Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.

[Shadow Wolf]

proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it.

Nonsense. Science proves nor indicates such a thing. Also, Einstein was not an atheist. He may have felt belief in a personal deity was childish, as the belief in a soul that survives death, but that doesn't mean he was an atheist, is no indication or suggestion he was, and he was very clear he wasn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Creationism vs Atheism
Niels Bohr vs Albert Einstein
What is Reality?
​

Albert Einstein (Determinism) says,
"God does not throw dice!"
​

You need to cite Einstein in full context in reality he did not believe in God. He spoke of God anecdotally and symbolically,

Neils Bohr (Chance) replies,
"Nor is it our business to prescribe to God how He should run the world."

Hello night,
I think it is pretty obvious that Niels Bohr sees all the 'random chances' constantly going on in the universe today, and every day previous, as God choosing which, position and property, out of 'all possible properties', subatomic particles will take on, when conscious man observes subatomic particles, and they transform from, a wave of all possibilities, to a specific physical property, in a specific position.

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"​

Like wise Neils Bohr, like Einstein, spoke of God more anecdotally or symbolically, and rejected all revealed religions, and was more likely agnostic or atheist. Both were fundamentally naturalists of sort.

The closest Bohr got to theist was the writings of the existentialist Kierkegaard, which he disagreed concerning God, but was an existentialist.

I believe Einstein and Bohr were not far a part on their view of the existence of God,

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. Science proves nor indicates such a thing. Also, Einstein was not an atheist. He may have felt belief in a personal deity was childish, as the belief in a soul that survives death, but that doesn't mean he was an atheist, is no indication or suggestion he was, and he was very clear he wasn't.

Einstein was a fairly strong agnostic, and fundamentally a Naturalist of sorts..

From: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

"Einstein called himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, stating: "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 own being."[13] In an interview published by the German poet George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein stated, "I am not an Atheist."[10] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[26]

In 1945 Guy Raner, Jr. wrote a letter to Einstein, asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."

Afterlife:

On 17 July 1953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein a letter asking if he had felt assured about attaining everlasting life with the Creator. Einstein replied, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."[31] This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's book The World as I See It (1935), "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Einstein was a fairly strong agnostic, and fundamentally a Naturalist of sorts..

From: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

"Einstein called himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, stating: "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 own being."[13] In an interview published by the German poet George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein stated, "I am not an Atheist."[10] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[26]

In 1945 Guy Raner, Jr. wrote a letter to Einstein, asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."

Afterlife:

On 17 July 1953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein a letter asking if he had felt assured about attaining everlasting life with the Creator. Einstein replied, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."[31] This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's book The World as I See It (1935), "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

His views, especially things such as "weakness of our intellectual understanding" and "limited human mind," have probably shaped my own more than anything else, leading me to realize it's not at all a "shameful humans" sort of baggage the church taught me, but a honest and realistic acceptance that we really are just confused, scared apes trying our best to make sense of the world. And, really, even on our own evolutionary time-line, we're still children learning to navigate the world on our own and without the assurance of our parents.

 

[shunyadragon]

His views, especially things such as "weakness of our intellectual understanding" and "limited human mind," have probably shaped my own more than anything else, leading me to realize it's not at all a "shameful humans" sort of baggage the church taught me, but a honest and realistic acceptance that we really are just confused, scared apes trying our best to make sense of the world. And, really, even on our own evolutionary time-line, we're still children learning to navigate the world on our own and without the assurance of our parents.

OK. Fairly healthy view.of life.

My main concern was misrepresenting the beliefs of Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein with selective quotes out of context.

I do not believe the pole was represented the beliefs of neither Bohr nor Einstein.

My beliefs are not either, but I have empathy, and understanding of what the believe.

 

[ecco]

The miracle of a six day Creation would not leave the objective verafible evidence of billions of years of history of the universe and evolution and history of life over billions of years.

It certainly could. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with LastThursdayism. Everything, including your memories of your childhood, your fifth-grade report card, your first kiss, all created Last Thursday.

 

[shunyadragon]

It certainly could. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with LastThursdayism. Everything, including your memories of your childhood, your fifth-grade report card, your first kiss, all created Last Thursday.

No, last Thursdayism does not need to be come closer than a ten foot pole.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You are all my dear brothers and sisters. I am most humbled to know you all. God bless and may good fortune shower upon you all.


Well, that makes two nominal "christians" who have
today demonstrated what they really are by thinking
it suitable to express contempt for me.

That is untrue. I meant to criticise the view not the person so I apologize for that wording. You are right. I’m human though and do make mistakes. Thank you for being so diligent in searching out my mistakes and pointing them out to me.

 

[ecco]

The miracle of a six day Creation would not leave the objective verafible evidence of billions of years of history of the universe and evolution and history of life over billions of years.

No, last Thursdayism does not need to be come closer than a ten foot pole.

OK. You don't like the concept. Now tell me why an Omni-all God could not have made everything LastThursday. Everyting including your memories, dinosaur bones and remnents of a "big bang".

 

[shunyadragon]

OK. You don't like the concept. Now tell me why an Omni-all God could not have made everything LastThursday. Everyting including your memories, dinosaur bones and remnents of a "big bang".

It is an odd ridiculous claim 'that anything is possible if you believe it,' and a take off Omphalos hypothesis Creationist hypothesis, and like any Biblical Creationist hypothesis lacks any explanatory power for anything, but the claim itself.

 

[Audie]

It certainly could. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with LastThursdayism. Everything, including your memories of your childhood, your fifth-grade report card, your first kiss, all created Last Thursday.

The word was "would", which is maybe even more
problematic.

 

[Audie]

OK. You don't like the concept. Now tell me why an Omni-all God could not have made everything LastThursday. Everyting including your memories, dinosaur bones and remnents of a "big bang".

Whatever brand of creationist / godist a person is,
they wont like last thursdayism. A ten foot pole
wont hold it away. A dodge like pretending
thursdayism is "anything possible if you believe it"
wont hold it off either.

Either this here god can do as it likes, or it cant
and for that matter, does not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

N. David Mermin has an old paper on this topic that is well worth reading. It has some math in it, but rather simple math. This is actually one of the simpler descriptions of an example of Bell's inequalities and Aspect's experiment that I know of.

https://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~sburns/Courses/17-18/PC251/mermin_moon.pdf

The problem is that quantum theory does *not* say that existence requires a conscious observer. The act of observation can collapse a wave function because conscious observers are complex enough to do so. But, it is also the case that even the background radiation is complex enough to collapse certain aspects of a wave function pretty quickly.

 

[Audie]

Creationism vs Atheism
Niels Bohr vs Albert Einstein
What is Reality?
​

Albert Einstein (Determinism) says,
"God does not throw dice!"

Neils Bohr (Chance) replies,
"Nor is it our business to prescribe to God how He should run the world."
​

Hello night,
I think it is pretty obvious that Niels Bohr sees all the 'random chances' constantly going on in the universe today, and every day previous, as God choosing which, position and property, out of 'all possible properties', subatomic particles will take on, when conscious man observes subatomic particles, and they transform from, a wave of all possibilities, to a specific physical property, in a specific position.

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"​

Nothing but nothing beats an bold font
quote mine. Unless maybe one in ALL CAPS.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whatever brand of creationist / godist a person is,
they wont like last thursdayism. A ten foot pole
wont hold it away. A dodge like pretending
thursdayism is "anything possible if you believe it"
wont hold it off either.

Either this here god can do as it likes, or it cant
and for that matter, does not exist.

The ten foot pole is my distance. The belief is downright foolish regardless of whether God exists or not.

Yes it is a matter of fact that people can believe whatever they want, and unfortunately they do, but no it is not reasonable, logical nor rational to declare Thursdayism, Wednesdayism Sundayism or whatever concerning the nature of our physical existence regardless of whether people believe in God or not.

Of course, many Hindus believe in 'Noism.'

 

[shunyadragon]

OK. You don't like the concept. Now tell me why an Omni-all God could not have made everything LastThursday. Everyting including your memories, dinosaur bones and remnents of a "big bang".

A good argument is here against believing in the ridiculous: Last Thursdayism - RationalWiki

This line of reasoning is really not worth any more of my time.

 

[ecco]

OK. You don't like the concept. Now tell me why an Omni-all God could not have made everything LastThursday. Everyting including your memories, dinosaur bones and remnents of a "big bang".

It is an odd ridiculous claim 'that anything is possible if you believe it,' and a take off Omphalos hypothesis Creationist hypothesis, and like any Biblical Creationist hypothesis lacks any explanatory power for anything, but the claim itself.

That is an odd ridiculous response. You criticize Last Thursdayism because it is a claim that "that anything is possible if you believe it". You relate it to Biblical Creationist hypotheses and assert that it "lacks any explanatory power for anything".

You say these things, yet you believe that your god, from time to time, creates "Messengers" who come to the earth / are born to inform us little people of the wonders of the seemingly ever-changing God.

That is indeed a prime example of pot calling kettleism.

There is no way that you can determine which of the following may or may not have happened:
God initiated the Big Bang. We evolved. God occasionally sends Messengers.
God created everything 6000 years ago. We are all descended from Adam & Eve.
God created everything Last Thursday.

If you believe you can, you are welcome to present evidence for your choice.

 

[ecco]

A good argument is here against believing in the ridiculous: Last Thursdayism - RationalWiki

This line of reasoning is really not worth any more of my time.

So, you cannot present any logical/rational evidence that Last Thursdayism is incorrect. Instead, you post a link. Did you read the article? Did you excerpt anything from the article that supports your contention? No. Does the article support your contention?

You cannot present a cogent argument against Last Thursdayism.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, you cannot present any logical/rational evidence that Last Thursdayism is incorrect. Instead, you post a link. Did you read the article? Did you excerpt anything from the article that supports your contention? No. Does the article support your contention?

You cannot present a cogent argument against Last Thursdayism.

As I said before but worded another way; I have tired of this useless swim in peanut butter.

 

[ecco]

As I said before but worded another way; I have tired of this useless swim in peanut butter.

Yeah. Things get tough when one really has to think about superstitious beliefs.

Your superstitious beliefs are real. Other's superstitious beliefs are not real. Uh huh.