Philosophy Discussion Forums

The whole point of Spinoza is that "his god" is no goad at all.
Spinoza's god, is not "him"; has no personality; not conscious; no volition; no need nor desire, nor conscience. God is nature.

Felix wrote: ↑September 28th, 2019, 5:22 pm

Mans: Although discussion about pantheism takes us out from the main topic, it brings up the question of whether each of the elements and things in nature is a part of God? Do pantheists believe this?

Not far from the main topic.... The panthesis is that God is omnipresent, so everything would be immanent in Him. However, the explicit meaning of that statement would depend on one's definition of "God." For example, if He is defined as Consciousness or Intelligence than It would be immanent in material reality, i.e., Consciousness/Intelligence would be manifest in it, but if not equally so, we would have the material polarities of conscious/unconscious, good/evil, etc.

If God was both Omnipresent and Omniscient, such polarities would not manifest, because they reflect a lack of consciousness or awareness of wholeness. Either way, the idea of omnipotence can be dispensed with.

The panthesis is that God is omnipresent, so everything would be immanent in Him

But your definition about pantheism has a key difference with the below definition that I found in Wikipedia:

"Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God."

It is told, pantheists believe, everything (every object and being) is a part of God!

Those two statements are equivalent: "Everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God" = "Everything (every object and being) is a part of God."

The idealist take on it would be: objects exist in Consciousness and cannot be demonstrated to exist apart from it in it's various modes, from the most gross to the most subtle: sensory, intellectual, mystical/intuitive - mystical/intuitive being the the most unitive or least polarized mode of consciousness.

There's a distinction between pantheism and panentheism!

Consul wrote: ↑September 28th, 2019, 9:53 pmThere's a distinction between pantheism and panentheism!

"Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world."

If "being in" is interpreted mereologically, i.e. in terms of parthood, then this statement is inconsistent. For if x is part of y, then y cannot be part of x (with parthood defined as proper parthood, which implies that x is different from y). For example, Texas is part of the USA, but the USA aren't part of Texas.

Merriam-Webster defines panentheism as "the doctrine that God includes the world as a part though not the whole of his being".
Panentheism can be consistently defined as the view that the world is part (a proper part) of God, such that the world and God are partially identical.
According to pantheism, the world and God are totally identical.
Note that both pantheism and panentheism entail that God is a spatially extended, material substance, since no spatially unextended, immaterial substance (such as the theistic and deistic God) can be partially or totally identical to the spatially extended world-substance.

Thank you, Consul, but I have doubts about the accuracy of that definition. How can God be identical to the material Universe? That's completely redundant, t'would make God superfluous. Panentheism makes more sense but it too circumscribes God if it asserts that he is only material substance. That doesn't add up.

Mans wrote:

I researched about pantheism and the final result was this definition: "Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God."

Although discussion about pantheism takes us out from the main topic, but it brings up this question that whether each on the elements and things in the nature is a part of God? Do pantheists believe in such the belief?

That definition is for panentheism not pantheism. Pantheism is the view that everything is God or Nature.

I am undecided whether I am a pantheist or a panentheist.

whether each on the elements and things in the nature is a part of God? Do pantheists believe in such the belief?

Yes, they do. So do panentheists. They also believe that each minutest thing is a necessary thing.

Felix wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 3:29 amThank you, Consul, but I have doubts about the accuracy of that definition. How can God be identical to the material Universe? That's completely redundant, t'would make God superfluous. Panentheism makes more sense but it too circumscribes God if it asserts that he is only material substance. That doesn't add up.

Anything can be called a god or God. For example, there's "hylotheism", according to which God = Matter; but it's certainly just a pseudotheism, a theism in name only. Equally, as Schopenhauer says, "pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism."

"[P]antheism is a concept that invalidates itself, since the concept of a God presupposes as its essential correlative a world different from him. If, on the other hand, the world itself is to take over his role, there remains simply an absolute world without God, and so pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism. …But even the assumption of some cause of the world different therefrom is still not theism. For this demands a world-cause that is not only different from the world, but is intelligent, that is to say, knows and wills, and so is personal and consequently also individual; it is only such a cause that is indicated by the word 'God'. An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception, a contradictio in adjecto, a shibboleth for professors of philosophy, who, having had to give up the thing, are anxious to slip through with the word."

(Schopenhauer, Arthur. "Fragments for the History of Philosophy." In Parerga and Paralipomena. Vol. 1. 1851. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. pp. 114-5)

As for panentheism, if it regards God as a nonspatial, immaterial substance, he has the size of a mathematical point, being a zero-dimensional substance, a "point-soul"/"soul-point". But a three-dimensional thing cannot be part of a zero-dimensional thing. For example, a sphere cannot be part of a point; and a planet cannot be part of a point-particle.

Pantheism is the view that everything is God or Nature.

What does this mean? Do pantheists separate God and nature as two independent existence? May you interpret the quote and explain more?

Consul (quoting Schopenhauer) - For this demands a world-cause that is not only different from the world, but is intelligent, that is to say, knows and wills, and so is personal and consequently also individual; it is only such a cause that is indicated by the word 'God'.

Franklin Merrell-Wolff makes the same point: he says that since all entities are derivative, a personal God would be too.

Consul wrote:

As for panentheism, if it regards God as a nonspatial, immaterial substance,

Among the theorems and axioms of Spinozan panentheism is that we understand God or nature according to two perspectives; 1. eternity and 2. temporality.

God is both of those and is the causeless cause of them both.Therefore God or Nature is not one perspective of nonspatial immateriality but both perspectives 1. and 2. at least, and possibly infinitely more than those two.

God or Nature is not solely nonspatial and immaterial but is also spatial and material. This idea is repeated in Christian doctrine which regards God as both transcendent and immanent.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2019, 6:33 pm The whole point of Spinoza is that "his god" is no goad at all.
Spinoza's god, is not "him"; has no personality; not conscious; no volition; no need nor desire, nor conscience. God is nature.

I agree with what you mean. However this is not "the whole point of Spinoza's god" . There is a lot more including the ethical and scientific import.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 7:43 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2019, 6:33 pm The whole point of Spinoza is that "his god" is no goad at all.
Spinoza's god, is not "him"; has no personality; not conscious; no volition; no need nor desire, nor conscience. God is nature.

I agree with what you mean. However this is not "the whole point of Spinoza's god" . There is a lot more including the ethical and scientific import.

Not sure about "scientific". Unless you are referring to the "geometric method".
As for ethics - that fully resides in human thought and practice, where volition and conscience reside.
Spinoza was in a difficult position as a atheist. Atheism was a burning issue and his first job in Ethics was to prove the existence of god, which he does by associating god with nature, for which he was excommunicated by the Jewish church, and fled persecution, avoided academic posts spending his time grinding lenses for a living, until he died of lung disease.

Earthellism answers is that God is not here on earthell. God is in heaven and not here. God is omnipotent in heaven and God's love radiates here on earthell where God is only omnibenevolent here. The accident that killed Kobe Bryant is a good example where God could have proved himself. Kobe was a true gift to us from God as an unbelievably gifted athlete who was not perfect but became a role model father. We all cried when Kobe died with the 9 others but the saddest one of all was God who has cried an ocean of tears for our innocent suffering here on earthell. God does not reside here in hell but God's love is here to comfort us until we meet God in heaven.

Darshan wrote:Earthellism answers is that God is not here on earthell. God is in heaven and not here. God is omnipotent in heaven and God's love radiates here on earthell where God is only omnibenevolent here....

Of all the various ideas as to what constitutes heaven and hell, this Earthellism thing seems to be among the most understandable in terms of human history on the planet Earth. Since at least anciet Greek times, people have looked at the heavens (the movements across the sky of the sun, moon, planets and stars) and noted the contrast with the messy, chaotic, dangerous world of hunger and predation on the surface of the Earth. It seems to me easy to understand how one would do that, see the predictability and precision of the movements of those heavenly bodies, and see that as a metaphor for a perfect realm in which humans could somehow dwell forever with no hunger, pain or fear.