God's moral code

[dungeonbaby]

and lest you start a debate here about what einstein believed in, you've not disqualified newton. so that particular argument with friendly stands.

[vheRR]

personal being the key word. i knew it was just a matter of time before one of you jumped on this you are either not familiar with einstein, or you are being disingenuous. don't excite your flock unnecessarily.

 

<http://en.wikipedia....religious_views >

 

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

 

 

 

... at gaano mo ba kakilala si Einstein?

 

... nabanggit nya ba sa iyo kung ano ang kanyang pananaw ukol sa dios?

[dungeonbaby]

good tactic, focus on a detail and miss the point

 

add your circuitous, tiresome style of posting and what do you get?

[vheRR]

and lest you start a debate here about what einstein believed in, you've not disqualified newton. so that particular argument with friendly stands.

 

good tactic, focus on a detail and miss the point

 

add your circuitous, tiresome style of posting and what do you get?

 

... again, nagbibigay lamang ng karagdagang impormasyon,

 

... dahil may kaibahan ang impormasyon na mula sa isang kwentuhan sa may tindahan at ang impormasyon na mula sa silid-aklatan.

[friendly0603]

not sure newton and einstein would've agreed with you.

I'm sure you know how religion always maintained that the world was flat in the olden days.

 

you clearly did not understand the question because i did not mean to say in any way that you are the only one who posts like you do.

Yet you implied that I may be the only is or thinks like that. I understood the question. I cannot provide fact because of the non-believers I know, I never asked them if they believe the way I do. I just know that they are as helpful to me as believers. Sometimes more than other believers.

 

just because i believe in God doesn't mean i believe he favors one team over another. if Einstein were with me watching that sporting event, and i asked him what he thought, he would've echoed that belief. your understanding of "believers" strikes me as being grossly limited.

Do you think it's directed at just you or believers in general? Did you see how the camera focused on someone praying at the last PBA final series? Somehow believers have this notion that prayer or god also influences the outcome of sport.

Just look at Pacquiao now. Look around you, the philippines is 90% christian.

 

then why engage me or anyone on a thread asking for a God-less moral code, if you aren't here to suggest just that?

Because it begs for one. But for that to happen, people have to open their mind and remove all the programming done since birth.

For religious folks, this is the only thing they believe and won't even open their mind to see that there are other possibilities.

[dungeonbaby]

... again, nagbibigay lamang ng karagdagang impormasyon,

 

... dahil may kaibahan ang impormasyon na mula sa isang kwentuhan sa may tindahan at ang impormasyon na mula sa silid-aklatan.

 

Mag goo-google ka rin lang, i-google mo na yung kalahatan ng search mo, hindi yung mga piraso lamang na sa makitid na pag-iisip ay sumasang-ayon sa mga pinaniniwalaang tema:

 

"The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of [Einstein's] life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists."

Einstein & Faith, TIME Magazine, Apr 5, 2007.

 

at heto pa, dahil mahilig kayo mag quote out of context:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, 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."

 

Jammer, Max, Einsteing and Religion, (Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 97

 

 

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the "miracle" which is being constantly re-enforced as our knowledge expands.

 

There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy …"

 

From a letter to Maurice Solovine

 

 

 

You want to keep debating the off-topic issue of God's existence as stated through some of history's best minds, go back to the Atheism thread.

 

By the way, save your breath being insulting, it's no skin off my back if you have the last word.

[dungeonbaby]

Do you think it's directed at just you or believers in general? Did you see how the camera focused on someone praying at the last PBA final series? Somehow believers have this notion that prayer or god also influences the outcome of sport.

Just look at Pacquiao now. Look around you, the philippines is 90% christian.

 

 

Because it begs for one. But for that to happen, people have to open their mind and remove all the programming done since birth.

For religious folks, this is the only thing they believe and won't even open their mind to see that there are other possibilities.

 

you equate religious belief with Catholic dogma and your own limited experience of religious people. i wouldn't call you a nonbeliever, i would call you anti-Catholic, like so many "freethinkers" these days, your beef is with the Roman Catholic church. just because those around you don't know how to practice their religion doesn't make the religion bad. same goes for your flat earth argument. i cannot fight illogical generalizations like yours. have a good day.

[vheRR]

Mag goo-google ka rin lang, i-google mo na yung kalahatan ng search mo, hindi yung mga piraso lamang na sa makitid na pag-iisip ay sumasang-ayon sa mga pinaniniwalaang tema:

 

"The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of [Einstein's] life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists."

Einstein & Faith, TIME Magazine, Apr 5, 2007.

 

at heto pa, dahil mahilig kayo mag quote out of context:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, 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."

 

Jammer, Max, Einsteing and Religion, (Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 97

 

 

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the "miracle" which is being constantly re-enforced as our knowledge expands.

 

There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy …"

 

From a letter to Maurice Solovine

 

 

 

You want to keep debating the off-topic issue of God's existence as stated through some of history's best minds, go back to the Atheism thread.

 

By the way, save your breath being insulting, it's no skin off my back if you have the last word.

 

... o hindi ba't mas mainam na me basehan ang usapan?

 

... at hindi ung usapan na base sa sinabi kasi ni ano na ganito daw,

 

... ngayon, nais ko lang banggitin, si Albert Einstein ay namatay noong April 18, 1955 sa edad na 76,

 

<http://en.wikipedia....Albert_Einstein >

 

... at bakit ko binabanggit ang araw ng kamatayan at edad nya?

 

... dahil posible na ang pananaw at paniniwala (o ang kawalan nito) ng isang tao ay nagbabago sa paglipas ng panahon,

... at dahil dyan, alin ngayon ang higit na bibigyan mo ng importansya, ang pananaw ng isang tao ayon sa sinabi nya ngayon o ayon sa sinabi nya noong isang araw?

... at kung babalikan natin ang nauna kong post, heto ang nakalagay,

 

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as anexperimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

 

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.^[8]

 

<http://en.wikipedia....religious_views>

 

 

... at heto pa,

 

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

 

<http://en.wikipedia....religious_views>

 

 

 

 

[friendly0603]

you equate religious belief with Catholic dogma and your own limited experience of religious people. i wouldn't call you a nonbeliever, i would call you anti-Catholic, like so many "freethinkers" these days, your beef is with the Roman Catholic church. just because those around you don't know how to practice their religion doesn't make the religion bad. same goes for your flat earth argument. i cannot fight illogical generalizations like yours. have a good day.

Apologies about my limited experience. Are these experiences false though? Is this why you won't tell your religion? I'm not particularly against catholic religion. I'm using those examples because that's convenient. I didn't study Islam. I didn't attend El Shaddai, born again, Prostentant and other denominations. Except for the muslims, most of these are using the same bible even if they have different interpretations. Those around you and me are your typical believers. Exceptions don't make the rule.

 

Can you please explain/share your seemingly non-typical religious belief?

 

Someone said here that it's a numbers game. The numbers show that generalizations are prevalent. The flat earth argument is illogical now. But was it illogical then? When only a few scientists have a different view of the earth.

 

Thanks for the replies anyway. Have a good day as well.

Edited May 16, 2012 by friendly0603

[viral]

 

 

Some clarifications about Einstein and the existence of God.

 

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?

by Rich Deem

 

Introduction

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote¹ on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.² Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

 

"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."

³

 

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

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

⁴

 

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

 

"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."

⁵

 

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

⁶

 

Einstein on Jesus

Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

 

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."⁷

 

So, although Einstein was not a Christian, he had great respect for Jesus, and recognized that He was an amazing figure in history. Personally having grown up as an atheist in a non-religious home, I initially saw Jesus as a brilliant teacher when I read the gospels for the first time at age 32.

 

 

Why no personal God?

So, what was the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God? Einstein recognized the remarkable design and order of the cosmos, but could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

 

 

Einstein's error

http://www.godandscience.org/images/einstein.gif Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. Where Einstein erred was in that thinking that there was a god who designed the universe, but designed it in such as way as to allow evil without a purpose. If the universe were designed and it included evil, then there must have been a purpose for that evil. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good ones. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

 

 

Conclusion http://www.godandscience.org/images/up1.gif

No, Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed. These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

 

 

[vheRR]

Conclusion http://www.godandscience.org/images/up1.gif

No, Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed. These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

 

Kumulog. Kumidlat...

 

Sinaunang Tao 1: "Bakit kaya kumukulog at kumikidlat?"

Sinaunang Tao 2: "Hindi ko alam."

Sinaunang Tao 1: "Siguro ay dahil sa nagagalit ang Dios."

 

 

... pag hindi alam ang dahilan,

... therefore, dios raw ang dahilan,

... pag hindi alam ang sagot,

 

... therefore, dios raw ang sagot,

... talaga?

... eh kung magtanong kaya ako ng tungkol sa dios mo,

... alam mo kaya ang dahilan?

 

... alam ko kaya ang sagot?

 

... matitiyak mo?

[viral]

Kumulog. Kumidlat...

 

Sinaunang Tao 1: "Bakit kaya kumukulog at kumikidlat?"

Sinaunang Tao 2: "Hindi ko alam."

Sinaunang Tao 1: "Siguro ay dahil sa nagagalit ang Dios."

 

 

... pag hindi alam ang dahilan,

... therefore, dios raw ang dahilan,

... pag hindi alam ang sagot,

 

... therefore, dios raw ang sagot,

... talaga?

... eh kung magtanong kaya ako ng tungkol sa dios mo,

... alam mo kaya ang dahilan?

 

... alam ko kaya ang sagot?

 

... matitiyak mo?

 

 

The above post is logically non sequitur, begs the question, and ignores Einstein's thinking about the origin of the universe: that it points to creation and therefore a creator.

 

To quote, once more:

viral, on 19 May 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

Conclusion http://www.godandscience.org/images/up1.gif

No, Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed. These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

 

We're not talking about kumulog and kumidlat, but about Einstein's thinking on the beginnings of the universe, which I accept as logical. VheRR seems to disagree. So I look forward to your thoughts. Can you try something new and without the ellipses? They're getting really boring, by the way..

[vheRR]

The above post is logically non sequitur, begs the question, and ignores Einstein's thinking about the origin of the universe: that it points to creation and therefore a creator.

 

To quote, once more:

viral, on 19 May 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

Conclusion http://www.godandscience.org/images/up1.gif

No, Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed. These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

 

We're not talking about kumulog and kumidlat, but about Einstein's thinking on the beginnings of the universe, which I accept as logical. VheRR seems to disagree. So I look forward to your thoughts. Can you try something new and without the ellipses? They're getting really boring, by the way..

 

... mangyari lamang na ito ho ang ang aking pinupuna,

 

"... that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God..."

 

 

... "kumulog at kumidlat",

... may nagalit nga bang dios?

 

[viral]

... mangyari lamang na ito ho ang ang aking pinupuna,

 

"... that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God..."

 

 

... "kumulog at kumidlat",

... may nagalit nga bang dios?

 

 

Again, non sequitur.

 

We are taking about Einstein's logic about the origin and the design of the universe pointing to the existence of a creator; maybe it could be a syllogism (roughly) like this -- 1. The universe, which is of such amazing design, is expanding; 2. So it had to have a beginning; 3. Therefore, logically, it had to have a creator.

 

But you are talking about kumulog and kumidlat which have been established to be natural phenomena.

 

Faulty equating, to say the least.

 

Your task now is to dispute Einstein's logic.

 

By the way, the allegations here that Eistein was an atheist have been refuted. He may not have believed in a personal God. But he could not discard the beginnings of the universe which would necessitate a creator.

[vheRR]

Again, non sequitur.

 

We are taking about Einstein's logic about the origin and the design of the universe pointing to the existence of a creator; maybe it could be a syllogism (roughly) like this -- 1. The universe, which is of such amazing design, is expanding; 2. So it had to have a beginning; 3. Therefore, logically, it had to have a creator.

 

... "we"?

... at paano mo nasabi na "we are ta(l)king about Einstein's logic about..."?

 

... may pinag-usapan ba tayo tungkol kay Einstein?

... hindi ba't sinabi ko na kung aling bahagi ng post mo ang pinuna ko?

 

But you are talking about kumulog and kumidlat which have been established to be natural phenomena.

 

Faulty equating, to say the least.

 

... di mo na-gets?

 

... narinig mo na ba ung saitang "god-of-the-gaps"?

... kung nuon ay "kumulog-kumidlat",

 

... ngayon naman ay "beginning-of-the-Universe".

 

... gets?

Your task now is to dispute Einstein's logic.

 

By the way, the allegations here that Eistein was an atheist have been refuted. He may not have believed in a personal God. But he could not discard the beginnings of the universe which would necessitate a creator.

 

... sino ba ang nagsabi na "atheist" si Einstein, ako ba?

 

... may nag-post ba rito na nagsasabing atheist si Einstein?

 

... at kung babasahin nating muli ang mga ito,

 

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as anexperimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

 

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.^[8

... at heto pa,

 

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

 

<http://en.wikipedia....religious_views>

.... ay makikitang wala namang nabanggit si Einstein na naniniwala siya sa isang Creator,

... o ayan, ngayon pa lamang natin pinag-uusapan si Einstein.