Did you know Albert Einstein actually believed in God (509)
Sampe1967Black River, Saint Elizabeth Jamaica56 Threads 3 Polls 628 PostsIuchi_Zien: If that experiment can be repeated exactly and produce the same results over and over again then that experiment has more validity than my 'experience' and that is your problem you are saying your 'experience' is somehow more relevant than a repeatable experiment. What it actually proves is that you are hiding under a blindfold in ignorance.
OK I prefer it that way------ This thread is Archived ------
It says in the Iliad that lightning is javelins of energy thrown down to earth by Zeus. Lightning exist, javelins exist, therefore Zeus exists. This is the kind of argument I hear over and over again from Christians as proof of Gods existence.
Everything has to be created, therefore something had to create the big bang, therefore God exists? If EVERYTHING has to be created who created God? If God wasn't created he simply exists why can't the same be applied to the big bang? Arguments have to have self-consistancy or they are not arguments they are statements. If EVERYTHING has to have a creator God has to have a creator and the creator of God has to have a creator etc, etc. I have yet to hear one good argument for the existence of God and I doubt I ever will.
Everything has to be created, therefore something had to create the big bang, therefore God exists? If EVERYTHING has to be created who created God? If God wasn't created he simply exists why can't the same be applied to the big bang? Arguments have to have self-consistancy or they are not arguments they are statements. If EVERYTHING has to have a creator God has to have a creator and the creator of God has to have a creator etc, etc. I have yet to hear one good argument for the existence of God and I doubt I ever will.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: It says in the Iliad that lightning is javelins of energy thrown down to earth by Zeus. Lightning exist, javelins exist, therefore Zeus exists. This is the kind of argument I hear over and over again from Christians as proof of Gods existence.
Everything has to be created, therefore something had to create the big bang, therefore God exists? If EVERYTHING has to be created who created God? If God wasn't created he simply exists why can't the same be applied to the big bang? Arguments have to have self-consistancy or they are not arguments they are statements. If EVERYTHING has to have a creator God has to have a creator and the creator of God has to have a creator etc, etc. I have yet to hear one good argument for the existence of God and I doubt I ever will.
Everything has to be created, therefore something had to create the big bang, therefore God exists? If EVERYTHING has to be created who created God? If God wasn't created he simply exists why can't the same be applied to the big bang? Arguments have to have self-consistancy or they are not arguments they are statements. If EVERYTHING has to have a creator God has to have a creator and the creator of God has to have a creator etc, etc. I have yet to hear one good argument for the existence of God and I doubt I ever will.
It's all very mysterious, isn't it?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Dadude62: I can't think of God as being "big" or any size as far as that goas. Any size or any definition we put on God would be to limit the limitless, to try and understand that which we can't understand.
The big The great Dadude. more big than our imagination can imagine or touch, but i think we have to believe on this
------ This thread is Archived ------
wulfen: Actually friend if you bother to open a history book, you'll find no religious wars during the periods in which most of the major religions were polytheistic (worshipping more than one god), whereas once the monotheistic religions start to appear (judaism, christianity and islam being the big 3), religious wars raise their ugly heads.
So your statement above is pure bull
So your statement above is pure bull
I don't know about wich books of history are you talking Wulfen. i have talk about effectiviness of existence of more than one God, not what human beings qualified by their minds and try to show to the others that they have reason.
If there is tree Gods for example, one will say i will make it rain, the other will say, no i will sell the wind.....
It's just because of this believe of existence of lot of Gods that we start wars between us.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nakedpackage: Im referring to scientists 1850 to say 1930s also pre 1850, im sure scientists in the past have been pressured to say they believe in God however im unable to find anything on the net other than Islam pressuring scientists. I will look some more to find something to back my statement....
.Maybe Mr nakedpackage, can you, please, make difference between who have govern the islamic world and Islam and what happen in Europe before the age of lights and crhistianism? And please, if you want some day do one research, and like any research, you have to make your own bibliographie and not always believe what you can read on internet.
------ This thread is Archived ------
risibilis: I say ...
you say ...
they say ...
we say ...
round and round the garden we go in a vacuous exchange of nonsense.
you can't have a meaningful conversation with fundamentalists.
Much more important than religious dogma is whether God is an Englishman?
Or Englishwoman, for the feminists who like to bring the yin perspective into this unprovable argument ...
happy sabbath
you say ...
they say ...
we say ...
round and round the garden we go in a vacuous exchange of nonsense.
you can't have a meaningful conversation with fundamentalists.
Much more important than religious dogma is whether God is an Englishman?
Or Englishwoman, for the feminists who like to bring the yin perspective into this unprovable argument ...
happy sabbath
happy sabbath risibilis
------ This thread is Archived ------
Wow! What an education one can receive by simply reading the blogs. It's better than people watching. Human behavior and the age old question of why man exists seemed to have started whenever man started to exist and probably will continue until a second before he no longer exists with seemingly no better of an understanding today than there was at the beginning.
Let those who wish to believe in there being no creator, beleive as they wish and those who know God, know who they know.... after all, it is a God given right for freedom of ones own thoughts or "free will" and the old phrase of "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding"....if God, wants someone to change thier mind then let him convince them, and on the other hand if you have a "science" mind and no need for a god in your life then what good does it do for you or others to put down those who do?
Peace to all....
Let those who wish to believe in there being no creator, beleive as they wish and those who know God, know who they know.... after all, it is a God given right for freedom of ones own thoughts or "free will" and the old phrase of "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding"....if God, wants someone to change thier mind then let him convince them, and on the other hand if you have a "science" mind and no need for a god in your life then what good does it do for you or others to put down those who do?
Peace to all....
------ This thread is Archived ------
"God does not play dice with the universe..." is not a statement where the use of the word God implies belief. Al was upset with the subjectivity of quantum mechanics probability matrices. His view was that there was an objective, deterministic level at which reality does not depend on an observer in order to be other than potential.
God did not say, "Let there be light." If quantum physics is correct, God said, "Let there be the possibility of light, and let the observer interpret what that light means, and why."
Notwithstanding Einsteins actual belief or disbelief, he was upset that determinism was thrown out like the baby with the bathwater of classical physical theory. Natural philosophy became yet another soft-science with the advent of a participatory universe, and he refused to reconcile the loss of his paradigms with the new non-local, non-dualistic one.
He would strive to the end of his days to prove his denial was based on something he just wasn't seeing, rather than believe that he was looking for something that just wasn't there. Sorta like invisible purple unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. And global warming as a direct function of the global population of pirates.
But the beat goes on as people insist on their version of the purple unicorn, and insist that it is our job to prove that invisible, well-endowed equines do not, in fact exist.
God did not say, "Let there be light." If quantum physics is correct, God said, "Let there be the possibility of light, and let the observer interpret what that light means, and why."
Notwithstanding Einsteins actual belief or disbelief, he was upset that determinism was thrown out like the baby with the bathwater of classical physical theory. Natural philosophy became yet another soft-science with the advent of a participatory universe, and he refused to reconcile the loss of his paradigms with the new non-local, non-dualistic one.
He would strive to the end of his days to prove his denial was based on something he just wasn't seeing, rather than believe that he was looking for something that just wasn't there. Sorta like invisible purple unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. And global warming as a direct function of the global population of pirates.
But the beat goes on as people insist on their version of the purple unicorn, and insist that it is our job to prove that invisible, well-endowed equines do not, in fact exist.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I simply find it unfortunate that GOD or the concept has to be continually interwoven into everything we ( believers or not )
rely on for our existance.
Can we not seperate GOD from science and govenment and anything all of us rationally think of as necessities for our social success and existance ?
rely on for our existance.
Can we not seperate GOD from science and govenment and anything all of us rationally think of as necessities for our social success and existance ?
------ This thread is Archived ------
The basic questions like "who created it"? when was it created "? are the result of our Time-space-matter bound thinking. Time actually dont exist. its just a concept we have . The time can vary from place to place will have no meaning if you take it to the scale of the universe. All of the physical laws which we think is absolutly true breaks down in extreme conditons . Scientis are now able to "slow down" light, bend it . This is going to seriouly impact the Eiensten's theory of relatiity . Light is not the fastest particle in the world which makes the base of the relativity theory and the basis of the expanding universe. Tachyons are already proved to be existing which are faster than light. Universe is not created at any given point of time .Expanding universe cannot be taken as a proof of big bang. thats just an excuse . the coordinates and dimensions are very different from what we know or understand.We will understand the universe only when we are able to think beyound the releam of time-matter-space. which is impossible for us.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: The basic questions like "who created it"? when was it created "? are the result of our Time-space-matter bound thinking. Time actually dont exist. its just a concept we have . The time can vary from place to place will have no meaning if you take it to the scale of the universe. All of the physical laws which we think is absolutly true breaks down in extreme conditons . Scientis are now able to "slow down" light, bend it . This is going to seriouly impact the Eiensten's theory of relatiity . Light is not the fastest particle in the world which makes the base of the relativity theory and the basis of the expanding universe. Tachyons are already proved to be existing which are faster than light. Universe is not created at any given point of time .Expanding universe cannot be taken as a proof of big bang. thats just an excuse . the coordinates and dimensions are very different from what we know or understand.We will understand the universe only when we are able to think beyound the releam of time-matter-space. which is impossible for us.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: The basic questions like "who created it"? when was it created "? are the result of our Time-space-matter bound thinking. Time actually dont exist. its just a concept we have . The time can vary from place to place will have no meaning if you take it to the scale of the universe. All of the physical laws which we think is absolutly true breaks down in extreme conditons . Scientis are now able to "slow down" light, bend it . This is going to seriouly impact the Eiensten's theory of relatiity . Light is not the fastest particle in the world which makes the base of the relativity theory and the basis of the expanding universe. Tachyons are already proved to be existing which are faster than light. Universe is not created at any given point of time .Expanding universe cannot be taken as a proof of big bang. thats just an excuse . the coordinates and dimensions are very different from what we know or understand.We will understand the universe only when we are able to think beyound the releam of time-matter-space. which is impossible for us.
What this logic is - is thinkng far beyond the usual archaic historical values so many have. Wouldn't it be nice if more people thought outside the box , and dropped their engrained pattern of logic for life and future ?
------ This thread is Archived ------
jvaski: I simply find it unfortunate that GOD or the concept has to be continually interwoven into everything we ( believers or not )
rely on for our existance.
Can we not seperate GOD from science and govenment and anything all of us rationally think of as necessities for our social success and existance ?
NOrely on for our existance.
Can we not seperate GOD from science and govenment and anything all of us rationally think of as necessities for our social success and existance ?
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: The basic questions like "who created it"? when was it created "? are the result of our Time-space-matter bound thinking. Time actually dont exist. its just a concept we have . The time can vary from place to place will have no meaning if you take it to the scale of the universe. All of the physical laws which we think is absolutly true breaks down in extreme conditons . Scientis are now able to "slow down" light, bend it . This is going to seriouly impact the Eiensten's theory of relatiity . Light is not the fastest particle in the world which makes the base of the relativity theory and the basis of the expanding universe. Tachyons are already proved to be existing which are faster than light. Universe is not created at any given point of time .Expanding universe cannot be taken as a proof of big bang. thats just an excuse . the coordinates and dimensions are very different from what we know or understand.We will understand the universe only when we are able to think beyound the releam of time-matter-space. which is impossible for us.
And that is Gods level------ This thread is Archived ------
Sampe1967: And that is Gods level
Your evidence for this being?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Sampe1967: NO
Well , with God being our witness - we will !
------ This thread is Archived ------
Logics as in the circuits that builds this or any digital device, a state that a condition is either true or falls i.e. if I lift a car with cables as the only source of support to a crane over your head and I cut the cables the car will fall upwards to the sky = falls. If I cut the strings the car will fall on top of you = true. If I cut the cables you will fall on top of the car = falls. If I cut the cables you will crush the car = falls. It cannot be that when it is true we think otherwise and that changes things. If we were to try altering one thing we would automatically change another. Thus action and reaction. All that the universe has shown us so far consists of matter and one cannot find logically how matter evolve out of nothing. This takes more faith than that demanded by religion. Most religions are wrong due to the fact that God is singular and most of them agree on that but what is most important is the fact that you cannot fathom in our vast inferiority a supreme being who’s ways and description is beyond our greatest imagination. I don’t have enough faith to put in another source like evolution, just enough for Christendom.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Sampe1967: Logics as in the circuits that builds this or any digital device, a state that a condition is either true or falls i.e. if I lift a car with cables as the only source of support to a crane over your head and I cut the cables the car will fall upwards to the sky = falls. If I cut the strings the car will fall on top of you = true. If I cut the cables you will fall on top of the car = falls. If I cut the cables you will crush the car = falls. It cannot be that when it is true we think otherwise and that changes things. If we were to try altering one thing we would automatically change another. Thus action and reaction. All that the universe has shown us so far consists of matter and one cannot find logically how matter evolve out of nothing. This takes more faith than that demanded by religion. Most religions are wrong due to the fact that God is singular and most of them agree on that but what is most important is the fact that you cannot fathom in our vast inferiority a supreme being who’s ways and description is beyond our greatest imagination. I don’t have enough faith to put in another source like evolution, just enough for Christendom.
Hogwash, that is just a meaningless load of pseudo-scientific drivel and proves absolutely nothing. Let's start at the beginning logic works on a true-False not a true-faith-false. Your example of the cable car is complete rubbish, not science, in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Sampe1967: Answer this. which would you live by? your experience or someone elses experiment?
when you are ill do you
1 use your faith
2 go to a doctor
to get better?
and if you go to the doctor does he/she
1 use his/her faith
2 use science (ie knowledge gained from other scientists
experiments)
to cure your illness?
to help you to recover?
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
rarotonga
The world is as you see
1830's Music
What I Lack In Vocabulary
everything is changing
What's going on
Reality Check
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Heavy Bass In The PM
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).