As a believer, i appreciate Einstein's view on this. The fact is, he was one of the greatest scientists of all time, and yet, still believed there was something more, something possibly ordering it.
you will actually find many scientific geniuses that are deists (believe a god exists but doesn’t intervene) or agnostic (doesn’t believe but doesn’t rule out). It is very interesting
"Whether we conceive nature under the attribute or extension or under the attribute of thought or under any other attribute, we will find on and the same order-or-one and the same connection of causes." Spinoza. Think about it, then think about it some more. Then read Spinoza. It helps
I think that Einstein felt humbled by the vastness and ordered aspect of the observable universe and so felt compelled to keep his options open. Unique thinker
No matter how vast the universe, no matter what human beings can know about the universe, it doesn't mean believers can justifiably plug in the idea of "the god of the gaps"_---it doesn't imply ' god' made the universe, it really doesn't make sense to plug in or to purportedly smuggle the idea of an idea created by illiterates two millennium ago
I don't pretend to know why I was created But I do know that Im innately passionate about helping others and exploring PEOPLE, other fellow human beings their cultures, exotic places And making a positive impact on others and spreading LOVE to ALL not just to a choosen elite and segregate myself from people who are different then I
I can’t stand when people try to explore me. I appreciate the candid that see me in action or hear what I’m saying without catalyst or a prying soul. Some won’t leave people alone, some just want to be left alone.
"I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in Nature." - Albert Einstein
Kaus Mut , Luke 12:13-21 13And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? 15And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. 16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. 20But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? 21So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
This is how religious people edit Einstein's quotes. Let me use the quote above. "....Science...is blind faith....without religion..." Tada! An Albert Einstein quote successfully manipulated to benefit the Church!
In the last 100 years scientists have made far more progress in understanding the universe than in all of human history before that. Never the less scientists are not one bit closer to proving or disproving the existence of god.
***** What do you mean "when people make claims about what god does in the world, the claims can be tested"? can you give an example? I guess I just don't follow.
***** O ok I get what you are saying, So basically all you where trying to say is that yes "scientists are not any closer to proving or disproving the existence of god." But neither are religious people in proving the existence of god?
Just because Einstein didn't want to be called an atheist doesn't mean he believed in your particular version of God. When Einstein said that the US was in the midst of an anti-Communist witch hunt and declaring oneself an 'atheist" was dangerous to one's career and immigration status.
@@hjalmar.poelzig Einstein was already a citizen by the time McCarthy came along. And, in addition, he said that if Joe McCarthy ever came after him he would not claim the 5th Amendment as most did, but the First Amendment to think and believe as he wished as guaranteed in the Constitution. Einstein loved Baruch Spinoza and read him widely. Spinoza and Einstein both believed in God, but not really in religion, and not in a God who was involved in people's lives and problems (a "personal" God). Everyone is entitled to believe in God as we can conceptualize Him/Her/It. Or not. But Einstein did.
@@gastonflatulenza1276 Joe McCarthy ruined the careers and lives of many US citizens. Citizenship was no protection during the Red Scare. It sent many to prison and some to their deaths. Einstein and Spinoza used the word "god" to mean an impersonal principle, an underlying basis of reality, not the sky daddy of conservative Christian mythology, which Einstein dismissed as "childish." Of course religious fundamentalists rely on arguments by authority so they've tried to conscript Einstein into their cult.
@boxers nation Einstein believed in religion but he didn't believe in God. He thought of God as a symbolic character in our religious traditions. He had respect for the value of his Jewish heritage. Conservative Christians can't grasp this about secular Jews like Einstein.
Albert Einsetin was not an atheist. He realized that humans and their knowledge of the universe and all we can know was unable to answer the question of "how it all got here" and whether or not there was a Creator (of everything) and lawgiver who set everything in motion. General relativity predicts a true beginning of the universe and is theoretically in line with the idea of a Creator. In the very beginning what brought about the universe? He was simply agnostic and admitted he could not know the answer. He was far too intelligent to declare himself an atheist and understood God could not be ruled out by science just as (at least at that time and it currently remains so) science can not prove there is a Creator (God), either. Einstein was not an atheist, explaining at one point: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[19] Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained: Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
nycinstyle Yep. At the end of the day believers can't prove that God exist and science can't prove God doesn't exists. Personally, I believe in God/Supreme being. I love science and what it has done for mankind but science is too primitive right now to deal with the the non-material world (science is great for the physical realm).
IsAAc H Not a personal God, but in the God of Spinoza.He believed the universe itself is intelligent and possesses thought. I find it shameful that militant atheists and evangelical extremists always resort to lies. Dawking is a fraud, an equivalent of a televangelist preacher. He should stick to evolutionary biology and leave philosophy or history to the experts.
IsAAc H Einstein was agnostic exactly as I said. He did not know and the great, humble man that he was admitted this. He did not feel there was no God. He did not believe a God could answer a person's prayers, etc. (a personal God)but throughout his life he could never come to the idea that there was no God (a Creator and scientific lawgiver). "There are no laws without a lawgiver, etc." General relativity also mathematically proved there is a beginning of all we can know which is also in line with belief in a God. It should be noted that at first Einstein did not believe his general relativity equations could be correct because they were not showing there is a static (always existent universe). He struggled with this contradiction. How can mathematics say there is an actual beginning yet everything else at that time said the universe was static (always existent)? He decided to add a cosmological constant to his equations to wipe out the necessity of a beginning. Around this time, Edwin Hubble observed through his telescope that distant galaxies are actually expanding, the expansion suggesting that the universe is not static, after all. He called Einstein who viewed the evidence through the telescope. Einstein realized that if the universe is expanding then it must have a starting point. His initial equations were correct after all and he called his cosmological constant he added the biggest mistake of his career. It is almost as if the heavens talked back to tell Einstein to stick fast with his equations and do not attempt to change them. Once again, Einstein could never come to accept that all could be without a God. By the way, general relativity is the most tested theory in the history of science. It has always been shown to be correct. "That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
Darwin lamented that any mind evolved from lower ape-like creatures would be capable of knowing and uttering truth claims. My guess is b/c honesty is not a desirable survival strategy. Unlike Dawkins who is making a fortune out of proselytizing his atheistic worldview, my belief doesn’t rise or fall on the very amateurish and confusing theology of great scientists like Einstein. Unlike Dawkins and his disciples I make sure when I quote a 3rd party, that the source is reliable and accurate. There are a lot of contradicting God quotes attributed to Einstein that cant all be true. I just cant believe he would make such a litany of befuddled unintelligible observations about the nature of ultimate reality . Unlike Dorkins I look at all citations before I draw conclusions about what he did or didn’t believe at various stages of his life. E.g a pantheist god as described by Dawkins would not be capable of creating a miraculous universe but one which Einstein would describe as a lawless, lifeless chaos. When he said *God doesn’t play dice* what Einstein is implying is that God didn’t need to create an infinite number of “incomprehensible” universes (multiverses) to eventually get one like ours that he describes as rationally comprehensible and life supporting So what did Einstein actually say? “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a CHAOTIC world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way… That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. A. Einstein, *Letters to Solovine, translated by Wade Baskin* "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist… We see the universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. *(Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, p44)* "Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. *(Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, p93* When asked whether he was an atheist, Einstein said *"I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library with books in many languages..." Also, "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". (Einstein, His life and universe, Isaacson, p.388-9).* As to whether he believed in a personal God, u be the judge: When asked about a clipping from a magazine article (likely the Saturday Evening Post) reporting Einstein's comments on Christianity taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe."[6] Interviewer" To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?" "As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." "Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus? "Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. *Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot." "Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.* "The more I study science the more I believe in God" So Albert, which god might that be , the one you have now met?
What is beyond our universe? Emptiness, there is nothing there. Belief in faith is relative to our death. Faith calms our fear of death, its nonsensical. Accept what is NOT what might be. . .
You only hear what you want to hear, just like how you read what you want to read. You don't listen just as you don't read what is written because as you did, you couldn't take the Bible serious and you would see the truth about what is written. You are denying reality because you can't accept the truth that is different from your beliefs and world views.
@@Gericho49 I just wanna thank you for writing such a long and detailed comment. It's rare to see something good in the comment section, regardless if I agree or disagree.
" Reality is the physical form of consciousness. The human body is a flesh and blood vehicle for The Spirit, an avatar for consciousness. We are all one in the same. Love always !
@Tim H Hey shut the fuck up! You dam hater! At least she actually wasted they're time just to make sense to rats like you and all you do is be a fucking a dickhead go back to your gamer headset, "ok boomer" kid
The body is an illusion created by consciousness and your illusion that consciousness "inhabits" the body like a ghost living in a puppet is absurd. It would mean that consciousness occupies space and moves around-- but space is a creation of consciousness, you are always 'here, now" because there is nowhere else to be.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
The problem with using faith as a truth compass is that faith does not have to be grounded in facts and so it is like a compass which does not have to point to the North but could be pointing at any direction.
Well said drac. Then there is the problem with using a moral compass based on questionable codes that includes an allowance for slavery. Exodus 20-21 =P
***** Why confuse faith with faith in Jesus in particular? You could have faith in many more things than just religions. In fact people can have faith in anything at all, that is the point. Yes, some choose to let their faith be informed by the evidence, but insofar the evidence is compelling, then it is not mere faith anymore, it becomes knowledge.
Exactly. Some beliefs are sound, others are foolish. Faith is about the person, not about the veracity of the subject believed. I've always found it bizarre that their evidence of something out there (supposedly objective existence) is subjective personal faith. That's pretty idiotic, like saying that scared children is evidence of under-bed monsters.
Some Quotes from Albert Einstein "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." "Imagination is more important than knowledge." "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." "The only real valuable thing is intuition." "A person starts to live when he can live outside himself." "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." "God is subtle but he is not malicious." "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
Yes, by god he meant the god of spinozism, a branch of pantheism. Learn what god means in these terms and then substitute the definition, in for the word "god" in each of these sentences and then you will understand what he meant.
emac john so is anti-theism, especially in recent history. Stalin killed 23 million, Mao Zedong killed 78 million, many other millions died from communist suppression of religion, I am very sure of it.
Really it's not religion that is the cause of wars, it is the desire for control of resources like land, wealth, etc., and the control over other people and their actions that causes all wars. Religion (belief in a God) is immaterial. Wanting people not to follow a way of life that is detrimental to you, and wanting to take control over resources and of those people is the reason war happens. Even today. Do you care what belief another person or other people has/have in his or her or their head(s)? No.But when people try to impose their will over others in the name of religion or anything else to gain control you have wars.We dont see war breaking out over religion in the USA and many other"religious" countries, because it is against the law to use religion to commit crimes. You get locked up. In other words,it's not religion it is people's desire for control and greed that causes all wars.
I love einstien's hair and all the great thinking he did,...I love that he was so caught up in thinking, that at times he forgot to put his pants on...times when he forgot ,which way he was heading down the halls and had to stop and ask someone which way he was going as he stopped to ask them,.. which way he was going, so that, he knew whether he had eaten or not..He was a gifted man, no doubt about it....But he was just a man....a passionate man of scientist...not a theologian...He probably experienced more of the wonder of God than 50% of Christians out there ( of which I am one)...My faith is in no way hinged on a door of what anyone else thinks or believes, no matter the degree of intelligence or stupidity or ignorance for that matter...For those who disbelieve, there is no explanation to make them believe...for those who do believe, no explanations necessary....
Einstein believed in the pantheistic God of Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. Einstein called himself an "agnostic" and a "religious nonbeliever." When asked if he believed in life after death, Einstein replied, "No. And one life is enough for me."
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Albert Einstein
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants (the humble); yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. (Luke10:21)
@@a.bagasm.7253 Einstein, like virtually all physicists since the late 19th century didn't believe in any sort of personal god, that is, one with self-awareness, will, intentions or goals. He thought of God the way humanists and secular Jews do, as a tradional character that expresses our fears and desires in symbolic form, a means of communicating moral values and a psychological coping mechanism. To Einstein, taking God literally is as childish as taking Santa Claus literally-- but that is not to say that belief in them should be ridiculed, discouraged or suppressed. All gods are real for those who believe in them.
@@guacamoleniqqapeniss7317 You are the one trying to put the label of "atheist" on me. My ideas and Einstein's are perfectly in concert-- neither of us believe in a personal god who has conscious thoughts or intentions, makes decisions or seeks to achieve goals.
'The Devils Delusion: Atheism and it's Scientific Pretensions' By Dr. David Berlinski Atheism may well not be a religion. Anti-theism very obviously is.
@@poozer1986 It doesn't apply to everything, but it applies when you take a benign, non-violent abstract idea and start enforcing that onto people in the real world. You become your own rigid, intolerant group. You could be so against terrorism that you create your own group that uses violence, threats, intimidation, and coercion onto people whom you think are your enemy, turning you into a terrorist group. Have you heard of Antifa? Antifa is a whole can of irony. They name themselves "Anti-Facists" but how they conduct themselves in the world is in principle how fascists would.
Occam's Razor is an important scientific idea: it states that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. "We are to admit no more causes of natural things other than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes". Isaac Newton. "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities". Bertrand Russell.
_"I do NOT believe in a personal god and I have NEVER denied this"_ (Albert Einstein) I mean, that couldn't possibly be any clearer. So when will religious people finally stop pretending "Einstein was a believer"?
That classic debate. Science and religion operate on 2 very different planes and with different purposes. The author in the letter, and my college Biology instructor, said it best, that religion and science are inherently incomparable due to their very nature. Religion is based on faith, not knowledge.
Ironic. I see it very differently. To me, the experience of God, JosephusXIX, is based on Knowledge. "You shall know the Truth and the Truth will make you free." One who does not know God, can only guess. Modern "science" is a belief system - every bit as much as "religion". "Religion" believes that God is real - without knowing what God is - and "science" believes that matter is real - even though it is coming to realize that M=E/C2,- that matter only appears to exist because of a relationship between light and energy/motion/vibration. All is light. God is light. To see it within yourself is a very special "proof" that might never be able to be measured by humans.
+ACIMessentials I call it confirmation. It is eye opening to me that so many believe the unproven ideas in all the textbooks. It does make sense when those textbooks are being taught to our cultural children. Otherwise, there are many pearls to be shared, yet this environment is questionable. We can show people the evidence that HE has shared with us and, yet if they choose to deny it, we have planted a seed. Be blessed.
I am going to try and chime in here. Being someone that is curious about the why in everything. I do appreciate the metaphorical and artistic retorts from these great thinkers. As more and more study is being done about the human brain, the intuitions that Einstein had for the future is becoming true. I can see how he was able to make the statements that he did across all fields of academia, that once you know the why in certain behaviors or phenomenon, you can use what you have learned to solve more unknowns. He just thinks about everything at the same time. Although he would've greatly benefited if he could've been a better teacher. I think that he realized no matter what he said to others, his words would hold no credibility or weight behind it, like always, the best ideas are the ones that gets mocked at first because it is perceived as impossible. Again, I'm just seeing if I can get some feed-backs here because I think this would make an interesting debate.
Physicists never resort to the supernatural to explaining anything. Most scientists since the 20th century never use the word 'god' in any way but as a metaphor for nature or the cosmos-- like Einstein.
Einstein was a typical Jewish intellectual of the 20th century-- he believed that God is a cultural construct, not a person with a will or ego . He didn't think the fundamental forces of the universe were interfered with on the whim of any intelligent entity.
Difference between science and religion is....... Religion is based on FAITH, and Science is based on FACTS - In religion you can make up any story you want and nobody will care if its true, they won't even question it. - In science if you come with proof of something, everyone will question it and try to disprove it. And only if a lot of very smart people come up with the same results as you, then it can be called a fact!
Torben Rudgaard I feel like faith can be founded on facts. If I believe I can drop a rock and it falls 9.8 M/S^2 and it happens I have now have faith. "Faith without works is dead." So, if I do something and it turns out to work for me and others as well then I have faith. As opposed to just blind belief. There's a difference between faith and belief.
Nobody has ever made up a "religious" story and people believed it, let alone hadn't questioned it. Every Christian/Catholic has questioned the word of God. It's a natural thing. Now for your theory that religion is based on FAITH and science is based on FACT, I should remind you that most of these FACTS started off as theories which had to be tested and the religious stories we read in the Bible are in FACT not made up as they anticipate everything we know today. For example, (as a reminder, the Bible was written centuries before scientists existed...) the elements in our body. The Bible states that the Lord created us from the dust of the ground and only in the recent century did scientists figure out that the human body consists of 28 ground based materials including iron, magnesium and sulfur. I could go on and on about the many anticipated facts found in the bible, things those stories tell us that were not proven until recently but I know nothing I say will convince you.
+Torben Rudgaard HA HA HA WHAT A DUMB DUMB IGNORANT FOOL YOUR ARE! Science is not fact nor is it based on factual evidence. Science is very simply the act of interpreting an observation of our environment and is limited by the tools we have available for observing. Then scientific fact as a result is only the most supported interpretation of scientific observation, or in other words, the most favored opinion of the things being observed.Throughout history every scientific observation, no matter how favorable, always has a dissenting opinion from a less favorable group. One thing that is factual about scientific opinions is that they will always be refuted. ALWAYS CHANGING.... think cap please!
Gerilene Mereb it still dont change the fact that it was made up. In 2000 years there is absolutely no proof what so ever that there are any gods and that all religious scripture wasn't just made up. Can you show me any evidence that everything written in e.g. the bible was not just made up by some roman fiction author?
To dracumelenios:- The problem with believing that Beethoven was a great composer is that it does not have to be grounded in facts and so it is like a compass which does not have to point to the North but could be pointing at any direction.
Just because a phenomenon has a 'beginning' doesn't mean it has to have a 'creator." A day begins at dawn, but no magical person 'creates" the day, it happens as a natural consequence of the earth's motion.
(The following is from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press) "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Einstein believe in God. What he don't believe is a personal God that other religion is talking about that limits the capacity of what God can do. He believes in a more intelligent and powerful being that a human mind can't grasp. Look at how vast our universe, where God is in dominion and is the Creator, then look at how significant our earth to the universe. Human intelligence is nothing and almost negligible. God sent us his words so someday we can be saved when he decided to end the world. Read the bible which is above all books.
Jhon Dumaop So you mean the Christian God is the true God. I believe in God but not the Christian/Islamic/Hindu or other Gods and not Buddha. Most people (99.99999999999%) who believe in their God don't know it but they are saying their God is stupid. Why would God create different religions and people on this earth when he could have just snapped his finger and everything could be fine. To me, either there is only one God or every religion is wrong. Its like comparing the culture of one race to another; my race is better because of this and that. We can go on debating forever why one race is better than others. Religion is different because people from different parts of the world are unique. Trust me God is not going to save any of us. I am from a small religion and what our scripture tell us is that there is only one God and he comes in different forms; we don't discriminate other religions but in fact embrace all religions because they are are created from God under one roof for the different races on this earth to match their cultures. You know why we humans were created based on my religion; we are just play toys for God like animal pets are to us. We are not anything special and sometimes we humans are too arrogant in believing that we are so special in this vast universe. We are just one plane of existence for there are so many other forms of lives out there we primitive humans have yet to find.
Science and religion do not cancel out each other, but rather exist in harmony. Science does not cancel out the existence of a God or religion nor does God/religion cancel out the need for science. It is when one of those things become grossly misunderstood that issues arise.
My faith in God hardly rises or falls on the amateurish philosophies of a great scientist but there seem to be a lot quotes attributed to Einstein by dubious doubters with a point to prove. Here is a verifiable citation that can be validated : When asked about a clipping from a magazine article (likely the Saturday Evening Post) reporting Einstein's comments on Christianity taken down by Viereck, [6] Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe." "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?" "As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." "Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus? "Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot." "Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus." "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, 2005, p195-6)
You just proved the point made in the video that Christians misinterpret Einsteins' words, because they want to believe he is "on their side", but are unable to grasp intellectually his meaning. Here's another verifiable quote for you, simple enough that even you should be able to understand it: "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945 It is ironic that you imply Einstein had an amateurish philosophy yet you try to use his words to bolster your faith in God, and that you imply the quotes used in the video are not verifiable and then use another quote as if that disproves the validity of the quotes used, when all you did was copy and paste from what is obviously a Christian apologetic website,j as evidenced by the reference number [6] without the reference itself. Given that, in the two sentences which are your own words, you used redundancies twice ("dubious doubters" and "verifiable citation that can be validated") I seriously doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand Einstein's personal philosophy or understand what he means by "God", but I can assure you it is not the same as yours.
LucisFerre1 Thank you for saying so. I get tired of correcting people also, but out of immense respect for one of the greatest intellects in history, not to mention the most influential person of the past century, I feel honor bound to do so as he is incapable of defending himself. :-)
“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” - Einstein (Some type of creative force exists “”Superior Intelligence”, Old wise One”, etc. are terms Einstein used to describe this creative force (GOD). Einstein was agnostic and refused to adhere to the atheistic view throughout his life and even preferred the religious believer’s view over the atheistic view). The atheistic view: If Hawking's model is correct then the universe could be regarded as a causally closed system, uncreatable and indestrucible. Hawking: It obviously matters because if there is an edge, somebody has to decide what should happen at the edge. You would really have to invoke God. Why does that follow? Hawking: If you like, it would be a tautology. You could define God as the edge of the universe, as the agent who was responsible for setting all this in motion. Reference www.physicsforums.com/threads/hawking-on-the-edge-of-the-universe.401641/ Hawking has been trying (and failing) to prove the equations are wrong and the universe is a closed system for decades. The equations are right. There is an edge. The hypothesis should not be that there is no edge and the universe is a closed system, somehow always existent. That is the ridiculous view of a hard headed atheist. Very sad. He will die failing to prove the equations are wrong. The hypothesis should be that there is an edge a beginning of the universe's existence in a singularity and search for ways and methods to locate precisely how the universe began by outside agency. Look for signs of an outside agency. It will help us discover what this Creator is. Hawking is saying A CREATOR GOD EXISTS IF THERE IS AN EDGE. It is the logical SCIENTIFIC conclusion. He then goes on to say there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE EITHER WAY over whether or not there is an edge, however the equations of general relativity predict a singularity coming about at a finite moment and an edge of the universe is predicted which is backed by measuring distant galaxies moving away from us..... (a universe currently expanding AS SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVED THROUGH TELESCOPE). So what does Hawking do and what do other atheistic scientists do? They create theories of a somehow always existent universe that have never and will never be proven. Why do you think Hawking is struggling to prove the universe is a closed system with no actual edge? If he new there was no need for a God he would just say here scientific community here is proof of a closed system. You see, we atheistic scientists had it right all along. The universe is a closed system> HE CANNOT. Live with the fact that mathematical and scientific evidence can be used to support belief in God. I stated seemingly a million times already anything God has done in the universe or to the universe after the start is based on faith. Einstein a brilliant modest man not a hard headed fool did not see the point in trying to prove there is no edge. He knew his equations spoke the truth. He also believed the universe came into existence at a finite moment ALL OF IT past present and future is here. Impossible to prove there is no edge because there is an edge, and as a result Einstein was agnostic and never once sided with the atheistic view. He in fact preferred the believer's view over the atheistic view. Have the patience for science to figure it out THEREFORE GOD. I lack belief the universe was in any way always here, and i lack belief the universe made itself. Everything I wrote is true and can backed with evidence. EVERYTHING. Check out this below youtube video. It is I believe the truth of the basic fabric of our universe, and an outside agency is needed and the logical conclusion. I happen to believe that free will has been written into the system, however the choices we will make are already known. Einstein actually went me one better in his deterministic view and believed we, like a leaf floating down stream, in reality have no say in what happens to us. It is all determined. We in actuality have NO (ZERO) choice in our actions (and even in our thoughts). The universe and time itself (which also came into existence in the singularity at a finite moment) are unfathomably complex, ..and it is all here already. Belief in a Creator GOD can be backed by evidence. A somehow always existent universe (or one that made itself) cannot. “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vrqmMoI0wks.html
I believe in God because it wrote my spiritual story A naïve soft hearted man who lived in a wealthy city and spent all his time helping people distanced himself to a mountainous land. On the way there he kept helping people. He then fell ill and these thoughts came to him: what will I do afterwards? I will go to the top of the mountain and let the vultures eat me; I want no riches of this world; I am coming to help my father; and I can work. He then goes back to the wealthy city and miraculously finds work. He then understands the vultures are the people he attracted and he did not know he was attracting because he was naïve; he wants no riches of this world because he has the virtues of this world; he helps his father die with out suffering in his old age, and he works.
Okay, personal or impersonal he still believed in God. A creator. Also, there is a huge difference between religion and God. Just because a person does not believe in religion does not mean they don't believe in God...There is nothing presented here that shows Einstein is an atheist...
Congratulations! This video never meant to present Einstein as an atheist... it clearly states Einstein was Deist, and this is Dawkins speaking no less.
dracumelenios Really, then perhaps you want to present people who are saying that instead of presenting all those who are trying to prove he was atheist. When you support a position you do it with supporting evidence not all these people trying to minimize his theology.
TheTradingmajic No, it was Einstein himself who 'minimized' his theology once he saw that his earlier statements were being used to present him as theist which he was certainly not. Einstein did not believe in a conscious intelligent deity which does stuff on purpose or knows we exist. Einstein was a Deist like Spinoza or Diderot.
dracumelenios Agreed. Yes, he took that position publicly after coming under such fierce attacks. There is a war against all things God and no scientist who want's to keep a high position can admit to believing in a conscious personal creator. He also said, "Education is what you're left with after you've forgotten everything you learned in school...Yet, no one say's he didn't believe in education...
why are we fighting, the truth is there is no truth at the moment its just beliefs. i was raised as a christian but my beliefs changed it doesnt mean that i dont believe in god it means that i have to just admit i dont know if there is a god or not, neither outcome would surprise me. WE JUST DONT KNOW and we all have to realize this and come togethor as a species to reach our goals . im not saying to throw away your beliefs but we must admit that we just dont know
You are totally on the same page with me. I care nothing about what others think I believe what I believe only. I seem to pass back and forth where I will have a thought about a creator that really makes sense, then 2 months later I start having another thought towards a different direction. You are right we just don't know and for some of us we only want to 100% commit to something that we can see is definitely the right answer...I feel your pain!
vicachcoup Atheists and religious scientists developed the Atomic bomb. Why? It was nothing to do with superstition. Here is the reason you dumb ass: The German nuclear energy project informally known as 'Uranium Society or Uranium Club', was an attempted clandestine scientific effort led by Germany to develop and produce atomic weapons during World War II. Now do you get the big picture you silly bunt?!
@@altobyy4855 : Do you know his “God letter” ? Written to the german philosopher Eric Gutkind the 9 january 1954. Einstein was “pissed of” because Gutkind “accused” him, Einstein, of being religious. He wrote - translated from german : all religions are incarnations of primitive/childish superstition. Call that words from a theist !
Einstein was using God as a Spirit of all things which is the correct way of viewing God. It is written that God is the spirit of all things. He understood the true God. Not the God of fake teachers of religions. Man does not understand that he did believe but in a way which was not common in those times. For false teachers taught of a man in the sky. When truly the bible teaches in a different way. It is man has defiled the true interpretations of the bible & ancient teachings. & Einstein seemed to understand this & see through it. He did not want people to think he believed as others believed in a false version of God as a person in the sky.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Buddha
Religion often looks to borrow an unearned credibility from science, but science never seeks to justify itself with religion-- science stands on its own merits.
Science exists, Religion exists in belief, God neither exists nor doesn’t anywhere but in belief.. bottom line is this.. Be good to each other, or your considered evil will punish you. Jesus was a control freak who got sick of being ripped off so separated good from evil and left that belief to fester and grow through eternity
My favorite Einstein quote regarding god and religion. He believed in a "Creator", NOT a personal God like that of Christianity or Islam... "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
"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.” These words were spoken by Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929
It's odd to me that Einstein's most telling comment on religion is not included in this video. In his autobiographical notes, written around age 67 he said, " Thus I came ---though the child of completely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic (orgy of) free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression." This according to his words engendered a life long mistrust of every kind of authority. This is quoted from a small book that was the closest Einstein ever came to writing an autobiography Thus to anyone who can read, Einstein's opinion on religion is clear and unmistakable..
In January of 1954, just a year before his death, Albert Einstein wrote the following letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind after reading his book, "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt," January 3rd 1954 "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition." That's good enough for me.
two more great things discovered about Einstein. he was not arrogant to believe 1 specie between millions represents god. and he didn't put a weight heavier in death that it has...no sensationalism, no sentimentalism, just a natural circle of trillions lives that lived on this planet.
I concur. It sounds like Richard Dawkins is narrating, always well spoken.
10 лет назад
Paul Barlow yes it does sound like dawkdawk- and they both do sound like self-inflating arrogant snot filled schnozzes about to blow. hard. me thinks.. ;)
@@BrainUser1 Evolution doesn't "mastermind" anything. Matter doesnt need to be pushed around by mind to do what it does. Matter is made of energy and energy is change, it is in constant flux, changing ftom one form to another, creating patternsbof any degree of complexity. Intelligence is a weak phenomenon, it is responsible for almost no action in the universe, it is strictly an animal trait. Like a small child you think the universe revolves sround your personal concerns.
Oh really, then why does it make theories about how the universe started without any proof of gods existence. Point proven. Religion is a science. Meaning science is bull shit.
Karo Kisa Religion casually ventured into questions that we now consider scientific.... So i guess you could split the difference and call religion, man's first naive attempt at science. You could call Religion a failed Science, i got no big problem with that.
Yes you could say that. Or you could say that religion is a successful science considering its theories of how life began cannot be proven wrong or right.
Karo Kisa No, the theories that cannot be proven wrong/right are not scientific at all! We can only call 'scientific' whatever theories can be proven wrong or right, otherwise it doesn't even qualify as Science. For example, lets say i theorize that all life was created by a giant dragon orbiting Pluto. Now, i cannot prove it right and you cannot prove me wrong can you? But still this doesn't make my dragon theory 'scientific' does it? ...it is exactly the same with god theory.
***** Yes in line with none judging moral one of buddhism, not like gnostic atheists knowing there is none, may godhaters of the likes of lucifer devotees. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)
Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. Einstein clarified that he was not anti-religious, preferring to call himself a "nonbeliever."
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.(Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954)
These people that deny God sound so negative like they almost live a shitty live. Just say you don't believe but don't imply people who do believe in God are weak and childish. The funny thing is the more Science advances, the more the so called "myths" of the bible are proven to have existed and thus deny the people that deny God.
tony montana Science shows the bible yo be wrong. This is the reason theists play on semantics. Richard Dawkins is an atheists and lives a full life. So is Steven Hawkins.Religious people look all right on the surface but many of them are totally screwed up which is not surprising since they tend to read the bible.
tony montana People who deny God? Which God? People believe in many Gods and the majority of people are non Christian. Also, skepticism is nowhere near as conclusive as denial, especially your own favorite brand of god-denial i.e. being a self confessed Christian. See, to be called a Christian if anything you have to conclusively deny 99.99% of all Gods in human culture, from the monkey god Hanuman to Einstein's blind spirit in the nature's laws, and guess what... that makes you a more hardened god denier than most skeptics.
+Richard McMillan worship "her"? Well, u seemingly do´nt know much of the issue, so u cannot explain the cellular processes within even the most simple microbe. There r some lies on self-creation of genome plus receptors the same time. It simple does´nt work at all. Organic materials r not able to build functional cells. There MUST be inteligence added, otherwise life does´nt come into existence.
+Richard McMillan +Richard McMillan worship "her"? Well, u seemingly do´nt know much of the issue, so u cannot explain the cellular processes within even the most simple microbe. There r some lies on self-creation of genome plus receptors the same time. It simple does´nt work at all. Organic materials r not able to build functional cells. There MUST be inteligence added, otherwise life does´nt come into existence.
Einstein did not believe in a creator god, or that the universe had an ultimate beginning at all-- he lived before the big Bang was generally accepted. The Big Bang is only the beginning of our own local universe, there may be other Big Bangs and other universes. Modern physics is more in harmony with concepts in Eastern thought about endless cycles. This upsets Creationists, who are trying to hijack Einstein into their ideology.
The disproportionate number of likes/dislikes to the overall number of views reveals how weary we are to "subscribe to" or completely disagree with Einstein's views of God as an orderly universe. People are simply unsure what they believe in, yet not ready to voice their uncertainty by something as small as clicking.
Most confuse Religion and Spirituality as the same thing, Religion was invented ,Spirituality always was and is..being religious doesn't necessarily mean one is living a Spiritual life...as Einstein himself pointed too, in that now famous note written in a Tokyo Hotel. in short.:"A calm and humble life is more valuable than a one based the pursuit of success"
“Agnostic” defined: Any person who holds the view that ultimate knowledge or reality (concerning God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who isn’t committed to a belief in either the existence or the nonexistence of God. Perhaps that best describes the view of Einstein.
I read Bhagavad-Gita as it is. very informative on the Supreme Absolute. For any true seeker no matter what affiliation, it is a real boon. Eternally fascinating.
Faith is mind-poison because it's about obstantly believing what one wishes to believe (i.e. wishful thinking) rather than being about what is believed. That is, it's about the stubborness of the believer and not about the vercity of what is believed. Some people believe true things, others false things, and others patently stupid, ridiculous things. To think it's a virtue to stubbornly continue to believe ideas regardless of the facts or lack thereof, is stupidity incarnate.
+LucisFerre1 Let's say you have a large room. It's fully enclosed and is about the size of a football field. The room is locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows, and no holes in its walls. Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed room that's pitch black inside. Then what happens? Well, let's say your goal is to get something -- anything at all -- into the room. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the room to do that. So what do you do? Well, you think, what if I try to create a spark inside the room? Then the room would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as something. Yes, but you are outside the room. So that's not allowed. But, you say, what if I could teleport something into the room, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowable, because you'd be using things from outside the room. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get something inside the room using only what's in the room. And, in this case, what's in the room is nothing. Well, you say, maybe a tiny particle of something will just show up inside the room if given enough time. There's three problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed room with absolutely nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them? The second problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty room? It would need a reason why it came to be. But there is nothing inside the room at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There would be nothing inside the room to cause something to show up (and yet the reason must come from inside the room). Well, you say, what about a tiny particle of something? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in the room than something larger like, for example, a football? That brings up the third problem: size. Like time, size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room? The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room. If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause! Now let's stretch our analogy further, literally. Let's take our large, pitch-black room and remove its walls. And let's extend the room so that it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now there is nothing outside the room, because the room is all there is. Period. This black infinite room has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing. So here's the question: if originally -- bazillions of years ago -- there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now? Yes. For something -- no matter how small -- cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. We would still have Absolutely Nothing. What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing! If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything. Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing. However, something exists. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, you are proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, that means there was always a time when there was at least Something in existence. What was it? Was it one thing or many things? Was it an atom? A particle? A molecule? A football? A mutant baseball? A refrigerator? Some cookies?
Slime GamingYT The reason your analogy is not-apt is because not only did energy (matter came later) have an origin, but so did time AND space. There was no "empty room", as space itself had an origin. Secondly, there is no such thing as an existent nothing. Nothing cannot exist, because 'nothing' is the opposite of existence. Third, there was no 'before' time or a place before space. The "nothing and then something" analogy is, to be frank, false. Another point. The net energy of the universe is zero. The net monentum of the universe is zero, which makes conservation laws of energy and momentum compatible with a spontaniously occuring universe. AND, the geometry of the universe is flat within 1%. This is not controversial news, which, again, suggests a spontaniously occuring universe. You should look up what Hawking says about a flat universe, and the no-boundries condition of time and space.
+LucisFerre1 u bend the law of conservation to support ur idea.... law clearly states that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but can only change forms .... ..in the light of this there got be something present that changed its state .... we also know that nothing can change its state on its own , still require something or anything to force or provide such conditions to change its state.... this law itself proves the presence of God.
ali raza Energy is created and destroyed all the time. That's not what the conservation of energy is about. The law of conservation of energy is about the total sum of energy of the universe remaining a constant. And it makes no sense to talk about states of matter or energy changing without cause when the subject is the origin of time and space, since "cause" in such a case would literally make no sense. There can't be a cause for the origin of time or space because that cause or Causer would need to pre-exist both time and space...which is gibberish.
