▲ 186 points
back
355 comments
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 be.
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. What's so fascinating is where this thought exercise may lead. We are talking about everything, acting by law unknown, generating an impossible, unexplainable result. What then don't we know of everything and what possibilities does that raise, relative to its consciousness and intelligence on unimaginable scales of time and of space. I mean, are we gnats on God's ... I'd say eyeball but everything clearly is not human so ... presence?
I'm not sure how a serious person who considered the question openly could avoid these conclusions.
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 causality chain that leads to new life?
Sometimes I really wonder if our current understanding of Christianity is just completely different from what it meant originally.
It’s really interesting how many assumptions get baked into beliefs like this. Existence had a beginning, it was formed by something, that thing didn’t need to be formed by anything, it’s existence doesn’t count as having existed before existence, that thing had the capacity to act, that things actions resulted in the reality we see today etc.
Having convinced yourself of all of these things it then feels natural to think of that first mover as somehow complex for creating the universe rather than some infinitesimal speck that started a cascade. To then think in terms of mystical power rather than say energy. It doesn’t feel like you’re less likely to be correct with every assumption which is kind of silly in one way but also seductive.
Reminds me: For a while now, I've been thinking about apophatic theology, also known as negative theology[1]. Particularly in the sermons by Meister Eckhart, the German theologian and Christian neoplatonist[2].
I wonder about the connection of apophaticism, found in Christian neoplatonism, and nondualism, found in Advaita Vedanta.
"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 have to be shown, not just asserted. While that would be useful to know, it would not solve the problem of first cause, but simply push it back one level. Further, calling this unestablished cause a "creator" and/or a "God" is smuggling in a lot of baggage about intentionality that dovetails into all kinds of other religious beliefs. This is confounding at best, and disingenuous at worst.
> "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation.
This is the essence of much of Hinduism, particularly monist sects like Saiva Siddhanta
To my reading you throw in intelligence and consciousness where such things are neither needed nor implied.
Also as pointed out elsewhere, this assumes that there was a 'first' in any comprehensible way and that that first itself had no prior origin or cause.
I don't think not having a complete understanding how something (the universe) works is a good reason to attribute it to God.
I think, that English language has a linguistical problem with name of "God", as it has no etymological understanding what is it behind this word and the only meaning to it is coming now only from Christianity. Other languages have different meaning for word God and even etymological meaning behind it.
If you translate Greek ancient pantheon... well, Big Bang would fit in it, just like all the gods, that described nature and things that were ruling over people, along with other gods that were describing human behavior.
Quite many of etymological meanings to most of names in other languages for God is Giver. It is not much different from Luck - the main difference between those are only in gender, but not in function. So, if someone thinks, that Gods function was to be responsible for Big Bang, they should be very disappointed or very disillusional, as the only function for God for any society was to bring prosperity to the believers(and wrath to enemies).
There are many different beliefs what is God, what is soul and so on. There are belieffs, that animals were gods - even today there is a belief in Tibet, that gods incarnate in people - young girls. Gnostics even believed, that humans are Gods and that was a big issue with Christianity...
As for something that there was something before - that is Christian construct for most of Europe. Ancient Greeks knew, that first there was a Chaos(a gods name)... for many others there was only a sea from which God emerged as a bird. So, there is not uniform belief, that there was something before, or that gofds themselves appeared into this world before creation of this world - sometimes Gods appeared even much later than Christianity is depicting them and for some American natives Gods appeared only as animals, who created humans.
If the discussion is about still unexplainable mechanisms on how this world works, especially about RND and calling it a God... well, there is a problem with English word of God, because it does not have that meaning in etymology and claiming that it is something that we can assing is not really working. Also, none of other God names means any of those things, so it would be better to establish new term for these mechanisms, how the Universe works, as God has nothing to do with that - not to mention, that extension of Christian God is not possible because of clash of meanings.
>>>I mean, are we gnats on God's
There is always possibility to accept that there is no God(who has eyes? - what about God for worms or trees without eyes, like it is for most of Life?). Rivers run without God, Wind blows without God. Life exists without God and need for it. Humans and not God are responsible for attrocities they are doing for each other and other beings.
Is there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.
> cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe.
How do you know?
I think the most arrogant thing one can say is that he can somehow find out the Truth about the Universe just by lying down in his couch.
One can easily conceive mathematical solutions for all of those. People also thought that something had to keep the planets moving until Newton, that something had to keep them from collapsing due to perturbation until Lagrange (I think), most philosophers wouldn't even consider time travel until Einstein came about...
What if the total energy of the whole universe amounts to zero? If - what we call „everything“ - and that what we call „nothing“ is essentially the same? Structurally they clearly are: Both are „unbounded“ - „borderless“. What if a „void“ isn’t the only form „nothing“ is allowed to take?
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.
here is a quote: "from the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways-that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect"
>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 don't think the arguments for that are great either, but to jump from this to thinking one can experience 'intimacy' with it (and explicitly not "him") is I think already making mistakes. One can experience intimacy while being in nature but not 'with nature', Intimacy is a human emotion, 'nature' does not empathize back.
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.
> 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, or nature, as cold and mechanical as well.
I don't think "comforting" is an apt description of pantheism; in fact, it postulating a cold mechanical universe (as opposed to the idea that a God must necessarily be omnibenevolent) is often cited as a criticism of pantheist frameworks.
I find that panentheist flavors tend to dabble more with metaphysical supernatural stuff, but that pantheism is characterized by its rejection of blind belief. Talks about intimacy and experience feel strongly panentheistic to me, whereas a pantheist might instead summarize their position with something along the lines of "the laws of physics are omnipresent and omnipotent, and that's the hard scientific evidence of the conceptual thing you call God"
I agree that "I believe X because it makes me feel Y" isn't a good argument. But it's also not a good argument to say "you believe X because it makes you feel Y." We could apply that, fallaciously, in any direction.
For example, I could say "you believe in pantheism because you find it comforting," or "you believe in materialism because it makes you feel like a strong, tough-minded person who does need that fuzzy comforting stuff."
Pantheism is a compromise between the existence of an Abrahamic monotheistic god and lack thereof. It's a belief system without submission nor worship which are the cornerstones of judeo-christian religions including islam by extension. You might argue that the psychological need for a superhuman all-powerful deity is in our genes and it may well be the case, but canalizing the need it onto nature/universe while cutting down submission sometimes is not enough because submission (intimacy, feeling vulnerable in the company of a powerful being) is as much a powerful need as believing in something.
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 is is created then by definition he fails to fulfill the conditions required to be God. You have to look elsewhere.
Ok in english the term God is not precise enough, I'll turn to arabic to try to explain my point because this is what I'm the most familiar with.
Ilah is the arabic word for divinity. Wahid means 1. Ahad means the only one. Allah means The God (The only God).
I don't find it absurd to think that there is The God (Allah):
- A being who transcends time because he created time.
- A being who transcends logic because he created it and all its rules.
- A being who transcends the physical world because he created it.
"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
I am extremely scientific and I believe in god. Not quite Spinoza's, more of a pantheistic view.
If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.
My pet theory in high school was that Spinoza lived in a time when being an atheist could get you arrested and killed, so he came up with this Deus sive natura thing, which is a good cover and in practice is not too far from atheism.
It seems like the main purpose of Spinoza's God is to have an unfalsifiable God.
The problem with other Gods like the Christian God is that they tend to come with requirements about the world that are easy to disprove. For example, the Christian God is not very compatible with the existence of natural evil. By removing all of those implications and other attributes, you arrive a Spinoza's God, a God so vague / powerless that it cannot be argued against.
Every moment of our existence brings about a certain amount of suffering, and a certain amount of joy.
Depending on our choices and intentions, the amounts of joy and suffering for both us and other viewpoints varies.
I believe that Universe is continuously solving for the maximum sum amount of joy from all the viewpoints combined.
Of course, a certain amount of suffering is required to bring about the joy, whether by providing a comparison, or by carving our abilities and motivations.
When I set my intentions for maximum joy and follow through on them, the Universe "likes" and "assists" this in amazing and miraculous ways, which bring about even more joy, and so on.
We are truly fortunate to exist in a Universe which is set up this way.
Personally, I hold the panentheistic ("all in God") view. It's very similar to pantheism; the distinction is that pantheism would say Universe=God, and panentheism would say Universe⊂God.
Things have come full circle. "Science" is the new Religion.
A preacher was court ordered to preach science in Canada, just yesterday.
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/an-anti-mask-pastor-has...
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.
I've been thinking a lot of god and have come up with the following, please be kind:
---
The Right Way, The Trivium, The Path Towards Illumination.
TRUTH - The all knowing all seeing omnipotent natural universe which we have a special connection and natural understanding of. Nature. God. The Universe. In binary this would be 1. The Unified Field. Father.
FREEDOM - Sun. The Child Spirit To Play and Create. Son.
LOVE - Voluntary Passion, Drive, Motivation, Law of Attraction. Cooperation. Amplifier. Replicator. Wu Wei. Waters. Godly Bodily Fluids of Head and Genitals. Blood. Holy Spirit.
The only time Fear is more powerful than Love is when the Truth is hidden and individual Freedoms & essential Property including Body are subject to tyranny.
Therefore to stop tyranny in all forms we must live our lives according to natural law and the 3 pillars outlined above.
When we do this, together we live our best lives and create the best works of art and science and support each other to great heights.
---
This article only focuses on Truth God or Universal god.
I have a problem with this article because of the sentence, "He loathed groupthink and thought most organised religion, not least of the Judeo-Christian kind, fuelled delusion and sectarianism".
I don't have the words to unpack the problems with the term "Judeo-Christian" myself, so I'll leave it to Emily Burack at Alma: https://www.heyalma.com/the-myth-of-judeo-christianity-expla...
The biggest problem with using the English word "God" is it is loaded with assumptions, beliefs, and huge variability from one person to another.
Just uttering the word "God" to someone will create an entirely different mental image for that person than for you (despite similarities or differences of life experience and belief).
Thus, any discussion about God starts from the beginning with a huge gulf between the parties involved.
You can see it right here in this thread and the way people are responding to the use of the word God.
See Bostrom's 2003 paper, "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?": https://fermatslibrary.com/s/are-you-living-in-a-computer-si...
A meta question, what is it called when humans get to mould the supreme deity that suits them best?
The article first tells us what Spinoza thought and said and the last paragraph is the personal interpretation of the author but one that tries to show that was wht Spinoza thought.
The military-industrial-consumer complex was created by the universe for the sole purpose of supporting the tiny contingent of otherwise non-productive consciousnesses (physicist) who are in a race to document the system in high fidelity before the edifice crumbles - the "system" being the one set of physical constants, out of the infinite number of permutations that didn't make the cut, that resulted in a semi-stable universe.
IMO man can never truly, truly deal with his freedom that is why the search for a God persists.
The universe became conscious in the form of Spinoza and said ‘who made this?!’
I feel that there is an often unasked question when it comes to discussions about the existence of god. So what? What if he does exist? Why does it automatically follow that we should worship him, pray to him, live our lives for him, etc? Why immediately assume he's good?
What if ants in an ant hill see the relatively god-like figure of a 6 year old come and stand over their hill? It's probably 50/50 that he's there to dump water on the hill and destroy it or he is there to simply observe, let alone give them eternal life.
I've yet to see a convincing explanation for the existence of suffering. Mostly a lot of handwaving about "mysterious ways" and "plans". We fail to hold god to the same standard we'd hold ourselves to if we could prevent childhood cancer or genocide with the snap of our fingers. You'd be a monster to withhold that power if you were a human being, but somehow god does it out of "love".
it"s pretty much "scared atheist's" apology for a god
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.
here is a quote:
"from the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways-that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect"