Happy to. How much time are you looking to invest in the research of validity of my synopsis, relative to NDE being the symptom of brain hypoxia?

I don't think it ever occurred to me that boorite was talking about zombies digging their way out of their coffin and coming to life. Ever. Boorite was obviously referring to people who had been clinically dead. "From the grave" is a turn of phrase; anyone with a reading comprehension ability recognizes that. Taking a turn of phrase to the level of proclaiming that boorite was talking about zombies is nitpicky at best, but most certainly purposefully misleading to make him look like an idiot (a drunken idiot as your previous post had implied). That kind of tactic has no place in a productive discussion and certainly shouldn't be tolerated. Ever.

You certainly do take yourself very seriously don't you.

It's a matter of context and interpretation. Your projections of my motives, your translation of my words, mean nothing to my intention because your pov is not accurate or relevant to my own. If I'd have meant zombies, rest assured I would have said zombies. It was all a matter of context.

So please! I've read you on board. I consider the source for this attempted reprimand, and move on.

Hostile tones!? I request a new hearing. I wasn't hostile. I was sarcastic.

And responding to your statement that people have returned from the grave and made their way to their keyboards. (that's also where the smell reference came into it). There is a vast difference between "clinically dead" and being resuscitated and returning from the grave.

Certainly there are reports of near death experiences.

However, those can be explained through clinical studies that can theorize the accounts of after near death experiences are the affects of brain hypoxia. Brain death, due to lack of oxygen.

So while the brain is dying, the brain releases all it's memories, firing off in that erratic array of brain inviability. It doesn't mean those people saw god, it means they saw what they believed was god. Even Atheists having near death experiences were influenced by the religious articles of faith, while alive. The subconscious takes it all in and so its there to be released, when the conscious mind and the subconscious, in that organic mechanism that houses it, called the human body, starts to loose it's biological functions.

Not at all. I have no problem with humor, but when it's used with misleading language to discredit someone who isn't even saying something outrageous, then it's just pointless and stupid.

Oh good, it is a matter of context. So it's okay if you project your own interpretation onto someone as being drunk and saying that the dead will literally rise from the grave after being embalmed, but it's not okay if someone suggests that you are purposefully projecting a false interpretation of something someone said. I gotcha!

Consider the source all you want. I can easily recall how you treat anyone who doesn't completely agree with you and how you lump them all into one category and then do your best to crap on it.

Sarcasm is hostile.

Thank you for exampling exactly what you find at fault in me. I truly don't know why you waste your time. One would think, if that's how you read me, you would distance your attentions else face the crap again.

This issue will never be proved/disproved because we all will found out the answers we seek when we die!!!!
Unless someone can return from the grave and type on his/her keyboard, we will never find out the truth !!!!!!
In 50-100 years , people will still be saying ,"Is there a God? Who created us ? and so on.........."

Don't you see why this is not a *theory*? It is just a statement. I could just as easily say "we are all part of Ikea, we are all hotdogs" and it would say exactly as much as you did - not a thing. A theory is quite a lot more than a statement. For example, it requires a proper hypothesis, evidence and so on. But you don't need me to tell you about the scientific method.
But you haven't stated a theory.

I might. I'm not *that* dim. You could always try me rather than refusing to answer my questions.

That is *a* question. I have others.

OK, cool. Then state it as a hypothesis. You know how to properly state a hypothesis....right?

Yeah, I guess that is what questions are about.

As someone who apparently knows nothing about quantum physics, I'm going to have to go ahead and laugh out loud at your childish and frankly idiotic understanding.

Yeah, this is exactly right, well done.

OK, so I'm finally starting to suspect that you are taking the piss.
Perhaps, if this is an attempt to take the piss. You got me.

Maybe I *don't* know a troll when I see one...

Back to the topic, then.
Yes, and even if (when, actually) someone does come back from the dead and tell what it was like, people are under no compulsion to listen or even acknowledge it. They can just ignore it and continue asking the same old questions and arguing the same old viewpoints. But the stories of "life after death" are there for anyone who cares to look.

Ah. *Your* logic.

Um...why? Explain belief without disbelief. It will still have no meaning. The point is that disbelief is not the OPPOSITE of belief, it is the ABSENSE of belief. Just as cold is not the OPPOSITE of heat, it is the ABSENSE of heat. Silence is the absence of noise, not it's opposite.
Nicely argued.

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries

etc.

As far as the scientific community goes, no its not a theory. Thats why I used Hypothesis perhaps to reach your level of apparent understanding.

Well if your not *that* dim... awsome! 2 points for you, not every day I meet somebody of your intellect.

*cough* then again >.>
Hehe, well I'm sure you do.
I do know how to properly check my man boobs for breast cancer.
Kill the head and the body will die.

As far as solid objects passing through one another. There is the "Double Slit Experiment". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment

Which also explains one object being in more then one spot at a single time, and wave particle duality.

I forgot to mention objects can move faster then the speed of light. One example would be Twin Particles.

I never have the intention of causing MAXIMUM disruption and arguement. Hehe, I just like to make people think, and be near people who make me think. I'm not talking about math problems or grammar. Im talking about the universe everything in the universe, everything not in the universe, God, life ect.

The absence of belief??? The absense of belief is the belief of absense of belief. So up and down, hot and cold, black and white are not opposites??? Sound and silence are not opposites??? Well you cannot not comprehend heat unless you cold. You cannot comprehend up unless you know down. Because of this they are considered opposites. So if they are not opposites then explain to me disbelief and silence without using nouns like belief or noise. Because if they arn't opposites then you wont need to use them to describe them in an absent state.

Objects? No. Electrons and so forth, sure. I'm not sure fundamental particles should be called 'objects'. They don't behave in the same way that the objects we are used to do. Wave particle duality eh? WOOOO - I've never heard of THAT one. Well done.
Go on - let's hear your extensive knowledge about this.
You don't seem to think at all.

Black and white are plainly not opposites - in what way could you possibly say that they oppose each other? Why is red not opposite, oh let's say teal?

Black is the absence of color and white is the inclusion of all color. So technically, they are opposites.

Cold is the absense of heat. If heat is not applied, cold happens. You can't apply cold, you can only take away heat.

Heat is a kind of energy. Cold is not. They are not opposites.

Black and white are plainly not opposites - in what way could you possibly say that they oppose each other? Why is red not opposite, oh let's say teal?

Up is the opposite of down, but only relatively. There is plainly no absolute criterion for what is up or down. We don't know where the midpoint is.

Silence is not the opposite of sound. Can you imagine someone turning the silence up on the amp and it drowning out the sound? Silence just happens when sound doesn't.

These things are not opposites.

It is the same with belief. Lack of belief is not anti-belief in the same way that lack of sound does not enforce silence on us all.

Black is the absence of color and white is the inclusion of all color. So technically, they are opposites.

How do you think we see black things?

desty go to any science center it woll be clear to you that white is the inclusion of all colors and black is the absence, there is actually a little lesson that you should of learned in art class, this in fact white is the inclusion.....there is no opposites really its abscence of.... so black would be the absence of color varying degrees of the same thing which was white to begin with...... in fact.....

What our eye absorbs from "white" is really what in concrete is "black" yes but what is concrete in black is not the same as concrete white, nor is the same from the reflections. If you truly believe they are the same hold up a peice of white paper next to a peice of black paper and tell me just how similar they really look,
As proof black is all the colors in light, get a paint can for every color and mix them all together, what do you get? OH SURPRISE black

Im talking about the colors not what you see from the colors, Like i said before I hate it when people cannot distinguise the difference between what We see and what is actually there.

White is not the inclusion of all the colors, I repeat White is not the inclusion of all the colors, However it reflects all the colors (meaning it does not absorb) and we see what is know as "white"
Black on the other hand is made up of all the colors and therefore it absorbs all the colors, what we see from black is the absence of colors but what it really is, is all the colors, thus the reason it absorbs all the colors. Thus the reason it holds in heat. White reflects all the colors because it does not consist of all the colors, this is what we see, when all the Colors are reflected into our eyes, We see all the colors, which is then interpreted as white, but What the peice of white paper is, is none of the colors. Thus the reason it reflects all the colors.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99540.htm use this link to help you understand the absorption and reflection of light

i said all this in about to this in fact white is the inclusion.....there is no opposites really its abscence of.... so black would be the absence of color varying degrees of the same thing which was white to begin with...... in fact.....I used inclusion as the state of including, in essecne yes white reflects all color how else would you see it????? desty when you look at black all you see is no color that sort of tells you , one msut hone their observational skills my friend...

Silence is not the opposite of sound. Can you imagine someone turning the silence up on the amp and it drowning out the sound? Silence just happens when sound doesn't.

Im 99.9% sure I understood you, and I understood what you meant about inclusion. However I do not believe you understood me again. If black is all color, white is absence of all color. When viewed Black is absence of all color and white is all color, How is it you come up with varying degrees? Its all or nothing.

Everything opposed to nothing, they are opposites
op·po·site (ŏp'ə-zĭt) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other: opposite sides of a building.
Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other: opposite directions.
Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things: the opposite sex; an opposite role to the lead in the play.

Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance: The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended.
Sharply contrasting; antithetical: had opposite views on the subject.
Botany Growing in pairs on either side of a stem: opposite leaves.

I want to preface this pasted article because reading many threads of late on the religious topics, I feel it may asuage a lot of defensive posturing. These materials, on my part, are not posted with the thought of changing anyone's mind about their theistic beliefs. I've read a number of posts in forums and it sometimes appears as if believers believe, in the reading of what some might call "controversial" religious material, that the material is applying a underlying message that believers are fools or should re-think their allegiance to their god and eternity.
Firstly, I don't know how an article in cyberspace could ever have that kind of power in itself. People process information and decide what they accept as true or untrue. If an article makes one think about the material and thereby causes them to share their Pov, alls the better. Because not everyone reads everything the same way. Thus, the subject matter of the OT oftentimes broadened in it's scope to include many other relevant issues that help to comprise, in those parts, the whole of the original topic. How lovely. To learn more about each other as we learn more about what we hold in common.

And that is how I see it when I post this work. It is not meant to engage those that would defend by bible verses how it is wrong. The title may address the christian patriarch but those traits attributed to a god image correlate to every deific model. Be it the jews, muslims, hindu, pagans, etc... It is in the spirit of the overall theme, a higher power, a god being, that this article is intended to address. Because the christian god is not unique. His image, like that of his savior son, is found in all those other correlative faiths mentioned earlier. Maybe that is the true meaning of the fabled words to Moses; "I am that I am". Perhaps that was an allusion, by the ancient scribes, that the god of Moses is the god in the face of all peoples idols. One and the same. I am that I am. Because if there is only one creator power, how can anyone on this planet have ever worshiped a different god power, save in name alone?!

Please take this thread in the spirit it is offered. To discuss god power and it's potential, or not, as being all that we surmise is worthy of that deific respect. It is not meant to generate bible verses to discount it because it does not include any to found it's basic premise. Is god possible.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to your thoughts.






Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman



Introduction
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.




Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.


Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.


Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.




Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.



What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.




The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.




All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.




Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.




Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.




Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.



No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.




Contradictory Justice

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.




Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?




Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.



The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.



The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.



We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

Black consists of all colors while white consists of none. Black absorbs the colors and retains heat, while white reflects all the colors, this is what we see. Black absorbs them so we see absence of light, white reflects.
I hate when people make that silly mistake. However perhaps you meant to type 'what we see of black is the absence of color' but instead you said 'black is the absence of color'. So if it was a mistake it was a huge mistake, infact it was the complete opposite from the actual truth.
photons which pass around the object it would seem to move quicker then the speed of light)

Back to the topic, then.
Yes, and even if (when, actually) someone does come back from the dead and tell what it was like, people are under no compulsion to listen or even acknowledge it. They can just ignore it and continue asking the same old questions and arguing the same old viewpoints. But the stories of "life after death" are there for anyone who cares to look.

Erh, my brain is hurting.

Have you ever toyed with the idea that God is a computer?

I know what you mean though. I didn't watch "2001", but I did watch "2010" . I've heard it said before that we're all cells in the body of god. We're all programs in the mainframe that is god. And as Havales said, none of us shall know what is on the other side until we get there. However, I think one of the reasons man ponders such notions of after life, and it's cause while living, is we think ourselves here for a purpose simply because we possess the capacity to reason that so. And we imagine our choices, our life, our projections of purpose be it god, or otherwise, ordains us to be somehow special above all other beings living out their lives and with their own purpose.

Take for instance the whole god idea. Ancient artifacts show the first people had no understanding of intercourse and reproduction, but they somehow "revered" the female form, because of what they witnessed it do, to their primitive understanding. A woman swelled, then after a lot of blood letting, which they would have understood in a different way had they ever suffered severe injury, she brings forth a little tiny being that looks like she does. Sorta. And come to find out she can feed that little being from her own body as well. As they would have probably seen animals doing, during the spring months, they witnessed one of their own nurse a newborn. And so, something in them felt compelled to record that as best they could, so today archaeologists have unearthed imagery accounting that wonder. Statues that have come to be called "The Willendorf Goddess" "The Venus of Lespugue" . Even the Venus of Laussel;a moon goddess, as she's known. Her belly swelled, one hand pointing to that, one hand holding a horn with the cut's across it's surface, indicating what some determine to be the moons cycle. Which would perhaps indicate her term of pregnancy.

All these images are considered "goddesses" today, because those ancient people were in awe of the female form and it's ability to re-generate life from itself and sustain life from itself. And from that great mother impression, was born the notion that there must be something unseen (Because at the time of course the male role wasn't known to the ancient peoples), responsible for generating life. Keeping existence alive so that the conscious human species didn't die off. So then what are idea's of "god" or "goddess", but notions of purpose and cause, for our being here!? Did god give life to humanity? It's all faith that it did. It's all conjecture , as we take in our world, something not us must be behind it all. And what do we do to feel sustained by that faith, that notion, based on what? Our subjective understanding of our world and universe being bigger than we are, so something bigger than that must be the reason!? We create icons and myths, even to those ancient times, that complete the picture. That give us a cause for our existence. Just as those ancients did in deifying woman form. We had to come from somewhere. It's the macrocosm of the microcosm, god faith and religion. We have an undeniable biological origin from the female biology and mothers of us all, so to must humanity and the world have such a parentage as well, from something unseen. If all this is going on in creation and created.
So we make those statues of what we know. Swollen woman, with pendulous breasts. Mother, source. As we do to this day, across the time lines of human existence, we make those god/dess forms in our image first and then we make it "super-natural". Like us, but removed. Because it imparts a emotional connection to something if we can seemingly relate to it. But if it's god, how is that even possible to do? It's beyond knowing, in our limited conscious awareness. So we make it into something we can identify with, empathize with. We make it in the image of us but more potent. We make it into all those personalities of a protective, disciplinarian. In the sense that we can understand it. Vengeful, jealous, etc... And we call "it" god/dess. It's a trust that what we imagine to life, hold faith in, is really there. And that, we trust, explains why we are.
Because somehow man can't accept the notion, with just as much credibility to the evidence behind it, that we're all here without a purpose. That what we imagine passes from this world in the animal kingdom, the environment, etc... is no more special nor entitled, than we are. Because we have our gods and our myths that lend our comfort, and our role model for moralities and behaviors, that we're somehow special because we can actually "think" up a god/dess. And that brings us a sense of peace that this life isn't impartial, as we imagine it is for all other that lives. Because we imagine something not only created it all, but cares about us that give it shape in our myths and our minds.

But that doesn't make it true. It makes it faith that it's true.

Black consists of all colors while white consists of none.

Black absorbs the colors

while white reflects all the colors, this is what we see.

I hate when people make that silly mistake. However perhaps you meant to type 'what we see of black is the absence of color' but instead you said 'black is the absence of color'. So if it was a mistake it was a huge mistake, infact it was the complete opposite from the actual truth.

I believe all things have opposites hot, cold, male, female, up, down, left, right,

Even though they are all based on perception, if we started doubting our perception God only knows where it would end.