Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
307 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 306 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,315 Year: 4,427/6,534 Month: 641/900 Week: 165/182 Day: 45/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Einstein try to destroy science?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 83 (381980)
02-02-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by sidelined
02-02-2007 6:18 PM


Re: incredible
Actually, there isn't even a need to look elsewhere though one can. He refers to Divine in the comments you quoted.

of human nor Divine Will

Correct?

He obviously believes there is a "Divine Will", correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 02-02-2007 6:18 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 02-02-2007 6:30 PM randman has taken no action

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5147 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 62 of 83 (381981)
02-02-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
02-02-2007 6:21 PM


Re: incredible
randman

I read that sentence as denying any human or divine will as a cause independant of natural events. In other words, nature has no event that is divinely or humanly willed into existence. This strikes me as a denial of the divine actually and instead places the events of the universe as belonging solely to the phenomena themselves.


"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 6:21 PM randman has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 63 of 83 (381983)
02-02-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
02-02-2007 6:18 PM


Re: incredible
randman writes:

Einstein accepted a divine Intelligence that creates via manifesting itself as different forms the observable universe.

I think subbie's quotes address this pretty well. Einstein thought of the divine as a state of reverence and not as an actual being.

What do you think chance and randomness are? You said earlier he referred to determinism, right?

Yes, with respect to quantum certainty. Einstein didn't reject randomness. I already cited the randomness of radioactive decay, which is not a quantum effect. Neither is the randomness of mutation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 6:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 6:58 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 64 of 83 (381985)
02-02-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
02-02-2007 6:35 PM


Re: incredible
Einstein thought of the divine as a state of reverence and not as an actual being.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 02-02-2007 6:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 10:13 AM randman has replied
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-03-2007 3:55 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 65 of 83 (382089)
02-03-2007 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
02-02-2007 6:58 PM


Re: incredible
randman writes:

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.

You say that you've shown that "Spinoza did believe God is an actual Divine Being," and it's when you say things like this that I begin to wonder if you're somehow confusing Spinoza's views with traditional theistic beliefs. You say to me, "You admitted that you agreed with the article that showed that." Yes, I agreed with the article (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm), but that article never in any way attempts to demonstrate that the God of Spinoza was a divine being. The phrase "Divine being" does not appear in the article. In fact, even just the word "divine" does not appear anywhere in the article. It is when you use this word "divine" in a Spinozan context, a word that is just a stepping stone to "holy" and other similar terms, that causes me to ask if you're thinking of the Christian God.

Anyway, I'm afraid you've provided no support for your argument that Spinoza believed in God as a Divine being. What your article actually says is that Spinoza saw God, along with Descartes, as a "Necessary Being".

Is the sky blue in your world?

Is up down and left right in yours?

Randomness of mutation is not randomness of radioactive decay either.

I never said that random mutation and radioactive decay were equivalent. I cited them as examples of randomness accepted by Einstein. If we were to pursue this angle we'd eventually breach the question of Einstein's views on a deterministic universe, where the question becomes is a process inherently random, or is it just that we have insufficient knowledge and/or intellect to make a determination?

You haven't really dealt with the basic premise of this thread, btw, and explained why Einstein believed "God did not play dice."

I was never trying to explain why Einstein did not accept quantum uncertainty. I've only explained what he meant when he said, "God does not play dice." He meant that he rejected quantum uncertainty. Though the then level of scientific expertise had shown that quantum uncertainty was an inherent property of the universe, Einstein believed that there was more to be uncovered and that it would eventually be revealed to be incorrect.

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.

I suspect Einstein used the word God for the same reason all of us do - he was referring to his conception of God. The mistake that you're making is to think that God can only be a divine being. God was not a divine being for either Spinoza or Einstein.

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.

I think I see another aspect of what is causing this difference of opinion. If you're saying that Einstein had no science upon which to base his opinion that quantum uncertainty was false, then I agree with you. Einstein was painfully aware that the scientific evidence did not support his intuition. So if you want to say that Einstein's intuition on this matter derived from his theology and not his science, then I agree with you. Einstein was well aware he was stating an opinion and that he was not making a scientific statement.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 6:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 7:32 PM Percy has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2287 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 66 of 83 (382173)
02-03-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
02-02-2007 6:58 PM


Re: incredible
....and I showed you that Spinoza did believe God is an actual Divine Being.

Randman: this is not true. Einstein is famous for saying that he believed in "Spinoza's God." Spinoza believed nature had a mind and was thus "God." Neither Einstein or Spinoza believed in a personal God of the Bible that could be related to.

Spinoza, like all Darwinists today, deify nature, then speak for it since it cannot speak for itself

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-02-2007 6:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 7:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 83 (382208)
02-03-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
02-03-2007 10:13 AM


God = Divine Being
Percy, the definition of God or a god is a "divine being" so of course Spinoza believes in a Divine Being.
Are you denying that Spinoza believes there is a God or that this God is a Being?

The phrase "Divine being" does not appear in the article.

That's because the phrase "Diving Being" doesn't have to since the word "God" means exactly the same thing. Geesh.

Let's look at what the article attributes to this God, aka as divine being.

Spinoza's God is perfect, which means everything is as it must be and cannot be otherwise. God's eternal nature necessitates the things that happen, which happen just as they must and cannot happen otherwise. This all follows from the premise of God's perfection. It is deterministic. Chance or randomness would be an imperfection.

http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm

So Spinoza says this God is "perfect" possessing an "eternal nature".....hmmmmm....sounds a lot like a Diving Being to me.

Let's look further.

This gives us a contrast between what is creating and what is created. What is creating is the eternal existance and nature of God. What is created are the modifications that we see around us as transient things.

So we see this thing called "God" (aka known as a divine being) not only has an eternal nature and is perfect, but also creates out of this eternal nature the transient things we see in the world. Sounds a lot of like a description of a Diving Being to me. You know any non-divine beings that are perfect with an eternal nature and that create everything there is? If so, please point them out.

Let's look further. Maybe you are saying this is all just a description of energy and matter and that there is no actual Being present. Of course, that's not what was said, but let's look and see what other attributes Spinoza believes God has.

Spinoza's God thinks, and also is or does many other things that are beyond our reckoning and comprehension.

So we see Spinoza's God thinks....hmmmm....so this God is perfect, has an eternal nature, thinks, possesses intelligence and creates all things that exist period, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of ignoring the truth here!

You write:

but that article never in any way attempts to demonstrate that the God of Spinoza was a divine being.

God was not a divine being for either Spinoza or Einstein.

Uh huh,...so when the article makes it a point to describe Spinoza's God as perfect, possessing an eternal nature, creating everything, having Intelligence and thinks on a level way beyond our ability to comprehend, those are not attributes that describe divinity. I guess you know some beings that think, possess an eternal nature, creating everything there is and that is perfect to boot that are not divine beings?

LOL

Moreover, you fail to recognize the claim that God is a Necessary Being is congruent not with evo thinking but ID thinking is presupposing that the design of the universe mandates that God must exist.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 10:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 7:48 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 83 (382211)
02-03-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object
02-03-2007 3:55 PM


Re: incredible
With all due respect, you are erring here. First, just because one rejects the personal God of the Bible does not mean one rejects belief in God. The term God means Divine Being, btw.

Spinoza's beliefs actually are more aligned with IDers than evos. He believed God was perfect, had an eternal nature, creates everything, and possessed Intelligence and a mind, and creates out of this eternal nature. Both Einstein and Spinoza argue that one can tell what God is like and what God is to a degree via looking at God's design. Both accept that the universe itself is evidence of God.

Those that just try to say they are deifying the universe need to understand they are also adding something the Nature and the Universe that modern science claims to be unobserved, and that is that the Universe itself has a conscious, thinking Mind and Being. While I agree that this sort of thinking of deifying Nature does seem to underly evolutionist thinking, I am not so sure they are aware of it all the time.

Basically, one would have to classify Spinoza and Einstein more as New Age Iders than in the camp of modern evos when it comes to their perspective on science and the universe.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-03-2007 3:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2007 7:19 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 69 of 83 (382214)
02-03-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
02-03-2007 7:32 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
randman writes:

Percy, the definition of God or a god is a "divine being" so of course Spinoza believes in a Divine Being. Your statement above is nonsensical.

So is yours. Since when do words have a single definition?

So we see Spinoza's God thinks....hmmmm....so this God is perfect, has an eternal nature, thinks, possesses intelligence and creates all things that exist period, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of ignoring the truth here!

So I said that by divine you seemed to be implying holy, which is one of the definitions of divine, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of ignoring the truth here?

If all you mean by divine is perfect, eternal, etc., then fine, use divine that way. I checked a couple dictionaries, and that didn't seem to be the definition, but if that's your preference, go ahead, use it that way. Just don't expect people to somehow "divine" the definition you're using.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 7:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 1:14 AM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 83 (382281)
02-04-2007 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
02-03-2007 7:48 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
Divine first and foremost is a reference to God, gods, and godlike qualities. There is no reason for you to be confused.

You suggested, by the way, that Einstein did not accept that there was an actual being that was God.

Einstein thought of the divine as a state of reverence and not as an actual being.

But at the same time you admit that Einstein believed in a Spinozan version of God, and Spinoza's idea of God is a Being that is perfect, creates all of reality, thinks, has an eternal nature, is self-existing, etc,.....Clearly Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a real God that was a real Being, and was not simply metaphorically referring to an inanimate universe as God, but believed there was more to the universe/nature. In other words, their idea of God was a perfect Being that thinks, has an eternal nature, and creates the universe as an extension of itself, right?

So are you ready to finally admit you are wrong here and that Spinoza and Einstein did believe in an actual Being they called God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 7:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 10:55 AM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 71 of 83 (382315)
02-04-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
02-04-2007 1:14 AM


Re: God = Divine Being
randman writes:

Divine first and foremost is a reference to God, gods, and godlike qualities. There is no reason for you to be confused.

Divine, like almost all other words in the English language, has multiple definitions. There is no reason for you to be confused on this point.

Clearly Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a real God that was a real Being, and was not simply metaphorically referring to an inanimate universe as God, but believed there was more to the universe/nature. In other words, their idea of God was a perfect Being that thinks, has an eternal nature, and creates the universe as an extension of itself, right?

If you're saying that Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God that existed outside the universe and brought the universe into being by a conscious act of creation, which is what you're implying by putting this in terms consistent with Christian views, then no, you're wrong. I think you're focusing on the portion of your article (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm) where it criticizes science when it ignores that "Spinoza's god thinks", but you have to recognize that the article is not using the word "thinks" in any familiar way. As he says a few paragraphs later, "Spinoza's God does not make choices, does not really have a will -- which would imply deliberation or alternatives. Spinoza's God is perfect, which means everything is as it must be and cannot be otherwise. God's eternal nature necessitates the things that happen, which happen just as they must and cannot happen otherwise."

Getting back to what we were talking about before, in the article this is followed immediately by a comment about randomness: "This all follows from the premise of God's perfection. It is deterministic. Chance or randomness would be an imperfection."

Many scientists today identify their views as Spinozan, which would seem to contradict the determinism of a Spinozan universe. Had Spinoza been aware of, say, radioactive decay, would he have considered it antithetical to his views? Or would he, along with modern scientists, consider the very deterministic half life the dominant consideration? Interestingly, Spinoza was a contemporary of Robert Boyle, he of Boyle's Law, a statistical approximation of the random behavior of individual gas molecules. Of course, modern scientists all accept quantum uncertainty, which definitely seems to run counter to Spinozan determinism, but I expect that modern scientists, including Einstein, who claim to be Spinozan in outlook do so in the same way that most anyone claims to be of any particular view. Just as few Republicans align themselves with every point of the Republican platform, and just as few Catholics align themselves with every proclamation of the Pope, probably few scientists who claim Spinozan views align themselves with every aspect of Spinozan philosophy, and I would venture a guess that Spinozan determinism is one aspect left aside. It is certainly so for me.

So are you ready to finally admit you are wrong here and that Spinoza and Einstein did believe in an actual Being they called God?

I hope you are at last prepared to concede that you are wrong and that Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God that was one with the universe.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 1:14 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 2:25 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 83 (382396)
02-04-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
02-04-2007 10:55 AM


Re: God = Divine Being
Spinoza's God thinks. It is true that Spinozan theology sees God as perfect and believes that means he is restricted by that perfection so that He or It has no free will, but at the same time, it is undeniable that Spinoza and Einstein believe this God is a real Being, and they are not simply metaphorically speaking of an inanimate Universe or Nature. Keep in mind when you try to say that Spinoza's God doesn't really think because you say He makes no choices, that Spinoza says we also have no free will and all of our thoughts are determined.

But does that mean we do not think, do not exist as beings, and don't make choices?

No. Obviously, we do make choices, but those choices according to Spinoza are predetermined, and so he believes is the case with God, except that God determines by His perfection everything else, including our choices. But either way, Spinoza's God thinks and is a real Being.

Do you still not accept that they are talking about a real Being?

No dodging please, or coming up with some crap on how this God differs. We've heard that, and no one is trying to say that their view of God is the same as traditional Judaism or Christianity, although notably the author does compare their idea of God with Islamic mysticism.

But all that is stuff not germane to this thread topic. It doesn't matter if you believe in a Pantheistic God or the God of John Calvin or Maimonedes. It doesn't matter if the God is Hindu or Muslim either, for this discussion.

This discussion is about interjecting one's faith and theology into a scientific discussion. Einstein clearly did this. He referred to "God" and we know elsewhere he said this God was the same idea as Spinoza. Spinoza's God is a real Being, that thinks, is perfect, is alive, has an eternal nature, is self-existing, and creates everything there is from Himself. These are all undeniable facts.

Yet you still seem to want to claim there is no Being called God in Einstein's and Spinoza's thought. Why is that?

I hope you are at last prepared to concede that you are wrong and that Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God that was one with the universe.

I have never denied they believed Spinoza's God was one with the universe, but that is not the same as simply being the inanimate universe. Spinoza, for example, says there is an unobserved, uncreated substance which is the root of the transitory things. Einstein sees the design of the world as giving us glimpses of God's eternal nature. These are ideas you have expressed intense and great hostility towards, percy. You have suggested that to claim God's Being and Substance is within the scope of science is a threat to science.

Einstein did not believe it a threat, however, and he stands against the sort of reductionist thinking you advocate in this regard. He, for example, sees Diving Intelligence apart from man in the creation of the universe and it's designs, and so sees studying the universe as a religious as well as scientific act.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 10:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 3:21 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 73 of 83 (382412)
02-04-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
02-04-2007 2:25 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
randman writes:

This discussion is about interjecting one's faith and theology into a scientific discussion.

I think this simple misconstrual is the basis of your mistake. As I've pointed out already, when Einstein said, "God does not play dice," he was not having a scientific discussion. He was aware that the available scientific evidence supported quantum uncertainty and was only stating his intuition that this was not the nature of the universe. He believed research would eventually support his position.

No dodging please, or coming up with some crap on how this God differs.

Yes, please, no evasions or coming up with some bull about divine intelligence and God as a being separate from the universe.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 2:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 4:47 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 74 of 83 (382427)
02-04-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
02-04-2007 3:21 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
As I've pointed out already, when Einstein said, "God does not play dice," he was not having a scientific discussion. He was aware that the available scientific evidence supported quantum uncertainty and was only stating his intuition that this was not the nature of the universe. He believed research would eventually support his position.

Then why use the term "God"?

You really think if someone today used the term "God" to argue against a scientific theory, that people like yourself would be OK with it?

LOL

Also, we know Einstein believed in God, not just as a metaphor but as a real being, cast in Spinozan theology. Spinoza and Einstein both believed in determinism, as you put it, intuitively, which is really more of a faith thing than a science one. So Einstein was stating his faith (his intuition) about God led him to reject quantum uncertainty.

How is that not interjecting one's faith into a scientific discussion?

Yes, please, no evasions or coming up with some bull about divine intelligence and God as a being separate from the universe.

On your last comment, you have been shown to be wrong and won't admit it. You are back to misrepresenting my stance in order to cover yourself. First, you admit there is Intelligence within the God of Spinoza, and quite clearly this Intelligence is stated as beyond out comprehension, and so the divine clearly has intelligence within Spinozan theology.

Also, quite clearly, in acknowledging Spinoza's pantheism, I have never claimed his idea of God was of a God seperated from the universe, but what you refuse to admit is that this doesn't mean that God in Spinozan theology does not create the universe and that there is no distinction between the uncreated aspects of God and the transitory things we see.

In fact, as I showed you in the article, Spinoza distinquishes between the 2 things and gives them different titles so that we do indeed see a distinction between the uncreated substance of God, Natura Naturans, and the things created from that, Natura Naturata.

While for Spinoza all is God and all is Nature, the active/passive dualism enables us to restore, if we wish, something more like the traditional terms. Natura Naturans is the most God-like side of God, eternal, unchanging, and invisible, while Natura Naturata is the most Nature-like side of God, transient, changing, and visible.

http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm

Spinoza and Einstein thus believed in an invisible God or invisible aspects of God, unobserved, but seen in the things that are observed. You have continually ignored these points, refused to substantiate your claims, and resort instead to misrepresenting my stance and Spinozan theology as well.

Once again, do you or do you not admit that "God" in Spinozan theology refers to an actual Being?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 3:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 7:23 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20767
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 75 of 83 (382452)
02-04-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
02-04-2007 4:47 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
randman writes:

Then why use the term "God"?

Why not? Most people have little trouble understanding what he meant.

You really think if someone today used the term "God" to argue against a scientific theory, that people like yourself would be OK with it?

If I knew by God they were only referring to the nature of the universe? I doubt I'd have a problem with it. Here at EvC Forum I only have a problem with the God of the six day creation and the global flood.

Also, we know Einstein believed in God, not just as a metaphor but as a real being, cast in Spinozan theology. Spinoza and Einstein both believed in determinism, as you put it, intuitively, which is really more of a faith thing than a science one. So Einstein was stating his faith (his intuition) about God led him to reject quantum uncertainty.

How is that not interjecting one's faith into a scientific discussion?

You're trying to squeeze Einstein's beliefs about the universe into a religious framework that he would not agree with. Einstein was a very spiritual person, but he saw God and universe as one and did not see God as a being that existed outside the universe. I suspect that Einstein would agree with a statement that it was his intuition that "God does not play dice," but not that it was his faith. He would be well aware that words like divine and faith are attempts to place his religious beliefs into a conventional framework, and he was always very clear that his religious beliefs were unconventional. Your attempts to misconstrue your own cited article (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm) are pathetically obvious by your use of words like divine and faith that do not even appear in that article.

On your last comment, you have been shown to be wrong and won't admit it. You are back to misrepresenting my stance in order to cover yourself. First, you admit there is Intelligence within the God of Spinoza, and quite clearly this Intelligence is stated as beyond out comprehension, and so the divine clearly has intelligence within Spinozan theology.

About this, your views have been demonstrated incorrect and yet you will not concede this. You've returned to distorting my position for the purpose of hiding your own errors.

Spinoza and Einstein thus believed in an invisible God or invisible aspects of God, unobserved, but seen in the things that are observed. You have continually ignored these points, refused to substantiate your claims, and resort instead to misrepresenting my stance and Spinozan theology as well.

Einstein believed in a God who was one with the universe, who did not create the universe out of conscious act but only as an inevitable expression of his own nature, and who is not a conscious player on the universal stage. You have consistently disregarded these issues, raised spurious points, and taken recourse to distorting my position and Spinozan philosophy, too.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 4:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 02-05-2007 1:33 AM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022