The last one I edited, was about putting the comma in the last sentence for clarity. I wish you would respond to ignorance by inplementing a buffer that enables you to adhere to the logic of creating an argument constructively in service of the truth.
Haha, this war has been fought for over 2500 years by individuals more intuitive than me. I'm doing my part just knowing the best theories of truth and actioning them. It's not as if my arguments don't have effect, just none that are willing to say anything publicly. Save, Scubascott, who at one point said that my statements about biology and so on are accurate. I can't remember the exact context.
You know, people are much more receptive to the idea of determinism on philosophical and skeptic forums. This is mostly a waste of time. But it does no good to talk about determinism on skepticforum.com since almost everyone just agrees with me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Haha, this war has been fought for over 2500 years by individuals more intuitive than me. I'm doing my part just knowing the best theories of truth and actioning them. It's not as if my arguments don't have effect, just none that are willing to say anything publicly. Save, Scubascott, who at one point said that my statements about biology and so on are accurate. I can't remember the exact context.
You know, people are much more receptive to the idea of determinism on philosophical and skeptic forums. This is mostly a waste of time. But it does no good to talk about determinism on skepticforum.com since almost everyone just agrees with me.
The great humans who have furthered the causes of determinism have done so because they have aligned with their power which garnered them such a public voice. They have learned to be responsible with their arguments and their beliefs.
Those who are tangled with the tribal mindset do not differentiate themselves from the masses in terms of acquiring the power to influence on a large scale.
I said before in this thread that when you speak truth it always influences me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Everything appears deterministic up to the largest and smallest scales, which we don't understand very well.
It's like saying that we will never know that there is a flying spaghetti monster. It does not mean there is a flying spaghetti monster, it just means we don't know if there is.
Likewise, we don't know if there is a truly random thing, we haven't been able to study something enough, to know it well enough to know that it is truly indeterminant.
The best working theory is based on what we do know.
You didn't address my radioactive decay comment. Such things as radioactive decay, the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the uncertainty principle and the paths of electrons are all examples of randomness and spontaneousness. If all events cannot be known or predicted then hard determinism can not hold. Soft determinism may be another matter depending on how soft one makes it. Most things in the universe are caused and predictable but there is always some randomness where only the laws of chance prevail.
On electrons, Richard Feynman said that we can only know that an electron left point A and arrived at point B. We cannot ever know how it got there, which path that it took. The summation of all possible paths, the sum of its history, resembles a probability curve. It is not a probability curve but a very close approximation and scientist use these curves in place of sums of histories because they are much easier to calculate.
I noticed that you are using 'we' when you state your opinion and perspective on the issue. I want to note again, ahnimus, that scientists are NOT in agreement about this. This is not an accepted 'fact' in the science community and to suggest as much only shows how far removed you are from that community. Sure, many have their opinions, but that is all it is at this point.
There are many physicists today that feel Quantum Physics shows us that hard determinism cannot be true. Randomness, chance and spontaneousness exists in the universe. If there are uncaused, random events then cause and effect do not always happen in single events and thus there are things that are unknown and unknowable. Both of these principles break the necessary chain of knowable and predictable cause and effect for hard determinism to be true.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Excluding Roger Penrose, Bernard Baars and Stuart Hameroff. There aren't many people advocating free-will.
The best molecular biologist in history, Francis Crick, states quite clearly in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis quantum mechanics has nothing to do with will. It's not possible. Likewise, Michael Shermer of skeptic magazine has similarly stated in refutation of "What the BLEEP are we smoking?" "In order for something to be quantum it must be on the order of magnitude of planck's constant. The ions, potassium and sodium in the chemical synapses of neurons are 3 times too large to be quantum events."
Even the wikipedia article on free-will states:
"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Excluding Roger Penrose, Bernard Baars and Stuart Hameroff. There aren't many people advocating free-will.
The best molecular biologist in history, Francis Crick, states quite clearly in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis quantum mechanics has nothing to do with will. It's not possible. Likewise, Michael Shermer of skeptic magazine has similarly stated in refutation of "What the BLEEP are we smoking?" "In order for something to be quantum it must be on the order of magnitude of planck's constant. The ions, potassium and sodium in the chemical synapses of neurons are 3 times too large to be quantum events."
Even the wikipedia article on free-will states:
"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will."
What is false, ahnimus? The notion that determinism is NOT a scientifically proven fact? Just because you can't 'prove' free will does NOT mean 'hard determinism' is fact and visa versa. My point was to show you that hard determinism is NOT accepted as fact, only speculation. So to claim others as ignorant because they do not share your opinion is weak and laughable and it only shows how lacking you are when it comes to the sciences. Did you read the articles I posted for you and what are your opinions on causality?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
What is false, ahnimus? The notion that determinism is NOT a scientifically proven fact? Just because you can't 'prove' free will does NOT mean 'hard determinism' is fact and visa versa. My point was to show you that hard determinism is NOT accepted as fact, only speculation. So to claim others as ignorant because they do not share your opinion is weak and laughable and it only shows how lacking you are when it comes to the sciences. Did you read the articles I posted for you and what are your opinions on causality?
I wasn't proving hard determinism as true. I think you missed a few of my posts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I wasn't proving hard determinism as true. I think you missed a few of my posts.
I'm sure that is true, as this thread is looooooooong. All I ask is for you to refrain from calling those that do not subscribe to your theories ignorant or on drugs or insane, etc. You present valid points, but those types of comments cancel out any point you were trying to make. Keep in mind, although there are good arguments for your stance, it is NOT accepted as fact in the scientific community. Scientists hold all kind of opinions and theories about things, but opinions do not hold water in science, only those things that have been proven by the scientific method. In other words, you can't parade hard determinism around as scientific fact, then call others ignorant for not believing in it.
Anyway, I was really looking forward to discussing causality with you, specifically how it is defined in the papers for which I provided links.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
"The fanatical athiests are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres" ~ Albert Einstein
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
How very interesting that you say this, Ahnimus--are you talking about yourself, here? This is what Einstein actually says on the subject:
"There are people who say there is no God but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." ~ Albert Einstein
And I've never quoted Einstein as saying there is no God.
What I've said is that Einstein did not believe in the Christian God, he believed in Spinoza's God which is quite different. A little bit of reading on the dude says as much.
“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” - Albert Einstein
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm sure that is true, as this thread is looooooooong. All I ask is for you to refrain from calling those that do not subscribe to your theories ignorant or on drugs or insane, etc. You present valid points, but those types of comments cancel out any point you were trying to make. Keep in mind, although there are good arguments for your stance, it is NOT accepted as fact in the scientific community. Scientists hold all kind of opinions and theories about things, but opinions do not hold water in science, only those things that have been proven by the scientific method. In other words, you can't parade hard determinism around as scientific fact, then call others ignorant for not believing in it.
Anyway, I was really looking forward to discussing causality with you, specifically how it is defined in the papers for which I provided links.
In this thread, I've actually just been disproving Free-will as at all possible. That's not a matter of scientific inquiry, it's a matter of critical philosophical analysis. Since it is impossible, it's accurately insane to believe in such dogmatism.
I just had a meeting at work where we discussed the attitudes that workmates and clients will have at different times and it was encouraged that we don't allow such attitudes to infect us. People will have different moods, regulated by external stimuli and internal chemical balances. It's an unavoidable fate that most people will become irritated, aggressive or offended at times. I refuse to allow your offense to affect my opinion. I will not condone the absurd belief in free-will. If you take issue with my language, then that is something you have to work on.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And I've never quoted Einstein as saying there is no God.
What I've said is that Einstein did not believe in the Christian God, he believed in Spinoza's God which is quite different. A little bit of reading on the dude says as much.
“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” - Albert Einstein
Einstein himself specifically says it makes him angry when people use his words to support views that say there is no God.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"The fanatical athiests are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres" ~ Albert Einstein
"I walked to the beach this morning, as I look out over the ocean, I fell to my knees in awe of the magnificence of creation and in the formation of sea foam accumulating on the shore, I saw the face of the divine creator, Charles Darwin."
Let's not forget that Einstein was a human being. He is also referring to "fanatical" atheists. Clearly a well thought out statement. Since there is nothing wrong with being an atheist, but one who claims that there is no possibility of a designer would be fanatical. Many "atheists" claim there is evidence of a bottom-up designer, but don't automatically assume this is an omnipotent God. Rather it just may be as simple as an automaton. At that scale we run into the problem of infinite regression. But in all honest, it doesn't fucking matter. It has no effect on our lives, absolutely zero!
This is what is so great about philosophy, it evaluates the worth and truthfullness of truth statements. To argue that their is a bottom-up designer that has no concern for the fates of humans, is like spitting in the wind. It has no worth to our lives, it means nothing to speculate as such. It will only come back and hit you in the face, because it's speculation, and thus could be wrong, and making harsh truth claims about it is going to get you in hot water with atheists.
With that said, the best theories as pertaining to what is actually important, mention nothing of God or randomness.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Einstein himself specifically says it makes him angry when people use his words to support views that say there is no God.
Did I not just say that? Are you intentionally being ignorant?
I've just quoted Einstein as saying that he does not believe in a personal God, he 'believed' in Spinoza's God. It's quite plainly written. What the heck is your fascination with Einstein anyway? It's not like the guy was never wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
“I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference!” - Albert Einstein
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Did I not just say that? Are you intentionally being ignorant?
I've just quoted Einstein as saying that he does not believe in a personal God, he 'believed' in Spinoza's God. It's quite plainly written. What the heck is your fascination with Einstein anyway? It's not like the guy was never wrong.
Actually...no, you didn't just say that. You segued into the Spinoza bit, which is an entirely different topic.
Earlier you said:
"Einstein was upset that people quoted him as evidence of the Christian God."
It's interesting that I don't see a quote for that. And there is one where he himself says how angry he gets when people use his words to support the view that God does not exist.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Actually...no, you didn't just say that. You segued into the Spinoza bit, which is an entirely different topic.
Earlier you said:
"Einstein was upset that people quoted him as evidence of the Christian God."
It's interesting that I don't see a quote for that. And there is one where he himself says how angry he gets when people use his words to support the view that God does not exist.
Right... but no one is quoting him for that. That is a false inference Angelica.
I don't quote Einstein as 'evidence' for anything but his own beliefs.
“Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized.” - Albert Einstein
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
He refers to athiests who in their struggle to throw off traditional religion cannot hear the music of the spheres. Interesting that he used the word "spheres".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"What separates me from most so-called athiests is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." ~ Albert Einstein
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"What separates me from most so-called athiests is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." ~ Albert Einstein
"What separates me from most so-called athiests is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." ~ Albert Einstein
Right, Einstein was an atheist to any anthropomorphized God. So he used the term 'fanatical' which is key to the prior statement. He certainly wouldn't be referring to himself. Now, you can accept that we both agree, Einstein did not believe in an anthropomorphized God, and he was not a 'fanatical' atheist, but saw problem with people who claim knowledge of the 'unattainable'. Finally we should both agree that Einstein was not God himself and is therefor subject to the enormity of human error. Einstein repeatedly makes direct claims to error.
"He who has never made a mistake, has never tried something new." - Albert Einstein.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It is key in deference to angelica because she tends to ignore that fact in her ramblings of universal truth.
unattainable
does that word mean that something doesn't exist so we should ignore it?
does it mean you shouldn't bother trying to better understand these secrets and learn what we can of them?
things that are unattainable now, won't always be...if we stop changing then we stop existing.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Einstein is pointing to "utter humility" for the unattainable secrets of the cosmos as the difference between himself and most so-called athiests. It appears as though you've missed the point.
"What separates me from most so-called athiests is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
Unattainable means that it's impossible to know. It may be considered nihilism to the extent that the knowledge actually matters. In this case though, it doesn't matter and making knowledge claims is foolish.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Einstein is pointing to "utter humility" for the unattainable secrets of the cosmos as the difference between himself and most so-called athiests. It appears as though you've missed the point.
"What separates me from most so-called athiests is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
I didn't miss anything. I've read enough of your posts to know that "utter humility" for the "unattainable secrets of the cosmos" is something you don't seem to practice, yourself.
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced, there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religous man". ~ Albert Einstein
It's clear that Einstein speaks to what our minds cannot grasp and that we know through the beauty and sublimity we experience indirectly. He refers to it as behind anything that can be experienced.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced, there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religous man". ~ Albert Einstein
It's clear that Einstein speaks to what our minds cannot grasp and that we know through the beauty and sublimity we experience indirectly. He refers to it as behind anything that can be experienced.
"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Haha, this war has been fought for over 2500 years by individuals more intuitive than me. I'm doing my part just knowing the best theories of truth and actioning them. It's not as if my arguments don't have effect, just none that are willing to say anything publicly. Save, Scubascott, who at one point said that my statements about biology and so on are accurate. I can't remember the exact context.
You know, people are much more receptive to the idea of determinism on philosophical and skeptic forums. This is mostly a waste of time. But it does no good to talk about determinism on skepticforum.com since almost everyone just agrees with me.
Those who are tangled with the tribal mindset do not differentiate themselves from the masses in terms of acquiring the power to influence on a large scale.
I said before in this thread that when you speak truth it always influences me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You didn't address my radioactive decay comment. Such things as radioactive decay, the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the uncertainty principle and the paths of electrons are all examples of randomness and spontaneousness. If all events cannot be known or predicted then hard determinism can not hold. Soft determinism may be another matter depending on how soft one makes it. Most things in the universe are caused and predictable but there is always some randomness where only the laws of chance prevail.
On electrons, Richard Feynman said that we can only know that an electron left point A and arrived at point B. We cannot ever know how it got there, which path that it took. The summation of all possible paths, the sum of its history, resembles a probability curve. It is not a probability curve but a very close approximation and scientist use these curves in place of sums of histories because they are much easier to calculate.
I noticed that you are using 'we' when you state your opinion and perspective on the issue. I want to note again, ahnimus, that scientists are NOT in agreement about this. This is not an accepted 'fact' in the science community and to suggest as much only shows how far removed you are from that community. Sure, many have their opinions, but that is all it is at this point.
There are many physicists today that feel Quantum Physics shows us that hard determinism cannot be true. Randomness, chance and spontaneousness exists in the universe. If there are uncaused, random events then cause and effect do not always happen in single events and thus there are things that are unknown and unknowable. Both of these principles break the necessary chain of knowable and predictable cause and effect for hard determinism to be true.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Excluding Roger Penrose, Bernard Baars and Stuart Hameroff. There aren't many people advocating free-will.
The best molecular biologist in history, Francis Crick, states quite clearly in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis quantum mechanics has nothing to do with will. It's not possible. Likewise, Michael Shermer of skeptic magazine has similarly stated in refutation of "What the BLEEP are we smoking?" "In order for something to be quantum it must be on the order of magnitude of planck's constant. The ions, potassium and sodium in the chemical synapses of neurons are 3 times too large to be quantum events."
Even the wikipedia article on free-will states:
"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will."
What is false, ahnimus? The notion that determinism is NOT a scientifically proven fact? Just because you can't 'prove' free will does NOT mean 'hard determinism' is fact and visa versa. My point was to show you that hard determinism is NOT accepted as fact, only speculation. So to claim others as ignorant because they do not share your opinion is weak and laughable and it only shows how lacking you are when it comes to the sciences. Did you read the articles I posted for you and what are your opinions on causality?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I wasn't proving hard determinism as true. I think you missed a few of my posts.
"There are people who say there is no God but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." ~ Albert Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm sure that is true, as this thread is looooooooong. All I ask is for you to refrain from calling those that do not subscribe to your theories ignorant or on drugs or insane, etc. You present valid points, but those types of comments cancel out any point you were trying to make. Keep in mind, although there are good arguments for your stance, it is NOT accepted as fact in the scientific community. Scientists hold all kind of opinions and theories about things, but opinions do not hold water in science, only those things that have been proven by the scientific method. In other words, you can't parade hard determinism around as scientific fact, then call others ignorant for not believing in it.
Anyway, I was really looking forward to discussing causality with you, specifically how it is defined in the papers for which I provided links.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And I've never quoted Einstein as saying there is no God.
What I've said is that Einstein did not believe in the Christian God, he believed in Spinoza's God which is quite different. A little bit of reading on the dude says as much.
“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” - Albert Einstein
Why would you start was has no end?
In this thread, I've actually just been disproving Free-will as at all possible. That's not a matter of scientific inquiry, it's a matter of critical philosophical analysis. Since it is impossible, it's accurately insane to believe in such dogmatism.
I just had a meeting at work where we discussed the attitudes that workmates and clients will have at different times and it was encouraged that we don't allow such attitudes to infect us. People will have different moods, regulated by external stimuli and internal chemical balances. It's an unavoidable fate that most people will become irritated, aggressive or offended at times. I refuse to allow your offense to affect my opinion. I will not condone the absurd belief in free-will. If you take issue with my language, then that is something you have to work on.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"I walked to the beach this morning, as I look out over the ocean, I fell to my knees in awe of the magnificence of creation and in the formation of sea foam accumulating on the shore, I saw the face of the divine creator, Charles Darwin."
Let's not forget that Einstein was a human being. He is also referring to "fanatical" atheists. Clearly a well thought out statement. Since there is nothing wrong with being an atheist, but one who claims that there is no possibility of a designer would be fanatical. Many "atheists" claim there is evidence of a bottom-up designer, but don't automatically assume this is an omnipotent God. Rather it just may be as simple as an automaton. At that scale we run into the problem of infinite regression. But in all honest, it doesn't fucking matter. It has no effect on our lives, absolutely zero!
This is what is so great about philosophy, it evaluates the worth and truthfullness of truth statements. To argue that their is a bottom-up designer that has no concern for the fates of humans, is like spitting in the wind. It has no worth to our lives, it means nothing to speculate as such. It will only come back and hit you in the face, because it's speculation, and thus could be wrong, and making harsh truth claims about it is going to get you in hot water with atheists.
With that said, the best theories as pertaining to what is actually important, mention nothing of God or randomness.
Did I not just say that? Are you intentionally being ignorant?
I've just quoted Einstein as saying that he does not believe in a personal God, he 'believed' in Spinoza's God. It's quite plainly written. What the heck is your fascination with Einstein anyway? It's not like the guy was never wrong.
“I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference!” - Albert Einstein
Actually...no, you didn't just say that. You segued into the Spinoza bit, which is an entirely different topic.
Earlier you said:
"Einstein was upset that people quoted him as evidence of the Christian God."
It's interesting that I don't see a quote for that. And there is one where he himself says how angry he gets when people use his words to support the view that God does not exist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Right... but no one is quoting him for that. That is a false inference Angelica.
I don't quote Einstein as 'evidence' for anything but his own beliefs.
“Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized.” - Albert Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
what's so 'key' about it?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It is key in deference to angelica because she tends to ignore that fact in her ramblings of universal truth.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Right, Einstein was an atheist to any anthropomorphized God. So he used the term 'fanatical' which is key to the prior statement. He certainly wouldn't be referring to himself. Now, you can accept that we both agree, Einstein did not believe in an anthropomorphized God, and he was not a 'fanatical' atheist, but saw problem with people who claim knowledge of the 'unattainable'. Finally we should both agree that Einstein was not God himself and is therefor subject to the enormity of human error. Einstein repeatedly makes direct claims to error.
"He who has never made a mistake, has never tried something new." - Albert Einstein.
unattainable
does that word mean that something doesn't exist so we should ignore it?
does it mean you shouldn't bother trying to better understand these secrets and learn what we can of them?
things that are unattainable now, won't always be...if we stop changing then we stop existing.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"What separates me from most so-called athiests is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
Unattainable means that it's impossible to know. It may be considered nihilism to the extent that the knowledge actually matters. In this case though, it doesn't matter and making knowledge claims is foolish.
I didn't miss anything. I've read enough of your posts to know that "utter humility" for the "unattainable secrets of the cosmos" is something you don't seem to practice, yourself.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's clear that Einstein speaks to what our minds cannot grasp and that we know through the beauty and sublimity we experience indirectly. He refers to it as behind anything that can be experienced.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."