This is why I blow off those who tell me provide links and so-called proof. No. If the listener thinks I make a certain point it is their job to research it to their satisfaction. This is how philosophy works (or doesn't, as the case may be). Proof is a concept of Justice, not a coping mechanism, which itself is an outgrowth of interaction. Base one's actions on kindness and Justice is not needed.

It seems to be going around...
Interesting that Sagan also made reference to the god of Einstein and Spinoza.

[agnostic.com]

.

And sometimes its a good movie, and sometimes I kick myself for not pushing the "delete"

Part of this is the information age where everything out there wants a click or like and some of the rest of it is in how your browser is set up and reacts. If you look this all up will you be more informed? Maybe so, and maybe not. You may have also gotten away from your very first question.

actually wickipedia is not a valid resource for research too many inaccuracies

It is an issue which a lot of people have spent a lot of time on. But consider for a second that. Firstly Einstein may not have been all that familiar with Spinoza himself. And secondly that he may just have made it up as an easy dismissive answer, to what he thought of as a boring and pointless question.

In other words, that even if you are a world renowned genius, it does not mean that everything single thing you say, is of great cosmic importance, and the result of deep long thinking. Especially as having a reputation for being a world renowned genius, gets you repeatedly pestered with what, you yourself, regard as trivial vexing questions, so that having an easy dismissive answer for fools, so that you can then move on, is handy.

It's the god you're having when you're not having a god.

This is why I enjoy working at a liquor store in one of the bad parts of town. You never know where the experience will take you. Google is just a non-alcoholic trip.

In my mind the God of Spinoza is nature and simple indifferent cause and effect with no mind, no ambition and no “plan” of any kind but constantly changing. Spinoza would disagree, but I think most people would think of it that way.
Spinoza was a philosopher so there’s way more to it but functionally I see no contradiction between the end result of my definition and his but my definition is simpler and less confusing since he talks about substance mind and infinity so as far as I’m concerned he over thought the concept, an occupational hazard in philosophy.
That’s why you never hear about Spinoza unless you’re a philosophy nerd or someone is talking about Einstein. Einstein made Spinoza famous, it would have been better had Einstein just been honest and come out as the atheist he was.

You’re not pulling ME into that hole with the link; I have spent too many a day in that trap.