Steve Meyer bids farewell to Steven Weinberg’s “purposeless cosmos” thesis in the Jerusalem Post

chuckiedarwin @ 12: "Stupid or not, atheism has been around as long as religion and continues to grow in the western world. Apropos Einstein, he wrote in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind: “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… For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition….I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them [the Jewish people]. The letter was auctioned for $2.9 million to a collector…." Does that make atheism true? (It's certainly clear you, and the wealthy idiot, relish the thought.) :) AnimatedDust

Late to the dance on this thread. SA @ 6 spake: ID will end at the apocalypse. So will atheism. That's right. And when the Bible says that "Every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," at first glance that seems like a statement of believers. But when he shows up, EVERYONE will, whether they want to or not. Remember, ChuckDarwin. You won't be able to say you didn't have enough information. Especially since you like to hang out here. :) AnimatedDust

@silver That is just paying lipservice to the idea of subjectivity. Straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of subjectivity, is to accept the underlying logic in subjective statements. Logic is law, it is following rules. Where what you say is largely abritrary, because there is no logic to back it up. The acceptance of subjectivity should be nazi proof. So as that nazi ideology about objective personal character would be invalidated with it. The nazi's generally professed belief in spirit, soul, God, and also the concept of subjectivity as well as the concept of objectivity. But it is all just meaningless paying lipservice to the ideas, when it is not backed up with logic. mohammadnursyamsu

Step Three: All Israel Will One Day Be Saved The third step in Paul's defense of God's word is that one day "all Israel will one day be saved." In Romans 11:25-26 Paul says to us Gentiles, to warn us against boasting over Jews or becoming proud in ourselves, "Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved." https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/has-god-rejected-his-people-part-1

bornagain77

Mohammad

You can make heterodox terms which have both subjective and objective parts. As like “human being”, to include both the soul making choices, and the physical body. But there is nothing that is inherently both subjective and objective.

You're on the right track. A human being has subjective elements and objective. Even a simple object does. A painting. Objectively, what is it? It has 2 trees, a hillside, 3 people. Objective fact. Subjectively - is it beautiful? That's subjective. So, it's both.

If people freely choose, then your regressing of cause and effect back to God argument is irrellevant. Because then we only have to regress back to human beings making choices, and other choices in the universe.

Human beings are contingent - they depend on others for existence. So, the causes regress back to the creator. It does not stop with human choice. Humans did not create their own free will, their own conscience, their own moral code. We use logic to determine the right action - along with subjective feelings (intuition). We use both.

You should provide for straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of subjectivity.

I have done so already. I will do it again - subjectivity is a necessary aspect in understanding, in spiritual and moral growth and in life overall. It's necessary. The two key aspects: Beauty and Love. Both are strongly subjective - but not entirely. We love something - objective. We thing something (objective) is beautiful. From Aristotle we can understand symmetry, harmony, variety - as aspects of beauty. It's not entirely subjective.

You can see yourself that having the creation be objective, and then emotions and God be both subjective and objective, that this is really too much objective, and little room for what is subjective.

Here I can fully agree with you and accept your point. It is possible to have too much of the objective. That's scientism, for example. When I started arguing with materialists 20 years ago, my first arguments were of the subjective, intuitive sort - beauty, love, insight, compassion, joy, spirituality - etc. None of these worked. The materialists can only think about the material world. Clearly, there is something wrong with someone who cannot appreciate spiritual joy or love or beauty. But that's materialism. It destroys everything. But yest, you are right - it's possible for an IDist to go too far. Arguing with materialists every day might cause someone to think only about science and the material world - and that would be a big mistake. At the same time, generally - ID does not get into subjective arguments and reasons as evidence for Intelligent Design. A book by Thomas Dubay "The Evidential Power of Beauty" is a pro-ID look at that. Silver Asiatic

CD

It is perversely and predictably cynical that the ID community, via Meyer’s new book, is now ready to reveal the intelligent designer as the Christian God. Who would have thought? I will stick with Einstein and Spinoza…..

If that is what happened with Meyer's book then I would agree. It would be a cheap-shot and evidence of a deception going on for all of these decades. But that's not what Meyer was saying. He gave his personal view. There are Deists and Polytheists who support ID - they see evidence of intelligent design. It's not a question of evaluating Scriptures. In fact, if you support Spinoza, who gave some great arguments for the existence of God based on ID-friendly concepts, you shouldn't have a problem with the ID inference. I also wonder why you don't (or I might have missed it) defend Deism against atheism? At least you have agreed that atheism is somewhat stupid. Silver Asiatic

CD

Atheism is no more “stupid” than theism, they are simply two sides of the same coin, a twisted symbiosis. They are, in my mind, equally ridiculous.

Ok, you're proposing Deism as a better alternative to atheism - and I'd fully agree there. Now you have a first cause, so there's creative power - and therefore a rational basis for understanding the universe. Some of the American founding fathers were Deist so they used that idea to build some good things. For them, it was "nature's God" - the force that explains the origin of nature itself, natural laws, logic and first principles. Probably Darwin was a Deist, at least for a long while.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Deism can be a refutation of materialism and it is an ID conclusion. Deism proposes that there is an Intelligent Designer, at least at some level. Silver Asiatic

BA77 offered a good explanation of ChuckDarwin's concern - although I disagree with it for theological reasons; BA77 said:

For me, the key, illuminating, sentence from Einstein to Gutkind, (the key sentence which tells us about Einstein’s overall frame of mind), is this one, “I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them [the Jewish people].”

I agree fully. In fact, when CD posted that, I had to give him credit. That's a deeper insight than one might consider at first. Now Chuck is saying "give me Einstein and Spinoza" - so that's Deism, and therefore a God existing with powers - so that's a very big difference. But Deism has strong support from otherwise Jewish-Atheists (like David Berlinski for example). Einstein points to the exact reason (one of them anyway) for this: The people called the Jews (in 1954) did not look at all like what we would call "the chosen people". BA77 argues that the holocaust reduced the Jewish people in suffering, and therefore Einstein may have had some basis for the comment. BA then points to the restoration of the people to Israel as a validation of the "chosen people" status. Again, I think that's a good argument to consider, but I disagree with it. As I see it, the Jews today - even with the State of Israel given them (perhaps because of it) - look even less like "the chosen people" than before. In fact, some Orthodox Jewish rabbi's reject the State of Israel as having any religious value at all. They'll say that God did not lead the Jews there, but rather the U.N. did or President Truman - and the State is not the theocracy expected from the Torah. I go farther than that. Considering that 41% of Jews are atheist, and that the Jewish religion includes wildly contradictory movements (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Humanist) and no unifying doctrine or moral norms - with no sense of a prophetic calling ... I can't see where there's a sense that they are a chosen people. But even aside from all of that, for me, as a Christian I can't accept it. In my belief, God created the Jewish people as a nation of believers and ritual - and they were the chosen people. From that group, God incarnated His Son - as priest, leader, Messiah and King of the chosen people. So, the chosen people are the people who live in the kingdom of Christ - obviously, he is the Messiah of the Jews. The people who reject Christ cannot be considered the chosen people on that basis. They reject the King of the Jews sent by God, and set up their own religion on their own basis for their own reasons. There's no way that's "the chosen people" - - that's people who have their own community. To me that makes sense because Jews reject the identity that would make them part of the chosen people. Sure, they might want to be considered or called the chosen people, but merely having some sort of Jewish DNA would lead to Einstein's concern - on what basis are the people with that DNA "the chosen people"? The Christian people have accepted the Messiah sent by God. Now, the Hebrew scriptures have been promulgated through the world, not by the Hebrew race, but by the believers in the King of the Jews. So, it seems clear to me where Einstein went wrong. As a Jewish-Deist (somewhat atheistic which is so common among Jews who have been disappointed by God - having rejected Christ), Einstein says that the Bible is "childish". The teachings and life of Jesus Christ are childish? You, Einstein, are somehow an equal of Jesus Christ in terms of moral excellence, wisdom, spiritual understanding? The Gospel just a child's game? No, not at all. The thing is - Einstein like so many Jews - didn't bother to read the New Testament and Gospels. What he calls "pretty childish" is his view of the Genesis creation story and probably some of the Old Testament miracles (the Psalms of David are childish?). But that's just religious ignorance - and its widespread. People reject religion without even knowing much about it. Silver Asiatic

Querius @ 18 Thanks! You offered an excellent summary of the problems with evolution also. Each one of those aspects undercuts evolutionary claims, but this does not stop the promoters from propagandizing, against the facts.

Evidence against Darwinism continually mounts

That's the irony. With Darwinism weaker than ever as a theory, more people want to believe in it. You mention: the so-called “junk DNA” debacle the “vestigial organs” debacle, the so-called “living fossils” that somehow survived despite millions of years of evolution, the evolutionary path of proteins, the racist Descent of Man story that seems to continually change every time something is discovered. I would add: Convergent evolution Random environmental factors are ignored in historical research the effect of negative mutations the boundaries of malleability of an organism (Kirk Durston explained, through dog breeding there are limits) the billions of missing links in the evolutionary path of every organism on earth (from each cell to morphological features) Cambrian explosion impossibility of creating functional code from non-coding ancestors the human brain is a network of 86 billion neurons (and evolutionists are thrilled by Lenski's experiment that after 70,000 generations algae turned on ability to eat citrate) The so-called tree of life is a jumble - conflict between DNA and morphology Stasis - beginning from bacteria which had no need to evolve Radically different species in the same environment (carnivorous plants alongside all other plants). That's not even half of the problems. Something new comes up on UD just about every day - at least once a week. Silver Asiatic

Bornagain77 @27, Hostility to the Loving Creator of the universe might not always be irrational in itself. There could be a variety of reasons: a. Disappointment. "When I was 8, I prayed and prayed that God would give me a pony and he never answered my prayer." "When I was 10, my mother got cancer and I prayed and prayed for God to heal her but she died anyway." b. Social pressure. "If I ever considered anything to do with God, my colleagues, friends, and associates would make fun of me. I would be shunned and excluded from their approval and friendship. They wouldn't invite me to anything anymore." c. Rebellion. "I want to live my life My Way and make My Own Choices, and Nobody has the right to tell me what to do. I'm comfortable with My Life and the fun things I want to do and like to do." d. Pride. "I'm a Highly Intelligent and Educated Person. I have so many degrees, they call me Dr. Fahrenheit. I don't want to be associated with any low-class, holy-roller, snake-handling trailer trash listening to some wildly emotional pimp on television telling me to send him money. Everything written in the past is either useful or mythology. I'm a modern science guy." e. Misled. "My science teachers and professors in college all told me that science has now disproved God and that the Bible was written by some goofy bronze-age goat herders. Evolution and the Big Bang can explain scientifically how everything musta happened. They told me that we no longer need to imagine that any gods were involved. I just want to follow science and logic." f. Rationalization. "Nobody can prove to me anything about God, so I can use ignorance as my defense. Besides, there are so many hypocrites in church and there are so many different religions that teach different things. They can't all be right, so none of them are. Besides, I'm a 'good person' and I don't want to believe in any god that would send people to hell." g. Have I missed any others? -Q Querius

Chuckdarwin states that "I will stick with Einstein and Spinoza….." So I can take it that you reject atheism and now endorse a 'non-personal' God? i.e. a Deism where God created the universe and "reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world"?

“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” – Albert Einstein

Something tells me that ChuckyD, being the rabid Darwinist he is, has not really thought too deeply about what kind of Theism/Deism he actually believes in, other than to reject Christianity outright because of his own personal and irrational hostility towards it, (an irrational hostility which he displays here quite often) bornagain77

Atheism is is indeed irrational: 1. No one has been able to explain how existence emerged from Nothing without invoking something with God-like powers (multiverse). Information and design screams from all nature and is heard by all who don't have their fingers firmly plugged into their ears. 2. How can anyone be certain that God cannot hide from them in random probabilities, that they have searched all the universe with their own omnipresence and omniscience to be able to confidently state that God does not exist? Tell you what. Get a group of people to play a game of Monopoly and let me "roll the dice" in an adjacent room. I bet I can provide results that you would not be able to detect whether they were rolled fairly or not. Yes, I would use a set of random numbers as a tool. 3. How is it rational to assert that humans have intense personality but that God who created personality must somehow be impersonal and uncaring (rather than the opposite). Even humans care about the things they compose, discover, or make. But somehow God is supposedly impersonal and uncaring. 4. In general, religions are the human attempts to reach, understand, placate, and bribe God. Religion is used for self-justification, controlling the scary environment, controlling people, and rationalizing mortality. Jesus came as the incarnation of God and provided demonstrations of his deity by doing things that only God could do, making wise and prophetic statements, living a perfect life, and rising from the dead. God loved his creation enough to die to rescue it. Jesus freed people from religiousity, hypocrisy, debauchery, fear of death, greed, anger, and overwhelming guilt. As the apostle Paul once wrote: " It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of (religious) slavery." 5. The choice isn't between atheism and theism (even the devils believe in God and tremble). The choice is whether you are willing to repent of the sins you love and accept the living, personal God to be a gentle, kind, and loving part of your life. The result is that you experience a gentle metamorphosis (the Bible uses that term) into what God originally intended you to be. Please consider this seriously if you can. -Q Querius

Atheism is no more “stupid” than theism,

That is a stupid statement. Both sides have beliefs. One side, atheism, has no justification for their beliefs. In fact as I pointed out the so called brightest who read the NY Times whiffed on their defense of atheism or attacks on theism. The comments section to the article showed the ignorance of the atheists, both in facts and logic. The other side, theists, have lots of justification for theirs. The justification is based on science and logic. There is a vast difference. Justification for a specific God requires something besides science. Here ID has nothing to say. (Except for the Shroud of Turin which is an anomaly for science but even if eventually explained, would have nothing to do with a creator or not) Aside: I am a Christian. The logic I use for this is (1) there is a God; (2) Jesus is either God or sent by that God and (3) Jesus created a religion. To me (1) and (3) are obvious. The question is whether (2) is true or not. ID has nothing to say about that and will find it interesting how ID would justify it if it takes a position. jerry

#22: Jerry & #20: Bornagain Atheism is no more "stupid" than theism, they are simply two sides of the same coin, a twisted symbiosis. They are, in my mind, equally ridiculous. My original post simply pointed out that Luskin and Meyers are wrong in their prediction that atheism is a "spent force." Such an assertion is completely naïve. As to Einstein, I got your joke. As Bornagain points out, Einstein laid claim to Spinoza's God. It is clear, from the passage I quoted and his many other ruminations on religion, that Einstein rejected the personal God of theism, the same God that Luskin and Meyers now endorse as the "inference to the best explanation." It is perversely and predictably cynical that the ID community, via Meyer's new book, is now ready to reveal the intelligent designer as the Christian God. Who would have thought? I will stick with Einstein and Spinoza..... chuckdarwin

seversky:

People are atheist because they see no compelling reason to believe in any of the gods that are currently – or ever have been – on offer.

Atheists are unable to reason and they are unable to assess evidence. That is the truth of atheists. ET

Stupid or not, atheism has been around as long as religion and continues to grow in the western world.

Yes it has but as I point out it is stupid. And you do not disagree. All you are saying is that educated people are mostly stupid. I agree. Hans Rosling once pointed out that the more educated one was the least they knew about the world. My Einstein comment was to tongue in cheek emphasize the stupidity of the educated. You do not disagree. Better, no one can disagree without being stupid. jerry

Moreover, regardless of Einstein's personal beliefs about the authenticity of the Bible and the existence of a 'personal God' Who concerns Himself "with the fate and the doings of mankind”, it is very interesting to note that both Einstein's own scientific theories, i.e. General Relativity and Special Relativity, have confirmed the authenticity of the Bible, and, dare I say, have even confirmed the existence of a 'personal God', and have thus undermined atheism in the most fundamental, scientific, way possible. First off, the materialistic/atheistic belief that the universe has always existed has been around for a very long time. In fact, the belief that the universe has always existed was the supposedly 'consensus' view of science until Einstein came along with General Relativity and George Lemaitre subsequently deduced a beginning for the universe from it:

Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre - The "Father" Of The Big Bang Theory – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JY2soRTeo The Tangled History of Big Bang Science - John Farrell - Feb 10, 2017 Excerpt: But Lemaître wasn’t satisfied. By 1931, he had come to believe that Einstein’s “initial condition” state could not be stable. Reaching back to Friedmann, he proposed his Primeval Atom hypothesis, essentially the Big Bang 1.0, that the universe must have initially started from a fantastically dense kernel and expanded outward. “The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation,” was how the priest phrased it. This was too much for Einstein, Eddington, and their other colleagues. They disliked the metaphysical implications of a universe with a temporal origin—it was too tempting for some to see God lurking behind it. Progress stalled at this point as Nazism dramatically changed the priorities of scientists around the world. And although Lemaître didn’t know it, his own part in the saga, like Friedmann’s, was over. For physicists, work on general relativity and cosmology took a back seat to the war effort and the growing interest in quantum mechanics. Lemaître, confined to Belgium under German occupation (and narrowly surviving Allied bombing), turned his attention to computers and problems in celestial mechanics. But during this period, the Big Bang idea caught on with George Gamow, the colorful Ukrainian physicist who fled the Soviet Union in the 1930s and came to America. (More.,,,) http://nautil.us/blog/the-tangled-history-of-big-bang-science

I find it very interesting that the false materialistic/atheistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration and space, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), when he was shown that his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than believe his own theory and entertain the thought that the universe might have had a beginning. At least Einstein was honest enough, (unlike modern day Darwinists), that, when shown astronomical evidence for the expanding universe, and thus for the beginning of the universe, by Edwin Hubble, to admit that the cosmological constant, that he had added to his equation to try get around a beginning for the universe, was the 'biggest blunder' of his life.

Cosmological constant Excerpt: Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[1] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann (and Lemaître), working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the “biggest blunder” of his life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#History

It is also very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a completely transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0?? Faith, Fact, and False Dichotomies - Austin L. Hughes - 2015 Excerpt: Coyne issues the following challenge to his readers: “Over the years, I’ve repeatedly challenged people to give me a single verified fact about reality that came from scripture or revelation alone and then was confirmed only later by science or empirical observation.” I can think of one example, which comes from the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (whose writings Coyne badly misrepresents elsewhere in his book). Based on his exposure to Aristotle and Aristotle’s Arab commentators, Aquinas argued that it is impossible to know by reason whether or not the universe had a beginning. But he argued that Christians can conclude that the universe did have a beginning on the basis of revelation (in Genesis). In most of the period of modern science, the assumption that the universe is eternal was quietly accepted by virtually all physicists and astronomers, until the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory in the 1920s. Coyne does not mention Lemaître, though he does mention the data that finally confirmed the Big Bang in the 1960s. But, if the Big Bang theory is correct, our universe did indeed have a beginning, as Aquinas argued on the basis of revelation.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/faith-fact-and-false-dichotomies

Aside from the fact that the Bible alone, among all 'holy' books in the world, (and in direct contradiction to the 'scientific consensus' of the day), uniquely and correctly predicted the creation of the universe, it is also very interesting to note that Christians can also appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics that lay behind Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief in the reality of a heavenly, (i.e. timeless and eternal), dimension and in the reality of a hellish dimension.”

Whereas atheists have no observational evidence that the Multiverses that they postulated to ‘explain. away’ the fine tuning of the universe are real, nor do Atheists have any evidence that the ‘parallel universes’ that they postulated to ‘explain away’ quantum wave collapse are real, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. our most precisely tested theories ever in the history of science), to support their belief that God really does uphold this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in the reality of a heavenly dimension and in the reality of a hellish dimension.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/closer-to-truth-are-there-really-extra-dimensions/#comment-722947

Thus in conclusion, regardless of Einstein's personal beliefs about the authenticity of the Bible and the existence of a 'personal God' Who concerns Himself in the affairs of men, it is very interesting to note that both Einstein's theories, General Relativity and Special Relativity, have confirmed the authenticity of the Bible, and, dare I say, even confirmed the existence of a 'personal God', and have thus undermined atheism in the most fundamental way possible. i.e. Einstein's own scientific theories directly contradict Einstein's own personal beliefs about a the existence of a 'personal God' and the authenticity of the Bible. Verse and video

2 Timothy 1:9 “God saved us and called us, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began” Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE

bornagain77

Chuckdarwin at 12 quotes from Einstein's 1954 letter to Eric Gutkind in order to try to support his atheistic worldview. For me, the key, illuminating, sentence from Einstein to Gutkind, (the key sentence which tells us about Einstein's overall frame of mind), is this one, "I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]." Given that Einstein wrote that letter in 1954, shortly after WWII, then it is very understandable why Einstein would state that "I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]." The Jewish people had just come through an incomprehensibly evil holocaust at the hands of the Nazi's, (who, by the way, 'scientifically' justified their holocaust against the Jews, and all other 'inferior' races, with Darwinian ideology).

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) - 65 minute mark https://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?t=3916

And indeed, it is very, very, hard to see how God could possibly allow his 'chosen people' to suffer such an incomprehensible evil as the holocaust was. Hence it is very understandable why Einstein would state, especially in 1954, that "I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]." But, as evil as the holocaust was, and in defending the integrity of the Bible, which Einstein, in his letter to Gutkind, labeled as merely being a collection of "primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish", it is also important to note that the holocaust, as evil as it was, never-the-less, also served as the primary catalyst for the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland and to the 'rebirth' of the modern nation of Israel. Which is an event that happens to be THE most stunning of fulfilled Biblical prophecies in modern times. And is thus proof of the authenticity of the Bible and that the Bible is certainly not merely a collection of 'primitive legends' as Einstein had falsely claimed. The present day existence of Israel is rightly considered a miraculous and stunning confirmation of numerous biblical prophecies that predicted exactly that.

The Regathering of Israel Excerpt: The regathering of Israel is an often repeated prediction of the Bible, mentioned in a multitude of passages. The Jews were globally dispersed for 1,900 years, and yet, during that time they were able to retain their cultural and religious identity. In recent years, they were reestablished as a nation against all odds.,,, Let’s consider the predictions that the Bible makes in this regard. Below is a partial list of verses that predict the regathering of Israel. For more passages, see the endnote.[i] http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/prophecy/the-regathering-of-israel/ The Miracle of the Restoration of the Nation of Israel - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydwxy9yqhzM

That Israel could be dispersed across the globe, and yet remained united as a people for almost 2000 years is, in and of itself, nothing less that 'miraculous'. Mark Twain himself marveled at the remarkable resilience of the Jewish people to remain united as a people in the face of virtually constant persecution against them across the globe.

To conclude. - If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star-dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? - Mark Twain - Concerning The Jews, Harper's Magazine, March, 1898

So thus, although Einstein himself, fresh on the heals of the holocaust, very understandably could not "see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]", the fact of the matter is that the holocaust itself, as evil as it was, served as the primary catalyst for the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland, which was prophesied to happen in numerous different passages of the Bible. And which is, therefore, a 'miraculous' event in its own right that clearly proves that the Bible is authenticate and is certainly far more than a collection of "primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish" as Einstein had falsely believed. Moreover, although atheists often try to claim Einstein as one of their own, it is very interesting to note that Einstein himself objected very strenuously to atheists trying to claim him as one of their own. Specifically Einstein stated that "there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.“

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. “ (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214)

In fact, "According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people."

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein Excerpt: According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people.[28] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[28][29] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism,_atheism,_and_deism

In fact, as far as science itself is concerned, Einstein was certainly no atheist. Einstein called the mathematical comprehensibility of the universe a 'miracle', and even went so far at to chastise 'professional atheists' in his process of calling it a 'miracle'.

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles”. - Albert Einstein - 1952 - Letter to Solovine https://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

Thus Einstein, contrary to what atheists try to claim, was certainly not an atheist in any strict sense. At most, atheists can claim that Einstein did not believe in a 'personal' God but instead believed in 'Spinoza's God".

“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” - Albert Einstein https://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science

As Kurt Godel, (who was arguably Einstein's closest confidant at Princeton), stated, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.”

The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman – 2010 The religious beliefs that guided Kurt Gödel’s revolutionary ideas Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

bornagain77

@silver The agency of a choice is inherently subjective. Subjective meaning that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. God makes choices, therefore God is inherently subjective. Choices are made out of emotions and personal character, therefore emotions and personal character are inherently subjective. It is a matter of chosen opinion whether someone is "nice", whether they love or hate something, or someone. Therefore nazism is wrong to assert that personal character is a matter of objective fact of biology. And it is highly immoral to have this kind of calculating and measuring attitude in regards to people's personal character. You seem to be asserting that agenyc of a choice is both subjective and objective. No. Very clearly the chosen things, the creations, are entirely objective, and very clearly the agency of the choice is entirely subjective. There exists nothing what is both subjective and objective, because the logic of objectivity and subjectivity is entirely different. A subjective opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice. An objective fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind. One can make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon, the sun, an atom, one cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of love, fear, joy, God. You can make heterodox terms which have both subjective and objective parts. As like "human being", to include both the soul making choices, and the physical body. But there is nothing that is inherently both subjective and objective. If people freely choose, then your regressing of cause and effect back to God argument is irrellevant. Because then we only have to regress back to human beings making choices, and other choices in the universe. A choice sets a cause with it's accompany effect. I choose to shoot a gun, pulling the trigger is the cause, and then there are the effects of it. The mainstay of intelligent design reasoning is possibility and decision, not cause and effect. Cause and effect is things being forced. You should provide for straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of subjectivity. You can see yourself that having the creation be objective, and then emotions and God be both subjective and objective, that this is really too much objective, and little room for what is subjective. mohammadnursyamsu

Silver Asiatic @11, Very nicely and logically stated! Also, regarding Intelligent Design, pragmatically speaking the ID paradigm (even without the presumption of God) is more efficient than the random-accidental-junk-that-somehow-works paradigm at the heart of Darwinism. Evidence against Darwinism continually mounts with recent epigenetic breakthroughs. Historically, the inadequacy of Darwinism manifested itself with the so-called "junk DNA" debacle and the "vestigial organs" debacle, both of which massively delayed scientific progress. Plus, there are the so-called "living fossils" that somehow survived despite millions of years of evolution, the evolutionary path of proteins, and the racist Descent of Man story that seems to continually change every time something is discovered. It's all now pretty much science fantasy, excepting the true believers and Neo-Nazis who still believe in the evolution of a "master race" out of humanity. Furthermore, the question, "why does anything exist rather than nothing," is given the lame science fantasy answer of the multiverse: that infinite energy continually spawns infinitely more universes in infinitely different combinations throughout infinite time--a non-scientific idea that's far less likely than a creator God. This is also how the Origin of Life problem is evaded--by throwing the dark cloak of infinities and nearly infinitely tiny probabilities over the whole mess. And then there are people/chatbots here who cling to materialism and realism despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated conclusively that the subatomic foundations of all existence is probabilistic and non-material, and that consciousness may well be due to quantum entanglement. So you can see why I have no hope that any evidence or logic has any impact on people who are compelled to believe in a failed 19th century theory to avoid the obvious alternative and seem to be crusading against anything that challenges their happy place. -Q Querius

There is no evidence to support evolution. Atheists cannot explain a single law of physics. Atheists have no explanation for the sparking of life from no life. Einstein was quite clear that he was not an atheist. The more he studied the universe, the more he believed in God. BobRyan

People are atheist because they see no compelling reason to believe in any of the gods that are currently - or ever have been - on offer. Seversky

Not only is NDT Darwinism a failed hypothesis morphed into a faith based doctrine, so too is EVERY deep-time dependent scientific hypothesis and assumption, ID or not. Based on over 150T:1 parsimony advantage the mantle of science is not only in ID, but creation science ID. As ID limited by the current standard cosmological model is deep-time dependent. Reference Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ. Pearlman

ET at 13: I believe you are right. Atheism requires more faith than accepting the existence of a First Cause does. But the First Cause is logic and philosophy. The difficulties most people experience with religion come well after that point. Atheism does not even get there. News

People are atheists because of personal reasons. Their beliefs are not based on evidence nor science. Einstein couldn't show that nature produced itself nor that nature produced life. No one has been able to do so. To be an atheist requires more faith than do other religions. ET

#2: Jerry Stupid or not, atheism has been around as long as religion and continues to grow in the western world. Apropos Einstein, he wrote in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind: "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... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition....I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]. The letter was auctioned for $2.9 million to a collector.... chuckdarwin

Mohammad

The neccessary being argument delivers nothing practical, and then destroys subjectivity in general.

Wrong. The necessary being argument is the foundation of the very rationality that you're using to argue with me. If there is no cause-effect, then there is irrationality and nonsense. With causality, we see that some things are caused by others. This is the foundation of what we call "practical". Subjectivity is that which is interior to the person or belonging to the subject's mind alone. It's a personal opinion, non-verifiable. If God was entirely subjective, then there would be no reason for people to seek agreement on what God is. Whatever is in your mind would be sufficient. But we know through the New Testament, Islamic philosophy, Book of Wisdom and Aristotle - among many others, that evidence of God can be evaluated through objective reality. We can see the work of God in nature. That does not destroy subjective experience of God - it adds to it.

Because if God the holy spirit is objective, then why wouldn’t the ordinary human spirit be objective just as well? Leaving nothing subjective.

You pose a false dichotomy. That the human spirit is only subjective or only objective. But the human spirit is both. It is experienced by the person - subjectively. It is an existent entity that we can identify and understand - objectively.

Fact obsession is of all ages.

You're making assertions continually. These are either true or false. If true, then fact. If false, then why bother listening to what you're saying? Facts are truths about reality. You just made a fact-based statement to complain about facts. See the problem?

It is rooted in the psychology to conceive of making a choice in terms of what is best, and not in terms of spontaneity.

It's not psychology, but God made us to seek the best. You are saying facts are not as good as spontaneity. Thus, you seek the best. We are created for perfect life, fulness of being. That's why we try to improve ourselves. Facts are helpful - they bring us to the best, as you say. Spontaneity has its role. It is both in life, not one or the other alone. You continue to pose one against the other, but both are necessary in measure and balance.

The facts about what is good and evil used to evaluate the options with, then take the place of the spirit making the choice.

The spirit is capable of understanding facts. It is not ignorant or blind.

It is a pretty clearcut heresy to objectify God, as is also shown with worshipping the golden calf. No doubt about it that the golden calf was objective.

No, it was subjective to think that the calf was god. Nothing about a block of gold says that it is god. It is the subjective belief of the persons to think so. But at the same time, to deny that God is the first cause of all being because that is an objective statement is to deny logic.

And there are obviously serious implications to fundamentally undermining subjectivity.

That is true. But ID is not undermining subjectivity.

I also don’t see how you can do any intelligent design whatsoever with an objective agency.

Forensic science.

The concept of choice does not function when agency is objectified, because with an objective agency, then you get cause and effect logic, that what the agency objectively consists of, forces the particular result of the choice.

We show water-tight logic to atheists on a daily basis and they continue to choose Darwin instead of the truth. So no, just because logic says something does not mean that choice is eliminated. A person can choose to be illogical.

You cannot put the logic of being forced in the center of the concept of choice. It is an error of contradiction between a choice being free and it being forced.

At the center of choice is your standard. You establish a reason to choose. Some could put logic there, but that will not work in every case. Others put a belief in the Will of God as the standard for their choice. Whatever they choose, they hope it conforms to what God wants. They use facts about morality - knowing God does not want immoral actions. They also use subjective intuition. There's a word you may consider adding to your explanations. "Intuition". That says a lot of what you're trying to say. Intuition is important, but is not alone. We use fact and intuition. The combination of both is what we call "Wisdom". Knowledge (objective) plus insight (intuition) - gives us Wisdom. It's not just intuition (subjective) - that leads to crazy behavior. It's not objective fact alone. Recall, ID is a scientific project attempting to speak with materialist science. The attempt to speak that language does not mean that ID is materialist. In the same way, if I wanted to speak with the Taliban, I would learn to speak Afghani (Pashto). That does not mean that I am a member of the Taliban or want to be one. I just want to communicate, so I use their language. ID is the same with materialism.

Because you say everything in the universe regresses back with causes and effects to the start of the universe, at which point you stop your regression with God. So you leave no room for the human spirit choosing in freedom, because that is all covered with cause and effect, things being forced, going back to the start of the universe.

No. God does not cause or force people do to things that way. It is what we have as free will. We are moral agents, created by God and we can choose freely. But our existence is traced back to God who created us and gave us that power to choose.

So that’s just great, having gotten rid of the atheists destroying subjectivity, then I have to deal with theists destroying subjectivity.

If that was the case, then yes you're right. But ID is not a complete worldview. It is a limited scientific argument. It's not a religion or philosophy in itself. Certainly, some might use science alone or put aside human intuition or spiritual insight, and you would be right to condemn that if it happens. So, it's a good warning, but I have not seen it on ID - then again, ID is not a place for people to fully engage with religious topics (although I do it more often than not). Silver Asiatic

And now that I think about it, your argumentation already cancels out the human spirit making choices. Because you say everything in the universe regresses back with causes and effects to the start of the universe, at which point you stop your regression with God. So you leave no room for the human spirit choosing in freedom, because that is all covered with cause and effect, things being forced, going back to the start of the universe. So that's just great, having gotten rid of the atheists destroying subjectivity, then I have to deal with theists destroying subjectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

@silver The neccessary being argument delivers nothing practical, and then destroys subjectivity in general. Because if God the holy spirit is objective, then why wouldn't the ordinary human spirit be objective just as well? Leaving nothing subjective. Fact obsession is of all ages. It is rooted in the psychology to conceive of making a choice in terms of what is best, and not in terms of spontaneity. The facts about what is good and evil used to evaluate the options with, then take the place of the spirit making the choice. It is a pretty clearcut heresy to objectify God, as is also shown with worshipping the golden calf. No doubt about it that the golden calf was objective. And there are obviously serious implications to fundamentally undermining subjectivity. I also don't see how you can do any intelligent design whatsoever with an objective agency. The concept of choice does not function when agency is objectified, because with an objective agency, then you get cause and effect logic, that what the agency objectively consists of, forces the particular result of the choice. You cannot put the logic of being forced in the center of the concept of choice. It is an error of contradiction between a choice being free and it being forced. mohammadnursyamsu

... two people challenging immediately went to who designed the designer and problem from evil.

Add God of the gaps and we've got the totality of atheistic responses. Silver Asiatic