God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Not_Sure_1]

It seems everytime Hawking gets close to information that helps prove the existence of God, he makes a new argument for athiesm based on this info. But with more discoveries, his arguments against God will start to get weaker, until he himself becomes a believer. Time will tell.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Reply 1 of 2

I first came across the “planted bones” notion in the late seventies, when I signed up for a one-year subscription to a dreadful creationist newsletter. The notion was a serious proposal. The nits (Ph.D.'s and all) lacked the wit to see it as a jest.

Lest anyone think the term “nit” is a tad harsh, I freely apply it to Darwinists as well. They are even more desperate to justify incompetent thinking.

Believe it or not, I don’t dote upon your every word, like I’m sure you must do with mine.

Measurements of extended time or distance are difficult, but simply because you may not understand the inferential methods used is no reason to be skeptical about the measurements.

Most folks get their information from pop science blurbs or documentary channels. These omit details in favor of audience interest, and to leave more space for ads and commercials. Real scientific journals and books tell the story differently. Dating methods are described in detail, and come with “error bars.” (For example, Bill the T-Rex died 83 million years ago, plus or minus 17.3 years.) Casual readers just want the “facts,” without the details. If you are one of them, your skepticism only reflects your choice in study material, not the data.

You’ll also find within the literature a fair amount of quibbling over proper dating techniques, and the interpretation of data used in those techniques. Good scientists are their own best skeptics, kept that way so long as academia holds more wanna-be professors than professorships.

Consider, also, that many techniques are fairly simple. Anyone with a shovel can figure out that if he dug up critter B first, then dug up critter A six inches further down, one of them was here first. He can often guess which one.

Unreadable evidence is not used, by definition. But remember that what is unreadable to some is clear and obvious to others. (Watch “Bones.”)

I know! Should try harder… not that they like evolutionism vs. creationist arguments here anyway… this first cause stuff is still fairly uncontentious, although…

…talking of which, I’m beginning to think this whole new argument is based on the understanding that a) God as considered by Einstein was a metaphor for the laws of physics, and so b) applies the cosmological argument for God to Law of Physics instead, ignoring the essential part of the original argument… but, again, maybe I should read it, instead of have people fail to argue me into thinking it makes sense!

Then again, every Scientismic atheist (up to and including zealots like Dawkins) have either such lack of understanding of religion, or are willing to deliberately distort the nature of religion, that I’m sure having to argue with me on the same level of half arsed understanding is perfectly reasonable…

Back to Behe - so it wasn’t that the irreducably complex entity was a propellor thing on microrganisms or whatever, which they contested by finding more basic versions of on other microorganisms, which sounds like a fairly effective refutation if it was?

 

[greylorn]

Thank you Father for having revealed your truth to the little ones. For those who are consumed with their own brilliance or their own self importance would never believe. And they asked for miracles and Christ would not give them miracles because they had the Prophets and they would not believe them, nor would they believe Him or His miracles. That is how I feel about the scientists and pseudo-scientists that have plagued the world for the last two hundred years. They believe nothing and because they will not believe they do not think anyone else can believe and even have valid common sense reasons to support their belief. They never, never think they themselves may be wrong. That is why I think these philosiphical forums are a total waste of time.

Sometimes they are. For example, I just killed a few minutes reading your post.

However, what one gets out of something is often a function of what one puts in. I’ve encountered some good and interesting minds here, and have developed a few useful ideas out of conversations with them. I greatly value the CAF.

However, I suspect that if all one cares to do here is proliferate dogma on a forum section designated for philosophical debate, then whine when the dogma is not fully appreciated, one will derive less value.

 

[greylorn]

…talking of which, I’m beginning to think this whole new argument is based on the understanding that a) God as considered by Einstein was a metaphor for the laws of physics, and so b) applies the cosmological argument for God to Law of Physics instead, ignoring the essential part of the original argument… but, again, maybe I should read it, instead of have people fail to argue me into thinking it makes sense!

From actually reading Al’s formal writings on philosophy, I concluded that he simply meant “God.” That is, God, an intelligent entity who created the universe. You can analyze this for yourself from one of his famous quotes: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

Einstein did a lot of work with statistical analyses of physical phenomena, when appropriate (c.f: Brownian motion, Bose-Einstein statistics) He pioneered the use of statistical work in physics. He’d have done well at Vegas blackjack. In the light of that knowledge, try substituting “The Laws of Physics” for God in the above quote (and adjust the verb).

Then again, every Scientismic atheist (up to and including zealots like Dawkins) have either such lack of understanding of religion, or are willing to deliberately distort the nature of religion, that I’m sure having to argue with me on the same level of half arsed understanding is perfectly reasonable…

I agree completely. Darwinism has become a religion, It has pervaded the halls of academia like Islam has engulfed the Near East, and those who disagree are disenfranchised. (You might appreciate Ben Stein’s “Expelled:….”)

Back to Behe - so it wasn’t that the irreducably complex entity was a propellor thing on microrganisms or whatever, which they contested by finding more basic versions of on other microorganisms, which sounds like a fairly effective refutation if it was?

“Darwin’s Black Box” did indeed use a nifty little motorized propeller as an example of irreducible complexity. (Awesome engineering! Buy the book just to admire the genius of creation.) In the Dover case, the ACLU biologist proffered a similar mechanism, a flagellum, I believe, from a different critter, and correctly claimed that it differed from the motor by only a few parts. Various points were omitted. Each complex cell served a different biological purpose, and belonged to a different critter. Each mechanism was irreducibly complex in its biological context, and the flagellum was simpler than the motor.

Perhaps if Behe had been able to plan 10 years in advance, he might have chosen the flagellum instead of the motor for his book example. (I’d have chosen the motor anyhow, for its engineering elegance.) But then, the ACLU goons would have used the motor as a counter-argument. Given the incompetent (probably a Democrat) judge, it hardly mattered. The outcome of the case had been predetermined.

But this is your lucky day. My copy of “Black Box” is out on loan, and seeking to verify my recollections in its absence, I went on the internet and found this little gem: arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

This piece is much shorter than a book but is a fine example of Behe’s writing style. You’ll find it easy at first, and at last. In the middle, your eye-blink-rate will slow appreciably, but if you force your mind through a relatively small swamp of microbiological jargon, you’ll come out on the other side ready to appreciate Behe’s points.

Am I cunningly trying to suck you into reading Behe? Absolutely! Well, maybe not very cunning.

I invite everyone reading this post who is interested in the subject of creation vs. Darwinism to read this brief, elegant, and clearly written paper. It will take about a half hour of your time. Behe expertly frames the scope and details of the entire Darwinism vs. Creationism issue in the context of history and science.

Catholics: Behe is your ally. He could use more friends. Atheists: Behe writes entirely outside of religious dogma. If you actually care for truth about many of the issues we discuss here, he is your ally as well. Agnostics: Go out and buy a saddle to put between your behind and the fence you’re on, because you’ll be sitting there until my book comes out.

 

[greylorn]

Well, greylorn, perhaps you’d like to take a little read through the “matrix”-thread and comment there. Maybe you’ll be able to give me a relevant well thought out explanation of what is relevant and well thought out in TS’s ‘arguments’ (or, often, non-arguments) there.

I should add that your implied claim here, that an argument about arguing is an irrelevant response to an argument about arguing, is… A lot of times if you’re up the creek without a paddle, your first order of business should be finding a paddle, instead of just careening downstream out of control.

p.s., I might agree that TS’s posts are, in general, “superior in quality and content to most atheists” - that’s just a very low standard.

Your suggestion in paragraph one offers no compelling reason for engaging it.

Your analogy in P.2 seems to no particular point.

My education was accomplished thanks to the excellent minds of others, some Catholic, some agnostic, some atheistic. The majority of my excellent teachers were atheists, because they were scientists and innovative engineers. By insulting them, you unnecessarily insult many thoughtful people who know more than you do.

These teachers taught me enough interesting and compelling information that I was required to stand aside from it and to suspend my beliefs about it, and undertake a sorting process from that perspective. I concluded that, on the question of the origin of the universe, life, and the conscious mind, they were all wrong. Not that any were stupid, or conniving. They believed what they taught, and what they had been taught. And what they all taught, in this important matter of the origin and purpose of the universe and myself, was clearly wrong.

This left me the task of coming up with explanations that might not be wrong. Still engaged, you will understand why I am predisposed to converse with a fairly open-minded and good-humored atheist like Touchstone rather than dogmatists of any stripe.

Imperfect ideas coming from someone’s own mind are far more interesting, to me, than some anonymous brain’s recitation or defense of dogma. I’ve done that. I was then even more boring than now.

 

[Betterave]

Your suggestion in paragraph one offers no compelling reason for engaging it.

Maybe not… unless you consider taking intellectual responsibility for your comments a compelling reason. (Or actually understanding what others are talking about and why they disagree with you.)

Your analogy in P.2 seems to no particular point.

That’s actually the point of arguing about argument. Arguments are our paddles. If our arguments are defective (or just plain missing), we’re not going to get anywhere. We need to examine our paddles sometimes.

My education was accomplished thanks to the excellent minds of others, some Catholic, some agnostic, some atheistic. The majority of my excellent teachers were atheists, because they were scientists and innovative engineers. By insulting them, you unnecessarily insult many thoughtful people who know more than you do.

These teachers taught me enough interesting and compelling information that I was required to stand aside from it and to suspend my beliefs about it, and undertake a sorting process from that perspective. I concluded that, on the question of the origin of the universe, life, and the conscious mind, they were all wrong. Not that any were stupid, or conniving. They believed what they taught, and what they had been taught. And what they all taught, in this important matter of the origin and purpose of the universe and myself, was clearly wrong.

This left me the task of coming up with explanations that might not be wrong. Still engaged, you will understand why I am predisposed to converse with a fairly open-minded and good-humored atheist like Touchstone rather than dogmatists of any stripe.

Open-minded? Relatively good-humored, yes; open-minded, no. Again, if you are interested in having a leg to stand on with these claims, I invite you to check out “Refuting the Matrix…” and to comment.

Imperfect ideas coming from someone’s own mind are far more interesting, to me, than some anonymous brain’s recitation or defense of dogma. I’ve done that. I was then even more boring than now.

Well that’s a bit of a vague claim which is probably not generally true - but in any case, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make.

 

[greylorn]

Open-minded? Relatively good-humored, yes; open-minded, no. Again, if you are interested in having a leg to stand on with these claims, I invite you to check out “Refuting the Matrix…” and to comment.

Okay. Kindly provide me with the relevant Post numbers, and I’ll take a look.

 

[Betterave]

Okay. Kindly provide me with the relevant Post numbers, and I’ll take a look.

Post 269 would be a good starting point for our exchange. If you don’t want to read through three pages, just start at the end of the thread and read back until you get the flavor.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

From actually reading Al’s formal writings on philosophy, I concluded that he simply meant “God.” That is, God, an intelligent entity who created the universe. You can analyze this for yourself from one of his famous quotes: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

Einstein did a lot of work with statistical analyses of physical phenomena, when appropriate (c.f: Brownian motion, Bose-Einstein statistics) He pioneered the use of statistical work in physics. He’d have done well at Vegas blackjack. In the light of that knowledge, try substituting “The Laws of Physics” for God in the above quote (and adjust the verb).

Actually, I’m sure uber-determinists could read it quite enthusiastically… but you’re right, there’s too much in Einstein’s writings, from what even I know, that imply a ‘conscious God type’ God rather than an entirely metaphorical God-that-is-rules

I

agree completely. Darwinism has become a religion, It has pervaded the halls of academia like Islam has engulfed the Near East, and those who disagree are disenfranchised. (You might appreciate Ben Stein’s “Expelled:….”) ).

Just looked up a criticism of it in “Scientific American” - makes it sound as honest and objective as that Horizon film I’ve been harping on about!

“Darwin’s Black Box” did indeed use a nifty little motorized propeller as an example of irreducible complexity. (Awesome engineering! Buy the book just to admire the genius of creation.) In the Dover case, the ACLU biologist proffered a similar mechanism, a flagellum, I believe, from a different critter, and correctly claimed that it differed from the motor by only a few parts. Various points were omitted. Each complex cell served a different biological purpose, and belonged to a different critter. Each mechanism was irreducibly complex in its biological context, and the flagellum was simpler than the motor.

Perhaps if Behe had been able to plan 10 years in advance, he might have chosen the flagellum instead of the motor for his book example. (I’d have chosen the motor anyhow, for its engineering elegance.) But then, the ACLU goons would have used the motor as a counter-argument. Given the incompetent (probably a Democrat) judge, it hardly mattered. The outcome of the case had been predetermined.

But this is your lucky day. My copy of “Black Box” is out on loan, and seeking to verify my recollections in its absence, I went on the internet and found this little gem: arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

This piece is much shorter than a book but is a fine example of Behe’s writing style. You’ll find it easy at first, and at last. In the middle, your eye-blink-rate will slow appreciably, but if you force your mind through a relatively small swamp of microbiological jargon, you’ll come out on the other side ready to appreciate Behe’s points.

Am I cunningly trying to suck you into reading Behe? Absolutely! Well, maybe not very cunning.

I invite everyone reading this post who is interested in the subject of creation vs. Darwinism to read this brief, elegant, and clearly written paper. It will take about a half hour of your time. Behe expertly frames the scope and details of the entire Darwinism vs. Creationism issue in the context of history and science.

Catholics: Behe is your ally. He could use more friends. Atheists: Behe writes entirely outside of religious dogma. If you actually care for truth about many of the issues we discuss here, he is your ally as well. Agnostics: Go out and buy a saddle to put between your behind and the fence you’re on, because you’ll be sitting there until my book comes out.

Behe is intriguing, but on the other hand the argument “there are no transitionals - or rather, they are all transitional!” makes as much sense to me - I suppose you could point at the apparently disappearing tailbone, or vestigal feathers of the emu etc. (“give them another 5000 years!”). Then again… this webpage you point at points to similar improbabilites as abiogenesis in general…so quite interesting

It’s Michael Cremo that really get’s me though - don’t know if I’ve ever pointed him out to you. He’ll appear to you by being theistic, but not especially Christian friendly (although not actively unfriendly either, I suspect)…

 

[greylorn]

Behe is intriguing, but on the other hand the argument “there are no transitionals - or rather, they are all transitional!” makes as much sense to me - I suppose you could point at the apparently disappearing tailbone, or vestigal feathers of the emu etc. (“give them another 5000 years!”). Then again… this webpage you point at points to similar improbabilites as abiogenesis in general…so quite interesting

Thanks for taking the time to read that stuff. It made even better sense to me after the second read— like any technical material.

I’m pretty sure that you are clear on the distinction between the facts of evolution (the science) and theories designed to explain evolution (creationism, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, etc.). Let me know if otherwise so we can get into a good argument.

It’s Michael Cremo that really get’s me though - don’t know if I’ve ever pointed him out to you. He’ll appear to you by being theistic, but not especially Christian friendly (although not actively unfriendly either, I suspect)…

The name triggered a couple of neurons. Does he post on CAF? If so, if he ever needs to quibble with me, he’ll probably do so. Might be fun unless he’s inherently angry.

 

[greylorn]

Post 269 would be a good starting point for our exchange. If you don’t want to read through three pages, just start at the end of the thread and read back until you get the flavor.

Reading from 269 forward was the wrong direction. Nothing there. So I started at 16-226 and read most of the posts on that page. Drat! I regret not having found this thread sooner. Some of the most excellent exchanges I’ve encountered on CAF were those between Touchstone and Mystic Banana, both respectful, thoughtful, and honest. The more I read of TS the more I like him. Consider this from 16-226…

touchstone:

Right. “Nonsense!” is a kind of give away that the poster is deferring to intuition on these matters. The idea that “anything which begins to exist needs a cause” is perfectly outside of the realm of human intuition, as there has only been one event (to use the term loosely) which qualifies as “begins to exist” – t=0. No one, from Aristotle to Aquinas to you or me has ever seen anything “come to exist”, and we have perfectly nothing to base that intuition on in grounded terms.

IMO he’s nailed the “nothing” notion better than anyone.

Then there is 16-232, an exchange w/Banana. IMO this is an example of upfront and respectful dialogue that would make a fine model for everyone on CAF. I intend to learn from it.

When I began that read I feared that I might discover that TS was a nit, and I’d have to hide my beak in the sand for saying something positive about him, but that is obviously not the case. So, now I get to figure out what you, personally, dislike about his writings. That will involve getting to understand where you are coming from. If you’re willing to have a go at that, I invite you to continue this subject.

Mind you, I’m not proposing that we discuss TS as a personality, but that we consider his writings in the context of your distaste for his ideas, which I presume is the issue. This must be done at the level of ideas and in the context of this thread, and I believe it could be generally beneficial.

 

[nbtrap]

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.[/INDENT]

So what is it, Dr. Hawking: gravity or nothing? I’m sick of people abusing language like this.

 

[Betterave]

Reading from 269 forward was the wrong direction. Nothing there. So I started at 16-226 and read most of the posts on that page. Drat! I regret not having found this thread sooner. Some of the most excellent exchanges I’ve encountered on CAF were those between Touchstone and Mystic Banana, both respectful, thoughtful, and honest. The more I read of TS the more I like him. Consider this from 16-226…

IMO he’s nailed the “nothing” notion better than anyone.

Then there is 16-232, an exchange w/Banana. IMO this is an example of upfront and respectful dialogue that would make a fine model for everyone on CAF. I intend to learn from it.

When I began that read I feared that I might discover that TS was a nit, and I’d have to hide my beak in the sand for saying something positive about him, but that is obviously not the case. So, now I get to figure out what you, personally, dislike about his writings. That will involve getting to understand where you are coming from. If you’re willing to have a go at that, I invite you to continue this subject.

Mind you, I’m not proposing that we discuss TS as a personality, but that we consider his writings in the context of your distaste for his ideas, which I presume is the issue. This must be done at the level of ideas and in the context of this thread, and I believe it could be generally beneficial.

What thread are you referring to here? Not “Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)” apparently.

You should notice at the end of this thread that your “respectful, honest, and thoughtful” beacon of exemplary forum behavior arrogantly accuses me of not understanding what I’m talking about (apparently based on the fact that he didn’t understand it) and then fails to respond to my rebuttal of his thoughtless, dishonest, disrespectul claim.

 

[greylorn]

What thread are you referring to here? Not “Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)” apparently.

You should notice at the end of this thread that your “respectful, honest, and thoughtful” beacon of exemplary forum behavior arrogantly accuses me of not understanding what I’m talking about (apparently based on the fact that he didn’t understand it) and then fails to respond to my rebuttal of his thoughtless, dishonest, disrespectul claim.

This thread, of course!

I just now figured out that you were referring to a different thread. A simple antecedent phrase in a previous post, such as, “The thread titled,” Refuting the Matrix… would have done the job. But then I’d have mentioned that a thread with that title had no particular appeal to me, and I do not fuss with arguments and issues in which I have no interest. Saves time. So, on that thread, TS might have insisted that he has a chunk of green cheese brought back by Apollo 13 astronauts, and I;'d not have thought ill of him for doing so. (Figuring that in a thread based upon a bad movie, all postings are goofy and irrelevant.)

Nonetheless, it all works out. I got to read some of TS’ good stuff, thanks to you.

I only post on threads which engage my core passions, which are the origin and purpose of the universe and man, and the nature of man. Threads about movie themes, particularly crummy movies, are of no interest.

Your final paragraph begins with, "You should notice at the end of this thread that… may illustrate part of your problem. The pronoun I’ve highlighted has no antecedent, suggesting the it refers to the thread which we are on. I guess that you meant to refer to one of the other two threads you mentioned, but which one is not clear, and at this point, I do not really care. Dealing with your issues is not interesting. In a forum which exchanges written words, clear and careful writing is the most basic requirement.

Obviously you are not getting along with TS, so I’ll give you the same orders that I gave my offspring when they were fighting in the house: Take it outside and deal with it yourself!

 

[greylorn]

So what is it, Dr. Hawking: gravity or nothing? I’m sick of people abusing language like this.

The example is not an abuse of language. It is an abuse of the principles of conceptual understanding, which is worse.

 

[Betterave]

This thread, of course!

I just now figured out that you were referring to a different thread. A simple antecedent phrase in a previous post, such as, “The thread titled,” Refuting the Matrix… would have done the job. But then I’d have mentioned that a thread with that title had no particular appeal to me, and I do not fuss with arguments and issues in which I have no interest. Saves time. So, on that thread, TS might have insisted that he has a chunk of green cheese brought back by Apollo 13 astronauts, and I;'d not have thought ill of him for doing so. (Figuring that in a thread based upon a bad movie, all postings are goofy and irrelevant.)

A quick perusal of this thread (which we are now posting in) will show that you are a very careless reader for thinking that TS and I were referring to this thread in our posts in this thread. You shouldn’ blame that on me. You should try to read more carefully.

Nonetheless, it all works out. I got to read some of TS’ good stuff, thanks to you.

You completely missed the point though. The fact that you agree with TS about something and call it “good stuff” is irrelevant to the point that he often seems unable to respond rationally to criticisms of his views.

I only post on threads which engage my core passions, which are the origin and purpose of the universe and man, and the nature of man. Threads about movie themes, particularly crummy movies, are of no interest.

You’re mistaken if you think that the thread is about a movie. It is about the origin and purpose of the universe and man, and the nature of man - which, b.t.w., would not be incompatible with it being about a movie theme. If you want another good one on this extremely general theme, check out TS’s thread “Life’s ultimate meaning…[etc.]”

Your final paragraph begins with, "You should notice at the end of this thread that… may illustrate part of your problem. The pronoun I’ve highlighted has no antecedent, suggesting the it refers to the thread which we are on. I guess that you meant to refer to one of the other two threads you mentioned, but which one is not clear, and at this point, I do not really care. Dealing with your issues is not interesting. In a forum which exchanges written words, clear and careful writing is the most basic requirement.

Wrong, it did have an antecedent: “What thread are you referring to here? Not “Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)” apparently.”

Since “this thread” obviously couldn’t have referred to this thread given the context, your reading comprehension skills are again obviously at fault, not the clarity of my writing.

Obviously you are not getting along with TS, so I’ll give you the same orders that I gave my offspring when they were fighting in the house: Take it outside and deal with it yourself!

Wrong again. I like TS, I really do; there’s nothing ‘personal’ between us (so far as I know). I would just really like him to make an effort to be rational when he argues with me. That’s all the strong language is for, and if you actually read this thread you should have noticed that that - strong language, ‘punishment’ - is the kind of thing which TS himself endorses.

 

[HeWillProvide]

I’d ask him to recreate the “creation” process he is defending.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Thanks for taking the time to read that stuff. It made even better sense to me after the second read— like any technical material.

I’m pretty sure that you are clear on the distinction between the facts of evolution (the science) and theories designed to explain evolution (creationism, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, etc.). Let me know if otherwise so we can get into a good argument.

Hmmm… the fact of evolution… would that be the fact that thing’s changing over time? If it is, then, well, I seems pretty obvious, but is it neccesarily evolution??

thing is, it’s such a blanket positive term… apparently the very concept of devolution has been rejected as being, er, too subjectively negative, as far as I can tell. In the age where blind managerial positivitism survives the slowly realising biggest depression since the 1930’s, it’s a worrying factor that the deluded spirit of the age effects scientific ideologies as well, I think! Although, on second thoughts, probably not unusual in the scheme of things

The name triggered a couple of neurons. Does he post on CAF? If so, if he ever needs to quibble with me, he’ll probably do so. Might be fun unless he’s inherently angry.

Nope… actually, you might not like him, not sure. He writes books querying datings, similar to YECs, but he’s usually just questioning datings of fossils as opposed to datings of the Earth… he’s got a website: forbiddenarcheology.com/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn
*
…talking of which, I’m beginning to think this whole new argument is based on the understanding that a) God as considered by Einstein was a metaphor for the laws of physics*

Unlikely. Since Einstein denounced atheism, what ever his idea of God was, it had to be more than “a metaphor for the laws of physics.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

greylorn
*
…talking of which, I’m beginning to think this whole new argument is based on the understanding that a) God as considered by Einstein was a metaphor for the laws of physics*

Unlikely. Since Einstein denounced atheism, what ever his idea of God was, it had to be more than “a metaphor for the laws of physics.”

I have a feeling that he denounced militant atheism, but that doesn’t mean that his beliefs do not amount to atheism.