.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Neither is it a fact that there is nothing beyond what natural science can have access to, call it God or what. »

By this, you obviously mean that there might be a god to which science has no access. And, equally obviously, the fact that there might be a god does not establish the fact that there is a god – though many may be prepared to believe it.

The Irish classical scholar, J.B.Bury, noted in his book “ History of Freedom of Thought “ in 1914 :

« If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed ? »

Also, as we both well know, Bertrand Russel pointed out, in his (unpublished) 1952 article entitled “"Is There a God?", there might be a china teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, but it would be nonsensical for him to expect others to believe it on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

Nevertheless, the possibility of J.B.Bury’s donkeys and Russel’s teapot orbiting in space is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of God.

As we both agree that “God is not a fact”, I guess the next best thing we can do, George, is to ask why you believe there is a God. But from what I can gather, I think you already know the answer to that and, obviously, it is a very personal matter and I don’t expect you to tell me.

So, as I have so often heard you say on OLO, « let’s leave it at that ».

.

Dear Banjo,

My posts here were not about why I - or somebody else - believes in God’s existence (that is a completely different can of worms) but about ACCEPTING that SOME people believe that the physical world accessible to science (Cosmos) is all that there is (as Carl Sagan puts it), and OTHERS lack that belief. The question is not about “scientific plausibility” since these two alternatives are not scientific but metaphysical hypotheses.

Bury’s donkeys, Russell’s teapot, Dawkins’ ultimate Boeing 747, God as an old man up there somewhere, are all by definition parts of physical reality, unlike the God contemporary educated Christians believe in. So “claims to believe” (whatever they are) have to be different in the two cases.

Anyhow, I wholeheartedly agree that we should leave it at that, and thank you for your incentives that make me try to better articulate my positions.

.

Dear George,

.

I am glad we agree to agree.

Thank you for your explanations.

I shall plunge into Aristotle's metaphysics to see if there is anything worth gleaning in there, though, I must confess I have my doubts. At least, the intellectual gymnastics his fertile imagination imposes will, no doubt, be profitable (in so far as I am capable of understanding it).

My mind, nevertheless, remains open to the possibility that all that is "natural" may not necessarily be "material" or "physical" as we know it today. It also remains open to the possibility that all that is "natural" may not necessarily be detectible by state of the art science.

It is the human concept of the so-called "supernatural" which I am satisfied is false: the concept of a creator, supreme being, God, devil, angels, daemons, saints and cohorts.

Thank you for helping me to clarify that.

.

Banjo Pat:
"It is the human concept of the so-called "supernatural" which I am satisfied is false: the concept of a creator, supreme being, God, devil, angels, daemons, saints and cohorts".

I'm tempted to agree, though even these necessarily remain an outside chance for me. Since my ignorance is (more) comprehensive (than yours?), how am I to rule anything out?
I don't even put faith in my limited sense perception; I certainly don't put faith in the cultural software I use to interpret them.
On the other hand I am satisfied there are more than enough anomolies (not to mention political blindness) to forestall my commitment to the currently popular doctrine of reductive materialism.

Altogether I favour your position, George. And I thank God (metaphorically speaking) for the great mystery that remains at the centre of life for me.

the least important,,thing to MENTION..AT A FUNERAL..IS THE TRUTH /OR FALSITY..OF GOD..[funerals are much like one hand clapping]..its like a child explaining..WHY ITS COMPLAINING.. [i think much of thE CRYING..ISN'T SNIFFLING...ABOUT A LOSS..but about..whats being..thunk/spoken//said and un-said.

THAT SAID..IN THE BEGINNING..WAS NUTHIN..[VOID]darkness/DEEP NUTHIN
[thats not me saying that..but science...then LO..SOMETHING APPEARED FROm nuthin.

anyhow that something continued growing from nuthing into everything
WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN..NUTHING CAUSED LIVING..yep life comming from nuthin living is a science iDEA..ANYHOW,,DIRT YOU ARE..and dirt is nuthin but unseen dust..and to dust you return

clearly/WE LEARN THAT THE THINGS..WE SEE ON THE MICROSCOPIC SCALE..AT FIRST non seeing..SEEM AS IF NUTHIN..but when your sight gets beTTER OR THE THING EXPANDING ITS AWARENESS..INTO YOUR AWARENESS..LO..WE SEE SOMETHING..FROM NUTHIN

now you may say..JOHAN IS YET AGAIN TELING US NUTHIN ABOUT NUTHIN
BUT GOD DONT WASTE TIME..GOD IS BEYOND TIME..just as all the mass of our reality/must have been..simply energy.changing state..its much the same for GOD..CHANGING HIS STATE..by us livinG AND DYING.

see that a life..of itself is/AS..nothing..BUT GOD BEING THAT LIFE/ONE GOD..IS IN ONE PLACE DOING silly things for no one..yet wheN GODS LIFE FORCE ANIMATES LIVES..their living..thats the energy that keeps on giving

now see EL[GOD]..YE SHALL call him emmanuel[god WITHIN ALL OF US]
AS he is best seen..by the life works/love and logiC..WE REVEAL LIVING WITHIN..BY MAKING The life without..be

yes johan just write bE
Wherever be be there is me
me..that I AM/BEING THE ME YOU ARE B\BEING
being all the beinG ALL OF..THE..NOT ME[WE]..YOU IS SEEING...SURE YOU WANT TO SEE..THE TRUE ME..AND YOU DID..BUT THEN..even..WITH A BIG BANG..YOU BEGAN SEEing the real me revealing all of yOU[THE WATCHERS CAN ONY SEE THE LIMITATIONS OF..[within].Seeing..[you..were there with-me..inside..the big-bang.../EVEN YOU COULDNT ESCAPE/YET STILL THEE DIDST..NOT SEE ME

ok so..you cant...SEE YOU
THATS WHY..WE made mirrors..
yet stil all you can see of you..is but a pale reflection..of all you in real;ity..are being..by grace..of the being..being all being...

all seeing..all in all..still MEANS..YOU CANNOT SEE YOU
JUST AS..EVEN I CANT LOOK..UPON ME..THE ME THAT I AM..LIVes to serve..you seeing you..Simply..bY WE SEEING..[Affirming]...ME.

RECALL WHEN YOU WERE READING OF THe officers..travel..when he went into the muslim realm/where those were who thought the messenger[may peace be ipon them all]..AND THEY NEDED BUT LOOK UP TO THE LIght..to se their god...there was the living emboDYMENT..

OF ALL THEIR FETish MIS-believe..clearly eraNT..
YET THERE TO WAS HE the mahamoudian/FALSE-god/HEAD..
undeniable PRESENT.. to the faithful..LIGHTING UP THEIR HEAVENS
and it wAS SIMPLY THEIR OWN CREATIVE energies that sustained THEIR OWN LIGHT[BELIEF]..

YOU RECALL OUR GUIDE SAYING THUS IS It too in many other realms IN HELL..with their own 'MESSANGER'..Lighting up their reality..[JOIN THAT WITH YOU ARE..WHAT YOU EAT]..

IF YOU want to deny the good/god within you..its ok that you see it in other.[HECK ITS OK IF YOU BEGIN BEING THYNE OWN GOOD..Too..[ITS ONLY RECOGNIZING WHAT YOU HALLWAYS..have BEEN.

ANYHOW COVER EM..WITH DURT
OR BURN THem in the pire
they dont feel any of that..ANY MORE THAN YOU WOULD CARE IF THEY BURNT your nail clippings OR THE SWEEPINGs off the floor under the barB BA CHAIR.