Comment: I'll try!I suppose since we

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I agree... (see in situ)

I'll try!I suppose since we

I'll try!

I suppose, since we emerge from nothing prior to birth, and return to nothing after death, it is the bias of the human mind to assume nothing is the natural state of reality.

All things that exist seem to have a previous state, from which the present follows, going back into a past.

There is nothing inherently wrong with supposing "eternity," although it is beyond fathoming. But whether eternity or not, existence as a "given" without explanation is not an answer and explains nothing.

These are probably just problems of the mind wrapping around a reality is has no reason to be suited to comprehend.

Since we cannot comprehend it, it calls into question the soundness of all our beliefs.

Did our brains evolve haphazardly to allow us to survive in a limited range of the total reality? Is what we perceive necessarily representative of the whole? Do our laws of logic, perception of time, observation of natural constants have ultimate meaning beyond our own mental frame, beyond our apparatus for interpreting external inputs into information?

There's no way of knowing.

Materialism, starting from particles and forces and leading to organic life, to consciousness, would by no means inevitably lead to anything like a vehicle for the accurate rendering of external inputs, for the purpose of forming a truthful picture of reality.

Do we assume a hummingbird sees the same world we do through its senses, has the same operating software for rendering reality?

What would make us 'special'?

The inability to comprehend the whole argues against the mind being such a tool for seeing the world as it really is.

To believe, despite this, that it is such a tool, that is residual faith, a holdover from a worldview where humanity was the apple of God's eye and saw the world He created.

But when you give up god, you have to give up objective truth, as truth becomes mere perspective, for who knows what natural or subjective end.

Without God's eye, there is no objective and complete viewpoint.

And hey, there's nothing wrong with that!

Embrace the chaos or embrace God through faith. Either is available. Both have arguments in their favor. Both arguments have their silver linings and golden possibilities. Both provide solace and comfort in their own way.

Logic affords no clear basis for choice, either is plausible.

But I won't abide people who try to have their God and eat him too.