Spinoza's Argument for God's existence

[Pantheist]

The real question isn’t the argument itself, but which of Spinoza’s axioms you accept or reject (hence why it’s a poll). You can’t really reject the definitions. Rather, presupposing the definitions, which axioms do you accept or reject?

If you accept them all, you must agree with Spinoza’s conclusions, if his arguments are valid (and they are).

All these are drawn from Spinoza’s Ethics (Curley trans.)

Definitions:

1. Self-caused: that whose essence involves existence, or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.
2. Finite in its own kind: Limited by another thing of the same nature.
3. Substance: That which is in itself and is conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.
4. Attribute: What the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence.
5. Mode: The affections of a substance, or that which is in another through which it is also conceived.
6. God: A substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.

7a. Free: That which exists from the necessity of its nature alone, and is determined to act by itself alone.

7b. Necessary: That which is determined by another to exist and to produce an effect in a certain and determinate manner.

1. Eternity: Existence itself, insofar as it is conceived to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing.

Axioms:

1. Whatever is, is either in itself or in another.
2. What cannot be conceived through another, must be conceived through itself.
3. From a given determinate cause the effect follows necessarily; and conversely, if there is no determinate cause, it is impossible for the effect to follow.
4. the knowledge of an effect depends on, and involves, the knowledge of its cause.
5. Things that have nothing in common with one another also cannot be understood through one another, or the concept of the one does not involve the concept of the other.
6. A true idea must agree with its object.
7. If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence.

I will give a short version of Spinoza’s argument. For the full argument, look up his Ethics online, Book 1: God, and read through it. This is what many western pantheists accept.

Which axioms do you accept, and which do you reject?

And for those you reject, why do you reject them?

 

[Pantheist]

So here is the argument (Straight from the Ethics, Book 1) for Pantheism:

God exists.

We know this because God’s essence involves existence, and so God cannot but exist.

We know that God’s essence involves existence because existence is the nature of a substance and God is a substance (Definition 6).

We know that existence is the nature of a substance because substance cannot be produced by anything external, and so must be self-caused, and so its essence must involve its existence.

We know that substance cannot be produced by anything external because all that can exist are substances and their modifications (axiom 1 and definitions 3 and 5) one substance cannot be produced by another substance; we know that one substance cannot be produced by another substance because substances cannot have anything in common between them and so cannot be the cause of each other.

We know that, given two things with nothing in common, one cannot be the cause of the other because then one cannot be apprehended by means of the other (axiom 5) and so one cannot be the cause of the other (axiom 4).

We know that two substances who have different attributes have nothing in common because of definition 3.

 

[Pantheist]

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

We know this because besides God nothing can be nor be conceived, and modes can neither be nor be conceived in themselves but only in the divine nature (definition 5), and substances (in this case one substance) and modes are all that exist (axiom 1).

We know that besides God nothing can be nor be conceived because we know that God exists (see previous post) and that God is absolutely infinite (definition 6). If any other substance existed, it would have to have something in common with God which is not the case because there cannot exist more than one substance.

We know that there cannot exist more than one substance because they would be distinguished by their attributes or modes. If by attributes, it has already been admitted that there cannot be two substances with the same attribute. If by modes, substance is naturally prior to modifications, and so considered separately from modes would be identical, and so is identical.

We know that two things are distinguished by their attributes or modes because all that exists exists either in itself or something else (axiom 1), that is only substances and their modes (definitions 3 and 5).

Substance is by nature prior to its modifications because of definitions 3 and 5.