Nevertheless, I am convinced that they would rather be separated, then settle for peace. I don't know many such twins, but I know several people with bad diseases. All of them would throw their peace, if any, in the trash bin in exchange of being healthy again.
Debatable.
Part of that debate is understanding of peace. If reducing peace to something along lines of, acceptance of suffering, and suffering must continue, then I see it really as distortion of peace (ergo, not actual peace). Thus, I'd agree that would desired to be thrown in the trash in exchange of being healthy again. With prayer, and openness, a greater understanding (and really experience) of peace may emerge. How that looks exactly (to physical eyes) will not only vary by witnesses, but by the person perceiving own illness (within own self).
Another part of the debate is me openly disputing that all people would rather be healthy again, then have peace. I would contend that some people (myself included, at times) would rather have the perceived benefits that come with illness than the distorted version of peace. Given the stakes of the controversial assertion I'm making here, I won't be shy in furthering this point if asked, but I really think this is not all that controversial. It's almost as simple as realizing that medical doctors would be out of business if all people were healthy and that health was ongoing. A whole large (very large) segment of human society would be 'out of work' have no livelihood if that were the case, and thus dis-ease is seen as beneficial, in many ways, on many (lower) levels (of understanding).
Yes, basically. i don't like the thing about not being explanable by scientific natural laws, though. I prefer Hume definition: a miracle can be considered such when all its possible explanations are more miracolous than the event they try to explain.
For intance: Jesus miracles are not miracles, because there are several non miracolous explanation thereof. Including having been completely made up.
Okay, this helps even while I still feel it is under explained. I think the classical view of miracles is somewhat easy to relate to in that it is familiar to us.
For a long time, I held to that type of belief in miracles and occasionally I'll still use that view. When I do, I consider it erroneous.
To me, miracles are way more rationale (and natural) than the classical viewpoint. I understand them as demonstrations of Love. Not the kind of love for a person which is fleeting, but actual (unconditional) Love. While that may be perceived as simplistic, I do think when explored and understood, the ramifications are world altering. Such that healing, peace, and abundance are able to (easily and naturally) replace sickness, disorder and lack. And 'replace' isn't even, IMO, the best word, but is pretty close to accurate. I see it as more like undo the others for the illusions (or errors) in perception that they are.
well, if God is within me, whatever that means, then God does not believe in His existence. Which sort of defeats Him being within myself.
That's one way of understanding the predicament. Another is that you don't believe in your (actual) Self. (And may instead believe an illusionary self.)
To discern between what may be seen as 'two selves within one being' may be aided by forgiveness, which routinely leads to miracles.
I was kidding. I was peeking fun at apophatic theology.
Even so, you were previously supposing a lot of characteristics about God. Not just asking, but asserting.
Which to me, means you are likely kidding about atheism, but I'm guessing you don't see that self claim as humorous. The thing is, I do.
I don't think so. Knowledge is not certainty. Is more like strong confidence. And I am not sure what spirituality has to do with deductive reasoning. I am a matematician, by profession, which means I spend most of my time with deductive reasoning. Yet, I don't feel spiritual at all.
With math, I would think knowledge would be more than strong confidence. Though given our previous discussions on the .999... problem, I guess I can see how it is more like strong confidence, LOL.
Knowledge is certainty. IMO, to conclude knowledge is not certainty demonstrates that certainty, though distorts the (fundamental) claim.
Of course, that can mean anything. What does it mean: God is inside me? I am a complex neural network that burns 20% of my body's energetic daily budget in order to keep up. Does God need frequent intake of pizza, in order to stay inside me, too?
What it actually means is You are God. But if setting up self induced predicament whereby you project a whole other (illusionary) self onto your being, and take that as reality while simultaneously laying claim (distorted knowledge) that this other self does not have any aspect of it that believes in, knows of, is able to observe God within own self, then jumping to the inevitable conclusion (you are God) is likely going to be seen as too large of a leap. Or if simplistically understood, is plausibly going to lead to polytheism, for separation (the intellectual basis of the illusion) will still be perceived as 'really occurring.' At worst, you'll think you are the only God existing and all other life is entirely your making, and ought to serve your whims. Even that isn't as horrible as it could be (within illusionary framework), but is the worst I can conceive of.
God needs nothing outside of your illusionary physical left to live/survive.
God is also, in no rational way, separate from all that is Life/living, or really all that is (actually existing).
Beliefs about own physical self are, if normal, separate from all possible things and determined to be the only 'known reality' that we have evidence for.
As you've probably seen me say elsewhere, that claim rests entirely on faith. I am yet to have anyone show otherwise, and have asked for objective evidence for a good 25 years now. Thus far zero have stepped to the plate and put a ball in fair play. A few have stepped to the plate, and gone down on strikes.
Evolution is incapable to be moral or immoral. There is nothing moral in mechanisms that affect genetic frequency in a population. The notion of morality is entirely inapplicable. To call a gene "selfish" is purely metaphorical.
Wasn't sure how to respond to the first quote given what the point was that you quoted from, so I just used your (2nd) quote as rational response to the first quote.
Well, I can tell you that Mickey Mouse has black big ears even though I do not believe in his existence, either.
You don't believe in his physical existence (as an actual mouse), but your words clearly show you believe in his (conceptual) existence.
Because I am knowledgeable about God. i know He does not exist. I am gnostic atheist. So, your premise is flawed.
Your premise about knowledge is flawed. You clearly have expressed beliefs about God's existence, not all of which are God's alleged non existence.
