When in doubt, ask Einstein.

[Netbug009]

The fact that we can't prove your point is wrong (i.e. that it is unfalsifiable) means it lies outside the realm of science. And just because we can't prove it wrong doesn't mean it is necessarily true. You try proving a universal negative.

But that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong either. Between that, he miracles I've seen, and my own personal faith, I'd rather not take my chances with atheism. ^^

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Everything has a begging somewhere. Can you prove tha it's logical for something to always be there

Humans have never seen anything truly created only changed state or rearranged. The only thing that might be an exception to this are virtual particles in the quantum foam but these are considered uncaused. Why should our universe be any different? I see our universe as another state that began with what we refer to as "the big bang" of a greater reality that is eternal.

and can you prove that apiritual energy doesn't exsist? You can't prove my point is wrong just like you say I can't prove yours.

You're the one making a positive claim "spirits/spiritual energy exists" and it's up to you to show evidence that it exists. My lack of belief is based on lack of evidence I would assume that your belief is based on evidence. Present your evidence.

 

[anffyddwyr]

But that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong either. Between that, he miracles I've seen, and my own personal faith, I'd rather not take my chances with atheism. ^^

I agree with you, I am going to take my chances with the
flying purple people eaters because Atheism scares me to death.

It's sad to see what a human mind can be reduced to.

Mind you, fear of the unknown has always been a problem for people,
some even say it is the reason we have so many religions in the world.

I always found that 'Fear of a loving God' was something of a contradiction.

'Say you love me or I will kill you'.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way. The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist. However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter. Therefore, use being created by a spirit (God) makes more sense than the Big Bang just happening on it's own. Beleiving is God is proven to be more logical than atheism.

There, just backed up my beleifs with science for you. God bless.

Don't try to prove God using science, if you are using the science wrong or the science turns out to be wrong then your conclusions about God will be in doubt. Keep God in the faith realm, you can use science to strengthen your faith but don't think it proves it. Science is flexible and changes with new facts, faith usually doesnt change. The laws of conservation of mass and energy can inform your belief in God but it doesn't prove it. Science cannot address the soul, consciousness yes, but not the soul.
I personally think that once the matter and energy exists and once the basic laws of physics are in place, the universe can work fine on its own. As previous posters have pointed ou there are flaws in your arguments, don't rest your faith in God upon a potentially flawed understanding of potentially flawed science.

 

[MartinM]

Everything has a begging somewhere.

...except God, apparently. When you have to exempt the thing you believe in from your own argument, it's time to find a better argument.

 

[FishFace]

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way.

You've raised two contradictory points - either matter can't just come from nothing, in which case matter has always been around, or it can come from nothing, in which case it hasn't necessarily. Which is it?

The problem is, the law of conservation of mass

When you get to the beginning of the known universe, there is no law of conservation of mass - only of energy. A minor nitpick, but you should really be asking where energy came from, since mass came from energy.

doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist. However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of

Before you talk about understanding the spirit, you might want to provide evidence that this thing exists.

There, just backed up my beleifs with science for you. God bless.

No, you cobbled a rudimentary understanding of science on to an age-old argument for God, namely, the Cosmological Argument. Rather than responding to the above, you might want to concentrate on the following:

The CA essentially says that the universe, multiverse, metaverse, whatever, needs a creator, otherwise it couldn't exist. The painfully obvious retort is, "well, what created God?" The (equally obvious) comeback is, "nothing! God doesn't need a creator!"

But if there's something which doesn't need a creator, then that thing may as well be the universe as be God. If God existed forever, or if God just popped into existence, or whatever else, then those same properties can be applied to the universe. You thus lose your ability to say that the universe must have been created.

A common way of trying to get around this is to claim some property which implies the need for a cause or a creator. Often this is stated as, "anything that began to exist needs a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore it needs a cause - that cause is God."
The problems are twofold. Firstly, you have no reason for stating that the universe began to exist. Sure, there was the big bang, but there could have been something before that, we just don't know. Secondly, to say, "God" is to imply certain properties for this cause - omnibenevolence, personality, prayer-answering are some common ones.
But, "cause of the universe" does not in any way imply "omnibenevolent, personal, prayer answering deity." It's just "cause of the universe." You've not got evidence for anything else. So even if your argument worked, which it doesn't, it doesn't prove God it merely proves a cause. In life, causes are usually pretty mundane and not godlike at all.

 

[FishFace]

can you prove that apiritual energy doesn't exsist?

Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

Can you prove that there isn't a little ceramic teapot floating between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter?

Regardless of whether you can or can't disprove something, if there's no evidence of something's existence, the most sensible thing to believe is that it doesn't exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Everything has a begging somewhere. Can you prove tha it's logical for something to always be there and can you prove that apiritual energy doesn't exsist? You can't prove my point is wrong just like you say I can't prove yours.

Lack of disproof is not proof. You are claiming the existance of 'apiritual energy', so why should we have to disprove it? Can you disprove the existance of my chocolate teapot orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars?

 

[Netbug009]

True, but if I'm wrong I haven't missed out on anything really except inappropriate acts I'm not interested in anyways. If an atheist wrong you're gonna be in trouble with God. Between that and my faith I'll take my chances.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

True, but if I'm wrong I haven't missed out on anything really except inappropriate acts I'm not interested in anyways. If an atheist wrong you're gonna be in trouble with God. Between that and my faith I'll take my chances.

You realise that Christianity isn't the only religion, right?

 

[ONEGod]

anffyddwyr

Regular Member​

I always found that 'Fear of a loving God' was something of a contradiction.​

'Say you love me or I will kill you'.​

ONEGod:
You should understand scripture better, Fear the Lord also meant seriously respect the Lord.​

The Creator is where knowledge and wisdom comes from.
The Creaton is where we have substance to examine of the Creators handiwork.
Seek wisdom from the Lord
Seek knowledge of existence/science from the Creators handiwork
They are both a quest for a greater knowledge and are both likely to lead you to the same ends if you learn enough and live long enough.​

 

[ONEGod]

ONEGod:
Science or God ? Not by Einstein.

"I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research."
--Albert Einstein


"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
--Albert Einstein

Topic: God
"God is clever, but not dishonest."
--Albert Einstein

"God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean."
--Albert Einstein

"If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it."
--Albert Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge..."
--Albert Einstein


[ONEGod:of course you need FAITH to do that]


"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education"
--Albert Einstein


[ONEGod:Einstein spoke of miracles, where do they come from ?]


"It is only to the individual that a soul is given."
--Albert Einstein


[ONEGod: Soul, isn't that a Biblical/Godly Christian concept ?]


"Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God."
--Albert Einstein

"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."
--Albert Einstein

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
--Albert Einstein

Atheistic or Godly eh ?​

 

[us38]

True, but if I'm wrong I haven't missed out on anything really except inappropriate acts I'm not interested in anyways. If an atheist wrong you're gonna be in trouble with God. Between that and my faith I'll take my chances.

Pascal's Wager sucks. If Greek paganism is correct, were both going to Hades. Obviously, picking a religion based on possible punishments and rewards is not faith, and to suggest that an omniscient, all-loving god, would let people go to heaven simply for believing in him ans send the rest to hell is insulting to me, and should be incredibly insulting to anyone that believes in god.

Atheistic or Godly eh ?

Einstein may have believed in god, but it certainly wasn't the same god you believe in. One could make arguments for both deism and pandeism, but not for christianity. Besides, this is still one big argument from authority.

 

[smog]

can you prove that apiritual energy doesn't exsist?

I challenge your ability to define "spiritual energy" meaningfully. At least there are pictures on the internet to help me imagine a flying spaghetti monster. But spiritual energy? What's that?

 

[five]

I think when Einstein refers to God it's more of a metaphor.

 

[smog]

Can you disprove the existance of my chocolate teapot orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars?

I can: I ate it (argument from gluttony).

 

[five]

Anyway, whether or not Einstein was spiritual or religious is neither here nor there. He did great things for human understanding of the universe and it should be left at that.

 

[platzapS]

Einstein also refused to accept quantum mechanics because it would ruin his view of the universe as ultimately orderly. He didn't like the level of uncertainty quantum mechanics entailed. That doesn't mean QM is flawed, it means Einstein was wrong.

Einstein married his cousin (and, come to think of it, Darwin did too), but that doesn't necessarily mean first-cousin marriage is correct.

Besides, when Einstein mentioned "God", he most likely meant "the laws of the universe". Using "God" in that sense may be poetic, but it's probably not the best idea if you're an atheist, because it tends to confuse people. Einstein was almost certainly atheistic towards a personal god. He had a deep spiritual respect for the universe and its orderly workings, but he probably didn't think a distinct Deity was controlling it behind the scenes.

 

[Tenka]

Atheistic or Godly eh ?

Definitely sounds Deistic.

 

[Shemjaza]

Definitely sounds Deistic.

I'd describe his commetns as closer to Pantheistic personally.