God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Diogenes' Dog: "...Where all theists (I include Buddhists) such as Jan, myself and Einstein agree is in saying yes to (1). This differentiates us from most atheists who say no...Einstein rejected most orthodox concepts of a personal God. This is much more like the Neo-Platonist or Plotinian view of God (The One), but well within classical theism".


Here is my 'chosen one' who is firmly and unequivocally on our side:
http://www.adolphus.nl/xcrpts/xcfreudill.html

Einstein and God

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

"Later in life in a speech delivered in Berlin, he gave this illuminating account of himself:

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

 

[(Q)]

When will these silly theists get a brain?

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"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."

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

~~Einstein

 

[wesmorris]

I really think the Einstein was an awesome dude, but his beliefs are SO fucking irrelevant.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

When will these silly theists get a brain?

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves....

Explain how this means he doesn't believe in God?

Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death;

The thought of someone surviving "physical death" is gross, but has nothing to do with God or spirituality. This is more of a materialistic phantasmagora, ie. frankenstein, dracula, uploading memories, cryogenic freezing.

...let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

Hear hear!!

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

In what way does this quote show lack of belief in God?

The trouble with you Q, is that you have no idea of who or what God is, plus you honestly believe that everything can be explained naturally. How can you possibly understand the depth of these quotes?

"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."

A "personal God" meaning a God manufactured by religious institutions, with the intention of controling its people through fear and ignorance. Any one with basic human intelligence can understand what he means.
Apart from that, he explained what type of a God he couldn't concieve of, in the opening quote, and what he means by personal God in the forthcoming quote.

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation....

The only religions which portray such an entity as God, are religions with an eye to world domination. This type of entity is useful because it invokes fear in gullible people, and promotes ignorance and fanatism. Now, such an entity is not needed, as fear can be invoked through other ways such as world wars, famine, decease, torture, economic instability. Ignorance is promoted through television, sexual promiscuity, shite food, poor education, lack of family values, competitive sport, patriotism, technology, bad science, lack of real religion, and so much more.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

What kind of reaction do you think a theist would get if he said he believed in a "infinately Superior Spirit" who has the capability of revealing itself?

What do you regard as "SUPERIOR SPIRIT"?

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

Explain how this means he doesn't believe in God?

It doesn't directly state that, what it states is the he doesn't believe in versions of god that exhibit such behaviour. That would include most if not all religions.

The thought of someone surviving "physical death" is gross, but has nothing to do with God or spirituality. This is more of a materialistic phantasmagora, ie. frankenstein, dracula, uploading memories, cryogenic freezing.

hehe, dense as always. He is referring to the afterlife, not Earth walking zombies.

In what way does this quote show lack of belief in God?

Exactly what it says, I'm not sure if I could put it any more simpler. Ethical behaviour evolves and could not be handed down by a devine entity.

The trouble with you Q, is that you have no idea of who or what God is, plus you honestly believe that everything can be explained naturally.

I would submit that you too have no idea who or what god is, yet you consistently pretend to think you do.

In fact, neither one of us could possibly know anything about it, other than what men wrote in scriptures years ago. They liked to pretend too.

The only thing that would have me think that everything can be explained naturally is nature itself.

How can you possibly understand the depth of these quotes?

I read what is written, and it is understandable. Try it.

A "personal God" meaning a God manufactured by religious institutions, with the intention of controling its people through fear and ignorance. Any one with basic human intelligence can understand what he means.

Except you, of course. He refers to a personal god in which the nutter has a personal relationship. They talk to the god and pretend it talks back to them. They pray to him. They sometimes even go out dancing together.

So, if Einstein could conceive of a god, it would not be a god that takes a personal interest in people and meddles in their affairs. He would conceive of a god as something that "flicked on the switch" that made the universe come into existence, and thats all.

What kind of reaction do you think a theist would get if he said he believed in a "infinately Superior Spirit" who has the capability of revealing itself?

Who cares?

What do you regard as "SUPERIOR SPIRIT"?

The spirit of mankind, of course. However, I don't define 'spirit' as an incorporeal supernatural being like you would, but instead the state of emotion, the animation and energy in action or expression.

 

[AAF]

Will theologians in the end go mathematical?

Consider, for example, the series of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...)!

This series goes on and on forever and with no hope of running across the biggest number of all numbers. And that, from the standpoint of logic and reason, is a blessing not a curse.
That is because infinity here guarantees logical consistency and total eradication of paradoxes and contradictions. And yet theologians, throughout history, have rejected this very brilliant idea as a fallacy of 'Infinite Regression'. See an excellent summary of their thesis at:
http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm

That false fallacy is a fabrication and a figment of their imagination and has no logical justification whatsoever.

So, is an endless series of weaker but actual gods that approach ad infinitum an ideal God who can never be real logically possible?

Laws of physics aside, there is no obvious objection to such an infinite sequence of weak supreme beings. Tell me, if you see one!

The drawback of this New Cosmic Order is, of course, the banishment of the 'Super God' to the world of absolute ideals that can be approached indefinitely but can never be realized.

And this explains why the theologians and their sheep always refuse to go in that direction.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

It doesn't directly state that,

Of course it doesn't....nutter.

...what it states is the he doesn't believe in versions of god that exhibit such behaviour. That would include most if not all religions.

I doubt you can clearly understand what it states, you just want Einstein to be atheist,to give your silly belief,cred.

hehe, dense as always. He is referring to the afterlife, not Earth walking zombies.

Where does it say "afterlife?"
And since when did afterlife means "an individual" survives death??

Ethical behaviour evolves and could not be handed down by a devine entity.

Ethical behaviour evolves?
What tosh.

I would submit that you too have no idea who or what god is, yet you consistently pretend to think you do.

How would you know, you are afraid to enter into a real discussion, choosing instead to stick to your kindergarten dogma.

In fact, neither one of us could possibly know anything about it, other than what men wrote in scriptures years ago. They liked to pretend too.

You speak for yourself.
Typical fanatic, only seeing the world through their own narrow view. Condeming everyone to their own sorry fate.
When you are ready to discuss God, check me out.

The only thing that would have me think that everything can be explained naturally is nature itself.

You're not interested in explanations, your only interest is to denounce God.

I read what is written, and it is understandable. Try it.

Superficial, materialist concept of understanding.
Being able to read does not automatically mean you understand the depth of what is being said.
You shy away from any meaningful discussion
about God, so how can you possibly understand.

He refers to a personal god in which the nutter has a personal relationship.

Where did he mention "personal relationship?"
You twist words to suit your idiotic mindset, then believe them to be truth.
Fanatic!

So, if Einstein could conceive of a god, it would not be a god that takes a personal interest in people and meddles in their affairs. He would conceive of a god as something that "flicked on the switch" that made the universe come into existence, and thats all.

You mean, he would concieve of a god that is satisfactory to you.

Who cares?

Obviously, I do...you dimwit, which is why I asked you.

The spirit
of mankind, of course. However, I don't define 'spirit' as an incorporeal supernatural being like you would, but instead the state of emotion, the animation and energy in action or expression.

A state of emotion, the animation and energy in action or expression?
So you believe Einstein meant this (or similar) when he talked of the "nfinate SUPERIOR SPIRIT" which reveals ITSELF within the little understanding WE have?

You're about as deep as a sheet of paper, and you expect to be taken seriously on matters regarding God and spirituality.
Don't make me laugh.

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

(Q), Of course it doesn't....nutter.

Then, you don't know the meaning of 'indirectly.'

I doubt you can clearly understand what it states, you just want Einstein to be atheist,to give your silly belief,cred.

What silly belief do you refer, Jan? And why can't you understand the written word, Jan?

Where does it say "afterlife?"
And since when did afterlife means "an individual" survives death??

Learn to understand the written word, Jan. It might help you in attempting to put together concepts in your mind and responding accordingly.

Ethical behaviour evolves?
What tosh.

Of course it evolves, how else? Would you venture to guess that some invisible fairy touched us all with a magic wand?

Wait a minute, that's exactly what you propose.

How would you know, you are afraid to enter into a real discussion, choosing instead to stick to your kindergarten dogma.

What do you know about real discussions?

You speak for yourself.
Typical fanatic, only seeing the world through their own narrow view. Condeming everyone to their own sorry fate.
When you are ready to discuss God, check me out.

You don't anything about gods, you merely parrot your brainwashing or what you've conjured from your imagination.

You're not interested in explanations, your only interest is to denounce God.

I'm interested in explanations involving nature, and it is nature which has no interest in gods. Gods only exist in the minds of the feeble and witless, much like yourself.

Superficial, materialist concept of understanding.
Being able to read does not automatically mean you understand the depth of what is being said.
You shy away from any meaningful discussion
about God, so how can you possibly understand.

hehe, you kill me, Jan.

What you fail to understand is that there can no meaningful discussions about something that is utterly meaningless. You believe it to be meaningful because you WANT to believe. And to confirm it to be utterly meaningless is to simply ask any theist to agree with your version of a god.

Where did he mention "personal relationship?"
You twist words to suit your idiotic mindset, then believe them to be truth.
Fanatic!

I could ask you the same question, where did he mention, 'a God manufactured by religious institutions, with the intention of controling its people through fear and ignorance?'

You mean, he would concieve of a god that is satisfactory to you.

Huh?

Obviously, I do...you dimwit, which is why I asked you.

Well, good for you. Who cares?

You're about as deep as a sheet of paper, and you expect to be taken seriously on matters regarding God and spirituality.
Don't make me laugh.

Actually, I can't make comments about gods any more than you can. Anything you say about gods and spirituality is mere fluff, pure speculation, imaginitative wishful thinking, and nothing more.

It is to laugh.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

What silly belief do you refer, Jan?

Your belief that God doesn't exist.

Learn to understand the written word, Jan.

Time-wasting.

Of course it evolves, how else?

.

Don't just sit there, explain how you know it evolves.

What do you know about real discussions?

That you are frightened to enter into any.

I'm interested in explanations involving nature, and it is nature which has no interest in gods.

What exactly is nature interested in?

Gods only exist in the minds of the feeble and witless, much like yourself.

Wow!
That's brilliant, and fitting of your understanding.

What you fail to understand is that there can no meaningful discussions about something that is utterly meaningless.

Which is why you have set up camp in the religion forum I suppose?

You believe it to be meaningful because you WANT to believe.

Another brilliant explanation.

And to confirm it to be utterly meaningless is to simply ask any theist to agree with your version of a god.

Huh!!

I could ask you the same question, where did he mention, 'a God manufactured by religious institutions, with the intention of controling its people through fear and ignorance?'

Is that not the tactic used by institutionalised religions, the only religion you know about? What else could he possibly mean?

Huh?

You know, the straw-man God you need to justify your belief that God doesn't exist.

Well, good for you. Who cares?

You never know, someone out there in cyber-land might care.
I am very sure that if I or any other theist had made that statement, some atheists here would ask for evidence of any such Superior Spirit, yet when Einstein mentions it, there is not one peep of skepticism from any of you.
From what I gather of you explanation of SS, you believe that Einstein was "indirectly" talking about "the emotion etc... of man.

So seeing as you are "avoiding" that question;

What kind of reaction do you think a theist would get if he said he believed in a "infinately Superior Spirit" who has the capability of revealing itself?

(for obvious reasons), I will ask another.

What do you think Einstein meant by this quote (this question is open to anybody)?

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

I would really really really, like to hear your explanation.

Thank you very much in advance.
Jan.

 

[(Q)]

Your belief that God doesn't exist.

I thought that was a lack of belief in theists imaginations?

Time-wasting.

Well Jan, you have made it evident time and again that for you, understanding the written word was a waste of time. Yet, you persist in attempting to communicate through the written word - curious?

What exactly is nature interested in?

Ask it sometimes.

You never know, someone out there in cyber-land might care.
I am very sure that if I or any other theist had made that statement, some atheists here would ask for evidence of any such Superior Spirit, yet when Einstein mentions it, there is not one peep of skepticism from any of you.
From what I gather of you explanation of SS, you believe that Einstein was "indirectly" talking about "the emotion etc... of man.

It's difficult, excrutiatingly so in your case, to attempt explanation of anything.

So seeing as you are "avoiding" that question;

(for obvious reasons), I will ask another.

There's really no point in asking, as I'm not about to get involved in another pointless discussion with you. The obvious reasons you refer are your own inability to synthesize information, to think. You've shown everyone here that you're a complete idiot every time you post something.

 

[c7ityi_]

There's really no point in asking, as I'm not about to get involved in another pointless discussion with you.

then shut up already.

 

[(Q)]

then shut up already.

OK!

FINE!

OK!

FINE!

OK!

FINE!

~~SOB's

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

I thought that was a lack of belief in theists imaginations?

That doesn't mean anything. Does it?

Well Jan, you have made it evident time and again that for you, understanding the written word was a waste of time. Yet, you persist in attempting to communicate through the written word - curious?

What a lame excuse.
Even if that were true (which it isn't), there may be other persons reading this who may want an explanation.

Ask it sometimes.

How?

It's difficult, excrutiatingly so in your case, to attempt explanation of anything.

Translation: I cannot answer that question for fear of revealing my complete lack of understanding, regarding the subject matter.

There's really no point in asking, as I'm not about to get involved in another pointless discussion with you.

Its not a pointless discussion, just punch "einstein on religion" into a search engine and see how many atheists try to paint Einstein as a man who did not believe in God.

It is a very important discussion, because I and others would like to know why they put so much effort into blatently twisting his words to fit their ideals. Then when a theist claims the obvious (Einstein believed in God) they cry "appeal to authority" and make statements like "what does it matter what he believed" and "do you think him believing in God justifies God" and "anyway he didn't believe in God", thus pulling out the obvious quotes without ever attempting to explain why he didn't believe.

The obvious reasons you refer are your own inability to synthesize information, to think. You've shown everyone here that you're a complete idiot every time you post something.

Blah, blah, blah!
Quit with the appeal to popularity, it does nothing to give clarity to your lame explanations.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

Isn't it possible for a 'non-believer' to use words like 'spirit' and 'God' without the literal way theists do? Especially in Einsteins day when religion was still pretty fundamental to almost everyones life.

By Einsteins own admission he did not believe in any man-made God and certainly was in no way religious, but simply was in awe of the structure of the universe. The best way he could describe this awe to the masses was to use words which relate to the lives of religious people. Mathematical mumbojumbo don't quite get the meaning over in the same way does it?

This website has many of his thoughts on this matter and by reading it, you gather he is an agnostic. He holds merit to the idea of a creator whilst also giving no credit to things such as prayer, afterlife, and all the other things a personal God is claimed to be.

 

[AAF]

KennyJC: "...By Einstein's own admission he did not believe in any man-made God and certainly was in no way religious, but simply was in awe of the structure of the universe...He holds merit to the idea of a creator whilst also giving no credit to things such as prayer, afterlife, and all the other things a personal God is claimed to be".



There is a very decisive way for proving his 'religiosity or non-religiosity'.

(1) Did he attend synagogues or other religious temples on a regular basis?
(2) Did he observe Sabbath and other rituals?
(3) Did he behave like a sheep in the presence of charismatic clerics?
(4) Did he read, analyze, and try to reconcile conflicting passages and verses in ancient religious books?

If the answer is 'YES' to any question of the above, then Einstein was religious. Otherwise, he was just another damn 'politician'!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Isn't it possible for a 'non-believer' to use words like 'spirit' and 'God' without the literal way theists do? Especially in Einsteins day when religion was still pretty fundamental to almost everyones life.

By Einsteins own admission he did not believe in any man-made God and certainly was in no way religious, but simply was in awe of the structure of the universe. The best way he could describe this awe to the masses was to use words which relate to the lives of religious people. Mathematical mumbojumbo don't quite get the meaning over in the same way does it?

This website has many of his thoughts on this matter and by reading it, you gather he is an agnostic. He holds merit to the idea of a creator whilst also giving no credit to things such as prayer, afterlife, and all the other things a personal God is claimed to be.

Einstein must be chuckling (or not) that both theists and atheists seem to want to claim him as supporting their views. This is one for all atheists.... (quote from http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, 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.

I don't think "agnostic" quite sums him up Kenny. Perhaps we can agree he referred to himself as religious (see below) and valued the sense of mystery which underlies all religion, but denied specific theistic concepts such as an afterlife or a personal God!

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.

In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

or again....

It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear--that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

quote from http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/mysterious.html

 

[phlogistician]

You are wrong about this Phlo, athiests do not have a belief in the existance of a 'god', this individual does, believing in one and not in the rest is irrelevant, you only have to believe in one to not be athiest.

Else eveyone would be athiest?

That is the point, everybody IS an atheist, unless they simultaneously believe in every deity! Theists will, if pressed, tell you that they don't believe in a god, other than their 'one god' saying the others are merely facets of theirs. This is arrogant, and a cop out, because admitting you don't believe in someone elses god is an admission that some things cannot be taken solely on faith or inner feelings.

Atheism does not in any way imply a lack of belief in a specific, or single god. That's just a slant put on it by our christian monotheistic society. Atheism, means not believing in any god or gods.

 

[KennyJC]

Diogenes' Dog : I'm sure many atheists share the views of Einstein in those quotes. Although just because he uses a different defintion to the word 'religious' does not mean then he is a believer in God. If ever he supports the idea of God then it is one visible through nature.

I still think agnostic best describes his position on this based on all quotes I have read. He appears to be neither theist or atheist. ie. simply having a fascination of nature does not imply religion or belief in a literal God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

Isn't it possible for a 'non-believer' to use words like 'spirit' and 'God' without the literal way theists do?

Of course it's possible, but ask yourself;
Why would he use those words if he didn't mean them in the proper way? Why do you accept some of what he says literally, but choose to interpret other things?
Can you give instances in other quotes where he uses words as metaphors without making clear his intention?

Especially in Einsteins day when religion was still pretty fundamental to almost everyones life.

You're just pulling at straws here.

By Einsteins own admission he did not believe in any man-made God and certainly was in no way religious, but simply was in awe of the structure of the universe.

I am a theist who doesn't believe in any man-made God, am not religious, and am in awe of the structure of the universe. So what say you to that?

The best way he could describe this awe to the masses was to use words which relate to the lives of religious people. Mathematical mumbojumbo don't quite get the meaning over in the same way does it?

So you know the man personally do you?

This website has many of his thoughts on this matter and by reading it, you gather he is an agnostic. He holds merit to the idea of a creator whilst also giving no credit to things such as prayer, afterlife, and all the other things a personal God is claimed to be.

Pull some quotes out, which expresses your interpretation, and let's get tucked in. Wadaya say?

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,



Of course it's possible, but ask yourself;
Why would he use those words if he didn't mean them in the proper way? Why do you accept some of what he says literally, but choose to interpret other things?
Can you give instances in other quotes where he uses words as metaphors without making clear his intention?

Because he did NOT use them in the proper way. If you read it again you will read "...in THIS sense I am religious", after describing his fascination with the secrets and mysteries of the universe. If this describes a religious person then you better call me (an atheist) religious too.

You're just pulling at straws here.

I don't think so. I think some of the things Einstein said about religion in his day were pretty brave considering how much religion was around.

I am a theist who doesn't believe in any man-made God, am not religious, and am in awe of the structure of the universe. So what say you to that?

I am an atheist who doesn't believe in any man-made God, am not religious and am in awe of the structure of the universe. That is what I say to that.

Pull some quotes out, which expresses your interpretation, and let's get tucked in. Wadaya say?

I could post loads if I really want to, although you will never be short of his quotes on his lack of belief in God, afterlife, prayer etc. but I feel this one alone is the only you need:

"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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."