The True Origin of The Universe?

[paddoboy]

After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

If as you say dmoe, you are only Interested in the above and nothing else, why have you yourself, seen the need to quote Carl Sagan many times, even in the OP where you specifically say you are only interested in the above.
You seem to be contravening your own subject matter.
Taking all that into account, does that mean that what "origin" said at post 3 has some merit?

 

[paddoboy]

Well...a very intelligent, prominent and popular Astronomer and Author once wrote in a book, something that reminded me somewhat of the first few lines of the original "Serenity Prayer" :

- ^^above quoted^^ from : http://thevoiceforlove.com/serenity-prayer.html

Mind you, I am not positing a "Theist" point of view! I am merely quoting a very intelligent sentiment.

At any rate, the previously mentioned Astronomer and Author was Carl Sagan. The title of his book that I am referring to is "Cosmos". - viewable, for free, as a .pdf, at this Link : http://www.proyecto2501.com.ar/wp-c...s (Random House, New Edition, 1980, 2002).pdf

In that book the Author includes what appears to be his thoughts on : the Big Bang Theory ; Red Shift ; Doppler Effect, etc.
In Chapter X, beginning on Page #175, of the .pdf, and titled "The Edge of Forever", Mr. Sagan includes the following two paragraphs, on Page #184 :

- ^^above quoted^^ from Page #184, of :http://www.proyecto2501.com.ar/wp-c...s (Random House, New Edition, 1980, 2002).pdf

So...
1.) - "IF...a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions."
2.) - "What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang?"
3.) - "What happened before that?"
4.) - "Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing?"
5.) - "How does that happen?"

Mr. Sagan, in his book then seems to compare those "still more difficult questions" about the "big Bang theory", to similar questions that arise "IF" the "Creation" theory is correct.

Mr. Sagan then posits a couple of very interesting, and very wise, possibilities :
1.) - "And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question?"
2.) - "Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

When I read that - and I have read it many times - I get the impression that this very intelligent and well educated Astronomer and Author had put quite a bit of time, consideration and deep thought into the matter, before arriving at his conclusions.

Carl Sagan, in his book, at least, seems to posit two things that may just possibly be true :
1.) - "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question?"
2.) - "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

Mr. Sagan then goes on to include "five small extracts from such myths...of the world before creation, and of the creation of the world". After the extracts and further discussion he writes :

- ^^abovequted^^ from Page #186, of :http://www.proyecto2501.com.ar/wp-c...s (Random House, New Edition, 1980, 2002).pdf

My take from reading "Cosmos" and other writings by Carl Sagan, is that, although he basically lent his support to the "Big Bang" theory, that he did not fully accept that it was indeed the actual, factual, in all of reality, no other possibility, written in stone, impossible to be incorrect - TRUE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE!!

So, okay.This Mr. Sagan, was in my estimation :
1.) - most likely more intelligent than myself.
2.) - definitely more educated than myself.
3.) - absolutely in possession of quite a bit more knowledge about the subject than I ever will be.

After contemplating Mr. Sagan's writings, and admitting to myself the 3 things enumerated above, I honestly find myself accepting, what Mr. Sagan opined :

- "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question."
- "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for "Creation as opposed to a Big Bang"?

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for a "Big Bang as opposed to Creation"?

Is it at all possible that the argument can ever be definitively settled?

Is it at all possible that it is, as I opined earlier in this Post, a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe"?

After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

In reply to your reflections on what you yourself posted about Carl Sagan, I have seen quite a few "Carl Sagan"debates with creationists and such, and like I said earlier, his approach was with the utmost kindness and certainly qualities that I do not have.....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
this is what I mean, by his former wife Ann Druyan....
And there were other instances of Carl’s remarkable persuasiveness. One was a great story of a so-called “creation scientist” who watched Carl testify at a hearing about creationism in schools. Carl testified for about four hours. It was somewhere in the South, I can't remember where. And six months later a letter came from the “creation scientist” expert who had also testified that day, saying that he had given up his daytime job and realized the error of what he was doing. It was only because Carl was so patient and so willing to hear the other person out. He did it with such kindness and then, very gently but without compromising, laid out all of the things that were wrong with what this guy thought was true. That is a lesson that I wish that all of us in our effort to promote skepticism could learn, because I know that very often the anger I feel when confronting this kind of thinking makes me want to start cutting off the other person. But to do so is to abandon all hope of changing minds.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ann_druyan_talks_about_science_religion/
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I also think that the following from the same link illustrates his Atheism right up until the day he died

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ann_druyan_talks_about_science_religion/
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


In your opinion, I can see how you are going to say the above is off topic...a bit pedantic though I think to push that issue, and of course it was in reply to your own rather lengthy off topic [by your own standards] OP.
I also thought it necessary to post something from someone very close to the man, to reflect on his true nature and ability.

 

[James R]

dmoe:

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for "Creation as opposed to a Big Bang"?

What may I ask is achieved by arguing for a "Big Bang as opposed to Creation"?

Is it at all possible that the argument can ever be definitively settled?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Creation".

Are you thinking of the biblical creation story, from Genesis? If so, then taken as a scientific account of the origins of the universe, the bible is demonstrably wrong. That is settled among scientists, though clearly not among all religious types.

If your real question is whether there is room for God in the formation of the universe, then that is not a settled scientific question, and probably never will be. The best we can say right now is that it's looking increasing as if our universe is consistent with its having appeared without the necessity for a supernatural Creator.

Is it at all possible that it is, as I opined earlier in this Post, a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe"?

After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

A lot of people think it's an important question because it changes fundamentally our conception of our universe. A universe that includes an all-powerful Creator is likely to be different in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being.

On the wider question: what is achieved by finding out about anything that doesn't directly impact your life?

I guess the question to ask is: don't you care about what is True?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

n your opinion (1.), I can see how you are going to say the above is off topic (2.)...a bit pedantic (3.) though I think to push that issue, and of course it was in reply to your own rather lengthy off topic [by your own standards] OP (4.).
I also thought it necessary to post something from someone very close to the man (5.), to reflect on his true nature and ability.

1.) - So...paddoboy, you fully comprehend and understand my "opinion"...

2.) - So...paddoboy, would you care to elaborate on how you, paddoboy, "can see how" I, dmoe, am "going to say the above is off topic"?

3.) - paddoboy, "pedant", or being "pedantic", is a very important part of Science and the Scientific Peer Review process. Science and the Scientific Peer Review process, is about : "correcting" even the smallest of "errors" ; paying very close "attention" to even the smallest of the "minor details".

4.) - paddoboy, my OP was the "topic"...would you care to elaborate on exactly how the "topic of the OP" can be "off topic"?

5.) - So...paddoboy, you "also thought it necessary to post something from someone very close to the man, to reflect on his true nature and ability." ?
May I humbly ask you, paddoboy : who would be "close(r) to the man" ; and who would be able "to reflect on his true nature and ability", any better, or with more knowledge of "his true nature and ability", than the man himself?

paddoboy, I respectfully refer you to the following "excellent points", from the following "excellent Thread" : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dmoe:

I'm not sure what you mean by "Creation".

James R., have you read the OP? :

1.) - The Universe was Created by a Creator...nothing we can understand or comprehend "existed" prior to this Creation.

A Theist may say : "We have Prayed to our Deity(s) for help and guidance, that help and guidance was provided, therefor those experiments seem to support our Theory."

James R., "Creation" - that which becomes manifest(verb) in reality by the actions of a "Creator(Deity)"

Are you thinking of the biblical creation story, from Genesis? If so, then taken as a scientific account of the origins of the universe, the bible is demonstrably wrong. That is settled among scientists, though clearly not among all religious types.

James R., I am "thinking" of "Creation" in the same manner as expressed by Mr. Sagan - as I presented in the OP.

If your real question is whether there is room for God in the formation of the universe, then that is not a settled scientific question, and probably never will be. The best we can say right now is that it's looking increasing as if our universe is consistent with its having appeared without the necessity for a supernatural Creator.

James R., my "real question is" :

1.)...whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

...

A lot of people think it's an important question because it changes fundamentally our conception of our universe. A universe that includes an all-powerful Creator is likely to be different in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being.

James R., you state : "likely to be different".
Would you care to "elaborate" on what those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" just might be?
Would you care to "elaborate" on how those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" would be discerned?

On the wider question: what is achieved by finding out about anything that doesn't directly impact your life?

Good question, James R.!
My answer, to that question, is probably along the same lines as Mr.Sagan's answer would have been - if the insight or opinion of his 3rd wife, Ann Druyan, is any indication :

“Interviewer: Didn't Sagan want to believe?
Druyan: he didn't want to believe. he wanted to know.”
― Ann Druyan

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10537.Ann_Druyan

So...James R., my answer is : I was born very curious and inquisitive, therefore it is more important for me to gain true knowledge than it is to merely accept a belief

I guess the question to ask is: don't you care about what is True?

James R., I find you asking me that question, in all honesty, to be somewhat personally "insulting"!
James R., SciForums is supposed to to be a Science Forum. Science is about the search for, and establishment of, the absolute Truth.

If I were to ask you : "James R., don't you care about what is True?"
Would you, in all honesty, in any way, possibly consider that question, as somewhat "insulting" to you personally, James R.?

------------- An aside. -----------

*** Note : Since you are available, James R., I, dmoe, fully concur with the following Request! ***

Moderator: can we do something about the ad-hominem abuse please. It is no substitute for scientific discussion, and its presence here demeans this forum.

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-interpretation-is-the-one-that-s-right/page6

 

[paddoboy]

1.) - So...paddoboy, you fully comprehend and understand my "opinion"...

2.) - So...paddoboy, would you care to elaborate on how you, paddoboy, "can see how" I, dmoe, am "going to say the above is off topic"?

Well dmoe, your inferences are correct, but the evidence of your past interactions, plus what you have already requested/demanded in this thread is on record...thus....

I would also prefer that this Thread not devolve into a Subjective Argument.

If this Thread has not already devolved, and not already been "Derailed" or "Hi-Jacked"...

...I honestly welcome any Objective Observations concerning :

Originally Posted by dumbest man on earth View Post
The True Origin of The Universe? - After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?[/QUOTE]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
then you say.....

4.) - paddoboy, my OP was the "topic"...would you care to elaborate on exactly how the "topic of the OP" can be "off topic"?

:shrug:
But that's OK, dmoe, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of Carl Sagan, as you are now requesting.
Mainly to clear the air about his obvious Atheism broadly speaking, and his wonderful way of tearing strips of the creationists and other God botherers and their supporters.

3.) - paddoboy, "pedant", or being "pedantic", is a very important part of Science and the Scientific Peer Review process. Science and the Scientific Peer Review process, is about : "correcting" even the smallest of "errors" ; paying very close "attention" to even the smallest of the "minor details".

dmoe, you are only partially correct. You need to remember that some individuals raise unnecessary pedantic matters like spelling mistakes, typographical errors etc, just as a means of diversion from some cold hard facts.
Let's check out the definition....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
pe·dan·tic adjective \pi-ˈdan-tik\
1
: of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant)
2
: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



Apologies for my pedant dmoe, just trying to clear the air here somewhat.

5.) - So...paddoboy, you "also thought it necessary to post something from someone very close to the man, to reflect on his true nature and ability." ?
May I humbly ask you, paddoboy : who would be "close(r) to the man" ; and who would be able "to reflect on his true nature and ability", any better, or with more knowledge of "his true nature and ability", than the man himself?

dmoe, I find that a rather curious pedantic remark.
No one can question the closeness and bond between Carl and his wife when he died.
When they lived they shared their passion of cosmology and the Universe with the world.
Both Carl and Ann are and were Atheists in the broad sense of the definition.
But Carl in his many debates, with religious folk and creationists, leaned over backwards to make sure it was seen that they were given a fair go. This may be mistaken for Agnosticism more then Atheism.
Broadly speaking though, Carl [nor Ann] believed in any divine deity as normally and generally envisaged.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
WIKI gives a Carl quote thus......
The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

paddoboy, I respectfully refer you to the following "excellent points", from the following "excellent Thread" : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists

"

Thank you dmoe. And yet most of our alternative hypothesis pushers, God botherers, conspiracy adherents and their supporters so often defy those points as well as the other 10.
My advice though to you dmoe, is to look at all 12 points together and how they blend.
The other Important thing in that excellent thread, is that these people I have just referred to, must realise that the incumbent theory or model, is logically and sensibly the default position.

Now dmoe, you have a lot to consume there, which is generally not my style to post such lengthy stuff and comment on such pedantic matters.
In my future posts to this thread, I will avoid the uneccesary pedant traps and stick to the main points.
Which in my opinion, is like comparing chalk with cheese.
Creationism and God are non scientific myths, while Evolution, both of the Universe and life, are true scientific disciplines.

 

[paddoboy]

PS; dmoe

I did ask you a couple of questions in post 20. Any chance of getting them answered?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

PS; dmoe

I did ask you a couple of questions in post 20. Any chance of getting them answered?

paddoboy, your Post #20 :

paddoboy, if you are not going to address the Topic of the OP :

The True Origin of The Universe? - After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

paddoboy if you do not realize that real proper Science is about Objective Observations ; Not Subjective Observations ; Nor ad hominem attacks :

ad ho·mi·nem adjective \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

-^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

paddoboy, I humbly request, would you either :
- Please address the Topic of my OP?
- Please refrain from clogging the Thread with whatever it is that you ...think?...believe?.. you are doing?

Please???You are off topic.
But anyway two requests...
Where have I attacked you?

paddoboy, I did not claim that you attacked me!
I posited an "if" (I essentially proposed a question) : "paddoboy if you do not realize that real proper Science is about Objective Observations ; Not Subjective Observations ; Nor ad hominem attacks :"

Some examples of "Subjective Observations" and/or the use of "ad hominem attacks" can be found in your Posts : #2 ; #4 ; #5 ; #6 ; #8 ; #10 ; #17 ; #21 ; #25 ; And #29. Also #32 and #33. Also #34 ; #35 ; #36 ; and #37.

And what do you mean by your little "Real Eyes Realize Real Lies"comments in your avatar?

paddoboy, "Real Eyes Realize Real Lies" means that Real Eyes Realize Real Lies!

P.S. In your Post #17 :

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/atheism-is-very-stupid-carl-sagan.html

There are a few more insightful Carl Sagan quotes at the Link.

Not sure about the validity of that quote and whether it is taken out of context or not, but interesting to note the source of the link....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From that link.....

About This Site
The purpose of this blog is to dispel the myth that science has somehow proven that religion is false, or that philosophy shows that it cannot be true. The opposite is often the case. Modern discoveries in science often confirm the claims made by religion for many years.

The purpose of this blog is not to prove that religion is true, or that science is false. I am not trying to preach or convert people. Rather, my goal is simply to show that the claims of religion are entirely consistent with discoveries of science. To this end I will answer all questions posed to the best of my ability.

In other words, my only goal is to show that the following quote is true:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Now anyone that sees fit to take as Gospel [excuse the pun ] what some religious site says, with the obvious amount of baggage they have, really needs to think again.
And of course it reveals the nature itself, of the members pushing this religious/deity myth over science.

paddoboy, you seem to have inadvertently edited, or just possibly did not realize that you abruptly ended the "quote" in the middle of the Authors statement. :

The purpose of this blog is not to prove that religion is true, or that science is false. I am not trying to preach or convert people. Rather, my goal is simply to show that the claims of religion are entirely consistent with discoveries of science. To this end I will answer all questions posed to the best of my ability.

In other words, my only goal is to show that the following quote is true:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Here is the final part of that Authors Statement :

In other words, my only goal is to show that the following quote is true:

"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html

paddoboy, it was possibly just an oversight on your part.

 

[paddoboy]

dmoe posted....

Here is the final part of that Authors Statement :
Quote Originally Posted by Cristofer Noble Urlaub
In other words, my only goal is to show that the following quote is true:

"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Sure Einstein said that. He also said,
" Imagination is more Important than knowledge"
But I would bet my last dollar he said it to make known to others that Imagination is Important, as is Speculation and Innovation, and all actually go hand in hand with knowledge.
In other words, Einstein knew that Imagination without knowledge is lame, and knowledge without Imagination is blind.

What did he mean by the quote, you have quoted?.....
Personally, I knew 100%, he was not inferring some almighty deity who created the Universe out of SFA....

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion. But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful. But first let me show you how, in that same essay, Einstein proposes what is essentially Stephen Jay Gould’s version of NOMA (Non-overlapping Magisteria). Gould’s idea (which was clearly not original) was that science and religion were harmonious because they had distinct but complementary tasks: science helps us understand the physical structure of the universe, while religion deals with human values, morals, and meanings. Here’s Einstein’s version (my emphasis):

at.......
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[paddoboy]

It's worth noting at this time, how much religion has learnt from science.
You do realise that the Catholic church recognises the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution, and also the evolution of life itself.
This means in actual fact, that they admit the bible is essentially a great big book of fairy tales.
In fact as also most science adherents here would know, it was a Belgian Catholic priest, Father George La-Maitre that first hypothesised the BB.

 

[paddoboy]

.
4.) - paddoboy, my OP was the "topic"...would you care to elaborate on exactly how the "topic of the OP" can be "off topic"?

...once more...

The True Origin of The Universe?
Whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

So are we discussing your first claim, or the second?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

at.......
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That Link Leads to a "Log In" Page!!


This may possibly help you paddoboy (highlight by dmoe) :

Science and Religion By Albert Einstein

This article is taken from: A Symposium on Science, Philosophy and Religion

The conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, New York, 1941

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://cerf-institute.org/2012/10/30/albert-einstein-on-science-and-religion/

paddoboy, the quote : "A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." by Albert Einstein, is culled from the above (I highlighted it, just for you, paddoboy!) paragraphs of Mr. Einstein's presentation.

I quoted quite a bit to "show context" - but there is more at the Link.

 

[paddoboy]

Not sure what you are trying to prove dmoe.
Why not be up front and inform us of your beliefs and philosophy of life.


The link works fine.....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
I have no quarrel with the claimed contribution of science to religion: helping test ways to achieve one’s goals. Einstein, however, neglects another contribution of science to religion: disproving its truth statements. Darwin did a good job of that!

But Einstein errs again by claiming that “the aspiration toward truth and understanding. . . springs from the sphere of religion.” Perhaps he conceives “religion” here as a form of profound curiosity about the universe beyond oneself. But he’s certainly not seeing religion as most people understand it. Why couldn’t he simply say that some people are insatiably curious to find out stuff? Why did he have to see that curiosity as a form of “religion”? It’s that conflation that has caused persistent confusion about Einstein’s beliefs. Was he so eager to placate the faithful that he had to redefine “religion” as a godless awe? Or was he truly a pantheist who worshipped Nature as his god? It’s not clear.

What is clear from Einstein’s writings on science and religion, though, is that he didn’t believe in a personal God, and saw theistic religion as a man-made fiction. In a letter written in 1954, he made no bones about this (translated from the original German):

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
Indeed, the last paragraph of the 1954 essay shows his faith not in the numinous, but in rationality:

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.
Finally, I take issue with Einstein’s statement that the value of reason in understanding the world is a form of “profound faith.” As I wrote in Slate, this is confusing because the religious meaning of faith is “firm belief without substantial evidence,” while the scientist’s “faith” in the laws of physics is simply shorthand for “strong confidence, based on replicated evidence and experience, about how things are.” Further, we don’t have faith in reason: we use reason because it helps us find out things. It is in fact the only way we’ve made progress in understanding the universe. If other ways had proven valuable, like personal revelation or Ouiji boards, we’d use those, too.

Although Einstein didn’t believe in a conventional god, his explanation of the harmony between science and faith has been widely misunderstood, and some of that is his own fault. What he should have done is abandon the world “faith” in favor of “confidence born of experience,” and not tried to argue that curiosity and wonder before nature was a form of religion. It is that confusion (or perhaps that imprecision of language) that has led to prolonged debate about and misrepresentation of what Einstein believed about God and religion.

So let me simply recast Einstein’s famous statement in terms of what I think he meant:

“Science without profound curiosity won’t go anywhere, and religion without science is doubly crippled.”
Doubly crippled, of course, because theistic religions are based on a supernatural but fictitious being, and are further crippled when they reject the findings of science.

In the end, Einstein’s famous quotation should provide no solace—or ammunition—to theists, for Einstein did not see “religion” as theistic. But I wish he would have written a bit more clearly, thought a bit more clearly or, perhaps, completely avoided discussing the relationship of religion and science. On that issue he is less cogent than many philosophers or, indeed, many scientists. He was Einstein, but he wasn’t God.

 

[paddoboy]

From my earlier post, and the point Einstein was making...
Like I said, I'm 100% certain that neither Einstein, Sagan believed in any deity or divine creator as is generally accepted by society.
You appear to be trying to say they do...although even your links are saying differently.... sheesh!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Gould’s idea (which was clearly not original) was that science and religion were harmonious because they had distinct but complementary tasks: science helps us understand the physical structure of the universe, while religion deals with human values, morals, and meanings. Here’s Einstein’s version (my emphasis):

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[AlexG]

"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"- A Einstein.

 

[paddoboy]

"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"- A Einstein.

Ex-bloody actly!!!
And the same applied to Sagan, and its quite obvious if you are listening to him debate creationists and similar groups that seem to make a habit of taking science and great men out of context.

 

[paddoboy]

"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"- A Einstein.

Adding to Alex's revelations, and part of the link I gave earlier,

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted


What is clear from Einstein’s writings on science and religion, though, is that he didn’t believe in a personal God, and saw theistic religion as a man-made fiction. In a letter written in 1954, he made no bones about this (translated from the original German):

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Not sure what you are trying to prove dmoe.

I am not trying to prove anything, paddoboy.

Why not be up front and inform us of your beliefs and philosophy of life.

I am always "up front".
If my OP can not or will not be grasped...what possible chance is there that anything I Post about "beliefs and philosophy of life" would be Grok'd?

The link works fine.....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted

The ^^above^^ Link (at least through my ISP!) leads to the New Republic "Log In" page. "Subscribe Now" / "Get The New Republic for $34.97/year" - ???!!!

 

[paddoboy]

The ^^above^^ Link (at least through my ISP!) leads to the New Republic "Log In" page. "Subscribe Now" / "Get The New Republic for $34.97/year" - ???!!!

There is comments on Einstein and what he said before you Log.
I have posted relevant extracts anyway, similar to Alex's extract.. :shrug:

It's there for all to read.

 

[paddoboy]

I am always "up front".
If my OP can not or will not be grasped...what possible chance is there that anything I Post about "beliefs and philosophy of life" would be Grok'd?
!

If you say so.

But then again, I have posted two versions of what you say this discussion should be about...see post 37 :shrug: again.