me live my own life if I'm good but punish me if I'm not, that justifies me doing the same unto others?
Does that follow the golden rule?
What is good? How would, say Obama, define good. What about not being good?

You are over-complicating it.
It means: "Put yourself in the other person's place.". That's all.

I like how you think.
I tend to think of "lukewarm"as being a middle-of-the-roader where you appear one way on the surface but can't or don't think in principles ... leading to a shallow, moment-to-moment existence.
REAL Christians (meaning "anointed ones") are very few and far between. They are generally loners.

I think that our government is already working on that very plot for humanity out in Area 51! :)

You are a most wise and reasonable man. :)
"...It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Jefferson

http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/0...

Existence Exists4

In her philosophy of objective reality, Ayn Rand presents these axiomatic concepts: Existence, Consciousness and Identity. She builds her whole Philosophy of Objectivism on these basic concepts. We select only Existence as it relates Existence Exists4

In her philosophy of objective reality, Ayn Rand presents these axiomatic concepts: Existence, Consciousness and Identity. She builds her whole Philosophy of Objectivism on these basic concepts. We select only Existence as it relates Cosmology and express it as an axiom of Existence Exists, as self-evident. We rule out the possibility of Something from/to Nothing.

If Existence exists here it must exist everywhere. It stretches everywhere and is therefore Infinite. If Existence exists here now it must have come from a past eternity and presumably will last another eternity. It is Eternal. There can be no juxtaposition, somewhere out there, of Existence with non-Existence, in time or in space. And, if it is here now, after an eternity of burning, there must be some mechanism at work that results in a 100% efficient self-renewal.

It seems that Existence is, indeed, Infinite and Eternal. It is in such an Existence that our Universe is but a tiny fragment, and toward which our Cosmological studies should aim. And, certainly, there’s no room for an Expanding Universe.

Jim Wright: 10/6/12
Cosmology and express it as an axiom of Existence Exists, as self-evident. We rule out the possibility of Something from/to Nothing.

If Existence exists here it must exist everywhere. It stretches everywhere and is therefore Infinite. If Existence exists here now it must have come from a past eternity and presumably will last another eternity. It is Eternal. There can be no juxtaposition, somewhere out there, of Existence with non-Existence, in time or in space. And, if it is here now, after an eternity of burning, there must be some mechanism at work that results in a 100% efficient self-renewal.

It seems that Existence is, indeed, Infinite and Eternal. It is in such an Existence that our Universe is but a tiny fragment, and toward which our Cosmological studies should aim. And, certainly, there’s no room for an Expanding Universe.

Jim Wright: 10/6/12