I thank God for living in the times that we do with so much technology and advances in medicine that are changing lives and enhancing life for the better.

Who knows what is around the corner in terms of cures waiting to be discovered in this Information Age we are living in?

This is the best of times in world history. It may be the worst of times if despots rule the day. But given the best of what we have to work with, it is possible to be cautiously optimistic.

Science, medicine, and engineering are the keys to unlocking our future and advancing.

Here's to life and living abundantly. Carpe Diem.

Good health is true wealth.

Una buona mamma vale cento maestre.

After this past weekend I could barely catch my breath.

The bacterial infection I caught three weeks ago has taken a toll on me, and the cough turned into a near bronchial attack. I've had both pneumonia vaccines in the past ten years (because I've had pneumonia before and bronchitis.) That may be why this didn't become a full blown case of pneumonia.

A man where I worship with came down with pneumonia the same time I fell ill. He went into hospice and died one week ago. I felt terrible I wasn't able to make his funeral or sit shiva with his family, but I was too ill myself to go.

Then I had to postpone jury duty due to my chronic condition. Which honestly, I don't mind, but still have to do my civic duty later this year.

It was the medicine my doctor prescribed for me yesterday that made all the difference with my breathing function. Now I can breathe again! It really is a miracle of modern science that saves lives every single day. It's opened my airways again so I can breathe. And that is something I give thanks for. I want to be around for my children. I've been their only parent they know. As things stand they are half-orphans. If I die they would be orphans. We're a nuclear family. Thanks to Mormonism, our Mormon family wasn't there for my children when they were growing up. It was just us. And my parents until they passed away in 2000. Leaving me a mid-life orphan at the age of 40. There's a book for mid-life orphans that was written right around the same time luckily for me. It helped make sense of the loss of both parents at the same time when they play such a vital role in the lives of their children throughout life's stages.

It's my prayer for my children that they outlive me by a country mile and then some. I am just selfish enough that I want to live long enough to grow old along with them, God willing.

Today I went shopping following work. So I must be feeling somewhat better. I started out to get cough syrup. Ended up window shopping. And came home with a bagful!

I'm glad that the medicine is helping you, Amyjo. It seems to me that there are a lot of pneumonia cases this year. Best to take care.

Thanks Summer. It's a b*tch to get over.

A 27 year old where I work got pneumonia around the same time I became ill. There really does seem to be more going around than usual this year.

Haven't been waking up with as many coughing spasms in the night or interruptions during my day just since I started the new medicine on Monday. Hopefully the worst is behind me.

The weather is warming up nicely here finally. My lilac shrub is starting to bud (only buds, the lilacs have a ways to go lol.) But it's a healthy sign. And I saw some migratory birds return yesterday haven't seen in a while. They're looking for nesting places already. :)

Maybe you should thank Atheists and their Atheistic modern medicine for saving your life many times over.

Nah, I thank God for science for making all things possible.

Including life itself.

From a recent study done on whether scientists are religious or atheists, the findings actually show many scientists are religious than agnostic or atheist:

"Between 2011 and 2016, Ecklund and her team conducted the first-ever international survey on what scientists think about religion. They found, contrary to popular wisdom, that over half of all the scientists in India, Italy, and Turkey self-identify as religious, and only a minority of scientists in each region say that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.S., this number is just 29 percent.

According to Brandon Vaidyanathan, associate professor and chair of the sociology department at the Catholic University of America, “We found a significant portion of scientists can be characterized as having religious identities, practices or beliefs, and nontrivial proportions say they have ‘no doubt’ that God exists.”...

Second, scientists are learning just how “fine-tuned” the universe has to be in order to support life of any kind, never mind intelligent life. Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or our existence would be utterly impossible. It strains credulity past the breaking point to believe that all this “just happened”!"

http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/11/breakpoint-scientists-atheism-and-god/

It strains credulity that you believe Catholic University would be unbiased, or that scientists in Italy, India and Turkey represent the entire world.

And from the apparent methodology used, I'm considered religious because I avoid stepping on cracks, lest I break my mother's back.

If you read the report it doesn't say those countries represent the entire world.

And Eckland's report was not published by the Catholic University. She is with Rice University.

For all I know, 100% of the cited study is true. But there exists a lot of support for my contention that it isn't. Each of us can decide.

But here's some useful information for those wondering about this current dispute. It's about the source of your article, Breakpoint(dot)org. I got the following from their website. Maybe they're lying, but I tend to believe they are sincere:


"We live in a moment of cultural confusion. Fewer and fewer of the things that give meaning to our lives come easily. Family, community, beauty, truth seem to be constantly eroding around us—while our news feeds are full of despair, anger, and division.

How are Christians to make sense of the world around us? How can we make sure we have clarity in our daily lives?

Welcome to BreakPoint. A program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, our commentaries offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion.

HOW TO GET IT:
Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.

Daily: BreakPoint audio commentaries, hosted by John Stonestreet, air on more than 1,200 outlets with an estimated weekly listening audience of eight million people.

Weekly: Breakpoint This Week, featuring John Stonestreet and several co-hosts, is a weekly in-depth, 30-minute conversation on the news and major issues of the week.

Throughout the week: The BreakPoint Podcast, available on iTunes, Spotify, and major podcast apps, puts both of the above in one place, plus dedicated podcast interviews with leading thinkers and doers.

In addition to all the audio above, and The Point 60-second updates, BreakPoint.org hosts written posts and helpful links on both current events and issues relevant to culture, family, the church, and the things that define our lives.

ABOUT THE COLSON CENTER:
The Colson Center for Christian Worldview is a ministry that equips Christians to live out their faith with clarity, confidence, and courage in this cultural moment. Every day, we work to:

Offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion.

Provide training that unlocks every believer’s calling to restore culture.

Resource and activate a movement of Christians committed to cultural restoration."

--http://www.breakpoint.org/about/

So I think it's okay to accept that this is a Christian organization, with a Christian point of view. They are not likely to be involved in disseminating points of view contrary to the Christian perspective.

And the article, when read in full, confirms this. Once again you seem to hope that by cherry-picking what you pass along, people may be swayed. You leave out things like:

"First of all, the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that anyone can learn something of God’s nature by what He has created. So even though some scientists say that the theory of evolution has made the idea of God unnecessary—Richard Dawkins for example once said that 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'—the fact is, people inherently know that God exists, and they must suppress this truth if they’re going to claim atheism. This goes for scientists, as well."

It may well be that citing the bible in a scientific study is okay, but I think that study would be about how the mind plays tricks on people, or something along those lines.

It seems that your 'scientific study' had one purpose in mind, based on the accepted Christian 'fact' that the bible says that the heavens declare the glory of ghawd and that you can learn about ghawd by examining what he has created. I forget which of the pithy Latin phrases covers this, wherein you take a controversial position, declare it to be a truth and then applaud that the truth supports itself.

That you have a point of view is fine, but you do your POV real damage when you use data that upon examination is so easily refuted. I have no problem with you believing in your data, but when you haughtily declare, "I'm right, you're wrong" with only mendacious documentation to support your view, it leaves those of us interested in discussion shaking our heads in disbelief.

Find support for your 'arguments' that aren't so obviously mere propaganda. You can't use Warner Bros. cartoons to support the argument that rabbits can talk. Or rather, you probably shouldn't.

Preach it Amyjo!

What, that medicine heals, and is life saving?

That I felt better so I went shopping?

Shopping is its own form of therapy. Just didn't let myself get too carried away. The trouble with picking up cough syrup at a Walmart super center is there is just more eye candy to go around than is good for the wallet, unless you can find some good deals.

And I did.. $7.00 capris. $5.00 tees. I made out like a bandit, and still came home with da cough syrup.

If you are going OT why not take it all the way!

Thank god someone invented $7.00 capris and $5.00 tees. Or should we thank the kids in stilt houses making them that I saw in the news a while back.

Interesting how God like to bless those who already live in a nice house in a nice suburb.

I will admit I don't have evidence on hand for the above. This is my current belief based on past research.

>
> Thank god someone invented $7.00
> capris and $5.00 tees. Or should
> we thank the kids in stilt houses
> making them that I saw in the news
> a while back.
>

Tell us more of this "news" thing you mention. What flavors does it come in? What if some "news" doesn't taste good, can I find "news" that does? Can I use "news" to promote my beliefs and to excoriate those who don't believe as I do?

Should I invest in Wal*Mart?

Is banditry acceptable? Laudable?

News. 2019. It has learned to adapt itself much like everything else in our society--proving evolution! I like when you get pictures and all with the News. Then you know for sure! Well . . . Of course now there is photo shopping and editing.

I've seen the good banditry and the bad banditry. Who knows?

God is apparently the opposite of Robin Hood--robs from the poor and gives to the rich, so yes, invest in Walmart which falls second only to Temples in sacredness.

In a field of ideas, you have planted personal invective.

I sincerely believe that this thread was more suited to your FaceBook feed. When mention by an atheist of a particular point of view, you apparently set out to show him the error of his ways by bringing to our attention the above-mentioned study from what turned out to be a religious organization with a very obvious perspective.

This was pointed out to you, but rather than address that issue, you went back to FaceBooking.

D&D did mock that FaceBooking aspect of your presentation, and I did somewhat participate, but I certainly never personally attacked you or called you names or heaped aspersions on you.

I'm far from my field of expertise, but I think you often confuse RfM and FB, and I don't see you practicing any form of Christianity. I am certain that there is no Commandment to call people names for disagreeing with you.

No commandment at all to call babble babble and drivel drivel.

I don't presume to be a practicing Christian. You, on the other hand, are one of the most hateful Atheists I have ever met. It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing.

I don't take issue with your constant disagreeing with whatever I have to say. I merely point out the obvious, to which you have overlooked or have reading comprehension problems. Or choose to ignore so you have something to quarrel about. You don't add anything thoughtful, courteous, or respectful to any of my postings.

Which is why I ignore most of your posts because they really don't have anything to say of import to me. They are drivel as far as I'm concerned and are meant to detract from my posts, which is more of your MO and your track record on my threads.

I do not respect you. I simply try to tolerate you because of forum decorum and respect for the moderators here, because you are constantly hounding and dogging me and then passing it off as "disagreement." Which it is but from you to me you test the limits of what that means with deliberation.

We might agree to disagree, but with you it is only disagreement 100% of the time.

And you are one of the most hateful theists I have ever met.

You revived a dormant thread to make your own hateful, mean, trite, ugly little attack Atheist Dave?

You trumpet to everyone around that you are an ATHEIST, lest no one doubt your INTENTIONS.

I add a post about the miracle of modern healing, science, and that God oversees it all, after my getting over a bad virus.

And this is all you have to say to add to this post, just to stir up more strife and division? The only people making this an attack thread are yourself, and others who make personal attacks on me because I am a believer.

Since you don't have anything else to add other than cause trouble, I can say with my own fair degree of certainty that if there is a hell there is a one way ticket waiting for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2019 09:49AM by Amyjo.

>
> I can say with my own fair degree
> of certainty that if there is a
> hell there is a one way ticket
> waiting for you.
>

It would seem you pander to your ghawd and are pleased with his vindictiveness.

When you offer proofs for your position, you abandon them at the slightest push-back. You offered a 'proof' from breakpoint (dot)org of your position and have never returned to that 'proof' to defend it when it was called out for being completely biased. This is a place for dialogue and basically you're just ringing the doorbell and running away.

Then you offer second-hand stories about people whose reputations you completely besmirch, and who have no way to defend themselves from your calumny, seemingly just to make yourself look better.

You turn to invective with seeming glee, an observation I base on how much you seem to enjoy it. Such diligence! This is a market place for ideas, and you offer trite propaganda. Please have all the beliefs you want, but don't condemn people to hell on your say so.


"I give it a 30, Mr. Clark. The words didn't make sense and it was impossible to dance to. I don't think I'd buy that record."

If only God was concerned about other peoples' illness like he was your virus. You must have been very valiant in the pre-existence to garner God's special attention all the time.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only God was concerned about other peoples'
> illness like he was your virus. You must have been
> very valiant in the pre-existence to garner God's
> special attention all the time.


I don't see anywhere in this post where this was stated or suggested.

That is your invective, not mine.

I have had divine intervention at least twice that I know of in response to prayers for healing. I give the credit where it is due. Who wouldn't if it happened to them?

There are countless stories of divine healing down through the ages. Mine isn't unique, it is one among countless many.

Since I believe there is a divine source behind the power and majesty that drives the universe and cosmos, and is the greatest engineering feat ie, that of existence itself ALL of IT. I do give the credit and the glory of all there is to whatever or whomever the divine source is that created us and all of this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2019 11:17AM by Amyjo.

I'm sure you believe that, and I'm sure it is a great source of comfort for you.


The problem is that you never rule out the most obvious and plausible explanations (because we can't rule them out) and jump right to a supernatural sky-god who favors you over others. (This very hour, people will die who prayed for help. Others will recover from a viral infection as they often do.)


Your threads like this are exhibit A for atheists because you could not make their case for them more if you tried.


That said, I wish you good health.

>
> I merely point out the obvious, to
> which you have overlooked or have
> reading comprehension problems.
>

I proposed that "Breakpoint(dot)org" was not a credible source for proving up theist points of view, in comparison to atheist, or agnostic, points of view. I isolated sentences that you left out in your proffer that made this apparent. I don't believe Breakpoint is looking for truth; their stance is to defend the 'truth' they believe.

I stand by this.

Chuck Colson:

From The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/charles.html?noredirect=on

“Known within the Nixon administration as the "evil genius," special counsel Charles W. Colson served seven months in prison in 1974 after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate-related Daniel Ellsberg case. Colson's more notorious ideas, according to some reports, included spreading false information about Ellsberg and firebombing the Brookings Institution. He was also indicted for his role in the Watergate cover-up.

“Colson became a born-again Christian and in 1976 founded the Prison Fellowship Ministries. The volunteer-based organization is designed to bring Bible study and a Christian message to prison inmates and their families. Justice Fellowship, a subsidiary of the group, was founded in 1983 to develop Bible-based criminal justice and prison reform. In 1993, Colson won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, worth more than $1 million, for his work with the ministry. In 2000, Florida Governor Jeb Bush restored Colson's civil rights 25 years after his release from prison. Colson is a syndicated radio host and commentator and has written many books, the royalties from which he donates to Prison Fellowship. He lives in McLean, Va., and Naples, Fla.”


From Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Colson

“Charles Wendell Colson, (“Chuck”), American political and religious figure (born Oct. 16, 1931, Boston, Mass.—died April 21, 2012, Falls Church, Va.), was a close political aide (1969–73) to U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon and was the reputed mastermind behind the campaign of “dirty tricks” advanced to discredit the president’s opponents that culminated in the Watergate scandal. He was tried and convicted (1974) for having obstructed justice in an elaborate cover-up staged to hide the activities that took place to destroy the credibility of Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg (who in 1971 had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times). Colson had hired E. Howard Hunt (and accomplices) to steal files from the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, and he had then spread alibis for the burglars around Washington. Upon his release after seven months in prison, Colson declared that he was a born-again Christian, and he devoted the remainder of his life to Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM), which he founded in 1976. In the 1990s Colson became a leading voice in the evangelical political movement, and he and Roman Catholic theologian Richard John Neuhaus published Evangelicals and Catholics Together (1994), a discourse that advocated for religion-based policies in government. Colson’s ideas gained traction in Washington, and Pres. George W. Bush reportedly used Colson’s prison work as a springboard for his own notions on providing federal funding for faith-based social services. In 2006, however, a federal judge in Iowa ruled that a joint effort of Colson’s PFM and the state of Iowa violated the U.S. Constitution’s ban on a government establishment of religion. Colson, a graduate (1959) of George Washington University, had practiced law before becoming Nixon’s aide. His rights to practice law, vote, and serve on a jury—revoked upon his conviction—were reinstated in 2000 by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Colson, who was the recipient in 1993 of the $1 million Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, published several faith-based books and a best-selling autobiography, Born Again (1976).”

(Karen Sparks)

-----

When I attended a fundamentalist EV church (my first after leaving the JWs) with a friend from work he gave me a lot of material from Colson and other preachers in a similar vein. I was inexperienced enough to think they all represented Christianity in general. I had no idea at the time that there is a wide spectrum of belief and approach and that the church I attended, and my friend, and his favoured speakers and teachers, were on the far end of fundy. I wasn’t exposed to more mainstream for years after, which is when I gained some perspective about the broader reality that even Christians disagree with each other and not much is written in stone. Rather, it's a matter of various choices and preferences as to doctrine, belief and practice. Colson et al were/are absolutists in approach to belief. I finally figured out, after years of not fitting in anywhere I tried out, that I am way further along the scale on the more mainstream side. Should be obvious but wasn't to me for a long while.

Of course, to Christians, people with a flawed background (such as most/all of us?) who “make good” are walking, breathing examples of their version of the Gospel - redemption is a favourite theme. How long can you hold someone’s prior negative acts against them (depending on their gravity though) if at some point they change and attempt to make restitution?

Re EOD’s post about the origins of the study that AJ linked, I must say that I appreciate him pointing that out. IMHO, it’s crucial for our own enlightenment to check the sources of our information. Ideally, they are neutral, which makes them more likely to provide factual information. That was my approach in choosing the two sources I set out above (although I must say I am not familiar with the origins, relationships or slant of The Washington Post – on reviewing the info, though, it sounds similar to what I knew already about Mr. Colson).

As an illustration of EOD’s point, what would you read, what would be all you would know of Chuck Colson, if you researched him using only a Christian source? Sure, he changed from being the “evil genius” and in the eyes of many did a lot of good in the rest of his life. Would that we all could be instrumental in bettering life for others. But could we view him or his ministry, with or without him, as a neutral party? No. So, it’s a good lesson or reminder to check your sources, use more than one, get a rounded picture and develop informed conclusions.

I know it’s not fun to feel targeted or criticized. We take that chance though, to a certain degree, in every post we write. I just needed to say, though, that I found EOD’s post instructive and useful and a good reminder to be vigilant at checking sources. Who knows – if I had been more inclined that way I wouldn’t have leaped into the Mormon font in the first place, so escaping three years of confusion, negative experiences, melancholy, and subsequent mortification at my own stupidity. On the upside, it brought me to RfM, which I have thoroughly enjoyed. But the three-year “apprenticeship” before washing up here as an exmo was a bitch, to borrow a phrase I don't usually use but it fits so perfectly when referencing my depression-inducing Mormon sojourn as a so-called convert who didn't like it from baptism on but felt compelled to try and make it work in order to keep the "covenants" I had apparently made, which I didn't understand, didn't know ahead of time, couldn't explain well and didn't believe in anyway.

The longer I'm out, the weirder it seems.

If I want to know about Scientology next, I'll be sure not to check out only their web site (if they have one?) but will, at the very very least, take a peek at Wiki first.

>> "I thank God for living in the times that we do with so much technology and advances in medicine that are changing lives and enhancing life for the better."

So if god delivered the technology to humans so we could have a better life in these times.....what about everyone else that lived in times without that technology? What was god doing then?

Heck, skip technology, why didn't god tell people the plague was transferred through blood via flea bites and they should clean up?

Or reveal 3 simple words to the pioneers crossing the plains that would have saved countless lives...."boil your water".

Might as well say that god blessed you by sparing your house in a hurricane while your neighbors died under the rubble of their homes.

It must be reassuring to know who god loves best, let alone be one of them.

I think it's always a little dicey to give thanks to God that he has spared you but in the next sentence say that your co-worshiper wasn't spared. What does that mean? Especially in the context of this post.

My friend who lost his life to pneumonia would also give thanks for modern medicine. That was the kind of person he was.

It is life saving and enhancing.

According to my friend from synagogue he had given up by the time he went into hospice. He'd lost the will to live.

It isn't that he valued life more than death or wanted to die. He had lived a full life and was ready to go. He believed in God. He didn't lose because he died if it was his time to go.

He was elderly, married, a grandfather, and a very good and kind man. I consider him a friend and a mentor. I mourn with his family. I wish I could have been there with them, but wasn't able to because of my own illness. Were it not for the medicine I was given by my doctor I would not be getting better right now.

There is nothing amiss to give thanks for healing. Or for medicine that heals. Or the science behind it. Or for the gift of life that we're granted for the time we're allotted on this earth.

I choose to live with gratitude because life is short. Every day is a gift IMHO I do not take for granted.

I believe we do answer to a higher power. We're all going to die. Without modern science, our life span would be much shorter than it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2019 06:25PM by Amyjo.

>> "My friend who lost his life to pneumonia would also give thanks for modern medicine. That was the kind of person he was."

>> "It is life saving and enhancing."

This goes without saying. I think most people are thankful for modern medicine. I'd be dead several times over were it not for it.

>> "There is nothing amiss to give thanks for healing. Or for medicine that heals. Or the science behind it. Or for the gift of life that we're granted for the time we're allotted on this earth."

That's not what we're talking about. No one is saying we shouldn't be thankful.

The issue is crediting a "higher power" type entity with intervening with us mortals, providing miraculous cures to what ails us, as well as host of other "god was watching over me" incidents.

From my viewpoint, it's men and women putting in the time and effort to develop the science that saves lives. If you need some kind of comfort believing in a benevolent guardian, so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that a person went to work, developed something useful, and shared it for the benefit of all mankind. That happens whether you credit god or not.

I do it everyday. I'm a medical device engineer and the products we make, which I contribute to the development and production of, save lives. I've had many "ah ha" moments that have aided the process and advanced the technology......and I'm an atheist.

Products I have been assigned to as the engineer have been used on me in surgeries. Am I grateful? You bet! Grateful me and my coworkers are smart enough to do the work everyday and disciplined enough to come in to do it, so our products do what we intended them to do...save lives.

Or is god just inspiring me against my will? Or in a way that I don't realize? If I give god the credit, will I solve problems faster while other coworkers struggle to find solutions? Maybe its Satan helping me just to piss off god?

You see, there is far too much variation in the god you thank to be a reliable source of intervention. Comparing my brief career with gods eternal career, I don' think god is in the business of saving lives.

You see athletes do it, stars do it, and lots of people do it in their moment of glory. They give their supposed god credit.

This supposed humility showcases the fact that while so many others worked so hard toward the same goal, it was you who won because God liked you best. Liked you more than the others, to get the touch down, the Oscar, to survive the fire. God invented medicine just for you. Not for those dying around the world but for you. Medicine for youR medicine cabinet in your cozy condo.

I have been in awe of what medical science has done. But I am in awe of the perseverence, the talent, of the men and women who accomplished the near impossible. I would never denigrate their works by giving credit to anyone else. Period. Including some god who is nowhere to be seen except when Tim Tebow needs him.

Called humble bragging by many. Impresses the other religiosos like crazy so it is a handy tool.

And, I love Roy G Biv's example because I saw that very thing a couple of years ago on the news after the outrageous fire season we had in California. A woman was on the news with a reporter and she was giving thanks to God for saving her house and in the very same frame the woman next door was standing in burnt rubble. I will never forget the look on that woman's face as she stood listening to her neighbor.

‘There are only two ways to live your life. ... One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.'

'The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.'

~ Al Einstein (pantheist/scientist extraordinaire who did alright by Jewish standards.)

"Einstein always said that he was a deeply religious man, and his religion informed his science. He rejected the conventional image of God as a personal being, concerned about our individual lives, judging us when we die, intervening in the laws he himself had created to cause miracles, answer prayers and so on. Einstein did not believe in a soul separate from the body, nor in an afterlife of any kind.

But he was certainly a pantheist. He did regard the ordered cosmos with the same kind of feeling that believers have for their God. To some extent this was a simple awe at the impenetrable mystery of sheer being. Einstein also had an urge to lose individuality and to experience the universe as a whole.

But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. He never suggests that this reason or spirit transcends the world - so in that sense he is a clear pantheist and not a panentheist. However, this reason is to some extent anthropomorphic, and to some extent involves Einstein in a contradiction.

His religious thinking was not systematic, so he never ironed out this discrepancy. But it seems likely that he believed in a God who was identical to the universe - similar to the God of Spinoza. A God whose rational nature was expressed in the universe, or a God who was identified with the universe and its laws taken together. His own scientific search for the laws of this universe was a deeply religious quest."

https://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/einstein.htm

R.I.P. Cousin Al. Your journey is now playing violin duets with cousin Max among the stars. Science is something you mastered long ago spanning the Relativity of Time. Or wherever time may take you next. Imagination is your guide. Your spirit drives you onward.

A miracle is that which cannot be explained. Most things can be explained. Therefore "everything" can't be a miracle. So I guess nothing is a miracle. It's all relative, though, as your cousin knew.