Alex,

>>>>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.

Well, actually, I would say the same thing about "You still don't fully understand". <s>

Here's why.... If Mike claims to be his own 'final authority' then for all intents and purposes he rejects any and all outside sources of information with specific respect to whom is to have the place 'final authority'. IOW, he is practically placing his own thought process above everything else. Not that he cannot learn but who has the rights and priviledges of the 'final authority' (supreme) authority in his life.

Do you understand what I am saying here? Without regard for the content of the concept od 'god' one must acknowledge that 'god' has the place 'supreme/final authority' in one's life. If that is something you carve from a piece of wood then that is your god.

So, whether you define 'god' as not having the right to the place of 'supreme or final authority' in your life in a conceptual, abstract sense or not has little bearing on what you are in fact and practice doing. To elevate one's mind above all else is to attempt to place one's mind in the 'god' position - ie. final and supreme authority.



>
>
>
>>>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.

I guess I don't see how you can look at all the third party evidences regarding the death and resurrection (intrinsic proof I'd suggest <g>) of Jesus bar Joseph, of Nazareth, called Christ without having a reaction. Perhaps you've never read Josephus? Contemporary Jewish (non-Christian) historian who recorded the death and resurrection as fact? Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that there is far more contemporary and extant literature regarding Jesus (personal letter, notes, etc) than any other historical person.

You believe that Homer lived and wrote the Illiad & the Oddessy? Well, there's probably at least ten times the amount of the historical literature regarding the life of Jesus as Homer. So you don't believe Aristotle lived? Plato? Alexander the Great? Lots more evidence for Jesus..

Maybe you can define "independently confirmed' so we can follow your standard and satisfy you. I've no problem with that whatsoever..

Regardless, have a great weekend..