Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Einstein try to destroy science?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 83 (382208)
02-03-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
02-03-2007 10:13 AM


God = Divine Being
Percy, the definition of God or a god is a "divine being" so of course Spinoza believes in a Divine Being.
Are you denying that Spinoza believes there is a God or that this God is a Being?
The phrase "Divine being" does not appear in the article.
That's because the phrase "Diving Being" doesn't have to since the word "God" means exactly the same thing. Geesh.
Let's look at what the article attributes to this God, aka as divine being.
Spinoza's God is perfect, which means everything is as it must be and cannot be otherwise. God's eternal nature necessitates the things that happen, which happen just as they must and cannot happen otherwise. This all follows from the premise of God's perfection. It is deterministic. Chance or randomness would be an imperfection.
http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
So Spinoza says this God is "perfect" possessing an "eternal nature".....hmmmmm....sounds a lot like a Diving Being to me.
Let's look further.
This gives us a contrast between what is creating and what is created. What is creating is the eternal existance and nature of God. What is created are the modifications that we see around us as transient things.
So we see this thing called "God" (aka known as a divine being) not only has an eternal nature and is perfect, but also creates out of this eternal nature the transient things we see in the world. Sounds a lot of like a description of a Diving Being to me. You know any non-divine beings that are perfect with an eternal nature and that create everything there is? If so, please point them out.
Let's look further. Maybe you are saying this is all just a description of energy and matter and that there is no actual Being present. Of course, that's not what was said, but let's look and see what other attributes Spinoza believes God has.
Spinoza's God thinks, and also is or does many other things that are beyond our reckoning and comprehension.
So we see Spinoza's God thinks....hmmmm....so this God is perfect, has an eternal nature, thinks, possesses intelligence and creates all things that exist period, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of ignoring the truth here!
You write:
but that article never in any way attempts to demonstrate that the God of Spinoza was a divine being.
God was not a divine being for either Spinoza or Einstein.
Uh huh,...so when the article makes it a point to describe Spinoza's God as perfect, possessing an eternal nature, creating everything, having Intelligence and thinks on a level way beyond our ability to comprehend, those are not attributes that describe divinity. I guess you know some beings that think, possess an eternal nature, creating everything there is and that is perfect to boot that are not divine beings?
LOL
Moreover, you fail to recognize the claim that God is a Necessary Being is congruent not with evo thinking but ID thinking is presupposing that the design of the universe mandates that God must exist.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 10:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 7:48 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 83 (382211)
02-03-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object
02-03-2007 3:55 PM


Re: incredible
With all due respect, you are erring here. First, just because one rejects the personal God of the Bible does not mean one rejects belief in God. The term God means Divine Being, btw.
Spinoza's beliefs actually are more aligned with IDers than evos. He believed God was perfect, had an eternal nature, creates everything, and possessed Intelligence and a mind, and creates out of this eternal nature. Both Einstein and Spinoza argue that one can tell what God is like and what God is to a degree via looking at God's design. Both accept that the universe itself is evidence of God.
Those that just try to say they are deifying the universe need to understand they are also adding something the Nature and the Universe that modern science claims to be unobserved, and that is that the Universe itself has a conscious, thinking Mind and Being. While I agree that this sort of thinking of deifying Nature does seem to underly evolutionist thinking, I am not so sure they are aware of it all the time.
Basically, one would have to classify Spinoza and Einstein more as New Age Iders than in the camp of modern evos when it comes to their perspective on science and the universe.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-03-2007 3:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2007 7:19 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 83 (382281)
02-04-2007 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
02-03-2007 7:48 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
Divine first and foremost is a reference to God, gods, and godlike qualities. There is no reason for you to be confused.
You suggested, by the way, that Einstein did not accept that there was an actual being that was God.
Einstein thought of the divine as a state of reverence and not as an actual being.
But at the same time you admit that Einstein believed in a Spinozan version of God, and Spinoza's idea of God is a Being that is perfect, creates all of reality, thinks, has an eternal nature, is self-existing, etc,.....Clearly Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a real God that was a real Being, and was not simply metaphorically referring to an inanimate universe as God, but believed there was more to the universe/nature. In other words, their idea of God was a perfect Being that thinks, has an eternal nature, and creates the universe as an extension of itself, right?
So are you ready to finally admit you are wrong here and that Spinoza and Einstein did believe in an actual Being they called God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 02-03-2007 7:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 10:55 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 83 (382396)
02-04-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
02-04-2007 10:55 AM


Re: God = Divine Being
Spinoza's God thinks. It is true that Spinozan theology sees God as perfect and believes that means he is restricted by that perfection so that He or It has no free will, but at the same time, it is undeniable that Spinoza and Einstein believe this God is a real Being, and they are not simply metaphorically speaking of an inanimate Universe or Nature. Keep in mind when you try to say that Spinoza's God doesn't really think because you say He makes no choices, that Spinoza says we also have no free will and all of our thoughts are determined.
But does that mean we do not think, do not exist as beings, and don't make choices?
No. Obviously, we do make choices, but those choices according to Spinoza are predetermined, and so he believes is the case with God, except that God determines by His perfection everything else, including our choices. But either way, Spinoza's God thinks and is a real Being.
Do you still not accept that they are talking about a real Being?
No dodging please, or coming up with some crap on how this God differs. We've heard that, and no one is trying to say that their view of God is the same as traditional Judaism or Christianity, although notably the author does compare their idea of God with Islamic mysticism.
But all that is stuff not germane to this thread topic. It doesn't matter if you believe in a Pantheistic God or the God of John Calvin or Maimonedes. It doesn't matter if the God is Hindu or Muslim either, for this discussion.
This discussion is about interjecting one's faith and theology into a scientific discussion. Einstein clearly did this. He referred to "God" and we know elsewhere he said this God was the same idea as Spinoza. Spinoza's God is a real Being, that thinks, is perfect, is alive, has an eternal nature, is self-existing, and creates everything there is from Himself. These are all undeniable facts.
Yet you still seem to want to claim there is no Being called God in Einstein's and Spinoza's thought. Why is that?
I hope you are at last prepared to concede that you are wrong and that Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God that was one with the universe.
I have never denied they believed Spinoza's God was one with the universe, but that is not the same as simply being the inanimate universe. Spinoza, for example, says there is an unobserved, uncreated substance which is the root of the transitory things. Einstein sees the design of the world as giving us glimpses of God's eternal nature. These are ideas you have expressed intense and great hostility towards, percy. You have suggested that to claim God's Being and Substance is within the scope of science is a threat to science.
Einstein did not believe it a threat, however, and he stands against the sort of reductionist thinking you advocate in this regard. He, for example, sees Diving Intelligence apart from man in the creation of the universe and it's designs, and so sees studying the universe as a religious as well as scientific act.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 10:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 3:21 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 74 of 83 (382427)
02-04-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
02-04-2007 3:21 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
As I've pointed out already, when Einstein said, "God does not play dice," he was not having a scientific discussion. He was aware that the available scientific evidence supported quantum uncertainty and was only stating his intuition that this was not the nature of the universe. He believed research would eventually support his position.
Then why use the term "God"?
You really think if someone today used the term "God" to argue against a scientific theory, that people like yourself would be OK with it?
LOL
Also, we know Einstein believed in God, not just as a metaphor but as a real being, cast in Spinozan theology. Spinoza and Einstein both believed in determinism, as you put it, intuitively, which is really more of a faith thing than a science one. So Einstein was stating his faith (his intuition) about God led him to reject quantum uncertainty.
How is that not interjecting one's faith into a scientific discussion?
Yes, please, no evasions or coming up with some bull about divine intelligence and God as a being separate from the universe.
On your last comment, you have been shown to be wrong and won't admit it. You are back to misrepresenting my stance in order to cover yourself. First, you admit there is Intelligence within the God of Spinoza, and quite clearly this Intelligence is stated as beyond out comprehension, and so the divine clearly has intelligence within Spinozan theology.
Also, quite clearly, in acknowledging Spinoza's pantheism, I have never claimed his idea of God was of a God seperated from the universe, but what you refuse to admit is that this doesn't mean that God in Spinozan theology does not create the universe and that there is no distinction between the uncreated aspects of God and the transitory things we see.
In fact, as I showed you in the article, Spinoza distinquishes between the 2 things and gives them different titles so that we do indeed see a distinction between the uncreated substance of God, Natura Naturans, and the things created from that, Natura Naturata.
While for Spinoza all is God and all is Nature, the active/passive dualism enables us to restore, if we wish, something more like the traditional terms. Natura Naturans is the most God-like side of God, eternal, unchanging, and invisible, while Natura Naturata is the most Nature-like side of God, transient, changing, and visible.
http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
Spinoza and Einstein thus believed in an invisible God or invisible aspects of God, unobserved, but seen in the things that are observed. You have continually ignored these points, refused to substantiate your claims, and resort instead to misrepresenting my stance and Spinozan theology as well.
Once again, do you or do you not admit that "God" in Spinozan theology refers to an actual Being?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 3:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 7:23 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 83 (382531)
02-05-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
02-04-2007 7:23 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
Percy, anyone reading this thread can see you are dodging the issue. I showed that Spinoza believed and taught that God was a real being, not simply a metaphor. Einstein, according to you, accepted and believed in Spinoza's concept of God, which is a real Being and not a metaphor.
Your claim that Einstein only meant an inanimate universe and rejected belief in an actual God as a Being is therefore wrong. You just don't want to admit it and continue to make up false things about my stance. You bring up side issues like the use of "faith" but clearly I denote Spinozan and Einstein's "faith" and so not Christian or Jewish, as you suggest I am trying to imply. You try to distract by the use of "divine" but it's been clear all along this is just a reference to God.
The bottom line is you are just wrong here to claim Spinoza and Einstein reject God as a real Deity, and they are simply using a metaphor when they talk of God. I showed you where the article you said was accurate describes God as thinking, perfect, possessing an eternal nature and uncreated substance, and creates all things. Your claim God is not conscious or an actual Being in Spinozan theology has been shown to be false since this same God thinks and does things and possesses Intelligence. Consciousness is a prerequisite to thinking and having intelligence.
All of these attributes of God describe an actual, real Being, and not simply a metaphor for an inanimate universe.
I think any objective-minded person can see that you just don't want to admit you were wrong.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 7:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 10:06 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 78 of 83 (382950)
02-06-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-06-2007 10:06 AM


Re: God = Divine Being
I've shown that Spinozan philosophy views God and universe as one, and that God is not a being who exists outside the universe, and especially not as an active player.
Wrong. God is clearly the active player in creating the universe, is a Being, thinks, is perfect, has an eternal nature, etc, etc,......You are confusing Spinoza claiming the universe is formed from God's substance as to claiming no Being called God exists, and that's wrong. The only true statement is the one about God not being outside the universe, but even there, your ideas are wrong because the universe from Spinoza's perspective includes God and God's intelligence, and so when he talks of the universe or nature, he is not referring to the same thing someone like you are talking of, which is the inanimate universe that has no creative Intelligence and Being creating things.
You have been shown to be wrong here. Just admit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 10:06 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 2:34 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 83 (382981)
02-06-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
02-06-2007 1:00 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
note: also to be one with something does not mean there is no distinction between the parts, and this is what you are missing. Spinoza and Einstein see a distinction between the transitory things that show us God's eternal nature, will and intelligence and the things that are created from that. That's why within Spinoza's theology, he refers to these things by different titles as I showed you before.
Some examples for you.....you might say my body is one with me, but that doesn't mean my mind doesn't exist as distinct from my body, or maybe you prefer a physical example? Sunlight is one with the sun, but the sun is bigger than earth's sunlight. Same with UV rays. UV rays are one with sunlight, but nevertheless sunlight is more than just UV rays. You could say the concept of UV rays are distinct from the concept of sunlight despite UV rays not being separate from sunlight.
Within Spinoza's and Einstein's view of God, the universe is part of God, but God is bigger than the observable universe and indeed the invisible side of God, such as his or it's eternal nature and beauty, are seen in their theology in the visible expression of what we can observe and think. We cannot observe directly, for example, God's intelligence, but we can observe it indirectly with what is seen.
So when Einstein says God does not play dice, he is indeed saying "God", an actual Being with a will, does not play dice because He is a perfect Being with a deterministic will, and within that, Einstein does not believe there is room for uncertainty. It's a theological statement, which is evidenced by the fact Einstein uses the word "God", and evidenced by the fact he says he has a Spinozan concept of God, and Spinoza accepted that God has intelligence, will, being, perfection, an eternal nature, and creates everything.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 1:00 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 83 (382986)
02-06-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-06-2007 10:06 AM


for the lurkers: some clarity
that God is not a being who exists outside the universe,
More accurately, the universe is not outside of God's being. God clearly is a Being as he has thought, will, intelligence, an eternal nature, etc,.....
and especially not as an active player.
Wrong. How can God create the transitory things we see, according to Spinoza, if he is not an active player? You are just ignoring the truth, percy. The fact Spinoza believes God's perfection makes his will determinate does not mean God is not the active player. In fact, it means the opposite. Spinoza believes God actively creates everything there is, period, so much so that nothing has free will whatsoever, not even God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 10:06 AM Percy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 82 of 83 (383091)
02-06-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2007 7:19 PM


Re: incredible
Hey got on finally. For awhile I could not log on. There was something about another user using the site from the same email address.
Ray,
I think this can be cleared up quite easily. Einstein goes to great lengths to say he does not accept a PERSONAL GOD. He is very careful to stress he rejects the concept of a PERSONAL GOD that intervenes and judges people morally, etc,....
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
What you seem to miss here is that by doing so he advocates an impersonal God. For example, he states:
His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
Now if Einstein were an atheist, as you seem to believe, he would just say there isn't any God, period. He wouldn't have all this stuff just about rejecting a personal God, and how his version of God does such and such. He'd say there isn't any God at all, period.
Einstein doesn't do this. He reaffirms belief in God and religion, but rejects traditional theology.
Also, whether one believes in the permanence of the human soul is a different issue. There is a whole school of Jewish thought that thinks when you are dead, you are gone, and yet believes very much in God, even a personal God. So that's sort of a red herring, as is the whole issue of a personal God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2007 7:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 83 of 83 (384104)
02-10-2007 2:41 AM


insight into Einstein's mind
One positive from this discussion, imo, is the insight gained into Einstein's insistence on causality and determinism. I had not fully considered and realized this was basically a religious conviction of Einstein's first and foremost, and shaped his science, and not the other way around. Note the following:
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent been placed in doubt by modern science.
Consider the train of thought here in these 2 sentences in a letter from Einstein. He pointedly rejects a personal God, and then oddly says he does this even though "mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent been placed in doubt by modern science."
One wonders why the 2 thoughts are connected. What's the reason for the "in spite of the fact" comment. Clearly Einstein thinks the concept of causality being violated diminishes the argument against a personal God.
Why would this be?
The reason is amply clear when you consider that he followed Spinozan theology, which considered God's perfection such that God Himself and by extension the universe, is completely deterministic. So God could not play dice because it's not God's nature.
If in Einstein's world mechanistic causality is violated, then his idea of God must be changed.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024