did Albert Einstein believe in God??
595751
He believed that Science was God- Here in his own words:\n\n"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man. \n\nHe was also upset that his  beliefs were misrepresented-again, in his words from an interview\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nEinstein was a scientist and physicist- Those were where his sense of magic and wonder came from, and those were his idea of anything approaching religion.\n\nHe was upset that his quote that "God doesn't play dice with the universe" was taken to mean he beleived in a Jewish or Christian God- An athiest can say, off the cuff, "God only knows why I did that" without professing a belief in God...  And even his quote about God and dice-he was talking about God in terms of physical law and science-his "religion", in that physical law is not random, but a controlled set of understandable equations that can, with enough knowledge, forecast any behaviour, including the exact speed, spin, and location of a subatomic particle- He did not accept the idea (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) that there was no way, physically, one could know all three of these paramaters, no matter what information or equation is given.\n\n\nAnyway, Orlando-neither Oppenheimer nor Einstein were true philosophers nor religious experts- why care one way or the other about their opinions of religion, baseball, or ethnic foods?
845144
It would first be necessary for the apparition to convince me that it was in fact god.  The obvious test to use, since one may suppose that god knows everything, is to ask for the ultimate theory of everything.  (Einstein spent the last years of his life looking for such a theory; he never found it, and neither has anyone else.  The problem is fiendishly difficult.)  If the apparition succeeded in convincing me that it was god, then I should ask: what would he like me to do?
1112508
Yes, I believe in God. I believe in Him because I have seen too much evidence to possibly believe that He doesn't exist. Many athiests/agnostics would disagree I know, but think about it...\n\nIf God didn't create you, how did you get here? Evolution? If someone showed you a Rolex watch and then told you that several million years ago a rock washed up on Miami beach and over all those years changed into the watch you see, you would probably say they were nuts. After all, what difference does time make? If a frog turns into a prince from a kiss immediately, then it's a fairy tale, but if the frog has enough time (like several million years) to turn into a man, then that's science? \n\nYes, I personally believe in God; besides the evidence that He is the only One that could put such complex creations on this planet, I have seen the difference that He can make in people's lives. A changed life is the most amazing proof for God.
212175
:}  No one can know anything for a fact beyond any doubt..\n\nEven our very senses fool us. There are dreams and mirages. We’ve all thought we heard saw or smelled something that was inaccurate.\n\nThoreau in Walden Pond, Presented the idea that we could know that we exist because if we did not we could not question whether we did or not.\n\nHaving established that nothing, beyond perhaps our own existence, can be established with absolute certainty, we must proceed to behave as if those things for which there is significant evidence, in fact exist and work as the evidence would suggest they do.\n\nWhile this procedure at times will lead to error, for the most part it is necessary to pursue this line of reasoning, called inductive logic, if we are to conduct normal life functions.\n\nIs there a god?  I use the same process. So for my purposes Yes, as far as my data goes in allowing  me to analyze the information, the preponderance of evidence suggest that God is a certain fact.  \n\nThen using the scientific method it simply remains to see if the predictions I make based on this hypothesis come to be\n\nAnd they have.\n\nI'm 100% sure \n\n\n\nOne additional fact \nMy salvation depends less on my faith than on his faithfulness!
1171824
Nope.  But if we could fully understand/explain God He wouldn't be much of a God.\n\nIsaiah 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. \n\nIsaiah 55:9  For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
1119292
Einstein was very reluctant to accept the big bang theory and the theory of an expanding universe. He said it smacked of religion.
490697
Wow, good question!\n\nFirstly, your question is concerned with the idea that God believes in Himself. If He believes in Himself then He still has one believer. But then anyone of us could believe that we are God, which is why I would prefer to use the definition of God as our creator.\n\nSince you are asking 'can there be a God if...' can we first start with the assumption that there is a God, and he does have believers? If you can accept this idea, then it should be quite easy to accept that He doesn't just cease when people stop believing. He still created us, even if the creations reject him.\n\nOf course it depends what you mean by 'be'! If we don't talk about, or know about, God, then what would be the point in there 'being' a God. If he has no point, then is his existance still relevant?\n\nI've asked more questions than I have answered, but I hope this gives you something to chew on!
434691
does the pope believe in God?
1081417
Einstein, an avowed atheist, opined that if there was a "God," he was expressed in the orderliness of the universe. That off-hand remark became the basis for bible thumpers to alter their argument to one of "intelligent design" when their "creationism" argument was rejected.\n\nThey are attempting to conceal their illogical argument in a cloak of science to give it legitimacy, but it is still the same old tired argument.\n\nAnd Einstein never suggested the universe was "created" by anyone or anything, yet bible thumpers claim Einstein supports their arguments. \n\nCreationism relies on accepting the idea that the complexity of the universe (and orderliness) are proof that they were created. Yet, they cannot explain how their creator came into existence.\n\nCreationism is neither science nor a theory, it is contradictory nonsense that relies on magic as its basis.
549109
Oh, I do. A true scientist believes in God because they know everything is too complex to just happen spontaneously.
967928
You know something, you are very uninformed. For you information:\n\nMost scientists believe in some sort of creator or deity. There is a simple explanation for this, and that is science can incorporate the idea of the supernatural since there are places that science cannot go.\n\nThe creation of the universe is one of them. Science can explain all the way back to 10^-43 seconds, but before that there is no explanation, there is only the unknown that is just as well explained as God as any other theory. So God and science are not at odds here, as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking would agree\n\nSpeaking of my great, great, uncle, several times removed Albert Einstein, he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the universe." What he meant by this was a repudiation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, because to Albert the universe was a beautifully ordered and created place, created by God.\n\nSome scientist see God in randomness (Heisenberg). Others see it in harmonies of patterns and chaos (Glick and Mandelbrot). Even Darwin still credited God for creating the universe, though he sought scientific explanations for the evolution of species.\n\nThese men were/are fervent men with fervent beliefs. The fact that they deal in science in no way impedes their beliefs in God.\n\nNow, that being said, what you believe God did or does may not be the same thing that these men believe, maybe because they understand Gods universe better, maybe because they are more open minded than to narrow their vision to a few hundred pages of a book, a book that is interpreted many different ways so that who knows which version is right, if any. But when it comes down to it, they believe in God in one form or another, and maybe their views are more enlightened than most.\n\nYou can count me with them, by the way, as I take a more scientific view of the world. I am Deist, what that means is I believe in God as a first cause. I believe that God set the beautifully intricate stage, that we are still trying to understand, and let it be, to run the way it will, a universe of detail ever unfolding.\n\nBTW I gave you a thumbs up on the question, because while it was indelicate, it was thought provoking and deserved an answer, even if it was mostly my opinion.
1053288
People who believe in god as the creator and people who believe in electromagnetic forces as responsible for all, are like two people looking at a rose and calling it by different names.  Both are right to believe in their way of discribing what they see.\n\nFor those who believe in "forces", they try to understand (step by step) how forces made us, as well as everything else. Not surprising, we are still trying to understand a goal that may not be fully attainable. Those who believe in god,  accept a simpler explanation for the very complex event; namely,"god created us from himself as well as the heavens".\n\nIn the science community, we give credit to forces (like the strong force and  the electroweak force) to account for what happens at the atomic and subatomic level, For all things that happen. Still these forces are as big a mystery as god himself is. Further,  each term could be substituted one for the other, without changing the meaning: after all god is also a force "The Force".\n\nOne thing that bothers some, in the science community, about a  god, is the personal nature some people attatch to him.  They do not believe forces can behave "man like". But after all, is not a human made up of forces that acquired thought and reason. Hum... \n\nIn either case, humans may never fully understand just how things really work, we may always have a need to rely on a little faith.\n\nIs it any wonder, Einstein believed in forces as well as in god.\n\nLike Einstein, I would also like to try to know and understand god, as best as my mind is capable of and in terms that I can follow. \n\nWhat this comes down to is thinking that there is an all powerful force that governs all, but not based on faith, but rather on Knowledge and understanding, at least up to my mental capacity; That which may be beyond my capicity, is where I might have to take "a leap of faith". \n\nSo to answer your question,   Evolution, and The Big Bang Theory support Creation:  "It does so, in a language that can readily be understood by humans", with a little science training.
610281
the short answer is, he's freakin' god.  he can do whatever he wants.\ndon't try to explain it scientifically; it won't work.  either accept it or don't.\noh and "the light was from the stars" doesn't work, because the stars were part of the firmament, which i believe came after the light.\nreligion and science are not always mutually exclusive, but they don't jive for the first 7 days, at least.
960926
Yep.  It's called metaphysics.\n\nWhy do you think Einstein introduced his 'fudge factor' in his first Theory of Relativity?  Because he didn't like the metaphysical implications of the truth.  Fortunately, his contemporaries called him on it and he 'fixed' it and won the Nobel prize.\n\nSaid differently, if E=MC (squared), then energy can be converted into matter and vice versa.  The necessary implication is that neither can come from nothing, which is scientific evidence of there being something supernatural that created the known universe.  \n\nI call it God.  What do you call it?
832163
No matter if you saw Him with your own eyes ( no man can see God and live)you still would not believe. You are looking for reasons not to. There are many reasons to believe if you take the time to check them out. Even Einstein acknowledged his creator! There really are intelligent reasons to believe in a creator.The reason I believe is because He is. A house must have a builder, a cake must have a baker, all things that show sign of intelligent design must have a creator. The Bible says, the heavens are declaring the glory of God and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling. One might look into the book of  Isaiah 40:22  where it says, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and it's people are like grasshoppers." Here we have the word of the ancient prophet Isaiah writing words inspired by the Almighty Jehovah. It tells us the earth is a circle way before science ever knew! The Bible is filled with all kinds of things that ancient people would never have known had it not been for the Lord giving us this information. Before you draw your conclusions, take another look at the evidence and read the Bible from cover to cover. When you examine the scientific evidence(yes, science does back up the Bible) you will find that the story of evolution is a weak one.From the evidence of how the earth was formed and how we were created from the dust, you will find that indeed we do have a maker. We must all stand before the throne and give an account to Him one day.Better make sure you are right before you dismiss His existance.
263371
It seems that when asked what he meant by this remark, Einstein replied ‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’. Whenever i've seen an Einstein quote refering to god or religion, he appears to be instead refering to the universe. I'd say that by this quote he was voicing his displeasure at quantum mechanics and it's implications that there are certain things that are simply unknowable (such as whether schroedingers cat is dead or alive, as indicated by the poster above).
342030
Albert Einstein was considered stupid by his teachers.Maybe you just haven't seen the real meanings of your thoughts.