- This topic is empty.
- Posts
From: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm
“This apocryphal tale of a young Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004.
The claim that cold “doesn't exist” due to the fact that the laws of physics say it's merely “the absence of heat” is semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in “the cold,” is not to assert that cold “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative temperature of things.
The same applies to light (in this context a noun), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's dark outside,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of light in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the dark” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first. The young Einstein would have known better; so would his professor. “
Another false analogy, t8. You are the specialist at that.
When you said this is not about Albert Einstein, presumably you were acknowledging that someone has appealed to Einstein's authority in a way that misrepresents him, and that of course constitutes the appeal to authority because many would not necessarily have the language skill to see through the false analogy.
So you too join the legions who lie for their god, t8. Does the ninth commandment not give you cause for concern? Does your god tell you that lies in his favour are OK?
I suppose the other purpose in posting this video could be for you to announce your conversion away from god belief, in which case I retract the above, welcome you to reality, and pay tribute to your sense of irony.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2011,22:42) From: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm “This apocryphal tale of a young Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004.
The claim that cold “doesn't exist” due to the fact that the laws of physics say it's merely “the absence of heat” is semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in “the cold,” is not to assert that cold “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative temperature of things.
The same applies to light (in this context a noun), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's dark outside,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of light in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the dark” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first. The young Einstein would have known better; so would his professor. “
Another false analogy, t8. You are the specialist at that.
When you said this is not about Albert Einstein, presumably you were acknowledging that someone has appealed to Einstein's authority in a way that misrepresents him, and that of course constitutes the appeal to authority because many would not necessarily have the language skill to see through the false analogy.
So you too join the legions who lie for their god, t8. Does the ninth commandment not give you cause for concern? Does your god tell you that lies in his favour are OK?
I suppose the other purpose in posting this video could be for you to announce your conversion away from god belief, in which case I retract the above, welcome you to reality, and pay tribute to your sense of irony.
Stuart
The claim that evil “doesn't exist” is due to the fact that the laws of Spirituality say it's merely “the absence of Good” is semantic game-playing. Good is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Evil is an adjective, a description. To say that something is Evil, or that we feel Evil, or even that we're going out to “be evil,” is not to assert that evil “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative balance of things.The same applies to God (in this context a noun), and Satan(advesary) (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's Satan,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of God in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the Satan” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination(awareness of God present) we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit Good and Evil (or God and Satan) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:36) You see that Stu an Atheist is Satanic simply becase he is without God
I think you will find satanism is not atheism.Stuart
Quote (princess @ Mar. 31 2011,13:32) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Indeed. Good on you for representing Einstein accurately.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:35) The claim that evil “doesn't exist” is due to the fact that the laws of Spirituality say it's merely “the absence of Good” is semantic game-playing. Good is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Evil is an adjective, a description. To say that something is Evil, or that we feel Evil, or even that we're going out to “be evil,” is not to assert that evil “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative balance of things. The same applies to God (in this context a noun), and Satan(advesary) (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's Satan,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of God in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the Satan” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination(awareness of God present) we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit Good and Evil (or God and Satan) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
So satan is an adjective. That might come as news to god-deluded people here.Your parlour trick is the semantic one of playing merry hell with definitions.
Stuart
I'm sure the prophets never new that light cannot travel fast enough to over come the Darkness?
as a small child looking up, I thought the whole of the sky I saw covered the whole earth., it was easy to believe that all the nations on earth would see Jesus coming on cloud's.Now Jesus needs to be huge, we might only see his feet down here because he'll be yelling at someone in the dark up yonder! lol
enjoyed that thanks t8
Quote (charity @ Mar. 31 2011,21:04) I'm sure the prophets never new that light cannot travel fast enough to over come the Darkness?
as a small child looking up, I thought the whole of the sky I saw covered the whole earth., it was easy to believe that all the nations on earth would see Jesus coming on cloud's.Now Jesus needs to be huge, we might only see his feet down here because he'll be yelling at someone in the dark up yonder! lol
enjoyed that thanks t8
Maybe it is just Jesus's feet that were really enormous.That might help to explain the walking on water thing. Jesus was a giant catamaran.
Stuart
Just waiting for someone to claim that Jesus is a verb.
Then I shall cringe on that person's behalf.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:48) Quote (princess @ Mar. 31 2011,13:32) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Indeed. Good on you for representing Einstein accurately.Stuart
Stuart,You are familiar with Spinoza's God?
Quote (princess @ Mar. 31 2011,13:32) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
That makes no sense, what about dischord in existence?Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:36) You see that Stu an Atheist is Satanic simply becase he is without God
I think you will find satanism is not atheism.Stuart
Yes, Satanism is the position of being an advesary against that which is God, if someone is without God(A-theist) they are Satanic.Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:35) The claim that evil “doesn't exist” is due to the fact that the laws of Spirituality say it's merely “the absence of Good” is semantic game-playing. Good is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Evil is an adjective, a description. To say that something is Evil, or that we feel Evil, or even that we're going out to “be evil,” is not to assert that evil “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative balance of things. The same applies to God (in this context a noun), and Satan(advesary) (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's Satan,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of God in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the Satan” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination(awareness of God present) we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit Good and Evil (or God and Satan) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
So satan is an adjective. That might come as news to god-deluded people here.Your parlour trick is the semantic one of playing merry hell with definitions.
Stuart
The Adjective “Satan” describes the Noun “Atheist “Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:07) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:36) You see that Stu an Atheist is Satanic simply becase he is without God
I think you will find satanism is not atheism.Stuart
Yes, Satanism is the position of being an advesary against that which is God, if someone is without God(A-theist) they are Satanic.
If you are without something then that is different from being against something. I am not against things that do not exist, like your god.I am opposed to the immorality of your god concept, but that is not an acknowledgment that it is anything more than an idea in your head.
What do you call someone who is an adversary of a nasty idea? That I will acknowledge!
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:06) Quote (princess @ Mar. 31 2011,13:32) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
That makes no sense, what about dischord in existence?
You must understand a little about Einstein's attitude to models of physical principles. Despite revolutionising physics he was a traditionalist and had a kind of view that if you could not explain something simply and clearly then your explanation was not a very good candidate for a scientific theory. He was not a fan of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and thought the inability to know both position and speed was just a function of experimental errors and the like, not a fundamental principle of the universe. So to him discordance was really the just invisibility of the underlining concordance.Spinoza's god made sense to him because it aligned metaphorically with his view of how the universe is.
Stuart
Quote (princess @ April 01 2011,00:37) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:48) Quote (princess @ Mar. 31 2011,13:32) I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Indeed. Good on you for representing Einstein accurately.Stuart
Stuart,You are familiar with Spinoza's God?
To some extent. Einstein used the term enigmatically and Hawking uses it in gentle mockery.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:09) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:35) The claim that evil “doesn't exist” is due to the fact that the laws of Spirituality say it's merely “the absence of Good” is semantic game-playing. Good is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Evil is an adjective, a description. To say that something is Evil, or that we feel Evil, or even that we're going out to “be evil,” is not to assert that evil “exists.” It's simply to describe the relative balance of things. The same applies to God (in this context a noun), and Satan(advesary) (an adjective). It's true that when we say, “It's Satan,” what we're actually describing is a relative absence of God in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of “the Satan” we're mistaking it for a thing that “exists.” We're merely describing the degree of illumination(awareness of God present) we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit Good and Evil (or God and Satan) as a pair of opposite entities, only to “reveal” that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
So satan is an adjective. That might come as news to god-deluded people here.Your parlour trick is the semantic one of playing merry hell with definitions.
Stuart
The Adjective “Satan” describes the Noun “Atheist “
hi there…..but the atheist doesn't believe in satan? an satan believes in God, there simply would not be a bible theme if no enemies are created!but here;s to the battles over Israel an Jerusalem, I don't really think the nz atheist are responsible for that?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
