marijuana and energy

[beavis]

as far as mairjuana being evil , gimmie a break dude , as long as your responsible and mature you should be allowed to smoke crack till your hearts consent , we're here to experience things in life.

No! You are here to conform and be part of the cult called society, and we dont allow independent thinking! Drugs are evil!

[Foas]

LOL!!!!
Well i used to do marijuana for meditation and OBE but i dont do it anymore. I agree that it is wrong and only make you belive wha tu wana belive. And somthing i just wana say

Man made crack, god made pot. Who do you trust more?

[beavis]

Didnt "god" also make poisonous spiders? Eat a few of those and see who you trust.

[Logic]

Man made aspartame, god made sugar.

[beavis]

Man made nuclear bombs. "God" made a giant ball of fire that consumes planets. Who do you trust to do your killing?

[Lilith]

One of the effects of marijuana is loss of focus and attention span.
I've found that trying to do any aura or chakra work while under the influence tends to get side-tracked and/or ends up poorly done.

(I'm old, with a wonderfully mis-spent youth.[])

[beavis]

Loss of focus is good. Focus is what keeps you on earth.

[baxarr]

hehe , think about what your sayin dude , 'loss of focus' , thats the entire reason we smoke mairjuana , not to be a genious for the next 2 hours , all those effects are temporary. as far as marijuana making you belive what you whanna belive , we do that anyways , if your not interested in marijuana you dont have to do it , same with all drugs , its just a matter of what we think is fun or not. you have to not let it captivate your life and just use common sense. artifical euphoria can be bliss when you need it. but who says its artifical.

[baxarr]

also 'the god made pot man made beer' stuff or whatever , god also made posion ivy.

[Lilith]

<grin>
Well... actually, the Sumerian Goddess Ninkasi invented beer.
[]

[sargon]

Weed messes with my heartbeat too much, I had to quit. Plus I couldn't block out empathy or telepathy and I was starting to get overwhelmed... it severely damages your astral body as well. In my experiences weed is a very extreme double-edged sword.

For energy work it increases sensations but damages at the same time. In the end it does nothing but give you temporary sensitivity. You should learn to attain the state of 'being stoned' without weed. Then it starts to get fun. []

I am being a hippocrite, I just quit smoking weed myself. Everything I just said is just my opinion and what I need to do. Maybe it's different for others... but I think in the end, when you evolve spiritually more, there will be absolutely no need for weed. If you're in a state of bliss all the time, why smoke weed?

[baxarr]

weed serves only the purpose of watching the matrix or listening to music for me. absolutely no shape or form do i use it for anything more then entertainment, spiritual advancement should take place without drugs. i was just dropping a line on my experience while doing chakra work while stoned. also if you use weed wisely i think it can have the oposite effect of what you said and refresh your brain by letting it play for an hour a week, become a kid again inside your mind with imagination. its refreshing. but again this has nothing to do with spiritual advancement, dont rely on drugs to aid you in that area.  

[TheSeeker]

I recently quit smoking, I was a pot head for a long time.  It's cool if it makes you creative, but it made me stupid.  My creativity all but disappeared, and I had no focus.  I can't think anything to do or so on it, but it does make my heart chakra pulse pretty hard, which is why I think people think their heart is beating faster.

If you check your pulse, your heart is most likely fine, it's your chakra goin nuts.

[volcomstone]

since im new here ill keep my opinions less antagonistic.

first off weed has been known since the sumerians, i think we evolved along with it as it evolved with us. it is such a unique plant with very anthropomorphic qualitys (the leaves are considered to be palmmate- palm -hand)   any how, I understand the concept of altered mind state, and that is exactlyy whut u r doin every time you meditate, weed then could be considered a shortcut, any how i lost my oint because im stoned.... 420

ps robert bruce described a level in the astral plane where animals plants and crystal "spirits" exist, and a higher plain where the human thought concept of an animal, or plant which we are familiar with, like a pet, or a house plant.

weed probally resides in both of these domains

[Reason]

Whenever I read these posts about drugs and how they are okay I think of my psych class, and one of the terms I learned in it.  The term is rationalization.  Rationalization basically means that you are making an excuse or something seem OK because you don't want to face the unattactive truth.

At my level of understanding, this is what I believe the truth is concerning drug abuse.  It is enjoyable, I used to smoke pot.  You can feel a lot more, and your mind feels very interesting.  You can become more creative when you are on it.  But you can also become more dumb.  In the long run, I think we all know that even pot will harm us.  It is like taking steroids, when we are on it, we can get a boost, but when we get off, we are worse off better then we started.  Someone may come back at me and say something along the lines of "I just use it to get me going, I don't abuse it."  But think to yourself, do you really want to have to lean on a crutch like that?  It is an expensive crutch at that, the money that you spent on it could probably be spent better somewhere else.  You could spend that pot money on a tai chi class, or something that achieves a similar end to pot (if your goal was a stimulated mind/energy work)

"Man made crack, god made pot. Who do you trust more?"
Does that justify smoking weed?  That is like saying that since other people kill each other, it makes it OK for me to punch you in the face, since it doesn't do as much damage.  Also, who said the purpose of weed is to smoke it?  To whoever it may apply, stick this in your pipe and smoke it (couldn't resist) "Industrial hemp thrives without herbicides, reinvigorates the soil, requires less water than cotton, matures in three to four months, and can potentially yield four times as much paper per acre as trees" http://www.joeyo.net/politics/Industrial hemp.htm

[Reason]

"Didnt "god" also make poisonous spiders? Eat a few of those and see who you trust."

Heh, Do you really believe that poisonous spiders were made to be eaten?  Everything has a purpose, and everyone has a motive.  The poison was put there to help kill/cripple its prey.  Just like everyone is given a mind, that should be used to think, and grow, not to be idle, and desolate.  Also, look at all the beautiful things God has given us.  Look at nature.  Do you think that we shouldn't trust him because there are creatures on earth that can harm/kill us?  Should I not trust my teacher because he/she paired me up with someone I don't like, or is someone that is mean/causes harm to me?  The motive was so we could learn from each other, or atleast give the other the help they need.  Remember, you aren't the only one on earth, and everyone has a purpose, and we all depend on something else to live.

[beavis]

I said that jokingly. The real reason I dont trust "god" is because I've never met him and dont know if he exists.

[Shadow20205]

One of my friends says that he went with some of his friends to this like convention and they smoke some (of that good excrement) and they could see the energy as clear as day.[][][]

[Foas]

Of course i used to love pot was like yam that how isee my god, I agree it and acuse to do somthing that ant right, The post with god made pot and man made crack who do you trust more was a joke. Most poeple say pot helps. It did tell i relized it bonked up my true senses as if i saw it or felt it i thought it was energy. But it wasnt just like if i where to do dreams an hulsination to stimulate yourself to be better. That why i quit cuss i do better with energy not doing it. And i lost the pont cuss if i wana get bonked up i just get drunk

[baxarr]

yes of course weed can make you slower in your thought process if you smoke it every day. if you relax and smoke it once and awhile for fun and nothing else then your fine. all those side effects are temporary , and its sposed to be like that , you dont smoke weed to become a genious for the next hour, your sposed to not make sense and become stupid yet its logical to you and is fun. there is no lasting side effects that dont disapate after stopping usage of weed.

as a side note which has nothing to do with the whole weed discussion but does at the same time. today i decided to smoke weed again since it was friday and i was waiting around for night fall to go hang out with some friends. anyways i was in my backyard smoking.
all of the sudden my dog jumped up and started sniffing high up in the fence like if someone were to put there hand through the chain link fence to pet them thats where he was sniffing. i can read my dogs very well i've never seen him in that position before ,it was like someone new just popped up and he was greeting them. trust me i did not just hullucinate this, i was stoned at the time and might of over reacted because i excrement my pants thinking it was some demon and ran in the house (i dont even belive in demons) , but i went back out , and this time both dogs settled down near the fence ( i have 2), then all the sudden my second dog (maxx, what an original name), jumped up and also sniffed near the fence like someone was there, i watched them for mabey 5 mins still sniffing away until i eventully yelled at them for no reason , just to get them away cuz it was freaking me out, only one of the dogs actually left the area, i was like screw it , mabey theres a cat near the fence i cant see, i got up , walked over to it looked around for awhile , nothing was there at all , i made sure of it. this kind of scared me because i was stoned at the time , now i relize if it was a spirit it dident mean any harm, but at the time it scared the living excrement out of me. ok now i know that i said earlier a bunch of times weed shouldent be used for spiritual devlopement and should just be used as fun, well that was my intensions, it seems tho , weed doesent induce anything itself but it makes everything alot easier , i spent 10 mins inbetween my body , (no i wasent just high) , i've been smoking weed for years i know the effects of it , what it is and what it isnt. i kept accidently almost leaving my body , until i would realize it and snap back out of it.
the trance state is almost like being on an anethestic , i must have been in it on the border line of projecting the entire time while high . i dont like this at all, at bonking all. i wanted to just lay down watch the matrix and stare at the wall. the fact that my high was me being half way into the astral without even trying scares me. and no i wasent just high , i was moving my astral arms at one point. once again lemme just say , i dont use weed for this , i do obe practice with no drugs daily , and energy devlopement. im just reporting what happend while high. i cant get over wether i was scared that i knew what the thing beyond the fence was or that i dident. it was obvisously nice to the dogs. if it was a spirit it was probly a family member. last night i had a horrible dream that a evil (i dont belive in evil ) spirit was attacking me and i got so enraged but i couldent do anything about it. i dont belive in evil , nothing is really bad , its our actions which make up how we're precived to other people , you can always change. i dont belive in demons , just like in the psychical we have assholes (very few are really bad , there just products of their enviroments), in the astral there are moron also.
none of them scare me. also i became lucid last night and tried to project , i almost made it too . sorry i went on for awhile hehe.

bye.

[Reason]

"The real reason I dont trust "god" is because I've never met him and dont know if he exists."

I don't know if you mean god, as in the one Christians believe in or not, but let me just say this, better yet, let me quote Peter Kreeft.

"Can you prove that God exists?  Before we answer this question we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.  First there is the question of whether something exists or not.  A thing can exist whether we know it or not.  

Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)

Third, there is teh question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge.  We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons.  Many Christians think God's existence is like that.

Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists amounts to a proof.  Most reasons do not.  Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs.  FOr instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.

Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by scientific method?  Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.

I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth.  God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument.  First, there is a major premise, or general principle.  Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle.  Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.

In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different.  The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God.  In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascals Wager.  THis essay explores the argument from design.

The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer.  The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe.  The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.

Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer?   Because everyone admits this principle in practice.  For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach.  You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message.  If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance.  You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer?  There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind.  But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation?  Someone once said that i fyou sat a million monkeys at a milion typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance.  But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whehter it came from chance and monkeys.  Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?  Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist.  At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.  We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it.  It's called God.

There is one especially strong version of the argument from design that hits close to home because it's about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains.  The human brain is the most complex piece of design in teh known universe.  In many ways it is like a computer.  Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance.  For instance, suppose you were in a plan and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards.  How much confidence would you have in that plane?  But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that programs it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?

ANother specially strong aspect of the design argument is the socalled anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been speciall;y designed from the beginning for human life to evolve.  If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed.  The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one.  Sounds suspiciously like a plot.  If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved.  The chance of this molecule's evolving is osmething like one in a trillion trillion.  Add together each of te chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians.  The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer?  Just the opposite; evolution is abeautiful example of design, a great clue to God.  There is a very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex.  But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle.  But this is sheer theory.  There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive.  How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design?  Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.  If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause.  But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence.  Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

How much does this argument prove?  Not all that the Christian means by God, of course - no argument can do that.  But it proved a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind.  If that's not God, what is it?  Steven Spielberg?" [End Quote]



I would also like to point out that we cannot scientifically prove the astral realms, but we believe in them.  

[beavis]

Reason:

It has been proven that nothing but math and logic can be proven, therefore, proof is irrelevant. It can only be shown that one thing is more likely than an other.

_{God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof}

I dont see how those 4/5 questions lead to this.

_{where there is design, there must be a designer}

It is possible for the design to be more complex than the designer. Then the chain of designers could start at (almost) nothing and end here. Example: 500 years ago is a designer. The present is the design. It is more complex.

_{Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice.}

Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed earth was flat, therefore we must believe it if we lived then and it is correct.


I've seen the rest of that argument too many times. Its just too easy to refute and I'm bored with it.

[Reason]

"It has been proven that nothing but math and logic can be proven, therefore, proof is irrelevant. It can only be shown that one thing is more likely than an other."

Math and logic is great, it gives us clear answers, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate.  Consider physics.  Pretty important field of science right?  Math and logic go with it too, eh?  But did you know that the laws of physics had to be changed so it would be possible for a bee to fly?    

Also, just because we don't have the instruments to prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that proof is irrelevent.  We have only an idea of what atoms look like, but we can't actually see them.  Does that mean that they don't exist.  And if you come back to me and say that we can see atoms now, remember when the atom was first thought of?  The person who came up with the idea of the atom, I guarantee you, couldn't see it.  

If we all thought that way then we would probably not be anywhere as technologically evolved as we are today.

"There is no prescribed route to follow to arrive at a new idea. You have to make the intuitive leap. But the difference is that once you've made that intuitive leap you have to justify it by filling in the intermediate steps." - Steven Hawking

"I dont see how those 4/5 questions lead to this."
Explain, because I don't understand your reasoning.

"It is possible for the design to be more complex than the designer. Then the chain of designers could start at (almost) nothing and end here. Example: 500 years ago is a designer. The present is the design. It is more complex."
This is pretty vague.  I think I understand you, but I am not totally sure.  Your example is weird.  Do you mean that the state of technology 500 years ago was the designer?  Were people 500 years ago the designer?  Well what if there is just one designer (god) and the big bang started the design that is still evolving to this day.  It is pretty impressive isn't it?

Kreeft's quote:"Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer?  Because everyone admits this principle in practice."
How you quoted him:"Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice."

I think that in the manner that you quoted him you took him out of context to twist what he was really trying to say.  When you quoted him, how you quoted him, it seemed to me as if you were making a blanket statement which would apply to everything else he said.  Although I think Kreeft could have written this part better, ask yourself the same question.  If you saw a hut with no people in sight, wouldn't you think that someone designed it?  With your own logic you know that this is true.  You also know that everyone else will admit this too.  No one is going to say that that hut was built by chance (unless they are stubborn/not really trying to understand anything, but only trying to win an argument that is impossible if they wanted to use sound reasoning).  

"Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed earth was flat, therefore we must believe it if we lived then and it is correct."
People believed that because they didn't have the technology to prove that the earth wasn't flat.  Also, people believed that because if you didn't you would be killed.  It has happened before.

Also, can you prove to me that love exists?  Is there a mathmatical equation that proves love?  Can you logically prove that you actually love someone?  All you can do is show me proof that you say is "irrelevent."  You can show me a picture of hugging your father or mother, or significant other, but that proves nothing right?  Maybe you hate them but someone made you look happy.  Maybe you don't love your significant other, but you are just attracted to them for their body.  Do you get the point that I am trying to make?  Math and logic only take you so far.  If everything could be proven then wouldn't our lives be pretty boring?  Nothing to explore, nothing to ponder, just a list of facts that you read out of a book.  Isn't that a big portion of the fun factor that astral projection is?  That you will see something new, something no one has ever seen before?  Something that is your own and only you have.  Really, you must admit that a life with something besides just math and logic makes life worth living.

"I've seen the rest of that argument too many times. Its just too easy to refute and I'm bored with it."
Which part of the argument?  How is it easy to refute?  If by refute you mean giving substandard counterstatements, then I suppose it is easy to refute.  My motive here isn't to make myself seem like the one who is right, my motive is to bring some good points to the table.  Actually put some thought into what I have written down and ask yourself if it makes any sense.  Check yourself, is your motive here to learn?  Or is your motive to be the one who is right?  To me it seems like you are fighting an uphill battle.

I honestly have put a lot of thought into what you said, as you can tell from my lengthy responses, I hope you show me the same courtesy.

[beavis]

Reason:

Physics uses math but contains nonmath elements, therefore you can never prove anything in physics with 100% certainty. You probably think atoms have been proven to exist, but they havent. If you cant prove that the smallest particles are not numbers in a giant computer containing the visible universe, then you cant prove 100% that atoms exist.


_{This is pretty vague. I think I understand you, but I am not totally sure. Your example is weird. Do you mean that the state of technology 500 years ago was the designer? Were people 500 years ago the designer?}

In my example, the total mass and energy of our solar system 500 years ago is the designer, and the total now is the design.

_{Well what if there is just one designer (god) and the big bang started the design that is still evolving to this day. It is pretty impressive isn't it?}

What if it was designed by a can of tomato soup? What if... what if...


<sub>How you quoted him:"Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice."

I think that in the manner that you quoted him you took him out of context to twist what he was really trying to say. When you quoted him, how you quoted him, it seemed to me as if you were making a blanket statement which would apply to everything else he said.</sub>

I was making a blanket statement. It is never true that I must believe something because everyone else believes it.

_{People believed that because they didn't have the technology to prove that the earth wasn't flat.}

Suppose I've never been in space or been to the edge of this flat earth. I know pictures of things that dont exist can be created with photoshop. People can lie to your face or in a book. Without using any people, books, or pictures, (because I dont trust them) prove to me that earth is round.

_{Math and logic only take you so far. If everything could be proven then wouldn't our lives be pretty boring?}

Then you agree that things other than math and logic cant be proven.

[Reason]

"Physics uses math but contains nonmath elements, therefore you can never prove anything in physics with 100% certainty. You probably think atoms have been proven to exist, but they havent. If you cant prove that the smallest particles are not numbers in a giant computer containing the visible universe, then you cant prove 100% that atoms exist."

We can't see atoms.  But how do you explain an atomic bomb?  From your reasoning it seems you don't think atoms exist... come on.  How do you explain scientists knowing that water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms?  How do you explain any of the sciences?  I feel that you are just being stubborn and don't want to admit that you may be wrong.  All the scientific work that has been done until present day points to the fact that atoms exist.  Why are you trying to argue that atoms don't exist?  It is an uphill battle.  While you are at it, why don't you tell people who they can't prove love.  Tell people how they can't prove sadness.  Tell people they can't prove any other emotion that everyone on earth experiences because there is no math and logic explanation, the lifeblood of you're reasoning.

"What if it was designed by a can of tomato soup? What if... what if..."
From your posts it seems that you are saying we should just give up on trying to find out the origin of our creation..  What is wrong with the question "What if?"  Doesn't it make more logical sense that someone created the universe then all by chance?  Do you think that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing?  If you see a rabbit hop around you do you think that it just popped into existence, or do you think that it came from it's hole?  Take this into account.  

Also, for this comment you made:
"In my example, the total mass and energy of our solar system 500 years ago is the designer, and the total now is the design.", Read the following quote.


Cause and Effect
"There must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.  Now, the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence.  Each of these things must therefore have a cause.  I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriage of my ancestors.  The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes.

But does the universe as a whole have a cause?  Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes?  If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain.  If so, then there is an eternal necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it.  It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first cause and uncaused cause.  Such a being would have to be God, of course.  If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause?  Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.  If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained.  Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation.  I'm just an instrument.  Something else caused me."  If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck.  

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a agreat chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.  If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine.  Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera.  But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train.  That would be impossible, of course.  But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy.  SUppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained.  You want that book very much.  You ask me whether I have it.  I say no, I have to get it from my wife.  Does she have it?  No, she has to get it from a neighbor.  Does he have it?  No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it... et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.  No one actually has the book.  In that case, you will never get it.  However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it.  Well, existence is like that book.  Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect.  If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it.  But we did get it.  We exist.  We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels.  Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way.  Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself.  If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself.  It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides.  If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence.  Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it.  Beings whose essence does not contain the reason fro their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings.  A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being.  The universe contains only contingent beings.  God would be the only necessary being-if God existed.  Does he?  Does a necessary being exist?  Here is the proof that it does.  Dependent beings cannot cause themselves.  They are dependent on their causes.  If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.  But they do exist.  Therefore there is an independent being." - Peter Kreeft

"I was making a blanket statement. It is never true that I must believe something because everyone else believes it."
I agree, but does that mean that the belief is not worth your time?  It seems you are implying that it is not.  

"Suppose I've never been in space or been to the edge of this flat earth. I know pictures of things that dont exist can be created with photoshop. People can lie to your face or in a book. Without using any people, books, or pictures, (because I dont trust them) prove to me that earth is round."
I agree that you shouldn't trust anything off the bat.  But I can hardly believe that you are asking me to prove that the earth is round.  You are fighting an uphill battle.  Please, admit this to me, you do believe that the earth is round right?  because if you can't admit that I may as well stop replying to this topic right now.  If you want proof for yourself, become an astronaut and go into space.  

"Then you agree that things other than math and logic cant be proven."
No.  I agree everything can't be proven WITH math and logic.  Math AND Logic.  I don't think that everything can be proven with math.   I am thinking to myself right now of something I can't prove with logic.  I am talking good logic here by the way.  I can't think of anything right now.  Why don't you use your logic and admit that things without math can be proven.  Admit to yourself (you know it's true) that love exists.  You are fighting an uphill battle, because you know that love exists, and you know that you can't prove it with math.  You also know that you can't prove love doesn't exist with logic, unless it is bad logic.

From the statements you made, I couldn't prove that you weren't a meat popsicle.  I mean, my eyes, when I see oranges, you could see banana right?  Do you see how absurd this is?