Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The irony is you are defending Einstein's vision of god which is at great odds to your own.
My point wasn't whether or not the word was capitalized. It was the nature of his understanding of whatever god might be. Sorry that confused you.
But Einstein didn't rule out a personal God. He just hadn't gotten to a point where he perceived God from that perspective. But regardless of the how one perceives God if the power of God is great and grand in comparison to the minute power of man then there's nothing at all wrong with honoring that God with a capital G.
You failed to address the second part of my post. The part concerning "dismantling" or "disassembling" what you don't understand.
If he didn't rule out a personal god, he sure made the idea untenable to him by calling it childlike.
As I said before, I don't try to expose god as a fallacy. I like to expose poor argumentation. I understand that pretty well.
But Einstein didn't rule out a personal God. He just hadn't gotten to a point where he perceived God from that perspective. But regardless of the how one perceives God if the power of God is great and grand in comparison to the minute power of man then there's nothing at all wrong with honoring that God with a capital G.
You failed to address the second part of my post. The part concerning "dismantling" or "disassembling" what you don't understand.
If he didn't rule out a personal god, he sure made the idea untenable to him by calling it childlike.
As I said before, I don't try to expose god as a fallacy. I like to expose poor argumentation. I understand that pretty well.
1) Glad we agree that Einstein, as skeptical as he might have been, didn't rule out a personal God.
2) Your "argumentation" is only as good that premise on which you stand and your beginning premise that that you don't know.
If he didn't rule out a personal god, he sure made the idea untenable to him by calling it childlike.
As I said before, I don't try to expose god as a fallacy. I like to expose poor argumentation. I understand that pretty well.
1) Glad we agree that Einstein, as skeptical as he might have been, didn't rule out a personal God.
2) Your "argumentation" is only as good that premise on which you stand and your beginning premise that that you don't know.
I feel like I'm talking to a stump.
My premise has never been that god does not exist. I have never made that argument. The argument I always make is the god of the Christian bible is categorically silly.
Effectively, Einstein does rule out a personal god by calling the proposition silly.
Sure I can.1) Glad we agree that Einstein, as skeptical as he might have been, didn't rule out a personal God.
2) Your "argumentation" is only as good that premise on which you stand and your beginning premise that that you don't know.
I feel like I'm talking to a stump.
My premise has never been that god does not exist. I have never made that argument. The argument I always make is the god of the Christian bible is categorically silly.
Effectively, Einstein does rule out a personal god by calling the proposition silly.
How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
1. There are those who become incensed at the mention of religion, any some of 'em climb on the pedestal of science to proclaim it. And, true, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!
And such atheistic scientists are not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science.
Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything. Anything except for God.
a. "Before one accepts the support of such smart scientists simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even pusillanimous- one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?"
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."
3. By coincidence, the ranks of the science-atheists is largely populated by Marxists and other Leftists.
As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
The Schwarz Report | Essays
David Mamet pretty much nails such folks with this quip:
'The Left says of the Right, You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE? But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Lefts love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."
4. Frequently both sides look to the most brilliant of scientists to see where he stands on the question. I speak of Albert Einstein. Several biographers have portrayed Einstein as the consummate atheist, as a nonbeliever, a 'nonpracticing Jew.' In truth, he did not subscribe to the principles of any strict religion, and that includes the religion into which he was born....but it is not correct to call him an atheist.
5. In an article from Huffington Post, Amir Aczel writes: " As someone who has spent a decade and a half studying Einstein's writings, I see it as my responsibility to correct this prevalent misconception.
Albert Einstein believed in something like Spinoza's "God": a powerful entity that transcends the world. To Einstein, "God" was the maker of the laws of physics that he, Einstein, saw as his life's role to uncover.
This is far from the "God" of all organized Western religions, to be sure, but it is equally far from Krauss' "universe from nothing," meaning a universe without any maker of the rules of physics or any creator of the quantum foam that gave rise to our universe through a quantum fluctuation.
Krauss ( A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss) places a "[sic]" after "God" when quoting Einstein mentioning the "deity." He tries to reinterpret Einstein's words as not meaning what he writes. Richard Dawkins does the same in a chapter titled "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer," referring to Einstein.
But these are unjust pronouncements.
In 1913, when he lived in Prague, Einstein went to synagogue, as reported by a number of biographers (Folsing, "Albert Einstein: A Biography," and Frank, "Einstein His Life & Times"). And he constantly spoke about "God." He clearly believed that the universe did not arise out of the void all on its own."
Killing Einstein's God*|*Amir Aczel
One wonders, why is it essential to the atheist scientists to enlist Einstein?
Why so insecure in their own beliefs?
Does one man- even the most brilliant of scientists- prove the case for the existence of God one way or another?
Certainly not.
1) Glad we agree that Einstein, as skeptical as he might have been, didn't rule out a personal God.
2) Your "argumentation" is only as good that premise on which you stand and your beginning premise that that you don't know.
I feel like I'm talking to a stump.
My premise has never been that god does not exist. I have never made that argument. The argument I always make is the god of the Christian bible is categorically silly.
Effectively, Einstein does rule out a personal god by calling the proposition silly.
How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
Sure I can.I feel like I'm talking to a stump.
My premise has never been that god does not exist. I have never made that argument. The argument I always make is the god of the Christian bible is categorically silly.
Effectively, Einstein does rule out a personal god by calling the proposition silly.
How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
The biblical god provides evidence that can either be shown in error or shown to be logically flawed. It provides specifics that can be argued. The general idea of a god does not.
As an example, I may not be able to prove leprechauns don't exist, but I can prove they don't live in my house.
Sorry you can't follow that.
Sure I can.How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
The biblical god provides evidence that can either be shown in error or shown to be logically flawed. It provides specifics that can be argued. The general idea of a god does not.
As an example, I may not be able to prove leprechauns don't exist, but I can prove they don't live in my house.
Sorry you can't follow that.
You never have proven; cannot prove now; nor ever prove that the Christian God is not exactly as the Bible proposes Him to be. You may not like what you hear or you may not understand or you may wish to remain ignorant or perhaps it doesn't make sense to your imperfect mind but when it's all said that done you are left with your personal opinion and nothing more.
By your own admission you don't know what God is really like and can't even figure out if He exists or not. You're like a man desperately swimming in quick sand.
I feel like I'm talking to a stump.
My premise has never been that god does not exist. I have never made that argument. The argument I always make is the god of the Christian bible is categorically silly.
Effectively, Einstein does rule out a personal god by calling the proposition silly.
How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
Since the Christians claim to worship the God of abraham the attributes of God have been clearly defined. According to scripture God is incorporeal and has no physical shape or material form , he has no equal and there is no other god in existence above or below him.
These attributes preclude the existence of a coequal trinity that impregnated a virgin to father himself to become a man without a human father who performed some reality defying demonstrations of divine power, turned himself into a lifeless matzoh made by human hands, got killed and then floated up into the sky..
One doesn't have to be an Einstein to notice that these claims are silly and to define them as silly implies disbelief.
Sure. Just that simple.How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
Since the Christians claim to worship the God of abraham the attributes of God have been clearly defined. According to scripture God is incorporeal and has no physical shape or material form , he has no equal and there is no other god in existence above or below him.
These attributes preclude the existence of a coequal trinity that impregnated a virgin to father himself to become a man without a human father who performed some reality defying demonstrations of divine power, turned himself into a lifeless matzoh made by human hands, got killed and then floated up into the sky..
One doesn't have to be an Einstein to notice that these claims are silly and to define them as silly implies disbelief.
One God. Period. No "coequals." Note the name "Jesus Christ." Jesus is a perfect Man. Christ is God. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Same God as the Father only revealing Himself in the Person of Jesus.
How is the Christian God more silly than a god that you don't know exists or not? If you don't know the attributes of God then you can't make any claims one way or the other. You're really not in a position to judge silliness when your entire premise begins on a platform of "not knowing?" That, my friend, is silly.
The term "effectively" isn't synonymous with "categorically" or "conclusively." Therefore, your argument falls on its ear. Back to the drawing board for you.
Since the Christians claim to worship the God of abraham the attributes of God have been clearly defined. According to scripture God is incorporeal and has no physical shape or material form , he has no equal and there is no other god in existence above or below him.
These attributes preclude the existence of a coequal trinity that impregnated a virgin to father himself to become a man without a human father who performed some reality defying demonstrations of divine power, turned himself into a lifeless matzoh made by human hands, got killed and then floated up into the sky..
One doesn't have to be an Einstein to notice that these claims are silly and to define them as silly implies disbelief.
One God. Period. No "coequals." Note the name "Jesus Christ." Jesus is a perfect Man. Christ is God. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Same God as the Father only revealing Himself in the Person of Jesus.
1. There are those who become incensed at the mention of religion, any some of 'em climb on the pedestal of science to proclaim it. And, true, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!
And such atheistic scientists are not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science.
Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything. Anything except for God.
a. "Before one accepts the support of such smart scientists simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even pusillanimous- one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?"
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."
3. By coincidence, the ranks of the science-atheists is largely populated by Marxists and other Leftists.
As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
The Schwarz Report | Essays
David Mamet pretty much nails such folks with this quip:
'The Left says of the Right, You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE? But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Lefts love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."
4. Frequently both sides look to the most brilliant of scientists to see where he stands on the question. I speak of Albert Einstein. Several biographers have portrayed Einstein as the consummate atheist, as a nonbeliever, a 'nonpracticing Jew.' In truth, he did not subscribe to the principles of any strict religion, and that includes the religion into which he was born....but it is not correct to call him an atheist.
5. In an article from Huffington Post, Amir Aczel writes: " As someone who has spent a decade and a half studying Einstein's writings, I see it as my responsibility to correct this prevalent misconception.
Albert Einstein believed in something like Spinoza's "God": a powerful entity that transcends the world. To Einstein, "God" was the maker of the laws of physics that he, Einstein, saw as his life's role to uncover.
This is far from the "God" of all organized Western religions, to be sure, but it is equally far from Krauss' "universe from nothing," meaning a universe without any maker of the rules of physics or any creator of the quantum foam that gave rise to our universe through a quantum fluctuation.
Krauss ( A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss) places a "[sic]" after "God" when quoting Einstein mentioning the "deity." He tries to reinterpret Einstein's words as not meaning what he writes. Richard Dawkins does the same in a chapter titled "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer," referring to Einstein.
But these are unjust pronouncements.
In 1913, when he lived in Prague, Einstein went to synagogue, as reported by a number of biographers (Folsing, "Albert Einstein: A Biography," and Frank, "Einstein His Life & Times"). And he constantly spoke about "God." He clearly believed that the universe did not arise out of the void all on its own."
Killing Einstein's God*|*Amir Aczel
One wonders, why is it essential to the atheist scientists to enlist Einstein?
Why so insecure in their own beliefs?
Does one man- even the most brilliant of scientists- prove the case for the existence of God one way or another?
Certainly not.
i once had a science teacher who was also a priest. true story!
"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."3
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."4
However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."5
Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
Actually I am very embarrassed, for you.I guess you missed the response.
And we are laughing at you.
No you're not.
You're just too stupid to be embarrassed.
Why do you need a spirituality in your life to be as hateful as you are? How does one serve the other?
Sure I can.
The biblical god provides evidence that can either be shown in error or shown to be logically flawed. It provides specifics that can be argued. The general idea of a god does not.
As an example, I may not be able to prove leprechauns don't exist, but I can prove they don't live in my house.
Sorry you can't follow that.
You never have proven; cannot prove now; nor ever prove that the Christian God is not exactly as the Bible proposes Him to be. You may not like what you hear or you may not understand or you may wish to remain ignorant or perhaps it doesn't make sense to your imperfect mind but when it's all said that done you are left with your personal opinion and nothing more.
By your own admission you don't know what God is really like and can't even figure out if He exists or not. You're like a man desperately swimming in quick sand.
Sure.
Ok.
Sure. Just that simple.Since the Christians claim to worship the God of abraham the attributes of God have been clearly defined. According to scripture God is incorporeal and has no physical shape or material form , he has no equal and there is no other god in existence above or below him.
These attributes preclude the existence of a coequal trinity that impregnated a virgin to father himself to become a man without a human father who performed some reality defying demonstrations of divine power, turned himself into a lifeless matzoh made by human hands, got killed and then floated up into the sky..
One doesn't have to be an Einstein to notice that these claims are silly and to define them as silly implies disbelief.
One God. Period. No "coequals." Note the name "Jesus Christ." Jesus is a perfect Man. Christ is God. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Same God as the Father only revealing Himself in the Person of Jesus.
So simple, in fact, that it took 400 years to come up with this theology that was accepted on a split vote and which many still reject to this day.
Clear as mud.
Since the Christians claim to worship the God of abraham the attributes of God have been clearly defined. According to scripture God is incorporeal and has no physical shape or material form , he has no equal and there is no other god in existence above or below him.
These attributes preclude the existence of a coequal trinity that impregnated a virgin to father himself to become a man without a human father who performed some reality defying demonstrations of divine power, turned himself into a lifeless matzoh made by human hands, got killed and then floated up into the sky..
One doesn't have to be an Einstein to notice that these claims are silly and to define them as silly implies disbelief.
One God. Period. No "coequals." Note the name "Jesus Christ." Jesus is a perfect Man. Christ is God. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Same God as the Father only revealing Himself in the Person of Jesus.
This is where you have wandered into silliness.
There has never been and never shall be a human being who was God or became God either before during or after their human existence.
God is incorporeal, he has no physical shape or material form. Jesus said that God is the source of his existence. Any being whose source is God cannot be God.
If God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ it was through his word that Jesus received like manna from heaven that became his own flesh, a body of teaching, given for the life of the world, a revelation about the only right way to understand and comply with the divine commands that leads to the eternal life promised for obedience that had been lost to time ever since the death of Moses..
The key is given in the first chapter of John where it clearly states that the word of God became flesh, a metaphor for teaching, in the person of Jesus Christ.
This did not make Jesus God anymore than receiving the words of God made Moses or any of the other prophets who learned from God and spoke for him God..
Sure. Just that simple.One God. Period. No "coequals." Note the name "Jesus Christ." Jesus is a perfect Man. Christ is God. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Same God as the Father only revealing Himself in the Person of Jesus.
So simple, in fact, that it took 400 years to come up with this theology that was accepted on a split vote and which many still reject to this day.
Clear as mud.
Clear as mud to YOU. Clear as spring water to me.
