Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 376 posts

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

#101

Post by forgotmypw17 »

badinfo wrote: post #19
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 imagining The Universe™ sitting in front of a crusty old interdimensional space laptop, thumbs-upping your actions in the ol' Fatebook once in a while. Probably The Universe™ ran out of space cats and you were the next best thing. What a fortunate turn of events.

Being more entertaining than a space cat is a high bar to reach for, but I do my best to entertain. )

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

#102

Post by gmfawcett »

bobthechef wrote: post #94
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…

> It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. For the record (just to clarify the overall context), the traditional conception of God, in the Catholic view, is not anthropomorphic. From metaphysical analysis, God is the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the Subsistent Act of Existing Itself[0]. You see this declared in the Torah in Exodus 3:14[0]. Faith only enters into…

> That the Logos became incarnate does not imply anthropomorphism.

The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get?

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

#103

Post by bloopbloop10000 »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

Is there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.

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

#104

Post by missedthecue »

seiferteric wrote: post #6
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.

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?

Assuming God is created would be to assume that God is bound by some kind of time. If God exists outside of time, his 'creation' is an irrelevant question.

Beginnings can only exist if time is happening.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by bobthechef »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #13

It seems like the main purpose of Spinoza's God is to have an unfalsifiable God. The problem with other Gods like the Christian God is that they tend to come with requirements about the world that are easy to disprove. For example, the Christian God is not very compatible with the existence of natural evil. By removing all of those implications and other attributes, you arrive a Spinoza's God, a God so vague / powerl…

> Christian God is not very compatible with the existence of natural evil

See https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm#article2

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

#107

Post by wruza »

toolz wrote: post #55
darkerside wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.

Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?

Well, the universe is full of rocks. “Intimate” may not be a great word (too anthropic and intangible), but writing off all these rocks as boring and banal is probably narrow sighted. Birds, sun and vegetation may feel intimate, but try to feel that without a rock right under your feet. They have a point, imo. We tend to ignore “default” things, but it doesn’t make them irrelevant, they are an important part of the setup. The next thing to feel intimate relationships with is gas (the universe is full of gas that produced you after all, isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get).

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

#108

Post by Bobylonian »

bobthechef wrote: post #94
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…

> It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. For the record (just to clarify the overall context), the traditional conception of God, in the Catholic view, is not anthropomorphic. From metaphysical analysis, God is the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the Subsistent Act of Existing Itself[0]. You see this declared in the Torah in Exodus 3:14[0]. Faith only enters into…

Catolicism belief is without further discussions in Trinity - Holy Father, Holy Son and Holy Spirit(which had earlier representation of anthropomorphic Jewish God).

Since no one really has read a Bible, I can remind the source:

>>Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

>>"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

According to Bible - God created humans in his image - this is very problematic passage for Christianity, if there is an alien life out there, because apparently they would not be createad by a God.

Any deviations from anthropomorphic nature of a God in Christianity does look like a herecy. Because any other deviations from Christian religious dogmas basically brings to the result, where Aztec god that requires sacrifices and Sol Invictus, not to mention Allah and Yahweh are the same immanent transcendences of a God.

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

#109

Post by seigando »

Barrin92 wrote: post #81
brutusborn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Out of interest, what do you beleive in? not very much, that is to say I'm skeptical of metaphysics altogether. I'm partial to Wittgenstein's attitude, that is to say I think projects like pantheism deflate if you scrutinize them and inquire to what degree they say anything meaningful or well-defined about the world, or if they're really expressions of psychology or linguistics or desire. I do agree with you that a…

>not meaningful claims about the world as such.

Not meaningful to who?

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

#110

Post by analog31 »

bloopbloop10000 wrote: post #103
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

Is there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.

To me it seems equivalent to the "first cause" argument of Thomas Aquinas.
Post reply on HN