i fear that this is becoming a does-he-exist-or-not-thread. that was not my intention. discussions about a "scientific" or historical" proof are leading into nowhere, since we can't proove it or proove it wrong, it's a thing of belief, and solely of belief. and, honestly, i don't feel the urge to proof christ's or god's existence, either you believe it, or not. for those who believe, i wanted to know if their faith is jointed to the need of having a (noncorporal?) god image, if their faith requires the idea a living mentor, caretaker, mastermind, or if jesus' living example of how a (hu)man could be would suffice but, as i see it, this question is already taken as an attack on christianity, too bad.

Well, actually your initial question was quite different

Basically you asked whether a Spinoza \Einstein's God, can make sense also in the light of modern Physics

I am not a religious guy but it would hard to me to beleive in a non personal God
Phanteism is, in my opinion, a synonimous with atheism

Moreover the equation E = M*C^2 does not claim what you ( and many others ) seem to beleive, as far as I can understand from your post

This is a commmon misconception of the equation

i have never said a single word about einstein, i didn't even know about his attitude towards religion. and i wrote, from the very beginning, that this thread was not be seen as a scientific discussion, but a question of belief.

i did not have physics in mind. in fact, i asked these questions myself after reading nietzsche's "thus spoke zarathustra", that's why i wanted to turn it into a more philsosphical discussion, not a discussion about equations, scientific proof, or physics.

moreover, it seems to me that most people think they know everything about einstein by just quoting the famous equation. popular science... well. keep it out of this discussion, please.

So no attempts at self-serving illusions of certainty for events lost and found in the mutable mists of history?

Your reply seems more honest and wise than claims for stances held by a faction not necessarily present to substantiate and update positions. Many speak for the dead, and claim members from the lost faction for their own selfish purposes, but the very same may be the first to refuse stronger claims of membership by that larger of factions.

Supposedly, that is the paraphrased form of the quote.

Hey ...it was you who asked the question

Just my curiosity, but why?



I think that's where it inevitably went wrong. Philosophical discussions are great, but you can't deny scientific knowledge just because you don't like it... In general that's usually why it doesn't make much sense to argue with a religious person, they will deny what we do know and go by pure faith.



I agree with Alberto here, you asked the question yourself.. as a non-religious person it's pretty much unavoidable to think about physics and general implications of such a God.

It seems the term philosophy has different meanings.
I had the impression that the thread was partially weighted in a mental exercise, with bounds which might be atypical from some perspectives.
(Impressions vary, and mine are far too often leagues away from any valued mark.)

If such ~imaginative play was the focus, it might be taken for granted that injections of hard scientific expression can quickly spin the aim of the game amiss.
There may have been a very specific, desired direction, or at least, potentially a number of known unfavorable directions, for what the thread source was seeking, if it was seeking.
(Expiration is preferred for the thread source, but conflict of interest is avoided, unless bad taste is more than sufficient, so that the strain is made ~enjoyable.)

(Where does the first mention of term "Einstein" appear?)



(The ~they tend to almost always repeatedly, flow with ill and wrong, in nearly the same cycling ways.
Collusion must be avoided, so there ~they are.
Let it go, or let it and they eat you.)
So, on many sides, as usual, it went wrong with attitudes, lack of understanding, obstructive needs of self (selfishness), bias, accumulated prejudice, embedded malignant stances, etc. ???
(If so, it's good to be included in the party.
Any will do, if the selection carries guilt and feeds opposition, naturally.)

This or that, gods / faith and knowledge / science, here and there, are many mind constructs of a being so lofty it fails at simple unity gains?

:collapsed:

It has little to do with my attitude towards religion, I actually am really open minded on the subject and like to discuss whatever other people think about it.

I think to some extent threads like this will not work when 'special' rules are in effect.



I see what you mean, but I made my comment only in context of wondering how a thread like this would be meaningful when science is discarded as if it doesn't exist.



Yes, but religion never is about uniting anyone... instead it without exception will create a 'us and them' issue, used to keep people in one group under their control. Manipulation everywhere off course, but there's no reason to fear anything when there's no hostile outside, even if that's not actually real, but just a claim.

Some / much of the nonsensical garbage spewed under duress, should find no specific target, and for attitudes particularly, there may be far too many to target effectively, without ~revision.

My attitude doesn't exactly sparkle.


Indeed. There may be evidence for that here, however, the notion may carry less weight, when it is offered by parties which seemingly played a significant role in securing events, which were just prior, termed ~evidence.
1. cake arrives in location periodically.
2. cake is intentionally bumped to the floor repeatedly by the same entities.
3. entities suggest cake is not well placed, and certainly the point is fair somewhat, as it has fallen to the floor again and again.


Group some, divide others and maintain power, is it?


religion
*attitude is fine, I am actually really open minded on the subject
*like to discuss whatever other people think about it
*religion is never about uniting anyone
*it is used to keep people in one group
*without exception, it will create a 'us and them' issue

No disrespect intended on this vein, but I could almost assume certain apparent contradictions are intentionally provided for enjoyment.
Such an assumption would certainly be biased, in favor of jest and delight, which is my preference indeed.


"In the names of power and greed, divide and conquer, and group as necessary.
When one ~devil becomes tiresome, there should always be another."
"Let them focus on what divides, spreading it back and forth freely, and beyond that, with not much more prompting, they shall further promote division back into itself."


There is a reply to this, but at the moment, it is time to collapse again, so maybe another may offer it better, in my stead.

Mmm, contradicting because you do not think those last three points are valid? Those last three points can be observed, but it takes the perspective of an 'outsider' I guess, as many from within such groups do not see it like this.

Anyways, I'm more interested in the human psychology behind it all, the sometimes (or often, choose your pick ) crazy details of religions are like a bonus and can indeed be very entertaining, but at no time I think disrespectful of the people that do believe in these things. That in itself might sound contradictory, but I don't think it is or must be.

Cheers