Is there a GOD?

[2020hindsight]

If you look at the mechanisms and complexities for even a single cell organism to survive (eg respiration, photosynthesis/consumption of sustainance, elimination, procreation etc) it would seem rather absurd that an organism with such capabilities could spontaneously spring forth from some primordial cocktail of muck.

Just more waffle.

Cheers

Wayne
You say that it's absurd to refer to the origins (apparent miracle) of life as a spontaneous springing from primeval mud ....

1. Most people in the poll seem to think it's from "a random quirk of nature"
Or perhaps that's a typo -
maybe that's "a random quick of nature"
maybe "a random quickie of nature"?

2. We used to have coed mud wrestling when I was a student, and I'd be surprised if there weren't a few kids born as a result.

3. As someone said once "Everyone wonders whether it is possible to make life in a laboratory - hek it's easy, just give me an attractive laboratory assistant"

4. when I said most people in the poll think its random, (evolutionist), it's only by a short head, possibly in a photo finish, from those who think there's no question God exists and ( presumably) played a roll (assumption on my part - people in the first group may still believe in a non-interventionist God I guess - who simply set the ball rolling and sitting back as someone said watching us from his armchair, beer in hand, laughing at our antics -- possibly sending us a "task" like a cyclone to spice things up a bit - bit like Big Brother really)

5. This question is not for you so much as those who belong to the first group...

what shape is this god you know exists? does it have eyes? hands? etc

I notice for instance that Xenophane thinks of it as a spherical God - just wonder if it's more difficult to pray to something spherical , possibly without eyes, than a handsome anglosaxon aged gentleman, albeit badly in need of a haircut .

6. Obviously incidentally Mohammed looks like his followers - and it will be a long time before Arabs follow a Jew like Jesus, however great his teachings (two cents). "If horses could draw etc etc "

7. Of all my distant relations, first was the prodigal son
I get to exercise 10 trillion body cells, proto-the-zoan had one
Funny how fashions have shifted, proto you son-of-a-gun,
You didn't get to have one raw emotion, and I write strange ditties for fun

 

[Mousie]

Mousie


Why cannot this be as possible as all other seasons on the millions of other uninhabited planets---without the intervention of a God.Why cannot it be possible that other wonders not known to us on other planets and stars are just evolving without any God intevention and that our SUN will snuff out purely because it will burn its own fuel.(as an example of how everything will go on long after we as the human race and this discussion are forgotten).

I believe the following explains it. Even if it all started with a Big Bang things could not have just randomly fallen in place; the sheer orderliness and intricacy of every little detail tells me that much is quite impossible.

Just as science is meant to be a study as to how things work, these studies will, if done correctly and without bias, ultimately and unfailingly point to the intricacy and remarkableness of how things are. We could not have just existed out of thin air, nor could things past have. This remarkable excellence with which things are made alone points to a higher power at work; one which we cannot even begin to comprehend its brain power.

Things can't just exist and fall in place; they need something to move it. If you want to see your business get started, you go get it started; you don't sit and wait.

We humans are the superior beings in the universe (discounting aliens, I haven't seen any nor evidence of any so I don't know of any that exists). If we find it so difficult to get something started AND maintain it even for our own lifetimes what/who else can?

Why then do the seasons come and go? Who could have motivated the change in seasons? Who could have put those systems in place?

Maybe the "who" should have been "what", I hear you say. Well then, how does this "what" enable us to care about these questions as we gaze at things created by this "what"? A "what" is an object; a "who" is a person. How can a "what" make us feel with our heart how amazing the wind, the sun, and the moon and the stars are? How can a "what" make us love another person, if that "what" created us all? The "what" has got to have feelings to give us feelings. We couldn't give of something we don't already have.

SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...

I rest my case.

 

[moses]

Does God exist?

Where did the Universe come from?

The creation, cause or origin of the Universe (and thus the earth, life, consciousness and everything we know), is fundamentally unable to be determined by science, and therefore can only be known (or imagined) by faith.

For that matter, nothing can be known without an observer's perception, and therefore nothing can be known or imagined without faith. I think, therefore I am, is a statement of faith. Any physicist would agree with this.

The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy. Unfortunately this creates the never ending turtle question of where did God come from? By definition God is eternal and Uncreate, so technically the question is answered...but as such an answer can only be accepted in faith and remain unproven, we haven't really got anywhere!

OTOH....if we could test God, he wouldn't be God.

And besides, there are fundamental questions that cannot in principle ever be answered from within a system (such as the Universe) without information from outside of the system.

So, unless God reveals himself to the observer in a convincing way, the question of God's existence becomes a value judgment as to whether we believe life or the Universe has meaning, or design or purpose, or is in some sense just too good to be a fluke. Perhaps it is our sense of beauty, our ability to understand mathematics, and our ability to imagine ourselves outside of ourselves that is as good an indicator as anything that there is more to life and the Universe than mere matter and energy.

btw, Christians believe that God revealed himself in the man Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is an inspired book; therefore Christians believe that the Bible is a source of information from outside of the Universe and that it conveys information that could not have been sourced from within the Universe. But thats another story.

 

[Mousie]

The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy. Unfortunately this creates the never ending turtle question of where did God come from? By definition God is eternal and Uncreate, so technically the question is answered...but as such an answer can only be accepted in faith and remain unproven, we haven't really got anywhere!

Where did God come from? I don't really know. As long as God exists, that's good enough for me

OTOH....if we could test God, he wouldn't be God.

That you gotta seek God and find out why he'd still be God in spite of our testing

 

[wayneL]

God of some sort---define some sort.

Well we get into the field of belief and postulation here. Presuming for a moment there definitely IS a God, what IS God. I'll readily admit I have NFI so just for discussion:

Well there is the judeo/christian/muslim model. 'nuff said there as we all know that one.

Then there is the pantheistic or pantheistic like models. (see Dukey's post below.)

Among these is the concept of "Tao", which doesn't attempt to describe a God per se', but acknowledges... umm, let's call it spirituality. To quote the Tao on Tao.

Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.

Again along these lines is the concept as put forth by $20shoes, That everything is God, we are all merely God experiencing himself.

Then there are the various "New Age" models.

I could go on and there are several more.

Which is right? I don't know. None maybe. Certain ones ring true to me but acknowledge it could be a meme resurfacing. I just try to stay open and don't try to verbalize my own concept too much.

I think you fall well short limiting evolution to just the developement of our species.I encompass from beginning to infinety as evolution,we are just a consequence on THIS planet in THIS universe.Evolution isnt limited to this place of Muck.
Literally Billions of Mucks all capable of the same fluke in a similar form.
Is a God or our God exclusive to this spec of dust?
Seems the other Billions of specs are overlooked when God and his teachings are bought up.

I'll see your waffling and raise you a thought process.

Why cannot this be as possible as all other seasons on the millions of other uninhabited planets---without the intervention of a God.Why cannot it be possible that other wonders not known to us on other planets and stars are just evolving without any God intevention and that our SUN will snuff out purely because it will burn its own fuel.(as an example of how everything will go on long after we as the human race and this discussion are forgotten).

And an interesting thought process at that. Consideration of the universe as a whole certainly makes many arguments along these lines ridiculous. Certainly, why can there not be some life "evolving" elsewhere. Of course there can!

But it doesn't remove the core issue of the discussion at hand IMO, just broadens the parameters. Any life form if spontaneously generated in the beginning must still perform certain biological functions to survive and duplicate. That is the crux of my argument against a random occurrence... anywhere.

This begs the question, Did "God" snap his fingers (to default to the judeo/christian model for the sake of discussion) and... Shazam!? We have to acknowledge this where the Dawkinettes derive their difficulties with God concepts as it would require the suspension of the irrefutable physical laws of the universe as we know them. This would appear to be equally absurd.

As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.

Stalemate?

 

[constable]

Does God exist?
The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy.

Moses,(great name for a subject like this!) so once again should we rely on a god to fill the gaps in our science? Becuause we dont have the answers this proves there is a god? Im a bit miffed by this rationale!

 

[wayneL]

BTW

A cracking discussion going on here. So often these turn to sh!te. But this has been tops.

Cheers everyone.

 

[tech/a]

Any life form if spontaneously generated in the beginning must still perform certain biological functions to survive and duplicate.

The dinosaurs qualified until rendered extinct through no fault of their own.
Just imagine for a moment that that didnt occur and man did not evolve.

Where then God and religion.
It was not handed to us from the dinosaurs.

As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.

I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
Its happening all the time.

 

[wayneL]

I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
Its happening all the time.

I don't think evolution can be argued against either, merely the initiating process.

That life spontaneously generated from muck (and not even organic muck... well organic in the sense of containing carbon, but not in the sense of having previously contained life) is an article of faith as it cannot be proven or reproduced.

We must have a starting point for life to evolve from and this is where the problem occurs. Study what even a single cell bacteria must do to survive and duplicate and we have a problem as to how it kicked itself off in the very beginning.

 

[2020hindsight]

Interesting that at present almost 40% went for the full 'No god' option. - Thats higher than I thought. I too voted that way - but I'd like to qualify my position:
I presumed that by 'God' - Tech meant 'Conscious God as found in the Bible'.
I voted No - because I don't believe in that conscious creator-God...

But I am a Pantheist - which is someone who believes that 'Nature' or 'The Universe' are synonymous with 'God'. Many people who think they are atheists turn out to be Pantheists when they consider what it actually is.

Pantheists revere Nature as the driving force behind all of existence.

Other tenets include:
- Pantheist Nature/god - is not a conscious entity, who makes decisions and judgements about the world or 'good and evil'. Instead it can be seen as the laws of physics//chemistry/biology etc - working over aeons of time.

- All Things are One Thing (this is the ZEN bit). Everything is a part of this Nature-God and Nature-God IS everything. Including all people and living things - in fact everything in existence. AND all of it is sacred.

- NO church necessary - Just the majesty and wonder of Nature. - Famous Pantheists include Einstein, Gorbachev, Sagan, Steven Hawkings, Sitting Bull, SPinoza of course and many others. Anyway - thats where I'm at. I see no need to believe in the fear mongering biblical god - And totally agree that that Biblical god was made in mans image - not the other way round.
Pantheism.net ..... so hows that for freaky...??????????? Any takers ?????????

good on ya dukey
yep - reckon I'm a pantheist as well of the naturalist subsect (possibly classical in some respects (on the subject of blood cells for instance lol - see below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract 'god'.

Varieties of pantheism
This article distinguishes between three divergent groups of pantheists:

Classical pantheism, which is expressed in the immanent God of Kabalistic Judaism, Advaita Vedanta Sanatana Dharma, and Monism, generally viewing God in either a personal or cosmic manner.

Biblical pantheism, which is expressed in the writings of the Bible with the understanding of personification linguistics as a cultural communication idiom in Hebrew language. [Isa 55:12]

Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Baruch Spinoza {who may have been influenced by Biblical pantheism} and John Toland (who coined the term "pantheism"), as well as contemporary influences.

The vast majority of persons who can be identified as "pantheistic" are of the classical variety (such as Hindus, Sufis, Unitarians, Etc.), while most persons who self-identify as "pantheist" alone (rather than as members of another religion) are of the naturalistic variety. The division between the three "flavours" of pantheism are not entirely clear in all situations, and remains a source of some controversy in pantheist circles. Classical pantheists generally accept the religious doctrine that there is a spiritual basis to all reality, while naturalistic pantheists generally do not and thus see the world in somewhat atheistic terms. Confusion between the concepts of pantheism and atheism may be an ancient problem in linguistics. Rome referred to early Christians as Atheists, and the explanations of this semantic phenomenon vary, one of which references the confusion between these two concepts.


[edit] Methods of explanation
An oft-cited feature of pantheism is that each individual human, being part of the universe or nature, is part of God. One issue discussed by pantheists is how, if this is so, humans can have free will. In answer, the following analogy is sometimes given (particularly by classical pantheists): "you are to God as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." . The analogy further maintains that while a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (free will) between right and wrong (killing a bacterium, becoming malignant, or perhaps just doing nothing, among countless others), it likely has little conception of the greater being of which it is a part.

Another way to understand this relationship is through the Hindu phrase, tat tvam asi - "that thou art," wherein the human soul/self or Atman is understood to be the same as God or Brahman - only people do not realize it. In this Hindu context, they believe that one must be liberated through enlightenment (moksha) in order to experience and fully understand this relationship - the part becomes no longer disimilar from the whole.

Not all pantheists accept the idea of free will, with determinism being particularly widespread among naturalistic pantheists. Although individual interpretations of pantheism may suggest certain implications for the nature and existence of free will and/or determinism, pantheism itself does not include any requirement of belief either way. However, the issue is widely discussed, as it is in many other religions and philosophies.


[edit] Debate
Some critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence", "life" or "reality". Many pantheists reply that even if this is so, such a shift in the way we think about these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both existence and God.

Perhaps the most significant debate within the pantheistic community is about the nature of God. Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient God, and sees this God as uniting all true religions. Naturalistic pantheism believes in an unconscious, non-sentient universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense. [[mother nature ??]]

.... “Cosmotheism”, like the terms “pantheism”, “monotheism”, and “polytheism”, was not used in antiquity.
...
The viewpoints encompassed within the pantheistic community are necessarily diverse, but the central idea of the universe being an all-encompassing unity and the sanctity of both nature and its natural laws are found throughout. Some pantheists also posit a common purpose for nature and man, while others reject the idea of purpose and view existence as existing "for its own sake."

Interesting that Sitting Bull and Einstein were both pantheists, lol
I think I'm right in quoting him ..... during the deals over land during the disastrous Indian wars ( disastrous for the INdian anyway)

"Sell land? - one might as well sell the sun, and the rivers and the lakes, and the forests, and the wind and the air" (seriously paraphrased)
BTW, that quote was Sitting Bull, not Einstein
PS It may not even be Sitting Bull - I just remember seeing it in the Museum in St Louis about 30 years ago lol. (the one associated with the big arch that obviously inspired MacDonalds lol) - hence bound to be someone else, and completely different words.

 

[retroaugogo]

Well we get into the field of belief and postulation here. Presuming for a moment there definitely IS a God, what IS God. I'll readily admit I have NFI so just for discussion:

Well there is the judeo/christian/muslim model. 'nuff said there as we all know that one.

Then there is the pantheistic or pantheistic like models. (see Dukey's post below.)

Among these is the concept of "Tao", which doesn't attempt to describe a God per se', but acknowledges... umm, let's call it spirituality. To quote the Tao on Tao.

Again along these lines is the concept as put forth by $20shoes, That everything is God, we are all merely God experiencing himself.

Then there are the various "New Age" models.

I could go on and there are several more.

Which is right? I don't know.

As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.

Stalemate?

As with anything worthy there's always red herrings and cheap copies.

I know you're probably only navel gazing but if you are genuinely interested and you look hard and long enough the genuine article is fairly obvious.

There's no excuses really.

 

[The Mint Man]

BTW

A cracking discussion going on here. So often these turn to sh!te. But this has been tops.

Cheers everyone.

ditto that!
If bullmarket was still around this thread would have turned to **** on the very first page
Good thread tech

 

[retroaugogo]

Nice little article on Einstein.

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"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."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

 

[wayneL]

As with anything worthy there's always red herrings and cheap copies.

I know you're probably only navel gazing but if you are genuinely interested and you look hard and long enough the genuine article is fairly obvious.

There's no excuses really.

So what is the "genuine article"?

 

[stockGURU]

Nice little article on Einstein.

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"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."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

What colossal arrogance. Running down Einstein because he dared hold a different view. "Yes, he was a scientific genius but I know better when it comes to god because my holy book of choice says so...."

 

[Dukey]

good on ya dukey
yep - reckon I'm a pantheist as well of the naturalist subsect (possibly classical in some respects (on the subject of blood cells for instance lol - see below)

Interesting that Sitting Bull and Einstein were both pantheists, lol
I think I'm right in quoting him ..... during the deals over land during the disastrous Indian wars ( disastrous for the INdian anyway)

"Sell land? - one might as well sell the sun, and the rivers and the lakes, and the forests, and the wind and the air" (seriously paraphrased)
BTW, that quote was Sitting Bull, not Einstein
PS It may not even be Sitting Bull - I just remember seeing it in the Museum in St Louis about 30 years ago lol. (the one associated with the big arch that obviously inspired MacDonalds lol) - hence bound to be someone else, and completely different words.

Great thread peoples - most interesting reading various ideas on God and religion.

2020 - Great quote from Sitting Bull (or someone?) - I expect most American Indian's spirituality would fall within the realm of Pantheism - though probably one with a 'more shamanistic' bent.

I really think the 'Everything is God' concept of Pantheism (some folks say Nature or the Universe or Universal, some say Cosmos - but it's all the same) could potentially provide a bridge between religion and science - the main obstacle that must be overcome is peoples need to insist on an 'anthropomorphic' god. - that is a god who has human characteristics such as consciousness and human feelings etc..
Once you get past that and see the physical world as a result of timeless processes according to the laws of physics etc - then then you really do feel the same 'closeness' with God (ie Nature) the religious folks speak of. I feel the awesome power of Nature everytime I see the moon, or get dumped by a wave, or stop to inspect a 'perfectly imperfect' flower.
Pantheism also fosters a more realistic positioning of Humans WITHIN Nature as opposed to ABOVE or even AGAINST nature which is the philosophical position for Humans which tends to be borne out of standard religions. If we see ourselves as being 'part of sacred Nature', then it's simply a natural extension to want to protect and preserve Nature(God) to the extent possible.

As for some kind of life after death - I happily expect (I don't know - cause I havn't died... yet) that my continuance after death will take a number of forms.
1. will be in the form of my body being recycled back into Nature (ie God) and recycled forever more, through the cosmos, stars etc. (of course I'm talking extreme geological time here).
2. through my genes (presuming I have kids);
3. and also through my ideas, communications and actions which propagate from person to person, both directly and indirectly (ie via the internet! etc).

Hell... I could even become immortal (at least for the span of future human existence) by writing a best seller!!!! If guys like Plato and Einstein and yes - Sitting Bull don't qualify as immortal - then who does????????

The Wikipedia article mentions some different varieties of Pantheism - Most modern Pantheists (at least in the west) probably fall under 'Scientific Pantheism' - which obviously thinks of 'scientific' concepts/processes such as evolution as the means of development of this Nature/God of which we are all a part.

Anyway just some more thoughts on the Nature of God (pun DEFINITELY intended)
Hope I don't offend anyone with my word count this time...

 

[wayneL]

A post from another forum I found with regards to genuine articles and whatnot.

Amost 2 hours of substantiated verifable facts which totally expose the "forced belief system" and the fraudulent deceptions about the origins of modern religions. Detailing the supposed virgin births of krishna, mithra, osiris/horus- 16 in total prior to Jesus. The history of the supression of thought that has led too "holy wars", the inquisition, mass slaughter of the innocent and other well evidenced reprehensible acts by the so called righteous. You will be absolutly astounded too find out what ALL modern religions are based on.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6410112404402873027

I found it fascinating.

<EDIT> It looks as though this video has been taken down I'll try and find it elsewhere)

 

[Mousie]

recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God.

That's what I'd been saying all along; didn't know that Einstein held the same view!

What colossal arrogance. Running down Einstein because he dared hold a different view. "Yes, he was a scientific genius but I know better when it comes to god because my holy book of choice says so...."

However, what you decide to do after understanding Einstein's (and my) point is entirely up to you. The title of this thread is "Is there a GOD?" and my answer is emphatically YES. I'll leave it at that

 

[Wysiwyg]

Nice little article on Einstein.

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem


Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

Hi retro..incisive post from you.

The passage I highlighted is too broad for me to understand.The word universe is being used when I think that human being is what is meant.My reasoning .. the universe is perfect , it is human mind that is not perfect.

Other than that I think the post is a good case for god and christianity as an explanation of things.Definately convincing.

Do you know why A.Einstein was considered brilliant.Did he have very good recall of memory or were his thoughts new.

 

[Dukey]

Nice little article on Einstein.

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"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."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world .

Retro - I think the author is making some 'quantum leaps' of his own regarding Einsteins reasons for dismissing an anthropomorphic God - in the section marked in blue. Einstein had many reasons to 'disbelieve' - and those mentioned above - while completely valid in my view - weren't his only reasons.
Here a couple of direct quotes from the man himself which may serve to explain... from Einstein - Science and Religion website

Albert Einstein from the above website:
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of 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, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.
In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task…
This material was taken from the Secular Web at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#einstein
A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

””W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet””In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.​

No Will or Ought

The sense of the religious, which is released through the experience of potentially nearing a logical grasp of these deep-lying world relations, is … a feeling of awe and reverence for the manifest Reason which appears in reality. It does not lead to the assumption of a divine personality””a person who makes demands of us and takes an interest in our individual being. In this there is no Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being.

”” Found in Goldman, p. 33.​

I thoroughly recommend the Biography: 'Einstein - A Life' as a great read about Uncle Albert. Not sure of the Author...