Belief in God produces Hell on Earth

[GameOver22]

kowhoho said:

GameOver22 said:

sapphi_snake said:

Umos-Cmos said:

Science and Religion can and should co-exist.  Albert Einstein acknowledged a Creator or God.  Just sayin.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Those are just a few choice nuggets.

That's a lie. Do your research. Read ordoboros' post.

There is a difference between saying there is no God and saying there is no personal God. Most of the quotes from Einstein are criticisms against a personal God who intervenes in human life. A person who believed in a non-personal God, such as a deist or a pantheist, would not confront these problems. Given that Einstein says he accepts Spinoza's God (Spinozism is the best example of pantheism), it could be said that he believed in God. He just did not believe in a personal or religious God.

The problem I have with scientists talking about their belief in God is that it is sometimes difficult to tell when they are using God as a metaphor and when they truly mean God. In Einstein's case, I could easily see someone arguing that he used God as a metaphor for the orderly structure of the universe. Personally, I find Einstein's views on God to be ambiguous.

Einstein was not a believer of any of the supernatural practices or beliefs of religion. He may very well have been a Deist however. I can appreciate this position. Belief in some kind of "higher power" without any of the crazy mumbo jumbo. I just wonder what people found this belief upon.

Oftentimes people say that the universe and Earth are so intricately fine-tuned for our survival that there must be a God; this is a silly statement considering only about 15% of the Earth is inhabitable by humans.

Disclaimer: this is only one point of contention. Just keeping the discussion going.

The fine-tuning argument is more concerned with the large scale requirements for a life-supporting universe. It focuses on the conditions needed for such things as the formation of stars and a life supporting rate of expansion for the universe. I would not say the argument is silly because only 15% of the Earth is inhabitable by humans. First, the argument is not concerned with human life. It is concerned with life in general. Second, the argument does not say where or how much life will be produced. It just sets the parameters that must be met in order for life to develop. There could only be one case of life in the universe, but the universe would still be life-supporting.

Personally, the best argument I've heard for God concerns justifying the principle of uniformity. The principle of uniformity says that the future will be like the past. This is not a logical truth because it is not a contradiction to deny it. It is also not an observational truth because any inductive argument showing why the future is like the past is already assuming the future is like the past. In order to prove the principle of uniformity, someone would have to already assume the principle of uniformity. This is the point that David Hume reached, and he resorted to concluding the principle of uniformity was a matter of custom or habit.

However, we could say that the principle of uniformity is true because it is a simpler explanation than the alternative. Namely, it is simpler to assume that the future is like the past than assume the future is different than the past. Now we have to justify the principle of simplicity (Ockham's razor). We cannot resort to experience because this would be circular reasoning. Furthermore, Ockham's razor only makes sense in a universe where unneeded parts are not left lying around. In other words, the universe needs to be rationally structured in order for Ockham's razor to be true. A rational universe cannot be explained through observation, and hence science, as this would be circular reasoning. From here, it can be argued that God is the cause of the rational universe.

Just for reference, the principle of uniformity is concerned with time-dependent inductive arguments. For example, a rock fell at 9.8m/s² every day in the past, therefore it will fall at the same rate tomorrow. This argument depends on the future being like the past, and this is the kind of argument the principle of uniformity  addresses.