Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 8:39:36 GMT
I've actually been thinking about something recently, is Spinoza a pantheist or a panentheist? My previous notion was that he was a pantheist, as he believes that everything in existence is God, however I've gotten into a debate with someone about this, and now I'm not so sure. I'm gonna give you their argument and see how you think.
According to them, Spinoza's definition of the universe is everything that exists, infinite immediate modes. Eternity. The vanilla definition of the universe is all matter and space that exists, and came from the big bang (assuming it isn't infinite). Finity. If God is that, it stands to limit God's infinity. If God stretches outside of our vanilla universe, that stands to reason that God is a panentheist one, which encompasses the universe, yet is also beyond it. It seems to me that the word Spinoza is just changes depending on our definition of the universe, and it kind of feels like my interlocutor's moving the goalposts. I, for one, tend towards Spinoza's definition, infinity. There may be different subsections and divisions, but it all exists within one "universe" so to say. Assuming the vanilla definition, there would have to be a way for each subsection to paradoxically contain the whole of existence.
I also made myself look like a fucking idiot by mixing up panentheism and theism.
But I don't know, I was debating him just happened this morning. I've been a pantheist for years now, it's kindah hard to question your beliefs,
. Thoughts?
According to them, Spinoza's definition of the universe is everything that exists, infinite immediate modes. Eternity. The vanilla definition of the universe is all matter and space that exists, and came from the big bang (assuming it isn't infinite). Finity. If God is that, it stands to limit God's infinity. If God stretches outside of our vanilla universe, that stands to reason that God is a panentheist one, which encompasses the universe, yet is also beyond it. It seems to me that the word Spinoza is just changes depending on our definition of the universe, and it kind of feels like my interlocutor's moving the goalposts. I, for one, tend towards Spinoza's definition, infinity. There may be different subsections and divisions, but it all exists within one "universe" so to say. Assuming the vanilla definition, there would have to be a way for each subsection to paradoxically contain the whole of existence.
I also made myself look like a fucking idiot by mixing up panentheism and theism.
But I don't know, I was debating him just happened this morning. I've been a pantheist for years now, it's kindah hard to question your beliefs,
. Thoughts?
. Thoughts?