On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of
his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic
causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and
transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the
highest importance-but for us, not for God. "


In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not
share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature
and of our being."

In 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith



Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials,
acceptances, etc., again!

I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon,
catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great
flood, angels, jews, etc.

In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure =
logic = etc.

For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central
to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any
discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ...

You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions,
and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs!

Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of
them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you
develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ...

To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background
noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have
at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply
have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central
focus to it ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry