Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

The God of Abraham is the God the Jews worshipped: the single Creator and sustainer of the universe.

Einstein did not believe in that God, but he believed in some kind of God and truly resented being cited by atheists as one of their own as the following quote proves.

"There are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."

So you only mentioned Einstein to annoy the atheists- funny.

"God is the result of human weakness", Einstein..

So it's this sort of god you want to discuss is it?

SO here is a start to your definition:

"The God of Abraham is the God the Jews worshipped: the single Creator and sustainer of the universe."

Where did the Jews get the idea for this entity?

I think it was Einstein who wanted to annoy the atheists because they had abused him.
Are you annoyed by Einstein?

No, but I think you should be because he did not believe in god as you characterise the idea.

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

"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."

There is nothing here inconsistent with the God of Abraham as defined in the Book of Genesis, that God being the author of all creation. Yet Einstein at first fought the Big Bang theory, seemingly because it made him uncomfortable to see that when God said "Let there be light" this was the God of Abraham speaking.

[Charlemagne]

Below I refer some of you to an earlier post that some of you seem to have forgotten or never read.

Carl Sagan, Atheist Astronomer

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis 1:3 "Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

Robert Jastrow, Astronomer

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

[Sculptor1]

So you only mentioned Einstein to annoy the atheists- funny.

"God is the result of human weakness", Einstein..

So it's this sort of god you want to discuss is it?

SO here is a start to your definition:

"The God of Abraham is the God the Jews worshipped: the single Creator and sustainer of the universe."

Where did the Jews get the idea for this entity?

I think it was Einstein who wanted to annoy the atheists because they had abused him.
Are you annoyed by Einstein?

No, but I think you should be because he did not believe in god as you characterise the idea.

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

"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."

There is nothing here inconsistent with the God of Abraham as defined in the Book of Genesis, that God being the author of all creation. Yet Einstein at first fought the Big Bang theory, seemingly because it made him uncomfortable to see that when God said "Let there be light" this was the God of Abraham speaking.

You are fooling yourself.
Moses talked to god.
God literally handed him tablets,

Einstein's God is the god of Spinoza, not a person. No a god you can talk to . Not a god that can give you tablets.
Einstein's "god" is the order of the universe; deterministic; devoid of need, want or volition.

[Sculptor1]

Below I refer some of you to an earlier post that some of you seem to have forgotten or never read.....

And, of course, Einstein/Spinoza's God is not the god of Abraham, definitely not the god of the Jews.
There is a very good reason Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jewish authorities for his PROOF of God.

[Charlemagne]

It's true that Einstein's God is not a God you can talk to. But he is a God who metaphorically "authored" the universe, and Einstein regarded that as the way we should think about God.

Einstein's God is a far cry from the atheist's Nogod, as Einstein angrily noted.

[Charlemagne]

Charles Darwin, Biologist
From his Autobiography

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

[Charlemagne]

Steven Weinberg, Physicist, Nobel Prize

"It seems to me that if the word "God" is to be of any use, it should be taken to mean an interested God, a creator and lawgiver who has established not only the laws of nature and the universe but also standards of good and evil, some personality that is concerned with our actions, something in short that is appropriate for us to worship. This is the God that has mattered to men and women throughout history."

Weinberg is clearly reaching farther than Einstein could reach into the idea of a personal God, specifically the God of Abraham.

[Charlemagne]

Steven Weinberg, by the way, unlike Einstein was an atheist.

[Charlemagne]

ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER Nobel Laureate in Physics:

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends tor answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

Here Scrodinger is identifying a world that is outside of science yet no less needing to be explained. Explanations must exist, but if science cannot provide them, only philosophy or religion can. This feeds into the thought that if science cannot provide solutions, it is possible that the God of Abraham can.

[Charlemagne]

Another endorsement of the God of Abraham.

Richard Smalley, Chemist, Nobel Prize

“Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.”

[Count Lucanor]

This is not the same as another thread here with a similar title

I can see why atheists would regard so many gods as impossible . I also regard them as impossible. What I'd like to know is whether they regard the God of Abraham as equally impossible, since that God has proven to have considerably more historical staying power.

Your thoughts?

That statement: "...since that God has proven to have considerably more historical staying power" is to be translated as: "...since the narrative about that hypothetical god has proven to have considerably more historical staying power". Of course, the "historical staying power" of a story says nothing about the truthfulness of its content.

BTW, the god of a mythical character is most likely mythical, too.

[LuckyR]

The way that I interpret the word impossible is not merely that a thing is not real, but that it cannot be real in any and all possible circumstances. Thus it is not sufficient to prove something is not real to find it as impossible.

Thus for me, the Christian god is both not real and not impossible. Not unlike Santa, or magic.

So you are implying here that Santa is not impossible.
Trouble is that you could mean anything by Santa.
If you insist that there is a being that can follow the night around the planet visiting every single home to give children a gift and manages to come down a chimney pot despite his obvious girth, then you would have to admit that is impossible within the constraints of physics.
So surely a clear definition of that is meant be TGodofA, might be a good place to start?

Well, Santa goes by the moniker of Jolly ol St Nick. Was there a St Nicholas? But wait a minute, doesn't Santa fly around the world and go down chimneys? That's a story ABOUT Santa but ISN'T Santa. Just as Marie Antoinette was a REAL person even though the STORY of her saying "let them eat cake" is not real.

All accounts of Santa are "about" Santa, as all accounts of god are about god. What's your point?
It is by such stories that such entities are defined.

What? So if I claim to fly around the world and drop down chimneys, I cease to exist? Or am I a real person who exagerates or lies or is a victim of fraud?

[Sculptor1]

So you are implying here that Santa is not impossible.
Trouble is that you could mean anything by Santa.
If you insist that there is a being that can follow the night around the planet visiting every single home to give children a gift and manages to come down a chimney pot despite his obvious girth, then you would have to admit that is impossible within the constraints of physics.
So surely a clear definition of that is meant be TGodofA, might be a good place to start?

Well, Santa goes by the moniker of Jolly ol St Nick. Was there a St Nicholas? But wait a minute, doesn't Santa fly around the world and go down chimneys? That's a story ABOUT Santa but ISN'T Santa. Just as Marie Antoinette was a REAL person even though the STORY of her saying "let them eat cake" is not real.

All accounts of Santa are "about" Santa, as all accounts of god are about god. What's your point?
It is by such stories that such entities are defined.

What? So if I claim to fly around the world and drop down chimneys, I cease to exist? Or am I a real person who exagerates or lies or is a victim of fraud?

Wow great strawman.
Not that your question is relevant but..
To answer your question, you are a nutter.

I do not see Santa or God making their own claims.

[Sculptor1]

Charles Darwin, Biologist
From his Autobiography

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Darwin shunned the God of Abraham and refused to enter a church as a mature man, to the horror of his wife and family.
He fully rejected your god.

[Sculptor1]

Charles Darwin, Biologist
From his Autobiography

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Some things to consider

1. Quoting another person does not help you make a case.

2. Falsely quoting a passage just makes you look like a dickhead.

3. Desperate theists are in the business of faking quotes and idiots are in the business of repeating them.

This quote is not from Charles Darwin's autobiogrphy

In it he uses the word "theist" once. THe passage you quote is not present.

About Lyell he said "...He was very kind-hearted, and thoroughly liberal in his religious beliefs, or rather disbeliefs; but he was a strong theist. His candour was highly remarkable. He exhibited this by becoming a convert to the Descent theory, ..."

Believe me or not. But CHECK THE EVIDENCE for yourself.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20 ... mages.html

The only mention of God is when he prayed at school, and in the phrase "God save the King"

Your quote is NOT from his biography at all, but from the 2nd edition of the Origin of Species.

The following passage which is omitted follows from your quote.

"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

As you will no doubt have understood, he regarded Theism as the thinking of a child which mature monkeys "throw off" as they mature.