The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

You accused me of only accepting things on faith because I cannot personally verify them. Can you personally verify what these people say in the article you linked, or do you take it on faith? It's a simple question.

I responded to every one of these but somehow it deleted everything I said and only posted what you had said. I do not have the heart to that over again so I will do these a few at a time.

Take out the word only above and you will have what I actually stated. Include it and I have never thought that about anyone so need answer no questions about it. Ask me about what I actually said and I will answer or try to.

Now let's pretend you're not just flailing madly and flinging words out at random and try and function a coherent sentence out of this statement. It's really very simple: You have repeatedly asserted that, unless I personally verify a claim, I cannot assess its validity. If that is the case, please demonstrate how you have personally verified the claims of the individuals you are quoting.

I have to first pretend you have the omniscience to know your personal commentary guesses are right to begin with. I doubt it, so cannot do that. I have asserted that some of the claims you make require vast training and access to very rare data and instrumentation and that only a very few have it. This is a fact that does not deserve contention.

You are completely dodging the point.

Once again a complete guess. This one again requires you to have access to that which you do not. You do not know my reasons, emotional state or motivation for what I respond with so guesses that require them are meaningless. I spend all my time responding to your unfounded impressions and little discussing what is actually relevant.

You said that you had never found any instances where Newton was wrong. I explained that it is widely known among physicists and cosmologists that Newton's theories were incomplete, and were in some areas inaccurate. You were unaware of this, and thus it calls into question your knowledge of science and your education on physics. I never said anything about this "demonstrating my capacity for the quantum" but your desperate attempt to change the subject after being embarrassed is duly noted.

Since I have known Newton was wrong about a vast number of things then I doubt I ever said what you claim I did. Please quote it.

So do all creation or origin stories. By definition, they all start with a point at which something began to exist. This is not a huge revelation.

That is completely untrue. There are quite an array of creation story types and huge numbers of them have virtually no consistency with reality or even each other. Regardless the bible's among a very few have creation stories that are consistent with cosmology and detailed enough for that to mean anything.

Science had what wrong? You need to be more specific.

I thought the steady state to be so obvious that I did not need to point it out.

Where?

Start with Genesis 1:1-12.

And yet you've not given any textual evidence. "The Bible said the Universe started to exist" is hardly compelling evidence of the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

Even if that was all it had said and you know very well it isn't that would still make it more consistent with reality than the steady state and cosmology of the early 20th century.

 

[metis]

I've heard a story about Albert.
He continued his fascination with numbers and when asked about his immediate effort.....
'I'm trying to catch God in the act.'

Yep. Einstein repeatedly stated that by studying the cosmos and all that's in it, we get closer and closer to understanding God, which he said he wanted to do.

BTW, some believe that Einstein equated the "laws of nature" as actually being God, which led some to speculate that he was actually a closet atheist. Possibly, but I really doubt that based on his repeatedly stating that he believed in "Spinoza's God". I have studied Spinoza's theology, and he definitely was a theist even though some declared him to be an atheist.

 

[1robin]

Fair enough.

God is by far the best current candidate but believing he is not a certainty.

Please tell me how you determined this. Also, how can I not determine that, and yet you can determine that m-theory or abiogenesis are impossible.

It is very hard to determine what did not happen. It is much easier (though still hard) to determine what events this long ago did occur. It requires a lot of evidence (way more than what exists) to allow you to responsibly claim what you did.

No, I'm sticking to my guns. The killing of all the first born sons of Egypt never happened, and I am far more certain of that than you are of the impossibility of M-theory. I base this on the simple fact of the practicality of the order requiring power and influence that would have been impossible for almost any king at this point in history, and the fact that no extra-Biblical historical records exist that describe those events - even those by historians at the time who disliked King Herod. The fact that historical records exist that describe Herod's habit of keeping his dead wife in a jar of honey survived, and yet no single extra-Biblical record survives of him having committed perhaps the greatest act of infanticide in the world's history, is somewhat damning with regards to any claim that it is a historical fact.

I am sure you are sticking to whatever feeds the narrative but the fact remains you don't have the slightest idea what actually occurred. That is not even how history works. For events this old responsible scholars only claim that the evidence supports this conclusion or that and do not make absolute judgments. History is about best fits and most comprehensive explanations and not about certainties like you claimed. Especially when it comes to things that did not happen.

But the Bible does. Do your faith and personal experience not determine the Bible as true?

Nothing I about my experience or faith makes anything true or not. They only reveal what I believe to be true and do not make anything what it is. The bible is extremely accurate yet contains claims that have no way of verifying and some mistakes. Please see the Chicago statement of faith for what we believe about textual integrity. My faith in Christ has nothing to do with Herod or even the OT. My faith comes mainly from my experiences of Christ and the core conclusions of NT scholars.

1. He existed and had an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified by Rome with Jewish insistence.
3. He died on the cross.
4. His tomb was found empty.
5. That people (even his enemies) sincerely reported experiencing him in person after death.

What more is required?

Did you not agree with the claim that the Bible is based entirely on historical claims?

The original revelation, yes.

I was contesting the quote you presented, which states quite clearly:

Ambrose Fleming asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

This is about the acceptability of supernatural explanations to experts on the natural and has nothing to do with simple historical events that are not supernatural. Your contesting one form of textual integrity that I never mentioned not the requirements for faith in Christ.

King Herod's act of mass infanticide is pivotal to the story of Jesus, and yet there is no reason whatsoever to think it is anything more than pure Biblical fiction. Even you are unprepared to defend the historicity of the event. In light of this, do you not think that Ambrose Fleming is, quite emphatically, wrong?

It is not. Mt faith in Christ would not change in the slightest if the story never existed. That story is simply context and commentary and not doctrinally related or required for complete faith in Christ.

Also, I really have to stress the double-standard you're showing here. You constantly make assertions about what is possible or impossible in the Universe, and yet when I say that King Herod killing all the first born of Egypt was a fictional account you deride me because I couldn't possibly know it? Well, you couldn't possibly know that delusion couldn't possibly account for your beliefs. You couldn't possibly know that abiogenesis is impossible. You couldn't possibly know that M-theory is impossible. You make blank assertions about things you cannot possibly know all the time, and yet you expect others to have to know everything 100% before they can assert it. This is a double-standard, pure and simple, and a clear example of that inconsistency I was telling you about.

Since I doubt every single one of your examples actually occurred then I doubt your whole statement.

Quote where I said that abiogenesis or M theory was impossible. There are good reasons to think that but I do not consider the issue concluded at this time for abiogenesis and have never thought I had the ability to think that about M-theory. So I doubt I ever claimed such but need to clarify if I did, so please quote me.

 

[1robin]

But sometimes accurate. Your assertion was so absurd that it was completely warranted. A claim deserving of no respect will receive none.

I think not but even if we pretend a personal attack was accurate that is not to say it was justifiable. I wish only that you would either prove how you know things like my motivations or emotional reactions or states or stop assuming you do and only discuss the issues. Until you do your wasting a lot of time I do not have with these unknowable sidebars.

Nope, not buying it. You weren't talking about a specific brand of faith. You said, quite clearly:

"Christians are the group above any other that have arrived at the position most in opposition to that which they began with."

Above any other?? Are you serious? You don't think that, say, someone who was raised by a fundamentalist Christian family in the American south, who grew up to want to be a preacher and went to seminary school, only to become an atheist, has arrived at a position more in opposition than, say, a person who grew up in a non-Christian family, had a personal experience, and became a Christian? This is a ridiculously broad, sweeping statement which indicates not only a level of disconnect between your beliefs and reality, but a disconnect between you and reality in total. And I would say the exact same thing were you making the same claim about almost any group, because the generalization is simply that absurd.

This is confused and not accurate. When I state anything about the group "Christian". I am talking about the group of people that Christ was describing.

1. When I talk about humanity in general I am talking about what the bible says is true of all of us and what reality makes obvious. WE are all born without any defined notion of God. Most develop some belief in something beyond nature but no-one begins life believing in the biblical God, heaven, Hell or Christ, much less being in harmony with him. No one lives their pre-teen years with a believe they are condemned for their actions. This can only be deduced by learning it from another source. Our conscience may be consistent with this but will never generate it in isolation.
2. When talking about a Christian I am talking about that which Christ described not that person who answers questions on a census. The person described in # 1 learns about Christ and concludes that it is true. Upon doing so he is united with God, the Holy Spirit comes to live in their heart, Christ's nature is accessed, habits are extinguished and our first taste of heaven, the supernatural, and actual peace is ours and it is quite shocking and revelatory.

Oh, I get it. So, because I am an atheist and you are not, my preference for how I want my beliefs to be portrayed takes precedence over yours. Makes sense. I am an atheist, therefore I am more likely to be correct about atheism than you are

. I have no idea what your talking about. We were talking about the radical nature of the change that occurs in a Christian upon being born again. Since you are not one you cannot meaningfully contribute to it. Your beliefs have nothing to do with that. WE have all been atheists and can comment on that but we are not all Muslims, Born again Christians, or Hindus. Not that the other two require anything beyond intellectual agreement but the principle is still applicable.

Well, that definitely makes it true, then. Because it's not like experiencing nirvana, or being reincarnated, or reaching enlightement, or projecting yourself into the astral plane are difficult rites of passage. No, those ideological transformations are the easy way out. Clearly, Christianity has the monopoly on difficult transitions, because it says so.

Yes not one of these is doctrinally similar to Christianity but that was not the main point. That was a point I made to support the main point. You will not find even a meaningful fraction of people who claim to have reached Nirvana, etc... compared to born against. There must be a thousand to one ration here, not that the quality is even remotely comparable either. It's numbers, quality, and doctrine and no other group has even a relevant (comparatively) amount of either. Not that I ever said any or all three were proof.

I'm not sure you know what "personal" means. "Personal" is when I attack you, as a person. Attacking what you are saying is quite different.

In this case I mainly mean commentary based on assumptions about things you have no access to. Like my motivations or emotional responses. I have never dodged anything you mentioned, I was never embarrassed, etc... It is a complete waste of our time.

I've already explained how the reliability of quantum physics can be demonstrated every time you use a computer. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

Exactly is obvious proof of the quantum about a HP desktop? It's operating system was not designed by anyone that was a quantum theorist. The processors your talking about do not exist in our normal environments. However how is any of this irrelevant. I have made two types of general claims here. That theoretical science is not as knowable as you suggest and that God has no scientific disproof. Neither is affected by what you stated above.

Actually, no. That's not relevant either, since we're not debating my credentials with regards to quantum physics. We're debating the reliability to which I am capable of assessing that quantum physics presents an accurate view of reality, to which I can attest that my belief in its reliability is dependent on the real-world applications of the theory. I don't need a PhD in quantum physics to determine that any more than I need a PhD in aerodynamics to understand that what we know about weight, mass and inertia is accurate and true enough to enable us to fly around in planes.

I could not care less but we have discussed the know ability of the quantum quite a bit. Since we both know you and I are only dabblers in issues this complex we can dispense with any knowledge of it being a contention with the bible and so cease discussing it.

Well, personal experience is apparently your only means of knowing anything, then.

That is overwhelming true. The exceptions to it are far and few between and true for all of us. In this case my personal experience is such as to be a reliable indicator of hos prevalent quantum experts are in the fields of electrical engineering, advanced avionics, processing, weapon systems, and gps guidance etc... They are rare and I only gave an example to confirm this, nothing more.

That wasn't rhetorical. I'm seriously asking why you keep mentioning it when it's not relevant to what you and I are discussing.

Just ignore what you can't get, I am not going back 4 levels of posts to find out what your talking about. These posts are long enough and irrelevant enough as it is.

 

[1robin]

So the smart guy isn't allowed to change his mind?
Not allowed to hone their focus on theology?

I did not say anything about permissions to change anyone's mind. I said that anyone as inconsistent about God as Einstein is irrelevant (or no more relevant than anyone else's). A capacity in physics does not translate to theology and his is among the worst. For example the idea that God is the energy that created the universe (at least alone) is incoherent and philosophically unsound. However he has the right to believe whatever fantasy he likes as long as it hurts no one else without justification.

 

[1robin]

Your point is valid, and 1robin's take on Einstein with regards to religion is so wrong, although this is not to say that Einstein was theologically correct. His drift was the God was likely the energy of creation itself, thus to a large extent parroting Spinoza's drift. Einstein studied theology and well knew various hypotheses dealing with God, and I would defy anyone to prove him wrong in this area, which again is not to say he was correct.

In the area of cosmology, certainly Einstein turned out to be wrong when it came to his Cosmic Constant and Steady State theories, but one has to remember when he formulated these theories whereas we had really no solid indication of the BB and we knew far less about the composition of our universe. I'm quite positive Einstein today would take those theories back along with a couple of others as well.

However, people that believe that only their religious approach is valid are not going to be enamored with Einstein's drift. Einstein hypothesized on the basis of existing evidence, but some here make all sorts of claims based on really nothing but their beliefs minus evidence, or they fabricate the evidence to appease themselves. I think you and I are aware of some here that are like that.

Do you want to compound your troubles by (even theoretically) defending Einstein's pantheistic claims as you gave them? I do not recommend it. BTW your agreeing (again) with something I never said or thought. I never said anything about Einstein's right to believe whatever nonsense he wished to.

 

[ArtieE]

It would only help if you provided an illustration the Hebrews actually made from the time periods in question. Since that does not exist, then instead could you respond to what I actually said. That drawing would not be coherent to anyone. The Hebrews were mopre ignorant than us but just as intelligent. They would easily see the same inconsistencies in your illustration compared to reality that I do. Your illustration also flies in the face of the actual scriptures on the issues those people actually wrote and that I provided.

"The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post-biblical times.[7][8][9] ... In early Egyptian[10] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[11] The biblical earth is a flat disc floating on water.[12]" Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Follow the references. I don't think there's much point in continuing this exchange since you're in complete denial of the facts. So let's stop here.

 

[Gordian Knot]

1Robin said "There are quite an array of creation story types and huge numbers of them have virtually no consistency with reality or even each other. Regardless the bible's among a very few have creation stories that are consistent with cosmology and detailed enough for that to mean anything."

Wow. This comment really says it all as to where you are coming from. Which is fine, of course. You can come from where ever you like.

But do not pretend that you have any objectivity whatsoever. You shoot yourself down with your own words.

 

[1robin]

Yep. Einstein repeatedly stated that by studying the cosmos and all that's in it, we get closer and closer to understanding God, which he said he wanted to do.

Maimonides said this a thousand years before Einstein, in fact the bible suggest the same thing long before any of them.

BTW, some believe that Einstein equated the "laws of nature" as actually being God, which led some to speculate that he was actually a closet atheist. Possibly, but I really doubt that based on his repeatedly stating that he believed in "Spinoza's God". I have studied Spinoza's theology, and he definitely was a theist even though some declared him to be an atheist.

Spinoza's God is by definition a God that even if he existed there would be know way to know it. I can not call deism wrong but I can call it a proposition of which there will never be confirmation and if no practical use what ever.

 

[metis]

1Robin said "There are quite an array of creation story types and huge numbers of them have virtually no consistency with reality or even each other. Regardless the bible's among a very few have creation stories that are consistent with cosmology and detailed enough for that to mean anything."

Wow. This comment really says it all as to where you are coming from. Which is fine, of course. You can come from where ever you like.

But do not pretend that you have any objectivity whatsoever. You shoot yourself down with your own words.

As I'm quite certain that you'll agree with, some people see only what they want to see.

Viewing the creation accounts as if they're actual history makes literally no sense, especially since there are so many signs that it's essentially a myth*, probably taken from a Babylonian narrative that had been written at least a thousand years earlier that we seemingly reworked to reflect our morals and values.

Plus the importance of the accounts is not whether our universe came about as some sort of literal history, but exactly what are those morals and values. The "creation" is past history, but the morals and values we can learn from and use today.

*myth obviously does not mean falsehood but, instead, a narrative that's main purpose is to teach a traditional story that typically deals with the supernatural.

 

[1robin]

"The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post-biblical times.[7][8][9] ... In early Egyptian[10] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[11] The biblical earth is a flat disc floating on water.[12]" Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Follow the references. I don't think there's much point in continuing this exchange since you're in complete denial of the facts. So let's stop here.

Since these claims seem to ignore the tiny fraction of evidence to the contrary that I posted. Let me post it again.

As far as the earth being a flat disk. This is simply a superficial reading. The Hebrews had no word for a large sphere. There is no other word they would have used. This does nothing to prove they thought it was a sphere but is meaningful in this process of understanding. I have posted quite a bit on this but will be brief here. There are many more verses that can be used to discover what they believed here. I will only supply one at this time. Prov 8:27 states very clearly that the earth is a circle. However it gives no fixed point for this observation implying the obvious conclusion that no matter where it is the Earth is viewed from it will appear to be a circle. This can only occur if the Earth is a sphere and would have been apparent to anyone.

In addition to other verses that make it quite clear that the Earth could only be described as it was if it was a circle, I combine the facts that even the most primitive of man could discern a curvature regardless of his view point and understood shapes and concepts in exactitude. These men were no less intelligent as we and even as a kid I pictured the earth as round. I also have to consider the fact that the same exact set of books written by the same man also accurately laid out what cosmology has come to understand about the beginning of the universe even though Einstein got it wrong, that it was right about germ theory even though medical scholars in 1860 killed thousands because they did not even wash their hands, that it correctly predicted the oceanic currents and a Christian operating on only the biblical prediction first confirmed it. It is hard to question a persons arithmetic if they can do differential equations correct every time. The post after post I have previously and exhaustively laid out the relevant details concerning the Hebrew concept of the earth can easily be found if searched for. A person has to be trying very hard to look for a flat disk to read it into what the Bible claims and an earth centered universe is completely absent.

Let me add another. There is a verse where Jesus says that when he returns one part of the earth it will be daytime and another part night. Now you MUST have a sphere and one that is spinning to make that verse work. Not to mention that the ancients could see a spherical sun, a spherical moon, a spherical Venus and mars. I am certain they would have assumed circularity for Earth. I wish you and others would respond to me arguments before restating your claims over and over.

 

[1robin]

It was really quite obvious when you look at what I was responding to. You accused science of being institutionally corrupt, driven by money, and that "tens of millions have died at the altar of scientific presuppositions". Can you give examples of these, please?

1. Atomized testing of engineered diseases over population centers.
2. Gas warfare.
3. The ignorance (willful ignorance since germ theory did exist but was unpopular) that killed more people in the hospitals than on the battlefield in the 1860's.
4. Believing that draining our blood made us better when it actually killed us.
5. Joseph Mengele.
6. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin practiced social Darwinism.
7. Dozens upon dozens of structural failures that killed millions.
8. Science not only invented Greek fire, gunpowder, and nuclear theory, they were hard at work weaponing them as fast as possible in several countries.
9. However the potential worst of the all is teaching theories as fact and then compounding the error but using them inappropriately to invalidate the bible to ignorant children.

Let me illustrate just how Gullible our modern culture is.

An experiment was performed by condemning dihydrogen monoxide.
1. It was said to be a component in acid rain.
2. Caused excessive sweating and urination.
3. Was the cause of most drowning.
4. And every home contains this terrible substance.

99% of people who were told this assigned a petition to stop it's use. Only one or two recognized it as water. People especially these days are taking most science on faith and when they are lied to by saying anything in science is incompatible with the bible. The steeple jump on board without the slightest idea they are being fooled. While you are not among the average you cannot but be influenced by the exact same dynamic.

 

[fantome profane]

Let me illustrate just how Gullible our modern culture is.

An experiment was performed by condemning dihydrogen monoxide.
1. It was said to be a component in acid rain.
2. Caused excessive sweating and urination.
3. Was the cause of most drowning.
4. And every home contains this terrible substance.

99% of people who were told this assigned a petition to stop it's use. Only one or two recognized it as water. People especially these days are taking most science on faith and when they are lied to by saying anything in science is incompatible with the bible. The steeple jump on board without the slightest idea they are being fooled. While you are not among the average you cannot but be influenced by the exact same dynamic.

It is also commonly used as a fire retardant, and used as a solvent in many industrial processes.

Yes, the general public can be very gullible when it comes to scientific topics. This is why the likes of Ray Comfort, or Ken Ham manage to convince many people that Evolution is not valid. People who have a good solid scientific education don't fall for creationist nonsense just as they don't tend to fall for the dihydrogen monoxide joke.

 

[ArtieE]

I wish you and others would respond to me arguments before restating your claims over and over.

We could probably spend a lifetime responding to your arguments one by one but it wouldn't help so it would be useless. Better to explain in detail exactly what the Bible says. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

[Thief]

I did not say anything about permissions to change anyone's mind. I said that anyone as inconsistent about God as Einstein is irrelevant (or no more relevant than anyone else's). A capacity in physics does not translate to theology and his is among the worst. For example the idea that God is the energy that created the universe (at least alone) is incoherent and philosophically unsound. However he has the right to believe whatever fantasy he likes as long as it hurts no one else without justification.

That's the same as 'not allowing' with your standard of allowance up front.

I like Albert better.

 

[1robin]

It is also commonly used as a fire retardant, and used as a solvent in many industrial processes.

Yes, the general public can be very gullible when it comes to scientific topics. This is why the likes of Ray Comfort, or Ken Ham manage to convince many people that Evolution is not valid. People who have a good solid scientific education don't fall for creationist nonsense just as they don't tend to fall for the dihydrogen monoxide joke.

You are perfectly correct in saying that Christian ignorance causes misguided conclusions. However that does nothing to diminish the fact that 2/3rds of people are not Christians and are just as ignorant and far more certain that their wrong conclusions are justified. Christians at least admit their conclusions are matters of faith where as their opposites seem to argue as if they know their fantasies are actually true and use the word science as a metaphor for truth.


As usual the truth probably lies in between both camps. Evolution has occurred but God also had a role in genetic reality. That is the best conclusion possible from the data. Either extreme, that God did everything in 6 literal days or that naturalism is true are probably the worst.

 

[1robin]

We could probably spend a lifetime responding to your arguments one by one but it wouldn't help so it would be useless. Better to explain in detail exactly what the Bible says. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

My argument has been essentially what scriptures say. I mainly posted scriptures, and told you that you can find the lists of scriptures I have provided in previous posts that make the disk theory a ridiculous proposition. Since my position has been entirely based on what the bible actually states your refusal to rebut it and the reason given for it is disingenuous. I have given several scriptures instead of following new links why don't you first explain how a disk is consistent with the few scriptures I have given already.

1. I gave one about the Earth being a circle regardless of the observers viewpoint.
2. One about it being night on one side of the earth and day on the other at the exact same moment.
3. And one about the horizon being an arc regardless on viewing position.

How do you get a disk out of that?

It's also a cop out to suggest after a few posts that arguing with a person is pointless. That is arrogant and immature. It is the admission of the loss but blaming it on another.

 

[1robin]

That's the same as 'not allowing' with your standard of allowance up front.

I like Albert better.

I have no idea what your talking about. Einstein's theological musings are so incoherent that they have been the subject of confused debate ever since he wrote them. He contradicts himself, makes self refuting statements, is not qualified as a theologian in any way. They may be interesting, you may like them, but there is no reason to treat them as authorities or even rational. You will find that huge groups of people believe he was a theist, another a deist, and still another an atheist. If there is that much confusion about what he was then what he believed is even more confusing. Even many of those that oppose me here in this informal forum make far more logical arguments than Einstein did about God.


Now if this was a physics forum I would shut up and let the master speak, but it isn't.

 

[fantome profane]

As usual the truth probably lies in between both camps.

I have to say I have always hated that particular flavour of tripe. Especially when it comes to the Evolution vs Creationism debate.

 

[Thief]

I have no idea what your talking about. Einstein's theological musings are so incoherent that they have been the subject of confused debate ever since he wrote them. He contradicts himself, makes self refuting statements, is not qualified as a theologian in any way. They may be interesting, you may like them, but there is no reason to treat them as authorities or even rational. You will find that huge groups of people believe he was a theist, another a deist, and still another an atheist. If there is that much confusion about what he was then what he believed is even more confusing. Even many of those that oppose me here in this informal forum make far more logical arguments than Einstein did about God.


Now if this was a physics forum I would shut up and let the master speak, but it isn't.

Contradiction in theology is not unusual.
Perhaps you should let the rogue theologians deal with it.

you seem unable.