it"s pretty much "scared atheist's" apology for a god
Doesn't make sense if there's no punisher
Read my sibling comments.
Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
291–300 of 376 posts
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#292Earlier 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
this is NOT simply a gotg. in fact, simplification of such a brilliant work as the ETHICS is really detrimental to your simple assesment. go read a book, and try thinking. there are limits to knowledge, because its limited. what gap is really there then?
Ethics are a subset of anthropology and thus, Biology.
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#293Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#294Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that is a valid metaphor? > With the first sip of science one becomes an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - some mediocre scientist probably nobody has heard of
Fallace of authority.
It just means it's time to outgrow your reddit atheist phase, no great scientist has adhered to your surface level beliefs on god
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#296Earlier 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…
>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
Russel's teapot.
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#297I'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…
"It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of definition, that would be God." There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing. Either way, reality cannot have been created. Perhaps there was an external cause of the universe as we currently know it, but that would…
> There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing.
Another possibility is that time is a property of our universe, but not a property of the larger reality from which it originated. That reality may have properties utterly unfathomable to human minds, and no amount of speculation will ever move us one iota closer to a hint of what it is. In that case it's neither "always existed" nor "something came from nothing". Such statements don't apply. "Always", "something", "nothing"... these might be just parochial terms that are deep and important here, but have no context in that larger reality.
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: upon reflection, I think maybe you and I are interpreting "The set of natural laws" in the GGP differently. I think maybe maybe you're interpreting this as a statement about how the universe actually works, instead of a statement about the set of laws enumerated by modern science (or any logic-based successor of modern science). The GGP mentioning the axioms of the laws however, makes it clear they're talking a…
I dispute that knowledge obtained through scientific enquiry is rigorously based on mathematics, and therefore I do not believe that results about mathematical provability necessarily imply anything about the limits of scientific knowledge. Gödel's work was concerned with formally defined abstract systems, and his results demonstrate the limits of mathematical proof within such systems. But science never proves anyth…
[deleted]
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
An unfalsifiable one at that. Unless it is possible to perceive a world independent of light?
Close your eyes. Touch the ground. You have now perceived a world independent of light.
Sir, we are experiencing light through our senses when we touch the ground. Are you familiar with how our bodies sample piezoelectrically?
Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
#300Earlier 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
this is NOT simply a gotg. in fact, simplification of such a brilliant work as the ETHICS is really detrimental to your simple assesment. go read a book, and try thinking. there are limits to knowledge, because its limited. what gap is really there then?
[deleted]