The above suggests anomalies and theocrasia pertaining to the Christian faith, using the same basic architectures, known to the circa 600 BCE – 200 CE period. Some wanting to know, “How God exists”, might explore these matters.

“Indwelling” [Polanyi] in worship of any god is a poor methodology. Sometimes one needs to change the setting on the microscope and take a broader view in investigation (Popper). Being shackled to a priesthood and a Credo, can reinforce falsehoods, as with the disciples of Marx, Freud and Alder (Popper). Please recall, Polanyi’s posit that the basic idea of a Church/Temple service is not to exchange information but to affirm existing commitments.

Someone wanting to see “How does/do Gods exist?” needs to step away from worship.
Herein, propositions can be developed and even modelled from theocrasia, histographies, cultural anthropology, sociology, psychology, and, even, neurology.

Moreover, we can test for triangulations of evidences. We cannot prove or disapprove the existence of God, however, we can develop tests for “how” gods may have been created, by humans, in History. Herein, for a believer in God, gods and theocracia can be cross-matched and it could be [probably, would be] be found the Mystery Cults of the Roman period draw on similar theocracia. Albeit, the specific secretions (Toynbee) differ on common elements, like with DNA bridges.

Confirmation of human theistic architectures strengthens the positive heuristic of the believer in atheism.

Contrarily, pragmatically, someone believing in Zeus can change camp and leave Olympia, or, go into to denial, or, maintain a belief in “God”, in some form, yet, recognise the presence of cognitive disequilibration (Piaget). In the latter case, the god “system” needs to be reformulated by the believer.

Thus, I posit, hanging onto worship, limits potential discovery. One could be in the feigned compartment of false understanding of god(s), in relation to; god(s), real, constructed or imagined.

Boxgum,

Neither angry, uncomfortable nor resentful. To assume Zeus, Jesus or Mithras is God, “a priori”, is limiting. The architectures of gods, priesthoods and creeds, are largely known. A God, if it exists, might stand apart from all [contrived?] religions.

(Continued from 24 hours ago) I have to admit I was rather impressed by "How does God exist?". Of course, you have to read it from within a Christian framework. Being a mathematician and a Catholic, symbols and models based on them play probably a more crucial role in my understanding of these things than in Peter’s. However, if I wanted to enter into polemics with Peter, it would have to be at a very low and modest level, since he obviously knows much more about Christian theology than I do. Indeed, the problem with this kind of articles, and discussions supposed to follow, is that “in the realm of theology everyone is an expert no matter what their training”, as he himself acknowledges. Nevertheless, I think one should always try to understand those, who are honest in their approach but look only at the finger, and cannot understand that it points to the moon.

Keiran, I do not understand what “role of a specialist” you have in mind: my mathematics-inspired insights or Peter’s Christian theology. As far as tempering my thoughts at the expense of the bigger picture, I think I answered that in my previous posting about the five levels in my hierarchy of other people’s opinions, the highest being “non-trivial views, opinions, theories etc. (that might or might not agree with my own point of view) which help me to improve, extend, amend my own position and views.” You cannot embrace all possible positions, systems or what you call them, at once: you have to start somewhere and then either freeze on that position or gradually widen and deepen it by considering other positions along the scheme thesis - antithesis - synthesis (if you like Hegelian/Marxian dialectics). Otherwise I would not understand what you mean by an “inclusive, interactive” world view. Only very seldom contacts with the outside world (outside of your system of beliefs) lead to a conversion, when amendment actually means a replacement of your original system by another one. (ctd)

(ctd) Also, if you mean by “intimacies that cannot exist in isolation” the impossibility of a private religion, I agree. The idea that (Christian) theologians are virus writers is new to me; usually atheism is being seen as a virus that might lead to the demise of cultural West as we have know it for centuries.

boxgum, thank you for your inspired words. I was already afraid that these postings of mine are being read only by Oliver and Keiran. You will find that in one of my previous postings I “ wiped the dust from my feet and moved on” when I thought that the person in question could offer nothing but abuse, whatever were his psychological reasons. However I think that Oliver and Keiran, at least in their more recent postings, can offer more, some interesting views from the outside of the world of faith that Christians “indwell” (Oliver’s reference to Polanyi). Of course, to engage with them you have to go outside of your “house”, stand next to them, and try to see what they see, rather than look at them out of your window unable to imagine what they can see on the exterior of your house. Yes, they will make all sorts of claims about the interior of your house, which they are unable or unwilling to enter. And yes, it is hard to convey to them the beautiful view of the whole neighborhood that you get from the windows on your upper floor, a view they cannot get standing on the street, albeit on firm ground that they are so proud of.

Oliver, I think I finally understood your point about theocracy (defined in my Merriam-Webster as “a fusion or mixture of different deities in the minds of worshipers; also the identification of formerly separate deities”) through your informative insight into the world of cultural anthropology and mythology, that is obviously your preferred position on these matters. I am grateful to you for this, and would like to say more, but cannot continue only after another 24 hours.

George, when I mentioned a desire for an overall order of mind it is more in reference to a wholeness, an undivided, unbroken and without border connection ......... (i.e. wholely rather than holy. lol) What this means for myself at least is behavioural. Our perceptions have a circular causality that loops back onto itself. If we go back to 1865 we have one Claude Bernard who noticed that the "constancy of the internal milieu was the essential condition to a free life" where we strive to maintain a set connected equilibrium which has little to do with a fantasy teddy or one concocted religious role model. Hopefully from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. This is why I put forward the suggestion of a veritable, down to earth good gardener who would speak of causality, uncertainty, inseparability, conservation, complementarity, irreversibility, infinity, materialism, relativism and interconnection ............. as interrelated or consupponible. i.e. the bigger picture.

One person who sees the bigger picture is Max Whisson from his lab in Western Australia who has come up with a brilliant and very simple idea. It involves getting water out of the air. Whilst most people in error regard the air as empty, the fact is that there is a lot of water and when you cool the air you get water. Max has a great idea that couldn't be simpler nor more obvious and an even more simple design to give the world clean water.

Whilst this is far removed from virus writing theologians who replicate dogma, it is heartening to see a free life who just looks at the connectivity of what is to find things that no person had ever known or imagined before.

Find and ye shall seek.

"Oliver, I think I finally understood your point about theocracy (defined in my Merriam-Webster as “a fusion or mixture of different deities in the minds of worshipers; also the identification of formerly separate deities”) through your informative insight into the world of cultural anthropology and mythology, that is obviously your preferred position on these matters."

It is my position because the elements of the theocrasia tend to be common for the gods/godheads, as objectively known to History, especially, circa 600 BCE to 200 CE. Somewhat like the A-T-C-G nucleotides: The characteristics are common but the configurations change. That is why I used the Period Table analogy.

With respect to Mystery Cults of the Roman period, the mechanism for the construction of Gods is well and Wells(ahem) known. Wells, also, in a similar fashion refers to the "Alexandian God factory". Moreover, we know of historical Jesus-like person known to have lived before and after Jesus.

Sells could see [comparative religions from theology school?]that there were Mystery Cults, but, could not desgnate Christianity as one. That is why, elsewhere, I said, he claims all the elements are elements, but, according to Sells, metaphorically, Zinc, is not.

The mechanisms for compiling Gods is as well known, or, better known, to History, than the processes for building genomes. These processes are testable. [If one sets aside some extreme essentialist posits. Assuming: We are not dreaming. The wasn't created yesterday and all our memory implanted in our one-day old heads.]

The above said, dispproving all the religions and cults from Sumer to Wacko, does NOT disprove the existence of God. But, this finding does
degrade the posit.

(cont.)

/cont.

Worship, of Aten, Zues or Jesus, is centripedal. Analysis of the Architecture of the creation of gods in History is centrifugal.

Liked your house analogy,as the opposite to Confucius' inside the mountain analogy. The process of analysing religious takes us closer to mechanisms/fundamentals (to the numbers, than the finger [your metaphor).

The Atheist should test the existence of God and hold the Atheist creed tentatively. Likewise, the believer in Zeus or a divine Jesus must try to objectively disprove their positive and hold their believe tentatively. Both must experimentally pull-away from the centripal forces of their prior kernel.

Boxgum,

You hold great malice towards those whom Sells' refers to as "opponents". It is easy to see why Christians and other theists, avoid pursue open debate, and, why there have been bloody wars fought, and, great schisms formed. On Iraqi on CNN recently, there was an interview conducted by Anderson Cooper, wherein Michael (?) Ware pointed to "four" Iraqi wars based on religions. The combatants all inert, to the extent that nothing is allowed to penitrate their outer shells.

With Christians, in particular, I see a huge gap, between creed and deed. Debate is opposition.

Does the Catholic Church protect pedaphiles but denigh REAL history, because the former is merely political (minor institutional problem) and the latter Pandora's Box (major institutaional problem)?

I suggest you consider humanism and mutualism in the pursuit of knowledge discovery.