I'm quite familiar with Einsteins views on the subject, thanks.
Einstein was an interesting man, but i guess we can conclude that einstein believed in a god
This is incorrect. Einstein was religious about the cosmos as such a magnificent place that it produced a feeling of awe & incredulity - it's present in your own quotes. Einstein uses the word 'god', but he doesn't mean god in the way that you think of god.
I share some of those feelings, though I don't feel the need sully the magnificence of the universe by polluting it with the word 'god'.
You may think of the Adam & Eve story as ridiculous
Remember, there wern't many species of animals back then because more hadn't evolved yet from EVOLUTION.
You atheists claim the bible is contradictory, but look at science. Science states that matter can not be created or destroyed.
But then you go on saying the big bang happened. Where did that tiny point of density come from? How could it exist if it was never created?
And then you support teaching evolution in schools without creationism. I thought you atheists whined about christians being closed minded. But then we ask you to allow students to understand there are other theories, and let them make up their own minds. But oh no.
You say you respect peoples beliefs, yet you call christians idiots, and call us disillusioned. And then theres the matter of the bible. Everyone knows the bible is not to be taken literaly. It is a detailed acount of life *and* geography back then.
And what of morals? There are no immoral religions, just immoral people. It just so happens fear makes some people not commit inhumane acts.
ok even if god exists, how come noone has seen him?? fine he could be invisible but does he help us in any ways? this is not a movie when a baby is born and doomsday stops!who knos maybe god is just in thing sewer in some random ppls crap
You may think of the Adam & Eve story as ridiculous
I do.
You atheists claim the bible is contradictory, but look at science. Science states that matter can not be created or destroyed. But then you go on saying the big bang happened. Where did that tiny point of density come from? How could it exist if it was never created?
We don't know yet, we're still figuring the universe out. Just because scientists are still working on an answer doesn't mean that religion is anywhere near even a decent explanation (and it's not).
And then you support teaching evolution in schools without creationism. I thought you atheists whined about christians being closed minded. But then we ask you to allow students to understand there are other theories, and let them make up their own minds. But oh no.
Separation of church and state. Public schools should never teach any religious content in a mandatory manner. You take math & geography in school right? Well, that's science too - just like evolution.
You say you respect peoples beliefs, yet you call christians idiots, and call us disillusioned. And then theres the matter of the bible. Everyone knows the bible is not to be taken literaly. It is a detailed acount of life *and* geography back then.
I don't remember saying I respected religious beliefs. The other two.. yeah, I'd bet money I've said those before. 'Everyone' knows the bible is not to be taken literally? You couldn't be more wrong. And if it's allegorical, how can it be a detailed account of life and geography?
It just so happens fear makes some people not commit inhumane acts.
Right.. because fear of the death penalty or fear of going to jail for the rest of your life or fear of going to hell stops people from murdering & waging war. I cite.. all of human history as my evidence - and most of them were hugely religious.
But then you go on saying the big bang happened. Where did that tiny point of density come from? How could it exist if it was never created?
*sigh* I have to explain this so much. . . .
Time and space are linked, right? Relativity? Well, if all space was condensed there, then it would not have to have an origin because our methods of time and causation would be inapplicable, and therefore would not apply - since there wouldn't be any time outside of the point, principles of time i.e. origin or end would not apply. This is something that also somewhat supports the existence of a god in conjunction with the Big Bang - this being would have to have no beginning because there's no time, right?
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this 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." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Well athiest get over because according to some news station, In which was not The Onion, that 2012 will happen, Ill never get to make it to the age of 25 according to that....So Just in case Grab a bible and get saved because Youll be stuck on earth....sorry for bad grammar and spellings, Im angry
And then you support teaching evolution in schools without creationism. I thought you atheists whined about christians being closed minded. But then we ask you to allow students to understand there are other theories, and let them make up their own minds. But oh no.
The reason why creationism shouldn't be allowed in school is because it has no credible sources. Believe it or not but if you can't even begin to back it up with something solid then it is leaving students illequiped for the future. It's just that simple. I mean, I believe in ghosts and I have seen a few, but I don't expect anybody to believe me because I don't have it on film and they weren't there. In the same way how can you expect students to have to learn creationism going purely by the word of believers?
Einstein having a belief in a god, personal or not, does not equate proof. He was a genius, and he made stunning discoveries, but his personal views on god/religion are just that - personal. There are other scientists (and while they're in the minority) who believe in god, personal or in the form of a creator; but they do so in way fully knowing that it is a leap of faith, and not any kind of evidence that they are basing those beliefs on.
Try thinking for yourself and asking valid questions.
I'm not sure I believe in god but HiddenDistance, if you accept that the bible is stories created for the value of th emorals they represent, and tha alone then science doesn't disprove god at all really. The fact is because we don't know where the dense mass that was there before the big bang came from neither disprove the other. The only difference is that there is proof in the values behind science. There is none behind god. but still, the point is that posting with the hints of spite behind what you say especially in a circle jerk of an argument like the god one is as in alot of ways just as silly as that uther dude saying how sad all us athiests are.
I'm not sure I believe in god but HiddenDistance, if you accept that the bible is stories created for the value of th emorals they represent, and tha alone then science doesn't disprove god at all really. The fact is because we don't know where the dense mass that was there before the big bang came from neither disprove the other. The only difference is that there is proof in the values behind science. There is none behind god. but still, the point is that posting with the hints of spite behind what you say especially in a circle jerk of an argument like the god one is as in alot of ways just as silly as that uther dude saying how sad all us athiests are.
This is part of the problem. Why should I accept the bible as just stories, or as literally interpreted? Even the people following the bible are undecided on which direction they should go in. If the religion has no idea, how in any way is that something that is going to convince me?
Science doesn't disprove god, but again, with burden of proof, it's not a scientist or skeptics responsibility to disprove anything for which there is no basis or foundation for support in the first place. If there was proof for a god (and there isn't), then it would be the job of a skeptic or another scientist to find holes in the evidence, or find an alternative theory which worked better. Since there isn't though.. there's nothing for me to disprove.
I would hope I'm not just 'hinting' spite - I'm intentionally advertising it.
The only reason why these arguments go in circles is because believers refuse to admit they've completely lost the argument. They have faith - that's something I can't argue, but if you want to come into a debate setting, where things like evidence, proof & a point of view that makes sense are primary to winning, if you have a point of view that is based on faith you are going to lose. So, resulting from this refusal to concede, they often circle around on various poor arguments and never address the core issue: There is no proof of god.
If they want to keep coming back to it and have the same point after point refuted, that's fine with me.
But what I'm saying is you arguing with them is equally foolish because you know that no matter how badly you prove that they have nothing to back themselves up they keep coming back anyway. So knowing they wont back down makes you just as vital to the whole "circle jerk" effect as they are. Yet you're trying to take the higher ground so to speak. If you really want to show you're above them then just ask for the evidence and don't reply if they just repeat themselves, that's the point I'm making.
God only reveals himself in the spiritual world-or heaven-and obviously he does not show himself in this world. It can't be argued that God does not exist because there is no way to prove that he doesn't. Then again, it can not be proven that he does exist either. Because we can not remember what it is like to be dead, let alone come back to life, we can not determine if there is or is not an afterlife.
Many people think that the Big Bang theory disrupts the whole "God created Earth" theory. The big bang is not evidence that God did not creat earth, only evidence that God did not creat Earth from nothing. Instead, God can be said to have created the big bang in which Earth was created. Science does not prove God not to exist, but that everything is natural, and what happens naturally is either coincidence or God's intervention.
You can beleive in God because there is lack of evidence that he does not exist.
or
You can beleive that God does not exist in lack of evidence that he does exist.
Though death will be the only answer to this question, I think that debating or thinking about why God does or does not exist is important because it keeps you thinking. To not question God is to accept whatever life you were born into and to live not by what you believe but in those around you and what they believe.
