this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
And THAT'S a perfect example of the problem of the danger of sloppily blending Bible-based theological concepts, with ideas taken from an ancient book written 2,500 yrs ago and mixing them with science
adam
before i respond to the rest of your post, i'm making note of the fact that you are assuming that MY example is based purely on Bible -based theological concepts.
this assumption is wrong. Also, the Bible is not the only source of theological concepts, not is it the oldest.
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
How can science be a god?
cofty
the science (or knowledge) of anything can take an evident importance in the mind of an individual.
once this science (chemistry for Kate, for example) becomes sufficiently understood, it becomes enhanced (for example, perfect, beautiful, infallible).
once a concept is fully embraced by the mind in this manner, it has become very real and very evident. it can now be 'personified', or given 'god-like' attributes.
remember that man is the 'image' of God, and vice versa, God is created in the image of man (personification).
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
cofty
In which case the concept of god can be discarded and nothing has been lost.
cofty
hmm...budhists would argue that 'nirvana' would be lost without a clear understanding of 'God'.
on the other hand, you can also say that 'you don't know you've lost something if you never knew you had it'.
in each case, the capacity of the mind has dictated whether something has been gained, or lost.
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
kate
Ok everyone I will define God. I believe in the Chemistry God. I worship Chemistry and love it and see it everywhere. But I am not going to define God for Einstien he defined God himself already.
This definition is subject to change, as I want to be open minded.
Kate,
you've hit the nail on the head. (Einstein did too).
Defining God should be the simplest thing possible, because 'God' can and IS anything you want it to be.
Being really OPEN MINDED has allowed you to see 'God' in chemistry (a perfect and beautiful science). A 'God' that can be all things is trully all-powerfull, trully omnipresent, trully eternal. Einstein referred to perfect physics as God, as well as kindness and other positive and constructive concepts.
many times (almost all the time) atheists asking for proof of god's existence from those who believe that god exists.
perhaps at times they should prove he doesn't exist.
any taker?
cofty
i think if you go back far enough in history of man, you'll find two people trying to make sense of lightning and rain, or the moon and stars, and saying 'well i'll be, there must be a big one of us up there crying. We'll call him God'.
many years later two scientists are explaining the process of evaporation and cloud formation.
in this sense religion and science do reconcile.
many times (almost all the time) atheists asking for proof of god's existence from those who believe that god exists.
perhaps at times they should prove he doesn't exist.
any taker?
qcmr
All gods described by human language, poetry, art, religious writing, thought and all other communication (i.e. the mind is the ONLY place where gods are described since the environment does not bear any recognised signature or message from of any deity) can easily be superceded by another thought process (Zeus loses to Xenu) and be outwitted by logical and rational enquiry (Christ loses to Gervais).
this is very correct, right on point.
i think it is important to add this -
man at one point or at one time could not possibly comprehend or explain/teach matters of physics, mathematics or science in absolute terms and concepts like we can today (thanks technology!!)
thus, at that time man HAD to resort to explaining these things in ways that could be understood (enter God and Gods reflecting man's personality and tendency).
We now have science, physics, mathematics easily and absolutely explained. there is nothing abstract about these 'ideas' now. Man's intellect has moved on beyond angry gods with deadly thunderbolts.
but the ideas are really one and the same, explained by the same species (man) in different times in history.
in this sense, religion and science trully reconcile. we all believe in the same thing, we just interpret it differently.
many times (almost all the time) atheists asking for proof of god's existence from those who believe that god exists.
perhaps at times they should prove he doesn't exist.
any taker?
onthewayout
Nothing seems to change with those so closed minded.
Yes, indeed!!! Epicurius has confirmed what God isn't. Either God isn't omnipotent or else He isn't worthy of being called "God." 'Why call him God' calls for the action to STOP WORSHIPPING that one. It does indeed put the ball in our court, but if you can see that, why can't you see that this very logic is proof enough for even you that a certain, commonly believed in, God does not exist?
onthewayout
lol, you believe that STOP WORSHIPPING was the extent of his call to action?!
how about, what can man DO to stop or prevent evil from happening??
many times (almost all the time) atheists asking for proof of god's existence from those who believe that god exists.
perhaps at times they should prove he doesn't exist.
any taker?
EPICURUS
the last question in Epicurius' piece above is the key to understanding his 'riddle'. It also solves the 'problem of evil'.
By process of elimination, Epicurius has confirmed what God isn't. By asking 'why call him God', Epicurius asks US (man) to take action accordingly.
In other words, the ball is in our court, and it is up to man to 'decipher' the problem of evil, and act accordingly.
the question is, what will MAN do?
many times (almost all the time) atheists asking for proof of god's existence from those who believe that god exists.
perhaps at times they should prove he doesn't exist.
any taker?
onthewayout
Man-oh-man! Do you ever need to start your own spiritual journey
the existence of evil, PROVES that evil exists.
just because i can show you i have an apple, does not mean that i do not have an orange.
many times (almost all the time) atheists asking for proof of god's existence from those who believe that god exists.
perhaps at times they should prove he doesn't exist.
any taker?
Cofty,
As evidence, if not proof, I would offer the hiddenness of god and the problem of evil.
how is the problem of evil proof of God's inexistence?
