Not sure if this is the right forum, but--maybe we can talk about Spinoza and his concept of God for a while

[YoursTrue]

Assuming this is the right forum to discuss this as peacefully as possible, I am learning somewhat (although for me it's hard to understand) about Spinoza's concept of God. So one comment reads, I'm just going to center on a few sentences because otherwise for me it gets too confusing.
"As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature.3 He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself. By that which causes itself, Spinoza means that God is the only being who does not derive from an external cause for his/her existence or an outside concept for his/her conceivability. Moreover, Spinoza claims that only God can be a substance since the existence of two or more substances with the same essence and attributes would necessarily be identical or incompatible. 4 That is, Spinoza believes if people were to try to perceive two or more substances of the same essence and attributes they would be unable to do so since there would be no differentiating characteristics between them that anyone can acknowledge as belonging to either one of them exclusively."
From -- Spinoza on God, Affects, and the Nature of Sorrow – Florida Philosophical Review
Anyone care to dissect this particularly about "substance"? and what it means thereafter?

 

[The Hammer]

No, we can't. And I won't. Good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, we can't. And I won't. Good day.

That's fine...

 

[Link]

The abstract concept is identical with the specific hard instance. Bike, you can have many types, many colors of the same type, etc. Different wheels, different sizes.

With God, you can't have different anything, the concept is One and the same with essence. If there was more possible instances of God, then he would not be the necessary being. The Necessary being is the same in all possible worlds including this one, and definitely exists by definition.

 

[Kenny]

Assuming this is the right forum to discuss this as peacefully as possible, I am learning somewhat (although for me it's hard to understand) about Spinoza's concept of God. So one comment reads, I'm just going to center on a few sentences because otherwise for me it gets too confusing.
"As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature.3

I’d like to think of that possibility, although it is all theological.

It reminds me of the angels who go around the throne declaring “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty as if in each time they went around, they found a new dimention, a new eternal aspect of God.

He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself. By that which causes itself, Spinoza means that God is the only being who does not derive from an external cause for his/her existence or an outside concept for his/her conceivability.

Ultimately, I would agree with this position.

Moreover, Spinoza claims that only God can be a substance since the existence of two or more substances with the same essence and attributes would necessarily be identical or incompatible.

I would probably question this, since we cannot understand the eternal. If He does not derive from “an outside concept for his conceivability” - then how can we, the outsiders, conceive His capacity. If He is of infinite substance, cannot there be essences and attributes that are equal but expanding eternally in, let’s say, three difference directions?

4 That is, Spinoza believes if people were to try to perceive two or more substances of the same essence and attributes they would be unable to do so since there would be no differentiating characteristics between them that anyone can acknowledge as belonging to either one of them exclusively."
From -- Spinoza on God, Affects, and the Nature of Sorrow – Florida Philosophical Review
Anyone care to dissect this particularly about "substance"? and what it means thereafter?

Obviously, I would be looking at it through my limited mind and through the eyes of a Christian, but I would say it is spiritual substance - but what is that?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Anyone care to dissect this particularly about "substance"? and what it means thereafter?

Really sorry, but I haven't read Spinoza. I put the question to the Bing ai along with a link to the article though.

It says that the substance of God in this article is a term Spinoza uses to describe the ultimate reality of the universe which he identifies with God or Nature. According to Spinoza there is only one substance in existence, and everything else is a mode or expression of it. It has infinite attributes such as thought and extension corresponding to mind and body.

Just thinking about what Bing says -- the Substance sounds vaguely similar to Brahman. I don't know from this whether Spinoza equates God with nature. Personally I prefer that nature be a subset within God. That just makes more sense to me, and it makes sense that God be inhuman. I view death as a filter that filters out everything human, and what remains is eternal. This is probably not much, since I view most of the personality and body as temporary. Spinoza, however, seems to think that there is an infinite attribute called 'Extension' which is sort of physical? I'm not sure if he does, but perhaps he views people as a mixture of mind and body.

 

[metis]

Assuming this is the right forum to discuss this as peacefully as possible, I am learning somewhat (although for me it's hard to understand) about Spinoza's concept of God. So one comment reads, I'm just going to center on a few sentences because otherwise for me it gets too confusing.
"As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature.3 He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself. By that which causes itself, Spinoza means that God is the only being who does not derive from an external cause for his/her existence or an outside concept for his/her conceivability. Moreover, Spinoza claims that only God can be a substance since the existence of two or more substances with the same essence and attributes would necessarily be identical or incompatible. 4 That is, Spinoza believes if people were to try to perceive two or more substances of the same essence and attributes they would be unable to do so since there would be no differentiating characteristics between them that anyone can acknowledge as belonging to either one of them exclusively."
From -- Spinoza on God, Affects, and the Nature of Sorrow – Florida Philosophical Review
Anyone care to dissect this particularly about "substance"? and what it means thereafter?

Basically, it means that Spinoza tended to believe that God was and is Nature. Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God", which he felt was likely the energy of creation itself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really sorry, but I haven't read Spinoza. I put the question to the Bing ai along with a link to the article though.

It says that the substance of God in this article is a term Spinoza uses to describe the ultimate reality of the universe which he identifies with God or Nature. According to Spinoza there is only one substance in existence, and everything else is a mode or expression of it. It has infinite attributes such as thought and extension corresponding to mind and body.

Just thinking about what Bing says -- the Substance sounds vaguely similar to Brahman. I don't know from this whether Spinoza equates God with nature. Personally I prefer that nature be a subset within God. That just makes more sense to me, and it makes sense that God be inhuman. I view death as a filter that filters out everything human, and what remains is eternal. This is probably not much, since I view most of the personality and body as temporary. Spinoza, however, seems to think that there is an infinite attribute called 'Extension' which is sort of physical? I'm not sure if he does, but perhaps he views people as a mixture of mind and body.

Right now, insofar as I see Spinoza's mind, I think he thought his reality was THE reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

Basically, it means that Spinoza tended to believe that God was and is Nature. Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God", which he felt was likely the energy of creation itself.

My take on this -- a rather impersonal n the sense of uncaring igod in reference to humans And, honestly I don't blame Spinoza and I can see why he came to that conclusion, but(!) I disagree.

 

[YoursTrue]

I’d like to think of that possibility, although it is all theological.

It reminds me of the angels who go around the throne declaring “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty as if in each time they went around, they found a new dimention, a new eternal aspect of God.


Ultimately, I would agree with this position.



I would probably question this, since we cannot understand the eternal. If He does not derive from “an outside concept for his conceivability” - then how can we, the outsiders, conceive His capacity. If He is of infinite substance, cannot there be essences and attributes that are equal but expanding eternally in, let’s say, three difference directions?



Obviously, I would be looking at it through my limited mind and through the eyes of a Christian, but I would say it is spiritual substance - but what is that?

None of us have unlimited minds in the sense of knowing it all. (We know what we know. And as I paraphrase Descartes, "I think, therefore I am not exactly sure...)"
Moses, for instance, is a good example of this. Yet the almighty God certainly used him for a wonderful purpose, and Moses was humble. He accepted correction and God let him think things over.

 

[YoursTrue]

Basically, it means that Spinoza tended to believe that God was and is Nature. Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God", which he felt was likely the energy of creation itself.

I did get two books about Spinoza, metis. I glanced through one of them. Great Philosophers series. Small book but I need something more authoritative. I have another one. But I finally am getting my hands on the book by Seife about Dr. Hawking. Very, very, very, plus more, about S. Hawking. I haven't read it all, but it's less philosophical and more comprehensible than trying to understand how Einstein and Spinoza thought about God.

 

[Balthazzar]

I've never read Spinoza, but if substance defines God and God is all substances that exist, then God is all. If God is all, then God exists within himself, and conceives what exist inside. As a Christian, albeit an odd one, I can mostly agree with his stance. I have wondered if we experience ourselves in like manner. What we conceive existing on the outside derives from who we are, specifically attuned to our central nervous system. If God exists as the substance of everything, then we exist inside that substance as that substance and perceive that substance as ourselves because we are that substance.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've never read Spinoza, but if substance defines God and God is all substances that exist, then God is all. If God is all, then God exists within himself, andHere'conceives what exist inside. As a Christian, albeit an odd one, I can mostly agree with his stance. I have wondered if we experience ourselves in like manner. What we conceive existing on the outside derives from who we are, specifically attuned to our central nervous system. If God exists as the substance of everything, then we exist inside that substance as that substance and perceive that substance as ourselves because we are that substance.

Here's what I know. When a person dies, his body deteriorates.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've never read Spinoza, but if substance defines God and God is all substances that exist, then God is all. If God is all, then God exists within himself, and conceives what exist inside. As a Christian, albeit an odd one, I can mostly agree with his stance. I have wondered if we experience ourselves in like manner. What we conceive existing on the outside derives from who we are, specifically attuned to our central nervous system. If God exists as the substance of everything, then we exist inside that substance as that substance and perceive that substance as ourselves because we are that substance.

Spinoza obviously must have thought about things. He came from a religious Jewish background. I can only guess that he did not believe the scriptures or interpretations of the Jews. Or Christians. Maybe Buddhists. I'm not sure what religious doctrines he had access to, since that was a few centuries back.
Unless someone here can offer something different about Spinoza, I get the idea that he did not believe in a God who cares. Or that has a purpose for mankind. I believe that God does have a purpose for mankind, which is why He sent his son to the earth.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." I am pretty sure that neither Spinoza nor Einstein believed that. (John 3:16)

 

[Balthazzar]

Here's what I know. When a person dies, his body deteriorates.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that this much has been evidenced. Another way to articulate the thought is God is and we are in God, and being in God we experience God. Through our experiences we know God and belong to the God "head" as a network of the substance that is mind, which is how we know ourselves as "children" of, produced by the substance that is God.

 

[Balthazzar]

Another way to articulate the premise as I understand it is:

The universe consists of substance and all substance within it, is able to be conceived through its ability to perceive the existence of, as it relates to the substance that it belongs to, including but not limited to us who have the ability of mind and awareness of ourselves existing in the universal substance from where we came.

Minus the God speak

 

[YoursTrue]

Another way to articulate the premise as I understand it is:

The universe consists of substance and all substance within it, is able to be conceived through its ability to perceive the existence of, as it relates to the substance that it belongs to, including but not limited to us who have the ability of mind and awareness of ourselves existing in the universal substance from where we came.

Minus the God speak

First of all, there is no proof of that concept.
Secondly, because it is a theory that melds into the unproven, there cannot be no "God speak." But then I believe that God spoke to Moses who wrote down what he was told about the beginning up until his time. It actually makes sense to me, in fact much more sense than God being substance or some such idea like that. There is no need to go into detail because, simply speaking, it doesn't make sense.

 

[RestlessSoul]

@vulcanlogician , this is a thread for you I think?

 

[Kenny]

None of us have unlimited minds in the sense of knowing it all. (We know what we know. And as I paraphrase Descartes, "I think, therefore I am not exactly sure...)"

I like saying “A definite maybe”.

Moses, for instance, is a good example of this. Yet the almighty God certainly used him for a wonderful purpose, and Moses was humble. He accepted correction and God let him think things over.

Yes… it is a marvelous story. I liked it when Moses said “Wipe them off the face of the map” and God intervened and then when God said “I’m going to wipe them off the face of the map”, Moses interceded. I’m glad that they never agreed

But God does let man have a part in His plan.

 

[Balthazzar]

First of all, there is no proof of that concept.
Secondly, because it is a theory that melds into the unproven, there cannot be no "God speak." But then I believe that God spoke to Moses who wrote down what he was told about the beginning up until his time. It actually makes sense to me, in fact much more sense than God being substance or some such idea like that. There is no need to go into detail because, simply speaking, it doesn't make sense.

The op asked what our thoughts were on Spinoza. I answered accordingly. I have no problem with you standing on conviction in God and Moses, etc. This isn't about proving to you anything, but about how we viewed Spinoza's thoughts about God. There can certainly be logos or logoi utilized that aren't so religiously attuned, even from a guy like me, a dedicated - 30 plus year Christian. The question and honestly, the only reason I ever play both sides of the coin, is due to our differences .... What are they, why, and to help bridge the divides. So, no argument from me, but I could play the role of an Atheist and still be faithful to my understanding of God and truth and honor both faithfully, even with a few expected shortcomings as I go. We all fall short, right?