What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?JP Cusick wrote:I agree that the Big-Bang gives us very little insight into what is God, and the creation event is only a physical reality with very little to teach about the spiritual side.
It would be better if modern science would search to discover what is God but the people are so intimidated by the reality of God that science can not even talk about it let alone do the research.
The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.
Scientific search for what is God.
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Scientific search for what is God.
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Re: Scientific search for what is God.
Post #81A cat of course may look at a king. Most folk, thankfully, admire Einstein's contribution to science and are not interested in his fallibility as a human. When he stated the following he did not throw it down from a mountain on stone tablets. It is his honest - and for me correct - view of religion.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
It is difficult to see how superstition could have helped Einstein. Given that the bulk of humanity busied itself with some sort of religion, it was decent of Einstein to say that science needs its pious practitioners. He would have laughed loudly at the suggestion that his brilliant work came from occult sources rather than inspiration and perspiration. He had the humility to see himself not as a giant but as a busy little ant, acknowledging that there may be greater concepts beyond him, albeit nothing that resembles the fictions of the Bible.JP Cusick wrote:
My view is that Einstein did use his philosophy (his belief in God) as one of his basis for his physics, and that is what gave Einstein such a huge advantage over others in physics who did not.
Post #82
Neatras wrote:
Hey man, maybe if we give him a chance to make an actual argument, he'll do something... like repeating the quote and adding nothing else to the discussion. I mean, this is just based on the last 12 times it happened.
But let's step back and see what Cusick is trying to accomplish... I'm not sure, but the larger effect is that if we let his senseless repetition of a single line ad infinitum actually constitute an argument, we dumb down the debate platform as a whole.
Moderator Comment
Let's not take others as subjects of an uncivil exchange of views, however helpful you believe the advice to be. We are scientifically searching for God, not flaws in the presentation of fellow debaters; so keep to the theme.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Re: Scientific search for what is God.
Post #83I dislike the quote because it is, as has been shown, a quote mine style lie, and I dislike liars.JP Cusick wrote:So you force this interpretation, and so be it.H.sapiens wrote: I use Einstein as an authority only for physics not for philosophy so please retract or be branded a liar.
The quote is used not to accurately convey Einstein's view on religion, thus it is quote mining, something that is a form of lying.
I do not really like Einstein as I see him as an immoral little creep, but in other regards he was right on target.
My view is that Einstein did use his philosophy (his belief in God) as one of his basis for his physics, and that is what gave Einstein such a huge advantage over others in physics who did not.
In that regard it does make Einstein as an authority when he rightly declared the sentence.
His quote applies to religion and to philosophy and to science and to physics and that is not a lie to me.
I say you dislike the quote because it tramples on your own disadvantage.
The words are true regardless of your sensitivities.
Science is lame without religion = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Religion is blind without science = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Post #84
Moderator WarningH.sapiens wrote:
Please learn to use google as most people dislike performing trivial tasks for you that as an adult your should be able to do for yourself.
This comment is uncivil. You are not required to offer patronising advice to other posters.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Scientific search for what is God.
Post #85[Replying to post 79 by JP Cusick]
Regards
Even if it had not been said by Einstein and even if it would have been from an anonymous writer, the sentence is valuable and priceless, I agree.The words are true regardless of your sensitivities.
Science is lame without religion = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Religion is blind without science = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Regards
Re: Scientific search for what is God.
Post #86I do not like lies or liars either, and when I make that quote then I mean it as truly as I can.H.sapiens wrote: I dislike the quote because it is, as has been shown, a quote mine style lie, and I dislike liars.
The quote is just an opinion - it is not a commandment written in stone.
SIGNATURE:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
Re: Scientific search for what is God.
Post #87That is only true if you ignore their true (intended) meaning and reinterpret them to mean what you want them to mean. That seems to be a very common tactic of theists. They seem more interested in supporting an opinion than discovering the truth.JP Cusick wrote: You have been told this before = that it does not matter whatever Einstein meant because the words speak for their self and the words have their own meaning.
Then who does? If we are free to discard the true meaning of words, who's meaning should we accept? Why? Who has authority to change the meaning of words whenever they want?JP Cusick wrote: Einstein gets credit for the quote - but he does not control the meaning of the words.
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #88
H.sapiens wrote:
Like most thiests you just don't get it.
Moderator Comment
Blanket statements against members, like this one here, are best left unsaid. Let your argument stand without belittling your opponents.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
Re: Scientific search for what is God.
Post #90I agree - and when I post the quote then it has nothing to do with whatever Einstein meant or intended.marco wrote: A cat of course may look at a king. Most folk, thankfully, admire Einstein's contribution to science and are not interested in his fallibility as a human.
Let us leave out the fallibility or the scrutiny of Einstein from the quote.
My understanding is that Einstein had a purely scientific view of God based only on science and physics.marco wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
To reject the Bible is fine - to reject religion is fine - but those do not include the rejecting of a God.
----------------------------------------------------------
I had to look up the words "quote mining" to see if they had any real meaning as I never heard of such a thing before - just FYI.H.sapiens wrote: Then why do you engage in quote mining?
So the reason I quote it as I do is because I am preaching the words literally to mean exactly what they say without any added interpretation or intent.
Why do not you just say that you do not agree with what he said?
SIGNATURE:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian: