For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I have already done the research.

Have you read The Ethics?

Those that know the word God will one day realize God and then it will be obvious that God is not just a word not just a concept.
God is that which is not a concept - God is that which all concepts arise and subside in.

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You can read it for yourself. Its rather short.
plato.stanford.edu...

It is basically a list of propositions. 15 of them that seek to establish god necessarily.

edit on 7-1-2014 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

Doesn't that basically prove that half the stuff they say about the Abrahamic god is false?

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Spinoza's view was basically Vedanta philosophy.

It is my view as well.

Would you explain the philosophy so I can see how you interpret it?

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Sure. From where did you first learn about God?

Sure . Where did I first learn what about God?

AfterInfinity

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You can read it for yourself. Its rather short.
plato.stanford.edu...

It is basically a list of propositions. 15 of them that seek to establish god necessarily.

edit on 7-1-2014 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

Doesn't that basically prove that half the stuff they say about the Abrahamic god is false?

In my view, Spinoza says that God, as an infinite being, necessarily, because the universe displays infinite attributes. One following another, those attributes come from God.
I don't think it disproves anything about the Abrahamic faiths.

JayinAR

AfterInfinity

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You can read it for yourself. Its rather short.
plato.stanford.edu...

It is basically a list of propositions. 15 of them that seek to establish god necessarily.

edit on 7-1-2014 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

Doesn't that basically prove that half the stuff they say about the Abrahamic god is false?

In my view, Spinoza says that God, as an infinite being, necessarily, because the universe displays infinite attributes. One following another, those attributes come from God.
I don't think it disproves anything about the Abrahamic faiths.

I didn't read the whole thing. There was one in there I spotted which could be used to make an argument, but I no longer feel it is worth my time. Quite frankly, I'd be interested to see the case studies, analysis, peer reviews and board consensus regarding the scientific examinations and deductions that led to these parameters being established in a purely logical and rational setting. If, in fact, these qualifications have been scientifically established, then we have a means by which to determine the godly nature of an object, creature, or entity. This still leaves room for questioning as concerns the precise parameters of the quality referred to as "divinity".

reply to post by Aphorism


For the sake of argument??? Not another God exist/god does not exist thread....no offense but no one will ever know...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I don't agree with Spinoza to begin with so I'm with ya there.
Spinoza seeks to establish a God that is somehow disconnected with the universe. I don't agree with that at all.

Spinozism (also spelled Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Precisely. Spinozism and pantheism are two different things.
I fall in line much closer with pantheism.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I have already done the research.

Have you read The Ethics?

Not as yet but it certainly appears wonderful so far.

Thank you for pointing Ethics out.

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Precisely. Spinozism and pantheism are two different things.
I fall in line much closer with pantheism.

How is pantheism different?

Itisnowagain

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Precisely. Spinozism and pantheism are two different things.
I fall in line much closer with pantheism.

How is pantheism different?

Disregard. They aren't. I was misunderstanding Spinoza.

JayinAR
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I don't agree with Spinoza to begin with so I'm with ya there.
Spinoza seeks to establish a God that is somehow disconnected with the universe. I don't agree with that at all.

I have yet to locate a theory which proclaims divinity as being a label intended to honor the function of a quantum principle which balances decay and growth in a progressive cycle of constructive channeling through generation of contextually sensitive values. But who says I need a label? Maybe resisting labels is a good approach to opening peoples' minds. Maybe not having a label is a sign that I'm onto something fresh. That can't be a bad thing, can it?

Itisnowagain
Those that know the word God will one day realize God and then it will be obvious that God is not just a word not just a concept.
God is that which is not a concept - God is that which all concepts arise and subside in.

sorry buddy, but "god" is a concept...here's the definition of "concept" www.merriam-webster.com...

unless you have a different definition than this, I'll still consider "god" a concept

Itisnowagain

JayinAR
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Precisely. Spinozism and pantheism are two different things.
I fall in line much closer with pantheism.

How is pantheism different?

The confusion I get is in some of the specific ideals. Such as saying that the world was created specifically as it is by God and it couldn't have happened any other way.

That doesn't jive with my view of pantheism.

In my view, things are sorta set in motion but there isnt a driving force. Or maybe put in other words, "God isn't personal enough to specifically create the world as it is."
Its more of just a consequence of events god set in motion and god is along for the ride, but experiencing his creation THROUGH US.

If that makes sense.

jimmyx

Itisnowagain
Those that know the word God will one day realize God and then it will be obvious that God is not just a word not just a concept.
God is that which is not a concept - God is that which all concepts arise and subside in.

sorry buddy, but "god" is a concept...here's the definition of "concept" www.merriam-webster.com...

unless you have a different definition than this, I'll still consider "god" a concept

God is 'that' in which concepts are conceived. The concept is never separate or made of anything other that that which conceives it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Sure ya have. We have just been talking about it. In Spinoza's view the natural laws are a specific consequence of god himself. They are his very being. Nothing he creates can cab escape the confines of those laws.
They are stamped on everything.

AfterInfinity
Maybe not having a label is a sign that I'm onto something fresh. That can't be a bad thing, can it?

Whether it is fresh or not may not even be relevant! Since whatever you perceive or experience are "things" that have been in place since the beginning of time.

The fact that one is able to go beyond labels and seek what the label attempts to define will result in a fuller realization of how expansive "things" can really be. Its like thinking solely with words versus thinking with images and concepts that can be put into words.

I think seeing through your own eyes could be considered more accurate than attempting to fit what you see into a generalized label that will never encompass how one single individual experiences the universe.

I cant see how that would be considered a bad thing for individuals. But for those who depend on division, that might not be the case. It might eat into profits. Ford fans might start looking at Dodge. For the corporate government, it would essentially be apocalyptic.