I haven’t run away. I’m still right here. I just haven’t had time to get into lengthy responses as of the last week or so. I’ve started a new job and that has eaten up a lot of my energy.

You say that your proof requires a 16 hour class normally to go over properly. I would suspect then that you don’t need a response from me to get started on it. Sounds like you have a lot of typing ahead of you if you’re going to prove anything. Don’t wait on me, I’ll be around. It IS my website afterall.

Most philosophical proofs of any complexity build on themselves. To progress we need to lay down some foundation for future points. The first point I have given you, (The truth about reality can be known) There is not much sense in continuing until we agree to that. I will give you some support for that position:

A) Truth is that which corresponds to the object to which it refers.
Any denial of this would defeat itself.
B) We can know reality (again, basically undeniable).

And I’ll give you a second foundational argument:

The opposite of true is false (again, basically undeniable).

Together, these points eliminate relativism, something we must do if we’re going to be dicussing absolutes. But I do need your agreement to them for it to be worthwile to persue the rest. And it would be some fun to discuss your alternatives should you to try to deny the above.

The 16 hours is usually spent in discussion of the points, which if you’re going to just accept will take very little time. If I just felt like typing to myself, I’d have never made the offer. I don’t need to re-examine the proof. Although I rather suspect I’ll get plenty of quotes from infidels.org, I’m hoping instead to interact with a person that is capable of thinking for himself.

Most philosophical proofs of any complexity build on themselves. To progress we need to lay down some foundation for future points.

I’m not interested in a “philosophical” proof. I’m looking for a proof of existence that is undeniable and beyond question and philosophical proofs don’t fit that bill. I believe that sort of proof I am looking for is commonly known as “empirical.”

The first point I have given you, (The truth about reality can be known) There is not much sense in continuing until we agree to that. I will give you some support for that position:

A) Truth is that which corresponds to the object to which it refers.
Any denial of this would defeat itself.
B) We can know reality (again, basically undeniable).

And I�ll give you a second foundational argument:

The opposite of true is false (again, basically undeniable).

Together, these points eliminate relativism, something we must do if we�re going to be dicussing absolutes. But I do need your agreement to them for it to be worthwile to persue the rest. And it would be some fun to discuss your alternatives should you to try to deny the above.

I like to think that the truth about reality can be known, but the honest answer is that I’m not entirely sure that it can be. The universe is too big and our likely existence is too finite in probability to ensure that some day man will know all there is to know about the nature of reality. Science is the pursuit of truth on the nature of reality, but science accepts that it often gets the truth wrong and thus makes allowances for correcting the truth as new data comes to light. What was true yesterday isn’t always true today, but for the people of that time it was the only truth they knew. Once again the Flat Earther’s provide an excellent example.

The points you provide allow only for a very black or white, either/or viewpoint and I can’t say I agree with that. Are there some absolutes? Possibly. There are certainly things that seem to have been born out enough times over the centuries to qualify as absolutes or as close to such a thing as we are likely to ever get, but I don’t fully reject the idea of relativism either. If your proof is philosophical in nature and requires the acceptance of absolutes at the cost of rejection of relativism then it probably won’t convince me and you would be, in fact, wasting your time.

(Eric here, not Les)

I am a little fuzzy on the whole ‘truth corresponding to the object to which it refers’ statement, please clarify.

In order to state that “we can know reality” I think you first need to define reality. It would appear that you think that we have a one reality fits all scenario where I believe that reality is highly subjective. If you are saying that our own personal realities can be known then I will stipulate to that, but to say that you and I perceive reality in exactly the same way does not take into account a great number of variables.

Unfortunately I am not sure if this will be of any real value since agreeing to force large amorphous theological concepts into manageable and artificial absolute values gives the concepts a property that they do not inherently have...unquestioned validity. I would have to have ‘faith’ to do that because proof would make this entire debate pointless.

I mean if you will agree to a few absolutes that I define then I can probably prove that I am god.

Les:

All knowledge has it’s base in philosophy. All science is based on that principle. All branches of the pursuit of knowledge we have, have their base in philosophy. Perhaps taking note that degrees handed out by universities are Doctorates of Philosophy, not Doctorates of Empirical Observation might help you. Are you telling me that you cannot accept the Pythagorean Theorem because the proof is not empirical? If such is the case, then you should change the stupid (in SEB) to vacuous.

There are possibly some absolutes? Isn’t that in itself a statement of absolute? Likewise, if you say the truth about reality cannot be known, then you�re making a statement about truth (defeating your own argument). You’re right, if you cannot believe there is truth, the pursuit of it is fairly pointless. So then, all science is worthless. I hereby lay claim to all that the pursuit of science has given you, since you�re renouncing it. I�ll take your car, your house, and your computer � how could you use something you don�t believe in?

I see your attempt is for the middle ground, a kind of �I�m not sure�. Things either are or are not, nothing sorta is. Yes, it�s black and white � and since you mention it, you just admitted that there is black, which is undeniably not white. I�d call that fairly absolute, and a statement of the nature of reality.

I won’t quote entire works for you, but I suggest reading Descartes� Evil Demon Hypothesis. It�s a philosophical proof of the nature of reality. If you don�t like his treatment, I think Kant and Plato both give the nature of reality a fair shake. I can get you specific titles if you�d like. But if I were you, I�d stick with Descartes. His is the most simple, and his general writings hit more directly at your reluctance to accept the idea that one can obtain new knowledge from reason alone. And note that I never said all the truth or the complete truth is known but that truth can be known about reality.

Relativism always defeats itself, but I think I can show that in my response to Eric. And if you�re going to continue with the idea that it�s possible, then the possibility exists that I am correct. Which would be to say, that it�s reasonable to believe that God exists. Which is all I set out to show you.

Eric:

I again suggest some reading, and again, Descartes� Evil Demon Hypothesis would be a good start. Apparently, you�ve heard the phrase �Perception is reality� so many times you actually believe it. Perception is what you think reality is. Reality is what something actually is. Truth is an accurate perception of reality. Since none of us are in full possession of the facts (truth about reality) we deal with a specific instance. Truth corresponds, then, to a specific object to which it refers. Ex. I say �This piece of paper is black.� You can deny it or accept it. If it is in reality black, then your perception is wrong if you think it�s white. If it is in reality black, then I spoke truth. If you want to say it�s possibly black (a la Les) then if it is actually black, you are wrong � it�s not possibly black: it is black, and if your perception is telling you otherwise, your perception is false.

How, then, could truth, which corresponds to reality, not perception, be relative? If you claim something is true, it is or it is not � proving it may be interesting. Something cannot be black and at the same time be white. You know this empirically. You also know from your own experience that everything you perceive is not as it is. You certainly believe by your own statements that my perception of God is not reality. By making your claim to atheism, you make a claim to knowing the truth about reality. Or are you saying that it�s only true for you? Wouldn�t that still be making an absolute claim about nature of reality?

We could get into a lovely discussion of what reality is, but I don�t need that to prove my point. I just need us to agree that it�s possible to know what it is.

Now Descartes says my perception is as close to reality as I can get by myself, but never actually confuses the two. If your perception was the only reality, then yes, you�d be God, but we�re getting ahead of ourselves here. However, you touch on the key point, reason leads to knowledge of the truth, and the truth has to include information about the nature of God. Or, as someone far wiser than I said �The truth shall set you free�.

And I began this particular area by saying �I can walk you through a proof of Christian faith (i.e. Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God) that is completely rational, and the claims are quite verifiable. But it really doesn�t do much good, except for making Christians more comfortable because their faith can be described rationally. But an intellectual understanding of who God is, or even that he exists, is not faith � and gives nothing.�

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

I’m pretty sure you could not get me to agree to the absolutes necessary to prove you are god. I *am* interested in seeing you try. And I am not trying to get to agree to any particular absolutes, just that there are absolutes.

OK, I’ve read through this clarification and I feel I have a better feeling for where you’re headed. Your previous response wasn’t as clear and while I still have some reservations, I am willing to admit that I have no problems with the idea that we can know the truth about reality in general if not in whole. I scrapped an earlier attempt at a response here in which I tried to clarify my statements because it would’ve only dragged things out further though there are still one or two points I want to address:

Relativism always defeats itself, but I think I can show that in my response to Eric. And if you�re going to continue with the idea that it�s possible, then the possibility exists that I am correct. Which would be to say, that it�s reasonable to believe that God exists. Which is all I set out to show you.

I fully accept the idea that I could be wrong about my stance on God’s existence. I am not, as so many people have pointed out time and again, omniscient and as such there is the possibility that somewhere there exists such creatures as God, unicorns, anal-fixated aliens and creatures similar to the Loch Ness Monster. I have no problems with the idea that you could possibly be correct about God and all those other things. The possibility that you could be correct, however, isn’t enough in and of itself to convince me of the validity of their existence.

I see your attempt is for the middle ground, a kind of �I�m not sure�. Things either are or are not, nothing sorta is. Yes, it�s black and white � and since you mention it, you just admitted that there is black, which is undeniably not white. I�d call that fairly absolute, and a statement of the nature of reality.

My problem with this statement is that you’re trying to apply an absolute stamp to a subject that is inherently intangible. Namely the concept of color. The truthfulness of whether or not that sheet of paper is black or not is dependent upon an agreement on what the color “black” happens to be and even then you can find differences of opinion on how “black” something has to be before it’s considered black. At what point, for example, does it stop being black and become gray? Or stop being gray and become white? In general you can often get consensus, but that truth is only true because of the consensus on what it means for something to be a particular color. To a color-blind person blue, red, green, yellow, and chartreuse are all different shades of gray. You can insist to them that the paper is a lovely blue, but they still have to take your word for it. For you, the paper is absolutely blue. For them it’s absolutely gray. Both are valid viewpoints based on the knowledge they have at hand. The existence of the paper is an absolute, but the color is often up for debate.

And I began this particular area by saying “I can walk you through a proof of Christian faith (i.e. Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God) that is completely rational, and the claims are quite verifiable. But it really doesn’t do much good, except for making Christians more comfortable because their faith can be described rationally. But an intellectual understanding of who God is, or even that he exists, is not faith � and gives nothing.”

Yes, you’ve said that before. I still disagree with the idea that knowing for certain God exists would give you nothing. but I’m assuming you’ll explain why faith gives you something that direct knowledge would not in due course.

Gheeesh, with you guys its god or nothing. David, you need to stop trying to talk down to everyone. I believe we will/do exist as aware energy after physical life, and time is an artificial construct, so we are in the next place being the next thing now. I don’t believe there is created or maintained by a god, but by all aware energy equally. Don’t expect me to try to prove that though. I don’t believe proving there is possible while focused on here. David, where would you be without the Bible? Les and Eric, where would you be without Scientific American? We’ll all retain our same beliefs regardless of what the others say.

What about us heathens? I have a multitude of gods.

Give me some of that REAL old time religion, baby!

Indecision is a terrible thing. It affects the lives of millions of people who end up being too wishy-washy to trim down their choices. Please, give generously so that one day Scott might be able to narrow his religion down to one or two Gods.

Make all checks payable to Les Jenkins, c/o Stupid Evil Bastard… :LMAO:

I always find it amusing that people right away start trying to defeat Christianity or the Bible. So far, I�ve not said a peep (in this proof) about the nature of God, or even if God actually exists (that is in the next point). And I�m not using the Bible at all. I won�t get to that for some time. We are using reason to determine the validity of a point of view. And I do apologize if I seem to be talking down to anyone. I am stating a proof (as I was asked), and the nature of that is going to sound dogmatic and unyielding. I naturally tend that direction anyway, so I�m bound to offend someone. Hey, I say when you�re good at something, stick to it . People change thier beliefs everyday. Les used to be a Baptist. Every Christian used to be something else. Thrity somethings stop being liberals and turn into conservatives like lemmings running to the sea. If you can’t change your mind when faced with new data, what is the point of human interaction?

Les, you make a couple of excellent points. One is that unless we define what black is, we can�t very well call something black except as a opinion. If we say black is the absence of all color, or blue is a range between so many angstroms wavelength of reflected light, then our opinion no longer matters. When we have a definition, the thing either fits the definition, or it does not. Lastly, the thing is what it is: it is black by our definition of black, or it is not. If you want to call it grey, you can, but that doesn�t make it grey. This is the difference between reality and perception.

Let me define then, the God I am setting out to prove. A theistic God is an infinitely powerful, intelligent, and moral Creator who is absolutely perfect. He transcends yet sustains His creation and intervenes in it supernaturally from time to time.

I also like your point about the possibility of correctness. The bar I�d like to set is �reasonable possibility�. Or, would a person, in possession of a set of facts, reasonably conclude something. Brock makes his statement of his belief about the nature of reality and then says we shouldn�t expect him to prove it. I would say then there is no reason for me to believe it. It�s widely accepted that we are creating or enlarging the hole in the ozone layer. It seems reasonable enough on the surface. Unfortunately, all the tests we�ve devised to come to actual knowledge have not produced any proof (and we�ve spent billions). Since we cannot directly disprove the theory, the theory still gets acceptance. I would ask: is it reasonable to still believe that we are affecting the ozone? Are there not other forces at work that make our contributions to the problem insignificant? I can make a better theory, that I can support better. Therefore, in the absence of empirical observation, I accept, and live by, the best explanation I have. And to be sure, I�ve even carefully examined the alternatives and come up dry. To do otherwise would be, well, unreasonable.

I think Sherlock Holmes said �Once one has eliminated all the possible solutions, one must believe in the impossible�. That may not be exactly what he said, I�m working from memory, but it captures the essence.

Actually, I�m not working towards why there is a difference between faith in Christ as savior and belief in the existence of Christ. But I just read an excellent but very short work on that subject that I�d be happy to send you a copy of, Les, called �Simply Jesus� by Stowell. But it comes to this: I know lot�s of things that don�t actually make me act any different. I should exercise more and spend less time on my PC. But I don�t. It�s in my head, and I know it�s true, but I don�t act on it � so I don�t truly have faith in it, believe it. And if I did start exercising and spent less time on my PC, I�d only be going through the motions � I don�t really WANT to. It�s still just head knowledge. Also, look at Christianity. Satan knows who God is, but Satan doesn�t want to go to heaven and be with God, he wants to be God. So his knowledge of God does not give him peace or salvation, only the desire for more personal power.

Well, I�m off to DC for a few days and won�t have web access. I look forward to where we are going in this conversation. My leettle grey cells are all atwitter.

Since I believe we are all gods, which means I believe in more gods than Scott does, why not set up a charity for me (...I mean for you, Les)?

You’re right David; there is no reason for you to share my belief concerning the nature of reality. Eventually it comes down to subjective awareness. My intuition tells me the christian god I’ve considered is an insecure, insensitive, uptight brat. Actually, my perception is that he was invented by numerous writers who didn’t check each other’s works or were moved to reinvent some of them.
Christianity seems to have done little to help the world’s inhabitants, in spite of a lengthy cast of movers and shakers willing to justify and represent it. I propose that the bible has created discord, diminishing peaceful positive co-existence, inspiring hate and disharmony and worst of all, it is really hard to read with little tiny print and way too much attitude and man does it ever go on and on, as does this post. Why so much effort validating a failed, often destructive ideology? Until I get a better bunch of experiences and stories on the subject to consider, and can forget all that has gone before, I’m not going to feel differently. I never understood how it could become such a best seller, but realize word of mouth played a big part and people love to see themselves or their friends in print (myself included).
It seems to me, David, you are reading too much and feeling too little. No offense intended, and I hope you read this as well meant, if you can.
I have equal disdain for the idea that it all ends after here. I can’t prove it doesn’t. I can’t accept that it does. Sorry.

I’m still a really good guy, better than many self-professed christians, and I manage it without fear, reward or individual cessation as motivators.

Let me define then, the God I am setting out to prove. A theistic God is an infinitely powerful, intelligent, and moral Creator who is absolutely perfect. He transcends yet sustains His creation and intervenes in it supernaturally from time to time.

I also like your point about the possibility of correctness. The bar I�d like to set is �reasonable possibility�. Or, would a person, in possession of a set of facts, reasonably conclude something.

Fair enough. I’m listening.

Actually, I�m not working towards why there is a difference between faith in Christ as savior and belief in the existence of Christ. But I just read an excellent but very short work on that subject that I�d be happy to send you a copy of, Les, called �Simply Jesus� by Stowell. But it comes to this: I know lot�s of things that don�t actually make me act any different. I should exercise more and spend less time on my PC. But I don�t. It�s in my head, and I know it�s true, but I don�t act on it � so I don�t truly have faith in it, believe it. And if I did start exercising and spent less time on my PC, I�d only be going through the motions � I don�t really WANT to. It�s still just head knowledge. Also, look at Christianity. Satan knows who God is, but Satan doesn’t want to go to heaven and be with God, he wants to be God. So his knowledge of God does not give him peace or salvation, only the desire for more personal power.

I would be interested in reading Stowell’s writing and would be happy to receive a copy. I can also agree with the idea that one can know things without it affecting one’s behavior. I share with you the bad habits of too much time in front of the PC and not enough time spent exercising and I am aware of the damage it’s causing to my health, but haven’t been able to motivate myself to do much about it as of yet as well. That is a tendency which seems to be a common part of human nature.

I look forward to you continuing on your return. This is certainly one of the better conversations I’ve had with anyone stopping by SEB and I’m intrigued enough to see it through.

Some proof here would be nice, Brock. You can have your opinion about existence, and when you fail to back it up with rational, it’s no big thing. I mean you�re only hurting yourself. I happen to think that democracy in general and the US in particular have contributed mightily to �peaceful positive co-existence� and without them I don�t think we�d have made it through the nuclear age. Isn’t the US supposedly a Christian nation? Buy a large print bible and actually read it before you decide that it contradicts itself or is too long. If you find a specific contradiction please let me know.

Les, just tell me were to send it, or go to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576738566/kasoftsoftware0c/002-3737129-4706450

OK, now things get really interesting. I�m going to make 3 major types of argument, and each will have minor supporting arguments. The overall thrust is to prove the existence of a Theistic God. I�ll start with my least favorite: The world based argument. I think we are all familiar with the idea of cause and effect. We use science to establish a cause � reproducible results are the underpinning of science. Since everything that had a beginning had a cause, the universe, which had a beginning had a cause.

Nothing does not produce anything. Things do not spring spontaneously into being (E=M(C[squared])).(OK can’t figure out how to superscript). Most evolutionists I�ve spoken with say they have explained our existence, when in reality they�ve only explored a possible explanation of the method. There was always this or that that the current thing evolved from. But even that primordial ooze had to come from somewhere.

The universe had a beginning. In spontaneous changes the universe tends to a state of greater disorder (2nd law of thermodynamics or Maxwell�s daemon). We are tending to disorder � wouldn�t there need to be an original state of order from which we are degenerating? Something (some cause) had to create that original state of order. There is less and less energy in the universe, at some point we had to be at the highest point of energy (the beginning) and we are heading to a point of no energy (absolute zero, or the end). The universe is expanding. If time reversed, the universe would collapse back into nothing- not a tiny dot. Hawking, Jastrow, almost all the imminent Physicists agree, all our math and physics, even the big bang theory agrees on this point. The scientific evidence leads to supernatural cause.

If there is no God (creator) why is there something instead of nothing?

The second argument I know you�ve heard before. It�s the purpose/design argument. Basically, every design had a designer. Looking back at the idea of entropy (Maxwell�s daemon) where does order come from? Or � when you see a clock, you assume a clock maker. Why wouldn�t you look at the universe and assume a universe maker? Previously, Les made some arguments against this point, but I pointed out that all his arguments assumed Christianity. I am not yet making that argument, only an intelligent, powerful creator.

Science, as I noted, depends on repeatable results. Non-repeatable results are not natural. Non-repeatable results are caused by a designer. Ex. The grand canyon occurred naturally, we see similar canyons all over the earth, and we know that water causes the canyons to form. But there is only one mount Rushmore. Without anymore knowledge than seeing the mountain, we know that mount Rushmore was not formed by the blowing winds or driving rains, but that it had a designer. It�s a singular non-recurring event, so it had a sculptor. Life and the universe are much more complex than a clock or a sculpture.

We should consider how ideally suited for our existence the earth is (the Anthropic Principle).
1) Oxygen comprises 21% of the atmosphere: if it was 25%, spontaneous fires would break out, if it were 15% we�d suffocate.
2) If gravity was altered by 1 part in 10 to the 40th, our sun could not exist, the moon would crash into the earth or fly out of orbit.
3) If the centrifugal force did not precisely balance the gravitational force, nothing could be held in orbit.
4) If the universe were expanding one millionth slower, the temperature here would be 10,000 degrees.
5) If the thickness of the earth�s crust was greater than it is, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
6) If the atmospheric discharge rate were greater there would be too much fire destruction for life, if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.
7) If there were more seismic activity, too many life forms would be destroyed. If there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift.

There are many more constants that life depends on. Ross lists 74 in Mere Creation, and there are several other books by other authors devoted to the subject. The world is finely, perfectly, balanced for human existence.

One of the problems with evolution theory, and indeed any theory that does not include spontaneous creation, is that life is irreducibly complex. Consider the simple mousetrap. It has only 5 parts, yet it could not be created by evolution. It had to be directly created. Because each part has no use without all of the other parts. None of the parts produce a function without the presence of the other parts. So all 5 parts would have to develop simultaneously for the trap to perform any function. �Each part of a living thing depends on all it�s other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns about biochemistry, the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle � an architect for believers...� Dr. Allan Sandage.

Consider that the human brain could contain about a hundred trillion bits of information. �The human brain is a very big place in a very small space… The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.� - Carl Sagan

A chemistry that works within itself, within the endocrine system, and within the physical limitations of the body. As a system it is irreducible complex, and as a part of a greater system it is likewise irreducible complex. 

�The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of the ordered regularity for causes of a different nature [than a creator]�
or �God does not play dice with the universe.� � Albert Einstein

Considering these things, I must conclude that an infinitely intelligent and powerful being would be requied to create life and the universe. Or at least one whose power and intelligence was beyond any measure I could comprehend. And I am further convinced of it as a creation, and not chance.

Well, that didn’t take very long. You can stop now. You had my interest at first, but it’s clear from your second argument that you’ve got nothing new to offer. The Argument from Design has been effectively refuted many times over and if your proof uses it as a foundation then it’s not much of a proof. As you’ve already pointed out the website Internet Infidels.org has plenty of counter-arguments against the Argument from Design as does the talk.origins archive. You do a good job of hitting each and every one of the classic points in this argument, but I’ve already been there and done that so I won’t bother to repeat the counter-arguments here. Anyone interested is encouraged to spend some time at the two websites mentioned above.

I do take exception to your attempt to use one of my personal heroes to support your argument. The first quote from him that you supply as supporting your argument is only a partial quote the full extent of which is actually a criticism of religion and it’s reliance on a supernatural explanation for existence.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....

If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life.
—Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941

The second comment about God and dice was an expression of his dislike of some aspects of the emerging field of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein did not believe in the concept of a personal God who interferes in the affairs of man as you seem to be trying to suggest here.

“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.”
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

“I believe in Spinoza�s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
-- Albert Einstein, following his wife’s advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding “Do you believe in God?”

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
-- Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.”
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.

“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

I would seriously appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to use quotes from people opposed to your argument as though they were in support of it. Carl Sagan, for example, was an atheist as well and also spent time refuting arguments from people misusing his quotes.

this subject always fascinates me. it seems to me that the only reason people don’t believe in God is because deep down they’re afraid where they’re going to wind up ... so it’s easier to make it a non-issue. i went through a phase once when i “no longer believed in the God of christianity.” at least with God there are definites ... there are lines not meant to be crossed. God says, “this is sin. this will bring life. walk in these ways.” you know what scared me the most when i thought there was no God? the fact that “anything goes ... and truth is relative.” and that leads to all kinds of disasters!

I am sorry that self-determinism scared you Rosie. Do you know what scares me? Religious zealots who preach bigotry from the pulpit trying to legislate their ideas of sin into law. I am afraid of the self righteous that comprise 99.8% of all religious people, they are dangerous dreamers who talk about peace and love but might not see a problem with killing a doctor that performs abortions. They want a heaven on earth but only if it excludes the queers, the Christ-hating Jew, and definitely not the terrorist Muslims. A wonderful place to live unless you don’t conform to their narrow view of right and wrong.

Am I afraid I will go to hell when I die? The easy answer is that an Atheist does not believe in hell any more than they believe in god, so no I am not afraid. If it turns out that I am wrong and god sends me to hell then all that proves is that he is a petty insecure god that demands unquestioning obedience and does not care if you were a good person in life or not. In that case hell would probably be preferable to heaven.

Rosie, you seem to be forgetting that most people who don’t believe in God also don’t believe in Hell and it’s kinda hard to be afraid of ending up someplace you don’t believe exists.

Truth is relative regardless of whether or not you believe in God. Christians can’t even agree on what the “truth” is about their own religion. There are over 34,000 different sects of Christianity. Seems like an awful lot if the truth is so supposedly clear-cut for you guys. You’d think if it were that simple you’d have one denomination and one version of the Bible and one sect and there’d be no arguments. I think Christians believe in their God because deep down their afraid to admit they’re too clueless to figure out right from wrong on their own.

It’s not without irony that Christians refer to themselves as “sheep.” Sheep are some of the dumbest animals on the planet. If you people really think you’re that fucking stupid that you need a magical old man to tell you right from wrong, then why the hell should I trust you to give me any advice on anything short of how to drool on yourselves? Think about that for a moment before you answer because it’s more than just an insulting statement, it’s a serious question. Why should anyone take any kind of spiritual advice from a group of people that declare themselves to be the biggest idiots in all of creation every Sunday in song and prayer? So pathetically in need of being told how to do everything that they beseech an invisible being to take pity on them for being such useless screw-ups even though they realize that they are not truly worthy of such pity. Do you people even stop to consider what’s in most of the prayers and songs you sing? What a whiny bunch of sycophants you guys make.

that’s not how knowing God is at all. another thing that fascinates me is why people get so upset about people believing in God or Jesus. people may think we’re narrow-minded (or fill in the blank with whatever adjective or expletive you like!), but look at the results of following God ... peace, joy, learning to truly love others and not be self-centered. it’s a humble road, but a good one. are those things possible without God? on a limited basis, but ultimately what drives humanity is “self.” self preservation, self expression, making sure we have our “rights” ... but at what expense? sorry if i seem to be rambling a bit here. it’s a big subject, and i know that i choose an unpopular view. ultimately, God knows His own, will draw them to Himself, and everything else will play out as it is meant to be.

I think what you are seeing as people getting upset about those who believe in god or jesus has nothing at all to do with the personally held belief, it comes from those who feel the need to force their belief in god and jesus on everyone else. Now you might think that all christians are doing is sharing the love and helping the unwashed masses to see the light but let’s turn it around for a moment. Suppose that christianity only had a following of maybe 7% of the population and that the major religion was bokononism and that the well meaning bokononists were using their considerable influence to bend the government to their will. Every morning your child would pledge their fealty to one state under bokonon, the calypso’s of bokonon would be placed in public buildings and in the schools to remind all children including yours that the one true god bokonon expected them to follow certain rules, and any time you complained that maybe you weren’t receiving fair treatment under the law (or they were receiving better) the bokononist would cry out that you were bokonon bashers and religious bigots. Now that you are me how do you think you would feel about this group of people who roll along like some blithely pious juggernaut crushing everyone under foot? I guess it is too much to agree to disagree in this country, everyone is so sure they are right that they feel the need to force everyone else to live according to their rules. Isn’t life hard enough without everyone trying to push everyone else back down?

Anyhow, in the words of one of my favorite authors, the immortal Kurt Vonnegut Jr.:

In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness.

And God said, “Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done.” And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. “What is the purpose of all this?” he asked politely.

“Everything must have a purpose?” asked God.

“Certainly,” said man.

“Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this,” said God.

You chose an unpopular view? Am I mistaken to think you live in America? You know, the country where 85% or so of the population claims a belief in a God of some sort or another? Of which the majority of the population therein claims to be Christian? How can you claim your view is unpopular given all of the above? What fascinates me is how Christians in America love to claim to be the persecuted minority all the time oblivious to the facts at hand. Perhaps you guys really are clueless enough that you need a magical old man to tell you up from down.

But let’s take your suggestion and look at the results of following God. Let’s see there’s the recent Bible school graduate accused of molesting 10 young girls, there’s the group of Christians in Hoopeston, IL. who managed to stop a group of Wiccans from building a school, oh and that Christian anti-abortion protester who was arrested for molesting girls (he’s probably against abortion because it reduces the number of his potential victims), along with the conservative Christian group that pressured the CDC into not providing funding for a San Francisco AIDS prevention program the CDC had planned to support, and the Baptist Deacon who pleaded guilty to molesting young boys, and we can’t leave out the ongoing Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland. The list just goes on and on.

With so much peace, joy, learning to truly love others and not be so self-centered going on it’s amazing the human species has survived this long. Perhaps we shouldn’t look too closely at the results of following God as we may not be happy with what we see.

Is it possible to experience peace, joy, learning to truly love others and not be self-centered without God? I’d say the answer is yes. At least it is in my case as I’ve experienced all of the above.

Do I get upset about people believing in God or Jesus? Truth be told I don’t really care what you believe in until you start trying to impose those beliefs on me. You could believe God is a great big bowl of sentient Jell-o that requires you to spray yourself with whipped cream and face the southwest corner of your house to pray four times a day as long as you don’t try to force me to join in on your silliness.

The problem is most Christians can’t follow their own rules and most of them can’t be content to live in their little fantasy worlds and leave the rest of us the hell alone. No, you’ve got to interfere with progress and try to get stupid laws passed that impose your beliefs on everyone regardless of whether they agree with you. If you people would just shut the hell up and go back to praying for the Apocalypse so you can spend the rest of eternity telling Jesus how wonderful and amazing he is (sounds real exciting to me) then there wouldn’t be a problem.

so how come a christian sharing their beliefs (let’s leave the government out of this for the time being) is “pushing” ... and yet everyone else has freedom of speech to share what they believe? we don’t live in bubbles ... and everyone “pushes” (i look at is as expressing)what they believe one way or another. if christianity’s not your cup of tea, say, “no, thank you.” want a cup of tea? if not, okay then. i’ll still have the freedom to pray for you.

okay: government. well, it seems to me that all laws are passed according to one belief or another. why not a christian’s belief? because we’re supposedly “intolerant?” according to who? that’s right .. according to someone else’s beliefs! everyone has an agenda ... and yes, i believe christians tend to get the short end of the stick. why should other people’s beliefs get “imposed” on me?

for every “christian crime” quoted: that’s pointless. crime is everywhere ... no group is exempt. that’s the result of sinful human nature. we’ve never claimed to be infallible. pick a group: you’ll find some horrendous crime committed somewhere by some person who claims to represent it.

Rosie, sharing a belief and imposing a belief are two very different things. Your christian believers want to control other’s basic rights. They want to tell children that they have to pray in school. They want to tell a woman that she can’t have an abortion. They want to tell a gay man or woman that they can’t have sex with a willing partner of the same sex. They want to deny same sex couples the right to a legal union. They want to deny the teaching of evolution in schools. The list of ways you people want to control others goes on and on.

Pray for anybody you want to but stop your whining and keep your burden for yourself.

You don’t seem to be able to read and process information very well. You want to make it seem like your humane beliefs are being trampled on. The truth is that you want to force your small minded and harmful beliefs on others and refuse to see who is of the innocent party here and who is just plain wrong in their practices and passions.

Can’t you find a worthier cause to champion, such as universal health care or hunger relief? Can’t you find it in your heart to stretch your mind a little and put your efforts where they will benefit others instead of pushing an ideology that engenders hate and intolerence? I am not a sinner, thank-you. My human nature is more benign than yours, I think. My conscience is clearer and I don’t live in fear of what will happen to me after I die. Nor do I give anyone else permission to control my life for my soul’s sake. My soul will be fine without your religion’s guidance.

If I read one more brain dead idiot talking about how christians are being treated unfairly, I honestly think I’m going to puke, and you won’t like me when I puke. Don’t make me do it!

And what’s up with the refusal to use capital letters? Is it a form of protest? It seems to be a growing fashion these days. I’m very curious why.

PS I won’t pray for you.

Rosie,
I so wish the “cup of tea “ analogy was true.
The world would be so much better.