BLITZEN'S PROFILE

Tetris. Right?

Its all allegory. Don't read it explicitly literally.

Drums can play notes, and they can play notes in whichever key you wish. You can tune those floor toms to hit in your favourite pitch.

Further Reading: Phil Collins of Genesis, pre 1987.

author=kentona link=topic=389.msg16374#msg16374 date=1210720548
I find the belief in gods to be an infantile human weakness, a damaging by-product of useful human evolutionary traits. It was nice to see Einstein agrees.
I can see where a human tendency to believe in the supernatural is a investigatable facet of our psyche and brain, but I cannot see how such a tendency can be considered reasonable.
The God Hypothesis is a valid hypothesis, since such a supernatural being is claimed to have effects in the physical universe, and like any other hypothesis can be tested and falsified. Thus, the idea that science and religion rule over non-overlapping magisteria is false.
Of course, any evidence for a god comes up woefully short, as does any evidence that a belief in a god does any good.

In short, good for Einstein.

I disagree, Kenton. I think that becasue the concept of captial T "Truth" and the metaphysical idea of God are intrinsically correleated in theological philosophy, that because we can come to understand the nature of the Truth of the universe, through science or investigation, or on the other end religious contemplation, only adds further support to the idea that there is a Truth to be discovered.

Do deny God is to deny Truth, and to deny truth is to deny the purpose of science, which is do discover truth.

But, like most things, the God idea is not so binary. As we see it, its all just a big mess, and lots of people see whatever they want or decide to see. There is no need for a burden of proof one way or the other, but rather an understanding is needed of how the system works with or without the existence of Truth. People who accept it believe in God, people who don't, don't. Course everyone is not as contemplative as that and no one bothers to think things all the way through on both sides of the argument when they decide that they want to rebel against popular values of any given society or find that spirituality has little meaning to them, because when the idea of an Abrahamic god has dominated the mindset of popular society for milennia, it is something that is easy to reject. When you come down to God as It relates to the metaphysical nature of the universe and reality, if anyone bothered to think it through that far, they'd find they'd be left with only the choice to take the idea of Truth or reject it, as to the final descision as to whether believe in God. This is why agnosticism is valid, I think, for lots of people, who don't care to think that far into things.

So yeah, God vs science debate is relatively fruitless, Einstein is a product of his times.

Most intelligent people nowadays acknowledge the Bible is a historio-cultural product of the Judeo-Christian faith up until the 4th Century AD. Its a collection of works from a colelction of authors. Also intelligent people nowadays see belief in God is not a product of human weakness but a reasonable metaphysical hypothesis.

The culture of the early 20th Century was much different, with the disillusionment in society brought on by the World Wars and the subsequent pessimism towards all things applicable about humanity. Einsten was not free from this influence, and should be seen as an example of it.

Doesn't mean there is no God, just means Einstein was a product of his times, as we all are.