GOD NEVER BECOMES FULLY IGNORANT

[Age]

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY.

"I" am not "JUST"

OKAY. If 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE ABOUT 'you', then so be it.

the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY.

Do you agree?

Do I agree with 'what', EXACTLY?

The 'I' is NOT who NOR what 'you', persons and people, ARE.

In other words, the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' is NOT the SAME as the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who is 'you'?'

[Age]

Is the name of your book going to be, "how people react when someone going by the screen name "Age" acts like an asshole toward them"?

Book title: 'THEE Truth'
Subtitle: 'Here IS Another EXAMPLE of a NutJob who IMAGINES theMselves as distinctly KNOWING and Superior to huManKind'

Here is ANOTHER example of one who BASES its VIEWS on its OWN 'past experiences', or what I like to call 'APE thinking'. That is; Making Assumptions based on Past Experiences, ONLY.

I suppose, to this one anyway, the one who SAID and CLAIMED that ACTUALLY the sun does NOT revolve around the earth as it is the earth that revolves around the sun, was ALSO a so-called 'nutjob', AS WELL.

After all 'they' would have been ALSO IMAGINING "themself" as distinctly KNOWING and Superior to humankind AS WELL, correct?

Blurb on the back of the book: 'Although many such authors have come before, this one is unique with his use of capital letters. This 400-page book promises to offer exhausting repetition of the author's claims and grievances, in the days when it was written, while not revealing anything.'

ONCE AGAIN, 'APE thinking' in its PRIMEST OF FORM.

[Gary Childress]

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY.

"I" am not "JUST"

OKAY. If 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE ABOUT 'you', then so be it.

the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY.

Do you agree?

Do I agree with 'what', EXACTLY?

The 'I' is NOT who NOR what 'you', persons and people, ARE.

In other words, the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' is NOT the SAME as the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who is 'you'?'

If you are a "person", Age, then you are also more than just your, thoughts, emotions etc. You are also a body occupying time and space. Do you agree or do you not?

[Age]

"I" am not "JUST"

OKAY. If 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE ABOUT 'you', then so be it.

Do you agree?

Do I agree with 'what', EXACTLY?

The 'I' is NOT who NOR what 'you', persons and people, ARE.

In other words, the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' is NOT the SAME as the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who is 'you'?'

If you are a "person", Age, then you are also more than just your, thoughts, emotions etc. You are also a body occupying time and space. Do you agree or do you not?

What do 'you' MEAN by, 'Do you agree or do you not?'

Did 'you' even READ what I WROTE?

If 'you' DID, then 'you' WOULD ALREADY KNOW, 'OF COURSE I DO NOT agree'.

So, 'you' are here CLAIMING that a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' then 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body, right?

[Gary Childress]

OKAY. If 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE ABOUT 'you', then so be it.


Do I agree with 'what', EXACTLY?

The 'I' is NOT who NOR what 'you', persons and people, ARE.

In other words, the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' is NOT the SAME as the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who is 'you'?'

If you are a "person", Age, then you are also more than just your, thoughts, emotions etc. You are also a body occupying time and space. Do you agree or do you not?

What do 'you' MEAN by, 'Do you agree or do you not?'

Did 'you' even READ what I WROTE?

If 'you' DID, then 'you' WOULD ALREADY KNOW, 'OF COURSE I DO NOT agree'.

So, 'you' are here CLAIMING that a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body, right?

No. I am not claiming that "a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body." I only claim that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing. Do you deny that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing?

[Age]

If you are a "person", Age, then you are also more than just your, thoughts, emotions etc. You are also a body occupying time and space. Do you agree or do you not?

What do 'you' MEAN by, 'Do you agree or do you not?'

Did 'you' even READ what I WROTE?

If 'you' DID, then 'you' WOULD ALREADY KNOW, 'OF COURSE I DO NOT agree'.

So, 'you' are here CLAIMING that a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body, right?

No. I am not claiming that "a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body."

Okay, so, TO 'you', if a 'person' is also a physical body, then it would stand to reason that if a body was missing a limb or two, then 'that person' would be LESS THAN "another" 'person'.

If 'you' DISAGREE here, then WHY, EXACTLY?

I only claim that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing. Do you deny that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing?

Will 'you' INFORM 'us' "gary childress" that 'you' ARE AWARE that 'you' and 'I' have DIFFERENT definitions for the word 'person'?

[Gary Childress]

What do 'you' MEAN by, 'Do you agree or do you not?'

Did 'you' even READ what I WROTE?

If 'you' DID, then 'you' WOULD ALREADY KNOW, 'OF COURSE I DO NOT agree'.

So, 'you' are here CLAIMING that a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body, right?

No. I am not claiming that "a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body."

Okay, so, TO 'you', if a 'person' is also a physical body, then it would stand to reason that if a body was missing a limb or two, then 'that person' would be LESS THAN "another" 'person'.

If 'you' DISAGREE here, then WHY, EXACTLY?

I only claim that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing. Do you deny that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing?

Will 'you' INFORM 'us' "gary childress" that 'you' ARE AWARE that 'you' and 'I' have DIFFERENT definitions for the word 'person'?

Yes. We have different definitions of "person". However, your definition is incomplete and artificial. It rests on dualism between mind and matter. It's sentimental and I can understand the reason for it, however, it is not based on reality. Unfortunately, mind and matter cannot exist without the other. Without mind, there is no "matter" to be observed, and without matter, there is no mind to do the observing.

When you say I think a person is "less a person" without a leg, you are playing little more than a game trying to incriminate me for seeing what is true.

What does it mean to you to see a person as "less than"? Does that mean "less able", "less fit"? And if so, what do you think "less able" and "less fit" mean? Do you think they should mean that those people are weak and ought to die off, or do you think "less able" and "less fit" mean we ought to help a person with one leg if they need help doing something they are unable to accomplish on their own and we are easily able to assist them with (for example)?

[Age]

No. I am not claiming that "a human body with an arm or a leg missing is 'LESS of a person' than 'one' with ALL the arms and legs on the body."

Okay, so, TO 'you', if a 'person' is also a physical body, then it would stand to reason that if a body was missing a limb or two, then 'that person' would be LESS THAN "another" 'person'.

If 'you' DISAGREE here, then WHY, EXACTLY?

I only claim that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing. Do you deny that a person with a leg missing is a person with a leg missing?

Will 'you' INFORM 'us' "gary childress" that 'you' ARE AWARE that 'you' and 'I' have DIFFERENT definitions for the word 'person'?

Yes. We have different definitions of "person". However, your definition is incomplete and artificial.

LOL here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of one who BELIEVES that HOW 'it' SEES and VIEWS 'things', and thus DEFINES 'things' also, IS the ONLY true, right, AND correct WAY. And, if absolutely ANY one "else's" VIEWS, SIGHTS, and/or DEFINITIONS do NOT FIT PERFECTLY, or DIFFER in ANY way, with 'that ones', then "the other one" IS ALWAYS WRONG and/or INCORRECT.

It rests on dualism between mind and matter.

Just ANOTHER False CLAIM, AND, ATTEMPT AT DISTRACTION.

It's sentimental and I can understand the reason for it, however, it is not based on reality.

LOL

But 'YOUR' definition was NOT 'sentimental' right?

Also, what do you IMAGINE or BELIEVE is 'the reason' for some ALLEGED so-called 'sentimental definition'?

Furthermore, HOW COME 'you', supposedly, KNOW what IS and what IS NOT based on 'reality'?

Unfortunately, mind and matter cannot exist without the other. Without mind, there is no "matter" to be observed, and without matter, there is no mind to do the observing.

LOL Talk ABOUT GOING OFF TRACK, SO VERY QUICKLY. How does 'this' what you wrote and said just here got to do with the Fact that you BELIEVE 'my definition' is INCOMPLETE, and, ARTIFICIAL?

When you say I think a person is "less a person" without a leg, you are playing little more than a game trying to incriminate me for seeing what is true.

LOL and HOW, EXACTLY, did you ARRIVE AT your DEFINITION is ABSOLUTELY 'true' but mine is NOT 'true'?

Also, if one was to say that the physical body IS 'the person', then it would 'stand to reason' that 'a body' with parts missing, or ones that were smaller than 'other ones' were, would be LESS OF 'a person', and vice-versa.

What does it mean to you to see a person as "less than"?

I do NOT see ANY 'person' as being 'less than' "another".

I just KNOW 'you', human beings, USE 'those words' to REFER TO "each other", in the days when this is being written, sometimes.

Does that mean "less able", "less fit"? And if so, what do you think "less able" and "less fit" mean? Do you think they should mean that those people are weak and ought to die off, or do you think "less able" and "less fit" mean we ought to help a person with one leg if they need help doing something they are unable to accomplish on their own and we are easily able to assist them with (for example)?

ALL of your ASSUMPTIONS here ARE MOOT.

[Gary Childress]

I do NOT see ANY 'person' as being 'less than' "another".

[rootseeker]

So is it the case that you believe "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't involve knowing everything or being able do everything and anything? Or what are you calling "omniscience" or "omnipotence"? Are you perhaps suggesting that God is little more than the idolizing or mythologizing of rulers and powerful people? Would you clarify more on your assertions?

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God.

If the word 'our' here is referring to 'human beings' or ANY such 'thing' or 'things', which are A PART OF 'the Universe, Itself, then by SAYING, 'our universe' the way 'you' do, 'this' could be implied as MEANING that who and/or what ever the 'our' word is referring to ACTUALLY 'owns' or 'creates' 'that universe'.

God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe.

But there are NO 'layers' of the Universe, Itself.

There are, however, DIFFERENT 'worlds', depending on HOW 'you', human beings, BEHAVE, or MISBEHAVE. For example, there IS the 'greedy, selfish, warn-torn, stressful, pollution-riddled, and disharmony world', that 'you', human beings, lived in, when this was being written. THEN, there IS the 'Truly peaceful, harmonious, stress-less, pollution-less, and happy world', which IS the 'world' that comes AFTER 'the current', to 'you', posters, here 'world' is DEAD and LONG GONE.

That is; AFTER that 'life' 'you' ARE living IN and WITH is DEAD and GONE the 'new' and MUCH BETTER 'life' CAN, and DID, BEGIN.

And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

BUT ONLY 'worlds', and/or 'life's, have different so-called 'layers'.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience.

Will you give a 'cap', or definition, of 'paradox', which 'you' HAVE and ARE USING here?

These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God.

But 'paradoxes' are just 'things' that 'you', human beings, create and make.

Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds.

BUT the words 'omnipotence' and 'omniscience', by themselves, ARE in relation TO ALL, and NOT SOME, 'worlds'.

This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

BUT WHY even BEGIN TO TWIST and DISTORT 'that' what IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLY True, to start with?

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God.

NO there can NOT be.

These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

A paradox is a statement maintained to be true in spite of a counterclaim of logical contradiction, with the counterclaim perceived to be made the same claimant as the claim. This very thread is a good example of a paradox as the power to ignore has a logical contradiction with the characteristic of omniscience. The implication of the OP was that God has the power to ignore while also maintaining omniscience. This could be perceived as a contradiction in that any ignorance of any kind could be considered to be contrary to omniscience. However, this thread contains ideas that claim to resolve that paradox, such as the idea that God may have the ability to have multiple perspectives simultaneously. An unresolved paradox is evidence of a fallacy.

A commonly explored paradox is "When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.". One commonly explored omnipotence paradox is "Can God create a boulder too heavy for God to roll up a hill?".

[Gary Childress]

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God.

If the word 'our' here is referring to 'human beings' or ANY such 'thing' or 'things', which are A PART OF 'the Universe, Itself, then by SAYING, 'our universe' the way 'you' do, 'this' could be implied as MEANING that who and/or what ever the 'our' word is referring to ACTUALLY 'owns' or 'creates' 'that universe'.

God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe.

But there are NO 'layers' of the Universe, Itself.

There are, however, DIFFERENT 'worlds', depending on HOW 'you', human beings, BEHAVE, or MISBEHAVE. For example, there IS the 'greedy, selfish, warn-torn, stressful, pollution-riddled, and disharmony world', that 'you', human beings, lived in, when this was being written. THEN, there IS the 'Truly peaceful, harmonious, stress-less, pollution-less, and happy world', which IS the 'world' that comes AFTER 'the current', to 'you', posters, here 'world' is DEAD and LONG GONE.

That is; AFTER that 'life' 'you' ARE living IN and WITH is DEAD and GONE the 'new' and MUCH BETTER 'life' CAN, and DID, BEGIN.

And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

BUT ONLY 'worlds', and/or 'life's, have different so-called 'layers'.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience.

Will you give a 'cap', or definition, of 'paradox', which 'you' HAVE and ARE USING here?

These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God.

But 'paradoxes' are just 'things' that 'you', human beings, create and make.

Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds.

BUT the words 'omnipotence' and 'omniscience', by themselves, ARE in relation TO ALL, and NOT SOME, 'worlds'.

This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

BUT WHY even BEGIN TO TWIST and DISTORT 'that' what IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLY True, to start with?

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God.

NO there can NOT be.

These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

A paradox is a statement maintained to be true in spite of a counterclaim of logical contradiction, with the counterclaim perceived to be made the same claimant as the claim. This very thread is a good example of a paradox as the power to ignore has a logical contradiction with the characteristic of omniscience. The implication of the OP was that God has the power to ignore while also maintaining omniscience. This could be perceived as a contradiction in that any ignorance of any kind could be considered to be contrary to omniscience. However, this thread contains ideas that claim to resolve that paradox, such as the idea that God may have the ability to have multiple perspectives simultaneously. An unresolved paradox is evidence of a fallacy.

A commonly explored paradox is "When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.". One commonly explored omnipotence paradox is "Can God create a boulder too heavy for God to roll up a hill?".

God is not omnipotent. If God were omnipotent, then God would be able to make me worship him without temptation or else fear of wrath. God is worthless to me therefore God is not omnipotent. If God does not care whether I worship him or not, then God is not benevolent to me. God is nothing more than a creator who creates for no other sake than to create.

[Age]

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God.

If the word 'our' here is referring to 'human beings' or ANY such 'thing' or 'things', which are A PART OF 'the Universe, Itself, then by SAYING, 'our universe' the way 'you' do, 'this' could be implied as MEANING that who and/or what ever the 'our' word is referring to ACTUALLY 'owns' or 'creates' 'that universe'.

God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe.

But there are NO 'layers' of the Universe, Itself.

There are, however, DIFFERENT 'worlds', depending on HOW 'you', human beings, BEHAVE, or MISBEHAVE. For example, there IS the 'greedy, selfish, warn-torn, stressful, pollution-riddled, and disharmony world', that 'you', human beings, lived in, when this was being written. THEN, there IS the 'Truly peaceful, harmonious, stress-less, pollution-less, and happy world', which IS the 'world' that comes AFTER 'the current', to 'you', posters, here 'world' is DEAD and LONG GONE.

That is; AFTER that 'life' 'you' ARE living IN and WITH is DEAD and GONE the 'new' and MUCH BETTER 'life' CAN, and DID, BEGIN.

And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

BUT ONLY 'worlds', and/or 'life's, have different so-called 'layers'.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience.

Will you give a 'cap', or definition, of 'paradox', which 'you' HAVE and ARE USING here?

These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God.

But 'paradoxes' are just 'things' that 'you', human beings, create and make.

Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds.

BUT the words 'omnipotence' and 'omniscience', by themselves, ARE in relation TO ALL, and NOT SOME, 'worlds'.

This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

BUT WHY even BEGIN TO TWIST and DISTORT 'that' what IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLY True, to start with?

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God.

NO there can NOT be.

These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

A paradox is a statement maintained to be true in spite of a counterclaim of logical contradiction, with the counterclaim perceived to be made the same claimant as the claim.

But the word 'paradox' is literally 'a paradox' (of) itself as 'it' has two completely opposing definitions, just like some other words have.

Which, by the way, are different definitions from the one you have provided here.

This very thread is a good example of a paradox as the power to ignore has a logical contradiction with the characteristic of omniscience. The implication of the OP was that God has the power to ignore while also maintaining omniscience. This could be perceived as a contradiction in that any ignorance of any kind could be considered to be contrary to omniscience. However, this thread contains ideas that claim to resolve that paradox, such as the idea that God may have the ability to have multiple perspectives simultaneously. An unresolved paradox is evidence of a fallacy.

But, to me anyway, 'paradoxes' do not need resolving. I, however, am obviously using a different definition for that word than you are here.

Actually from my perspective there is nothing that needs resolving, as how to obtain the answer to all problems, and thus to be able to resolve them all is already known.

'you', people, in the days when this was being written just did not believe that this was possible, let alone believe that it could have actually already occurred.

A commonly explored paradox is "When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.".

The only time that this happens and occurs, which I am thinking of in this very brief moment, is when the unstoppable 'energy' of Truth and Honesty meets a well maintained opposing BELIEF.

Will you provide any other examples?

One commonly explored omnipotence paradox is "Can God create a boulder too heavy for God to roll up a hill?".

But like a few of the other so-called 'paradoxes', like this alleged one here is, they are nothing more than just silly human made up nonsensical questions.

However, for those who want to delve into and look into this further, since God is creating everything God can create a boulder so heavy that it could not rolled up some particular hill, but 'you', human beings, have already been created, which, with the power of BELIEF, already have the ability to move mountains. So if there was any hill or mountain that was to big or to steep for any boulder to be rolled up, then that mountain or hill could just be moved, anyway.

So, once again, we have another example of a seemingly 'immovable object', that is; 'a hill', but which actually can be 'moved', by the unstoppable 'force', and 'energy', of BELIEF.

In fact the very 'thing' that got 'you', human beings, to the moon, prior to the days when this was being written, that is; if 'you' did, was the very power of BELIEF itself.

Obviously 'you' could not have even got a rocket nor spaceship to the moon if 'you' either believed 'you' could not, or, did not believe 'you' could.

It IS the BELIEF IN "yourselves" that makes the seemingly 'immovable' and 'impossible' MOVEABLE and POSSIBLE.

[VVilliam]

Without mind, there is no "matter" to be observed, and without matter, there is no mind to do the observing.

Some have claimed that the universe would still exist even if mind did not. What are your thoughts on that?

Also, others have claimed that mind can still exist without matter. What are your thoughts on that?

[Gary Childress]

Without mind, there is no "matter" to be observed, and without matter, there is no mind to do the observing.

Some have claimed that the universe would still exist even if mind did not. What are your thoughts on that?

Also, others have claimed that mind can still exist without matter. What are your thoughts on that?

I don't see any reason why the universe wouldn't exist without minds in it. I'm not an idealist. There would be nothing to percieve all that inanimate matter. But it seems to me that the matter that makes up rocks and dirt would still be there. I assume when I go there will still be a universe.

As far as minds existing without matter, I see no reason to believe that either. As far as anyone knows, when the material brain goes, so do our minds.

[VVilliam]

Without mind, there is no "matter" to be observed, and without matter, there is no mind to do the observing.

Some have claimed that the universe would still exist even if mind did not. What are your thoughts on that?

Also, others have claimed that mind can still exist without matter. What are your thoughts on that?

I don't see any reason why the universe wouldn't exist without minds in it.

Except what would there be to say that it did exist?

I'm not an idealist.

Okay. What is your position, if not idealist?

There would be nothing to perceive all that inanimate matter.

So there would be nothing to say that it exists.

But it seems to me that the matter that makes up rocks and dirt would still be there. I assume when I go there will still be a universe.

That would be because when you "go" there will be other minds being born into and living there.

As far as minds existing without matter, I see no reason to believe that either.

It that context, matter has been around for a long time - and the prediction is that matter will be around even longer than it currently has existed.

As far as anyone knows, when the material brain goes, so do our minds.

There are a growing number of folk stepping forward and giving report that this is not the case. (Are Near-Death Experiences Real?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KhtRnbl8ZE