Jesus and Einstein on the Expansion of the Universe

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by Ben Masada, Aug 6, 2012.

  1. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    JESUS AND EINSTEIN ON THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE

    Dear Ben,

    Q. - According to Torah in Genesis 2:3, after the six days of Creation, God blessed the Seventh Day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work He had done in Creation. But in John 5:17 Jesus declared that God has been at work until now; obviously, that He has never stopped with his work of Creation. How can this apparent contradiction be harmonized?

    A. - There is no contradiction. The six days of creation was the Jewish way to establish the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy in term of resting, but by man and not by God, Who is not like a man to need rest. (Num. 23:19) The mention of God in the text was only to render the day holy.

    Two thousand years ago a Jew - Jesus - made it clear that God has never stopped working. Then, two thousand years later, another Jew - Einstein - being asked if he believed in God, said that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of Creation. Probably, the first Jew had in mind the newly discovered expansion of the universe, obviously, the second Jew had Creation in mind when he connected his answer to the question if he believed in God, with his then research on the theory of the expansion of the universe.

    Another probable evidence is found in the unsuccessful struggle of modern Cosmologists to understand how the expansion of the universe takes place. Some of them suggest that a way to understand that phenomenon is through quantum mechanics with the help of dark energy, which could even help with the theory of multiverses. The fundamental problem though, is that, none knows what dark energy is and how it opperates in the universe.

    Einstein, the second Jew in the context of this thread, gave another booster as he implied "design" by saying that God does not play dice. Could it be that expansion of the universe is the result of a design? While research is keeping researchers busy on both sides, let us keep our minds open to the eventual probability that Einstein's master theory could be just around the corner waiting only to surprise us all. In fact, when Einstein died, he was working on his master's theory that would explain all therories.

    Ben
     
  2. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ben -- it is possible that Einstein's "master theory" is waiting around the corner. Just not very likely. We had to long ago give up his "Eternally static sphere" model of the universe (it just does not and cannot work). Similarly his "Principle of Locality" has been experimentally disproven. Similarly, his interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and the cosmological constant were blunders. Four bad ideas out of hundreds is pretty remarkable (maybe unprecedented) in science, let alone physics.

    But together they hold the seeds of why most physicists would disagree with you. God does, indeed play dice and the ultimate form of the cosmos will not be static or constant. That is why things like the big bang, big rip, cyclic, dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravities, and various brane/M/string theories are considered the “most likely” (by physical cosmologists). None of these are at all Einsteinian. Oh, yes they follow his equations (or predict behavior according to them), but they are dynamic, not static (what Einstein wanted).

    It is no criticism of the “Grand Old Man”—Mach never believed in atomic theory and Planck never did agree with Quantum Mechanics. They were all, to varying degrees, distrustful of “spooky action at a distance” and uncertainty.
     
  3. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    Albert Einstein had an interesting belief in God. In a letter written in 1954, he are his thoughts on the subject (courtesy of Wikipedia): ...] The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

    Essentially, what Einstein was saying is that the word "God" is meaningless, and silly because he believed in somewhat cosmic energy that existed in nature, and because of this, the word "God" is basically saying that we are ruled over by someone because we are weaker. He believed the tales of the Bible, such as the world being created in 7 days and the Tower of Babel, were honorable stories, but false, and the original texts of the Bible were meant to guide one on the path of morality. He also said that he is proud to be a Jew, but does not see them superior to any other person.
     
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Ben —
    You seem to be suggesting 'intelligent design'? A lot of Christians hold that view, but really, in the face of the evidence.

    On the other hand, we should not get too carried away with the notion of infinite possibilities that pulls the bottom out of all our certainties.

    Take the old adage about an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters will, given an infinite amount of time, reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Really? Really? Are we talking one monkey, writing the complete works in chronological order, or writing Tempest here, Macbeth there ... or are we piecing together bits from an infinite number of keystrokes to produce the works, in which case you don't need an infinite amount of monkeys, nor time?

    And even if they did, then what does that demonstrate? Does the monkey realise what he or she has done? No.

    No, this comes under the title of 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' it seems to me. It's like the man with his head in the over and his feet in the fridge. On balance, he's neither too warm, nor too cold...

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Hi Wil —

    Did Einstein really say that? Then he's gone a long way down in my estimation.

    I remember a teacher at school saying 'anyone who thinks Shakespeare is boring is either stupid, or has never read Shakespeare.' An outspoken opinion, but I can see his point.

    You've just located Einstein in the 'Shakespeare is boring' category for me.

    Really? Is that all he can see? No wisdom, no insight into the human condition? Shame ...

    Childish? Oh good grief! Who was this kid's rabbi? I think the primitive legend of the Fall, or the Flood, are highly intuitive commentaries — in fact together they show the human tendency to over-reach itself, the first vertically, the second horizontally ... but I dare say the imagery is lost on him ... pity.

    Sounds like a bigot now ...

    That's something of an assumption, implying that Einstein knows what the text means. So far he's coming across a tad bigoted still.

    Well thankfully science has proven that notion to be a crock. In fact, according to the New Scientist, without the religious instinct, there would be no science, and long after science has worn out, the religious instinct will be strong, and pushing man onto ever new frontiers.

    This is the fundamental error of assuming the terms even apply. God is indeed meaningless in terms of the physical sciences, because God is not a physical entity.

    Don't understand. What 'original texts'? and is he suggesting there is no moral teaching attached to Biblical exegesis?

    So? St Paul said the same thing ...

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    Thomas....

    With all that is out there...I don't actually know who knows who said what. Both Atheists and Christians love to quote Einstein as he had enough quotes that they could be taken both ways....(not unlike the bible eh?) Interpreters don't kill people, bad interpretations of interpretations do??

    Anywho, it appears he didn't believe in any personal god that one could pray to and get response from but did believe in a higher power.

    As to morality and original texts you do agree they were often written as law eh? moral code eh?


    an aside....been to any games??
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    The botton line: sorry, Einstein had it wrong! Questions?
     
  8. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    why can't I give you rep for that?

    is giving rep gone?
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    I know. It's the celebrity problem. Why assume a physicist has anything useful or knowledgeable to say about theology?

    I would have thought Ecco was a better bet than Einstein.

    Those that address moral issues, yes.

    Nope.

    I was all set to boycott the Olympics because of all the commercialisation/branding/politics — and because I think the branding's crap — but after the opening ceremony ... also had surgery recently, so on my back for a bit, plenty of time to watch TV.

    Why is kendo not an olympic sport? That's what I want to know.

    Did you watch the opening ceremony? Did it make sense? Shall we take this to the lounge?

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  10. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    How could Einstein have had an "Eternally static sphere" model of the universe if he believed in the expansion of the universe, which rather explains the kinetic character of the universe and that he did not believe that the universe was eternal?

    Ben
     
  11. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry, Will, but my impression from this post of yours above, is that you have painted Einstein as a moron member of the literal interpretation club. Someone unable to see beyond the letter and completely ignorant of metaphorical language.

    Also, another impression I was left with was that Einstein was totally an atheist, when he, in answer to a question if he was one, he declared: Absolutely not. Likewise, Spinoza, whom many atheists would like to have on their team, never said that he was an atheist. They just could not think of God on a personal basis. And neither do I. Nor the Tanach either. (Deut. 4:15,16) Hence, expressions of anthropomorphism in the Jewish Bible are to be interpreted metaphorically.

    Ben
     
  12. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    It depends on what you understand by intelligent design. Are you, by any chance, imagining God sitting down in his office designing the universe? Do you think that when Einstein said that God does not play dice, he mean that God must have thought on how to design the universe. What we Jews mean is a natural design and not one based on anthropomorphism. I think we are a little more intelligent than that, save exceptions.

    Ben
     
  13. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    Or that we have all wrong about Einstein. If he could not think of God on a personal basis, as he declared not to, how could he speak of God as one speaks about a man? That's contradiction on the make.

    Ben
     
  14. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2

    Good question, I will ask him in the world to come.

    He did not believe in expansion (I do not know where you get that he did). For him the universe was timeless (see "Block Universe" or "Eternalism" on wiki) and static (see "static" or "stationary" or "einsteinian" universe -- actaually all under "static universe" on wiki).

    While I normally do not cite it, in something so (in terms of relativistic physics) basic, they have the presentations pretty good. see links to Wright's Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models". Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models and Nikolic's "Block time: Why many physicists still don't accept it?". http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Nikolic_FQXi_time.pdf.
     
  15. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    judge not less ye be judged by the same measure comes to mind....

    read his quotes...they are all over the place and used by theists and atheists alike....we are all not black and white...

    and say what you may, but I don't believe him to be moron.
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    I understand that there is a debate between intelligent design, and random factors ... and there seems a huge number of random factors at play in the cosmos that throw grit in the mechanism of intelligent design.

    No. I don't imagine God being subject to time in any sense. I think that's thinking about God the wrong way.

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  17. IowaGuy

    IowaGuy Hunter-Gatherer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    2
    My reading of Einstein is that he did not think god was "still working", i.e. that he didn't believe god has any sort of meddling/micromanagement in anyone's life. i.e. no "personal god" (as many Christians believe) or god that chooses/controls how much rain Iowa gets this year, etc.

    Is this how you read Einstein's thoughts on god/pantheism, that he does not believe in a "working god"? But instead, that the laws of the universe, once created, are constant - therefore god is done working?
     
  18. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wil and Thomas and IG... yep, you all have it about right. Einstein was the quintessential modernist. His concept of G!D was very Spinozan. His concept of physics was very Machian. He made mistakes in both. Still the most single important physicist of the XXth century.

    I can forgive him both his lack of understanding of the spiritual or the mystic (my terms, Thomas) and his discomfort with a certain lack of certainty. As a post Einsteinian, I lived through both and overcame (I think) both. But it was a difficult enough transition for me (born seventy years after him). I cannot fault him for his consistency.

    IG, he was kinda-sorta a deist-pantheist. But he wanted the "laws of the universe, once created"
    to make sense to him. Uncertainty and stochastic effects were, in effect, his Nemisis in physics. So, yes, you understanding (jmho) is very much spot-on.
     
  19. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    From a biography of his. As well as from some CD's in the You Tube website. Let alone from the logical point of view. Hundreds of years before Einstein was born, the gallaxies and planets in them have been all in the constant kinetic state of motion. Could it be that Einstein missed that one to declare that the universe is static?

    Ben
     
  20. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    Neither do I. Thanks.
     

Share This Page