Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Atheism Albert Einstein and the Scientific Proof of 'God'

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by spnadmin, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    Richard Greene

    Former attorney, host of "Hollywood CLOUT", Author

    As we leave the season when many have celebrated the birth of "The son of G_d", perhaps we might momentarily stop our shopping mall worship ceremonies and ask if "G_d" exists and, if so, who or what he/she/it is.

    I believe that science answered that question back at the beginning of the 20th Century and that Albert Einstein and mathematics proved, irrefutably, that there is a precisely quantifiable quantity of energy in the Universe that is even more vast, powerful and awesome than any religion's current definition of G_d ... a quantity of "Force" or "G_d Force" or "Nature" or "Energy" that is so mind-blowing it dwarfs even the grandest conventional imaginations of "the power of G_d".

    And, scientifically verifiable and without dispute.

    What Einstein figured out represents a Force of such magnitude as to make any thinking person fall to his knees, regardless of the definition ... a Force so vast that not one person, our neighborhood Priest, Imam or Rabbi, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or even The Pope himself can truly understand it or credibly say they can explain it.

    And yet this new definition of the non-definable (thus the funny way of writing it -- as it cannot be contained within or accurately represented by a three letter word) is actually best represented, with scientific accuracy, in a three letter and one number mathematical formula ... a formula that, appropriately, is the most famous in history.

    E=MC2

    This most cited and powerful equation is also, ironically, one that causes all of G_d's earthly creation to be seconds away from complete annihilation at any moment in time, as it was the source of the secret of the power of the atom and the development of the atomic bomb.

    Here's the E=MC2 math and the Theology, all rolled up into one:

    Step One: Add all of the matter on Earth and contained in the rest of G_d's creation, 100 billion galaxies, each with about 100 billion stars,

    Step Two: Multiply that amount of Matter by the speed of light,

    Step Three: Square that number ...

    and then understand that every gram of that incalculable amount of matter has the energy of a Hiroshima nuclear bomb.

    A 100 pound human, for example, contains the force of approximately 45,000 Hiroshimas. A 200 pound person over 90,000 and 6.5 billion humans, with an average of 100 pounds of mass, contain over 292 trillion times the force of an atomic bomb. Add other animals, mountains, oceans and the mass of the Earth itself and we have approximately 13 septillion pounds or approximately 6 octillion (6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) or 627 atomic bombs worth of force contained in just the Earth itself. Understanding that Earth is a small part of one solar system which is a tiny part of one galaxy which is a tiny part of a Universe estimated to have 100 Billion galaxies, each with 100 Billion such solar systems ... one can quickly begin to comprehend that the quantity of Force/Energy/Power/"G_d" determined by Einstein's tiny formula, E=MC2, is beyond all human comprehension.

    E=MC2, scientifically, thus, allows us to define the quantity of Energy in the known Universe. And, if Energy is "G_d", as some believe, or but one of many manifestations or reflections of "G_d" as others may believe, the words, in any spiritual tradition, that "G_d is great" or "G_d is awesome" are almost laughable understatements.

    But whatever you call the quantity of Energy or Force in the universe, it is now clear that the ancient depiction of "G_d" as an old White guy with a beard (Santa Claus' brother), does not, in any way, communicate the far more awe-inspiring scientific reality unearthed by Einstein in his 1905 formula.

    If we were to mature enough as a species to embrace the scientific "quantification" of the power of the universe as at least one way to begin to approach the definition of "G_d" we would realize that no religion can, with any integrity, manipulate such a definition to its own dogma and practices. Man's ability to understand and appropriate something of this magnitude is like a single plankton cell pretending to explain, or swallow up, or have dominion over all the oceans ... of a billion planets!

    So, thanks to Time Magazine's "Man of The 20th Century" and his formula we can begin to appreciate, despite our ego and pride, the insignificance and inadequacy of our understanding of the unfathomable sea of energy that surrounds, and likely, created us.

    Einstein, despite his massive intellect, himself surrenders to the unfathomable nature of G_d. He wrote the following in 1932 ...

    "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is."



    Indeed.

    And perhaps we, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews, can reflect on this visionary scientist and his little formula the next time we think we understand that which we call "G_d" and chauvinistically discount those who don't share what is most certainly our own ridiculously inadequate definition.

    Richard Greene is a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post, radio host, public speaker and author of the new children's eBook, "E=MC2 and The New Definition of G_d".

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/albert-einstein-and-the-s_b_800936.html
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Albert Einstein and Spirituality: From the Man of Atom Bomb Interfaith Dialogues Feb 18, 2011
    Albert Einstein's Faith: Was the Great Physicist Spiritual? Interfaith Dialogues Jul 24, 2010
    Albert Einstein Inspirational Stories Jul 21, 2006
    Sikh News Turban Tying Event Creates Buzz At University Of Alberta - CBC.ca Breaking News Sep 28, 2016
    Canada ‘Bigoted’ Facebook comments about Alberta Sikh parade deleted by Wildrose party Breaking News May 24, 2013

  3. Caspian

    Caspian
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    154
    Not so fast.

    "In the universe as we experience it, we can directly affect only objects we can touch; thus, the world seems local. Quantum mechanics, however, embraces action at a distance with a property called entanglement, in which two particles behave synchronously with no intermediary; it is nonlocal. This nonlocal effect is not merely counterintuitive: it presents a serious problem to Einstein's special theory of relativity, thus shaking the foundations of physics." — Scientific American


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity

    In science, anything is refutable. And in recent years, even Einsteins work has come under fire.

    Needless to say. I've noticed that both atheists and theists turn to Einstein to often support their atheism/theism. Einstein was an atheist/theist so you should be an atheist/theist too. In some sense, his word is being held in a higher regards then the actual arguments in favor or against atheism/theism. This is troubling especially when you take into account that Einstein's quotes can be taken largely out of context to support either position. Although this post dealt with his scientific findings (albeit—very non technically) I feel like its just alot of fluff and no substance.

    Why does the author keep referring to a "force"—why not just say "gravity"?—Einstein didn't elaborate on the other three fundamental forces as much as he did gravity. I suspect the author used the term "force" in leiu of the term "gravity" to set up a pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious tone to his article. Furthermore, even with Einsteins elaborations, gravity is the least "known" force out of the four.

    Furthermore, "Force" and "Energy" are not interchangeable terms in the context of this discussion. Its a very misleading post written by someone with only a vague or "pop" knowledge of Einsteins work.

    I especially "lol'd" at his explation of the formulation E=MC^2

    His target audience isn't exactly all that bright if they couldn't figure that out by themselves. But its evident he wasnt writing to convince an atheist—I dont know why this is in the atheist forums though. Perhaps we should have a seperate forum for dealing with matter of science? As much as I love science, and feel that scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of atheism. It seems odd to mix scientific matters in the same bed as atheism (or theism for that matter). Science just is—it has no belief system. A thread devoted to science though would deal with the implications of said science. For example, my post on biological immortality would also be better suited for a "science" forum then an "atheist" forum.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    It seems odd to me too

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that scientists that are serious about science do that - they do science - and they do not go mucking about trying to find "scientific" justifications and reasons to prove that God does not exist - which of course cannot be done. lol Can't prove a negative. But some atheists insist on doing that. So that is why we have this article in the Interfaith dialogs/Atheist forum.

    There is a Science/Tech forum where articles about science as it is actually conducted in the real world are posted.

    Actually I think it has been most gracious of SPN to provide a section of what is essentially a forum about Sikhism where the views of other faiths, including atheism, can be aired and discussions can take place. Believe me we get a fair amount of heat from a segment of our readership that thinks we should boot the atheists out. And there are not many Sikh forums that do provide this "benefit."So I guess we are doing a good job after all.

    Thanks for your input.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Caspian

    Caspian
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    154
    Agreed. From an atheists perspective the forum's management has done a good job at not booting out the critics :p.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Hardeep95

    Hardeep95
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    You know that the the formula is E=(M)(C)^2 which can also be written as E=MCC This means that you only square 'C' which is the speed of light, not the product of C and M. This formula just proves that rest energy and mass are directly proportional with C^2 as the constant, not that 'G_d' is real. If you wanted to attempt creating a proof it would've been more sensible to use the conservation of energy rule. 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.' Since the universe is here and made of matter therefore it is solid energy all the energy in the universe must've come from somewhere. It could either be that the universe has always been there or that it was created. Red shift and other scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning or at least coming from a single point. All of this energy could have come from God.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. BaljinderS

    BaljinderS
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    251
    I agree with Hardeep, that "'Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.'".

    I have one question here for my friend Caspian. What is your definition of God?

    It would be very interesting to know. I know your an athiest thats why I am asking winkingmunda The word God is randomly thrown about and depending on your background it could mean different things.
     
  8. Harry Haller

    Harry Haller United Kingdom
    Expand Collapse

    Moderator

    Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,118
    Likes Received:
    7,945
    Excellent first post Hardeepji, extremely well written and point put across admirably, welcome to SPN, I hope you find this forum as interesting and helpful as I do kudihug
     
  9. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria Canada
    Expand Collapse
    ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
    Writer SPNer Contributor Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,366
    Likes Received:
    5,657
    Hardeep95 ji thanks for your post.

    Do a thought experiment.

    Put your two hands straight out facing each other. What is between the two hands? We will call it air. There is a whole bunch of nothingness that our eyes cannot see nor our senses detect. The elctron, protons, neutrons just doing their merry dance at extreme speeds making us believe that there is no emptiness or nothingness. We know there has to be nothingness as holding a brick is also accommodated by the space between our hands The brick fills more of the emptiness versus just air. Steel filling more. A part of a neutron star between the hands will be so heavy that it will pass through earth as though it did not exist with no issue at all.

    Fascinating is the creation even in front of our noses and we behold galaxies millions of light years away.

    Just musing.

    Sat Sri akal.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page