Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

isn't "contradictory oxymoron" a redundance?

A contradictory oxymoron would be a word with an an additional and accurate modifier, thus nullifying the oxymoron.

Oh nonsense, it merely identifies the subcategory.
There is the pernicious oxymoron; obligate and facultative oxymorons;
actionable and tendentious oxynorons. The Philoxymoron is sometimes
encountered in the back alleys of Nagoya.

crackpot wrote:

Audie wrote:Speaking of fishing, you is thrashing about like a foul hooked alligator to get out of the clear implications of what you said:.

Dear groupie,

I'm sorry I insulted your Guru. Please accept my apology! I'm sure Einstein had lots of intelligent insight on God, auto mechanics and fine cuisine. Einstein was a very smart man and I would have my car fixed by him any day. I'm also certain that he was a world-class chef.

crackpot, Audie was pointing out the logical fallacy of your first statement
You seem to be missing all of his points entirely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

crackpot wrote:

Audie wrote:Speaking of fishing, you is thrashing about like a foul hooked alligator to get out of the clear implications of what you said:.

Dear groupie,

I'm sorry I insulted your Guru. Please accept my apology! I'm sure Einstein had lots of intelligent insight on God, auto mechanics and fine cuisine. Einstein was a very smart man and I would have my car fixed by him any day. I'm also certain that he was a world-class chef.

crackpot, Audie was pointing out the logical fallacy of your first statement
You seem to be missing all of his points entirely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

BeGood,

You missed the most important point. Audie is a she, not a he.

I doubt if the world will agree on Einstein's religion because I do not believe Einstein fully agreed on what he himself actually believed in. He was remarkably inconsistent when it came to belief in God.

However, he did say the following statements years ago:


"You may call me an agnostic..."

"I am not an Atheist."

"I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

"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 then says this from an interview in 1940:

"Only the Christian Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

And then he contradicts his previous statement on the word of God, saying the following quote, which is my favorite quote by Einstein:

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

I find it fascinating that Einstein claimed that he was not an atheist. Why is it that people who are not as smart as Einstein and certainly do not understand or grasp the incredible workings of the Universe as clearly as he did, would be so audacious as to claim they were atheists?

I wish Nietzsche were alive and on this forum today. As the hardest atheist who ever lived, I believe he would ask many serious questions to the new, soft atheists of today. Those who claim to be atheists should really read his books. At least Nietzsche was an honest atheist, which is what I really like about him. As he said...

"How can a person rationally justify any commitment to timeless values whatsoever without implicitly invoking God? They cannot."
Friedrich Nietzsche from his book, 'Beyond Good and Evil'

Nietzsche was smart enough to know that if modern life evolved on this planet from a mud puddle hundreds of millions of years ago, that you can never, ever, get morality of any form from that process. Period. And the only way you can get morality, is by the introduction of a moral, law giver.

And Nietzsche knew it.

And Nietzsche was correct, no matter how hard "evolutionary psychologists" try ( and fail) to prove otherwise.

PaulSacramento wrote:And Nietzsche was correct, no matter how hard "evolutionary psychologists" try ( and fail) to prove otherwise.

You better put that in quotation marks. What a silly thing to say.

Katabole wrote:
Nietzsche was smart enough to know that if modern life evolved on this planet from a mud puddle hundreds of millions of years ago, that you can never, ever, get morality of any form from that process. Period. And the only way you can get morality, is by the introduction of a moral, law giver.

And Nietzsche knew it.

Honestly, people in America. Or Oz.

You really think that this is proved by anything other than word-castles and
wishful thinking?

You see no trace whatever of even a precursor to human morality in any other creature?

I find it fascinating that Einstein claimed that he was not an atheist. Why is it that people who are not as smart as Einstein and certainly do not understand or grasp the incredible workings of the Universe as clearly as he did, would be so audacious as to claim they were atheists?

Maybe because our pre-historic tendency to belong to a group. Sometimes, being part of a group is what makes people proud. Which is, I think, the reason some people feel proud of being atheists/vegetarians/whatever and spend their lives trying to humilliate people who think differently. Which is...quite stupid, if you ask me. Kinda sicky, actually.

You see no trace whatever of even a precursor to human morality in any other creature?

I do. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I do. Also, some evolutionists claim that evolution ocasionally leaves stuff in animals' bodies that they don't really need, but since it doesn't kill them (like, maybe, laughter, on humans' case) and/or actually makes some of them survive better, it stays there and natural selection deals with eliminating the "others" who don't have that stuff.
And morality makes sense in terms of evolution; if you feel guilty for killing one of your species, you're less likely to do it. And if you don't kill your own species, it's easier for the species to survive. Not bad, huh?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:crackpot, Audie was pointing out the logical fallacy of your first statementYou seem to be missing all of his points entirely.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

re your YouTube clip: I don't have 18+ minutes of my time to Watch some guy tell me why we are smarter now than before.

Why don't you or Audie tell me where I was illogical. And as they say at weddings, "Speak up or shut up."

Einstein was either a deist or pantheist .
He definitely wasn't an atheist as he was quoted as before no angered at atheists and agnostic can ckaimibg him as one of their own and he definitely was neither .

http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einst ... eve-in-god

am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."[22]

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:And Nietzsche was correct, no matter how hard "evolutionary psychologists" try ( and fail) to prove otherwise.

You better put that in quotation marks. What a silly thing to say.

What is a silly thing to say Audie? "evolutionary psychology" ?
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain useful mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection.
Evolutionary psychology - Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evol ... hology.htm

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:And Nietzsche was correct, no matter how hard "evolutionary psychologists" try ( and fail) to prove otherwise.

You better put that in quotation marks. What a silly thing to say.

What is a silly thing to say Audie? "evolutionary psychology" ?
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain useful mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection.
Evolutionary psychology - Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evol ... hology.htm

Ok, I take it back, I didnt do my due diligence. There is such a thing.

Unrelated to whether N was correct in his assertion, tho.

crackpot wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:crackpot, Audie was pointing out the logical fallacy of your first statementYou seem to be missing all of his points entirely.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

re your YouTube clip: I don't have 18+ minutes of my time to Watch some guy tell me why we are smarter now than before.

Why don't you or Audie tell me where I was illogical. And as they say at weddings, "Speak up or shut up."

Audie wrote:
Speaking of fishing, you is thrashing about like a foul hooked alligator to get out of the clear implications of what you said:.

You never addressed that.

Did I say "illogical"? Tell me where I said that, or, ah, what was your charming phrase?

Audie wrote:

Katabole wrote:
Nietzsche was smart enough to know that if modern life evolved on this planet from a mud puddle hundreds of millions of years ago, that you can never, ever, get morality of any form from that process. Period. And the only way you can get morality, is by the introduction of a moral, law giver.

And Nietzsche knew it.

You see no trace whatever of even a precursor to human morality in any other creature?

Be so kind and give some examples, please?