does god _still_ exist? when did god die?

1. assuming someone, or something, created us in a certain way. what makes us/you sure that he/she/it is still alive?

2. is it important to you that he/she/it is still alive?

do you rather believe that God's spirit lives on in everything that surrounds us, but god itself is dead?

4. can gods die?

5. can God (he/she/it) die?

assuming that God is the spark that set the universe into existence, is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang) and thus God sacrificed himself to create the universe?

7. assuming 6 is true, will god resurrect when the universe collapes into a single point?

I think it is more apt to say that we are dead

rather than God...

1. assuming someone, or something, created us in a certain way. what makes us/you sure that he/she/it is still alive?

2. is it important to you that he/she/it is still alive?

4. can gods die?
5. can God (he/she/it) die?

6. assuming that God is the spark that set the universe into existence, is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang) and thus God sacrificed himself to create the universe?
7. assuming 6 is true, will god resurrect when the universe collapes into a single point?

i want you to express your thoughts and feelings about those questions.

all i know about god comes from stories that are some thousands of years old.

i agree on sebcrea's "how could we be so arrogant to believe that god still cares about us personally".

1. assuming someone, or something, created us in a certain way. what makes us/you sure that he/she/it is still alive?

2. is it important to you that he/she/it is still alive?

3. do you rather believe that God's spirit lives on in everything that surrounds us, but god itself is dead?

4. can gods die?

5. can God (he/she/it) die?

6. assuming that God is the spark that set the universe into existence, is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang) and thus God sacrificed himself to create the universe?

7. assuming 6 is true, will god resurrect when the universe collapes into a single point?

6. assuming that God is the spark that set the universe into existence, is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang) and thus God sacrificed himself to create the universe?

Now you try again using a more sophisticated instrument

You come to the conclusion that the electromagnetic field was not null rather the sensitivity of the instrument was too poor to measure it

The field is never null, rather it is "fast changing".

Consequently what you call "vacuum" is actually a region of space full of energy

Since energy and mass are equivalent items than vacuum is also full of "matter"

Matter ( or better mass) and energy are the same stuff

The creation(s) was(were) due to quantistic instability (ies) of vacuum
If this theory is true , obviouly there is a little room left for a personal or impersonal God

The use of full here implies that there is more energy than non-energy in a "vacuum"?

What is meant by "matter" here?

That explains the use of two or more separate terms.

1. assuming someone, or something, created us in a certain way. what makes us/you sure that he/she/it is still alive?

2. is it important to you that he/she/it is still alive?

3. do you rather believe that God's spirit lives on in everything that surrounds us, but god itself is dead?

4. can gods die?
5. can God (he/she/it) die?

6. assuming that God is the spark that set the universe into existence, is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang) and thus God sacrificed himself to create the universe?

7. assuming 6 is true, will god resurrect when the universe collapes into a single point?

The claim " conversion from energy to matter" is not 100 % correct even though it is widely used also in serious scientific publication
Matter ( or better mass) and energy are the same stuff
They are , so to speak,the two sides of the same coin
This is the true meaning of the famous equation E = M*C^2

In the immortal words of Albert Einstein "God does not play dice.". There are facts everywhere that are evidence of God's existance.

Dont quote Einstein...he was an atheist

finally, one more question: do you have to believe in god to be a good christian?

finally, one more question: do you have to believe in god to be a good christian?

Erm...the meaning of the word is "Followers of Christ"...Jesus was God in the flesh, so....yes you do have to believe in him to be a christian in the first place.

and actually that depends on what facts you look at, a few of his conversations supported the "Einstein believes in God" theory.

On 22 March 1954 a self-made man sent Einstein in Princeton a long handwritten letter-four closely packed pages in English. The correspondent despaired that there were so few people like Einstein who had the courage to speak out, and he wondered if it would not be best to return the world to the animals. Saying "I presume you would like to know who I am," he went on to tell in detail how he had come from Italy to the United States at the age of nine, arriving in bitter cold weather, as a result of which his sisters died while he barely survived; how after six months of schooling he went to work at age ten; how at age seventeen he went to Evening School; and so on, so that now he had a regular job as an experimental machinist, had a spare-time business of his own, and had some patents to his credit. He declared himself an atheist. He said that real education came from reading books. He cited an article about Einstein's religious beliefs and expressed doubts as to the article's accuracy. He was irreverent about various aspects of formal religion, speaking about the millions of people who prayed to God in many languages, and remarking that God must have an enormous clerical staff to keep track of all their sins. And he ended with a long discussion of the social and political systems of Italy and the United States that it would take too long to describe here. He also enclosed a check for Einstein to give to charity.

On 24 March 1954 Einstein answered in English as follows:

I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

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.

I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.

There is in the Einstein Archives a letter dated 5 August 1927 from a banker in Colorado to Einstein in Berlin. Since it begins "Several months ago I wrote you as follows," one may assume that Einstein had not yet answered. The banker remarked that most scientists and the like had given up the idea of God as a bearded, benevolent father figure surrounded by angels, although many sincere people worship and revere such a God. The question of God had arisen in the course of a discussion in a literary group, and some of the members decided to ask eminent men to send their views in a form that would be suitable for publication. He added that some twenty-four Nobel Prize winners had already responded, and he hoped that Einstein would too.

On the letter, Einstein wrote the following in German. It may or may not have been sent:

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.

Actually that depends on where you live... being a Christian in Europe can also mean that you do not believe in Jesus Christ. Yeah, I agree that it's a bit funny when you look at where the word Christianity comes from, but it's true... On the other hands it's a bit funny to me how you have to believe in Christ to be a real Christian in the eyes of American Christians. As if such a condition makes sense regardless of whether or not Jesus existed or not ,



If you look deeper into it then you will find that Einstein was actually really an atheist, and a pretty convinced one for that, but he wasn't close minded to the subject. The confusion about what he believed comes from how he thought about terms like religion, God, atheism, and agnosticism and also the church and press that wanted people to believe that Einstein was a religious person.

His famous quote 'God does not play with dice' has very little to do with actually believing in God, but more so it was an analogy people would easily understand for what he meant to say in that context. It's disturbing to see how often it gets ripped out of context, even when Einstein was still alive. In fact, there should be a quote on what he said about people abusing that particular quote and others, which quite clearly shows he's an atheist and has been consistent in his beliefs all his life.

Here;


And here:



I especially like this part; Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.

Cheers

@Christianity Statement: That would make it false christianity. Christianity began from the disciples of Jesus, it moved on to the rest of the world from there, but if you take Christ out of Christianity, then there is no Christ-likeness, which is the definition of Christianity as I said before. It is not only american Christians who believe this, it started with the roots of Christianity. Any other alternative is false and is actually a mockery of the word. smile As for the existance of Jesus, there are reports from roman officials that prove his existance, such as Pontious Pilate.

@Einstein: he actually was agnostic in his latter years. He did go to several churches in his younger years, but never really professed Judaism nor Christianity, however, when he got older he believed in the existance of God, although it was not the God we christians believe in, he believed in Spinoza's sense of God. Here's a few quotes

"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."

Einstein's "belief" in Spinoza's God is one of his most widely quoted statements. But quoted out of context, like so many of these statements, it is misleading at best. It all started when Boston's Cardinal O'Connel attacked Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity and warned the youth that the theory "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His creation"(Clark, 1971, 413-414). Einstein had already experienced heavier duty attacks against his theory in the form of anti-Semitic mass meetings in Germany, and he initially ignored the Cardinal's attack. Shortly thereafter though, on April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask: "Do you believe in God?"(Sommerfeld, 1949, 103). Einstein's return message is the famous statement: "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"( 103). The Rabbi, who was intent on defending Einstein against the Cardinal, interpreted Einstein's statement in his own way when writing: "Spinoza, who is called the God-intoxicated man, and who saw God manifest in all nature, certainly could not be called an atheist. Furthermore, Einstein points to a unity. Einstein's theory if carried out to its logical conclusion would bring to mankind a scientific formula for monotheism. He does away with all thought of dualism or pluralism. There can be no room for any aspect of polytheism. This latter thought may have caused the Cardinal to speak out. Let us call a spade a spade"(Clark, 1971, 414). Both the Rabbi and the Cardinal would have done well to note Einstein's remark, of 1921, to Archbishop Davidson in a similar context about science: "It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"(413).

The American physicist Steven Weinberg (1992), in critiquing Einstein's "Spinoza's God" statement, noted: "But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?" Weinberg certainly has a valid point, but we should also forgive Einstein for being a product of his times, for his poetic sense, and for his cosmic religious view regarding such things as the order and harmony of the universe.

But what, at bottom, was Einstein's belief? The long answer exists in Einstein's essays on religion and science as given in his Ideas and Opinions (1954), his Autobiographical Notes (1949), and other works. What about a short answer?

In the Summer of 1945, just before the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein wrote a short letter stating his position as an atheist (Figure 1). Ensign Guy H. Raner had written Einstein from mid-Pacific requesting a clarification on the beliefs of the world famous scientist (Figure 2). Four years later Raner again wrote Einstein for further clarification and asked "Some people might interpret (your letter) to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., 'one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or a Supreme Being'?" Einstein's response is shown in Figure 3.

That would make it false christianity. Christianity began from the disciples of Jesus, it moved on to the rest of the world from there, but if you take Christ out of Christianity, then there is no Christ-likeness, which is the definition of Christianity as I said before.

It is not only american Christians who believe this, it started with the roots of Christianity. Any other alternative is false and is actually a mockery of the word. smile As for the existance of Jesus, there are reports from roman officials that prove his existance, such as Pontious Pilate.

i didn't even know about his attitude towards religion.

it seems to me that most people think they know everything about einstein by just quoting the famous equation. popular science... well. keep it out of this discussion, please.

is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang)..?

i have never said a single word about einstein, i didn't even know about his attitude towards religion. and i wrote, from the very beginning, that this thread was not be seen as a scientific discussion, but a question of belief.

i did not have physics in mind. in fact, i asked these questions myself after reading nietzsche's "thus spoke zarathustra", that's why i wanted to turn it into a more philsosphical discussion, not a discussion about equations, scientific proof, or physics.

moreover, it seems to me that most people think they know everything about einstein by just quoting the famous equation. popular science... well. keep it out of this discussion, please.

Philosophical discussions are great, but you can't deny scientific knowledge just because you don't like it...

I think that's where it inevitably went wrong.

In general that's usually why it doesn't make much sense to argue with a religious person, they will deny what we do know and go by pure faith.

It seems the term philosophy has different meanings.

This or that, gods / faith and knowledge / science, here and there, are many mind constructs of a being so lofty it fails at simple unity gains?

It has little to do with my attitude towards religion, I actually am really open minded on the subject and like to discuss whatever other people think about it.

I think to some extent threads like this will not work when 'special' rules are in effect.

Yes, but religion never is about uniting anyone... instead it without exception will create a 'us and them' issue, used to keep people in one group under their control.

It has little to do with my attitude towards religion, I actually am really open minded on the subject and like to discuss whatever other people think about it.

Manipulation everywhere off course,

but there's no reason to fear anything when there's no hostile outside, even if that's not actually real, but just a claim.

religion
*attitude is fine, I am actually really open minded on the subject
*like to discuss whatever other people think about it
*religion is never about uniting anyone
*it is used to keep people in one group
*without exception, it will create a 'us and them' issue

No disrespect intended on this vein, but I could almost assume certain apparent contradictions are intentionally provided for enjoyment.
Such an assumption would certainly be biased, in favor of jest and delight, which is my preference indeed.

Mmm, contradicting because you do not think those last three points are valid?

*attitude is fine, I am actually really open minded on the subject

*religion is never about uniting anyone

*it is used to keep people in one group

*without exception, it will create a 'us and them' issue

Those last three points can be observed,

but it takes the perspective of an 'outsider' I guess,

as many from within such groups do not see it like this.

That in itself might sound contradictory, but I don't think it is or must be.

Anyways, I'm more interested in the human psychology behind it all,

What? If it was enjoyed, I might find more concern in the validity of ice cream.
If that is a ploy of contrast, an attempt to negate any enjoyment derived from one or more forms of word play (might be intentionally offered contradiction, recently), then maybe enjoyment can be found in that also or alternately.
However, with that extension, perhaps, the semblance to a form of masturbation is needlessly heavy.

The attitudes may serve a purpose, and there is nearly an automatic appearance about it, in some cases.

Why have you done this to broozar's thread?
Where is your respect for others and their spaces?

[*unity*] Point, opinion, device or other, for all and that, agreement might be found in proximity of Neverland, and relevancy for this expression might be nearer still.

The interpretation is dependent on the observer(s) and so forth?

What use is that?
Concerning the use of such ~devices, if that arrangement is satisfactory, where is competition and collaboration placed?

smitty, why are you grabbing out old threads to say basically the same in each of them? You already severally mentioned that you believe in god.

You can edit my posts, but you cannot change the fact that God exists, ...

but you cannot change the fact that God exists, His word is alive, and that what He promises He will do.

Tiles, just because I cannot prove that God does not exist, and just because you do not believe He exists and that hell is real, does not mean that I am wrong.

The fact is that God does exist and hell is real and one day you and everyone who does not believe will find this out.

The fact is that God does exist and hell is real and one day you and everyone who does not believe will find this out.

but since you all are godless and do not fear God or care about how people who love God feel, then I guess that does not matter.