Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: "walstib77" <buckeyedaddy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Oct 2005 07:05:56 -0700
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> walstib77 <buckeyedaddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> rich hammett <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Min? suojelen sinua kaikelta, mit? ikin? keksitkin sanoa, aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >> >> walstib77 <buckeyedaddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>> Einstein even believed. From the E. Britannica:
> >> >>> [quote]
> >> >>> 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.
> >> >
> >> >> Of course Einstein was completely wrong on this one.
> >> >
> >> > He was not. The people who try to pretend that the word "God"
> >> > in "Spinoza's God" has ANY connection at all to, say, any
> >> > Abrahamic conception of a god are the ones who are completely
> >> > wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Einstien's God was a force of nature, not a personal, intelligent
> >> > being.
> >>
> >> Dude.. he was wrong. Either god does "play dice with the universe" or there
> >> is no god - because Einstein has been shown to be completely wrong about
> >> quantum dynamics and the uncertainty principle.
> >
> > While Einstein may have been wrong, I don;t see how his erroneous
> > statrement can be used as a logical basis for your assertion.
>
> From Einstein frame of reference (god doesn't play dice) the assertion is
> completely logical - either god does play dice, or he doesn't exist -
> because what Einstein was arguing against with his comment has been shown to
> be true.
So you're taking Einstein's error and building a logical argument from
it?
Hence my saying its illogical.
There is little point in building a proof from a known error.
> > Our perspective that there is an uncertainty any time we involve
> > ourselves in trying to measure something does not mean that God must
> > either be "playing dice" or he doesn't exist.
>
> It isn't our "perspective" that there is an uncertainty any time we involve
> ourselves in trying to measure something - it is physical reality.
You have *faith* in that. Science tells s not that is is *true*, but
rather that it is what we deem *likely*.
I'm not at all arguing against the value of Heisenberg's, Bohr's, and
Plank's work; rather, I am trying to point out that you are using a
mentality of faith that is inconsistent with the most basic tenet of
the scientific method.
You want to knock me for saying I *know* God exists, you better watch
how you apply the scientific method, amigo.
I've done a few labs in my day. And I ain't talkin' about doggies.
;^}
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: aborgman
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- References:
- Something for the Fundies...
- From: Daniel Seriff
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: Daniel Seriff
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: walstib77
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: rich hammett
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: aborgman
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: walstib77
- Re: Something for the Fundies...
- From: aborgman
- Something for the Fundies...
- Prev by Date: Re: Something for the Fundies...
- Next by Date: Re: William Bennett, Republican Virtue Meister
- Previous by thread: Re: Something for the Fundies...
- Next by thread: Re: Something for the Fundies...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|