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.