njhartsh

Well, there is this:

Apparently you've been stopping after the second sentence when you read this passage. Try reading the third sentence a few times. Then a few more times. Try thinking about how "science" could possibly "reveal" an immaterial spirit.

Of course, the more direct evidence is this:
And Spinoza's God is not immaterial.

Q.E.D.

"Governs"? Ah, yet another fabrication from someone who doesn't understand the philosophical perspective in front of him. The separateness of Spinoza's God from the universe is entirely in your head, not in his theory. Spinoza's God is the universe--no more, no less. No separation, no "governing," no "immateriality." Just awe and admiration from pantheists.

The fact that you are unfamiliar with and confused by pantheism doesn't mean that other people--Einstein, for example--don't subscribe to it.

- Nathan

Normal

Apparently you are reading what you want to into that quote, as nowhere does it reject the immaterial; it rejects a deity. This is blatant disrespect to Einstein. Or maybe you’re just confused as to what "immaterial" means?

You are avoiding the issue of how a purely materialistic presupposition begs the question of Einstein’s worldview. An argument ad nauseum does not make the conclusion true.

I have studied Spinoza's god of the universe, and it either entails an immaterial element, or begs the question. Do you know what immaterial means? It means literally "is not constructed of matter". So the laws that matter act on in the universe are considered an "immaterial force", get it? This contradicts the “purely materialistic” worldview you have imposed on Einstein (and Spinoza, for that matter). From a purely materialistic worldview, like the one suggested, the laws of nature could be explained as a function of matter, but no, Einstein (and Spinoza) both called them “spirits”.

Hey, I’m all for pantheism, but if you claim the laws that govern matter cannot be explained as a function of matter, you do not have a materialistic worldview.

ex-xian

The sentence where Einstein says he believes in the god of spinoza rejects the immaterial, since spinoza's pantheism rejects the immaterial.

Either you didn't read Spinoza or you misunderstood him. Spinoza's philosophy is best understood as a critique of cartesian dualism. In Descartes system, there are two substances, the mind and the body. Actually, Descartes introduces a third--God. Spinoza's work was to show that there was one substance.

If he did believe that an immaterial force existed, this would imply a belief in more than one substance. Below are quoted several of Spinoza's statements to show what he believed. His proofs are omited.
Source

I hope this is sufficient to show that Spinoza, and, hence, Einstein, did not believe in anything immaterial. Spinoza believed in one substance, the universe/god/matter, and that was all. If there was some kind of immaterial mind, that would be of another substance.

Normal

The problem here is that "by the necessity of the divine nature" is not explained in a materialistic viewpoint, it is described in an "immaterial" viewpoint. If he truly took a materialistic presupposition, he would of assumed that the laws of nature were constructed from the matter itself, and not some divine nature. The "conditioning" mentioned by Spinoza is what I'm talking about when I say he incorperated immaterial elements into his philosophy. I'm not refering to Decartes' notion of mind/body dualism.

exnihilo

But, then the bible is in large part, especially the old testament, simply the reworked mythologies of the Egyptians, Summarians, Zorastorians, etc, while the new testament is filled with ideas lifted from taosism, buddhism and even greek philosophy. So in terms of age the bible is not unlike the Koran.
Christians are usually impervious to any arguments concerning its validity--as a result of the built in faith defense mechanism. There are many inhibitions about even asking such questions, and even education in general. So, it is completely at odds with a christian's belief to doubt the veracity of christianity itself, which results in the types of responses the original post was alluding to.

--exnihilo

Cross Examiner

Just some quick responses to Hawkingfan's original questions.

Caveat: What constitutes proof for you depends heartily upon your presuppositions. We can talk about this later.

The Bible

66 books/40 authors/hundreds of years/multiple cultures/multiple locations etc. one recognizable literary voice

-Fulfilled prophecy
-Israel's/Jewish culture's surviving and thriving in world quite hostile
-Confirmatory archaeology
-Unlike any other holy book, apart from any mythology
-The life and claims of Christ
-The resurrection

Just a few thoughts for starters

The Q'uran denies Christ's deity, resurrection etc. Christianity is mutually exclusive from every other religion--this is not true for others per se. If Christianity is true, all others are false. The case for Christ is very strong.

See above. Also, God is not Allah unless he is schizophrenic. Another mutally exclusive issue is the character of God in the Bible and that of Allah as portrayed in the Q'uran/Hadith/Shariah etc.

If there was not quality and quantity of evidence I'd be an atheist.

Bible teaches sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The latter within the context of the former. Southern Sudanese are Christians, Northern are Muslims. The latter persecute and enslave the former. I'd be that which God called me to be providing I acted on the opportunities. That is, he drew me unto himself in this life, commenting upon his intention for me, it stands to reason he would've called me if I happened to live in Communist China or oppressive Sudan alike.

Happy 4th. America bless God.

ex-xian

Normal-Could you please explain how the immaterial parts of the universe and the material parts are of the same substance? Also, what is the "immaterial" part? What is it's purpose, function, and how does it interact with the material?

Philosoft

Hawkingfan asked for proof of the existence of your god, not evidence that the Bible is special or that Christianity is internally cohesive. If you want to advance these points, please do so in Biblical Criticism.

The case for Christ's existence or for Christ's deity?

I think your ability to assess evidence a posteriori is heavily influenced by your a emotional attachment to Christianity.

The_Unknown_Banana

What evidence is there of fulfilled prophecy? Besides things that the bible says have been fulfilled.

Other religions also don't negate this fact. There are also many reasons they could be thriving - the ancient egyptians thrived in a desert for about 4000 years, fighting off invasions from pretty much all directions. All they had was (mostly) just a sun god - this to me does nothing to prove that the sun god exists.

Such as..? Anything that can't be explained by ambiguity or some other means? (I would believe in the other means before I believed in a supernatural god, so it would have to be pretty major evidence for me here)

Not sure about this one, though I have my doubts. Even so, this does not make it truth.

= Not proof. We are trying to prove the life and claims of christ actually happened (among other parts of the bible), so the life and claims of christ are not proof that it happened.

Again, the resurrection story in the bible is not proof that it happened.

Again, just because christianity is mutually exclusive from every other religion, does not prove it is correct. Also, I could argue the same of other religions (if islam is true, then christianity is false surely? To me, this doesn't seem to validate the bible's authenticity in any way)

I am just pointing out my problems with possible evidence. Out of your list, the only things that could possibly go towards proving it to me would be the fulfilled prophecy (but then I'd need proof of that), and the archaeology which would help, but probably wouldn't prove anything just on its own. For instance, again from the ancient egyptians (lol, sorry, I just sat an exam on ancient egypt! ) - they wrote many stories about wars which egyptologists believe to be true. However, the stories attributed the victories to the help of a generous sun god. Egyptologists naturally filter out all the religious stuff, and concentrate on what facts there might be. Why should it be any different for biblical stories?

The_Unknown_Banana

I'd probably be stepping the boundaries for this part of the forum too... will try to keep on track