Scientific search for what is God.

[McCulloch]

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.

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

[marco]

I do not really like Einstein as I see him as an immoral little creep ...

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. 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."

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.

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.

[marco]

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.

[H.sapiens]

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.

So you force this interpretation, and so be it.

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.

I dislike the quote because it is, as has been shown, a quote mine style lie, and I dislike liars.

[marco]

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.

Moderator Warning


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.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 79 by JP Cusick]

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.

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.

Regards

[JP Cusick]

I dislike the quote because it is, as has been shown, a quote mine style lie, and I dislike liars.

I do not like lies or liars either, and when I make that quote then I mean it as truly as I can.

The quote is just an opinion - it is not a commandment written in stone.

[Rufus21]

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.

That 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.

Einstein gets credit for the quote - but he does not control the meaning of the words.

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?

[OnceConvinced]

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.

[H.sapiens]

I dislike the quote because it is, as has been shown, a quote mine style lie, and I dislike liars.

I do not like lies or liars either, ...

Then why do you engage in quote mining?

[JP Cusick]

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.

I agree - and when I post the quote then it has nothing to do with whatever Einstein meant or intended.

Let us leave out the fallibility or the scrutiny of Einstein from the quote.

"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."

My understanding is that Einstein had a purely scientific view of God based only on science and physics.

To reject the Bible is fine - to reject religion is fine - but those do not include the rejecting of a God.



----------------------------------------------------------

Then why do you engage in quote mining?

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.

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?