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

251–260 of 376 posts

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

#251

Post by kmmlng »

omarfarooq wrote: post #195
giveexamples wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In terms of the Islamic tradition, Allah [lit. The God] is both transcendent and immanent. Quran 50:16 states that Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein and Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Now to answer why He cares, the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him. And indeed, the recurring injunction in the Quran is to remember Allah, because you alread…

Interestingly this sounds like the new agey saying "We are the universe experiencing itself".

> Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah.

So Allah is everything or at least he is IN everything. The universe is everything.

> the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him.

Mankind experiences Allah, the universe.

Would you agree with this kind of mapping or am I making any unjustified leaps here?

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

#252

Post by amai »

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Carl Sagan

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

#254

Post by akomtu »

kmmlng wrote: post #243
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…

Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…

Father, Mother and Son are occult terms with standard meaning: father means spirit, the immutable and unreal principle behind reality; mother means undifferentiated matter in its most prototypical form; son is the mix of the two, i.e. the spirit causes that proto-matter to assume meaningful forms, all those atoms, etc. Also, the "Word" is a particular way that process is initiated. The bible has lots of mysterious gems that are difficult to decipher even if you know the terminology, but that's certainly not one of those.

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

#255

Post by kmmlng »

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #236
beebmam wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there isn't? Isn't just the belief in a God going to affect the way you think and act? We know for a fact that particles can come into existence spontaneously from a vacuum; it is happening literally all the time.

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 estimation, because any one person is probably ignorant about a sizeable portion of definitions.

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

#256

Post by Kbelicius »

bobthechef wrote: post #94
Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

> 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…

> 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 may say that God is the Ipsum Esse Subsistens but if you then say that Ipsum Esse Subsistens is jealous, merciful, leader of heavenly armies... which is the traditional conception of God in the Catholic view then we most certainly are talking about an anthropomorphic conception of God.

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

#257

Post by andybak »

Bobylonian wrote: post #116
andybak wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you feel that way about an article on metaphysics or any other branch of philosophy outside of mathematical logic? How about ethics, anthropology or another branch of the humanities that isn't amenable to the scientific method? I suppose I'm asking where you draw the line between "distinct from the sciences" and "anti-scientific"?

So, your argument is that methaphysics is based on belief and no logic? :) TBF, all of those can be expressed into binary code and mathematical formulas and mathematical logic, however there does not exist proof that there exist God. Science requires proving that something exist - not disproving that something that is made up centuries ago does not exist!

> So, your argument is that methaphysics is based on belief and no logic?

I'm really not sure where you think I said that. And I think it's a false dichotomy in any case. Logical argument has a place in metaphysics but logic requires agreed axioms and those axioms are by definition not amenable to logic.

In general you seem a little bit unclear about the difference between induction and deduction. I'm always a little uncomfortable when people repeatedly use the word "proof" around when defending or defining science. Science doesn't really "prove" anything except in the most causual and colloquial use of the word. Science is always provisional. Proof belongs in mathematics not empirical science.

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

#258

Post by omarfarooq »

kmmlng wrote: post #251
omarfarooq wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of the Islamic tradition, Allah [lit. The God] is both transcendent and immanent. Quran 50:16 states that Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein and Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Now to answer why He cares, the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him. And indeed, the recurring injunction in the Quran is to remember Allah, because you alread…

Interestingly this sounds like the new agey saying "We are the universe experiencing itself". > Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. So Allah is everything or at least he is IN everything. The universe is everything. > the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him. Mankind experiences Allah, the universe. Would you agree with this kind of mapping or am I making an…

I would not agree with that because it's pantheism.

One meaning for His Face being everywhere is that everything is turned towards Him whether they know it or not, since He is the giver of being. It does not mean a literal encapsulation or identification of the Infinite with the finite.

Rather, closer to your sentiment from an Islamic theological perspective is to say that what we experience in the universe is an interplay of His attributes since He is the causer.

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

#259

Post by telmo »

satvikpendem wrote: post #244
telmo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were out of oranges. Then Mary left an orange in the kitchen. Then Bob left an orange in the kitchen. Q: How many oranges are there in the kitchen? A: 2. Not so fast. Addition is a mathematical model and doesn't necessarily reflect the physical universe.

You're not actually refuting the main point based on this story. Yes, mathematics is not necessarily a reflection of the physical universe. It can be, in cases like addition, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. Which was the parent's point.

> mathematics is not necessarily a reflection of the physical universe

Nobody knows if it is or not. It could also be that the physical universe is a reflection of mathematical truth.

> It can be, in cases like addition, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. Which was the parent's point.

Again, nobody knows if it what you claim is true or not. What we do know is that all scientific models are based on math, and if there is something wrong at the foundations of math, then all science is pseudoscience. Gödel's theorems are at the foundations of math. You can't just decide that you are skeptical about that part of math being applicable to physical models but addition is fine.

The real problem with Gödel is that it says something that a lot of people don't like to be true.

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

#260

Post by mjburgess »

jonnybgood wrote: post #39
Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

> To me pantheism just seems like a misapplied psychological need. People have a (understandable) revulsion against seeing the universe as mechanic, or random, or 'cold' or what have you, and pantheism not unlike Gaia type theories are comforting. Pantheism is nothing more than seeing the universe, or nature, as god. What you’re reading is one particular flavor of pantheism. A pantheist can also view god, or universe…

"Nature" in this sense, does not exist.

Neither does "The Nation", "Society", "The Universe", and other such pseudo-agencies which people use to guarantee meaning in their lives.

Post reply on HN