H E L L O Yea

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."

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, 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."

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."

Why no personal God?

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and 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

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. However, 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 choices. 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.


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 purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

This is totally untrue. That was not his motivation at all. I'm certain that Einstein would object to this absurd conclusion.

To the intellectual thinker it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether the universe had a beginning or not. Neither condition is any more supportive of the idea of a God. Besides, the observed way in which this universe was created and its age totally flies in the face of any biblical picture. The universe is over 14 billion years old and is filled with galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of suns and planets. This hardly fits in with the idea of a God who created Earth and focused on the life on that speck of dust.

Being that you’re a women I’m really surprised that you would support such a male chauvinistic view of God.

Why do you feel that God is such a male chauvinist? And as a woman, how does that make you feel?

Di:



James:

As always, young man... quite the interesting perspective. It is on my list to read up on Heisenburg's uncertainty principle...


feral:

As always, it seems you are armed with a bazooka, yet you have the holster for a Dillinger...



First of all, what makes you or anyone else qualified to understand 'Gods' motives? As if you have a personal relationship with a 'God' who you, yourself, have often claimed that humans cannot even begin to comprehend?

You must be special, to have gained such an understanding, considering that even your Bible claims cannot happen...



This statement is a false assumption of Einstein's thoughts.



So, then 'God' sat around all lonely and stuff...

Bored to death, of course...

So then first, he split himself into three, in order to have a conversation with someone else...

And then they(he) decided to make some people, and give them lots of options without ever giving them a rulebook for... say... thousands and thousands of years... right?

Later on though, some of these most fervent of believers actually support the notion that this 'God' answers their prayers while at the same time allowing some absolutely unnecessarily evil things ... such as sexual torture... to happen to a completely innocent little child while they are praying, and actually believing that 'God' is answering?

Some of the logic of Einstein and Spinoza is being questioned?

PUH-LEEEEEEEZE !!!!

The biblical omni-god has been laid to rest... long ago...

'God' is indivisible...

'God' does not meddle in human (mis)understanding.

You both for being such intellects honestly have no clue.....first off in nothing that I said do I see a male chauvinistic anything.....

There is no doubt what God intended when he created all. And yes you have a relationship with the God I believe in and this is abundantly clear....And you must be getting me mixed up with someone else creative......I understand from study what God intended for man....It's not rocket Science.....And to understand what he wants for us is different then understanding all that is God.....which is not what I was claiming above.

Read Einsteins Quotes there his I didn't make them up.

And as far as God sitting around twittling his thumbs......I think not creative he did in creating Adam and Eve tell them exactly what they could and could not......This was God speaking directly to them. And yet they let satan (serpent) lead them astray so your whole paragraph about this...is just blah blah blah.....no offense.....


You know what is so annoying...that things can be explained to panthiest over and over and over and over....and still you are blind, and deaf, and dumb.....not in a mean way....just in the I want to believe what I want so it really doesn't matter what you say sense.....which is why I really don't bother anymore...because for everything you have bad to say about what I believe I can always come back with 15 things to back up what I say...and all you come back to is. "If there is God how can he let all the little children get killed, or hurt, or molested.....To which I always...It is not God that is doing all the killing, and molesting, and hurting, It is man, with man's free will.....Which is man listening to satan rather then God......Why is it that people when things are going really good in their lives...They don't thank God...But when things are bad they are always want to blame God for everything.....Come out of the box boys......It's time......Put the blame where it should go....Take the blame off what it is not......

feral dear....

how can such a complex woman be so cute?

from feral cat to pit bull to marilyn...


I hear you and I understand you even if those big meanies, my friends, don't.

awwww wouldee........I am such a complex woman....lol....I'm sure some get me....like the cutiful wouldee.....Maybe they need to come take a break and let me matchmake them.....Are you going to come and play in Matchmaking Game....Would love to have ya.

Ok... After a brief and illogical interruption of the aimlessly eclectic variety, we need to resume where we were, without claiming to know that which no-one can know... 'Gods' will or thoughts...




Again, for a logical refresher...

If 'God' came first, then...

'God' used 'God' to create... 'God' was all that existed, therefore, 'God' must have used 'God'...

This makes 'God' indivisible, meaning that all things came from 'God', the only source.

The Bible even states that 'God' created all things.

I wonder then, how one can believe that 'God' is separate from all creation when all creation is of 'God'. Not just from... but []iof... meaning some part of 'God' was used to create all things which 'God' created... which is, according to the Bible... all things.


A Biblically applied term of creation necessitates the division which distinguishes 'God' from creation, falsely implying reason, purpose, and intent, all of which are constantly being inner-personally applied by individual believers.

There are several issues concerning this notion of 'God' being separate.

This is impossible with an indivisible 'God'. No thing is separate.

What does this say then, concerning the plausibility of 'Gods' creation being as it is spelled out in the Bible? It is done so with human comparitive values, without ever having experienced human life to compare...

Is this not problematic?

Creation, as biblically applied, requires experience and reason...

If 'God' was all there would be no thing 'God' was not. If one is everything there can be no distinction.

Abra - have you any idea how envious I am of your knowledge? I really enjoyed the reply you made after mine. Reading material FROM YOU, always serves to make other material I've read more understandable, thanks!

BY THE WAY - congradulations on your new gig - when will you or have you already started? Violin, I used violin, well not really, I had one and I took lessons, but - young, you know? Wish I had continued. Go for it, have a good time.

Back on track;

Creative:

I may be jumping the gun here, but I was wondering - and you too James, in this portrayal of creation through creationist, do you believe that there is 'intelligence' that has created in whole? Or is it more that the process simply "began" maybe as the only viable 'creative expression' this creator had - to divide itself?

The reason I ask is to determine if the 'creative expression' was that which has evolved to become all physical embodiments? Evolved being the operative word. If evolution is has picked up from the original 'expression', did the 'creator' determine the path of this evolution or are we & all physical material just a matter of consequences?

Basically, how much control was & is wielded by the creative force over its' division?

Logically?

Or...

Personally?

No, it doesn't. Creatio Ex Nihilo means "Created from Nothing", not "Made out of nothing". God created the universe without a starting point...from scratch, if you will. There was no vast nothingness which God molded into the universe, God created the whole universe at will from nothing (including Himself).

You say that "nothing" is a false notion...how do you know? Were you there when the universe was created? If not, then what do you base that statement upon? I believe that there was never "nothing" because I believe that is what the Bible tells us, but I'm interested in where you get your belief from.

God did not come first, man created god. God is an ease to the internal struggle of man. His misunderstandings of the world around him will be attributed to a god and therefore relieving man of his worries of that that he does not understand. The universe, death and evil humans being the major confusion for man. If he passes it off to a higher being then he does not have to ponder, just believe blindly and this makes his life easier.

We (humans)are the good and evil in this world, it is that simple.

it was the egg not the chicken

"Split some wood, I am there.
Lift a stone,
you will find me there."

The above is from The Gospel of Thomas. Whether or not you accept it plays a huge role in how you believe in christianity.

If you accept it then, I assume, you believe that god was here before he/it created everything (since he/it is a part of everything and is to be found everywhere).

If you believe otherwise then I don't know what to think.

spider:

To the following statement of mine:



You replied as such...



Do you have any logical counterpoints to what I have said?

You said that above which is underlined, not me, although, it is beginning to look like, perhaps, a deliberate deflection, and it is also completely immaterial, irrelevant, and beside the point at hand.(strawman)

Back to what I said...

Which part of my previous post(s) did you not notice, read, or comprehend? I have been over this without my claims being logically refuted by you on numerous occasions. Why must I repeat myself? If you do not agree, that is fine spider. You do not have to, ya know...

Quit putting words in my mouth(strawman)...

I said this:



Do you have a logical counterpoint to the above, spider?

Surely you can not disagree here, without making a logical leap into your personification of 'God', can you do this without creating your own fabrication of my words?(strawman)

I further commented as such:



And here was your response, spider:



Yet, you later contradicted your own words with this:



We agree then... 'nothing' does not exist, but how then, can you still claim to believe the ex nihilo conclusion you cannot support logically?

It is absolutely impossible to create from 'nothing', because there is no such a thing as 'nothing'... I stated clearly the logical support for this statement(it is also scientifically valid), which evidently you missed, for whatever reason...


Once again...




This is supported quite validly below, and I doubt that any believer in a 'creator' 'God' would argue with the above statement...



This also is impossible to refute... Now here is where you have made the claim that 'God created the universe from nothing...

Ok then... 'nothing' existed and 'God' existed... 'God' was all that existed...

'God' is also nothing, then?

What do you want spider? I said this already, Do you remember this statement?



Can you logically refute my claim that a 'nothing' does not exist?

One more time, here is my argument, which was previously given without you logically refuting it, against the false notion of 'nothing'... Which, by the way, makes 'God' something... logically speaking...



And if a 'nothing' existed then it would follow that it was 'God'...

There is no such thing as a 'nothing'... all that existed was 'God'...

Remember?


Now then, you have continued this conversation as such:



Are you suggesting that there was no starting point? Surely you will want to reconsider this notion...

'God' must be the starting point for any belief in a creator 'God', spider...

You are something else sometimes...

'God' is indivisible...



Hello dragoness...

Surely my conclusions are not blindly believing...are they?


DavidF added:





Absolutely....

creativesoul

Why do you believe we can not know what Yahweh's will is? How did the messiah know his will? Him being the son of man through Mary. Did he not send us exactly the same thing that impregnated Mary? So again how did he know?

Blessings...Miles

You don't have to be a Christian to believe that God is everywhere...

creativesoul,

Your whole arguement depends on the fact that your "god" isn't powerful enough to create ex nihilo, but instead had to transform itself. Great. My point is that Christians believe that God created the universe ex nihilo. Just offering an opposing view point. Also, when you aren't clear and someone gets confused it's not really a strawman. You seem to be getting really upset on this, I thought we were discussing logical possibilities of how theistic creation was performed. Billions of Christian theologians have accepted the belief of creatio ex nihilo, many of them smarter than you or me. So I have to wonder on what grounds you flatly state that creatio ex nihilo isn't possible. You constantly repeat yourself. "God used God", but repeating yourself is not a valid argument and it's not proof. This thread is going no where, so I'm gonna bail. I think you have a particular belief and you trying to force it down the throats of anyone who posts in this thread.

When will they open

saying "God came first" is not to say the devil came from God. Many things came AFTER God. That doesn't equal to "everything that came after God is God"!! You are silly!! Good try though.