A rational mind wouldn't believe in God

[The Bellman]

- Don't ignore what I said. Is the universe expanding? Yes? Then it is moving, just like the membrane of a balloon when blown up.

Furthermore, you have no factual evidence to claim there is nothing for it to move in, not that makes any difference whatsoever. Everything concerning what lies beyond the universe (if anything), if the expansion of our universe is traversing some sort of medium or if there are parallel universes is all conjecture at this point.

Sigh. I give up on this issue.

Are you kidding? I'm not even going to begin trying to debate this because it is pointless.

I see. In other words, you have no support at all to offer for your claim.

Furthermore, who cares if he didn't believe in a "personal" god? Did you not read his quote I've posted as one of my signatures? It is plain obvious he believed in "A" god.

Well, since you think he's the most intelligent person who ever lived, and thus think his opinion on religious matter is important and influential, I would think that YOu would think it's important that Einstein completely disagrees with you on theology. But it appears that youwant to claim Einstein's support when you like it, and ignore his disagreement when it suits you.

You are right…it isn’t pompous or arrogant to disagree with someone. What is pompous and arrogant is trying to teach someone something they already know. Here is my original statement and your response to it.

Once again, it is neither pompous nor arrogant to disagree with somebody; nor to give voice to that disagreement. Nor is it even remotely pompous or arrogant to point out a fact, whether the person to whom you are pointing it out is aware of the fact or not.

And I'm sorry, but disagreeing with you is not "bashing" your opinion. What do you want, you to post something and nobody to even respond to it? It's a forum. That means you post ideas, and others respond to your posts, some agreeing, some disagreeing. Again, if you don't like that, your'e in the wrong place.

 

[jingwei]

What do Atheists think started the big bang?

 

[Philosoft]

What do Atheists think started the big bang?

I don't think it makes sense to talk about a cause prior to the appearance classical causality. If that means I'll never know, so be it.

 

[aeroz19]

If God is one of God's own creations, God must first exist before he can cause himself to exsit. If God is the only thing which can cause God to exist, then nothing could have caused God, therefore God could not exist.

God is not His own creation; nothing can create itself. God was, is, and will be forever.

If however something else caused God, then it would in fact be God, because it has created the creator which created the universe.

God has no cause and no begining and no end. He is God.

But you see it does. Am I required to prove leperchans don't exist to be justified in not believing in them? Am I required to prove Loki doesn't exist to be justified in not believing in him? Why is the Christian god different? Because you (not you personally) believe in him?

Is there a text written thousands of years ago about leperchans that predicted specific events that would take place in human history, and that did in fact happen? Is there a text that involves leperchans or fairies or elves or hobbits that lays down laws for humankind to follow? And when these laws are followed, do they in fact improve a man's or a woman's life? Can leperchans speak to people or satisfy spiritual longings? Do leperchans ease our pain, comfort us in sorrow, or give us joy? Do leperchans speak to believers of the "leperchan" religion?

Why would I believe in a god if there was no proof that he/she/it/whatever existed? I have proof; God is supernatural (spiritual) and the proof is spiritual and historical.

I used to stumble constantly at the argument that if you can't detect something as matter with scientific instruments (which are extensions of our human senses), then it did not exist. However, we are spiritual beings and therefore we can "detect" not only with our body, but with our spirits. We can understand scripture and prophesy (on a level that goes beyond the intelligence of the mind), we can sense God's Presence, we can feel clean when we are forgiven of sin, we can sense God's love, we can connect with God in intimate ways, and He with us, because we have accepted His gidt of salvation to us. We can sense His power, his awesomeness, and just how huge He is compared to us.

It's all very real, and it's not necessarily all physical/scientific.

 

[Arturis]

Sigh. I give up on this issue.

- Good...because you can't prove you are right.

I see. In other words, you have no support at all to offer for your claim.

- I don't need to. Ask anyone in the scientific community. I'm not going to start posting a thousand web blogs or citing reference points because it makes no difference whatsoever.

Well, since you think he's the most intelligent person who ever lived, and thus think his opinion on religious matter is important and influential, I would think that You would think it's important that Einstein completely disagrees with you on theology. But it appears that you want to claim Einstein's support when you like it, and ignore his disagreement when it suits you.

Einstein was not an athiest. If anything he was an agnostic. He believed in god though he was not religious. It is you who refuse to acknoledge it and ignore what disagrees with you. Here are some of his quotes on spirituality.

- Professor Dr. Albert Einstein. 1879-1955

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"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."

"The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science."

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."

"When the solution is simple, God is answering."

"God does not play dice with the universe."

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty."

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

"The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men."

"The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man."

"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man."

Once again, it is neither pompous nor arrogant to disagree with somebody; nor to give voice to that disagreement. Nor is it even remotely pompous or arrogant to point out a fact, whether the person to whom you are pointing it out is aware of the fact or not.

- Well I disagree. Telling me the sky is blue as if I didn’t know that already is pompous and arrogant whether you believe it to be or not. It makes assumptions as to who you are dealing with as if your intellect is to a higher degree than mine and is in essence "blowing hot air".

And I'm sorry, but disagreeing with you is not "bashing" your opinion. What do you want, you to post something and nobody to even respond to it? It's a forum. That means you post ideas, and others respond to your posts, some agreeing, some disagreeing. Again, if you don't like that, you’re in the wrong place.

- Again, you are ignoring what I said and you are erroneously putting words into my mouth. I don't care what you think of my opinion and I fully expect there to be some debate over posts. What I pointed out is that you went after my post with NOTHING substantial. Again...if you want to debate something then come at it with something interesting rather than thumping your chest with rhetoric over the obvious.

Am I still in the wrong place because you haven't been able to defeat a single argument of mine but have had to resort to skirting around the issues, saying the same thing over and over again (as if repetition proves your argument) and even putting words in my mouth like this last blurb? I don't think so pal. I'm sticking around for a while so get used to it.

 

[Emmy]

Perhaps you would also have a very highbrow answer why I truly believe that Jesus is our Saviour.I can only tell you how I found the answer to my unbelief.I believed that there was a Creator God,because the truth of this is all around us.But Jesus I only knew from my school days,because I liked everything about Him,our teacher told us.I only was told,however,what a very good man He had been.When I heard,much later in life,that Jesus died for our sins and opened the door back to the Father,it did not make any sense to me.I could not help thinking about this,however,and praise the Lord for letting me meet a very learned Christian;but I still could not believe.Then I was given this advice:seek and you will find.I started to pray and read the bible and pray and pray again. It took perhaps 6 to 8 weeks,and then I knew who Jesus really was and is.My life changed,I enjoyed people and had an assurance,that there really is a loving God.Thousands and thousands of Christians who also believe cannot all be wrong.Sincere greetings and wishes that all may find,what I found.Emmy.

 

[The Bellman]

- Good...because you can't prove you are right.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

I don't need to. Ask anyone in the scientific community. I'm not going to start posting a thousand web blogs or citing reference points because it makes no difference whatsoever.

Yes, you DO need to. You made a ridiculous claim with no support, and you haven't even attempted to display any. Certainly, nobody in the scientific community would support such a ludicrous claim.

Einstein was not an athiest. If anything he was an agnostic. He believed in god though he was not religious. It is you who refuse to acknoledge it and ignore what disagrees with you. Here are some of his quotes on spirituality.

Oops! Looks like you need to read more closely. I neither stated nor implied that Einstein was an atheist. He explicitly did not believe in a personal god, as he stated a number of times times. It is not me who refuse to acknowledge it; it is you. I know what Einstein believed in, and it was NOT what you believe in. It was not what I believe in either, but I'm not citing him as some sort of authority on the subject.

Well I disagree. Telling me the sky is blue as if I didn’t know that already is pompous and arrogant whether you believe it to be or not. It makes assumptions as to who you are dealing with as if your intellect is to a higher degree than mine and is in essence "blowing hot air".

I didn't tell you the sky is blue. I told you something that it appeared you weren't aware of. If you WERE aware of it, then ignore my informing you of it. Certainly, carrying on like this about it unwarranted.

Again, you are ignoring what I said and you are erroneously putting words into my mouth. I don't care what you think of my opinion and I fully expect there to be some debate over posts. What I pointed out is that you went after my post with NOTHING substantial. Again...if you want to debate something then come at it with something interesting rather than thumping your chest with rhetoric over the obvious.

Yeah. Right. Then stop complaining because I have disagreed with you.

Am I still in the wrong place because you haven't been able to defeat a single argument of mine but have had to resort to skirting around the issues, saying the same thing over and over again (as if repetition proves your argument) and even putting words in my mouth like this last blurb? I don't think so pal. I'm sticking around for a while so get used to it.

Yes, you are still in the wrong place because you seem to be very upset that I actually disagreed with you. I have at no stage put words in your mouth; I have disagreed with you and pointed out where your statements lack support. As I have said, if you don't like this, yes, you ARE in the wrong place.

 

[The Bellman]

Okay, Arturis, let's go through it again.

You originally posted and claimed "I'm rational and I believe in God."

I replied that claiming this proves nothing. You replied that you weren't trying to prove anything - just making the statement. Which is all well and good, except that this forum is generally considered to be for debate. Posting opinions and offering no support is not debate. I could tell you that I am Jesus Christ - and back it up by saying "Who said it was trying to prove anything? I believe it." Of course, that would accomplish nothing, just like your claim to be rational.

You also claimed that the whole universe is moving. I disagreed with this, stating that there is nothing for the universe to be moving in, so it isn't moving. You replied that since many things IN the universe are moving, it as a whole is moving, which is demonstrably false. As I stated, if you have a stationary bucket with a moving bug in it, you don't say the bucket is moving - you say the bug is. You then brought up the only valid point in this area that you have made - that the universe is expanding, and thus moving. If expansion is considered movement, then yes, it is moving, in relation to itself. Again, there is nothing outside the universe for it to be moving in.

You then went to argumentum ad populum by claiming that "some of the most scientific and intelligent people in history" agreed with you (regarding the existence of God). Of course, this demonstrates absolutely nothing. Firstly, "some of the most scientific and intelligent people in history" also DISagreed with you regarding the existence of God. In any case, argumentum ad populum demonstrates nothing but that people have believed; it says nothing at all about the validity, correctness or rationality of the belief.

You then bring up Einstein, and claim to "hold his opinions with more weight than [mine]". Firstly, this is a resort to authority, and a particularly invalid one, since Einstein had no training in religion. Secondly, you obviously pick and choose which of Einstein's opinions you actually give more weight, since while he believed in a deity, he explicitly did NOT believe in a personal god of any kind. In other words, he disagreed with you regarding god. But you don't give THAT much weight, do you?

You then make the ludicrous claim that "Einstein is generally considered to be the most intelligent human being ever in recorded history." For this claim, you offer no support whatsoever. Plainly, it is ridiculous. We have no method of comparing Einstein's intelligence with anyone else's; similarly, we have no way of comparing any other famous scientist's intelligence with anyone else's. What makes you believe that Einstein was more intelligent than, for example, Galileo, or Faraday, or Newton? The only reference source I can think of in relation to this is Guinness, and they don't even mention Einstein in their discussion of the most intelligent humans in history. Your reply to my disagreement with your claim was to say that I should "ask anyone in the science community". Of course, you did not actually supply any references supporting your claim. I defy you to find a single relevant reference which does so. In short, your claim was unsupported and false.

You then start complaining about the fact that I am arguing with you about your opinion. Why you would complain about this is a mystery, since that is entirely what this board and other forums like it are for. You claim I am "pompous and arrogant" to do so, which is ridiculous. You are arguing with MY opinion - does that make you "pompous and arrogant"? If you think it does, then you ARE in the wrong forum.

You mention again that Einstein believed in "a" god, as if in support of your belief in a god. However, the god he believed in is completely different to yours, and he would have thought your belief absurd. So please, don't go citing Einstein as support for your religious beliefs.

You next started complaining that it was "pompous and arrogant" of me to tell you something you already knew. This, too, is ridiculous. Obviously, people tell others something when they think the person does NOT know it. If they, in fact, DO know it, then no harm is done. To call it "pompous and arrogant" to believe that someone does not know a particular thing is absurd. At most, it's simply incorrect.

You claim that I "refuse to acknowledge [Einstein's religious beliefs] and ignore what disagrees with you." This is completely false and without foundation. I at no stage made any statements in which I refused to acknowledge anything about Einstein's religious beliefs. I merely pointed out that they disagree with YOURS. Since you seem to value his opinion so highly on religious matters, I would think this would be of import to you. However, apparently you value his opinion when it agrees with yours, and disregard it when it disagrees with yours.

You then post a long sequence of quotes from Einstein about his religious beliefs. None of them are news to anyone, nor do they prove anything, since the fact that Einstein believed in a god was never in dispute. You don't seem to want to hear about quotes from Einstein that might disagree with your opinions on religious matters, such as:

"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."

"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."

"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."

Hmmm...doesn't sound much like he agrees with you regarding god, does it? I guess you better change your beliefs, since Einstein is such a hero of yours. Of course, you may well say that Einstein was a scientist, and his opinions on religion are no more informed, rational, or likely to be correct than any other man's, particularly since he had no religious training. And if you said that, you would be correct. But then there would have been no point in your bringing him up in the first place, would there?

You then claim that I have been putting words in your mouth, but you don't/can't demonstrate where, so until you do, I'll just ignore that statement.

You complain a little more that I "went after [your] post with NOTHING substantial". I've no idea what you think "something substantial" is. You posted (by your own admission) your opinion, which I countered with my own. I personally feel my opinion is "something substantial" - and if you don't, it would seem you are falling into doing what you accused me of earlier, and being "pompous and arrogant" in finding your opinion of more worth than mine.

Finally, you claim that I "haven't been able to defeat a single argument of [yours]". So far, I haven't seen you even make an argument. You have made several claims and given no support for any of them. I have refuted them with my own opinion (since that's all that you gave - your opinion). The ONE area in which you have posted some support is regarding Einstein's religious beliefs - but they were never in contention, and even then it seems you picked and chose those quotes of his that seemed to support your position.

In short, you posted your opinion...I countered with my opinion...and you don't like that. As I've said before, if you don't, I suggest that you're in the wrong forum. On the other hand, if you're confident that you ARE in the right place, then stop complaining about it whenever someone disagrees with you. Instead, discuss the issues and quite claiming that your opinions should be sacrosanct.

 

[The Bellman]

Perhaps you would also have a very highbrow answer why I truly believe that Jesus is our Saviour.I can only tell you how I found the answer to my unbelief.I believed that there was a Creator God,because the truth of this is all around us.But Jesus I only knew from my school days,because I liked everything about Him,our teacher told us.I only was told,however,what a very good man He had been.When I heard,much later in life,that Jesus died for our sins and opened the door back to the Father,it did not make any sense to me.I could not help thinking about this,however,and praise the Lord for letting me meet a very learned Christian;but I still could not believe.Then I was given this advice:seek and you will find.I started to pray and read the bible and pray and pray again. It took perhaps 6 to 8 weeks,and then I knew who Jesus really was and is.My life changed,I enjoyed people and had an assurance,that there really is a loving God.Thousands and thousands of Christians who also believe cannot all be wrong.Sincere greetings and wishes that all may find,what I found.Emmy.

Sorry, but yes, thousands and thousands - millions and millions - of Christians CAN all be wrong. Just like you believe that millions and millions of muslims and hindus ARE wrong. Popularity of a belief says nothing whatsoever about that belief's rationality or correctness.

 

[Arturis]

Okay, Arturis, let's go through it again.

You originally posted and claimed "I'm rational and I believe in God."

I replied that claiming this proves nothing. You replied that you weren't trying to prove anything - just making the statement. Which is all well and good, except that this forum is generally considered to be for debate. Posting opinions and offering no support is not debate. I could tell you that I am Jesus Christ - and back it up by saying "Who said it was trying to prove anything? I believe it." Of course, that would accomplish nothing, just like your claim to be rational.

You also claimed that the whole universe is moving. I disagreed with this, stating that there is nothing for the universe to be moving in, so it isn't moving. You replied that since many things IN the universe are moving, it as a whole is moving, which is demonstrably false. As I stated, if you have a stationary bucket with a moving bug in it, you don't say the bucket is moving - you say the bug is. You then brought up the only valid point in this area that you have made - that the universe is expanding, and thus moving. If expansion is considered movement, then yes, it is moving, in relation to itself. Again, there is nothing outside the universe for it to be moving in.

You then went to argumentum ad populum by claiming that "some of the most scientific and intelligent people in history" agreed with you (regarding the existence of God). Of course, this demonstrates absolutely nothing. Firstly, "some of the most scientific and intelligent people in history" also DISagreed with you regarding the existence of God. In any case, argumentum ad populum demonstrates nothing but that people have believed; it says nothing at all about the validity, correctness or rationality of the belief.

You then bring up Einstein, and claim to "hold his opinions with more weight than [mine]". Firstly, this is a resort to authority, and a particularly invalid one, since Einstein had no training in religion. Secondly, you obviously pick and choose which of Einstein's opinions you actually give more weight, since while he believed in a deity, he explicitly did NOT believe in a personal god of any kind. In other words, he disagreed with you regarding god. But you don't give THAT much weight, do you?

You then make the ludicrous claim that "Einstein is generally considered to be the most intelligent human being ever in recorded history." For this claim, you offer no support whatsoever. Plainly, it is ridiculous. We have no method of comparing Einstein's intelligence with anyone else's; similarly, we have no way of comparing any other famous scientist's intelligence with anyone else's. What makes you believe that Einstein was more intelligent than, for example, Galileo, or Faraday, or Newton? The only reference source I can think of in relation to this is Guinness, and they don't even mention Einstein in their discussion of the most intelligent humans in history. Your reply to my disagreement with your claim was to say that I should "ask anyone in the science community". Of course, you did not actually supply any references supporting your claim. I defy you to find a single relevant reference which does so. In short, your claim was unsupported and false.

You then start complaining about the fact that I am arguing with you about your opinion. Why you would complain about this is a mystery, since that is entirely what this board and other forums like it are for. You claim I am "pompous and arrogant" to do so, which is ridiculous. You are arguing with MY opinion - does that make you "pompous and arrogant"? If you think it does, then you ARE in the wrong forum.

You mention again that Einstein believed in "a" god, as if in support of your belief in a god. However, the god he believed in is completely different to yours, and he would have thought your belief absurd. So please, don't go citing Einstein as support for your religious beliefs.

You next started complaining that it was "pompous and arrogant" of me to tell you something you already knew. This, too, is ridiculous. Obviously, people tell others something when they think the person does NOT know it. If they, in fact, DO know it, then no harm is done. To call it "pompous and arrogant" to believe that someone does not know a particular thing is absurd. At most, it's simply incorrect.

You claim that I "refuse to acknowledge [Einstein's religious beliefs] and ignore what disagrees with you." This is completely false and without foundation. I at no stage made any statements in which I refused to acknowledge anything about Einstein's religious beliefs. I merely pointed out that they disagree with YOURS. Since you seem to value his opinion so highly on religious matters, I would think this would be of import to you. However, apparently you value his opinion when it agrees with yours, and disregard it when it disagrees with yours.

You then post a long sequence of quotes from Einstein about his religious beliefs. None of them are news to anyone, nor do they prove anything, since the fact that Einstein believed in a god was never in dispute. You don't seem to want to hear about quotes from Einstein that might disagree with your opinions on religious matters, such as:

"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."

"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."

"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."

Hmmm...doesn't sound much like he agrees with you regarding god, does it? I guess you better change your beliefs, since Einstein is such a hero of yours. Of course, you may well say that Einstein was a scientist, and his opinions on religion are no more informed, rational, or likely to be correct than any other man's, particularly since he had no religious training. And if you said that, you would be correct. But then there would have been no point in your bringing him up in the first place, would there?

You then claim that I have been putting words in your mouth, but you don't/can't demonstrate where, so until you do, I'll just ignore that statement.

You complain a little more that I "went after [your] post with NOTHING substantial". I've no idea what you think "something substantial" is. You posted (by your own admission) your opinion, which I countered with my own. I personally feel my opinion is "something substantial" - and if you don't, it would seem you are falling into doing what you accused me of earlier, and being "pompous and arrogant" in finding your opinion of more worth than mine.

Finally, you claim that I "haven't been able to defeat a single argument of [yours]". So far, I haven't seen you even make an argument. You have made several claims and given no support for any of them. I have refuted them with my own opinion (since that's all that you gave - your opinion). The ONE area in which you have posted some support is regarding Einstein's religious beliefs - but they were never in contention, and even then it seems you picked and chose those quotes of his that seemed to support your position.

In short, you posted your opinion...I countered with my opinion...and you don't like that. As I've said before, if you don't, I suggest that you're in the wrong forum. On the other hand, if you're confident that you ARE in the right place, then stop complaining about it whenever someone disagrees with you. Instead, discuss the issues and quite claiming that your opinions should be sacrosanct.

- All just hot air bellman. See...and I only took two sentences.

 

[Arturis]

Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

- If you have more proof than I then share it. Otherwise...let it go.

Yes, you DO need to. You made a ridiculous claim with no support, and you haven't even attempted to display any. Certainly, nobody in the scientific community would support such a ludicrous claim.

- Um...no I don't. If you are too ignorant to know that Einstein was one of the most intelligent if not the most intelligent human in recorded history than its your problem not mine.

Oops! Looks like you need to read more closely. I neither stated nor implied that Einstein was an atheist. He explicitly did not believe in a personal god, as he stated a number of times times. It is not me who refuse to acknowledge it; it is you. I know what Einstein believed in, and it was NOT what you believe in. It was not what I believe in either, but I'm not citing him as some sort of authority on the subject.

- oops! It seems like you need to read more closely. I don't care about whether he believed in a "personal" god. It was you that brought that position up in argument against my position in the first place. I simply don't care because it made no difference to the argument except to you.

I didn't tell you the sky is blue. I told you something that it appeared you weren't aware of. If you WERE aware of it, then ignore my informing you of it. Certainly, carrying on like this about it unwarranted.

- Its called a metaphor. Stop crying, its not becoming of a person of your age or intelligence..

Yeah. Right. Then stop complaining because I have disagreed with you.

- You are still ignoring what I said.

Yes, you are still in the wrong place because you seem to be very upset that I actually disagreed with you. I have at no stage put words in your mouth; I have disagreed with you and pointed out where your statements lack support. As I have said, if you don't like this, yes, you ARE in the wrong place.

- Pot calling the kettle black eh? Still putting words in my mouth? Still trying to use the "in the wrong place" power trip? Pride is a wonderful thing isn't it? T

he problem is that you have not sufficiently proven your argument against any of my posts. Until you do I have no reason to concede or run away. On the other hand, you haven't been able to refute my claims against you except whine over them.

If you want to refute someone’s post...like I said...you need to refute it with something worth while. Pointing out the obvious (like you did) doesn't make you a detective, teacher or good arguer. It makes you look silly. So just give it up already or come back when you actually have something worth my attention.

 

[Arturis]

Okay, Arturis, let's go through it again.

You originally posted and claimed "I'm rational and I believe in God."

I replied that claiming this proves nothing. You replied that you weren't trying to prove anything - just making the statement. Which is all well and good, except that this forum is generally considered to be for debate. Posting opinions and offering no support is not debate. I could tell you that I am Jesus Christ - and back it up by saying "Who said it was trying to prove anything? I believe it." Of course, that would accomplish nothing, just like your claim to be rational.

- I'm saying I already know that and I wasn't trying to prove anything. You were simply pointing out the obvious in an effort to argue something that needs no argument. Metaphorically calling the sky "blue". Big deal. Not too impressive if you ask me.

You also claimed that the whole universe is moving. I disagreed with this, stating that there is nothing for the universe to be moving in, so it isn't moving. You replied that since many things IN the universe are moving, it as a whole is moving, which is demonstrably false. As I stated, if you have a stationary bucket with a moving bug in it, you don't say the bucket is moving - you say the bug is. You then brought up the only valid point in this area that you have made - that the universe is expanding, and thus moving. If expansion is considered movement, then yes, it is moving, in relation to itself. Again, there is nothing outside the universe for it to be moving in.

- I stated that the universe is moving if it is expanding as proven. The universe is not a bucket. It has no fixed boundaries that we can ascertain. The fact that the border of the universe is larger now than it was 5 minutes ago denotes movement. Nobody knows if there is nothing outside the universe, not even you.

You then went to argumentum ad populum by claiming that "some of the most scientific and intelligent people in history" agreed with you (regarding the existence of God). Of course, this demonstrates absolutely nothing. Firstly, "some of the most scientific and intelligent people in history" also DISagreed with you regarding the existence of God. In any case, argumentum ad populum demonstrates nothing but that people have believed; it says nothing at all about the validity, correctness or rationality of the belief.

- You still don't get it do you? I don't care. I wasn't trying to prove anything. Here...I'll give you another clue.

I like chocolate. Now...Tell me why the chocolate doesn't exist or why I shouldn't like it? Tell me how my liking chocolate proves nothing. Tell me how I need to prove that I like chocolate.

You then bring up Einstein, and claim to "hold his opinions with more weight than [mine]". Firstly, this is a resort to authority, and a particularly invalid one, since Einstein had no training in religion. Secondly, you obviously pick and choose which of Einstein's opinions you actually give more weight, since while he believed in a deity, he explicitly did NOT believe in a personal god of any kind. In other words, he disagreed with you regarding god. But you don't give THAT much weight, do you?

I don't care how much training in religion you've had nor do I care how little Einstein had. I also don't care that Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. And still I hold his opinions on the subject higher than yours precisely for that very reason. Being indoctrinated in religion doesn't make one an expert on God. It makes you indoctrinated to believe what you can't prove...not particularly "free thinking" if you ask me.

You then make the ludicrous claim that "Einstein is generally considered to be the most intelligent human being ever in recorded history." For this claim, you offer no support whatsoever. Plainly, it is ridiculous. We have no method of comparing Einstein's intelligence with anyone else's; similarly, we have no way of comparing any other famous scientist's intelligence with anyone else's. What makes you believe that Einstein was more intelligent than, for example, Galileo, or Faraday, or Newton? The only reference source I can think of in relation to this is Guinness, and they don't even mention Einstein in their discussion of the most intelligent humans in history. Your reply to my disagreement with your claim was to say that I should "ask anyone in the science community". Of course, you did not actually supply any references supporting your claim. I defy you to find a single relevant reference which does so. In short, your claim was unsupported and false.

- Ludicrous to whom? You? If that the case then you are also entitled to your opinion. I don't need to prove anything that is self evident. Nor do I need to prove something that cannot be proven. His life, works and what he has done for science and physics shows him as being what I claimed. Just as the same can be said for Stephen Hawking, Galileo, Faraday, or Newton. They were/are also impressive in their own right but none of them put all the pieces of the puzzle together as Einstein did with the theory of relativity.

You then start complaining about the fact that I am arguing with you about your opinion. Why you would complain about this is a mystery, since that is entirely what this board and other forums like it are for. You claim I am "pompous and arrogant" to do so, which is ridiculous. You are arguing with MY opinion - does that make you "pompous and arrogant"? If you think it does, then you ARE in the wrong forum.

- I'm not complaining about it I’m pointing out how you are wrong in assuming that you are in the right as well as pointing out the obvious as if is was worth arguing. That’s your problem. Not mine.

You mention again that Einstein believed in "a" god, as if in support of your belief in a god. However, the god he believed in is completely different to yours, and he would have thought your belief absurd. So please, don't go citing Einstein as support for your religious beliefs.

- This statement is as ignorant and stupid. Tell me how you wouldn't know how Einstein would have felt about my beliefs? I can cite anyone I want and reason anything I want. You are in no position to tell me what I can and cannot do. And you have been trying to explain how you aren't arrogant. lol

You next started complaining that it was "pompous and arrogant" of me to tell you something you already knew. This, too, is ridiculous. Obviously, people tell others something when they think the person does NOT know it. If they, in fact, DO know it, then no harm is done. To call it "pompous and arrogant" to believe that someone does not know a particular thing is absurd. At most, it's simply incorrect.

Really? Can't find a logical explanation on how you can be wrong? That is absurd.

You claim that I "refuse to acknowledge [Einstein's religious beliefs] and ignore what disagrees with you." This is completely false and without foundation. I at no stage made any statements in which I refused to acknowledge anything about Einstein's religious beliefs. I merely pointed out that they disagree with YOURS. Since you seem to value his opinion so highly on religious matters, I would think this would be of import to you. However, apparently you value his opinion when it agrees with yours, and disregard it when it disagrees with yours.

- Here we go again. Twist, distort, put words in my mouth. I never said I valued his opinion on religious matters because he wasn't a religious person. I valued his opinion on the existence of god.

You then post a long sequence of quotes from Einstein about his religious beliefs. None of them are news to anyone, nor do they prove anything, since the fact that Einstein believed in a god was never in dispute. You don't seem to want to hear about quotes from Einstein that might disagree with your opinions on religious matters, such as:

- How do you know what my opinions on religious matters are? I haven't told you any of them. You assume to know my position and how it doesn't jive. Your assumption is false and also happens to be. here’s that word again...arrogant. Because you ascertain to know what you can't.

"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."

"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."

"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."

Hmmm...doesn't sound much like he agrees with you regarding god, does it? I guess you better change your beliefs, since Einstein is such a hero of yours. Of course, you may well say that Einstein was a scientist, and his opinions on religion are no more informed, rational, or likely to be correct than any other man's, particularly since he had no religious training. And if you said that, you would be correct. But then there would have been no point in your bringing him up in the first place, would there?

- You don't know my beliefs arrogant one. I don't care about his lack of religious training in fact I applaud him over it. Since he was a scientist, and scientist by nature hold a skeptics view on everything, then his opinions are indeed more worthy of consideration then yours for the very reason that you are indoctrinated with religion and he was a free thinker and came to the conclusion with his own intellect not because he was told so.

You then claim that I have been putting words in your mouth, but you don't/can't demonstrate where, so until you do, I'll just ignore that statement.

- Ok here we go again. I'll demonstrate them for you.

"since Einstein is such a hero of yours" - when did I say this?

"doesn't sound much like he agrees with you regarding god" - tell me when I've enlightened you about my beliefs about god?

"Since you seem to value his opinion so highly on religious matters" - When did I say that I valued Einstein’s religious values when it is evident he wasn't religious?

"However, the god he believed in is completely different to yours" - How do you know this? Did I reveal to you my view so you can compare it to a dead man?

"he explicitly did NOT believe in a personal god of any kind. In other words, he disagreed with you regarding god" - And you know this for certain how?

"Then stop complaining because I have disagreed with you" - Who’s complaining about that? If shoving your absurdities back in your face is complaining then I am guilty.

You complain a little more that I "went after [your] post with NOTHING substantial". I've no idea what you think "something substantial" is. You posted (by your own admission) your opinion, which I countered with my own. I personally feel my opinion is "something substantial" - and if you don't, it would seem you are falling into doing what you accused me of earlier, and being "pompous and arrogant" in finding your opinion of more worth than mine.

- I've already posted a reply to this. There was nothing substantial in it. You were just blowing hot air and pointing out the obvious. Arguing it won't change that fact.

Finally, you claim that I "haven't been able to defeat a single argument of [yours]". So far, I haven't seen you even make an argument. You have made several claims and given no support for any of them. I have refuted them with my own opinion (since that's all that you gave - your opinion). The ONE area in which you have posted some support is regarding Einstein's religious beliefs - but they were never in contention, and even then it seems you picked and chose those quotes of his that seemed to support your position.

Again, how many times do I have to explain this? I never quoted Einstein for his religious beliefs because he wasn't religious. You are twisting the issues again.

In short, you posted your opinion...I countered with my opinion...and you don't like that. As I've said before, if you don't, I suggest that you're in the wrong forum. On the other hand, if you're confident that you ARE in the right place, then stop complaining about it whenever someone disagrees with you. Instead, discuss the issues and quite claiming that your opinions should be sacrosanct.

- I posted my opinion...you countered with stating the obvious...I threw it back in your face...and you keep defending why it by twisting my words, putting words in my mouth and even making stuff up. You should take a page from your own rule book.

 

[aeroz19]

Hey, you both (Arturis and The Bellman), you know what? Einstein was the smartest man alive! Therefore, lets agree with everything he believed in! He's just got to be right! After all, he was sooooooooooooooooo smart!

By the way, he failed in most subjects in school while doing exceptional only in math and science.

 

[aeroz19]

By the way, Einstein disagreed with both of you. Therefore...he's right and you both are wrong and must immediately convert to the Einstein religion!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Bellman]

- If you have more proof than I then share it. Otherwise...let it go.

I have. You were wrong unless, as stated, by "movement" you meant exclusively "expansion".

- Um...no I don't. If you are too ignorant to know that Einstein was one of the most intelligent if not the most intelligent human in recorded history than its your problem not mine.

Ah. Now it's "ONE of the most intelligent". Tell me...one of the hundred most intelligent men in recorded history? One of the thousand most intelligent men in history? Your claim originally was that he was THE most intelligent man in recorded history. It is THIS claim which you have not in any way supported, because you cannot.

- oops! It seems like you need to read more closely. I don't care about whether he believed in a "personal" god. It was you that brought that position up in argument against my position in the first place. I simply don't care because it made no difference to the argument except to you.

You brought up the fact that Einstein believed in a god as support for your position; the fact that he did not believe in the god you believe in is, obviously, relevant.

- Its called a metaphor. Stop crying, its not becoming of a person of your age or intelligence..

Oh, please. I reply to your allegations and it's "crying"?

- You are still ignoring what I said.

No, I am not. I am taking and have taken great care to reply to exactly what you have said.

- Pot calling the kettle black eh? Still putting words in my mouth? Still trying to use the "in the wrong place" power trip? Pride is a wonderful thing isn't it? The problem is that you have not sufficiently proven your argument against any of my posts. Until you do I have no reason to concede or run away. On the other hand, you haven't been able to refute my claims against you except whine over them.

Power trip? Pride? What are you talking about? I have disagreed with you. You seem to take offence at this. This forum is ABOUT people disagreeing with you. If you take offence at the very purpose of the forum, it doesn't seem a great leap to say you shouldn't be here.

If you want to refute someone’s post...like I said...you need to refute it with something worth while. Pointing out the obvious (like you did) doesn't make you a detective, teacher or good arguer. It makes you look silly. So just give it up already or come back when you actually have something worth my attention.

This is just tiresome. I have refuted several of your points and commented on others. The only thing you have to say is that I have not said anything "worthwhile", and to continue to complain about me pointing out to you something that you claim you already knew. How about instead of endlessly complaining you actually respond to my posts?

- I'm saying I already know that and I wasn't trying to prove anything. You were simply pointing out the obvious in an effort to argue something that needs no argument. Metaphorically calling the sky "blue". Big deal. Not too impressive if you ask me.

No, I was not. I was pointing out something that it appeared you did not realise. If you DID realise it, then great. But whether you realised it or did not, there is no reason to continue to whine about it.

- I stated that the universe is moving if it is expanding as proven. The universe is not a bucket. It has no fixed boundaries that we can ascertain. The fact that the border of the universe is larger now than it was 5 minutes ago denotes movement. Nobody knows if there is nothing outside the universe, not even you.

Fine.

- You still don't get it do you? I don't care. I wasn't trying to prove anything. Here...I'll give you another clue.

Fine. If by saying that some of the most intelligent people in history have believed in god you weren't trying to prove or demonstrate anything, then it was completely useless to say, and I have to wonder why you did it. But if it wasn't meant to actually show anything, great...I'll simply ignore it.

I don't care how much training in religion you've had nor do I care how little Einstein had. I also don't care that Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. And still I hold his opinions on the subject higher than yours precisely for that very reason. Being indoctrinated in religion doesn't make one an expert on God. It makes you indoctrinated to believe what you can't prove...not particularly "free thinking" if you ask me.

Umm...great. You hold Einstein's opinions in high regard about religion, except that he disagreed completely with you.

- Ludicrous to whom? You? If that the case then you are also entitled to your opinion. I don't need to prove anything that is self evident. Nor do I need to prove something that cannot be proven. His life, works and what he has done for science and physics shows him as being what I claimed. Just as the same can be said for Stephen Hawking, Galileo, Faraday, or Newton. They were/are also impressive in their own right but none of them put all the pieces of the puzzle together as Einstein did with the theory of relativity.

Not ludicrous to me, or to any particular person. Simply ludicrous. You claim something that cannot be demonstrated or supported in any way. You don't even attempt to offer any support.

- I'm not complaining about it I’m pointing out how you are wrong in assuming that you are in the right as well as pointing out the obvious as if is was worth arguing. That’s your problem. Not mine.

Yes, you are, and have been, complaining, continually. You haven't bothered to actually address my points, you have merely whined that I had the audacity to disagree with you.

- This statement is as ignorant and stupid. Tell me how you wouldn't know how Einstein would have felt about my beliefs? I can cite anyone I want and reason anything I want. You are in no position to tell me what I can and cannot do. And you have been trying to explain how you aren't arrogant. lol

This doesn't even make sense. Einstein is on record as to how he felt about your beliefs. He called them "childlike". I have not at any stage tried to tell you what you can and cannot do - I've no idea where that came from.

Really? Can't find a logical explanation on how you can be wrong? That is absurd.

What on earth are you talking about? Please, can you try to make sense?

- Here we go again. Twist, distort, put words in my mouth. I never said I valued his opinion on religious matters because he wasn't a religious person. I valued his opinion on the existence of god.

I have at no stage twisted, distorted, or put words in your mouth. You have repeatedly said (including above) you value his opinion on religious matters. Hint - the existence of god IS a religious matter.

- How do you know what my opinions on religious matters are? I haven't told you any of them. You assume to know my position and how it doesn't jive. Your assumption is false and also happens to be. here’s that word again...arrogant. Because you ascertain to know what you can't.

You see that little cross in all your posts? That says you are a christian. That means to a large extent I DO know your opinions on religious matters. You believe in the christian god. For me to say so is not arrogant - it is simply taking account evidence. If, on the other hand, you are NOT a christian, and for some reason are misrepresenting yourself as one, then no, I don't know what your religious beliefs are. But I assumed you were honest in using the cross - forgive me if I was wrong, and you are in fact not a christian.

- You don't know my beliefs arrogant one. I don't care about his lack of religious training in fact I applaud him over it. Since he was a scientist, and scientist by nature hold a skeptics view on everything, then his opinions are indeed more worthy of consideration then yours for the very reason that you are indoctrinated with religion and he was a free thinker and came to the conclusion with his own intellect not because he was told so.

See above. Unless you are falsely representing yourself, I DO know your beliefs. Sorry, scientists do not hold sceptical views on everything. That is simply false. Scientists as a group are no more or less likely to hold "gullible" views on things outside their field of expertise. See Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things".

Ah, you tell me that I'm "indoctrinated with religion"? How do you know that? Obviously, you don't - and you call me arrogant?

Ok here we go again. I'll demonstrate them for you.

"since Einstein is such a hero of yours" - when did I say this?

You haven't said it explicitly; it is an obvious conclusion drawn from your repeated statements that he was the most intelligent man in the world; that you value his opinion on religious matters highly.

"doesn't sound much like he agrees with you regarding god" - tell me when I've enlightened you about my beliefs about god?

See above. You are a christian.

"Since you seem to value his opinion so highly on religious matters" - When did I say that I valued Einstein’s religious values when it is evident he wasn't religious?

You have repeatedly stated that you value his opinion on religious matters. Hint (again) - the existence of god is a religious matter.

"However, the god he believed in is completely different to yours" - How do you know this? Did I reveal to you my view so you can compare it to a dead man?

You reveal it by having the little cross in all your posts.

"he explicitly did NOT believe in a personal god of any kind. In other words, he disagreed with you regarding god" - And you know this for certain how?

I know what for certain? His views? Because of what he said. Your views? Because you are a christian.

"Then stop complaining because I have disagreed with you" - Who’s complaining about that? If shoving your absurdities back in your face is complaining then I am guilty.

You are complaining about that. Incessantly.

- I've already posted a reply to this. There was nothing substantial in it. You were just blowing hot air and pointing out the obvious. Arguing it won't change that fact.

Right. If you can't come up with a reply to a person, just say that what they said was "nothing substantial".

Again, how many times do I have to explain this? I never quoted Einstein for his religious beliefs because he wasn't religious. You are twisting the issues again.

Explain what? You are making a false claim. You quoted Einstein's religious opinions.

- I posted my opinion...you countered with stating the obvious...I threw it back in your face...and you keep defending why it by twisting my words, putting words in my mouth and even making stuff up. You should take a page from your own rule book.

I have at no stage twisted your words, put words in your mouth, or made stuff up. Your claiming I have done so is simply dishonest.

Now, since this entire exchange has degenerated into a farce, how about you address the ONE valid point it seems is still in dispute - Einstein's religious views and how they compare to christianity?

Einstein repeatedly stated that he did not believe in a personal god, and viewed such belief as "childlike". Given this, I find it ironic for a christian to claim [Einstein]'s views as support for his own, given that Einstein would have completely disagreed with them.

 

[PK Philosopher]

i didnt read all the posts by eveyone but...


I agree that God can't be "proven"...God is the best example of something "supernatural" and of course being supernatural does indeed mean that we can't prove it really.
Im wondering why some people that (from what i can tell) believe in God, try to srgue that he can be proved...would this not mean that God would be comprehendable fully be us humans? would that not disprove him? really it doesnt make sense at all to say that you can prove God...I thought that this was a common elementary belief

the thing is, even though God cant be "proven" the human instinct to believe in God (or any greater being or whatever) is so great an urge that many times people believe in God even though disproof of him is prevalent...
this could be "proof" of God but then you have to figure that the unknown is always a factor...you could say i suppose that nothing can be proven really
but im just starting to ramble now

 

[Arturis]

I'm not going to argue anything prior to this anymore because of tired of beating my head against a brick wall. So I'll take it from the bottom.

I have at no stage twisted your words, put words in your mouth, or made stuff up. Your claiming I have done so is simply dishonest.

- I've already demonstrated this point. Citing that I have a cross next to my name means nothing nor does it have anything to do with the thread title. My views on Christianity differ from most people and I have never explained them to you. If you read my bio you would understand this.

Now, since this entire exchange has degenerated into a farce, how about you address the ONE valid point it seems is still in dispute - Einstein's religious views and how they compare to christianity?

- Who said Einstein’s religious views compare to Christianity? Who made that assertion; not I? I did however applaud him over the fact that he was not religious, was extremely intelligent and as a scientist still believed in "a" god, that he wasn't an athiest. If I'm not mistaken, you seemed to agree with this.

Now...The title of this thread is "a rational mind wouldn't believe in god" is it not? Where in the title does it mention religion or the Judeo-Christian god?

Einstein repeatedly stated that he did not believe in a personal god, and viewed such belief as "childlike". Given this, I find it ironic for a christian to claim [Einstein]'s views as support for his own, given that Einstein would have completely disagreed with them.

- Yeah...so...and your point is exactly what? Why is it Ironic? That a man of superior intelligence to my own and a scientist who as a mantra must be rational and a skeptic in their views to maintain credibility in the scientific community, came to a conclusion and believed in "a" god?

This thread has nothing to do with me nor does it have anything to do with "personal gods". Why would I try and compare his views with mine? Personally, I happen to believe in Jesus and try to follow his teachings not because I was taught or told to but because I choose to. I choose so because there is reasonable proof to me in the form of historical writings and the profound nature and depth of his teachings. So much so that even if Jesus weren’t god, I would still follow his works because they are right and true regardless of his stature. I also happen to agree with many of the Buddhist philosophy too for that same reason.

Whether Einstein would agree with my philosophy or not is irrelevant to the thread. What is relevant is only that fact that he believed in "a" god and by the nature of his work and level of achievement must be a rational thinker to have maintained the credibility and influence in history and the scientific community as well a been able to unlock secrets so profound that they literally changed the world.

I brought him up because, in my opinion, he fit the bill that which could denounce this thread title as inaccurate. There are indeed rational thinkers that believe in some form of god and there are undoubtedly some that don’t. Exactly which God one believes in or not isn’t as important as that the ones that do can rationalize through circumstantial evidence as the wonderment around them in the universe why there must be.

I brought up the Newton's 1st & 3rd Law of Motion as such circumstantial evidence in regards to universal expansion and movement of everything within it away from the center of the universe: "An object in motion tends to stay in motion. And an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless the object is acted upon by an outside force". / "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

If this is true then we can assume that something greater than the known universe set it all in motion. God to me must certainly be the force greater than this. Perhaps Einstein only alluded to this and nothing else. Since he isn't around to answer that I can only go by if what he said doesn't contradict this.

 

[The Bellman]

I'm not going to argue anything prior to this anymore because of tired of beating my head against a brick wall. So I'll take it from the bottom.


- I've already demonstrated this point. Citing that I have a cross next to my name means nothing nor does it have anything to do with the thread title. My views on Christianity differ from most people and I have never explained them to you. If you read my bio you would understand this.


- Who said Einstein’s religious views compare to Christianity? Who made that assertion; not I? I did however applaud him over the fact that he was not religious, was extremely intelligent and as a scientist still believed in "a" god, that he wasn't an athiest. If I'm not mistaken, you seemed to agree with this.

Now...The title of this thread is "a rational mind wouldn't believe in god" is it not? Where in the title does it mention religion or the Judeo-Christian god?


- Yeah...so...and your point is exactly what? Why is it Ironic? That a man of superior intelligence to my own and a scientist who as a mantra must be rational and a skeptic in their views to maintain credibility in the scientific community, came to a conclusion and believed in "a" god?

This thread has nothing to do with me nor does it have anything to do with "personal gods". Why would I try and compare his views with mine? Personally, I happen to believe in Jesus and try to follow his teachings not because I was taught or told to but because I choose to. I choose so because there is reasonable proof to me in the form of historical writings and the profound nature and depth of his teachings. So much so that even if Jesus weren’t god, I would still follow his works because they are right and true regardless of his stature. I also happen to agree with many of the Buddhist philosophy too for that same reason.

Whether Einstein would agree with my philosophy or not is irrelevant to the thread. What is relevant is only that fact that he believed in "a" god and by the nature of his work and level of achievement must be a rational thinker to have maintained the credibility and influence in history and the scientific community as well a been able to unlock secrets so profound that they literally changed the world.

I brought him up because, in my opinion, he fit the bill that which could denounce this thread title as inaccurate. There are indeed rational thinkers that believe in some form of god and there are undoubtedly some that don’t. Exactly which God one believes in or not isn’t as important as that the ones that do can rationalize through circumstantial evidence as the wonderment around them in the universe why there must be.

I brought up the Newton's 1st & 3rd Law of Motion as such circumstantial evidence in regards to universal expansion and movement of everything within it away from the center of the universe: "An object in motion tends to stay in motion. And an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless the object is acted upon by an outside force". / "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".


If this is true then we can assume that something greater than the known universe set it all in motion. God to me must certainly be the force greater than this. Perhaps Einstein only alluded to this and nothing else. Since he isn't around to answer that I can only go by if what he said doesn't contradict this.

I give up. You are completely correct, and my every post was in error. I have twisted your words at every opportunity. I'm a bad person.

There. Now we can both move on. Hopefully I'll find someone with whom I can actually have a fruitful discussion, rather than someone who complains incessantly when anyone else actually disagrees with them.

 

[Arturis]

I give up. You are completely correct, and my every post was in error. I have twisted your words at every opportunity. I'm a bad person.

There. Now we can both move on. Hopefully I'll find someone with whom I can actually have a fruitful discussion, rather than someone who complains incessantly when anyone else actually disagrees with them.

- You asked a question...I answered it. Believe what you want.

If you want to have fruitful conversations in the future, especially when dealing with ones opinion, ask questions on what you don't understand first instead of denouncing, condemning or making assumptions. I would have been happy to explain the position of my opinion if not forced to take a defensive stance on it. I believe that the most important part of conversation is learning how to listen first.

All snide remarks aside, you obviously have a good degree of intelligence and I'm sure I will run into you again. Now that you know what you are dealing with, the next one needent be painful.

 

[The Bellman]

- You asked a question...I answered it. Believe what you want.

If you want to have fruitful conversations in the future, especially when dealing with ones opinion, ask questions on what you don't understand first instead of denouncing, condemning or making assumptions. I would have been happy to explain the position of my opinion if not forced to take a defensive stance on it. I believe that the most important part of conversation is learning how to listen first.

All snide remarks aside, you obviously have a good degree of intelligence and I'm sure I will run into you again. Now that you know what you are dealing with, the next one needent be painful.

If there were anything I didn't understand, or if I had denounced, condemned or made assumptions, I would have done so.