"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." - Albert Einstein

Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.

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."

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 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, 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 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.

For those of you who are agnostic or an atheist, my hope 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."

- http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-21-2004).]

Why do kids to young to know what a God is, die? are they re-incarnated to try again. Their second shot at living in a Moral Paradise? Or are all children Christians at birth and are allowed a free ride?

What about people with mental retard-ness? Who cannot understand the complexity of tying a shoelace get into this Paradise? They simply can’t understand it…

A Schizophrenic with delusions that Allah talks to him via CNN?. He most certainly wouldn’t believe your story about a Christian God… The delusions aren’t his fault, why won’t he be allowed eternal bliss?

This paradise seems an unfair reward for people who walk the Earth blindly…

I’ll leave you with a quote;

quote:Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

–Albert Einstein

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-19-2004).]

No offence intended Digital but I don't think you are a good enough scientist nor philosopher to crique Einstein's personal beliefs about God and the universe.

And you are ??? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The basic principle of what he says is simple.

There is a collective God, not a personal God.

I don't need to be a scientist, or a philosopher, to understand the meaning of this concept.

I am capable and able to question everything and ANYTHING I wish, so your post was pretty useless.

Post something relating to what I said, or don't post at all, please.

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Why do kids to young to know what a God is, die? are they re-incarnated to try again. Their second shot at living in a Moral Paradise? Or are all children Christians at birth and are allowed a free ride?

What about people with mental retard-ness? Who cannot understand the complexity of tying a shoelace get into this Paradise? They simply can’t understand it…

A Schizophrenic with delusions that Allah talks to him via CNN?. He most certainly wouldn’t believe your story about a Christian God… The delusions aren’t his fault, why won’t he be allowed eternal bliss?

This paradise seems an unfair reward for people who walk the Earth blindly…

I’ll leave you with a quote;

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

–Albert Einstein

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-19-2004).]

Kids too young to know what God is die because sin reigns supreme on this earth.

However, they go to heaven anwyay.

God does not indicate that reincarnation is an option, so I would have to say no.

The children who die before they reach an age of decision are not automatically "Christian", but God is just and fair, and would never send a soul to hell, simply because it didn't have a fair chance.

I can support that with scriptures, if you'd like.

The same goes for those who are not logically competent to decide for themselves.

As for the insane...I don't recall any specific provisions, but I am sure God accounts for them as well. None will be forgotten or forsaken, no matter their choice.

Great quote, by the way. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

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 didn't add the Lambda (i.e. the cosmological constant) because he 'didn't like the possibility of the universe having a beginning'. He added it because he thought gravity would have a repulsive force to counter it.

All three of his field equations (which introduced the Lambda) use the 'Big Bang' as the beginning.

quote:

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.

See above. Moreover the cosmological constant wasn't actually refuted by Hubble, since it was later reconciled by various Scientists in different models.

quote:

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 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.

That's your conclusion. Mine is entirely different.

Eisnteing never mentiones the concept of morality, in his reasons for no believing in a god. The fact that he does not mention "good or bad", measn that these where not the reasons that made him reach that conclusion.

In fact if you look at other quotes, its the fact that there is no presence either way, that makes believe so:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able

to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress .... If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate maknind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense.

Although it is true that it is the goal of

science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion."



quote:

For those of you who are agnostic or an atheist, my hope for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe -that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God

Einstein certainly did not believe in a Creator god, as it is evident in your own quote. If you're using your first quote, then you should know that he later explained himself, saying:

"I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

quote:He didn't add the Lambda (i.e. the cosmological constant) because he 'didn't like the possibility of the universe having a beginning'. He added it because he thought gravity would have a repulsive force to counter it.

Here are the 5 traditional arguments for the existence of God:

1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.

2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.

3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.

4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.

5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.

Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning.

However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause.

I don't believe that the reasoning behind Einstein's opinion on God (according to you) is accurate.

Had nothing to do with gravity...

quote:All three of his field equations (which introduced the Lambda) use the 'Big Bang' as the beginning.

To that, I must give you another of his quotes:

"We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (1944, p. 289)."

quote: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 ?

I don't think I ever insinuated that he DID believe in a personal God. I have been clear on that point. Once again, you twist the concepts to suit your sick desire to make all people of conviction (Christian or otherwise) seem stupid.

Are you an insecure person by nature, or do you reserve your "coming out of the closet" sessions for Totse ? (I can't imagine you acting like this in the real world)

It is disheartening to know that you can't just have a normal conversation.

I have never, EVER seen you agree with ANYONE on MGCBTSOOYG.

The common denominator, is YOU.

Anyway, back to my reply:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601

- http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/short.html ]

quote:That's your conclusion. Mine is entirely different.

I doubt anyone here would be astonished at this little revelation of yours.

quote:Eisnteing never mentiones the concept of morality, in his reasons for no believing in a god. The fact that he does not mention "good or bad", measn that these where not the reasons that made him reach that conclusion.

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein

I think that sufficiently refutes what you just said.

Not because this says that morality is the reason why he doesn't believe in God, but rather that morality is an important issue to him, and is in direct relation to his views of the world, and by extension "god" as he (Albert Einstein) sees Him.

quote:In fact if you look at other quotes, its the fact that there is no presence either way, that makes believe so:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress .... If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate maknind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense.

Although it is true that it is the goal of

science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion."

Einstein certainly did not believe in a Creator god, as it is evident in your own quote. If you're using your first quote, then you should know that he later explained himself, saying:

"I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

If you are saying that Einstein did not believe in God (Christian), then I agree.

If you think I have said otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.



Finally, I want to quote from a book that I don't recommend. It is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. It is called The God Particle, and although the title sounds very appealing, the good information is all in the first paragraph.

The rest of it is just a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting-Super Collider, which we now know is not going to be built. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Therefore the book is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle sort of experience! But the first paragraph is great:

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

ere are the 5 traditional arguments for the existence of God:

1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.

2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.

3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.

4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.

5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.

Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning.

However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause.

I don't believe that the reasoning behind Einstein's opinion on God (according to you) is accurate.

Had nothing to do with gravity...

Once again, it had nothing to do with there being a "beginning" or not.

"When Albert Einstein applied his theory of general relativity to the universe the paradigm was that the universe was static. Since matter and energy gravitate, they drive the universe to collapse on itself. This was physically unacceptable, so Einstein introduced a cosmological constant term in his equations to balance the attractive force of gravity. I"

Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/why.html

"Einstein initially included the term because he was dissatisfied by the fact that his equations would not allow for a static universe. Gravity would cause a universe which was initially at rest to begin to contract. To counteract the force of gravity, Einstein added the cosmological constant which would produce a repulsive force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

"Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (L), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101accel.html



As you should be able to see, it had nothing to do with his theories 'creating a need for a beginning'. It had to do with him explaining why the universe didn't collapse into itself.

quote:To that, I must give you another of his quotes:

"We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (1944, p. 289)."

Well, thanks for the quote but that shows nothing. It does not refute the fact that Einstein's field equations, which caused him to introduce the Cosmological Constant, assume the Big Bang is the beginning.

quote:I don't think I ever insinuated that he DID believe in a personal God. I have been clear on that point. Once again, you twist the concepts to suit your sick fantasy for making all people of conviction (Christian or otherwise) seem stupid.

Are you an insecure person by nature, or do you reserve your "coming out of the closet" sessions for Totse ?

What the hell is your problem lady? I never said you claimed he believed in a personal god! Geez!

Apparently, you have a martyr complex... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:I think that sufficiently refutes what you just said.

Not because this says that morality is the reason why he doesn't believe in God, but rather that morality is an important issue to him, and is in direct relation to his views of the world, and by extension "god" as he (Albert Einstein) sees Him

That refutes nothing, since I never denied that Einstein believed morality was important. I'm not challenging that, but your notion that it is because of the presence of evil that he denies the existence fo god.

quote:If you are saying that Einstein did not believe in God (Christian) than I agree.

If you think I have said otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.



I already explained why I quoted that. I quoted it to show you how he never uses morality, or the presence of evil, to justify his dis-belief in a "personal god".

The other part, which you lumped together, was in reply to you saying, "my hope for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe -that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God". Einstein DIDN'T believe in a "creator god".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-20-2004).]

Actually, the Bible--which is mostly BS anyway--did indeed once have a lot of reincarnation stuff in it--Justinian and Theodora had most of it edited out. This leads one to merely one of the many problems with Christianity--besides the fact that it is a religion of fear and denial--namely, that it is an evolved religion, as opposed to a revealed religion, such as, say, gnosticism in general.

Many people confuse the real god with the malignant, petty and arbitrary deity written about in the bible.

I'm confused as to what the point of this debate is. Why would it matter what Einstein's "religious" tenets are? Should I hold something to be automatically true because a man was brillant?

DS, please, do your own research. Don't post propaganda from evangelism websites

- if you want to know about Einstiens reasoning, look in a physics textbook.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

No offence intended Digital but I don't think you are a good enough scientist nor philosopher to crique Einstein's personal beliefs about God and the universe.

Your right,

And now it's time to play my favorite game, bust the plageriser.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism...."

- Albert Einstein



Although Mr. Eistein didn't agree with Christianity, he sure had a preference. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I wonder what Einstein thought about Genesis?

.



How could Adam and his bitch see the light of stars? (for the slow amongst us; it takes a long time for the light of stars to reach earth.)

God is perfect, right? The bible is God's word, right?

Hence, the conclusions:

If one part of the bible is PROVEN wrong, then it is all wrong, or God isn't perfect, or,or,or.

quote:Originally posted by Dole:

I'm confused as to what the point of this debate is. Why would it matter what Einstein's "religious" tenets are? Should I hold something to be automatically true because a man was brillant?

Nope...just thought it was interesting.

He is a brilliant man, as you say, and he begrudgingly admitted that there is a God, but wouldn't admit that it is the "Christian" God, because he couldn't fathom a God that would interefere with his perfect creation.

*shrugs*

Was just a change of pace.

As usual, Rust has to make a national issue out of it, instead of following the original context of the thread.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

DS, please, do your own research. Don't post propaganda from evangelism websites

- if you want to know about Einstiens reasoning, look in a physics textbook.

So, because I did my research on websites that give both Einstein's story, and quotes that he is famous for, they're not relevant ?

What kind of sense does that make ?

How do YOU know I haven't researched it ?

I went to school, just like everyone else on the forum (hopefully).

That was a completely a unecessary post.

I used quotes from all different sites, not just Evangelical sites. (don't use the word "evangelical" when it is obvious you don't know what it means. You present that word negatively, as though because it is "evangelical" it is somehow not worth noting. It appears that YOUR interpretation of that word = "Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm", which must therefor discredit it's respectability. If the context had been = "Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament." that would be a different story. The connotations are there, so please don't try to back-pedal and deny it.)

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Your right,

And now it's time to play my favorite game, bust the plageriser.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

Care to find the other websites that I posted from ?

That wasn't the only one. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I don't claim to be able to memorize the entirety of Einstein's belief system, nor all of the quotes he is famous for.

*shrugs*

Were you just trying to make me look bad ? If so, it was a feeble attempt.

Why don't you post something useful; pertinent to the discussion.

What are your thoughts on Einstein's view of creationism ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And you are ??? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The basic principle of what he says is simple.

There is a collective God, not a personal God.

I don't need to be a scientist, or a philosopher, to understand the meaning of this concept.

I am capable and able to question everything and ANYTHING I wish, so your post was pretty useless.

Post something relating to what I said, or don't post at all, please.

1. I didn't try to. You did.

2. Relating to what you said, "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." I think you are trying to put Einstein in a negative light. I was saying that you aren't the scientist to do that.

3. Whether you can or can't your right to do so is questionable.

4. My post was useless? At least I didn't copy it from several websites.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I don't claim to be able to memorize the entirety of Einstein's belief system, nor all of the quotes he is famous for.

What are your thoughts on Einstein's view of creationism ?



If you just used the quotes I would have no problem but you ripped off portions of other peoples writting. If you are going to do this at least say where you are taking the material from.

quote:Al said this

"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true...

I found this quote in Driving Mr. Albert by Micheal Paterniti.

It appears that Einstein like many others figured out that the stories in the Bible could not be taken literaly. This probably includes creationism but I don't think anyone can be sure. I don't know how many Jewish fundamentalists there are that take the Bible and the Talimud litaraly, I have heard that Fundamentalisim is not as prevalent as in Judaism as in Christianity but have never looked into it more deeply.

Another good Einstein quote relating to God when his light bending theroy was being tested durin an eclipse, when he was asked what if he was wroung he said "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct.". If you take that with the other quote "God does not roll dice with the universe" you get the idea that Einstien does not think God should have to violate his own laws of physics.

if what you say is true Einstein over looked one thing int he expanding universe theory, he says if its expanding it must have at one point had a begining. however it could just be infinatly smaller... hm, im not sure how to word that correctly, hopefuly you know what I am talking about

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



As usual, Rust has to make a national issue out of it, instead of following the original context of the thread.

So I am supposed to let you say completely laughable, erroneous, and pathetic claims, just to preserve the notion of an "original context" in the thread? Please.

You said something erroneous, and I am therefore replying to that. Much like you would do the same, regardless of the "original context of the thread, if I had made similar outrageous claims of Jesus, or Christianity.

Either reply back with counter-arguments, or admit that you were wrong in your statements.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by PsychoticMyth:

if what you say is true Einstein over looked one thing int he expanding universe theory, he says if its expanding it must have at one point had a begining. however it could just be infinatly smaller... hm, im not sure how to word that correctly, hopefuly you know what I am talking about

It isn't correct. I posted here various quotes of articles explaining why Einstein added the cosmological constant, and it had nothing to do with a "beginning".

i'm surprised that all of you take the big bang theory for granted. just recently i read in a science journal (the german issue of the 'scientific american') that there might have been no big bang after all... can you say: periodic universe? (i'll try to find the article or at least the name of it's authors but it won't be until sunday.)

Digital_Savior: i really don't think that you're fit to judge einstein by his theory of relativity (neither am i and i'm even at a technical school!) and merely quoting him doesn't always help.

be nice to each other.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

Digital_Savior: i really don't think that you're fit to judge einstein by his theory of relativity (neither am i and i'm even at a technical school!) and merely quoting him doesn't always help.



I second that.

Well I actually firsted it, I just want to make the point clear that others agree with me.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i'm surprised that all of you take the big bang theory for granted. just recently i read in a science journal (the german issue of the 'scientific american') that there might have been no big bang after all... can you say: periodic universe? (i'll try to find the article or at least the name of it's authors but it won't be until sunday.)

Cougar

We "take it for granted" because it's the best theory we've got going at the moment. There's loads of edidence to support it, it makes sense with what else we know about the world, and it doesn't have any major physical flaws. The entire idea of a periodic universe relies on the critical mass of the universe being suffecient to pull everything back into an area less than a plank length, where another big bang would then emerge.

If that is the case, then the big bang is all the beginning that matters, because before that the concept of time has no meaning. And after this universe crunches into another future big bang time will again have no meaning.

I personally dislike this theory because it assumes that each such repition would result in a similar number of particles (or anti-particles) left over due to not anihillating due to quantum fluctuations.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

We "take it for granted" because it's the best theory we've got going at the moment. There's loads of edidence to support it, it makes sense with what else we know about the world, and it doesn't have any major physical flaws. The entire idea of a periodic universe relies on the critical mass of the universe being suffecient to pull everything back into an area less than a plank length, where another big bang would then emerge.

If that is the case, then the big bang is all the beginning that matters, because before that the concept of time has no meaning. And after this universe crunches into another future big bang time will again have no meaning.

I personally dislike this theory because it assumes that each such repition would result in a similar number of particles (or anti-particles) left over due to not anihillating due to quantum fluctuations.

i might be the best theory... now. but with new evidence (like the scientific paper i mentioned), theories change, are dropped or turned 180°. of course it has to be proven independently first but that's science and as a (becoming) scientist i am obliged to adhere to evidence/facts whether i 'like' it or not. if next week a physicist can prove beyond doubt that the big bang never happened, i have to accept it. period. (though romantic the big bang theory might be)

if i were to give you a present for your birthday (kind me http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) ), i would very well care about what you 'like'. however if i ever were to develop a theory i wouldn't care about that at all.

but actually i wanted to make three basic statements in my post:

a) don't cling to a theory as if it were sacrosanct. (none is, it's science)

b) don't define a person only by his/her quotes. he/she has said so much more. (and what about their thoughts... do we know them?)

c) don't use science if you're not scientific.

(to whom it concerns)

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i'm surprised that all of you take the big bang theory for granted. just recently i read in a science journal (the german issue of the 'scientific american') that there might have been no big bang after all... can you say: periodic universe? (i'll try to find the article or at least the name of it's authors but it won't be until sunday.)

Digital_Savior: i really don't think that you're fit to judge einstein by his theory of relativity (neither am i and i'm even at a technical school!) and merely quoting him doesn't always help.

be nice to each other.

Cougar

Not judging him.

Based on what he said in his lifetime, it is clear that he didn't believe in a personal (Christian) God, because of his own ego.

Science has nothing to do with it, since the Big Bang can't be proven.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I second that.

Well I actually firsted it, I just want to make the point clear that others agree with me.

And once again, MY ability to judge Einstein (which is not what I am doing) is not the issue...

The issue was whether or not he believed in a personal God.

I am surprised that you all are arguing with me, since it is clear that a brilliant scientist agrees with YOU, and not me.

I am a Christian, and still thought it an interesting thing to post.

Calm down, people !

MasterPython - Look at my original post.

Better now ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Honestly, that wasn't the point.

I don't need to use other people's writings to make myself sound smarter, or whatever it is that you are insinuating.

I share this guys view 100%, so I used it.

I will be more careful to use the website's URL in the future, but that really wasn't the important factor of this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

Digital_Savior: i really don't think that you're fit to judge einstein by his theory of relativity (neither am i and i'm even at a technical school!) and merely quoting him doesn't always help.

be nice to each other. Cougar

The actual science wasn't at issue.

Read the post carefully.

Einstein's OPINION, which divulged NO scientific quantities or measurements, was the point of the thread.

I could beat you over the head with science just as anyone else could (it was my strongest subject), but that has nothing to do with the original post.

I didn't come here to argue whether or not he was right, but why he would have to admit that there was some sort of God, based on the way the universe exists, but wouldn't admit that it is a personal God.

You all have completely missed the point.

*feigns surprise*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The actual science wasn't at issue.

Read the post carefully.

Einstein's OPINION, which divulged NO scientific quantities or measurements, was the point of the thread.

I could beat you over the head with science just as anyone else could (it was my strongest subject), but that has nothing to do with the original post.

I didn't come here to argue whether or not he was right, but why he would have to admit that there was some sort of God, based on the way the universe exists, but wouldn't admit that it is a personal God.

You all have completely missed the point.

*feigns surprise*

you yourself referred to the theory of relativity in your original post... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

go look... quote:... In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. ...

no i don't think that you could 'beat me over the head' with science. i don't want to bragg but i'm currently an undergraduate EE-student (i'll be a MS when finished) and i think that very well qualifies me to take the challenge. (by the way: what would jesus say about 'beating someone over the head'? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) )

i don't think people arguing with you about science 'didn't get the point'. you just have to admit that they did. (without beating anybody http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) )

Cougar

EDIT: changed a verb...

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 10-21-2004).]

quote:you yourself referred to the theory of relativity in your original post... go look...

Again, I say that I didn't come here to argue about the actual science. If that were my intention, I would have put this in the Mad Scientists forum.

quote:no i don't think that you could 'beat me over the head' with science. i don't want to bragg but i'm currently an undergraduate EE-student (i'll be a MS when finished) and i think that very well qualifies me to take the challenge. (by the way: what would jesus say about 'beating someone over the head'? )

That is not the matter of debate. You continue to focus on ME, instead of the topic at hand. Though I am the originator, I am not to be the focus of the content.

Doesn't really matter what degree you hold. Again, that's not the point.

Also, if you found yourself to be so scientifically equipped to refute what I have said (which was in no way scientific), then you would have done so, instead of fluffing your own feathers.

By the way, I didn't say I WOULD beat you over the head, I said I COULD.

Jesus beat the Pharisees over the head with their own silly laws...and BOY did they walk away from him feeling quite stupid, time and again.

It wasn't for personal gain, nor to make himself appear smarter. He was teaching them a lesson, and that's all I would be doing.

I am also not as perfect as Jesus. Though I strive to be like him, I would NEVER insinuate that I could even come close to emulating his perfection.

quote:i don't think people arguing with you about science 'didn't get the point'. you just have to admit that they did. (without beating anybody )

Cougar

Ummm...not sure what you want me to admit.

All that has happened here is that my thread has been hijacked, and the topic has not been adequately addressed.

You can congratulate yourself on being a part of this thread's colossal failure.

And for a scientist, your grammar is atrocious. :frown: (I am not making a jab at you...just an observation, based on empirical data)

Sorry, you may not want to admit it, but I did make a completely relevant point.

I showed how Einstein "didn't have to do" anything. He did not add the cosmological constant because "his theories would create a beginning", and he did not have to believe in a creator god, because he didn't!

He did believe in God, just not a personal (a.k.a. Christian) God.

I said 'creator god'.

Regardless, I would have to argue that he didn't.

Yes, he did say he believed in "Spinoza's God", which in reality, is basically Nature. But he then later expounded on the issue, (which I already quoted) and said:

"I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. " [b]I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

He not only leaves just how much Spinoza explains his feelings out in the open by saying, "which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza", which could be as clearly as mudd. But he also says tha what he believed in was the 'rational nature of reality', which has nothing to do with a god.

Since we cannot speak with him, nor know his inner thoughts, then based on this quotes, I have to conclude that he didn't believe in a god.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Again, I say that I didn't come here to argue about the actual science. If that were my intention, I would have put this in the Mad Scientists forum.



you stated the theory of relativity as an argument in your post. like it or not, people might read and answer your post. even the part with *shudder* science.

either you use an argument and accept that people (try to) refute it or you don't use that argument. also i didn't start to refute that specific argument but contributed my view to what this thread has EVOLVED into. (pun intended)

quote:That is not the matter of debate. You continue to focus on ME, instead of the topic at hand. Though I am the originator, I am not to be the focus of the content.

Doesn't really matter what degree you hold. Again, that's not the point.

Also, if you found yourself to be so scientifically equipped to refute what I have said (which was in no way scientific), then you would have done so, instead of fluffing your own feathers.

By the way, I didn't say I WOULD beat you over the head, I said I COULD.

i focus on the remark that you could 'beat me over the head' on the topic of science because i consider that to be quite one-on-one (to call it personal would be exaggerated) so i just informed you of your misjudgment of me. you accusing me of 'fluffing my feathers' is again a personal... (attack is such a strong word...) actually i don't even hold any degree right now. but i strive to get one.



i did (try to) refute you. (i actually managed to do so if the theory can be proven. remember the article i mentioned which says that the universe might have no beginning at all?)

admit that you used an argument people chose to pick on and you can't win on that specific argument. that's what i meant you should admit.

about my grammar... bad news: your observation based on empirical data is flawed.

a) CAPS: i deliberately ignore to use them unless I WANT TO MAKE A POINT.

b) punctuation: we were never taught proper punctuation at school. (hint: neither US nor UK)

c) i'm not native english speaking.

d) correct my mistakes. i'm willing to learn. if you don't want to help me: ignore my spelling/grammar errors.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i might be the best theory... now. but with new evidence (like the scientific paper i mentioned), theories change, are dropped or turned 180°. of course it has to be proven independently first but that's science and as a (becoming) scientist i am obliged to adhere to evidence/facts whether i 'like' it or not. if next week a physicist can prove beyond doubt that the big bang never happened, i have to accept it. period. (though romantic the big bang theory might be)

if i were to give you a present for your birthday (kind me http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) ), i would very well care about what you 'like'. however if i ever were to develop a theory i wouldn't care about that at all.

but actually i wanted to make three basic statements in my post:

a) don't cling to a theory as if it were sacrosanct. (none is, it's science)

b) don't define a person only by his/her quotes. he/she has said so much more. (and what about their thoughts... do we know them?)

c) don't use science if you're not scientific.

(to whom it concerns)

Cougar

I'm a physics major myself, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I just see no real reason not to accept and work with the best theory available, until such time as it becomes untenable with current knowledge. And I harbor no illusions that this will not happen. And as to the earlier post I made, I was just commenting on my personal distaste for the theory. Especially since it has to go through periods where time has no meaning, thus we can never know what happened before the big bang, or after the big crunch. I like the theoretical idea that it never really ends, but in each successive universe the chances of it being remotely like this one are astronomical. For all practical purposes beyond pure speculation, we can assume that this universe had a beginning, and if it crunches, has an end, and thats all.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I'm a physics major myself, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I just see no real reason not to accept and work with the best theory available, until such time as it becomes untenable with current knowledge. And I harbor no illusions that this will not happen.

i think i didn't make it clear enough. i don't want you (or anybody) to simply discard the theory. all i meant was, that one keeps an open mind. but since we agree on that there's no point in arguing. and i also don't raise my hand and tell my prof she's wrong whenever she mentions relativity. which is quite rare, by the way. (would be fun though... http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) )

quote: And as to the earlier post I made, I was just commenting on my personal distaste for the theory. Especially since it has to go through periods where time has no meaning, thus we can never know what happened before the big bang, or after the big crunch. I like the theoretical idea that it never really ends, but in each successive universe the chances of it being remotely like this one are astronomical.

well it wouldn't have to be... for all i care it could be inhabited by a lonely smurf playing chess against himself until the next universe comes. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote: For all practical purposes beyond pure speculation, we can assume that this universe had a beginning, and if it crunches, has an end, and thats all.

also some scientists say, that time will move backwards before the universe collapses. i personally see no reason for that to happen. what's your thought?

Cougar

(NOW this thread might be considered highjacked...)

EDIT: fixed UBB code...

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 10-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

also some scientists say, that time will move backwards before the universe collapses. i personally see no reason for that to happen. what's your thought?

Cougar

(NOW this thread might be considered highjacked...)

EDIT: fixed UBB code...

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 10-21-2004).]

I really don't feel qualified to make a comment on that. My understanding of time and how it works as a dimension is still fairly limited compared to a full physicist. I've never even heard of that, and my understanding can come up with no way such a thing might occur, so I can only conclude that it would require a more advanced understanding of the concepts involved to comprehend the theory.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I really don't feel qualified to make a comment on that. My understanding of time and how it works as a dimension is still fairly limited compared to a full physicist. I've never even heard of that, and my understanding can come up with no way such a thing might occur, so I can only conclude that it would require a more advanced understanding of the concepts involved to comprehend the theory.

not too shy to say, 'i don't know.' i like that. thanks.

so, do you think Digital_Savior will come back?

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I really don't feel qualified to make a comment on that.

Whoa. http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Geez, Cougar...I am replying to about 4 or 5 different people, all equally intelligent.

It is not an easy task.

As you can see, all the other Christians shy from such conversations.

Give a girl a break ! (I also WORK during the day, and have little children to tend to at night)

You're lucky you've gotten THIS much attention out of me today ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Whoa. http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong, DS. If you can give me a logical reason to believe in God, that outweighs the logical reasons not to, then you have a convert. I can do no less and still respect myself. Don't assume I'm pointlessly stubborn just because you have yet to make a convincing arguement.

And cougar, one of my proff's works at CERN on the weekends. I think I'll ask him about that.

"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." - Albert Einstein

The God of Aristotle, the unmoved mover, didn't create anything. This God was impersonal and didn't interfere at all in human affairs. Change would mar its perfection. It is possible that Einstein believed in a God of this sort. I can't think of any other version of God off the top of my head that isn't personal in some way or another. So I'll use this to make my point.

An impersonal God doesn't interfere with his "perfect creation" (as you put it DS) and can't because an impersonal God didn't create anything. For something immutable to create anything is impossible because it requires that at some point this being suddenly caused change. Impossible for an unchanging being, right? So it follows that an unmoving being isn't responsible for our creation.

An impersonal God is worthless. Such a being wouldn't concern itself with anything because it is perfection unto itself, and as it doesn't change in any way whatsoever and won't be creating anything, revealing anything or judging anyone - EVER.

Thus Einstein believing in an impersonal God is irrelevant because such a Being never did anything in the first place, and won't ever be doing anything so his belief in it wouldn't matter.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Based on what he said in his lifetime, it is clear that he didn't believe in a personal (Christian) God, because of his own ego.



As far as his ego is concerned, you shouldn't judge what a person is or is not able to believe in. Every experience in a person's life changes them, and you, not knowing the entirety of his life, cannot say for certain why or why not he didn't believe in a personal God. Saying he didn't believe because he was prideful is an unfounded claim that you shouldn't be so quick to make.

Lastly, I'm curious why him believing in an impersonal God would matter? Just wondering what your thoughts are on this, DS.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong, DS. If you can give me a logical reason to believe in God, that outweighs the logical reasons not to, then you have a convert. I can do no less and still respect myself. Don't assume I'm pointlessly stubborn just because you have yet to make a convincing arguement.

And cougar, one of my proff's works at CERN on the weekends. I think I'll ask him about that.

i agree to your first paragraph.

one of your professors works at CERN?! (bows...) does that mean you're somewhere in that area (switzerland/france) too?

Digital: i never said you had an easy task. i'm glad you replied after all. i just seemed to see a tendency... maybe there wasn't any...

and i also have the deficit of living in a different timezone than you so i had an urge to get some sleep. (but not without a reply from you.)

so i hope you will reply to my earlier post in here sometime soon?

Cougar

The guy who works ar CERN is a TA. The actual proff works ar Fermilab. They're part of a group of 8 professors at the university who get joint funding to work a various research intsitutions, on high energy and particle physics.

Edit: And no, I'm in New Jersey, in the US, at Rutgers. These guys fly there and back every four days.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 10-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

...

Edit: And no, I'm in New Jersey, in the US, at Rutgers. These guys fly there and back every four days.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 10-22-2004).]

too bad http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) , no coffee for you then...

those guys sure like to travel...

Digital? i really don't want to press but you WILL answer, won't you?

thanks.

Cougar

I have a reply to the moral argument for god reffered to by digital savior on the first page.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm

I guess it isnt technically a reply but a refferal to a reply by someone who knows more than I.

Anyway if you would read that DS and tell me what you think thatd be neat.

for those interested: here's the article (http://www.sophists.org/article277.html)

(i found an english version)

summary:

string theory argues that, at the time of the big bang, there wasn't a singularity (all matter condensed in one mathematical point) but that the minimum quantum length can not be less than 10^-34 meters. thus a singularity can not exist. this led to two theories:

- the ekpyrotic scenario, where our universe is just one of many d-branes (dirichlet (mem)branes) which drift in a higher-dimensional space. the big bang is thought to be a collision of two such branes.

- the pre-big bang scenario, which is based upon the symmetry of time-reversal. according to this the big bang may not have been the origin of the universe but simply a violent transition from acceleration to deceleration.

i hope you enjoy reading the article.

Cougar

An idea of Hawking's that i liked when i read it last year "theoretically proves" that the universe had a beginning. Imagine a number line extending in both directions for infinity and picture 0 in the middle. If the universe was infinite and had no beginning it would never reach zero, thus time couldn't progress to now and we wouldn't exist. Brilliant.

quote:Originally posted by penjo0in:

I have a reply to the moral argument for god reffered to by digital savior on the first page.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm

I guess it isnt technically a reply but a refferal to a reply by someone who knows more than I.

Anyway if you would read that DS and tell me what you think thatd be neat.

Definitely.

Just getting back from a busy weekend.

Going to try and catch up.

Yes, Cougar, I am going to answer you. *smiles*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



...

Yes, Cougar, I am going to answer you. *smiles*

thank you.

i also heard that you had surgery. (a while back though, so sorry i'm late) i hope you are fine?

Cougar

''

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.

''

This isnt nescearilly a logical prinicpial. The idea of God goes beyond logic so God could allow us to choose good over evil but give us the choice anyway. This clearly sounds contractidtory but as Theists claim that God goes beyond conventional science/wisdom and has some masterplan beyond our understanding then he could clearly make the impossible possible. After all (backing up with evidecne from scriptures) God can make phsyical mircales as in the miracles of Christ and the OT.

Secondly why is there such a great desire for bad to happen. God created us in the inital place so why would he create people who he would prevent social circumstances, genes and life against a person so much so that they would go to hell. If god was good he would simply not do it. Now you will say that god gives us an opportunity to succeed and not all blacks become criminals just because they are poor e.t.c but that still doesnt escape the argument that God allowed people to go to hell.

dis thred is dum!1 u r ALL duM!1ONE

i am teh smart person

And we thank you for exhibiting your intellectual prowess on such an inconceivable level.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And we thank you for exhibiting your intellectual prowess on such an inconceivable level.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

i hope you didn't forget?

Cougar

Yes, I had surgery, and it went GREAT !

No more pain...*whew*

And no, I didn't forget.

I'm percolating. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Dole:

I'm confused as to what the point of this debate is. Why would it matter what Einstein's "religious" tenets are? Should I hold something to be automatically true because a man was brillant?

Was just interesting to me.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

In retrospect, Cougar (I looked through all of your posts) I honestly can't determine which you would like me to address.

So, instead of wasting BOTH of our time, why don't you just reitterate what it is you'd like me to reply to.

Thanks for your patience. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

In retrospect, Cougar (I looked through all of your posts) I honestly can't determine which you would like me to address.

So, instead of wasting BOTH of our time, why don't you just reitterate what it is you'd like me to reply to.

Thanks for your patience. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

what was said in this thread was about the big bang not being the beginning of time afte all. but here you weren't too happy that the discussion drifted into the area of physics. want to discuss this? (you should read the article anyway. very interesting!)

in the other thread (link (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003126.html)) i jumped on to the part of the discussion involving evolution. (i didn't start it! http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) )

i said:

quote:i know you posted 'something' in other threads. (i even replied in some of them...)

i also asked questions... none were answered... why? neither one of the creationists (you weren't alone, Digital_Savior) did... a shame...

allow me to just ask two for the beginning?

- why do dolphins have fingers in their flippers?

- how do you explain the archaeopteryx to be anything else but a transient form between dinosaurs and birds?

this thread keeps flipping from grounding fathers to creationism. allow me to only take part in the second part because i actually don't know very much about american history.

i would like to hear your answers.

best wishes

Cougar

P.S.

sometimes i'm patient, sometimes i'm not. tell me when i'm the latter...

and there's always the possibility of giving up... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Cougar