Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Is Spinoza's God more plausable than the Christian God?

For those that are not taught about Spinoza in Sunday School (and that Einstein believed it), read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, Spinoza's god is merely another name for universe or nature. Einstein said he believed in this god. He was an atheist. It's just another definition of god, only this one makes sense. There is no personal christian god. Please.

  • 4 years ago

    who's to declare the egyptians that lived back then weren't built by using the Nephilim from the bible. there have not been the different authentic looking motives for a fashion those great issues have been given built. perchance the best stuff pyramids, sphinx etc have been built by using them lengthy previously the inhabitants of historic egypt have been there. it would make experience, seeing as those barren area sands can conceal something given time. the training of jesus have been very diverse than the different rabbi of that day. different than perchance john the baptist, who grew to become into extra of a few "loopy guy out in the barren area" than a rabbi. im uncertain if the flood might have broken or led to better age the pyramids to look older. it would desire to have easily elderly each little thing else, fossils, etc. yet remember, back previously the flood curiously human beings lived thousands of years. how a ways enhanced do you think of we would be in the present day if human beings like issac newton, da vinci, or einstein might have lived 2, 3, 4, six hundred years? solomon even suggested no longer something under the sunlight is new, how do you realize something now did no longer exist lengthy in the past? almost something in the bible may well be defined scientifically to a pair quantity. hell, even "sin" may well be a gene handed from father to baby. the actuality we can't reproduction the comparable issues in a controlled atmosphere and test would not advise it fairly is not achievable. from a very athiestic standpoint, there isn't any way we can build those varieties of monuments until eventually we use technologies now we've, or from the previous hundred years or so. something is amiss there, so something is open to speculation. God and Nature will in no way substitute. basically our understandings, Theology and technological information will substitute.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes. Of course.

    Isn't everything more plausible than that?

    Spinoza had a theory of the nature of g-d, but xtians just have inserted a human being into the 'g-d space", without a cultural or philosophical understanding of that man or regard for his knowledge, background and lifestyle- which relieves them of personal responsibility by implying it is up to g-d to obtain their forgiveness, and they need not amend their own wrongs.

  • 1 decade ago

    The answer is no. It's one of Spinoza's weakest examples of reasoning on record. The confusion of names is appallingly imprecise for an otherwise impressive philosopher and leads far too many people up the garden path.

    Remember, Spinoza wouldn't have called it 'God' if he'd lived in a period that was without persecution of heretics and atheists.

    If Einstein believed it, that in itself is no particular recommendation either. It's an imprecise concept dressed up in the disguise of a non-existent entity.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, most definitely. That's why I have taken to using the term Mother Nature, as a deity we can all understand. But I have to separate myself from the modern use of the term witch, as I do not do spells, I do contemplation and meditation. I do not believe that spells, charms and curses are anything more than psychological. They can be very powerful because the human mind can be very powerful.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Spinoza's God and the Christian God are one and the same.

    Source(s): From your link: "Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality." And this quote from Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
  • carl
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    No the god of Aristotle is more plausible (the immovable mover) But that's only a philosophical Supreme Being.

    The Christian God is incarnate in Jesus.

  • 1 decade ago

    Sorry but the Invisible Pink Unicorn is more plausible than both.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think the most plausible god is none.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.