Why this scientist believes in GOD

[M.D. Rawlings]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obEBR5MbhNU]Why this scientist believes in GOD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Underhill]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

 

[MaryL]

Einstein believed in god.

 

[MaryL]

Einstein himself said God doesn’t play dice...Scientist read their own vision of cosmology into the facts, just like everyone else, Einstein should have known better. God is rife with ambiguity, if he’s out there at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

refreshing - he found God in the presence of God, the Garden.

the symbols of Christianity only took that much away from the Scientists revelation - the moderator seemed not to understand.

 

[Hollie]

I suppose we can thank god for the blueprint of the cancer cell.

 

[rdean]

Einstein believed in god.

Why say something so dumb when we all sit in front of the Internet and can look it up? Is it "faith without facts"?

Einstein's Letter Questioning God Goes Up for Auction | LiveScience

In the letter, he calls belief in religion and God "pretty childish" and ridicules the idea that the Jews are a chosen people.

God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

 

[Underhill]

Einstein believed in god.

Nobody is perfect.

 

[Underhill]

Einstein believed in god.

Why say something so dumb when we all sit in front of the Internet and can look it up? Is it "faith without facts"?

Einstein's Letter Questioning God Goes Up for Auction | LiveScience

In the letter, he calls belief in religion and God "pretty childish" and ridicules the idea that the Jews are a chosen people.

God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Yep, if he believed at all it was in the vaguest sense.

And I feel the same way. God might exist. There is a tiny chance. But if so I can't imagine he would be all that interested in us. Any more than we are interested in the day to day life of a gnat. Actually even less so, since he created us.

It would be like us being interested in the day to day goings on of a computer.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Einstein believed in god.

Why say something so dumb when we all sit in front of the Internet and can look it up? Is it "faith without facts"?

Einstein's Letter Questioning God Goes Up for Auction | LiveScience

In the letter, he calls belief in religion and God "pretty childish" and ridicules the idea that the Jews are a chosen people.

God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Yep, if he believed at all it was in the vaguest sense.

And I feel the same way. God might exist. There is a tiny chance. But if so I can't imagine he would be all that interested in us. Any more than we are interested in the day to day life of a gnat. Actually even less so, since he created us.

It would be like us being interested in the day to day goings on of a computer.

A tiny chance that God may exist?! Stop it! The material and ontological (rational and mathematical) arguments for God's existence utterly demolish the irrational fanaticism of atheism!

See also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...evers-in-god-academic-claims.html#post6859326

Do not be conformed to the foolishness of this world, but be transformed by the Spirit and the Word of God. The day of salvation is now!

 

[Underhill]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

I see.

Debating with someone who sees science as a waste is pointless. It's like debating proper English grammar with someone who speaks Russian.

 

[Underhill]

Why say something so dumb when we all sit in front of the Internet and can look it up? Is it "faith without facts"?

Einstein's Letter Questioning God Goes Up for Auction | LiveScience

In the letter, he calls belief in religion and God "pretty childish" and ridicules the idea that the Jews are a chosen people.

God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Yep, if he believed at all it was in the vaguest sense.

And I feel the same way. God might exist. There is a tiny chance. But if so I can't imagine he would be all that interested in us. Any more than we are interested in the day to day life of a gnat. Actually even less so, since he created us.

It would be like us being interested in the day to day goings on of a computer.

A tiny chance that God may exist?! Stop it! The material and ontological (rational and mathematical) arguments for God's existence utterly demolish the irrational fanaticism of atheism!

See also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...evers-in-god-academic-claims.html#post6859326

Do not be conformed to the foolishness of this world, but be transformed by the Spirit and the Word of God. The day of salvation is now!

Been there. Done that. Bought the post card.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

I see.

Debating with someone who sees science as a waste is pointless. It's like debating proper English grammar with someone who speaks Russian.

Uh . . . no you don't see. You’re seeing or imagining things apparently. Where did I say that science is pointless? Science does not and cannot tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. That’s all I said, and that’s a fact. If you think otherwise, you're thinking pseudoscientific claptrap. You might as well be babbling New Age la-la. If you're not talking empirical data, you're not talking science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yep, if he believed at all it was in the vaguest sense.

And I feel the same way. God might exist. There is a tiny chance. But if so I can't imagine he would be all that interested in us. Any more than we are interested in the day to day life of a gnat. Actually even less so, since he created us.

It would be like us being interested in the day to day goings on of a computer.

A tiny chance that God may exist?! Stop it! The material and ontological (rational and mathematical) arguments for God's existence utterly demolish the irrational fanaticism of atheism!

See also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...evers-in-god-academic-claims.html#post6859326

Do not be conformed to the foolishness of this world, but be transformed by the Spirit and the Word of God. The day of salvation is now!

Been there. Done that. Bought the post card.

No you didn't.

 

[Underhill]

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

I see.

Debating with someone who sees science as a waste is pointless. It's like debating proper English grammar with someone who speaks Russian.

Uh . . . no you don't see. You’re seeing or imagining things apparently. Where did I say that science is pointless? Science does not and cannot tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. That’s all I said, and that’s a fact. If you think otherwise, you're thinking pseudoscientific claptrap. You might as well be babbling New Age la-la. If you're not talking empirical data, you're not talking science.

Of course science won't give us definitive proof of the beginnings of the universe. But it can tell us how we came into existence.

Of course it can't tell us why we are here. Odds are, there is no why. In fact I would say if we can show the how, the why becomes a waste of time. Because on a long enough timeline anything that can happen will happen. There no longer needs to be a why.

The whole reason most people believe, those who have truly thought about it anyway, is that they do not think life can exist without god. That we are too complex.

Science can tell us how life can come about. We are getting closer to that knowledge every day. This is why so many in the religious community fear science. It has the potential to undermine religion, if not directly, certainly indirectly.

 

[Hollie]

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

I see.

Debating with someone who sees science as a waste is pointless. It's like debating proper English grammar with someone who speaks Russian.

Uh . . . no you don't see. You’re seeing or imagining things apparently. Where did I say that science is pointless? Science does not and cannot tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. That’s all I said, and that’s a fact. If you think otherwise, you're thinking pseudoscientific claptrap. You might as well be babbling New Age la-la. If you're not talking empirical data, you're not talking science.

Unless you are omniscient, you cannot rule out the possibility (probability), that science will one day tell us exactly about the “why” and the ultimate origin of existence.
Before, it was impossible to conceive of a world of ethics without a god, and now it is not at all inconceivable. It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the "feeling" based tenets of religious dogma. As knowledge grows, religion withers-- we can see living proof of this as people liberalize their religions, or as they leave the religions they were born into to seek "answers" in other religions, or as they abandon religion altogether, or as they "all of the above."

However, by a simple exercise we can show that asserting a supernatural explanation plunges us into a world of nihilism. Consider:

In the theist worldview, what accounts for the existence of all is a Supreme Being (one or more versions / conceptions of gods) whose mind we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, the theist claims, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be an answer to something? Well, what has the theist "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

Why bother with science at all then? Let's just accept the science-loathing, knowledge-hating theistic, "the Gods did it" and go back to hewing arks from cubits of gopherwood.

 

[koshergrl]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Sure it's an argument for the existence of God. You might not agree, but it is perfectly reasonable.

What on earth makes you think there's no power outside the power you've witnessed with your own eyes? Talk about illogical. You are essentially saying that because you can't imagine it, it can't exist..and that logic is confined by your comprehension.

 

[koshergrl]

Incidentally, what happened to your *argument* that scientists believe in a *different* sort of God?

Lolol....

 

[koshergrl]

Strange how the facts and your statements seem to maintain separate tracks..

For example, wasn't it you who said children have to be indoctrinated into religion?

Odd....this Oxford researcher disagrees:

"Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.

"
Separate research from China suggested that people across different cultures instinctively believed that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lived on after death.
The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”.
“We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies,” he said.
“This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.”

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - Telegraph