Did Einstein try to destroy science?

Uh, isn't that just what I wrote. Everything everywhere is more than just physical things. Understand? So? That is relevant how? You think asserting traditional theology into science is wrong, but if you come up with some non-traditional theology, it's OK? Note the term "spiritual experience." I rest my case.

I think Einstein is more nuanced than that. Yea, he says there is this cosmic feeling that inspires true religious leadership, but at the same time, I don't think he is saying it is as anthrocentric as you suggest. He seems to be saying he discovers a truth that inspires this feeling......in other words, he suggests the divine is real, but must be understood as being in agreement with the truths of science.Otherwise, he would not continually couch things in religious and theological terms. He really is joining theology and science. He's not saying there is no need for theology because of science.Keep in mind that Spinoza's God-substance that makes up the universe is not matter and "energy" in the science sense of the term. Matter and energy stem from this substance, and matter and energy are thus a formed by this substance, but this substance also does the same with thoughts, laws, order, etc.....So when Einstein says he has spinozan beliefs, he is saying there is more to the universe than what materialists claim, and really says he believes there is divinity within (and without) the physical world.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

That's because, imo, of your projections of your belief that assumes if someone rejects evo models that they must be anti-science. I am not anti-science at all. I just think the field of evo biology is ignoring science, particularly the science of quantum mechanics, but also good, reasonable principles of data analysis. Actually, I don't have problems discussing things with people. Evo advocates in general have an extremely difficult time talking with their critics, not just me, and always blame their critics when really most of the time the evos have never even taken the time to understand what their critics have to say. Semantics. Created or originated....same thing really, except the free will part, but if there is no free will, then all creations are just originations anyway. Then you ought to agree that Einstein was taking a very complex theological system and mixing it with science and vice versa. In fact, it was really his theological beliefs that God Itself or metaphysical Nature was deterministic that stopped him from accepting quantum mechanics. He was making a theological argument against a scientific theory.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

For Einstein and Spinoza, it was the Substance that orinates or creates everything in every sphere, and so possesses everything, not just matter, but intelligence, originating the principles and laws, etc....and so everything we observe in science gives us glimpses into this larger truth of God or metaphysical Nature.Divine is the uncreated Substance (note: includes spirit and intelligence).

1. Just to make sure you understanding my stance...... no one is claiming Spinoza follows traditional Judaism or Christianity.2. Spinoza though is a theologian and a philosopher. To pretend otherwise is frankly absurd. He has a theory about who God is, what God is, how God works, etc, etc,.....There are lots of theological views.....there are all sorts of various ideas within each religion whether Judaism, Christianity, Pantheism, Hinduism, Buddhist, Islam, voodoo, etc, etc,.....Spinoza is a religious theologian. There is simply no denying that.There is no denying Einstein advocated using one's religion in science and vice versa. He felt religious beliefs should be tempered with science, but also that true science should be religious in nature, seeking an experience and understanding of the Divine Spirit.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I consider this both ignorant and a personal smear devoid of any substantiation whatsoever, and moreover, it appears based on continual misrepresentation of my arguments, even after multiple times explaining and asking you and others to refrain from that. For example, imo, you are insinuating here that I am claiming Einstein advocated traditional Christianity or Judaism. This is not the first time you have suggested this either, and that I have corrected you. Why are you continuing to misrepresent my argument?Moreover, why furthermore does it matter what sort of Creator/God or religious view Einstein has in mind? Your argument shows that you accept mixing theology and science as long as you agree with the theology and as such, you are basically advocating hypocrisy when you suggest theology and science should not be intertwined.You have been rebutted here time and again on this point and have refused and failed to rebutt any of the points I have raised, instead preferring to both misrepresent my arguments and to make blanket assertations without substantiation, such as pretending Spinozan theology is somehow not theology.Please correct this bizarre behaviour.Additionally, you failed to have grasped that Wheeler and Hawkings actually are fully congruent with the science side of what I have stated repeatedly about quantum physics. I was the one, not you guys, telling you about using the concept of an indeterminate past to explain quantum physics, and yet you suggest somehow I have taken things out of context. It's very bizarre on your part.Perhaps you are not familiar yet, despite having posted to you ad nauseum, what guys like Wheeler mean when they talk about indeterminacy. In Wheeler's thought experiment on the photon travelling as a particle or wave over the expanse of the universe, he discusses the concept of how it appears the actions of observers today would have had to affect how the photon passed. This is something you need to spend a little thought on instead of ignorantly railing against me for merely retelling their ideas.Wheeler says the problem is thinking that the photon existed at all as a discrete, definite form (what most people would call a physical or material state). He says the photon was "intrinsincly undefined" as I have posted to you on numerous occasions. The concept of indeterminate really relates to something only existing as a potential for material form and reality, and not yet existing as a defined reality until observation. That's what Wheeler is talking about when he says that they building blocks of the universe could not exist without observers, and when he talks of the principle of Observer Participancy. You just, for some reason, have not taken the time to grasp this stuff, and now hear some words that sound different to you and have spouted off a bunch of nonsense without realizing those words are actually stating the exact same thing I am.2 Ideas to grasp here1. The concept that the quantum is undefined, but exists outside of what we would call physical reality, is a remarkable reversal of the concept of material and methodological naturalism based on Newtonian physics. That's because what quantum physics shows is that reality is first and foremost consisting of an immaterial state that possesses the ability to take on physical form. That means physical things consist of something that is first immaterial and secondarily physical (possessing discrete material form). The "material" or "physical" aspect is a derived, not a primary, function of what something is (the wave function).2. The next big concept you need to grasp here is why they talk of the past or an area of the past being "indeterminate." First, you need to realize that from a layman's perspective, the past being indeterminate and then becoming determined by an action in the present is indeed the present affecting the past and an observation of retrocausality. However, retrocausality is also demonstrated via the principle of quantum entanglement.They try to preserve some sense of linear in time causality within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics by stating the past wasn't formed, and took on form with the observation. It's subtle, but really from a human perspective, it really doesn't matter. What they are really saying in effect is that the wave function is simply the probability of something happened, and is not in a definite physical form until observation or measurement (there are many nuances here), and that in effect the physical sense of things is just taking a measurement of something much larger, the potential, and so really is somewhat illusory to think strictly in the old material physical terms, but I suspect you won't really get that if you are still not getting the concept of Observer Participancy.Suffice to say, something is indeterminate and then becomes determinate, and that something is in the past, and the trigger for it being determed (perhaps stating "being determed" rather than "become" determined) is better. The quantum eraser experiments show that the past determined state can actually change. In other words, the wave function of the thing can result in appearing indeterminate and determinate, but in reality, the primary property of the thing itself, being an immaterial state capable of physical and discrete form, never really changes at all......(really hope you get this last sentence because if you still do not, you probably aren't grasping where these guys are coming from).

I think perhaps you guys should spend less time suggesting which arguments your critics should not use, and a little more time understanding your critics' arguments. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that creationists are not arguing that Einstein believed in a "personal God", but that Einstein did believe in God and inserted that belief quite pointedly into the scientific discussion.You guys seem to be unable at times to recognize, for example, that I have never argued Einstein believed in traditional Christian or Jewish theology. In the context of this thread, for example, your post is quite inane.Maybe a question would help?Is it your stance that mixing your theology and science together is acceptable as long as you hold to a non-Christian and non-Jewish concept of God?For example, Pantheism is OK, but Judaism is not?

Then I suppose you didn't see where I quoted you as the evidence? Why are you continuing to bring up Einstein not following traditional theology if you are not insinuating still, after being told otherwise, that this is what I am claiming? Moreover, since I quoted you, how can you possibly say I provided no evidence? If you disagree with the evidence of your intentions, then you are welcome to clarify but continuing to deny falsely that I have answered you is wrong. Please cease from doing that. I am not misleading. You are. You have consistently suggested falsely that I have claimed Einstein followed traditional theology and so have created a straw man you refuse to back off of. Minnemous followed your lead as well, stating this is an argument creationists have not followed. The problem of course is no one has stated that Einstein did follow traditional theology. But the simple fact of the matter is, that he believed in God and that God creates the world. He also believed God was subject to determinism Himself, and that the world itself was formed and is formed from the substance of God.In fact, Einstein's beleifs about the spiritual world being the foundation of what we observe as the natural world is in 100% agreement with what you have mocked as far as my claims. The difference, of course, is that whereas Einstein and I agree with Paul's statement "In Him we live and move and have our being", Einstein's idea of God is different than mine. He rejects a personal God, but on the ideas of the substance of God interacting with reality to create it, we are very close, in fact. Prove it. What you are ignoring percy is that Einstein's and Spinoza's concept of the universe is bigger than traditional, modern science. The universe is everything, period, and that includes immaterial things like love, justice, ideas, etc,...In other words, the universe here is not strictly material from a classical perspective.So Einstein isn't really using God as just a metaphor. He is saying religion and science guide one another, that they must be harmonious, but at the same time, he is not saying science without religion is the correct approach. Just a bald-faced, unsubstantiated smear on your part, something I have come to expect. The fact you say you are a Christian makes it all the worse. Saying it doesn't make it so. You have not refuted one point, not even one, on this thread. You cannot refute it either because you are wrong. What actual argument? You mean where you erroneously believed pointing out that Einstein rejected a personal God somehow refuted my point?LOL.It doesn't matter if you are a Pantheist or a Christian or a Jew or whoever, you are still mixing religion and science if you come out blatantly and insert your religious and theological beliefs into a scientific argument as Einstein did. Now, I don't have so much a problem with that because I believe all truth is interconnected and immaterial things, like love, truth, justice, etc,....are real all on their own and not just a by-product of nerves in the human brain.But evos do tend to have problems with mixing religion and science, but maybe they just have a problem with conservative religion and welcome Einstein mixing Pantheism into scientific arguments, judging by this thread.Also, you are ignoring the fact I showed you that I didn't misunderstand Wheeler. You misrepresented me there as well, and refuse now to substantiate your point.What do you think a state of indeterminacy refers to?

So you are at least admitting that you are continuing to maintain that I am advocating that Einstein believed in a personal God of traditional theology despite my repeatedly telling you otherwise, and correcting your misunderstanding previously of what I wrote?At what point should I consider your misrepresentation deliberate? How often do I need to clarify that mixing up Pantheistic theology with science is still mixing theology with science?As to the rest of your post, I have refuted everything you have written and provided ample substantiation in the form of quotes from Einstein and commentary on Spinoza. I have to conclude, at this point, that you are deliberately ignoring these facts presented in my argument, and just don't wish to have a rational discussion.I will just mention one thing though. You admit in Einstein's universe, spirituality and intelligence exist, presumably apart as well from just mankind. That's a different concept of the universe than science's, and so trying to argue that Einstein and Spinoza were merely using figurative language to describe the physical universe is deceptive. This has already been pointed out to you several times, but you keep ignoring this, and repeating a mantra which you refuse to substantiate, that when Einstein refers to "God", he doesn't really mean "God."You have no evidence whatsoever for your case. Spinoza for example argues that there is an underlying substance of God that creates the physical universe. Both Einstein and Spinoza argue that God creates the universe, but they also argue the universe is part of God.Unfortunately, you are unwilling to acknowledge the truth, just as you were unwilling to accept the findings of quantum physics.It's really pathetic.If you are interested in changing and dealing with the arguments presented, let me know. Thus far, you are just repeating unsubstantiated claims.Edit to add: in the hopes of offering a carrot whereby reasonable discussion can occur, have you considered the fact that Spinoza advocated that God was perfect. This is a major theological perspective within Spinozan and Einstein's theology, which affected and resulted in their deep commitments to determinism, and in the case of Einstein, his hostility towards the findings of quantum physics and indeed even initially the idea of an expanding universe. In other words, it really doesn't matter that Einstein rejected a personal God. His views of an impersonal and perfect God still affected how and what he accepted in terms of data and concepts of the universe.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Einstein stated he believed in Spinoza's idea of God. Many try to suggest this God is really no God at all, but a mere figurative metaphor for the physical universe. This claim is a major misunderstanding of Spinozan theology, and hence this post to try to get a picture of what Spinoza and Einstein were talking about. http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htmThere are 2 key ideas here:One is that Spinoza abolishes the dualism between thought (and spirit) and physical things. This is not at all in harmony with modern evo's concept of science.The other idea is that God consists both as Himself and as the universe itself (being attributes of God). In this context, what we might call the physical universe is both a creation and extension of God, but God is more than the physical universe and includes all things whatsoever.When Einstein speaks so highly of this idea of God what he is really saying is the opposite of what modern evos claim. He is saying that there is nothing that science cannot and should not explore, meaning spiritual dimensions, the primordial unchanging substance of God are rightly to be understood as properties of the universe subject to scientific inquiry.Rightly understood, one would have to say Einstein and Spinoza advocated a framework of Intelligent Design since they argued Intelligence is behind the design we see in the world, and indeed that the world itself is bound directly to this Intelligence so that they are inseparable, but not that the derived attributes such as the universe we see are not distinquishable from the underived substance of God, but merely the underived substance of God is put into a form.Anyway, it's interesting theology.....not that I agree with all of it, however, but some ideas I think are worth merit.Oddly, some of Spinoza's concepts of God dovetail with Islamic mysticism. Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

The problem is you just state it and ignore what Spinoza actually believed and stated. He clearly and unequivocally, as I showed, believes in a God that creates the universe. He just argues as well that He created by creating out of Himself the universe. Moreover, you take his comments out of context when you refer to Nature or the Universe, and refuse to acknowledge that his ideas of the Universe and Nature include a divine intelligence.At one point, I admit that you seem to suggest you may be aware that Spinoza and Einstein claim a divine Intelligence, but then you go on and pretend, once again, that their ideas of the universe are the same as reductionist science. Quite obviously, they are not.Spinoza's God is perfect and unchanging, which is why he is subject to determinism, but we see changes in the universe all around us. Spinoza argues the things we see that can change are attributes of God, but not to be considered the same as the whole of God. You are just wrong to suggest otherwise.Maybe you will listen if you hear it from someone else? Oh, and keep in mind the difference in my posts and your parroting is I actually provide real statements, logic and facts instead of unsubstantiated claims that Spinoza was an atheist or some such crap. http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htmalso from same web-site The truth is that by rejecting randomness as real, Einstein is deeply hostile to one of the most basic claims of modern evos. That doesn't mean he doesn't accept a form of evolutionary models, but is a Intelligent Design form if we were to classify it in modern terms. There is no such thing as chance and randomness in Einstein and Spinoza.

The article is on Spinoza, not Einstein, but let's look at it.First, do you accept that Spinoza's theology is indeed religion and theology?Secondly, the article argues that Spinoza felt God was subject to determinism. We see here that the belief in determinism is rooted in a theological belief that God is perfect, correct?You admitted Einstein believed in Spinozan theology, correct?So Einstein has a religious (theologically or intuitively based belief) in determinism, correct?So when Einstein says "God does not play dice" to argue against determinism, why should we not accept his words at face value? You act like I am the one putting the word "God" in Einstein's mouth, but in reality, it is Einstein inserting Spinozan beliefs into the scientific world.You also suggested that you did not believe Einstein and Spinoza believed that God creates the universe as we see it, and yet note: So in reality, and contrary to your earlier comments, Spinoza and Einstein do indeed believe there is a Divine Intelligence creating the universe. That which is created is part of God, but there is a distinction between that which is created and that which is not created, just as I have stated all along.

Einstein accepted a divine Intelligence that creates via manifesting itself as different forms the observable universe.Correct or not? What do you think chance and randomness are? You said earlier he referred to determinism, right?

Actually, there isn't even a need to look elsewhere though one can. He refers to Divine in the comments you quoted. Correct?He obviously believes there is a "Divine Will", correct?

Prove it. You said he believed in Spinoza's God, and I showed you that Spinoza did believe God is an actual Divine Being. You admitted that you agreed with the article that showed that.Is the sky blue in your world?Randomness of mutation is not randomness of radioactive decay either. You haven't really dealt with the basic premise of this thread, btw, and explained why Einstein believed "God did not play dice."You have tried to say he didn't believe he was actually talking about "God" but merely being metaphorical. If so, there really is no reason for him to use the term "God", and you do not explain that.You said he believed in Spinoza's God and tried to use that to explain his comment away, but Spinoza believed in God, and used theology to base his belief in determinism. So really, the fact Einstein followed Spinozan theology suggests his belief in determinism was based on theology, not science.