This is one of the most important questions in all of philosphy and existence. If you haven’t really asked yourself this question, I can’t imagine how you’ve had any direction in your life. Maybe, that’s judgmental, but I think that having a basic belief about the essence of your existence as a form should and does direct your entire life. Once you go to that place, and really dig into it, it will have a huge effect on your decisions. So, how did I get to where I got–from Me, CJ, to God?

I’ll get to that in a moment, but my first goal is to make three clarifications

1) I have a very limited understanding of science. The conclusions I am coming to here are based on observations more than study; and if scientific fact contradicts me, then new information, depending on what it is, could alter my conclusions and thoughts below. I say this out of fairness because my outlook and understanding may be very limited by my lack of education in this area, and I don’t want anyone to think I am coming at this from the cutting edge of modern science.

2) This argument is not intended to “prove” the existence of God, nor “debunk” other belief systems. All I am trying to do here is say, if I start with “me” as an entity, I can arrive at the idea that “I came from something outside nature as I see it.” So, we’re not looking at my religious beliefs or areligious beliefs. We’re just looking at the process of starting with one’s own existence and arriving at God’s or rather, “a god’s”. When I dismiss a possibility below, I am only saying, “At this point, I don’t buy it.” Not “It’s not true”. “It’s not right” or “It is foolish”. I’m just saying that I personally can’t get around the concept and support it at present.

3) For this discussion, I am intentionally not going through the process of arriving at the Christian religion. That is not the goal. It will be in another “Big Question”, but not this one. So, when I say at the end, “Yeah, it is possible a god exists.” that is intentionally as far as this article is going to go, and that does not debunk or disprove the other possibilities mentioned below, it only contends one simple concept, that I can believe a god exists because I exist. That’s it.

So, shall we?

I begin with this. CJ.
CJ exists. Now, that proves nothing other than CJ. It does not prove that CJ had parents or parents exist, it does not prove that CJ is better than animals. It does not prove that CJ is more complex than glass of Coca-Cola. It does not prove CJ has a destiny. It only proves that CJ is a self-aware entity. CJ exists.

Now, given my self-awareness, I can come to several conclusions. First, I have self-awareness and said self-awareness makes me different than non-self-aware objects or matter. Second, other beings can possibly have self-awareness as I do. Third, if I find other beings with self-awareness, and they have basic characteristics similar or identical to mine (like a human body, language of some kind, etc.), I can connect myself with them as part of a group of beings.

So, I now see others like me. They are also aware, so I decide to classify myself with them, and I will call the group, “Humans”. Now, this is not an exclusive, necessary conclusion. Some people might feel that any living being is just part of a class of “living things”, BUT I am essentially skipping that step to just boil down to “I exist and these others are MOST like me out of all other types of living creatures; hence, they and I are part of a sub-grouping of living things specific and unique to ourselves. There is something that separates us from other living things.”

Ok, I am a human. Now, I am looking at humans, and I see that one type of human, the one with different underware-areas than me, can give birth to both types of humans, and that is how humans continue to exist. Seeing this, I decide,  ”okay, humans come from humans. I came from humans before me,
and they came from others before them and so on and so forth.” BUT! BUT! BUT! then that aching, haunting question, “where did the first humans come from?”  creeps in.  And therein lies the discrepancy, the big question. The one to which NO ONE HAS THE DEFINITIVE TESTED, PROVEN ANSWER,  ”Where did the first parents come from?” Oh, there are theories, maybe commonly accepted ideas, but I have yet to see anyone PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT an answer to this question.

Okay, so, now what?  Well, there’s a myriad of possible places one can go, and I am gonna list 7. These are not the only possible theories, they are just the only ones I am using here. These are not “Straw Men”, arguments and ideas I put forth simply to knock down. I don’t intend to disprove a single concpept below, just give my response to them at my present place in life. These are also simply the first seven possible explanations of I which I thought.

1) Humans have always been and always will be.
2) Humans as entities came from the earth somehow. Maybe they were birthed from the magic vagina tree. However, they were birthed from the earth itself, a nonliving thing.
3) Humans were birthed from some creature in an anatural fluke. Humans were birthed by a living thing that was nonhuman. This thing may or may not still exist. It might have been the mother whale, or the great dancing walrus. Maybe it was the wise old turtle or the squawking bird of the old oak tree. It could have the undead shark king of deep; but something, some nonhuman birthed the first one(s).
4) Humans evolved from lower beings which evolved from lower beings over time, and the first human was a mutated birth from a very, very, very close relative.
5) Humans were created by something outside of the natural realm. Something beyond nature created nature and humans in it.
6) Humans don’t exist, only awareness exists, and the tangible realm is the only way awareness can understand itself.
7) Humans do not exist. I do not exist. I am self-knowing being that is only the figment of another being.

Okay, so, what’s the big deal? How do I possibly get to a conclusion here. Well, I’m gonna discard the concepts I do not believe are true and
give an explantion of my conclusions for each.

1) Humans have always been and always will be.
No.. Nothing tangible exists from nothing. In my limited experince, I see and observe that all things, great and small have come from something else, both biological and inanimate. I should be able to apply this to the begining of all things in earth and the earth itself. The only way “humans” would be classified outside of that is if “humanity” as a type of existence is infinite. However, I don’t see how this could be since “human” as a classified being, is born and dies. I can’t reconcile the finite nature of all humans, with infinity. If all “humans” are born, and all humans die, then they cannot be infinite. It doesn’t connect for me. No, to number 1

2) Humans as entities came from the earth somehow. Maybe they were birthed from the magic vagina tree. However, they were birthed from the earth itself, a nonliving thing.
No. How can a non-living thing birth a living one? I see no evidence in this world that something which does not live can, in and of itself, breath or give life to something living. Even machines which kepp people living do not birth people. So, I don’t see this happening.  No on 2.

3) Humans were birthed from some creature in an anatural fluke. Humans were birthed by a living thing that was nonhuman. This thing may or may not still exist. It might have been the mother whale, or the great dancing walrus. Maybe it was the wise old turtle or the squawking bird of the old oak tree. It could have the shark king of deep. But something, some nonhuman birthed it.
No.. This might be the case, but again, looking at the earth and the animals and plants in it, I see no reason to think this occurred. Animals and plants reproduce their own kind. You don’t get plants that spawn frogs, and fish that spawn foxes, or monkeys that crap elephants. I don’t see that happening, and nothing has convinced me otherwise. In fact, even if this did happen, even if this is how the first human came to b, it would not explain how the SECOND human, which coincidentally was of a different gender needed for procreation, came to be. Maybe one came out one end, and one came out the other. It’s not really worth thinking about it since I don’t really by this. No on 3.

4) Humans evolved from lower beings which evolved from lower beings over time, and the first human was a mutated birth from a very, very, very close animal relative. No. . Okay, this is a better option than the others, but i am still skeptical. First, am I to believe that my ancestor to the four millionth generation is a fish? I doubt it. What about the nature and order of the universe vs. the nature of mutation. From what I understand of the universe, it is orderly. This is why we have laws of science, which help us Understand its order. This is how we have come to understand things in nature. This idea of lower beings becoming higher ones would have to be based on mutation of some kind. Mutation, by defintion, is an abnormality. So, unless it is the order that abnormalities occur toward progression, progression manifested in capacities such as greater predatory skills and intellect, I have a very hard time with this. Also, where are the links, wherein we see this occur in nature? Wouldn’t it still be occurring? Isn’t the vast difference between even the closest species of animals, still too different to be linked through proceation and birth? I understand this idea of mutations within a species, like birds becoming better birds and snakes becoming cooler snakes but only when manipulated or forced, not out of a desire to evolve instinctive to animals. I think this comes down to the same problem with #3, it’s only more finite. I once heard that the human being and the most developed ape have a 98% similar DNA structure, but the 2% that separates me from him is so vast, I can’t fathom it being connected. Maybe I just hold myself in too high of a place in the food chain; but c’mon, when could the astranomical leap of 2% take place? When did the astronomical leap of anything get to its closet relative of another kind? I can’t fathom it.I am going no on 4.

5) Humans were created by something outside of the natural realm or, at least, beyond themselves. MAYBE WITH A HOWEVER. Okay, the first humans had to come from something else because humans are not infinite, and I am not digging that they come from animals, just like I don’t see animals spawning other, different kinds of animals. Something infinite might have put them here, but I have no idea what that infinite being could possibly be. Frankly, it seems like a cop out. I don’t know how the first human came about, becuase humans as a type of being are born and die. I do not believe that they were birthed of the earth, and I do not believe that some animal–no matter how close to human it is– spawned it. This is the only real way I can make sense of this. Maybe on 5.

6) Humans don’t exist, only awareness exists, and the tangible realm is the only way awareness can understand itself.
No. I know that more than awareness exists because the natural form in which my “awareness” exists, exists. Wait? What?  Yeah.  This “human body” exists, because it is by this human body that my awareness has existence. I cannot remove my existence from this body, so I can safely conclude this body exists. Now, if some future finding alters this evident truth, than I will have to change my understanding; but as of right now, I can safely accept that this body and world exist, if as nothing more than housing for my awareness. They are real, and this realm existed prior to my existence and will exist after my existence. Life and the physical realm are not figments
of my awareness. No on 6

7) Humans do not exist. I do not exist. I am self-knowing being that is only the figment of another being. MAYBE, HOWEVER. This is possible, but since I will never know this to be true without revelation, it is question begging. It says, “Since you can’t PROVE or DISPROVE this, it is very possibly true.” I don’t think I can base my whole worldview around this concept. If it is true, I may never know anyway without direct, fully extranatural revelation, so by virtue of wanting to develop some sort of belief system, I should toss this out. Furthermore, if it is true, it philosphically renders life meaningless UNLESS my choices and actions warrant some sort of outcome on the other entitiy of which I am a figment. If that is the case, and said entitiy has not in any way revealed itself, then I have no way of using it to quanitify value or purpose. Maybe on 7, but we’re gonna dismiss since since it is completely unknowable

Okay, so I am really looking at 5 being the strongest of the bunch.

5) Humans were created by something outside of the natural realm.MAYBE WITH A HOWEVER. Okay, the first humans had to come from something else. Something else might have put them here. Something outside of the world may exist, and that thing had part in humans existing.
Well, this, like possibility 7, appears to be question begging.
HOWEVER, this is significantly different in a variety of ways. This outside entitiy, which I will call a “godform” is very different than the 7 for a umber of reasons. First, the majority of known and studied ancient civilizations point to some sort of
definitive being or existence outside the natural. While modern
scientist attempt to explain away this phenomena as simply man’s attempt to rationalize the unknown, I think the hardwiring of all civilizations throughout history, however different their
understandings may be, as pointing to something “beyond nature” tells us something about the intrinsic understanding of man. Second,  a “godform” has tried to reveal him/herself and give man purpose and some semblance of understanding about his existence. Now, this “god form” can come through writings about the Norse gods, the Greek Pantheon, the Scientologist’s Xenu, Extraterrestrial displacement, or a variety of other, more accepted forms. All of these claim to be the truth, BUT they are ways in which possible “godforms” have attempted to reveal themselves. So, there is a wide possibility of pre-existing “godforms” from which to choose, and one could be a possible explanation for our natural realm. Third, belief in a “god form” does not negate the other possiblities. And I think this is a clincher at a very nebulous, base level.  

At this point of the discussion, no particular “god form” has priority, but the concept of some “god form” has validity in that it leaves a strong possibility open for the other explanations. It simply gives them an acceptable beginning from which understanding can be gained. If a “godform” created earth, that does not mean earth could not have spit man out from the uterus of the volcano. If a godform exists, that does not mean man did not develop from lower beings, it simply implies that lower beings came something, created by a “godform” in some way or another. A “godform” sufficiently answers the question of the infinite which spawned the finite.

Okay, that was alot, and I have established that I have no way to fully NEGATE the options I did not choose. I can’t and do not intend to. None are disproven here. They are simply shown to be possibilties I have not chosen to embrace. Really, all I’ve shown is that I think 5 is a good option. Possibility 5 allows not only for 2 or 3 to be true, but also explains their beginnings should they be so. Furthermore, it explain the finite natural realm on a whole, coming from something else, as all
things do.  I think possiblity 5 is a valid endplace, a reasoned
conclusion. You may feel that the others are more valid conclusions. I think 5 is sound, and I think it helps explain the existence of humanity and this universe.

So, there you have it. that is how I personally have gotten from ME, CJ, to God or, rather, a “godform”. Does that work or did I miss something? Again, at this stage, I am not arguing for any particular “godform” or type of “godform”, I am coming to a nebulous possible conclusion from the beginning, using no religous literature. That conclusion is this: “The
tangible, physical realm we know and study is not all that exists. Something infinite, created that which is finite.”
This leads to alot more questions, which we’ll get in to in part
during this feature. Today, I’ve only established one thing, it make sense for me to get from self-aware existence to some level of creation via a higher power. I can sensibly believe that.  Next time, well look at which higher power we choose.

I was offered some other thoughts from my friends, Phil and Dean:
DEAN (who helped revise and edit the above discuss to a manageable length and scope):  ”I would say that God is evident in Nature. …I don’t know if Nature in and of itself would lead you to know God but I don’t know if that is a fair or legitimate course of logical action.  And for that Reason God made Himself known to us through the Bible, which
is a much better way to know the character of God.
PHIL: The rationale used to arrive at God could be likened in many ways to the rationale used in the science lab or the American courtroom. A scientist begins his work with the observation of a particular phenomenon (in this case, the phenomenon is “existence”).  Based on his observation, he forms a hypothesis (ourhypothesis is that a sovereign Creator is responsible for existence).  He then challenges his hypothesis through a series of examinations to determine if the hypothesis holds true in any imaginable situation (in our case, we need to consider whether every aspect and component of existence could be explained by the work of a sovereign Creator).  The scientist must also
rule out any other possible causes before confirming the hypothesis (e.g., is there any other conceivable, reasonable way existence could have come about?).  If the hypothesis passes the appropriate tests and all other possible explanations have been ruled out, a conclusion is drawn which confirms the hypothesis as scientific law.  People of the modern era are generally very quick to accept these scientific “laws”
with relatively little protest.  The idea that God is responsible for creation, however, is sharply attacked, even though it has endured and withstood much more scrutiny than any law of science.  Additionally, every other proposed explanation for creation has been soundly debunked through scientific rationale.

Another illustration of this rationale can be found in the U.S.
courtroom.  A criminal trial begins with the arrest of a suspect based on “probable cause.”  Technically, this means that there is sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that (a.) a crime has been committed, and (b.) that the suspect is probably responsible for it.  In our situation, the “crime” is the establishment of existence or creation, and a sovereign Creator has been pinned as the most likely culprit.  As part of a trial, evidence is presented by the prosecutor to convince the jury that the suspect is the only one who could have committed the act, and that no other explanation for the act is reasonable.  In our example, a sovereign God is the only one who would
hold the ability to bring the universe into existence, and no other proposed explanation throughout history has proven to be viable.  When a jury convicts a suspect, they are putting their faith in a decision based on analysis of evidence.  This is the same rationale used to assert that God created the universe– faith in a decision based on analysis of evidence.  Many choose not to accept this verdict (though it meets all required criteria), and consequently, other explanations for existence have been “put on trial.”  However, every other “suspect” that has been accused of implementing existence has been vindicated, based on analysis of evidence.

I think what a lot of your “rejected” options reflect is that life and matter cannot be created ex nihilio (from nothing) unless option 5 takes place (supernatural intervention).  There is no other scientifically acceptable way existence could have come about, since any “natural” process would be inconsistent with the first law of thermodynamics (matter/energy is neither created or destroyed), and grosslyinconsistent with reasonable scientific probability methods.  We assert the existence of God not to “explain away the unknown,” but to explain the source of the evidence, based on its agreement with universally
accepted scientific law and mathematics.

Song of the Post: “Who Cares” by Gnarls Barkley, from the album, St. Elsewhere

Grace, Peace, and all manner of good will to you all. For coming to the stage tonight, I thank you.

Tonight, at 9:27 PST, I submitted a script to “The Big Break” competition sponsored by Final Draft. I have never entered a script into competition like this, and I am incredibly nervous. Did I do it right? Did I send my best? I don’t know.
I think so…
I hope so…

It’s hard to say. By putting myself into competition, I have taken a proactive step toward writing, toward the business, toward imminent failures and possible successes. I feel anxious, nervous, and terrified. Most likely, nothing will come of it, so I have no reason to be on edge. At least I finally did it. At least I tried.

Thanks for the love and support. I’ll post updates as I get them.

Song of the Post “Grazin’ in the Grass” by the Friends of Distinction.

Jack Bauer

Figure:
Jack Bauer

Series:
TV

Recipe:
This figure is a very simple repaint of DST’s “Rain of Fire” Wesley at the hair and the shirt

Accessories:
This figure included a base, assault rifle, shotgun and two pistols

Reasoning Behind The Effort:
I love 24, and I was unaware of McFarlane’s 24 figure, so I made this for my personal collection.

Additional Thoughts
Well, now that I DO know about McFarlane’s figure, I sold this one; but I still thought he was fantastic. I really happy with the look of him and his full articulation. It’ll be cool to get the official McFarlane figure; but looking back, I would have been contented with this one.(FIGURE COMPLETED IN LATE 2006)

Sorry all,

I totally forgot to post pics with my Zombie Hunter Dean custom. The post is now updated!

Check it out Here!

Thanks, Dean, for pointing that out!

I really enjoyed Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End. It is long. It is difficult to follow. It is bloated with overly long scenes and nonessentail special effects. There are parts I didn’t get. Other parts I got, but I didn’t like. I would have liked a few more action pieces, and I could have done with a little less crazy-schizo Jack Sparrow. Overall however, I really enjoyed this movie, and I think it’s a great continuation of Dead Man’s Chest, and an fine closing chapter in this first Pirates trilogy.

This is not to say everyone will agree with me, and they don’t have to. You know what, maybe they shouldn’t. This is not a great movie. In fact, I cannot remember the last time I had to WORK this hard at a movie just to understand the basic storyline. This movie is chock full of double-crosses, selfish goals, painful revelations, and the like, constantly piling upon one another until the film could become nearly unwatchable. Keeping a beat on all of these things, let alone how they intertwine, is exceeedingly difficult, particularly becuase this is a swashbuckler-matinee-serial type of movie that should not be difficult to follow. No offense to the writers, but I don’t think this type of movie is the kind that warrants the complexity this movie has; and I, as a filmgoer, did not want to work as hard as I did. Granted, I chose to go to the movie, but my expectation was for a much more straightforward film than the one I saw.

Now, given the fact that I had to work at this movie, I felt very rewarded by the story once I put it all together. There are still a few points about which I am unsure, and I am really looking forward to seeing the film again to fill in the blanks. That won’t be everyone’s experience, and it doesn’t have to be. It is mine, however, and I fully embrace it. This movie is one I have to work through to understand, and I am okay with that. I enjoy the characters enough to invest the mental energies into this, and I have a heightened enjoyment to the film as a result, so I like it.

Oh, and if nothing else, the final battle of this movie between The Black Peal and The Flying Dutchman is fantastic. It is a mind-blowing, spectacular effects-opera full of great moments, constant action, and that wonderful magic of cinema that draws you right into the middle of an event to the point that you feel a part of it. It’s amazing!

I am giivng Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End a solid 5. It is on par with the other Pirate films; adn now that I get it (for the most part), I foresee becoming part of my regular pass-the-time film rotation.

Friends, grace, peace, and thanks to each and every one of you. May a chicken lay for you a golden egg, and may you use it to gain riches beyond measure…or if it’s not real gold, may you make a wonderful omelette with it.

Here’s a fun story some of you might appreciate. This morning my wife and I pulled into our parking lot at work, and a duck was sitting in the middle of the road. I said,

“I’m gonna drive close to him and scare him off”.
“Okay, but don’t hit him”, she replied.

I drove close but didn’t hit him, and he just sat there. Stupid bird. Then My wife began thinking about other cars not being so courteous.

“I Don’t want get hit. We need to get him out of the road.”
“Okay,” I said, “I will hiss it like an alien from Aliens.”
“What?”

My wife then stood and watched as I walked toward the duck and hissed like an alien from the famed franchise, “HHHHHHEEEEEAAAAAAACCCCCCHHHHHHHH”. That duck flew away like he was called home for supper. It totally worked, and I was happy.

Song of the Post: “I Wanna Be Where You Are” by Michael Jackson from The Ultimate Jackson 5 Collection

Quick update, y’all. I have been a complete and total derelict about pointing everyone to another site I write for:

The site is the brainchild of my buddy Dean, and it’s a very casual forum for four friends to discuss cinema past and present, with one-to-four of us chiming in on a variety of topics. I have put up several reviews over there (much different than my meviews here), and I have chimed in a variety of other posts as well. On average, we update the site 3 to 4 times a week, and I think we’re heading toward daily topics at some point in the near future. Anyway, you should most definitely check Cinemabun.com.

Here’s another of those flics that I am not gonna talk about much. I don’t have that much to say, really. It’s a movie. Beginning. Middle. End. And so forth. I don’t really have many observations beyond that.

The story follows Sandra Bullock as Gracie Hart, an FBI agent who, after saving the life of Miss America during the prior year’s pageant, goes on tour as a new face for the agency, hoping to get people excited about the fabulous world of the FBI. When Miss America and the pageant host are kidnapped, however, Gracie Hart goes back into real action, this time with a sidekick named Sam, played by Regina Bell. Calamity ensues. They win.

The movie had some laughs, but it was hit-and-miss. A HUGE miss in particular was the involvement of a karaoke bar full of cross-dressers and Sandra Bullock’s subsequent 30 minutes in a ridiculous showgirl outfit. The laughs came from the supporting cast more than Bullock, particularly from Treat Williams, Elisabeth Rohm, and other supporting characters. There was also some action, but nothing overly stimulating or engaging. Like the brief synopsis above, there really isn’t much to the story. It’s really a mediocre outing all around. Not “bad” or “unbearable” just kinda “meh, that was a movie”. In fact, the best thing I can really say outright is that William Shatner was in great form, and Sandra Bullock and Elisabeth Rohm are pretty.

“Hells Bells” Buffy

Figure:
“Hell’s Bells” Buffy

Series:
Buffy

Recipe:
This Buffy figure was relatively simple. I put the arms and head from a “Graduation Day” Buffy on a “Hells Bells” Anya body, from which I had trimmed the skirt to be match the look of the dress in the show. I then sculpted sleeves on the arms and painted the whole figure to match the loook of the episode

Accessories:
This figure included a display base, rabbit, and bouquet.

Reasoning Behind The Effort:
I had a goal of making a compelete Hell’s Bell’s set (Anya, Tara, Xander, Willow, and Buffy), and this was the Buffy from teh set.

Additional Thoughts
With the cross-country move of 2006, I sold a great deal of figures; and like Tara from this set, Buffy had to go as well. (or any of the others. (FIGURE COMPLETED in EARLY 2006)

“Zombie Hunter” Dean!!

Figure:
Dean, Zombie Hunting Warrior

Series:
FRIENDS

Recipe:
This figure was made by placing a Season 4 Wesley head on a MAC Oz body with DST Jayne Cobb hands and SOTA’s Balthazar Legs. He also features a vest cut from a Wesley Jacket and paint apps to his face.

Accessories:
Zombie Hunter Dean includes an assault rifle, two pistols, extra clips, a street base with rubble.

Reasoning Behind The Effort:
Ha ha! My buddy Dean and I used to have one singular tandem wish for the world. Zombie Apacolypse. In hindset, that’s a terrible thing to wish for the earth; but at the time, we were jsut looking for an excuse to stockpile weaponry and set-up a militia in the woods. It was an awesome dream. This figure is a tribute to how I imagine Dean appearing had that been a future for us.

Additional Thoughts
Best Friend, in Zombie Killing Mode. What else could I possibly want on my shelf? (FIGURE ORIGINALLY COMPLETED IN LATE 2005)