Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion

[popeye1945]

bobmacs,

Necessarily true as all meaning is the property of the subject.

by the way, welcome!!!

Thank you!

I think there is something more ...
Because the Truth is the same Being. It can only be so.
And since in essence I am Being ... the Truth can only hide within me, it is what I really am.

A conscious subject is the source of all meanings. Being applies to all objects and objects are the creation of organic beings.

[Iwannaplato]

Iwannaplato,
No answer would ever be complete and relevant to a theist for evidence to them is irrelevant. That is probably because it is an emotional position and not a reasonable one.

It seemed like a quote intended as communication between atheists or non-believers, at least also. I don't think it's a great idea for people who are taking the rational high ground. 'You people......(or 'Those people....) are not very rational.' And while doing that mind read and do a poor incomplete job of it. I was not evaluating it as a weak argument to convince theists they are wrong. I was evaluating it as including an assertion I don't think is correct and futher is a kind of mind reading. You wanna take the high ground, then live up to the criteria you are judging others for not using. I can't tell you how much I read atheists proclaiming things that don't seem at all correct to me (about theists and others) while also engaging in what amounts to mind reading or fallacious logic. It's kinda like...my team is right about this main issue, so I can say whatever I want and I don't have to live up to my own epistemology because...my team is right.

I can't see how that does anything good for anyone except perhaps it's cathartic for the speaker.

Iwannaplato,
Simply provide evidence for your beliefs and my statement is defuncted. You should if you wish to be honest decide how you get to your belief, if it is not by intellectual means or emotional means then please indicate by what means.

What part of my statement that you responded to was incorrect? I was responding to Feynman saying that theists believe in God because we still don't have an explanation for the origin of the universe. I said.....

If that is meant to explain why theists believe in God, it is a very incomplete answer and irrelevant to many theists.

and you responded.

Iwannaplato,
No answer would ever be complete and relevant to a theist for evidence to them is irrelevant. That is probably because it is an emotional position and not a reasonable one.

Feel free to demonstrate that what Feynman said is true for most theists and is a complete assessment.
I think he engaged in a poor mind reading attempt.

Your response here comes off as if you didn't read what I wrote. You seem to be, I don't know, but it seems to be just a kind of challenge to demonstrate God exists, which I didn't write about. I critiqued Feynman and then explained in greater detail why I did. If your not interested in any of that fine.

[bobmax]

A conscious subject is the source of all meanings. Being applies to all objects and objects are the creation of organic beings.

The subject cannot be the source of meanings.
As it is always and only the object that provides meaning.
The object is all there is.
Things, thoughts, emotions, desires ... are always and only objects.

While the subject is only implied.

It is the object that is the source of all meaning.
The object consists precisely in its own meanings. Nothing but this.

Even the subject can have a meaning only by objectifying it.
In itself the subject is a pure nothing. A nothing where every object is mirrored.

[popeye1945]

Iwannaplato,
No answer would ever be complete and relevant to a theist for evidence to them is irrelevant. That is probably because it is an emotional position and not a reasonable one.

Feel free to demonstrate that what Feynman said is true for most theists and is a complete assessment.
I think he engaged in a poor mind reading attempt.

Your response here comes off as if you didn't read what I wrote. You seem to be, I don't know, but it seems to be just a kind of challenge to demonstrate God exists, which I didn't write about. I critiqued Feynman and then explained in greater detail why I did. If your not interested in any of that fine.
[/quote]

Iwannaplato,

If this is so I do apologize, but were you inferring that faith is rational, the problem I have with believers is they claim apparently that their faith is not arrived at intellectually nor is it based on emotion so I ask by what means. It sounds like I do owe you an apology and you certainly have it.

[popeye1945]

A conscious subject is the source of all meanings. Being applies to all objects and objects are the creation of organic beings.

The subject cannot be the source of meanings.
As it is always and only the object that provides meaning.
The object is all there is.
Things, thoughts, emotions, desires ... are always and only objects.
While the subject is only implied. It is the object that is the source of all meaning.
The object consists precisely in its own meanings. Nothing but this.
Even the subject can have a meaning only by objectifying it.
In itself the subject is a pure nothing. A nothing where every object is mirrored.

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with what subject and object mean in philosophical dialogue. Thoughts, emotions, and desires are not objects and biological consciousness or reaction to a stimulus is object The physical world itself is utterly meaningless until the conscious subject bestows upon it the meaning it derives from the changes to its body. It is quite a lot to wrap your head around. Ultimate reality is a condition of wavelengths of all kinds and consciousness penetrates this totality only as the body consciousness defines it, this is apparent reality or your everyday reality.

[socrat44]

socrat44,

What is faith but a license not to think?

yeah, faith turns off logical thinking

[bobmax]

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with what subject and object mean in philosophical dialogue. Thoughts, emotions, and desires are not objects and biological consciousness or reaction to a stimulus is object The physical world itself is utterly meaningless until the conscious subject bestows upon it the meaning it derives from the changes to its body. It is quite a lot to wrap your head around. Ultimate reality is a condition of wavelengths of all kinds and consciousness penetrates this totality only as the body consciousness defines it, this is apparent reality or your everyday reality.

The subject-object is the original split. Everything there is is an object for a subject.
It is not possible to go beyond this split.

Whatever is said about the subject, in reality it always refers to an object, which is never the subject.

The subject is unreachable.

Reasoning about body, waveforms, and about consciousness itself ... it's always about objects.
Considering them instead related to the subject, it is only the attempt to construct a metaphysical model with which to explain Reality.

An attempt that can only fail.

[popeye1945]

[/quote]The subject-object is the original split. Everything there is is an object for a subject.
It is not possible to go beyond this split. Whatever is said about the subject, in reality it always refers to an object, which is never the subject.
The subject is unreachable. Reasoning about body, waveforms, and about consciousness itself ... it's always about objects.
Considering them instead related to the subject, it is only the attempt to construct a metaphysical model with which to explain Reality.
An attempt that can only fail.
[/quote]

bobmax,

In fact subject and object can never be considered separate this is only done to facilitate understanding of the relation of parts, parts to parts, parts to the whole and the whole to each of its parts. Objects exist only for biological consciousness, an object is a biological reaction. The world as object is utterly meaningless, meaning is bestowed upon the world as that which is relative to biological consciousness and nothing else. Think of the world out there as a condition of wavelengths of various kinds only some of which we are able to sense not as they are but how they effect the conscious body/mind. Just as the environment is a condition state that biology is linked to in adaptation, this changing field this condition is effecting its parts. You obviously have done some serious thinking but I am afraid we have a few issue, but that's great, we can learn from each other.

[socrat44]

Considering them instead related to the subject, it is only the attempt to construct a metaphysical model with which to explain Reality.
An attempt that can only fail.

A metaphysical model in SRT is an absolute Minkowski 4D spacetime

[socrat44]

In fact subject and object can never be considered separate . . .

[bobmax]

bobmax,

In fact subject and object can never be considered separate this is only done to facilitate understanding of the relation of parts, parts to parts, parts to the whole and the whole to each of its parts. Objects exist only for biological consciousness, an object is a biological reaction. The world as object is utterly meaningless, meaning is bestowed upon the world as that which is relative to biological consciousness and nothing else. Think of the world out there as a condition of wavelengths of various kinds only some of which we are able to sense not as they are but how they effect the conscious body/mind. Just as the environment is a condition state that biology is linked to in adaptation, this changing field this condition is effecting its parts. You obviously have done some serious thinking but I am afraid we have a few issue, but that's great, we can learn from each other.

I feel the same.

Difference is what fuels communication.
And existence is communication, only communication.

To the point that the poles that seem to communicate ... in reality they are only functional to the same communication!
They do not exist by themselves.

The subject and the object allow communication, but in themselves they are pure nothing.
This is my belief.

Thank you for this possibility of existence.

[Age]

Jerry A. Coyne / December 5, 2013
Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion
Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught
[......]

Einstein evidently said a lot of things that would make his stance on God somewhat ambiguous.

According to Wiki:

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naive. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever."

I bet no one ever suggested to him that he...

(or at least his "key" discovery - E=mc^2)

...may have been prophesied in Revelation chapter 9 of the Bible...

1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace"...

The truth is that Einstein, like most humans, simply wasn't conscious enough to realize that he wasn't conscious enough to comprehend what God truly is.
_______

What happens WHEN human beings evolve ENOUGH that they DO become conscious enough to comprehend what God Truly IS, as what has ALREADY HAPPENED?

[bobmax]

A metaphysical model in SRT is an absolute Minkowski 4D spacetime

This model is very intriguing to me.

But not for what it shows.
Rather, it is interesting for the possibility of its opposite...

That is, that the light is truly a messenger of the authentic Reality.

Because light announces the mending of the subject-object split.

In fact, for the photon our universe is a point and its billions of years have never elapsed

[Age]

Logic And Reasoning Are Not Enough When It Comes To Science
Ethan Siegel, Senior Contributor
Feb 24, 2021,
-----
Time and time again, science has demonstrated that nature often defies logic,

Nature, Itself, does NOT defy logic AT ALL. Human beings were just, previously, thinking illogically.

as its rules are more arcane than we’d ever intuit without performing the experiments ourselves.

The 'rulea' of the Universe are just PLAIN and SIMPLE and FAR MORE less complicated that ANY human being made up 'rule'.

Here are three examples that illustrate how logic and reasoning are simply not enough when it comes to science.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 134f224fae

EXACTLY as I have been SAYING all along. That is; while one is ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that they ALREADY KNOW what the truth IS of some thing, without IRREFUTABLE Facts, only SLOWS or STOPS the process of LEARNING and BECOMING WISER.

This happens and occurs individually AND collectively.

So, the reason WHY the human beings, collectively, back in the days when this was being written, were taking SO LONG to UNCOVER, SEE, and UNDERSTAND what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct was because they would NOT STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING things were true BEFORE they SOUGHT CLARIFICATION, FIRST.

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
/Werner Heisenberg/

The Universe is NOT 'strange' AT ALL. Well to me anyway.
The Universe IS ACTUALLY FAR MORE SIMPLER than most of you think, or BELIEVE, It is.

The ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be’.
/Richard P. Feynman/

Adult human beings COMPLICATE 'things' SO MUCH that even the words 'paradox' has two completely opposite and opposing meanings, which means that a 'paradox' is, literally, a 'parodox' (of) itself, paradoxically.

'' The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ''
/QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page. 10. by R. Feynman/

ANY 'theory' is ONLY a GUESSTIMATE or an ASSUMPTION. A 'theory' is NEVER a True representation of what IS.

So, if ANY 'theory' describes Nature, Itself, as being 'absurd', then it is OBVIOUS what is Truly ABSURD here.

[Age]

I think Einstein had faith.
However, a distinction must be made between faith and superstition.

Superstition is believing in the existence of something that does not show the foundation of its being there.

So, to "bobmax", 'superstition' is BELIEVING in the existence of some 'thing' that exists but yet which VERY Existence, Itself, as NOT been SEEN.

While faith is believing in the Truth.

LOL

There is NO 'need' to BELIEVE IN 'the Truth', as ' the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE anyway.

Since the Truth is not something, and what is not something does not exist, that is, it is nothing... believing in the Truth is to believe in the Nothingness.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of ABSOLUTE ILLOGICAL REASONING.

The search for Truth inevitably refers to myself.

Which is 'nothing', correct?

It's as if the Truth needs me.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.