>Rediscovers animism
>praised as a genius

>>18502425
>Turns out that spirit worshipping, which is animism... is actually animism

>>18502518
The other option is having God being above any rule of logic, yet cannot figure how to create life without evil and pain, which makes him non omnipotent, or knowing how but choosing against it, making him evil.

There's a reason why most theologians went for him being bound to logic, but were too cowardly to go the extra mile, unlike Spinoza.

>>18502518
>beholden to rules outside of his own will
There's nothing "outside" under that framework, everything follows internal dynamics that are simply what God is.

>>18502417
He was a deist, ie he believed god was a non-interventionist being who did not demand worship nor answer prayers.

>>18502582
Anon, he's the face of pantheism, alongside Einstein

>>18502417
Because he was evil. You can take the Judaism out of the Jew but you can't take the Jew out of the Judaism, et al.

>>18502615
Pantheism has always intersected with deism though

>>18502638
Always hilarious how Abrahamists on this board seethe and screech at the OG Abrahamists who invented the whole idea of the God you worship.

>>18502417
Spinoza was championed by some of the most annoying retards in Western philosophy

>>18502546
>>18502552
So you want to live in a deterministic universe where no one has any free will at all. Bravo Spinozafags.

>>18502814
>want

If you talk to a christfag long enough they eventually let slip that they don't even think about what may or may not be actually true, they just base their beliefs on the what they want to be true and they don't wont to exist in a world where there isn't an afterlife and redemption

>>18502859
they just base their beliefs on what they want to be true and they don't want to exist in a world where there isn't an afterlife and redemption*

>>18502799
> It was true in the 17th century when he pissed off all the kikes in Amsterdam and got exiled
The Church wanted him dead too, not just the juden

>>18502417
He was simply too based and too way ahead of his time. Also perfect proof of why "uhhh but why weren't there more atheists back then, huh???" Is a retarded argument
>>18502814
>waaaaah reality hurts my feefees
Lmao

>>18502417
>mostly accepted view of Yahweh's existence, which is that he can't go against the laws of existence
This is far less accepted than you would think. Framing the physical world (not just the social one) in terms of laws to begin with is a pretty recent invention. Ancient people saw patterns, but imagining pre-defined laws that mechanically produce the patterns like a math formula produces a graph is a barely 500 years old addition to the popular culture.
>taken... to its ultimate conclusion
This sounds great on surface, but Kant would a century later show in his antinomies that reason cannot reliably venture outside experiential categories. Reason unguided by hands-on experience goes wherever it pleases.
I don't doubt that Spinoza was overwhelmingly logically consistent in the Aristotelian framework he chose and the definitions he induced for the various concepts, but this matters very little when you don't actually know what you're talking about and cannot intuitively correct for mistakes that are bound to appear. If one in 10 definitions didn't get the underlying dichotomies completely right, or used too few dimensions on a polythetic definition, the error margin increases as the inferences go further and further. And drawing inferences about the literally entire world produces cosmic level error margins. Said simply, Spinoza measured the size of an atom with a ruler and a compass. Nobody else could have done better with these tools, but ... nobody should have done it with them to begin with.

>>18503156
>This is far less accepted than you would think.
And your point is that because the idea is recent, it's somehow more wrong?
>Reason unguided by hands-on experience goes wherever it pleases.
Spinoza was using a very hands-on experience, however. Reality doesn't show any evidence that a personal supreme god exist, and if it does, it's very inconclusive. but many, many supporting the view that existence itself is the supreme being. If Spinoza lived in a reality where such a divine individual existed, he would have known. If anything, the theologians prior him were the ones who, instead of being unguided by experience, refused to fully take it in.

>>18502799
>But most Jewish scholars who study philosophy actively read and praise Spinoza.
Spinoza dismantles god as a being who demands worship and imposes retarded rules on his followers. Do you know how liberating is that for jews? With the talmud having rules even for how you clean your ass up?

>>18503175
>your point is that because the idea is recent, it's somehow more wrong?
My point is that it's not the "mostly accepted view of Yahweh's existence" when most believers have barely heard of it.
>Spinoza was using a very hands-on experience, however.
Did he? What hands-on experience do you reckon he had with self-caused substances? Or with infinity of attributes? Maybe he befriended necessity beyond inferring it conceptually?

>>18503183
>What hands-on experience do you reckon he had with self-caused substances
Reality, my little abrahamic schizo

>>18503221
Tell me more. Did he buy a self-caused substance on the local market? Does he wash the dishes with it? You know, screw "hands-on", tell me ANY experience you think he had with a self-caused substance that wasn't just conceptually inferred.

>>18503183
>when most believers have barely heard of it
Most believers just choose whatever they want to believe. The average christian isn't an experienced theologian who studies faith on a daily basis. The theologians mostly suscribes to the idea that God cannot go 'against himself'
>Did he?
Natural phenomena revealing itself to his senses isn't enough? Choose your answer carefully, because if you argue against this, you are arguing against the very basis of knowledge

>>18503230
>The theologians mostly suscribes to the idea that God cannot go 'against himself'
Which is a far cry from him not being able to go beyond the laws he set within creation, social, physical or otherwise.
>Natural phenomena revealing itself to his senses isn't enough?
For conclusions on a cosmic level? No. Space "reveals itself to your senses" every single day and it still took us centuries and centuries of stumbling till we figured out what spacetime is, whether it's discrete or continuous, euclidian or non-euclidian, contingent or a brute fact etc. and we produced some infamously terrible conceptual ditches while we tried to navigate it, as Achilles and the turtle can confirm. The conceptual fallacy is still a fallacy no matter how much "knowledge" we lose by recognizing it.

I don't know what this is about but of course an actual god can by definition go above and beyond the "laws of existence" which are our interpretations of how the world works. God is beyond logic by definition. Do Christians not see it that way?

>>18502546
>if God was above rule of logic, then it would logically follow that He'd be evil
-non-Christian, 2026

>>18503230
>theologian simping
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard, but it was not this way from the beginning." -Jesus

"You heard it said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but I tell you do not resist an evil person." -Jesus

"Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs)..." -Jesus

>>18503259
Yea that's retarded. "Good/evil" is a logical dichotomy to begin with so if God is above logic it makes no sense to call it good or evil. I don't think that criticism makes any sense.

>>18502417
>Yahweh
i dont know what that is?
is that some jewish thing?
can you speak english?
fucking goy

>>18502719
I'm writer and philosopher. Don't test me, chaim.

>>18503242
>Which is a far cry from him not being able to go beyond the laws he set within creation, social, physical or otherwise.
So, you believe in the god being beyond logical laws. Go wrestle with an epicurean paradox thread, this one is not for you
>For conclusions on a cosmic level?
Yes, the big bang theory, for putting an example, was found without moving too much away from Earth, or reaching a superior plane of understanding. You say that because there are mistakes which are fixed eventually along the way, that means we can't reach true knowledge. Why are you arguing if you don't believe in it?
>>18503259
Its either that or he's not omnipotent. Your choice
>>18503268
Jesus never wrote anything, take his
quotes with a grain of salt
>>18503280
>Creates a world where his creations are subjected to pain.
>He's above logic, that means his victims can't say he's responsible for their misfortune
The retard is you, my friend

>>18503242
>For conclusions on a cosmic level? No
Just because you say no doesn't make it any less true lmao. It's absolutely yes, once again otherwise you're just arguing against the basis of knowledge. Not even really argue just saying "nuh uh, it can't be true!!!"

>>18503553
>You say that because there are mistakes which are fixed eventually along the way, that means we can't reach true knowledge.
I said "Natural phenomena revealing itself to his senses isn't enough... For conclusions on a cosmic level". If that's such a gut punch to your epistemology that you'd start doubting "true knowledge" then I offer my condolences, but this one's on you. Any epistemology worth its salt should have been aware that there are limits to reliable inference.

>fixed eventually along the way
How'd we fix Spinoza's argument along the way? Did we finally get self-caused substance in a tube?

>Yes, the big bang theory, for putting an example, was found without moving too much away from Earth, or reaching a superior plane of understanding
It was absolutely found with superior plane of understanding lmao. That's why it took centuries to even meaningfully hypothesize and centuries more to actually "find", through various models and frameworks, none of which are obvious to the senses or to any single person.

>>18503565
>Just because you say no doesn't make it any less true lmao.
Agreed. It cannot be less true lmao.
>you're just arguing against the basis of knowledge
Like I said in >>18503600, if drawing conclusions about the entire cosmos is a necessary feature of your epistemology, it's just not a good epistemology. There are obvious limits to reliable inference and reading Aristotle really doesn't get you past them. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe we should stop funding scientific research and instead have a bunch of Aristotelian metaphysicians sit around and infer which experiment will yield which results. We could have saved billions with this totally legitimate lifehack.

>>18503600
>If that's such a gut punch to your epistemology that you'd start doubting "true knowledge" then I offer my condolences, but this one's on you
>>18503608
I think you're unironically too retarded to understand what Spinoza is saying.
But let's turn it around then, if his epistemology is retarded, which one do you prefer?

>>18503600
Let's deny the sky is blue just because we cannot experience the color blue, then?
>It was absolutely found with superior plane of understanding lmao.
I was talking metaphysically
>>18503608
>But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe we should stop funding scientific research and instead have a bunch of Aristotelian metaphysicians sit around and infer which experiment will yield which results. We could have saved billions with this totally legitimate lifehack.
As I said, lets say that colors, and numbers too, don't exist because we cannot experience them unless we use reason

>>18503565
>>18503615
Look how he doesn't fully goes all the way
>"We can know shit, duh! But not beyond what happens in Earth because... because... we can't ok?"

>>18503615
I don't know that his epistemology is retarded, it's Aristotelianism with a few influences, nothing to tear down, really. I think YOUR epistemology is retarded if the mere thought that reliable inference has a limitation completely messes you up three good centuries after Kant has proved this very point. Unsurprisingly, I'm a fan of pragmatists, who took this to heart.

>>18503620
Idk about you but I can experience blue just fine.
>>It was absolutely found with superior plane of understanding lmao.
>I was talking metaphysically
The Big Bang isn't a metaphysical topic. Now, if you think Spinoza has exerted a comparable amount of analytical and experimental effort in metaphysics as physicists have on their way to prove the Big Bang, I am all ears. But we both know he hasn't.
>lets say that colors, and numbers too, don't exist because we cannot experience them unless we use reason
This would be much more of a gotcha if realism were mandatory. But it isn't. It's completely philosophically coherent to say that numbers do not exist, they are just relationships between quanta that we consciously construct.


My friends, if "reliable inference has limits" is the same to you as "we can't know what happens beyond Earth", then your education has been a sham and you should ask for your money back or just get a job and see how far unrestricted inference gets you.

>>18503661
>refuses to answer a simple question about what epistemology he believe in and immediately deflects with a "no what about YOUR epistemology"
Lmao I accept your concession

>>18503667
>what's a pragmatist?
Yep, I concede on all points, please do not (You) me going forward and good luck!

>>18503661
>Idk about you but I can experience blue just fine.
Colors are abstract, so its a little hard to experience them without using your reason.
>The Big Bang isn't a metaphysical topic
How's that reading comprehension going? Didn't say that it was, just that we didn't new hyper reasoning skills to get to it.
>This would be much more of a gotcha if realism were mandatory.
News flash, but idealism has been on the losing side for a while, if not outright defeated

All of this because you refuse to admit that we can know God through our senses and reason. What happened to the Bible, Quran, Talmud being 'inspired' by God? That wouldn't happen here.

>>18503687
>Colors are abstract, so its a little hard to experience them without using your reason.
Bro unironically thinks about experiencing blue instead of just doing it
>idealism has been on the losing side for a while
>we can know God through our senses and reason
Lmao

Nah, I'm done, not dealing with this retard anymore.

>>18503687
>>Idk about you but I can experience blue just fine.
>Colors are abstract, so its a little hard to experience them without using your reason.
It isn't hard at all, you have experienced millions of colours before you ever developed a single abstract thought because the visual stimuli are primary in this case and the conceptualized colours are a secondary induction.
>>The Big Bang isn't a metaphysical topic
>How's that reading comprehension going? Didn't say that it was, just that we didn't new hyper reasoning skills to get to it.
Great, I responded to that. And it seems I was right.
> idealism has been on the losing side for a while
I'd just take the L and move on to the next gotcha if I were you, numbers don't have to be metaphysically "real" to be useful whatsoever and you'll have a hell of a time proving otherwise.

I will remind you again that all these points you made are there to cope with "reliable inference has limits". Are you sure this is worth the effort?

>>18503696
>It isn't hard at all
Oh, you're being like that on purpose.
>Great, I responded to that
You didn't? You just misinterpreted what I said, then asked again how could Spinoza use his reasoning and senses to reach the conclusion that existence itself is God, despite me already telling you in my previous posts.
>Muh models and frameworks
There were already philosophers from ancient times that theorized about the earth being round, and it took many years to prove it fully through your methods. It didn't make the Earth any flatter in the time it took, however. You are basically asking for humans to only trust peer reviewed studies on everything.
>numbers don't have to be metaphysically "real" to be useful whatsoever and you'll have a hell of a time proving otherwise.
What the fuck are you saying just now?

>Thread about any philosopher ever
>But Kant
I hate that fucking kraut virgin like you wouldn't believe

>>18503720
>you're being like that
Peak argumentation.
>asked again how could Spinoza use his reasoning and senses to reach the conclusion
I never asked this. How reasoning and senses collaborate is pretty obvious. My question was if the premises he used in his reasoning and the empirical data processed by his senses compare in any way whatsoever to the efforts behind your own example - the Big Bang. And the answer is obviously no.
>You are basically asking for humans to only trust peer reviewed studies on everything.
It would be nice to at least slightly fact-check the potentially biggest and most important statement ever made, yeah. You don't think so?

>>18503735
>Peak argumentation
Sorry, is just that I cant take you seriously while you are trying to be a dipshit.
Humans start reasoning from the get go in response to stimuli. So its not like you power up and get the ability to think
>And the answer is obviously no.
I named the Big Bang to show you that humans can reach knowledge on a cosmic level using reasoning (their logic) and experiences (testing the theory through the available tools), yet you stubbornly insist in using it against me. That Spinoza couldn't prove that he was right? How can you prove God's existence or non existence? Spinoza only took God's logical existence and brought it to its conclusion, that he was existence and not some personal genie that fulfilled wishes or threw curses. Shouldn't have brought science to a philosophy argument


By the way, Kant, for all his arguments, couldn't refute Spinoza's pantheistic views with his own reasoning. He even developed heretical ideas because of that

>>18503792
>Humans start reasoning from the get go in response to stimuli
>So its not like you power up and get the ability to think
The claim was "before you ever developed a single abstract thought". If you think abstraction runs the moment rods fire signals from your eye, I don't even know what to tell you.
>That Spinoza couldn't prove that he was right? How can you prove God's existence or non existence? Spinoza only took God's logical existence and brought it to its conclusion, that he was existence and not some personal genie that fulfilled wishes or threw curses. Shouldn't have brought science to a philosophy argument
I'm honestly not even sure what is the point of this rant. My claim is that reliable inference has limits and drawing conclusions about the nature of literally the entire cosmos and God is beyond those limits for any single person. Especially seeing that conclusions about the first nanoseconds of the cosmos alone took hundreds of people and hundreds of years of distributed effort.
>Kant, for all his arguments, couldn't refute Spinoza's pantheistic views with his own reasoning
No, he just refuted that this type of reasoning is reliable to begin with. That's what the antinomies are largely about.

Nobody argues that reason and experience are worthless. We're just not gonna pretend you can figure out the whole universe by ruminating in your bedroom.

>>18502641
Pantheism is sexed up atheism.

>>18503817
>If you think abstraction runs the moment rods fire signals from your eye, I don't even know what to tell you.
You're really exhausting every bullet, aren't you? You don't really experience abstract things, as I said before
>I'm honestly not even sure what is the point of this rant.
Honestly, me neither. You are acting as if Kant won philosophy in such a way that everybody else is a no one. Did he truly refute anything? He had many opposers, in the past and today.
>No, he just refuted that this type of reasoning is reliable to begin with
>We're just not gonna pretend you can figure out the whole universe by ruminating in your bedroom.
Spinoza believed that through observing nature you could reach an understanding on God. He didn't stay in his bedroom smelling his own farts while thinking about God

>>18503730
Ironic how, for someone that despised reasoning non based on experiences, his longest travel in his life was only around 60 miles

>>18503845
>You're really exhausting every bullet, aren't you? You don't really experience abstract things, as I said before
I'm leaving the last one for my brain. Like I asid, colours are experiential primarily and conceptual secondarily. You experience millions of colours and the precise moment when you start abstracting them into conceptual clusters called "red", "green", "blue" etc is completely besides the point. If you don't get this now, just forget it.
>You are acting as if Kant won philosophy
Actually I won it.
>Did [Kant] truly refute anything?
That really depends. You could say his antinomies refuted hardcore rationalists, who imagined that reason doesn't need intuitive / hands-on experience to deliver results... but his efforts did very little to prevent precisely this flavor of rationalist modernism from appearing and arguably still existing today.
>Spinoza believed that through observing nature you could reach an understanding on God.
Natural theology is pretty uncontroversial. Psalms are full of precisely these kinds of observations. But even in their most daring extremes they don't go half the distance that Spinoza decided to go.

Listen, we both think reason and experience provide understanding. We both think the experience and reasoning should go beyond bedroom fart-smelling. Now we're just arguing about the degree of intellectual and empirical effort required for a particular conclusion to be reliably drawn. Agreed?

>>18503870
>Listen, we both think reason and experience provide understanding. We both think the experience and reasoning should go beyond bedroom fart-smelling.
That was my point from the very beginning. I'll take my lesson and watch out for kantians around these parts next time

>>18503884
Lest you be compelled to actually address the point of contention lmao

>>18503553
What does responsibility have anything to do with "good" and "evil"?
You are implying that good and evil are notions that apply to beings who exist outside of logic.
Good and evil doesn't even apply to other creatures. You wouldn't say a lion is evil. It's a cringe argument.

>>18503887
>Lest you be compelled to actually address something that's only happening in my mind*
ftfy. Fuck idealism

>>18503900
My bad, I could have sworn I wrote and posted this irl: "reliable inference has limits and drawing conclusions about the nature of literally the entire cosmos and God is beyond those limits for any single person" in >>18503817. Could've sworn you tried to bail without addressing it and then changed your mind for some reason too.

>>18503891
>What does responsibility have anything to do with "good" and "evil"?
Its the same as
>The consequences of actions cannot be valued depending on their results
>You are implying that good and evil are notions that apply to beings who exist outside of logic.
A being outside of the logic of our world can reject it, but they are still subjected to how we may see them
>Good and evil doesn't even apply to other creatures. You wouldn't say a lion is evil.
The lion is evil to the gazelle they hunt, and the gazelle is evil to the plants. Context and perspective are key.
>It's a cringe argument
For you

>>18503909
You forgot the *honk honk* at the end of your post. Such a classical element to clowns, yet you dismissed it

>>18503922
Again, either bail completely or step up the game, you're giving bedroom fart-sniffers a bad name. Next thing you know we won't be able to figure out the entire reality by grinding glass for a living.

>>18503870
>Psalms are full of precisely these kinds of observations
Uh oh, you just outed yourself as a christcuck. Sorry, your argument is now irrelevant since your worldview is infinitely more retarded than Spinozas.

>>18503918
>The lion is evil to the gazelle they hunt
Lol. No he is not, evil is not the same as bad.
Good and evil are human moral judgements, both the lion and the gazelle have no concept of it whatsoever. They exist outside of human morality.
God exists not only outside of human morality but even outside of logic itself so it makes no sense to call it good or evil.

>>18503982
Devastated.