God as everything

God as everything in the universe.

I was reading a post online someplace, when I chanced upon what seems to be a novel means of definition of God. The more I think of it, the more it seems to make sense; however, it is not something that I can accept. What I can understand is the relative simplicity of such a God.

The idea is captured in Spinzoan philisophy, where in God is the infinite, where god is everything. Rather than making him the controller, a kind of external influence, by placing everything in him, rather than under him, it disables the need for a creator of God. The reason that this is highly attractive is that the general notion of God as the creator of the universe raises the question of infinite regression, wherein if God created everything, who created God?

I have reproduced Spinzoa's proposition here

God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.")

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.

This proof that God — an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible being — is the only substance of the universe proceeds in three simple steps. First, establish that no two substances can share an attribute or essence (Ip5). Then, prove that there is a substance with infinite attributes (i.e., God) (Ip11). It follows, in conclusion, that the existence of that infinite substance precludes the existence of any other substance. For if there were to be a second substance, it would have to have some attribute or essence. But since God has all possible attributes, then the attribute to be possessed by this second substance would be one of the attributes already possessed by God. But it has already been established that no two substances can have the same attribute. Therefore, there can be, besides God, no such second substance.

If God is the only substance, and (by axiom 1) whatever is, is either a substance or in a substance, then everything else must be in God. "Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God" (Ip15).

More to follow on the significance and my own opinions of the theory.


Article citiation: Nadler, Steven, "Baruch Spinoza", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Whirlpool of life

Imagine if you can
You are a fish, caught up in a whirlpool.
You are being sucked to the center of the whirlpool as you take all efforts to swim away from the hole in the center.
You know that as you get closer to the center, the centrifugal forces are going to increase and when you reach the center and are taken down the vortex, your body is going to be torn apart by the immense force concentrated over a very small area.
Now, as you get closer to the center, you see a fisherman's line, with a morsel at the end.
You have two choices, you can either ignore the fisherman's line, get pulled into the vortex and die.
Or you have another option, take the bite, get pulled up by the fisherman. You are saved from the twirling waters, only to die of asphyxiation out of the water.
That is life.

Religion as a means to peace

For quite sometime, religion has caused a lot of strife in the worlds. Let us begin with the spread of Christianity, with the belief that once every human being on this planet is Christian, the Lord will descend in a golden triangle to save humankind, the crusades of the middle ages, the so-called War on Terror - a throw back to the crusades, the Israel Palestine conflict, Terrorism and its offshoots, Hindu fanaticism in India, election of a president in the United States, all of the above have caused pain, have caused strife and have religion undertones.

However, my understanding is that one of the main goals of religion is peace, both personal and societal. The way that religion works towards this is simple.

Religion is the acceptance of a power superior to us, to believe in something that is more powerful that controls most of the events that occur around us.

When one has something that is greater than oneself, there is the ability to leave things in the hands of that so called mightier being. It is like saying that something is out of my control and therefore, is the prerogative of that being. Let us call that being God.

When I do not understand something, like why a particular religion is so fanatic, why someone killed my brother in the twin tower, why someone raped my sister because she was a Christian, why my father was murdered because he was a Hindu, I have two option.

1) I can either take offence and go on a killing spree. You killed my blood, I shall now spill yours. Simply said, the cliche "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind".
2) The second option is when I say that it is a part of the games played by the God and is not for me to understand or avenge.

The first option is not going to lead anywhere, I will never forget that I was wronged, and the person I wronged will not either. Neither will I have personal peace, nor will I have societal peace.

The second option on the other hand, will give me grief for a period of time. But when I have left it to the supreme power, then I do not have to understand. I am letting time heal me. Over a period of time, my memories will be of the person, rather than the means of death.

I do agree that it is quasi-peace, but I am of the opinion that it shall work in all frames of reference. I took the easiest to illustrate.

The point I am making is that by transferring the blame to something that cannot be avenged for the mistake (imagine if you can, I go to God and try to have an argument with him). In the process, my conscience is clean, and that leads to peace.

Highly convoluted agreed, slower sure, but surer.

Why do I do this?

In the last few months, the concept of god has taken a back seat and the search for a purpose, for even something as trivial as purpose has taken the front seat. When I was writing the previous post called as The provider of purpose, I undertook an experiment. I tried to live a life without the purpose as defined by someone else. The end result is just that life is not life without a purpose. It can be something as simple as keeping oneself occupied at points in time, or something as profound as keeping oneself happy at all times, one needs a purpose of some kind or the other.

This post is not something that is strictly going to talk about the functionalities of religion. It is something more personal and therefore much more free flowing. It was during the period of religion-lessness that I thought about the reason behind this blog. I confessed at the start that I am an atheist, with belief in reason. Agreed, but then there are many atheists out there who are satisfied with being one. Why do I have to go and try to discuss god. Well, I guess the reason is the one thing that separates me from most of humanity is the belief in god and I wanted to see the logical reasoning behind it. However, that is not the complete truth. If one sees the structuring of the posts in this blog, they seem to be an outright effort to convince the people that their belief in something bigger than themselves can be explained by reasoning it out. Once a person knows what something is and how it evolved, then they lose the fear of that particular thing, and then it stops being mysterious. I guess that one would agree that if religion does not have its mystery then it cannot exist in its current form.

I wish that was the sole reason. I would be lying if it was. There is a more ulterior motive. I want to believe in something more powerful than I am. I am not sure that I can handle the responsibility of running my life. I would like to know something is in control of what I am doing, and will clear the mess if I (pardon my French) screw up.

How do I plan to do this by being an atheist? Well I don't. The only way that I can have that super-powerful god's protection is if I were a practicing theist. How does one, whose belief in god was broken due to belief in something more powerful, science, get back his belief in god? The answer is by trying to disprove the existence of god.

The question I am sure you are thinking is how can one want to disprove god and then still say that they want to be a theist. The answer is very simple. As any scientist, or any person who has done studies on religion, be it in the field of philosophy, evolution, or just plain theology will tell you, one cannot possible disprove the existence of a god. No matter what one does to disprove his existence, they will come to an impasse. This is a place where god can exist or he cannot exist and neither alternative does not make a difference to the path of the future. The simplest one that I can think of is the period before the Big Bang. If god did exist before the Big Bang, we have no way of proving or disproving it because time as a point of reference before the bang does not matter. Time as we know it today starts at the point of the Big Bang.

Since I cannot possibly prove that god does not exist, therefore by simple negation, if god does not 'not exist' then he could exist. Ergo, I am not an atheist. This is something I am sure that I am going to end up at. However, till that day comes, I shall be a staunch atheist, doing my bit for the improvement of my life.

religion - 4 - purpose to life

Perhaps the most important role that is played by religion is that it gives people something to live for.

What is the one thing that a man needs to justify his life? It is called a purpose. Everything that man does, he seeks purpose. That is the one unifying ideal, purpose of everything and purpose for everything.

I will illustrate this with a line of thought that scares the hell and heavens out of me. It is about what life is without a single unifying purpose.

However, his birth is the net result of the relationship between two people, a woman and a man. Out of the billions of combinations that are possible between the egg of the woman and the sperms of the man, the birth of a specific individual is just one. It is like saying that my birth is the net outcome of a system whose individual probability is one in a billion. Does my birth have a purpose?

As and when I grow up, I listen to different people in life. During the first ten years, I listen to my parents, then I listen to friends and then to colleagues. Their inputs go a long way in deciding what I want.

Once I am near the age of thirty, I get married and have a family. The next few decades are spent in making life better for that family of mine of which I too am a part. Then my kids grow up and leave the house and I am left to live a life whose goal now is just to wait for death.

When I have such a life, I know that there is only one life that I have and therefore I shall live it to maximize my comfort and my happiness, even if it is at the expense of others. However, as evolution says, that is not necessarily the best way to live.

In fact even in economics, what I lived was the Adam Smith model where the best for a group is what is best for the individuals forming the group. However, the better way for life is the John Nash model, where the best for a group is what is best for the individuals and the group as a whole. Religion provides that group as a whole.

Religion tells me that there is something after this life. It is called hell and heaven, it is called rebirth. It gives me what Hinduism called Karma - the net purpose behind every action, the net remainder of every action.

When there is something that tells me that life is not restricted to this life alone, I finally have a purpose. Even though that purpose may elude me in this life, I know that whatever I have now is the result of what happened in previous births and what is going to happen next is the result of what I do with this life. It also provides moral persuasion, therefore enabling what is best for the human species.

Religion provides the purpose that man seeks, the reason to live life. For without religion, if you go along my line of thought, there is no difference between you living until the age of seventy and dying, and dying right at this very instant, for in such a life, the only truth is death. It is a negative system. Religion removes the negativity as a goal and in that place gives heaven, hell and the system of rebirth. This new system gives man what he perceives to be a bigger picture. When there is life beyond death, life is at last provided a meaning. He shall live his life towards that goal and find the purpose he seeks in that goal.

This is the fourth and probably the most important role – providing the purpose one seeks in life.

religion - 3 - emotional support

What does a man do when he is in need for emotional support? He generally runs to the one person he trusts. If he does not trust anyone, what does he do?

In a circumstance like the above mentioned, he generally runs to god.

What does he gain by running to a person who does not talk, who does not reply when asked a question (if you are able to hear something tell you something when you talk to god, it can be either of two things, your imagination or your hallucination)?

Lets us assume a person is under emotional duress. All of us accept that emotional stress reduces when we share it with someone. This is the principle upon which confession in church is built. When he does not have anyone to share his true emotions with, he shall share it with god. I shall refrain from commenting upon the realness or unrealness of that god.

What does he benefit from such a support system?

The answer is simple. It gives him peace of mind. When I believe that someone is watching over me and is judging every action I do, that gives me immense confidence in that person. If someone wrongs me, I can leave it, without being worked up. All I need to say is, “God will take care of those who wrong me.”

Intuitively it is very attractive because it prevents the statement ‘an eye for an eye makes the world go blind’.

When someone in emotional stress knows at the end of the day there is someone else who is in charge, it gives him or her some respite. They know that in the end, everything will be squared off. This support enables them to calm down to the extent where they do not have to take a decision impulsively.

Just think what it would mean to a person to know that he is not alone in this life and regardless of who deserts him, there will always be someone on his side. This kind of support is immeasurable. It gives people courage to face the most hazardous of situations, it gives them the ability to conquer fear and go to places, physically and emotionally, which otherwise would not be possible.

This is factor three, the emotional support that god provides.

religion - 2 - moral persuasion

The most obvious function of religion has to be moral persuasion. When I say moral persuasion, I mean the definition of a uniform good and evil.

Why is it necessary to have a common definition of good and evil? Even as I ask this question, I have the answer. What is good for me can be bad for you and vice versa. One man’s nectar is another’s poison. Therefore, when looked at from the outside, people needed to be told what was right and what was wrong.

The logical question is why cannot people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong? I have a question in reply. When has humanity, when asked to do things individually, done something which makes sense for humanity. People are generally shortsighted. They do not see beyond the choices that they make (please excuse the plagiarism from The Matrix).

What I mean by this, for the sake of short-term gain, people forget what is best in the longer term.

Religion, when it comes to moral persuasion is a negative indicator. It says what not to do rather than what to do. It is as if, other than the following list of things, which are not permitted under me, you are allowed to do the remaining. However, I wish it were that simple. Even in the permitted list of things, we can do to a certain limit.

Religion, regardless of which religion, does not allow over indulgence, does not permit killing of another human being, does not allow one to steal, and does not permit infidelity. The list is endless. I wish that it were possible to list all the things that are not allowed. I hope that I have made clear what I wished.

What will happen if religion was not present? Without religion to provide the moral standard that one follows, what would the world be like?

Would it result in anarchy? I do not think so. The difference is I strongly believe in evolution. When I say that I believe in the power of evolution, without religion to support us, we would have, over the years found out alternatives to the moral support that religion offers us. Looking at it in a different light, it almost seems that evolution designed religion to make sure that human beings survived.

The implication of the moral persuasion is that without religion, man would be doing things, which are presently termed as bad. The question who terms them bad is altogether another discussion.

Finally, I may have rehashed the same thing over and over again in this post. All I wanted to say was religion offers humanity a way that a life is supposed to live. Without this, each and everyone will be living life according to their terms and this may not be the best path for humanity as a species.

religion - 1 - security blanket

The logical procession is now to discuss what man gains from the existence of a god. I shall list down all I can think of. I shall request all who read this, if there are any at all to list more. This is a case where more is welcome.

Let me start with the easiest.

The belief in god came started with the Neanderthal man. One day Neander here is looking up at the sky. He generally does not look up at the sky because he is always looking for his next meal. When he looks up at the sky, he sees the sun. He is awestruck. It beats his comprehension as to how the great ball of fire got up in the sky (he knows it is a ball of fire because he uses fire for warmth in the night).

Neander talks to his fellow Neanderthal, Derthal. Neander and Derthal come to believe that this must be something supernatural. They think that it must be a god.

This could be the instance of the first god. It is well known that the first religion was paganism. Paganism is the religion that believes in gods, which are all present in nature. It worships the nature as the god. It is simple to see where this came from. Man did not understand nature. However, his livelihood depended on that nature. The rains, the thunder, the fire, the sun, the water, the trees, the animals in the trees, each of these played a key role in his life. He did not understand how they worked. He made them gods.

One of the best examples of a pagan religion is Hinduism. Other than the trinity of super-powerful gods – Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, all the other gods are based on some aspect of nature. Agni – the fire god, Varuna – the water god, Vayu – the wind god; the list is endless.

Even if one looks at the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they perform the three key roles one knows. Brahma is the creator, the one who makes everything. Vishnu is the protector, the one who ensures everything created is all right. Shiva is the destroyer, the one who ends whatever began. Thus far, every god is logically in place.

Man created the first religion based on the nature he saw around him. This made sense because most of the things that had the potential to harm him, the things that he benefitted from, he made a god. By doing so, he ensured that there was a logical explanation for these. I say logical because logically, there need not be a logical explanation for the presence of god.

The first god was a security blanket, designed to protect man against the vagaries of nature. This is reason one; Security Blanket.

defining religion

I hope that by now one has a better understanding of the word god. By god, I mean the all-powerful person who looks on us.



The next step is to define religion. The general definition of religion will do for the moment. I thought that I would define all the possible definitions of religion. If I did that, I would be giving away the entirety and all charm will be lost. I realized this after I had written that piece.



Religion is defined as the belief in the existence of a supernatural being. This supernatural being is called god.



There is nothing more that religion is said to be. Therefore, I shall refrain from saying more.