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

221–230 of 376 posts

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

#221

Post by bserge »

anders_p wrote: post #208
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.

Its a nice idea. There'd be no ending or beginning to worry about. Everything would be self-contained. But I don't believe that our universe is neither unique, neverending, or cyclical. I believe that our universe is just one of many, that exists on a super-dimensional plane (or substrate - not sure what word to use), where 'universes' continously appear and disappear, like bubbles in boiling water. Every one of thes…

OK, now where did this superdimensional plane come from, how was it formed? Or was it always there and always will be? That's what OP was saying I believe.

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

#223

Post by anomosmarxist »

so even this decent article is just a surface overview of a brilliant thinker and this reply chain continues such lack of attention towards careful reading and discussion of his text. instead we have everyone sounding off on their own conclusions about god, reality and religion. yet most of these comments are lacking. what exactly? they are lacking thorough, exacting, and critical thinking. sure, healthy opinions are couched in smart minds, but go a step further and read a book, then you can catch up beyond your clumsy, simple, internet level brains.

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

#224

Post by bserge »

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.

Hell, a hundred people walking by a homeless guy don't give a fuck if he lives or dies.

Humans are on the same level as any other bunch of atoms to nature.

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

#226

Post by bserge »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #71
badinfo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the philosophical difference between your subjective experience of existence and a 90s-style power-on-self-test? "I am on. I can tell that I am on. I dunno what I think once I am off." Same could be said of man, machine, consciousness, whatever. What's incomprehensible is the baseless belief that consciousness is some special state of existence unique to balding, violent apes floating around a wet rock, anthro…

Huh? Subjective experience is about whether the machine experiences the power-on-self-test, not about what it emits externally. Animals, machines or even rocks might all be conscious, but we simply don't know because it's impossible to ascertain through external means. >What's incomprehensible is the baseless belief that consciousness is some special state of existence unique to balding, violent apes floating around…

A machine does "experience" it, even if through a very limited number of sensors and logic.

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

#227

Post by KMag »

f6v wrote: post #220
torstenvl wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Godel's incompleteness theorem

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

#228

Post by mpfundstein »

giveexamples wrote: post #193
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood this argument. What else would god “care” about, if not the only truly sentient creature that we know of? Trillions of light years of pointless rock with a few Apes in the middle who can contemplate God. Seems pretty damn special fo me.

Look at your kitchen sink. On that metal lives a billion bacteria cells. Maybe some of them are even sentient. Do you even care to find out? Not really - its far beneath you. Humans are infinitely inferior to a god. We are no different to a moving rock.

a sentient bacteria? How would that work? Does the bacteria have a huge brain so that sentience can emerge from it?

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

#229

Post by mpfundstein »

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…

where is time created IN? and where is logic created IN? and how can logic even be created? Is the pysical world that Allay somehow transencds contained in something or not? If not, where can Allah transcend to?

Is your Allah living completely alone in eternal loneliness or are there other beings that they can converse with?

I don't know. Just because you do some word trickery and somehow relate it to maths, the essential questions are still not being answered at all...

thus, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favour of no Allah, no god, no jehova, etc

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

#230

Post by xorfish »

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…

But God isn't a necessary assumption for the universe to exist.
Post reply on HN