God has died

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

You know Michael I am not sure...I have his e-mail address here somewhere...nope can't find it. When I converse with Satan on MSN tonight I'll ask him...

It's amusing that you criticize something you seem to know absolutely nothing about.

Stop. Or at least spell the name of the Lord of Flies correctly. I feel like I'm listening to an atheist televangelist.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Michael. I havn't got a clue what you talking about, I apologize.

[Lychee]

If someone is content in their belief (be it either that God does not exist or that fluoride in water is bad for you), they will not budge from that view. It's called belief. You can tell a religious man that God doesn't exist using XYZ arguments but if he sincerely doesn't want to change his view he won't. Similarly, if an atheist doesn't believe God exists and you try to prove it to him using XYZ arguments, he won't change his mind unless he is open truly to what you are saying.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Similarly, if an atheist doesn't believe God exists and you try to prove it to him using XYZ arguments, he won't change his mind unless he is open truly to what you are saying.

Very true!

It is fun having your beliefs challenged though because you can still learn a lot about yourself and others. Sometimes it can even make your beliefs firmer.

[Mark Lapierre]

Agreed. Unless your beliefs are challenged you won't find potentially dangerous holes in them.

And I would feel I was deluding myself if I thought there were no holes in my beliefs.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

Very true!

It is fun having your beliefs challenged though because you can still learn a lot about yourself and others. Sometimes it can even make your beliefs firmer.

Actually, I also do find it quite fun It is healthy to challenge beliefs and question why we believe what we believe. After all, our beliefs help construct our perception of reality.

A question here: at what point do we stop the questioning, if ever? When do we get to the point where we say "I believe I have found truth" and sit comfortably in that belief? Couldn't all the questioning lead to constant self-doubt which leads to nowhere?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Lychee

A question here: at what point do we stop the questioning, if ever? When do we get to the point where we say "I believe I have found truth" and sit comfortably in that belief? Couldn't all the questioning lead to constant self-doubt which leads to nowhere?

The questions you ask aren't, "What if I'm wrong?" That leads to self-doubt.

You should ask, "What if something else were true?" or "What if what he says is right?" And you should answer those.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Actually, I also do find it quite fun A question here: at what point do we stop the questioning, if ever? When do we get to the point where we say "I believe I have found truth" and sit comfortably in that belief? Couldn't all the questioning lead to constant self-doubt which leads to nowhere?

As we all know we will never find "the truth" in this mortal life. The best we can do is educate ourselves as much as we can and make peace with what we believe. In my own case, my beliefs have become stronger as I researched and read more. The same may not be true for the next person.

I must admit I did go through a period where I felt a void or great uncertainty but I'm sure that was part of growing up and defining myself and my value system.

[Matthew Shea]

I completely agree about having your beliefs challenged. If it's taken in the right spirit, that is not too personally, it can either be reassuring that you're on the right track or it can open the door to something better.

Regarding this:

Originally Posted by Lychee

If someone is content in their belief (be it either that God does not exist or that fluoride in water is bad for you), they will not budge from that view. It's called belief. You can tell a religious man that God doesn't exist using XYZ arguments but if he sincerely doesn't want to change his view he won't. Similarly, if an atheist doesn't believe God exists and you try to prove it to him using XYZ arguments, he won't change his mind unless he is open truly to what you are saying.

There are a couple inherent, fundamental problems with using logical arguments to influence people's beliefs. First, people tend to be heavily emotionally invested in their beliefs and typically no amount of logic will separate them from those beliefs. Second, you CANNOT use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God. There will always be assumptions that cannot possibly be proven and lead to logical flaws. God is matter of belief. Period. He may very well in fact be real, as I believe, but there's nothing we can say or do to prove it until we die and find out for ourselves. At that point, it's certainly too late to be of any influence on the living.

Getting back to beliefs, to change them, there are two conditions that must be met. The believer must have a willingness to change and the influencer must be able to demonstrate a real advantage to believing a certain way that overcomes the disadvantages and/or discomfort of abandoning a possibly long-held belief. If those conditions are present, you can change any belief.

[Michael Chui]

The reason logic doesn't work is because beliefs are generally not conclusions; they're assumptions. If two people don't have the same set of premises (assumptions), then all logical conclusions are irrelevant. However, most of the time, failing to convince people via logic happens because you simply don't understand what their assumptions actually are, and so you can't argue from them properly. If you could figure out how they concluded what they did, you can point out flaws that they'll agree with. Maybe.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

If you could figure out how they concluded what they did, you can point out flaws that they'll agree with. Maybe.

Assuming (heh) their strong emotional attachment to their belief doesn't override reason.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Assuming (heh) their strong emotional attachment to their belief doesn't override reason.

Yes, there's a lot of technique involved in actually convincing someone otherwise. But most people are also decidedly reasonable. The usual problem that I've seen is that most of the convincers are unreasonable.

[Matthew Shea]

While I agree that most people are reasonable about most things, we all tend to have our little sticking points. In other words, everyone has certain beliefs they hold sacred. People like Steve, who won't think twice about challenging any belief, are pretty rare. It can be very tricky indeed to overcome emotional attachments. The first thing you have to do is disarm the person, which most people are entirely unskilled at doing.

[sourceofmiracles]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Along time ago people lived in constant fear that a deity would smite them should they do wrong. Every civillisation had some onipotent force who ruled their life and ruled their hearts. But as time passed people evolved, they grew and understood. They asked where was this "God" in times of need a worry? Why did the "Sinners" not be struck with lightening like those in the old stories? And they understood slowly that this "God" Whether he existed or not, was no longer with them. God had Died.

Thats what I would like to say about society.

But instead all I can say is that people never really moved on from these dark times. So many people still fear the wrath of a Shadow. A story. A legend.

I don't want to go on a rant like so many people do on this forum. I don't want messages filled with hate or Zeal or ignorance. I want an intelligent discussion on why people think a God or power external to them, exists. What is the cause of it, and is there anyway to retain these beliefs, but avoid the negativeside effects like Terrorism, unwanted births etc...etc.

I think what is dead and/or dying are the symbols that point to something greater. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately, people worship the symbols and forget what those symbols point to. Words like God, Allah, Jehova are symbols and hold ZERO relevance outside of their respective contexts (bibles, stories, korans, torrahs). They are mere pointers to explain something greater. For science "something greater" is evolution, species survival, the big bang... none of us has answers, all we have is perspectives of what is real.

But we ALL know that "something greater" definitely exists.

Take a look at consciousness:
Some would reduce awareness to the side effect of the human brain, but there is something very special about consciousness. Given time and the knowledge, is there any doubt that humans will eventually be able to manipulate the solar system and the surrounding universe. What can't be done with a sentient mind?

Is it such a stretch to believe that there is a sentience beyond humanity? With billions of stars (some of which we now KNOW can harbor life as we know it) is it such a stretch to believe that some life can do what we can do and more.

Our know universe (that which we can currently perceive) has a begining, a middle, and an end. Something (be it sentient, accidental, or natural unexplainable phenomenon) started the universe. That (whatever it is) could be called God.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

While I agree that most people are reasonable about most things, we all tend to have our little sticking points. In other words, everyone has certain beliefs they hold sacred. People like Steve, who won't think twice about challenging any belief, are pretty rare. It can be very tricky indeed to overcome emotional attachments. The first thing you have to do is disarm the person, which most people are entirely unskilled at doing.

That's not a bad thing.

Disarming people is the first thing a religious evangelist does, too, and taking potential converts on a wild emotional ride is par for the course in Christian and Islam. I personally converted to Christianity based on logic, precisely because such emotion-based reassessments don't work on me.

In the case of convincing someone to leave a religion, you must first make them open to logic. Which, while certainly not easy, is rarely impossible. As you said, it's a skill, and skills are learned, trained, and practiced. The absolute worst tactic is to do what Akashic Librarian is doing: beginning with the declaration that "You're stupid for believing what you do, and I'm better than you." I get a picture of a thug with a billy club staring at you with a fat grin on his face. I mean, what would you do? Yeah. Start praying.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I personally converted to Christianity based on logic, precisely because such emotion-based reassessments don't work on me.

Very interesting, when did you convert to Christianity?

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Since God is frequently used to explain the things we don't understand, He is undefined. Something undefined does not exist.

For science "something greater" is evolution,

No evolution isn't "something greater".

Our know universe (that which we can currently perceive) has a begining, a middle, and an end. Something (be it sentient, accidental, or natural unexplainable phenomenon) started the universe. That (whatever it is) could be called God.

Then God is dead by now. The universe did get created, so the effect that created it ended.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

That's not a bad thing.

Disarming people is the first thing a religious evangelist does, too, and taking potential converts on a wild emotional ride is par for the course in Christian and Islam. I personally converted to Christianity based on logic, precisely because such emotion-based reassessments don't work on me.

In the case of convincing someone to leave a religion, you must first make them open to logic. Which, while certainly not easy, is rarely impossible. As you said, it's a skill, and skills are learned, trained, and practiced. The absolute worst tactic is to do what Akashic Librarian is doing: beginning with the declaration that "You're stupid for believing what you do, and I'm better than you." I get a picture of a thug with a billy club staring at you with a fat grin on his face. I mean, what would you do? Yeah. Start praying.

As a Catholic myself, the way Evangelicals approach religious conversion makes me very uncomfortable. Yes the bible calls us to spread the good news, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. I'm familiar with all those passages, but we shouldn't be forcing it down people's throats. My approach is much more geared toward leading by example and make God's word available.

I completely agree about A.L.'s approach being entirely wrong. Starting off with the declaration "God is Dead" is going to do nothing but put anyone who believes in God on the defensive. I see a lot of other atheist proselytizing, too, that really makes me shake my head. Many of those who choose that belief apparently have only the most limited understanding of religion, especially Christianity, and fill in the blanks in their understanding with misconceptions, assumptions, rumors and falsities, which sticks out like a sore thumb to the more knowledgable among us. In the end, they just wind up preaching to the choir.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

Very interesting, when did you convert to Christianity?

Approximately 10th grade. I remember it was a summer and I was reflecting on the ideas of Children of the Mind. I created a mental model and extrapolated what God was in a way other Christians would boggle at (I can't quite describe how much I hate anthropomorphicism), and then started putting together an explanation for Jesus' resurrection.

I find Christians to be hypocrites my default, and it's annoying to be associated with them, so I don't call myself one.

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea;

As a Catholic myself, the way Evangelicals approach religious conversion makes me very uncomfortable. Yes the bible calls us to spread the good news, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. I'm familiar with all those passages, but we shouldn't be forcing it down people's throats. My approach is much more geared toward leading by example and make God's word available.

Well, I wasn't referring to the Evangelical denomination, but evangelism as a practice. (It also happens to be a marketing title; Guy Kawasaki, for instance, was an Apple Evangelist.) Catholics have their own... history of... questionable conversion techniques, which I'm sure you're at least somewhat aware of. It comes up regularly.

Refer to Ender's Game. The first step towards destroying someone is, in fact, understanding and loving them so deeply that they are you. There is no more insidious enemy than one's closest friend. For instance, you should not criticize a religion with religious scripture unless you've read it.

[Angela]

What's all this about "god is dead" anyway? Either you believe god exists, or you believe god doesn't exist, or once you believed one way and now you believe another, or you're not sure. But why would anyone think, "there once was a god, and then he died."

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Angela

What's all this about "god is dead" anyway? Either you believe god exists, or you believe god doesn't exist, or once you believed one way and now you believe another, or you're not sure. But why would anyone think, "there once was a god, and then he died."

Amen! to that.

Michael, that happened hundreds of years ago. We've moved on since then.

[Lychee]

In the case of convincing someone to leave a religion, you must first make them open to logic. Which, while certainly not easy, is rarely impossible. As you said, it's a skill, and skills are learned, trained, and practiced. The absolute worst tactic is to do what Akashic Librarian is doing: beginning with the declaration that "You're stupid for believing what you do, and I'm better than you." I get a picture of a thug with a billy club staring at you with a fat grin on his face. I mean, what would you do? Yeah. Start praying.

Hm, I agree. It is much more diplomatic and assuring if someone approaches another about a belief on their level and not so aggressively.

Then God is dead by now. The universe did get created, so the effect that created it ended.

No, because God is not creation. God is Infinite.

I find Christians to be hypocrites my default, and it's annoying to be associated with them, so I don't call myself one.

I'm sure we can all say we've been hypocritical at one time or another.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I want an intelligent discussion on why people think a God or power external to them, exists. What is the cause of it, and is there anyway to retain these beliefs, but avoid the negativeside effects like Terrorism, unwanted births etc...etc.

Each person is different. Some of my friends believe because, as they say "I have no option". Not meaning they'd be lost without a divine creature... They saw something paranormal happen (my husband one of them), and they had to open their minds to the beliefs. Educated people don't blindly believe in the God of the Bible, which is a representation of what humans consider it would be. They know that if such a God exists, it would be unfathomable for them. They believe because they've seen things that cannot be explained by physics. One of them, by the way, is a physic investigator in the National Accelerators Centre of my country.

God as in the Bible is a creation of humans. Why some people go back to the idea, I don't know. I think some of them have it inside their genes. Educated believers, even the ones who have been educated by atheists and got to believe later, have something common in their personality... At least the ones I know. I'd call it "inner peace". They are generally extremely good-natured. (I know all believers are not like this, but I'm talking about the guys I know... I don't mix with fanatics, so I don't know many of them).

Some others, the fanatics, I suppose that they feel lost and need to have some compass in their lives, so they give themselves to organized institutions who tell them what they've got to do. But I've never talk with them closely, so I don't know. I don't know why a rich Bin Laden would wake up a fanatic one day; just as I don't know why a rich posh guy in my country would wake up some day and become a priest to go work on a mission in Brazil. But I bet everyone has their own reasons. I don't think you'd find two of them with the same one. That's why I think some people are... prone to be believers. I don't know how to explain it, but I think it's that way. I think most of them had it inside, someway.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I want an intelligent discussion on why people think a God or power external to them, exists. What is the cause of it, and is there anyway to retain these beliefs, but avoid the negativeside effects like Terrorism, unwanted births etc...etc.

Each person is different. Some of my friends believe because, as they say "I have no option". Not meaning they'd be lost without a divine creature... They saw something paranormal happen (my husband one of them), and they had to open their minds to the beliefs. Educated people don't blindly believe in the God of the Bible, which is a representation of what humans consider it would be. They know that if such a God exists, it would be unfathomable for them. They believe because they've seen things that cannot be explained by physics. One of them, by the way, is a physic investigator in the National Accelerators Centre of my country.

God as in the Bible is a creation of humans. Why some people go back to the idea, I don't know. I think some of them have it inside their genes. Educated believers, even the ones who have been educated by atheists and got to believe later, have something common in their personality... At least the ones I know. I'd call it "inner peace". They are generally extremely good-natured. (I know all believers are not like this, but I'm talking about the guys I know... I don't mix with fanatics, so I don't know many of them).

Some others, the fanatics, I suppose that they feel lost and need to have some compass in their lives, so they give themselves to organized institutions who tell them what they've got to do. But I've never talk with them closely, so I don't know. I don't know why a rich Bin Laden would wake up a fanatic one day; just as I don't know why a rich posh guy in my country would wake up some day and become a priest to go work on a mission in Brazil. But I bet everyone has their own reasons. I don't think you'd find two of them with the same one. That's why I think some people are... prone to be believers. I don't know how to explain it, but I think it's that way. I think most of them had it inside, someway.

Michael Chui, I so much agree with you: I didn't exactly convert to Christianity, but I accepted it due to logic. When I was being taught it mindlessly, I stopped going to classes. When I realized that from the Old Testament, Jesus only saved the Commandments, and added "love each other", I realized that Christianism made sense, whether Jesus was son of God and virgin or not. I didn't know if Jesus was divine, but I gladly accepted him as a great mind and revolutionary, and his ideas as good. I don't say that God doesn't exist, either. As an agnostic, I never close a door.

One thing, to Akashic Librarian: I don't like atheism and sentences like "God is dead", because you can't really prove that. You can say "I don't have proof of God's existence", but you cannot really say it doesn't exist (you cannot prove a negation). In my eyes, the belief that God does NOT exists, is as much a belief as Christianity, since it's the belief in something that can't be proved.

Another reason why I don't like atheism: it closes doors. One of my friends lived in a place where weird phenomena were reported. When he saw something unexplainable, he had an open mind towards it. His sister had to receive psychiatric help because she had a breakdown and a depression when she saw something that laws of physics couldn't explain. I've never seen a paranormal effect, but I don't want to be among the people whose beliefs and way of thinking are shattered by something unexpected. As I said, I leave doors open. I find atheism quite limiting on that point.

[Groundless]

The absolute worst tactic is to do what Akashic Librarian is doing: beginning with the declaration that "You're stupid for believing what you do, and I'm better than you." I get a picture of a thug with a billy club staring at you with a fat grin on his face. I mean, what would you do? Yeah. Start praying.

AL's method is adding a form of opinionated aggression to the world. We certainly don't need to be adding to that these days. Then again, so is being critical. Nothing good generally comes from opinions forced onto others in an aggressive way. This reminds me of the saying "A man forced against his will is of the same opinon still"

It is a challenge to me to project love and non-aggression to beliefs/techniques I don't like. So, A.L. and Michael I love you and wish you the very best!

[Matthew Shea]

Natsu, in my experience, atheism comes in many flavors. There are the "God does NOT exist" atheists, who think believers are inherently foolish and there are the "I see no evidence of God" atheists, who don't necessarily shut their minds to a supernatural power, but don't anticipate that anyone will be able to convince them. The latter flavor of atheism tends to leave the doors of belief cracked open just enough to keep a balanced view of the world, while the former does not.

To add onto what Groundless said, I completely agree. None of us, myself included, have it all figured out. That's what makes an open mind so important. You have to be open to the fact that you may be wrong and you have to be open to changing beliefs in the face of clear evidence that something better awaits. That being said, you can't shove beliefs down people's throat, either. You can certainly have a good, honest debate, but in that case, conversions rarely occur. It's usually just an exchange of ideas. To convince people who are open to being convinced, you really have to show them the better way and approach them with love and respect for what they've been taught and what they now believe.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Natsu, in my experience, atheism comes in many flavors. There are the "God does NOT exist" atheists, who think believers are inherently foolish and there are the "I see no evidence of God" atheists, who don't necessarily shut their minds to a supernatural power, but don't anticipate that anyone will be able to convince them.

Yes, I've met the rare atheists who have seen paranormal effects and still are atheists because they value their freedom so much that they dont' want a God bossing them around (one of them just values freedom over everything, and the other was raised in a strictly Catholic family and ended up hating everything that had to do with religion). They are usually very respectful towards other people's beliefs, truly. I am afraid, though, that in my experience, they are rare. For each respectful atheist I've met, I've also met five who were of the "I am clever, believers are stupid, agnostics are cowards who don't dare be atheists" type. But that's my experience, I know there are very good and respecful atheists out there. I have been unlucky enough to be closer to the "too-proud" type But some people are unlucky enough to be closer to the fanatic believer type, so it's not that I can moan

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

To add onto what Groundless said, I completely agree. None of us, myself included, have it all figured out. That's what makes an open mind so important. You have to be open to the fact that you may be wrong and you have to be open to changing beliefs in the face of clear evidence that something better awaits. That being said, you can't shove beliefs down people's throat, either.

If a guy sees a paranormal effect, an atheist may rationalize it into being "a subconscious projection of his inner wish, due to his fear of death and denial of it". But the guy who's seen the paranormal effect cannot think the same: the atheist only has to search for a logical explanation; but the other must start distrusting his eyes, his feelings and his perception of the world, and he's very unlikely to do that, since he has proof, or at least, all the proof that is needed for him to believe.

You can certainly have a good, honest debate, but in that case, conversions rarely occur. It's usually just an exchange of ideas.

I totally see your point, but at least with respect, you can change ideas and have, as you say, an open-minded set. The guy who believes has all the proof he needs, but can't give it. The atheist doesn't have proof. They can understand each other's reasons, but as the proof is not interchangeable (the believer cannot stop believing, because he's seen proof, and the atheist can't believe because he hasn't seen it). However, as you said, it all goes to having an open mind and treating others respectfully.

[Michael Chui]

Please don't conflate atheism with a disbelief in "paranormal" occurrences.

[Brutha]

What's all this about "god is dead" anyway? Either you believe god exists, or you believe god doesn't exist, or once you believed one way and now you believe another, or you're not sure. But why would anyone think, "there once was a god, and then he died."

1. It is a difficult philosophical claim.
2. God is a word, that can mean different things.
3. The sentence is "God is dead" not "god is dead". Akashic_Librarian does even say "God had Died".
4. In this case God is regarded as an idea. It like saying communismn is dead.
5. Whatever you agree with it or not saying "That happened hundreds of years ago. We've moved on since then.", just shows that you don't understand the claim. It is more actual than ever.
6. To discuss it without explaining it doesn't work, since a lot of people in this forum don't understand it and still believe they have to defend themselves against the claim.

Please don't conflate atheism with a disbelief in "paranormal" occurrences.

Exactly, Akashic_Librarian the guy who started this thread believes in the Law of Attraction and does still say "God had Died".
In this day and age you don't need God anymore to explain your paranormal occurrences, the Law of Attraction goes quite well in explaining every kind of paranormal experiences.

Originally Posted by Lychee

Our know universe (that which we can currently perceive) has a begining, a middle, and an end. Something (be it sentient, accidental, or natural unexplainable phenomenon) started the universe. That (whatever it is) could be called God.

No, because God is not creation.

Creation didn't start the universe?
Then you have to stay away simply labeling whatever started the universe God.

If a guy sees a paranormal effect, an atheist may rationalize it into being "a subconscious projection of his inner wish, due to his fear of death and denial of it". But the guy who's seen the paranormal effect cannot think the same

Been there, done that. I had my near death experience (after five days of artificial coma) and still belief it was an effect of my mind played on me.

Michael Chui, I so much agree with you: I didn't exactly convert to Christianity, but I accepted it due to logic.

How do you know?

I realized that Christianism made sense, whether Jesus was son of God and virgin or not.

I always thought that Jesus being the son of God is a pretty important part of Christianity. I someone tells you a story and you detect wrong parts in the story, isn't is the logical conclusion to doubt the story?

[Dragon]

I think it's like the color wheel. As an artist, I know alot about the color wheel and the creation of color based off of other colors and light itself. I won't get into it, because it is an EXTREMELY long and complicated process that takes years to understand and connect the dots. I'd have to make an extremely long story short here because I don't want to get into everything, and I probably won t even reply to this post once I'm quoted because I don't want to take up 15 pages. For now, I'll just use strictly colors and light, but the process basically shows that It's impossible to have a "first cause" and have that cause not with you anymore.

Red, Blue, and Yellow cannot be created (by any other color, they are created by light) but they are the basis of every other color, so you could say that the 3 primary colors are the "first cause" of color. There are millions and millions of colors, but not one of them do not have either red, blue, or yellow in them. Everyone of those millions of colors are just a different varyation of the 3 primary colors, and NONE of them would exist without them. All colors, though, are created THROUGH the primaries, not just because of. This is very important to understand. They have already been created, before they're actually created, every one in the list of millions.

We say that red and blue create purple, and the common consensious is that we would now have red, blue, yellow, and purple, and if we got rid of blue that we would now have red, yellow, and purple. This is not correct. If we got rid of blue then the color purple would cease to exist, it would be red. Purple is created THROUGH red and blue.

The BASIC gist of the way all this works, is that as long as the secondary colors exist, the primary colors will always exist, because the secondary colors are created through the primaries, not because of.

You don't have to mix blue and yellow to get green. Green ALREADY exists through the colors blue and yellow even before you mix the two and make it physical. The mechanisms needed in the color blue and the mechanisms needed in the color yellow, to make the color green, already exists in the two colors. The tricky part is, after taking years to understand it, is that every single color exists beforehand, and through the primaries. I used the term "millions" to paint a better picture, but there are an infinite amount of colors that keep growing and growing, all without digression or colors ceasing to exist, but I'll keep using "millions".

If we got rid of blue, then we wouldn't be getting rid of one, we'd be getting rid of threehundred-thousand colors, but if we got rid of blue then the other threehundred-thousand colors would never have been created in the first place, therefor, we would never KNOW that we got rid of threehundred-thousand colors (or potential colors, but in reality, it's every color except for orange). If you get rid of even one primary color, you get rid of every color except for 3. There's a big difference between infinity and 3. The three primary colors create every infinite color through them, based off of the mechanisms thay have, and the three primary colors are created through, not from, light. Which gave the primaries the mechanisms they have. So essentially, no color would ever exist without light.

Extremely long story short, ever single form of physical matter works this way, and therefore, the first cause is indeed also the last cause.

If we believe in God, he still exists, or we'd be gone. If you don't believe in God, then he never existed. Long story short, it's impossible for God to have created, and then be gone, at any time. I believe in God, therefor, I believe we are created through him.

This is only like 5% information, there's WAY more to it than this, but I just wanted to shed light on how some of these things work, even though there are way more contributing forces than anything I said.