What god did Einstein believe in?

[Into the Night]

Why would I?

Because it's simple.

These atheists always reject all evidence, I have played this game before

The Church of No God is not atheism. It is a fundamentalist style religion, just like yours.

 

[Into the Night]

Inversion fallacy fuck face

LIF. Grow up, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Is that because you don't really believe what you claim? ... because you don't understand what you preach?


... when you are yourself immersed in darkness.

I agree. She is just as much a fundamentalist as the Church of No God.

 

[Margot]

Because it's simple.

The Church of No God is not atheism. It is a fundamentalist style religion, just like yours.

I don't think I ever claimed what "Religion" ,I'm involved with.
I usually only hint at my mission.

 

[Hume]

Einstein was a Jew! One of YHWH's Chosen People!
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe"!

uh huh

 

[Into the Night]

I have not asked you to give me "evidence." NEVER. So stop with that nonsense. I have merely pointed out that the evidence (of which there appears to be plenty)...is ambiguous. "The evidence" (everything that exists or appears to exist) either points to a god who created it...or to "it simply has always existed." There is no way to tell which it is.

So anyone asserting that "the evidence" was created by a god is just making a blind guess...AND anyone asserting that there are no gods (that "the evidence" has always existed in some form or another) is also making a blind guess.

People who blindly guess, "There is a god" often are as hard headed as you, Margot...and insist that THEIR blind guess IS correct. And people who blindly guess that there are no gods often are also as hard headed as you...and insist that THEIR bind guess IS correct.

I just wonder which blind guess is correct.

If you choose to think that I am asking you to "show me the light" or that I am choosing to "remain in the darkness"...fine with me. I actually get a chuckle out of it.

If you think that making a blind guess in one direction or another is important, I am willing to make a blind guess. Let me know if you want me to toss the coin. I promise I will guess the way the coin toss dictates.

False dichotomy fallacy.
There is more than just these two blind guesses.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think I ever claimed what "Religion" ,I'm involved with.
I usually only hint at my mission.

Calling your fundamentalist religion anything else doesn't change what it is.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

...I would phrase that, "there is no unambiguous evidence of supernatural forces." And there isn't. But that, as Ii am sure you will agree, is not proof (or even evidence) that no supernatural forces exist.

DISCLAIMER: If by "supernatural forces" you mean, forces that are not a part of the natural universe, then I suggest that cannot exist. Anything that actually exists, including the things that exist that we humans may not be able to detect in any way, EXISTS. So IF ghosts, for instance, exist...they are not supernatural. They are as natural as apples or grass or fish...regardless of the fact that we humans cannot detect them. IF gods exist, they are as natural as ghosts....

Agreed. As Carl Saga said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The strict definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

 

[Margot]

Calling your fundamentalist religion anything else doesn't change what it is.

Define what you think is "Fundamentalist religion"!

 

[IBDaMann]

The question on the table is which seems to be more likely:

Nope. That is not the question on the table.

In fact, the question on the table will never be "How does it seem to someone who already believes something in particular?" That seeming question is its own answer, and is thus not a question.

that a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe

Your delusion that a random dust ball is somehow "mathematically rational" and "lawfully organized" is what makes any rational discussion with you impossible.

When one looks out at the cosmos, anyone who believes that the universe was "created" must also accept that the universe was spit out of absolutely the best random number generator, one that is far better than any human can devise, i.e. there is no organization, period.

You are aware of no test of randomness that the universe fails. That says it all.

random chance;

This is a perfect description of the observable universe.

or that a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe was caused by some type of underlying rational agency.

No mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe was caused. A random dust cloud? Sure.

 

[Into the Night]

Define what you think is "Fundamentalist religion"!

Already did, numerous times. RQAA.

But, I'll humor you again this time.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, also known as the Argument of Faith. This itself is not a fallacy. ALL other arguments for that religion stem from that initial circular argument. Christianity, for example, is based on the initial circular argument (or Argument of Faith) that Jesus Christ exists, and He is who He says He is, namely, the Son of God. ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

Attempting to PROVE a circular argument True, is a fallacy, called the Circular Argument Fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

It is not possible to prove whether there is a god or gods.
It is not possible to prove there is no god or gods.

You have attempted to prove your religion is True. That is not possible. This is what makes you a fundamentalist.
The Church of No God also tries to prove their religion is true. This is not possible. This is what makes them a fundamentalist style religion.

Other fundamentalist religions include the Church of Green, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Covid, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Hate, the Church of Karl Marx, the Church of the Big Bang, the Church of Evolution, the Church of Abiogenesis, etc.

Science is completely atheistic. It does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.
It is the same with mathematics.
It is the same with logic.

If you want to believe in your god that is fine...but don't try to prove it. You can't.

Atheism is not a religion. It's Latin meaning uses the prefix 'a-', mean 'not'. 'Theism' means religion, or belief. Atheism takes NO view. It simply does not care whether a god exists or not. It simply doesn't go there. Atheists have not decided whether any god or gods exist or not.

The Church of No God is a religion, not atheism at all. It is fundamentalist by nature, continually using magick words like 'science' to attempt to prove their religion is True.

I happen to be Christian. I am fully aware that my religion is based on faith, and faith alone. I cannot prove any of it. There IS evidence of it's truth, however. Evidence is not a proof. I have already stated some of this evidence.

There is also evidence supporting the Church of No God. Again, evidence is not a proof.

 

[IBDaMann]

Atheism is not a religion. It's Latin meaning uses the prefix 'a-', mean 'not'.

It's a Greek prefix, meaning "lacking". The equivalent Latin prefix is "i", e.g. illegal, incoherent, impossible, insubordinate, etc.

'Theism' means religion, or belief.

Excellent! Bonus points. It also does not necessarily mean "gods", because there are religions that do not have deities, e.g. Budhism, Native American religions, etc.

Atheism takes NO view.

Exactly. Atheism lacks any theism.

It simply does not care whether a god exists or not.

One might not care, and one might care a lot. An atheist simply has not been convinced of any particular theism.

The Church of No God is a religion, not atheism at all.

Spot on. That church holds a theistic view, thus precluding atheism.

It is fundamentalist by nature, continually using magick words like 'science' to attempt to prove their religion is True.

Exactly. Atheists have no thesitic beliefs to somehow assert are true.

I happen to be Christian. I am fully aware that my religion is based on faith, and faith alone.

... which is all you need.

I cannot prove any of it.

... and as such, your faith is invulnerable. You don't regularly get your faith falsified by claiming it to be thettled thienth.

There IS evidence of it's truth,

... and you get 100% control over what is admitted as evidence for your faith.

I have already stated some of this evidence.

... which is merely a courtesy since you are the magistrate and you have already made your ruling.

There is also evidence supporting the Church of No God. Again, evidence is not a proof.

This one is tricky. I'm not sure there really can be empirical evidence of something that doesn't exist. My take is that a lack of deities would be reflected in an equivalent lack of evidence ... specifically because there isn't anything evident ... and that's where we fall into the axiom that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ergo, the Church of No God falsifies itself just as all the other Marxist religions.

 

[Margot]

Already did, numerous times. RQAA.

But, I'll humor you again this time.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, also known as the Argument of Faith. This itself is not a fallacy. ALL other arguments for that religion stem from that initial circular argument. Christianity, for example, is based on the initial circular argument (or Argument of Faith) that Jesus Christ exists, and He is who He says He is, namely, the Son of God. ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

Attempting to PROVE a circular argument True, is a fallacy, called the Circular Argument Fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

It is not possible to prove whether there is a god or gods.
It is not possible to prove there is no god or gods.

You have attempted to prove your religion is True. That is not possible. This is what makes you a fundamentalist.
The Church of No God also tries to prove their religion is true. This is not possible. This is what makes them a fundamentalist style religion.

Other fundamentalist religions include the Church of Green, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Covid, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Hate, the Church of Karl Marx, the Church of the Big Bang, the Church of Evolution, the Church of Abiogenesis, etc.

Science is completely atheistic. It does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.
It is the same with mathematics.
It is the same with logic.

If you want to believe in your god that is fine...but don't try to prove it. You can't.

Atheism is not a religion. It's Latin meaning uses the prefix 'a-', mean 'not'. 'Theism' means religion, or belief. Atheism takes NO view. It simply does not care whether a god exists or not. It simply doesn't go there. Atheists have not decided whether any god or gods exist or not.

The Church of No God is a religion, not atheism at all. It is fundamentalist by nature, continually using magick words like 'science' to attempt to prove their religion is True.

I happen to be Christian. I am fully aware that my religion is based on faith, and faith alone. I cannot prove any of it. There IS evidence of it's truth, however. Evidence is not a proof. I have already stated some of this evidence.

There is also evidence supporting the Church of No God. Again, evidence is not a proof.

All these arguments are because the one arguing doesn't comprehend the Holy Spirit!

 

[Cypress]

No mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe was caused! A random dust cloud? Sure!

The universe is a system that is ordered, predictable, rational, and can be understood through mathematics. Science wouldn't even be possible unless the universe was lawfully ordered, predictable, and rational.

 

[IBDaMann]

The universe is a system that is ordered,

Nope. Not at all.

predictable, rational

When and where will the next six meteorites land on earth?

, and can be understood through mathematics.

Use all the mathematics you need.

Science wouldn't even be possible unless the universe was lawfully ordered,

Nope. Science is possible despite the universe being a random dust cloud.

 

[Cypress]

When and where will the next six meteorites land on earth?

^^ Illogical and irrational.
Lack of information in the human mind is not proof the universe is disordered, random, unpredictable.

If we had perfect and complete information about the velocity, trajectory, momentum of all meteorite-sized bodies of mass in and near our solar system, the predictions would be accessible.

 

[Cypress]

No. I'm saying there is no evidence of supernatural forces. The $64 question being "What created the Universe?" followed by "why are we here?"

Einstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

Unknown. As for beliefs, I believe in one all-powerful force. A force that is intelligent and a force that we are all part of.

Sounds like panentheism or pantheism.

 

[IBDaMann]

The universe is a system that is ordered, predictable, rational, and can be understood through mathematics.

When and where will the next six meteorites land on earth?

^^ Illogical and irrational.

You don't get to call a random dust cloud (i.e. the universe) "predictable"; it's random and nobody can predict it.

You don't get to call a random dust cloud (i.e. the universe) "well ordered" when it doesn't fail a single randomness test.

You lose this one.

 

[Cypress]

You don't get to call a random dust cloud (i.e. the universe) "predictable"; it's random and nobody can predict it.

You don't get to call a random dust cloud (i.e. the universe) "well ordered" when it doesn't fail a single randomness test.

You lose this one.

This is not a valid syllogism:

NASA doesn't know when the next 50 meteors will strike Earth.

CalTech doesn't know when the next 50 meteors will strike Earth.

Therefore, the universe is disordered, random, unpredictable.​

​

The only thing the two premises of the syllogism prove is that the human mind lacks adequate and complete information.

The meteors themselves are following well defined physical laws of momentum and motion. They don't care about human ignorance.

 

[Into the Night]

It's a Greek prefix, meaning "lacking". The equivalent Latin prefix is "i", e.g. illegal, incoherent, impossible, insubordinate, etc.

Ah. Quite right. Thanks for the correction!

Excellent! Bonus points. It also does not necessarily mean "gods", because there are religions that do not have deities, e.g. Budhism, Native American religions, etc.

... and as such, your faith is invulnerable. You don't regularly get your faith falsified by claiming it to be thettled thienth.

Obviously, since my faith is not dependent on any theory of science.

... and you get 100% control over what is admitted as evidence for your faith.

To a point, anyone does, even for fundamentalists.
The trouble with fundamentalism is they use their evidence as some kind of proof.

... which is merely a courtesy since you are the magistrate and you have already made your ruling.

An interesting way to view it, since magistrates make rulings over others. My faith is personal to me. I cannot force others to accept it or to arbitrate their faith in any way.

This one is tricky. I'm not sure there really can be empirical evidence of something that doesn't exist. My take is that a lack of deities would be reflected in an equivalent lack of evidence ... specifically because there isn't anything evident ... and that's where we fall into the axiom that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quite right. Ignoring this axiom usually produces the attempted negative proof fallacy.

Ergo, the Church of No God falsifies itself just as all the other Marxist religions.

It doesn't falsify itself (which is not possible), but that avenue of argument is a fallacy.
A fallacy is simply an invalid argument due to a logic error. It does not falsify any religion.

That said, religions such as the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green do routinely deny theories of science. To do so assumes a falsification of these theories that in fact does not exist, resulting in an Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Does that mean the Earth is not warming? No. However, there is no mechanism that could account for such an event without ignoring existing theories of science and the requirements of statistical mathematics. The only way known to science is to increase the output of the Sun, or to change Earth's orbit. The Sun's output (as viewed from Earth) is rather closely monitored, and no significant long term increase in infrared output has occurred. To change Earth's orbit that way, energy would have to be extracted from Earth's orbit.

Worse, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It never was. There simply aren't enough thermometers in the world to even begin such a statistical summary. The ISS does monitor it's own skin temperature, but it has not recorded any significant long term increase in temperature or increased output from the Sun. Also, have you have noted in the past, aircraft runways on island atolls built during WW2 are still there and so is the atoll, meaning the ocean level hasn't risen. It's just tides and barometric variations as storms move over localized areas.

Their bogus claims (and repetition through their three main arguments) is what makes the Church of Global Warming a fundamentalist style religion.