iam is in his own little universe of books, out of reach of any disturbance, any conversation.
He just posts here to let us know he is still there, bless him!
Did Flannel Jesus Stooge put you up to this? 
Start here:
On the other hand, come on, I posted here for years when ILP was actually teeming with intelligent philosophical assessments. Back in the day when those like Faust and Only_Humean would never tolerate what is exchanged on the philosophy board here now. Yes, I do appreciate Carleas coming back on board of late attempting to nudge things back in that direction again but I suspect it is too little too late.
Instead, I spend most of my time these days at Philosophy Now and at the new forum.
Of course, what do I really know regarding what you are doing here, right?
āOut of the blueā, youāre back. Still, as far as I can tell, you seem to spend more time here engaging MagsJ in trivial pursuits than digging down deep into actual philosophical assessments. Fairly or not, Iāve always reacted to her as someone here who is more interested in configuring ILP into just another āsocial mediaā outlet.
Still, if you are interested in more substantive exchanges with me, letās go back to what you and Ierrellus and felix dakat and I used focus in on: God and religion.
Starting with, perhaps, theseā¦
ā¦factors?
Anyway, my main aim these days in regard to the things I post revolves around my āwin/winā frame of mind. Iām in search of those who might be able to actually facilitate my yanking myself up out of the glum hole Iāve dug myself down intoā¦an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that ends with each of us one by one tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivionā¦or might, instead, come down into the hole with me. Empathy in other words.
That is an odd assumption, and Iām not sure that I have had any communication with FJ, perhaps ever. Iām not sure since I joined ILP over 20 years ago.
No, I was just curious whether I could provoke a reaction from you after the few times I commented on the threads youāve started, and you never reacted.
That is interesting since I only ever knew you as a character who was very stubborn and repetitive, probably due to a past that seemed quite a struggle, until I returned to look again last year and then I saw that you were writing about books, posing questions and seemed to be opening up to some degree. But then you didnāt react when I wrote in your threads.
I have a similar past here on ILP, although it was a little before you came, and I had very good conversations and exchanges. I didnāt always agree with everybody, but I learned a lot, too. It was a time when, professionally, I was progressing, and I had little time for ILP. I was on the road a lot of the time, communicating with the many managers under me, attending conferences and being too tired to engage in the evenings. It didnāt do my health much good either. Fortunately, I was able to retire some years ago and had always had an occasional look-in, but last year I asked myself whether we could turn the forum around.
As I said above, my interest was casual at first, and when I saw MagsJ being trolled, I took her side, but, as you said, it is more of a social interaction. But I donāt think that is bad, and Iāve always been open to that, and with several participants here, I had email contact. I am apprehensive about offering women the same for obvious reasons, and unless she (or any other female on a forum) suggested it, I wouldnāt try.
I have always had the feeling that you completely misunderstood my interest in religion and engagement in the church, although a forum is not the best place to find that out. I started reading Erich Fromm when I left the army, which was a bit of a coincidence really, but his āTo Have or To Beā opened up several questions, whether in Philosophy, Psychology, Christianity or Buddhism. I went on from there, and because I had always been interested in Literature, whether earlier in England or later at night school in Germany, I approached Christianity from that perspective ā as a story or narrative.
I continued to read Frommās other books and those he recommended. I was equally interested in Buddhism, but at that time (before the internet), I found nothing I could engage with at that time. Christianity was all around me, and I found a group that I believed was interested in the same way, but they werenāt. I stayed on because I learned a lot during that time, even if I became a controversial figure because of my views. On the one hand, I could enthral them with a sermon or a Bible meeting; on the other, they pulled back when they realised the consequences of what I was saying. I had also trained as a nurse then, which influenced my outlook. It was when I suggested to their leader that he be examined for dementia, although my hunch was right, that the connection broke.
Your requirement of demonstrable proof of the existence of God or a religious/spiritual path is, therefore, premature. I canāt demonstrate the existence of something that isnāt a thing. In the tradition that I follow, God is a no-thing, and what we call God is the ground of everything. If you go by the narratives of the Bible, of course, you can get a different impression, but that is because people take the allegories and mythologies literally and do not understand what the āOld Testamentā is. Above all, it encompasses (at least) two paradigms, one that Owen Barfield called original participation, which arose from an immediate, immersive experience of reality or understood as a kind of cosmic drama, which gave rise to the mythological stories.
The other paradigm came about around the time that Jaspers called the Axial Age, when people stepped back, and we see the Bible being formed with a mixture of mythology, allegory, legend, and songs/poetry. The later prophets questioned everything and raised social issues, which got them all incarcerated or killed, but they also foresaw a brighter future, which, in the end, became the hope that motivated Israel. It was a violent time, but the scribes who wrote the Bible tried to give the defeated tribes who came from the Babylonian captivity a national awareness and hope.
Jesus, or perhaps better, Paul, presented another new paradigm. I assume that it also got Jesus killed because he followed the prophetic tradition and believed that a new spirituality would become internalised, in which the awareness of God becomes embodied in believers. The Jewish tradition was that the āsuffering servantā was the Jewish people, and Jesus seems to have thought he was starting that movement, whereas Paul envisioned it spreading into the world. It has similarities with the Far Eastern Advaita Vedanta, in which consciousness is the basis of reality, and the supreme consciousness Brahman is equal to our localised or personal consciousness. Christ is, if you like, Atman and its potential is in us all if we would take it up ā as we know, the church hasnāt done that, except in small groups who were persecuted, because the official church was more interested in power.
What encourages me in my belief is the phenomenon of life itself, which, if you have extensive knowledge of biology, is a fascinating complexity of interconnected, interactive organisms. We have cells in our bodies working to sustain the organism, which defy simplistic explanations. This potentiality was always present, and life abounded as soon as conditions were suitable. Iām no creationist, but the fact that the potential for intelligent life is in the universe encourages me to believe that it was intended. What I have laid out is just a soundbite of information that encourages me to believe that the word āGodā is a helpful label for a concept that remains mysterious.
On the other hand, the Bible is not a science book but an anthology of religious inspiration that I would say needs updating, but that is just me. So, you might be able to see that the questions you pose are irrelevant to me and that my interest in defending Christianity lies in the fact that the criticism isnāt differentiated enough. Christianity isnāt one thing, which alone the diversity of the protestant church shows, but it was never one thing.
Iām not sure I can āyankā you out of the glum hole, but if you wanted, we could talk about non-dual belief, which is represented in most religious traditions.
Thatās what the Community Forums are for, no? where which I think you speak of, that such discussions and conversations that you find so disagreeable, took place in.
ā¦the Formal Forums are obviously not for thatā¦ of which I have never treated them as such, but there is a current slew of posters that do, of which you have remained silent onā¦ yet you feel to mention me here, over what? over fake news and lies, thatās what.
A good few years ago now, ILP became completely desertedā¦ think tumbleweed rolling through its endless corridors and giant cobwebs hanging from its vaulted ceilings - after a number of years of thisā¦ desertment, I started posting here againā¦ almost a year after that, et voila! ā¦an, ever-since-then, active forum.
_
Iambiguousā¦ why do you want to talk about the same topics, from years ago? How will that foster learning and mental growth?
Europe calledā¦ it wants its paternosters back.
So it was you!
I agree with you that we have to have social interaction besides āseriousā debate, which sounds a little weighty, solemn and earnest. There is also a humourlessness in āseriousā debate.
Iāve met that kind of person, though, who took umbrage at my smile in a discussion, and Germans have a habit of asking, āAre you smiling at me or bemused by me?ā
I have followed the comparisons of morality with building for much of my life, which is a metaphorical way to understand that morality, like a structure, requires a solid foundation, careful construction, and ongoing maintenance. The prime example is that just as a building needs a strong foundation to stand tall, a personās morality relies on a solid ethical foundation. This seems to be the initial job of parents and where morality often lacks its basis, but it is also where many children have become āstreetwiseā despite having no education. Children often mimic their parents, giving them a sense of what is right and wrong, which is why it shows that your ethics also says something about where you come from.
Another reference to foundations is the metaphor of building on sand, which is found in the Bible, particularly in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus uses the metaphor to convey a moral and spiritual lesson:
Whether you hold Jesusā words as foundational or not, the rock symbolises a strong foundation built on teachings and principles, while the sand represents a weak and unstable foundation lacking them. The lesson emphasises the importance of hearing or knowing moral and spiritual truths and putting them into practice for stability and resilience in the face of challenges.
The āarchitecture of moralityā involves designing a structure that can withstand lifeās challenges, like designing a building to withstand various environmental conditions. Therefore, the situation in which one grows up, in times of peace and prosperity or in times of war and poverty, also impacts building moral character. That is not to say that both situations can produce good and bad characters. It just influences the provisions one makes when planning oneās life.
Building a moral framework is, in other ways, like constructing a sturdy house. It requires careful planning, thoughtful decisions, and a commitment to ethical principles. Not everybody has the resources to do this, and not everybody who has the resources is thoughtful in their planning. It is often observed that well-educated people follow the unethical path of their parents because that is dominant.
In the same way pillars support a building, people displaying moral values and principles can serve as pillars that uphold an individualās ethical framework. I have mentioned parents, but others can provide moral support for good development in adolescence and early adulthood. However, just as buildings require regular maintenance, we are not perfect and slacken pretty often, and moral values need continuous attention and reflection to remain robust and relevant in changing circumstances.
Of course, morality isnāt just a question of personal integrity and standing up to opposition, but also of society building, involving many people. The social cohesion needed in society needs a foundation that can accept diversity of opinion but maintains its course towards a wholesome development. Many societies break up from within, with groups sowing division and cooperation deemed out of the question. This happens when the moral structure has lost its common foundation, and a compromise is unacceptable. Division would normally lead to more groups, but if the groups occupy the same area, it is often a question of who will leave. In a world in which no vacant space is habitable, this presents us with problems.
Russellās Moral Quandary
David Berman holds key oppositions in tension, including concerning morality.
All I can do here is, once again, ask those who subscribe to Platoās ārealm of Formsā as it pertains to human morality, to bring those Forms down to Earth. And, in regard to a moral conflagration of note, to note their applicability given particular social, political and economic interactions. Let them pluck a headline from the news. They can note what they deem is relevant given Platoās Forms.
Or note passages from The Republic and examine his conclusions in such a way they can be defended as more than just moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in turn in his own historical and cultural contexts.
Justice and abortion. Justice and gun control. Justice and homosexuality. Justice and the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza.
On the other hand, if it is the case that human minds are [and can only ever be] wholly in accord with natureās own laws of matter, than how are Plato and Spinoza not just two more dominoes toppling over on cue from the cradle to the grave. Just like all the rest of us?
All moral values, some determinists argue, are entirely interchangeable in a world that unfolds in the only possible manner.
Itās really sad, but not surprising, that people like Plato and Kant are constantly misrepresented in academia.
God is the Good.
mic drop
Again, back to what is at stake hereā¦moral commandments on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation on the other. And not one of these Gods ā en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ā¦ traditions ā is able to to provide us with a definitive path to them?!
Christianity itself is profoundly splintered:
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ā¦ densianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination#:~:text=Together%2C%20Catholicism%20and%20Protestantism%20(with,and%20Waldensianism)
Then the part where Christians, Muslims and Jews have been pummeling each other off and on now for centuries over who truly does receive the blessings of the God of Abraham.
As for all thisā¦
ā¦what does it really have to do with the factors I noted above?
No thanks. I think that we are still basically in two very different discussions regarding God and religion.
Yesā¦ I revived the forum, like a dead Frankenstein corpse.
Well I guess youāve summed up Iambiguous, right there^ā¦ making his problem, everybody elseās problem, on the forum. His hole. 
Where posters choose to post in, is nobody elseās business but theirāsā¦ regardless of anything, stat!
Control freaks much?
Wellā¦ I inherited a stoic/staid disposition from my European side, so I get/understand all that^ā¦ but I also do whatever the f I want!
Who the hell cares about where other people post in? ā¦as long as itās in the correct forum, of course. 
One has to ask themselves, honestlyā¦
Does anything come from nothing?
If they insist that it does, then one example would suffice.
One something emerging from nothing.
If they canāt then the second question would beā¦from where does morality come from?
Man doesnāt invent morality, he encodes itā¦like he doesnāt invent race or gender, nor does he invent species or biology, or gravity.
He encodes them linguistically. He perceives and categorizes them.
This encoding is not necessaryā¦ moral behaviour does not disappear if it isnāt written down and categorized.
In group violence is still prohibited. Infanticide is still prohibited.
Incest still has a cost.
Altruism still benefits the individuals belonging to a group.
Social hierarchies are still established, and order is still maintained.
Why do moral behaviours evolve at all? What advantage do they offer?
Why do we see the same basic principles across all cultures and even species that exhibit moral behaviours, such as tolerance, altruism, compassion, cooperation, love, discipline to in-group hierarchiesā¦
Once we do this, we can proceed to see how different cultures, based on different traditions and ideologies, produce slight modifications of the exact same moral principlesā¦letās call these ethical codes of conduct - manmade amendments - to differentiate them from the previous.
Why is adultery an unethical behaviour in all cultures?
Why has promiscuity been prohibited, across all societiesā¦until Americanism?
Why is paedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia, still considered unethicalā¦in systems that have normalized homosexuality and transexuality?
Why do most systems still maintain their prohibitions on homosexuality and transsexuality?
Is it out of spite, or irrationality, or is there a rational reason?
What might be some of the consequences of these types of sexual deviances?
Can technologies compensate for them?
And what about promiscuityā¦is it a harmless lifestyle choice?
What is a god? What is a ādefinitive pathā? Must not your expectations not fit reality?
What does all of the above have to do with me, if you do not accept my take on things? Why should it interest me if everything I put before you is pushed off the table?
You do not accept the way it is, and to all those who tell you what they see, you say no. Okay, stay in your hole. You donāt seem to be enjoying it, but a lack of engaging with others will bring you nothing.
We already know that many of our assumptions in the past have been revised over time, and even the assumptions we work on today, as useful as they prove themselves to be, are up for revision. There is, as yet, no TOE that is reliable. We think we are getting close, but we find ourselves continually focusing on one spot, and the wider perspective calls everything into question.
The universe is one of those encounters with something that ācomes from nothingā in as much as we know little about its beginning or end, although we have āeducated guesses.ā Consciousness is another one of those experiences which are not sufficiently explained and, therefore, seems to be there inexplicably.
Donāt you contradict yourself here? If morality were like gravity or biology, then it would be inherent in the fabric of the universe. A potential waiting to be discovered. But what would give rise to something like morality? All I see is the potential of life, emerging when the conditions are right, seeding, growing, spreading, reaching out, discovering, and developing. Different degrees of awareness are becoming apparent, often volatile in varying species, but also raising questions about our perception. But awareness seems two-fold in most species, the narrow and the wider focus.
We suspect an evolution in the awareness of humanity, going from an immersive experience of reality in which there is no individual, but everything is interconnected and presents itself as archetypes and patterns which are portrayed in rituals and sounds. It becomes a story. Then, humanity takes a step back, reconsiders its fears and failures, and investigates, but still as a collective. We find that the patterns reveal a good way and a bad way of living and begin to focus narrowly and come up with theories of reality. We discover individuality and the group as a collection of individuals, and we discover responsibility.
Morality is the result of cultivating responsibility and defining what could be required in a society. It is a long process, with ups and downs because we are learning, but we are also struggling with something else that emerged through our narrow perspective: Power. With individuality comes distinguishing and discrimination, ideals and requirements, and the one who can convince others that they have a better command of what is required rules over others. But it is here that two lineages appear, respective of our two types of awareness: The narrow which is concerned with the immediate necessities, and the wider perspective, which looks at the broader consequences over time. It is the difference between the warrior and the sage, but also the paternal and the maternal.
The earlier civilisations, even down to the Romans, and to some degree persisting in pockets today, were examples of the rule of the brute. In Greek and Roman civilisations, the warrior class could take what they wanted, and if sages spoke against it, they were killed. The paternal civilisations established an order, and everybody had to obey. That is why Socrates, whom Aspasia of Miletus largely influenced, was killed for supposedly challenging the order of things. Women were allowed to influence religious rituals, and in male-dominated classical Greece, the most influential voice, the Delphic oracle, belonged paradoxically to a woman. According to the Hymn to Demeter, the Mysteries at Eleusis originated in the two-fold story of Demeterās lifeāher separation from and reunion with her daughter and her failure to make the queenās son immortal.
So, we have a division that explains why tolerance, altruism, compassion, cooperation, and love, as maternal influences, have always challenged the paternal influences, which were possessive, brutal, and based on competition, contention, conflict, or rivalry. It has also been this duality that has struggled for more influence, even up until today.
The path to eternal life is self=other, us=them, demonstrated in Jesusā life, death, & resurrection. The splintering you observe (if genuinely parting ways over near-essentials, and not just allowing for diversity of peripherals) isnāt the result of the Way, it is the divergence from it. If divergence was impossible, the Way would be impossible, because it is what gives you the escape velocity to leave your holeā¦despite every comfort youāve filled it with beckoning you to stay. Thatās behind āI desire mercy, not a sacrifice.ā The ritualsā¦ the checklistsā¦ are not real relationship.
If that struggle endsā¦ thatās when you worry. The rutā¦ the grooveā¦ if it is out of alignment with self=other, it is a mote around a sandcastle for the tides.
Never stop fighting. & never stop playing.
Your statement expresses a spiritual perspective rooted in Christian theology, particularly referencing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
The phrase āself=other, us=themā suggests an interconnectedness or unity between oneself and others. If this reflects a belief in the importance of empathy, compassion, and seeing commonality with others, a belief in sacred unity is perhaps one way of expressing this, which is how I interpret Jesusās speaking. With your reference to Jesusā life, death, & resurrection, you connect the idea of self=other to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, implying that these events demonstrate or embody this interconnected principle. Iād say that this spiritual perspective asserts that human death in the phenomenal place, or physical world, enables a return to the noumenal, or the sacred unity.
You suggest that any division or splintering, especially over ānear-essentials,ā is not in line with the central principle and imply that such divergence is not a result of the spiritual path but rather a deviation from it. Iād say that what you call divergence exemplifies the nasty, brutish existence in the corporeal world and blindness to the noumenal, āspiritualā place we once inhabited, essentially what the story of the Fall is all about. It is āthe otherā perspective that sees the sacred unity as where we belong, and a transition from an ensouled body to an embodied soul is what we are aspiring to.
Your mention of āescape velocityā and leaving oneās comfort zone suggests that following the spiritual path requires overcoming personal inertia and the lure of comfort, emphasising the need to move beyond established routines and comforts to follow the Way. I agree and think that our habits can be helpful or distracting. Morality is really about developing helpful habits, which enable us to see broadly rather than being focused only on the brutish existence of physical life.
The quote, āI desire mercy, not a sacrificeā(Hosea 6:6 and Matthew 9:13), was indicative of a paradigm change in Israel, for which the Prophet suffered, and emphasises the importance of genuine relationships and mercy over mere ritualistic sacrifices or adherence to religious rules. It is about reading between the lines rather than focusing on the words, about understanding the spirit of a text rather than focusing on the letters.
I agree that we need to encourage struggle and play because complacency or stagnation leads to nowhere. The rut or groove mentioned seems to symbolise a fixed, unchanging pattern that needs alignment with the central principle of self=other. Spiritual growth, unity with others, and the challenges associated with staying true to a spiritual path emphasise empathy, authenticity, and continual effort.
Ignorance is not an argument for or against.
We build models of higher and lower probability.
Unless something is discovered coming from nothing, we have no reason to believe it exists.
The notion that something might happen, or might be true, because we are not omniscient is not the scientific method.
No, the term āmoralityā refers to behaviours which man has categorized and encoded linguistically.
A behaviour is biologicalā¦referring to a repeating pattern, not to a natural force.
We notice that this type of behaviour is not exclusive to one species, but we see it in many species, all of which practice cooperative methods of survival and reproduction. So thatās a clue as to why these behaviours evolved and became innate in thee species.
Iāve already gave my judgement based on observation.
Your blindness to patterns is your genetically inherited deficiency.
Lower potential.
So, it is another one of those āsocial constructsā?
My god, Iām wasting my time here.
only one species exhibits moral behaviour, like love, altruism, compassion, cooperation, tolerance?
you cannot differentiate ethics from naturally evolving moral behaviours.
Ethics, as Iāve explained, are manmade amendments, facilitating evolving socioeconomics.
For example adultery is unethical because marriage is a technology, a manmade rule imposing restrictions on human promiscuity so as to integrate as many males - and females - into society and convert them into investors in tis welfare, rather than apathetic disruptive free-radicals.
Might is Right is a rule that still appliesā¦naive mind.
The US being an example.
Maternal instincts - feminization of man - rises when a civilization is in decline.
It is the phase known as the lastā¦in this diagram:
All civilizations go through these cyclesā¦degeneracy, sexual dysfunctions, psychosis, deterioration of families, is all part of it.
The US is going through it as we speak. It is still at the start.
Which says virtually nothing but what I said.
Morality is not exclusively of linguistic character; it can exist in verbal and non-verbal forms. Your use of āmoralityā may be what has been categorised and encoded linguistically, but I see the more organic development from experience before sophisticated language. Of course, a pattern emerges, basically, because it is advantageous, and only idiots continue to soil their beds. People learn by watching others and adopt preferable behaviours.
It is good that you are out of my reach; otherwise, I might show you how deficient you are by continually lowering yourself to this insulting behaviour. Here, we are talking about morality, and you show your moral depravity and inability to adopt a behaviour that allows cooperation.
You place morality in what has been categorized and encoded linguistically, not I. All species show certain moral behaviour, but humanity has formulated it after cultivation.
Morality and ethics are related concepts, and the terms are often used interchangeably, but they have nuanced differences. Morality refers to a set of principles or rules that govern the behaviours of individuals within a particular society or community. It distinguishes between right and wrong conduct and encompasses the values, beliefs, and norms that guide personal behaviour. On the other hand, ethics is the systematic study of what is considered morally right or wrong, good or bad. Ethics extends beyond individual behaviour and examines the principles and values that should guide professional, societal, or organisational decision-making, whereas morality is more personal and can be seen as an internal compass that guides an individualās actions based on their sense of right and wrong.
Why am I bothering with you? You are so ignorant that it comes out in your pores. You have been banging your head for so long that you canāt see straight.
No, ethics is entirely semioticā¦Mosaic laws for example.
Morality refers to actionsā¦actions man encodes linguistically.
Ethics = words imposing restrictions on actions.
Morals = actions restricted by the necessities of survival and reproduction, at some point represented linguistically by one species.
Do you have trouble comprehending words? 
I made a point of differentiating ethics from morality.
MORALITY evolvesā¦man is not the only species exhibiting what we call moral behaviours.
ETHICS, on the other hand, are amendmentsā¦and are entirely manmade.
I use the terms to clarify the difference between what is manmade and what evolved, naturally, to make cooperative survival strategies effective.
Given your performances ā¦I canāt wait.
So, you understood nothing.
I would ask you to reread what I posted, but I fear it will not help.
I can only assume that the issue is geneticā¦nothing can be done about it.
Yesā¦and I use them differently to clarify the difference between evolved moral behaviours, that man THEN, encodes, but are not exclusive to man, and manmade amendments to facilitate manās socioeconomic environments.
I even gave an example of monogamy as an ethical amendment that facilitates complex systems by integrating individuals and making them invested into a societyās welfare.
In group violence, on the other hand is morally unacceptable because it disrupts social cohesion, so we see this moral rule being enforced across many different species.
I use morality/ethics to differentiate between what naturally evolved from what humans created, and did not evolve naturally.
I do this intentionallyā¦because confusing the two makes some reject bothā¦adopting amorality as part of their either/or nihilistic binary.
AGAIN:
MORALITY refers to what man does NOT create, because we see it in many species. But man encodes it linguistically.
ETHICS refers to manmade amendments imposing additional behavioural restrictions to make civilizations possible.
Both restrict individual choices preserving group cohesion and health.
One based no natural selection the other on an ideology, a culture.
For example, homosexuality and abortions are deemed unethical because they reduce a group cohesion and its competitive potentials, relative to other groups. It weakens the group.
If normalized they become disastrous, in the long run. Not because god said so, nor because someone arbitrarily decided, out of nowhere, that he disliked these behaviours.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!!! :-"
If you do not or cannot understandā¦ then do not reply.
Move along.
You are wasting my time.
Thatās precisely my point when confronting a world where ādefinitive pathsā are everywhere: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ā¦ traditions
From my frame of mind, Gods/religions/spiritual paths etc., were invented in order to provide mere mortal with access to moral commandments, to immortality, to salvation.
But where is the substantive proof that in fact it is your God, your religion, your path and not another? And how can the historical and cultural parameters of the life you lived not predispose you to one path rather than another? Then this part:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ā¦ _eruptions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ā¦ l_cyclones
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ā¦ ore_deaths
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
Indeed. And thusā¦
āI think that we are still basically in two very different discussions regarding God and religion.ā
Iām just not interested in where you are going here.