>>>It seems you can't understand the concept of Mike believing in himself, not magic.
>
>No, I fully understand but it doesn't change my point I think. Mike, in this case and barring any unknow, undiscovered, unreported, etc 'other' final authorities, only proves that, for Mike anyway, he is 'god' in his thought process. If you take the notion that 'god' is defined in one's life as the final authority, which I think is reasonable.

No. You still don't fully understand. Mike would correct me here but for Mike anyway, he is 'god' in his thought process is incorerct. He is not 'god'. He's himself. No notion of a supernatural being, call it 'god' or whatever required.



>>Vini, vidi, vinci. We come, we conquer, we leave this world. Period. I've never seen proof otherwise.
>
>I'm sincerely curious.. Do you want to see 'proof otherwise'? I'm betting that you're answer will be no, which is fine but as I said, I'm just curious.

If there is any proof, than can be independently confirmed, I'd love to see it. Unfortunately there isn't so far. An let's not start with the leap of faith and that 'the book' proves it mumbo-jumbo. Those are just circular arguments. Nothing less that reproducible, independently confirmed, scientific proof will do. And BTW, if you can do that, you'll be world-famous. Trust me.