Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

Again, I have no issue with saying that belief is subjective but it is not merely subjective: as previously stated, it is also communal in that it is shared in a wider community. Religious belief, philosophy, poetry, architecture, literature, wine, art, food, etc. are all subjective as is eros - not all agree, opinions differ. Furthermore, as also discussed, science is not the monolith you seem to suggest. While gravity, evolution and the big bang are, I assume, in the scientific community. accepted theories, in other fields like cognitive science there are different 'camps' with their own competing beliefs or theories. Each seems to look at the 'evidence' and come up with a different, subjective take. So it goes.

On religion I have never thought that such polls ever get deep enough to truly answer the question I just raised.

Medical science has also evolved to what we have today but I have no real need to (and recognize the absurdity of) talking about blood letting if I want to make a judgement on modern medical practices. What was, is not now and to attempt to make it so, makes no sense. Plus since I have never feared lightening and thunder my current beliefs actually did not arise from those earlier beliefs and they also acknowledge our 21st C scientific worldview (I actually don't look to the skies for god or his kingdom).

Again you state the obvious about theological speculation and avoid the reality that some/many religious thinkers are scientists and others, myself included, respect, value, depend on and like the sciences - and by definition then are not pre-scientific:+{ We simply accept that limitation of science on the subject of God and recognize that this is beyond the interest and the scope of the sciences.

Actually the physical nature of the mind is a point of contention since not all people, not all scientists, are materialists or physicalists. Again, if a scientist believes in God, they do not accept that all is only physical and that the mind (soul, spirit) is merely an off-shoot of the physical brain.

We are dealing with two different 'subjects' or better one subject and a universe of objects. Science deals with the objects, any and every object, that it knows about (or will discover) in the universe. Religion does not accept that God is such an object and thus cannot be a thing for the study of science - thus different 'subjects.' If you choose to define God in a different way that comes under the purview of science, that is your right and your belief - but not the belief of the serious religious thinker.

Who knew about Cortland and Diana and pink ruffles? Really, you know a bit too much for a non-fan. You really have to step away from Babs :+}

We differ on love but I simply doubt that many or most or any atheists live their belief and boldly tell their parents, friends and especially their partner and kids that they love them 'merely because of a byproduct of our evolved need as social animals for attachment and social bonding to enable community living.'. Yeah....... that must be popular on a first date and I can see the atheist cleverly trying to work that into a proposal of marriage and it must come in handy when they try to comfort their mother when her husband dies or their kid when she is at her lowest. Yeah that works - do any atheists live their truth, has their been a poll?

I'm Team Tink.........I never liked Wendy:+}

You'll have to be specific as to what creeds you refer and of course then there is the recognition that creeds or theological explanations (and formulations) are, of necessity, presented within the worldview and the philosophical system of the day and must re-presetned for each new generation - reflecting their worldview and philosophical system. This is the normal course of theology among serious religious thinkers. Many are not contradictory but some are seemingly contradictory, thus the reference to paradox in which two, seemingly opposing thoughts, can be accepted and balanced at the same time. Example immanence and transcendence.

We differ on God and even human experiences that are too rich and cannot be captured or even adequately expressed by human language. Again I give you love and the limitation of language to express what it is, what it means, what the other means to you. Thus, we are reduced to giving roses or speaking poetically or having 'our song' or stumbling and bumbling our way through expressing that love - and also expressing so much more in life. Again, I give you the inadequacy of most/all atheist to communicate, to find the words, to tell their loved ones that they love only as a byproduct of their evolution. Are there hallmark cards for that? “Metaphor, symbol, analogies, (parables) stories” and so much more are necessary even when the 'object' of your love and the evidence of that love is lived daily and before you day after day. So much for realities that are not too rich for human language.

I speak of religious belief, while you speak of science..........and never the twain shall deal with the same Reality :+}

You choose not to believe (which I respect) but your belief is utterly unsupported by any actual evidence whatsoever.

I have no problem with recognizing the mythological language in the NT or all other holy scriptures (see the discussion on the limits of language). You really need to work on myth and what it actually is - for myth can speak a truth and the truth remains even if the vehicle, i.e. the myth, is not meant to be taken literally. Myth, story, poetry, art, religion can speak to the truth. Is love not like a red, red rose? Does so much depend on the red wheelbarrow or does it not?

[Tassman]

Again, I have no issue with saying that belief is subjective but it is not merely subjective: as previously stated, it is also communal in that it is shared in a wider community. Religious belief, philosophy, poetry, architecture, literature, wine, art, food, etc. are all subjective as is eros - not all agree, opinions differ. Furthermore, as also discussed, science is not the monolith you seem to suggest. While gravity, evolution and the big bang are, I assume, in the scientific community. accepted theories, in other fields like cognitive science there are different 'camps' with their own competing beliefs or theories. Each seems to look at the 'evidence' and come up with a different, subjective take. So it goes.

Science looks at objective evidence as opposed to the subjective evidence you are espousing. Since you claim that your god of choice exists, it is up to you to provide factual measurable empirical evidence to support that claim.

On religion I have never thought that such polls ever get deep enough to truly answer the question I just raised.

On religion one can only assess people by their words and their behavior regarding their attitude towards religion.

Medical science has also evolved to what we have today but I have no real need to (and recognize the absurdity of) talking about blood letting if I want to make a judgement on modern medical practices. What was, is not now and to attempt to make it so, makes no sense. Plus since I have never feared lightening and thunder my current beliefs actually did not arise from those earlier beliefs and they also acknowledge our 21st C scientific worldview (I actually don't look to the skies for god or his kingdom).

Nevertheless, religion arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age, i.e., until it was superseded by science.

Again you state the obvious about theological speculation and avoid the reality that some/many religious thinkers are scientists and others, myself included, respect, value, depend on and like the sciences - and by definition then are not pre-scientific:+{ We simply accept that limitation of science on the subject of God and recognize that this is beyond the interest and the scope of the sciences.

Some scientists are religious but most are not. Pew Research survey “shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power”.

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Actually the physical nature of the mind is a point of contention since not all people, not all scientists, are materialists or physicalists. Again, if a scientist believes in God, they do not accept that all is only physical and that the mind (soul, spirit) is merely an off-shoot of the physical brain.

See above.

We are dealing with two different 'subjects' or better one subject and a universe of objects. Science deals with the objects, any and every object, that it knows about (or will discover) in the universe. Religion does not accept that God is such an object and thus cannot be a thing for the study of science - thus different 'subjects.' If you choose to define God in a different way that comes under the purview of science, that is your right and your belief - but not the belief of the serious religious thinker.

No. Science in the broadest sense, is a study of the natural universe in all its aspects. There is no good reason to assume there is anything that is non-natural.

Who knew about Cortland and Diana and pink ruffles? Really, you know a bit too much for a non-fan. You really have to step away from Babs :+}

Most people seemed to be obsessed with Diana at the time and anyone associated with her – including our Babs. But, again, she is merely representative of the shallow falsity of romantic fiction as a mistaken example of the true purpose of love.

We differ on love but I simply doubt that many or most or any atheists live their belief and boldly tell their parents, friends and especially their partner and kids that they love them 'merely because of a byproduct of our evolved need as social animals for attachment and social bonding to enable community living.'. Yeah....... that must be popular on a first date and I can see the atheist cleverly trying to work that into a proposal of marriage and it must come in handy when they try to comfort their mother when her husband dies or their kid when she is at her lowest. Yeah that works - do any atheists live their truth, has their been a poll?

One does not tell those we love that at all. Obviously. And neither did our hominid forebears. But this does not alter the biological fact that “love” is merely the byproduct of the evolved necessity of social animals like us for attachment and social bonding to enable community living. At bottom, love is an evolved survival mechanism.

I'm Team Tink.........I never liked Wendy:+}

She was a bad-tempered little fairy. What did Wendy ever do to her?

You'll have to be specific as to what creeds you refer and of course then there is the recognition that creeds or theological explanations (and formulations) are, of necessity, presented within the worldview and the philosophical system of the day and must re-presetned for each new generation - reflecting their worldview and philosophical system. This is the normal course of theology among serious religious thinkers. Many are not contradictory but some are seemingly contradictory, thus the reference to paradox in which two, seemingly opposing thoughts, can be accepted and balanced at the same time. Example immanence and transcendence.

Try the Athanasian Creed for starters. But they all detail with the utmost clarity the total contradiction of the Christological doctrines of Christianity. And simultaneous Immanence and Transcendence are not just two, seemingly opposing thoughts. They ARE “opposing thoughts”.

We differ on God and even human experiences that are too rich and cannot be captured or even adequately expressed by human language.

Well, clear, meaningful “language” is all we’ve got to express our experiences otherwise, one lapses into the pseudo-profundities of Deepak Chopra and his ilk.

Again I give you love and the limitation of language to express what it is, what it means, what the other means to you. Thus, we are reduced to giving roses or speaking poetically or having 'our song' or stumbling and bumbling our way through expressing that love - and also expressing so much more in life. Again, I give you the inadequacy of most/all atheist to communicate, to find the words, to tell their loved ones that they love only as a byproduct of their evolution. Are there hallmark cards for that? “Metaphor, symbol, analogies, (parables) stories” and so much more are necessary even when the 'object' of your love and the evidence of that love is lived daily and before you day after day. So much for realities that are not too rich for human language.

We have art and culture to express these emotions. And even though the shenanigans of the Nordic gods, giants and heroes in Wagner’s Ring Cycle opera's and the like emotionally resonate with us we know that it is all just mythology. The various myths DO resonate, this is why we love them. But, at bottom, we understand that our love of family and community have their origins in biology and natural selection, not in theology nor myths.

I speak of religious belief, while you speak of science..........and never the twain shall deal with the same Reality :+}

Indeed. One is subjective reality (i.e. feelings) and the other is factual empirical evidence

You choose not to believe (which I respect) but your belief is utterly unsupported by any actual evidence whatsoever.

What I choose not to believe as fact are myths (whether folklore or theology)) taken as truths in and of themselves.

I have no problem with recognizing the mythological language in the NT or all other holy scriptures (see the discussion on the limits of language).

And yet the interpretation of "myth in the NT or all other holy scriptures" has varied hugely over the millennia, because the bible can be made to reinforce what the society of the day believes at any given period of history.

You really need to work on myth and what it actually is - for myth can speak a truth and the truth remains even if the vehicle, i.e. the myth, is not meant to be taken literally. Myth, story, poetry, art, religion can speak to the truth. Is love not like a red, red rose? Does so much depend on the red wheelbarrow or does it not?

Sure. If one sees religious belief as no more than an art form.

[thormas]

Actually if I provided or could provide "factual measurable empirical evidence" I would no longer be talking about religious faith. So, no, I don't have to do this :+}

I disagree with your premise: religion was never replaced by scientific inquiry -they are two different inquiries with radically different subjects.

Isn't half as likely about 50% likely as the general public? Thus more than some but even some shows a crack in the thinking: religion is different and not superseded. These scientists are neither atheists or materialists.

You have made my case: science is the study of the natural universe whereas God is not of that universe (belief).

I'll just leave it as "our Babs" and move on :+}

Wendy loved and left Pan........and grew old.

Again, you make my case: the atheist says one thing (or a bunch of things) and they apply to everybody else but him or her; they are not lived, they are not shared. The atheist, at heart, doesn't embrace what he or she espouse. Not so for the believer.

The Creed and all its parts might take a bit longer but I would be glad to go into it at a later date.
Love takes one beyond himself and in so doing, find himself in the other (transcendence and immanence). Another way to put this paradox is to find self by losing self. Thank like a poet my friend. The two are only seemingly opposed: one is in the other.

Beyond the inadequacy of 'clear, meaningful language' we have the language of poetry, music, art .........and religion, all focused on that which is too rich for 'clear' language which cannot speak to the depth and breath of that which is experienced.

Mythology, properly understood, in not ever just a just.

Still myth is myth and some don't accept much of the scriptures as myth but take all literally. Strange, I know:+}

Yet art, like religion, can speak truth.

[Tassman]

Actually if I provided or could provide "factual measurable empirical evidence" I would no longer be talking about religious faith. So, no, I don't have to do this :+}

NOT providing such factual objective evidence to support your claim suggests that there is nothing but subjective evidence, i.e., ‘feelings’. And whilst this is fine when it comes to such things as “poetry, architecture, literature, wine, art” as you referenced, these things, unlike God, demonstrably exist.

I disagree with your premise: religion was never replaced by scientific inquiry -they are two different inquiries with radically different subjects.

Well no. The origins of religion were the attempt to explain the universe and how it functions (i.e., god-did-it) – a task more effectively accomplished by science.

Isn't half as likely about 50% likely as the general public? Thus more than some but even some shows a crack in the thinking: religion is different and not superseded. These scientists are neither atheists or materialists.

The world has been saturated by religious beliefs for most of its history. It’s unsurprising that the religious cultural traditions still hold sway even among some scientists – particularly in highly religions societies. Less so in the more secular societies previously listed.

You have made my case: science is the study of the natural universe whereas God is not of that universe (belief).

Not at all. You need to make a case that there is a non-natural universe.

I'll just leave it as "our Babs" and move on :+}

Lest we forget “our Babs”:

https://princessdianabookboutique.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/princess-diana-and-her-flamboyant-grandmother-dame-barbara-cartland/

Wendy loved and left Pan........and grew old.

And Tinkerbelle, heartless fairy that she was, was glad.

Again, you make my case: the atheist says one thing (or a bunch of things) and they apply to everybody else but him or her; they are not lived, they are not shared. The atheist, at heart, doesn't embrace what he or she espouse. Not so for the believer.

Not sure of your context. If you are referring to ‘love’, there are evolved biological reasons why social creatures form homogenous communities, namely the survival of the species. They don’t affect our day-to-today relationships but they are their foundation.

The Creed and all its parts might take a bit longer but I would be glad to go into it at a later date.

The creeds are contradictory statements of theology designed to reflect what believers wanted to believe about Jesus. Just as your Immanent/Transcendent assertions about God are.

Love takes one beyond himself and in so doing, find himself in the other (transcendence and immanence). Another way to put this paradox is to find self by losing self. Thank like a poet my friend. The two are only seemingly opposed: one is in the other.

“Love” between individuals is a product of evolution in that it lends itself to our survival as a species, whereas “transcendence and immanence” are the divine attributes of God and they are indeed contradictory.

Beyond the inadequacy of 'clear, meaningful language' we have the language of poetry, music, art .........and religion, all focused on that which is too rich for 'clear' language which cannot speak to the depth and breath of that which is experienced.

The arts reflect our imagination and creativity as human beings and whilst they comprise an important component of our culture, they don’t do any more than this.

Mythology, properly understood, in not ever just a just.

Mythology is folklore, tales which are passed down from generation to generation. Some even take on the status of established facts such as King Arthur or the various divine pantheons or the adventures of Moses or the Jesus story.

Still myth is myth and some don't accept much of the scriptures as myth but take all literally. Strange, I know:+}

ALL religions are grounded in mythology. There is no reason to think one is true and the others false.

Yet art, like religion, can speak truth.

Art reflects our inner feelings and passions, not necessarily “truth” in the absolute sense.

[thormas]

We have a basic disagreement: I say that belief does not need factual objective evidence since the subject of belief is beyond any objective evidence - yet you insist that I treat God as an object - which I insist he is not :+} BTW the subjects of all art, literature, sculpture and poetry do not demonstrably exist.

I will grant that religion is replaced or superseded by the sciences concerning the how and the what of the universe - but the Why and the Meaning of the Universe cannot be answered by science.

Your answer concerning believing scientists is a tad disingenuous: you praise science and those who engage in the sciences - except where they disagree with your position about God, soul, Mind, consciousness. So it seems as long as a scientist is an atheist they get your seal of approval.

Mine is a belief statement: I don't have to make a case that God is beyond the physical or natural universe or submit to scientific methodology.

We will move past your Babs and that wench Windy: Go Tink!

It should be clear given your answer about not sharing your belief with loved ones: the atheist does not live, does not stand behind what they assert.

Suffice to say I disagree with your characterization of the creeds but it is too long a topic to discuss right now.

Suffice also to say that I disagree with your position on love and the 'attributes' of the Divine.

We have discussed art and poetry and I won that conversation :+} The arts (can) move us beyond the limitations of language, transcending it.

Myth is also more than you allow. But I do like the possibility for a movie that you have suggested: "The Adventures of Moses." As for religion and myth, we don't agree on what myth is or its function.

[Tassman]

We have a basic disagreement: I say that belief does not need factual objective evidence since the subject of belief is beyond any objective evidence - yet you insist that I treat God as an object - which I insist he is not :+} BTW the subjects of all art, literature, sculpture and poetry do not demonstrably exist.

But the artists themselves DO demonstrably exist and we accept their work as examples of their imagination and creatively. Similarly, you seem to view God not as objectively real, but as an example of artistic imagination and creativity which relegates God to the same level as say, Boticelli's Venus Rising.

I will grant that religion is replaced or superseded by the sciences concerning the how and the what of the universe - but the Why and the Meaning of the Universe cannot be answered by science.

Once again, you are assuming for no good reason that there is a “Why and the Meaning of the Universe”. But, as you say of God, the universe just IS.

Your answer concerning believing scientists is a tad disingenuous: you praise science and those who engage in the sciences - except where they disagree with your position about God, soul, Mind, consciousness. So it seems as long as a scientist is an atheist they get your seal of approval.

No, I’m just noting that compared with the general population the majority of scientists are NOT religious. This was in response to your citing scientific support for your religious position.

Mine is a belief statement: I don't have to make a case that God is beyond the physical or natural universe or submit to scientific methodology.

You need to make a case that a non-natural universe actually exists. Otherwise, your claim that “God is beyond the physical or natural universe” is merely a bald assertion - a statement without proof or evidence of truth.

We will move past your Babs and that wench Windy: Go Tink!

…poor Wendy.

It should be clear given your answer about not sharing your belief with loved ones: the atheist does not live, does not stand behind what they assert.

The evolved biological process of bonding and attachment are the foundational building blocks of communal/family/love relationships in social species such as us – not the day-to-day social intercourse between loved ones and communal attachments. But what does this have to do with atheism vis-à-vis theism?

Suffice to say I disagree with your characterization of the creeds but it is too long a topic to discuss right now..

Suffice also to say that I disagree with your position on love and the 'attributes' of the Divine.

Well, I can only repeat that you reflect the unsubstantiated beliefs that believers want to believe about religion and their God.

We have discussed art and poetry and I won that conversation :+} The arts (can) move us beyond the limitations of language, transcending it.

No, you did not win that conversation. You were equating the arts – ballet, poetry, music etc., which demonstrably exist – with God who does not demonstrably exist.

Myth is also more than you allow. But I do like the possibility for a movie that you have suggested: "The Adventures of Moses." As for religion and myth, we don't agree on what myth is or its function.

Myths and legends are folklore - tales passed down from generation to generation featuring characters or gods or monsters that many construe over time to be real.

[thormas]

First, we were talking about the subject of the artist and not the artist themselves - so let's acknowledge that you introduced something that want't denied. However, what you said is the equivalent of saying religious people exist - doesn't get us anywhere. And I have no problem pointing ti the imagination of the religious man - however the religious man (and actually some artists) asserts that although both his language and his imagination can never capture the Reality that is God, God still IS - and again there is and cannot be any evidence for or against this Reality.

You assume the universe just is - yet we can point to either endless contingency in the 'creation' of everything in the universe (each dependent on something else) which becomes a logical absurdity or we can assert a 'creation' point and then have to ask , "Say What." And even then I do not assert God is the answer but man will inevitably ask, as he has since he became man, "What does it mean?" And science is impotent in the face of this question.

Yet you still dismiss scientists who are religious and it is still the case that some scientists (and again you praise scientists except these) are religious - even though they know what you know (and probably in most cases more), they still say there is 'More.'

Actually I have no idea if a non-natural universe exists. What I believe is that God Is and that God is beyond and not part of or the sum of all that is (and I assume all that to be the universe). I don't assert there is another universe that is not-natural, I simple assert that God is the very possibility of all that is.

Foundational, of course but your position on love, evolution and species it is the rhyme and reason of all love (for the atheist - yet the atheist doesn't doesn't talk about if, doesn't have the courage to tell theor loved ones that this is why they are loved. My point is that the atheist does not have the courage of their belief - unlike the religious person. If you don't stand behind your own belief, how worthy of consideration by others is it?

Suffice to say I disagree on the so called 'want to believe' believer (see above).

No, I did win - I declared it :+}
And I didn't make the comparison you indicated, I was discussing the object of the artist (the art) and the object of the religious man (God), that is things that are alike, both objects. I was not, as you implied, discussing the subject doing the action (the artist) with the object of religion, that is things that are different, a subject (the artist) and an object (God).

You don't understand myth (discussed previously).

I declare I win this whole discussion, no touch backs! :+}

[Tassman]

First, we were talking about the subject of the artist and not the artist themselves - so let's acknowledge that you introduced something that want't denied. However, what you said is the equivalent of saying religious people exist - doesn't get us anywhere. And I have no problem pointing ti the imagination of the religious man - however the religious man (and actually some artists) asserts that although both his language and his imagination can never capture the Reality that is God, God still IS - and again there is and cannot be any evidence for or against this Reality.

The “subject of the artist” arises from their imagination and creativity. As with your God, there is no good reason the think it exists beyond the physical activity of the brain.

You assume the universe just is - yet we can point to either endless contingency in the 'creation' of everything in the universe (each dependent on something else) which becomes a logical absurdity or we can assert a 'creation' point and then have to ask , "Say What." And even then I do not assert God is the answer but man will inevitably ask, as he has since he became man, "What does it mean?" And science is impotent in the face of this question.

Physical reality is a scientific question NOT a problem of logic. We know that the universe exists because we are standing in it (or one little speck of it). As for “what it means”, any meaning comes from our evolved place in the order of things as cooperative intelligent social animals.

Yet you still dismiss scientists who are religious and it is still the case that some scientists (and again you praise scientists except these) are religious - even though they know what you know (and probably in most cases more), they still say there is 'More.'

Religious scientists who say there is “more”, are speaking from their religious convictions not their scientific knowledge. Most scientists are NOT religious, nor do they argue that there is “more” than physical reality.

Actually I have no idea if a non-natural universe exists. What I believe is that God Is and that God is beyond and not part of or the sum of all that is (and I assume all that to be the universe). I don't assert there is another universe that is not-natural, I simple assert that God is the very possibility of all that is.

If you argue that God is beyond the ‘natural universe’ then you are saying that a “non-natural universe” exists - Whatever that means.

Foundational, of course but your position on love, evolution and species it is the rhyme and reason of all love (for the atheist - yet the atheist doesn't doesn't talk about if, doesn't have the courage to tell theor loved ones that this is why they are loved. My point is that the atheist does not have the courage of their belief - unlike the religious person. If you don't stand behind your own belief, how worthy of consideration by others is it?

We tell our loved ones that they are loved, because we love them – no great mystery there. The fact that the evolved building blocks of communal/family/love are the foundation of such love does not alter the reality of it.

Suffice to say I disagree on the so called 'want to believe' believer (see above).

If you don’t WANT to believe your unsubstantiated beliefs about religion and God, why do you believe it?

No, I did win - I declared it :+}

Nope.

And I didn't make the comparison you indicated, I was discussing the object of the artist (the art) and the object of the religious man (God), that is things that are alike, both objects. I was not, as you implied, discussing the subject doing the action (the artist) with the object of religion, that is things that are different, a subject (the artist) and an object (God).

Again, the “subject of the artist” arises from their imagination and creativity – albeit based upon tradition and other influences. The same applies to the religious believer. There's no evidence of any of the gods having existed outside of the minds of our species.

You don't understand myth (discussed previously).

Myths: “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events”. Oxford Dictionary.
They are ‘just so’ stories.

[thormas]

This is simply your opinion.As has been previously discussed, cognitive science has no definitive answer and they never will on Mind (just as science will never have a definitive answer on God). Plus what you fail to understand is that the artist and the poet believes that his art touches upon a Reality that.....transcends the imagination of man. He simply tries to say something, to show something of that Reality.

I never doubted the universe exists but science tries to understand 'how' it came about"- is it endless contingency (again a logical and practical absurdity) or is there a 'beginning' point. Again, I don't, as opposed to some others, posit this point as God. Rather I continue to assert that God is the very possibility that there is anything at all whether it came into existence at a 'certain point' or is 'eternal.' And your answer pales into insignificance as it will never satisfy man: "What does it mean?"

Scientists who are religious say there is a God even with all their scientific knowledge - their belief is not separate from but even with their knowledge.

Actually to say God exists is not to say a non-natural universe exists - that is your statement and I disagree with it. To say God IS (and that God is 'more') is not to suggest there is another universe, a non-universe in which he exists or from which he intercedes in ours. Whatever universes there are or may be, God is that which enables all to be. God is not part of, God is the reason that anything at all is. I have no idea what you mean by a non-natural universe since it is not my belief.

Sorry, no matter the rationale, you have shown that the atheist does not tell their loved ones that they are loved only because of evolutionary building blocks. Thus their position is not lived: it is fine to preach to the crowd with nothing on the line, but it is not lived in their own lives. The atheist will not, cannot stand behind his own position. In addition, as has been discussed, such a position leads to the reality that their little moment of evolved meaningfulness means nothing in the greater evolution and life of the universe. It is all for naught. And I think it is smart to not what to share that for the answer to the question "what does it means" ............is, in the end, nothing, "it doesn't really mean a thing."

I believe.......I don't have the fanciful wish list that you imagine of the religious person. I believe that God IS - and thus there is an answer to the eternal question that man, finding himself existing, asks (What does it mean?). The religious man has an answer and it is lived and shared. (unlike the atheist).

[Tassman]

This is simply your opinion.As has been previously discussed, cognitive science has no definitive answer and they never will on Mind (just as science will never have a definitive answer on God).

Scientific research never says, “never”. The first of Arthur C Clarke's three laws of science states: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist claims that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong”.

Plus what you fail to understand is that the artist and the poet believes that his art touches upon a Reality that.....transcends the imagination of man. He simply tries to say something, to show something of that Reality.

That “reality” is purely subjective, it’s based upon ‘feelings’. “Feelings” are not the best means of arriving at objective facts.

I never doubted the universe exists but science tries to understand 'how' it came about"- is it endless contingency (again a logical and practical absurdity) or is there a 'beginning' point. Again, I don't, as opposed to some others, posit this point as God. Rather I continue to assert that God is the very possibility that there is anything at all whether it came into existence at a 'certain point' or is 'eternal.' And your answer pales into insignificance as it will never satisfy man: "What does it mean?"

The” HOW” is all that’s possible to investigate. To ask “WHY” is to assume that there is a cause or reason and this implies a creator. There is no good reason to assume this.

Scientists who are religious say there is a God even with all their scientific knowledge - their belief is not separate from but even with their knowledge.

Nevertheless, the majority of scientists compared to the rest of the population, are NOT religious.

Actually to say God exists is not to say a non-natural universe exists - that is your statement and I disagree with it. To say God IS (and that God is 'more') is not to suggest there is another universe, a non-universe in which he exists or from which he intercedes in ours. Whatever universes there are or may be, God is that which enables all to be. God is not part of, God is the reason that anything at all is. I have no idea what you mean by a non-natural universe since it is not my belief.

There is no need to introduce a hypothetical deity into the equation at all. One just need say that the Universe "IS”.

Sorry, no matter the rationale, you have shown that the atheist does not tell their loved ones that they are loved only because of evolutionary building blocks. Thus their position is not lived: it is fine to preach to the crowd with nothing on the line, but it is not lived in their own lives.

But one does NOT say this to one’s loved ones – just as one does NOT analyze one's biological sexual drives whilst making love. This does not alter the reality of such drives existing any more than recognizing the evolved building blocks of bonding and attachment in communal living. They exist but they are taken for granted as the driving force.

The atheist will not, cannot stand behind his own position. In addition, as has been discussed, such a position leads to the reality that their little moment of evolved meaningfulness means nothing in the greater evolution and life of the universe. It is all for naught. And I think it is smart to not what to share that for the answer to the question "what does it means" ............is, in the end, nothing, "it doesn't really mean a thing."

Ultimately it does NOT “mean a thing”. Why is that such a problem? Conversely, our loving relationships, community involvements and personal interests DO mean a great deal in the short term. This is sufficient for people like me.

I believe.......I don't have the fanciful wish list that you imagine of the religious person. I believe that God IS - and thus there is an answer to the eternal question that man, finding himself existing, asks (What does it mean?). The religious man has an answer and it is lived and shared. (unlike the atheist).

Except that you haven’t actually defined what that “answer” is, you've merely asserted that there is one.

[thormas]

Nice quote about science but God, not being an object, thing or being of the universe, is beyond the scope of science, since by definition the object of science is the universe. But I have my own quote: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [or your science]."

You keep saying the Reality is subjective but it is only your assertion or belief - as opposed to that of the artist, poet, philosopher or theologian.

Thank you: indeed the how is all that is possible to investigate with our sciences. The Why and the What is beyond science but still questions that man asks and will continue to ask. And, there is no good, certainly no scientific, reason we should say there God IS not.

Still, there are scientists, who with all their love and knowledge of science, still believe in God. Thus science and scientists are not the monolith you suggest.

We already know the universe is .........but we still ask our questions (above). All you are saying is that you disagree that God IS - while others (including me) disagree with you :+}

Yet we know it's healthier (and important) to discuss sex, drives, desires, etc. - not during sex (since, hopefully one is otherwise occupied) but at other times. Yet, as you admit, there is no such discussion that the atheist has with those he loves (actually such a discussion would be upsetting and depressing as hell). Other than the fact that the atheist position, enviably ends in meaningless and absurdity - this is its biggest flaw: it is a fanciful little theory but it is not lived, not shared with those who are most important. Atheism cannot stand on its own; it is not sustainable. In a nod to the season, Atheism is a Humbug!

Define, assert - I have actually discussed this above.

Well my friend, tomorrow is Christmas so there might be a delayed response to your comments - but then again not if all are exhausted and there is a lull in post-Christmas relaxation.



While I disagree with your position, I have always believed it is what a person does in life, how they act toward others with care, concern and respect (and humor) that makes the person. And, although we have never met, you learn something of another in their words and my belief is that you are such a person.

[Tassman]

Nice quote about science but God, not being an object, thing or being of the universe, is beyond the scope of science, since by definition the object of science is the universe. But I have my own quote: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [or your science]."

"Science" is not mentioned in the actual Hamlet quote.

Science is concerned with the natural world certainly but you arbitrarily locate God outside the natural world whilst at the same time refusing to designate him as supernatural or non-natural. This is relegating God to some sort of twilight zone.

You keep saying the Reality is subjective but it is only your assertion or belief - as opposed to that of the artist, poet, philosopher or theologian.

Of course, it’s subjective. Artists are depicting a “reality” conceived in their imagination via their material brain. So, I argue, are those claiming divine revelation. There is no verifiable evidence of the gods and monsters and miracles and magic created in art and holy books.

Thank you: indeed the how is all that is possible to investigate with our sciences. The Why and the What is beyond science but still questions that man asks and will continue to ask. And, there is no good, certainly no scientific, reason we should say there God IS not.

We can ask WHY we exist and what the purpose is of it all, but this is not to say there IS a purpose. Why would there be for Homo sapiens as opposed to say, the other hominids.

Still, there are scientists, who with all their love and knowledge of science, still believe in God. Thus science and scientists are not the monolith you suggest.

We already know the universe is .........but we still ask our questions (above). All you are saying is that you disagree that God IS - while others (including me) disagree with you :+}

SOME scientists do but most do not compared to the majority of the population – and one can assume cultural conditioning in many of those that do.

Yet we know it's healthier (and important) to discuss sex, drives, desires, etc. - not during sex (since, hopefully one is otherwise occupied) but at other times. Yet, as you admit, there is no such discussion that the atheist has with those he loves (actually such a discussion would be upsetting and depressing as hell).

There is a time and place for such discussion, it’s not something that is consciously kept hidden. Why would it be – it is well established that we have evolved as a social species and require communal living in order to survive as a species. Hence our instinct to form attachments, bonding and love.

Other than the fact that the atheist position, enviably ends in meaningless and absurdity - this is its biggest flaw: it is a fanciful little theory but it is not lived, not shared with those who are most important. Atheism cannot stand on its own; it is not sustainable. In a nod to the season, Atheism is a Humbug!

The reverse is true. The theist search for non-existent meaning and purpose in life is a futile, self-defeating fantasy. Conversely, the non-theist can obtain emotionally satisfying relationships with their loved ones and attachment to their community - just as they have evolved to do.

Define, assert - I have actually discussed this above.

Your unequivocal declaration that God “IS”, is a bald assertion. It can’t be equated with my claim that the Universe just “IS” because the latter is evidenced by objective substantiated evidence whereas the former is purely a subjective claim.

Well my friend, tomorrow is Christmas so there might be a delayed response to your comments - but then again not if all are exhausted and there is a lull in post-Christmas relaxation.

Happy Christmas

While I disagree with your position, I have always believed it is what a person does in life, how they act toward others with care, concern and respect (and humor) that makes the person. And, although we have never met, you learn something of another in their words and my belief is that you are such a person.

I totally agree. But one does not need a deity to be a caring, responsible person. It’s is a consequence of our cultural conditioning and genetic predisposition as a social species.

[thormas]

But one does not need a deity to be a caring, responsible person.

Hey, that's what I said (first) are you simply copying a believer? :+}

[Tassman]

Hey, that's what I said (first) are you simply copying a believer? :+}

Well, I am if you are agreeing that being a "caring, responsible person" is a consequence of our cultural conditioning and evolved genetic predisposition as a social species.

[thormas]

Well, I am if you are agreeing that being a "caring, responsible person" is a consequence of our cultural conditioning and evolved genetic predisposition as a social species.

Hardly, let's not get carried away:+}

There are good men and women of all stripes and men can choose the Good for different reasons. Yet even if one makes that decision with the belief that it is a consequence of conditioning and genetics, the religious man still asserts that the Reality that we call God is ever-present and immanent in the lives of all men and women even before they begin to formulate their rationales for the Good.