Spinoza's argument is like an argument against the religious people, It's like sinking himself with them, If they accept it they lose, If they don't accept it they both lose because in that they reject the existence of immortality thus perfection as a meaning doesn't exist leaving to finite god who must end certainly, And if they accept it they must accept that all emotions stem from the natural perception of the adequate nature which is a modification of what we can truly perceive is that god and that god cannot act or hate or love because if that happens it breaks the harmony of the universe as one act is an act of infinity as he is omnipotentBut I will present some fallacies in his argument1- Infinity is not truly grasped in its truest form2- Perfection is not the attribute of infinity3- If perfection was a necessary component of Infinity then how can perfection exist for it must exist in a finite period that makes it conceived as perfection and perfection is an attribute that humans have yet to see4- In this logical sense, God is not absolutely infinite but is omnipotent5- God is infinite but is not omnipotent6- With omnipotence God can choose to be infinite or to be not, But that means he must think and that means his thought to be infinite will lead to a solution of not being infinite thus creating consciousness and hindering the absolute infinity7- This can only mean that God has ceased his infinity for the extension of matter and his image in us ?8- Infinity then does not exist and never will ever exist because everything is bound to die and death is the god of this world by the mean of god ?We exist then as God's sacrifice to himself to be finite until he needs to die or cease to exist
>>24787483This is why I believe Gnosticism is the truest to ever come to describing the existence of God
>>24787483BumpWhere is the faggots from the Hegelian post, Need them here to disprove Spinoza
>>24787483Spinoza's philosophy just begs the question. Leibniz pointed this out back when it came out.
Go beyond anthropocentric God. It doesn't matter if whatever substance or God is, humans are still bound to represent whatever infinity could entail via finite means to the point of mootness.
>>24787483But you have treated God in human form which is what Spinoza rejected. Spinoza's God isn't so much a deity to be worshipped as in the case of conventional religion, but is coextensive with the universe.
so this is what not reading and only listening to youtube explanations does to a mf. crazy shit
>>24789210Yeah you whould consider reading and listening to youtube explanation, But the latter is only for the ones who can't conceive a critical opinion
>>24788810Well this is breaking the logical line that entails God with creation, If God is separated from the flow of infinity then we either1- must cease to exist indefinitely2- Are now just the aftermath of God's sacrifice of his infinity, Whereas we have to dieWe can't be the representation of infinity or see the representation of infinity if Infinity itself ceased to exist, Either God is infinite or not
>>24789022So is Spinoza, Even if he tries to play gymnastic on the term of infinity and separate humanity and everything and isolate the term into its broadest nature, It still counts as a term that was created solely by man, So in which manner does he not also describe god in Human attributes ? Even if we talk in his context, Then infinity even if it's out of space and time and is inconveivable it still fucking definitely and surely has to atleast started to exist, It just can't literally, If he's speaking of something we do not know then he must as Hume said to refer to it as something unknown, As the the substance does not have a known mediator to the attribute which he himself fails to connect, Thus it's a priori..Point to say is that you can never not refer to a deity without having the idea conceived from experience to describe him, Even if it's religious or not there is still 0.001% Humane attribute thus again a priori
>>24789404I'm not sure where that sacrifice was mentioned in the ethics? you keep saying 'he'. As I understand it to render 'God' under Spinoza's framework one must de-anthropromorphize it. and then E1 prop 15 > we can conceive nothing without 'God'. which agrees with E1 prop 5 as this posits God and nothing with independent natures. I may be mistaken tho. and as I understand it, nothing cannot be God because one fundamentally cannot represent nothing.
>>24789490No i'm not talking in the context of the book I'm dissecting his views by challenging his narrative and terms without submerging in them, He didn't mention sacrifice but I'm trying to deduce an argument against his anti anthropocentric god
>>24787691Not a Hegelian per se but Spinoza's axioms mistake the child for the parents, metaphorically speaking.
