Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

jem · Apr 28, 2014

stu said:
There always is more, that's all you do. Paste and troll to draw faulty conclusions which you never address. This is where you paste and troll, troll and paste.

piezoe · Apr 28, 2014

Lucrum said:
You might want to tell him. Since he emphatically stated on more than one occasion that he was NOT an atheist.

Or maybe you're implying Einstein didn't know the difference?

More or less. Everything you read about his views on the existence of a God indicate that he was, in reality, an atheist. He apparently did not recognize that. It is true that he said, "I am not an atheist", but this is inconsistent with his expressed views.

He avoided the word God in expressing his personal viewpoint, preferring the word "spirit" instead. He said, "Every one 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, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. 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."

Boston's Cardinal O'Connell said: "I seriously doubt that Einstein himself really knows what he is driving at. The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism."

The Cardinal's doubts proved to be unfounded, because Einstein's speculation about time and space proved correct. It was Einstein's "befogged" concept of a "spirit vastly superior to man," and consistent failure to identify that "spirit" with "God" that gives him away as an atheist.

Bertrand Russell professed to be an agnostic his entire adult life, but on his deathbed he recognized that he was actually an atheist. Einstein never expressed a belief in God, always skirting the issue, but seems never to have realized that he, like Russell, was actually an atheist.

Lucrum · Apr 28, 2014

piezoe said:
More or less. Everything you read about his views on the existence of a God indicate that he was, in reality, an atheist. He apparently did not recognize that. It is true that he said, "I am not an atheist", but this is inconsistent with his expressed views.

He avoided the word God in expressing his personal viewpoint, preferring the word "spirit" instead. He said, "Every one 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, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. 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."

Boston's Cardinal O'Connell said: "I seriously doubt that Einstein himself really knows what he is driving at. The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism."

The Cardinal's doubts proved to be unfounded, because Einstein's speculation about time and space proved correct. It was Einstein's "befogged" concept of a "spirit vastly superior to man," and consistent failure to identify that "spirit" with "God" that gives him away as an atheist.

Bertrand Russell professed to be an agnostic his entire adult life, but on his deathbed he recognized that he was actually an atheist. Einstein never expressed a belief in God, always skirting the issue, but seems never to have realized that he, like Russell, was actually an atheist.

I don't know pie hole. While I don't actually care as much as I might have implied.
I am trying to see your point here. But when Einstein himself specifically states repeatedly in no uncertain terms that he's not an atheist. I have a hard time buying your argument.

jem · Apr 28, 2014

this is some very interesting rhetoric... you are calling on a cardinal to decide whether Einstein is an atheist or not instead of going with the words of Einstein.

That is an interesting reverse appeal to authority / sort of third party strawman.

Frankly I don't care if Einstein is an atheist or not... but when perhaps the smartest physicist of all time... says the laws of physics indicate a spirit to anyone who studies it ... and then 50 years later all the physicists in the world realize the universe is extremely fine tuned... I think you are actually arguing for evidence of a Creator.

Secondly since when did believing in a spirit make one an atheist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion" and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954, which later became his book Ideas and Opinions in 1955.[38] The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior. It rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.[38] He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."[39] He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."[39]

piezoe said:
More or less. Everything you read about his views on the existence of a God indicate that he was, in reality, an atheist. He apparently did not recognize that. It is true that he said, "I am not an atheist", but this is inconsistent with his expressed views.

He avoided the word God in expressing his personal viewpoint, preferring the word "spirit" instead. He said, "Every one 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, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. 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."

Boston's Cardinal O'Connell said: "I seriously doubt that Einstein himself really knows what he is driving at. The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism."

The Cardinal's doubts proved to be unfounded, because Einstein's speculation about time and space proved correct. It was Einstein's "befogged" concept of a "spirit vastly superior to man," and consistent failure to identify that "spirit" with "God" that gives him away as an atheist.

Bertrand Russell professed to be an agnostic his entire adult life, but on his deathbed he recognized that he was actually an atheist. Einstein never expressed a belief in God, always skirting the issue, but seems never to have realized that he, like Russell, was actually an atheist.

stu · Apr 29, 2014

jem said:
Susskind speaks of the fine tuning best... at 5 minutes. that is not cutting and pasting you troll. among the other constants the cc is tuned to 123 decimal places.

speaking of faulty statements... these are outright lies stu conjures up to support his atheist creed.

Stu said;

"The cosmological constant is unknown. If you understood anything about the subject you'd understand that much.
Susskind is being no more precise than Albert Einstein who entered the factor (Lambada) in his gravitational equation for the cosmological constant. Einstein had the constant at implied zero. Susskind has it at an infinitesimally higher positive. A tiny fraction off of zero.

Susskind states he is not being precise. He says so. He forewords all with it appears or there is an appearance...

No one knows yet what the value is. Susskind arrives at it via string theory, which you stated is nothing but speculation. So then is the suggested cosmological constant at 120 decimal places from zero speculative , being derived from speculative string theory... ."

pfft, well you'd better start calling one of those people you describe as "a great minds of science" and "a smartest guy in the world", liar too then.

"There is a constant called the "cosmological constant", which if I didn't know anything I would make an estimate of what its magnitude would be just on the basis of guess work from what I know about the laws of nature. The correct value is less than that estimated value by something like 120 orders of magnitude. That looks like some kind of fine tuning. And we don't know. It may be that that number is simply zero, and it's zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn't fine tuned. It's also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn't imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life."

Steven Weinberg

The cosmological constant, that is estimated based on limited information, is what Susskind et al are referring to. It is in fact all they can refer to. If you knew anything about all this you'd know that much.. But you're so over eager to hammer a God in everywhere , the actual position is of no interest to you and will be why you're closed minded on the whole subject, unable to reasonably address the dishonest conclusions you draw.

As a matter of interest Weinberg is describing a Universe, not a multiverse, where the laws of nature may differ within it so widely, the question of probability doesn't even arise. But that would be of no interest to you would it, unless you could deviate some part of it toward a deity.

piezoe · Apr 29, 2014

Lucrum said:
I don't know pie hole. While I don't actually care as much as I might have implied.
I am trying to see your point here. But when Einstein himself specifically states repeatedly in no uncertain terms that he's not an atheist. I have a hard time buying your argument.

Yes, naturally, that's reasonable. I didn't think he was an atheist either until I delved into his few written comments regarding his views on religion. He clearly was an independent thinker when it came to religion, but it is also now clear, to me anyway, that his personal views on religion did not include anything like a conventional belief in the existence of a God in man's image as embodied in the Christian religion.

Einstein was famously wrong about several scientific matters, none more profoundly than is inability to accept the quantum mechanics, particularly the insistence of its proponents that by the act of observing one affects that which is being observed. He was uncomfortable with the concept of irresolvable uncertainty in physics as embodied by the Heisenberg principle. He referred to himself as a "believing" physicist, yet when one examines what he believed in it does not resemble in the least he himself referred to as a religiously naive belief in God.

In any case, none of this is very important. It is only because of his brilliant insights that we are more interested than otherwise in his religious views. When a person delves into these beliefs both the believer and the atheist find much to disappoint. It seems he extended his penchant for independent thinking not just to physics but to religion as well. Obviously, he sincerely wanted to believe in a higher power, and was convinced that he did, but never recognized that he was held hostage to his belief in strict causality which allowed no room for the supernatural, and thus no room for the God of the religiously "naive."

jem · Apr 29, 2014

That is like getting a 1491 quote from Columbus in which he said yeah... its possible we could just fall of the world.

that is funny and a bit diseased. You such a fraud that you would do anything to support your extreme atheism. how low will you go you troll.
you are now bringing up pre confirmation and pre discovery quotes of the cosmological constant to support you stupid lie?

stu said:
pfft, well you'd better start calling one of those people you describe as "a great minds of science" and "a smartest guy in the world", liar too then.

"There is a constant called the "cosmological constant", which if I didn't know anything I would make an estimate of what its magnitude would be just on the basis of guess work from what I know about the laws of nature. The correct value is less than that estimated value by something like 120 orders of magnitude. That looks like some kind of fine tuning. And we don't know. It may be that that number is simply zero, and it's zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn't fine tuned. It's also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn't imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life."

Steven Weinberg

The cosmological constant, that is estimated based on limited information, is what Susskind et al are referring to. It is in fact all they can refer to. If you knew anything about all this you'd know that much.. But you're so over eager to hammer a God in everywhere , the actual position is of no interest to you and will be why you're closed minded on the whole subject, unable to reasonably address the dishonest conclusions you draw.

As a matter of interest Weinberg is describing a Universe, not a multiverse, where the laws of nature may differ within it so widely, the question of probability doesn't even arise. But that would be of no interest to you would it, unless you could deviate some part of it toward a deity.

jem · Apr 29, 2014

Instead of presuming you have the intellect, experience or knowledge to know what einstein wanted to believe, why not presume he was open and objective? The hallmarks of his thinking?

why not take him for his word?

"He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."[39]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...lbert_Einstein

piezoe said:
Yes, naturally, that's reasonable. I didn't think he was an atheist either until I delved into his few written comments regarding his views on religion. He clearly was an independent thinker when it came to religion, but it is also now clear, to me anyway, that his personal views on religion did not include anything like a conventional belief in the existence of a God in man's image as embodied in the Christian religion.

Einstein was famously wrong about several scientific matters, none more profoundly than is inability to accept the quantum mechanics, particularly the insistence of its proponents that by the act of observing one affects that which is being observed. He was uncomfortable with the concept of irresolvable uncertainty in physics as embodied by the Heisenberg principle. He referred to himself as a "believing" physicist, yet when one examines what he believed in it does not resemble in the least he himself referred to as a religiously naive belief in God.

In any case, none of this is very important. It is only because of his brilliant insights that we are more interested than otherwise in his religious views. When a person delves into these beliefs both the believer and the atheist find much to disappoint. It seems he extended his penchant for independent thinking not just to physics but to religion as well. Obviously, he sincerely wanted to believe in a higher power, and was convinced that he did, but never recognized that he was held hostage to his belief in strict causality which allowed no room for the supernatural, and thus no room for the God of the religiously "naive."

Lucrum · Apr 29, 2014

jem said:
Instead of presuming you have the intellect, experience or knowledge to know what einstein wanted to believe, why not presume he was open and objective? The hallmarks of his thinking?

why not take him for his word?

That sums up well what I was thinking.

CaptainObvious · Apr 29, 2014

jem said:
Instead of presuming you have the intellect, experience or knowledge to know what einstein wanted to believe, why not presume he was open and objective? The hallmarks of his thinking?

why not take him for his word?

QUOTE]

That takes and open mind and some humility which is what every athiest lacks. It's all "settled science" don't ya' know. Opinion is now fact in the new world of science turned political activism. No real scientist would ever make such a absurd claim as to know for certain what is currently unknowable.