Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.
Nope.
It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.
Nope. Everybody who is stating, that there is something like a god has to bring proof.
Many excellent scientists believe in God and many do not. They are not mutually exclusuve. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.QuoteWrong.
May be a stupid question but what is a default state if there is no possible comparison ?
As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?
3) Because he was asked this question so often he sometimes resorted to using the term "agnostic" just to avoid having to explain to the many shallow thinkers the subtleties of his beliefs which seem to elude those who are unable to grasp that one can believe in God without believing in an anthropomorphic god.
He did not really like the term agnostic either since many, like you chose to define it narrowly. It simply served a purpose.
I believed space was related to dimensions and dimensions were related to universe.
So, there was something before the universe ? Where does it really start ?
Sorry to insist, but these questions have always puzzled me ...
ALL mass religions create power structures that have an effect on governments and therefore on the non-participants. They must therefore be debunked. Vigorously.
If we accept that time is a dimension that collapses to a singularity at the big bang we can change the question from "what was before the universe" to "what's outside the universe".
The answer is, "we don't know"
ALL mass religions create power structures that have an effect on governments and therefore on the non-participants. They must therefore be debunked. Vigorously.
I have read:
The blind watchmaker
Selfish gene
The greatest show on earth
On the origin of species
As well as many other studies which have been references in these books. After a few years it all makes sense.
“…Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information… On the bank of the Oxford canal...is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air...It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth…”
Quote“…Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information… On the bank of the Oxford canal...is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air...It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth…”
Do you have a problem with the reductionism? He's talking about DNA as digital information (A-T, C-G), which when expressed in an organism executes like a series of instructions; a program. It's metaphor.
So much crap - so little time.
I wasn't going to get involved in this absurd little rant, but seeing you have put in such an effort....
Ah ... here is your greatest fail. The (I need to get the upper hand) character assassination.
Not that you deserve it - but I'll clear this up for you... Yes, I have an opinion and I will air it on occasions. But here is a little fact that you have not bothered researching ... if I have been wrong about something - whether by being shown or having discovered myself - I have freely admitted it AND apologised. You can even find examples here on the EEVblog forum.
I would like to suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment - but I would be rather surprised if you did.
We all make small mistakes that we don’t even realize, but one doesn’t need to feel embarrassed about it.
Let me give you an example. You say “..a little fact that you have not bothered researching..”, you see that was not the best choice of words, it sounds like you think that you and facts about you are a topic of research, it gives the impression that you are feeling all self important, superior, you see what I mean?
But you don’t need to be embarrassed about it, I’m sure it was just a poor choice of words, I’ll assume English is not your first language (as I would assume for many of us is not)
So, I’m not offended, I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, feel free to contribute to the discussion if you have more to say besides ‘much crap’.
Could you please point out where I’ve embarrassed myself. I am really curios.
Q.E.D.
I don't see your point
I don't see your point
That is the point.
Time to move on. You've been fed more than enough.
I don’t like or understand why you have to discuss topics like religion, this is electronics channel, so please keep to electronics, you will offend people regardless of your beliefs.
In the end science cannot prove or disprove God. Everyone is free to believe what they want.
Time to move on. You've been fed more than enough.If anything, this only serves to prove my point, here I am ... listening... and you have nothing to say.