Your post has some points of my interest. Here I reply it.
“When you posit an invisible all pervasive power controlling the universe of course no one can prove you wrong.”
Be aware that the usefulness of the scientific method is limited to the strictly physical phenomena. In metaphysics your only remaining tools –actually, the most poweful available ones– are logic and reasoning.
“Then you posit an invisible all pervasive power controlling the universe of course no one can prove you wrong.”
Well, apparently some ideologies claimed to do so. In example: Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
“One of the properties of your "invisible force" is that it is invisible. Or else "everything" is proof. "Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".”
I never said that.
”GOD explains everything.”
“Or if your life sucks, just believe in GOD and you'll go to heaven. All these other people you don't like will conveniently burn in hell.”
Straw man argument.
”About Einstein. Trying to bring up an "authority" to prove your point simply points out the emptiness of your argument.”
Agreed. Notice that I brought two scientific authorities to make Sarah realize that the idea of a Creator of the universe is not silly or trivial at all.
“It so happens that Einstein was one of my first heroes. Before I'd ever heard of Ayn Rand.”
Are you here bringing the authority of Ayn Rand? [kidding]
“Einstein was very much struck by the wonder of nature. And the universality of it's laws. He knew there was a great deal that he did not understand. But he KNEW there was an underlying explanation for everything. He worked very hard for his entire lifetime trying to come up with a theory that described everything.”
I subscribe your words.
“His underlying sense of the ultimate laws describing all of nature are what I believe he meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe".”
Not exact: he said that in opposition to the randomness that had been theorized in quantum physics. A randomness that is a fundamental feature of quantum theory and that today has been proved to be in accordance with extensive expermentation.
“He also had the additional emotional distress of feeling somewhat personally responsible for the atomic bomb and the horrors of it's use.”
He was a pacifist. This was one of his personal flaws.
“I think the context of him being asked questions over and over about this subject elicited some the his "belief in god" quotes.”
A staunch Atheist would hve never mentioned “god” in those positive terms. He was a very religions man, and had trust in a non-personal overarching reality. Every good scientist has a sense of religiosity.
But, of course, he still could be wrong: nobody's perfect.
(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 10:21am)