The Mystery of God indeed.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/rlgdess.html

On Einstein or Christ=MC2
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/christmc2.html

The Spiritual Gospel of Saint Jesus of Galilee (who was never ever in any sense a Christian)
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm

Einstein certainly did not believe in any god that would be recognised as such by the Christian religion. His comments on the false beliefs that were attributed to him are clear and unequivocal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

If Richard Ford intended to depict his African lodger character as ignorant or mendacious, he has succeeded.

Beware of mystery for the sake of mystery.

Yes, God cannot be conceived by the mind.
If that renders Him mysterious than so be it.

But don't go after God BECAUSE He is mysterious,
for if you do, then any other mystery will turn you around
- and many thrilling mysteries await on the path to God,
to test the seeker's true intentions.

the gospel itself is only a mystery to those who are perishing. Anyone preaching 'mystery'should not be in the pulpit.

Einstein believed and advocated a unified field of energy concept, for the entire universe and that we with all our atoms>molecules, are an integral part of it.

Is there intelligent design? Or the product of blind chance? And given the varied and massive complexity of life, The odds of a whirlwind, whipping through a junkyard and creating a flying 747 are less than the theory of blind chance culminating in evolution that produces something far more complex!

Like living oxygen breathing oysters?

There is a life force and on display even at the most basic level as a blade of grass pushes aside steel reinforced concrete to get to life supporting sunlight!

And love, self evident when a mother puts her life on the line for her youngster! Ditto caring/daring Dads!

I cannot look at a starry starry night, with more stars on display than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the world! And not believe there is a creative force and purpose!?

Can the unified field of energy we call the universe think, feel and love? Well you and I can and we are an integral part of it!

I believe we are fallen angels here to learn lessons. Part of which is the realization of dreams, or what the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve! And redemption!?

The latter, no more difficult than treating others as you would be treated, in their shoes!

Is there an afterlife? Well having opened death's door on no less than three separate occasions thus far, I believe there is one, and that lost love ones wait there on the other side, waiting for us!

All we can take from this mortal life is love of friends and family and the memories we make here! So make some good ones and don't be too selfish! After all, there's just one universe and we are all an integral part of it! Do unto to others! Anything else, self destructive madness!

Ultimately, nothing that we put individual material value on, matters!
Alan B.

I cannot look at all the travail in the world as a result of man's inhumanity to his fellow men without being convinced that the all caring God to whom Christians bow down is just a heap of hogwash.

David

That's known as Hoyle's fallacy, Alan B.

<<... given the varied and massive complexity of life, The odds of a whirlwind, whipping through a junkyard and creating a flying 747 are less than the theory of blind chance culminating in evolution that produces something far more complex!>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

There is nothing about a 747 being randomly assembled by a tornado in a junkyard that is in any way analogous to abiogenesis.

Furthermore, complexity does not imply design. Complexity arises out of necessity or sloppy design - neither of which should be the case when anything that could qualify as a god is involved.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

AJPhillips...you poor lost sheep you....

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in regards to faith and science:

**Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. ... Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.[3]**

The humble and presevering investigator...you are neither of those Phillips.
What you are is a twisted negator of truth...in truth!

Sounds like ye olde god of the gaps, DD.

Every scientific advance fills space that faith inhabits, making the concoction of an omnipotent being seem more and more absurd.

But do carry on.

Aj Philips: Being able to produce labels, with surnames attached to them, proves nothing other than a very obvious confirmation bias!?

I don't know why some folk believe in the still unproven theory of evolution? Which to this day, remains like the Big Bang Theory, A God or intelligent design denialists convenience and for the zealot evolution fundamentalist. Far more unquestioned faith in this belief system, even where the science calls into question some or all those beliefs.

One of those inconvenient facts being the complete and defining lack of nitrogenous coke, which would have at least proved a primordial soup! Even old continents like Australia, where no significant mantle folding has apparently occurred?

The usual trotted out excuse, that fundamental evolution zealots trot out as the reason for their complete absence!?

Science has been apparently able to construct viruses pseudo life, in the lab? But only under strictly controlled and deliberately designed conditions and in the presence of a supervising intelligence!
Alan B.

"Light Is (Inherently) Indivisible, Non-Separate, and One Only."
Daffy Duck, the philosopher to whom you refer in that piece obviously is out of his depth even before he got going.

David

diver dan,

I've been happily arguing against religious apologetics for years now. Why the sudden interest in my activities here now?

<<The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in regards to faith and science:>>

Yes, and it's wrong, too. Faith is the antithesis of reason; it is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something. Faith is not a source of knowledge, nor a pathway to truth. Faith is where reason goes to die.

You can call me “lost” and “twisted” all you like, but until you can provide some reasoning behind your accusations, I think Hitchens’ Razor applies.

' Yes, and it's wrong, too. Faith is the antithesis of reason'
Oh dear someone who has faith in the big bang and idiotic irrational evolution fantasy. How blind can one be.

If you say so, Alan B.

<<Being able to produce labels, with surnames attached to them, proves nothing other than a very obvious confirmation bias!?>>

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

<<I don't know why some folk believe in the still unproven theory of evolution?>>

Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s because all the evidence supports it? Just throwing it out there.

Unless, of course, you know something the rest of us don't? But given that you think that a 747 being assembled in a junkyard by a tornado is analogous to evolution, I seriously doubt it.

The rest of your post is one big fallacious appeal to incredulity and ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

Here's a little educational video to give you some idea of what is actually hypothesised by scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Dear David,

«I cannot look at all the travail in the world as a result of man's inhumanity to his fellow men without being convinced that the all caring God to whom Christians bow down is just a heap of hogwash.»

Why, would you rather bow down before some ugly and cruel monster?

Like it or not, we all bow down (as a manner of speech, even if we don't physically kneel on our knees) before one (or more) thing or another - be it riches, fame, pleasures, longevity, progeny, family, nation, leader, health, science, wisdom, philosophy, beauty, power, etc. etc.

All those objects are limited.

God is not limited, but alas, God has no form, no shape, no attributes, not even the attribute of existence, God is not an object, not even an idea, we cannot see Him with our eyes, we cannot even conceive Him in our minds, so how are we to possibly hold our attention on Him without being distracted?

So due to our human shortcomings and weaknesses we need to imagine God with some attributes, and best assign and adorn Him the most endearing (for us) attributes we can, inventing a representation of His that can hold our flow of loving attention the longest.

The attribute of caring is one of those.

The Christian faith has selected this specific attribute, as well for example as omniscience, omnipotence and the holy trinity. If this is what benefits Christians and helps them to keep their attention away from the other gods, including the aforementioned temptations of the world, then I cannot understand your objection.

Similarly, likening God to light suits others better. It is only a technique: everything is God, light is God, caring is God, power is God, knowledge is God, yet God is neither light, caring, power or knowledge. Yes, man's inhumanity to his fellow men is also God, but would you not agree with me that it's an unattractive attribute, which most of us wouldn't like to keep our attention on?

Easy, there is no God

Dear Geoff,

Given that there is no such thing as God, why would you (and others) treat and worship things as if they were God?

Your concept of God could be quite different to the author's and I respect that, but one who truly believes that there is no God (by that I don't mean just the Christian or the god of any particular established denomination), would be completely apathetic, valuing nothing, in fact they wouldn't even bother to breath, certainly not to comment here.

Alan B.

I think I know what you meant now.

<<Being able to produce labels, with surnames attached to them, proves nothing other than a very obvious confirmation bias!?>>

You’re talking about my mentioning of Hoyle’s fallacy. In typical creationist fashion, you attack style over substance. How about you explain how Hoyle’s analogy was not fallacious instead?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

--

Yuyutsu,

There is nothing impressive about your apophatic, obfuscationist theology. You simply agree with atheists that god doesn’t exist and then go on to talk about him as though he did, while completely redefining God to mean something that no other person is talking about when they mention him.

What you do is dishonest.

Your entire modus operandi is to keep what you’re talking about as unclear as possible to so as to prevent others from ever getting a toehold on what it is you’re talking about. That way, you can feel clever when those with whom you converse simply walk away puzzled over what it was that they just read.

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.” - W.C. Fields

How would you perceive what I said if I debated Christians and Muslims by claiming that God DOES exist, and then proceeded to talk about him as though he didn’t?

There is no god. Prove that I lie.

Sorry JBSH if you claim there is no god then the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.
As an Atheist I only say I dont believe that a god exists. If someone could show me reliable evidence of a god I am happy to change my beliefs.
Until someone can show convincing evidence for a god, or anything else for that matter, it is stupid and foolish to believe in it.

accurate desription of the god deniers written 2 thousand years ago is plenty of proof Mikk. Also the pathetically irrational beliefs that are used to deny God point clearly to a devil. Ever read AJ's waffle? And he calls it science.

The horror book you call the bible runner is in no way proof of your god. At least not for me. If that is all you need to convince you then you must surely believe some weird stuff aside from your professed, but invisible, xianity.

The bible is a violent, self contradicting study in evil. The murders, the genocide, the rape, the child rape, the slavery, the incest, the immorality and pure spitefulness of the biblical god is unparalleled in all of history.

You sure your god is not really the devil runner? I dont remember reading a book like that of Beelzebubs exploits throughout history. I doubt he/it could even come close to gods foulness anyway.

No one beats god for cowardly, hateful and downright nasty treatment of humanity.

Hmmm maybe we were made in his image. That would explain why we treat each other so badly. It is the way of god.

your poor dishonest attempts show how intellectually/morally bereft your arguement is Mikk. You simply demonstrate you don't want to know the truth.

Blah blah blah runner.
What dishonest attempts?
Dont talk to me about morals. It is your god that kills and kills and rapes and kills. It is your god who is the immoral, slavery supporting, genocide dealing killer. Deny it runner go on. Tell us your book doesnt say all those things were gods wishes. Tell us your god didnt do all those evil things in that book.
Come on give us more than your usual 2 line meaningless, pointless drivel.

I’m afraid mikk’s right, JBSH. When you claim there is no god, you saddle yourself with a burden of proof. Which is a rather unfortunate mistake for an atheist to make in debates given that theists are the ones who, by default, have the burden of proof.

To some extent, it is also a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof to then demand that theists prove there is a god, after making such a strong assertion that there isn’t.

Like mikk, I prefer to say that I don’t believe there is a god, or to point out that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing more frustrating than saddling one’s self with a burden of proof one should never have to bear to begin with.

Not that it’s actually possible to prove a negative, mind you.

That being said, if the god in question is the classical omnipotent Christian god, then that’s easy to disprove. So, there should be no issues there.

--

Do you have a specific example of my alleged waffle and pseudoscience, runner?

*Crickets chirping*

--

Speaking of tornados randomly assembling 747s (*Snigger*), social media is abuzz with the recent discovery that life may be an inevitable consequence of physics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics

About mystery and God. I study Baha'i Faith teachings. My big picture view from that study is that the Baha’i Faith (perhaps therefore, all faiths) is an ontological thing, calling to the nature of the human being as it is, not as an endeavour to convince anyone of itself in a rational way, although it can, but rather ‘knowing’ that human beings will continue to increasingly ‘feel’ the call as the bringing of the Baha’i Faith into the world through all its aspects brings signs of a transformed global society into being. I note some of the comments here refer to the disappointment many feel, being let down by religion because religion didn't stop wars, and sometimes even made wars. I guess it is because people believe religion made that promise to them and didn't keep it. However, the founders, the great educators of religions gave us a promise that we could keep ourselves safe and one day we will be safe. I note that, if we were to evaluate safety as by wars and losses, then non-religious wars have been far more devastating than religious wars. That might raise an inquiry, "why?" Could it be that, though not entirely preventing war, religion somehow ameliorates the effect of war. I have come to see that atheists are among the most committed people to the teachings of the founders of religions, demanding that religious people and leaders stand up fully for the teachings of their founder. I find myself in wonder at this, and right there is a wonderful thing. Around the world, we now live in the most safe time in history. We are all, from all faiths and none, beginning to step up to our promise for ourselves, and that is the mystery of God in the world.

It seems to me that the article by Sellick has expanded his instructions to the wretchedly rational to include the eternality of "mystery". As if it is another nail in the coffin of atheism, he exudes pints of intellectual perspiration and gallons of fond hope, that the doubting reader will be swayed by emotion, forced elegance and shallowness of scholarship......that same combination of twisted pseudo-logic that he fell prey to in his youth.

Science's unerring and implacable determination to eradicate "mystery"
apparently has him and a few of his ilk concerned. And rightly so, for if all mystery is resolved what abode is left for the trinity? Sellick proudly [resorting to understatement for emphasis] announces; " Frank declares that he is on the side of mystery." Which is a euphemistic, self-deprecatory surrender to a preference for ignorance and a renunciation of pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a shameful and contemptible attitude to be exposed and dealt severely with at every opportunity.

To Jon J, Monday, 31 July 2017 10:04:47 AM [p.1] do we owe the exposure of the lie that Albert Einstein believed in god, i.e. the christian god. The great man revered, held in awe, that which he knew of in his imagination but which eluded his powers of deduction and analysis. He expressed himself thus; "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." Einstein worshipped at the altar of intellectual enquiry and later in his life lamented how humbling is a contemplation of the vast body of knowledge humans are yet to learn. His "illimitable superior spirit" reified that as yet unnamed and possibly limitless realm. Cont...

Cont...
Sellick writes: " This mystery is not the kind that exists at the edge of knowledge,.......It is an openness to questions that lie at the heart of our humanity, who are we, why are we here, what is the point of human life?" Of course, these questions' answers must remain an eternal mystery for without the mystery and the romantic fantasy that humans attach to said mystery the questions become meaningless in the same category as...........while walking along a beach one stubs a toe on a rock peeping out of the sand and one ponders; What is this rock? Why is it here on the beach? What is the point of the rock's existence? If there were answers to these questions it would change nothing and one's toe would still be hurting. Professing to know or to be in search of the answers is an exercise in futility. Declaring the answers to be important to a fulfilled life separates the declarer from the mundane and elevates him/her one position up the religious pecking order. It promotes one's self esteem and sparks that inner glow that stems from approval from a higher authority. That kind of stuff we bestow on children and pet dogs.

He writes further: "I suggest that those embarking on a scientific career should do some theology first in order to define what their subject is capable of and what it is not. In this way, many scientists would escape hubris." Let us be fair about this. A significant number of scientists hold firmly to faith while remaining true to their science. A significant number of clergy have in the past and still today remained true to their science while holding firmly to faith. Both groups could be regarded as experts on any problems that may arise. Sellick's attribution of hubris solely to scientists is partisan and unmerited. Evangelical groups in christianity cater to many who work hubris into a virtue. Cont...

Cont...
And further: "Thus, the person of God was recognised to be hidden in deep mystery or, as some would have it, in "unapproachable light." This finally robs the atheists of their target." It matters not the depth of the mystery as far as atheists care. You are simply increasing the fantasy content of your faith at the expense of whatever credibility it may have had.

And further: "We all encounter grace in our lives....." What Sellick calls "grace" the atheist may substitute "awe" and "wonder". Understanding the science behind the numinous in no way inhibits my joy, awe or wonder. In fact an understanding can contribute another aspect to these emotions. Thus is the theist deprived and is the lesser for it. The mathematics of flight never has deprived me of the emotional rush in admiring a great bird in flight soaring on rising currents of air.

Mystery, whether holy or not, invites intellectual lassitude from those who would nurture it for its own sake. It enables escape from responsibility.

God, the mystery of the world : Comments By Peter Sellick, published 31/7/2017

Owen59 writes: " I note some of the comments here refer to the disappointment many feel, being let down by religion because religion didn't stop wars, and sometimes even made wars."

DISAPPOINTMENT is hardly the word to use in the presence of genocide and the enthusiastic ferocity of the wars of expansion by christianity and islam. Even less is it appropriate when extermination is conducted on an industrial scale as in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Further: "I guess it is because people believe religion made that promise to them and didn't keep it."

How is the above passage anything but an admission of failure, an admission of utter ineffectiveness of religious promise, whether by great religious educators or by the asses on whose backs they rode? The history of humankind is riddled with failed promises from great religious teachers of special safety from disaster, cataclysm and depredation. If you are guessing then you lack the erudition to dissert on matters such as these.

And further: "However, the founders, the great educators of religions gave us a promise that we could keep ourselves safe and one day we will be safe."

That great furfey of religious recrudescence, HOPE?
Such a fraud implies a criminality of monumental proportions. It speaks of the unspeakable, it cowers great nations, it enslaves and betrays, it cripples turning a confident forward step into a grovel. It is inimical to curiosity and enquiry and thus it is the opiate of humankind distributed by Earthly representatives of the holiest of holies.

Intreasting article. The world is full of awe and amazement for children. And it's fun and easy to show them something to be amazed about. Perhaps there's something to add to having the faith of a child to also include the ability to be amazed? Mystery indeed exists. Sometimes it's baffeling in a no scientific way. In conversations with others or even with inspiration on our own. Where do dreams get born? Where do ideas hatch or fade away? Sometimes it's baffeling in a conversation for that moment when half the people feel the pull of "how did I miss that?" kind of realization. Sometimes it's baffeling in a purely scientific way, such as the idea that the more you study the more you know that you don't know. Kind of like how far does this rabbit hole go?

As to so many comments, I have to ask why so much bickering?

To Owen59 and Pogi, well done for at least addressing the article instead of being consumed by the bickering. Well done indeed.