One of Spinoza's proofs about God

[Pad]

Spinoza said :

"Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non‑existence ‑‑e. g., if a triangle exist, a reason or cause must be granted for its existence; if, on the contrary, it does not exist, a cause must also be granted, which prevents it from existing, or annuls its existence. This reason or cause must either be contained in the nature of the thing in question, or be external to it. For instance, the reason for the non‑existence of a square circle is indicated in its nature, namely, because it would involve a contradiction. [...] If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist. If such a reason or cause, should be given, it must either be drawn from the very nature of God, or be external to him that is, drawn from another substance of another nature. For if it were of the same nature, God, by that very fact, would be admitted to exist. But substance of another nature could have nothing in common with God (by Prop. ii.), and therefore would be unable either to cause or to destroy his existence. As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine existence cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine nature, such cause must perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature, which would involve a contradiction. To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore, God necessarily exists. Q. E. D. "

If we assume that God's nature doesn't involve any contradiction (which seems to be reasonable), how can you refute this "proof" ?

Du you agree with me that the mistake is here : "Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non‑existence" ? IMHO this principle is true only as far as non-metaphysical objects are concerned...

BTW, here is Spinoza's definition of God :

"By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."

[Kullervo]

Spinoza identified God with Nature ("Deus sive Natura"). If anything exists, then nature exists, and god perforce exists since he is identical with nature.

The definition of "nature/god" as eternal and infinite is subject to question. The universe, in the reasoned opinion of many today, is neither.

[Corey]

"Proving" the existence of a god by making the definition of "god" too vague and based on circular logic to refute to anyone who believes in it is a pretty safe road.


I don't care much for assertions like "____ must have a cause or meaning...therefore..." Why? According to whom? Because god gives it a meaning or god itself has meaning? If your logic for the assertion you make to prove the existence of a god is based on the idea that god exists, what's the point?


Maybe it was proof to Spinoza, or maybe Spinoza was just rationalizing a balance between not believing in "God" and wanting to believe the universe has purpose and intelligent organization. Either way, it leaves me cold and rather unimpressed.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Corey
Maybe it was proof to Spinoza, or maybe Spinoza was just rationalizing a balance between not believing in "God" and wanting to believe the universe has purpose and intelligent organization. Either way, it leaves me cold and rather unimpressed.

Bear in mind the historical context. In modern terms this 'proof' of God might be called damage control.

Spinoza had just been expelled from the Jewish community for atheism. The Dutch were rather tolerant of religious diversity for the times, but Spinoza felt he needed to be a sort of Christian at that point.

That's also when he changed his first name from Baruch to Benedicte.

[Beleth]

God exists because there's no reason for Him not to exist?

Um... right.

First off, there are plenty of reasons (and this board has seen a lot of 'em) why an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist.

Second, every other word that you could put in that sentence in place of "God" ("extra-terrestrials", "invisible pink unicorns", etc.) fails Occam's Razor. So, then, should "God".


Could God have not created the universe, if He so chose?

If so, then there is no reason for the universe to exist, and Spinoza's leading sentence is false.

If not (i.e. God had to create the universe), then something was compelling God to do so. In other words, there was a limitation on God, and God is therefore not absolutely infinite, which contradicts Spinoza's definition of God.

[Corey]

Abdul...

That is a very important context. I knew about the thing of him leaving Judaism, but not the rest. That's why I said to me it just seems like he's trying to rationalize why he's not really an atheist.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Pad
Spinoza said :

"Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non‑existence ‑‑e. g., if a triangle exist, a reason or cause must be granted for its existence; if, on the contrary, it does not exist, a cause must also be granted, which prevents it from existing, or annuls its existence. This reason or cause must either be contained in the nature of the thing in question, or be external to it. For instance, the reason for the non‑existence of a square circle is indicated in its nature, namely, because it would involve a contradiction. [...] If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist.

What? The only position you can take the position of Indifference. You cant say anything to support or deny the claim, therefore you cant support or deny a position of a claim.

The position of Actualism, quite a shallow ticket out.

Well, I cant think of any reason why invisible unicorns dont exist, therefore they do exist.

I cant think of any reason why Shiva doesnt exist, Shiva exists.

I cant think of any reason why Moon Goddess doesnt exist, Moon Goddess exists.

I cant think of any reason why doesnt exist, [Your god here] exists.

The logic is entirely circular.

Of course, I can think of a reason or two why God doesnt exist. For instance, his very existence is impossible, nothing can exist or occur that cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena. The nature of God is beyond terms of matter and natural phenomena (and no amount of semantics can get around that without shady fuzzy not-quite-logical reasoning).


Let's play around...
I'll create my own uberdeity. My deity is mighty and supreme, omniscient, omnipotent (exists beyond Material description, but cant do the logically contradictory such as making a rock so big he couldnt lift it, or doing the logically impossible such as making 1 + 1 = 72). My deity is not omnibenevolent (it doesnt need to be). My deity is defined (in one facet) as "exists where anything exists. Where my deity doesnt exist, nothing can exist, therefore my deity is omnipresent". Nothing can exist more supreme or powerfule than my deity. By definition, my deity has to exist. There are no other deities that exist except my own. How do Christians refute the existence of my, then establish their own.

Well... it looks like there is no reason why my deity cant exist. And by definition, my deity has to exist. Using Spinoza's logic, my deity exists (and by definition, there are no other deities which exist).


[i]If such a reason or cause, should be given, it must either be drawn from the very nature of God, or be external to him that is, drawn from another substance of another nature. For if it were of the same nature, God, by that very fact, would be admitted to exist. But substance of another nature could have nothing in common with God (by Prop. ii.), and therefore would be unable either to cause or to destroy his existence. As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine existence cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine nature, such cause must perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature, which would involve a contradiction. To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore, God necessarily exists. Q. E. D. "

So does each and every hypothetical thing which can exist...

If we assume that God's nature doesn't involve any contradiction (which seems to be reasonable), how can you refute this "proof" ?
The entire proof rests on ontology. Nothing remarkable.

Du you agree with me that the mistake is here : "Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non‑existence" ? IMHO this principle is true only as far as non-metaphysical objects are concerned...

Spinoza's conclusion "If you cant find a reason why he doesnt exist, then he must in fact exist" is a false conclusion. For instance, for 2000 years, humans couldnt any reason why the sun doesnt revolve around the Earth. The Earth and Sun didnt suddenly snap into their current configurement after it was discovered that the Sun cannot and does not revolve around the Earth.

See Actualism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/):

To understand the thesis of actualism, consider the following example. Imagine a race of beings -- call them ‘Aliens’ -- that is very different from any life-form that actually exists anywhere in the universe; different enough, in fact, that no actually existing thing could have been an Alien, any more than a given gorilla could have been a fruitfly. Now, even though there are no Aliens, it seems intuitively true that there could have been such things. After all, life could have evolved very differently than the way it did in fact, differently enough, at least, that other kinds of things might have existed. So why is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that actually exists could have been an Alien?

One group of philosophers, the possibilists, offer the following answer: ‘It is possible that there are Aliens’ is true because there are in fact individuals that could have been Aliens. By hypothesis, however, such individuals are simply possible and not actual. No actually existing thing could possibly have been an Alien. Hence, the truth of ‘It is possible that there are Aliens’ is, according to possibilism, grounded in the fact that there are possible-but-nonactual Aliens, i.e., things that are not actual but which could have been, and such that, moreover, if they had been actual, they would have been Aliens.

Actualists reject this answer; they deny that there are any nonactual individuals. Actualism is the philosophical position that everything there is -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects.

Of course, actualists will agree that there could have been Aliens. Actualism, therefore, can be thought of as the metaphysical theory that attempts to account for the truth of claims like ‘It is possible that there are Aliens’ without appealing to any nonactual objects whatsoever. What makes actualism so philosophically interesting, is that there is no obviously correct way to account for the truth of claims like ‘It is possible that there are Aliens’ without appealing to possible but nonactual objects. In the rest of this article, we will lay out the various attempts to do so in some detail and assess their effectiveness.

BTW, here is Spinoza's definition of God :

"By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."
Spinoza's God is only hypothetical, nothing remarkable.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Spinoza identified God with Nature ("Deus sive Natura"). If anything exists, then nature exists, and god perforce exists since he is identical with nature.


Well, actually the physical world and the mental world we all know (and love :)) are merely two attributes of the one substance (God) for Spinoza. He doesn't identify God with nature, though nature as we know it is a part of God. Spinoza says there are an infinite number of attributes. We know of only two.

God's existence is garunteed for Spinoza, he is a rationalist, he basically buys into a form of the ontological argument. It's not a surprise to see him using logic to derive conclusions about God.

Most the arguments in this thread so far don't seem to address the notion of God believed in by Spinoza.

I loved Spinoza in university, his philosophy is laid out in a very unique fashion in the Ethics. He starts with definitions, gives some basic axioms and logically proves each proposition from more basic ones. It's truely a marvel.

I'm not saying it's rigorous, nor that it's perfect. But the marvelous thing is that he started from what he knew were unproven assumptions, then used logic to derive the consequences. He was basically attempting to copy Euclid's method. Arithmetic wasn't formailised this way for a couple of hundred years. Euclid and Spinoza... they knew. There are no absolute truths, so any system will have to start from basic axioms which have no foundation.

Of course they should, hopefully be self-evident in some way ;)

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Beleth

First off, there are plenty of reasons (and this board has seen a lot of 'em) why an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist.

This isn't a problem for Spinoza, he doesn't believe in such a God

Could God have not created the universe, if He so chose?

God did not create the universe, the universe as you experience it is two attributes of Substance (God). But to answer a similar question, it would not have been possible for God to not exist, that is, for Spinoza, God is a necessary being.

If not (i.e. God had to create the universe), then something was compelling God to do so. In other words, there was a limitation on God, and God is therefore not absolutely infinite, which contradicts Spinoza's definition of God.

The only thing that "compels" God to exist is it's nature.

Like I said, Spinoza is a rationalist, for them, logic can 'compel' reality so to speak.

Adam

[Beleth]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
This isn't a problem for Spinoza, he doesn't believe in such a GodYeah, I see that now. "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."

A God like that is too infinite for any finite mind to make any intelligent comment about.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Corey
Abdul...

That is a very important context. I knew about the thing of him leaving Judaism, but not the rest. That's why I said to me it just seems like he's trying to rationalize why he's not really an atheist.

While we're at it, don't be too hard on the Jews about this. It could have been bad for them if it were thought that they were harboring an atheist. And Spinoza wasn't actually living within the Jewish community at the time.

As it happens Spinoza did all right, and died nominally a Christian.

Ever heard of Uriel Acosta?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Well, there's always the "show me the money!" defense to the proof.

If God exists, where is his influence on reality?

What is the difference between a God which exists but has no influence on the Universe and a Universe without God?

[c4ts]

Occam said it is pointless to attempt to prove God rationally. After reading Spinosa's proof, I'm with Occam on this one. (Of course, Occam also said the only way by which we may know God is through faith, and I'm not agreeing with him there.)

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]...nothing can exist or occur that cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena.

How do you know?

I'll create my own uberdeity. My deity is mighty and supreme, omniscient, omnipotent (exists beyond Material description, but cant do the logically contradictory such as making a rock so big he couldnt lift it, or doing the logically impossible such as making 1 + 1 = 72). My deity is not omnibenevolent (it doesnt need to be). My deity is defined (in one facet) as "exists where anything exists. Where my deity doesnt exist, nothing can exist, therefore my deity is omnipresent". Nothing can exist more supreme or powerfule than my deity. By definition, my deity has to exist. There are no other deities that exist except my own.


One can show many examples where 1 + 1 = 72; the validity of mathematics depends on specific real-world context. For example; 1 female rabbit plus one male rabbit equals.... So mathematical "truths" have nothing to do with this.

Omniscient Omnipotence is redundant. If you know everything, you know how to do anything and you know how to actualize anything you want to do. If you can do everything, you can do the finding out of any information -- any knowledge. So omnipotence and omniscience are equivalent. I'll simply call this omniscience.

Omnipresence is unnecessary, but it fits in well with the "the Absolute" conception of "god" -- the indivisible "Brahman", even -- which may be what Spinoza was getting at. I don't know, I haven't read Spinoza.

Okay, but you claim that your god cannot engage in logical contradictions. But, omniscience itself fails this test. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

To illustrate the point, consider (and I've used this formulation with christians): God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Now, consider: Can God1 know that he is not also in the same position as God2. Could a God0 exist that God1 does not know about? If he cannot answer this question, he cannot claim to know everything. He has an unresolvable blind-spot in his knowledge and is therefore DEFINITELY NOT OMNISCIENT.

Typically, Christians answer that since God is benevolent, he would never create such a God2. But since your god isn't benevolent, I don't have to get into this convoluted issue of what ultimate omnibenevolence could mean.

[B]...nothing can exist or occur that cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena.

Now you are in the same position as God1. And again I ask: How do you know?

[Dorian Gray]

If you believe that God exists everywhere, then you must admit that you are God, or that everything is then irrelevant, one of the two.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
One can show many examples where 1 + 1 = 72; the validity of mathematics depends on specific real-world context. For example; 1 female rabbit plus one male rabbit equals.... So mathematical "truths" have nothing to do with this.

I'll reiterate, in the 1 + 1 = 72 example, it should apply to physical objects which exist concretely (because with mathematics, all sorts of crazyness is possible... such as 1 = 2, 1 = 0, 1 = -1, 2 + 2 = 3, and so on...)

1 Apple next to 1 other apple always equals 2 apples. My deity cannot make 1 apple next to 1 other apple equal 72 apples.

Your rabbit example is flawed. You are shifting the Identity of what you are measuring. Its nothing better than saying 1 + 1 = 50 because Quarter + Quarter = 50 pennies.

Omniscient Omnipotence is redundant. If you know everything, you know how to do anything and you know how to actualize anything you want to do. If you can do everything, you can do the finding out of any information -- any knowledge. So omnipotence and omniscience are equivalent. I'll simply call this omniscience.

Redundant? Yes.

Unfortunately, not too many people take the time to think about it. I use 2 seperate but equivelant attributes to describe the same quality.

Omnipresence is unnecessary, but it fits in well with the "the Absolute" conception of "god" -- the indivisible "Brahman", even -- which may be what Spinoza was getting at. I don't know, I haven't read Spinoza.

For my deity, omnipresence is important. I defined my deity as having to exist somewhere, otherwise that somewhere doesnt exist. If my deity decided to pull away from the place where my house is at, I would cease existing (and that would really put a hurtin' on my postsperday count).

Okay, but you claim that your god cannot engage in logical contradictions. But, omniscience itself fails this test. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

If you know everything, then there is nothing that you dont know. "To know that which you do not know" has no substance.

To illustrate the point, consider (and I've used this formulation with christians): God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Now, consider: Can God1 know that he is not also in the same position as God2. Could a God0 exist that God1 does not know about? If he cannot answer this question, he cannot claim to know everything. He has an unresolvable blind-spot in his knowledge and is therefore DEFINITELY NOT OMNISCIENT.

My original deity was described with "there are no other deities that exist except my own".

And my deity is omniscient, he would know that there is a blind spot. But since there are no other deities that exist except my own, there is no blind spot.

Typically, Christians answer that since God is benevolent, he would never create such a God2. But since your god isn't benevolent, I don't have to get into this convoluted issue of what ultimate omnibenevolence could mean.
Dont worry about the Christian God, that's all fairytale and folklore, my deity (by definition) has to exist, and there are no other deities except my own.

Now you are in the same position as God1. And again I ask: How do you know?
(The potential circles that come from this are endless!)

The Argument of Doubt (in relation to my initial claim) is in itself a question which no rational reasoning can answer. Therefore the Argument of Doubt puts you in a place where there is nothing rational you can say to accept or deny my initial claim. In effect, you cannot say you are for against either side of my claim, until there is something which is shown to exist that cannot be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. The Argument of Doubt can only lead you take up the Position of Indifference. Of course, the Argument of Doubt is made under the assumption there is something which contradicts my initial claim, that would make the universally metaphysical negation (the Argument of Doubt) supported by another universally metaphysical assumption (things exist beyond material description), the Argument of Doubt is simply an unfair and frivolous question to ask (see "When did you stop beating your wife" as another unfair quesion with unfair base assumptions behind it).

(I can defend my hypothetical deity all day if I wanted to...)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
If you believe that God exists everywhere, then you must admit that you are God, or that everything is then irrelevant, one of the two.
"God exists everywhere" and "God is everything" are not the same.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]

I'll reiterate, in the 1 + 1 = 72 example, it should apply to physical objects which exist concretely (because with mathematics, all sorts of crazyness is possible... such as 1 = 2, 1 = 0, 1 = -1, 2 + 2 = 3, and so on...)

1 Apple next to 1 other apple always equals 2 apples. My deity cannot make 1 apple next to 1 other apple equal 72 apples.

Your rabbit example is flawed. You are shifting the Identity of what you are measuring. Its nothing better than saying 1 + 1 = 50 because Quarter + Quarter = 50 pennies.


As I've written in another thread: 1 animal next to 1 animal can often result in 1 animal. 1 rabbit plus one lion for example. Mathematics only works in those areas we can confirm that it works -- there is nothing universal about it. It depends on experience for it's validity.


For my deity, omnipresence is important. I defined my deity as having to exist somewhere, otherwise that somewhere doesnt exist. If my deity decided to pull away from the place where my house is at, I would cease existing (and that would really put a hurtin' on my postsperday count).

Yeah, it's a good think the Buddha Mind doesn't have a short attention span. :)


If you know everything, then there is nothing that you dont know. "To know that which you do not know" has no substance.

Your approach here is much like your approach to mathematics above. If I can show a counterexample: where one's thinking that one knows everything on the same basis as your thinking that you know everything -- is obviously false - then you cannot maintain the claim; even by definition. God2's thinking is obviously false; and premised in exactly the same manner as God1's -- in my example. Therefore a counterexample exists.


My original deity was described with "there are no other deities that exist except my own".

And my deity is omniscient, he would know that there is a blind spot. But since there are no other deities that exist except my own, there is no blind spot.


The problem is that even if no deity exists behind the blind spot; there is no way for the deity to test this. Therefore he cannot say that no deity exists beyond the blind spot; he cannot know, logically.


(The potential circles that come from this are endless!)

The Argument of Doubt (in relation to my initial claim) is in itself a question which no rational reasoning can answer. Therefore the Argument of Doubt puts you in a place where there is nothing rational you can say to accept or deny my initial claim. In effect, you cannot say you are for against either side of my claim, until there is something which is shown to exist that cannot be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. The Argument of Doubt can only lead you take up the Position of Indifference. Of course, the Argument of Doubt is made under the assumption there is something which contradicts my initial claim, that would make the universally metaphysical negation (the Argument of Doubt) supported by another universally metaphysical assumption (things exist beyond material description), the Argument of Doubt is simply an unfair and frivolous question to ask (see "When did you stop beating your wife" as another unfair quesion with unfair base assumptions behind it).

I don't agree. The question is just as fair as asking; how do you know that no aliens of human or above intelligence exist on other planets?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Spinoza identified God with Nature ("Deus sive Natura"). If anything exists, then nature exists, and god perforce exists since he is identical with nature.



"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"God exists everywhere" and "God is everything" are not the same.

"God exists everywhere" == omnipresence

"God is everything" == pantheism

add to that

"Everything is God" == panentheism.

Spinoza would be a panentheist. Although he was an expelled heretic in his time, his is the position of most non-Orthodox religious Jews today.

The main difference between pantheism and panentheism is that the latter allows for something to exist other than the universe.

[Kullervo]

SlimShady is right and I am wrong. So it goes. I probably ought to go back and read Spinoza again. The method is far more important than the madness if indeed madness it be.