Harry

At critical times in history, people are born with the ability to take the bits of knowledge gathered by others and draw conclusions that were not yet apparent. Some discover seemingly small bits of information which later turned out to be important pieces of this seemingly never ending puzzle. If he actually existed Jesus Christ was one of those men. During his short life, he gathered bits of knowledge passed on by others and drew some conclusions about life that were misunderstood by most men. Truth, is like a powerful drug and we all differ in how much we can handle in one dose. Some people can’t deal with truth and it doesn’t grow in them. Mythical “Jesus” with a high level of understanding and capacity to process truth made a giant leap in knowledge and passed it on by his example. Others wrote it down. The seeds of truth he scattered have been growing and have brought us very close to another plateau. At the exponential rate of growth in the collective knowledge, we will soon reach the next plateau. We will remain there until we will realize that without working in cooperation we cannot take the next step. The bits and pieces of collected information need to be assembled in order to move on to the next step.

There is really no way to understand an illogical thought process.

It has occurred to me that people hate most in others that which they hate most in themselves. Islam's teaching about homosexuality in this case, has everything to do with this crime. I don't believe in a personal god entity that pulls strings to make things happen.

I don't think it's necessary so I don't, I'm not passing judgment here just sharing my personal thoughts. As long as her clients are happy and give her money that's fine with me. She is honest with them and is not a con artist. It is what her clients think that is important.

I don't wait for a cruise.

I am a skeptic and I try my very best to use the power of reason. I have a step daughter who makes a good living as a psychic. She knows I don't think she can read minds, predict futures or channel messages from dead people. I still love her and don't call her mentally ill. I do think she is delusional.

What are spirits? You are kidding me of course

Ok here's the thing, who knows how many religions there are in the world. They all claim to know the truth. Ultimately they were almost all started by a "prophet" with an ideology and went from there. I could list many examples from history before Christianity and after. Here is one that is a good example of how people can be self-delusional. "Following an anonymous tip, police enter a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, an exclusive suburb of San Diego, California, and discover 39 victims of a mass suicide. The deceased–21 women and 18 men of varying ages–were all found lying peaceably in matching dark clothes and Nike sneakers and had no noticeable signs of blood or trauma. It was later revealed that the men and women were members of the “Heaven’s Gate” religious cult, whose leaders preached that suicide would allow them to leave their bodily “containers” and enter an alien spacecraft hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet." For additional information visit: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/heavens-gate-cult-members-found-dead I rest my case.

We must start with a definition of delusional. Having false or unrealistic beliefs. You can be delusional without being mentally ill. Then maturity is as important to define. We can be mentally mature, emotionally mature, physically mature or even spiritually mature. I think believing the literal truth of bible stories about talking snakes and bushes or ascending into heaven is unrealistic just as believing there is a castle in the clouds at the top of the beanstalk. I don't think mature people believe those things unless they delude themselves to do so.

WOW! Rodge, your comment is really well put. Thank you!

Far from it, if that were true I would be admitting that for most of my life I was mentally ill. It's like picking your expert to me. You find someone you agree with and you sing the same song to each other to reinforce your belief. It's called a faith community, We all sing to each other and agree, we don't question because that isn't acceptable and we may be shunned. It's not a sickness, it's human. I've broken free from that choir and feel much better with my humanity. I started by removing the term "I believe" from my active vocabulary by replacing it with I think. This is how I learned to recognize facts and understand the difference between Rodge's objective and subjective truth. Facts are truth and truth can be verified. Children believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and other myths and stories. They are not mentally ill, they are in the process of maturing. That's how I see it. Please don't be offended, I am not calling anyone a child here. We all mature at different rates and some of us never mature. I'm not mature yet either, I just think differently than I once did. I can also explain why.

I would put an even finer point it and include Jesus Christ in the realm of subjective truth. There is not one shred of physical evidence that I am aware of that he ever existed. I don't doubt that a man fitting the description lived during that time or even that he was killed by crucifixion. There is no reasonable or empirical evidence that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. All the laws of physics dealing with rockets show that a human could not achieve escape velocity on his own to leave earth's atmosphere. And where would heaven be then if not up? Why are there so many religions that profess such beliefs as facts. My answer is self-delusion.

Actually Rodge, we do agree, right down the line. That is what attracts me to your first opening statement. I am not arguing with you but I think I am confirming your opening statement. I do think subjective truth is belief. St. Anselm's definition is easily overturned.

Rodge, you opened this discussion with your definition of two types of truth, objective and subjective and stated in your closing: My thesis is that the church (including many progressives) fails to recognize the implications of the fact that there can be no objective truths regarding the existence and nature of God. Personal, subjective truths, yes. But no universal, objective truths. You can't prove anything about God, one way or the other, not that God exists, not that God doesn't exist. To me, this suggests that we should move away from being an authoritative Proclamation Church to being a welcoming Testimonial Church. Am I wrong? Can anyone cite a truth about the existence and nature of God that can be defined and confirmed by a skeptic? I understand your definitions but I submit that subjective truth isn't really a truth but a belief. A truth is a fact and there are two kinds of facts, a priori and a posteriori. We can have knowledge of facts when the facts can be verified by one of the two methods. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3+2=5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[3] A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge. I don't believe the night will be ended by the morning sun, I know it. There is a big difference in knowing something or believing something. Knowing something is objective truth and believing something is a subjective truth. So with that in mind, subjective truth is not universal and cannot be verified either with reason or empirical facts or experience. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven until an agreement can be reached on a definition of God. Once that definition is agreed upon then the existence of a God can be proven or disproven logically. St. Anselm's ontological argument includes this definition: God is that which nothing can be imagined greater than. finding an objective truth using that definition is likely to lead to circular logic; like can god make a universe large enough to contain him, can he create a problem so complex that he can't solve it.

Objective truth, Science. Subjective truth, belief. I choose objective. It's better to know than to believe.

Rodge and Featherman, You have both expressed some very personal and interesting ideas which I hope to digest a little more and respond to tomorrow. I will be out of here for the rest of the night because tonight is Pool shooting night and there is another presidential debate to watch. I enjoy it all but can't do it all at the same time. I enjoy most the type of discussion we are in.

Rodge, First I must apologize for the lengthly response, it is a tedious compendium of my ideas developed over the last decade and longer. Why to choose Life Force instead of nature you ask. It is because life force is supernatural, meaning so perfectly natural that it could be nothing else, perhaps ultra natural. What is life, God, and consciousness? A brief history of how I got to this point in my thinking. I was born into a Catholic community and raised as a Roman Catholic. I always had questions about God and the whole creation story as a child but went along with the flow to satisfy my parents and teachers in my Catholic community. I went to a seminary for a brief period thinking I could be a priest and learn the secrets but learned none. Throughout my life my belief in religious dogma had its ebb and flow; I would begin to see the light only to have more doubts as my teachers lost credibility. I realized I had to figure things out for myself. Twenty-five years ago I was a devout Catholic who attended Mass daily and after Mass, carried communion to the sick and infirmed as a Eucharistic minister. I never stopped seeking the truth about God and life and my understanding evolved over the years. As a prior seminarian, I’ve had enough contact with priests, cardinals, and bishops to know they are no different than anyone else, just doing another job in a different hierarchy. I imagine the same holds true for ministers, rabbis, and mullahs. The problem I saw was that they said one thing and did another. I know a priest who married a woman who he worked with along with here husband as a marriage counselor. There was another who sought homosexual gratification in truck stops and still others who were pedophiles. Then there were the “Christian" leaders in the mini & mega-churches on the Trinity Channel who I always sensed were nothing but charlatans that were caught up in all kinds of activities like pedophilia, infidelity, and homosexual activity, all the things they condemned. It eventually became apparent to me that organized religion is a sham and many of the teachers and leaders were in it for power, money, self-aggrandizement or some other selfish reason, sexual or otherwise. The teachers have no credibility. They were not being good but yet, they were "God’s chosen". They are not all bad but as I said, no different than the rest of us. Here are some of my thoughts on God, life, and evolution: I have a love for science and above average understanding of it. I am not a scientist but I subscribe to scientific publications and have taken courses and read books on relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory (of which I have a limited understanding) I’ve read books on eastern mysticism, cosmology, paranormal occurrence and psychic phenomena. When it comes to cosmology, science can take us only so far. To this time, it has taken us to the big bang and then things get fuzzy with the prime cause issue. What caused the big bang? When we can no longer prove something we theorize about it then work on ways to prove or disprove the theory. At the subatomic particle level, all we can do is observe cause and effect and make things happen in cyclotron colliders to verify predictions. Right now string theory is in question. It's a way of explaining the quantum level and hopefully, the unification of natural forces first through reason and logic followed by complex mathematics for final proof. Like many before me, I have pondered over what life is, when it began and why it began. Until someone or something can convince me otherwise here is the theory I’m favoring. Currently, science recognizes four natural forces in the universe; weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity. I submit that there are not just four natural forces at work in the universe but, at least, five with Lifeforce being the primary force or prime cause and the basis for the universe and all that exists in it. My self-consciousness is proof of my intellect and existence. (I think therefore I am) my growth proves I have life energy in me. I can affect particles, molecules and objects and other lives with my will and mind both directly and indirectly thus proving life is a force. Individual lives have beginning and end points we call birth and death. When the organizing life force within any living entity can no longer support organized cell multiplication and energy conversion Syntropy ends and entropy begins. When a brain is no longer functioning at a level that supports consciousness or motor and auto response for breathing and converting nourishment to energy death follows and the mind no longer resides within the mortal body; it is no longer active in any way; life force leaves the body and its energy is returned to the universe. The lifeless corpse will eventually disassociate into the nonorganic elements created in the condensation of particles following the big bang. These elements will be available to be recycled by and through the life force into other living organisms or perhaps provide energy to support them. The electromagnetic energy emanating from thoughts and experiences of the mind will continue to exist as it radiates outward from the source according to natural law much like the light emitted from a dead star will continue to be seen from other points in the expanding universe long after the star is no longer in existence. No energy is lost. The theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics, entropy and syntropy sufficiently prove the following: • Energy is matter • Energy can neither be created nor destroyed • Energy within the universe is constant • Life is a force The five natural forces hierarchically in order of appearance are: • Life force – the prime unifying force from which all other forces emerged at the big bang. • Weak Nuclear force - builds sub-atomic particles, quarks & leptons, etc. into atomic particles. • Strong Nuclear Force - builds atomic particles, protons, neutrons & electrons into atoms. • Electromagnetic force - builds elemental atoms into molecules, chemicals and compounds, matter. • Gravity force - builds matter into massive objects throughout the universe. The incomplete grand unification theory has been able to prove unification of the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces but to this point does not resolve gravity into the equation. It is hoped that when science can mathematically explain unification of the forces, explain them in terms of each other, we will be able to answer the questions regarding life, truth, intellect, consciousness, psychic energy and others in the origin of the universe. Scientists think that proving the existence of the Higgs boson will be a major step to that end. The Higgs boson is a sub-atomic particle that is believed to give other particles their mass. They hope to isolate the Higgs with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, within a year. At CERN, the LHC could re-create conditions that last prevailed when the universe was less than a trillionth of a second old. CERN is the reference for the European Organization for Nuclear Research. (note: The Higgs Boson was verified in the summer of 2012 at CERN) Before the big bang, there was only the prime cause and there were zero dimensions. I propose that consciousness, truth and love are all facets of the same unifying force from which all other forces and dimensions were released at the big bang. 1. First, at the instant of the big bang, all other dimensions and forces began condensing in hierarchical order as the universe began expanding and cooling. 2. Then came the sub-atomic particles and the weak force; 3. then protons, neutrons, and electrons formed atoms with the strong force; 4. then elements, chemicals and compounds and all associated wavelengths of electromagnetic energy with the electromagnetic force; 5. Finally stellar bodies, stars, planets, black holes and dark matter and energy condensed with gravity force. The instantaneous release of energy began expanding in limitless space over a period of about 15 billion years as the universe expanded and it continues to expand and cools as it does so. It is important to understand that the universe is limitless in expansion potential because of limitless space in which to expand. Without the Higgs boson giving particles mass, as is theorized, there would be no planets or stars. Space would be filled with energy and elemental matter, equally distributed as if in a homogenized solution. Without Higgs, nothing would provide these the particles with mass for gravity to act upon. This I imagine is why the Higgs is referred to as the “god particle”. It is the particle that causes mass, therefore, allowing gravity to form the interstellar bodies and gas clouds. As can be seen, all five of the forces are syntropic in that they are attractive forces. They all tend to build with the matter in some way. Is it possible that the Higgs Boson not only gives other particles their mass but also a syntropic characteristic attracting them to cooperate with each other in the work directed by life force in a logical ordering process? To me, it is within reason that consciousness, truth and love are all unique expressions of the same force and cannot be isolated from one or the other but exist in tri-unity, all equal and inseparable as one. If and when science is able to mathematically unify all of the forces under one force, I think they will discover that this Triune Force, Life Force, will be the primary cause of all that exists. All natural laws are resolved in the Triune Force (Life Force) which has always existed and always will exist. It is because Triune Force can neither be created nor destroyed that it existed before all known and unknown dimensions of the universe and it cannot be limited by any dimension but is expressed throughout the entire universe causing all energy and matter to interact, cooperate and organize. The universe is organized as it continues to expand and grow In Mae-wan ho’s quasi-continuum of self-similar patterns. Entropy exists with Syntropy in the natural ebb and flow. Could it be that God is synonymous with the Triune Force (Life Force); that humankind is simply part of the universal evolution beginning at the big bang giving rise to a subset of expressions of Life Force that some men call god because it is easier for them to believe in an anthropomorphic supreme being and a mythical creation story than to understand universal truth? If you wish to refer to Life or Triune Force as God then in my way of thinking you would be correct. If A = B and B = C then C = A. I prefer to think of God as a word to reference Life Force, the prime cause of all that exists. I think of it this way so as not to confuse Life Force with an anthropomorphic being that created the universe in 7 days and that is treated as a deity by many major religions. I think of my mind as my soul and my consciousness is the experience of the life energy that keeps my body alive and self-conscious between birth and death. I see no need for such a being, deity or entity as the anthropomorphic god except as an instrument to explain the unknown to children and those who believe they need to fear or worship a deity; to be good, or else go to hell. The anthropomorphic God concept is also quite useful in organized religion for controlling followers and raising money. I think man created God in his own image in his mind, not the other way around. I think man naturally evolved from the Life Force as did the entire universe. I find no reason to believe there is a heaven or a hell. If god is life and god is love and god is truth then god is in us all and heaven and hell are constructs of some ancient evolving reasoning that served the purpose at the time. Science struggles with the question of when life first appeared on the planet. What caused the first single cell and how was it able to replicate itself. My contention is that life was always here and is a force throughout the universe since all other forces and dimensions emerged from it. It is easier to believe in magic or miracles than to seek and learn the truth. History is rife with examples of wrong beliefs caused by intellectual laziness and groupthink. Witness how long the Catholic Church denied that the earth traveled around the sun and how long men believed the earth was flat and that if you went to the edge you would fall off never to be seen again. These two thoughts were both intuitive for the time and were thought to be true. If they were taught by the church they were dogma and the church wasn’t going to change its teaching just because a few new facts got in the way. It is not my intention to convert the reader or anyone to my current understanding, only to explain how I got here. My ideas of god have evolved over the course of my life and I believe I am getting closer to the truth. I contemplate this theory of the life force on a continuing basis and especially as I write and read my own thoughts. I am eager to discuss them with others on the same path or on a different path. Stephen Hawking wrote the following final thought in his book, “A brief History of Time – From the big bang to black holes”, regarding the grand unification theory. "If we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God."

There is not a subject that I consider more intriguing or think about more than the reconciliation of the ideas of mortality and immortality residing in us all. It is through the acceptance of the idea of life force that I can accomplish this. Life force being the prime force which has always existed along with the space-time continuum is in us all and in all things. St Anselm said that god is "that which nothing can be imagined to be greater". He also said, along with others, that the existence of this god could be determined logically beginning with a priori knowledge. Descartes proved his own existence with a simple statement, "I think therefore I am." We can all do the same. If I were to agree with St. Anselm's definition of God, "That which nothing can be imagined greater than." I would say I think I have discovered a logical answer to what God is. It would have to be infinite, no beginning and no end and it would have to be neither capable of being created nor destroyed. Anselm also said “existing is greater than not existing”. Neither space nor time can be imagined to have a beginning or end and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We know that energy exists and if something exists it exists in the space-time continuum. Energy exists in many forms now but at the time of the big bang, it was heat of unimaginable intensity and temperature which at a given moment self-excited to expand to fill space. As it cooled it condensed into the four natural forces from which matter also condensed. All the combined forces were once one force which literally contained all of the energy in the universe. This force is the force from which life eventually evolved as a result of the cooling and the condensation of matter. I choose to call this force the life force, it will always exist at some level or form in both energy and matter. Life force meets St. Anselm's definition of God. It is in us all as it is in all matter. It is in our consciousness, our emotions, and each of our individual cells that reproduce and die. To me, this is God, but we are not made in God's image because this concept of God Has no particular image. Life force is the prime force that is in us all and we are products of the prime force. Like droplets of rain are individual until they become the sea. As the sea evaporates the water vapor rejoins the atmosphere where it condenses again to form new individual drops to fall again into the sea. The drops have changed, but the H20 molecules remain the same. When we die, the life force in us "evaporates" to rejoin the ether. It is not destroyed because it is energy and cannot be destroyed, only changed in form. It will "condense" again in another life with another consciousness that will not be aware of the experiences of any prior consciousness except possibly at the quantum level where past, present and future all exist as the same time. In this way we are immortal, not as individuals, but as a part of the greater sea of life force. If there was a Jesus and l think it likely that there was, he was a mystic and understood the relationship of us all, he tried to explain it but most could not understand. "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." John 14:11 Replace the word Father with Life Force and you can understand my reconcilliation of mortal and immortal.

I think it is better to live my life as though a god does not exist. No one has been able to supply a definition of a god. St. Anselm said that God is that which nothing greater can be imagined. That rules out so many other definitions I have ever heard and it certainly rules out a person. If a god exists it must exist somewhere and at some time. The universe includes all that exists so it must be where a god would exist. You see where that gets us. I don't concern myself with being picked on, especially by atheists, those who believe in some religion are the people who pick on other people who don't believe as they do. They give up picking on me after a short time because they are made to think when I question their religions and they can't answer the questions. I'm a hopeless case to them.

It is interesting that you posited this question today. Here is a question and answer I received in my email this morning from Bishop Spong. Question & AnswerJanah, via the Internet, writes: Question:What do you think of the book, Conversations with God, by Neale Walsh? It is interesting and I want to believe it, but really don’t. Answer:Dear Janah, Neale Walsh’s book has been very popular and has an appeal for a number of people. He writes in a lively and provocative style. He portrays a deity so engaged with human life that people feel comforted by his words. It has, however, a minimal appeal for me. That is not the fault of this book so much as it is an inability on my part to make most of the assumptions that he seems so easily to make. I cannot suspend my rationality. I cannot force my brain to operate within his universe. I am always questioning his presuppositions which keep me from ever accepting his conclusions. I am not able to turn off my skeptical mind. It is not the reality of God about which my skepticism is exercised, but by the way God is defined by him. I rejoice whenever people in search of meaning find it in any source, but theology is an ultimate mystery since it searches for a God who can never be described in human terms. I worry about those who believe they have arrived at “the Truth.” Neale Walsh falls into that category for me. So I am not a fan! Thanks for asking. John Shelby Spong

I am a skeptic and I don't use the word "believe" in my active vocabulary. I think the term "I believe" is a weak proclamation because it implies a forgone conclusion, it a passive term. I prefer to use the term "I think" because it implies an ongoing process, it is an active term. I do not think there is "a god" but I also don't think there is "no god". When a logical argument proving the existence of a god is presented, I will not need to believe it, I will understand it and know it. Thus far, with the greatest minds considering this problem, no one has come up with this argument.

Status addiction relates to what I refer to as prestige arguments when convincing others you are right becomes more important than being right simply because you score points with your use of the language. I never considered it addictive, but it is clear that it can be. Thanks for posting that idea. Being right is no big deal but doing right is.

I don't want to overthink this question but my answer is simple. First to be a good Christian you have to be both Christian and good. Intelligence has nothing to do with either. I could argue that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to deny science and the more likely you are (in the absence of Christian cultural upbringing) to become an atheist.

Good point George and also PaulS.

I think it is to be expected that pro-life Christians think the bible condemns abortion. They believe that a human person begins at conception and that abortion is intentionally killing a human person. The bible says "thou shalt not kill". In other words their argument is based on the definition of a person. The counter argument would be to prove that a conception does not make a single cell zygote a person. That should be simple for reasonable people, but when does that zygote, embryo or fetus become a person? That is the issue we should address.