--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for perceiving it *as* feedback, and nothing more. One of the points I was trying to make about quantum physicists talking about God or astrophys- icists merely *assuming* that the universe had a starting point or a moment of "creation" is what I'd term "the persistence of early conditioning." LONG before any of these people were taught math and the tents of science, they were taught that an all-powerful interfering being named "God" existed. Is there any question that they would hold to such beliefs while developing theories about the nature of the universe, and thus consciously or unconsciously "color" their theories with such beliefs? They were also taught just by dealing with birth and death in humans and other life forms that such things seem inevitable. Is there any question that they would then think "As below, so above," and believe that the universe had a starting point (the moment of "creation" or the "Big Bang")? I think it would be interesting to see what a scientist who had been raised with *zero* exposure to teachings about a sentient God or about the *assumability* of a universe that (like humans) was "born" and thus someday must "die" would come up with. But that is not easily accomplished. Einstein made comments about God during his lifetime, even though his newly-discovered letters indicate that he was more consistently in the atheist camp than in the God camp. Nevertheless, God freaks continue to portray the man who said in a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish" as a fellow believer in God. My grandfather, who worked with Einstein, described him to my father as someone who was willing to chuck *any* idea out the window the moment its usefulness ended. Even his own. Being a thoughtful man, I am sure that he examined both sides of the "Is there a God" question all his life. But he seems to have settled firmly in the "No" camp. *Especially* with regard to the idea that God, if one existed, could "interfere with" or "affect" the world. He stated several times that he did not believe this. IMO that may have freed him to come up with concepts that a person who could never get *past* early conditioning that taught him that *of course* there is a God, and *of course* He can do whatever he wants could not. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating > > > > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus > > > > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. > > > > I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the > > > > functioning of the operating system because *none is > > > > necessary to describe its actions*. They would carry on > > > > just as effectively *without* any intelligence behind > > > > them. Thus, using Occam's Razor, why clutter up an > > > > already-elegant system with some made-up "intelligence" > > > > interfering with it and running it. > > > > > > This idea of an operating system. Has there ever been an opeating > > > system without someone, or "something" creating it. Or can it just > > > spring up on its own? > > > > The problem with your question, Lurk (as I mentioned > > before) is the assumption that it "sprung up." > > > > Humans have a tough time with the concept of eternality. > > >
