Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#21

Post by seiferteric » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

EMM_386 wrote: post #17

seiferteric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in any particular god but I do think that the universe and our experience is ultimately unexplainable. So science can never have these answers therefore I am open to theistic arguments but ultimately even these arguments are unsatisfying because it just moves the level of unexplainability up one more level... who created god?

> who created god That is why whatever that "thing" is, that's full-stop. That's why we refer to it as god. It requires no explanation, it must be. It's sort of like asking "why do we have something instead of nothing?". Because apparently that's the way it must be. That sounds crazy to scientifically-minded people, myself included, because we want answers to everything. But the turtles will go all the way down until…

That's why I say it is unsatisfying and the universe is ultimately unexplainable because either there is this final "god" and we are incapable of understanding it or there is not and there is infinite levels and we are incapable of understanding it also.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#22

Post by burkaman » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

mynameisash wrote: post #7

EMM_386 wrote: post #4

I am extremely scientific and I believe in god. Not quite Spinoza's, more of a pantheistic view. If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it This seems like quite a leap. Parts of the earth are conscious, so is the earth conscious? Parts of the universe are alive, so is the universe alive? Every member of my family is conscious*, but I wouldn't say that "my family" is conscious. *Solipsism notwithstanding

I've never heard this before but I think it's reasonable. Imagine if you were simulating the universe in a computer and a creature within your simulation achieved consciousness. I think it would be fair to say your simulation had achieved consciousness, even if 99.999...% of the processing power was spent simulating the rest of the universe "unrelated" to the conscious part.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#23

Post by 7373737373 » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #3

Every moment of our existence brings about a certain amount of suffering, and a certain amount of joy. Depending on our choices and intentions, the amounts of joy and suffering for both us and other viewpoints varies. I believe that Universe is continuously solving for the maximum sum amount of joy from all the viewpoints combined. Of course, a certain amount of suffering is required to bring about the joy, whether b…

I'm wondering whether there is a metaphysical law of conservation of valence - where positive qualia have to be balanced by negative ones in some way

> When I set my intentions for maximum joy and follow through on them, the Universe "likes" and "assists" this in amazing and miraculous ways, which bring about even more joy, and so on.

> I believe that Universe is continuously solving for the maximum sum amount of joy from all the viewpoints combined.

This is easy to believe when your brain is flooded with serotonin, but i don't think it's universally true

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#24

Post by brutusborn » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

Out of interest, what do you beleive in?

I agree that pantheism is a misapplied psychological need, but no more so than any relgion or beleif system.

I've decided that to fill this need, it is useful to choose a fundamental belief system of some sort. I have choosen Taoism and parts of other Philosophical systems, like Stoicism, where I feel there are gaps.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#25

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

[deleted]

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#26

Post by foxhop » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

I've been thinking a lot of god and have come up with the following, please be kind:

---

The Right Way, The Trivium, The Path Towards Illumination.

TRUTH - The all knowing all seeing omnipotent natural universe which we have a special connection and natural understanding of. Nature. God. The Universe. In binary this would be 1. The Unified Field. Father.

FREEDOM - Sun. The Child Spirit To Play and Create. Son.

LOVE - Voluntary Passion, Drive, Motivation, Law of Attraction. Cooperation. Amplifier. Replicator. Wu Wei. Waters. Godly Bodily Fluids of Head and Genitals. Blood. Holy Spirit.

The only time Fear is more powerful than Love is when the Truth is hidden and individual Freedoms & essential Property including Body are subject to tyranny.

Therefore to stop tyranny in all forms we must live our lives according to natural law and the 3 pillars outlined above.

When we do this, together we live our best lives and create the best works of art and science and support each other to great heights.

---

This article only focuses on Truth God or Universal god.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#27

Post by torstenvl » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

seiferteric wrote: post #21

EMM_386 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who created god That is why whatever that "thing" is, that's full-stop. That's why we refer to it as god. It requires no explanation, it must be. It's sort of like asking "why do we have something instead of nothing?". Because apparently that's the way it must be. That sounds crazy to scientifically-minded people, myself included, because we want answers to everything. But the turtles will go all the way down until…

That's why I say it is unsatisfying and the universe is ultimately unexplainable because either there is this final "god" and we are incapable of understanding it or there is not and there is infinite levels and we are incapable of understanding it also.

Cf. apex (e.g., YHWH) versus non-apex (e.g., the Tao) conceptions of the numinous.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#28

Post by badinfo » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #20

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it Hell of a leap. I subscribe to the notion the consciousness is a illusion via chemical whatever and the universe doesn't give a damn anyway.

How could you possibly deny the existence of your subjective experience? This is just utterly incomprehensible to me.

What's the philosophical difference between your subjective experience of existence and a 90s-style power-on-self-test?

"I am on. I can tell that I am on. I dunno what I think once I am off." Same could be said of man, machine, consciousness, whatever.

What's incomprehensible is the baseless belief that consciousness is some special state of existence unique to balding, violent apes floating around a wet rock, anthropomorphizing all the crap around them just to make themselves feel special.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#29

Post by NikolaeVarius » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

garbagetime wrote: post #15

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it Hell of a leap. I subscribe to the notion the consciousness is a illusion via chemical whatever and the universe doesn't give a damn anyway.

What does it mean for consciousness to be an illusion?

It means that consciousness nothing special/supernatural. There is no soul, there is nothing but chemical reactions that manage to create something that is able to claim "I think therefore I am"

The illusion is the fact that we claim that we are able to "experience", but I think that its all just layers of GOTO reactions that create something that think its special. Much like how a program isn't considered conscious, but its very likely its because we haven't dug deeply enough into the layers of shit that is required to make a self-aware computer

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#30

Post by toolz » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #18

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

There's a tiny part of your brain called the Ego that thinks it is human and special. The rest of your brain knows you are just part of the universe. Inextricably so, from before birth to after death. One and the same, like a drop of water returning to the ocean. What could be more intimate than that?

To follow this line of thinking, are you suggesting I can have an intimate relationship with a rock? If you're not speaking to the point about intimacy, what point are you speaking to, because your post isn't very clear what point, if any, you were trying to make.