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 video makes the point clearly that Einstein believed that understanding was not his own and that the truth would never be accessible, yet evangelicals want to lie about it and try to use him for their own selfish purposes.
Very embarrassing, both ethically and intellectually.
Einstein has a right to his opinion but his word isn't the final one. To state that nobody can NEVER know the existence of God is a false claim based on ones best guess. Just because He can't be tangibly proven at this moment doesn't mean that He won't reveal His physical self at some other time (the return of Christ?).
Evolutionists routinely state that they can't prove how the universe came to exist but use the argument that they might someday. They say that they don't really know how life began but that someday they will find the evidence. No difference.
Don't get mad at me!
Get mad at Chuck for trying to use Einstein as a Christian apologist.
The difference between "evolutionists" and the god sellers is that the former admit they don't know, while the latter try to tell us they do.
Einstein has a right to his opinion but his word isn't the final one. To state that nobody can NEVER know the existence of God is a false claim based on ones best guess. Just because He can't be tangibly proven at this moment doesn't mean that He won't reveal His physical self at some other time (the return of Christ?).
Evolutionists routinely state that they can't prove how the universe came to exist but use the argument that they might someday. They say that they don't really know how life began but that someday they will find the evidence. No difference.
Don't get mad at me!
Get mad at Chuck for trying to use Einstein as a Christian apologist.
The difference between "evolutionists" and the god sellers is that the former admit they don't know, while the latter try to tell us they do.
I don't get mad. I get a Chipoltle burrito with guacamole.
I wish it were true that evolutionists admit that they're wrong and perhaps a handful do but it's been my experience that most don't.
I realize I can't possibly prove God's existence to you but He's proven His existence to me. That's the best I can do.
Don't get mad at me!
Get mad at Chuck for trying to use Einstein as a Christian apologist.
The difference between "evolutionists" and the god sellers is that the former admit they don't know, while the latter try to tell us they do.
I don't get mad. I get a Chipoltle burrito with guacamole.
I wish it were true that evolutionists admit that they're wrong and perhaps a handful do but it's been my experience that most don't.
I realize I can't possibly prove God's existence to you but He's proven His existence to me. That's the best I can do.
Why are you so dishonest?
I never said the evolutionists are wrong. I said they admit when they don't know.
Why do you have to resort to lying about what is said and then forming arguments about your lies instead of what was clearly stated?
Isn't there a commandment about that?
I don't get mad. I get a Chipoltle burrito with guacamole.
I wish it were true that evolutionists admit that they're wrong and perhaps a handful do but it's been my experience that most don't.
I realize I can't possibly prove God's existence to you but He's proven His existence to me. That's the best I can do.
Why are you so dishonest?
I never said the evolutionists are wrong. I said they admit when they don't know.
Why do you have to resort to lying about what is said and then forming arguments about your lies instead of what was clearly stated?
Isn't there a commandment about that?
But they insist they "know" evolution is fact but admit that they don't have any evidence to prove it. Therefore, they're wrong by stating something is true when they don't really know if it is (and when it's like it isn't). What they need to do is admit that the real reason they cling to Darwinian Theory is because they desperately need a reason to deny God.
I accept this is your belief.
It simply isn't how Einstein saw it.
His was a simple awe and acceptance of what can't be known. He used the familiar placeholder word "god" to describe the unifying truth that can never be known.
You may think that is accessible. The point is, he did not, and trying to use him to carry your cross for you is either dishonest or ignorant.
Einstein said he wasn't an atheist.
If one of the greatest minds says he is not an atheist and says there is this mysterious force called God and says his mind is too limited to comprehend then there is a case for God and if missing God means spending eternity for a mistake then is your case any better? Your answer is, "no", your position isn't better.
See my signature.
He also thought your idea of a personal god was a childish one.
He made no claims about an afterlife, punishment, atonement or any of the myriad doctrinal inventions of Christianity. He specifically rejected all of that.
-WikipediaThe problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written.
Why are you so dishonest?
I never said the evolutionists are wrong. I said they admit when they don't know.
Why do you have to resort to lying about what is said and then forming arguments about your lies instead of what was clearly stated?
Isn't there a commandment about that?
But they insist they "know" evolution is fact but admit that they don't have any evidence to prove it. Therefore, they're wrong by stating something is true when they don't really know if it is (and when it's like it isn't). What they need to do is admit that the real reason they cling to Darwinian Theory is because they desperately need a reason to deny God.
So you want to change the argument entirely instead of admit you were lying and responding to something that was never said.
Pretty disgraceful.
Well done.
But they insist they "know" evolution is fact but admit that they don't have any evidence to prove it. Therefore, they're wrong by stating something is true when they don't really know if it is (and when it's like it isn't). What they need to do is admit that the real reason they cling to Darwinian Theory is because they desperately need a reason to deny God.
So you want to change the argument entirely instead of admit you were lying and responding to something that was never said.
Pretty disgraceful.
Well done.
Not my fault that you weren't able to make the connection. Oh well ... I'm getting used to that.
Einstein said he wasn't an atheist.
If one of the greatest minds says he is not an atheist and says there is this mysterious force called God and says his mind is too limited to comprehend then there is a case for God and if missing God means spending eternity for a mistake then is your case any better? Your answer is, "no", your position isn't better.
See my signature.
He also thought your idea of a personal god was a childish one.
He made no claims about an afterlife, punishment, atonement or any of the myriad doctrinal inventions of Christianity. He specifically rejected all of that.
I love your self contradiction.
-WikipediaThe problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written.
God coming down to your level is what? The childishness is your part and not God's part. God is always against sin.
The fact is even if Einstein rejected childishness, the self contradicting quote is that the problem is too vast for our limited minds. It is that quote that I would tell Einstein and you that you cannot dismiss it.
See my signature.
He also thought your idea of a personal god was a childish one.
He made no claims about an afterlife, punishment, atonement or any of the myriad doctrinal inventions of Christianity. He specifically rejected all of that.
I love your self contradiction.
-WikipediaThe problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written.
God coming down to your level is what? The childishness is your part and not God's part. God is always against sin.
The fact is even if Einstein rejected childishness, the self contradicting quote is that the problem is too vast for our limited minds. It is that quote that I would tell Einstein and you that you cannot dismiss it.
What self-contradiction?
I agree that it is too vast for our limited minds to start to try to describe it.
Why do Christians think they can?
I love your self contradiction.
-Wikipedia
God coming down to your level is what? The childishness is your part and not God's part. God is always against sin.
The fact is even if Einstein rejected childishness, the self contradicting quote is that the problem is too vast for our limited minds. It is that quote that I would tell Einstein and you that you cannot dismiss it.
What self-contradiction?
I agree that it is too vast for our limited minds to start to try to describe it.
Why do Christians think they can?
Except that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God and wasn't an atheist.
Why is it a too vast topic for atheist minds to start to try to describe God?
So you want to change the argument entirely instead of admit you were lying and responding to something that was never said.
Pretty disgraceful.
Well done.
Not my fault that you weren't able to make the connection. Oh well ... I'm getting used to that.
Very hard to make connections to outright lies.
Very disappointing.
Actually thought better of you.
New information.
What self-contradiction?
I agree that it is too vast for our limited minds to start to try to describe it.
Why do Christians think they can?
Except that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God and wasn't an atheist.
Why is it a too vast topic for atheist minds to start to try to describe God?
He never said he believed in Spinoza's god.
He said he admired his discussion of the topic.
Keep swinging.
Einstein specifically said it was unknowable and would always be.
You can look it up.
But they insist they "know" evolution is fact but admit that they don't have any evidence to prove it. Therefore, they're wrong by stating something is true when they don't really know if it is (and when it's like it isn't). What they need to do is admit that the real reason they cling to Darwinian Theory is because they desperately need a reason to deny God.
I have two sons. The one with the PhD in chemical engineering is a born-again Charismatic. The other is a Daoist. Go figure.
I see no necessary conflict between Christian belief as described for Dr. Collins (who rejects both "intelligent design" and "new earth" science) and his scientific background. The real question is whether many in the Christian community regard those like Dr. Collins as "real" Christians.
Not my fault that you weren't able to make the connection. Oh well ... I'm getting used to that.
Very hard to make connections to outright lies.
Very disappointing.
Actually thought better of you.
New information.
You're disappointed that you have nothing to say. But that's okay. I forgive you.
Very hard to make connections to outright lies.
Very disappointing.
Actually thought better of you.
New information.
You're disappointed that you have nothing to say. But that's okay. I forgive you.
No.
Disappointed that you would resort to lying instead of admitting your deceit.
Very sad.
You're disappointed that you have nothing to say. But that's okay. I forgive you.
No.
Disappointed that you would resort to lying instead of admitting your deceit.
Very sad.
I hope it didn't draw any tears.
No.
Disappointed that you would resort to lying instead of admitting your deceit.
Very sad.
I hope it didn't draw any tears.
No.
I've come to kind of expect this from the hypocritical Christ followers.
Standard issue.
