The Moon and Design

Originally posted by wildgrass
Spirituality is not just prayer. It's a much deeper concept. Einstein was an atheist by every account, but one of his well-known quotes conflates religion with curiosity, or an aspiration towards truth and understanding.
[quote]“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what m ...[text shortened]... illuminate, but can never resolve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

"Science without religion is LAME, religion without science is blind".
Einstein

Thank you for that!

Originally posted by chaney3
"Science without religion is LAME, religion without science is blind".
Einstein

Thank you for that!

He was a pretty smart, logical guy. You should read his stuff more often.

It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible....

. . . Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.... If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. - Einstein

If we stop trying to rationalize "perceptible phenomena" like the location of the moon through the prism of religious significance, science and religion would not be at odds. Why do you insist that your religion needs a rational foundation?

https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einsteins-famous-quote-science-religion-didnt-mean-taught

Originally posted by wildgrass
He was a pretty smart, logical guy. You should read his stuff more often.
[quote]It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible....

. . . Ac ...[text shortened]... https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einsteins-famous-quote-science-religion-didnt-mean-taught

My religion needs a rational foundation?

I am not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

Originally posted by chaney3
My religion needs a rational foundation?

I am not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

You are so desperate to try and demonstrate that your religion is true by means of evidence that you felt the need to invent the evidence you presented in this thread (and don't care that the evidence turned out to be total bunk).
This suggests you are profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that your religion is not actually based on rational argument or evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are so desperate to try and demonstrate that your religion is true by means of evidence that you felt the need to invent the evidence you presented in this thread (and don't care that the evidence turned out to be total bunk).
This suggests you are profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that your religion is not actually based on rational argument or evidence.

I have not stated a religion.

Talking about God, or a Creator, who 'caused' everything into existence, is different. Even in the spirituality forum it should be clear to you that I am searching for the truth about who this God is, and if the Bible actually portrays Him accurately.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are so desperate to try and demonstrate that your religion is true by means of evidence that you felt the need to invent the evidence you presented in this thread (and don't care that the evidence turned out to be total bunk).
This suggests you are profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that your religion is not actually based on rational argument or evidence.

Are you ignoring Einstein?
You probably will, his opinion is likely rubbish to you.

Originally posted by chaney3
I have not stated a religion.

Talking about God, or a Creator, who 'caused' everything into existence, is different.

It is a religion, whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by chaney3
Are you ignoring Einstein?
You probably will, his opinion is likely rubbish to you.

Are you ignoring me? You probably will. You usually ignore what I say and make up in your mind what you imagine I would say if I was the person you imagine me to be in your dreams.

Originally posted by chaney3
My religion needs a rational foundation?

I am not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

You have rationalized the existence and location of the moon as proof of a creator. But, as it has has been pointed out over many many pages of this thread, the argument is illogical on numerous levels. Your dogmatic insistence that eclipse phenomena are caused by the creator suggests that this rationalization provides an important foundation for your faith.

Why do you feel compelled to rationalize/explain phenomena through the prism of religion? Why is this rationalization required for your faith? If it is not required, then why do you care so much?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you ignoring me? You probably will. You usually ignore what I say and make up in your mind what you imagine I would say if I was the person you imagine me to be in your dreams.

"In my dreams"?

Is it difficult for you and your ego to fit through a doorway?

Originally posted by wildgrass
You have rationalized the existence and location of the moon as proof of a creator. But, as it has has been pointed out over many many pages of this thread, the argument is illogical on numerous levels. Your dogmatic insistence that eclipse phenomena are caused by the creator suggests that this rationalization provides an important foundation for your fait ...[text shortened]... is rationalization required for your faith? If it is not required, then why do you care so much?

It is my opinion that the locations and size of earth, moon and sun are by design. But this is just one mere example of design. I do not hold eclipses as a foundation of religion.

If this thread seems so important to me, it's because atheists have attacked any talk of design with such venom that I feel compelled to respond.

Besides, I now have Einstein on my side. Pretty good company.

Originally posted by chaney3
It is my opinion that the locations and size of earth, moon and sun are by design. But this is just one mere example of design. I do not hold eclipses as a foundation of religion.

If this thread seems so important to me, it's because atheists have attacked any talk of design with such venom that I feel compelled to respond.

Besides, I now have Einstein on my side. Pretty good company.

He's on your side as long as you abide by this:

"Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts." - Einstein

Originally posted by chaney3
Are you ignoring Einstein?
You probably will, his opinion is likely rubbish to you.

Err Einstein rejected the notion of your personal God thus clearly rejected your religion. Here is just some of his quotes;

https://www.thoughtco.com/albert-einstein-quotes-on-a-personal-god-249856

" I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. "

" The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

"..It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.

Divine Will Cannot Cause Natural Events

" The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. ..."

- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941).

Sorry! Einstein was AGAINST your religion!

Originally posted by humy
don't know what that has to do with "magic" not equating with "causeless".

You don't know the Clarke quote. It is pretty famous. I posted it this thread already.

Originally posted by chaney3
"In my dreams"?

Is it difficult for you and your ego to fit through a doorway?

It is difficult for you to understand simple English which is why instead of reading my posts, you make them up to yourself and respond to things I have not said. Either that or its just more of your blatant dishonesty.
Seriously, what does the size of my ego have to do with any of my posts?