Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
...

"The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence
of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic
thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
reflection.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We
are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered
to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows
that someone must have written these books. It does not know who
or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written.
But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books.....a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

...

But these don't address the actual thought process of how Einstein
thought the presence of God is manifested in the physical world. I
suspect (although I've never read a specific quotation to prove it) that
he would have propounded the type of involvement that created the basic
underlying physical laws which we are still attempting to uncover and
that those laws are in fact consistent w/ the cosmological principle.

That is far different than the ID approach of continual erratic
intervention.

I don't agree. Alot of people seem to confuse it with a Judeo-Christian God.
It doesn't exclude one but interpretations of how God interacts, if he does
at all, is a different matter. Einstein didn't uphold any traditional religious
view as far as I've seen but he does refer to it as "...reveals an intelligence
of such superiority that..."


You don't agree w/ what?

Einstein was Jewish, therefore one must presume most of his thinking was
strongly influenced by that tradition and background. His involvement
w/ the establishment of Israel certainly would not contradict that
hypothesis.

But he spoke on the subject. We don't need to guess.

True...but you, imo, used what he wrote/spoke to promote a position that
I don't believe he actually held (or would hold now if he were still
here)...

How does any of what you wrote negate the thought of Einstein looking
for underlying physical principles which are invariate over time and
space? That is, in fact, what he spent his career looking for...

I never suggested otherwise. Where do you get the science or god
dichotomy? My purpose in bringing up Einstein was that it need not
be an either or scenario.

I never said dichotomy either...I did suggest there's a difference in
what I think you're trying to use what he (and other prominent early
scientists as welll) said to represent as opposed to what they actually
meant/said/believed.

IOW, I think Einstein was comfortable w/ the thought that there could
well have been an intelligence behind the initial event, but I have
never seen anything in his writings that implies to me that for an iota
he thought there was anything but a physical process in play after
that...it would, imo, totally negate the idea of there even being a
"unified theory" if that were not the case.