Thread: What type of God did Einstein believe?

Einstein's idea of God was the mystery of the universe, I think.

A non-dice playing god.

Originally Posted by Xei

Einstein's idea of God was the mystery of the universe, I think.

I believe in that one too. Does that mean I am not an atheist?

It depends on how you define atheist I suppose. Most people when talking about theism are talking about crazy old bearded men in the sky, so to most people I suppose you're an atheist.

A non-dice playing god.

Heh, true.

Niels Bohr/Enrico Fermi:
Stop telling God what to do with his dice.

Albert Einstein was a Deist.

hmmm so it was logical to him for a belief in a type of God, interesting.

Spinoza believed that all things in the universe were part of a unified whole that was 'Deus sive Natura' or, 'God or Nature'. At first this may seem like an atheistic view, but he definitely saw it as an entity and referred to it as the "one true being" that was capable of thought. The reasoning behind this is that, since we are capable of thought and are also a part of this all encompassing being, it is also capable of thought.

This is one of the most logically sound theistic views on the planet, and is described in detail in Spinoza's Ethics.

Thanks for that post it puts things in perspective. I was just going over the encyclopedia of philosophy of him and it says that he was one of, if not the greatest, defenders of monism.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Spinoza believed that all things in the universe were part of a unified whole that was 'Deus sive Natura' or, 'God or Nature'. At first this may seem like an atheistic view, but he definitely saw it as an entity and referred to it as the "one true being" that was capable of thought. The reasoning behind this is that, since we are capable of thought and are also a part of this all encompassing being, it is also capable of thought.

This is one of the most logically sound theistic views on the planet, and is described in detail in Spinoza's Ethics.

I love that idea.

Nice thread. =) I find this all very interesting.

Einstein, when someone has no logical anwser they envoke a higher authority. Einstein got many things wrong in his life, most notably Quantum mechanics.

Einstein is dead so you can't really ask Einstein what he mean't by Spinoza god.

Thanks for that post it puts things in perspective. I was just going over the encyclopedia of philosophy of him and it says that he was one of, if not the greatest, defenders of monism.

Not really.
The only thing Einstein wanted to do with this life is find the theory of everything. In that sense he wanted a simple equation.

I once read that Einstein choose the right eqaution that describes special relativity because he believed in simplicty.

The point is Einstein at best has vaguely defined belifes. Even if he did believe in god then it means nothing. Even then his actions contradict his philosophy, if he believed in god then he wouldn't spend the last half of his life coming up with a mathematical formula that describes the universe.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

hmmm so it was logical to him for a belief in a type of God, interesting.

He also saw it logical that there was no big bang. He never accepted the theory and maintained to his death that there was an antigravity force hiding in his equations to keep the universe static.

That's the beauty of progressive knowledge, it slowly accumulates and no one man, not even Einstein will ever fully understand it.

Ummmm is it me or Einstein called the cosmological constant the single greatest mistake of his life?

I'm pretty sure that he accepted the Big Bang theory long before his death.

His greatest failure seems to have been his refusal to accept a non deterministic universe, although then again it is far from certain that he actually was wrong about that.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Einstein, when someone has no logical anwser they envoke a higher authority. Einstein got many things wrong in his life, most notably Quantum mechanics.

Einstein is dead so you can't really ask Einstein what he mean't by Spinoza god.


Not really.
The only thing Einstein wanted to do with this life is find the theory of everything. In that sense he wanted a simple equation.

I once read that Einstein choose the right eqaution that describes special relativity because he believed in simplicty.

The point is Einstein at best has vaguely defined belifes. Even if he did believe in god then it means nothing. Even then his actions contradict his philosophy, if he believed in god then he wouldn't spend the last half of his life coming up with a mathematical formula that describes the universe.

I was talking about spinoza as the greatest defender of monism, but thanks non the less.

I thought that the possiblity in that there might be a God because Einstein knew that the universe had a begining is why he tried so hard to come up with a cosmological constant.

When Edwin hubble confirmed that all the evidence leads to a universe that was expanding and had a begining( Hawkings theory is interesting though) thats when Eistein sayed:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I thought it was important to give a vague timeline of those quotes.

Originally Posted by Xei

His greatest failure seems to have been his refusal to accept a non deterministic universe, although then again it is far from certain that he actually was wrong about that.

He was not wrong about that. I am not a physicist, but I am just as certain that the universe is deterministic as I am that London exists. There is no such thing as randomness. Such a phenomenon would necessarily have to, at some level, involve uncaused events. That is a nonsense concept, and I will say it to any physicist in the world. If they believe in randomness, they are wrong. I am positive of it.

Would you say it to Hawking?

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Would you say it to Hawking?

Yes. Bring him to me.

well you asked for him, and good luck

But seiriously. If you had the oppertunity to talk one on one with Mr.Hawking what would you say about randomness?

P.S. i love that picture of him, he's so free.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

well you asked for him, and good luck

But seiriously. If you had the oppertunity to talk one on one with Mr.Hawking what would you say about randomness?

P.S. i love that picture of him, he's so free.

Thank you. I just had a word with him. I asked him to explain how uncaused events could happen, and he went off on a few dozen tangents and started crying.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He was not wrong about that. I am not a physicist, but I am just as certain that the universe is deterministic as I am that London exists. There is no such thing as randomness. Such a phenomenon would necessarily have to, at some level, involve uncaused events. That is a nonsense concept, and I will say it to any physicist in the world. If they believe in randomness, they are wrong. I am positive of it.

Causality does not equal determinism. You're letting a shiny concept distract you from the world that actually exists. If you want to go into more depth about it, take it up here.

I've never seen that picture. Looks like fun.

I agree with UM. Never thought I'd say that. Everything in the universe is caused by something else. The most random thing that I can think of is the isolation of a uranium atom while an electrical charge is applied to it. Even that is caused by the flow of the electrons, which is caused by the electromagnetic and the nuclear weak forces.

Even quantum physics doesn't really allow for randomness, but we can't measure it either, measuring things like that, changes it.

Everything that has ever happened in the universe has happened due to one or more of the four fundamental forces.

The only thing that may be up to randomness is why the universe exists at all. Also, exactly how the big bang happened. There was no space, so no room for anything to happen, and no time, so no frame for it to happen. Whatever caused it, happened without space and without time.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I agree with UM. Never thought I'd say that. Everything in the universe is caused by something else. The most random thing that I can think of is the isolation of a uranium atom while an electrical charge is applied to it. Even that is caused by the flow of the electrons, which is caused by the electromagnetic and the nuclear weak forces.

Even quantum physics doesn't really allow for randomness, but we can't measure it either, measuring things like that, changes it.

Everything that has ever happened in the universe has happened due to one or more of the four fundamental forces.

The only thing that may be up to randomness is why the universe exists at all. Also, exactly how the big bang happened. There was no space, so no room for anything to happen, and no time, so no frame for it to happen. Whatever caused it, happened without space and without time.

As I said in the relevant thread,

Causality only equates to determinism when reduced to absurdity. Within the field of time where phenomena occur, no outcome is certain until it's observed to happen. Yes, everything in the present moment is fixed, determined, but the inverse is also true: every determined thing is found in the present. That is the nature of the present moment, of time itself--it's the sum total of everything that is undergoing "the formality of actually occurring."

To posit complete determinism is to discard time itself, to step off the plane of time, which can be fun, but it's irrelevant to the human condition.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He was not wrong about that. I am not a physicist, but I am just as certain that the universe is deterministic as I am that London exists. There is no such thing as randomness. Such a phenomenon would necessarily have to, at some level, involve uncaused events. That is a nonsense concept, and I will say it to any physicist in the world. If they believe in randomness, they are wrong. I am positive of it.

You have said a lot to me about how human minds can be deluded with regards to morals.

It is therefore surprising to me that you haven't considered the following fact: humans exist on the macroscopic level. Therefore, our minds can only cope with macroscopic level phenomena, and inherent randomness is not one of these.

Really, a probabilistic theory is just another mathematical concept. It is just as non comprehensible as the mathematical concept of wave particle duality. In fact I find the latter somewhat more bemusing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He was not wrong about that. I am not a physicist, but I am just as certain that the universe is deterministic as I am that London exists. There is no such thing as randomness. Such a phenomenon would necessarily have to, at some level, involve uncaused events. That is a nonsense concept, and I will say it to any physicist in the world. If they believe in randomness, they are wrong. I am positive of it.

Doesn't randomness only come into account if you repeat the "experiment"? In our situation the experiment is the universe. So if the universe doesn't repeat itself, nothing can be random. Once it happens it can't be changed. It's still a clockwork universe in my eyes. I believe in fate, not because of some superstition, but because it's quite obvious to me that I'm not in control, that I have no free will. The same goes for the rest of the universe in my opinion. If I move my hand, I'll never be able to change that, I only have one past. If something is random it only means we don't know what will happen, because we don't know how the universe works.

All I'm saying is that if we don't have the chance to repeat the experiment in the same conditions (which includes time I guess), then how can we say that something is random?