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

131–140 of 376 posts

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

#131

Post by anthk »

EMM_386 wrote: post #115
anthk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the universe is weird, still no god needed, because gods' existence is almost as weird as particles popping in and out. Also, not particles, but fields, actually.

> Also, not particles, but fields, actually. Why are there fields? It's turtles all the way down, and it fundamentally comes down to "why something rather than nothing"? Nothing has no potential to create anything because it's literally nothing. It can not have potential. So where do these crazy forces, fields, the quantum observer effect come from, out of nothing? We will never find an answer to that question becaus…

>We will never find an answer to that question because it is literally unanswerable.

Then putting the "god" argument over the table seems either lazy or antropocentric.

The correct answer (as from today), it's "we don't know". You don't need to put any god, "energy" or whatever myth you know over ignorance.

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

#132

Post by chana_masala »

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…

> "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation.

This is the essence of much of Hinduism, particularly monist sects like Saiva Siddhanta

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

#133

Post by satvikpendem »

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…

This is simply a God of the gaps argument [0]. Just because we don't (yet) know how the universe was created does not mean that we must attribute it to some deity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

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

#134

Post by anthk »

seigando wrote: post #89
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…

>'nature' does not empathize back except when it seems like it does

Nature in South America's jungles, the Arctic, or Australia doesn't give a shit if you live or not. You have better chances of dyeing fast than being alive. You know, still nature. Harsh, but nature.

Stack plagues, bacteria-ridden water, parasites, funghi, predators and so on, and I'd say "nature" doesn't like you at all.

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

#135

Post by seigando »

anthk wrote: post #134
seigando wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'nature' does not empathize back except when it seems like it does

Nature in South America's jungles, the Arctic, or Australia doesn't give a shit if you live or not. You have better chances of dyeing fast than being alive. You know, still nature. Harsh, but nature. Stack plagues, bacteria-ridden water, parasites, funghi, predators and so on, and I'd say "nature" doesn't like you at all.

Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.

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

#136

Post by anthk »

andybak wrote: post #95
anthk wrote: post #32

I'm tired of these anti-scientific threads pushing superstituous nonsense as science.

Would you feel that way about an article on metaphysics or any other branch of philosophy outside of mathematical logic? How about ethics, anthropology or another branch of the humanities that isn't amenable to the scientific method? I suppose I'm asking where you draw the line between "distinct from the sciences" and "anti-scientific"?

>How about ethics, anthropology or another branch of the humanities that isn't amenable to the scientific method?

Self-organisation to avoid conflict learnt with over millenia of experience in order to survive under a tribe.

Where's the magic in Biology?

Saving our asses as a collective with different and useful roles gave us far more chances to survive than trying to fight for resources alone.

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

#137

Post by anthk »

satvikpendem wrote: post #133
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…

This is simply a God of the gaps argument [0]. Just because we don't (yet) know how the universe was created does not mean that we must attribute it to some deity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

This. It's ridiculous how can people support these infantile and crude beliefs in order to understand the universe.

Do these people think HN stays online by prayings instead of the hard work of the sysadmins?

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

#138

Post by richard_todd »

tootie wrote: post #119
Barrin92 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think concepts like Spinoza's or Deism or people who declare themselves "not religious but spiritual" are just having trouble parting with the comfort of religion even though they know there's nothing there.

Spinoza was writing at a time when it was easy to become exiled or dead for publishing material that doesn’t align with the mainstream religious position. So some degree of the religious comfort aspect of his work can arguably be more of a practical necessity to get his ideas published in the first place.

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

#139

Post by Bobylonian »

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…

I think, that English language has a linguistical problem with name of "God", as it has no etymological understanding what is it behind this word and the only meaning to it is coming now only from Christianity. Other languages have different meaning for word God and even etymological meaning behind it.

If you translate Greek ancient pantheon... well, Big Bang would fit in it, just like all the gods, that described nature and things that were ruling over people, along with other gods that were describing human behavior.

Quite many of etymological meanings to most of names in other languages for God is Giver. It is not much different from Luck - the main difference between those are only in gender, but not in function. So, if someone thinks, that Gods function was to be responsible for Big Bang, they should be very disappointed or very disillusional, as the only function for God for any society was to bring prosperity to the believers(and wrath to enemies).

There are many different beliefs what is God, what is soul and so on. There are belieffs, that animals were gods - even today there is a belief in Tibet, that gods incarnate in people - young girls. Gnostics even believed, that humans are Gods and that was a big issue with Christianity...

As for something that there was something before - that is Christian construct for most of Europe. Ancient Greeks knew, that first there was a Chaos(a gods name)... for many others there was only a sea from which God emerged as a bird. So, there is not uniform belief, that there was something before, or that gofds themselves appeared into this world before creation of this world - sometimes Gods appeared even much later than Christianity is depicting them and for some American natives Gods appeared only as animals, who created humans.

If the discussion is about still unexplainable mechanisms on how this world works, especially about RND and calling it a God... well, there is a problem with English word of God, because it does not have that meaning in etymology and claiming that it is something that we can assing is not really working. Also, none of other God names means any of those things, so it would be better to establish new term for these mechanisms, how the Universe works, as God has nothing to do with that - not to mention, that extension of Christian God is not possible because of clash of meanings.

>>>I mean, are we gnats on God's

There is always possibility to accept that there is no God(who has eyes? - what about God for worms or trees without eyes, like it is for most of Life?). Rivers run without God, Wind blows without God. Life exists without God and need for it. Humans and not God are responsible for attrocities they are doing for each other and other beings.

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

#140

Post by anthk »

seigando wrote: post #135
anthk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature in South America's jungles, the Arctic, or Australia doesn't give a shit if you live or not. You have better chances of dyeing fast than being alive. You know, still nature. Harsh, but nature. Stack plagues, bacteria-ridden water, parasites, funghi, predators and so on, and I'd say "nature" doesn't like you at all.

Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.

Then you are under a confirmation bias.
Post reply on HN