Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Normal · 06-30-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
Einstein did science devoid of supernatural intervention, even though he believed that a force/god was the underlying cause.

If the force was the underlying cause of all material science, how can the force be both material and immaterial? There has to be an immaterial component for that to make any sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
It's not that any statement you make about god being irrational, it's that the very existence of god would be irrational. If god isn't bound by the laws of logic, then she exists and does not exist at the same time.

The point I was trying to make is that rational proof of god existing is not, and has never been a basis for faith.

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
Practially speaking, what is the difference between a god that exists and does not exist, and a god that does not exist? It's the same as the invisible, intangible dragon.

"Every proposition which we can understand must be composed wholly of constituents with which we are acquainted." - Bertrand Russell

The "dragon" might be irrational to some, and rational to others.

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
I could tell you how the car works and how the gas was used up. Science is purely functional.

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
I don't understand the relevance of this statement.

I don't think I understand the relevance of this question:

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
When your car is running low on fuel, do you assume that supernatural forces are at work in causing your car to need gas, or do you assume that your car used up the gas and you need to buy some more?

06-30-2003, 04:44 PM

Normal wrote:

Quote:

The point I was trying to make is that rational proof of god existing is not, and has never been a basis for faith.

And if we look at the way in which ideas were exchanged in medievel times, times in which most of the most famous 'proofs' were postulated, scholarly 'disputation' was a common method of communication.

Some historians of philosophy, like Copleston, seem to interpret these proofs more as ways that theists used to speculate on the characteristics of God than as valid logical proofs.

The_Unknown_Banana · 06-30-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
But the thing that irritates me about people in the pursuit of science is that they assume they have all the answers.

I understand your frustration here, except in reverse - I've met many a theist who thinks they have all the answers in a book written 2000 years ago.

njhartsh · 06-30-2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Normal wrote:
It's also dishonorable to only quote what he said that helps your own position.

His link quotes Einstein writing:
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

He didn't believe in a personal diety, but he clearly states belief in an immaterial "spirit".

And you get "immaterial" from... where? Why, it's from your own presuppositions. How surprising.

Einstein did not believe in an immaterial spirit at all. It was illegitimate readings like yours that got him ticked off at "lies" in the first place.

Quote:

If the force was the underlying cause of all material science, how can the force be both material and immaterial? There has to be an immaterial component for that to make any sense.

Again, the link between Einstein and "immaterial" exists only in your own imagination. Lots of people (such as... surprise again! Baruch Spinoza!) are happy to speak of "manifest spirits" in the universe that aren't "immaterial" in the slightest.

- Nathan

Quote:

In Part One of the Ethics, "Concerning God," after presenting a short list of definitions and axioms, Spinoza deduces 36 propositions which explain the nature of God. The most important of these is Proposition 14, which expresses Spinoza's pantheism: "Besides God, no substance can be granted or conceived." The term "pantheism" (literally all-God) means that God is identical to the universe as a whole. For example my car, my house, and even I myself are all parts of God. Other Western philosophers before Spinoza advocated pantheism, including Xenophanes, Parmenides, Plotinus, and Meister Eckhardt. However, the vast majority of Western philosophers and theologians strongly rejected this view in favor of a transcendent concept of God which holds that God is distinct from his creation. Indeed, some theologians maintained that God has the attribute of separateness thus being completely separate from the rest of the universe, including the physical world and humans.
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Howay the Toon · 07-01-2003, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by EstherRose
The above suras claim the validity of the Torah and the Bible. The suras below are in direct contradiction to the Bible. And of course there is the huge difference in the koran�s view of Jesus is only a prophet and the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Whether or not you here on this board believe in the validity of the bible, the Koran attests to its truth, so the contradictions alone render the Koran as fallible and not the �uncreated word of Allah� as muslims claim.

--------
various sciptural quotes deleted.
--------

The Bible predates the Koran, so any contradictions would either show that the Bible is false, but then the suras which claim the validity of the Bible would negate the validity of the Koran, or the contradictions would show that the Koran was false to begin with. Either way, Koran is false. If the Koran is false, then the Islamic version of God (Allah) is false. Whether or not you here on this board believe in the validity of the bible, the Koran attests to its truth, so the contradictions alone render the Koran as fallible and not the �uncreated� word of Allah as muslims claim.

You appear to be arguing that the Koran attests to the truth of the Bible, but it differs from the Bible in important respects thus contradicting itself. The Koran is therefore false.

As a Christian, you are on somewhat dodgy ground here as a huge list of Biblical contradictions can be given which by your own arguments would mean that the bible is not the word of God and hence christianity is false.

ex-xian · 07-02-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by njhartsh
And you get "immaterial" from... where? Why, it's from your own presuppositions. How surprising.

Einstein did not believe in an immaterial spirit at all. It was illegitimate readings like yours that got him ticked off at "lies" in the first place.

Great point, and one I totally missed/forgot. Of course theism doesn't automatically imply non-materialism. Thanks for gettin' my back!

Normal · 07-03-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by njhartsh
Einstein did not believe in an immaterial spirit at all. It was illegitimate readings like yours that got him ticked off at "lies" in the first place.

It's clear he was ticked at the association to a deity; you are deliberately misinterpreting him to help your argument. Not very honorable.

Show me a quote of his that says "I am pissed that people keep claiming I believe in an immaterial force."

Quote:

Originally posted by njhartsh
And you get "immaterial" from... where? Why, it's from your own presuppositions. How surprising.

Again, the link between Einstein and "immaterial" exists only in your own imagination. Lots of people (such as... surprise again! Baruch Spinoza!) are happy to speak of "manifest spirits" in the universe that aren't "immaterial" in the slightest.

- Nathan

It's from your own presuppositions that he didn't believe in a immaterial force, not to mention convenient logical inconsistencies. I challenge you to explain how it is logical to talk about a material force that governs all material science.

fried beef sandwich · 07-03-2003, 10:18 AM

The follow up question to the OP would be, "So if your God exists, is he worthy of our love, devotion, and worship?"

07-03-2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fried beef sandwich
The follow up question to the OP would be, "So if your God exists, is he worthy of our love, devotion, and worship?"

I think that's something that has to be decided on an individual basis.

ex-xian · 07-03-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
It's from your own presuppositions that he didn't believe in a immaterial force, not to mention convenient logical inconsistencies. I challenge you to explain how it is logical to talk about a material force that governs all material science.

It's been pointed out to you again and again that Einstien believed in the pantheistic god of spinoza. In that system, the universe is all there is. There is nothing else that exists; there is the material universe/god. Nothing immaterial exists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2003, 10:18 AM	#48
fried beef sandwich Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 1,156	The follow up question to the OP would be, "So if your God exists, is he worthy of our love, devotion, and worship?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.