Searching for GOD...

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Einstein was a great physicist. He was not a historian or a literary critic. It's absurd to suggest a piece of fiction cannot "pulsate with every word" with the character of the protagonist. I suspect Einstein never read any good novels.

Einstein wasn't an oracle, he had unparalleled skills in one area of human endeavour but it does not follow that he was competent in every other.

Well old buddy I was searching for a witty and intelligent reply to your post and then I thought, who was my original post directed at, the wonderful Torridon

So let me reply by quoting another great man.

On the other hand there are precedents for the value in being an outsider.  Jesus was an outsider, in the context of his life.  Einstein was an outsider; had he been a regular german scientist with a tenured professorship he might never have made his great leaps of insight.  Of course mavericks and outsiders get sneered at by people in the in-crowd, that comes with the territory, but that might be jealousy speaking.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the great man talking about Our Lord.

George Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
Einstein: “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.”
George Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”
Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

Einstein was a great physicist. He was not a historian or a literary critic.

So he should have stuck to Physics, eh Jez?

He was entitled to talk about anything he liked. I was just pointing out that he was capable of saying things that were blatantly wrong, like this nonsense that Jesus personality pulsating through the gospels is means they are true.

Pity your crowd don't apply that to Stenger or Krauss or Carroll.

We do, but they don't tend to say stupid things about works of obvious fiction.

Einstein would have been better read and rounded and certainly not puffed up by self importance or arrogant enough to believe that they could remain ignorant of but expert in religion. Which is why I guess they will always be always be footnotes to Einstein.

That's probably what happens if you waste your time on antitheist showboating.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

Einstein was a great physicist. He was not a historian or a literary critic. It's absurd to suggest a piece of fiction cannot "pulsate with every word" with the character of the protagonist. I suspect Einstein never read any good novels.

Einstein wasn't an oracle, he had unparalleled skills in one area of human endeavour but it does not follow that he was competent in every other.

Well old buddy I was searching for a witty and intelligent reply to your post and then I thought, who was my original post directed at, the wonderful Torridon

So let me reply by quoting another great man.

On the other hand there are precedents for the value in being an outsider.  Jesus was an outsider, in the context of his life.  Einstein was an outsider; had he been a regular german scientist with a tenured professorship he might never have made his great leaps of insight.  Of course mavericks and outsiders get sneered at by people in the in-crowd, that comes with the territory, but that might be jealousy speaking.

Gonnagle.

What is your point? That I m jealous of Einstein so I pt him down?

I do not put him down when it comes to physics. In fact, I didn't put him down at all, I merely pointed out that his pronouncements on the validity of the gospels were nonsensical.

Incidentally, Einstein was not an outsider in physics. His ideas were accepted pretty rapidly, mainly because everybody was concerned about the problem of the speed of light.

Also, the main reason why mavericks get sneered at is because they are usually wrong.

[jeremyp]

Einstein would have been better read and rounded and certainly not puffed up by self importance or arrogant enough to believe that they could remain ignorant of but expert in religion.

Would he? What evidence do you have for that assertion? I would be surprised if Einstein was particularly well read outside of physics. In fact his ignorant comments on the gospels show he was not even as well read as I am in that department.

Which is why I guess they will always be always be footnotes to Einstein.

No, they will be footnotes to Einstein because he made some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.

[Shaker]

I don't know. Do you have to kill people to seriously demean and marginalise them?

How is 'you should have only the same rights and opportunities as everyone else' an attempt to demean and marginalise?

O.

I don't think you've been following the antics of Doctor Dawkins lately, have you.

Yes. I don't think you've been listening to what he's saying, but rather to what you'd imagine he means - that says more about you than him.

O.

You're forgetting that Vlad is very big on arguing against what he thinks someone has said rather than what they actually have said/did say. Examples are not scarce.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

I do not put him down when it comes to physics. In fact, I didn't put him down at all, I merely pointed out that his pronouncements on the validity of the gospels were nonsensical.

Really, what was it you suspected, and your suspects were based on.

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

And if there is some grand single divine truth underlying our existence along the lines that you believe in, then there is no hurry, as in your belief system, this life is but an insignificant blink of an eye and our resurrected selves will find out the truth anyhow in the eternal afterlife. So resist the temptation to frighten people into your way of thinking Alan, its not a reputable strategy to needlessly play on peoples hopes and fears in that way.

You seem to be trivialising the whole purpose of our existence in this world.  Our human lifetime may well be compared to the blink of an eye, but its importance should not be overlooked.  I firmly believe we are here for a purpose, as revealed to us in the revelations of the New Testament.

I'm not sure that we have a 'purpose' in this world.  Does a ring tailed lemur have a purpose in this world ? how about a great crested grebe ? You might see some transcendental purpose but that is not born of evidence, that is just a belief from within your faith position.  If you want to convince people of non-faith you'll not get far unless you can point to some verifiable evidence. And to be honest, I don't think there ever can be any evidence in support of beliefs that so profoundly transcend our human experience. We could not possibly know of realities that lie beyond our abilities to detect and therefore all ideas founded upon 'supernatural' or 'immaterial' premises cannot by definition be anything other than conjecture, speculation, or imagination. That we might see 'purpose' out there, is a projection of our psychological needs onto some unknowable and unfalsifiable canvas.  It might suit us to think that way, but there is no real justification for it.

[Shaker]

I'm not sure that we have a 'purpose' in this world.  Does a ring tailed lemur have a purpose in this world ? how about a great crested grebe ? You might see some transcendental purpose but that is not born of evidence, that is just a belief from within your faith position.  If you want to convince people of non-faith you'll not get far unless you can point to some verifiable evidence. And to be honest, I don't think there ever can be any evidence in support of beliefs that so profoundly transcend our human experience. We could not possibly know of realities that lie beyond our abilities to detect and therefore all ideas founded upon 'supernatural' or 'immaterial' premises cannot by definition be anything other than conjecture, speculation, or imagination. That we might see 'purpose' out there, is a projection of our psychological needs onto some unknowable and unfalsifiable canvas.  It might suit us to think that way, but there is no real justification for it.

I've been nearly a month away and I come back to find torridon as brilliant as ever.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Shaker,
What, you think he would have dimmed a bit in that brief time? A month is nothing, it would be something if he wasn't the same as ever. So we are all just as you left us a little bit ago, big deal. I still don't have any grey hairs, but it's only been a few short weeks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know. Do you have to kill people to seriously demean and marginalise them?

How is 'you should have only the same rights and opportunities as everyone else' an attempt to demean and marginalise?

O.

I don't think you've been following the antics of Doctor Dawkins lately, have you.

Yes. I don't think you've been listening to what he's saying, but rather to what you'd imagine he means - that says more about you than him.

O.

You're forgetting that Vlad is very big on arguing against what he thinks someone has said rather than what they actually have said/did say. Examples are not scarce.

Shaker let me be your forum philosophical equivalent of a busty Swedish nurse who pushes you around in the wheelchair of common sense wrapped in the tartan blanket of incisive comment.

Believe me I have the boobs for it and a shirt with the buttons missing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners et al,

Just to note that there's not been much clarification here of whether we're referring to Jesus the man or to Jesus the demi-god.

Re the Jesus the man I'm fairly relaxed about the idea that there was either one such (or several such whose stories were amalgamated), much as stories about King Arthur or Robin Hood may have been based on one or more real people whose stories were later embellished. As I understand it the absence of anything more verifiable means that historians will by and large treat folkloric stories about "Jesus" accordingly, ie: "Yeah maybe but nowhere near enough to satisfy the basic tests of historicity".

This was I suspect the Jesus to which Einstein was referring. Certainly there's no evidence that he was referring to the divine version.   

The moment though you try to sneak under the wire Jesus the demi-god then all bets are off - the total absence of any kind of meaningful evidence for him/it means that historians must rightly treat such stories as they do stories about Aladdin or Jack Frost.

I suspect that Vlad's faux indignation is an attempt to elide the latter into the former - "isn't is shocking that 40% of people don't accept the fantastical version?" - but no doubt that, in the vanishingly unlikely event that he finally chooses to answer a question, he'll tell us.         
   

[Shaker]

Shaker,
What, you think he would have dimmed a bit in that brief time?

Not at all; it was simply an expression of great pleasure at being reminded as to the reasons why one of the forum's best posters is one of the forum's best posters.

So we are all just as you left us a little bit ago, big deal.

Yes indeed - Vlad is as boring and as unfunny as ever, Hopeless is still flogging the bollocks off the negative proof fallacy at every possible opportunity. So it goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gonners et al,

Just to note that there's not been much clarification here of whether we're referring to Jesus the man or to Jesus the demi-god.

Re the Jesus the man I'm fairly relaxed about the idea that there was either one such (or several such whose stories were amalgamated), much as stories about King Arthur or Robin Hood may have been based on one or more real people whose stories were later embellished. As I understand it the absence of anything more verifiable means that historians will by and large treat folkloric stories about "Jesus" accordingly: ie, "Yeah maybe but nowhere near enough to satisfy the basic tests of historicity".

This was I suspect the Jesus to which Einstein was referring. Certainly there's no evidence that he was referring to the divine version.   

The moment though you try to sneak under the wire Jesus the demi-god then all bets are off - the total absence of any kind of meaningful evidence for him/it means that historians must rightly treat such stories as they do stories about Aladdin or Jack Frost.

I suspect that Vlad's faux indignation is an attempt to elide the latter into the former - "isn't is shocking that 40% of people don't accept the fantastical version?" - but no doubt that, in the vanishingly unlikely event that he finally chooses to answer a question, he'll tell us.         
   

Where have all the leprechauns gone?.........Long time passin'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlderinglydull,

Where have all the leprechauns gone?.........Long time passin'

Bless. So which version is upsetting you - that 40% think that Jesus the man wasn't real, or that 40% think that Jesus the man-god wasn't real?

[ekim]

We could not possibly know of realities that lie beyond our abilities to detect and therefore all ideas founded upon 'supernatural' or 'immaterial' premises cannot by definition be anything other than conjecture, speculation, or imagination

On the other hand, by improving our 'abilities to detect' , what is now only a possibility could become a reality.  In the context of this thread's topic 'Searching for God' the method for improving 'the search' gets lost in the mind's inclination to speculate, imagine, conceptualise and believe/disbelieve.

[Rhiannon]

Vlderinglydull,

Where have all the leprechauns gone?.........Long time passin'

Bless. So which version is upsetting you - that 40% think that Jesus the man wasn't real, or that 40% think that Jesus the man-god wasn't real?

If we forget leprechauns for a bit, what about other deities? How come Jesus but not Bran the Blessed, whose head is buried at the Tower of London and whose Ravens still keep our country safe?

Or what about this historical chap?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliesin

Interesting birth narrative here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceridwen

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi,

If we forget leprechauns for a bit, what about other deities? How come Jesus but not Bran the Blessed, whose head is buried at the Tower of London and whose Ravens still keep our country safe?

Or what about this historical chap?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliesin

Interesting birth narrative here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceridwen

I see character like these, Robin Hood, King Arthur etc as useful place markers for Jesus the man: possibly based on a real person or persons, flimsy evidence heavily embellished since but not enough to satisfy the the tests of historicity etc.

Leprechauns on the other hand are only useful as place markers for Jesus the man-god. It doesn't matter which suite of magical properties you throw in to the mix; if you want to discuss magic beings in general then analogies can be useful if only to point up the inadequacy of arguments that lead equally to either faith belief.   

[Alan Burns]

I'm not sure that we have a 'purpose' in this world.  Does a ring tailed lemur have a purpose in this world ? how about a great crested grebe ? You might see some transcendental purpose but that is not born of evidence, that is just a belief from within your faith position.  If you want to convince people of non-faith you'll not get far unless you can point to some verifiable evidence. And to be honest, I don't think there ever can be any evidence in support of beliefs that so profoundly transcend our human experience. We could not possibly know of realities that lie beyond our abilities to detect and therefore all ideas founded upon 'supernatural' or 'immaterial' premises cannot by definition be anything other than conjecture, speculation, or imagination. That we might see 'purpose' out there, is a projection of our psychological needs onto some unknowable and unfalsifiable canvas.  It might suit us to think that way, but there is no real justification for it.

So in a Godless universe there can be no purpose in anything.  Everything is just a consequence that happens.  There is no free will - the only thing in control is the laws of science.

But ...
Did the finely tuned conditions of the early universe exist to enable the stars and planets to form?
Does light exist to illuminate?
Do colours exist to enhance perception?
Does sound exist to be heard?
Does gravity exist to enable the universe to function?
Did a specific series of events occur about 3 billion years ago to bring life into existence?
Does our self awareness have a purpose?
Does our perceived free will have a purpose?

Are we so surrounded by God's wonderful creation that we just take it all for granted?

Lord, open our eyes that we may see!

[Outrider]

So in a Godless universe there can be no purpose in anything.

No. We're conscious agents, we can instill purpose, but that purpose is after the fact.

Everything is just a consequence that happens.  There is no free will - the only thing in control is the laws of science.

That seems likely, yes.

Did the finely tuned conditions of the early universe exist to enable the stars and planets to form?

Who says that it's finely tuned? What other options are there for those particular values? How many universes are there out there with different values? Even if it is a fantastic coincidence... so what?

Does light exist to illuminate?

Or have we evolved to take advantage of illumination?

Do colours exist to enhance perception?

Or have the mutations to develop the capacity to distinguish wavelengths of electro-magnetic radiation given a competitive advantage?

Does sound exist to be heard?

Or have we evolved hearing to take advantage of sound?

Does gravity exist to enable the universe to function?

Or has this particular universe developed as it has because of gravity?

Did a specific series of events occur about 3 billion years ago to bring life into existence?

Did those events not occur on billions upon billions of other planets around billions of stars in billions of galaxies?

Does our self awareness have a purpose?

Not that we're aware of.

Does our perceived free will have a purpose?

Given that it seems unlikely that it exists, that's rather a moot point. If it does exist then, like self-awareness, there's no evidence that it serves a particular purpose.

Are we so surrounded by God's wonderful creation that we just take it all for granted?

Or are we so self-important that we invent gods to make us feel special amongst the wonder of the natural universe?

Lord, open our eyes that we may see!

Don't ask someone else to open your eyes for you, open them for yourself and look around.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to note that the part of the electromagnetic spectrum we can detect with the human eye as visible light is actually very small – somewhere in the range of 400nm to 700nm, so the great majority of information on that spectrum isn’t there for us to see, listen to etc at all.

Ironically the best explanation for this is that water blocks all but two small parts of the EM spectrum, and so our limitations are another clue to the ancestors from which we evolved living in the oceans.

I short, your whole post is backwards: the universe isn’t designed for us; instead we evolved to fit the bits of the universe that are useful.

[Outrider]

I short, your whole post is backwards: the universe isn’t designed for us; instead we evolved to fit the bits of the universe that are useful.

Or possibly, even, we describe as 'useful' those parts of the universe that we have evolved to use.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just to note that the part of the electromagnetic spectrum we can detect with the human eye as visible light is actually very small – somewhere in the range of 400nm to 700nm, so the great majority of information on that spectrum isn’t there for us to see, listen to etc at all.

Ironically the best explanation for this is that water blocks all but two small parts of the EM spectrum, and so our limitations are another clue to the ancestors from which we evolved living in the oceans.

I short, your whole post is backwards: the universe isn’t designed for us; instead we evolved to fit the bits of the universe that are useful.

But you could deduce that the universe was designed to be used.

Providing a scientific explanaton for how something works does not in itself deny that it has a purpose.  A motor car functions according to the laws of science, but it has a purpose.

[Outrider]

But you could deduce that the universe was designed to be used.

It's a possibility. All you need to do is provide evidence for that designer. Until then, Occam's Razor neatly keeps that stubble out of the way.

Providing a scientific explanaton for how something works does not in itself deny that it has a purpose.

No. Claiming a creator a) doesn't in itself mean there's a creator, and b) doesn't mean that any particular thing has a purpose.

A motor car functions according to the laws of science, but it has a purpose.

And we have independent evidence for their designers. And we also have the fact that people put cars to use that aren't their original 'purpose'

http://funnyartpictures.com/02custom-cars/funny-used-cars1-5.htm

O.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you could deduce that the universe was designed to be used.

You could also conclude that the sun orbits the earth. In both cases though you’d need an astonishing amount of solipsism to decide that the universe fits little old you rather than the other way around, you’d have to pouffe into existence a hugely complex “something” to do the designing, and you might want to reflect too on why this something built in so much redundancy given how little of the information the universe has to offer we can access.   

Providing a scientific explanaton for how something works does not in itself deny that it has a purpose.  A motor car functions according to the laws of science, but it has a purpose.

Oh dear – Paley’s watch again. Of course a car has purpose – because people design and build it for that purpose. What you’re attempting though is a false analogy – “complex thing A (the car) has a purpose, therefore complex thing B (the universe) must have a purpose too” despite all the evidence being to the contrary. It’s child-like thinking – much as a six-year-old who walks into a tree will say, “that branch hit me”: he supposes both that the tree has deliberate agency and that he is the focus of its attentions.

Odd to see it in an adult, but there it is.   

[Enki]

Alan Burn's whole post(5124) reminded me amusingly of  Ray Comfort's 'atheist's nightmare' . For those who have not seen it, it is certainly worth a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I