Let this boy explain GOD for me

What is it? You responded to the very definition.

Definition of science
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

• the science of theology

b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

• have it down to a science

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

knowledge, state of knowing, knowledge as an object of study.
Take your pick, entity isn't one of them.

 

No, but it can be studied and knowledge can be learned.
Which are definitions of science.

 

The definition of science includes testable hypotheses. There is no such a thing associated with theology or mythology.

What makes science, science, is the ability to test predictions. Anything less is at most a philosophy.

Even hypotheses like String Theory [which is really not a theory because it can't be tested] is technically a philosophy. String Theory does provide a mathematical model that agrees extremely well with observations, but provides no testable predictions.

 

How can I expand on what I've already posted?
I can't make you understand anything. I can only provide evidence and a rationale to explain a common English language word.
If you choose to deny a dictionary definition, that's all on you.

 

LOL. Please show us all where entity is any where in the definition of science.
Science isn't a thing.

Is psychology an entity?

 

Why isn't it? It's a thing, a systematic method of gaining knowledge. If not a thing then what is it?

"An entity is something that exists separately from other things and has a clear identity of its own."
Does science exist separately from other things? Yes. There is nothing like science but science.
Does science have a clear identity of it's own? Absolutely. Everyone knows what science is, what science does and who scientists are.

Within the field of study of the mind and human cognitive development, psychology certainly inhabits it's own niche as an entity within the over arching field of science.

 

I have not ignored the quote you produced but perhaps you are not aware that Einstein's view of "religion" was greatly influenced by
by philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who thought that God was an impersonal being (i.e. he did not intervene in the affairs of human beings
and therefore all appeals and attempts to reconcile the God of the bible with the God that remotely runs the universe through his
cosmic plan is pointless and "childish").
So when Einstein discusses religion he is speaking of God in a way that does not reflect what people in mainstream religions consider God to be.

 

I am unclear why this had to be said. Reason is that the X-RAY is used daily and can be said to save many lives.

 

Definition of science
: the state of knowing

en·ti·ty
ˈen(t)ədē/
noun

1. a thing with distinct and independent existence.
   "church and empire were fused in a single entity"
   synonyms: being, creature, individual, organism, life form;
   person;
   body, object, article, thing
   "a single entity"

non·en·ti·ty
näˈnen(t)ədē/
noun
noun: non-entity

1. 1.
   a person or thing with no special or interesting qualities; an unimportant person or thing.
   "a political nonentity"
   synonyms: nobody, unimportant person, zero, nonperson, no-name, nothing, small fry, mediocrity;
   informalno-hoper, loser;
   informalchopped liver
   "the tragedy is that, even after all the therapy we can provide, many of these kids will continue to be the nonentities that they've been taught to be"

thing
THiNG/
noun

1. 1.
   an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
   "look at that metal rail thing over there"
   synonyms: object, article, item, artifact, commodity; More
   
2. 2.
   an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
   "I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished

I don't think science is a thing, it's a process for knowledge.
Psychology also is a study of ;
psy·chol·o·gy
sīˈkäləjē/
noun

1. the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

 

A process for knowledge is a thing.

 

proc·ess1
ˈpräˌses,ˈprōˌses/
noun

1. 1.
   a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

You should try a dictionary sometime.

Action isn't a thing.

 

Science is a thing. You should try a dictionary sometime.
Or is thinking not a thing to you?

 

I mean scientific thought, of course.

 

Your responses indicate otherwise in no uncertain terms.

Not a syllable of this is news, and neither does any of it come within lightyears of explaining how exactly it is that Einstein considered something in which he did not believe indispensable to the practice of science.

Actually in the quote you steadfastly ignore he isn't speaking of God in any way at all; and neither have I said anything about Him in this thread.

But obviously you're too busy lecturing to notice anything that runs counter to the conceit you've become invested in.

 

We got another boy genius right here. Perhaps he can tell us whether the Methodists or the Baptists are rights.

 

I actually produced a counter quote and explained the difference in the two seemingly contradictory Einstein quotes so how could a rational person claim what you do? I don't know.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einsteins-famous-quote-science-religion-didnt-mean-taught
Maybe you are mistaking your view of religion with Einstein's and conflating them?

But he is discussing religion, right? It's hard to have a religion without a God to go along with it.

 

Since we are just blindly believing what kids have to say on YouTube, I give you another "Genius":

 

My question was open to all. If you believed him, you need to say so.

 

Show me the evidence, and I'll believe.

 

Ask him.

 

Not really.

Which is pretty much the point.

You did nothing of the sort, obviously. You tried to divert the conversation to Spinoza and utterly ignored the quote I provided.

Then I cannot help but wonder whether you know anything worth knowing.

Congratulations on presumably having read at least the first six words of the quote - which, as far as anyone following this conversation can tell, expresses the entirety of your understanding of it.

Be that as it may, in the present context the observation serves no better purpose than to divert attention from the fact that it's impossible for a scientist to disbelieve in the very thing he claims is essential to the practice of science.

 

I actually did.

If you don't know anything about Spinoza (which it seems like you don't based on your comment that I tried to "divert"
the conversation his way) then how can you understand anything about Einstein's view of God? Frankly, you just can't. With this in mind
your dismissive comments towards me just seem comical.

I actually do but it seems to be just beyond you.

Your praise overwhelms me.

I agree and Einstein
never professed a disbelief in God...only in the anthropomorphic view of God (a white haired, robed grandfatherly looking man sitting on a throne in the clouds) as promulgated by mainstream religions which he did not approve of.
I hope this doesn't anger you too.

 

You did no such thing, obviously; but even if you had, you have yet to justify discounting the quote I provided, as you continue to do.

WRT the point of contention, it doesn't matter a lick one way or the other, obviously.

Well yes, one can render anything comical by keeping convenient imbecilities in mind.

Then one cannot help but wonder why the hell you insist on excluding it from the conversation.

Thank you for finally admitting that all your responses up to now are most charitably characterized as senseless caviling.

While such weaselly dissembling as you've indulged in here can certainly be irritating, you are ill advised to proceed on the assumption that I've taken the bait.

 

No bait has been offered. I've only stated the religious views of Albert Einstein, which I thought was the point.
On the other hand, you seem hostile and angry so I'm not surprised you've ignored the issue in order to attack another person.
I'll leave you to your issues. They are not mine.

 

There is something really pathetic about the need for people who belive in god to use Einstein to somehow validate their beliefs. It is like they aren't comfortable in the decisions reached by their own feeble intellects so they have to appeal and arguably distort the position of yet another higher power to give themselves credibility.