You will probably eventually be disappointed and shamed as theists and
creationists have been, as natural mechanisms are identified.
I'll bet they're both going to be surprised (the theists and the
rationalists) when they identify _all_ of the natural mechanisms.
You'll be more secure tormenting atheists with the questions: Where did
the universe' mass-energy and laws come from? Explain why/how existence
exists. Why does it have to be an axiom? Because no underlying
principles can be found?
Heh. Actually, atheists are just as dogmatic as any fundie,
maybe even more so, since they have "scientific proof" or
some such mumbo-jumbo. ;-)
Me, I have found the underlying principle, but it's too
simple for most people to grasp. ;-)
*Something* behaving according to its *Nature* ("Somethings" "nature"
being to act according to scientific principles as we have discerned by
our reason.) If you would read what I recommend, you would find
*existence* is an axiom.
Well, if _you_ would read what _I_ recommend, you would find out
that "reason" alone is insufficient to reach understanding. And
I've been reading, almost continuously, since mom sat me on
her lap 50 years ago and taught me how to read. I was reading
the encyclopedia recreationally at the age of 7.
And I remember everyfuckingthing.
Existence as an axiom is good enough, and kinda self-evident,
like, if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be sitting here questioning
stuff.
But there's an even more "fundamental" "axiom" behind this: That is, for
anything to exist at all, its opposite has to exist, if you assume that
the universe is infinite.
This is the part, I think, where ordinary thought processes
fall short of understanding the even more fundamental
principles, like, what's the thinking taking place _in_?
What's _doing_ the thinking? Like, if photons are waves,
what's doing the waving? If they're particles, howcome
they diffract?
Well, I claim there's an answer that ties up all the loose
ends of _all_ of the philosophies, from religion to
metaphysics to physics to biology to witchcraft. If this
new theory really turns out to be accurate, it would mean
that we have the power, right now, inherent in our beingness,
to do real magic.
What's the difference between a miracle and magic? Both
are outside known science, but is it like, one's good and
the other's bad?
But I digress. It's hard not to. ;-)
I have often wished I had studied the history of religion, philosophy
and science before thinking a lot. But using your own reason is very
good practice. When you get around to studying history, you find your
notions were refuted by others, and get new insights.
But studying without hypothesizing for yourself puts your mind into an
ideological blinder and stops you from exploring paths you would
otherwise scout.
Exactly!
And I claim to have found a doorway, as it were, to a "plane of
existence" beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Think Garden of Eden
With Toys.
And everybody has the powers of the Q.
And lots and lots of glorious sex.
And no rules.
Where even "good" and "bad" are "value judgements", but you
don't ever ever have to have anything bad happen to you or
anyone in your own personal reality, which can include anybody
who wants to play there. Everybody's so powerful, and there
is such mobility, that "good" and "bad" will naturally
gravitate to where each is in its "right place."
That sort of stuff.
And what the hell, I've been on this weird quest all my life
anyway, as if my spirit incarnated with some grandiose plan
of bringing magic to the world or something, so I ain't about
to go back into the box, thank you very much.
Of course, I do have to manage to keep from getting caught
and caged in the meanwhile. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich