>God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.
>“[This can be proved in the following manner]:
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause. For example, if a triangle exists, there must be a reason or cause why it exists; and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it.
> But this reason or cause must either be contained in the nature of the thing or lie outside it. For example, the nature of the thing itself shows the reason why a square circle does not exist, the reason being that a square circle involves a contradiction. And the reason, on the other hand, why substance exists follows from its nature alone, which involves existence
>“But the reason why a circle or triangle exists or does not exist is not drawn from their nature, but from the order of corporeal nature generally; for from that it must follow either that a triangle necessarily exists, or that it is impossible for it to exist. But this is self-evident. Therefore it follows that if there be no cause nor reason which hinders a thing from existing, it exists necessarily.
>If therefore there be no reason nor cause which hinders God from existing, or which negates His existence, we must conclude absolutely that He necessarily exists. But if there be such a reason or cause, it must be either in the nature itself of God or must lie outside it, that is to say, In “another substance of another nature. For if the reason lay in a substance of the same nature, the existence of God would be by this very fact admitted. But substance possessing another nature could have nothing in common with God, and therefore could not give Him existence nor negate it. Since, therefore, the reason or cause which could negate the divine existence cannot be outside the divine nature, it will necessarily, supposing that the divine nature does not exist, be in His nature itself, which would therefore involve a contradiction. But to affirm this of the Being absolutely infinite and consummately perfect is absurd.
>Therefore neither in God nor outside God “is there any cause or reason which can negate His existence, and therefore God necessarily exists”
>One of the strongest and most commonly raised objections to pantheism is that it is simply inappropriate to call the universe ‘God’. Thus Schopenhauer complains that “Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism,” for “to call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world” (Schopenhauer 1851, I:114, II:99). It has been described as nothing more than ‘materialism grown sentimental,’ (Illingworth 1898, 69) while more recently Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion complains that “Pantheism is sexed-up Atheism” (Dawkins 2007, 40).
>>1185225
> For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
You can just ignore entire assumption. Things just exist or they don't exist. No cause. No reasons. It is like it was always be. Triangle exist because of axioms, but axioms just exist. No cause for them. No reason for them. Existence of certain things is starting point of the all out world. End of the story.
>>1185269
This is basically the mode of a thinking of an infant. There is no reason or cause your food exists, it just appears infront of your plate. End of Story.
>there must be a reason or cause for things to not exist
lyl
>>1185287
This is a mode of thinking that created foundation of the most successful logical system in the world in the form of mathematical disciplines. There is a set of starting axioms. They just there. You mode of thinking if one of the paranoid man who suspect hidden agenda behind events where there is none.
>>1185287
My food is usually on my plate and not in front of it. And are you equating a consumable to something requiring faith?
>>1185225
1. It's probably not going to be your god unless it's super vague
1.1. It's probably going to be your god because it's going to be every fucking god
2. His basic assumptions concerning existence could be wrong
2.1. Radioactive decay or other spontaneous actions with no known direct causes have nothing to negate them yet they don't happen all in go either
3. His basic assumptions about substances could be wrong
>>1185243
1. The argument that god can't be negated because absolutely perfect divine nature is bullshit
1.1. This can be applied to basically everything
1.1.1. Unicorns can't be negated because the negating cause would have nothing in common with unicorns and if it did have something in common with unicorns then the existence of unicorns would be admitted.
2. God can't be negated as one would negate a triangle with 4 sides
2.1. Depends on your definition of god
2.1.1. Omnipotence paradox
>>1185225
These types of arguments have troubles with certain specific aspect.
Everything has to have a cause. Except God. God is exception, nothing else can be exception except for God.
So instead of accepting that we ultimately won't know everything about the world it's inner workings etc. they create a mythology.
If God exists there's also a God's creator somewhere. If God's creator exists, there's a God's creator creator elsewhere etc. Unless we'll go balls deep into metaphysics and pull a reason for the Original God's existence that doesn't need a cause, in which case we're literally inventing bullshit, we won't ever comprehend the nature of divine being's existence because by definition it's beyond our scope.
If we'll go balls deep into metaphysics we may have chance that our view on origins of the divine is real, but there's little chance that you're actually spot on with that metaphysical doctrine for obvious reasons - hence the bullshit part.
From atheist standpoint there is and will always be a struggle of tracing the "cause of cause" until you go into a point where it's impossible to trace it anymore(some "initial singularity" of sorts) in which case you're essentially left with the same thing as theists, except with safeguards against bullshit spewing.
>>1185385
>Everything has to have a cause
The only people who say this are atheists strawmanning
>>1185225
So god is the laws of physics and/or big bang?
>>1185225
I think the more important question is what do Christians have against Spinoza's God?
>>1185454
OP isn't atheist and does it as well. Except for special snowflake exception, you know which.
If you assume that there are things that don't have to have a cause then both "sides" of this petty argument can entrench the positions very easily.
How can we test any of this? How is the veracity of these ideas distinguished from their falsity?
>>1185225
>it's a "Theists conveniently alter their definition of God" episode
Spinoza's "God" isn't at all the typical philosophical/Abrahamic God. Believing in Spinoza's "God" doesn't make one a theist, anymore than believing that stuff exists makes one a theist.
>>1185635
What is the point of Spinoza's god?
Spinoza's god is basically just idunnolol and because reasons.
All he's arguing is that there exists something outside of our normal conceptions and understandings of the material world, but very little about the nature of it.
>>1185656
Spinoza's God is essentially Deist God, just laid down in a less straightforward way.
>>1185666
Except deists usually say god is sentient and intelligently designed the universe. Just that god does not intervene after creation, and if god's intention was for a specific universe, he created it so that could be a causal inevitability.
the point is that there's an essence of meaning to all metaphysical existence, if we look at a thing, say water, beyond the causes and effects that sustains it as water as per the laws of physical reality, there is a specific spirit of water, an existence that contains everything that makes water, water, for us, that spirit of the physical thing is the specific intention of god as a conscious being to that metaphysical vessel, the first cause and effect we can be concerned with as limited beings without the ability to grasp the whole of existence because our understanding of the universe is relative to our subjectivity in the dimensions of space-time which we experience in a linear way, is God's creation of our metaphysical plane, and in that creation he put a specific intention for everything that exists, that intention is the existence beyond the intellectual causes and effects, that intention is what makes water specifically water, and an electron specifically an electron, etc,
anyway it is obviously not 100% provable as every knowledge is defected at its essence and we can't be a 100% sure of anything, but the people who believe in that philosophy and make it a part of themselves and have tried to examine it against their subjective experience of reality find it to be true, so I can't see what makes it less worthwhile then the atheist conclusions of reality.
>>1185702
So he's using "spirits" as a synonym of "laws of physics"?
>>1185732
no the laws of physics are metaphysical vessels to contain the spirit, essence or intention of God.
>>1185767
Okay, so he's saying the laws of physics are because spiritslol because laws of physics can't just exist, they need spirits behind them to make them work?
Looks solid tbqh
>>1185771
not at all, he says the laws of physics and cause and effects are all nice and well, but the specific effect of a cause is God.
I can understand why people think he was an atheist.
>>1185287
>it just appears infront of your plate. End of Story.
yeah, it appears on our plate for a reason, we put it there because of that reason, they didnt start to exist for a reason though, trees didnt just think 'oh lets start growing shit so humans could eat it'
>>1185225
>if a triangle exists
They don't though.
>>1185269
>Gee I wonder why my life is so meaningless.
>>1185225
wtf is this outdated shit
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
Reason and cause are both human social concepts. Existence (i.e. the congregation of enough information-carrying particles for the concept to have meaning in human-definable terms) is defined by probability and probability alone.
The rest is literally building a fantasy excuse for the assumption that things happen because they must, not because they're at some point in time likely to take place but never may occur until the universe either breaks, dies or begins anew.
>>1185647
Spinoza wrote a series of logical proofs. It's tested the same way you would test a most formulas. Spinoza is actually one of the most logical philosophers ever and tends to be really popular with physics scientists like Hawking.
>>1187322
>>1185314
>>1185317
If things can happen or not happen for no reason you are literally argueing that miracles can happen. The waters of the red sea COULD just suddenly part without a cause or reason. You also could have something like the Christian God which can do things with no explanation and exist outside the laws of physics, outside reason, outside causality.
You do realize the position you are taking, as an atheist, actually far more supports a supernatural events than a logical order?
>>1187451
Why do you use the word supernatural in an inexact universe?
>>1187451
They wouldn't part for no reason. We may not know the reason immediately, but there'd be investigation into finding out why it happened.
Also, what do you mean we presume supernatural events? I'm saying I don't believe in anything supernatural.
>>1187341
There are other ways to show existence of God, the Spinoza one is retarded
>>1187478
>>1187492
Supernatural means it exists outside of nature's rules. Nature's rules work on things like reason, causation. Spinoza rejects the supernatural because he beleives everything must have a cause or reason.
If you truly believe things can happen with no reason or cause that's basically arguing for the supernatural. A miracle would be perfectly fine since you do not believe things has to have a reason or cause, you could just have something pop into existence with no ryme or reason. And of course the Christian God could exist too since there can be no reason or cause he does not exist
The stance you and other anons have taken literally prevents you from being atheists. The best you could be is an agnostic. To be an atheist you must believe that the Christian God does not exist, yet here you are saying that things can exist or not exist without a cause or reason. Using that logic you could never give a reason or cause there is no Christian God.
>>1187590
This is why Spinoza is based.
Plebs either confuse his conception of God as either the generic Abrahamic God, Atheism or basic pantheism. Even Panentheism does not do his view justice.
>>1185585
Just that, it won't hug you.
>>1187451
If nature allows for random events, then random events aren't supernatural. I wouldn't call them miracles. Though some use "miracles" to refer to highly unlikely events. Take thermodynamic miracles for instance.
>>1189510
This is a case of caused events or events with a reason.
>>1189225
But his definition of god is almost meaningless.
All he says is "There is something I can't explain, so the answer is god"
He could of just made up a word.
>>1185225
I'm reading Spinoza right now. He's a pretty decent mindfuck.
>>1185225
I don't count it as a deity. So it's unreasonable to name it "God" or call it "Him".
>>1189526
>All he says is "There is something I can't explain, so the answer is god"
His method is the opposite. He starts with a hypothesis and explains it in pretty logical proofs.
It has profound impact on virtually every other field of philosophy as well as the general sciences. There is a reason he was called the "Prince of the Enlightenment"
>>1187356
Postmodernist nutjob pls go
>All these plebs trying to bring down based Baruch
>>1189557
His God ain't even a god
>>1189576
>>1189557
One thing that I do find to be bullshitty in Spinoza is his proof for memory. He proves that the human mind has images from external bodies but he just pulls the idea of several bodies making the mind associate several images together out of his ass.
>>1189545
It's not the opposite. He god is almost meaningless.
>>1185225
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
Oh really? Where's the verifiable proof of this claim? Oh it doesn't exist? Nevermind then.
I don't have any. I agree with the existence of whats posited by spinoza's conception of god. I still consider myself atheist, because i see it as a very specific definition, mostly unrelated to any organized religion's conception of god.
If someone gives us a definition of god akin to the vague "higher power" or the completely irreligious "four legged animal", i would agree such a thing exists. that doesn't mean i'm not atheist.
>>1187451
>The waters of the red sea COULD just suddenly part without a cause or reason
if that was phisically possible then yes, they could, saying that an apple has no divine or concrete reason of existing is not the same as saying that there is a timeles, spaceles wizard who exists outside of our universe or even outside reason (existing outside reason is not a good thing btw)
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause. For example, if a triangle exists, there must be a reason or cause why it exists; and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it.
I disagree with this premise.
>>1185225
Point 1:
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
This is a wafty enough statement that anything can be twisted into it, it presents no body for the argument
> For example, if a triangle exists, there must be a reason or cause why it exists; and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it.
Here I propose the "Universe full of triangles" counterargument:
The universe is finite, there exist an infinite set of possible triangles, if I filled the universe with random triangles some would exist and some would not, there would be no distinguishing reason between which did or did not exist.
>and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it.
Again, universe full of triangles, I cannot predictively state which triangles do or do not exist, nor can I state any predictive reason or cause to negate the existence of a particular triangle.
Point 2:
>But this reason or cause must either be contained in the nature of the thing or lie outside it.
There exists no logical definition of "outside the universe"
> And the reason, on the other hand, why substance exists follows from its nature alone, which involves existence
This notion here is another wafty one that actually says nothing; it claims that things that exist exist because they exist. Actually wait, it's a bit worse than that. By defining nature to be the set of things that exist we state that anything derived from nature exists because nature exists.
>>1191262
>"“But the reason why a circle or triangle exists or does not exist is not drawn from their nature, but from the order of corporeal nature generally"
Aha, we're now claiming that there exist some rules, but wait for us to special plead those rules away in a moment...
>" for from that it must follow either that a triangle necessarily exists, or that it is impossible for it to exist"
Again, universe full of triangles you cannot prove that a given triangle does or does not exist just from its parameters
> But this is self-evident. Therefore it follows that if there be no cause nor reason which hinders a thing from existing, it exists necessarily.
Bullshit, universe full of triangles refutes this.
>If therefore there be no reason nor cause which hinders God from existing, or which negates His existence, we must conclude absolutely that He necessarily exists.
Again, universe full of triangles, this game is too easy at this point, let's make it a little harder and stop using this argument.
>>1191272
> But if there be such a reason or cause, it must be either in the nature itself of God or must lie outside it, that is to say, In “another substance of another nature. For if the reason lay in a substance of the same nature, the existence of God would be by this very fact admitted. But substance possessing another nature could have nothing in common with God, and therefore could not give Him existence nor negate it.
And now the special pleading begins.
Firstly the claim is made that "if the reason for god's existance was a property of god then god exists", logically this can be denoted If X then X hence X. Which is not actually a logical argument given that the first statement is a conditional that has not be proven.
Next we get the claim that "substance possessing another nature could have nothing in common with God" and it is with this that we've snuck in our extra clauses on what we count as god.
All the previous arguments here asserted that everything could be derived from nature, now we add the extra condition that god gets a special nature that is different to the rest of nature. We failed to define this in our problem parameters and just snuck it in here instead. As a result, none of the previous arguments made actually relate to god as used in this argument as we changed axioms on the fly.
>>1191284
> Since, therefore, the reason or cause which could negate the divine existence cannot be outside the divine nature
And we did it again, now we have nature, god's nature and divine nature all as assumed separate distinct categories without proof of any argument for such, while the (incredibly bad argument) for necessary existence has only been presented for the category of regular nature.
> the reason or cause which could negate the divine existence cannot be outside the divine nature, it will necessarily be in His nature itself, which would therefore involve a contradiction
Why, didnt the earlier argument support the notion that a square circle cannot exist because of it's own nature, how is god's nature so different that it adds this extra property that regular nature doesnt have of "cannot not exist due to self contradiction".
>But to affirm this of the Being absolutely infinite and consummately perfect is absurd.
This sentence doesn't actually resolve the absolute dead end this own argument brought itself to, it just claims that any argument against this is "absurd".
>Therefore neither in God nor outside God “is there any cause or reason which can negate His existence, and therefore God necessarily exists”
And this doesnt even follow from the argument above, we just ended with "well maybe if we assume these things then he can not cause himself to not exist unless he causes himself to not exist".
Literally worse than "all maximally perfect objects must exist".
>>1185314
No, you're confusing this guy with the greeks, this guy is a fucking idiot who is quite blatantly making shit up to support his argument as he goes along.
>>1187451
>You do realize the position you are taking, as an atheist, actually far more supports a supernatural events than a logical order?
Whew kid
>>1189545
>he was called the "Prince of the Enlightenment"
And theology was the "queen of science", and now it's not.
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
>must be a reason or cause.
Nope. That's apophenia, you want there to be a reason - there is no law or reason that dictates there must be.
>>1187451
>and exist outside the laws of physics, outside reason, outside causality
You mean existing outside existence. We're pretty tired of this super special thing being so special that no goal posts can reach him.
>>1185225
anyone can reach the right conclusion with the right reasoning
not many people can reach the right conclusion with wrong reasoning
>>1191312
So you're agreeing with Spinoza.
There's only two fucking ways it can work. Either everything is contained within existence and plays by the rules or there are transcident things outside. Spinoza rejects the latter one and favors a world where nothing is transcendent.
An idea of transcendence will lead you to things like Plato and Christianity. An idea of no transcendence goes more in line with pre-Socratic thinking and Spinoza.
>>1191301
>No, you're confusing this guy with the greeks, this guy is a fucking idiot who is quite blatantly making shit up to support his argument as he goes along.
That's an odd thing to say since Spinoza's system is basically the next logical step in the Greek system laid out by Parmenides.
In general it seems that people are just scimming OP's thing and than finding the first axiom they can and taking the opposite stance on it. There isn't any systemetic thought to their response it's just a knee-jerk reaction to reject anything that mentions "God". I don't think the posters actually believe what they are saying, they are just stating what they think refutes this new "God" they know nothing about as quickly as possible: the reason I say this is because their respones end up being stances that actually support Miracles and the Christian God.
The conditions for Spinoza's God to be false are exactly the conditions needed to confirm Scholastic metaphysics as true.
>>1192290
>>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause.
>Oh really? Where's the verifiable proof of this claim? Oh it doesn't exist? Nevermind then.
Really? How is it that a demand for proof of a given assertion is somehow an argument for a theistic deity or a group of theistic deities?
The proper skeptical response to "what happened before the origin of the physical universe?" is I don't know. So to is the response to the question "why are we here?".
>>1185225
>muh ontology
>muh substance
>>1192384
>Really? How is it that a demand for proof of a given assertion is somehow an argument for a theistic deity or a group of theistic deities?
Have you ever heard of the unmoved mover? If things can happen without a cause than Aquinas metaphysics actually make a huge fucking amount of sense. Furthermore the idea that the unmoved mover could cause miracles or do anything he wanted makes a lot of sense since it's completely removed from the laws of nature.
Now if you take this possibility. That things CAN happen without a cause it's very, very hard to justify atheism. How could you possibly know the God doesn't exist? All your understanding of the world is based on things that have a causality to it, so you cannot really say much about the uncaused causes (unmoved movers). The only way to not contradict your own terms is be an agnostic.
>"what happened before the origin of the physical universe?"
This isn't even something OP addressed. It's you jsut assuming he is talking about an Abrahamic/Aquinas type God. He isn't.
You did exactly what I accused every other bozo of doing. Skimming the first few lines and stating the opposite stance as a knee jerk reaction the moment you see the word "God". And that opposite stance, is literally the stance that justifies Christian metaphysics. Something you would have actually seen if you read the full OP's post. You're like a trained ape, programmed to rebel against anything with the word "god" in it. You aped so hard you literally denied the entire basis for rationalism/empiricism, that things follow a logical chain of events.
>>1192450
>Have you ever heard of the unmoved mover?
Do you have verifiable proof of said mover's existence?
>>Now if you take this possibility. That things CAN happen without a cause it's very, very hard to justify atheism. How could you possibly know the God doesn't exist?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or group of deities. I cannot and do not desire to say that I know that there is no form of deity or pantheon but rather due to a distinct lack of any sort of quality evidence for said claims I do not believe them.
Agnostic and Atheist are not incompatible.
>>1192450
>You're like a trained ape, programmed to rebel against anything with the word "god" in it.
One other thing, cut the insults you nigger faggot. You aren't impressing anyone with all the condescension.
>>1192469
>Do you have verifiable proof of said mover's existence?
Saying there are things that can happen without a cause is literally saying there can be unmoved movers.
So what's the case? Do all things need a cause (mover) or not?
If you say yes you lean a bit more towards Spinoza. If you say no you lean a bit more towards Aristotle/Aquinas metaphysics. You don't automatically go into either camp but you do end up siding more with one than another.
If you say the answer cannot be determined than that's hard agnosticism since the basis for pretty much all Deities metaphysics cannot be determined.
BTW incase you didn't realize this is also a question about real world physics. If things can happen without causes you wouldn't be completely opposed to say an apple falling from the tree hovering in mid air for no reason. Personally I think it's very hard to take physics seriously if you don't say everything has a cause, since physics is literally about exploring causation.
>>1185585
>Jesus glowing brightly just before he combusts
>>1192384
The first claim is an assertion of the existece of causality. Causality is a metaphysical concept.
You can't show a verifiable proof of causality, same as any axiom.
You can, of course, disregard the axiom. The lack of this axiom doesn't becomes an argument for theistic god inmediately, but not having it negates the possiblity of most tought.
I would guess the other poster says theistic god is confirmed by it because it's a system that allows causality to be outside the universe.
>>1192290
yeah, op must have made the thread with militant atheists in mind
>>1192595
>Causality is a metaphysical concept.
It's also a physics concept. It's hard to have physics if you disregard it.
I honestly think the only good response is to say that Spinoza's "God" is arguable more more of a force than a deity. He also called it "Nature" which I think is a better word. Ever since the Pre-Socratics man has sought to find the one singular basis for reality, which is what Spinoza attempted. Today we have four fundamental forces which is pretty close.
>>1192513
>Saying there are things that can happen without a cause is literally saying there can be unmoved movers.
There can be, that doesn't mean that there is.
>So what's the case? Do all things need a cause (mover) or not?
Most things need a cause, this much is obvious, do all things? The only proper answer to that question right now is "I don't know".
>>If you say the answer cannot be determined than that's hard agnosticism
What part of "agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible" don't you get?
>>1192640
So let me get this straight.
The evidense for some Gods is built into logical problems that require a few axioms about causation (Christian metaphysics require there to be things with no cause, Spinoza that all things must have a cause).
In regards to these axioms
> The only proper answer to that question right now is "I don't know".
So you are literally telling me when confronted with evidence for a God and asked if the evidence fulfills the requirement you say "I don't know".
How are you an atheist again? You are not telling me that you have received insufficient information, you are telling me you are incapable of saying "yes" or "no" to certain ideas.
>there must be a reason that things do not exist.
Literally what.
>>1192626
>It's also a physics concept. It's hard to have physics if you disregard it.
I wouldn't call it physical concept. While it's used in physics, it's mainly a framework. Light is a physical concept. Adquisition of knowledge is a philosophical issue from which some ideas need to be taken for physics to exist. beyond that technicality, yeah, i agree.
Why would a guy who plays with FUCKING SPIDERS be wrong about anything?
>>1192660
It's clearer what he means when you read the book. A similar statement made priorly which i find easier to understand is: "if in the nature of things twenty men were to exist (whom for the sake of better explanation I will say to have existed at the same time, and that none existed before them), it would not be enough when giving a reason why twenty men existed, to show the cause of human nature in general, but it would be necessary also to show the cause why not more nor less than twenty existed: since a reason or cause should be given why each thing existed."
In short, he's talking about how in any given moment there is a certain state of things, an state that must be explained by a cause. Of course an explanation of that estate includes explaining the existance of individuals, such as a triangle, and the nonexistance of alternative states, with their own non-existing triangles. thus, a reason an especific triangle doesn't exist..
>>1185225
>Atheists, what is your argument against Spinoza's god?
I don't have one. Based Spinoza is right about everything.
>>1192659
>>The evidense for some Gods is built into logical problems that require a few axioms about causation
And what? Do you think that all of Spinoza's words actually mean a single fucking thing about actual reality?
>>How are you an atheist again? You are not telling me that you have received insufficient information, you are telling me you are incapable of saying "yes" or "no" to certain ideas.
I don't see how this works. Spinoza says some things and makes some assumptions therefore he is right?
Atheism is a lack of belief not knowledge that said belief is false. Furthermore, Spinoza is basically claiming a specific definition of a deity that makes absolutely no sense with what actual people have claimed deities to be.
What reason is there to claim the universe is god other then what ultimately boils down to special pleading?
And frankly I don't know is a perfectly valid answer to the question of everything needing a cause because guess what? We don't know. Nobody knows the why of the big bang yet, or the precise reason why the laws of physics are the way that they are.
>>1192766
If I asked you "can miracles happen?" would you say. "We don't know?" It sounds like you've just taken a stance where it becomes impossible to confirm or deny anything. It's not a particularly powerful position.
he's a jew, so everything he said it's poisonous
>>1192808
I would say that such things are incredibly unlikely and it is more likely that such things are either currently unexplained natural phenomena or are outright fraud and lies.
>>it becomes impossible to confirm or deny anything
It is impossible to confirm or deny anything with absolute certainty. This doesn't mean that I think anything at all is as likely to happen as any other thing.
>>1192823
>natural phenomena
How can you assume everything is from natural phenomia when you have said you can't know if causality exists. Supernatural events are perfectly reasonable if it isn't a thing.
I think your general understanding is you think it IS most likely everything has a cause. This type of thinking where everything is caused by natural phenomena is literally what Spinoza is arguing for. However you did a knee-jerk reaction and denied the very first statement you saw it was supporting some sort of God.
>It is impossible to confirm or deny anything with absolute certainty. This doesn't mean that I think anything at all is as likely to happen as any other thing.
If you want to take a stance on anything you need to before something. I already explained to you how throwing out causality makes miracles perfectly acceptable. In Christian metaphysics miracles are done by an uncaused cause, this is the point that went over your.
So naturally the likelyhood of miracles is equal to the likely hood there are uncaused things.
So you cannot logically simultaneously hold these same ideas
"It is somewhat possible that things can occur without a cause"
"It is not likely that a miracle could happen"
So I think your statement would be something like "It is not likely things can happen without a cause" but this statement would have you agree with Spinoza so you knee-jerk didn't state it since you saw the word "God".
Things can probably happen
>>1192850
>>How can you assume everything is from natural phenomia when you have said you can't know if causality exists.
Who says I need to know causality exists in order to assume that it does in most circumstances?
>>I think your general understanding is you think it IS most likely everything has a cause.
Yes and? This doesn't mean I know that everything has a cause.
>>This type of thinking where everything is caused by natural phenomena is literally what Spinoza is arguing for. However you did a knee-jerk reaction and denied the very first statement you saw it was supporting some sort of God.
Again what reason is there for such a broad definition of a deity other then special pleading?
>>1192869
I think we can both agree you cannot know absolute certainty. But the idea that everything has a cause is very likely is workable.
>Again what reason is there for such a broad definition of a deity other then special pleading?
Considering the time period Spinoza lived in having a purely naturalistic concept of God and one that refuted the supernatural God that doesn't do miracles, doesn't write divine books, doesn't have a chosen people, was pretty mind-blowing. This is a time when Scholastic metaphysics justified the Christian Deity which in turn justified giving all sorts of power to religious organizations. Spinoza was one of the big contributes to the rise of secularism and completely removing religion from religion and science. Putting his God above the Christian/Jewish God...and succeeding was nothing less than a revolution and arguable the start of a new age.
Personally I think the word "force" is a much better term than "God", Spinoza himself said "Nature" with a capital N was the same thing. I personally take this approach myself.
>>1192937
>I think we can both agree you cannot know absolute certainty. But the idea that everything has a cause is very likely is workable.
I would instead say most things simply due to the fact that we are currently incapable(and may never be capable of) of investigating the universe before the big bang, but otherwise I agree here.
>>Considering the time period Spinoza lived in having a purely naturalistic concept of God and one that refuted the supernatural God that doesn't do miracles, doesn't write divine books, doesn't have a chosen people, was pretty mind-blowing. This is a time when Scholastic metaphysics justified the Christian Deity which in turn justified giving all sorts of power to religious organizations. Spinoza was one of the big contributes to the rise of secularism and completely removing religion from religion and science. Putting his God above the Christian/Jewish God...and succeeding was nothing less than a revolution and arguable the start of a new age.
This is interesting from a historical perspective and a history of science perspective.
>>Personally I think the word "force" is a much better term than "God", Spinoza himself said "Nature" with a capital N was the same thing. I personally take this approach myself.
Interesting perspective, I don't know if I can entirely agree though, as I find it doubtful that Nature has some sort of consciousness in the way that say we do, or even in the way that individual animals do.
>>1192626
Actually no, Spinoza sees God as infinite with infinite attributes each of which are infinite with Nature being a particular manifestation of extension and mind.
Spinoza's point is that nature is a part of God, a minuscule aspect not the entirety.
>>1193594
Is it similar to Anaxamander's concept of the Unlimited?
>>1193007
>as I find it doubtful that Nature has some sort of consciousness in the way that say we do, or even in the way that individual animals do.
Well, granted we are a part of nature - is it not our collective consciousness the mechanism for which nature evaluates itself?
>inb4 how's the 8th grade goin'?
>>1185225
>implying that nature is rational, logical and causal
>>1185255
The first response is the best.
The whole thing is sophistry, spinning a long tautological yarn which amounts to nothing more than "existence exists" and mystifying you by saying "god" instead of "existence".
>>1185225
Haha easy: Spinoza's definition of god is that it essentially doesn't exist since it can be swapped for Natura without any loss of information (identity of indiscernables).
So, at that point you should just apply ply Occam's razor, because if a description of God is ultimately no more and no less than a description of Nature, then there's no reason to cling onto both god and nature.
Since we can describe nature through science and other means, and deal with and understand nature than we do foggy ideas of god, it's best to just do away with the concept of god entirely and live our lives.
>>1185225
That's not a god, that's just a fucking glorified law of physics.
>>1193782
>collective consciousness
I don't think we can be said to really have one of those. We have cultures certainly, but each person has their own separate mind.
>>1195813
There's been some philophical arguements for how it is better viewed that there is only one mind with multiple bodies. One of the arguements was from Avicenna who Spinoza took a few pages from. The one everyone would be familiar with would be Hegel's and Hegel was basically the next logical step in Spinoza's system.
Looks solid tbqh
>>1194151
>Since we can describe nature through science and other means
Do it.
>>1185255
The thread should have ended here, Spinoza doesn't argue for God he argues more for the concept of "nature", or the properties of the universe as a whole. His "God" is not God in any meaningful interpretation of the word.
Oh cool it's a long-winded clockmaker argument.
>>1196677
Nah. You fundamentally misunderstood it. If the universe is a clock than Spinoza's God is the kinetic and potential energy that is within all the parts.
>>1195832
Yeah no, I can't agree with that. I only have control over my own body.
>>1185243
This is just a bullshit way of saying, god exists because you cannot prove he doesn't
>if there be no cause nor reason which hinders a thing from existing, it exists necessarily
My argument is still the burden of proof
>>1194151
>then there's no reason to cling onto both god and nature.
Why? Nature is simply what we discovered about God. Your arguing about terms as if language is the foundation of reality. "Word means X, therefore, X is useless!" is basically your argument.
>>1185225
>>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause
This assumption is wrong. There must only be a cause for something being in the state that it is currently in and it not being in another state, but not for the existence of the thing itself within our perception. For example: the state of a ball rolling must be preceded by the state of a ball resting, and between these two states there must be an active intervention of forces making the ball move, which is what we call cause. To illustrate further: for the ball itself being in the state that it is currently in, there must be a cause as well, nominally that would be someone modelling a certain material as to appear like a ball. However, this concept merely applies to the appearance of a thing, not to its innermost being. It is simply without reason or cause or aim that the material which was used to form the ball was even moldable in the first place, or that we can mold any material for that matter. It must surely occur useless to anyone to ask why the stem of a tree is by nature brown and why the leaves of a tree are by nature green. Why, our minds allow us to ask, but it is as futile as asking onself why the colour blue seems more appealing (to oneself) than the colour red, and one must inevitably stumble upon the realisation that there is no solid grounding for these things.
>>1197786
The idea is that what we call multiple "minds" is one mind which explores and argues with itself exploring itself. It has multiple bodies. Think of how body is composed of multiple cells each with their own little agencies but it's all one person. Now exstend that analogy to all people being one mind. Consider how an "idea" can be in multiple people's minds as much. Just as you may group multiple cells and call it an organ, you can also group multiple humans and call them a nation, race, or religious group.
So what we call the material body is merely a receptacle that holds the one human mind in many different vessels, much like how our earth's water is stored in many vessels (lakes, rivers, etc.)
Now the philosophical arguments have some metaphysics arguments behind it, which I cannot discuss since I am not familiar enough with them.
>>1198446
Yeah no, I can't really agree with this, its too wooish for me.
>>Think of how body is composed of multiple cells each with their own little agencies but it's all one person.
My cells are not self aware.
>>Now exstend that analogy to all people being one mind. Consider how an "idea" can be in multiple people's minds as much
Nah, this analogy doesn't work, because people do not know what other people are thinking unless they ask them what they are thinking. I mean, there are circumstances where you can make an educated guess about what another person is thinking, but that's not the same as knowing another person's thoughts.
>>Just as you may group multiple cells and call it an organ, you can also group multiple humans and call them a nation, race, or religious group.
Nah, this doesn't work that well either, as human beings are not individual cells or organs. My skin cells for example aren't self aware by any sensible definition of the term.
>>1185225
>>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause. For example, if a triangle exists, there must be a reason or cause why it exists; and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it.
Why though? Why do we assume that things must exist unless something inhibits it from existing. What is stopping Pegasus and chimeras from existing? You can't say "laws of nature" or "laws of biology" because no such thing exists, "laws" of nature are just our way of unifying similar phenomena by abstracting out those aspects of them which are different. You can't justify this beyond a tautology like "pegasus does'nt exist because pegasus doesn't exist".
The second premise is fine.
> for from that it must follow either that a triangle necessarily exists, or that it is impossible for it to exist.
This doesn't follow at all. The fact that triangles and circles don't have existence in their nature proves that it is impossible for them to necessarily exist, and since they do exist we know that it is not impossible for them to exist. This means that they are necessarily contingent existing things. Not only that, even if something was either necessarily existing or impossible to exist, this has no relation to whether or not things necessarily exist unless something inhibits them or not, it only would if what may inhibit something from existing must necessarily do so if it does.
>But substance possessing another nature could have nothing in common with God, and therefore could not give Him existence nor negate it
Two cats are different substances, and yet both of them share a species. Two distinct substances can have commonalities. Likewise I am a different substance than my cat and yet I can negate its existence by killing it.
This proof has almost nothing going for it. The traditional theistic proofs are miles ahead of it.
>>1185225
Atheists, what is your argument against Godel's god?
>>1199035
I don't even know what the hell I'm looking at. So I think I'mma worship it just to be sure.
>>1185225
>For the existence or non-existence of everything there must be a reason or cause
Why?
>Therefore it follows that if there be no cause nor reason which hinders a thing from existing, it exists necessarily.
So if there's no reason why something shouldn't exist, it exists. What a load of shit.
