• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A letter to the Atheists

Rough_ER

Member
EiNsTeiN said:
Which is exactly my point as well...
See?....you can not describe everything with science, and thats my point...there must be a supernatural power which initiated the universe, and any other methodolgy of measurments as well...

Are you serious? Do you actually believe that because science cannot explain everything right now, there must by default be a fairy in the sky who created everything? Science has changed a lot over the years. Things that are thought unanswerable are gradually worked out, who is to say that eventually science won't find the answer?

Biology has it's crane, the one Darwin discovered. Physics soon enough will no doubt create one too. All you postulate is a sky hook, which is no answer at all. However hard it is to believe that the universe came from, well, an accident. It is a hell of a lot harder to believe that it was created by something intelligent enough to create a universe! I mean... dude!
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
EiNsTeiN said:
Which is exactly my point as well...
See?....you can not describe everything with science, and thats my point...there must be a supernatural power which initiated the universe, and any other methodolgy of measurments as well...

"Supernatural power" is also something in your mind. It's concept, just like the Big Bang.

Unless if, by "supernatural power," you mean "I don't know." Other than that, it's just something you've imagined that has it's reality only the words you use to relate to it.
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
Rough_ER said:
Are you serious? Do you actually believe that because science cannot explain everything right now, there must by default be a fairy in the sky who created everything? Science has changed a lot over the years. Things that are thought unanswerable are gradually worked out, who is to say that eventually science won't find the answer?

Biology has it's crane, the one Darwin discovered. Physics soon enough will no doubt create one too. All you postulate is a sky hook, which is no answer at all. However hard it is to believe that the universe came from, well, an accident. It is a hell of a lot harder to believe that it was created by something intelligent enough to create a universe! I mean... dude!
Wow...this is a slapdashed post!!

Well, you are just returning me back to the beginning...this is not what I'm building my faith on, just read my whole posts...from about two pages ago or something...

And wellcome to the debate after then!! :)

And by the way, who mentiond a fairy in the sky?...I described God in the just my final post!!....please check them well

"Supernatural power" is also something in your mind. It's concept, just like the Big Bang.

Unless if, by "supernatural power," you mean "I don't know." Other than that, it's just something you've imagined that has it's reality only the words you use to relate to it.
Well, now I understood your philosophy in...
to be more accurate, your philosophy is what we call in science "I dont know", which explains unexplainable things by being''something in my head''
This is actually running from the answer more than being a scientific method of resolving problems
 

Rough_ER

Member
EiNsTeiN said:
Which is exactly my point as well...
See?....you can not describe everything with science, and thats my point...there must be a supernatural power which initiated the universe, and any other methodolgy of measurments as well...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here...

Do you or do you not believe that because we can't describe everything with science right now, there must be a God who initiated the universe and presumably was involved in some way with it's design?

You sure like .... don't you? :p
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
EiNsTeiN said:
Well, now I understood your philosophy in...
to be more accurate, your philosophy is what we call in science "I dont know", which explains unexplainable things by being''something in my head''
This is actually running from the answer more than being a scientific method of resolving problems
Not quite, my friend. I am confronted with a phenomenon the cause of which "I don't know," and given three choices.

First, I can simply be satisfied with "I don't know" and leave it at that.

Second, I can just imagine some cause, and aribtrarily decide that this thing I've imagined is the answer.

Third, I can try to investigate by comparing and measuring my subjective experiences with those of others, and formulating an answer that is "most probable based on the verifiable evidence." Two caveats on this one: (1) it is not incompatible with the first option, i.e. I can adopt what I think is the most likely explanation for a phenomenon based on the evidence and still maintain that "I don't know"; and (2) some things are not subject to comparison and measurement.
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
Rough_ER said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here...

Do you or do you not believe that because we can't describe everything with science right now, there must be a God who initiated the universe and presumably was involved in some way with it's design?

You sure like .... don't you? :p
Well, it's not my only reason to believe in God...
The case of science being not able to explain everything, gives equall probabilities to both points of view, God exists, or doesnt..since we can not predict the future, thats how we can not be certain whether science will/will not answer everything...
 

Rough_ER

Member
EiNsTeiN said:
Well, it's not my only reason to believe in God...
The case of science being not able to explain everything, gives equall probabilities to both points of view, God exists, or doesnt..since we can not predict the future, thats how we can not be certain whether science will/will not answer everything...

Science cannot explain/prove/disprove the existence/non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Therefore there is an equal probability of either explanation being correct.

Yes?
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
More from Einstein (the famous one):

Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.


The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.


The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.


The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.



The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.


We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
Emphasis added.

From The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

EDIT: Heck, the whole dang thing is worth emphasizing. :D
 

Fluffy

A fool
Einstein said:
The example you are giving is not valid, since you will never be alone with a tyre...I dont mean the example's logic, but I mean the validity...If you are alone with a tyre, you will discover after a while that it doesnt follow the natural pattern and shape, thats how you discover it's not natural, and thus someone made it, reaching the same result I claimd...

Sorry what do you mean by natural pattern and shape? What are these things and how, in the abscence of all experience beyond the tyre would I come to know these things?

Einstein said:
You are asking me to recognize the tyre's nature from the first sight and without any previous experiance, which is not valid....The only experiance that I'm asking you to give me is observing the nature, and then I can comment on the tyre...And if you observed the nature, you will find the pattern I'm talking about, and God's signature in everything...
I am not asking you to recognise the tyre's nature from first sight. I arguing that you would not be able to recognise the tyre's nature from first sight.

I do observe nature all the time but I haven't been able to use it to demonstrate the existence of God as of yet. How have you been able to do so?

Einstein said:
''We know God is there from his signs in the universe''...this is the thing

Got my point?..
Sure but I feel that the debate should lie on arguing whether or not a piece of evidence is a sign from God and not around what I view as the more trivial step from "I have evidence of God therefore he exists". I am asking what evidence for God there is. I don't dispute that with evidence of God, it would be rational to conclude his existence. That is all your quote appears to be stating.
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
Not quite, my friend. I am confronted with a phenomenon the cause of which "I don't know," and given three choices.

First, I can simply be satisfied with "I don't know" and leave it at that.

Second, I can just imagine some cause, and aribtrarily decide that this thing I've imagined is the answer.

Third, I can try to investigate by comparing and measuring my subjective experiences with those of others, and formulating an answer that is "most probable based on the verifiable evidence." Two caveats on this one: (1) it is not incompatible with the first option, i.e. I can adopt what I think is the most likely explanation for a phenomenon based on the evidence and still maintain that "I don't know"; and (2) some things are not subject to comparison and measurement.
Well, it's quite clear now...I have mistaken about your philosophy...But yet, some comments exist:

First: this is not a scientific method...I agree with it

Second:I think that is what you ment...
I agree with you completely, but notice that theories cancell each other, which means for instance that when Classical mechanics was there, people believed in it, when relativity came about, people left classical mechanics and believd in the relativity...

Thats how scientists tend to believes that universe is initiated by some sort of supernatural thing, reffered to as God...Untill they can find another explanation, we believe in the current one, even not being too much scientific, but compatable with many religions and believings...

This non-scientific (If you want to catagorize it) theory proposed is not a finall answer for scientists, they are looking forward for a more saphosticated answers, which I claim will not find (since I believe in God as the initiator of the universe:D )

Third: This method is the scientific method for resolving scientific problems, but notice that I have claimed that God is not a ''measurable thing'', we can not explain the nature of God, but though we can witness His signs, which could be miracles for instance, or the inheritance of His religion through out time from a very long time ago...
So it's not valid to try explaning God by physical means, as I previously stated in the thread....If God was ''Something'', we would never worship Him, cuz we never worship a thing, which can be comparable by another ''things'', which could be ''us'' for instance..
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
EiNsTeiN said:
notice that I have claimed that God is not a ''measurable thing'', we can not explain the nature of God

Then your choices are narrowed down to the first two: either "I don't know" or just arbitrarily imagine something and go with it.

If you choose the latter, what's the purpose in trying to convince others by logic that you are right in your imagining because, as you say, there's no objective reference by which to measure or compare?

Any thoughts on the quote from Albert Einstein?
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
OOH...too many things to answer..I'm sorry i dont have time right now...so see ya tomorrow everybody, and goodnight (in my timeline :D)
Science cannot explain/prove/disprove the existence/non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Therefore there is an equal probability of either explanation being correct.
Man!!...you can't just invent anything and try fitting science into it...What does this spaghetti monster do?...do you claim it has a supernatural power?...or it just produce infinite amount of spaghetti??
Why would I assume the presence of a spaghetti monster?....
If you have a resonable reason to start debating you for, then ( this might be weird) the answer for you question is ''Yes, both explanation have equal probabilities"!!
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
By the way doppelganger, it's very offense and mean to say:
''More from Einstein (the famous one)''

This breaks my heart, as if I was a fake one :(
(I wanna sleep , so it could be someone else speaking now!!) vbmenu_register("postmenu_706661", true);
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
EiNsTeiN said:
By the way doppelganger, it's very offense and mean to say:
''More from Einstein (the famous one)''

This breaks my heart, as if I was a fake one :(
(I wanna sleep , so it could be someone else speaking now!!) vbmenu_register("postmenu_706661", true);

I apologize and certainly meant no offense. You aren't a fake anything. It was just a little joke.
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
Rough_ER said:
Can't you see that this is precisely my point?
You know?...I didnt go because I was certain that you are going to say that:)

Thats why I continued:
EiNsTeiN said:
Why would I assume the presence of a spaghetti monster?....
If you have a resonable reason to start debating you for, then ( this might be weird) the answer for you question is ''Yes, both explanation have equal probabilities"!!

I apologize and certainly meant no offense. You aren't a fake anything. It was just a little joke.
Dont apologize my friend, I was just joking...Sure I'm a fake Einstein, Im not even one tenth of what he was:rolleyes:

Gotta go now...bye
 

EiNsTeiN

Boo-h!
Then your choices are narrowed down to the first two: either "I don't know" or just arbitrarily imagine something and go with it.

If you choose the latter, what's the purpose in trying to convince others by logic that you are right in your imagining because, as you say, there's no objective reference by which to measure or compare?

Any thoughts on the quote from Albert Einstein?
Well, I refuse, beacause i didnt even ask the question so that to try finding an answer...I believe in God not because I dont understand science, or not finding answers to my scientific questions...
You assumed that I didnt find my desired answers, thus I concluded the existance of God, whuch is not true...

What I'm trying to tell ya is not to think about everything with scientific and measurement means...try using your mind rather than your brain (if this is more accurate)..

Do you believe in soul?....telepathy?....dreams?, lucida dreams?, and others of these stuff?...they exist, but no scientific explanation, because there is no scientific definition for the mind...
The mind is a gift, just to differentiate between you and the rock, or the wall, or the chair for instance

You may come to a scientific explanation of dreams for instance, but will not by a full one, due to our lack of understanding the human mind...

I didnt assume the presence of God, cuz I didnt need to, I had no unexplanable questions to answer it with ''God''...
 
Top