A letter written by Albert Einstein was auctioned off in 2006 at Sotheby's. Einstein discusses several topics in the letter. Where he gets to religion he calls it "a silly superstition."
According to Albert Einstein’s letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind in 1954, Einstein wrote, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Religion works backwards, by reaching a conclusion first and then having to make the data fit with that conclusion. I understand that my personal feelings prove absolutely nothing, but others haven't figured that out yet. Demonstrable facts are required.
The introductory narrative is what it's like, for many of us, to feel ourselves as human beings in a vast universe. It's a deeply moving experience. But it doesn't warrant any claims outside of that experience. We feel something. Yes. It's an internal experience of our minds. Yes. And therefore Rocky and Bullwinkle are real beings in the real world. No.
There is some kind of force (life force) that exists within us, animating us, within our subconscious. When we die, that life force goes out. No one knows what this is... maybe that's what "god" is after all, a force of nature? Not a man, not a deity, not anything or anyone personal or external, rather, something internal and within? Is "God" is really US? Well, I think so. Makes sense to me! Just my opinion.
The title must mean "Why you do not need to believe in a creator", because the reasoning on whether or not we need a creator depends on the existence of a creator. If there is one, we most definitely need a creator, or else we wouldn't exist. If there isn't one, then we don't need one. So, the question must be about whether or not there is a creator, rather than whether or not we need one. Of course, if there is a creator, then there could still logically be more than one in addition to that one. But if there is none, then the question stops there.
The "if" part of your comment is what is in question in the first place. Prove that "if" first. Otherwise it's pointless to have a discussion about what that creator could be.
He says he respects the method of science and yet just before he was talking about how 'God' could be outside space and time and therefore neither provable nor provable by science/religion. That's incredibly lazy thinking. He's skipping the entire scientific method by simply stating a divine creator exists. He's putting his favored deity in front of the equation and saying, "Ah, look, God did it!" This is why math teachers tell you to show your work.
Anything that can't be observed with our tools should not be considered real. Simple. Whenever someone will invent a tool that can interact with the 4th dimension, or wherever the supernatural dwells these days, we will accept it exists, not before that.
@@jhonvoyage2564 Someday they will invent a 'love' meter that people can tell if their partner REALLY loves them. But I wouldn't hold my breath, because that isn't going to happen very soon. I think some things are just unknowable. For example: Who is (or what is), "me"? When I die, will there be another "me"? I am not necessarily talking about reincarnation either. Not "past lives," but just perspective of consciousness. A mind-blowing question, I think, if you ponder about it long enough.
@@John-jd7mm We can measure love already. Oxitocin hormone is the main ingredient of the feeling of love and we can measure it in the blood as soon as somebody see someone who they like. You are the experiences and memories that creates your behavioural patterns. We are molded the most during our childhood and our basic instinct being used as a foundation to forme our personality. You can get many answers just using one simple tool in your hand, you know. We living in an age when information is free to everyone who ons at least a smartphone, yet I have never met so many oblivious people. I wonder is it wilfull ignorance, or simply cowardness. You tell me!
The best argument for the existence of a creator is not something Darwin addressed. The best argument for the existence of a creator is that it fits the narrative that best explains how it is that Jesus rose from the dead. The physical evidence of the resurrected human was detected through sensory experience, and science has no better way of explaining that set of phenomena than the theory that there is a creator God who caused it to happen. Were it not for that evidence, we'd still be wondering if the Hebrew messianic prophecies were ever credible. Now we know not only that they are credible concerning a coming Messiah, but we in fact know who that Messiah will be when he comes - that is, when he comes again.
Wow. That's just one vast circular argument, pure paranoid conspiracy ideation. But don't take my word for it, let's hand over to an A.I to dissect: A.I. The argument you’ve presented contains several issues, notably circular reasoning and paranoid conspiracy ideation. I’ll break these down: Circular Reasoning A circular argument assumes the conclusion within the premise, rather than providing external justification for it. In this case, the argument hinges on the resurrection of Jesus as evidence for a creator, but it presupposes that the resurrection is true in order to justify the existence of a creator, which then is used to justify the resurrection itself. Here’s how this plays out: Premise: "The best argument for a creator is that it explains the resurrection of Jesus." Implicit Assumption: The resurrection occurred as described. Conclusion: The resurrection is evidence of a creator. This is circular because the validity of the resurrection is already assumed in the premise, rather than being proven or externally substantiated. You can't use an event (the resurrection) to argue for a creator if the existence of that event depends on the assumption that the creator exists in the first place. This is especially problematic in cases like miracles, where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simply stating that sensory experiences reported by ancient texts support the resurrection isn't sufficient without broader independent verification, and assuming the miracle occurred as written falls into a circular trap. Paranoid Conspiracy Ideation Paranoid conspiracy ideation involves a belief system that relies on an unfalsifiable framework of hidden knowledge or self-sealing logic, where alternative explanations are preemptively dismissed. In the case of this argument, there’s an implicit dismissal of scientific or naturalistic explanations, with the suggestion that science has "no better way" to explain the resurrection other than invoking God. This may not appear like a conventional conspiracy, but the reasoning reflects some of the same thought patterns: Self-sealing narrative: The argument creates a closed loop where the belief in the resurrection and the existence of a creator are mutually reinforcing, and no external challenge can effectively penetrate the logic. If science doesn't have an explanation, it's assumed to be a failure of science, rather than a reflection of the limitations of human testimony or a misunderstanding of the phenomena. Dismissal of alternatives: By claiming that science cannot explain the sensory experiences surrounding Jesus' resurrection, the argument implies that no alternative explanations are valid. This is similar to conspiracy thinking, where mainstream explanations are often dismissed as inadequate or part of a grand cover-up, while the "true" explanation is asserted without sufficient evidence. It presupposes that there could not be other, non-supernatural explanations for the resurrection claim (e.g., myth, exaggeration, or misinterpretation). Messianic prophecy validation: The claim that "we now know" who the Messiah is presupposes not only the truth of one religious narrative but also implies a kind of esoteric knowledge-an attitude that aligns with conspiracy ideation, which often involves claims of knowing something hidden from others or mainstream authorities (in this case, the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies). By stating that "we now know" the Messiah’s identity based on the resurrection narrative, the argument forecloses the possibility of alternative interpretations or critical scrutiny. Appeal to Supernaturalism The argument assumes that the best explanation for the resurrection is supernatural. However, this position can lead to a kind of intellectual laziness by invoking a divine cause instead of investigating the more mundane (and likely) explanations, such as symbolic interpretation, historical error, or myth-making. Invoking supernatural causes to explain physical phenomena is traditionally the domain of religion, but it lacks the rigor and falsifiability expected in scientific discourse. Science seeks explanations based on observable, testable phenomena, and when supernatural explanations are used as placeholders, they function as "gap fillers" rather than substantive accounts. This form of reasoning typically dismisses the possibility that the "sensory evidence" could have been misreported, misinterpreted, or influenced by cultural narratives of the time. Conclusion This argument relies heavily on circular reasoning and resembles patterns of paranoid conspiracy ideation. It assumes the truth of the resurrection and the existence of a creator in a mutually reinforcing loop, without offering independent evidence for either claim. By dismissing the possibility of alternative explanations and relying on a supernatural cause, it resists scrutiny and creates a self-sealing logic that mirrors some forms of conspiracy thinking, where dissenting views are seen as illegitimate or incapable of addressing the "real" truth.
2 місяці тому+2
Isn't parental deity religion all based on the manipulation, as well as the masturbation, of infantile and childhood attachment. Which is an extremely potent and profound neurological drive. If it fails in its attachment dynamic life will fail as well. Life is just way easier with parents. Real or imagined. Folks to care about us and protect us and provide for us. And most importantly have plan for us. This is why everyone in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Empire is either your Mother or Father or Brother or Sister. We are born into a parental context and then project that context onto everything we don't understand. The greatest psychiatrist of the 2Oth century, Carl Gustaf Jung, called this attachment "Infantile Familial Archetypes." It is largely a matter of brain chemistry. And is basically what Hollywood is based on. For many folks life just feels more secure with parents somewhere in the picture. Which is something we are all born hard wired to do.💙
What is created never makes the creator directly visible, as a carpenter is not directly visible in the chair he made. But the existense of a chair indirectly indicates a carpenter. Observable evidence for a Creator or Generator behind the Universe cannot ever exist, because if we got such a thing, it would disprove what it tried to prove. It would be similar as saying that the carpener IS the chair that he made. The demand for such kind observable evidence is a self-reference problem, and can therefore never be resolved. Proof of a Creator is not accessible with obervation, because a generator is always different from the generated: So when the generated is the obserable, then hence the generator is unobservable. And additionally an object cannot create itself, because then it would already have existed when it was created. So therefore Reality and its objects has a Creator.
A house requires carpenters, architects, electricians, plumbers, materials like wood, nails, screws, wire, outlets,tools such as circular saw, nail gun etc. a computer requires engineers, a manufacturer. Charles Darwin said 2 very telling things: to think that the human eye acting like a finely tuned camera, with all its contrivances, focusing on an object near and far, correcting for aberrations in the visual field, allowing different amount of light into the eye, to think that's the result of natural selection and adaptation is absurd I must freely admit. He also said if anything could be found that could no way evolved my theory falls apart..DNA is that which did not evolve. It a complex, digital chemical genetic code that instructs the cells how to fabricate proteins from a selection of 20 amino acids. Then tissues, then organs and systems. God's intelligent design is clearly displayed. In the computer world we write code to direct the actions of the computer in a high level language. This is then compiled into machine code. The machine code is recognized by the microprocessor due to the instruction set embedded in the microprocessor. God was already writing code before we even knew about it. As the scripture states God has plainly revealed himself thru nature. This is great news you and I are created as God's dearly beloved children
"A house requires carpenters..." Show me one dinky little sign that the universe has been build for a purpose. What purpose? It is there; that's it-it has by no means any obligation to make sense to you! Darwin-are you living in the past? You should update your information-centuries have passed and our knowledge has grown exponentially since Darwin's death. Did you know the nifty electronic you use to make your comments here is based on the scientific understanding of the quantum world? Of course not, because you are living in the Bronze Age where people thought the universe was shat out by some ubernatural magical being no one can ever prove exists. GROW UP! What is wrong with you that you believe some self-creating magical being TALKED the universe into existence from NOTHING? Or that said magical being gave a clod of clay a divine blowjob, resulting in the "creation" of a GROWN MAN?! How old are you-FIVE?
Recuerda que leístes. Recuerda tú eres testigo y eres infinitamente importante. Tú eres testigo de la realidad y lo que está pasando. La verdad que tiene sentido y te hace feliz y libre es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Vivimos para disfrutar y ver el futuro. El universo es una realidad de principio y fin transformándose. En el universo los planetas, las estrellas, la vida tiene un principio y fin y todo continúa. Cuando morimos la realidad continúa. Todo es la misma realidad creada por Dios. ¿Para qué Dios creó la vida después de haber existido siempre? ¿Por qué alguien o algo crearía la vida y muerte, el universo, después de haber existido siempre? Después de haber existido siempre parece que uno no tendría nada que hacer. ¿Para qué molestarse en crear la vida después de haber existido siempre? Solo existe una respuesta correcta y racional. Si piensas en lo que te he dicho te sentirás increíblemente mejor. Es obvio que estoy censurado. ¿No es probar la existencia de Dios lo que la humanidad ha siempre querido? El verdadero Dios es el Dios de Spinoza y el mio y la verdad no va a cambiar. ¿Es posible creer que es imposible estar equivocado creyendo? ¿Por qué crees Dios existe? ¿Por qué crees Dios es tu Dios? ¿Por qué vives de rodillas y haces que tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables vivan de rodillas? Tenemos una vida y es para siempre. Tu decides si entender o no. Tu decides si quieres aprender o no. Tu decides tu vida. El ateísmo y la religión te están costando tu salud mental y economía. Estoy hablando en un campo de concentración nazi con una cámara de gas. ¿Cuanto tiempo queda? Peor no nos pueden tratar. El próximo puedes ser tú. El próximo puede ser cualquiera. ¿Quieres vivir o morir? Tengo la llave y podemos escapar. Necesito que este poema de amor sea leído en Ucrania y Gaza y donde mi verdad sea necesitada. ¡Emergencia! Cada vida cuenta, cada vida forma parte de todo. Necesito hablar para solucionar los problemas. Gracias.
By denying existence of GOD without separating the crucial difference between 1) The Creator of the universe and 2) the one demanding prayers and subordination to the rules, supposed to have been delivered by that Creator (but, in practice, always invented by some humans), Richard is doing a disservice to the task of GETTING RID OF THE RELIGIONS, because it is only the second function of GOD needs to be denied, while the former, as a NON-PERSONAL entity is implied in any rational explanation of the existence of the universe. It need not be denied. Even science has only changed the name of THE CREATOR from GOD to NATURE, while retaining its role as The Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe. Otherwise science cannot DISCOVER LAWS OF NATURE. On the contrary, by claiming the existence of immutable, inevitable amd irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE with all the EVIL intact, Science only provides very rational EXPLANSTIONS justifying all the evil as they exist ~ thus contributing, inadvertantly though, to perpetuate them. Thus Science, as it exists at present, is a far more destructive religion than all the conventional religions taken together. As QM clearly shows: THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE TO BE DISCOVERED. Nature permits us to design the laws we consider most appropriate to SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE on this earth and, only thereafter, analyze phenomena selectively to find THE MEANS to implement the laws we want nature to follow. EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH. Lack of this realization is the reason why the humsn race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
I have thought about what and where is the source of energy within atoms? What causes that? We know it's there, we know how it behaves, but no one knows the actual impetus, the source. Science has a lot to explore here...
Do you know the meaning of the term "IF"? IF there is a creator... IF! No one has ever proven there IS one, so all you have is some very, very weak hypothesis. First you'd have to prove such creator exists. And by the way, babble such as "I have a book" or "look at the trees" is no proof.
Have you checked out Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies? They emphasize The Self (internal) as opposed to Western religions, which emphasize The Other (external): gods, angels, devils, demigods, whatever. Made-up stuff. As far as I know, that's what atheists object to, but mind their own business (freedom of religious belief). What bothers me is when these "believers" try to impose THEIR beliefs upon the rest of us. I have a big problem with that too.
A letter written by Albert Einstein was auctioned off in 2006 at Sotheby's. Einstein discusses several topics in the letter. Where he gets to religion he calls it "a silly superstition."
Richard Dawkins made me an atheist. Thanks Richard 😊🎉
God was created by mankind not the other way around
According to Albert Einstein’s letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind in 1954, Einstein wrote, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Religion works backwards, by reaching a conclusion first and then having to make the data fit with that conclusion. I understand that my personal feelings prove absolutely nothing, but others haven't figured that out yet. Demonstrable facts are required.
I formed my own body without knowing how I did it. I form my own thoughts, circulate my blood, digest my food, and replace my cells. I am a mystery.
Religion first came about when the first con man met the first fool
Ur not a mystery
@@JamesRichardWiley nothing mystical about that I'm afraid mate
Some great conversation here! I try to be open-minded. I learn more that way.
God is not great. Religion poisons everything. Guess who wrote that?
Islam in a man is the same as rabies in a dog! Who wrote that...😊
@@westy-fo1ekChurchill?
Richard is a priceless gift to humanity.
The introductory narrative is what it's like, for many of us, to feel ourselves as human beings in a vast universe. It's a deeply moving experience.
But it doesn't warrant any claims outside of that experience. We feel something. Yes. It's an internal experience of our minds. Yes.
And therefore Rocky and Bullwinkle are real beings in the real world. No.
There is some kind of force (life force) that exists within us, animating us, within our subconscious. When we die, that life force goes out. No one knows what this is... maybe that's what "god" is after all, a force of nature? Not a man, not a deity, not anything or anyone personal or external, rather, something internal and within? Is "God" is really US? Well, I think so. Makes sense to me! Just my opinion.
Richard Dawkins is great.
I don't know about you, but I needed two creators. My parents
Just noticed this piece above calls him renowned scholar Charles Dawkins...Charles Dawkins?? As in Richard Darwin?
The title must mean "Why you do not need to believe in a creator", because the reasoning on whether or not we need a creator depends on the existence of a creator. If there is one, we most definitely need a creator, or else we wouldn't exist. If there isn't one, then we don't need one. So, the question must be about whether or not there is a creator, rather than whether or not we need one. Of course, if there is a creator, then there could still logically be more than one in addition to that one. But if there is none, then the question stops there.
The "if" part of your comment is what is in question in the first place.
Prove that "if" first. Otherwise it's pointless to have a discussion about what that creator could be.
He says he respects the method of science and yet just before he was talking about how 'God' could be outside space and time and therefore neither provable nor provable by science/religion. That's incredibly lazy thinking. He's skipping the entire scientific method by simply stating a divine creator exists. He's putting his favored deity in front of the equation and saying, "Ah, look, God did it!" This is why math teachers tell you to show your work.
Anything that can't be observed with our tools should not be considered real. Simple. Whenever someone will invent a tool that can interact with the 4th dimension, or wherever the supernatural dwells these days, we will accept it exists, not before that.
@@jhonvoyage2564 Someday they will invent a 'love' meter that people can tell if their partner REALLY loves them. But I wouldn't hold my breath, because that isn't going to happen very soon. I think some things are just unknowable. For example: Who is (or what is), "me"? When I die, will there be another "me"? I am not necessarily talking about reincarnation either. Not "past lives," but just perspective of consciousness. A mind-blowing question, I think, if you ponder about it long enough.
@@John-jd7mm We can measure love already. Oxitocin hormone is the main ingredient of the feeling of love and we can measure it in the blood as soon as somebody see someone who they like. You are the experiences and memories that creates your behavioural patterns. We are molded the most during our childhood and our basic instinct being used as a foundation to forme our personality.
You can get many answers just using one simple tool in your hand, you know. We living in an age when information is free to everyone who ons at least a smartphone, yet I have never met so many oblivious people. I wonder is it wilfull ignorance, or simply cowardness. You tell me!
👍👍👍
The guy is describing an excellent acid trip ...
I've transcended reality many times. It's okay.
I bet you took drugs didn't you?
The best argument for the existence of a creator is not something Darwin addressed. The best argument for the existence of a creator is that it fits the narrative that best explains how it is that Jesus rose from the dead. The physical evidence of the resurrected human was detected through sensory experience, and science has no better way of explaining that set of phenomena than the theory that there is a creator God who caused it to happen. Were it not for that evidence, we'd still be wondering if the Hebrew messianic prophecies were ever credible. Now we know not only that they are credible concerning a coming Messiah, but we in fact know who that Messiah will be when he comes - that is, when he comes again.
Wow. That's just one vast circular argument, pure paranoid conspiracy ideation.
But don't take my word for it, let's hand over to an A.I to dissect:
A.I. The argument you’ve presented contains several issues, notably circular reasoning and paranoid conspiracy ideation. I’ll break these down:
Circular Reasoning
A circular argument assumes the conclusion within the premise, rather than providing external justification for it. In this case, the argument hinges on the resurrection of Jesus as evidence for a creator, but it presupposes that the resurrection is true in order to justify the existence of a creator, which then is used to justify the resurrection itself. Here’s how this plays out:
Premise: "The best argument for a creator is that it explains the resurrection of Jesus."
Implicit Assumption: The resurrection occurred as described.
Conclusion: The resurrection is evidence of a creator.
This is circular because the validity of the resurrection is already assumed in the premise, rather than being proven or externally substantiated. You can't use an event (the resurrection) to argue for a creator if the existence of that event depends on the assumption that the creator exists in the first place.
This is especially problematic in cases like miracles, where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simply stating that sensory experiences reported by ancient texts support the resurrection isn't sufficient without broader independent verification, and assuming the miracle occurred as written falls into a circular trap.
Paranoid Conspiracy Ideation
Paranoid conspiracy ideation involves a belief system that relies on an unfalsifiable framework of hidden knowledge or self-sealing logic, where alternative explanations are preemptively dismissed. In the case of this argument, there’s an implicit dismissal of scientific or naturalistic explanations, with the suggestion that science has "no better way" to explain the resurrection other than invoking God. This may not appear like a conventional conspiracy, but the reasoning reflects some of the same thought patterns:
Self-sealing narrative: The argument creates a closed loop where the belief in the resurrection and the existence of a creator are mutually reinforcing, and no external challenge can effectively penetrate the logic. If science doesn't have an explanation, it's assumed to be a failure of science, rather than a reflection of the limitations of human testimony or a misunderstanding of the phenomena.
Dismissal of alternatives: By claiming that science cannot explain the sensory experiences surrounding Jesus' resurrection, the argument implies that no alternative explanations are valid. This is similar to conspiracy thinking, where mainstream explanations are often dismissed as inadequate or part of a grand cover-up, while the "true" explanation is asserted without sufficient evidence. It presupposes that there could not be other, non-supernatural explanations for the resurrection claim (e.g., myth, exaggeration, or misinterpretation).
Messianic prophecy validation: The claim that "we now know" who the Messiah is presupposes not only the truth of one religious narrative but also implies a kind of esoteric knowledge-an attitude that aligns with conspiracy ideation, which often involves claims of knowing something hidden from others or mainstream authorities (in this case, the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies). By stating that "we now know" the Messiah’s identity based on the resurrection narrative, the argument forecloses the possibility of alternative interpretations or critical scrutiny.
Appeal to Supernaturalism
The argument assumes that the best explanation for the resurrection is supernatural. However, this position can lead to a kind of intellectual laziness by invoking a divine cause instead of investigating the more mundane (and likely) explanations, such as symbolic interpretation, historical error, or myth-making. Invoking supernatural causes to explain physical phenomena is traditionally the domain of religion, but it lacks the rigor and falsifiability expected in scientific discourse.
Science seeks explanations based on observable, testable phenomena, and when supernatural explanations are used as placeholders, they function as "gap fillers" rather than substantive accounts. This form of reasoning typically dismisses the possibility that the "sensory evidence" could have been misreported, misinterpreted, or influenced by cultural narratives of the time.
Conclusion
This argument relies heavily on circular reasoning and resembles patterns of paranoid conspiracy ideation. It assumes the truth of the resurrection and the existence of a creator in a mutually reinforcing loop, without offering independent evidence for either claim. By dismissing the possibility of alternative explanations and relying on a supernatural cause, it resists scrutiny and creates a self-sealing logic that mirrors some forms of conspiracy thinking, where dissenting views are seen as illegitimate or incapable of addressing the "real" truth.
Isn't parental deity religion all based on the manipulation, as well as the masturbation, of infantile and childhood attachment. Which is an extremely potent and profound neurological drive. If it fails in its attachment dynamic life will fail as well. Life is just way easier with parents. Real or imagined. Folks to care about us and protect us and provide for us. And most importantly have plan for us. This is why everyone in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Empire is either your Mother or Father or Brother or Sister. We are born into a parental context and then project that context onto everything we don't understand. The greatest psychiatrist of the 2Oth century, Carl Gustaf Jung, called this attachment "Infantile Familial Archetypes." It is largely a matter of brain chemistry. And is basically what Hollywood is based on. For many folks life just feels more secure with parents somewhere in the picture. Which is something we are all born hard wired to do.💙
What is created never makes the creator directly visible, as a carpenter is not directly visible in the chair he made. But the existense of a chair indirectly indicates a carpenter. Observable evidence for a Creator or Generator behind the Universe cannot ever exist, because if we got such a thing, it would disprove what it tried to prove. It would be similar as saying that the carpener IS the chair that he made. The demand for such kind observable evidence is a self-reference problem, and can therefore never be resolved. Proof of a Creator is not accessible with obervation, because a generator is always different from the generated: So when the generated is the obserable, then hence the generator is unobservable. And additionally an object cannot create itself, because then it would already have existed when it was created. So therefore Reality and its objects has a Creator.
A house requires carpenters, architects, electricians, plumbers, materials like wood, nails, screws, wire, outlets,tools such as circular saw, nail gun etc. a computer requires engineers, a manufacturer. Charles Darwin said 2 very telling things: to think that the human eye acting like a finely tuned camera, with all its contrivances, focusing on an object near and far, correcting for aberrations in the visual field, allowing different amount of light into the eye, to think that's the result of natural selection and adaptation is absurd I must freely admit. He also said if anything could be found that could no way evolved my theory falls apart..DNA is that which did not evolve. It a complex, digital chemical genetic code that instructs the cells how to fabricate proteins from a selection of 20 amino acids. Then tissues, then organs and systems. God's intelligent design is clearly displayed. In the computer world we write code to direct the actions of the computer in a high level language. This is then compiled into machine code. The machine code is recognized by the microprocessor due to the instruction set embedded in the microprocessor. God was already writing code before we even knew about it. As the scripture states God has plainly revealed himself thru nature. This is great news you and I are created as God's dearly beloved children
"A house requires carpenters..."
Show me one dinky little sign that the universe has been build for a purpose. What purpose? It is there; that's it-it has by no means any obligation to make sense to you!
Darwin-are you living in the past? You should update your information-centuries have passed and our knowledge has grown exponentially since Darwin's death. Did you know the nifty electronic you use to make your comments here is based on the scientific understanding of the quantum world? Of course not, because you are living in the Bronze Age where people thought the universe was shat out by some ubernatural magical being no one can ever prove exists. GROW UP!
What is wrong with you that you believe some self-creating magical being TALKED the universe into existence from NOTHING? Or that said magical being gave a clod of clay a divine blowjob, resulting in the "creation" of a GROWN MAN?! How old are you-FIVE?
Recuerda que leístes. Recuerda tú eres testigo y eres infinitamente importante. Tú eres testigo de la realidad y lo que está pasando. La verdad que tiene sentido y te hace feliz y libre es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Vivimos para disfrutar y ver el futuro. El universo es una realidad de principio y fin transformándose. En el universo los planetas, las estrellas, la vida tiene un principio y fin y todo continúa. Cuando morimos la realidad continúa. Todo es la misma realidad creada por Dios. ¿Para qué Dios creó la vida después de haber existido siempre? ¿Por qué alguien o algo crearía la vida y muerte, el universo, después de haber existido siempre? Después de haber existido siempre parece que uno no tendría nada que hacer. ¿Para qué molestarse en crear la vida después de haber existido siempre? Solo existe una respuesta correcta y racional. Si piensas en lo que te he dicho te sentirás increíblemente mejor. Es obvio que estoy censurado. ¿No es probar la existencia de Dios lo que la humanidad ha siempre querido? El verdadero Dios es el Dios de Spinoza y el mio y la verdad no va a cambiar. ¿Es posible creer que es imposible estar equivocado creyendo? ¿Por qué crees Dios existe? ¿Por qué crees Dios es tu Dios? ¿Por qué vives de rodillas y haces que tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables vivan de rodillas? Tenemos una vida y es para siempre. Tu decides si entender o no. Tu decides si quieres aprender o no. Tu decides tu vida. El ateísmo y la religión te están costando tu salud mental y economía. Estoy hablando en un campo de concentración nazi con una cámara de gas. ¿Cuanto tiempo queda? Peor no nos pueden tratar. El próximo puedes ser tú. El próximo puede ser cualquiera. ¿Quieres vivir o morir? Tengo la llave y podemos escapar. Necesito que este poema de amor sea leído en Ucrania y Gaza y donde mi verdad sea necesitada. ¡Emergencia! Cada vida cuenta, cada vida forma parte de todo. Necesito hablar para solucionar los problemas. Gracias.
Spinoza's God is not a person.
Spinoza's God = NATURE ITSELF
no religion or myth or commandments, great floods, etc
By denying existence of GOD without separating the crucial difference between
1) The Creator of the universe
and
2) the one demanding prayers and subordination to the rules, supposed to have been delivered by that Creator (but, in practice, always invented by some humans),
Richard is doing a disservice to the task of GETTING RID OF THE RELIGIONS, because it is only the second function of GOD needs to be denied, while the former, as a NON-PERSONAL entity is implied in any rational explanation of the existence of the universe.
It need not be denied.
Even science has only changed the name of THE CREATOR from GOD to NATURE, while retaining its role as The Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe.
Otherwise science cannot DISCOVER LAWS OF NATURE.
On the contrary, by claiming the existence of immutable, inevitable amd irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE with all the EVIL intact, Science only provides very rational EXPLANSTIONS justifying all the evil as they exist ~ thus contributing, inadvertantly though, to perpetuate them.
Thus Science, as it exists at present, is a far more destructive religion than all the conventional religions taken together.
As QM clearly shows:
THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE TO BE DISCOVERED.
Nature permits us to design the laws we consider most appropriate to SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE on this earth and, only thereafter, analyze phenomena selectively to find THE MEANS to implement the laws we want nature to follow.
EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH.
Lack of this realization is the reason why the humsn race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
You are brainwashed. This is so sad to read. You have my pity.
If the Creator is omnipresent then that God is everywhere - not simply outside of the universe. In all things, every single atom. God IS all things.
I have thought about what and where is the source of energy within atoms? What causes that? We know it's there, we know how it behaves, but no one knows the actual impetus, the source. Science has a lot to explore here...
Do you know the meaning of the term "IF"? IF there is a creator... IF! No one has ever proven there IS one, so all you have is some very, very weak hypothesis. First you'd have to prove such creator exists. And by the way, babble such as "I have a book" or "look at the trees" is no proof.
So basically: God is the Higgs boson?
There is no god
I always Philosophized, we are, our own higher power. Not a God! Not through Religion! Our Brain is our Higher Power!
Have you checked out Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies? They emphasize The Self (internal) as opposed to Western religions, which emphasize The Other (external): gods, angels, devils, demigods, whatever. Made-up stuff. As far as I know, that's what atheists object to, but mind their own business (freedom of religious belief). What bothers me is when these "believers" try to impose THEIR beliefs upon the rest of us. I have a big problem with that too.