Analysis Of Spinoza's Argument Regarding The Existence Of God

1649 Words4 Pages

Distinctions among past and present philosophers regarding the existence of God, as well as how God is viewed, has provided us with numerous thought processes that allow us to trigger theories of our own. René Descartes and Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza are two modern philosophers that have views of God that conflict with one another. This paper will examine the distinction between Descartes and Spinoza’s idea of God as an infinite substance. Additionally, I will analyze Spinoza’s argument regarding God and Nature, where he states them as being identical. Finally, I will determine whether Spinoza’s critics were correct in labelling him an atheist due to his argument on the uniformity of God and Nature.
René Descartes I will discuss …show more content…

In my opinion, Spinoza’s conceptualization of God does make him an atheist, more specifically a naturalistic pantheist. A distinction that can be found between Spinoza’s God and that of religions’ God is that Spinoza’s God is largely materialistic. God or nature for Spinoza revolves around matter, and it is the laws of nature that make matter assemble or disassemble. Therefore, Spinoza’s God lacks the characteristics of religions’ God that are required for the exercise of providence. More specifically, since God is Nature, Spinoza’s God lacks all characteristics of God that are discussed on philosophy – will, justice, good, evil, wisdom There is no supernatural, the only thing there is, is Nature, of which God is identical. It is for this reason that I conclude that Spinoza is not an atheist, but rather a naturalistic pantheist. The only difference I find between an atheist and Spinoza, is that he uses the word God. An atheist may say that the universe is the universe. Spinoza will say that the universe is the universe, and so is God. The only difference between the two is that Spinoza uses a different term. The important thing to note here is that Spinoza’s God is confined to his laws of nature, which cannot be broken to serve his own purposes. In other words, there lies no distinction between an atheist, and Spinoza, except that an atheist does not bother to call the universe a God, but rather just a

Show More
Related

  • Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy

    1961 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.

    Read More

  • Spinoza Proposition 8

    1048 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.

    Read More

  • Mediations of First Philosophy by Descartes

    1291 Words  | 3 Pages

    In conclusion, Descartes made an argument to prove God’s existence and seemed to be able to prove that he existed, but after a taking a closer look and revaluating his theories you see that he uses a lot of circular reasoning. It is really tough to believe any of what Descartes is saying. After reading his meditations you are left confused, mostly because you are trying to decipher what he is saying and you end up going around and around because of the circular reasoning. Even without the circular reasoning the argument just doesn’t make any sense, especially in today’s world, without any data. To be able to fathom a sound argument for the existence of God just sounds too preposterous to believe. To believe that God exists based of faith and religion is what people today and in Descartes time, as well, believed. To say that God exists because there must have been some superior creator that put this idea in my head is very far fetched. People don’t need to be told that God exists because most people already believe and most of them know that he does.

    Read More

  • Humes' and Descartes' Position on the Existence of the External World

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    My thoughts on God are clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able to use his power and reasoning because he knows God is a guarantor of his ideas and thoughts. As Descartes thinks about his own imperfections, it leads him to think about perfection, and how it has to come from something superior to him.... ...

    Read More

  • Prove the Existence of God Using Who Has the Idea of God

    930 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.

    Read More

  • The Cartesian Circle is Wrong

    1602 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rene Descartes meditations on the existence of God are very profound, thought-provoking, and engaging. From the meditations focused specifically on the existence of God, Descartes uses the argument that based on his clear and distinct perception that cannot be treated with doubt, God does exist. In the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes proclaims that he is certain he is a thinking thing based on his clear and distinct perception, and he couldn’t be certain unless all clear and distinct perceptions are true. Before diving into the existence of God, Descartes introduces smaller arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Descartes introduces in his argument that there are ideas in which he possess that exists outside of him. Utilizing the objective versus formal reality, Descartes states “If the objective reality of any of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me, either formally or eminently, and hence that I myself cannot be its cause, it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of this idea exists” (29). In other words, the ideas of objective reality that resides in Descartes can potentially only come from a supreme being, which is God; God possess more objective reality than he does formal reality. We as humans, as Descartes states, are finite substance, and God is the only infinite substance. The only way for us as a finite substance to think of an infinite substance is possible if, and only if, there is an infinite substance that grants us the idea of substance in first place. After these smaller arguments, Descartes states that while we can doubt the existence of many things, due to the fact that ...

    Read More

  • Descartes Meditation 1 Analysis

    958 Words  | 2 Pages

    Moving up the tower of certainty, he focuses on those ideas that can be supported by his original foundation. In such a way, Descartes’s goal is to establish all human knowledge on firm foundations. Thus, Descartes gains this knowledge from the natural light by using it to reference his main claims, specifically the existence of God in Meditation III, and provide an explanation to his radical thoughts. In Meditation III “The existence of God,” Descartes builds his foundation of certainty in the natural light through the examination of God’s existence.

    Read More

  • Third Meditation, by Rene Descartes

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas. Descartes uses negation to come to the conclusion that ideas do not come from the world or imagination; because the world contains material objects, perfection does not exist.

    Read More

  • Descartes Proof Of God

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    Descartes thinks that we have a very clear and distinct idea of God. He thinks God must exist and Descartes himself must exist. It is a very different way of thinking shown from the six meditations. Descartes uses ideas, experiments, and “proofs” to try and prove God’s existence.

    Read More

  • The Rationalism of Descartes and Leibniz

    1674 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...rney. Since the philosophies of Descartes and Leibniz were built around this idea of an immaterial, indivisible God, the philosophy that followed seemed to many to be shaky and speculative by their own definition. But considering the time period and the pressure involved in philosophizing at all, we must admire and respect the great advancement in thinking that was prompted by these great men.

    Read More

  • Comparing Theories of God's Existence

    655 Words  | 2 Pages

    Spinoza is a modern thinker who explains God as a cause as well. Spinoza is a monist who believes everything is one. Therefore, he believes God is the only substance and existence there is. Spinoza states that "by God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an inf...

    Read More

  • Spinoza Argument On Substance Monism

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    Spinoza argued for substance monism. For the purpose of this paper, I will discuss Spinoza’s argument for substance monism. I will then explore how Spinoza’s view of substance monism is relevant to absurdist claims that there is no meaning in existence. I will then raise an issue with Spinoza’s seventh axiom. I will then conclude with why Spinoza’s substance monism is not entirely convincing in large part because of his definition of God and his seventh axiom.

    Read More

  • Descartes vs. Spinoza on Substance

    2323 Words  | 5 Pages

    Throughout the history of metaphysics the question, What is? has always been answered in an incomplete,unsatisfactory or complicated manner, but Spinoza tried to answer this question in an exceptional way simply by describing God and His essence. Based on Spinoza’s views, God’s qualities can be referred to as attributes and modes are merely affections of a substance. This paper will provide a detailed view of Spinoza’s key ontological definition of God as the only substance, his attributes, and their co-relations. The study goes further to explore the major scholarly argument between Spinoza and Descartes, in regard to their view of substance, and its attributes. Descartes and Spinoza appear to hold different perceptions in regard to the existence of substance.

    Read More

  • Essay On Spinoza

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    This means that without a substance, a mode cannot exist. Thus, this brings Spinoza to explain that there is only one substance in the universe and he describes it as being God/nature. Another important definition is what Spinoza defines as God. God in Spinoza's mind is a substance that has infinite attributes, or an infinite being. This substance must have the qualities of being absolutely eternal and absolutely infinite.

    Read More

  • Descartes’, Spinoza’s, and Leibniz’s Response to the Mind-Body Problem

    2994 Words  | 6 Pages

    The arguments are vast and wide spread. There are still many other philosophers out there who have weighed in on this problem who were not able to be covered in this paper. As you can now clearly see each of these three philosophers had a discourse between one another through their own works in which they tried to reconcile the issues that arose in the others. Interestingly all of these philosophers used God in quite different ways in order to make their argument fit their needs. They also all addressed the idea of substances in different ways, taking it to mean different things. Thus in conclusion neither Descartes, Spinoza, nor Leibniz have arguments that I agree on. Each one has its strong points and its weak points. By tweaking each argument I made them better fit my own understanding and beliefs.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of Spinoza's Argument Regarding The Existence Of God

Open Document