Evidence for God from Science

Sometimes it seems really bizarre that a man who passed away not that long ago, when there were already quite developed forms of registers, that the registers are so contradictory. Even considering that people change their minds as the live (see Anthony Flew).

We keep receiving data from tons of links (trying to?) turn the tables regarding Einstein's belief. There was that link which talked about a card Einstein wrote near his death stating that he didn't believe in a god (quite a scary story, by the way. Too bad I don't know where the link is...). Then there's this link, http://www.techinsider.io/god-does-not- ... ng-2015-11, which apparently tries to explain some naive - or not - religious people who choose an argument towards their beliefs, cling and look no further, that when Einstein said "Goes does not play dice with the universe" or something, he didn't mean God as a conscious, intelligent being, but as a metaphor for the laws of physics (like I usually say, the "rules", which I believe are the supreme force in all the existence).

Also, Einstein has been called a deist, an agnostic, a pantheist, a theist and who knows what else. I also doesn't help that mr. Deem's article on Einstein (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... n.html#n03), despite good, conveniently gives us no source on the paragraph where he states why Einsteins didn't believe in the god of the Bible (which is a personal god). All this can lead us to think that mr. Deem's article on Einstein is no more than an ordinary brick in the wall of this self-deafeating debate.

And I wonder...come on, people, Einstein didn't pass away THAT long ago! We had reasonable registers already! Can't we all just find Einstein's last speech regarding God - the last is usually the best, since it's usually the time in which the person has the most knowledge on his/her entire life -, see what it states and finally settle this question? It allow us to rest for a while, at least...

Thoughts?

Einstein was a physicist. He knew about physics. His thoughts on God or auto mechanics or cooking are likely on the same level as mine on these subjects: simple and largely ignorant.

That people care about what Einstein said on subjects besides physics probably has more to do with his celebrity status than any knowledge he had beyond physics.

Whatever Einstein may have said about God or auto mechanics or cooking is of no real value because he was a dingbat in these areas.

crackpot wrote:Einstein was a physicist. He knew about physics. His thoughts on God or auto mechanics or cooking are likely on the same level as mine on these subjects: simple and largely ignorant.

That people care about what Einstein said on subjects besides physics probably has more to do with his celebrity status than any knowledge he had beyond physics.

Whatever Einstein may have said about God or auto mechanics or cooking is of no real value because he was a dingbat in these areas.

By extension then..the unqualified Christians who hold to the reality of the flood or how evolution is false..
you will agree that their opinions are without value, and that they are dingbats in those areas?

We always need to remember that being an expert in ONE field does NOT equate to being an expert in another.
That said, all are entitled to their opinion and that was Einsteins.
There are many physicists that ARE believers and many that are NOT.
There are many Christians that believe evolution to be correct and many that do not.
As long as an opinion is an INFORMED one, then, at least it is just that, informed.
The issue is disagreement or lack of belief without correct information.

Einstein believed in the "god of the clocks" - the impersonal force that keeps things running. Because he recognized that the beginning of all physical things required a cause of great intelligence and ability. But as for that being a PERSONAL God, one Whom has visited us, died for us, will return, Whom invites interaction and relationship - nah, THAT God, he did not believe in.

Audie wrote:By extension then..the unqualified Christians who hold to the reality of the flood or how evolution is false..you will agree that their opinions are without value, and that they are dingbats in those areas?

You are reaching. Or fishing...Dingbats believe something to be true because their guru says it's so. Einstein has no credibility in theology or auto mechanics or cuisine. Whatever he said on these matters is BS.

Hence, whatever Einstein said about gods is not to be taken seriously. Unless you're one of his groupies...

crackpot wrote:

Audie wrote:By extension then..the unqualified Christians who hold to the reality of the flood or how evolution is false..you will agree that their opinions are without value, and that they are dingbats in those areas?

You are reaching. Or fishing...Dingbats believe something to be true because their guru says it's so. Einstein has no credibility in theology or auto mechanics or cuisine. Whatever he said on these matters is BS.

Hence, whatever Einstein said about gods is not to be taken seriously. Unless you're one of his groupies...

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


Whatever Einstein may have said about God or auto mechanics or cooking is of no real value because he was a dingbat in these areas.

PaulSacramento wrote:We always need to remember that being an expert in ONE field does NOT equate to being an expert in another.
That said, all are entitled to their opinion and that was Einsteins.
There are many physicists that ARE believers and many that are NOT.
There are many Christians that believe evolution to be correct and many that do not.
As long as an opinion is an INFORMED one, then, at least it is just that, informed.
The issue is disagreement or lack of belief without correct information.

Sure, but there is no such thing as an informed belief in a world wide flood.
Its like a contradictory oxymoron.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We always need to remember that being an expert in ONE field does NOT equate to being an expert in another.
That said, all are entitled to their opinion and that was Einsteins.
There are many physicists that ARE believers and many that are NOT.
There are many Christians that believe evolution to be correct and many that do not.
As long as an opinion is an INFORMED one, then, at least it is just that, informed.
The issue is disagreement or lack of belief without correct information.

Sure, but there is no such thing as an informed belief in a world wide flood.
Its like a contradictory oxymoron.

Well... as a person that does NOt believe in a world wide flood and sees it clearly stated in genesis that the flood was NOT world wide, all I can say is that believing in a global flood is being misinformed not uninformed.

That people care about what Einstein said on subjects besides physics probably has more to do with his celebrity status than any knowledge he had beyond physics.

Not that much; I believe it has to do with that thing of Einstein having been one of the most brilliant human beings ever. I mean...if I had to choose only one human in human History in order to tell what the "truth" is, I would choose Einstein.

But as for that being a PERSONAL God, one Whom has visited us, died for us, will return, Whom invites interaction and relationship - nah, THAT God, he did not believe in.

We "know" that; it's written on mr. Deem's article. That still doesn't really specificy whether he was a theist, an agnostic, a pantheist, etc...which is a shame.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "contradictory oxymoron" a redundance?

isn't "contradictory oxymoron" a redundance?

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

MBPrata wrote:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "contradictory oxymoron" a redundance?

Id refer to it as a redundification. Others may not.

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 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.

Sorry I insulted the alligators.

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.