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

211–220 of 376 posts

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

#211

Post by Nursie »

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

I do, I see no reason to think such a being exists, absent extraordinary evidence, and inventing one seems absurd to me.

Why must god be the first element? Why must there even be a first element?

People don't try to disprove god by askingwhat created god, they are trying to invalidate a particular argument that is used by those who do believe - that the universe must have been created by some original force because it is so huge/amazing/complex, and we'll call that force god. But there is no reason it must have been, and if we imagine there is such a thing, there is no particular reason to stop there other than that semantically you have decided to call it the first. Because if the universe was created by a huge/amazing/complex god, then by the rules of your own argument we ought to look for a deeper cause.

So yeah ... it's not a 'disproof' of god, so much as pointing out that that specific argument relies on some dodgy assumptions and is not any sort of proof of god, nor justifies belief in one in any way.

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

#212

Post by robbiep »

seigando wrote: post #141
anthk wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What examples of nature are you talking about then? The time a dog was nice to you? Nature is literally indifferent to our existence

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

#213

Post by omegalulw »

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…

> 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.

Bad example. What's the first real number after zero?

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

#214

Post by JetAlone »

bytelines wrote: post #204
simondotau wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ideas shouldn't be beyond criticism, sure. But if you can't criticize an idea without being unkind, resorting to name calling, and misrepresenting someones view -- at best you aren't haven't a dialog, at worst you don't have any valid criticism to contribute.

This user has not indicated themselves to be interested in dialogue for its own sake in this thread. They have used the words "argue" and "criticize".

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

#215

Post by achillesheels »

Retric wrote: post #151
figassis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t see how you can think this without applying some properties to that first mover. Even when talking bout this you say “is God” or even gravity you’re assuming that it’s still around and wasn’t say destroyed in the process of creating the universe. Which is kind of my point. Even just the word “is” is quite a large assumption that is easy to overlook. I think it’s an outgrowth of saying some thing created exist…

What presupposes the question is if there is a reason for the creation? As Aristotle mentions in his physics a beginning presupposes an end. In that, there is a principled order towards attaining an end. What principles things? Minds do. So a blind cosmic event does not due the the creation of the cosmos justice. In that, it was a marvelous idea.

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

#216

Post by seigando »

robbiep wrote: post #212
seigando wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What examples of nature are you talking about then? The time a dog was nice to you? Nature is literally indifferent to our existence

Maybe that dog wasn't indifferent to yours.

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

#217

Post by achillesheels »

tomrod wrote: post #173
HenryKissinger wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

An unfalsifiable one at that. Unless it is possible to perceive a world independent of light?

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

#218

Post by anomosmarxist »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #117

Please read Spinoza Ethics. There seems to be much misunderstanding of Spinoza Philosophy going on in here. Which isn't unlike how he was misunderstood during his time.

Ya, wtf. clearly this is a reply chain of intelligent people (?) but not a single post about the actual text. like tldr for spinoza, his writing is far beyond these grasping confusions which could be avoided if anyone cared to have an actual philosophical discussion

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

#219

Post by desmond373 »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #91
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, people have intimate relations with dolls, 3d waifus, and goddamn robot dogs. Its extremely closed minded to think intimate relations are limited to human -> human interactions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate Nothing in the definition requires two humans

And rocks I'm sure

Yes. People have great fascination with many inanimate objects, usually with exceptional features or stories based around them. They seek to protect and understand these objects at great depth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone

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

#220

Post by f6v »

torstenvl wrote: post #186
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

I don't think this is GotG. GotG arguments rely on gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence of the existence of the numinous. This argument isn't about gaps in scientific knowledge. It's about gaps in scientific knowability. The argument is Godelian in nature. The set of natural laws is a logical axiomatic system. It cannot be both consistent and complete. Therefore, either the scientific method is fundamentally unre…

> The set of natural laws is a logical axiomatic system. It cannot be both consistent and complete.

Can you explain why?

Post reply on HN