videogames101
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2005
- 6,783
- 27
- 91
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Oceandevi
Diamond Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 3,085
- 1
- 0
There are some things that are the way that they are. We can see these things. We can witness some of the rules or laws of the universe. We also do not know why they are there. Is there even a why? Just acknowledging that there seems to be a LAW behind the universe is peaceful.
It is a violent place. But with the right knowledge, we can understand it.
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
Einstein had what he considered a religious reverence for the universe and the underlying truths about it. He used the term so that the people who kept asking him about God might understand the depth of that feeling.
Edit: I also think that this is a good foil for the pervasive attitude of theists that seems to imply that atheists must feel purposeless and empty without spiritual belief. One can have just as much humility and curiosity about existence without relying on absurdities like faith.
That's right. It turns out that the habit of calling the physical universe "god" is something many great physicists had. It's a good way to transmit the beauty and grandeur of the universe and all but theists have a nasty habit of trying to claim them as their own due to snippets of quotes taken out of context when the individual in question is no longer around to actively explain their real position.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
- Nov 19, 2004
- 11,636
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Waidaminit...YOU are the one in posession of teh banstick...
You want him banned...YOU hit him.
Troll threads like this shouldn't necessarily justify teh bannation.
He doesn't have the ATOT ban stick.
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
I could go through Albert Einstein quotes all day to prove that he believed that God existed. Maybe not in the Christian sense but that there is a force or being that pulls the strings. I have witnessed and felt many instances where I felt God was there.
Tell me why the majority of the top scientists believe in God? I know your smarter than them too.
Tell me why the majority of the top scientists believe in God? I know your smarter than them too.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Originally posted by: Turin39789
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: SWScorch
Hmm, I guess this is why I'm a self-described agnostic.I don't believe in god, but given that it's impossible to prove one way or the other, I'm open to the fact that I guess it is theoretically possible for an invisible, undetectable, omnipresent, omniscient sentient force to exist, but I just don't think so. But I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know for sure one way or the other. But the very premise just seems laughable to me.
You ARE (by every reasonable definition) an atheist then.
I got blasted by some of the more militant ATOT atheists for claiming I was aa atheist using pretty much that definition. Sure, in a very technical sense, that describes an agnostic. But I'm agnostic towards god in the same way I'm agnostic towards unicorns and bigfoot - I actively disbelieve, but I don't think my own beliefs trump the very laws of logic. As far as I'm concerned, that is atheistic, not agnostic.
well, So was a little off.
jonks was also a little off.
In all technical terms, that stance is of an atheist-agnostic. As described as Dawkins, an atheist is one who states there is absolutely no chance a deity could exist.
An atheist-agnostic adds a little logic by stating there is some chance a deity could exist, but ultimately stands by a disbelief in any form of deity.
m-w tells me -
agnostic is a noun or adjective
atheist is only a noun
agnostic atheist.
yeah, but they're both nouns. So order is meaningless when using a hyphen.
But the correct, dual-noun order is atheist-agnostic. It's a dual noun applied to a person, not an adjective attached to a noun.
But you can use the adj-noun combination and have the same result. But the dual-noun version adds the weight to the first in order.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
- Nov 19, 2004
- 11,636
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: SWScorch
Hmm, I guess this is why I'm a self-described agnostic.
You ARE (by every reasonable definition) an agnostic then.
Fixed.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: SWScorch
Hmm, I guess this is why I'm a self-described agnostic.
You ARE (by every reasonable definition) an atheist then.
Fixed.
Re-fixed.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)
Albert Einstein
On whether he accepted the historical existence of Christ: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: "There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
booyah
shall I continue?
Albert Einstein
On whether he accepted the historical existence of Christ: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: "There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
booyah
shall I continue?
videogames101
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2005
- 6,783
- 27
- 91
Are you dumb? A higher % of scientists are atheists then the average population. Learn to use statistics. /thread just stop
also, Being a top scientist does not give one's agreement any more validity, argument form authority, logical fallacy, tldr: you lose
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
Sorry I trust this site more than stephanjaygould.com thanks though
http://www.livescience.com/str...11_scientists_god.html
videogames101
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2005
- 6,783
- 27
- 91
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." -Einstein
ISBN 0-471-11459-6
Anyways, it doesn't really matter anyways. Whether Einstein believed in god or not has very little to do with whether he exists or not.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
1) Einstein famously disregarded details in pursuit of the big picture. This says nothing about a personal god
2) Most historians believe Jesus was a real figure. So what? This says nothing about his divinity
3) You've taken that quote out of context. The quote goes, "In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." Once again, he says nothing about a personal god and he is angry because he is quoted by people who claim to know with certainty. I have already labelled those people unreasonable, and they're not the kind of 'atheist' that anyone should listen to.
Like I said, Einstein was very clear on his religious views:
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
I see you tried to seamlessly change your argument. You initially claimed that "the majority of the top scientists believe in God", now you post a link that surveys scientists in general in a attempt to rebut my refutation of that statement. If you're going to argue, please be honest about it. Also I see you're attacking the messenger instead of the source - the numbers on the site I posted came from Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals out there.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
If you make the assertion that God exists, but cannot point to any evidence to support your claim, I would posit you are engaging in wishful thinking. If you make that assertion, it's not for me to disprove, it's for you to prove. Personally, I make no such assertion as I have yet to see any quantifiable, measurable evidence to support God's existence.
For those of you who choose to believe in God as some form of "higher power", why do you assume that "God" must be singular? Why not more than one such "God"?
For those of you who choose to believe in God as some form of "higher power", why do you assume that "God" must be singular? Why not more than one such "God"?
At the risk of skipping most of the conversation in this thread (correction: almost all , save for a quick portion about einstein being pantheistic, but not even sure I have the whole thing)
How does one scientifically prove God doesn't exist? You can't. You can't scientifically prove God exists either. Now if a 'God' does exist, the question is what kind of God is it. I would argue that if God created everything in this universe, then it must be something greater than the universe. If its outside the limits that we observe in this world, then we must construe God as all absolutely powerful within our framework of existence. If god is outside the limits of this world, then clearly we have no capacity to truly understand God within our current existance because we are limited by the physical existance around us. Thus any real human description of God that says "this is exactly how God is and nothing more" must be false because it suggests that God entirety can be explained within our existance. That is how I'd reject Flying Spaghetti Monster because it tries to actually define God down to the T.
I would argue that 'God' has to be understood (to the best our limits) outside the word because the word implies as if we try to contain God as this specific entity. For all we know, the universe itself could be God and has awareness in some type of unmeasurable way that we don't understand.
But again, none of this proves God which is the problem. We could attend a star party and watch the beautiful stars pass overhead and say "Wow the universe is sooo fast, yet our own little earth is also equally detailed and full of life, something must exist that created this all!" yet its not scientific proof of God because as a statement it simply can't be measured. And if you can't measure and test, it ultimately isn't science.
On the same note understanding so much through science isn't proof of the lack of God either. Saying, "Oh wow we've so many discoveries the past 100 years that the idea of a God, whatever its manifestations, is just BS. I trust science will figure it all out" isn't valid because science brings up more questions than answers. The more we learn the more we find there are more complex and deeper questions that we initially thought. God could be the root of all complexity, yet if we constantly find and hit new questions we will never actually reach that root.
How does one scientifically prove God doesn't exist? You can't. You can't scientifically prove God exists either. Now if a 'God' does exist, the question is what kind of God is it. I would argue that if God created everything in this universe, then it must be something greater than the universe. If its outside the limits that we observe in this world, then we must construe God as all absolutely powerful within our framework of existence. If god is outside the limits of this world, then clearly we have no capacity to truly understand God within our current existance because we are limited by the physical existance around us. Thus any real human description of God that says "this is exactly how God is and nothing more" must be false because it suggests that God entirety can be explained within our existance. That is how I'd reject Flying Spaghetti Monster because it tries to actually define God down to the T.
I would argue that 'God' has to be understood (to the best our limits) outside the word because the word implies as if we try to contain God as this specific entity. For all we know, the universe itself could be God and has awareness in some type of unmeasurable way that we don't understand.
But again, none of this proves God which is the problem. We could attend a star party and watch the beautiful stars pass overhead and say "Wow the universe is sooo fast, yet our own little earth is also equally detailed and full of life, something must exist that created this all!" yet its not scientific proof of God because as a statement it simply can't be measured. And if you can't measure and test, it ultimately isn't science.
On the same note understanding so much through science isn't proof of the lack of God either. Saying, "Oh wow we've so many discoveries the past 100 years that the idea of a God, whatever its manifestations, is just BS. I trust science will figure it all out" isn't valid because science brings up more questions than answers. The more we learn the more we find there are more complex and deeper questions that we initially thought. God could be the root of all complexity, yet if we constantly find and hit new questions we will never actually reach that root.
And Hayabusa hits the nail on the head. Usually its rarely a discussion between anyone actually interested in talking about it. Its more about cocky bitches on both sides who refuse to listen to the other side at all and are full of their own specific religious or atheistic pride. In these types of conversations the only thing that can really be agreed upon (if we want to logically approach it knowing that we cannot know what created everything) is that we simply can't prove existence nor absence.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter