Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

Science is not mentioned, thus the parenthesis. It pertains to science also.

I don't do anything arbitrarily concerning God. However, if one is a serious religious thinker, God is beyond beings - i.e. beyond all that is the universe. And I did say earlier that if you needed or preferred to use the term supernatural, I could go with it (albeit I neither use it or agree with all that it suggests). However, supernatural also speaks of God beyond (i.e. transcending) the universe but it doesn't follow that there is a supernatural or non-natural universe (or a twilight zone - but that does sound weirdly cool).

There is no 'of course' about it: that is merely your opinion or belief. And there you go again with verifiable evidence, with imposing science on religious belief (art, literature, poetry and the like). It simply doesn't work that way.

We ask the question and we (i.e. man) believe there is an Answer (whereas you do not). I didn't say there would not be an answer (the same answer) for other hominids (or for all creation).

Although it is convenient for you to dismiss believing scientists as having been culturally conditioned - it is simply not the case for all such believing scientists. It is obvious that some scientists, even having been conditioned by a religious environment, have gone against it. So too, it is also obvious that some scientists, even having been conditioned by the rigors and methodology of science, go against or simply disagree that such conditioning can 'answer' all their questions - thus they remain, return to or choose anew, to believe in God.

You have consistently said that such discussions (with your partner, kids, family, friends) about the 'foundation of love' or simply why you love them are unnecessary - now you change your tune when your back is against the wall. And it did indeed seem to be consciously hidden and avoided. It still seems like it is (hidden) avoided given all your comments.........and that fact is telling.

Interesting: no answer to the two biggest flaws for atheism. Furthermore, it is merely your belief that there is no meaning, no purpose and that mans's search for meaning is futile. Yours is not proof, it is only your belief.

I have both boldly and baldly asserted that God IS and I have discussed it (above). And, once again you have made my point: to say the universe is, is not the equivalent of saying that God IS.

[Tassman]

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

I thought not.

There are good men and women of all stripes and men can choose the Good for different reasons.

One is not actively choosing to be “good” community members at all given that we are socially acculturated from infancy onwards. It’s how, as a social species, we are genetically predisposed to live – the only exceptions being personality disordered individuals such as sociopaths.

Yet even if one makes that decision with the belief that it is a consequence of conditioning and genetics,

It is NOT a decision as such, its evolved instinct.

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.

The religious man may well assert “the Reality that we call God is ever-present and immanent in the lives of all men and women”. But this is an entirely faith-based bald assertion.

[Tassman]

Science is not mentioned, thus the parenthesis. It pertains to science also.

No, your Hamlet quote is just a philosophical argument – it actually says so. And your application of it to encompass science as well is misplaced.

I don't do anything arbitrarily concerning God. However, if one is a serious religious thinker, God is beyond beings - i.e. beyond all that is the universe. And I did say earlier that if you needed or preferred to use the term supernatural, I could go with it (albeit I neither use it or agree with all that it suggests). However, supernatural also speaks of God beyond (i.e. transcending) the universe but it doesn't follow that there is a supernatural or non-natural universe (or a twilight zone - but that does sound weirdly cool).

In fact, you DO arbitrarily place God outside the natural universe without designating where and how this could be whilst simultaneously disputing the traditional concepts of a ‘supernatural’ Being. Hence you remove your deity beyond the realm of discussion but still maintain the right to unilaterally proclaim who and what he is.

There is no 'of course' about it: that is merely your opinion or belief. And there you go again with verifiable evidence, with imposing science on religious belief (art, literature, poetry and the like). It simply doesn't work that way.

It does “work that way” given that you are asserting without any evidence your belief that artists and myth-makers are basing their creativity on non-material reality. There is no evidence whatsoever that they are doing any more than depicting a “reality” conceived entirely in their imagination via their material brain. Your Avatar of Blake’s ‘Divine Architect’ is such an example.

We ask the question and we (i.e. man) believe there is an Answer (whereas you do not). I didn't say there would not be an answer (the same answer) for other hominids (or for all creation).

Believing that “there is an Answer” is NOT to say that there IS an Answer or even that it’s a valid question.

Although it is convenient for you to dismiss believing scientists as having been culturally conditioned - it is simply not the case for all such believing scientists. It is obvious that some scientists, even having been conditioned by a religious environment, have gone against it. So too, it is also obvious that some scientists, even having been conditioned by the rigors and methodology of science, go against or simply disagree that such conditioning can 'answer' all their questions - thus they remain, return to or choose anew, to believe in God.

Scientists being “conditioned by the rigors and methodology of science” are very much in the majority, which suggest that this argument is more persuasive than the religious one.

You have consistently said that such discussions (with your partner, kids, family, friends) about the 'foundation of love' or simply why you love them are unnecessary - now you change your tune when your back is against the wall. And it did indeed seem to be consciously hidden and avoided. It still seems like it is (hidden) avoided given all your comments.........and that fact is telling.

We all act according to our genetic makeup as shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. This is a given – it is taken for granted NOT “consciously hidden and avoided” – why would it be?

Interesting: no answer to the two biggest flaws for atheism. Furthermore, it is merely your belief that there is no meaning, no purpose and that mans's search for meaning is futile. Yours is not proof, it is only your belief.

There is NO substantiated evidence of “purpose and meaning”. This is not a “flaw for atheism”, it is facing facts rather than indulging in fanciful thinking. It is the strength of atheism, NOT a flaw.

I have both boldly and baldly asserted that God IS and I have discussed it (above). And, once again you have made my point: to say the universe is, is not the equivalent of saying that God IS.

The universe is “not the equivalent of saying that God IS” only inasmuch as there is considerable evidence of the natural universe and NO objective evidence for your hypothesized deity - only subjective evidence.

[thormas]

Again, we disagree. As mentioned, I have no issue with the idea that man has evolved and that part of that evolutionary process is us 'getting along' as individuals in society. However, I think (believe) there is more to it in that man can choose the Good. Your argument, once again, brings us to the absurd conclusion that none of our actions - to love, to care, to be concerned for others - is chosen but a mere evolutionary response and included in this is one's most intimate love of partner, kids, family and friends. This is both a losing and a depressing argument that, as has been shown. none advertise in their most private (and important)relationships.

The religious man does assert God's immanence and it is faith based :+}

[thormas]

I know what Hamlet say and I believe it also applies to science - as discussed above.

Actually, I have no idea if there is an 'outside' the universe; I say, rather, that God is beyond or transcends the universe. The 'where' or 'outside the universe' are meaningless since it is not s spatial argument. There is nothing arbitrary about this statement as it is a piece with what God is. And you have hit upon the reason why I disagree with the traditional concept of supernatural in that it is most often understood as spatially 'above or outside' the universe. I believe God is transcendent (beyond) and immanent (present) in/to creation. The God I profess is never 'outside' of creation or at a distance from man.

It is not that artists, poets or religious thinkers are basing their creativity on 'a non-material reality' - rather it is that they believe there is (a) Reality and they try to say something about IT in their words and their art, knowing they can never adequately or completely capture or define it. It is not that they create Reality but that Reality is known (perceived, discerned), as if 'through a glass darkly' and 'only in part.' Blake's Urizen is hardly God for me........I simply like his art :+} The point is not that there is imagination in art, it is that the artist's work is a response to what IS - with the glass for some darker that for others.

You have affirmed what I have been saying: mine is belief that there is an Answer and you simply don't believe this - yet you cannot prove there is not (as I cannot prove there is:+}.

I agree that some soientists are restrained by their scientific conditioning while others, more free, believe that spirit is manifest in the universe.

Why would it be? Yet it is: you have, as many atheist do, presented yourself as one who is aware, accepts and defends this position in public - yet will not share it (and its ramifications) in one's most intimate relationships. This is the double fatal flaw in atheism: to share such a position with those one loves results in the recognition that most intimate love is merely a condition of evolutionary development, that such love not chosen is meaningless in itself and ultimately meaningless to a universe in which man's evolutionary journey is an unnoticed speck. Man is insignificant; all human action matters not; all is absurd.

[Tassman]

Again, we disagree. As mentioned, I have no issue with the idea that man has evolved and that part of that evolutionary process is us 'getting along' as individuals in society. However, I think (believe) there is more to it in that man can choose the Good.

Indeed. But the “Good” is what we perceive to be good. And we “perceive” certain behaviors to be “good” because of the evolution of the necessary cooperative social behavior for humanity to survive as a social species.

Your argument, once again, brings us to the absurd conclusion that none of our actions - to love, to care, to be concerned for others - is chosen but a mere evolutionary response and included in this is one's most intimate love of partner, kids, family and friends. This is both a losing and a depressing argument that, as has been shown. none advertise in their most private (and important)relationships.

We have been socially acculturated and genetically predisposed to live in cooperative communities - something we share in other intelligent animals to a limited extent in simpler forms. This does not render our feelings towards our loved ones and family any less genuine – this is how we have evolved to be.

The religious man does assert God's immanence and it is faith based :+}

Asserting a “faith-based” belief is NOT an argument.

[Tassman]

I know what Hamlet say and I believe it also applies to science - as discussed above.

Actually, I have no idea if there is an 'outside' the universe; I say, rather, that God is beyond or transcends the universe. The 'where' or 'outside the universe' are meaningless since it is not s spatial argument. There is nothing arbitrary about this statement as it is a piece with what God is. And you have hit upon the reason why I disagree with the traditional concept of supernatural in that it is most often understood as spatially 'above or outside' the universe. I believe God is transcendent (beyond) and immanent (present) in/to creation. The God I profess is never 'outside' of creation or at a distance from man.

But you have not presented a case for God’s existence at all – merely said what he is not in your view

It is not that artists, poets or religious thinkers are basing their creativity on 'a non-material reality' - rather it is that they believe there is (a) Reality and they try to say something about IT in their words and their art, knowing they can never adequately or completely capture or define it. It is not that they create Reality but that Reality is known (perceived, discerned), as if 'through a glass darkly' and 'only in part.' Blake's Urizen is hardly God for me........I simply like his art :+} The point is not that there is imagination in art, it is that the artist's work is a response to what IS - with the glass for some darker that for others.

The artist’s work is a response to his creative urges as they arise in his imagination via the material brain. There are no grounds for arguing that they represent a non-material reality any more than Botticelli’s ‘Birth of Venus’ represents a “REAL” universe of gods and goddesses..

You have affirmed what I have been saying: mine is belief that there is an Answer and you simply don't believe this - yet you cannot prove there is not (as I cannot prove there is:+}.

It is YOU, as the believer that an “Answer” exists, who needs to provide evidence of what it is. It is not for me the unbeliever to provide evidence that there isn’t an “Answer”.

I agree that some soientists are restrained by their scientific conditioning while others, more free, believe that spirit is manifest in the universe.

The majority of scientists value the productivity of scientific methodology as opposed to the minority who are conditioned by the values of a religion-based society.

Why would it be? Yet it is: you have, as many atheist do, presented yourself as one who is aware, accepts and defends this position in public - yet will not share it (and its ramifications) in one's most intimate relationships.This is the double fatal flaw in atheism: to share such a position with those one loves results in the recognition that most intimate love is merely a condition of evolutionary development, that such love not chosen is meaningless in itself and ultimately meaningless to a universe in which man's evolutionary journey is an unnoticed speck..

It is NOT hidden any more that our biological digestive processes, which play a key role in our enjoyment of a fine dinner, is hidden. It is accepted and taken for granted. We all act according to our genetic makeup as shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.

Man is insignificant; all human action matters not; all is absurd.

Human life could be viewed that way, although wishing it was more won’t make it so. But in practice, most people strive to make the most of their lot and derive fulfillment and quiet satisfaction from the daily round.

[thormas]

I, again, have no issue with the idea of perceptions of the Good but I believe there is the Good that is to be perceived; it is not all on the side of the perceiver. And many of the worlds religions, in particular the theistic religions, show agreement on the Good.

We have discussed love above. However, I believe a love based solely on the evolution of our species, if indeed that were the case (which I don't believe) would be less that love which is chosen.

Of course 'faith-based' in an argument. It is simply not so for you.

[thormas]

I am referring to Shakespeare and extending that comparison to the world view that is the science........... of the atheist. As I have been arguing here, there is more in heaven and earth than the atheist finds in his science.

I have, a number of times in these posts, discussed what I believe God is. But even your language betrays your misunderstanding: God is not that which exists or has existence (as all the things of the universe did, do or will exist). God is the very possibility that anything at all, is and is sustained.

What you continually dismiss is the interaction between the perceiver (the human) and what is perceived (Reality). It is not a one-way street and reality is not simply a brute universe that is there and on which man imposes his imagination. The religious man (the artist, the poet, etc.) believes that there are Transcendent moments in human life, moments in which man 'sees' or 'experiences' Being in beings.

Again, you misunderstand religious belief and the limits of science in terms of the Transcendent: God/Being is not an object or thing that the sciences can study and provide evidence for or against. It is belief: I believe there is an Answer and you do not:+}

Amazingly, you continue to dismiss scientists who have religious beliefs from the ranks of all scientists who "value the productivity of the scientific methodology." You view such scientists as less than your kind of scientists. This is called prejudice.

Amazingly you equate love with the digestion of a bit of food. But even here your analogy fails: we do talk about digestion all the time, perhaps not at a fine dinner (although some certainly do) but it is discussed. Yet, again, the atheist keeps hidden his understanding of love and will not discuss it (ever) with those he loves the most. But how could he? He would have to admit that his love for them is merely a by-product of evolution and human genetics; it was not chosen and is no different than an animals 'love' for his own. This is simply depressing on its face and points to the mechanical, materialistic meaninglessness of human existence.

That man is insignificant and all absurd is the logical conclusion of the atheist position. To deny it is understandable for this conclusion is depressing no matter your daily rounds - and again this conclusion is not shared with one's loved ones. The 'daily rounds' to achieve 'fulfillment and satisfaction' are 'evidence' of not only the human desire for real meaning but of human discernment of that meaning - that is denied by atheism. One's daily rounds to achieve fulfillment is 'evidence' of man's search for the Answer and his glimpse of the Transcendent.

[thormas]

I was reading David Bentley Hart, 'The Experience of God' and thought this quote would be helpful in that the idea of God as a being or object in the universe is not what theism professes:

" To speak of God properly then - to use the word in a sense consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, a great deal of antique paganism .......is to speak of the one infinite source of all that is.......He (God) is not a 'being,' ........; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are........... Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him........"

This of course is not meant to convince the atheist, simply to point out that many, most or all the time, atheism has a completely different understanding of what is meant by the term God.

[thormas]

Again Hart: all that is in the universe, including the universe itself is continent, always coming into and out of existence, always moving from potential to actual, always conditioned by something else. However such an infinite regress of contingent or conditional existents in the universe cannot explain why the universe is. Unless one resorts to a magical thinking and contingent being just 'happens' ......but then what was it contingent on? And what was that contingent on......and we're back to infinite regress of the contingent. The only other option is to allow for that which is opposite of contingent; that which is definite, unconditioned, essential, real, already being complete, without becoming or passing out of existence. Only unconditioned, essential existence is that by which the contingent can come to be........or else one is left with magic.

It is this essential Reality that some men call God.

[John Hunt]

Wow, what a duel.

Maybe it's just down to whether you see the glass as half empty, or half full. The universe is full of meaning, it is purposeful, we may even be participants in its creation, given that we can exercise choice and "observe". Or there is no meaning, and when we die, we die, everything dies, the bits of refuge we try and create out of entropy means nothing.

Maybe it's just down to how we decide to live our lives. Because the broader picture - we're not likely to know, and probably never will.

[thormas]

Wow, what a duel.

Maybe it's just down to whether you see the glass as half empty, or half full. The universe is full of meaning, it is purposeful, we may even be participants in its creation, given that we can exercise choice and "observe". Or there is no meaning, and when we die, we die, everything dies, the bits of refuge we try and create out of entropy means nothing.

Maybe it's just down to how we decide to live our lives. Because the broader picture - we're not likely to know, and probably never will.

Well said and it could be either (but hopefully not the latter :+). And I agree, as we have discussed here, what is essential is how one lives a fully human life, regardless of belief.

This duel (good description) has been (for me) both fun and respectful, in that, we are trying to go after positions and not the person.

The fun is that when you discuss or debate such topics you are forced to really consider what you believe in order to both explain and defend it - thus, I think, coming to a better understanding of your own (and the other's) position.

[Tassman]

I, again, have no issue with the idea of perceptions of the Good but I believe there is the Good that is to be perceived; it is not all on the side of the perceiver.

Without “the perceiver”, “GOOD” effectively does not exist. Not unless you view it as an abstract Platonic concept of timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. But there is no evidence of any such concepts existing outside of the minds of our species.

And many of the worlds religions, in particular the theistic religions, show agreement on the Good.

Of course, religions show agreement on the “Good”. The attributes of deities are those that we give them. And what we deem “good” are the behaviors that we value as a social species. Namely, cooperation and a capacity for empathy in order to enhance community cohesion.

We have discussed love above. However, I believe a love based solely on the evolution of our species, if indeed that were the case (which I don't believe) would be less that love which is chosen.

You are misrepresenting the argument. “Love” is NOT based solely on the evolution of our species - it is a byproduct of it and no less real because of it.

Of course 'faith-based' in an argument. It is simply not so for you.

Not so. “Faith-based “arguments” are unevidenced bald assertions.

[Tassman]

I am referring to Shakespeare and extending that comparison to the world view that is the science........... of the atheist. As I have been arguing here, there is more in heaven and earth than the atheist finds in his science.

This maybe what you meant, but you are extending the quote beyond its original intention. And atheists are not the only ones to value science.

I have, a number of times in these posts, discussed what I believe God is. But even your language betrays your misunderstanding: God is not that which exists or has existence (as all the things of the universe did, do or will exist). God is the very possibility that anything at all, is and is sustained.

“Possible” but not probable. Why, given our scientific age, would one accept such an assertion? In short, why insert God into the equation at all?

What you continually dismiss is the interaction between the perceiver (the human) and what is perceived (Reality). It is not a one-way street and reality is not simply a brute universe that is there and on which man imposes his imagination. The religious man (the artist, the poet, etc.) believes that there are Transcendent moments in human life, moments in which man 'sees' or 'experiences' Being in beings.

You mean like Botticelli’s ‘Birth of Venus’ represents a “REAL” universe of transcendent gods and goddesses.

Again, you misunderstand religious belief and the limits of science in terms of the Transcendent: God/Being is not an object or thing that the sciences can study and provide evidence for or against. It is belief: I believe there is an Answer and you do not:+}

You have yet to explain your claim that, although God is beyond the reach of scientific study, he nevertheless exists as a belief. But ALL the gods and goddesses throughout history have existed as beliefs. This does not make the existence of ANY of them true beliefs.

Amazingly, you continue to dismiss scientists who have religious beliefs from the ranks of all scientists who "value the productivity of the scientific methodology." You view such scientists as less than your kind of scientists. This is called prejudice.

Nevertheless, the majority of scientists value the productivity of scientific methodology over that of religious belief. Perhaps there is a good reason for this.

Amazingly you equate love with the digestion of a bit of food. But even here your analogy fails: we do talk about digestion all the time, perhaps not at a fine dinner (although some certainly do) but it is discussed. Yet, again, the atheist keeps hidden his understanding of love and will not discuss it (ever) with those he loves the most. But how could he? He would have to admit that his love for them is merely a by-product of evolution and human genetics; it was not chosen and is no different than an animals 'love' for his own. This is simply depressing on its face and points to the mechanical, materialistic meaninglessness of human existence.

Again, you are misrepresenting the argument. We all act according to our genetic makeup as shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. And those whom we choose to love are the fruits of our evolved instincts of bonding and attachment. There is nothing "depressing" about this.

That man is insignificant and all absurd is the logical conclusion of the atheist position. To deny it is understandable for this conclusion is depressing no matter your daily rounds - and again this conclusion is not shared with one's loved ones. The 'daily rounds' to achieve 'fulfillment and satisfaction' are 'evidence' of not only the human desire for real meaning but of human discernment of that meaning - that is denied by atheism.

I can assure you that, unlike you it seems, I do not need a “glimpse” of transcendent deities to provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment in my life.

One's daily rounds to achieve fulfillment is 'evidence' of man's search for the Answer and his glimpse of the Transcendent

I guess that one only gets a “glimpse of the Transcendent” because, at bottom, you don’t actually know what it is. But you KNOW it’s there somewhere.