"This is an appeal to authority based on reputation, it is a logical fallacy."
I would agree, but it isn't an attack nor an arguement, it is an apologetic.
"Furthermore, even if he did believe in a "God" it might have been a God of Nature or Pantheist-type God, not a personal Christian God."
This is illogical to the fullest extent, you have no evidence to back that up first of all, and second of all you talk abotu fallacies and you've just created one right now.
Newton wrote that his belief in God encouraged his pursuit of science and that his increased understanding of the universe only confirmed his belief in a creator. His belief in God fueled his pursuit of science. He co-invented calculus, theory of gravity, made advances in optics. The other inventor of calculus also believed in God.
Newton didn't know what we know now. If he were alive today, he might believe in a God, but would not be a creationist. Nobody denies Newton was a Christian. His Christian beliefs are kooky and irrelevant to science.
"Nobody denies Newton was a Christian. His Christian beliefs are kooky and irrelevant to science."
First of all him being Christian is what inspired him to research Science. Second of ally uo sound liek a moron right now with that claim of him not being Christian, today he would accept Christianity but just not young earth creationism, he would believe in both evolution and the Bible, like Francis Collins.
"His Christian beliefs are kooky and irrelevant to science."
which is inaccurate becaus ehis beliefs is what inspired him to do his work, and the only reason he believed in YEC was because that's allt he evidence he had a the time.
Let's try this again then ... just because his scientific conclusions were brilliant does not mean that his religious beliefs should be treated equally. The inspiration of an idea does not preclude it from being testable, but the nature of an idea can do so.
"just because his scientific conclusions were brilliant does not mean that his religious beliefs should be treated equally."
So in other words you're sayig nobelief shoudl be respected, just becasue Paul Diracs equations were amazing doesn't mena I shoudl respect any form of Atehism or ideals that he set out? yous hould respect everyones belief you jerk.
You've just inspired me to hate the Atehistic idea; of naturalism for the rest of my life, thanks for the inspiration friend.
Oh good job making the correction. You went from offending Christianity to explainign something alot different. First of all belief is up to an individual, some of our greatest minds believed in Christianity, examples include max Planck, Schrodiinger, pauli, Heisenberg, Fermi. some believe in a Deist God, examples include Eisntein, Penrose, and Hawking.
Belief in God is very philsophical and if you fail to see wh some of us believe in God, you're arrogant.
I understand why some people believe and it makes no sense to me. I don't understand why others believe - and it still makes no sense to me. And Deism is not so kooky as Newton's xianity (believed in miracles, and was a numerologist, e.g.)
It's odd to be called arrogant on a thread about Newton, who himself was known as an arrogant prick.
So yuo claim Newton was an arrogant prick? What about Max Planck? Heisenberg too? Just because you don't feel the same sense of awe doesn't mean your opinion matters over anyones. By the way believing in miracles is not 'kooky" as you claim, here is a following quote from Einstein talking about people like you:
"There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy "
Einstein is an interesting case. He wrote a lot of things that almost seem onctradictory. He was adamant that he was not an atheist and yet when he describes the sense in which he was religious, it is almost indistinguishable from that of the atheist.
He also wrote:
"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"
Yes I know he did not believe in a prsonal God, but he did believe in a Deist God. that quote was not to argue the existance of God, rather to show that believing in miracles is not 'kooky'.
I'm not sure if you're messing with me or you're serious. I read that Fermi once commented "A miracle is anything with a probability of less than 10%." If that's what a miracle is, then of course it's not kooky.
To me, accepting that a guy got swallowed by a fish or whale, for example, and lived 3 days is kooky. I think xians would easily recognize that it was kooky, if it were in somebody else's ancient religion.
First of all there were things that are not meant to be taken literal in the Bible, and the text helps explaisn why. Do you read the Bible, do you read the whole chapter where you received that information?
Enrico Fermi was a Catholic, and yes anything that has less than 10% probability is considered a miracle:
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." -Albert Eisntein (miracles)
I used to read the Bible a lot when I was believer, but not so much any more (except Ecclesiastes and a few other things I can't help but still be enamored with). I don't usually read the entire chapter, though I have read the entire chapter regarding Jonah (long time ago).
I'm pretty sure that Newton accepted literal fantastic miracles.
I do assume that for you believing that one of those weird cambrian marine creatures by means or through out a very, very slooooooow process called evolution turned, changed or evolved into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road is not "kooky" but science right? wooow, what a kooky statatement...
Well, I do fully agree with you in the grammar, english is not my first language, so excuse my grammar error, fo the other issue, I´m sure I hurted you...sorry about that...but believing that one of those weird cambrian marine creatures through out a very slow process called evolution turned or changed into humans is the greates stupidity of humankind ever made in the name of science, that´s for sure...
Well, I have an uninformed opinion, so I imply you`re the expert, tell me Which one of those weird Cambrin marine creatures through out a very slow process you call evolution turned or changed into humans, and what evidence you offer that such a creature is the best candidate to fill such a gap?
Let`s have a WELL INFORMED opinion on the subject...
@realhomosapiens Well-informed does not mean omniscient. That you are utterly ignorant does not make me particularly knowledgeable. You have failed a logic.
he is very crazy.Why does he believe in god?
it is absurb
Daisy2008ful 9 months ago
"This is an appeal to authority based on reputation, it is a logical fallacy."
I would agree, but it isn't an attack nor an arguement, it is an apologetic.
"Furthermore, even if he did believe in a "God" it might have been a God of Nature or Pantheist-type God, not a personal Christian God."
This is illogical to the fullest extent, you have no evidence to back that up first of all, and second of all you talk abotu fallacies and you've just created one right now.
ogirv101 3 years ago
'God' =/= Christianity.
Also, Newton lived in a time where rejecting God would have been detrimental to his research, much less his life.
Also, he didn't create the laws of mechanics...he discovered them, there is a difference.
There is no real basis for this ridiculous claim.
Alkirin 3 years ago
Mathematics (language of science) was taken to its greatest heights by creationists.
flp21 3 years ago
Newton wrote that his belief in God encouraged his pursuit of science and that his increased understanding of the universe only confirmed his belief in a creator. His belief in God fueled his pursuit of science. He co-invented calculus, theory of gravity, made advances in optics. The other inventor of calculus also believed in God.
flp21 3 years ago
Newton didn't know what we know now. If he were alive today, he might believe in a God, but would not be a creationist. Nobody denies Newton was a Christian. His Christian beliefs are kooky and irrelevant to science.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"Nobody denies Newton was a Christian. His Christian beliefs are kooky and irrelevant to science."
First of all him being Christian is what inspired him to research Science. Second of ally uo sound liek a moron right now with that claim of him not being Christian, today he would accept Christianity but just not young earth creationism, he would believe in both evolution and the Bible, like Francis Collins.
ogirv101 3 years ago
You didn't even read what you were responding to. I said he *MIGHT* be a Christian, but he would not be a creationist (as in YEC or ID creationist).
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Yes, but then you went on saying:
"His Christian beliefs are kooky and irrelevant to science."
which is inaccurate becaus ehis beliefs is what inspired him to do his work, and the only reason he believed in YEC was because that's allt he evidence he had a the time.
ogirv101 3 years ago
Let's try this again then ... just because his scientific conclusions were brilliant does not mean that his religious beliefs should be treated equally. The inspiration of an idea does not preclude it from being testable, but the nature of an idea can do so.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"just because his scientific conclusions were brilliant does not mean that his religious beliefs should be treated equally."
So in other words you're sayig nobelief shoudl be respected, just becasue Paul Diracs equations were amazing doesn't mena I shoudl respect any form of Atehism or ideals that he set out? yous hould respect everyones belief you jerk.
You've just inspired me to hate the Atehistic idea; of naturalism for the rest of my life, thanks for the inspiration friend.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"So in other words you're sayig ,,,"
No. Recheck.
"just because his scientific conclusions were brilliant does not mean that his religious beliefs should be treated equally."
IOW, The correctness of his scientific opinions is no reflection the correctness of his religious opinions.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Oh good job making the correction. You went from offending Christianity to explainign something alot different. First of all belief is up to an individual, some of our greatest minds believed in Christianity, examples include max Planck, Schrodiinger, pauli, Heisenberg, Fermi. some believe in a Deist God, examples include Eisntein, Penrose, and Hawking.
Belief in God is very philsophical and if you fail to see wh some of us believe in God, you're arrogant.
ogirv101 3 years ago
I understand why some people believe and it makes no sense to me. I don't understand why others believe - and it still makes no sense to me. And Deism is not so kooky as Newton's xianity (believed in miracles, and was a numerologist, e.g.)
It's odd to be called arrogant on a thread about Newton, who himself was known as an arrogant prick.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
So yuo claim Newton was an arrogant prick? What about Max Planck? Heisenberg too? Just because you don't feel the same sense of awe doesn't mean your opinion matters over anyones. By the way believing in miracles is not 'kooky" as you claim, here is a following quote from Einstein talking about people like you:
ogirv101 3 years ago
"So yuo claim Newton was an arrogant prick? "
I missed this previously. Yes, I do.
I think the evidence shows that
1) Newton was brilliant, and
2) He was not very nice
(being *extremely* diplomatic)
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy "
-Albert Einstein
ogirv101 3 years ago
Einstein is an interesting case. He wrote a lot of things that almost seem onctradictory. He was adamant that he was not an atheist and yet when he describes the sense in which he was religious, it is almost indistinguishable from that of the atheist.
He also wrote:
"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"
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Yes I know he did not believe in a prsonal God, but he did believe in a Deist God. that quote was not to argue the existance of God, rather to show that believing in miracles is not 'kooky'.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"believing in miracles is not 'kooky'. "
I'm not sure if you're messing with me or you're serious. I read that Fermi once commented "A miracle is anything with a probability of less than 10%." If that's what a miracle is, then of course it's not kooky.
To me, accepting that a guy got swallowed by a fish or whale, for example, and lived 3 days is kooky. I think xians would easily recognize that it was kooky, if it were in somebody else's ancient religion.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
First of all there were things that are not meant to be taken literal in the Bible, and the text helps explaisn why. Do you read the Bible, do you read the whole chapter where you received that information?
Enrico Fermi was a Catholic, and yes anything that has less than 10% probability is considered a miracle:
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." -Albert Eisntein (miracles)
ogirv101 3 years ago
I used to read the Bible a lot when I was believer, but not so much any more (except Ecclesiastes and a few other things I can't help but still be enamored with). I don't usually read the entire chapter, though I have read the entire chapter regarding Jonah (long time ago).
I'm pretty sure that Newton accepted literal fantastic miracles.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
... though it has been a long time since I read up on this, my best recollection is that N believed in literal fantastic miracles.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
@TheFallibleFiend
I do assume that for you believing that one of those weird cambrian marine creatures by means or through out a very, very slooooooow process called evolution turned, changed or evolved into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road is not "kooky" but science right? wooow, what a kooky statatement...
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens I conclude that logic is as much a mystery to you as grammar.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Well, I do fully agree with you in the grammar, english is not my first language, so excuse my grammar error, fo the other issue, I´m sure I hurted you...sorry about that...but believing that one of those weird cambrian marine creatures through out a very slow process called evolution turned or changed into humans is the greates stupidity of humankind ever made in the name of science, that´s for sure...
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens It's unlikely you have done anything remotely resembling honest homework on the subject. Your uninformed opinion is noted.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Well, I have an uninformed opinion, so I imply you`re the expert, tell me Which one of those weird Cambrin marine creatures through out a very slow process you call evolution turned or changed into humans, and what evidence you offer that such a creature is the best candidate to fill such a gap?
Let`s have a WELL INFORMED opinion on the subject...
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens Well-informed does not mean omniscient. That you are utterly ignorant does not make me particularly knowledgeable. You have failed a logic.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago