So, God reduces to Nature whenever invoking the PoSR?

As a scholar of Spinoza, how do you reconcile the PoSR with Spinoza's necessitarianism given quantum mechanics?

So, God reduces to Nature whenever invoking the PoSR? — Shawn

:roll: This doesn't follow from or address what I've written:

Quantum uncertainty (e.g. acausal (random!) vaccum fluctations —> spontaneous symmetry-breaking) proves the Insufficiency of "Sufficient Reason", no? — 180 Proof

Therefore, "God" doesn't have anything to do with anything.

As a scholar of Spinoza, how do you reconcile the PoSR with Spinoza's necessitarianism given quantum mechanics?

I don't reconcile them (that would be a category mistake). Spinoza proposes a modal-ontological metaphysics (i.e. "PoSR") and QM is fundamental physics (e.g. "Uncertainty Principle"). That said (my best guess), Spinoza's substance (i.e. natura naturans) seems analogous to the vacuum that consists necessarily in structured symmetries which in turn necessarily generate – cause – conservation laws (re: Noether's theorem).

When reading sparingly Hawking, the idea of a creator is embodied with the first cause. In other words from nothing, something came to be. — Shawn

An idea that Hawking always resisted.

You could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday – loftily titled “State of the Universe” – two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.

One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed. The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech. — New Scientist, 11 Jan 2012

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474-400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event/#ixzz7AwO09KDU

:flower:

:party:

Science and logic have not found a proof to disprove the existence of god but they possibly and probably may do so in the future. Either way. SnL may prove or disprove god's existence.

Whether science and logic will do that, is not a question of debate. It is a question of empirical evidence. You must not make a judgment that it can't or that it can... only the actual creation of the proof will determine its own existence. Then again, you can't rule out that it will happen... you don't know what will happen.

When reading sparingly Hawking, the idea of a creator is embodied with the first cause. In other words from nothing, something came to be. — Shawn

This can only be interpreted this way because you are not familiar with the theory, and you grossly dress it up with your own assumptions which are actually not true.

I imagine this is your assumption, roughly: At the moment of the big bang material formed from nothing.

The way the actual theory states it: At the moment of the big bang and before, all the matter of the known universe was concentrated in the volume of a few cubic centimetres.

If you read the stupid theory right, you can't help but notice that THERE IS NO CREATION OF MATTER, only a transformation of its form of existence occurs.

The theists grossly and invalidly misrepresent the theory's wording, and nod their heads meaningfully and quietly (or vocally) agree that creation has happened a the moment of the big bang, and that the atheists, anti-theists and materialists are all god-fearing individuals who just don't know it.

"God" is too vague and undefined to be an object of "proof", etc.

↪god must be atheist "God" is too vague and undefined to be an object of "proof", etc. — 180 Proof

We are not talking about that god. We are talking about the other god. Get with the program. :-)

:smirk:

There can't be 2 Gods therefore you 2 (presumably atheists) mutually exclude each other but not God :sweat:

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

What is God?

There can't be 2 Gods therefore you 2 (presumably atheists) mutually exclude each other but not God :sweat: — SpaceDweller

I exist. So 180 does not. If he exists too, then there could be two gods. Nobody says there has to be only one. That is an assumption that can't be substantiated.

What is God? — Michael

That's for god to know, and for us / me / you to find out.

I exist. So 180 does not. If he exists too, then there could be two gods. Nobody says there has to be only one. That is an assumption that can't be substantiated. — god must be atheist

That depends on whether or not "God" is a proper or common noun.

That depends on whether or not "God" is a proper or common noun. — Michael

Right.

However. My first name is Peter. (Not my real name.) Am I the only Peter in the entire history of the world? Are there other Peters aside from myself?

However. My first name is Peter. Am I the only Peter in the entire history of the world? Are there other Peters aside from myself? — god must be atheist

Sure, but when we ask if God exists we're not just asking if there exists someone or something named "God"; we're referring to a specific individual and asking if that individual exists. There cannot be two of that individual.

we're referring to a specific individual and asking if that individual exists. — Michael

You can't refer to a specific individual of whose personal characteristics you know nothing. For instance:
Human A: "We have an individual that we know nothing about. He never said a word, never showed himself in human company. We have scriptures that mention him, but the scriptures are pure fiction, fantasy, when it comes to describe this individual. You need faith (blind belief) to accept him how the scriptures describe him, and that is fully optional. He is in effect and to all factual knowledge, unknown to us, in all his personal aspects. The one we talk about is this very individual that we know nothing about."
Human B: "But... but... but there could be any number of individuals that we know nothing about... how do we know you and I are talking about the same individual of whom we know nothing?"

There cannot be two of the same individual. — Michael

Aside from my argument, this what you said is very anti-Christian.

Aside from my argument, this what you said is very anti-Christian. — god must be atheist

Does Christianity have something to do with @Shawn's question? Is he asking if science or logic can disprove Yahweh? I wasn't sure if he was referring to Yahweh or Allah or Amun-Ra or Angra Mainyu or the Demiurge or someone or something else, hence why I asked him what God is.

Does Christianity have something to do with Shawn's question? — Michael

I think, it can be supposed that the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition is sufficient.

I think, it can be supposed that the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition is sufficient. — Shawn

Which one? Yahweh (Christianity), Allah (Islam), and the Monad (Gnosticism) don't seem to be the same person.

Which one? Yahweh (Christianity), Allah (Islam), and the Demiurge (Gnosticism) doesn't seem to be the same person. — Michael

I'm hesitant to say YHWH, because it seems to me that some will laugh at Genesis and pass it off.

What do you think?

I'm hesitant to say YHWH, because it seems to me that some will laugh at Genesis and pass it off.

What do you think? — Shawn

You're the one asking the question. I don't know who – or what – you're referring to when you ask if logic or science can disprove God. You have to tell me.

Then, assume YHWH, then.

Then, assume YHWH, then. — Shawn

Something is Yahweh iff it is the being that created the world as described in Genesis. Science has proved that the world wasn't created as described in Genesis. Therefore, nothing is Yahweh. Therefore, Yahweh doesn't exist.

I think, it can be supposed that the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition is sufficient. — Shawn

I respectfully oppose that idea.

Yahweh or Allah or Aten or Angra Mainyu or the Demiurge or someone or something else, hence why I asked him what God is. — Michael

Your proposition, Shawn, would be discriminatory and religionist. Michael has resptectfully proposed that there could be a great number of gods to choose from. I am not only on his side on this important issue, but I expand the possible number of gods to infinity in individual count.

I'm hesitant to say YHWH, because it seems to me that some will laugh at Genesis and pass it off. — Shawn

this is precisely what it is. Belief in the scriptures is optional. Fully. You can't attach an argument to the truth of the scriptures, as it is though widely accepted, at the same time it is widely rejected, as a source of truth.

Your proposition would be discriminatory and religionist. — god must be atheist

I don't know what you mean by this.

Then the same is also true of your claim that "there could be two gods." Who, or what, are you referring to when you use the term "gods"? — Michael

right, and my theory supports my theory, but destroys yours.