On 6/6/2011 1:52 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
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 made no personal statement of belief at all.

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


On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues.

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


That would be your belief system I take it.

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 ...


I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of
Albert Einstein, I merely reported them.

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


I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing
biblical issues.

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 ...


You are projecting I fear.

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 ...

Me thinks you do protest too much.

Keith



Personal opinion, beliefs, fantasies, off the wall comments, personal
attacks, defensive posturing, etc.

Did you want to post any accepted explorations of current science?

--

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

John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:52 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
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 made no personal statement of belief at all.

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


On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues.

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


That would be your belief system I take it.

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 ...


I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of
Albert Einstein, I merely reported them.

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


I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing
biblical issues.

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 ...

You are projecting I fear.

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 ...

Me thinks you do protest too much.

Keith



Personal opinion, beliefs, fantasies, off the wall comments, personal
attacks, defensive posturing, etc.


Are things best avoided, you may want to consider taking such advice.

I simply took you at your word when you said that the best way
to understand Einstein's beliefs was to read what he wrote.

Was I mistaken in this ?


Did you want to post any accepted explorations of current science?

Not especially

Keith