Atheists are now supporting intelligent design

[Magic Man]

He believed in the God of Spinoza

Yes, which, if you actually understood it, is not really a god. It is not intelligent, nor omnipotent, nor the creator of the universe. It basically is the universe.

Science today teaches that energy is just a property of materialism.
Unfortunately I think it is the other way around .
This would change the way the world is observed from cause and effect.
What is considered random is really guided by magnetisms and resistances.
Energy changing in and out of form through materialism.

You're not really posting this stuff to try to support your point, are you? That would mean you completely misunderstood all of it. You said he believed in Intelligent Design. None of this is even relevant to that assertion.

 

[Agnostic75]

Whether or not a God exists, the universe is definitely not set up favorable to the existence of "particular" organisms since thousands of species have become extinct, since all organisms suffer, since all organisms die, and since global warming might eventually exterminate the human race by an eventual ice age.

If an advanced alien created life on earth, so what since we do not know anything about who he is, his morality, and his agenda?

 

[Walkntune]

Yes, which, if you actually understood it, is not really a god. It is not intelligent, nor omnipotent, nor the creator of the universe. It basically is the universe.

Wrong! Please read again.

"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."

He is speaking of a force in creation, not the whole universe.

 

[Autodidact]

Wrong! Please read again.

He is speaking of a force in creation, not the whole universe.

It's also not God.

 

[Magic Man]

Wrong! Please read again.

Nope, sorry. I was correct. He agreed with Spinoza's god, which is not intelligent, nor omnipotent nor personal.

He is speaking of a force in creation, not the whole universe.

Spinoza was sort of the founder of modern pantheism. His "god" was basically the universe. All Einstein says there is that energy is the basic force of creation. He's not saying that energy is god or that there is a personal god. He said plainly that he didn't believe in a personal god.

I don't understand why you people try to twist these things. Just read some quotes from Einstein, and you'll see your mistake. You still have yet to support your claim that he was a supporter of ID. I'm still waiting.

 

[Walkntune]

It's also not God.

Now remember we are discussing intelligent design and not God though your motives shine through clearly!

 

[Walkntune]

Nope, sorry. I was correct. He agreed with Spinoza's god, which is not intelligent, nor omnipotent nor personal.



Spinoza was sort of the founder of modern pantheism. His "god" was basically the universe. All Einstein says there is that energy is the basic force of creation. He's not saying that energy is god or that there is a personal god. He said plainly that he didn't believe in a personal god.

I don't understand why you people try to twist these things. Just read some quotes from Einstein, and you'll see your mistake. You still have yet to support your claim that he was a supporter of ID. I'm still waiting.

Not saying this force is personal or omnipotent.
The fact that it is compared to hindus prana and e'lan vital we can discuss later as I have to go for now. Einstein knew what he was saying and didn't make those careless comparisons.
Also I am very familiar with his views of religion and God.

 

[Autodidact]

Now remember we are discussing intelligent design and not God though your motives shine through clearly!

So you're saying that Einstein is saying that energy has intelligence?

 

[Walkntune]

So you're saying that Einstein is saying that energy has intelligence?

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."Albert Einstein

 

[Walkntune]

I doubt we we can possibly ever understand and comprehend the laws which are very intelligence is formed from.

 

[LuisDantas]

He believed in the God of Spinoza

Science today teaches that energy is just a property of materialism.
Unfortunately I think it is the other way around .
This would change the way the world is observed from cause and effect.
What is considered random is really guided by magnetisms and resistances.
Energy changing in and out of form through materialism.

I'm no physicist, but I don't think there is any belief that matter "causes" energy in current physics.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm no physicist, but I don't think there is any belief that matter "causes" energy in current physics.

I think you got dat right. But I'm not qualified either.
My idea of physics is counting up teeth on gears.

 

[Walkntune]

I'm no physicist, but I don't think there is any belief that matter "causes" energy in current physics.

They assume its a property of matter.
Well actually they assume matter exists!

 

[Magic Man]

Not saying this force is personal or omnipotent.

Good, then we're agreed these comments say nothing about ID.

The fact that it is compared to hindus prana and e'lan vital we can discuss later as I have to go for now. Einstein knew what he was saying and didn't make those careless comparisons.

Einstein made a lot of comments people like to twist around. The fact is he understood energy and matter better than most people. However, he never implied that energy is intelligent or anything more than plain, old energy.

Also I am very familiar with his views of religion and God.

Apparently not, or else you wouldn't be making the claims you are.

 

[Magic Man]

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."Albert Einstein

I really wish Einstein didn't have a penchant for speaking poetically. It would really reduce the amount of times we had to hear from religious people how he supports their points, when clearly he doesn't.

 

[Walkntune]

I really wish Einstein didn't have a penchant for speaking poetically. It would really reduce the amount of times we had to hear from religious people how he supports their points, when clearly he doesn't.

I am sure deep intuitive thinkers sound poetic to you.

 

[ellenjanuary]

It's a joke!

As far as the OP goes, asked and answered, yer Honor.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I'm no physicist, but I don't think there is any belief that matter "causes" energy in current physics.

Current thinking in quantum theroy is that, essentially, there is no separation between the observer and the observation. Cause and effect is subject to a similiar debate. For instance, a neighbor is playing with a laser when I see a red dot on the wall. I do not see the laser going through my window, nor my neighbor; so is the red dot the effect, or is it actually the cause?

Matter doesn't cause energy. Matter is energy.

 

[Magic Man]

I am sure deep intuitive thinkers sound poetic to you.

Huh? I said I wish Einstein didn't try to be so poetic with his descriptions so that people like you wouldn't misunderstand them and twist them around to support nonsense that Einstein clearly didn't support.

 

[LuisDantas]

Current thinking in quantum theroy is that, essentially, there is no separation between the observer and the observation.

If I am not mistaken, that is a popular misconception. Meow Mix has addressed it on occasion. I believe it is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if it turns out to be a correct interpretation... well, Quantum Physics is still Quantum Physics. It doesn't really have any relation to human nature or to Biology.

Also, see this:

Observer (quantum physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Observer" is a far more mechanical concept than you would need it to be to support your extrapolations.

Cause and effect is subject to a similar debate. For instance, a neighbor is playing with a laser when I see a red dot on the wall. I do not see the laser going through my window, nor my neighbor; so is the red dot the effect, or is it actually the cause?

It depends on your perspective and expectations, I think.

Matter doesn't cause energy. Matter is energy.

That seems to be true, AFAIK. But didn't you just say that energy causes matter? That is not quite the same thing.