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

171–180 of 376 posts

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

#171

Post by glial »

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

No. He's reclaiming the term 'god'. Spinoza equated god with being or reality - all off it - not just gaps. He did not believe in a personal or interventionist god.

"God, that is, Nature..."

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

#172

Post by glial »

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 is perhaps more similar to Spinoza's conception of god than you suspect.

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

#173

Post by tomrod »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #170
mensetmanusman wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A poetic, yet unproven, conjecture

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

#174

Post by doliveira »

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 the most arrogant thing one can say is that he can somehow find out the Truth about the Universe just by lying down in his couch.

One can easily conceive mathematical solutions for all of those. People also thought that something had to keep the planets moving until Newton, that something had to keep them from collapsing due to perturbation until Lagrange (I think), most philosophers wouldn't even consider time travel until Einstein came about...

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

#175

Post by Nursie »

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…

To my reading you throw in intelligence and consciousness where such things are neither needed nor implied.

Also as pointed out elsewhere, this assumes that there was a 'first' in any comprehensible way and that that first itself had no prior origin or cause.

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

#176

Post by nassimsoftware »

In math there is the concept of having a first element of a series and no one questions what was the element before the first element because if you can find an element before the first element then by definition that element you thought was first is not the first.

In light of this when people try to disprove God by saying then who created God. God is the first element so if you find out that who you think your God is is created then by definition he fails to fulfill the conditions required to be God. You have to look elsewhere.

Ok in english the term God is not precise enough, I'll turn to arabic to try to explain my point because this is what I'm the most familiar with.

Ilah is the arabic word for divinity. Wahid means 1. Ahad means the only one. Allah means The God (The only God).

I don't find it absurd to think that there is The God (Allah):

- A being who transcends time because he created time.

- A being who transcends logic because he created it and all its rules.

- A being who transcends the physical world because he created it.

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

#177

Post by giveexamples »

nassimsoftware wrote: post #176

In math there is the concept of having a first element of a series and no one questions what was the element before the first element because if you can find an element before the first element then by definition that element you thought was first is not the first. In light of this when people try to disprove God by saying then who created God. God is the first element so if you find out that who you think your God i…

I agree that there might be a god, but why would such a god that can transcends time and logic.. care about humans? Humans are just a type of animal, an advanced organism, in biological terms we are not too different from bacteria, trees and sheep.

That there is a first element seems natural, however why should this first element to care about the 100010847238384392938474934th element?

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

#178

Post by ThalesX »

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.

You can also check out Aristotle's primum movens (prime mover)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

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

#179

Post by dQw4w9WgXcQ »

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

Then again, it's really not insane to make the inference leap that given every single created thing on Earth has a human creator, the Earth (and universe itself) might also have one. Such a leap doesn't really affect the doing of science whatsoever, and might even in fact drive the enjoyment of discovering the work of said Creator.

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

#180

Post by [deleted] »

jagrsw wrote: post #48
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Eg. by the power of the Boltzmann Brain argument. In short, if Universe will exist forever (no matter its heat death, the Boltzmann Brain also works under those conditions), then all configurations of matter (locally) will appear over its "lifetime" infinitely many times. Consequently, you with your subjective experience and memories could have been created a picosecond ago by "random" motions of matter, without the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN