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

371–376 of 376 posts

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

#371

Post by badinfo »

simondotau wrote: post #337
badinfo wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just take one quote out of context and use it to paint Einstein as altogether disinterested in religion -- he wasn't. To him, there was a difference between believing in Your Own Personal Jesus™, or some variation of Abraham's fickle, meddling god (as in Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam), vs contemplating religion as a social/moral force and a line of philosophical inquiry about the origins of stru…

You wrote a lot of words to argue an unrelated point. Whether someone is interested in religion is not the same as whether they find truth in religion.

> Whether someone is interested in religion is not the same as whether they find truth in religion.

OK, I agree with that assessment. But I wasn't arguing that Einstein was deeply theistic. I was saying he and other scientists were deeply interested in religion -- not to the degree of a theologian, obviously, but interested nonetheless. I believe that to still be true.

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

#372

Post by GreenWatermelon »

mpfundstein wrote: post #277
GreenWatermelon wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loneliness isn't something that can be attributed to God. Loneliness stems from the lack and desire for contact with others, but God is complete. He doesn't lack and doesn't need. God isn't constrained by space nor time because he created both. As for your first two questions, I can't comprehend them enough to think about them.

you realize that your first to sentences sound like stuff some weird sect leader would preach, right? it doesnt make any sense. also, why does god have a gender? why do you assume they are male?

Because I'm used to referring to God with male pronouns. Someone could refer to him with female pronouns, doesn't matter as the human gender construct doesn't apply to God.

I would like to hear your opinion about just why you think that first doesn't make any sense. To me, it's logical you wouldn't ascribe hunger, thirst, lust loneliness, etc... To God.

Also, that second part of your comment makes ot sound like you aren't arguing in good faith.

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

#373

Post by GreenWatermelon »

kmmlng wrote: post #255
GreenWatermelon wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is truly no physical evidence pointing to the existence of God, otherwise it won't be a matter of belief. I also don't see any evidence that contradicts the existence of God. For me, the existence of God makes more sense in my philosophical model than his non-existance.

It seems like a statement like this cannot be made without first giving a definition of God. Clearly, people have different ideas of what God is. So either you are saying there is no evidence for one particular definition of God, but you are not giving us the definition or you are saying there is no evidence for any of the different definitions of God that might exist. The latter is a difficult argument to make in my…

I'll try to explain my idea of God.

He isn't bound by space or time, ah he created them. Following that, he has no material form otherwise he would be bound by space.

He created us humans for the sole purpose of worshipping him. He is complete, in the sense he lacks nothing. All human feelings that stem from lack don't apply to him (hunger, loneliness, jealousy, etc...)

It's impossible to prove such a supreme being exists. However, I elected trust the words of people who claimed to be his prophets, as I have found no logical contradiction that proves God can't exist.

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

#374

Post by bytelines »

simondotau wrote: post #352
bytelines wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is ill conceived, pedantic, and seeks desperately to justify previous positions. But you are not someone who makes ill conceived, pedantic, or desperate arguments to save face. That would be nonsense. It does not follow. Don't be so quick to tie your identity to the pedantic arguments you've made.

* 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

Glad to see you concede the point.

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

#375

Post by darkerside »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #368
darkerside wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a tiny part of your brain called the Ego that thinks it is human and special. The rest of your brain knows you are just part of the universe. Inextricably so, from before birth to after death. One and the same, like a drop of water returning to the ocean. What could be more intimate than that?

Have you seen midnight mass? The protaganist from that movie in the final scene, says something along those lines... as she herself is dying. She was asked earlier in the movie: "What happens when we die"... and iirc she gave a more christian-themed notion as she herself was very religious, but you can see her shift from the dogma of catholicism to one more pantheistic. When the memory of Riley asks her what happens…

Thanks for sharing

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

#376

Post by mbrodersen »

libertine wrote: post #364
mbrodersen wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main idea is to pass down moral values. I am not sure that is true. You can absolutely pass down moral values without involving a God. That is what happened to me. It seems to me that the goal of a lot of religious teaching is to use a bogeyman (God) to scare little children into doing what you want instead of teaching the children why it makes sense to do the right thing.

I'd agree with you if somewhere down the line the, let's call it, character of Jesus was introduced as the personification of God's ideals in a human being. Suddenly we could move away from the "fear based framework" to the "strive to be closer to the idea of God" framework since we had someone to emulate. In fact we can arguably say that God gave us complete freedom, and full responsibility since he died on a cross…

> Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't make any sense at all.

I am struggling to find examples where that might be true. Can you give an example?

Post reply on HN