(November 13, 2010 at 3:36 am)theVOID Wrote: It' pretty much just bad communication to use the word God to represent that concept, use something else, the god term is confused enough already.
And I'm sure Einstein's god was some intention through mathematics, rather than just a blanket term for everything, it was somewhat more than "universe". Do you share the intention part of the idea with him?
I also feel, in my opinion, that "scientific pantheism" (God is the universe and God isn't sentient) is a category confusion, a distinction from atheism that I don't get. For the term "God" to have any meaning, we have to assume that such a being is at least sentient. Essentially, the atheist-deist debate is to whether the "machine" we call the universe is by decision or did it just happen.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
