You forgot the part where you have no land, startup capital, equipment, supplies, gardening expertise, distribution, marketing skills, or business experience.

I could be earning maybe a thousand dollars a month if I worked 40 hours a week at a low paying job while completely turning against everything I believe in, or, I could get some land and earn 2-3 thousand a month by growing people real food that is not contaminated with poisons, while staying true to my values and my word.

Yeah, I'll pass.  You may not see it now, but squall will get his money several times faster than if I got in line to work for someone else.

Yup, cannabis which has killed 0 people ever is bad, LSD which has killed maybe 3 people ever is bad, but those burgers at McDonalds (the ones that are 85% ammonia and contain ingredients from silly putty) are GREAT!  Fuck yea!  Cardiovascular disease for everybody!  Like half a million deaths a year isn't enough?!

You see what kind of world we live in?

If you have not been scammed once or twice, you have not lived on the edge.

I am going to destroy BitCON (there is no light, it is fatally doomed as it lacks distribution) and you will buy from me.

 I wanted my photos in the cloud but there's not enough space in icloud and I won't pay for more icloud space.

So it's pretty easy to understand if your photos are in the cloud or not. You need to setup the whole thing.

Claiming misleading here would be like claiming insanity.

You might have heard by now that the people facing trial in the Silk Road case are pleading guilty to charges that include unlicensed currency transfers. I'm curious about how currency transfers become "licensed" and whether most Bitcoin transactions could count as "unlicensed."

Except they weren't aware that their photos were being automatically synced to the cloud.

I am just waiting for the general population to awaken, which we are steadily approaching.

Again, in simple English, the evidence for God is the existence of the kind of universe we live in.

For a moment, get any preconceived notions of God as you have heard of him through the religions, out of your mind. Then consider the following.

The whole universe, all of nature, acts like a gigantic, ultra-complex machine. Machines have makers.

At the same time we see the machine, everything is wearing out, running down, like a clock that needs to be wound up. We see nothing in nature that can make a machine anything like the universe. We don't see anything that can wind the clock of nature up again. Nothing!

If nature were not so complex, if we could figure it out in detail, then maybe there isn't a God. But, simply because of the way the whole universe and nature exist, there has to be a God. Machines have makers. And this Maker is way beyond us, far greater than we can ever think to be.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there simply is no other way.

Yeah you have read my link? Or yeah something else? Try that link if you don't want to read the rest of this post.  


OK, maybe you are telling us a fact;
what about all the old views that are being challenged?

That is a great item for discussion (especially if you have nothing new to say)!

I hope that with our discussion we can help make clear what is the bigger picture surrounding these facts:

Well, I wonder if you have any ideas about how fact 5 relates to the others. You mentioned an internal origin to solve the Problem... but I am asking for you to read Cunningham's critique of that idea; it is not adequate at all and it sounds extraordinary to me. Anyway, if you have done research then I want to hear the result and how your conclusion relates to the introduction; I would also want to hear a rebuttal of criticism such as may be found in Cunningham's paper.

I feel that it is only fair to question whether proof/dis-proof is a relevant concept. However, I need not state this explicitly in our discussion because mostly I am just asking you to clarify what you really think, activity well-suited for this thread. Also: who will read the research paper?   I think that this is a good question; at least, I will make it a good thread by my questions.

Basic assumptions about the proof/dis-proof of God may be invalidated at a certain level of consciousness, even though typical reasoning may seem to validate these assumptions, it is actually through our experience that the "evidence" enters our minds. In the presence of Tao, the knots are untied, the glare is softened, and the question takes on meaning beyond proof/dis-proof, a sort of relevance that is hard to come by. It is amazing the opinions that people have on this question of God; one thing we do know is death and transformation; only you and your consciousness can shape how you live your life and your appreciation for the subtlety of life's great questions and paradoxes, in which are found the ultimate bliss or "God-consciousness". Therefore, God is expressed in the action of death and transformation, and also in your consciousness-response to life's many "questions" which are constantly being asked by some internal voice. Your "answers" need to be used for transformation of self--not so that we can know God--but because death is near and we urgently should ponder the questions that we can try to begin to understand at this current level of being. The old answers are not looking very acceptable.

Facts 1-4 are relevant to our discussion; for example,
Fact 4 is a type of expansive phenomena which should be seriously considered (pondered) in an adequate explanation of other expansive phenomena. Also, organized religions often emphasize the afterlife, so they do seem to at least have the facts down; however, their explanations are not adequate. Similarly, your "spooky" explanation is also not adequate.
Fact 3 is a slam-dunk reason to cointinue investigating the facts in our discussion.
Fact 2 means that you need to give a good reason for why your explanation is more adequate than the rest!
Fact 1 is presumably why you are having this coinversation to begin with! You are also seeking a good explanation, so let us use the Socratic method and find it!  



OK, please if you could answer some of my questions.  

*sips coffee*

*blink.. blink*

*eats cookie*

*sips coffee*

Ok... it is official... this thread now serves no purpose other than trolling and flaming.

If you have a better theory than what Cunningham has proposed, then I am eager to hear it! Assuming, of course, you have already read and thought through his critiques of the competing theories...


I WILL wait for you to do your research. A lot of important theories were published in books and research papers, that does not mean that they are all right, it just means that we should not wish them away!

God cannot be proved or disproved.