Does Anyone In This 'forum' Believe In God?

[Craytonic]

You have long posts with 10-15 points from various subjects all intermixed together. If you made one point on one subject instead of a treatise on your beliefs it would be easier. Sorry if that is a personal attack, but it is just too time consuming to sort out your post and write a reply to each point. It is the nature of the medium (posts) that they are better suited for one small point each. I attack your discussion style because it makes it virtually impossible to attack your "points at hand." Perhaps it is me.

You obviously missed the point of the quote. Our understanding of the world changes and grows over time. Just look at the progression of our understanding of the atom. The scientists of the future will likely look at ours as a world of fools, just as we look similarly of that of our predecessors - even though progress has been made. Those that have it "all explained" eventually have to eat their words, even relativity may be thrown out the window (and some researchers believe that will be soon). It requires the proper world view and perspective to realize these things.

Einstein DID belive in God fyi

and a reasonable person could say he was religious (google it!) He specifically disavowed being an athiest on numerous occasions (again, google is your friend).

[Pugwash]

Einstein DID belive in God fyi

and a reasonable person could say he was religious (google it!) He specifically disavowed being an athiest on numerous occasions (again, google is your friend).

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - Albert Einstein, 1929, in answer to the question "Do you believe in God?"

"a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation...In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." - Albert Einstein, 1940

"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein, 1926

[Craytonic]

"I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

since we are quoting

[KB]

C'mon guy's how about a wrap, I can see this spinning out of control if it goes on my longer..........and hey 'It's our Birthday'

Ken

[Craytonic]

Happy birthday!

Kill it and we all eat spam to celebrate

or bacon!

[eddhead]

"I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

since we are quoting

Here is the full pasage on Einstien and God and Religon from Wilkepedia

He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors.", however "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" and there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies... science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.". He makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." While unequivocally not believing in a personal God,^[49] Einstein still considered himself Jewish by heritage^[50] and saying "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew."^[51]

It is clear from this passage and the one that follows that Einstein did not believe in God as he/she is described in this thread. The notion of beliveing in the "rational nature of reality" is a reference to Spinoza a founder of Rational thought who equated God with nature. Spinoza's God is not at all like the God in the tradional sense. In fact the difference between Spinoza's views Jewish Dogma were significant enough to have him shunned in Jewish circles.

Here is a quote from Wilkepedia

"He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part."

As you can see, this is not exactly God as we know it in the traditional sense. To me this is more a view that represents the Universe as a single organism comprised of infinite micro-organisms. (so now I am an ameoba!). In other words, we are connected by virtue of being part of the same organism.. and to the extent our actions impact that organism they impact us all.

[eddhead]

C'mon guy's how about a wrap, I can see this spinning out of control if it goes on my longer..........and hey 'It's our Birthday'

Ken

sorry ken, didn't mean to step on your toes.

[Craytonic]

Here is the full pasage on Einstien and God and Religon from Wilkepedia

He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors.", however "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" and there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies... science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.". He makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." While unequivocally not believing in a personal God,^[49] Einstein still considered himself Jewish by heritage^[50] and saying "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew."^[51]

It is clear from this passage and the one that follows that Einstein did not believe in God as he/she is described in this thread. The notion of beliveing in the "rational nature of reality" is a reference to Spinoza a founder of Rational thought who equated God with nature. Spinoza's God is not at all like the God in the tradional sense. In fact the difference between Spinoza's views Jewish Dogma were significant enough to have him shunned in Jewish circles.

Here is a quote from Wilkepedia

"He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part."

As you can see, this is not exactly God as we know it in the traditional sense. To me this is more a view that represents the Universe as a single organism comprised of infinite micro-organisms. (so now I am an ameoba!). In other words, we are connected by virtue of being part of the same organism.. and to the extent our actions impact that organism they impact us all.

Humm in regards to the question "does anyone in this forum believe in God" it would still be yes for einstein (in the idea of a prime mover). I believe the debate was existence and not characteristics? Sadly people kept confusing the two.

[eddhead]

Humm in regards to the question "does anyone in this forum believe in God" it would still be yes for einstein (in the idea of a prime mover). I believe the debate was existence and not characteristics? Sadly people kept confusing the two.

I am sorry but I do not agree. I do not see how you can read Einstein as believing in the existence of God.. not the God who created Man in his own image. The "God" of Einstein (and Spinoza) is more of an essence.. the energy that flows through everything in the Universe and connects us... a notion of universal conscousness.. .Nature.. but not a creator, not a prime mover..not a knower of all that has happened is happening, and will happen.

But that is as far as I will go with this.,.As I said previously, I do believe in God so for me taking the other position is pointless. Besides, I do not want to get Ken mad at me.

[ratchpot]

Einstein DID belive in God fyi

and a reasonable person could say he was religious (google it!) He specifically disavowed being an athiest on numerous occasions (again, google is your friend).

Uh oh.... that is a myth that keeps being perpetuated, unfortunately. To quote Einstein himself:

"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."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

When Einstein clarified his beliefs in statements such as the above, it provoked tremendous uproar and criticism from many people within the Jewish and Roman Catholic communities. Considering how much abuse he had to put up with, it's a real shame that people are still spreading mistruths that he believed in a supernatural god.

[Craytonic]

I was not addressing which God einstein believes in, but it is certain he believed in _A_ God (the topic, hello?). Note that he included "personal" before God to distinguish from not believing in God at all, and said many times that he was not an athiest and believed in a creator/prime mover.

You are both skipping the question of "is there a God" (the topic) to try and answer "What would God be like." These are two separate questions, do not answer question 1 with question 2.

[Craytonic]

As this thing winds up I think the major problem was that most people chose to answer the question they wanted to answer (religion, history, politics) instead of the qustion asked - skipping the do you believe in God / does God exist.

[Roland]

Ken, please allow me one more reply in this thread, having posted only once before.

I was very surprised that this thread suddenly turned back to the original question and became much more of a scientific debate. There was some good things earlier in here when the discussion of univerals came up even if I personally am not interested in reviving the debate between nominalists and realists.

Spinoza's pantheism is not so far away from the Christian understanding of God. There are many groups in Christianity and some may be close to Spinoza. The transcendentalists were influenced by him and they were close to the Unitarians, some of them actually Unitarian ministers. Goethe also showed great admiration for Spinoza.

The harmony or order in Nature is mentioned as the fifth way of demonstrating the likelihood if God's existence in the Summa Theologiae of Admin Aquinas. That is the one that convinces me more than those of the immovable mover or the first cause mentioned earlier. When I look it evolution, for example, I find the explanation of random changes not very convincing in explaining the big changes during evolution. Maybe when Science progresses there will be good explanations, but for the moment I find the directing influence of a Creator the most convincing explanation.

[ratchpot]

I was not addressing which God einstein believes in, but it is certain he believed in _A_ God (the topic, hello?). Note that he included "personal" before God to distinguish from not believing in God at all, and said many times that he was not an athiest and believed in a creator/prime mover.

You clearly misunderstand the the concept of religious metaphor. "Einsteinian religion" (which is nothing to do with believing in any supernatural being) is the opposite of conventional religion. You also fail to provide any evidence to back up your statements (let alone credible evidence). Your reliance on "google it" just doesn't cut it. I am comfortable in the fact that impartial obvservers will see through the falsities.

[olivia]

" I AM BECOME DEATH " - which is the right sentiment for this thread.

[Guest TTK]

So, what about all the bloody flies then.....?

[Pugwash]

So, what about all the bloody flies then.....?

They all go to hell.

[Guest TTK]

How can that be.....a fundamental Islamist blows himself up......killing 100 innocents at the same time......and he goes to heaven and gets to podger 40 virgins or doe eyed boys......living on ambrosia and nectar......yet a fly which doesn't intentionally harm anyone.....( I mean....a little vomit on your food in order to soften it up for digesting.....or laying it's eggs on your decaying body.....hardly counts as an act of aggression......it's just natural.....).....yet it gets sent straight to hell.......c'mon......and you call him a benevolent deity.....!

[hambone]

:nopity:

[Pugwash]

How can that be.....a fundamental Islamist blows himself up......killing 100 innocents at the same time......and he goes to heaven and gets to podger 40 virgins or doe eyed boys......living on ambrosia and nectar......yet a fly which doesn't intentionally harm anyone.....( I mean....a little vomit on your food in order to soften it up for digesting.....or laying it's eggs on your decaying body.....hardly counts as an act of aggression......it's just natural.....).....yet it gets sent straight to hell.......c'mon......and you call him a benevolent deity.....!

Ah, well, what I meant was that the flies go to Fly Heaven, but it's one of our hells. Imagine a world full of flies and [censored] (probably bird [censored], like you said before) and you've got Fly Heaven aka BirdShit Hell.

[Guest TTK]

I see....so the flies are lied to....they think their going to heaven....but in reality...it's human hell.......so that must be the case for all the nasties in the world....like scorpions / snakes et al.....but the pandas and the baby seals and icky bicky likkle dogs etc....where do they go....another kind human hell......and what about the Muslims....?

[eddhead]

You clearly misunderstand the the concept of religious metaphor. "

That is a very clear way of conveying the meaning of "Spinoza's God", i.e. in terms of a religous metaphor. Very clearly, represents Einstein's perspective.

[ekhunter]

I've always favored the 'dark side' of the Force.

[HauteHippie]

So, how come the Australian Aborigines didn't have a concept of Jehova until they got presented with it along with alcohol and syphilis?

It seems to be a general rule that aborigines/natives aren't very deep thinkers. I can't think of anything useful invented by the North American natives, for example. Even their main industry, indian gaming, was invented by the white man.

[olivia]

Oh..my...we're off again.