Sometimes a person may be perpetually frustrated with no apparent reason why.  I have a theory for why this might be. 

There are times when a person will tell themself to remember something and then promptly forget it immediately, or say "I'll do that next," and then not do it.  Later, they will feel uneasy, as though something is wrong but they don't know what.  A mysterious "something" is lurking in the background of their mind, but it remains incognito.  In fact, they aren't even aware that the feeling has anything to do with something they forgot.  The theory is that over time, instances like this accumulate to the point where a person is endlessly perturbed, and they have no idea why.   Eventually they are slowly wheeling their cart down an aisle of the grocery store, and their head explodes.  "And that's why, little Timmy," the mother told her child as they wheeled past the body and exploded head, "you need to have a to-do list."  Makes sense to me.

Moving onward...

Is it possible to imagine your entire life like it is a movie?  So that wherever you are, you are viewing the current scene through a third-person point of view, from a corner of the room, or another angle?  I think that would be pretty neat, because then it would be like you are controlling one of the characters.  It's always so frustrating to watch a movie and a character does something completely counterintuitive.  Like in Signs when the guy is like, "I locked one (an alien) in the pantry," and I'm just yelling at Mel Gibson, "Don't go in the house!!  Don't go in the house!! ... DANGIT!"  That movie, much to the surprise of everyone, freaked me out. 

I had a lot of violent dreams this morning.  I was even one of Ghengis Khan's horsemen roving across hillsides in search of war.  But it gets weirder.  My fellow horsemen and I got beat by the French.  They way outnumbered us, though, so I suppose their victory was inconsequential to their ethnicity.  One of my other violent dreams, where I was in a garage that was separated from another garage several hundred yards away by a deep body of water, gave me some good ideas for making a board game.  The other garage charged us with lots of rowboats and I was the only one on my team throwing grenades at them, several of which were duds, so we lost that one too.  Sometimes I think dreams happen to remind us of all the worlds we could have been created in but weren't.

My oh my.  This is far longer than I expected.  Have a swell evenin' kids!

Let us reflect together, if only for a moment, on what seems to be an inescapable catch 22 of philosophy.

Take the two worldviews of Christianity and atheism and ask, what is the epistemology of each of these worldviews?  That is, for a person who takes either of these respective ideas to be true, how do they know it is true? 

For the Christian, it is through experiencing God in their life somehow, and trusting in Him as their saviour relationally.  For the Christian, life is ultimately a relation entity, where what is important is knowing and loving God. 

Conversely, the way an atheist arrives at their conclusion is intellectually, by figuring out that God does not exist.  If you have ever listened to an atheist explain why they became such you will usually be hear some list of reasons that they came across, and then their conclusion was that God does not exist.  Professing atheists usually see their disbelief in the existence of God as a direct product of certain lines of reasoning. 

Now I have no concern in commenting on the rightness or wrongness of either of these worldviews or their epistemologies; I could be speaking from either position in saying this.  But here is what is true by nature about this situation: in affirming the truth of either of these worldviews, you are affirming the truth likewise of its epistemology.  Moreso, in affirming the worldview, you probably used the corresponding epistemology to arrive there, and therefore actually affirmed the epistemology first.

Thus, in affirming the epistemology we are affirming the worldview.  But then the question is, how do we know which epistemology is correct?  When you think about it, you realize one or the other must be simply chosen at random.  People do not so much disagree about what is the truth as they do how to arrive at the truth, and people can only accept a method for arriving at the truth arbitrarily.  Thus, we are stuck with this simple dilemma: one of these is true, and all you can do is pick arbitarily.  Your whole worldview, or what you think is true, will then be a consequence of which one of these epistemologies you (whimsically) decide is true. 

I felt the paradoxes were becoming wearisome and perhaps forced; I will muse about the others intermittently.  Might briefly post some more thoughts on God as well (something I am not wont to do). 

I wish you all wellness and happiness!