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

161–170 of 376 posts

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

#161

Post by darkerside »

toolz wrote: post #124
wruza wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> “Intimate” may not be a great word Intimate was the centerpiece of my curiosity. Sure I can have feelings about the universe and the rocks that exist within this universe, but there is no intimacy. > isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get No, intimacy isn't a feeling that just happens to you or a circumstance you happen to be in, it's an active relationship where both parties involved do something to foste…

I see why you're offended now. It was not my intention.

I don't think I can describe it in words. Like I said, our egos stop us from taking the idea too seriously, perhaps out of a survival instinct. There are some drugs that will cause "ego death". The part of your brain that distinguishes between the self and the other literally ceases to function. It sounds metaphysical and silly, but when it happens, you understand how insignificant your ego truly is in comparison with the world, and yet it tells you that it contains every perception that tells you what the world is, and it's only when that ego stops that you can see that the world, including you, can go on without your ego.

So, just like intimate moments with a lover, or a musical instrument, or blessed peaceful moment, you are allowed to forget about yourself. That is my understanding of intimacy.

What is yours?

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

#162

Post by yeaman1231 »

Bobylonian wrote: post #108
bobthechef wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

I don't really follow your train of thought. When we say someone is brave as a lion, does that mean we lionmorphize the person? I invite you to read about the many different schools of thoughts in the scholastic-tradition (catholic/eastern/Anglican etc) rich variants of Christianity. Some were seen as heretical and became doctors of the church... etc

Edit: The bearded guy in the sky notion of God is the least popular in my circles (Catholic/Muslim/Hindu mostly)

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

#163

Post by intrasight »

The military-industrial-consumer complex was created by the universe for the sole purpose of supporting the tiny contingent of otherwise non-productive consciousnesses (physicist) who are in a race to document the system in high fidelity before the edifice crumbles - the "system" being the one set of physical constants, out of the infinite number of permutations that didn't make the cut, that resulted in a semi-stable universe.

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

#164

Post by Bobylonian »

badinfo wrote: post #57
anthk wrote: post #32

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

Spinoza's God is interesting not because it's a competitor to the Christian God or Thor or whatever, but because it's a rarely-explored aspect of Einstein's belief system (and confusion) about the origins of, well, everything. Questions of religion vs science plague proper scientists too, Einstein among them, and nobody really has a clear answer about how to proceed. It's the sort of inquiry that is itself perhaps a…

>>> Questions of religion vs science plague proper scientists too, Einstein among them

This is something you are making up, because in his own words Einstein clealry states opposite of your claim:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

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

#166

Post by mensetmanusman »

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

At some point it’s not a gap but an empty set.

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

#167

Post by mensetmanusman »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #129
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…

> cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. How do you know?

How do you open excel without a computer?

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

#168

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Osiris wrote: post #154

The biggest problem with using the English word "God" is it is loaded with assumptions, beliefs, and huge variability from one person to another. Just uttering the word "God" to someone will create an entirely different mental image for that person than for you (despite similarities or differences of life experience and belief). Thus, any discussion about God starts from the beginning with a huge gulf between the par…

And yet it was the only way to speak about these topics in the 17th century when Spinoza was writing.

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

#169

Post by simondotau »

bytelines wrote: post #148
anthk wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am 110% in support of those community principles when it comes to criticism of people. We must always assume mutual respect, practice kindness and argue in good faith. It's never not the right thing to do, whether you're motivated by persuasion or simple humanity.

But can we at least recognise that there's an enormous distinction between criticism of people and criticism of ideas? In my estimation, when someone is calling for an idea to be protected from unkindness, or name-calling, or sneering, it's probably deserving of it.

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

#170

Post by HenryKissinger »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #166
satvikpendem wrote: post #133

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

At some point it’s not a gap but an empty set.

The Universe has always existed. It does not have a beginning, and it won't have an end. I'm not talking about the 13.4B old Universe we live in. I'm talking about the Universe that came before it. The Universe is cyclical.
Post reply on HN