Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

You've already posted the quote where he says that they are related, so you're either lying or woefully bad at holding a memory. Regardless, Einstein isn't infallible and if Einstein actually did believe that there was no connection between mathematics and reality, it seems strange that he spent his life describing reality with mathematics.

 

Oh poor thing... you can't logically refute what Einstein had to say, so now you are forced to resort to a new hypothesis dealing with what Einstein said and the fallibility of Einstein. Well, guess what ...the writings of Einstein have more credibility than any writer on this forum... therefore, your opinionated analysis of Einstein is just that ... an empty opinion.. an opinion that cannot be proven. Seems? Why does it seem strange to you?

 

I'm logically refuting what you said Einstein said. He didn't say that mathematics and reality had no connection.

That doesn't mean everything he said is correct, nor that your interpretation of what he said accurate.

Because if he actually believed that there was no connection between mathematics and reality, then it would be a fool's errand to spend his life describing a relationship between mathematics and reality.

 

Where, when?

 

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins102390.html

Enjoy the short read.

BTW: Here is another one from that same site.
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#eUvJFTYiCqwX4WMW.99 "

 

Prove gravity is what causes things to fall. I say it's God pushing them down. PROVE your so-called "science"...straight from Satan...is true. I dare you.

 

BTW, here's another Einstein quote-


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."----Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954, letter to Joseph Dispentiere

 

I would like to see a reference to the claim that Einstein actually said that math has no relation to reality. If he's going to allude to Einstein he should recognize that Einstein said that "Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth". What we are seeing with Mitt and Incorporeal is exactly that. Blind respect for the authority of a book or a religion. Einstein also revealed something more subtle about his scientific thinking: he had an urge - in fact a compulsion - to unify concepts from different branches of physics. "It is a glorious feeling to discover the unity of a set of phenomena that seem at first to be completely separate, as he embarked on an attempt to tie his work on capillarity to Boltzmanns theory of gases. With his special theory of relativity, Einstein had shown that space and time did not have independent existences, but instead formed a fabric of spacetime. The curving and rippling fabric of spacetime explained gravity, its equivalence to acceleration, and Einstein asserted, the general relativity of all forms of motion. In the opinion of Paul Dirac, the Nobel laureate pioneer of quantum mechanics, it was "probably the greatest scientific discovery ever mad.". Another of the great giants of twentieth-century physics, Max Born, called it "the greatest feat of human thinking about nature, the most amazing combination of philosophical penetration, physical intuition and mathematical skill". But of course, this guy that denies logic, even the most basic understanding of the principles of non-contradiction, and is a slave to the authority of a belief system, that Einstein himself would renounce, would actually know about Einstein's view of the relationship between math and reality.

The ridiculous denial that the Sun existed prior to the earth is simply ignorance on steroids. I realize that this view is necessary to maintain the Bible text, but it simply proves the flaw in the text. The sun is our source of energy. The earth could not exist prior to its source of energy. Without the Sun, vegetation couldn't exist for one thing. Our proximity to the Sun is what keeps the planet warm enough to sustain life. If the Sun burned out tomorrow we would cease to exist. We orbit the Sun. I can only imagine that this guy still thinks that the Sun orbits the earth.

 

Einstein never made that claim. It's a falsehood attributed to him.

 

I don't think he understands that this is what you're doing. He seems to believe that Einstein made this claim, but provides no source...you're simply supposed to accept this claim.

Pretty much everything he had to say about physics was correct. But I think it's safe to say that this poster is probably re-inventing things to support his narrative.

 

Wow! Talking about barking up the wrong tree? You make the most inefficient canine look like a genius. I do not promote the sciences as some others do on this forum. IMO, in this section of PF science is talked about without regard that those subject matter should be discussed in the 'science' section of the PF. Probably if your were to look back at most of my postings or even the postings of those that oppose me, you would realize that I don't claim 'science' as my foundation for belief in God. Try again.

 

It would appear that you are playing both sides of the fence. In your previous post you spoke against science in stating in reference to me "your science"; Now you are desiring to use Einsteins quote to speak against a belief in a "personal god". You really ought to be more decisive in your position.

 

I have a copy of Walter Isaacson's biography, Einstein; His Life and Universe, right here and I have yet to see any such claims. The book is 551 pages with another 100 + pages of sources and bibliography. It's the most thorough biography written on Einstein. There was a simple set of formulas that defined Einstein's outlook. Creativity required being willing not to conform. That required nurturing free minds and free spirits, which in turn required " a spirit of tolerance." And the underpinning of tolerance was humility - the belief that no one had the right to impose ideas and beliefs on others.

Whenever he was judging a theory he would universalize it. He'd ask himself whether, if I were God, would I have arranged the world in such a way." He held a Cosmic religion, and was very much a Pantheist. Nature was his religion and his God.

 

No silly!...lol you left out the part where I answered it for you when I specifically said, "Let me tell you, the heavens consists of stars, galaxies, etc. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heavens and earth" refer to the entire created universe."

So this "entire created universe" includes our sun, moon, and earth were all created on day 1.

 

Einstein also said this; " I am now working exclusively on the gravitation problem and I believe that, with the help of a mathematician friend here, I will overcome all difficulties", he wrote to the physicist Arnold Somerfeld. " I have gained enormous respect for mathematics, whose more subtle parts I considered until now, in my ignorance, as pure luxury!" Einsteins goal as he pursued his general theory of relativity was to find the mathematical equations describing two complementary processes.

As most quotes, this one is taken out of context and edited to serve a purpose. What Einstein actually said was this: "As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. It seems to me that complete clarity as to this state of things became common property only through that trend in mathematics which is known by the name of ‘axiomatics’.

Einstein goes on to argue that deductive axiomatised geometry is mathematics, is certain and is ‘purely formal’, that is, uninterpreted; while applied geometry, which includes the proposition that solid bodies are related as bodies in three-dimensional Euclidean space, is a branch of physics. Granted that it is a contingent physical proposition that solid bodies are related in this way, and granted that an uninterpreted system of deductive ‘geometry’ is
possible, there remain two main problems about Einstein’s conclusion that ‘mathematics as such cannot predicate anything about … real objects’

Since mathematics is so tied up with relations of certain kinds, its subject matter is easy to overlook. A familiar example of how mathematics applies in physics will make this clearer.

Newton postulated the inverse square law of gravitation, and derived from it the proposition that the orbits of the planets are elliptical. Look a little more closely at the derivation, to see whether the mathematical reasoning is in some way about reality or is only a logical device for deriving one scientific law from another. First of all, Newton did not derive the shape of the orbits from the law of gravitation alone. An orbit is a path along which a planet moves, so there needs to be a proposition connecting the law of force with movement; the link is, of course, force = mass × acceleration.

The job of the mathematics – the only job of the mathematics – is to add together these changes of motion at all the points of the path, and
reveal that the resulting path must be an ellipse. The mathematics must track the path, that is, it must extract the global motion from the local motions.

Certain schools of philosophy have thought there can be no necessary truths that are genuinely about reality, so that any necessary truth must be vacuous. ‘There can be no necessary connections between distinct existences.’
Answer: The philosophy of mathematics has enough to do dealing with mathematics, without taking upon itself the refutation of outmoded metaphysical dogmas. Mathematics must be appreciated on its own terms, and wider metaphysical theories adjusted to take account of whatever is found. The argument here over the age of the Sun in relation to the Earth is one of those metaphysical theories that requires adjustment of the metaphysical position. The math doesn't lie. It certainly presents a direct challenge to the metaphysical notion that the earth existed prior to the Sun. Expecting the earth to pre-exist the energy source that it requires for it's very existence is nonsensical. Biology, and that means life itself, couldn't exist without Sun. Earth would be a lifeless rock floating aimlessly in space.

There are properties, such as symmetry, continuity, divisibility, increase, order, part and whole which are possessed by real things and are studies
directly by mathematics, resulting in necessary propositions about them.

 

Perhaps you think that was a reasonable answer...but it wasn't. I'm afraid that falls apart as well. It means that day four is redundant. So...The Bible is redundant?? Look for yourself: KJV
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

If all of that had been created on day 1....then what was done on day 4? Apparently there was nothing left to do on that day, except recreate the very same thing he'd already done on day 1.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

That's from the KJV. You used the NLT and added something that isn't in the text. Here's the text. "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night." You added - the sun and the moon- . That's not in the text.

What's very clear here is that you've been manipulating the text along with your insertion of non-existent events such as Thick Clouds that obscured the light. If explaining the scriptures to people involves re-inventing them to try and rationalize inconsistencies that are obvious, then you aren't doing much credit to the Inspired word of God. In fact, you're inserting things that he never said, and suggesting things that he never indicated like Thick Clouds.

 

which tells us that MR is actually a reasonably sane adult, labouring heavily under the burden of inconsistent nonsense. if he wasn't labouring thus, we might suspect he was a) 9 years old, or b) barking mad.

 

It's rather obvious that the both of you haven't read Scripture thoroughly and meticulously close enough, otherwise you wouldn't have missed the part where God tells us the reason why the earth was so dark on day 1 and no it wasn't because there was no sun, the sun is already created on day 1. So I'll explain.

Genesis one does not say why the earth was so dark on day 1, it just tells us that it was dark but other accounts of creation in the Bible do say. In the book of Job, God Himself tells us the answer when He asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?".......and as I clothed it with clouds and wrapped it in thick darkness?"---Job 38:4, 9 NLT

So let me add this new revelation that both of you didn't know into the explanation I gave a few posts ago.

Genesis 1:1 NAS states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So what do you think the heavens consists of? Let me tell you, the heavens consists of stars, galaxies, etc. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heavens and earth" refer to the entire created universe.

Gen. 1:2 NAS, goes on to say, "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

Why was the earth dark? Genesis one does not say, but other accounts of creation in the Bible do say. In the book of Job, God Himself tells us the answer when He asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?....."...and as I clothed it with clouds and wrapped it in thick darkness?"---Job 38:4, 9 NLT

So, we know that when God created the earth it was dark because it was covered with thick clouds. This fact will be important to understand the next few verses

Gen. 1:3 NAS, then God said, "Let there be light, and there was light."

Where is the light? It's on the surface of the earth for the first time. Where does the light come from. The text does not say directly, but it gives a lot of clues. Did God create the light? No! If God had created the light, the text would have said so, like it does in the rest of Genesis one. It says that God "let it be." Let's read the rest of the first day to get the clues.

"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."---Gen 1:4-5 NAS

The text says that there was day and night on the earth on the first day. This tells us that the light that was shining on the earth was directional...from one source. So let's put it all together. God created the earth with a thick layer of clouds around it that caused it to be dark.

When God said "Let there be light" it is most logical to conclude that God removed at least some of those thick clouds so that light would fall on the surface of the earth. Where did the light come from?

The Sun shining on a rotating earth. You might protest, "But the text never said God created the Sun." It actually does. As stated previously, the Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" in Gen. 1:1 refers to the entire created universe.

So, the Sun, stars, moon and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.

Now let's go to day 4.

Gen. 1:14-18 NLT, then God said, "Let great lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them mark off the seasons, days, and years. Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth. And that is what happened. God made two great lights, the sun and the moon---the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good."

It is rather obvious here in this passage of day 4 we can again logically conclude that God removed the thick blanket of clouds covering the entire earth so that great lights would appear so now the sun, moon, and stars can be visually seen in the sky as viewed from the earth.

So in conclusion the sun was created on day 1 and not on day 4.

Theist 1
Non-theists 0

Well it appears you haven't seriously taken note of Acts 17:11, otherwise if you did you would have found what I said was true in that on day 1, the earth was dark because of thick clouds surrounding it.

That's one of the reasons for all these misinterpretations, people are not reading the entire bible and taking serious notes along the way, the bible is certainly not a book for the misinterpretation impaired. I refer to some non-theists as suffering a condition called misinterprelitus...lol

 

I have to throw this in: In verse 3 of genesis 1 the term used is 'light' (singular) whereas in verse 14 the term used is "lights" (plural). What and why is there such a distinction? Two separate events and two different forms of "light". 14 gives the distinction with clarity. The "lights" in 14 are those 'lights' we recognize as sun, moon, stars.. however verse 3 is separated and is not given such clarity. Why? What is that 'light' in verse 3? What is the purpose of that singular form of 'light' in verse 3?

 

This is just proof that early man had no freakin clue as too what and how the universe formed, and was simply talking out of their arses.

What is astounding, is people in todays scientific age actually take this crap seriously.

 

In addition to my previous post (post 619)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrC3WlXImF4

and

Ephesians 1
"3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the beloved. 7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8Wherein he has abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he has purposed in himself: 10That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom you also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of his glory"

 

8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets exist in Milky Way alone

Yes, because early man knew that the Milky Way has 8.8 billion habitable planets.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you reconcile these facts with bible. How can you sit here and honestly say that this 'god' of you built this big vast universe JUST for us?

 

Real simple. Just knowing intuitively that you cannot count to 8.8 billion in increments of 1.

 

So because you cannot count to 8.8 billion, that means there are not 8.8 billion earth like planets in this galaxy?

 

I believe the subject was YOU counting to 8.8 billion in increments of 1. Not me. Quit changing the goal posts. It means that you or someone you support by promoting that notion have made that claim, therefore, the onus is on you to provide the "PROOF" of that claim. Don't come back with any of those silly so-called logical arguments.. as they will not work with me. You made the claim now support it with "PROOF". You see, I can play the role of skeptic as well as the next guy.. I am just not convinced by you or any of the mathematical calculations... so show the PROOF and convince me.