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

[AAF]

KennyJC: "...In comparison to believing in a personal God he is most certainly atheist, not agnostic...The fact that Einstein stated he did not believe in a soul and/or spirit suggests quite clearly that he used these words as allegory as many brilliant scientists do...".



Probably that is true.

However, the most important issue with regard
to Einstein' religiosity is, undoubtedly, whether or not
his two theories (the Special & the General) imply
as necessary the help of some sort of a Deity
to harmonize natural interactions and make
their universe work properly.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

First, show me a quote where he believes God 'created' the universe.

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert.

The 'God does not play dice' analogy was a good example of this, as it would not have the same soundbyte appeal if he had not used the analogy.

How do you know it was an analogy?
What do you mean by soundbyte appeal?

In comparison to believing in a personal God he is most certainly atheist, not agnostic. In that quote he suggests he is agnostic with regards to any God.

He says belief in a personal God "is childlike".
He invites the interviewer to call him agnostic, as he does not subscribe to a religious institute, and to put everyone at ease. His interest in God was to find out how He made this world. He had respect for Him, seeing Him as a superior spirit capable of creating a structure which filled him (Einstein) with awe and respect.

The fact that Einstein stated he did not believe in a soul and/or spirit

Then why would he say this;

"It is only to the individual that a soul is given."

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." - Albert.

"....rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism...."
Siggests an emerging trend of some kind, not something akin to real religion.
The soul is seen differently to how it is described in scriptures. I.E. in spiritualism, it is believed that one can talk to a dead relative through a human medium.
The biblical texts which speak of judgement day and the rapture, are interpreted by the institutes, as people being lifted up to heaven in their current bodies. This he thought was childish.

Well as you have seen, he often used the word spirit (like many atheists do also), but clearly stated he did not believe in such things.

Name some atheists on here who use the term spirit, soul, or God in the same way Einstein did.

A large part of the reason you reject evolution is due to your religious... oops... I mean theist beliefs (which appear to be very strong).

All you know is, I believe in God, and you only think they are strong because you don't really understand where I am coming from, but feel such statements will give you an edge over me in the eyes of the onlookers.

You won't admit that to me but you know fine well that you would only have (some) merit in your rejection of evolution if you weren't a strong believer in 'God'.

What nonsense.
There is no evidence (AFAICS), which secures TOE as a scientific fact (unless the rules of science have changed). If it was an unequivocal fact, I would have no choice but to accept it.

Again, I am the one you claim is distorting Einstein quotes? Please provide a quote where he claims he believes in a form of intelligence behind the stucture of the universe.

Because he said;

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."

Well that is the difference between you and Einstein I guess.

From you extremely narrow perspective.....I agree.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,



"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert.

I will give you that one - Although I still don't believe when viewing all of his thoughts on this issue in their entirety that he was a literal believer in God and used phrases like this one to express mere philisophical thoughts. By using the 'God' analogy in the above quote, he is merely emplying that he wishes to understand all that makes the universe work - One elegant description that doesn't involve millions of scientific theories. Therefor understanding 'Gods' mind is a good way of describing this.

How do you know it was an analogy?
What do you mean by soundbyte appeal?

I know it was an analogy because he used words like spirit and soul in an everyday sense, whilst stating he did not believe in an actual soul or spirit as you read in the quote in my last post.

His interest in God was to find out how He made this world. He had respect for Him, seeing Him as a superior spirit capable of creating a structure which filled him (Einstein) with awe and respect.

From what you said, you make it sound like God was central to his interests. From what I read of his quotes its his understanding of the universe that is central, and he gives merit to the idea of 'God', but does not give any clear belief one way or another that he firmly believed or denied, which is why he is Agnostic.

Then why would he say this;

"It is only to the individual that a soul is given."

I don't know, but he clearly said he found the idea of a soul "empty and devoid of meaning". Again, 'soul' is a word that is used in an every day sense that doesn't require literal belief.

Name some atheists on here who use the term spirit, soul, or God in the same way Einstein did.

I believe there is a poll kicking around that shows some atheists think there is 'an inbuilt spiritual need'. Although I am sure they have a different definition to what constitutes being 'spiritual' just like you have a different defintion to what Einstein considered.

What nonsense.
There is no evidence (AFAICS), which secures TOE as a scientific fact (unless the rules of science have changed). If it was an unequivocal fact, I would have no choice but to accept it.

Do you think it is simply a coincadence that believers in God, like yourself, deny evolution far more than your average non-believer? Haven't you wondered why this is?

 

[AAF]

Science & Immortality​

There can be no doubt that the existence of all religions depends entirely on the promise of immortality. Take that promise away; and religion will vanish overnight.

Over the centuries, many secularists have tried to reduce this very important issue to a matter of death anxiety that can be treated through drugs and therapy, to no avail.

The reason for the failure of their argument is that death per se is not the problem. To die only once is the real problem! To die only once or, to put it differently, to live only once has very bleak and far-reaching consequences.

In addition to dark pessimism, that nihilistic view of life makes human existence and the Universe itself absolutely pointless. And if that barren worldview is the only available alternative to the fantasies of religion, then I sincerely advise you to remain a Voodooist and to disregard completely the teachings of contemporary philosophers.

Unfortunately for theists (monos & pans), the nihilistic view is not the only viable alternative to religion.

There are two very attractive promises of immortality.

The first promise is based on science or as
S. Freud used to say ‘Our Puny God’.

The second promise is based on infinity. This promise is so gigantic and so magnificent to such a degree that makes even the most grandiose promises of religion look stingy, meager, and worthless.

The two promises of Immortality:

[1] The Puny God’s Promise:

The following axiom is to be held as self-evident:

‘Every thing that laws of nature can do, science, given enough time, can do it as well’.

Nature makes human bodies quite easily.
Science is, therefore, bound to make human bodies in the future quite easily as well.

At some point in the future (my conservative guess: around the Year 10,000 A. D.), science will be able to trace back, re-design, and manufacture the bodies of all past generations. At the same time, science will be able to identify, follow, and capture their very weak brain waves, which travel at this very moment at the speed of light among the stars. Science, then, will restore those electromagnetic carriers of feelings and memories to the exact copies of their original bodies. And voila! They all will be back to life.

The only possible problem, in this regard, is that the future decision makers can be very choosy and fussy and resurrect only very few important luminaries. For this reason, we have to make sure that there will be always a Pope in the Vatican and Pro-life groups in U.S.A. to defend the right of back to life for all people regardless of their relative merits.

[2] Infinity’s Promise:

The argument, here, is too long and too subtle to expound in this post.

Let me just say that if the amount of matter is infinite, then there must be an infinite exact copies of you throughout the Universe and at all times.

You are literally infinite, indestructible, and immortal.

 

[Roman]

I'm self-contradictory, does that mean I don't exist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC],

Although I still don't believe when viewing all of his thoughts on this issue in their entirety that he was a literal believer in God and used phrases like this one to express mere philisophical thoughts.

Nobody uses phrases like that, unless they mean what they say, not even philosophers.

By using the 'God' analogy in the above quote, he is merely emplying that he wishes to understand all that makes the universe work - One elegant description that doesn't involve millions of scientific theories. Therefor understanding 'Gods' mind is a good way of describing this.

What would be the point of using "God" as an analogy?
Did every scientist at that time, regardless of their belief, use God as analogy in that way?
Why can't you accept that he believed in God, but did not subscribe to religious institutions, what's so hard about that?

I know it was an analogy because he used words like spirit and soul in an everyday sense, whilst stating he did not believe in an actual soul or spirit as you read in the quote in my last post.

From what I understand, he didn't believe in the survival of an individual after death, the way it is understood by modern religions. But he also said he cannot concieve of such philosophies and that they were childish.
Try and understand that what you understand to be religion are versions of the real religion, and not everybody subscribes to these versions. If you can understand the real oneness of religion, you will understand where Einstein is coming from.

From what you said, you make it sound like God was central to his interests.

Einstein understood that God created the universe. He was filled with awe and reverence of this structure, and wanted to know how it was created.
God can only be central to interests. Right now God is central to your interest, which is why you are so interested in discussing Him.

From what I read of his quotes its his understanding of the universe that is central, and he gives merit to the idea of 'God', but does not give any clear belief one way or another that he firmly believed or denied, which is why he is Agnostic.

He is a physics scientist, it is his job and duty to understand the universe, so that goes without saying. But he understands that it is the result of a superior intelligence. In the same way, he does not approve of religions whose wish is to userp the greatness of this intelligence for their own personal benefit.

I don't know, but he clearly said he found the idea of a soul "empty and devoid of meaning".

From that quote, can you understand that he realises there is a real religion with a real explanations, and loads of off-shoots who do not adhere to it, but use it to justify their personal beliefs.

Again, 'soul' is a word that is used in an every day sense that doesn't require literal belief.

Alot of words are. But you can't use that as a basis for Einstein using it, unless you know for sure, which you don't. You have to take him at face value, and be prepared to look a little harder if you want to seriously understand what he means.

I believe there is a poll kicking around that shows some atheists think there is 'an inbuilt spiritual need'. Although I am sure they have a different definition to what constitutes being 'spiritual' just like you have a different defintion to what Einstein considered.

a) That isn't what I asked
b) I have yet to encounter an atheist who reasons about God without using insults to prop up their ideals, and as such it is difficult to gauge what they really believe regarding such topics. Also, they cannot be seen to consider anything which is outside of their naturalist dogma. It's like asking a christian fundie to consider the Bhagavad Gita a book about God, by God.

Do you think it is simply a coincadence that believers in God, like yourself, deny evolution far more than your average non-believer? Haven't you wondered why this is?

No more a coincidence than believers in TOE like yourself, deny God far more than you average believer.
With regard to TOE, there is nothing to deny. I am not convinced of what constitutes evidence, and am not going to believe it blindly.
The concept has no place in everyday life IMO.
We can observe relatively small, adaptive changes and we accept that.
It appears that TOE was invented to rival the idea of creation, I believe it is an atheistic concept even though that is hotly denied by evolutionists.
But they would deny it wouldn't they.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

Einstein understood that God created the universe.

You see, if he said that outright we would not be having this debate. If he spoke like you do then he would of course be a theist. But he didn't speak like you.

When using the word 'God' he was making illustrations to demonstrate a thought... He NEVER used 'God' in a clear statement which implied faith or clear belief in an intelligent creator. No matter how you skew his quotes I don't think such a quote exists.

Since 'God' means different things to different people. For Einstein the true source of the existence of the universe, wether it be a big ball of simple energy, or an intelligent superbeing of sorts... The source of the universe IS 'God' by his definition. I do not think this is theistical in the slightest.

He was filled with awe and reverence of this structure, and wanted to know how it was created.

I agree, this is exactly what he said.. or at least how it works..

But he understands that it is the result of a superior intelligence.

The pot is calling the kettle black with regards to making up interpretations of quotes ....

From that quote, can you understand that he realises there is a real religion with a real explanations

Of course there is. But I did not gather that from that quote. How you can make this assumption from him stating disbelief in a soul, I do not know...

Alot of words are. But you can't use that as a basis for Einstein using it, unless you know for sure, which you don't.

I have already supplied a quote for this, this is why I know for sure. He states he doesn't believe in a literal soul, and we are simply "combinations of sensory impressions"... This is quite clearly a materialist way of thinking.

a) That isn't what I asked

Well off the top of my head there is emptyforceofchi: Who claims to be an atheists but is always harping on about spirituality.

b) I have yet to encounter an atheist who reasons about God without using insults to prop up their ideals, and as such it is difficult to gauge what they really believe regarding such topics. Also, they cannot be seen to consider anything which is outside of their naturalist dogma. It's like asking a christian fundie to consider the Bhagavad Gita a book about God, by God.

Clearly you haven't spoken to many atheists, or simply not noticed them behind the more rampant atheists (I don't mind if you call me one of them). Infact most atheists probably don't mind religion at all, but simply lack the belief.

It appears that TOE was invented to rival the idea of creation, I believe it is an atheistic concept even though that is hotly denied by evolutionists.

It was "invented" due to the increasing evidence found within the fossil record which remarkably resembles a tree of life... Do you know how a tree grows? Seriously take a good look at a tree... then look up the tree of life which shows animals that have lived, or are alive at present. Have you ever done this? If so you have missed the glaringly obvious...

 

[Confutatis]

Clearly you haven't spoken to many atheists, or simply not noticed them behind the more rampant atheists. Infact most atheists probably don't mind religion at all, but simply lack the belief.

If I may intrude, it seems to me most atheists, particularly rampant atheists, have a deep desire to believe in something, but are extremely frustrated they can't find any belief that doesn't seem like an insult to their intellect. To put it plainly, the problem with most atheists is that they are snobs.

Now I am a snob myself and have only accepted religion because I was able to reach a highly intellectual understanding of it. Which is pathetic, but I can't help it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
That does not follow. In addition, paradoxes are also self-contradictory and yet, there are no greater truths then them.

 

[AAF]

I'm self-contradictory, does that mean I don't exist?

If you are not perfect, then self-contradiction cannot destroy you!

More importantly, self-contradiction, in theological contexts, is not to do something and then to do its exact opposite; but to have two or more mutually exclusive characteristics or attributes at the same time.

And so according to the above definition of the term, the idea of God is fraught with contradictions of all sorts.

In most respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of little spot, which is completely black and completely white at the same time! Such a spot cannot exist as a real possibility, because it is self-contradictory.

You can, of course, always assume it as given and turn a blind eye to its contradictions. But such an ostrich-like method is really foolish and it leads to nowhere.

 

[(Q)]

If I may intrude, it seems to me most atheists, particularly rampant atheists, have a deep desire to believe in something, but are extremely frustrated they can't find any belief that doesn't seem like an insult to their intellect. To put it plainly, the problem with most atheists is that they are snobs.

Now I am a snob myself and have only accepted religion because I was able to reach a highly intellectual understanding of it. Which is pathetic, but I can't help it.

Hilarious! In other words, atheists, who completely understand all religions are pure fantasy, are frustrated because they are able to distinguish such, and deep down inside foster urges to join in on the fantasy.

The problem with that ridiculous statement is, why theists, who are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, chose one fantasy over another and then claim the others are mere fantasies.

How is it one can achieve a highly intellectual understanding of a fantasy? That's like claiming to know the complete physiology of a dragon.

Too funny.

 

[wesmorris]

I'm self-contradictory, does that mean I don't exist?

Yes. Obviously.

*snort*

 

[Confutatis]

In other words, atheists, who completely understand all religions are pure fantasy

Correction: "atheists, who believe all religions are pure fantasy..."

You may now continue.

are frustrated because they are able to distinguish such, and deep down inside foster urges to join in on the fantasy.

You have to be honest enough to admit you don't know everything about the universe. If you think you do, then that is the end of the discussion, but I hope you are wiser than that.

Now if you don't know a lot about the universe, then certainly an explanation of the things you don't know must exist. The problem for you is not that you don't believe things exist which you don't understand, but that you find the explanation of those things to be rather foolish. And here is where I think you are a snob, just as I am a snob. I say snob because we are in the minority, but we like to think that is because we are smarter.

why theists, who are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, chose one fantasy over another and then claim the others are mere fantasies.

Your misunderstanding of the religious frame of mind is quite astonishing. Do you really believe people can be that childish? It must be hard for you to live in a world where 90% of the people are, in your judgement, morons. I almost feel sorry for you, except I suspect you're not really being sincere.

How is it one can achieve a highly intellectual understanding of a fantasy?

It's called "theology", honey...

That's like claiming to know the complete physiology of a dragon.

No, that would be "dragonology"... I reckon...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Ok, I'll bite it.

Simply stated, Ockham’s Razor is this: "Get rid of redundant entities".

Huuumm...
First of all, you are assuming Ockham’s Razor is true...

God is a redundant entity. Because it's much simpler to assume that the world is eternal. The hypothesis of Creator explains nothing. It simply pushes the PROBLEM one floor upstairs! It's futile and redundant.

When did God create the universe?
Is the "world" really eternal?

Can God create Himself?
He must. Because God is not just any creator. God, by definition, is an Absolute Creator. The Absolute Creator, who cannot create Himself, is a contradiction in terms.

Who is God? When was He born?

But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma.

Whether God can or cannot create Himself, a believer must land himself upon one of the two horns of this DILEMMA:

God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him.

Nothingness is part of Him. It's not above, nor below. In the same way, we are not above nor below Him.

Once again, who is God?

Or God cannot create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, He is not absolute. He is relative, weak, and completely redundant.

When was God born? If you can answer that question, you may find He's not redundant at all.

In short, the idea of God is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded. Accordingly, it's false. To do away with it, its self-contradiction is enough. No further disproof is required.

Of course God is self-contradictory. He encompasses all things. It's like bringing matter and antimatter together, in a state where they coexist. That's what God is.

So why do people claim from time to time that 'God' cannot be proved or disproved scientifically?

Because you cannot prove the nonexistence of an object.

The only explanation of such an obvious fallacy is that 'Homo sapiens' by nature is a social animal and always ready to do anything to please inmates and get along with them even on the expense of reason and logic.

Looks like you are the one commiting a fallacy.

The last refuge for the folks of faith to save their 'Eternal God' from the ravages of logic and reason is to suppose that either He is timeless or He is living outside time all by Himself!

That's not quite it. He is time. And that's the piece of the puzzle which you are missing. You may also be missing others, but this is the one I can see from your posts.

Nice try! But it doesn't help them at all. To say that God is outside of time is logically equivalent to and the same as saying that He does not exist.

What are the attributes of existence? What is time? What exaclty does time measure? Which variable is flowing relative to time?

moreover, getting rid of time is absolutely impossible. And even when you deny time in words, you affirm it logically in a big way. The reason for this absolute impossibility is that the flow of time forms a homogeneous continuum of all rates from the infinitely small to the infinitely large all at once. And each rate of time flow implies the rest as a necessary consequence.

Yes. But you have to remember that time is also relative to the observer at the same time. This will lead you to an essential paradox.

Take as an example the ordinary pendulum clock!
It has three hands that run at different rates.
These three hands of the clock are only a partial snapshot of the actual flow of time.

The second hand implies on its side an infinite series of hands that run at faster and faster rates until end up with the moment hand where the rate of time flow is infinite.

The hour hand of the clock, also, implies, on its side, an infinite series of hands which run at slower and slower rates and have as their limit the eternity hand which does not move at all.

Thus there is no escape from time. And life of God outside time is meaningless.

That's brilliant. No, seriously, it's a very good analogy.
And it is for that reason that He is time. You have to remember that omnipresence is one of His attributes.

In fact, time is an essential attribute of God.

Yes, time=God...

That is to say that there is always time whether there is God or not.

Well, you have not yet defined "God".

Finally, we should not forget that 'God' is, also, an ideal. In other words, the idea of 'God' is the model and the blueprint according to which you would certainly construct yourself, if you were given the power to re-design and build yourself from scratch. In this sense, even though God has no basis in reality, as an ideal is absolutely perfect and useful and you should keep Him as a guiding star and blueprint for impoving yourself at all levels.

Huumm.. yes, it can be perceived that way.
But you can also use the idea of God to determine what reality is and how it works.

Good post

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

You see, if he said that outright we would not be having this debate.

If I do have any contention with your mindset, it stems from the asinine comments like this.
He said it outright in the quote regarding Bhagavad Gita I posted. Didn't you read it?

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."

If he spoke like you do then he would of course be a theist. But he didn't speak like you.

Are you purposely being obtuse?
How many theists here speak like me?

When using the word 'God' he was making illustrations to demonstrate a thought...

Where is the evidence of this?

He NEVER used 'God' in a clear statement which implied faith or clear belief in an intelligent creator.

Okay. If it makes you feel better, he didn't. Everything he said about God was stuped in metaphor. And I must have been crazy to think he had any belief in God, despite his statements....sorry, metaphores.

I don't think

No matter how you skew his quotes I don't think such a quote exists.

Especially if you've already made up your mind about the situation, despite being hammered time and time again, with intelligent explanations.

Since 'God' means different things to different people.

Maybe so, but God is God, something you cannot understand because you have volunteered to subdue that part of your human intelligence.

For Einstein the true source of the existence of the universe, wether it be a big ball of simple energy, or an intelligent superbeing of sorts... The source of the universe IS 'God' by his definition. I do not think this is theistical in the slightest.

You are so confused.

The pot is calling the kettle black with regards to making up interpretations of quotes ....

He said it himself, can you not see that in plain black and white?
If you think he meant something else, then produce some evidence, or at least a coherent explanation of your belief. Otherwise the discussion has to end, with you not having learned anything.

Of course there is. But I did not gather that from that quote. How you can make this assumption from him stating disbelief in a soul, I do not know...

"It is only to the individual that a soul is given."
Are you incapable of understanding what is written?
This is a brilliant example of blind-faith, fundamentalism, and what to expect of knowledge distribution in years to come.
Either you have big balls in your blatent disregard of Einsteins quotes, or you're part of a bigger picture of nonsense which knows no shame, and will eventually spread the disease through the coming generations.

He states he doesn't believe in a literal soul, and we are simply "combinations of sensory impressions"... This is quite clearly a materialist way of thinking.

You have taken it right out of context to feed your simplistic idea of life, you are totally dishonest.

Well off the top of my head there is emptyforceofchi: Who claims to be an atheists but is always harping on about spirituality.

Sounds to me like he is edgeing his bets, wanting to use spirituallity to appear wise, and broad-minded, while at the same time keeping one foot in the atheist camp, because it is the current global trend.
Not a good example.

(I don't mind if you call me one of them).

Judging by your obtuseness, I regard you as anti-God, which is, as far as I can see, a theistic position. There are many here who regard themselves as atheist but are in fact anti-God. How do I know? By reading what you and they say.

It was "invented" due to the increasing evidence found within the fossil record which remarkably resembles a tree of life...

Are you aware that there have been archeological finds, not only of human reamains, but impliments which imply modern human intelligence, which was omitted as evidence because it upset the fossil record?

Do you know how a tree grows? Seriously take a good look at a tree... then look up the tree of life which shows animals that have lived, or are alive at present. Have you ever done this? If so you have missed the glaringly obvious...

What does that have to do with anything, in everyday life?
There is nothing that is occuring in life, now, that can be paralelled with these incurred gigantic changes. It is the only argument against God, which only shows how powerfull God is.
If this idea was omitted from the worlds memory, what would be different?

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

Correction: "atheists, who believe all religions are pure fantasy..."

You may now continue.

Correction, atheism is not a belief system.

You have to be honest enough to admit you don't know everything about the universe. If you think you do, then that is the end of the discussion, but I hope you are wiser than that.

Of course I don't know everything about the universe, neither do you. But as a theist, you appear to have all the answers. And not knowing something does not automatically assume gods exist, get a grip.

Now if you don't know a lot about the universe, then certainly an explanation of the things you don't know must exist. The problem for you is not that you don't believe things exist which you don't understand, but that you find the explanation of those things to be rather foolish. And here is where I think you are a snob, just as I am a snob. I say snob because we are in the minority, but we like to think that is because we are smarter.

Ah, so you do appear to believe that unanswered questions are evidence to the existence of gods, how utterly ridiculous. Science will eventually answer those questions, don't worry about that, just go back to your bible and let us do the work.

Your misunderstanding of the religious frame of mind is quite astonishing. Do you really believe people can be that childish? It must be hard for you to live in a world where 90% of the people are, in your judgement, morons. I almost feel sorry for you, except I suspect you're not really being sincere.

Oh yes, it is very difficult living in a world where most are religious. but that is changing, and one day we will be free of religious nonsense. And again, my understanding of religion is from theists, like yourself. And if you have issues, talk to the other theists as they are the ones presenting religion as it is.

It's called "theology", honey...

So, your a master of fantasy (theology) - how very nice. Of course, there is absolutely nothing productive or useful one can do with such knowledge, is there?

Would that put you on even ground with JK Rowling and RR Tolkien?

No, that would be "dragonology"... I reckon...

One fantasy is as irrelevant as another.

 

[(Q)]

And here is where I think you are a snob, just as I am a snob. I say snob because we are in the minority, but we like to think that is because we are smarter.

You really want to hear about a snob?

In a thousand years from now, someone will stumble along a recording of this forum and will read what is here.

When they see posts written by me and my desire to do away with all religion and make the benefit of mankind the primary objective, I'll be labeled a visionary.

Who knows? They might even call my posts, "The Q Documents"

hehe

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,

He said it outright in the quote regarding Bhagavad Gita I posted. Didn't you read it?

This is where you are wrong. In his short quote (probably taken out of context as I can not find the text it was within), he simply states an appreciation for the elegance of it. Einstein was after elegance which he strived for his entire life, not endless scientific explanations.

Where in this quote (the most promising evidence of a belief of an I.D.) does he provide a statement of his belief in this account of intelligent creation? You told me to take quotes at face value, and in this quote, there is no such thing, it is merely your interpretation.

Are you purposely being obtuse?
How many theists here speak like me?

What I meant is, it is easy to take from theists their belief in an intelligent creator based on what they say and how they say it. In Einsteins 76 years, only a few quotes can be interpreted as this with no clear outright statement of belief in an intelligent creator.

Especially if you've already made up your mind about the situation, despite being hammered time and time again, with intelligent explanations.

Hammered with what exactly? You have not done a good job of proving Einstein had a beleif in an intelligent creator. I will also not be lectured on 'intelligent explanations' from someone who thinks evolution is a fantasy.

Maybe so, but God is God, something you cannot understand because you have volunteered to subdue that part of your human intelligence.

For the record let me state my belief (or lack of). I call myself atheist because I lack belief in an intelligent creator. I don't say it is impossible that there is an intelligent creator, I just think it's impossible to know and irrelevant seeing as believing it to be true could turn out to be a waste of time. The issue I have overall is not with God, but with people who claim to believe in 'him' and the effect they have on society and the world as a whole.

"It is only to the individual that a soul is given."
Are you incapable of understanding what is written?

My, my... We do have an awful case of double standards here don't we? Here is the situation, we both have contradicting quotes. You have yours, here is mine:

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

The above is clearly materialist. If you can read black and white like you claim to do, then you will agree. Which means your vague quote probably (again) taken out of context suggests that his use of the word 'soul' in that sense is figurative.

And there is also this:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

The above could be interpreted as disbeleif in an "intelligent creator" never mind the soul... but I would never say such a thing. What say you?

You have taken it right out of context to feed your simplistic idea of life, you are totally dishonest.

It is not taken out of context since the following question was posed to him and his answer was concise.

In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death.

Are you aware that there have been archeological finds, not only of human reamains, but impliments which imply modern human intelligence, which was omitted as evidence because it upset the fossil record?

Please provide this evidence. And I look forward to seeing how this contradicts the fossil record. My guess is pseudoscience that is on a par with the "Noah's Ark" find.

What does that have to do with anything, in everyday life?
There is nothing that is occuring in life, now, that can be paralelled with these incurred gigantic changes. It is the only argument against God, which only shows how powerfull God is.
If this idea was omitted from the worlds memory, what would be different?

Jan.

What does it have to do with everyday life? Absolutely nothing. But since when is that important to science? Science is not involved with things that purely rely on a day to day basis, if that were the case so many important discoveries (like evolution) would not have been made.

This may be my last post on this as I am away for 2 weeks, so let me finish with the summary:

Einstein was atheist with regards to a personal God and all organised religions

Einstein was agnostic in terms of an intelligent creator.

Einsteins had no belief in prayer, a literal soul, a literal spirit, an afterlife and pretty much all common notions held by beleif in an intelligent creator.

He is always guarded when responding to queries regarding an intelligent designer, which is something a 'theist' would surely not do. Hence my assumption of agnosticism.

 

[AAF]

Hello TruthSeeker:
I hope you're seeking the truth!

TruthSeeker: "...First of all, you are assuming Ockham’s Razor is true...".

I'm not assuming it to be true; I'm totally convinced it is true.
And there is nothing wrong about dumping useless junk away.
It's just simple good common sense and good economics.

TruthSeeker: "...When did God create the universe? Is the "world" really eternal?...Who is God? When was He born?......".

Those questions are for the theists (monos, pans, D.D., D.H., J.A., & others) to answer explicitly, convincingly, and without much guff.
And if they answer them the truth seeker's way, they will have a big unresolvable and devastating contradiction on their table.

TruthSeeker: "...Nothingness is part of Him. It's not above, nor below. In the same way, we are not above nor below Him...".

I don't think that is conventional.
And I don't think it's a convincing thing to say at all.

TruthSeeker: "...Once again, who is God?...".

The Deity under discussion, here, is the 'Prime Mover' of Aristotle, the 'Clock Maker' of Newton, the 'Biblical Father', the 'Quranic Allah', 'I Am Who I Am' of the Ancient Hebrews, the 'Viking Odin', the 'Jove' of the Romans, the 'Starter' of the Big Bang,...etc....etc....
They may appear a lot and daunting, but those deities are similar and can be knocked out or down logically by one single blow to their very concept.

TruthSeeker: "...Of course God is self-contradictory. He encompasses all things. It's like bringing matter and antimatter together, in a state where they coexist. That's what God is...".

Again, TruthSeeker, that is not a serious definition of God.
You may define the Cosmos that way, but certainly not God.
God has to be intelligent, powerful, smart, dashing, and has personality, in order from Him to think, design, create, reward, and punish.

TruthSeeker: "...you cannot prove the nonexistence of an object...".

But, certainly, you can prove the impossibility of its existence, if you can demonstrate that its very concept is illogical and contradictory and absurd.

TruthSeeker: "...Looks like you are the one commiting a fallacy...".

Sorry, pal, no fallacy here!
Many smart and very clever people appear all the time in public and say 'God is above logic and science and cannot be proved or disproved'.
They say that not because they believe it's true, but because it's the best and the nicest dimplomatic thing to say.
You can't really be that ruthless to the extent of telling the truth to a club of old nice ladies!

Well, so long TruthSeeker, for now!
We will go through the rest of your post, next time.

 

[wesmorris]

As should be blantantly obvious... or at least it is to me: God is the anthropomorphization of nature.... man projecting a solution to his confusion onto his environment.