Endercreeper01

It's supposed to show that Einstein was honest about racial differences and acknowledged them instead of pretending they don't exist.

If everything in reality have an explanation, how is it that there is no explanation for existence? I would ask them to explain what conclusions would be necessary to take the next step of faith.

Why can't faith have any basis in reasoning or understanding? Can't faith be based on conclusions that one makes/

When one reaches a conclusion based on their own understanding in this way, the conclusion can be said to be something that they think or believe to be true. However, this does not mean that their faith is placed blindly in something. They only think or believe in that conclusion because, in this case, they have gotten there based on their own understanding, so that to them, there is a basis for their understanding and conclusion. Believing can still have a basis for it based on one's own understanding,. It doesn't have to be seen as something that is placed without reason or cause. It doesn't have to be known with 100% certainty to be able to have any sort of basis for it. How is it not a necessity? There is a need to explain everything that exists, including ourselves and our existence within reality. Faith can be a part of the explanation.

I would respond, but I'm not supposed to go off topic... It would be off topic to discuss my world view here. However, I will say that Einstein was stereotyping different groups of people in his diary in a way that could be interpreted as racist by some.

What I meant to say was that pointing out differences between groups of people should not be treated badly, and that it includes differences between the races.

Pointing out differences in culture is still pointing out differences between groups of people. Differences pointed out between the races should be treated the same way as differences pointed out between cultures.

Wishful thinking involves thinking based in wishing or desiring rather than a necessity. It is not simply a jump in reasoning.

The OP concerns with something that could be called racism in that it relates the stereotyping of different groups of people. The way that this is being treated as bad is what I am referring to when I say that it shouldn't be considered bad in certain situations, in that the stereotyping of different groups of people isn't exactly bad and shouldn't be considered such in and of itself.

I thought that this thread provides an example of such relating with Einstein.

I was making a general statement relating to general attitudes concerning racism.

The acceptance occurs as a result of reasoning by one that leads them to the acceptance. Faith can be placed once one reaches a conclusion, based on previous conclusions reached. A specific kind of evidence is not always required to reach a conclusion, in certain context. What constitutes evidence is not always consistent in every situation.

When one reaches the idea that there must be an explanation for one's own existence, the next step leads them to faith as an answer. The jump in reasoning occurs once a necessity for an explanation is accepted, such that it leads to faith. The explanation involves an explanation for existence itself, as opposed to the process of existence.

This post is an example. Differences between groups of people can be acknowledged without being considered wrong.

A need implies that there has to be an explanation for one's own existence that leads them to faith.

It is about necessity for an explanation. Faith derives from the need to explain one's own existence.

I was making a general statement about how racism is treated. Racism is treated badly in some instances where it shouldn't be considered bad.

It was found that Einstein's diaries contained detailed observations about different ethnic groups. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/13/einsteins-diaries-contain-shocking-details-his-racism.html https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44472277 However some are labeling him a racist for his writings. We always seem to hear about people being labeled a racist, even when there are no bad intentions involved. This case is unique since it involves a famous scientist who was applying his observational skills in a way that would make him look like a racist. Is this something that should be called racist? Or is it justified anyways?

Paranormal? Supernatural? Unscientific? You are not explaining anything. You are dismissing my reasoning as impossible, without actually addressing anything that I am saying. And no, I didn't tell you to explain it in as few words as possible. In fact, I even said to explain in detail in my post. Try again. This time, don't just tell me how it is paranormal or unscientific, explain it to me how it is so.

Explain to me, in detail, how my reasoning is "in defiance of scientific observation and current models". My reasoning is a perfectly valid explanation for the synchronicity I am discussing. My reasoning offers an explanation of reality based on the existence of consciousness as an observer existing in the present moment. I have already explained how this connects with synchronicity I already stated that it was consciousness that was creating these alignments, because consciousness is ultimately behind the higher power that I am discussing. It's not a "god of the gaps" argument... I have already provided a clear explanation of this phenomena as the result of consciousness. I have posted several evidences for synchronicity in reality, along with reasoning. It is only you who is refusing to acknowledge them. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility of any of this being valid, out of nothing but your own bias towards your preconceived notions of reality. I have said this before and I will say it again: Explain to me the problem with my reasoning.

If you actually understood my post instead of dismissing it as rubbish, you would know that I gave a reason for the occurence of alignments, and that reason is the alignment of reality with consciousness. You are simply dismissing the alignments completely as chance without considering the possibilty of anything else. Can't you at least admit that there could be another possibility? I have provided evidence and reasoning to my claims. Calling my entire post "rubbish" is not a counter argument. Why don't you explain to me what is wrong with the idea that consciousness creates reality?

Actually, solar eclipses only happen because the moon and the sun take up the same amount of angular size in the sky. This is yet another example of a higher power's ordering of reality. Coincidences aren't just happening, they are happening in a very specific, highly unlikely manner. Which only makes it harder to believe that there is nothing higher involved. The significance is how it relates to the true nature of reality. It's consciousness that is creating reality, and not the other way around, by creating the past in order to exist in the present. This is why such alignments occur, because consciousness is and has been creating the past to have an existence in the present. So I'm supposed to believe that these alignments are expected to happen somewhere in the universe, AND at the same time believe that I just so happen to be inhabiting a location with these specific alignments? Or should I believe that these alignments are happening around me, the observer? The existence of a higher power is related to the existence of time and reality. Consciousness is what creates the past in order to exist in the present moment. Synchronicity in reality results when consciousness creates the past, because causality is working through time to create the past and creates alignments with consciousness in reality. It can be said to be a higher power or simply consciousness that is working on time in this way.

You can't deny that these would be extremely unlikely alignments if such results were truly random,. Is there any possibility that there is more than random chance at play? Are you just going to dismiss the possibility of these extremely unlikely alignments to have any significance, just because of your bias towards your previous view of reality? You are only refusing to see anything because you are bound by your preconceived notions about reality. If you would step out of such a mindset and see with common sense, it would be clear that there is some sort of higher order to reality.

You act as if nothing can exist outside of the scientific method. What you fail to realize is that science is about the "how" about reality and not the "why"... Actually it is nothing when you consider how much the earth varies in radius across the surface of the earth, and when the uncertainy is taken into context it becomes basically equivalent with the alignment. It really isn't required to be any more perfect than it already is. The alignment is already extremely unlikely to occur without the influence of a higher power

Is it really impossible to you for any sort of higher power to exist? It should be at least a possibility> Do you think the universe was born from absolutely nothing and without a cause?