The joys of life without God

[James R]

lightgigantic:

So it seems it is more correct to say that science has observed a portion of the development of stars

By your argument, nobody has observed anything but a portion of anything. So what?

But then you have a foolish premise for understanding, since what is currently "almost entirely right" will get down graded to aristotle's "a lot wrong" given enough time.

You can't say "will". "might" would be a safer guess. The most we can do is do the best we can with what we know, and be open to inevitable change.

In other words at no point do you have a foundation for true knowledge - nor can knowledge ever be qualified- it is just like existing in a paradigm that innvolves scale but not size

Are you claiming that science has no epistomology?

[T]he point is when you make statements in regard to how science is not a guess, like

Not at all. It simply means that the conclusions arrived at previously were mistaken or incomplete. ”

how is that different from the snake/rope eg?

Because knowledge is not arrived at in a vacuum. It is based on prior knowledge, unlike a mere guess.

But yuo do have the resources to bring your famly down to a more humble level of opulence and thus enable to help others raise their standards
...
Yes they are different because I incorporate the idea that god is the ultimate controller and maintainer within my acts of charity

The final outcome appears to me to be the same in both cases - your family is provided for while other families starve - so what makes your approach superior to mine?

You have no means to determine to what degree a person is moral, since the ability to even come near to fulfilling what they establish as moral is obviously not one of them

Is it possible to come near to fulfilling your God's instructions? Does that mean no theist is moral?

Then you have defined a framework for morality that denies the possibility of treatings others as one would like to be treated since the fundamental principle is to establish and maintain one's family - as for your vision of theistic charity, your are only viewing the shadow of it

I don't believe that theists are any more charitable than atheists, as a general rule.

But no matter how hot I have my shower the cloud vapour never rains

Your bathroom clearly isn't big enough! There are hangers at some airports where it actually rains inside sometimes (when it is fine outside).

Also, the steam from your shower does condense in a similar way to rain - that's why your bathroom mirror fogs up and the tiles on the bathroom wall become wet over time.

But at the same time it resists ideas that operate on principles outside of the established axiomatic fundamentals - for instance according to contemporary axiomatic fundamentals, the "self" does not exist

There's no such axiom regarding the "self" in science. See Penrose's quote, for example - he is a scientist.

Also, why the double standard again? Religions never step outside their own axiomatic fundamentals, so why do you require science to do that?

Theoreticaly knowing something is a long way from actualy knowing something in practice - so to say things like we know how stars are made, we know how life comes from matter, we know how evolution takes place etc etc is a bit misleading in the absence of practical application

But all these things have practical application. We see stars forming. We see evolution occurring. We know of no life without matter.

So in other words there is no room for ID scientists to do the necessary research in their fields - the case is closed before the book is opened

Given the number of books published on ID, your claim that ID scientists are oppressed is rather odd.

On the other hand, you are correct in saying they don't do research. They assume that disproving accepted science is somehow equivalent to proving ID, and therefore spend all their time and effort trying to attack accepted science, rather than trying to find positive evidence for their own ideas.

Again - enclaving is a natural response to bigotted segregation

It's also the typical reaction of groups who are unable to let go of a discredited idea.

There's still a Flat Earth Society, you know.

 

[Bells]

as more than one judge has said "Ignorance is no excuse" - in other words even if you don't think there are laws that dtermine the right and wrong side of the road to drive on, you are still liable to get a ticket if you mess up

Ah but as an atheist, I am not 'ignorant' of god. I simply believe that there is no god. To be ignorant of something would mean that the thing actually exists without my knowledge, such as the law to use your example. But god does not exist.

If I mess anything up, I am responsible to myself and no one else (unless my stuff up results in an injury, etc to another individual or if I break a tangible law, then I would owe some form of responsibility to those individuals). I do not believe of some great father figure in the sky judging my every move and thought. I simply do not believe in any greater entity.

Just as god is not apparent to the atheist, the owner of the house may not be apparent to the tresspasser -

God is not apparent to the atheist because there simply is no god. A house on the other hand exists for all to see, touch, smell, lick, hit. It was built by someone so therefore a person seeing a house would know that someone actually can claim ownership to that tangible item.

I don't see how since all you have to do to comply to this standard is have "If it feels good it must be good" - still won't stop the narcotic squad kicking down your door

Is it? Strange. I think it feels good to drink wine until I feel a bit sloshed. But I still don't do it since I know it's not good for me. Just because I do not believe in god does not mean that I live life with what you seem to perceive as being a wanton abandon. I do not do things to harm myself or others, no matter how good it may feel to do so. Atheists, like all mammals do have a notion of what is right and wrong. For example, a grazing animal will know either by instinct or by experience that not all greenery in the pasture is edible. Such a form of knowledge is not god given (because there is no god) but is classified as mere instinct or lesson learned from past mistakes if you will.

I agree with you - until you have an understanding that god exists it wouldn't make much sense to follow his instructions, particularly if you felt it was in your inteersts to do otherwise - however my question is this - if god does exist, do you think your disobedience in ignorance would qualify for a complete redemption?

Disobedience to what? Who have I disobeyed? Redemption from what? An eternal hell that does not exist aside from in books and stories to scare people into behaving? I will not have an understanding of gods instructions because god does not exist. This is something that theists such as yourself need to realise. We do not live our lives in defiance of god. We live our lives knowing that there is no god. It is impossible for anyone to disobey or ignore something that simply does not exist.

 

[wsionynw]

Thats the point - they don't know the origins of life yet they insist that life came from matter

So I guess it's a choice between life from nothing, or life from matter.
Hmmm, tough choice

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

“ So it seems it is more correct to say that science has observed a portion of the development of stars ”



By your argument, nobody has observed anything but a portion of anything. So what?

But at the same time the statements "we know how cars are built" and "we know how stars are built" are not on the same platform

“ But then you have a foolish premise for understanding, since what is currently "almost entirely right" will get down graded to aristotle's "a lot wrong" given enough time. ”



You can't say "will". "might" would be a safer guess. The most we can do is do the best we can with what we know, and be open to inevitable change.

So by your defintion science was never right and will never be right for as long as it progresses - interesting

“ In other words at no point do you have a foundation for true knowledge - nor can knowledge ever be qualified- it is just like existing in a paradigm that innvolves scale but not size ”



Are you claiming that science has no epistomology?

lol - no - obviously it does - but by your explanations it appears that science will always be ontologically flawed - th ereason is that theer is no foundation for actual reality - all you can say is C is more right thean B, B is more right than A (we now know that A is completely wrong and nobody in their right mind would work with A now), and we are looking at the possibility of D which means will have to re-examine the premises of C - the whole system is unified by relativity to error, hence it is like working in a paradigm that innvolves scale but not size

“ [T]he point is when you make statements in regard to how science is not a guess, like

Not at all. It simply means that the conclusions arrived at previously were mistaken or incomplete. ”

how is that different from the snake/rope eg? ”



Because knowledge is not arrived at in a vacuum. It is based on prior knowledge, unlike a mere guess.

therefore it was a guess that the knowledge was right, just like it is a guess that the rope is a snake

“ But yuo do have the resources to bring your famly down to a more humble level of opulence and thus enable to help others raise their standards
...
Yes they are different because I incorporate the idea that god is the ultimate controller and maintainer within my acts of charity ”



The final outcome appears to me to be the same in both cases - your family is provided for while other families starve - so what makes your approach superior to mine?

Thats why I said yuo were operating out of the shadow of theistic charity - would a theist be thinking that god is such a poor guy but since he has a few good qualities he realy appreciates it when the theist chips in a few dollars from his pay cheque from the post office to help re-establish the proper distributionof wealth in the universe?
They might appear the same, just as a shadow appears to be the same as the object, but one is substantial and the other is ephemeral

“ You have no means to determine to what degree a person is moral, since the ability to even come near to fulfilling what they establish as moral is obviously not one of them ”



Is it possible to come near to fulfilling your God's instructions?

Most definitely yes -

Does that mean no theist is moral?

A theist is moral to the degree that they abide by theism
You have to understand that the essence of theism is to remember god ( a principle from which numerous other principles evolve) and not accomplishing something in the field of material activities (Like wiping poverty off the face of the planet, which is something in the jurisdiction of god's potency)

“ Then you have defined a framework for morality that denies the possibility of treatings others as one would like to be treated since the fundamental principle is to establish and maintain one's family - as for your vision of theistic charity, your are only viewing the shadow of it ”



I don't believe that theists are any more charitable than atheists, as a general rule.

Why do you say that?

“ But no matter how hot I have my shower the cloud vapour never rains ”



Your bathroom clearly isn't big enough! There are hangers at some airports where it actually rains inside sometimes (when it is fine outside).

Also, the steam from your shower does condense in a similar way to rain - that's why your bathroom mirror fogs up and the tiles on the bathroom wall become wet over time.

I'ld be interested to read something about this raining in aircraft hangers - I hope you don't just mean condensation as opposed to precipitation in the metereological sense

“ But at the same time it resists ideas that operate on principles outside of the established axiomatic fundamentals - for instance according to contemporary axiomatic fundamentals, the "self" does not exist ”



There's no such axiom regarding the "self" in science. See Penrose's quote, for example - he is a scientist.

And he was addressing this as a problem of science that needs attention

Also, why the double standard again? Religions never step outside their own axiomatic fundamentals, so why do you require science to do that?

Actually it is a convention of western thought to seperate science from religion - when according to science "self" does not exist, it requires a severe examination of its axiomatic principles, since the self is one of the primary foundations of knowledge (I think therefore I am) - religion is not threatened by the axioms of science since it incorporates scientific axioms (para vidya - materal knowledge) and transcendental axioms (apara vidya)

“ Theoreticaly knowing something is a long way from actualy knowing something in practice - so to say things like we know how stars are made, we know how life comes from matter, we know how evolution takes place etc etc is a bit misleading in the absence of practical application ”



But all these things have practical application. We see stars forming.

So yes - stars form - no doubt .... whether we understand the forces in action or are meer curious observers is another thing

We see evolution occurring.

we see micro evolution occuring ... what that means on a larger scale remains a tentative guess

We know of no life without matter.

But we don't know of life emmanating from matter - every life form is evidenced to arise from another life form, despite teh hard work of molecular evolutionists for the past 150 years to establish an alternative

“ So in other words there is no room for ID scientists to do the necessary research in their fields - the case is closed before the book is opened ”



Given the number of books published on ID, your claim that ID scientists are oppressed is rather odd.

These are all theory - its a hell of lot cheaper to publish a book than get funding when your theories are automatically thrown out the door at the mention of ID

On the other hand, you are correct in saying they don't do research. They assume that disproving accepted science is somehow equivalent to proving ID,

On the contrary they establish how the current axioms of scientific definition are inadequate and have ideas for further research, which of course require funds

and therefore spend all their time and effort trying to attack accepted science, rather than trying to find positive evidence for their own ideas.

How can you provide evidence without the funds for research?
How can you present ideas when one's ideas are automaticaly met with an impasse of impractical scientific axioms?

“ Again - enclaving is a natural response to bigotted segregation ”



It's also the typical reaction of groups who are unable to let go of a discredited idea.

There's still a Flat Earth Society, you know.

So if one person is getting it wrong it indicates that everyone is getting it wrong?
Kind of a narrow vision

 

[lightgigantic]

Bells

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as more than one judge has said "Ignorance is no excuse" - in other words even if you don't think there are laws that dtermine the right and wrong side of the road to drive on, you are still liable to get a ticket if you mess up
”


Ah but as an atheist, I am not 'ignorant' of god. I simply believe that there is no god. To be ignorant of something would mean that the thing actually exists without my knowledge, such as the law to use your example. But god does not exist.

Not sure what your point is - if two contradictory axioms drawn from the same premises meet one must give out to the other
You say god is an imagniation.
I say god is not.
If you cannot progres beyond this stalemate I guess the only option is for us both to eventualy die and find out which axiom holds out

If I mess anything up, I am responsible to myself and no one else (unless my stuff up results in an injury, etc to another individual or if I break a tangible law, then I would owe some form of responsibility to those individuals). I do not believe of some great father figure in the sky judging my every move and thought. I simply do not believe in any greater entity.

Basically you are expressing your impossibility to operate out of an alternative view point - which is fine - I certainly won't lose any sleep over your convictions, and god certainly is not increased or diminished regardless which way you go

“ Just as god is not apparent to the atheist, the owner of the house may not be apparent to the tresspasser - ”


God is not apparent to the atheist because there simply is no god. A house on the other hand exists for all to see, touch, smell, lick, hit. It was built by someone so therefore a person seeing a house would know that someone actually can claim ownership to that tangible item.

Ok there was a glimmer of an attempt at a rational argument rather than a vocal expression of opinion.

You seem to be saying that authorities that are not directly perceivable (see, touch, smell etc) are not actually authorities on the strength of their nonexistence, even if there is a body of propaganda or media to suggest that they do exist (as in the case of scripture or verifications by saintly people)
So my question to you is, if you have not directly seen (TV and media is a re-presentation), touched or licked th e president of america, does the president of america exist and does his powers of authority bear result.
Also on top of this, if you sent an ultimatum to the prseident ("Come here so I can see, touch and lick you) what do you think would be the response?


“ I don't see how since all you have to do to comply to this standard is have "If it feels good it must be good" - still won't stop the narcotic squad kicking down your door ”

Is it? Strange. I think it feels good to drink wine until I feel a bit sloshed. But I still don't do it since I know it's not good for me. Just because I do not believe in god does not mean that I live life with what you seem to perceive as being a wanton abandon. I do not do things to harm myself or others, no matter how good it may feel to do so. Atheists, like all mammals do have a notion of what is right and wrong. For example, a grazing animal will know either by instinct or by experience that not all greenery in the pasture is edible. Such a form of knowledge is not god given (because there is no god) but is classified as mere instinct or lesson learned from past mistakes if you will.

Ok so this is moving a bit away from your original statement ...
“ If in our actions we feel we are doing nothing wrong, then we aren't in our minds. ”

because now you are acknowledging the minds of others - so this vision of respecting the minds of others goes as far to entities that we perceive in our field of activities - since you readily admit that your perception does not innvolve god, it is understandable why don't work under the paradigm of god's authority - what this tells us nothing about is your level of perception - for instance a person, due to some mental impairment can be totaly oblivious to the existence of social authorities (for instance they go around with no clothes on - which will affect other peoples minds but not their own because they don't take into account other people).

On top of this there are very good reasons and clear scriptural statements why it is that god is not perceptable to everyone in the fashion that you demand he be. (just like there are very good reasons why everyone cannot directly perceive electrons and other branches of subtle knowledge).

So obviously you are applying an epistemological principle here so please tell us what it is.

“ I agree with you - until you have an understanding that god exists it wouldn't make much sense to follow his instructions, particularly if you felt it was in your inteersts to do otherwise - however my question is this - if god does exist, do you think your disobedience in ignorance would qualify for a complete redemption? ”


Disobedience to what? Who have I disobeyed? Redemption from what? An eternal hell that does not exist aside from in books and stories to scare people into behaving? I will not have an understanding of gods instructions because god does not exist. This is something that theists such as yourself need to realise. We do not live our lives in defiance of god. We live our lives knowing that there is no god. It is impossible for anyone to disobey or ignore something that simply does not exist.

Once again - if there is a conflict of axioms they will not be ressolved by opinions.
If you insist on a discussion based on a battle of wills I honestly don't kow what your proposal is, except that we both lead our lives as we want until we both drop dead and then see who laughs last


At the very least it doesn't require a discussion

 

[lightgigantic]

So I guess it's a choice between life from nothing, or life from matter.
Hmmm, tough choice

And it isn't ironic that to make a choice you have to rely on something (consciousness) that is non-existent under current material defintions?

 

[(Q)]

James RSo by your defintion science was never right and will never be right for as long as it progresses - interesting

Those are your words. Science freely admits that under its own method, its theories MUST have the capacity to be falsifiable, so that if they are wrong, they can be corrected, which in most cases is that of better accuracy as opposed to completely wrong.

Religion would never admit to being wrong although it has never been shown to be right, even minutely.

 

[lightgigantic]

Those are your words. Science freely admits that under its own method, its theories MUST have the capacity to be falsifiable, so that if they are wrong, they can be corrected, which in most cases is that of better accuracy as opposed to completely wrong.

Religion would never admit to being wrong although it has never been shown to be right, even minutely.

There is room for ironing out details in religion
-For instance god is accepted as the creator of the universe - how he created, why he created etc etc are all details

And such an idea that god created the universe does not inhibit empirical scientific investigation -

Inother words science with out a sense of the absolute is a waste of time - this is what I think is the essence of einsteins quote.

If you neglect that you are left with an absurd picture of working in a system that has scale but not size

 

[KennyJC]

-For instance god is accepted as the creator of the universe - how he created, why he created etc etc are all details

Wow, where is the evidence for this groundbreaking discovery? Oops, I forgot... faith.

And such an idea that god created the universe does not inhibit empirical scientific investigation -

It remains unworkable in science until evidence can be discovered.

Inother words science with out a sense of the absolute is a waste of time - this is what I think is the essence of einsteins quote.

If you neglect that you are left with an absurd picture of working in a system that has scale but not size

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It sounds as though you are saying that science must assume God exists to fill the gaps in our knowledge?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ -For instance god is accepted as the creator of the universe - how he created, why he created etc etc are all details ”



Wow, where is the evidence for this groundbreaking discovery? Oops, I forgot... faith.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
- einstein

“ And such an idea that god created the universe does not inhibit empirical scientific investigation - ”



It remains unworkable in science until evidence can be discovered.

einstein had a problem?
eccles had a problem?
townes had a problem?
penrose had a problem?
or is it kenny that has the problem?

“ Inother words science with out a sense of the absolute is a waste of time - this is what I think is the essence of einsteins quote.

If you neglect that you are left with an absurd picture of working in a system that has scale but not size ”



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It sounds as though you are saying that science must assume God exists to fill the gaps in our knowledge?

I am saying that there is no point of reference in the current axioms of science since they are relative only to the errors of the previous axioms they superceded

 

[KennyJC]

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
- einstein

I am interested as to why you continue to post these figurative quotes from Einstein. It doesn't even answer what I asked. You stated that it is accepted that God is the creator of the universe, whereupon I asked for evidence. You can paste quotes from Einstein or Jesus and it makes no effort to answer my question.

If you want to play the Einstein quote copout game I could do that in just about every discussion we have concerning your own notions of God. But I am not so insecure that I have to resort these baseless tactics to back up a point.

einstein had a problem?
eccles had a problem?
townes had a problem?
penrose had a problem?
or is it kenny that has the problem?

Do you mean scientists were often philisophical? Yes I agree.

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

I am interested as to why you continue to post these figurative quotes from Einstein.

Just as evidence that a person held as highly credible in the field of materialism can also entertain notions of transcendence without difficulty

It doesn't even answer what I asked. You stated that it is accepted that God is the creator of the universe, whereupon I asked for evidence.
You can paste quotes from Einstein or Jesus and it makes no effort to answer my question.

It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron

Do you mean scientists were often philisophical? Yes I agree.

They also saw that their scientific investigations strengthened their convictions of a transcenedental intelligence greater than their own that organizes the universe.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC



Just as evidence that a person held as highly credible in the field of materialism can also entertain notions of transcendence without difficulty

Einstein was a materialist though. Refute that if you will, it just means I will have to go find the quote. But then part of me feels embarrassed about having to paste the quotes of a single man, which is why I am confused at why theists wish to do so very often.

It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron

It is a belief that is subjective and emotionally generated. It is not evidence.

They also saw that their scientific investigations strengthened their convictions of a transcenedental intelligence greater than their own that organizes the universe.

Even if this is true, it demands a leap of faith... 'God did it'.

For the record, my one definition of God is a sentient creator of the universe. So people saying that the universe itself is intelligent and is God doesn't share the same meaning.

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic




Just as evidence that a person held as highly credible in the field of materialism can also entertain notions of transcendence without difficulty ”



Einstein was a materialist though. Refute that if you will, it just means I will have to go find the quote. But then part of me feels embarrassed about having to paste the quotes of a single man, which is why I am confused at why theists wish to do so very often.

looks like you will have to find the quote - even cris advocated that einstein was a pantheist
How many quotes from different scientists do you feel there needs to be before you start feeling embaressed for other reasons, namely when it becomes clear that intelligent peoplein the material sense of the word do not experience any difficulty (in fact they experience th e opposite) by entertaining the notion of a transcendental intelligence directing affairs in the universe

“ It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron ”



It is a belief that is subjective and emotionally generated. It is not evidence.

I know - but hopefully you will overcome your subjectivity one of these lifetimes

“ They also saw that their scientific investigations strengthened their convictions of a transcenedental intelligence greater than their own that organizes the universe. ”



Even if this is true, it demands a leap of faith... 'God did it'.

You seem to neglect that a leap of faith in the same dimensions is required to entertain the notion that life evolved from matter

For the record, my one definition of God is a sentient creator of the universe. So people saying that the universe itself is intelligent and is God doesn't share the same meaning.

its still a branch of theism, namely pantheism - it crops up in many monotheistic branches too

 

[(Q)]

You seem to neglect that a leap of faith in the same dimensions is required to entertain the notion that life evolved from matter

There are only so many threads one can cling to while dangling over the abyss. You must have achieved a state of anti-gravity as many of the threads you've clinged have long been broken.

Where did your god get all the matter in the universe from and how did he achieve making life from it?

 

[lightgigantic]

There are only so many threads one can cling to while dangling over the abyss. You must have achieved a state of anti-gravity as many of the threads you've clinged have long been broken.

Where did your god get all the matter in the universe from and how did he achieve making life from it?

These things are contingent on his existence - just like fire automatically emmanates heat and smoke - it doesn't have to "create" them - in fact the very notion of "fire" is dilineated by the qualities it emmanates.

In other words god has multiple potencies (the living entities being one, dull matter being another) that are eternal contingent qualties of his nature

 

[KennyJC]

looks like you will have to find the quote

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.

You will notice I never had to resort to pasting this quote when we were discussing the existence of a soul. No doubt if Einstein endorsed the notion of a soul, you would have been quick to paste the quote.

Since you brought up the subject of Einstein quotes, many similar quotes can be found on prayer, heaven, organised religion, scripture, etc... In fact the only thing that remains is his awe of the physical universe. I don't think you can put yourself in the same pigeon hole of a clear materialist.

To be honest it wouldn't matter if Einstein was a devout atheist or believed every word of the Bible to be true, it is the beliefs of one man. This does not equate to scientific consensus which is the most organised body of human knowledge which so far finds nothing to match the claims of theists all over the world, and in part supports the atheist viewpoint, that God simply isn't there.

 

[(Q)]

These things are contingent on his existence - just like fire automatically emmanates heat and smoke - it doesn't have to "create" them - in fact the very notion of "fire" is dilineated by the qualities it emmanates.

In other words god has multiple potencies (the living entities being one, dull matter being another) that are eternal contingent qualties of his nature

Ah, as I suspected, you have no idea, yet, consider actual explanations based on observation and evidence to be 'leaps of faith.'

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

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.

This says nothing about the universal intelligence of the universe - pantheism tends to outwardly reject or at least be be sketchy on the nature of the soul

You will notice I never had to resort to pasting this quote when we were discussing the existence of a soul. No doubt if Einstein endorsed the notion of a soul, you would have been quick to paste the quote.

the soul is not relevant to pantheism since it focuses more on the all pervasive nature of god

Since you brought up the subject of Einstein quotes, many similar quotes can be found on prayer, heaven, organised religion, scripture, etc... In fact the only thing that remains is his awe of the physical universe. I don't think you can put yourself in the same pigeon hole of a clear materialist.

einstein had reservations about the instituitions of religion but he clearly attributed some transcendent inteligence to the universe

To be honest it wouldn't matter if Einstein was a devout atheist or believed every word of the Bible to be true, it is the beliefs of one man.

its just a response to your claims that having a conviction about the nature of god indicates one is outof touch with the material reality - on the contrary there are numerous examples of scientific and philosophical persons who's conviction of a transcendant intelligence is strengthened by their material investigations

This does not equate to scientific consensus which is the most organised body of human knowledge which so far finds nothing to match the claims of theists all over the world, and in part supports the atheist viewpoint, that God simply isn't there.

generally the conclusion of such persons is that the axioms that science operates on are not properly sufficient to dilineate what they are seeing materially, what to speak of something transcendant

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah, as I suspected, you have no idea, yet, consider actual explanations based on observation and evidence to be 'leaps of faith.'

either that or you don't understand what I posted

lets take this back a step by asking you a q

How does a lemon tree produce citric acid?