A heresy:  I never liked…Elvis (I never like Michael Jackson either,
Oh my God).  I know, I’m out of the clan I was never in to begin with. 
But now I’ve sealed it.

And ‘blank’ as well.

I once read a science fiction story based on Einstein’s remark.  In the world of the story, however, two gods were using the universe as set of dice or a roulette wheel.  Ha, ha, Uncle Albert!

My favorite piece of pop music this morning is ‘You Aint Nothin But A Hound Dog’ as sung by Big Mama Thornton.  I was watching old Elvis Presley videos, which cheer me up, and of course they reference the classics which Presley drew upon.  I’ll probably go back to son and salsa this afternoon.  The relevance?  YANBAHD reminds us that even when we achieve oneness with our animal (and vegetable) kin and the rest of the shebang, all may not flow as smoothly as we would like to imagine.

Well that seems true, Maani, a blind person would just have to
take my word for what color is as there is no way in hell that I
could “make” them understand.  Of course we could wax poetic
and I think it is safe to assume even blind people are capable of
understanding poetic allusion.  Jorge Borges, Homer, and John
Milton immediately come to mind. 

Then even though a special camera has been constructed that has
taken a series of photos that are “interpreted” as an electron particle,
and that it is said that, “It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron
to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond being 10^-18 seconds
long,” or, expressed in another way as one physicist put it: “an
attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of
the universe,” we really just take the word of the SAPPs (subatomic
particle physicists) that there is such a thing as an electron, or even
atoms for that matter, so like the blindman who hangs on our every
word, we take their word for it.  We cannot “see” the electron directly,
and the length of the film used corresponds to a single oscillation of
the light, but the speed has then been ratcheted down considerably
so that we can watch it.

The filmed sequence shows the energy distribution of the electron and
therefore it is not a film in the usual sense. Nor is it a photo, exactly,
of an existing electron.  In all photographs we are always looking at an
historic event.  We are getting into more intricate philosophical
discussion.  But that is all right with me.  For instance, Maani, the same
can be said for every sense we have that someone lacks, i.e., the deaf
cannot be made to understand sound, or those who cannot smell
because their olfactory sense does not work what the fragrance of a
ginger blossom is.  We have to go to likenesses, not isnesses.  And we
cannot know, exactly, if we even experience any quality to the same
degree as another. Such comparisons are always in the realm of
probability.  We always live in every way within a degree of qualities
relative to others.  So the point about the blindman is not precisely
pertinent.  There is, though, a hypothesis called synethesia about which
much psychological study has been made. That is where one primary
sense is used to create an organized representation of something that
can be understood through some other sense.  For instance music,
which is experienced as sound is understandable visually, and vise
versa.

And of course “play dice with the universe” satiricism was meant to be
figurative, not literal.  Hence my small drama.  Does anyone in their
right mind, even if they do believe in a deity, think there really is some
being playing anything?  LOL indeed.

I don’t think there is the same thing going on when you say it is
impossible for theists to prove god to atheists.  It isn’t a question of
proving or not proving, but one of justification of existence.  If you
could give me something where I could see reason to believe, where an
argument was well-grounded, then I would.

Here is my favorite piece of contemporary music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQHKdNAWQo

It is not such a unique thing that several words have the same root, but
mean quite different things.  Morphologically, for instance the three
words black, bleach, and bleak, all derive from the same Old English
word blaek. Or etymologically closer to the mystic, mystery duet, such
words as hunter/hunt, corner/corn, and scandal/scan.

She:

Uh…She?  I think the whole “play dice with the universe” thing was meant to be figurative, not literal.  LOL.  So your first paragraph is a bit, shall we say, overdone?  LOL.  Still, an interesting thought experiment from the literal side.

Re the senses, let’s try another thought experiment, one that I think you may remember my bringing up before.

A person is blind since birth.  They could learn hard, soft, wet, dry, or touch various things to get a mental “image” of them.  But how would you describe “color” to them?  For example, how would you describe “red?” “Blue?” “Taupe?” “Mauve?”  Well, you get the point.  There would be no way to explain color.  So the blind person would have to take your word for it - i.e., take it on “faith” - that “color” exists in the world.  However, they would have an equal right to disbelieve you - to simply not believe that color exists.  And there is absolutely no way that you could prove otherwise.

People who believe in God see atheists in exactly this way: there is simply no way to prove to you that one of your “senses” is not working.  And there is absolutely no way for us to prove to you that this is the case.  We accept that.  But neither are we going to allow the “blind” person to tell us that we are wrong about what is quite obvious to US.  (And note that the word “blind” here is not meant to be an epithet or dismissal.  Simply a word being used to connote an opposite.)

Peace.

My etymological dictionary says that mystery, mystical and so forth come from a Greek word mystes, ‘one who has been initiated’, from a word meaning ‘to shut’—probably the eyes or mouth.  But that’s just what they say.  I don’t know; I wasn’t there.

I am not going to put my poor little monkey brain to work on the problem of fully divining the nature of the Creator of the universe, or possibly, all the universes, or of the totality of his, her, its or their creation.  However, in my opinion, some improvements might be made here and there.  Just from my point of view, of course.

If there is a God, and there is no confirmation that there is, then
belief in cosmic dice would also be required, if that God in fact
plays dice with the universe.  And that God would need hands like
humans who roll the dice, and if God has hands like humans, then
there has to be a body that has arms at the end of which are hands
that roll the dice.  And if a body, then God has to have a head, for
what would a headless God be like?  Good grief.  So then God all of
a sudden looks just like humans.  Now that is rather conceited since
I know some armadillos who thought God looked like them.  And I
know for a fact that armadillos can throw dice!  Then of course there
has to be an argument over the color of the dice. I like red.  But then,
there is another small problem, and that is the phrase “plays dice with
the universe.”  What on earth could that mean?  Even metaphorically, or
is it a metaphor?  Could it mean the universe is an entity with which
God plays dice?  Or does it mean God uses dice to make decisions
about the universe that appears to most cosmologists as much as
entropic as it does well-ordered in some ways?  And why would God
have to make any decisions, sooner or later?  That means God was
hesitant! 

Also, Maani, if it is not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the
intelligence, how would one be aware in any way at all that anything
mystical existed?  The senses are the only connection to the objective
world.  From your definition, whatever is mystical is only something
occult fantasized by an imaginative mind, it is a subjective invention. 

If Albert Einstein believed in anything he would call a “god,” it wasn’t
the sort of god in which religious theists today routinely believe.  He
soundly rejected the possible existence of any sort of “personal god”
which could care about human existence, would interact with us, or
would answer prayers.  From what I could gather from the texts I have
by and on Einstein, his belief did not include any kind of deity religious
theists believe in.  In fact, he made it a point to argue that belief in
such a god was a remnant of humanity’s primitive existence when
mankind created such supernatural beings to explain events around
them.

At the Science, Philosophy and Religion Symposium, Albert Einstein
lectured on the primitive origins of belief in personal gods:  “During
the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy
created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will
were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal
world…” Einstein felt and said that the continued presence of such
beliefs today can cause harm.

Not much different than Russell, Einstein wrote, “It was, of course,
a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have
never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for
the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

There are too many quotes for this lofty man. But his notion was not
of mysticism as it was the mysterious which I think are quite different
ideas.  The distinction I make about the mysterious is something
obscure in its origin or nature, or purpose, whereas what is mystical
pertains to occult practices or ancient religions.  Having a different
valuation of knowledge, I have always disagreed with Einstein’s view
about the ‘knowledge’ of the existence of something “mysterious” that
cannot be penetrated. I would say we don’t have knowledge but have a
suspicion that something is there that we don’t quite experience fully.

I don’t mind about the word qur’anical.  I am not attached to it.

Isn’t it amazing, the ‘mysterious way’ in which ‘he/she/it’ works!?

For example, in Japan there are almost a million people without electricity, thus having no heat or light, and it’s still winter, and very cold. And it’s all ‘god’s’ doing, the earthquake and tsunami and the human loss and misery.

And yet, in ‘his/her/it’s’ great ‘compassion’, ‘god’ also provided much more than adequate firewood for the Japanese folks to use to light their dark night and warm their tattered beings.

What a ‘guy/gal/thing!!

She:

Actually, “Quranical” is a word (though, as with most spellings, it is usually written as “Koranical”).  Sorry, you don’t get to claim coinage for it…LOL

Re my terms, “temporal,” particularly when juxtaposed against “spiritual,” generally refers to life here, on earth, in our mortal bodies.  Thus, the “temporal” world could be equated with the “physical” world, within “time.”  “Spiritual” would thus refer to the world “outside of time” (i.e., concurrent with, but separate from, the temporal world; i.e., the place where souls go after the physical body dies).  I am guessing that Einstein used “mystical” in its primary meaning: “having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence.”  And, of course, the word “mystery” comes from the same root.

Peace.

Leefeller:

“The other day I saw a snake, even though it is still quite early in the year, to my surprise it turned out to be a talking snake!  Though I couldn’t understand a word he said, I guess because I don’t talk snake!”

Maybe you should speak with Harry Potter: he speaks Parseltongue.  LOL.

Peace.

Indeed, Einstein seems to have been a religious sort, a believer in God.  And not just any old God, but one that, although perhaps remote from human understanding and concerns, had everything under control in one, large, ingenious, deterministic device.  But there were problems.  One was that, instead of evidencing a fixed frame of reference, experiments showed that everything in the universe seemed to be sliding around in its own frame of reference.  What looked like time here might be space there.  How could things be determined?  Einstein resolved this religious crisis by seeing the universe in a new way, which required a new kind of mathematics, rather difficult stuff call tensor analysis.  Under tensor analysis the old determinism (theoretically) returned.

The other problem was Quantum Mechanics, a view of things, based on a lot of experimental evidence, in which indeterminacy was intrinsic.  Uncle Albert didn’t like it at all.  ‘I do not believe God plays dice with the universe,’ he snorted.

But apparently he does.

But what if they were conflicted, Maani?  That does not preclude
their having had a broader understanding of things, even an
holistic awareness of the world, nor prevent “us,” in the broader
sense of “us,” from learning something from them beyond evolution,
physics, or even science in general, but that isn’t likely because
they are deadmen, so I know not what could be “learned.”  We are
left only with interpreting them for your spirituality, or mysticism, or
temporality (whatever those three things might mean it is not clear),
just as biblical and qur’anical (I just had to make up that word!) are all
interpretative literature.  People believe what they want to believe, even
in talking snakes, and I choose to believe in terra firma and Bertrand
Russell.  Since we are sassing each other with quotes, Bertie says,
There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have
become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was.  This
rumor is totally without foundation.  I think all the great religions of the
world—Buddhism, Hinduism, Chrisitanity, Islam, and Communism—both
untrue and harmful.

God must exist,....... I shouted his name to the skies last time I hit my thumb with a hammer!

Where in hell has this thread been hiding?.,. It all of a sudden just showed up on the front page of TD, ......it must be a miracle?

The other day I saw a snake, even though it is still quite early in the year, to my surprise it turned out to be a talking snake!
Though I couldn’t understand a word he said, I guess because I don’t talk snake!

She:

“Lovely quotes all of them Maani.  M’thinks these men were conflicted.”

LOL.  However, it may be just the opposite: they may have had a “broader” understanding of things, a more “holistic” awareness of the world, both temporal and spiritual (or, in Einstein’s term, mystical).  If so, then we (the broader “we”) might learn something from them beyond just evolution, physics or even science in general.

Peace.

Lovely quotes all of them Maani.  M’thinks these men were
conflicted.

She:

And so the battle of the quotes begins!  LOL

Darwin:

1849: “It is absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.”

1879: “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.  I think that generally an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”

1880: “I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them!”

Einstein:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”

“Either we see everything in life as a miracle, or we see nothing in life as a miracle.  For me, I prefer the former.”

“Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exists between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.  Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding.  The source of this feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.  The situation may be expressed by an image: religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame.”

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God.  But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views…I want to know how God created this world.  I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.  I want to know His thoughts.  The rest are details.”

Clearly, even the last quote does not necessarily mean he believes in what we call a “personal” God.  But these are some pretty strong statements which are more “even-handed” than most atheists would allow.

Peace.

No problem Maani, I’m glad we are on good terms these days. 

In response to other comments I’ve read here, though, it never
ceases to amaze me that there are always some hanger-oners
who believe they know God’s words, first and last and all those
in between. 

For the sake of clarification about the word “Creator” that was
absent from the 1st edition of the Origin of Species but was
inserted in editions after that.  According to Darwin’s own explanation,
which can be read in a letter to Hooker in 1863 and again not too long
after that to his publisher, Athenaeum, marveling at the profound
ignorance within science of any justification for life to have emerged
from non-life.  To Hooker he writes, “But I have long regretted that I
truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation,
by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. –
It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as
well think of origin of matter.”  And to the Athenaeum Press: “Now is
there a fact, or a shadow of a fact, supporting the belief that these
elements, without the presence of any organic compounds, and acted
on only by known forces, could produce a living creature? At present it
is to us a result absolutely inconceivable. Your reviewer sneers with
justice at my use of the “Pentateuchal terms”, “of one primordial form
into which life was first breathed”: in a purely scientific work I ought
perhaps not to have used such terms; but they well serve to confess
that our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin
of force or matter.”

As a matter of fact, his regret did not amount to very much because
Darwin and his publishers sensed that the public was not ready to
accept science reconstructed as materialist atheism. And there would
always be those long-winded “theistic evolutionists” ready at the drop
of a feather to spread the “good” news.  Way…ell, so much for Darwin’s
beliefs.

It is always good to have letters or journal entries in the hand of the
honored that clarifies their position on matters of the world.  Such is
the case with Albert.  It is frequently claimed by theists who want very
much to include his authority that they think would give support for
their theistic views, Einstein is cited as a theist because of that last
paragraph in the Origin….  But the fact of the matter is that he
denied the existence of the “traditional” idea of a personal god.  Does
that say that Albert Einstein therefore was an atheist?  Well from some
perspectives his position would be seen as atheism or it wouldn’t be
seen as any different from atheism.  He admitted to being a
“freethinker,” and since he came from a German culture, that is much
the same as atheism.  It is not absolutely clear that Einstein did not
believe in all god concepts. It could better be argued that he was a
pantheist, but even that has been debated.  We always have to go on
the words out of the horse’s mouth, and he did write a response, “I
received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in
my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me.
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always
been an atheist.” - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2,
1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to
convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5,
No. 2

Einstein: “God does not roll dice”

God’s last words: “The Universe”

Kris:

“What happened in Japan was an unfortunate act of physics, no more of god than any of my imaginary friends.”

Darwin would not agree with you.  At least, not entirely.  In the Summary and Recapitulation Chapter of Origin of Species, Darwin refers to “the laws impressed upon matter by the Creator.”  He was referring to “scientific” laws, including the laws of physics.

Thus, while the earthquake was not a “direct” act of God, it was the result of “the laws impressed upon matter” at the beginning; i.e., plate tectonics, continental drift, etc., and is thus “indirectly” attributable to God.

Peace.

She!

You took my response to Berniem as part of my response to you.  It was not!  The “radical atheist” comment was not meant for you, but for him!  Oops!  LOL.

That said, I appreciate your kind words about my (partial, but important) definition of Christianity. And I agree with the remainder of your post.

Peace.

No, no Maani, I did not see your comments as an attack!  Not
at all.  I do paint with a broad brush, it is quite true. But I would
not all myself a “radical” atheist.  Not even a fanatic atheist. I don’t
care if anyone else is or is not.  So I guess I agree with Russell, and
Moynihan.  “You are entitled to your beliefs, just don’t try to make
me believe them,” kind of thing. 

Yes people do remain faithful.  But according to many polls they are
a disappearing tribe.  And whether or not they admit it, people are
afraid of dying.  Proof is all the medications people take that are
making the pharmaceuticals as rich as rich can be. And all the other
medical treatments.  And all the liquor and other fatuous
entertainments that numbs the mind to one’s mortality. There is in
my estimation nothing wrong with being afraid, for thinking one will
be completely annihilated at some point in the future is daunting. But
there are the perversions that comes from it, like all the hypocritical
killing and harm of others, and self-debasement done too often in the
name of a fictitious deity.  And it has not been just a few.  Over the
millennia it has been untold millions.  Oh yes, belief in an afterlife is a
big part of religion, whether you admit it or not.  Someone just
mentioned earlier, berniem it was, quoting David Byrne, that heaven
was a place where nothing ever happens, I laughed out loud, now that
is a realist for you, and I like that.  Just think just how utterly boring it
would be to be in heaven. Or to have to sing hosanna constantly.  Much
as I love singing, good grief!  And I love David Byrne too!  I capitulate
completely. 

I’ve often thought what could eternal bliss mean?  For god’s sake! 
Duhhhhh!  I prefer to think that the molecules that have gone into
making me will simply be reabsorbed back into the universe some day.

I do like your definition of a Christian better than any of the other
one’s I’ve heard recently, particularly from the Republican Christian
Rightists.  But then Jesus lived in a very hard time and the people
needed to hear the kinds of things he said, if he in fact said them
and not Paul.  It is so comforting to think that the majority of the
people could actually be loving, peaceful, forgiving, compassionate,
humble, patient, charitable, selfless, servile, just, and truthful.  What a
litany of virtue!  It is comforting, but to think that all of these can be
found in one person let alone in the 6 billion or more that populate this
planet, is a bit too assuming.  It is nice to be reminded, though, since
humans are not all those virtuous things naturally.  I admit to a little bit
of Hobbes in me.  But then Darwin lurks around as well in my brain. 
Well, Maani, please continue to believe what I cannot.  But I do
completely agree that it is not how one ought to live one’s life, but
how one lives one’s life that is most important to having lived at all.

render unto god the truth…
and unto man the illusion…
lest some first hand might get tied…
by second-hand conclusions!...

best wishes’n'ways for today to dawn on!...

She:

Hi.  Forgive me, please!  My post was not meant to be an “attack,” or even “harsh.”  Rather, simple observation of obviosities.  LOL.  Your points are all well taken.

Re Russell, sounds like he was in Sen. Moynihan’s mind when the latter said, famously, “You are entitled to your opinion.  But you are not entitled to your own facts.”  I certainly support that notion.

Berniem:

As with so many radical atheists, you paint with WAY too broad a brush.  “Control?”  Certainly that has occurred, and continues to occur.  But less and less so, yet people remain faithful.  “Fear of dying?”  One of the most ridiculous canards ever to be applied to faith/religion.  Again, perhaps in some distant past, but not in the present: I know of not one Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other faith or belief system that would agree with that particular absurdity.

What is a Christian?  One would think (hope?) it is someone who follows the example of Jesus.  What did Jesus do and say?  Yes, he spoke of the “life to come,” of heaven, of hell, of salvation of one’s soul.  But that comprises only a very small number of statements ascribed to Him.  Rather, the overwhelming majority of His sermons and parables spoke to eleven main precepts: love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice, truth.  And where are these virtues applied?  IN ONE’S MORTAL LIFE, HERE, ON EARTH.  They have NOTHING to do with dying, or fear of dying, or the afterlife (where it is assumed that all of those virtues exist “automaticall”).

Thus, His ministry was about how we are expected to live with and among each other HERE.  The portion of His ministry that had to do with “there” (the “afterlife”) pales in comparison.  To suggest as you do that it is what “religion” (in this case, Christianity) is mostly about is simply absurd.

Peace.

The whole idea behind a “god” is control! Those who cook up the mythology and snake oil keep the rubes scared because, hey,everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die! And its that whole dying thing that keeps folks susceptible to the BSology and the parasitic purveyors thereof in business, ‘cause it is a business, after all. The thought of no eternity for us special creatures is just Soooooo… unfair that we just had to invent it and to keep everybody on their toes, and for job security, the witch doctors cooked up the carrot/stick thing. Knowing the persuasive power of fear, the costumed slicksters really pumped the the terror index when they invented hell. On the other hand, does anyone really have any idea what “heaven” is all about? I mean, really, even eternal bliss would get old eventually, right, unless like David Byrne informs, “heaven is a place where nothing ever happens”; which sounds pretty unappealing when considering eternity and all! Anyway, with all due respects, religion is bunk and the closest thing to “god” here on earth in terms of demanding devotion and kicking ass for grins is that crazy Kim fella over there in NoKo! Fool me once, shame on you; foll me twice, shame on me; fooling myself, priceless!

My goodness Maani, yes it is nice to “see” you again too!  Like
long lost family! Well, maybe that is a stretch, but nice nonetheless. 
And of course we would agree to disagree given we are on opposite
shores of thought.  Now listen Maani, my mistake is to use my
HUMAN logic, because that is what I am.  Human, and I have no
other logic, I do not have the logic of any other animal, nor any
supernatural being.  So you will have to excuse my using the only
logic I can have.  Oh, and all I have, also, is a human mind.  That
will have to also do.  I would never presume to blasphemously
say what a god would think or do or say (and furthermore, which there
is no justification to think that such a being existed as no one has ever
provided any empirical substantiation).  Yes, I do agree that it is
harebrained to say something is dead if it never existed in the first
place!  Of course existence can have several places to exist, either
physically or mentally (I would not go for spiritually, as that is much
too close to some “otherworldliness,” that gives me the shivers, you
know, some supernatural existence, which again I would have to say
there’s been no defense such a thing corresponded to anything in this
world).  I replace the notion of spirit, or some call it soul, with that
other oddly existing condition called mind.  And while it could be
argued mind cannot be seen hence could not be weighed on a P-Scale,
it would be difficult for someone to say they had no mind even if they
were deranged. 

Yes I did give myself an out.  I think I was being as honest as anyone
could be.  Just as any wise scientist would be.  I would go along with
Bertrand Russell, so let me post a bit of his philosophy of truth: 
In his article on the correspondence theory of truth, Russell states
three requisites for truth: a) Truth must admit of its opposite, false-
hood. b) Truth and falsehood are properties of belief statements, and
c) Truth depends upon independent fact. He believed that the
difference between our knowledge of things and truth is as follows:
Regarding truth, our beliefs may be mistaken, whereas there is no
erroneous knowledge of things.  If it is knowledge, then it is true.  Thus
in order to establish truth, our belief and or judgment must create a
complex whole with factual objects it is examining. If this is true, then
it will correspond to this whole.

He believed truth is based on the reality that our knowledge of truth is
based on things, objects, and facts. Truth cannot be in the eye of the
beholder; belief is, however, a relation between a mind and an object.
Truth must correspond with facts in order to verify belief.  If belief is
verified, then it may rightfully be called knowledge. Individuals can
make statements regarding individual thoughts and beliefs. But a
statement exists as true, if and only if it corresponds and agrees with
factual objectivity. Our decisions of thought and beliefs are based on
moral and cultural values as created by the society in which they are
rules and codes.

A problem Russell had with a coherence theory of truth (which is
different than correspondence), is that coherence leaves room for
more than one coherent body of beliefs believed to be true which
could present the problem of competition (which I’ve already alluded
to in the several religions that exist).  Further, the laws of logic by
which the test of coherence is applied are they themselves not able to
be established by any test of truth.  Laws of logic are only consistent
patterns of thought and not really a measure of truth.  It can only
testify to the validity of the premises that would conclude truthfulness
of any idea.

Shenonymous:

First, nice to “see” you again - even though we are likely to continue to agree to disagree.  LOL.

“Well if God created time, in what dimension was God existing before the creation of time?  Existing implies time and if no time then God could not have existed.  So then god must have created himself.  Then that means there was no god before time. But if God created time, then there was a time before time, which really doesn’t make any sense, does it?”

No, it doesn’t make sense - to the human mind.  But that is your error here: you are trying to apply HUMAN logic, common sense, thought, etc. to God and His/Her/Its existence, as well as that of “time.”

“I have an unprovable prediction since I probably will not exist when it happens, but the prediction is that the human mind will evolve to not need any deity but will self-actualize (as Maslow predicted) and religions will simply be the stuff of legends like Paul Bunyan…”

Yet isn’t that exactly what is being posited here - that every time someone or some group or some poll suggests that “God is dead” (i.e., belief in God is dead or dying), that such suggestion is quickly negated by the realities, and that the claimers have to eat their words?

Your prediction is no different - except that you give yourself the “out” that it “will” happen in some distant future when all of us are long dead.  Not exactly an “honest” prediction, is it?  LOL.

Peace.

Well if God created time, in what dimension was God existing before
the creation of time?  Existing implies time and if no time then God
could not have existed.  So then god must have created himself. 
Then that means there was no god before time. But if God created
time, then there was a time before time, which really doesn’t make
any sense, does it?  Before and after are temporal conditions.  The
logic is impeccable.  There is, was, and never has been God.  Of
course, that is not to say that there never will be!  Never say never.

So, if the god of this article is revengeful, or even has become
revengeful, then is that a different god than the benevolent one
found in the Christian religion?  And if that is true, then which god
is the more powerful and what happens to the other god, allegedly also
omnipotent, when the more powerful one wins?  For surely they will do
battle for the hearts and minds of minions.  And what about the other
gods that exist in this world, like Allah.  Is the Islamic Allah the same
god as the Christian god God?  Who decides this stuff?  Isn’t it the case
that whether revengeful or benevolent, whatever god or gods there is
or are, imaginative humans created him or them?  For what proof is
there otherwise? 

I have an unprovable prediction since I probably will not exist when it
happens, but the prediction is that the human mind will evolve to not
need any deity but will self-actualize (as Maslow predicted) and
religions will simply be the stuff of legends like Paul Bunyan or Feng,
the Jutish chieftan, and Ragnar Lodbrok, you know, the scourge of
France and England!  Or how about the spooks from the Ishikawa
Prefecture?

The question should be thus: did He ever exist?

TDoff:

At the risk of being simplistic, “religion” is the doctrines/dogma/rituals of worshiping God.  So they are, in fact, connected - whatever one may think about those doctrines, etc.  There is a saying that “Religion is about laws, rules and behavior; faith is about a relationship with God.”  And I agree with that.  But there is a place for “religion” within “faith,” though the latter is unqeustionably more important than the former.

Peace.

god is as dead as the easter bunny, santa, rapunzel, and bigfoot. Grow up morons! Start treating people well because it is the right thing to do, not because you think some mythical being is looking over your shoulder.

Believing bullshit will not make it come true.

Maani, what on Earth—-or in Heaven or Hell, for that matter—-does ‘religion’ have to do with ‘god’? Put another way, it’s not difficult to imagine that if there were a ‘god’, he’d have nothing to do with ‘religion’.

Well, come to think of it, ‘he’ might send those who claim to practice it to Hell.

TDoff:

God doesn’t need to read time: he created it.  LOL.

Seriously though, it IS ironic that every time a political writer, philosophy writer, pundit et al claims that “God is dead” or that “religion is dying,” they eventually - and usually relatively quickly - have to eat their words.

Peace.

Kepel is demented. That ‘god’ never answered Time, should have given US a clue, that ‘god’ was, in fact, a figment. For if there were a ‘god’, surely ‘he’d’ read Time.