• 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 Mathematical Proof of God

Kurt31416

Active Member
I repeat it again... SCIENCE doesn't make anything work.
A plane doesn't fly because science tells it to do so. It flies because natural laws lift it up as soon as its speed reaches a limit were the updrift is higher than the weight.

Well, if you want to define it that way, fine, science can't make anything work, it's way too weak.

We had that already. Apart of that it is not important who says something but rather what it is that is said.

Well, when it comes to that kind of math, normal people have to take the word of those doing it that the math is done right. Are you comfortable with that kind of math?


You start to waste my time now.

Ditto. Very repetitive, and answered 100 times.
 

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
Well, when it comes to that kind of math, normal people have to take the word of those doing it that the math is done right. Are you comfortable with that kind of math?
Its interesting that many people think that they should leave certain topics to the "experts". How do you KNOW that he is one?
By his credentials ?
How do you KNOW that his calculations are correct? Simple question but hard to answer.

As for your second sentence.
I do not even need to understand Goedel (which i do however) in order to see the mistake you make. Its the same mistake i mentioned already and which you consistently failed to either see or address.

Judging from the thread you do seem to fail rather often in actually thinking about the other posters answers. Thats a sad thing.

I simply sum it up.
You didn't proove any unknowable entity that is guaranteed to make the universe work. All you can claim (and most will claim that as well without your "proof") is that there are things which are beyond this space time continuum and not explainable by any being within it.
That is not really a new information.
For this "not knew" information you misuse Goedel who actually made statements concerning formal assertions and the limits of self-defined logical systems.
 

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
Well, God is provable to be Unknowable. That Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work. It's eternally beyond math and reason, so might as well call it faith, it's something like that.
First of all ... if it is proovable then it already is knowable to some extend.
Secondly you commit intellectual suicide.
If something is beyond reason then you cant make any "reasonable" claims concerning that supposed something including of course what this something supposedly does.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
First of all ... if it is proovable then it already is knowable to some extend.

It's still completely unknowable but you know that it's completely unknowable.

Math can never describe the Universe, but math can prove it can never describe the Universe.

Secondly you commit intellectual suicide.
If something is beyond reason then you cant make any "reasonable" claims concerning that supposed something including of course what this something supposedly does.

That's faith, not logic. Consider the statement... "This sentence is false."

Is that true or false? I say it's unknowable, and I know it.
 

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
That's faith, not logic.
If its not logic then
a) you should abstain from using the word "proof" alltogether. Its either of.
b) you shouldnt wonder why everybody could come along and tell us anything he wants with the same amount of initial credibility.
If i were to say that the universe is a pink bubble gum ... you'd have to accept that with the same respect as you demand from others for your view.
Perhaps you can imagine now why you get the reactions here that you get.
Your disguise of a simple point under the cload of "proof" is not really very good. Why don't you just state "i believe it and thats it"?

Consider the statement... "This sentence is false."
Is that true or false? I say it's unknowable, and I know it.
The statement is bereft of any context. WHAT sentence is false? where when etc.
Just making a statement is of no use.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
Its interesting that many people think that they should leave certain topics to the "experts". How do you KNOW that he is one?
By his credentials ?
How do you KNOW that his calculations are correct? Simple question but hard to answer.

I believe Stevan Hawking is doing the math right because he's a famous physicists with many discoveries, such as Hawking Radiation. I believe Chaitin is doing the math right because he's the world's greatest mathematician. Certainly as the discoverer of Algorithmic Information Theory, the world's greatest expert on Godel and that kind of math. Is it dead certain, no. The Ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.
 

GiantHouseKey

Well-Known Member
Consider the statement... "This sentence is false."

Is that true or false? I say it's unknowable, and I know it.

It's like listening to a drum & bass record - You know it's gonna have to change eventually, you just have to drive through the monotony until then. When will that time be, Kurt?

I don't have any qualms with people that say 'I believe this because scripture tells me so' an provide no evidence or explanation. At least that way they're just ignoring the logic rather than mutilating it until its remnants are a thick, untangible paste on the floor of their own ignorance.

If your estimation of science and mathematics is so poor, why do you continue to switch back and forth between using it to prove your point and dismissing it as a valid system for proving anything? It seems contradictory to me. If you disagree please tell me and help me understand. Because that is what I want, Kurt. I want to understand what you're saying, so that I may too understand the truth that you are so eager to share with us.

So, yes you are correct in this instance - The sentence is unknowable. But God is not this sentence. So:
- God is unknowable (This is an assumption)
- Science cannot make the universe work (The fact that it isn't supposed to is irrelevent)
- Mathematics cannot describe the universe (The fact that it isn't supposed to is also irrelevent)
- So therefore God MUST exist because something else MUST be making the universe work... But because we can't know it let's just call it God.

Why though? Why would you call it God? Because saying that your arguement is a proof of God is saying that it is proof of anything. You're a good listener so i'm sure you've heard that part of this conversation before. God, particularly an Abrahamic one, denies logic, so i'd like to understand why you are trying to match them up. It feels as though you're trying to open a lock with the wrong key.

GhK.
 

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
The Ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.
If there is none then how can it be that ?

You remind of the old quarrel between an absolutist and a relativist:

R: All is relative
A: There is the absolute
R: No
A: Yes
R: NO
A: Are you sure ?
R: Absolutely
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
If its not logic then
a) you should abstain from using the word "proof" alltogether....

No,no, your statement was faith.

The statement is bereft of any context. WHAT sentence is false? where when etc.
Just making a statement is of no use.

From someone that claims to understand Godel? And just what do you think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says, if not "This statement is false."?

Historical Introduction --- A Century of Controversy Over the Foundations of Mathematics

G.J. Chaitin's 2 March 2000 Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science Distinguished Lecture. The speaker was introduced by Manuel Blum. The lecture was videotaped; this is an edited transcript which appeared on pp. 12-21 of a special issue of Complexity magazine on ``Limits in Mathematics and Physics'' (Vol. 5, No. 5, May/June 2000).

...Gödel shocked people quite a bit by showing that it couldn't work. It was very, very surprising when Gödel did this in 1931. And Turing went I think more deeply into it. So let me give you a cartoon five minute summary, my take on what they did.

Gödel starts with ``this statement is false'', what I'm now saying is a lie, I'm lying. If I'm lying, and it's a lie that I'm lying, then I'm telling the truth! So ``this statement is false'' is false if and only if it's true, so there's a problem. Gödel considered instead ``this statement is unprovable''.

``This stmt is unprovable!''
Here unprovable means unprovable from the axioms of Hilbert's formal axiomatic system, unprovable within the system that Hilbert was trying to create.

Now think about a statement that says that it's unprovable. There are two possibilities: it's provable or it's unprovable. This is assuming you can make a statement say it's unprovable, that there's some way to say this within Hilbert's system. That required enormous cleverness: Gödel numbering, trickery for a statement to refer to itself indirectly, because pronouns that say ``this'' or ``I'' aren't usually found in mathematical formulas. So this required a lot of cleverness on Gödel's part. But the basic idea is ``this statement is unprovable''.

So there are two possibilities. Either it's provable or it's unprovable. And this means provable or unprovable from the system that Hilbert had proposed, the final goal of formalizing all of mathematics.

Well, if it's provable, and it says it's unprovable, we're proving something that's false. So that's not very nice. And if it's unprovable and it says it's unprovable, well then, what it states is true, it's unprovable, and we have a hole. Instead of proving something false we have incompleteness, we have a true statement that our formalization has not succeeded in capturing.
So the idea is that either we're proving false statements, which is terrifying, or we get something which is not as bad, but is still awful, which is that our formal axiomatic system is incomplete --- there's something that's true but we can't prove it within our system. And therefore the goal of formalizing once and for all all of mathematics ends up on the floor!

Chaitin, Exploring RANDOMNESS
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
If there is none then how can it be that ?

It's the same thing as the 2000 year old Epimendes Paradox, the paradox of the liar, the statement "This sentence is false." Just raised to one higher level. Instead of talking about a dumb old sentence you are talking about Ultimate Truth.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
If your estimation of science and mathematics is so poor, why do you continue to switch back and forth between using it to prove your point and dismissing it as a valid system for proving anything? It seems contradictory to me. If you disagree please tell me and help me understand. Because that is what I want, Kurt. I want to understand what you're saying, so that I may too understand the truth that you are so eager to share with us.

Math can't describe the Universe, but it can prove it can't describe the Universe. Because it's limited in some ways doesn't mean it's worthless. It's a whiz-bang at predicting experiments, and disagreeing with it's ability to predict experiments has a long history of being demonstrated false.

So, yes you are correct in this instance - The sentence is unknowable. But God is not this sentence. So:
- God is unknowable (This is an assumption)

False, The Unknowable proven by formal math is defined as God. It's elementary algebra. You can call it x or y, or the Easter Rabbit if you like, but if so, you can't make any claims about easter eggs.

Why though? Why would you call it God?

Because Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Spinoza and the historical Jesus of Thomas called it God.

God, particularly an Abrahamic one, denies logic, so i'd like to understand why you are trying to match them up. It feels as though you're trying to open a lock with the wrong key.

I didn't prove anything about burning bushes being used as mobile phones, or zombies risen from the dead showing people the wounds in their hands. That's superstition.
 

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
No,no, your statement was faith.
You seem to have faith in order to state that.

From someone that claims to understand Godel? And just what do you think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says, if not "This statement is false."?
How were I supposed to know that you would mean the goedel statement which originally rather reads "Ich bin nicht ableitbar" or in english something like "i am not proovable".
By the way that is slightly misleading as it must be "i am not proovable from within the system"

I don't know what the quoted text should add up here to the discussion.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
You seem to have faith in order to state that.

Well, faith that math can prove things, yes I do.

How were I supposed to know that you would mean the goedel statement which originally rather reads "Ich bin nicht ableitbar" or in english something like "i am not proovable".

It originally was stated in math, not German, and Godel spoke English quite well. It's the same thing as the 2000 year old Epimendes or Liar's Paradox. That wasn't in English or German. Being from Crete, Epimendes said "All Cretins are liars." Chaitin is trying to explain it, exactly as I'm trying, even, but coincidence, using the same exact sentence.

It's called a "Strange Loop" and most can be shown to involve self-reference. In general it seems to be a universal system for punching holes in any logical system. It's what James does in the Epistle of James, getting the Written Law to talk about itself. It says not to judge, so judging by the Law is breaking the Law. Self-reference punching a hole in the axiomatic system.

By the way that is slightly misleading as it must be "i am not proovable from within the system"

I don't know what the quoted text should add up here to the discussion.

No, Chaitin is crystal clear, he uses the same exact sentence...

"Gödel starts with ``this statement is false'', what I'm now saying is a lie, I'm lying. If I'm lying, and it's a lie that I'm lying, then I'm telling the truth! So ``this statement is false'' is false if and only if it's true, so there's a problem. "
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
Guess what, the historical Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas didn't believe in a personal god any more than Einstein did, and I didn't prove one.[/QUOTE]

Besides offering nothing but BS you are also the artful dodger, here, in reference to Einstein, is you statement. "He, Einstein, repeatedly said God existed." I now know beyond reasonable doubt that you know nothing about which you speak, I am just embarrassed that it took me this long to figure that out. Once again read "God The Failed Hypothesis, (How science shows that God does not exist) then get back to me.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
Besides offering nothing but BS you are also the artful dodger,

I demonstrated that the statement "This sentence is false" is what Godel did by showing Chaitin said the same exact thing. There's that.

And really unfair to say I dodge the questions. There's only been about a dozen, all repeated 100 times each, and I patiently address them.

here, in reference to Einstein, is you statement. "He, Einstein, repeatedly said God existed."

Correct, I used to collect Einstein sayings about God, regardless of what he said, and no one that reads them can conclude otherwise.
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
Besides offering nothing but BS you are also the artful dodger,

I demonstrated that the statement "This sentence is false" is what Godel did by showing Chaitin said the same exact thing. There's that.

And really unfair to say I dodge the questions. There's only been about a dozen, all repeated 100 times each, and I patiently address them.

here, in reference to Einstein, is you statement. "He, Einstein, repeatedly said God existed."

Correct, I used to collect Einstein sayings about God, regardless of what he said, and no one that reads them can conclude otherwise.
Does it not seem odd to you that no one here has even vaguely supported your premise? The poster THEMADHAIR, showed you the error of your contention, you have misused Godel to prop up you own religious belief, and as has been said to you you have proved nothing other than some things are unknowable, but we all knew that anyway.

You misrepresented Einstein when you posted his repeated statements that he believed in God, again to help you make a religious point and to further support your premise, not a very honest thing to do.

Seems to me if you can prove this premise to be true, you might be our next Nobel Prize winner, go for it.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
This is the raw unedited list,
with some repetition, and no organization....

"It is best, it seems to me, to separate one's inner striving from
one's trade as far as possible. It is not good when one's daily break
is tied to God's special blessing." -- Albert Einstein

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

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

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." --Albert
Einstein

What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the
creation of the world." --Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is
blind." [pg. 153, Calaprice, Quotable Einstein]

"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of
all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate
and actions of human beings." Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929;
[pg.147, Calaprice]. (Spinoza believed the more one studies and
understands the universe the better one understands God)

"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the
fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no
personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." [pg.
58, Mayer, Bite-size Einstein]

"Everyone 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...In this way the pursuit of
science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is
indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
[Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg.
152 Calaprice]

"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the
universe." or sometimes quoted as "God does not play dice with the
universe." [pg. 56, Mayer]

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures,
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his
physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish
such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of
life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure
of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to
comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that
manifests itself in nature." [Albert Einstein, The World as I See It
American Institute of Physics Online]

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must
have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is,
give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such
vast power in the hands of the priests." [pg.153 Calaprice]
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
"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."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side",
edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on
creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact
that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in
doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and
the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a
humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals
itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory
understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest
importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus
ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and
constructive mind." [pg. 56 Mayer]

"The priests, in control of education, made the class division of
society into a permanent institution and created a system of values
by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent
unconsciously, guided in their social behavior." ["Why Socialism" by
Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein Online]

"The relativity principle in connection with the basic Maxwellian
equations demands that the mass should be a direct measure of the
energy contained in a body; light transfers mass. With radium there
should be a noticeable diminution of mass. The idea is amusing and
enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading
me up the garden path - that I cannot know." [Letter to Conrad
Habicht in 1905, pg. 196 Folsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography]

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.


People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do
not grow old no matter how long we live...[We] never cease to stand
like curious children before the great mystery into which we were
born. --Albert Einstein in a letter to Otto Juliusburger

Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing
that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy. --Albert
Einstein

The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we
are permitted to remain children all our lives.
--Albert Einstein

The search for truth is more precious than its possession
--Albert Einstein (03/14/1879-1955)

I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details.
--Albert Einstein

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own
hearts.
--Albert Einstein

The value of a man resides in what he gives and not in what he is
capable receiving.
--Albert Einstein

I never think of the future. It beyond anything that we can
comprehend is my religion
--Albert Einstein

Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were
truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the
universe.
--Albert Einstein

We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of
schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know
--Albert Einstein

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality
--Albert Einstein

I don't believe in mathematics.
--Albert Einstein

When the solution is simple, God is answering.
--Albert Einstein

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in
this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I
want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
--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 minds. That deeply emotional
conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

The highest principles for our aspirations and judgements are given
to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high
goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very
inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations
and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of out of its
religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might
state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the
individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the
service of all mankind. ...t is only to the individual that a soul
is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather
than to rule, or to impose himself in any otherway.

Einstein's Famous Quotes
(During a lecture)
This has been done elegantly by Minkowski; but chalk is cheaper than
grey matter, and we will do it as it comes.
[Attributed by Pólya.]
Quoted in J E Littlewood, A Mathematician's Miscellany, 1953.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Reader's Digest. Oct. 1977.

I don't believe in mathematics.
Quoted in Carl Seelig. Albert Einstein.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.
On Science.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is
the source of all true art and science.
What I Believe.

The bitter and the sweet come from the outside, the hard from within,
from one's own efforts.
Out of My Later Years.

Gott würfelt nicht.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Quoted in E T Bell Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences.
1952.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates
empirically.
Quoted in L Infeld Quest, 1942.

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 resta kind of optical
delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for
us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this
prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to
achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in
itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
Quoted in H Eves Mathematical Circles Adieu (Boston 1977).

When I am judging a theory, I ask myself whether, if I were God, I
would have arranged the world in such a way.

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by
the nose.
Quoted in A P French, Einstein: a Centenary Volume

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.

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.
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
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
impenetrable 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 among 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.

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should
transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both
the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious
sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual
as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is
any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be
Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on
creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact
that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in
doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and
the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a
humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals
itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory
understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest
importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein) Albert
Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
Princeton University Press)

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for
reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am
unable to take seriously." (Albert Einstein) Letter to Hoffman and
Dukas, 1946

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. (Albert Einstein, 1930)

In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to
awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are
receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of
belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth,
beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most
beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the
mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all
serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this
experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense
that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that
our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only
indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this
sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets
and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty
structure of all that is there. 5
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.ht
m

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in
this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I
want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

"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." — Albert Einstein

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 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 the 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."

"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.

"For example," he says, "a conflict arises when a religious community
insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in
the Bible. This means an intervention into the sphere of science;
this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of
Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of
science have often [tried] to arrive at fundamental judgments with
respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in
this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These
conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus
ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and
constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard
and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to
lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in
living."

Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious
(Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an
abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular
scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the
stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a
positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression
that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every
kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical
attitude... has never left me..."

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. You may call me an
agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional
atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation
from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I
prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our
intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

"In my life," he said once, explaining his great love for music, "the
artistically visionary plays no mean role. After all, the work of a
research scientist germinates upon the soil of imagination, of
vision. Just as an artist arrives at his conceptions partly by
intuition, so a scientist must also have a certain amount of
intuition."

While he did not believe in a formal, dogmatic religion, Dr.
Einstein, like all true mystics, was of a deeply religious nature. He
referred to it as the cosmic religion, which he defined as a seeking
on the part of the individual who feels it "to experience the
totality of existence as a unity full of significance."

"I assert," he wrote for The New York Times on Nov. 9, 1930, "that
the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest
driving force behind scientific research. No one who does not
appreciate the terrific exertions and, above all, the devotion
without which pioneer creation in scientific thought cannot come into
being can judge the strength of the feeling out of which alone such
work turned away as it is from immediate, practical life, can grow."
 

Kurt31416

Active Member
"The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience," he
wrote "is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to
wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are
closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be
with fear, also has given rise to religion. To know that what is
impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest
wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can
comprehend only in their primitive forms--this knowledge, this
feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and
in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that
the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls
harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough
for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating
itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure
of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to
comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested
in nature.

"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 minds. That deeply emotional
conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another
occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."
 
Top