Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the world come from?

[angellous_evangellous]

He didn't believe in a personal god. But I wouldn't expect someone as shallow as some of you are to know the difference.

Stupid straw mans.

It shows that you can't admit that you are not the world order of intellect.

Carefully read the post again.

He didn't believe in ANY god.

What the heck is the world order of intellect anyway? Besides, I'm not sure that I want to be a part of anything you consider to be intellectual anyway, considering your difficulty with words.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It shows that you can't admit that you are not the world order of intellect.
Serioulsy, how old are some of you, for real?

haha I was about to ask you the same thing.

 

[Willamena]

What does 'nothing' being a non-answer have to with me?

You know, you're right. It has nothing to do with you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He didn't believe in a personal god.

Really?

Of course he didn't believe in a personal god - he didn't believe in any god at all.

I don't expect you to be able to understand Einstein's more technical writings, but the quote provided was rather easy to understand.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Carefully read the post again.

He didn't believe in ANY god.

What the heck is the world order of intellect anyway? Besides, I'm not sure that I want to be a part of anything you consider to be intellectual anyway, considering your difficulty with words.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Like I said, he didnt believe in a personal god. So go on and continue with your contempt of no god and see how far your logic goes in showing otherwise.
It's only what I have been talking about through the entirety of the thread, and with no resistance at all. Because there is no other explantion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Like I said, personal god. So go on and continue with your contempt of no god and see how far your logic goes in showing otherwise.

Spinoza was an atheist.

Jeez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Get a freaking grip, man!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Never, ever forget that Angellous is your daddy.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The Spinoza God is kind of what I've been implying this whole time
So what if he's atheist. His philosophy was a god involved in the natural order of the universe. He implied the same idea I have explained, I only got into technical details.

And your more a child than a daddy.

 

[doppelganger]

I disagree that speculation is useless.

In the law we refer to "speculation" as guessing without properly following a method that is shown to be reasonably scientifically reliable. So following a reliable methodology and arriving at an opinion that one conclusion is more likely than the alternatives is not considered "speculation."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Spinoza God is kind of what I've been implying this whole time
So what if he's atheist. His philosophy was a god involved in the natural order of the universe. He implied the same idea I have explained, I only got into technical details.

And your more a child than a daddy.

My goodness what a heroic display of dishonesty. I'm impressed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In the law we refer to "speculation" as guessing without properly following a method that is shown to be reasonably scientifically reliable. So following a reliable methodology and arriving at an opinion that one conclusion is more likely than the alternatives is not considered "speculation."

I see. Thanks, dopp.

I can't help but think, though, that historical speculation has value where the same kind of speculation would be unacceptable in a legal sence. This is particularly acute when the evidence can lead to more than one conclusion.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

My goodness what a heroic display of dishonesty. I'm impressed.

\

Really? Maybe you should look back on my explanations, and then look at Spinova states. There are different, but have their similarities. Nonetheless, it all amounts to the same thing.

 

[McBell]

I even provided a step by step fundamental aspect on why it is so.

Really?
Where?
I ask cause I have not seen it.
Though I freely admit that I may have missed it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

\

Really? Maybe you should look back on my explanations, and then look at Spinova states. There are different, but have their similarities. Nonetheless, it all amounts to the same thing.

Only in your confused world.

I'll help you out on this. Spinoza used the word "God" as a metaphor, and so did Einstein. Neither one of them thought of "God" as some kind of divine entity that created this reality. You simply cannot exploit these thinkers into believing what you do about the universe, or anything remotely close to what you are trying to argue. They believed something, in fact, that is precisely opposite to what you believe. THEY. WERE. ATHEIST.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Only in your confused world.

I'll help you out on this. Spinoza used the word "God" as a metaphor, and so did Einstein. Neither one of them thought of "God" as some kind of divine entity that created this reality. You simply cannot exploit these thinkers into believing what you do about the universe, or anything remotely close to what you are trying to argue. They believed something, in fact, that is precisely opposite to what you believe. THEY. WERE. ATHEIST.

I never said it was literally a god either as it is commonly described. I said that whatever cause this reality has to be infinite and have will. It's you and others bias that confused that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I never said it was literally a god either as it is commonly described. I said that whatever cause this reality has to be infinite and have will. It's you and others bias that confused that.

You really are something else.

Can a metaphor be infinite and have a will?

 

[waitasec]

I never said it was literally a god either as it is commonly described. I said that whatever cause this reality has to be infinite and have will. It's you and others bias that confused that.

i believe you never answered 9-10ths question...

You differentiated between "will" and "cause and effect"; would an unintelligent "first cause" fit your definition of "will"?

opcorn:
i must say, all this popcorn in ruining my diet...

 

[Sum1sGruj]

God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

This is direct Spinova intrigue. The difference is that he believed reality itself to actually be 'god'.But we know now that the universe cannot be infinite, with no beginning like Einstein believed.
SO...

My claims hold well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

This is direct Spinova intrigue. The difference is that he believed reality itself to actually be 'god'.But we know now that the universe cannot be infinite, with no beginning like Einstein believed.
SO...

My claims hold well.

I see metaphors are to much for you. That's unfortunate.

 

[doppelganger]

I see. Thanks, dopp.

I can't help but think, though, that historical speculation has value where the same kind of speculation would be unacceptable in a legal sence. This is particularly acute when the evidence can lead to more than one conclusion.

I was trained in historical method and I don't consider it to be scientific or really that reliable. I consider it an "art" much more so than "science." It's the process of selective story telling - making myths lined with facts, and fitting those facts to fit a moral/philosophical or social narrative framework - oftentimes one the historian (especially if they suck at it) isn't even aware they are working in.