Does God exist?

[InfiniteNow]

You got a lot of time on your hands infinite or are you just practicing your typing skills?

 

I was enjoying a fine cigar and some scotch as the sun set. I had my lappie with me, and it seemed a good place to compose a more thorough response. :)

 

 

 

I like that, C1ay. There is zero evidence that god is anything more than an ambiguously defined 3 letter word. Indeed. :)

[InfiniteNow]

What a chicken **** reply to the question.

 

For someone who repeatedly admonishes others for being rude or offensive, you sure aren't leading by example. :)

 

I'm starting to sense that opinions are only right if they match your own, and that approaches to questions are only acceptable if they provide the answers you want.

[nutronjon]

Pyrotex said,

 

No, it is not an error.

Einstein himself spoke for himself. That takes precedent.

The other quote is by a third party, and is merely that person's interpretation, which cannot trump Einstein's own words.

 

Here are some more Einstein quotes. I like the second one best, because it is in agreement with what I have been saying.

 

Einstein Quotes About God

Einstein Says

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." [pg. 153, Calaprice, Quotable Einstein]

 

"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929; [pg.147, Calaprice]. (Spinoza believed the more one studies and understands the universe the better one understands God)

 

"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." [pg. 58, Mayer, Bite-size Einstein]

 

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg. 152 Calaprice]

 

"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." or sometimes quoted as "God does not play dice with the universe." [pg. 56, Mayer]

 

"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." [Albert Einstein, The World as I See It American Institute of Physics Online]

 

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests." [pg.153 Calaprice]

 

"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."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

 

"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 admiration 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."

[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

 

"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind." [pg. 56 Mayer]

 

"The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior." ["Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein Online]

 

"The relativity principle in connection with the basic Maxwellian equations demands that the mass should be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body; light transfers mass. With radium there should be a noticeable diminution of mass. The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path - that I cannot know." [Letter to Conrad Habicht in 1905, pg. 196 Folsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography]

[Boerseun]

Come on. This thread is about whether God exist or not, not about Einstein's opinion of the matter. Besides, Einstein was a physicist, not a theologian. I fail to see why his opinion should sway the matter either way.

 

The existence of God can only be tested via cold logic. And He/She/It fails that test miserably, regardless of the amount of quotes you sling around.

 

So - all particpants to this thread, back to the topic at hand, please:

 

Does God Exist?

[nutronjon]

I think Einstein's opinion about the existence of God is an excellent one to present here, and I was not the first to quote him. He is a highly respected man of science, who spoke of God as I do.

 

Einstien and Spinoza spoke of a God as I speak of a God, and such thoughts did not originate in my mind. What separates us is not which of us right or wrong, but our literacy and subjects of reading. I am not giving you my ideas, but those of respected men.

 

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

 

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, 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'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

[Boerseun]

Oh well, if you insist: (my bold)

 

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

 

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

 

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith. Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.

[nutronjon]

Here is another respected man of science who argues God exist:

 

wzzm13.com | Grand Rapids, MI | Physicist defends evolution and God

 

Till, 68, a retired physicist from Spring Lake, is trying to debunk literal biblical interpretations of the world's creation.

 

"Why are these issues producing so much anxiety right now? Because our concept of God as a supernatural power is deeply embedded in our lives as Americans," Till said this week.

 

"Scientists are raising all sorts of new questions about the natural world, and, when we do that, we make people very anxious," Van Till said. "One of the scientific positions that is making people very nervous right now is the atheistic arguments from scientists ... who say that there isn't any room left in the natural world for God."

 

That's not Van Till's position. One reason he is becoming a popular speaker is that he stakes out an intriguing middle ground. He defends widely held scientific theories like evolution, but he also argues that God played a profound role in setting creation in motion. He calls this a "God-imbued" approach

 

It dawned on me that this thread is unnecessarily devoid of the scientific opinion that God does exist. Must I be the only person who presents this side, or might someone else do a little searching, and provide the arguments coming from science that God does exist? Being well read, is an advantage to making good argument.

[Boerseun]

It dawned on me that this thread is unnecessarily devoid of the scientific opinion that God does exist.

There is no scientific foundation to the belief in God. Science is the study of Nature. God is supernatural. Science has absolutely no opinion on the matter, except saying that the possibility of the existence of God (or any other deity) is vanishingly small. That's why this thread is devoid of scientific support for the existence of God.

Must I be the only person who presents this side,

If you so choose.

or might someone else do a little searching, and provide the arguments coming from science that God does exist?

Once again, that'll be a long search delivering scant and pitiful results. There are no arguments from science that proves, or even supports, the possibility of the existence of God. A bunch of bible-thumpers were so unhappy with that particular state of affairs, that they invented a whole new field of pseudoscience called "Intelligent Design", simply because nothing else in Science allowed for their belief in God. Intelligent Design have, however, been put to the test and have been laughed out of the Hallowed Halls of Science, because it attempts to assign scientific validity to something which is, by its very nature, unscientific.

Being well read, is an advantage to making good argument.

Being well read, you should be aware of the fact that Science cannot probe the supernatural, by definition, and therefore cannot be used in support thereof.

[nutronjon]

Oh well, if you insist: (my bold)

 

In Einstein's own words, he was not an athiest. I have been shocked by the difficulty of these threads. Those who insist on arguing God does not exist, are also insisting that the only definition of God is the biblical God of Abraham. There is a general agreement that the bibilical God of Abraham is not a good definition of truth, however, this is not the only definition of God. It was not how Cicero understood God when he spoke of studying nature and inferring something about God. Deism, rejected the mythical God of the bible, but accepted the existence of God, and claimed it is by studying science we can know of God. Scientist today are making the same argument.

 

Before Christianity was, stoicism, and the claim that God is material. This is the star dust, that heat/energy that came into being with the Big Bang. It is the prime mover. I am not saying without question, that this is the true. I am saying this is a legitimate argument, and until we have the argument, we do not have grounds for a decision. Why argue God is the heat/energy that came into being with the Big Bang? To explore the possibility as best as we can. We must not be as the men of the church who prevented discussion of issues of which they did not approve. To know truth, we must ask questions. That is the way of Hellenism. :)

[nutronjon]

There is no scientific foundation to the belief in God. Science is the study of Nature. God is supernatural. Science has absolutely no opinion on the matter, except saying that the possibility of the existence of God (or any other deity) is vanishingly small. That's why this thread is devoid of scientific support for the existence of God.

 

If you so choose.

 

Once again, that'll be a long search delivering scant and pitiful results. There are no arguments from science that proves, or even supports, the possibility of the existence of God. A bunch of bible-thumpers were so unhappy with that particular state of affairs, that they invented a whole new field of pseudoscience called "Intelligent Design", simply because nothing else in Science allowed for their belief in God. Intelligent Design have, however, been put to the test and have been laughed out of the Hallowed Halls of Science, because it attempts to assign scientific validity to something which is, by its very nature, unscientific.

 

Being well read, you should be aware of the fact that Science cannot probe the supernatural, by definition, and therefore cannot be used in support thereof.

 

You are not reading through my post are you? God does not have to be supernatural. Being capable of reading, you should get, I have said again and again, that we study nature, and from this can infer something about God. The nature of God is nature. :) There is nothing supernatural about this.

[Boerseun]

You are not reading through my post are you? God does not have to be supernatural. Being capable of reading, you should get, I have said again and again, that we study nature, and from this can infer something about God. The nature of God is nature. :) There is nothing supernatural about this.

God is supernatural. If God is not supernatural, then He is natural, or, part of nature. If God is part of nature, then He is like a rock, a stone, a bird, a tree - a perfectly normal everyday thing which we can probe and test, and He will be subject to those very same laws of nature that the theists hold He created in the first place. If God is not supernatural, but part of nature, He loses his special "Godnessness" and won't be God anymore.

 

I fail to see what "God" you're talking about. You're clearly not talking about the "God" that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and hosts of other connected and non-connected religions talk about. They assign the property of "Almightyness" to God, which, by its very nature, will also remove God from the realm of the natural to the realm of that which transcends nature, or, the supernatural.

 

It's fruitless holding a discussion with you about the nature of God if we're talking about two different Gods. So, pick your poison: What "God" are you talking about?

[modest]

You are not reading through my post are you? God does not have to be supernatural. Being capable of reading, you should get, I have said again and again, that we study nature, and from this can infer something about God. The nature of God is nature. :) There is nothing supernatural about this.

 

God [imath]=[/imath] Supernatural

Nature [imath]=[/imath] Natural

Supernatural [imath]\neq[/imath] Natural

Nature [imath]\neq[/imath] God

 

otherwise you've either lost your definition of God or supernatural. A natural God that's exactly synonymous with nature isn't a God at all, it's... nature. So your argument is illogical. I understand your reason for making it. You think it would be a step in the right direction for religious people who believe in an Abrahamic god to think of god as nature. And, you might be right about that. But, you missed your audience completely. It would make more sense for you to give your argument toward those religious people if you honestly believe it would help society for them to listen to you. The fact that it's an illogical argument won't as much bother them. Shouldn't that be the target of your argument?

 

~modest

[C1ay]

I think Einstein's opinion about the existence of God is an excellent one to present here, and I was not the first to quote him. He is a highly respected man of science, who spoke of God as I do.

 

Einstien and Spinoza spoke of a God as I speak of a God, and such thoughts did not originate in my mind. What separates us is not which of us right or wrong, but our literacy and subjects of reading. I am not giving you my ideas, but those of respected men.

 

Do you realize that opinions and ideas are not evidence of anything?

 

Forget not that Einstein also said, "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." - Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[C1ay]

It dawned on me that this thread is unnecessarily devoid of the scientific opinion that God does exist. Must I be the only person who presents this side, or might someone else do a little searching, and provide the arguments coming from science that God does exist? Being well read, is an advantage to making good argument.

 

Because science demands testable, verifiable evidence and there is no such evidence that God exists, none, zero, zip, nada....

[ughaibu]

Why argue God is the heat/energy that came into being with the Big Bang? To explore the possibility as best as we can

The problem with this is that it doesn't mean anything. Heat and energy is heat and energy, unless god is something other or more than this and until you state your conjecture as to what god might be, there are no possibilities to explore.

[InfiniteNow]

[REASON]

You are not reading through my post are you? God does not have to be supernatural. Being capable of reading, you should get, I have said again and again, that we study nature, and from this can infer something about God. The nature of God is nature. :tongue: There is nothing supernatural about this.

 

And from my first response to you regarding this assertion of yours I ask you to explain what the significance is of defining God as nature, and you have yet to reply.

 

It's always the same, "by studying nature, we can infer something about God."

 

What?

 

By studying matter we can infer that God is made of tiny particles.

By studying motion we can infer that God moves.

By studying rocks we can infer that God is hard.

By studying gases and liquids we can infer that God is fluid.

By studying evolution we can infer that God changes over time.

By studying energy we can infer that God is conserved and only changes form.

 

etc., etc, etc.

 

What does it mean scientifically to label these things about nature God. It has been asked over and over and over again.

 

You don't have an answer. Do you know why?

 

There isn't one.

 

God only exists as a personal consideration.