Believe:

[Pippy]

Hey guys,

Firstly if I may respond to Giff. I am taken aback by you longer note, and feel that I have slightly misjudged you. I had not decided what I thought about you yet, but I am now quite impressed. I hope you understand I did not mean you were an idiot in a mean way about not understanding the silly words I use. I apologize, I was only trying to say how frustrating it felt to try to explain that I don't see the world as I hope too, and you thought I was saying the opposite.

I admit to being hard to understand, and my fault in not being clearer. I think we are both willing to admit that we don't 'know' any of this for sure, but we are both pretty certain about what we think we know. In that sense we are very much more alike than different. I have to agree with what you are saying, and yes, you really did understand what I was trying to say before.

Earlier you said,

But if I will be on topic do I just wonder what design you are talking about Pippy?

and I did not address your question because I was chatting away with Kyu. It is a good question, and I could try to answer it if I may. You were asking about the 'repeating patterns' I saw as evidence. I think one of the biggest patterns is duality. It is in male/female, left brain/right brain, body/mind, yes/no, light/dark, 1/0 (for computers)... Why is it, I just casually ponder , that a pattern seems to be there of many things having two separate but co-existing parts? It's just a little thing, and I don't expect it to seem like evidence too you at all. The whole thing I was trying to say from the get go is that we (all of us here) won't agree on the evidence, so it's kind of a silly argument.

Like I said, I do apologize for being rude, and quite appreciate what you said. I just got mad at how you said it, and that was my fault. The point about Russell's Teapot way back in the beginning was good too, but I didn't get a chance to say so then. Thank you for sharing.

Hi again EvF. You don't need to do the he/she pronoun dance, I am unfortunately a man. It also don't matter, I like discussing with you so far, and so you needn't walk on eggshells. I don't dislike the word 'know' per se, and you can say as many words as you think I dislike. I don't intend to argue semantics, do your best to get your point across in whatever language you can. The only bother I have is the feeling I could be clearer, but it's a process.

The only real evidence we need of NO God is that there is no evidence OF God.

Can I, just for fun, turn that around? Just because I think we are all circling this one point. The only real evidence we need of god is that there is no evidence of [/i]not[i] god. I know it's low to do that, but bear with me. The evidence itself isn't solid ground for modern humans. We persist on seeing things incorrectly or in distortion, even things like provable evidence for or against god. That is the basis of all of our disagreement. That you are not different that us, on that level. If we can get to the point that no one knows for sure, and surely on this forum no one is showing anyone any evidence. We just can't do it this way, show each other evidence i mean. But we can discuss it for fun! Without actually arguing and always disagreeing about who is wrong.

Another way too look at it, I think, is such. You said that the existence of a creator (of the universe and it's systems more than just us people) created more problems than answers. It made it all more complicated. That is where we disagree. I don't mean at all that it isn't right to you, or that it couldn't be reality, these things are 'personal'. I believe in god (in kind of the above sense) because to me it makes it all simpler. It makes many more answers than questions, to me. That is why we are led to believe what we do, from the exact same function, just different results. There is cause and effect. If that is true we live in a theoretically infinite string of causes and effect, because what was the first cause? Ah, but then it HAD to be the effect of another cause... A living (may be) thing as the first cause, the unmoved mover, is an answer that doesn't involve infinite 'numbers'. For me, I lean towards a theory without the concept of infinity, as it is very illogical.

I will go eat now, and stop stressing everyone's eyes with all my blabber. Much appreciation all, isn't this a great ride?

"Ain't it great, to be alive?",
-Pip