Live data from Hacker News

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

prospectmagazine.co.uk

141–150 of 376 posts

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

#141
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then you are under a confirmation bias.

First of all, lets not level accusations without some level of explanation. That's just rude.

Second, on what basis do you claim that I'm the one with a confirmation bias and not yourself?

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

#142

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?

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The natural problem is drawing the line between which parts of you are conscious and which parts of you are merely the portion that surrounds the consciousness. Is merely your brain¹ conscious? The whole body? The brain+(not-brain body) system is conscious but the distinction isn't all that different from the brain+(not-brain body)+(not-you Earth) system being conscious. I have to say I started with thinking that cle…

If you spend a lot of time paying very close attention to all of the minute sub/unconscious actions of your body as you go throughout the day, you have these weird epiphanies that your consciousness is just a passenger barking orders to a meat machine with a mind if it’s own.

Do this long enough and you’ll experience episodes on non-verbal communication with whatever is at the helm. For me it occurs when I get stuck in thought and my body sort of involuntarily feints an act to remind me what I was doing before my mind wandered. It’s only happened to her three times in my life, probably many times before I realized it the first time. It’s subtle, but really weird. And probably just a product of my imagination, but that’s been my experience.

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

#144
post #128

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…

It’s really interesting how many assumptions get baked into beliefs like this. Existence had a beginning, it was formed by something, that thing didn’t need to be formed by anything, it’s existence doesn’t count as having existed before existence, that thing had the capacity to act, that things actions resulted in the reality we see today etc. Having convinced yourself of all of these things it then feels natural to…

I don’t think anyone is attributing any properties to God. God could just be a fundamental force like gravity. What parent comment is saying is whatever was the beginning, is God. Maybe there was no beginning, maybe time extends forever in both directions or loops on itself, or maybe some imbalance caused all this, but we just like to give things names that mean something.

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

#145

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.

Check out "cosmological argument"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

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

#146
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean for consciousness to be an illusion?

We as a species may lack the mental faculties to truly understand the mechanisms by which life evolved the ability to analyze and reason about its surroundings and itself. We lack the scientific tools to properly differentiate or falsify "consciousness" from any other sufficiently complex phenomenon. We can't tell whether it's an emergent phenomenon arising out of a particular arrangement of energy and matter, or whe…

Why are you concentrating on individual animals, where herd behaviour of them can not be explained by behavior of individual. Same applies to people - there are enough of examples in history of groups of people believing in God and his plan and that belief has led to catastrophic consequences for tribes and even nations... For all I know nothing really matters - Sun can go Nova or Earth can be hit by a small planet and Life on earth can go extinct.

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

#147
post #79

My pet theory in high school was that Spinoza lived in a time when being an atheist could get you arrested and killed, so he came up with this Deus sive natura thing, which is a good cover and in practice is not too far from atheism.

It's not just your pet theory, but a dominant reading of him. Both present and in the past Certainly many of his contemporaries (including Leibniz) and many who read him later saw him as a covert atheist and hated him for it.

I'm not sure it's explicitly a cover. I'm not sure he would have actually said "there is no God"; such a phrase might have been actually very difficult for someone to compose in that era, not just because it was shocking but it would be hard to think. Especially one raised in a devout Jewish community (from which he was expelled)

(I spent many years studying Spinoza, both in school and in private.)

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

#148
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

HN stays online through the work of humans.

The community thrives by following guidelines, among them:

* be kind

* do not sneer

* do not call names

* respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize

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

#150

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

Im not so sure your right that its a god of the gaps argument. What faith do you have in gravity. Obviously you trust that physics is the law of our universe. Deifying those laws isnt claiming that god is in the gaps of scientific knowledge, infact its suggesting that "god" is the laws illuminated by scientific processes themselves.

I certainly have faith in physics...

Post reply on HN