Perhaps the solution doesn’t lie in whether we should categorize things into two absolute boxes, eg. there is/isn’t such thing as matter, the universe does/doesn’t exist, perhaps the solution isn’t much of a solution at all. True, there is such thing as matter. But there is also such thing as anti-matter (bringing in ST again). There is such thing as ‘hot’, but everything is relative (thanks, Einstein!), so what is hot to a baby is lukewarm to me (that’s why you test using your elbow–hands are too subjective). And what is hot to me may be cold compared to Venus or Io. We thought we had it cold when we had -20 degree windchill, but to Russians, that’s balmy. Perhaps there is no such thing as absolute truth, just truth as each of us percieves it. That may be why there’s tension between Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and athiesm/humanism, to mention a few religions. But along the scale, there are extreme and polar ends. There are extreme pro-choice people, and there are extreme pro-life people. There are extreme Democrats and Republicans. There are extreme Islamic jihadists, and extreme Christians (though they’re not exact polar opposites). Most of us lie somewhere within the norm, and that ‘norm’ is subjective, for who can claim what is normal? One psychologist wrote a book (sadly, I don’t remember the names) about how happiness is abnormal and people with “depression” are actually well-adjusted. We claim him strange. But there are those of us who pursue pure happiness. These people are strange too. ‘Normal’ is a synthesis of all things. The synthesis of happiness and depression is joy. Joy is the particular kind of happiness you experience after bearing difficulties/trials/sadness/crosses; it is more lasting than the extremes; all things in nature seek an equiblrium. Maybe we shouldn’t argue about the differences between sensible and insensible things. They balance each other out, though many of us feel we need to pick sides. The mind can’t exist without the world, nor the world without the mind. Like was said in class, if we all died off tomorrow, the world would cease to exist. If many of us died, but some survived, the world would cease to exist as we know it. But the reason why the world continues to exist because even if all mortal minds cease, there is an immortal Mind at work, a Mind that witnesses the tree that falls in the forest even if no-one else was around to see it, a Mind that witnessed the eldery slave women who are left alone in hutches to die, to ease her passing when no-one else was around to wipe the sweat from her fevered brow, a Mind that has and will continue to witness the atrocities that men try to cover, to hide, from the Apple to the Holocaust to Darfur to fetalcide and infantcide, and turn these horrendous things to the better, orchestrating it so that evil may serve the greater Good, and so that justice will prevail.
Remember Occam’s Razor? We keep the simplest answer. True, God is complex, but that sort of in depth study is best reserved for theology. The existence of God isn’t so complex is what it boils down to. You exist. I don’t question that. God exists. That’s what strikes me as funny when it comes to evolution. The way evolution is now is a very complex thing, how one cell can evolve without any direction into the lungs, heart, brain, etc., when it’s simpler to say that God designed Man well? Seems as if Darwin is forgetting Occam’s Razor. I understand that to many it’s akin to saying, “just because”, but asking my astronomy teacher why Kepler’s laws work would yield the answer, “I don’t know! Just because!” So, science accepts “just becuase” answers, and if philosophy is a progenitor of science, why can’t we use “just because” answers?