Well it isn't bad science as of now. The Christian concept of a creator is verifiable but not falsifiable. The concept of a multiverse is verifiable, but we don't know yet whether the universe has limits, therefore we don't know whether the concept is falsifiable. Science requires falsifiability.
Believing in God is a belief and we know it.
Not having a belief in God or having no position is Agnostic.
Saying you know there is no creator is the same as saying you believe in random chance. Its a faith based position to take. It is also just about by definition emotional.
Exactly, one should take him for his words. Einstein's "God" is clearly not a deity. I concluded, based on his words rather then his proclamation that he was not an atheist, that he was, in fact, an atheist. Of course I am using the standard definition of atheist. But of course our opinions differ.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
You might benefit from looking up the standard definitions of Deity, Agnosticism, and Atheisim. If, to you, for example, your belief in "a spirit" is inseparable from belief in a supernatural deity, then by the standard definitions, you are a theist. However, while the definition of spirit can incorporate and embody the religious concept of a holy spirit or supernatural deity, it often does not.
It is pointless to discuss such matters without first agreeing on definitions.
It is the same as Popper's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
You are so wrong in your understanding of this CO. Saying "maybe so" to every crazy thought that comes along is not being open minded it's being foolish. Atheist is simply not believing in the absurd. You wouldn't make the same argument for people who flatly didn't believe in leprechauns. I flatly don't believe in leprechauns, god, a civilization living in the earths center all for the same reason, it's absurd.
I stand by that comment. Atheists are saying they are certain that not only there is no God, they take it a step further an claim there cannot be a creator. Therefore, if you're an Atheist your mind is not open to the possibilities of something other than your belief. To be that certain about something so obviously unknowable at this time is the definition of no humility.
Would that be like saying "maybe so" to a crazy idea like, oh say, once upon a time there was nothing, absolutely nothing, not even space. Then, for no apparent reason something appeared. Something appeared from nothing. Then, for no apparent reason the something from nothing thingy exploded and the universe was born. This is not absurd?
Your theory ignores the very same question that you pin on the creationists, which is who created God? Ok, who or what, or even why, was the something created from nothing, and what was there the split second before the something from nothing? In the end, as any reasonable person can see, one mans absurdity is another mans belief. Being as objective as I can, the whole damn thing seems absurd regardless of the theory. It is, at this moment at time, beyond human comprehension for something so massive as the universe to be defined with certainty. So spectacular as to leave every true scientist in awe at the new things we discover, only a true zealot would think they could explain it all without question while denying another to put their theory forth.