Re:Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?
by Nursie on Friday October 15, 2021 @02:15AM
(#28874863)
> I don't find it absurd to think that there is The God (Allah) ...
I do, I see no reason to think such a being exists, absent extraordinary evidence, and inventing one seems absurd to me.
Why must god be the first element? Why must there even be a first element?
People don't try to disprove god by askingwhat created god, they are trying to invalidate a particular argument that is used by those who do believe - that the universe must have been created by some original force because it is so huge/amazing/complex, and we'll call that force god. But there is no reason it must have been, and if we imagine there is such a thing, there is no particular reason to stop there other than that semantically you have decided to call it the first. Because if the universe was created by a huge/amazing/complex god, then by the rules of your own argument we ought to look for a deeper cause.
So yeah ... it's not a 'disproof' of god, so much as pointing out that that specific argument relies on some dodgy assumptions and is not any sort of proof of god, nor justifies belief in one in any way.
I do, I see no reason to think such a being exists, absent extraordinary evidence, and inventing one seems absurd to me.
Why must god be the first element? Why must there even be a first element?
People don't try to disprove god by askingwhat created god, they are trying to invalidate a particular argument that is used by those who do believe - that the universe must have been created by some original force because it is so huge/amazing/complex, and we'll call that force god. But there is no reason it must have been, and if we imagine there is such a thing, there is no particular reason to stop there other than that semantically you have decided to call it the first. Because if the universe was created by a huge/amazing/complex god, then by the rules of your own argument we ought to look for a deeper cause.
So yeah ... it's not a 'disproof' of god, so much as pointing out that that specific argument relies on some dodgy assumptions and is not any sort of proof of god, nor justifies belief in one in any way.