.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « Sure, they [powerful politicians] have a tough skin for abuse and foul-mouthing, but I'm not sure how they react to reasoned, substantiated explanations as for why their position of power and their whole career should have never existed … »
.

My guess is they would consider that the person proffering such “reasoned, substantiated explanations” was a crank and ignore them.

[ I employ “crank” in the OED sense : “an eccentric person, especially one who is obsessed by a particular subject or theory” – e.g., “when he first started to air his views, they labeled him a crank”]
.

2. « God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation. However, all that exists, is in fact nothing but God »

That is what you believe, Yuyutsu, the religious doctrine to which you adhere. It is not an established fact.

Please do not feel offended by my saying so, but I think you really should not assert something that is simply a religious belief as a universally verifiable fact. It is not.

It would be more accurate to write : “I believe that God … etc.
.

3. « To understand how it is possible to turn to God despite Him not existing, I presented the cinema-screen analogy »
.

Don’t worry, Yuyutsu, I have no doubt whatsoever that a very large majority of mankind believes in a God or Gods” even though He does not or They do not exist.

Also, I not only understand your interpretation of the analogy, but I would even go further and point out that people watching a movie see movement that does not exist. What their brain interprets to be movement is simply a series of still photographs passing in quick succession.

In other words, it’s an illusion. There is no movement in reality. It’s a construction of their minds.

They are led to believe there is movement where there is none. It is simply a belief, not fact.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Nevertheless, Yuyutsu, please be assured that I understand your interpretation of the analogy of “God as a movie screen”.
.

4. « You are entitled to your views, but this is not a different interpretation of my analogy, but rather your own completely different analogy for something else, which just happens to also include a cinema screen »

As I see it, Yuyutsu, the analogy is “God as a cinema screen” which you interpret in a particular manner and I in another.

We both say that there is nothing real but the screen – which, in your version of the analogy, is God. In my version, it is just a screen – on which each spectator projects whatever image of God he or she has in his or her own mind’s eye.

In my version of the analogy, the spectators are probably not all watching the same film, because they don’t necessarily all have the same image of God in mind.
.

5. « I find this Newcomb paradox, when well-presented, encourages deep contemplation about personal choice. Nevertheless, it is presented elsewhere as well - try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KxJ6eTY9bA »
.

Thanks, Yuyutsu, but I’m afraid I’ve never been attracted to that sort of conundrum. They always seem futile to me. I inevitably resolve them like the Gordian Knot. Instead of wasting my time trying to undo the knot, I simply cut it off with my sword as it were.

Instead of choosing one box or two boxes, I'm sorry to have to say I walked out of the tent before the lady finished her rather lengthy explanations.

Please forgive me for that.

.

Dear Paul,

Very thoughtful, thanks.

I believe the Dalai Lama to be a sage. Sages are distinguished by their purity of mind, heart and intellect. This allows the word of God to pass through them without the interference of an ego and thus be expressed undistorted.

Sages serve God in many ways and prophecy is only one of them, spiritual guidance is another and that is the Dalai Lama's main occupation.

I just find it difficult and most unlikely to see the Dalai Lama working for the Australian government and advising it: "Mr. Schlydner is a liar, God said He have never told him to send these letters - impale him!".

Dear Banjo,

«Instead of choosing one box or two boxes, I'm sorry to have to say I walked out of the tent before the lady finished her rather lengthy explanations.

Please forgive me for that.»

You are forgiven, Banjo!

«That is what you believe, Yuyutsu, the religious doctrine to which you adhere. It is not an established fact.»

How about the first part of my statement:
"God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation"

That is plain logic:
Suppose God existed, omniscient, omnipotent, unlimited, creator, without beginning or end, then who created existence? Some rival?

I can also explain the second part in pure logical terms: "all that exists, is in fact nothing but God", but that would take longer and require some more attention, more than required to follow the lady in the tent.

I can see that you understand the cinema-screen analogy:
Yes, the people/objects in the films, many different films, seem to move, but the screen never does. Movement can only be perceived on the basis of some unmoving background.

What's in a name? I have no objection if you prefer to call God, "The Screen".
"The Screen of All Screens", "The Eternal Cinema Screen", "That Immutable Screen that never moves", "That Screen which is never affected by any action", "That Screen which was there before all the movies of our lives and will remain after them all".

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« How about the first part of my statement:
"God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation" »
.

I don’t see that as a problem, Yuyutsu. People are willing to believe anything about God. You name it, they’ll believe it. God is magic, all-powerful, all everything. He’s everywhere. He’s the whole universe. He’s you. He’s me. He’s everyone. He can make himself if he wants to, and He can unmake himself too. There’s no limit to what He can do or be and not do or not be. There’s nothing but God. God is all there is. He’s "the birds and bees and the coconut trees" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euzx3MJAoaM&ab_channel=RonCoby-Topic
.

Belief and conviction are one thing, truth and reality are another.

Quite frankly, Yuyutsu, I’m not the right person to answer the question you pose. You should ask the people who believe in God. The question does not apply to me or anybody else who considers there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a God.

Perhaps you could ask that lady in the tent. She seems to have the answer to just about everything. She was still explaining away when I left her late last night, but she might have finished by now. If you’re prepared to hear her out, you'll probably come away full of bright ideas – maybe even with a box or two full of dollars as well if you’re lucky.

If she asks you about me, just say I said I’m sorry I had to leave early and asked you to take my place to listen to her explanations of the paradox of how God miraculously created Himself from nothing when He created the universe – but you’d better check first to see if He does, in fact, exist or if it’s just a belief. That information is crucial to her explanations.

Let me know how you get on and don’t worry, I can wait. It will probably take a lot of explaining – from you both.

Good luck !

.