15 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joe============================================
Actually, Einstein was an atheist also. My point was being an atheist does not ipso facto mean that said atheist has a limited intellect.
Actually, Einstein was an atheist also. My point was being an atheist does not ipso facto mean that said atheist has a limited intellect.
==================================
I respect people with huge intellects. But this matter of smarts needs to be put in persepective.
It would be righteous of God to reveal Himself to people of ALL levels of intellect. Does a father only love his smartest kids ?
Have few kids and notice their different levels of intelligence. If you're a decent and compasionate dad you will not simply favor the smartest kid. You woud love and want to have a relationship with all your kids.
Suppose God made it so that only those with two Phds. in chemistry could breath the air ?
Suppse He only let those who did post doctorate work in fluid mechanics drink water ?
Suppose only those with with Phd. in acoustics were allowed to hear ?
God should want to reveal God to real smartest people and real dull people and all those of us in between. This idea that only the most intelligent can know the essential truths of human life.
This is not an anti intelligence attitude. This is simply a realization that God would want ALL kinds of levels of intelligence to come into a relationship with Him and know the most vital truths of human life.
I have to reject any thought that only the Einstiens among us can know the most vital truths of life. God has a way for man to know Him which leaves man nothing to boast in, brag about, or point to his own superior capability to another man, as the means to know God.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Dec 10
Originally posted by shorbockYes, but I hardly see how that amounts to much of a critique of theism. Most theist are not committed to the belief that omnipotence allows God to do the logically impossible. But you and 667joe don't really care what theists mean by omnipotence; you are simply intent to construct ridiculous strawmen arguments like.
on the the other hand an omnipotent being could play a tennis match for all eternity, unable to beat himself! (wait...unable?)
15 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joe=======================
Actually, Einstein was an atheist also. My point was being an atheist does not ipso facto mean that said atheist has a limited intellect.
Actually, Einstein was an atheist also.
============================
It seems that everyone wants Albert Einstien on thier side.
Actually, I don't think that a man who said he was insulted with the question of whether or not he believed in God was asked of him, could be called an atheist. Maybe a Deist of some kind he could be called.
Such a question as to if he believed in God, he said was an insult. He believed in God.
Granted he was no born again evangelical lover of Jesus Christ as far as we know. But a theist of some kind with an impersonal deity - that was Einstien.
I don't think you can claim him for the athiest camp altogether.
17 Dec 10
Originally posted by jaywillYou clearly have not read Einstein's Biography.
[b]=======================
Actually, Einstein was an atheist also.
============================
It seems that everyone wants Albert Einstien on thier side.
Actually, I don't think that a man who said he was insulted with the question of whether or not he believed in God was asked of him, could be called an atheist. Maybe a Deist of some k ...[text shortened]... ity - that was Einstien.
I don't think you can claim him for the athiest camp altogether.[/b]
17 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardEinstein lived 35 more years and, as many people do, modified his views....especially after WWII. You may have believed in Santa Claus at one time, but I would not hold you to it now.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."--Albert Einstien, 1929
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeLet's say that Einstein knew an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, he would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that he would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that he would not be aware of. He would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. He would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before him.
I suspect Einstein's thoughts are more cogent than yours, however.
Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that he had an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that he hadn’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by dj2beckerThomas Edison was an atheist. I agree with him that we know very little of the overall picture, but there is absolutely no proof of god. How people claim to know what god wants is even more amazing.
Let's say that Einstein knew an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, he would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that he would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that he would not be aware of. He would know everything that has happened in history, from that which i ...[text shortened]... adn’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
20 Dec 10
1 edit
It is a common misconception that because someone is "clever", they would be in a better position to have a good answer for everything.
There are a lot of very intelligent people who are atheist as well as theist, so using Einstein as an example to prove either way is pointless. Same goes for anyone else who is known to be intelligent who happens to share similar views to yourself.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by lauseyWhen I brought up Einstein, it was only to say that Einstein's intellect was probably more profound than that of the poster who discredited Einstein's intellect.
It is a common misconception that because someone is "clever", they would be in a better position to have a good answer for everything.
There are a lot of very intelligent people who are atheist as well as theist, so using Einstein as an example to prove either way is pointless. Same goes for anyone else who is known to be intelligent who happens to share similar views to yourself.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeYour logic falters at "If god were a baseball player".
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.