Or, better.

Right now we think that the universe was created by means of the Big Bang. It perhaps was created by some random event, or maybe by coincidence, but whether or not the reason behind it, all such reasons and the logic behind it are supposed to be based on natural laws.

"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein.

And they are! One thing though=> There is no such thing as a coincidence. Einstein said it himself, God does not play dice.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Or, better.

Right now we think that the universe was created by means of the Big Bang. It perhaps was created by some random event, or maybe by coincidence, but whether or not the reason behind it, all such reasons and the logic behind it are supposed to be based on natural laws.

"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein.

And they are! One thing though=> There is no such thing as a coincidence. Einstein said it himself, God does not play dice.

quote:
"So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion." prof. S. Hawking

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

We do not know whether there is a god or not, neither do we know whether he or she is playing dice.

If they are, then they are a rotten gambler!!

I think your right there Chris . Why would God NOT play dice , he would be a unhappy god if he never played games , so maybe we are the biggest game there is . If he does play games then we mite also be the biggest joke there is tooooooo.

Just like the ending of MIBlack at the end when the alein rolls the marble but it not just a marble but a Universe so he mite not play dice but how about marbles ?

Just because Einstein said it don't mean it's true .

---

"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein.

And they are! One thing though=> There is no such thing as a coincidence. Einstein said it himself, God does not play dice.

We do not know whether there is a god or not, neither do we know whether he or she is playing dice.

If they are, then they are a rotten gambler!!

God is the dice!

---

"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein.

And they are! One thing though=> There is no such thing as a coincidence. Einstein said it himself, God does not play dice.

We do not know whether there is a god or not, neither do we know whether he or she is playing dice.

If they are, then they are a rotten gambler!!

God is the dice!

:) Innit..

@Chris: In an empirical point of view, we don't know whether God exists, that is true but I must add to that I still put my faith in Einsteins words as he was one of the Big Brains in this world, a bassic thinker as well.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein.

And they are! One thing though=> There is no such thing as a coincidence. Einstein said it himself, God does not play dice.

We do not know whether there is a god or not, neither do we know whether he or she is playing dice.

If they are, then they are a rotten gambler!!

God is the dice!

Nope...a proof of God is that he plays dices!
For those of you, who like only math...

As I've stated earlier...prof. S.Hawking proved that God is a gambler! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

God cast the die, not the dice (Banesh Hoffman and Helen Dukas, former Einstein secretary, "Albert Einstein creator and rebel").
Tuillio

---

Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli, who works in Nice, says that Einstein was also able to recognize his mistakes, and he himself called the Cosmological constant "my biggest blunder". But this idea is now called dark energy.
Tullio

---

@Julie - Einstein was ahead of the game in his time, that is universally agreed, But also he was not unnaturally constrained somewhat by the scientific knowlege of his time i.e. the early 1900's. The question is if he were alive today with modern knowledge available, would he change his theories?

What about Plato, or Marcus Aurelius or Copernicus for that matter? I don't think so. The more we evolve, the more rubbish that gets entangled in the bassic ideas, by people who think they know better. Our collective consciousness is polluted with that rubbish.

A lot of knowledge is available, that's a fact. If we humans are doing the right thing with that knowledge, is another matter.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Have a look here for more of the same.

Scientists are not supposed to be religious believers, but nature may be having an intelligence behind its creation. Supposedly coincidence is not a proper explanation for everything, because most things are supposed to be predicted in advance and generally being understood.

You know, Albert Einstein was never fond about Quantum Theory. He did not like the principle at all and despite being both a mathematician as well as physicist, rather kept to the subject of special and general theories of relativity.

Modern physics, including Quantum Physics is supposed to be a continuation of the work being carried out by Albert Einstein. The finding of certain particles by nuclear physicists helps prove certain facts regarding our current understanding of the inner workings of nature.

For now ordinary people becomes lost, because the mathematics behind Quantum Theory is too difficult to comprehend, even to those having some knowledge in the subject of mathematics.

Einstein was not the best of Mathematicians when compared with the list of the top 25 or so. He needed help from Hilbert, Riemann and his pal Grossman. His early work followed on from Lorentz. His work was expressed in Math but it was not math of his creation--the results and his insight into the implications of those results were his great genius.

Probably one of the best minds ever--not so much in terms of IQ or Math but very stubborn in squeezing out the facts from nature and in understanding what the Math told him.

The "God" that Einstein and Hawking have mentioned is not your god who is vengeful, indifferent to suffering, keeps a tally on your misdeeds and listens to your supplications. It is the intricacies, intelligence, chance and mysteries that they perceive in Nature,

Another posting became slightly long, so I will make this a short one.

Definitely music in its general terms are not the same as hallucinations sometimes being experienced under the influence of drugs or narcotics.

Albert Einstein never was a musician. Still he is thought of as being a genius because of his specific way of approaching very difficult subject fields.

Meaning that your deductive or analytical skills well should be associated with your ability of thinking, but not necessarily about dreaming and wishful thoughts, at least not all the time.

Your possible analytical or deductive skills is a result of both the capabilities of your right part brain as well as the little brain. It becomes part of a wider power which makes it quite clear what the capacities of the human brain may at times be able to have.

Dedication and talent is supposed to be represented by those interests you may be having. Remember Albert Einstein started up his career as working for the local patent office before settling down on his own course towards fame.

He became famous because he was able to produce the Special and General Laws of Relativity. Most likely he was having dreams while sleeping, but it probably never was his dreams which lead to his conclusions.

His work is now being followed up and currently the Quantum Theory is the successor to the Theories of Relativity, even though these two subject fields are of course not directly related.

The "God" that Einstein and Hawking have mentioned is not your god who is vengeful, indifferent to suffering, keeps a tally on your misdeeds and listens to your supplications. It is the intricacies, intelligence, chance and mysteries that they perceive in Nature,

+100

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

@Julie - Einstein was ahead of the game in his time, that is universally agreed, But also he was not unnaturally constrained somewhat by the scientific knowlege of his time i.e. the early 1900's. The question is if he were alive today with modern knowledge available, would he change his theories?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S3uAgyNyrs
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

But careful here, else we'll get back to creationism Vs Evolutionism :-)

Yes that's right . That was exactly running through my mind as I composed my reply.

It's easy to see that the intricacies of Nature inspire thoughts of some grand designer.

Nature is that clever in allowing random events over eons of time to create an unfathomable structure and complexity.

I choose to make this post right here.

Definitely the contents of many threads here goes for the same.

Are you supposed to be making both pros as well as cons when it comes to given subjects?

Are there possibly different approaches to the same thing, at least when it comes to our current understanding and are different ways of reaching specific conclusions perhaps able to better solve a given problem, excluding one possibility for another and possibly giving room for new ideas as well?

Apparently it passed by me as I was reading through the threads, but perhaps you may at times give a thought about the principle of life vs what we may think of as being the divine and possibly eternity.

If you happen to be the good man, you are supposed to end up in heaven. If not, you are supposed to end up in "hell".

So, if you perhaps did not chose to make up your own mind, what is supposed to be the better option?

Is heaven supposed to be better than something else regardless of your personal attitude when it comes to "belief"?

Let's no get into Intelligent design here.

Is Anyone Out There?
Jury still out on ET.

Let's no get into Intelligent design here.

We already had one and he left.

---

Oh, is perhaps Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein perhaps better to explain whether or not we are alone in the universe?

Which approach is perhaps the better one, listening in to the stars, or maybe paint a picture which may be interpreted as being something?

Definitely a painter is not able to tell whether or not we are the only one, but we happen to know about the distances between the stars. Still, there may be times where events may happen at other places but still able to reach home.

The celestial sky may be a magnificent view when being watched through a telescope, still our knowledge comes mostly from photographic exposures, including long-duration such in order to collect light from distant objects.

Still, we may return to our books and working desk in order to get everything into order. The efforts of individuals may become unproven until being verified by others, often including better tools which may be at hand.

Still, some of our knowledge may come from great ideas which at times may be put through. Maybe people should not only ask themselves about given proofs all the time, but rather give time at giving such ideas a little thought instead.

So, because I may not perhaps be to clear about this all the time, should we better trust Betty and Barney Hill when it comes to a possible close encounter experience, or should we rather believe in the WOW signal instead?

Ask a believer in UFO's and he or she will be ready to tell that we definitely are not alone in space.

So, because I may not perhaps be to clear about this all the time, should we better trust Betty and Barney Hill when it comes to a possible close encounter experience, or should we rather believe in the WOW signal instead?

That's a very good question.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place