I am not sure if we have actually agreed on anything before.

I definitely think that the mysterious does not suppose the existence of God. In many ways, arriving at the idea of God may be too much of an easy solution. I prefer to keep very big open roaring 'why's . It is not as if we even have to sign an agreement on the matter of the existence of God, like Thomas More being asked to sign one to allow Henry V111 to divorce and have more wives.

I do agree with your point in one of your posts that it is only the human being who asks why. I am sure trees cannot stop and wonder why they exist. It is probably a difference between being and thinking. But, we could also ask why have we developed the consciousness with which to ask why? What is going on here on an evolutionary scale, and where are we going with this?

My very first interaction on the site, when I first joined, was with @3017amen Only a fortnight ago, I was out in Wimbledon engaging in discussion with him about the Bible, and someone wrote that I was 'tripping'.

I also wonder what happens when people are banned and whether they are able to log in at all. I don't know if they get some kind of message saying that they are banned, or simply can't log in at all. But, I would prefer to walk away from the site oneday if I thought that I was just about to be banned, and I don't know if that means that I am a coward. But, we can say that consciousness definitely exists after being banned. He may still be able to see the discussion here, even though he can't speak at all.

I didn't enjoy maths as a child but I do remember finding the idea of Pythagoras' s hypothenuse triangle to be very exciting. I also do like the geometry of circles and lines too, but somehow got on so much better in exploring them in art, rather than in geometry lessons.

It feels rather sad writing in Amen's final thread, and I do feel sad that he cannot reply. I had a fair amount of replies from him. It is perhaps ironic that his final one was about speaking in tongues, and I am sure that he will find some outlet for communicating. Whenever I see the famous little drawing of Kierkergaard I always think, oh, there's Amen. I imagine he will also probably be remembered on the site for the actual idea that atheism is not logical.

Your reply is interesting, and it is the case of existence vs nothing. Aside from the question of why is there something rather than nothing, I think that we can also ask whether there will ever be nothing? In other words, will the universe, and beyond, cease to exist at all in some remote, distant age.

You also hinted at the idea of where our existence lies in a larger frame of reference. I think it here we get into the limits of knowledge. Existence seems to be composed of linear and cycles aspects. But, it is hard to see whether the larger framework is actually linear or cyclical. What this does raise is the issue of whether life is something taking place once on earth and a birth and death of the universe is repeated. Of course, Nietzsche's and some others spoke of the idea of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche's own idea of this altered at times, ranging from a literal to a symbolic interpretation.

However, going beyond the notion of eternal recurrence itself we can ask about our place in the cosmos. If there are no lifeforms similar to us in the universe, we can still wonder if there have ever been some in a past age, or whether there will be in some distant future galaxy.

I may have replied to Amen, but perhaps he may still be able to look at this online. As far as speaking in tongues I do know people who have witnessed it, but some have thought that a lot of it may be contrived. Perhaps, it is in between, because I am sure that if we tried we could all make strange sounds, like unusual words, especially in a state of altered consciousness.

A related idea is the idea of channeling. I have a friend who is a professional artist, and she is does a lot of religious art. She told me that when she is painting and doing other artwork, she sees herself as channeling the Holy Spirit. However, I am aware that many religious people and non religious people are very sceptical of the idea of channeling. From the more traditional approach, it can be queried what entities is one channelling, and are they good or evil? Skeptics, on the other hand, often dismiss the process as being complete nonsense. The way in which I probably see it is more in connection with Jung's idea of active imagination, in which a person is getting in touch with aspects beyond the persona, and connecting with aspects such as those from the collective unconscious.

I just noticed that you referred to my thread. As I think I said, I don't really like the clear categories of theist, atheist or agnostic, because I prefer to keep a more fluid approach. Of course, from my previous post on philosophical mysteries, people probably realise that I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious. I don't necessarily believe in astrology, but anyone who does would probably not be surprised to know that my sign is Pisces. But, I think that I really created the thread which I did yesterday because there are just so many threads on atheism, and a couple on agnosticism, mostly on the front page. Of course, there are a couple by Barticks on God, but I was trying to redress the balance, but the idea of the mysterious doesn't necessarily imply a God.

I think that people must be playing around because my figure is rising so much. But, please be careful or the mods may decide to revert me back to zero. But, when I read good posts I am going to try to remember to give them a point!

Edit: I see that I have reached a score of 50. People may start to think that is my age, and even Banno is only in his teens!

I am sure that I will find posts to give you each a point because to simply give it to you for giving me one would just show how silly it is. It reminds me of being given sticky stars for good work in primary school and how there was a record on the wall to show who had the most.

But, maybe we just need to start becoming generous in giving people points. I have to admit that when I am busy reading and writing a discussion I forget about giving people points. And, it is likely that many on the site don't give points at all, especially as the feature is new.

I think that it is such a miserable new feature of the site, because when I switch on the site it shows me a list of the likes, with the most popular showing up before anything else, or the discussions. It creates a popularity hierarchy, and it is visible on every single post, but at least you have achieved 1 more like than me. When for several days I still had 0 it made me feel that I wished to stop writing here at all.

Also, I am not sure how accurate it is because when one person has loads of likes it could be one person giving scores to someone they like for many posts. Also, I thought that it was more helpful to be able to see the number of posts which a person has written because that was a way of seeing if the person was new or an established member. I believe that the idea is to try to encourage better posts, but as far as I can see it will probably just bolster certain egos, who are able to have a higher figure next to their name. Some of the really high numbers are, I believe based on being on the old site, so they had high numbers showing up straight away.

I think that I am staring into the sun, in the metaphorically sense, right now, unable to sleep, churning thoughts. But, of course, I am blind to my own mind in itself, only seeing my own little narrow set of images and thoughts. So,I am able to see the downside of introspection. But, I do believe that the mind does have an important role because we are able to think. It is probably important to cultivate a certain amount of mental training, and be able to cultivate a deeper sense of awareness. But, of course, the most we can arrive at is certain ideas about why we others, and various life forms exist. These ideas are our perceptions and perspective, and are only partial.

I think that introspection is becoming a lost aspect of philosophy. Of course, the empirical investigation, including the scientific aspects of existence are important. But, I do believe that we should not ignore our own minds as part of the source for knowledge and reflection.

Thanks for the link and I will look at it tomorrow.

The question is how much are we confabulating? Sometimes, even the most sophisticated philosophy arguments seem contrived. I am not trying to make a mockery of rationality. I do see it as being extremely important, but I just feel extremely aware of how uncertain we are, as Wittgenstein was, and how even our very existence is a bit of a puzzle.

You ask me to 'stop wondering and just do it', but the question is what do we do other than wonder. I am about to go out to the shops, to buy some food, but I am not sure that wondering about the human condition is low on the scale of priorities. Even within relationships, the best moments can be about philosophical contemplation

How do we separate how we see it from 'how it is'? I am not sure that we are able to step outside of personal, or intersubjective reality, in order to see from a truly objective, or so-called correct viewpoint, beyond interpretation.

You trace the idea of causes back to a 'wall', but what lies behind the wall? I am speaking about origins, but also what lies behind mind and matter. I am question veneers, causation, what lies behind the paradox of mind and matter, and I am not really looking for a textbook or Wikipedia explanation. I believe that it is so much more complex, but I do believe that it is the subject matter of philosophy, even though I know that many detest the idea of mystery.

I think that the idea of we made it up does raise the question of how we make things up, because I am not presuming that we are mere liars. I am asking about any underlying source from which all of this begins to take place.

I remember sitting outside on a bench at about 5am, waiting for the cafe to open when I had lost my keys. It was Sunday morning, and I don't know if I would have been able to contact my landlord. I felt so alone in the universe. The owner of the cafe appeared startled to have someone waiting outside at 8am. I had prayed about finding my keys and felt like I was blessed by the hands of some divine power when the owner handed me the keys to my bedsit. But, of course, that is only my personal perspective on providence, luck and destiny, but I do see it as being interconnected with the question of any underlying power beyond us, on an individual level, and as part of causation and design behind our lives

I believe that immanence is important, because that was stressed in Gregory Bateson's, 'Ecology of Mind', even though he was an anthropologist, but has contributed to philosophy discourse.

But, I cannot accept that philosophy is able to overlook the developmental aspects of life and existence. That would be about stepping into the nature of the timeless aspects of existence, which may or not exist.

I am aware that certain ideas, especially the idea of the soul, are seen as problematic, but I don't think that enables the idea of existence to be written off. I think that I exist, and that you do too, but I am left wondering why, and whether there is any purpose behind our lives, beyond the meanings which we find for ourselves.

The question of whether we could hire a detective or not is interesting insofar as it raises the question of mysteries. Having spoken of philosophical mysteries on a previous thread, I think that the idea of mystery in philosophy is considered open to criticism. But, in attacking the idea of mystery, philosophers may be in the danger of refusing to see behind surfaces. How much is evident in daily reality, and how much is hidden, and goes much deeper. I certainly question any philosophies which are restricted to the superficial, because even on the basis of my own empirical observations, there is so much which lies beneath surfaces, facades and the exterior aspects of life.

I do agree that our life experiences is extremely restrictive, especially our lifespan, as well as the social contexts of our experiences. Our perspectives on human life are extremely restricted. But, I believe that many who look to the ideas of our times, including the ideas of thinking in science, also fail to recognize the narrow lens of focus. I am certainly not wishing to push aside the advances in thinking. But, on the other hand, I do think that it would be extremely restrictive if philosophy of our times becomes focused on specific arguments.

How do these lie in the context of history, comparative religion and thinking which goes beyond the specific focus of materialistic perspectives of Western philosophy? I am not wishing to offer any simplistic solutions, but open up the area of debate, beyond the ideas which are in fashion in the first half of the twentieth century. Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge?

I do not answer any of the questions which I have raised purely in terms of theism and atheism. I think that people who wrote the Bible wrote from specific angles, with the best thinking that they could arrive at. I am certainly not wishing to come up with any easy solutions. It may be that the question which I am raising will be seen as not being relevant for philosophy. However, as far as I can see many of the philosophies need stripping. For a long time, arguments which stem from God have been seen as lacking. However, I would go a stage further, and say that many philosophies which deconstruct the religious philosophies may be inadequate too. The arguments against God look at reason, but they fail to grasp the intricacies of life, and how there is just so much that we are unable to explain.

Okay, maybe I am stuck in my thinking, but I am not sure that many other people are not stuck equally in their own perspectives. The question may be why does one thing happen rather than anything else. Is there any divine providence? When I lost my keys a few days ago, I really wondered if I had reached a deadend, and was startled when I found them. I know that this may seem to be a trivial example. But, it does lead me to wonder about the superficial aspects of life, and any meaning beyond this. How much is psychology attuned to our own chosen perspectives, and where does this lie in terms of any more objective perspectives on chance, fate and any purpose behind our daily lives?

I do agree that individuals' questions arise from their own personal lives and construction of meaning. I woke up earlier than usual on the last couple of days, and felt so miserable about how the majority on this site are focused on answering the questions of God's existence, on the basis of conventional reason. I see the nature of our existence, including the whys and the purpose as being much wider, but I am not sure that such discussion will be considered of much importance on this site at all.

I am sorry if you find my understanding of existence to be rather abstract, but I am coming from the position of being a living being, as I imagine that you are too. I also think that there are other lifeforms, and I would imagine that they have their own variable constructions of meanings. I am not intending to ask a ridiculous question, but I do wonder why we exist. Part of this comes down to the underlying ones about the existence of God, but, from my reading on this site, they are not clear at all. I am standing back from it all, and do have some anger, because I am not finding any worthwhile answers about the nature of existence, and purpose, at all.

I am not really wondering about sickness. But, I do believe that so much lies behind the superficial, including causation. How would you explain the question of why human beings, and any form of life, exist at all?

But, I believe that you are missing the question of what lies behind it all. Of course, we may have sickness, as well as health, but I pointing more to the basic questions of metaphysics and epistemology.

Interesting, but I am left wondering beyond this. We have the claims of Darwin about evolution, and we exist as individuals, in the real world, but I am not sure if this goes deep enough, in explaining why we exist at all.

I agree that anything can happen, and life is full of the unexpected. I am sure that my question may be regarded as ridiculous, and may have been addressed in threads on why is there anything rather than nothing. However, I am really writing this thread because there are many threads on the front page of the forum against the existence of God. There have been ones looking at the anthropic principle, but as far as I can see, so much of what lies behind existence remains unexplained.

I don't live in the U.S, so I am afraid that I don't know what the education is like there. I barely know what the English one is like currently like because I only have one or two friends with children. But, of course, it is important because the education we have shapes cognition and consciousness. I found some of my own boring, but some of it very good. I also think that family teaching is an important aspect, because early life affects what happens later in a big way.

I do agree that understanding emotions is extremely important. I wonder if you are suggesting that I am not putting my emotions into this. You must remember that this is online, and I am not even anonymous. But, I think it does all come down to context and, generally, when I am writing on this site, I am aiming to write philosophy. Real life is a bit different. But, I do believe that lack of emotion or too much can be a problem, but I think that it is about assessing what is relevant to any specific situation.

I can see what you are saying about standing poised on the shore, and, of all things I will admit that I never managed to swim and I hated even going into a swimming pool. But, on topic of emotions, I do believe that we do need to stand back and use reason to help us understand it. This is not merely about not drowning, which would probably happen to me if I went into the sea. Reasoning about emotions is a way of not recognizing them for what they are rather than being pulled along by them subconsciously.I see this as being central to the ability to reflect.

Thanks for your response, and I just hadn't replied because I answered ones from today. Your article link is useful because it is a study of the way the hemispheres function. It seems likely to me that each one of is wired slightly differently. It probably involves so much, ranging from genetics to the way we learn to behave. I am sure it is a complex mixture of the two because it probably involves pathway developments in the brain.

But, definitely I know of people who are left handed and struggled with being encouraged to use their right hand. My father experienced this. I am right handed and, when I broke my right wrist as an adult I had great difficulty. I tried writing with my right hand which did not work at all. But, I did experiment with drawing with my left hand and that did produce some interesting results, and I had read previously that drawing or painting with the less dominant hand is a useful way of getting in touch with aspects of subconscious experience.

I didn't mean to evade the question, but I am really looking two days after reading your posts. Of course, it could be that it is a blindspot of mine, because I do believe that we have them. The slightly complicated matter of what one feels is that we use words to describe experiences, so it does mean that it can be difficult to separate some aspects of feelings from the cause. Of course, we are talking in a fairly abstract way rather a specific one. Generally, I think that bodily sensations can be useful in identifying emotions and reason can be a way of understanding the whys. However, I do believe that all these aspects do need reflection on the processes, or otherwise, our consciousness can become a messy blur.

We are back with the question of opposites and the nature of continuum. I imagine that all the binary aspects remain as binaries, but in real life how we define, think and experience them is where our lives take us. We go on such interesting travels into the yin and yang of the real and the fantastic, which is probably a continuum in it own right within the most mysterious complicated knot of mind and body.

I think that the main thing to remember is that even though the structure of the brain has a basis in neuroscience, it is only a model. Gilchrist is suggesting that some pictures of the division between left and right are far too simplistic. Regarding your idea of the 'coach', it leads me to think of how the transpersonal philosopher, Ken Wilber, spoke of 'witness consciousness', which can be seen as the inner narrator reflecting upon the divisions, especially the right and the left, but probably other divisions, like degrees conscious vs subconscious.

I have juggled mixed messages. When I was about 18 or 19 I was reading Jung's ideas which were extremely esoteric and attending Christian youth meetings. In these meetings people used to speak of the occult messages in rock music, which were meant to be uncovered by playing the music backwards. The ultimate example was meant to be that if you play Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards, you can hear the words 'Satan is God'. I can remember someone trying to tell me all kinds of books and music I was listening to, including my favourite 'Psychedelic Furs' albums were the work of the devil and being really distraught.

But, as I moved on I think that it can all be so simplistic, but it was all of this that lead me to question Christianity initially. And, I have read a lot in the esoteric traditions. But, there is dangerous knowledge and we only have to think of Aleister Crowley. Even the tarot has dangers. I have never used it but, once in a student hall of residence, a girl did a reading for me and she seemed alarmed by my reading. I wasn't really because I knew that I had a lot of difficulties to work through, but it ended up with me needing to reassure her because she was really worried about me.

I do think that people who spend time reading esoteric books, and following practices in them can become rather unbalanced. But, it probably depends on so many other factors. This morning, I was having a conversation with someone who pointed out to the need to listen to our bodies, and I realised that this was relevant to my thread.

I have thought about how this relates to one of your recent threads, which is the one on symmetry. Of course, it does involve the yin and the yang. However, Gilchrist does argue that there is a fundamental asymmetry to consciousness, with a need for a master. For me, this probably suggests the danger of getting lost in the quagmire of esoterica, but I suppose that there are so many philosophical dangers and red zones anyway.