Thread: Creationists, i'm confused.

Originally Posted by jaasum

I am KINDOF confused by your post, or who you are talking to. But the part that is broken in most Christian's minds is the fact that they are brainwashed. Trained their whole life to go to church and listen to a pastor that they end up believing psychopaths like Kent Hovind.

Yeah. True.

But beside that, they just can't accept the FACT, (actual fact here, they are pretty rare) that a god isn't more likely to 'just exist' than for the universe to 'just exist'. (because it isn't an absolutism, like "God certainly didn't do it, It couldn't be a fact. I don't see how it can not be a logical fact now.").

That is all there is to it. "random entity, allah/god/whatever existing" or "Universe existing" are of the same order. There is no Reason why 'god' HAD to have made the universe, as some Christians think. You just have to use a different, wrong kind of logic (wrong in the sense that it would be a kind of logic that has never been tested to reality successfully), to think that one entity can 'just exist' (or whatever brown hole he came out of), god, but another entity (the universe) can Not.

Oh? If this is the sort of discussion that I get from people then I don't see it as discussion. You are blabbing the same bunch of mumbo jumbo without any kind of merit I hear from Christians.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Okay, I have thought about it for a little bit as I finished up at work ect.

Here is how I can answer it, as simply as possible.

I like this question, I really do. I like it because it is one of the smartest things I have heard from an atheistic standpoint and it sounds like a sincere question. I have never pondered it and it made me think. I did answer it a little bit above but for the sake of clarity lets just move forward.

How I understand this is that since, according to Christians God always has been, then why can't existence just as easily always have been? That is interesting and I guess I missed it the question entirely at first because it is a loophole question. You answered it yourself. I am trying really hard to think of a good analogy but it's hard to explain. I see them as the same thing. Creation is an expression of God, it is part of God and God expresses it to us in many different ways. To clarify even more all the matter that we see as our own reality, all the matter we don't see ect is all literally a part of God. Good, evil, love, hate, the rocks, the skies, the sun, the stars is all God. Does that mean I think you and me ARE God? Not exactly, we are OF God. He birthed this reality of Himself because it was His nature. A God of laws such as the ones we see in nature is not a stupid one, and I see it as one with a plan that will be fulfilled, but this is where I'll stop. In short I see your question as trying to separate two things I see as the same. It's the same paradox I see with free-will and predestination. Sort of like two wings on a bird. If you use only one you will fly in circles, you need both to make sense of what IS.

Thank you for addressing the question after showing that you understand it. I appreciate that. However, I don't think your belief in the existence of God as an entity much like the Tao in Taoism or Brahman in Hinduism quite gets to the answer. You said what you believe, but you didn't really say how it explains why the source of the universe must be conscious. You just said you believe it is and showed a discrepency between your understanding of God's relationship to the universe and general Christianity's understanding of it. You expressed that you don't believe the story of creation as it is literally interpreted from Genesis. That's an interesting view, but it doesn't really explain the resolution to the limit we think we have found in the intelligent design argument. Why is it impossible for the eternal source of the universe to be unconscious? Why would everything unconscious require a conscious designer while not everything conscious requires a conscious designer? Saying that the source and its manifestations are not separate, contrarary to the general Christian view, does not explain that. But you have come closer than anybody to answering this. Please don't give up. Thanks again.

How is it not? This question I feel goes to a dead end. I can't point you to a fact that will show all that is as having a conscious like-mind behind it driving all that is.

Think of this. We are made of the same stuff that makes up the stars. When this universe expanded and then started to condense into clouds of gas, which condensed into planets ect. I find it so fascinating that our consciousness was birthed from this. The fact that we are sitting here pondering questions such as this is enough evidence for me.

But even if my perceptions of God are nothing more than an anomaly of what I am due to the nature of the universe then God is how I make sense of it. Because if not "God" then how do I even have the ability comprehend such a question? Is it as likely that existence birthed itself? Sure if we were rocks. But then if we were only rocks, or gas, or something that wasn't alive then how the hell would we even come up with that answer? You see what I am saying?

I can't answer your question because I can't give you any proof. I use maybe 15% of the bible in my thoughts, the rest is from thinking until my brain hurts. I have thought for hours "what created God?" and this is what I have come up with. This is what makes sense to me. You have to find what makes sense to you.

I am still open to discussion, I love this discussion thus far. If you can't tell it made my mind start racing (long posts) so we can continue it. I like the fact that I haven't really thought of this perception and I have taken some interesting turns in my beliefs, I would consider this one of those.

I do appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and you have made it much more interesting and thought-provoking and really made an effort to help us get to the bottom of the intelligent design issue. It is just that my question is very, very specific. I don't understand precisely how what you are saying answers my precise question. It is like you are playing darts and hit that circle that goes right around the bull's eye, twice. I am trying to get you to hit the bull's eye. I'll try to sum up where we are.

The intelligent design (creationist) argument: The universe is so complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating that it couldn't have just happened by itself and therefore was designed by a conscious being.

The atheist rebuttle: That is not any more logical than the point that God is even more complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating and therefore would have to have been designed by a conscious being.

The creationist rebuttle: Modern physics shows that the universe had a beginning. However, God would not require a beginning. He is transcendent to our universe and timeless. Therefore, he did not have to be created.

The next atheist rebuttle: The universe may have had a beginning, but that does not mean existence itself did. Why is it not possible for the universe to have been the result of a transcendent and timeless principle of existence that is not a conscious being?

That is where we were when you joined the conversation.

You: God is the universe and the rest of existence.

Me: I don't see how that answers the question.

You: Things in the universe, particularly conscious awareness, show by their incredible nature that something intelligent designed them.

So you have said where you disagree with the general creationist notion and why you believe a great consciousness exists in some form and created certain things, such as human consciousness, but you have not said why that which is the source of the entire universe has to be a conscious being and not an inanimate scientific principle any more than that conscious being, which is even greater than the universe, needed something to consciously design it. Do you see what I am saying?

Originally Posted by jaasum

Oh? If this is the sort of discussion that I get from people then I don't see it as discussion. You are blabbing the same bunch of mumbo jumbo without any kind of merit I hear from Christians.

You mistake not understanding the simple principles of universal logic with people that think jesus is in their anus.

Originally Posted by Neruo

You mistake not understanding the simple principles of universal logic with people that think jesus is in their anus.

What I was saying to you was that with creationists and atheists alike I see it as two separate ends of the spectrum. I see creationists trying to use logic simply to disprove atheists theory. Such as "They found dinosaur footprints next to human footprints in the mud. What now Mr. Atheist?" And then I see atheists will use other facts and logic ONLY to disprove creationists. "If the universe is intelligently designed then how come it is so uninhabitable? What now Mr. Creationists?"

I don't see people genuinely looking for answers, more like genuinely looking to disprove someone else. I think it is rooted in brash generalizations of people, therefore you generalize their thought process as always wrong. For example. The man Alex Jones is a fucking nut-case, but some things he says ARE true. There are people who can watch one of his videos and logically think about it, dismissing things that are unlikely or unproven and thinking about things as fact. But then you will have people who watch one of his videos and then run into the streets saying "9/11 was an inside job!" I don't agree with that, but I can agree with some things the man says. Does that mean everyone who agrees with Alex Jones is a nutcase? No. Not all creationists think "Jesus is in their anus" and not all atheists are pissed of morons.

Relax a little, this is just a discussion, maybe you should stop using divide and conquer with every conversation. Maybe then you might learn something.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I do appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and you have made it much more interesting and thought-provoking and really made an effort to help us get to the bottom of the intelligent design issue. It is just that my question is very, very specific. I don't understand precisely how what you are saying answers my precise question. It is like you are playing darts and hit that circle that goes right around the bull's eye, twice. I am trying to get you to hit the bull's eye. I'll try to sum up where we are.

The intelligent design (creationist) argument: The universe is so complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating that it couldn't have just happened by itself and therefore was designed by a conscious being.

The atheist rebuttle: That is not any more logical than the point that God is even more complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating and therefore would have to have been designed by a conscious being.

The creationist rebuttle: Modern physics shows that the universe had a beginning. However, God would not require a beginning. He is transcendent to our universe and timeless. Therefore, he did not have to be created.

The next atheist rebuttle: The universe may have had a beginning, but that does not mean existence itself did. Why is it not possible for the universe to have been the result of a transcendent and timeless principle of existence that is not a conscious being?

That is where we were when you joined the conversation.

You: God is the universe and the rest of existence.

Me: I don't see how that answers the question.

You: Things in the universe, particularly conscious awareness, show by their incredible nature that something intelligent designed them.

So you have said where you disagree with the general creationist notion and why you believe a great consciousness exists in some form and created certain things, such as human consciousness, but you have not said why that which is the source of the entire universe has to be a conscious being and not an inanimate scientific principle any more than that conscious being, which is even greater than the universe, needed something to consciously design it. Do you see what I am saying?

I honestly think I answered that. Yes it is but my mind can't wrap around that, not because I don't want to believe it because then it leaves too many questions un answered for me. (thinking that the universe just basically birthed itself into existence. This is such a hard concept for anyone to grasp, that is the origins of existence, because everything we do has a beginning and and end, we can watch the beginning and we can watch the end. You were born, you live and you die. Your creation was from your parents. When asked "Where did you come from?" you could answer "I came from my hometown." but when we ask "Where did existence come from, or where did God come from?" then we are left with a perplexing situation. Because we cannot envision something creating itself. This is where the mystery lies, and this is where I have answered you. My mind sees this as having a purpose, and existence as part of something more aware. you see existence as simply being. I don't justify my argument by saying "The universe is so complex that proves there is God!" It is more like "God" whatever it is, is the only thing that makes sense. So sure the universe could have birthed itself, and maybe that is why we are left with this perplexing question, because our carnal minds cannot solve a problem such as that. Science as solved many questions, such as what the stars are, the origins of earth and countless other mysteries. But they push the limits and explain the big bang, the origins of our universe, and now they are just left with even more questions. Where did these membranes come from? Is there truly countless other universes next to ours that spread out for infinity in both directions? We can never answer that.

You can never give a solid answer that the universe, or existence itself wasn't planned. I can never give a solid answer to if the universe was planned. We can't find proof for those questions, we can only discuss. Yes your argument is likely, but so is mine. There is only so much of existence we can sense with our bodies, science proves there is much more around us than we can tell. So I have no idea even what reality is let alone where it all came from. God is just the most logical thing I can fathom, and no not because it is a cop out to a difficult question.

If your question is that "If the universe is complex and thus needed a creator, then wouldn't God be complex and thus need a creator?" And my final answer is "I think the universe IS God, you are looking at the same complexities. The universe doesn't need a creator because it IS the creator.

This idea crossed my mind for believers, if god is 100% almighty and god is 100% all knowing then his memory must also be 100% perfect without a flaw!

That means, like if I look at my table for example, I see then a tea cup, then god also knows the weight of that tea cup and its temperature! How many water molecules are in that tea cup. Also he must then know perfectly its on a table and that table in in a house, how the house looks, etc etc how the planet looks and so on till u reach the largest scale we know that is the universe itself.

Well if god has a perfect data copy of my tea cup to make it really perfect there would have to be no difference with the real one in the real world and the copy in gods consciousness because he is all knowing, but the same then that must rule for the universe.

So if you believe god is all knowing and almighty then the universe cant be created by god but must have always been part of gods almighty and all knowing consciousness and there for always existed. If god would created the universe he/it would exist itself in time for that action.

Originally Posted by LucidApple

This idea crossed my mind for believers, if god is 100% almighty and god is 100% all knowing then his memory must also be 100% perfect without a flaw!

That means, like if I look at my table for example, I see then a tea cup, then god also knows the weight of that tea cup and its temperature! How many water molecules are in that tea cup. Also he must then know perfectly its on a table and that table in in a house, how the house looks, etc etc how the planet looks and so on till u reach the largest scale we know that is the universe itself.

Well if god has a perfect data copy of my tea cup to make it really perfect there would have to be no difference with the real one in the real world and the copy in gods consciousness because he is all knowing, but the same then that must rule for the universe.

So if you believe god is all knowing and almighty then the universe cant be created by god but must have always been part of gods almighty and all knowing consciousness and there for always existed. If god would created the universe he/it would exist itself in time for that action.

Umm... what?

The fact that God knows how many molecules of tea are in your cup doesn't mean there is a physical copy of the tea in His "consciousness." Your line of thinking is fractured somewhere. If I look at a book, a copy of that book doesn't spring up in my brain, just the knowledge of that book.

Yes, God knows all about the Universe, because He created it. He created time and space. But that doesn't mean He was inside time and space to have to create it, kind of like I don't have to be two inches tall to assemble a model car.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Lonewolf, this thread is about the intelligent design argument. Please talk head on about this specifically since no other theist will.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I realize that we are on a diferent page here, I am focusing on the big picture and jumping to future implications, while you are focusing on the details and specifics of your question, in a more direct way. I will try to keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Anything within the field of paranormal can be easily explained by the fact that those who experience it are either
A, fools who don't understand what is really happening.
B, insane, there are plenty of people who have hallucinations, infact there is a specific desease that causes problems to have "visions" that result in imagery smell, and other senses.
C, Liars, lots of people want attention =)
Anyway, this quote is where we are in the discussion at the moment. (basically the main point of Universals self quote)

Although I agree, a lot of weird stuff turn out to be either hoaxes or lies, there really are things that are unexplainable that occur time and time again. No one can say for sure.

Originally Posted by jaasum

The problem with Creationism VS. Astro-Physics and Biological evolution is quite simple. Creationism already has an answer. The creationists argument is that "according to the bible God created the heavens and the earth and in seven days created everything that was on earth." The root of this logic is flawed because they can't read their bible metaphorically, and they don't even understand the history of Genesis. These thoughts of a literal six day creation come from literal reading of the texts. However even the word "day" is a mistranslation, something along the lines of "age" would be more correct. My point being they simple read it and believe it, therefore they already have an answer.

I am a creationist and I don't take the 7 days part literally. The bible even proves that it is not literal.

Pslams 90:4: For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past,
And as a watch during the night.

2 Peter 3:8: However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

Also all the way in the apostle Paul's time, he mentioned that they were still in the 7th day of rest.

Originally Posted by jaasum

The next flaw in the creationists argument is that they refute years of scientific study and research, collective knowledge and PROOF with what the bible loosely says in Genesis. But then they begin to pick and choose what is true about science. Because many of them try to use science to prove somehow that the Genesis story is true. This is where you get all the bullshit (excuse my language) You get them practically making stuff up to support a young earth. They have to bend over backwards to come up with this stuff it is hilarious.

Again, I am a creationist and I don't believe in a young earth FYI.

Also archaeology confirms much of the Bible's historical accuracy. True science harmonizes with the Bible. The following facts were in the Bible long before they were discovered by secular scholars: the order of stages through which the earth passed in its development, that the earth is round, that it hangs in space on nothing, and that birds migrate.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Now that I have said all that, I get to attack the atheists (in all fun of course, I love discussion, don't make this hostile)

For one, I can tell that nobody in this thread TRULY understands what Christianity is about.

Oh yea. You haven't met me.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Before I get marked as a know it all, I can only say I have scratched the surface. Christians tend to get caught up in the ideas such as creationism, the rapture, proving Christ existed (seriously, just go to godtube.com and see what the most viewed stuff is) and in this respect they miss completely what Christ was about. And atheists, I don't blame you for blaming Christianity, it is a joke today. I say all that to say what I am about to which is my opinion, an opinion that I have formulated by letting down all walls, my doubts and my beliefs.

I am not part of mainstream christianity. The religion im a part of is different, we understand the truth about hte bible and about God and Jesus. I agree with you that christianity today is a joke. Many teachings of christianity are unscriptural including: hellfire, immortal soul, trinity, etc.

Originally Posted by jaasum

To me, Christianity explains the why of creation. It explains this in very deep ways, and not literal ones. Science, all the amazing things we have found through letting go of ridiculous superstition and just letting ourselves learn is amazing! It is through this I find the how. I believe there is a how to God. If Science keeps advancing and exploring and breaking new ground I think we could eventually "put God under a microscope" so to say and explain, logically what is going on. This is because I find what science is finding out as part of God. All that exists is God and is of God. Do I believe that God is some bearded white man in the sky that is zapping people with his finger and watching them sin? No not really. I think the concepts of God that Christianity paints are very literal for the simple use of symbolism. It is much easier to picture God as a literally being rather than an abstract force behind all that is. I think that elements of God can be found in any religion and in many parts of life. I don't see the concept of God as something far off on a different plane, I see it as what IS. I could agree with lonewolf with the "I am" statement, but not in a lot of other things stated. I can agree with you guys on your disposition to the idea of creationism. I personally think creationism in the traditional sense is a bunch of BS. But the universes ability to bring order amongst all the chaos I find fascinating. The fact that we are matter that spawned from the beginning of time and has travelled through billions of years of existence has the ability to sit and ponder itself blows my mind. Science can tell me the how all day long, how we got here. And I look to spirituality and higher understanding to tell me the why. I do hold many Christian beliefs and yes, I do believe a man named Christ walked the earth and was indeed the Son of God. I think Christianity still has much to learn about the origins of this man and the events that surrounded it and what He really had to say (I do too), but it involves throwing away most of the Christian religion in the cultural context along with much of the doctrine. Christianity still pisses me off like no other, but I can get into more why I still believe Christianity, but first I look forward to hearing any thoughts on this.

You quoted me wrong, I didn't mention the "I AM" statement. I don't believe God can be found in all religions, that would not make sence. All those people are praying and worshiping a whole differnt god with different names, etc. I believe in one true God and I believe in the bible. It takes discernment to understand the bible. Some things are literal while other things are symbolic and it is easy to catch on with one by seeing the whole context.

Originally Posted by jaasum

If your question is that "If the universe is complex and thus needed a creator, then wouldn't God be complex and thus need a creator?" And my final answer is "I think the universe IS God, you are looking at the same complexities. The universe doesn't need a creator because it IS the creator.

So the universe proves a conscious creator, and that creator is itself? I guess what you are talking about would be a timeless reality that did not create itself in a time sequence but is somehow the timeless/eternal metaphysical source of itself. I guess that would answer the question of how design can prove a designer without that designer proving a different designer. The design and designer are the same thing, so the intelligent designer requirement is there without an infinite heirarchy of designers. And the reason the source must be conscious is the miraculous nature of the existence of consciousness and other phenomenal things in the universe that could have otherwise very easily and even most likely never existed, yet do. And any source of such a thing would have to be traced back to a conscious designer. I get what you are saying. Wow! That is a very trippy concept.

Let's see if I have this right.

Q: How does the existence of the universe prove the existence of a conscious designer of it?

A: The universe is so complex and incredible, and human consciousness exists in it and ponders itself. That is so miraculous that something had to have consciously made that happen. Otherwise, it would have been way too easy for it to never happen anywhere.

Q: That conscious designer would be an even bigger deal than its creation and have even greater consciousness and philosophical awareness than humans, so wouldn't it, by the same argument, need a conscious designer of itself?

A: It does require a conscious designer of itself. That designer is itself. Therefore the designer of itself is not separate, so there is not an infinite heirarchy of designers. There is only one designer. It stops there.

I see what you are saying. I think you just gave the best answer a theist has given me in the history of this forum. Even if I don't agree with your idea, you just threw a curve ball and tied my brain in some knots. I love it when I get a disagreement response that is that good. Thanks. I am going to have to do some thinking about that one, probably a lot.

If I were on a debate team and had to argue for the existence of God, your points would be about the best ones I could use. Your points remind me of things my father says. He is agnostic, but since I am an atheist, he takes the theist side when we talk about religion. He has said a few times that the fact that humans exist and can think and experience emotions is so bizarre that the existence of God would not be any more bizarre.


SilverZero, can you answer the question we have been asking? I would love to know your take on it. I want to know what a Genesis style creationist would say about the resolution to our specific intelligent design dilemma.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

SilverZero, can you answer the question we have been asking? I would love to know your take on it. I want to know what a Genesis style creationist would say about the resolution to our specific intelligent design dilemma.

I got lost on those last few marathon posts. I'd be happy to offer my views if somebody can clarify the questions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why is it impossible for the eternal source of the universe to be unconscious? Why would everything unconscious require a conscious designer while not everything conscious requires a conscious designer?

The bottem line is---was this universe created by some thing eternal or some one eternal?

Conscious beings create inanimate things yes but the opposite couldn't logically be true. Inanimate things can't create conscious beings. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter.

Also, we know from personal experience that things tend toward disorder. As any homeowner has observed, when left to themselves, things tend to break down and disinigrate. This is "the second law of thermodynamics." We can see this law at work daily. If left alone, a new automobile or bicycle will become scrap. Abandon a building and it will become ruin. So what about the universe? The law applies there too. So you might think that the order throughout the universe should give away to complete disorder. However this does not seem to be happening in the universe. Scientists find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition. The entropy problem is---why the universe has not become chaotic.

Something devoid of awareness can't possibly give birth to consciousness or have the ability to organize or keep stable.


The fact that we have the ability to contemplate deep matters can't be the result that we eventually came about from something with no intelligence.

Lonewolf, thank you. You are the second person to answer the question. I was not expecting that answer, and it is something to really think about. I don't agree with your point, but it is thought-provoking. My goal here is not to argue about that. My goal here is to learn what I can about how the theist side of the argument can answer the discrepency issue I was talking about, and you and Jasuum have really helped with that.

Originally Posted by SilverZero

I got lost on those last few marathon posts. I'd be happy to offer my views if somebody can clarify the questions.

We are here...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The intelligent design (creationist) argument: The universe is so complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating that it couldn't have just happened by itself and therefore was designed by a conscious being.

The atheist rebuttle: That is not any more logical than the point that God is even more complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating and therefore would have to have been designed by a conscious being.

The creationist rebuttle: Modern physics shows that the universe had a beginning. However, God would not require a beginning. He is transcendent to our universe and timeless. Therefore, he did not have to be created.

The next atheist rebuttle: The universe may have had a beginning, but that does not mean existence itself did. Why is it not possible for the universe to have been the result of a transcendent and timeless principle of existence that is not a conscious being?

What is the next theist rebuttle?

Lonewolf, are you a JW? I am sorta joking, but I can't say I agreed with much you said. You are right though, I don't know you and it is wrong for me to make such a brash generalization, so my apologies.

Sorry to interrupt this wonderful and interesting thread but would you call yourslef an agnostic or a theist Jassum?
It seems to me, that you beleieve that God is a likely solution to a perplexing question? Thus you, claim to beleive but not know of God's existance?

You seem to me, to be an agnsotic leaning towards the thiest side, just as i am an agnsotic leading towards the atheist side.

I don't know what to call myself, the word Christian carries to many implications. I have never considered myself agnostic because that would imply I am searching, and I have never considered myself a theist (maybe because I don't fully understand would it implies to call myself a theist). I don't associate with any one group I find that hard to do. Personally for me I find the teachings of Christ the most powerful in my life, but from that perspective I am more of a Universalist. But those discussions aren't entirely for this thread. If you watch for the next few days I may start some threads geared toward the strong Christian audience there seems to be here and there you might find some of my specific beliefs stated.

Originally Posted by jaasum

I don't know what to call myself, the word Christian carries to many implications. I have never considered myself agnostic because that would imply I am searching, and I have never considered myself a theist (maybe because I don't fully understand would it implies to call myself a theist). I don't associate with any one group I find that hard to do. Personally for me I find the teachings of Christ the most powerful in my life, but from that perspective I am more of a Universalist. But those discussions aren't entirely for this thread. If you watch for the next few days I may start some threads geared toward the strong Christian audience there seems to be here and there you might find some of my specific beliefs stated.

Thanks

Jaasum, did I characterize your point correctly?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Jaasum, did I characterize your point correctly?

Yeah I think you got it

We can keep discussing if you have more questions, I enjoy thought provoking questions.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Neat I didn't know that one =).

I had bookmarked this for a day that I was sure to be addressed.
Every one looks to Einstien, relativly speaking.

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)
A man's ethical behaviour 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, 9 November 1930)
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)
One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e.htm
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein,The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What is the next theist rebuttle?

Dammit, it's spelled REBUTTAL!