Isaac Newton the Creationist

new info regarding Newton now available

"This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton, the brilliant mathematician who redefined physics for the world in the 17th century, was also a bit of a theologian. While he's most famous for his ideas about gravity and the laws of motion, Newton also wrote commentaries on Daniel and Revelation. The man who invented Calculus also argued that the Jews would return to the Holy Land before the end of the world, and wrote that the Apocalypse would not occur until after A.D. 2060. Now, a number of Newton's original papers and letters have been put on display in Jerusalem, offering the world a broader glimpse of this great scientist's deeply religious nature. more....

www.khouse.org...

godisimaginary.com...

alright, so newton was alive in a time prior to the existence of a proper theory regarding the matter... so what?

you're just spewing out the logical fallacy of the argument from authority.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
alright, so newton was alive in a time prior to the existence of a proper theory regarding the matter... so what?

you're just spewing out the logical fallacy of the argument from authority.

that's a pretty spewed reply.
einstein also believed in god.
stephen hawking said, 'god does not play dice with the universe'.

there is no 'proper theory' which proves there is no god.

there is plenty of wonder to discover in creation, though.

Originally posted by billybob
that's a pretty spewed reply.
einstein also believed in god.

that is an absolute myth. the closest thing einstein believed was in the laws of the universe, and he used the word "god" as a metaphor for them.

to quote einstein in 1954 from a letter he wrote to an atheist

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.

stephen hawking said, 'god does not play dice with the universe'.

well... no he didn't.. unless he was quoting einstein. and einstein was only using god as a metaphor there. he was expressing aversion to the seemingly random nature of quantem theory.

there is no 'proper theory' which proves there is no god.

but there is a set of proper theories which shows that the universe arose through natural processes

there is plenty of wonder to discover in creation, though.

there is no creation. just the universe

Originally posted by billybob
that's a pretty spewed reply.
einstein also believed in god.
stephen hawking said, 'god does not play dice with the universe'.

That's actually a misquote from Albert Einstein. Here, Wiki says it best.

In a 1926 letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." (Einstein 1969) Bohr told Born to tell Einstein: "Stop telling God what to do."

As for his religious views, again, Wiki.

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (Brian 1996, p. 127)

By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person (Pais 1982, p. 319).[39] He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[40] In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)

[edit on 23-6-2007 by Johnmike]

there is no getting around this new information about Newton though., no misquotes there. I guess these new texts could have been forgeries have you looked into that?

madness, can you point me a link regarding this statement?

"but there is a set of proper theories which shows that the universe arose through natural processes"

specifically I would be interested in seeing the information that would be somthing Newton wouldnt have fathomed. because it seemed he had a good deal more figured out about the universe than the average bloke. I could be wrong though, besides these new notes prove he wasnt brilliant after all.

Madness, i just realized how vauge your claim was that the "universe arose through natural processes" most creationist would agree with that. considering you answered billiy bobs claim that "there is no 'proper theory' which proves there is no god?" with the above answer, I assume you meant that these "natural processes" are in fact a proper theory proving no God just to be clear.

Originally posted by Amenti
there is no getting around this new information about Newton though., no misquotes there. I guess these new texts could have been forgeries have you looked into that?

madness, can you point me a link regarding this statement?

"but there is a set of proper theories which shows that the universe arose through natural processes"

specifically I would be interested in seeing the information that would be somthing Newton wouldnt have fathomed. because it seemed he had a good deal more figured out about the universe than the average bloke. I could be wrong though, besides these new notes prove he wasnt brilliant after all.

What are you talking about? "New"?

Guys, it's been well-known that Newton studied the Bible even more than he did science. Nothing exciting or new there.

Originally posted by Johnmike

What are you talking about? "New"?

Guys, it's been well-known that Newton studied the Bible even more than he did science. Nothing exciting or new there.

For 250 years, many of Newton's papers remained locked away in a trunk at the estate of the Earl of Portsmouth. In 1936, they were auctioned off and most were acquired by two very different sorts of men; the very secular economist John Maynard Keynes, and the Jewish Oriental Studies scholar Abraham Shalom Yahuda, who was devoted to proving the Pentateuch's authenticity. While Keynes' collection went to Cambridge University, Yahuda bequeathed his collection to the new State of Israel in 1951. In 1969 the manuscripts were locked away at Israel's National Library, to be read only by select scholars. They have now been brought out of hiding and are on display at the Jewish National and University Library at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from June 18 - July 17, 2007.

www.khouse.org...

Yes, but the fact that Newton was religious isn't.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yes, but the fact that Newton was religious isn't.

but that he was a creationist is.

Originally posted by Amenti

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yes, but the fact that Newton was religious isn't.

but that he was a creationist is.

no that isn't new. if he wasn't a creationist he might have very well lost his entire livlihood at the time.

and einstein was an atheist. plain and simple
by his own admission he believed in the "god" of spinoza, god as a metaphor

to RE-quote einstein

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.

the religious keep trying to take einstein and revise him to suit their needs... just like the religious tried to paint the american hero pat tillman as a religious man to cover up that he was an atheist... because well all know that there are no atheists in foxholes (as someone put it, that's more of an argument against foxholes than atheists).

anyway, it's still stupid to even care what some man or other THINKS about the universe. it's not the person that matters, it's not the AUTHORITY that matters, what matters is the evidence. the facts and logic.

I fail to see the issue here.
Of course Newton was a creationist. Everyone at that time was. In his time the Catholic church was still struggling with the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun... Galileo was only a generation earlier.

In his time Religion was quite thoroughly the center of every good man's life. God was immediate and seen in everything that occurred. A world without GOD was just not imaginable.

But as with Galileo's discoveries, a thing is obvious and true and accepted until someone takes the trouble to look more closely at the actual facts. And then the fight is on.

yeah.. the poor thing didnt know any better. Brainwashed into beliving something that obviously wouldnt scientifically work (we now know, y'know, cause we have proven it) I mean, I havent seen the data, but Im sure we did at some point.

Ahh well, that's putting words into my mouth. Never said brainwashed. Never implied that something bad was going on. He was just a man of his time.

Galileo never "proved" the Earth went around the Sun either. Nor did Newton "prove" the existence of Gravity. They merely made observations that pointed towards a particular model of the way the World works.

Just as Darwin made his own observations.

The Bible isn't a Physics text book, nor is it a Biology text book. It's supposed to deal with more important things such as morality and a man's Soul.