Intelligent Design

[delta k]

I'm a senior graduating in 9 days and I went to my first talk on campus yesterday. As a biology major I guess I took the truth about evolution for granted, as at this talk, a debate between a believer in ID and an evolutionary biologist, I learned that 45% of the United States doesn't believe in evolution. That number has stayed constant for 40 years or so, so at least we're not getting dumber. But I'd really like to talk to someone and hear what an intelligent design believer has to say. Going to school in Washington means there are not enough bible belters up here to make a presence, i guess. Anyone here an ID believer, or ever had a run-in/discussion with someone who is?

Thanks (btw this is my first post in this forum, i bet this topis gets covered often here).

[TomCollins]

This is all the proof you need-
web page (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5565081&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1)

[Borodog]

ID == Argumentum ad ingorantium; "Because I can't think of how this could have evolved, it couldn't have, hence I assume God, uh, I mean, the 'Intelligent Designer' did it."

That's the entire "theory". A straightforward logical fallacy.

[delta k]

[ QUOTE ]
ID == Argumentum ad ingorantium; "Because I can't think of how this could have evolved, it couldn't have, hence I assume God, uh, I mean, the 'Intelligent Designer' did it."

That's the entire "theory". A straightforward logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. ID makes a two part argument, using incorrect science (part 1) and using theology (which isn't provable and is illegal to teach thanks to first amendment). But i've never run into someone in real life who believes in ID, yet since 45% of the country does (and also thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old) then they are certainly out there...but where?

[Hopey]

Send Sharkey, godBoy, and NotReady PMs asking for their input. They'll be only too happy to proselytize about ID and the evils of evolution.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
is illegal to teach thanks to first amendment

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not. Its unconstitutional for the government to force religion on the populus, or to keep hte populus from free expression thereof. It would be 100% ok if you had an elective course entitled "Chrisianity."

Teaching Christian tennets in science class shows a clear endorsement of a specific religion by the state. An even clearer violation of the First ammendment. You cant be forced to memorize Genesis (or the non specific form of it via ID) by the state in order to graduate. But if you want to take the class I see no reason why it should be illegal, since it is not mandated.

Note: I assume that Biology is a mandate for HS grad in all states. If not then your state sucks at science, and probably life too.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ID == Argumentum ad ingorantium; "Because I can't think of how this could have evolved, it couldn't have, hence I assume God, uh, I mean, the 'Intelligent Designer' did it."

That's the entire "theory". A straightforward logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. ID makes a two part argument, using incorrect science (part 1) and using theology (which isn't provable and is illegal to teach thanks to first amendment). But i've never run into someone in real life who believes in ID, yet since 45% of the country does (and also thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old) then they are certainly out there...but where?

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to practically any one of the 'red' states - you will find plenty there.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
ID == Argumentum ad ingorantium; "Because I can't think of how this could have evolved, it couldn't have, hence I assume God, uh, I mean, the 'Intelligent Designer' did it."

That's the entire "theory". A straightforward logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate when I agree with Boro.

[Hopey]

One of the tactics that the IDists are now using is to claim that evolution is a "myth" and "not real science" and shouldn't be taught in schools for those reasons. It's a little ironic, actually.

[delta k]

Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you....

One thing I've been thinking is that I don't think the creationism/ID crowd will ever go away as long as religion persists, because the belief in evolution defies what the bible says and accepting that makes for a house of cards type of crumbling of everything said in the bible, no?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you....

One thing I've been thinking is that I don't think the creationism/ID crowd will ever go away as long as religion persists, because the belief in evolution defies what the bible says and accepting that makes for a house of cards type of crumbling of everything said in the bible, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search on "Sharkey". It will take you to any number of ID debates, and highlights the aforementioned tactic of claiming evolutions a myth and bad (or not) science.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I've been thinking is that I don't think the creationism/ID crowd will ever go away as long as religion persists, because the belief in evolution defies what the bible says and accepting that makes for a house of cards type of crumbling of everything said in the bible, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say yes, and no. Yes creationism isn't going away anytime soon, and no evolution doesn't crumble everything in the Bible.

Those who prefer a 'pure' brand of faith unsullied by empirical data are always going to start with a straightforward literalist approach to Genesis.

There are others, however, who feel that the Bible was not written as a biology textbook, and should not be read that way. The range of beliefs that this covers are quite amazing to me, all the way from 'I believe in God, but everything else is superstitious nonsense' to 'The Bible is absolute truth inspired by God, but you have to learn how to read it.'

Many of these opinions are at least as offensive to the literalists as atheism is, so don't expect too many converts when you explain to them the evidence for evolution.

[SWB]

[ QUOTE ]
But i've never run into someone in real life who believes in ID, yet since 45% of the country does (and also thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old) then they are certainly out there...but where?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the people who advocate intelligent design mostly don't believe in young earth creationism. They don't challenge any old earth ideas, they just say "this couldn't have happened naturally." I'm going to guess that 45% figure is everybody who doubts evolution, rather than specifically ID advocates.

As well, just because a fair number of people don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that many (or any) of them can articulate their position in a reasonable manner. Many of them hold that position out of ignorance, willful or otherwise.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But i've never run into someone in real life who believes in ID, yet since 45% of the country does (and also thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old) then they are certainly out there...but where?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the people who advocate intelligent design mostly don't believe in young earth creationism. They don't challenge any old earth ideas, they just say "this couldn't have happened naturally." I'm going to guess that 45% figure is everybody who doubts evolution, rather than specifically ID advocates.

As well, just because a fair number of people don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that many (or any) of them can articulate their position in a reasonable manner. Many of them hold that position out of ignorance, willful or otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ] It's pretty obvious that the 45% misunderstand evolution to a least some degree. But to say that all 45% beleive in a young earth is creating mutual exclusions that don't exist. One of the reason people don't belive in evoluition is the term "random mutation". From the theists point of view: random-> means uncuased->means without God. I think the scientific community also presents evolution in this fashion. That evolution means without god. If evolution as presented means without God, of course alot of people will deny it's existance.

A 2nd reason why alot of people don't believe in evolution is the whole creation of life, abiogenesis, does not have the same amount of evidence for it that evolution does. Some people include abiogensis in evolution.

[Metric]

Does anyone know what is the standard YEC line on cosmology? I have run into a few people who seemed to think that "big bang cosmology" was something bad, but they all seemed to heavily moderate their position upon learning that it just amounts to a catchy name for some solutions to GR equations, and is not some wild-eyed attempt to take God out of the picture and replace him with an explosion.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know what is the standard YEC line on cosmology? I have run into a few people who seemed to think that "big bang cosmology" was something bad, but they all seemed to heavily moderate their position upon learning that it just amounts to a catchy name for some solutions to GR equations, and is not some wild-eyed attempt to take God out of the picture and replace him with an explosion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two general positions, both kooky and fail (of course) to hold up to scientific scrutiny. There are the "variable speed of light" crowd, who claim that the speed of light was much higher a short time in the past, and then there are the "in situ" light creation crowd, that claim that the light from objects billions of lightyears away was created in transit by God (apparently for the express purpose of tricking us into thinking the Universe is older than it is).

[tomdemaine]

not my quote

"If I am a being designed by a perfect god in his own image, why do I sometime bite the inside of my own cheek when I'm chewing food? Got to be the most pointless design feture ever."

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
not my quote

"If I am a being designed by a perfect god in his own image, why do I sometime bite the inside of my own cheek when I'm chewing food? Got to be the most pointless design feture ever."

[/ QUOTE ]

The lord works in mysterious ways.

[surftheiop]

"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[delta k]

[ QUOTE ]
"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

the big deal is you're wrong and propagating lies by believing such a fallacy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's fair enough. There's no contradiction between god and evolution.

The problem with IDers is they think science and belief in god are incompatible. This is nonsense but believed by many people both religous and non-religous.

chez

[MrMon]

Best line I ever heard about reconciling evolution and religious beliefs was "God didn't just create the universe, he created a universe that creates itself. Think how much more awesome that is."

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

the big deal is you're wrong and propagating lies by believing such a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]


I mean, im 100% evolution believer, and highly doubt some being created life.


BUT, the creation of the univserse cant be explained by things we know.

How did matter come into existence?
How did our specific laws of physics come into existence?


These questions will almost certainly go forever unanswered since they need us to speculate on things that are no longer occuring.

I dont see how assuming that something outside our realm created matter is that bad of a belief.


Its when people deny evolutionl, or feel that they have the knowledge of the being (like most religions do) that beliefs are pretty clearly wrong.


EDIT: Im pretty sure the above isnt well written, but its 3:30 and im dead

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's fair enough. There's no contradiction between god and evolution.

The problem with IDers is they think science and belief in god are incompatible. This is nonsense but believed by many people both religous and non-religous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to point out that many scientific people are often just as vehement about their position as those on the ID side of the argument. In the same way that it's impossible to convince an IDer that things evolve through random mutations and natural selection, it's impossible to get evolutionists (I can't think of another way to put it) to even concede the possibility that everything was started by some higher power (call it God, intelligent design, a first mover, whatever).

Personally, I think the whole debate is kind of silly because it seems like both sides are looking for answers to different questions, evolutionists looking to find how things happened, and IDers wanting to know why.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...both sides are looking for answers to different questions, evolutionists looking to find how things happened, and IDers wanting to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed! The thing, about why and how, is that how is useful (we may end up using it), why is useless (this is why, so what?). I would much rather know how something works than why!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's fair enough. There's no contradiction between god and evolution.

The problem with IDers is they think science and belief in god are incompatible. This is nonsense but believed by many people both religous and non-religous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to point out that many scientific people are often just as vehement about their position as those on the ID side of the argument. In the same way that it's impossible to convince an IDer that things evolve through random mutations and natural selection, it's impossible to get evolutionists (I can't think of another way to put it) to even concede the possibility that everything was started by some higher power (call it God, intelligent design, a first mover, whatever).

Personally, I think the whole debate is kind of silly because it seems like both sides are looking for answers to different questions, evolutionists looking to find how things happened, and IDers wanting to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why. ID is a tactic used by religous grooups to defend their religon against teaching they fear will undermine it.

If religons teach that Adam and Eve were created as finished products then teaching that they evolved attacks the religon. IDers don't care which is true they just fear that if part of what they teach is rubbished then more people might question the rest and question the credability of those who've been misleading them.

chez

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Guys, I'm well aware of what ID is and what they say about evolution. But i've never met one of them, despite our country having 45% of people believe that BS. Just wondered if anyone here was a believer since i'd like to discuss it with you...."

Im a Christian and believe in God so why wouldnt i believe that God was responsible for creation? You call evolution random i call it God's plan, whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

the big deal is you're wrong and propagating lies by believing such a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]


I mean, im 100% evolution believer, and highly doubt some being created life.


BUT, the creation of the univserse cant be explained by things we know.

How did matter come into existence?
How did our specific laws of physics come into existence?


These questions will almost certainly go forever unanswered since they need us to speculate on things that are no longer occuring.
I dont see how assuming that something outside our realm created matter is that bad of a belief.


Its when people deny evolutionl, or feel that they have the knowledge of the being (like most religions do) that beliefs are pretty clearly wrong.


EDIT: Im pretty sure the above isnt well written, but its 3:30 and im dead

[/ QUOTE ]

I have less doubt than you that they will ultimately be discovered, though certainly not in mine or my childrens lifetime. Just because the processes are no longer occurrring doesnt mean you cant find the fundamental laws that they resulted from and then "roll the film backward" beyond the point weve gotten to so far...what is it down to ..the first hundred millionth of a second? (The SciAm before last had an article about one group showing that string theory predicts that the early quark behavior would have been more like a perfect liquid than a gas, further explaining some of the reasons things are the way they are)

There may ultimately be a "we dont know where that __________" came from, where the blank may be the laws themselves, or the vaccuum that gave rise to particle and anti-particle pairs, but just as I have no problem with there being a universe before I was born, I have no problem with there being nothing before the universe was born.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

“I want to know how God created the world.” - Albert Einstein

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

“I want to know how God created the world.” - Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein was not an IDer, his talking about how not why, and he didn't believe in god.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

“I want to know how God created the world.” - Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein was not an IDer, his talking about how not why, and he didn't believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That he was talking about how, not why, was precisely my point.

If Einstein didn't believe in God, then who is he referring to in the quote?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

“I want to know how God created the world.” - Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein was not an IDer, his talking about how not why, and he didn't believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That he was talking about how, not why, was precisely my point.

If Einstein didn't believe in God, then who is he referring to in the quote?

[/ QUOTE ]
no-one as he made clear when folk kept mistakenly hijacking his name.



chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

“I want to know how God created the world.” - Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein was not an IDer, his talking about how not why, and he didn't believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That he was talking about how, not why, was precisely my point.

If Einstein didn't believe in God, then who is he referring to in the quote?

[/ QUOTE ]
no-one as he made clear when folk kept mistakenly hijacking his name.



chez

[/ QUOTE ]

“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

- Albert Einstein

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that IDers want to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

“I want to know how God created the world.” - Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein was not an IDer, his talking about how not why, and he didn't believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That he was talking about how, not why, was precisely my point.

If Einstein didn't believe in God, then who is he referring to in the quote?

[/ QUOTE ]
no-one as he made clear when folk kept mistakenly hijacking his name.



chez

[/ QUOTE ]

“That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

- Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. he suffered from lots of people not understanding him and wishfully thinking he supoported their wishful thinking.

he made it as simple as possible:

[ QUOTE ]
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[/ QUOTE ]


chez

[HLMencken]

The irony of using Einstein to support one's belief in a personal God is precious--there you have it Sharkey, by your own appeal to authority, your views are "childlike".

[Sharkey]

Well, now you are changing the subject. The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

What other people thought about him is irrelevant.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony of using Einstein to support one's belief in a personal God is precious--there you have it Sharkey, by your own appeal to authority, your views are "childlike".

[/ QUOTE ]

What “appeal to authority” are you talking about? Einstein is not an authority in this matter.

Think before you post.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, now you are changing the subject. The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

What other people thought about him is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both my quotes are from Einstein. Your views about him are irrelevent. He made clear that you are wrong about him.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, now you are changing the subject. The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

What other people thought about him is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both my quotes are from Einstein. Your views about him are irrelevent. He made clear that you are wrong about him.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re imagining things. Precisely what have I said about him that is wrong, in your mind?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, now you are changing the subject. The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

What other people thought about him is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both my quotes are from Einstein. Your views about him are irrelevent. He made clear that you are wrong about him.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re imagining things. Precisely what have I said about him that is wrong, in your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay sharkey. As long as you're not repeating the lie that Einstein believed in god or thought anything other than your idea of god is childlike then nothing is wrong.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.


[/ QUOTE ] Just yesteday someone sneezed. Severly people, myself included, where noted to say "God bless you".
Is it obvious the point being made is that the sneezer blessors believe in God and that souls can escape when one sneezes. God can be invoked as a figure of speach without any reference to a real God. AE makes it very clear that is what he is doing in those quotes you used.

Do you think that the way in which religion, perpatuates out and out lies about AE's position regarding God, as well as Darwins deathbed recantation, gives more credit to religion or less? Why is there such a huge interest amongst the religoius to spread these lies? You should be highly skeptical of the other information given to you by known swindeler.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, now you are changing the subject. The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

What other people thought about him is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both my quotes are from Einstein. Your views about him are irrelevent. He made clear that you are wrong about him.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re imagining things. Precisely what have I said about him that is wrong, in your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay sharkey. As long as you're not repeating the lie that Einstein believed in god or thought anything other than your idea of god is childlike then nothing is wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Your fantasy-based opinion of my idea of God counts for nothing, especially since you know less than nothing about it.

As for Einstein, I would be amused to learn how you reconcile supposing it’s a “lie that Einstein believed in god” with his view of a God who “created the world” and used “superior reasoning power” to do so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, now you are changing the subject. The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

What other people thought about him is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both my quotes are from Einstein. Your views about him are irrelevent. He made clear that you are wrong about him.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re imagining things. Precisely what have I said about him that is wrong, in your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay sharkey. As long as you're not repeating the lie that Einstein believed in god or thought anything other than your idea of god is childlike then nothing is wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Your fantasy-based opinion of my idea of God counts for nothing, especially since you know less than nothing about it.

As for Einstein, I would be amused to learn how you reconcile the supposed “lie that Einstein believed in god” with his view of a God who “created the world” and used “superior reasoning power” to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its pretty obvious what Einstein was talking about. Because some folk couldn't understand and/or keep lying about what he meant he made it crystal clear.

I'm sorry if i misrepresent your view on god, it seems clear to me but I may be mistake. Perhaps you could follow the lead of Einstein and make it crystal clear.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
God can be invoked as a figure of speach without any reference to a real God. AE makes it very clear that is what he is doing in those quotes you used.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what specific language does Einstein refer to his own statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” as figures of speech?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony of using Einstein to support one's belief in a personal God is precious--there you have it Sharkey, by your own appeal to authority, your views are "childlike".

[/ QUOTE ]

What “appeal to authority” are you talking about? Einstein is not an authority in this matter.

Think before you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are you referencing him to implicitly support your views?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the obvious counterpoint is that your point is blatantly FALSE as Einstein himself clarified.

[DougShrapnel]

Here is what Dawkins says about AE penchant for using god. If you look at what AE says, I think you will see that Dawkins is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
He is at his best when explaining the almost mystical richness of good science. Speaking at a meeting sponsored by the New York Institute for the Humanities last October, Dawkins drew a sharp yet dazzlingly poetic distinction between a science-based spirituality and the kind of religious literalism that, for example, esteems a biblical version of creation against the mass of geologic and paleobiological evidence that contradicts it. The former, he explained, is a kind of Einsteinian wonder at the precision and complexity of nature.



“Einsteinian religion is a kind of spirituality which is nonsupernatural,” he told the gathering at New York University. “And that doesn’t mean that it’s somehow less than supernatural religion. Quite the contrary. . . . Einstein was adamant in rejecting all ideas of a personal god. It is something bigger, something grander, something that I believe any scientist can subscribe to, including those scientists whom I would call atheists. Einstein, in my terms, was an atheist, although Einstein of course was very fond of using the word God. When Einstein would use the word God, he was using it as a kind of figure of speech. When he said things like ‘God is subtle but he’s not malicious,’ or ‘He does not play dice,’ or ‘Did God have a choice in creating the universe?’ what he meant was things like randomness do not lie at the heart of all things. Could the universe have been any other way than the way it is? Einstein chose to use the word God to phrase such profound, deep questions.



“That, it seems to me, is the good part of religion which we can all subscribe to,”

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony of using Einstein to support one's belief in a personal God is precious--there you have it Sharkey, by your own appeal to authority, your views are "childlike".

[/ QUOTE ]

What “appeal to authority” are you talking about? Einstein is not an authority in this matter.

Think before you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are you referencing him to implicitly support your views?

[/ QUOTE ]

I referenced Einstein to provide evidence contrary to another post in the interest of stimulating an informative debate.

You are quite simplistic in continually returning to what you imagine to be my personal views. I have not brought them up here, at least for the reason that they are off-topic.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the obvious counterpoint is that your point is blatantly FALSE as Einstein himself clarified.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that’s what you believe, then here’s the same question I asked someone else earlier:

In what specific language does Einstein refer to his own statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” as figures of speech?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony of using Einstein to support one's belief in a personal God is precious--there you have it Sharkey, by your own appeal to authority, your views are "childlike".

[/ QUOTE ]

What “appeal to authority” are you talking about? Einstein is not an authority in this matter.

Think before you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are you referencing him to implicitly support your views?

[/ QUOTE ]

I referenced Einstein to provide evidence contrary to another post in the interest of stimulating an informative debate.

You are quite simplistic in continually returning to what you imagine to be my personal views. I have not brought them up here, at least for the reason that they are off-topic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your views are on-topic. Einstein's are not and in any case he told us what they are.

If you're being misrepresented then a simple clarification is all thats required.

Go on, one litle bit of clarity wont hurt.

chez

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The obvious point being made in both of the quotes I provided was that Einstein believed that God created the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the obvious counterpoint is that your point is blatantly FALSE as Einstein himself clarified.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that’s what you believe, then here’s the same question I asked someone else earlier:

In what specific language does Einstein refer to his own statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” as figures of speech?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

This quote is from Einstein:

[ QUOTE ]
"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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[/ QUOTE ]

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Einstein, I would be amused to learn how you reconcile supposing it’s a “lie that Einstein believed in god” with his view of a God who “created the world” and used “superior reasoning power” to do so.

[/ QUOTE ] Hey Sharkey, Einstein was influenced by Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza) He made it perfectly clear when he said

[ QUOTE ]
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

— Albert Einstein



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, and Einstein, too, believed in an impersonal deity. His desire to understand Nature through physics can be seen as contemplation of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spinoza's belief about God: "God is the natural world and has no personality" So when you ask "Who is AE refering to when he uses God, it's a bit incoorect to think of it that way, AE thinks God is a What and not a Who.

[Copernicus]

he cant even admit when he's totally pwned

[Sharkey]

New001 and DougShrapnel,

I know that Einstein did not believe in much of what orthodox religion does.

However, his opinion that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” certainly cannot be reconciled with atheism. So far, no statement by Einstein has been produced to indicate his meaning was merely figurative.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
New001 and DougShrapnel,

I know that Einstein did not believe in much of what orthodox religion does.

However, his opinion that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” certainly cannot be reconciled with atheism. So far, no statement by Einstein has been produced to indicate his meaning was merely figurative.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easily reconciled.

[ QUOTE ]
"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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "


[/ QUOTE ]
He explains exactly how far his religous beliefs go.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
he cant even admit when he's totally pwned

[/ QUOTE ]

why would he start now?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
New001 and DougShrapnel,

I know that Einstein did not believe in much of what orthodox religion does.

However, his opinion that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” certainly cannot be reconciled with atheism. So far, no statement by Einstein has been produced to indicate his meaning was merely figurative.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easily reconciled.

[ QUOTE ]
"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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "


[/ QUOTE ]
He explains exactly how far his religous beliefs go.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There’s no reconciliation with atheism there.

An “unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it” does not reduce his own statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” to figures of speech, nor is the first statement incompatible with a theistic interpretation of the others.

[HLMencken]

The man himself says his views are atheist and you won't admit it... your inability to be intellectually honest could not be more self-evident than in this thread.

You've becomne a caricature of your own deluded self and would have lost any credibility you had left on this forum... but I highly doubt you had any left to begin with.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The man himself says his views are atheist and you won't admit it... your inability to be intellectually honest could not be more self-evident than in this thread.

You've becomne a caricature of your own deluded self and would have lost any credibility you had left on this forum... but I highly doubt you had any left to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop declaring victory and show me where Einstein made a single statement inconsistent with his other statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” being interpreted in the theistic sense.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The man himself says his views are atheist and you won't admit it... your inability to be intellectually honest could not be more self-evident than in this thread.

You've becomne a caricature of your own deluded self and would have lost any credibility you had left on this forum... but I highly doubt you had any left to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop declaring victory and show me where Einstein made a single statement inconsistent with his other statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” being interpreted in a theistic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

as already posted in this subthread: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."

Hard to see how that does not conflict with Einstein being a supposed theist.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The man himself says his views are atheist and you won't admit it... your inability to be intellectually honest could not be more self-evident than in this thread.

You've becomne a caricature of your own deluded self and would have lost any credibility you had left on this forum... but I highly doubt you had any left to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop declaring victory and show me where Einstein made a single statement inconsistent with his other statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” being interpreted in the theistic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

READ. How many different statements of AE's and others are needed?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Hard to see how that does not conflict with Einstein being a supposed theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That it’s hard for you to see is no surprise. Einstein only denied SOME theism, NOT ALL.

[MidGe]

Sharkey,

Unlike Einstein quotes, your posts have little contents, if any. I wish it were not so, as it is tedious. However since you stubbornly stay at a rhetorical level, probably due to your lack of valid thoughts about things, I say that Einstein only denied SOME atheism, NOT all.

[madnak]

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere."

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being."

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic."

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."

"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 persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able 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."

"I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws."

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."

"Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts."

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

I know it's hard to say for sure without replicable sufficient cause, but I'm pretty sure Einstein didn't believe in a personal God.

Was he religious? Very much so. Was he a theist? No. He said "I am a deeply religious unbeliever," and I think that best sums up his position on the issue.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
New001 and DougShrapnel,

I know that Einstein did not believe in much of what orthodox religion does.

However, his opinion that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” certainly cannot be reconciled with atheism. So far, no statement by Einstein has been produced to indicate his meaning was merely figurative.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easily reconciled.

[ QUOTE ]
"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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "


[/ QUOTE ]
He explains exactly how far his religous beliefs go.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There’s no reconciliation with atheism there.

An “unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it” does not reduce his own statements that God “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” to figures of speech, nor is the first statement incompatible with a theistic interpretation of the others.

[/ QUOTE ]
It reconciles the issue about what Einstein believed about god with your deliberate or accidental claims/inuendo about what he believed.

He couldn't have done more to explain that he didn't believe in god and that those who said otherwise were repeating a lie.

chez

[Sharkey]

None of those quotes or any other posted in this thread represents a denial of all, rather than merely some, theism or contains anything that requires Einstein’s own statements referring to a God that “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” to be interpreted as atheistic figures of speech.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
None of those quotes or any other posted in this thread represents a denial of all, rather than merely some, theism or contains anything that requires Einstein’s own statements referring to a God that “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” to be interpreted as atheistic figures of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

To everyone: Can it be any possibly clearer that Sharkey is just a troll? Madnak presented OVERWHELMING evidence that Einstein was an atheist/agnostic, yet (surprise surprise) it wasn't good enough for Sharkey.

What an ass.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of those quotes or any other posted in this thread represents a denial of all, rather than merely some, theism or contains anything that requires Einstein’s own statements referring to a God that “created the world” using “superior reasoning power” to be interpreted as atheistic figures of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

To everyone: Can it be any possibly clearer that Sharkey is just a troll? Madnak presented OVERWHELMING evidence that Einstein was an atheist/agnostic, yet (surprise surprise) it wasn't good enough for Sharkey.

What an ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is enjoyable watching him go down for the third time, it really is time to use the ignore feature. Its the only way to kill a troll.

[Sharkey]

Okay, I took your sorry self off ignore.

Even thought you’re a hostile ad hominoid who likes to sling some smelly stuff from the back of your cage, maybe you occasionally say something with a hint of thought in it.

The other bozos can keep handling themselves and each other indefinitely.