“Angry and disillusioned because they feel they’ve been misled.” Misled not by a real news source but by some guy on the Internet who said that on inauguration day Trump would declare martial law. Have these gullible fools no critical faculties at all?

Shouldn't you question your "critical" faculty also?

The evolutionary theory is a breach of natural laws. - http://vjsingh.info/evorel

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

"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." Albert Einstein

I too was an atheist!

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." Albert Einstein

I am not even an atheist. That would mean I would be opposing something, which is clearly not my idea.
The scientific method is the only way to get to new useful insights. If you want to believe in transcendental energy or a random god. Go ahead. Whatever makes you happy.

The scientific method is the only way to get to new useful insights..
Vj ~ Maybe so, but won't you want to know if those insights (theories) are valid?
All I'm saying science its lame state doesn't have all the answers.

"Science without religion is lame....." Einstein

No offence, Vijai, please continue to stay happy with your findings. But your findings do not make any sense. As long as it makes sense to you; perfectly fine. But do not bother people with the scent of a preacher. We've had enough of those. Stay healthy and have a good life!

I've had a lot of discussions with religious people and people who say they do not operate according a belief system. Until now you are no exception. You found something which makes sense for you; and that's fine.
You say you found true belief in accordance to science. Thumbs up

I'm an exception unless you've met someone before whose belief system is in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity with natural laws?

Einstein found it to be in accordance with science - "science without religion is lame....."

But in the end you are still a science denier, by stating evolution is a breach of natural laws. While that clearly is not the case. You just can't accept man has evolved from a lower creature as you call it. Problem is, the immensity of time evolution uses is difficult to grasp.

And what is your understanding of natural laws, Hans?

If we're to accept evolution we will be at a lost in knowing the origin of language.

"What is instinctive is natural, it can neither increase nor decrease nor can it help any one to make any progress."

No Vijai, The evolution of mind and language is no newcomer in the world of science and nothing will be at lost. That is a very unfounded irrational fear.

Daniel Dennett wrote multiple very enlightening books about this subject. Read those if you want to get rid of your fear.

So how do you explain there were no one intelligent enough long before Darwin to figure out we evolved from apes?

No need to go out during pandemic lockdown.
At your finger tip read the Light of Truth

Ah the religion in question was 'cosmic religion' aka Spinosa's 'god'...pretty indistinguishable from naturalism.

"I am of course and always have been an Atheist" Albert Einstein, 1945.
"Imgination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entrie world and all there ever will be to know and understand." Einstein

That's before. I too was an avid atheist!

This is after.
"Science without religion is lame....."
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." Albert Einstein

Nope. Its an example of how cherrypicking out of context as you do several times here, it gives a false impression.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

Particularly with Einstein, who changed what said based on audience.

It's obvious, like me, what he was after (philosopher), he wasn't before (atheist).

But this is the particular outcome, which is quite genuine, interests me most.

"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Einstein

Not really, its pretty obvious that he rejected the notion of a personal god, pretty early in life, and clung to a deist notion, mostly as PR for science, until his last years, where he became increasingly disparaging of notions of 'god'.

If not recorded that he said or wrote, annecdote, not interested.
His recorded words show him increasingly disparage the notion of a god. A year before he died describing it as 'childish'.
Its worth noting that when Einstein said 'atheist', today we would say anti-theist.

If not recorded that he said or wrote, annecdote, not interested.
Vj ~ As if you understand the laws of nature as he did?

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Einstein

And I have zero issue with Einstein's awe at the cosmos... I share it.

Not sure that takes us forward, because I can't see a logical association between that 'awe' and a 'god'.

God and nature go hand in hand. Only when you understand the laws of nature you can understand God.

I also know a very nice guy who believes he's the second coming. He also believes atoms are made of spaceships. Let me introduce
@harriechristusto you.
I think you'll get along perfectly.

I'm trying to introduce you to a guy who has no ape ancestors. Isn't that intriguing enough for you to check him out.

Why would something so antithetical to reality hold any interest?

Here is a guy with both ape ancestors and...ta dah! Ape creations... specifically the librarian. Though of course he was a human first, but got turned into an Oranutan in by magic, accident.

I don't give a ****!

It's your theory deal with it.

Evolution is silly!

You do know the difference between just a theory and a scientific theory?

All I've to know is that they both have to conform to the immutable laws of nature.

But you don't know what the laws of nature are. And cannot logically know what they are.

Logic can't give you certainty. Newtons model 'laws of nature' can be refuted by a single contrary result.

Why would they be immutable? Most would be set different by symmetry breaking.

But you don't know what the laws of nature are. And cannot logically know what they are
Vj ~ Speaking of yourself, of course!

Einstein knew: "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."


Logic can't give you certainty.
Vj ~ But logic guided by the correct knowledge can.

Why would they be immutable?
Vj ~ If the laws weren't immutable you could be excreting through your mouth.

Not logically.

Symmetry breaking is quite fascinating, laws and consants set as the singularity inflates. No reason they couldn't take a whole host of values.

Does that mean they might change now? Improbable.

I don't think myself as omniscient, to 'know' they are immutable.

I don't think myself as omniscient, to 'know' they are immutable.
Vj ~ I do.

So since your not omniscient... how would you know truth when you see it?

Is it? Not much evidence that follows. And what do you mean 'even the blind' is it supposed to be more difficult for them for some reason?

Absolute truth... is unattainable, logically impossible.

Ego much.

In studying the systems of philosophy the mind adopt a discipline of impartiality and sobriety. Then raised to an exalted mental condition through ... reasoning. This intellectual function is required for the comprehension of recondite and invisible truths of matter and nature.

Ah... put yourself into a suggestible trance and let apophenia do the rest.

Does it? How would you know?
"Often a result of lack of wisdom." Terry Pratchett

The question is, how would you know, I know?

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

That would be down to agreeing the definition of terms and engaging in discourse.

Your Russell quote is utterly irellevant.

No seriously, how would you know who is wise or enlightened?

And what else can you be, besides being stupid or intelligent?

'Enlighten me', is a common English sentence, which means something like: 'Share your explanatory thoughts'. Enlighten was a figure of speech.. I didn't mean enlightenment in the Buddhist way.

You're speaking of your world of curiosity and doubt and not mine (Vedic), where even the Buddhist way isn't enlightenment.

See, this is what I mean. Perfectly fine you think you 'know' it all, but let science out of it.
I don't mind you thinking you have no doubts. But just do not misuse science as a word. You really believe you really know nature's intrinsics and that's all there is to it.

How can I let science out of it?
We agree the sun isn't moving and earth isn't flat.
The universe is only 2 billions years old and not 13 billion.
We say matter always exist. Science no

"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

By stating natural laws govern the world is a problem in itself.
Natural law is a human invention in a way. By observing and following natures cause and effect, humans have the tendency to believe what feels right. I have a feeling( :) ) this also applies to you.

Well, isn't that the motto of the physical evolution theory, everything is human invention?

Sure, it's all cause and effect but what do you know of the first cause?

What I know came from revealed knowledge which means man had to be taught, even the very first ones.

Well no... everything used to describe observation is human invention, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of what is observed has nothing to do with human invention.

Why would there be a 'first' cause?

Apes teach their young.