{"submission_id":"2281688","keywords":[{"keyword_id":"60","keyword_name":"cat","contributed":"f","submissions_count":"139981"},{"keyword_id":"4222","keyword_name":"depression","contributed":"f","submissions_count":"825"},{"keyword_id":"62","keyword_name":"feline","contributed":"f","submissions_count":"96420"},{"keyword_id":"7388","keyword_name":"gene","contributed":"f","submissions_count":"145"},{"keyword_id":"165","keyword_name":"male","contributed":"f","submissions_count":"803197"}],"hidden":"f","scraps":"f","favorite":"f","favorites_count":"0","create_datetime":"2020-10-18 18:20:25.693575+02","create_datetime_usertime":"18 Oct 2020 18:20 CEST","last_file_update_datetime":"2020-10-18 18:15:57.597885+02","last_file_update_datetime_usertime":"18 Oct 2020 18:15 CEST","username":"IceAgeChippies","user_id":"509185","user_icon_file_name":"147967_IceAgeChippies_chippy.jpg","user_icon_url_large":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/usericons/large/147/147967_IceAgeChippies_chippy.jpg","user_icon_url_medium":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/usericons/medium/147/147967_IceAgeChippies_chippy.jpg","user_icon_url_small":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/usericons/small/147/147967_IceAgeChippies_chippy.jpg","file_name":"3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","file_url_full":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","file_url_screen":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/screen/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","file_url_preview":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/preview/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","thumbnail_url_huge_noncustom":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/preview/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","thumbnail_url_large_noncustom":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/thumbnails/large/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0_noncustom.jpg","thumbnail_url_medium_noncustom":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/thumbnails/medium/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0_noncustom.jpg","thumb_medium_noncustom_x":"120","thumb_medium_noncustom_y":"79","thumb_large_noncustom_x":"200","thumb_large_noncustom_y":"131","thumb_huge_noncustom_x":"300","thumb_huge_noncustom_y":"197","files":[{"file_id":"3323009","file_name":"3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","file_url_full":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","file_url_screen":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/screen/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","file_url_preview":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/preview/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","mimetype":"image/jpeg","submission_id":"2281688","user_id":"509185","submission_file_order":"0","full_size_x":"1231","full_size_y":"807","screen_size_x":"920","screen_size_y":"603","preview_size_x":"300","preview_size_y":"197","initial_file_md5":"0f0590da4ae7827174f3e87d41f40da8","full_file_md5":"31c1c3a7c4f6500bd12f8d4bb7500ef7","large_file_md5":"aa719e648bfe5e46c6274c35b7bc088d","small_file_md5":"f2a4316dc74b32e9947191ca50f3a769","thumbnail_md5":"eadaa8c32bbdd14e32a8d94b007a4010","deleted":"f","create_datetime":"2020-10-18 18:15:57.597885+02","create_datetime_usertime":"18 Oct 2020 18:15 CEST","thumbnail_url_huge_noncustom":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/files/preview/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0.jpg","thumbnail_url_large_noncustom":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/thumbnails/large/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0_noncustom.jpg","thumbnail_url_medium_noncustom":"https://nl.ib.metapix.net/thumbnails/medium/3323/3323009_IceAgeChippies_0_noncustom.jpg","thumb_medium_noncustom_x":"120","thumb_medium_noncustom_y":"79","thumb_large_noncustom_x":"200","thumb_large_noncustom_y":"131","thumb_huge_noncustom_x":"300","thumb_huge_noncustom_y":"197"}],"pools":[],"description":"HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"Does God exist, Chippy?\"\n\nSure. :3\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"That doesn't read convincingly. Aren't you a Christian?\"\n\nYes. Christianity is my worldview, that is, it's like the lens through which I see, understand and interpret my world and my experiences therein.\nAs to whether any of the Bible holds true, regarding God's existence outside or beyond its texts and my beliefs, well... I'm as ignorant as you are. :3\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"So ...you don't believe in God?\"\n\nWhat do you mean by 'God'?\n\n'God' is a word. It's a powerful word, to be sure, but it is only a word. For a given word to mean anything, the speaker and the hearer have to agree (or at least mutually understand) on what that given word means.\n\nFor example, if I were to say the word 'chair', both myself and my hearer would have to agree that 'chair' means 'a seat with legs and a backrest, intended for a person to sit on'.\nIf the hearer doesn't know what is meant by 'chair', then so far as they're concerned, I'm just making sounds with my mouth. Otherwise, if the hearer believes 'chair' to mean something else entirely, then neither of us could use 'chair' with each other in a meaningful way.\n\n'God' is among those words with very broad and diverse definitions. 'God' can be a 'who' or a 'what'; 'God' can be 'the' or an 'a'; 'God' can describe this being, or that being, or this or that phenomenon or concept.\n\nThe above being true, God's existence depends one what the word is intended to mean. If, for example, a scientist defines 'God' as 'gravity', then God exists in the same way gravitation (or physics, or math, etc) exists, as the two words would be synonymous.\n\nHowever, not everyone would agree that 'God' = 'gravity', or agree the word applies to whatever deity. Again, words must have mutually-agreed-upon definitions in order to carry meaning.\n\nSo who/what is 'God'?\n\nAs a Christian, I use God to mean 'the God of the Bible', but even this isn't foolproof, as it yet leaves the definition very open to interpretation---not every Christian can agree one who or what God 'is',\n\nIs God a being?\nIs God a spirit?\nIs God a force?\nIs God a three-in-one?\n\n...and so forth.\n\nDigressing a little, but what should or would be meant by 'exist'? 'Exist' is also a word, and if we're to ask whether God exists, mutually-agreed-upon definitions would need to be established.\n\nIs having a material state necessary for existence?\nDo concepts/ideas exist?\nIs it possible to not exist (a deep question that deserves its own article!)?\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"I think you're beating around the bush, Chippy. Just answer the question: does God exist or not\"\n\nYes (and I'm going to leave it there). :3\n\nI think the limitations of our languages coupled with the diversity of meanings we give to words like 'God' muddles attempts at meaningful discussion---any two persons would enter a debate or conversation with their own bias and interpretations, with much of the time given for talk on the matter falling into semantics.\n\nIt seems 'God', for many non-religious persons, is inseparable from religion, religious rituals/practices, mis-/interpretation of scripture, and so forth.\nEach of those things are, IMHO, external to God---they are more about differences of opinion/worldview than whether God exists.\nFor such persons, 'God', also, cannot be divorced from things those claiming to believe have done in His name (such as the witch burnings). Don't like the church or its history? Then God doesn't exist! ...right?\n\nThe fact of whether God exists or not is independent on anything a person or group says, does or thinks.\nFor example, if God doesn't exist, no amount of prayer and/or religious practice will bring Him into reality.\nIf God does exist, neither one's denial of God, nor the extent of one's disagreement with God's words or will, would change the fact of God's existence.\n\nThe Bible is either *reliable or it isn't.\nJesus either rose from the dead or He didn't.\nOne either believes in God or one doesn't.\n\n*'true' and 'factual' are not always synonymous. For example, a fictional story or fable may contain practical truths, and a factual event may have no meaning given to it at all.\nNot every story of the Bible is historical or factual, but this doesn't negate the truths of those stories (neither does their application 'prove' or 'disprove' God's existence---let's remember that Christ spoke in parables).\n\nThat which sways one in either direction is often personal and contingent on that which one accepts as evidence (which, again, will vary from person to person).\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"Do you believe in eternal life?\"\n\nSure; why not?\n\n'Eternal' is another of those fun words. Not because its meaning is broad or ambiguous, but because it's often misinterpreted.\n\n\"eternal - lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning\" -Webster's\n\nNothing in the observable universe is 'eternal'. For starters, the universe had a beginning---both science and the Bible agree on that. Even if it could be proven otherwise, the universe still wouldn't be eternal because it wouldn't be known whether it could or would end.\nA the very least, I had a beginning---or at least, a point at which I could describe as such (ie, I have a birthdate). So I'm not eternal, either (or am I?).\n\nIf 'eternal life' is a fact, then it is something that already exists, and if eternal life is meant for you and me, then it is something we already have (isn't that strange?).\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"But didn't you just show we're not eternal, per the description you provided?\"\n\nEternal life is something that already exists, we just haven't entered into it yet. :3\n\nEternity isn't something that can exist within time and space, it would exist outside of it, whereat our physics, mechanisms and general understandings (may) need not apply.\n\nAs a person, I have a birthdate: a beginning. Upon entering into an eternal existence, I'd not have a birthdate or even an 'entry date'---I'd simply 'be', and I would 'be' in a reality that has no 'time' to move forward or backward through. It would be as though I were always there, as I would have entered into (and become an inseparable part of) a reality that doesn't have beginnings or ends.\n\nIf that reads illogical, that's because it is. :3\n\nAgain, what makes logical, reasonable and determinable sense here (in time-space) may not apply in a different reality.\nWe know and understand our universe because it's knowable and understandable. We would know and understand other universes, too, if we could experience them; we cannot, so we do not (and so 'does not', but doesn't mean it 'is not'). ^^\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"This all seems like paradox and imagination to me\"\n\nSure. Again, I'm as ignorant as you are; I have my ideas, you have yours. Both are likely mutually exclusive---they cannot both be right, but they may both be wrong. Who knows?\n\nTo clarify, I 'believe' in God. I 'believe' in eternal life. Even so, 'belief' and 'knowledge' are not synonyms (I shouldn't need to explain this).\nIf you believed in God and/or eternal life, your descriptions and ideas of these likely wouldn't jive with mine.\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"All right, well I don't 'believe' anything, Chippy. I'm a scientist who studies facts---mine is a world of observation, demonstration, application, and evidence. I don't need faith, because what I know is what I see, and what I see is what I know\"\n\n'Faith?'. Define, please.\n\nDo you mean,\n\n\"faith - [uncountable] trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised\" -Oxford\n\nor,\n\n\"firm belief in something for which there is no proof\"? -Webster's\n\nThe first is something we all relate to---we've all placed our faith in another person, or in some thing perceived as generally reliable. Sometimes we're disappointed, but only seldom so.\n\nIt's neither unfair or unreasonable for one to place this type of faith in Christ's promise/sacrifice, nor so to place one's trust in some atheistic argument. One either agrees/believes, or one doesn't.\n\nThe latter definition is interesting. One can believe in the existence on non-existence of God without proof (there isn't any, in either direction), but in cases where there IS proof to the contrary of a given idea or explanation, we'd not call that 'faith'---we'd call it 'willful ignorance'. :3\n\nAs for science, I see the same things you see; I don't doubt much about science. Why should I? Studies are one thing, but physics and math are effectively absolutes---there's no room for doubt, and no reason to find any.\n\nIMHO there's an unneeded 'rivalry' between science and theism. Science would (and does) deal in mechanism, whereas theism explains agency. Neither excludes the other (simple).\n\nSome arguments seem more valid than others? again, I think this is hopelessly tied to one's worldview.\nI can 'know' as much about a given field of science as the next person, and have 'faith' in God.\nI can be a Biblical/resurrection scholar, and yet have faith in atheism. It's just worldview.\nOne's worldview can change. An atheist can become a theist, and a theist may become an atheist. But the fundamentals of science or arithmetic didn't change, and neither did the word of God. What changed was how I decided to interpret, understand and accept my world.\n\nI should say that both science and theism DO change, but (usually) not in such extremes that would destroy their foundations (hence my use of 'fundamental').\nScience changes as new discoveries and observations are made, and the word of God 'adapts' the changes in culture, etc., and inwardly as we experience His love and authority. Neither science nor God are dead. :3\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"I think you're playing games, Chippy. Just tell me what happens when we die---do we cease to exist, or not?\"\n\nI know that when I die, I won't cease to exist---at least not completely. I am presently alive and am aware of my existence. When I die, how would I know it?\nLogically, I wouldn't know I was dead ...and if I don't know I'm dead, then it must be that I'm not, and if I'm not dead, I am alive.\nAt the very least, I would be conscious, and if I'm conscious, I must exist in some way therefore. :3\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"Now I 'know' you're playing games!\"\n\nWasn't it fun? :3\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"No. anyway, why do you need to find meaning in God? I give my own life meaning\"\n\nWhy shouldn't I 'find meaning' in God? Because it's delusional? Because it's pre-packaged? If that's the case, meaning in God is no more or less pre-packaged than finding meaning in career, kids/family or through one's hobbies.\nAs far as delusion is concerned, perhaps 'meaning' itself is a delusion? According to some atheistic takes, a person is of no more meaning or value than bacteria on a restroom floor ...so finding 'meaning' for oneself through anything would be just as delusional and pointless as finding it through religion.\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"I'll be glad when you're dead and cease to exist, Chippy!\" D:\n\nI heart you, too. :3\n\nBut seriously, existence is something to think about, as is death. :(\n\nI was once a little boy. I had a shopping cart that I would play with, sometimes to the chagrin of the neighbors. Mine was a world in which the internet, Pokemon, and many other things we enjoy now, didn't exist.\n\nWhere is that little boy and his shopping cart now?\n\nHe doesn't exist anymore. He isn't dead, but he grew into an adult. i am he, but the 'little boy' is gone forever. Where is he?\n\nHe exists only in fragmented memories, many of which may be false or misremembered. He's gone to where the baby and the teenager have gone--into forgotteness.\nIf all the memories of my past were strung together on a reel and played back, the tape may not last an hour ...yet I've lived for several decades. I was alive, and had been alive, on (say) June 19th, 1986 at 3:01pm ...but what was I up to at that moment? I could have told you in that moment, but it's gone now.\nWhat did I have for breakfast the morning I drew 'Pika Pats'? I cannot tell you now---that moment is gone.\n\nAs to my current moment... I know if God is gracious enough to allow me another 20 years of life, that the person I'd be then would not be the same as now.\nThe things presently on my desk---would I recall any of them? The color of these scissors? The arrangement of these pencils?\nIn twenty years, would I still drink coffee? Would I remember the flavor of the coffee I'm drinking now? Would this brand of coffee still exist?\n\nIt's fair to say that who I am now, and many of the things that make up my present environment, would not exist in twenty years (or would, at the very least, cease to be relevant to me).\nThe person I am now would cease to be relevant; I wouldn't remember anything about this moment or day in twenty years. This hour, and the person writing during it, would no longer exist.\n\nThat is, depending on when it is one reads this, one could be reading the words of a ghost (whether I'm yet alive or not). :3\n\nWhen I die, and if the site is still around, an 'infinity' symbol would appear next to my username on FurAffinity, indicating that I have died.\n\nA visitor to my FA profile would, perhaps, see my latest upload, and think,\n\n\"This is the last picture he drew\"\n\nThey'd read my shouts... perhaps the messages would include comments such as these,\n\n\"RIP\"\n\n\"I never knew you, but your art is super cute!\"\n\n\"Sleep well, friend. Thank you for drawing my favorite characters\"\n\n\"Burn in Hell, cub-lover!\"\n\nMy cartoons may still receive faves, but I wouldn't be able to reply to them with hearts. It wouldn't be because I wouldn't want to, but because I couldn't. :(\n\nMaybe as one leaves a happy message on my profile, I'm in Hell suffering---I'd give anything to return, change my ways, and report everything I had seen and experienced. But I could not; Chippy would be gone.\n\nIn time, that same visitor my return to see my art, and find it's been deleted. On DeviantArt, it's all been purged (inactive account). A search for it on InkBunny may result in a message of this sort,\n\n\"After so many years, InkBunny is gone! If you were a member, we hope you enjoyed your stay---blah, blah, blah!\"\n\nWhere would my art be IRL? Rotting in a landfill, in or around the same pile as many other 'Chippy' artifacts. Furniture would be sold away, and my clothes sent to Africa.\n\nIn a hundred years, someone may happen on my stone, and think,\n\n\"Wow! that's really old!\"\n\nAnd scratch my name and dates on a piece of paper. So far as the body in the ground would be concerned, it would still be a hundred years ago, perhaps in the 2020's.\nIf I were brought back to life somehow, I would be made fun of and criticized for how I think (as morality and opinions change drastically, and very often).\n\nI'd be better off in the grave ...but would it only be my body in there?\n\nI don't know. :(\n\nHYPOTHETICALWATCHER: \"Could you be more depressing?\"\n\nSure! :3\n\nBut I'd rather not... As a Christian, I have hope. I've hope that this life is not the end, and that what awaits will set to right all the wrong in the world. Nothing this world has to offer can provide comfort---not even alcohol. God is my only hope, and I don't want that hope taken from me :(","description_bbcode_parsed":"HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "Does God exist, Chippy?"

Sure. :3

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "That doesn't read convincingly. Aren't you a Christian?"

Yes. Christianity is my worldview, that is, it's like the lens through which I see, understand and interpret my world and my experiences therein.
As to whether any of the Bible holds true, regarding God's existence outside or beyond its texts and my beliefs, well... I'm as ignorant as you are. :3

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "So ...you don't believe in God?"

What do you mean by 'God'?

'God' is a word. It's a powerful word, to be sure, but it is only a word. For a given word to mean anything, the speaker and the hearer have to agree (or at least mutually understand) on what that given word means.

For example, if I were to say the word 'chair', both myself and my hearer would have to agree that 'chair' means 'a seat with legs and a backrest, intended for a person to sit on'.
If the hearer doesn't know what is meant by 'chair', then so far as they're concerned, I'm just making sounds with my mouth. Otherwise, if the hearer believes 'chair' to mean something else entirely, then neither of us could use 'chair' with each other in a meaningful way.

'God' is among those words with very broad and diverse definitions. 'God' can be a 'who' or a 'what'; 'God' can be 'the' or an 'a'; 'God' can describe this being, or that being, or this or that phenomenon or concept.

The above being true, God's existence depends one what the word is intended to mean. If, for example, a scientist defines 'God' as 'gravity', then God exists in the same way gravitation (or physics, or math, etc) exists, as the two words would be synonymous.

However, not everyone would agree that 'God' = 'gravity', or agree the word applies to whatever deity. Again, words must have mutually-agreed-upon definitions in order to carry meaning.

So who/what is 'God'?

As a Christian, I use God to mean 'the God of the Bible', but even this isn't foolproof, as it yet leaves the definition very open to interpretation---not every Christian can agree one who or what God 'is',

Is God a being?
Is God a spirit?
Is God a force?
Is God a three-in-one?

...and so forth.

Digressing a little, but what should or would be meant by 'exist'? 'Exist' is also a word, and if we're to ask whether God exists, mutually-agreed-upon definitions would need to be established.

Is having a material state necessary for existence?
Do concepts/ideas exist?
Is it possible to not exist (a deep question that deserves its own article!)?

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "I think you're beating around the bush, Chippy. Just answer the question: does God exist or not"

Yes (and I'm going to leave it there). :3

I think the limitations of our languages coupled with the diversity of meanings we give to words like 'God' muddles attempts at meaningful discussion---any two persons would enter a debate or conversation with their own bias and interpretations, with much of the time given for talk on the matter falling into semantics.

It seems 'God', for many non-religious persons, is inseparable from religion, religious rituals/practices, mis-/interpretation of scripture, and so forth.
Each of those things are, IMHO, external to God---they are more about differences of opinion/worldview than whether God exists.
For such persons, 'God', also, cannot be divorced from things those claiming to believe have done in His name (such as the witch burnings). Don't like the church or its history? Then God doesn't exist! ...right?

The fact of whether God exists or not is independent on anything a person or group says, does or thinks.
For example, if God doesn't exist, no amount of prayer and/or religious practice will bring Him into reality.
If God does exist, neither one's denial of God, nor the extent of one's disagreement with God's words or will, would change the fact of God's existence.

The Bible is either *reliable or it isn't.
Jesus either rose from the dead or He didn't.
One either believes in God or one doesn't.

*'true' and 'factual' are not always synonymous. For example, a fictional story or fable may contain practical truths, and a factual event may have no meaning given to it at all.
Not every story of the Bible is historical or factual, but this doesn't negate the truths of those stories (neither does their application 'prove' or 'disprove' God's existence---let's remember that Christ spoke in parables).

That which sways one in either direction is often personal and contingent on that which one accepts as evidence (which, again, will vary from person to person).

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "Do you believe in eternal life?"

Sure; why not?

'Eternal' is another of those fun words. Not because its meaning is broad or ambiguous, but because it's often misinterpreted.

"eternal - lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning" -Webster's

Nothing in the observable universe is 'eternal'. For starters, the universe had a beginning---both science and the Bible agree on that. Even if it could be proven otherwise, the universe still wouldn't be eternal because it wouldn't be known whether it could or would end.
A the very least, I had a beginning---or at least, a point at which I could describe as such (ie, I have a birthdate). So I'm not eternal, either (or am I?).

If 'eternal life' is a fact, then it is something that already exists, and if eternal life is meant for you and me, then it is something we already have (isn't that strange?).

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "But didn't you just show we're not eternal, per the description you provided?"

Eternal life is something that already exists, we just haven't entered into it yet. :3

Eternity isn't something that can exist within time and space, it would exist outside of it, whereat our physics, mechanisms and general understandings (may) need not apply.

As a person, I have a birthdate: a beginning. Upon entering into an eternal existence, I'd not have a birthdate or even an 'entry date'---I'd simply 'be', and I would 'be' in a reality that has no 'time' to move forward or backward through. It would be as though I were always there, as I would have entered into (and become an inseparable part of) a reality that doesn't have beginnings or ends.

If that reads illogical, that's because it is. :3

Again, what makes logical, reasonable and determinable sense here (in time-space) may not apply in a different reality.
We know and understand our universe because it's knowable and understandable. We would know and understand other universes, too, if we could experience them; we cannot, so we do not (and so 'does not', but doesn't mean it 'is not'). ^^

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "This all seems like paradox and imagination to me"

Sure. Again, I'm as ignorant as you are; I have my ideas, you have yours. Both are likely mutually exclusive---they cannot both be right, but they may both be wrong. Who knows?

To clarify, I 'believe' in God. I 'believe' in eternal life. Even so, 'belief' and 'knowledge' are not synonyms (I shouldn't need to explain this).
If you believed in God and/or eternal life, your descriptions and ideas of these likely wouldn't jive with mine.

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "All right, well I don't 'believe' anything, Chippy. I'm a scientist who studies facts---mine is a world of observation, demonstration, application, and evidence. I don't need faith, because what I know is what I see, and what I see is what I know"

'Faith?'. Define, please.

Do you mean,

"faith - [uncountable] trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised" -Oxford

or,

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"? -Webster's

The first is something we all relate to---we've all placed our faith in another person, or in some thing perceived as generally reliable. Sometimes we're disappointed, but only seldom so.

It's neither unfair or unreasonable for one to place this type of faith in Christ's promise/sacrifice, nor so to place one's trust in some atheistic argument. One either agrees/believes, or one doesn't.

The latter definition is interesting. One can believe in the existence on non-existence of God without proof (there isn't any, in either direction), but in cases where there IS proof to the contrary of a given idea or explanation, we'd not call that 'faith'---we'd call it 'willful ignorance'. :3

As for science, I see the same things you see; I don't doubt much about science. Why should I? Studies are one thing, but physics and math are effectively absolutes---there's no room for doubt, and no reason to find any.

IMHO there's an unneeded 'rivalry' between science and theism. Science would (and does) deal in mechanism, whereas theism explains agency. Neither excludes the other (simple).

Some arguments seem more valid than others? again, I think this is hopelessly tied to one's worldview.
I can 'know' as much about a given field of science as the next person, and have 'faith' in God.
I can be a Biblical/resurrection scholar, and yet have faith in atheism. It's just worldview.
One's worldview can change. An atheist can become a theist, and a theist may become an atheist. But the fundamentals of science or arithmetic didn't change, and neither did the word of God. What changed was how I decided to interpret, understand and accept my world.

I should say that both science and theism DO change, but (usually) not in such extremes that would destroy their foundations (hence my use of 'fundamental').
Science changes as new discoveries and observations are made, and the word of God 'adapts' the changes in culture, etc., and inwardly as we experience His love and authority. Neither science nor God are dead. :3

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "I think you're playing games, Chippy. Just tell me what happens when we die---do we cease to exist, or not?"

I know that when I die, I won't cease to exist---at least not completely. I am presently alive and am aware of my existence. When I die, how would I know it?
Logically, I wouldn't know I was dead ...and if I don't know I'm dead, then it must be that I'm not, and if I'm not dead, I am alive.
At the very least, I would be conscious, and if I'm conscious, I must exist in some way therefore. :3

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "Now I 'know' you're playing games!"

Wasn't it fun? :3

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "No. anyway, why do you need to find meaning in God? I give my own life meaning"

Why shouldn't I 'find meaning' in God? Because it's delusional? Because it's pre-packaged? If that's the case, meaning in God is no more or less pre-packaged than finding meaning in career, kids/family or through one's hobbies.
As far as delusion is concerned, perhaps 'meaning' itself is a delusion? According to some atheistic takes, a person is of no more meaning or value than bacteria on a restroom floor ...so finding 'meaning' for oneself through anything would be just as delusional and pointless as finding it through religion.

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "I'll be glad when you're dead and cease to exist, Chippy!" D:

I heart you, too. :3

But seriously, existence is something to think about, as is death. :(

I was once a little boy. I had a shopping cart that I would play with, sometimes to the chagrin of the neighbors. Mine was a world in which the internet, Pokemon, and many other things we enjoy now, didn't exist.

Where is that little boy and his shopping cart now?

He doesn't exist anymore. He isn't dead, but he grew into an adult. i am he, but the 'little boy' is gone forever. Where is he?

He exists only in fragmented memories, many of which may be false or misremembered. He's gone to where the baby and the teenager have gone--into forgotteness.
If all the memories of my past were strung together on a reel and played back, the tape may not last an hour ...yet I've lived for several decades. I was alive, and had been alive, on (say) June 19th, 1986 at 3:01pm ...but what was I up to at that moment? I could have told you in that moment, but it's gone now.
What did I have for breakfast the morning I drew 'Pika Pats'? I cannot tell you now---that moment is gone.

As to my current moment... I know if God is gracious enough to allow me another 20 years of life, that the person I'd be then would not be the same as now.
The things presently on my desk---would I recall any of them? The color of these scissors? The arrangement of these pencils?
In twenty years, would I still drink coffee? Would I remember the flavor of the coffee I'm drinking now? Would this brand of coffee still exist?

It's fair to say that who I am now, and many of the things that make up my present environment, would not exist in twenty years (or would, at the very least, cease to be relevant to me).
The person I am now would cease to be relevant; I wouldn't remember anything about this moment or day in twenty years. This hour, and the person writing during it, would no longer exist.

That is, depending on when it is one reads this, one could be reading the words of a ghost (whether I'm yet alive or not). :3

When I die, and if the site is still around, an 'infinity' symbol would appear next to my username on FurAffinity, indicating that I have died.

A visitor to my FA profile would, perhaps, see my latest upload, and think,

"This is the last picture he drew"

They'd read my shouts... perhaps the messages would include comments such as these,

"RIP"

"I never knew you, but your art is super cute!"

"Sleep well, friend. Thank you for drawing my favorite characters"

"Burn in Hell, cub-lover!"

My cartoons may still receive faves, but I wouldn't be able to reply to them with hearts. It wouldn't be because I wouldn't want to, but because I couldn't. :(

Maybe as one leaves a happy message on my profile, I'm in Hell suffering---I'd give anything to return, change my ways, and report everything I had seen and experienced. But I could not; Chippy would be gone.

In time, that same visitor my return to see my art, and find it's been deleted. On DeviantArt, it's all been purged (inactive account). A search for it on InkBunny may result in a message of this sort,

"After so many years, InkBunny is gone! If you were a member, we hope you enjoyed your stay---blah, blah, blah!"

Where would my art be IRL? Rotting in a landfill, in or around the same pile as many other 'Chippy' artifacts. Furniture would be sold away, and my clothes sent to Africa.

In a hundred years, someone may happen on my stone, and think,

"Wow! that's really old!"

And scratch my name and dates on a piece of paper. So far as the body in the ground would be concerned, it would still be a hundred years ago, perhaps in the 2020's.
If I were brought back to life somehow, I would be made fun of and criticized for how I think (as morality and opinions change drastically, and very often).

I'd be better off in the grave ...but would it only be my body in there?

I don't know. :(

HYPOTHETICALWATCHER: "Could you be more depressing?"

Sure! :3

But I'd rather not... As a Christian, I have hope. I've hope that this life is not the end, and that what awaits will set to right all the wrong in the world. Nothing this world has to offer can provide comfort---not even alcohol. God is my only hope, and I don't want that hope taken from me :(","writing":"","writing_bbcode_parsed":"","pools_count":0,"title":"Depressive Ramblings","deleted":"f","public":"t","mimetype":"image/jpeg","pagecount":"1","rating_id":"0","rating_name":"General","ratings":[],"submission_type_id":"1","type_name":"Picture/Pinup","guest_block":"f","friends_only":"f","comments_count":"0","views":"1","sales_description":null,"forsale":"f","digitalsales":"f","printsales":"f","digital_price":""}