/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13488716]

>the only substance that exists is God
Can you prove him wrong?

[Anonymous No.13488735]

>>13488716
I exist. I'm ungodly. God does not associate with the ungodly. Therefore all my substance is not god.

[Anonymous No.13488757]

>>13488735
but God is infinite, how can you exist outside him?

[Anonymous No.13488792]

>>13488716
Yes, God doesn't exist, so obviously he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.13488795]

What does that make "substance abuse" then?

[Anonymous No.13488801]

>>13488716
Substance is an abstraction, not what the meaning of "exists" means, as it only accounts for what is unchanging. To make change an intrinsic part of what it means to exist leads to radically different metaphysics, but this doesn't disqualify substance unconditionally, rather placing it into the larger context of process.

Following this to its ultimate conclusions either leads to a radically different conception of God than classical theism (process theology) or a radically different conception of the universe as an evolutionary process of processes.

[Anonymous No.13488805]

He’s an immaterialist, not a pantheist.

And even so, he doesn’t understand the nature of prime matter and the consequent division of secondary causes after the divine act of creation.

[Anonymous No.13488809]

>>13488757
>the amount of rational numbers is infinite
>therefore bananas are made of rational numbers

[Anonymous No.13488828]

>>13488809
based. As someone with a mathematical background myself I cringe at the fallacies used by a lot of philosophers and posters here on /lit/. Whenever you see someone talking about the infinite, expect non sequiturs or plain falsehoods. Same holds for things involving ordering, size etc.

[Anonymous No.13488840]

>>13488809
He didn't say that the amount of gods was infinite. He said that god himself was infinite. In that sense it's pretty easy to accept that an infinite being must comprise everything.
>>13488828
Cringe

[Anonymous No.13488870]

>>13488840
literally a cabbage for a brain
Some anon critiqued your argument exposing a non-sequitur and your response is "In that sense it's pretty easy to accept that an infinite being must comprise everything.". It's not haha, because that's not true. A thing can be infinite yet not comprise everything. Those are two completely different notions. If the example with rational numbers was too hard for you to understand, take this for example: a plane in 3d space can be infinite, yet it will not contain all of the 3d space. It's an infinite object, yet it doesn't contain anything. Or an infinite 3d cyllinder with a finite radius is an infinite objects yet there are things outside of it.

[Anonymous No.13488902]

>>13488870
He critiqued the post by saying that because there's an infinite AMOUNT of rational numbers then, by the post's logic, everything must be made out of rational numbers. But the post didn't say there was an infinite AMOUNT of gods, it said god himself possessed the quality of being infinite. In what sense I'm not sure. He could be infinite in goodness, extension, size, capacity, power, knowledge, I don't know, but that was not a substantial critique of the post.
>a plane in 3d space can be infinite, yet it will not contain all of the 3d space. It's an infinite object, yet it doesn't contain anything. Or an infinite 3d cyllinder with a finite radius is an infinite objects yet there are things outside of it.
I just don't understand what you're saying then. I guess that's because I have no "background in mathematics". But to me it seems intuitive that if a thing is infinite in extension it logically follows that it takes up all space.

[Anonymous No.13488903]

>>13488795
Substance abuse and substance metaphysics are intimately related, which is one of the better insights of Buddhist philosophy. The commonality is seeing things in terms of permanence, which as a desire is a fear of death and change. The substance abuser is compelled to perpetuate the habit of consumption over and over again, finding it very difficult to break free of this cycle. Metaphysical "substance abuse" is the desire for immortality that comes from fear of death (one's own ultimate impermanence.) It is no surprise to see substance metaphysics so closely related to classical theism and individualism (human as thing-in-itself, a self-interest agent.) The worst substance abuse is addition to money and power: that of greed, which always comes from a position of insecurity. Christianity famously describes greed as a vice, *but only an "earthly" greed which it replaces with the infinite greed of immortality and freedom from suffering.

However to deny permanence is to make a permanence of impermanence, and can result is trivial "all-acceptance" that is just as antagonistic to change, which is an evolving relationship between permanence and divergence. To make the metaphysical world whole and the concept of nature coherent requires placing both accounts as co-equal, not incompatibilities but mutually necessary contrasts that are the opposite of an incompatibility.

>>13488870
Given such a perspective, Descartes is still brilliant for clarifying the philosophy of cabbage-brains so it may be more closely inspected; you are "shooting the messenger." In philosophy there is no such thing as an "opponent," such a thing is a matter of politics, the only "opponent" is that which makes the questionable unquestionable. With that in mind, you may enjoy /pol/ far more than philosophy threads on /lit./

[Anonymous No.13488923]

>>13488809
>>13488828
>>13488870
Do the bananas exist outside of numbers in a number-free realm? No they don't. Therefore the statement is correct, no particular thing exists outside of an infinite thing.

[Anonymous No.13488944]

>>13488809
numbers are inside God and exist because of Him, duh

[Anonymous No.13488946]

>>13488870
>a plane in 3d space can be infinite, yet it will not contain all of the 3d space.
contradiction
>It's an infinite object, yet it doesn't contain anything.
>Or an infinite 3d cyllinder with a finite radius is an infinite objects yet there are things outside of it.
contradiction
go back to math where people like you can pass

[Anonymous No.13488970]

>>13488902
The rational numbers is a set, a type of object, which is infinite. It both contains an infinite amount of points and it extends arbitrarily large on the line - in a sense takes up an infinite amount of space. The rational numbers as a SET - ONE OBJECT possesses the property of being infinite. More intuitively, the examples that I gave which are much easier to understand are also one object, which is infinite in its nature. It extends infinitely far away. Let me try to clarify my example of an infinite cyllinder, take the 3d space and out any cyllinder in it. Now take it and extend it infinitely far away along its axis of symmetry in both directions. Now you have an infinite object with an infinite diameter which does NOT take up all of space.
>But to me it seems intuitive that if a thing is infinite in extension it logically follows that it takes up all space.
The words intuitively and logically follows should not be used in the same sentence, especially not by you, since I suspect that you have no background in logic. When you say something logically follows, you are expected to be able to come up with a logical proof of the proposition. But clearly you don't know such a proof, since what you saying is simply not true.
Again, the word infinite has nothing to do with the word all-inclusive - those are two completely independent and separate notions.
>>13488903
Why are you saying the word opponent in quotes? I never used the word. I simply exposed a logical fallacy and a non-sequitur and explained why it's a non-sequitur.
>you may enjoy /pol/ far more than philosophy threads on /lit./
Maybe so, because the philosophy threads on /lit/ are mostly shit, because people are unaware of even the basic definitions of the words they are using and expect their word-salads to be taken seriously. At least browsing /pol/ is entertaining (even though I am NOT alt-right by any measure).
>>13488923
The word meaning infinite depends on the context, and the fact that in some contexts infinite doesn't imply all-encompassing means that all-encompasing doesn't logically follow from being infinite in general.
>Therefore the statement is correct, no particular thing exists outside of an infinite thing.
Another non-sequitur. Cabbage for a brain.
>>13488946
>contradiction
>contradiction
LITERALLY HOW? Low-IQ post.
>go back to math where people like you can pass
Smart, reasonable people like me? I'm starting to think it's a good choice to leave this thread, thanks for the suggestion.

[Anonymous No.13488982]

>>13488923
God is a substance with infinite properties which are also infinite in themselves
matter, space, time etc are all infinite but contained in God

[Anonymous No.13489008]

>>13488970
>in a sense takes up an infinite amount of space
Assuming that numbers are material objects that take up space?
> Let me try to clarify my example of an infinite cyllinder, take the 3d space and out any cyllinder in it. Now take it and extend it infinitely far away along its axis of symmetry in both directions. Now you have an infinite object with an infinite diameter which does NOT take up all of space.
I don't understand how a cylinder can be infinite in its extension since one edge will always have to exist in a fixed proportion to the other to maintain a cylindrical shape. And if it is infinite it will be infinite in all directions, meaning it will no longer be a cylinder.

[Anonymous No.13489020]

>>13489008
I don't know if I used the right word in saying "edge" here. My point was that the part in the middle will have to exist in a fixed proportion to the circular faces and thus will not be infinite.

[Anonymous No.13489021]

>>13489008
It contains infinitely many points, has infinite volume, hence takes up an infinite amount of space, and it has an infinite diameter. In what sense is it not infinite then, according to you?

[Anonymous No.13489035]

>>13489008
>>13489021
We agree that infinite means not finite? So the object I described has an infinite volume, takes up infinite space, has infinitely many points in it, has an infinite diameter. In what sense then it is finite? What property of it is finite?

[Anonymous No.13489046]

>>13489021
If we think of it as expanding in a finite space it will eventually reach a point like pic related.

and since the middle part has to remain in a fixed proportion to the circular faces it will not be able to expand and take up the rest of the space. it is limited (not infinite) in that way.

[Anonymous No.13489052]

>>13488840
>He didn't say that the amount of gods was infinite. He said that god himself was infinite. In that sense it's pretty easy to accept that an infinite being must comprise everything.

Evil and Satan exist, therefore God is not all good if he is infinite.

[Anonymous No.13489062]

>>13488970
>which is infinite
It has Lebesgue measure Zero, lad...
It is also isometrically isomorphic to a subset of an arbitrarily small interval.
Hardly something any reasonable person would call "infinite".

You are supposing a definition of "infinite" that clearly doesn't apply and which is chosen rather arbitrary for rhetorical reasons.
By "infinite" he, I believe, means "contains everything", which I would discribe as the union of all sets, which may or may not be a set.

[Anonymous No.13489066]

>>13488757
>>13488840
>>13488902
>>13488946
>>13489008
>>13489046
Holy fuck. At least learn basic math before you talk about philosophy. A straight line could have infinite length but it wouldn't contain all points in space.

[Anonymous No.13489076]

>>13489021
How can an object that has finite diameter be "infinite" in any meaningful way?
The infinite cylinder even seems to be describable with finitely many symbols, hardly meaningfully "infinite".

You are conflating concepts.

[Anonymous No.13489083]

>>13489062
You can always take the power set of any proposed "set of all sets" and make it not only distinct but bigger
The amount of infinities there are in terms of how big a set can be are infinite.

[Anonymous No.13489085]

>>13489066
A straight line isn't meaningfully infinite, even it has Lebesgue^1 measure infinity.

According to your stupid rules everything except the zero set is infinite, since any object that isn't the zero set has measure infinity, for the infinity measure,thus everything is infinite.
You realize how retarded you sound?

[Anonymous No.13489093]

>>13489062
I just gave an example of an infinite cyllinder which has infinite lebesgue measure. Holy fucking shit you are retarded.
>isometrically isomorphic
just lol. Way to expose yourself as a larper
>By "infinite" he, I believe, means "contains everything",
You have a cabbage for a brain, you know that? He clearly knows that the words mean different things, and he claims that one follows from another. If he actually thought the words meant identical things, he wouldn't say that, there wouldn't be any need to bring the word infinite into it, just use all-encompassing.

[Anonymous No.13489101]

>>13489083
That is NO argument against the object which contains all sets given by eg. ZFC, except that that object isn't a set, which is for this purpose meaningless.
Learn basic math.

[Anonymous No.13489103]

>>13489085
>A straight line isn't meaningfully infinite
it has infinite diameter and contains an infinite amount of points in it. I just listed two properties in which it's infinite, you utter dumbass.

[Anonymous No.13489108]

>>13489066
Obviously we're not talking about length being infinite but an object being infinite in all extension.

[Anonymous No.13489112]

>>13489101
>all sets given by eg. ZFC,
What do you mean by that? I get the sense that you don't have much idea of what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.13489114]

>>13489093
>I just gave an example of an infinite cyllinder which has infinite lebesgue measure. Holy fucking shit you are retarded.
It's a completely arbitrary definition of infinite.
Why not Levesgue measure^n+1

>larper
Drunk.
What is continuity on Q anyway?

>He clearly knows that the words mean different things
You are applying an arbitrary definition of "infinite", which is nothing but retarded sophistry.

[Anonymous No.13489120]

>>13489103
>I just listed two properties in which it's infinite, you utter dumbass.
And I can list arbitrarily many ways in which it is finite.
Eg. symbols to define it, or the Lebesgue measure on n.

[Anonymous No.13489123]

>>13489108
Take a 3-manifold with 2 components. One component could be infinite and extend in all directions all the way, yet it's still doesn't encompass the whole manifold.

[Anonymous No.13489128]

>>13489062
If he by infinite he meant, by definition, that it contains everything, then the post that started this all
>but God is infinite, how can you exist outside him?
Is reduced to meaning
>but God contains everything, how can you exist outside him?
Which reduces his attempt to defend OP's thesis as directly stating it.

[Anonymous No.13489142]

>>13489112
>What do you mean by that?
ZFC defines what sets exist. If you use other axioms different sets exist.

Imagine ZFC^{-\infinity}, which is moddeled by the natural numbers.
There you have almost none of the Sets which you have with ZFC, learn basic math, your foundational axioms determine your set theory.

[Anonymous No.13489145]

>>13489128
You are right, but people in this thread are retards who don't even know basic math.

[Anonymous No.13489146]

Guys, Spinoza defines infinity fairly early on into The Ethics, and his proof of God's infinity has some rationale outside of that definition, too.

His infinity is "that which is not limited, which could not physically be greater". By this definition, an infinitely long line is not infinite if it exists in 2 dimensional space.

The idea that God is infinite comes necessarily from the infinite regress of cause and effect. Since every mode around us has a cause, they must have been initiated by one thing which contains the properties of every other thing- God.

[Anonymous No.13489152]

>>13489128
Yes, the original argument you responded to was nothing but a restatement of OPs thesis.

[Anonymous No.13489167]

>>13489142
It doesn't define all the sets that exist though. It's consistent with ZFC-infinity that infinite sets exist. Your foundational axioms determine part of your set theory, but not all of it. There are sets whose existence is independent of ZFC.

[Anonymous No.13489175]

>>13488716
Yes
>there is no substance
I like the spinozian ethic-ontology, but it's too intelecto-spiritual for me. Anyway, I can't critique his position because of asymetric temporal-context.

[Anonymous No.13489191]

>>13489145
I still don't understand how a cylinder can be infinite if it has to remain in a fixed proportion to be a cylinder. If it was truly infinite it could not be limited like that. It seems like a contradiction in my head but I'm probably just too low IQ to understand it.

[Anonymous No.13489201]

>>13489191
Its volume and diameter are infinite. Im using infinite in that sense. You're just using a different definition of infinite.

[Anonymous No.13489205]

>>13489201
How do you respond to this? >>13489046

[Anonymous No.13489215]

>>13489205
I already responded to it. We're using different definitions of the word infinite.

[Anonymous No.13489235]

>>13489167
>There are sets whose existence is independent of ZFC.
That's really a philosophical question and entirely depends on you view of foundations.
If you are working with in the results of the foundations the question of the existence/non-existence of such sets isn't really meaningful, but if you are looking at it from a meta-mathematical perspective, sure.

[Anonymous No.13489270]

>>13489205
Sorry, I thought I responded to it but in the middle of writing the post I got frustrated and deleted it. I'll respond now for good.

>>13489046
I'm using infinite in the sense that it has infinite volume and/or infinite diameter. I never claimed it's all-encompassing and unlimited in all respects, which you are correct to point out is not true (though it's also obvious). Our disagreement stems from the difference in definitions of the word infinite. You seem to hold that infinite means all-encompassing, in which case there is no disagreement and the first thing that the anon said is trivially true. If it rather means extending infinitely in all directions, then my cyllinder example no longer works, but the one with the 3-manifold with 2 component does. One component extends in all possible directions all the way, is unlimited, yet does not encompass the other component. My main point is that there are instances of the word infinite which don't imply all-encompassing, e.g. the examples I gave,which means unless we specify exactly what we mean by infinite, we cannot infer that in general infinite object means it's all-encompassing. You have to give more context for what you mean for this to be true.
>>13489235
>If you are working with in the results of the foundations the question of the existence/non-existence of such sets isn't really meaningful
Their existence is independent of the axiooms. This is a meaningful statement, and I'm sure if you knew a bit about foundations you would agree. Whether or not they objectively exist is meaningless, since that depends on the axioms. Same as asking objectively if there are uncountable subsets of the reals with cardinality smaller than the continuum. My point is that a given set of axioms only says that some sets definitely do exist, but doesn't give all the sets that could potentially exist. There will always be sets whose existence is independent of your axioms.

[Anonymous No.13489301]

>>13489270
>There will always be sets whose existence is independent of your axioms.
I didn't try to disagree, I just wanted to point out that if you are working within ZFC, Sets that are Independent of it aren't really meaningful objects and only if you broaden your view beyond you get something reasonable.

[Anonymous No.13489348]

>>13488716
umm satan exists you heathen jew

[Anonymous No.13489540]

>>13489348
>God has enemies
ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.13489929]

>>13489146

I like you.

It's nice to have someone asking the text and seeing what Spinoza understands as infinite and how he uses it and not behaving like some brainfarted mathematician going about ZFC and thinking he solved philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13490379]

>>13489540
Not enemy, adversary

[Anonymous No.13491631]

>>13488716
I reject his definition of substance.

[Anonymous No.13491637]

>>13488716
there are no substances at all, the way reality exists such that it could accompany the existence of God doesn't allow for rational understandings of reality. We can only get glimpses of this filtered through our confused understandings in this world.

[Anonymous No.13491661]

>>13491637
>there are no substances.
False premise / unsupported assertion.
>the way reality exists such that it could accompany the existence of God doesn't allow for rational understandings of reality.
False premise / unsupported assertion.
> We can only get glimpses of this filtered through our confused understandings in this world.
Begging the question fallacy.

[Anonymous No.13491666]

>>13491661
It's true though, everyone who has felt God, or the different words used by various cultures to express that idea, know that he transcends all possible understanding, you can't place God in a system within your understanding of the world.

[Anonymous No.13491668]

>>13488716
I'm going to God up his face if he doesn't shut up!

[Anonymous No.13492016]

>>13489929
G*d what a moron

[Anonymous No.13493081]

>>13488716
>the only substance that exists is [literally anything]

Can you prove me wrong?

[Anonymous No.13493132]

>>13488716
which god? all gods? your gods? my god? italian god or old italian god or roman god or greek god? definitely not the buddha though the buddha is fake the buddha is some made up horseshit invented by people not real

[Anonymous No.13493380]

The only substance that exists is water.
Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.13493399]

>>13488716
It seems like the logical conclusion to the doctrines of trascendence and immanece.

[Anonymous No.13493403]

>>13491668
He’s dead anon

[Anonymous No.13493444]

>>13493380
Nope. Its made of fire

[Anonymous No.13493475]

>>13488716
>prove
Why do people make these threads? Where is the midpoint between being capable of reading philosophy but too stupid to discuss it

[Anonymous No.13493596]

>>13493475
>Where is the midpoint between being capable of reading philosophy but too stupid to discuss it
undergrad

[Anonymous No.13493608]

>>13493380
>>13493444
cringe. the arche cannot be reduced to any one element. it is that which the elements base themselves off of, but it cannot be observed by u- nah it's just air i'm fucking with you

[Anonymous No.13493623]

>>13491631
yeah it's pretty weird

[Anonymous No.13493660]

>>13488735
>God does not associate with the ungodly
Everything follows from the necessity of the Divine nature, nothing is ungodly for everything follows from his laws and will.

>>13488801
>Substance is an abstraction, not what the meaning of "exists" means, as it only accounts for what is unchanging
It pertains to God’s essence to exist.
>Following this to its ultimate conclusions either leads to a radically different conception of God than classical theism
Well, Spinoza’s God isnt a classical conception.

>>13488805
>the divine act of creation.
Spinoza rejects the notion of creation entirely. God did not create the universe, he is (in a sense) the universe.

>>13488809
>>13489066
This argument is completely sidestepped by the fact that Spiniza’s God has infinite attributes as well.

[Anonymous No.13493825]

>>13493608
yikes

[Anonymous No.13493829]

he was so based the jews told him to leave

[Anonymous No.13494000]

>>13489120
holy based. stemlord btfo

[Anonymous No.13494025]

Of course, mutability. But you don't deal with subversive nerds like this through argument

[Anonymous No.13494032]

>>13488809

Bananas can be broken down into numerical representations so that statement would be correct

[Anonymous No.13494064]

>>13488828
RIP 15000 word SEP article on spinoza

[Anonymous No.13494067]

It's funny how you ask for a proof of denial rather than providing any proof yourself. Everything in this universe can be or is eventually going to be explained by science as it has been.
The entire concept of God was used by people to define the unknown, but it's a simple pattern if you look at it. Something unexplained,say lighting, is called an act of God, here Zeus, but then it's explained using science yet there are people who just want to stay oblivious and that's perfectly fine. Oblivion brings joy. However that doesn't make it true,just because I want to believe that the world is a utopia it won't become so.

[Anonymous No.13494080]

>>13494067
science is a scam and the earth is flat
prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.13494168]

>>13494080
Prove your claims right. The burden of proof lies with you not me

[Anonymous No.13494174]

>>13488809
>food analogy

[Stemlord No.13494195]

>>13489085
>A straight line isn't meaningfully infinite
yikes

[Anonymous No.13494223]

>>13494168
its self evident

[Anonymous No.13494276]

>>13494223
That's retard talk for "There's no real proof"

[Anonymous No.13494494]

Spinoza's views on politics were ten times more based than his metaphysics tbqh

[Anonymous No.13494578]

>>13494067
how can you say science isn't god's actions? it's just a more pleasing way to describe science, but just in different language. we all cope one way or the other and if it works why are you so asshurt about it?

[Anonymous No.13494588]

Kant

[Anonymous No.13494722]

Btw im talking about various theistic gods. The true god however is still real. Like Aristotle says an ordered whole is not equal to its unoganized parts. A person has traits which a pile of organs and tissues that make up the human doesnt have. Therefore for something to be organised there needs to be some order. We simply project aesthetics on that order and thats how we come up with stuff like different religions >>13494578

[Anonymous No.13495004]

>>13488716
can you prove him right?

[Anonymous No.13495041]

>>13488809
Not only is that correct, substance is not enumerated

[Anonymous No.13495726]

>>13495004
he thinks he proves himself right in the ethics