"When the solution is simple, God is answering. Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. God does not play dice".
What do Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus have in common? They all had a great mind. Not man made, God made. Albert Einstein never denied a Creator, he just said God was not personal. He did not think God would be interested in man's thoughts and actions. Issac Newton was not an atheist, he contemplated God as a masterful Creator. Galileo was a pious Roman Catholic and Copernicus considered himself to be inspired by God.
Their thinking follow the ontological argument for the existence of God. This defense for the God comes in the realization that no idea concerning man's existence in a grand universe just comes to man's mind. Any idea we have that has at its core the desire to understand the universe and man's place in it, comes to us because there is an absolute source for that information. If we were just a random cosmic event resulting in consciousness then we would not be inquisitive minds. What for? All information we have would be innate and acted upon; leaving no reason to inquire about it. We would just be like plants or simple animals. In a simple state of existence, there is no need to inquire about life or the universe. That kind of contemplation comes from a mind that is not evolved but created.
Einstein leaned toward Baruch Spinoza's view of an impersonal God Creator; i.e. that if a circle had a God, it would be a circle. It would not know God as this Creator God would be impersonal toward its creation. Man thus has a God that is like him. Why would that God be impersonal if He is like us and we are like him. That's illogical. We would have a relationship with Him simple by fact that we inquire about Him. A circle does not inquire about being a circle. But, if it did, the same reason would apply. Of course, it would.
How could any man with the desire to understand who he is and the universe not be in a relationship with his Creator? The ontological argument follows... ideas, thoughts about who we are come from a desire to know the Creator as we were created in His image. As all information or idea's that concern knowing more about the universe and man's place in it comes from the source of that information ~ God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth of all things seen and unseen.
Did you know that everything we see is part of a vast ocean of infinitesimally small subatomic particles? Under certain condition, these subatomic structures also take on the properties of invisible waves. What is incredible is that these waves or particles which make up all matter cause that matter to blink into existence by being observed by us = the experimenter. With that in mind, how can we understand let alone know what reality is? In view of quantum mechanics, the level of reality is beyond all human consciousness..
With that said, what we can only know is what we agree on. If there is no absolute creator, we cannot agree on anything. What for? Everyone would be right and no body would be right just by observing but what would they be observing, as no one could agree. No one could decide or agree on what they were observing unless we first agree that there is an observable universe that we can agree on exists. Even if we don't recognize our Creator in this moment of agreeing, we are essentially agreeing because we agree that we can agree. In Him that we live and breathe and have our being ~ Acts 17:28.
According to Spinoza, given an impersonal god and that each of us would have our "god" we would certainly be able to understand what we are and what the universe is about. How could that be since strangely this god would not care to know us and so why would we want to even think about him let alone agree on anything we see or observe by ourself or with anyone? We can only agree or even want to agree when we think we are like minded and agree in why and or how we are or can be like minded. In saying that is possible, we would have to first agree we are like minded because there is an absolute entity that created the universe and man in his image. Otherwise, we would not agree on anything. We able to agree because we are created beings and are able to have a relationship with our Creator. Like minded people, have the same Creator, this allows them to agree on what what is observed. That is why, there is more consistent solid agreement about the universe among like minded scientists than there is among unlike minded scientists.
As for Spinoza, we could follow up and say that scientists came from science. Therefore, a God created being came from God. Each imagining what they came from based on what they are. Right? If someone imagines they are from science how is that any different than imagining one is from God. Einstein said that imagination is greater than knowledge. In this case, both are equal. However, for those that imagine science as their 'religion' sadly for them science finishes and or changes whereas God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow.
People have misunderstood Albert Einstein when he said he does not believe in a personal God. Likely, his view was that God is not any man's or one man's but every man's. And, every man has a right to understand that God ~ the Creator of all things, seen and unseen in/of Heaven and Earth, through the pursuit of knowledge using man's God given mind!
"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness".
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
No comments:
Post a Comment