Mohon bantuan penerjemahannya bagi yang bisa agar membantu menjelaskannya ya :) Penerjemahannya harus tanpa Google Translate atau mesin penerjemah lainnya ya :)
dari sini: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm)
QuoteEinstein Proves God Exists
In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.
Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)
Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.
Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God.
(Note: None of what follows is intended to disprove the existence of God, nor suffices to do so.)
Specious logic
The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)
The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.
Defining evil
Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.
The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.
You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.
Augustine's theodicy
Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.
Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Einstein and religion
From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.
"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
loh strategi begini kan udah gak berlaku di sini? udah basi, udah ketauan modusnya. Be creative, carilah strategi lain
:))
Hari gini, masih ada yang pakai analogi demikian?
Quote from: Indra on 11 October 2012, 01:36:26 PM
loh strategi begini kan udah gak berlaku di sini? udah basi, udah ketauan modusnya. Be creative, carilah strategi lain
Justru isinya tentang cerita itu adalah hoax sih. Tapi entah kenapa dipake judul "Kesalahan Penjelasan Sains". ;D
Isaacus Newtonus pamitan, Stephen Suleeman datang lagi ;) ^-^
Mau nyuruh orang baca artikelnya pura2 minta terjemahin ya brow... :whistle:
Quote from: sanjiva on 11 October 2012, 01:51:01 PM
Isaacus Newtonus pamitan, Stephen Suleeman datang lagi ;) ^-^
Mau nyuruh orang baca artikelnya pura2 minta terjemahin ya brow... :whistle:
Apakah mbah Sanjiva telah melingkupi pikiranku dengan pikirannya sehingga bisa menyuarakan apa yg sedang kupikirkan?
Quote from: Indra on 11 October 2012, 01:52:51 PM
Apakah mbah Sanjiva telah melingkupi pikiranku dengan pikirannya sehingga bisa menyuarakan apa yg sedang kupikirkan?
Pan ini udah sering gw singgung2 di threadnya "Evolusi vs Kreasionist" dan "Pertanyaan Mengenai Kelahiran kembali" brow... ;D [-X
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 01:34:18 PM
Einstein Proves God Exists
In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.
Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)
kebetulan beberapa hari ini ada surat einstein yang dilelang seharga $3 juta, salah satu kutipannya:
Quote
"For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them"
surat lainnya March 24, 1954, einstein menulis:
Quote
"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...
semoga jelas.
jadi antara urban legend dan bukti authentik yaitu surat yang di tulis sendiri oleh A Einstien kita percaya yang surat bukan urban legend bikinan kelompok tertentu untuk penggelapan sempurna dari sains.
[at] Stephensuleeman
Mohon bantuan penerjemahannya bagi yang bisa agar membantu menjelaskannya :) Penerjemahannya harus tanpa Google Translate atau mesin penerjemah lainnya :)
Quote from: morpheus on 11 October 2012, 02:25:39 PM
"For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them"
surat lainnya March 24, 1954, einstein menulis:
Quote
"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...
Quote from: Indra on 11 October 2012, 01:36:26 PM
loh strategi begini kan udah gak berlaku di sini? udah basi, udah ketauan modusnya. Be creative, carilah strategi lain
wah, masnya ketahuan belum baca nih
atw gak bs bahasa inggris ya :))
baca donk baek, ini tuh 100% cmn mengenai sains aja kok :))
les bahasa inggris dulu sana :))
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 01:34:18 PM
Mohon bantuan penerjemahannya bagi yang bisa agar membantu menjelaskannya ya :) Penerjemahannya harus tanpa Google Translate atau mesin penerjemah lainnya ya :)
dari sini: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm)
artikel macam ini tidak sah tanpa mencantumkan darimana sumbernya
baca aturan main di petunjuk tamu dan pengunjung.
QuoteTerima kasih kepada anda jika anda
memposting artikel dari tempat lain
sehingga bisa berguna bagi member
disini.
Akan tetapi mohon ditulis
sumbernya atau penulisnya untuk
menghormati hak cipta asli.
Terima kasih atas perhatiannya
http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,457.0.html (http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,457.0.html)r
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 03:14:37 PM
wah, masnya ketahuan belum baca nihatw gak bs bahasa inggris ya :))
baca donk baek, ini tuh 100% cmn mengenai sains aja kok :))
les bahasa inggris dulu sana :))
strategi tidak bisa bahasa inggris tidak berlaku disini, karena ada di sediakan google translate
Quote from: kullatiro on 11 October 2012, 03:14:52 PM
artikel macam ini tidak sah tanpa mencantumkan darimana sumbernya
baca aturan main di petunjuk tamu dan pengunjung.
http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,457.0.html (http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,457.0.html)r
wong saya udh cantumin sumbernya kok :)
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 01:34:18 PM
dari sini: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm)
masak gak liat sih :)
Quote from: kullatiro on 11 October 2012, 03:16:51 PM
strategi tidak bisa bahasa inggris tidak berlaku disini, karena ada di sediakan google translate
Google Translate isinya acak2an bro :)
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 03:17:51 PM
wong saya udh cantumin sumbernya kok :)
masak gak liat sih :)
wah beneran tidak lihat, wa minta maaf karena nya.
tapi dengan surat authentik dari A Einstien sudah sangat jelas.
permisi.. mau nanya om sulaiman.
di dua agama samawi besar, banyak tokoh2 yg sama di kitab suci kedua pihak. misalnya musa, abraham/ibrahim, dll
nah pertanyaannya, apakah tokoh2 tersebut memang merujuk ke orang yang sama?
terimakasih
udah kumpul 7 biji dragon ball nich..
shenron (baca : mod)
request donk merge stephen's thread jadi 1..
Quote from: kullatiro on 11 October 2012, 03:24:56 PM
tapi dengan surat authentik dari A Einstien sudah sangat jelas.
ya gak donk :(
belum ngejelasin semuanya apalagi soal sainsnya :(
Quote from: sl99 on 11 October 2012, 04:04:56 PM
permisi.. mau nanya om sulaiman.
di dua agama samawi besar, banyak tokoh2 yg sama di kitab suci kedua pihak. misalnya musa, abraham/ibrahim, dll
nah pertanyaannya, apakah tokoh2 tersebut memang merujuk ke orang yang sama?
terimakasih
ya
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 04:36:09 PM
ya gak donk :(
belum ngejelasin semuanya apalagi soal sainsnya :(
logika anda bekerja gak sih? seharusnya anda pertanyakan kebenaran isi artikel yang anda berikan di awal thread.
thread ini dah case closed dengaan di postingnya surat A Einstien.
ini cloniingan si isaac yah?
Quote from: kullatiro on 11 October 2012, 05:28:51 PM
thread ini dah case closed dengaan di postingnya surat A Einstien.
ya tidak bro, wong banyak gitu penjelasan selain Einstein gitu :(
Quote from: godfrey on 11 October 2012, 07:09:02 PM
ini cloniingan si isaac yah?
bukan :)
liat aja postingan kita berdua. ada perbedaan terutama pd kuantitasnya. dia lebih banyak saya lebih dikit. lagipula saya belum pernah nulis segitunya.
keyakinan anda tuh apa?
Quote from: sl99 on 11 October 2012, 08:10:29 PM
anda menjawab sebagai 1slam atau krist3n?
saya sih sebagai perantara/penengahnya
Quote from: godfrey on 11 October 2012, 08:12:17 PM
keyakinan anda tuh apa?
saya saat ini jd pluralis bro
membela berbagai golongan jg termasuk kaum Budhist: http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,22848.0.html (http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,22848.0.html)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW INI KOK BELUM ADA YG NERJEMAHIN SIH ! :'(
PLIS DONK, SAYA CMN PINGIN TAU TERJEMAHANNYA AJA ! GAK LEBIH ! :'(
HABIS DITERJEMAHIN SAYA GAK BAKAL NGAPA2IN LG DEH ! :'(
Quote from: Rico Tsiau on 11 October 2012, 04:52:54 PM
logika anda bekerja gak sih? seharusnya anda pertanyakan kebenaran isi artikel yang anda berikan di awal thread.
om Rico, di kuliah pas semester 1 kemaren sih aku diajarin pas reading, kalo udah urband legend itu pasti hoax.. Enggak ada benernya ;D
Quote from: Rico Tsiau on 11 October 2012, 04:52:54 PM
logika anda bekerja gak sih? seharusnya anda pertanyakan kebenaran isi artikel yang anda berikan di awal thread.
bagaimana mau mempertanyakan om... dia aja nggak mudeng bahasa inggris :whistle:
[spoiler]
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 08:30:38 PM
BTW INI KOK BELUM ADA YG NERJEMAHIN SIH ! :'(
PLIS DONK, SAYA CMN PINGIN TAU TERJEMAHANNYA AJA ! GAK LEBIH ! :'(
HABIS DITERJEMAHIN SAYA GAK BAKAL NGAPA2IN LG DEH ! :'(
[/spoiler]
Quote from: godfrey on 11 October 2012, 07:09:02 PM
ini cloniingan si isaac yah?
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 08:02:32 PM
bukan :)
liat aja postingan kita berdua. ada perbedaan terutama pd kuantitasnya. dia lebih banyak saya lebih dikit. lagipula saya belum pernah nulis segitunya.
kalau begitu pertanyaannya diganti.
anda teman dekat bro isaac?
Quote from: juanpedro on 12 October 2012, 01:50:18 AM
kalau begitu pertanyaannya diganti.
anda teman dekat bro isaac?
satu 'kampung' kale ! :))
lucu ya, pertama2 lagaknya seperti seorang pintar
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 03:14:37 PM
wah, masnya ketahuan belum baca nih atw gak bs bahasa inggris ya :))
baca donk baek, ini tuh 100% cmn mengenai sains aja kok :))
les bahasa inggris dulu sana :))
kemudian "kepintarannya" diperlihatkan disini =)) =)) =))
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 11 October 2012, 08:30:38 PM
saya sih sebagai perantara/penengahnya
saya saat ini jd pluralis bro
membela berbagai golongan jg termasuk kaum Budhist: http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,22848.0.html (http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,22848.0.html)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW INI KOK BELUM ADA YG NERJEMAHIN SIH ! :'(
PLIS DONK, SAYA CMN PINGIN TAU TERJEMAHANNYA AJA ! GAK LEBIH ! :'(
HABIS DITERJEMAHIN SAYA GAK BAKAL NGAPA2IN LG DEH ! :'(
Quote from: adi lim on 12 October 2012, 05:05:07 AM
satu 'kampung' kale ! :))
atau malah produk tumimbal lahir? ;D
Quote from: ryu on 12 October 2012, 06:38:00 AM
lucu ya, pertama2 lagaknya seperti seorang pintar
kemudian "kepintarannya" diperlihatkan disini =)) =)) =))
=))
=))
=))
=))
Quote from: Forte on 11 October 2012, 04:17:54 PM
udah kumpul 7 biji dragon ball nich..
shenron (baca : mod)
request donk merge stephen's thread jadi 1..
Request.... delayed... ;D
Yang ini saya mau bahas.
Quote from: Kainyn_Kutho on 12 October 2012, 10:27:12 AM
Request.... delayed... ;D
Yang ini saya mau bahas.
shenron kan mengabulkan segalanya, lha wong bola naganya udah lengkap kok :)) :)) :))
Quote from: juanpedro on 12 October 2012, 01:50:18 AM
kalau begitu pertanyaannya diganti.
anda teman dekat bro isaac?
Tidak
saya pro Budhist kok, sementara dia enggak
QuoteSpecious logic
The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)
The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.
Di sini intinya, yang membuat hoax ini hanya bermain secara semantik.
'Heat' (panas) adalah sebuah kata benda sementara 'cold' (dingin) adalah kata sifat. Begitu juga "light" (cahaya) adalah kata benda dan "dark" (gelap) adalah kata sifat. Jadi ikan kribo. Kalau mau, terang vs gelap; panas vs dingin.
Jadi ini cuma trik murahan saja.
QuoteDefining evil
Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.
The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.
You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.
Ini kelanjutan dari sebelumnya. "Evil" (kejahatan) adalah lawan dari "good" (kebaikan). Keberadaan kejahatan dan kebaikan tidak ada hubungannya dengan eksistensi "God" (Tuhan). Dan kalau mau dibalikin dengan cara bodoh yang sama, maka Tuhan pun tidak ada, yang ada hanyalah 'ketiadaan kejahatan'. Ikan kribo lagi.
QuoteAugustine's theodicy
Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.
Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Augistine's theodicy adalah sebuah argumen klasik tentang pembenaran keberadaan Tuhan walaupun kejahatan ada di dunia, yaitu dengan alasan 'free will' atau kehendak bebas. Singkat kata, keberadaan kejahatan tidak konsisten dengan 'mahakuasa' dan 'mahabaik'.
QuoteEinstein and religion
From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.
"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
"Hal ini tidak membawa kita pada langkah membentuk makhluk seperti-tuhan dalam gambaran kita," ia menjelaskan ketika ditanya tentang impilikasi religius dari relativitas. "Untuk alasan ini, orang-orang dari jenis kita melihat dalam moralitas adalah persoalan manusia sepenuhnya, hal terpenting di ranah manusia sekalipun."
Quote from: ryu on 12 October 2012, 06:38:00 AM
lucu ya, pertama2 lagaknya seperti seorang pintar
kemudian "kepintarannya" diperlihatkan disini =)) =)) =))
emang bener kok :))
bung Indra tuh emang pas dulu waktu omongin kesalahan Katotok malah dibilang ngomongin jalan keselamatan :))
sekarang pas ngomongin sains malah jg dikira strategi :))
Quote from: Rico Tsiau on 12 October 2012, 10:36:39 AM
shenron kan mengabulkan segalanya, lha wong bola naganya udah lengkap kok :)) :)) :))
Shenron sekarang udah ikut budaya Indo: 'bisa delay', paling bayar denda kotak snack isi roti + air gelas.
Quote from: Rico Tsiau on 11 October 2012, 04:52:54 PM
logika anda bekerja gak sih? seharusnya anda pertanyakan kebenaran isi artikel yang anda berikan di awal thread.
maksudnya ? ???
Quote from: Kainyn_Kutho on 12 October 2012, 11:33:01 AM
Di sini intinya, yang membuat hoax ini hanya bermain secara semantik.
'Heat' (panas) adalah sebuah kata benda sementara 'cold' (dingin) adalah kata sifat. Begitu juga "light" (cahaya) adalah kata benda dan "dark" (gelap) adalah kata sifat. Jadi ikan kribo. Kalau mau, terang vs gelap; panas vs dingin.
Jadi ini cuma trik murahan saja.
Ini kelanjutan dari sebelumnya. "Evil" (kejahatan) adalah lawan dari "good" (kebaikan). Keberadaan kejahatan dan kebaikan tidak ada hubungannya dengan eksistensi "God" (Tuhan). Dan kalau mau dibalikin dengan cara bodoh yang sama, maka Tuhan pun tidak ada, yang ada hanyalah 'ketiadaan kejahatan'. Ikan kribo lagi.
Augistine's theodicy adalah sebuah argumen klasik tentang pembenaran keberadaan Tuhan walaupun kejahatan ada di dunia, yaitu dengan alasan 'free will' atau kehendak bebas. Singkat kata, keberadaan kejahatan tidak konsisten dengan 'mahakuasa' dan 'mahabaik'.
"Hal ini tidak membawa kita pada langkah membentuk makhluk seperti-tuhan dalam gambaran kita," ia menjelaskan ketika ditanya tentang impilikasi religius dari relativitas. "Untuk alasan ini, orang-orang dari jenis kita melihat dalam moralitas adalah persoalan manusia sepenuhnya, hal terpenting di ranah manusia sekalipun."
lhoh kok cmn sebagian aja sih yg diterjemahin :(
kan jd gak dapet info secara menyeluruh :(
semuanya diterjemahin donk :(
Enak aja nyuruh nyuruh menterjemahkan, emangnya wani piro?
:)) :)) :))
Quote from: Stephensuleeman on 12 October 2012, 11:24:21 AM
Tidak
saya pro Budhist kok, sementara dia enggak
semoga begitu adanya. _/\_