Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 Hello folks. I'd like to prick your brains a little to see what you know about a topic I am now beginning to study. The topic came up while my cousin was saying Albert Einstein was an atheist and I disagreed with him because I had become aware that Einstein believed in some concept of God, often referred to as Spinoza's God, and therefore Einstein was not really an atheist, even though his concept of God doesn't agree with everybody else's concept of God. And now I'm wanting to say more to my cousin to help him understand Spinoza's concept as an intro to our LDS concept. So come, let us reason together. As I said I am only beginning to get into this issue so I'd like to put my head together with somebody else's.
Gray Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) If I understand correctly, Spinoza was a pantheist, which is essentially what I am too. The universe is God, in other words. It's not atheism at all, but it's not a belief in a personal God either. Edited October 26, 2016 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 Understanding what Spinoza meant when he said he didn't think of God as a "personal" God is something I am trying to understand. He thought of everything in the universe as being a part of God...which would necessarily include every person or at least every element within every person...so in what way would God not be every person and each person individually ? We LDS believe God is in everything and through everything too. We would just NOT say that God is NOT a personal God because we know that God is in and through everything in some way.
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism No personal intersections of your own, bro? With over 23k posts maybe you're just too tired now?
thesometimesaint Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 It's been a bad day at Blackrock with serious health issues.
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 34 minutes ago, Ahab said: Understanding what Spinoza meant when he said he didn't think of God as a "personal" God is something I am trying to understand. He thought of everything in the universe as being a part of God...which would necessarily include every person or at least every element within every person...so in what way would God not be every person and each person individually ? We LDS believe God is in everything and through everything too. We would just NOT say that God is NOT a personal God because we know that God is in and through everything in some way. For him, God is not a person. God is existence itself. Maybe it would help to think of it that way. Existence (God) is in all things, and there is nothing which is not in God or it wouldn't exist.. God is in us because we exist- we are a manifestation of existence itself. Leaves are also manifestations of existence, rocks, trees, houses etc. It's kind of like the question of - "Why does anything exist at all"? For him, the answer is God. That is far different than the way we think about it- for us God's "influence" or "light" or "knowledge" is in all things. For S God is totally NON- personal For S, think of God as existence itself and that might help. It is a very foreign concept to us, and I don't blame you for not getting it. 1
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: It's been a bad day at Blackrock with serious health issues. Sorry to hear that. Health problems such big time! My wife has has a hard time too this year, not only with her regular issues but a big break in her arm/shoulder in July that she is still trying to recover from. I hope things go as smoothly as possible for you and yours. Love ya.
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: For him, God is not a person. God is existence itself. Maybe it would help to think of it that way. Existence (God) is in all things, and there is nothing which is not in God or it wouldn't exist.. God is in us because we exist- we are a manifestation of existence itself. Leaves are also manifestations of existence, rocks, trees, houses etc. It's kind of like the question of - "Why does anything exist at all"? For him, the answer is God. That is far different than the way we think about it- for us God's "influence" or "light" or "knowledge" is in all things. For S God is totally NON- personal For S, think of God as existence itself and that might help. It is a very foreign concept to us, and I don't blame you for not getting it. Not sure that existence itself is what S had in mind, bro. Exclusivity is something else he associated with God and I don't think he meant everything that exists is God. Just that nothing else is what God is other than what is God. But still, even if S thought everything that exists is God that would still mean that every person is God and thus God would still be a personal thing including every person in existence. So I still do not understand why he thought God was/is NOT personal when he/it would thus necessarily be. It would be illogical for S (and E) to think God wasn't.
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Understanding what Spinoza meant when he said he didn't think of God as a "personal" God is something I am trying to understand. He thought of everything in the universe as being a part of God...which would necessarily include every person or at least every element within every person...so in what way would God not be every person and each person individually ? We LDS believe God is in everything and through everything too. We would just NOT say that God is NOT a personal God because we know that God is in and through everything in some way. Imagine that all of existence is a kind of cookie dough that things and thoughts -everything - is made of. That cookie dough of existence is made into people cookies, tree cookies, thought cookies, anything cookies. The "cookie dough" is "substance" which is existence itself and is also God. So God manifests himself in all things, which he calls "modes". Maybe that helps?
Gray Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: For him, God is not a person. God is existence itself. Maybe it would help to think of it that way. Existence (God) is in all things, and there is nothing which is not in God or it wouldn't exist.. God is in us because we exist- we are a manifestation of existence itself. Leaves are also manifestations of existence, rocks, trees, houses etc. It's kind of like the question of - "Why does anything exist at all"? For him, the answer is God. That is far different than the way we think about it- for us God's "influence" or "light" or "knowledge" is in all things. For S God is totally NON- personal For S, think of God as existence itself and that might help. It is a very foreign concept to us, and I don't blame you for not getting it. Great explanation, thanks
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Imagine that all of existence is a kind of cookie dough that things and thoughts -everything - is made of. That cookie dough of existence is made into people cookies, tree cookies, thought cookies, anything cookies. The "cookie dough" is "substance" which is existence itself and is also God. So God manifests himself in all things, which he calls "modes". Maybe that helps? I suppose, if that is what he really thought. So he thought the cookie dough has always existed, and that existence itself has always existed. That at no point was the cookie dough brought into existence, because it has always existed. But still I would think that with that concept he should refer to anything that existed, or that had that cookie dough in it, as God...as long as it really existed or had that cookie dough in it...whether impersonal or not.
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 17 minutes ago, Gray said: Great explanation, thanks Please explain how it would not be personal if it was an attribute of any person, or all people collectively.
Gray Posted October 26, 2016 Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ahab said: Please explain how it would not be personal if it was an attribute of any person, or all people collectively. It's not personal in the sense that God does not possess an ego or a consciousness. God is existence. There are many consciousnesses that are a part of God. You wouldn't say that the earth has a personality just because many earthlings do. We are a part of the earth but you couldn't point to a single tree, rock or person and say, "That is Earth". Or to put it another way. If you believe God is an exalted man, you couldn't point to God's fingernail and say that this represents the attributes of God. Edited October 26, 2016 by Gray
Ahab Posted October 26, 2016 Author Posted October 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: It's not personal in the sense that God does not possess an ego or a consciousness. God is existence. There are many consciousnesses that are a part of God. You wouldn't say that the earth has a personality just because many earthlings do. We are a part of the earth but you couldn't point to a single tree, rock or person and say, "That is Earth". Or to put it another way. If you believe God is an exalted man, you couldn't point to God's fingernail and say that this represents the attributes of God. I still see it as an incomplete concept of what God really is rather than a concept which I would say is wrong or false, so I would still leave out the Not part. God as everything in existence means he is each and every real thing and the only thing God is Not is whatever is Not, like whatever is only in someone's imagination but not in real existence.
The Nehor Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 5 hours ago, Ahab said: I still see it as an incomplete concept of what God really is rather than a concept which I would say is wrong or false, so I would still leave out the Not part. God as everything in existence means he is each and every real thing and the only thing God is Not is whatever is Not, like whatever is only in someone's imagination but not in real existence. Welcome to Pantheism. It is even more confusing with Spinoza. It gets confusing. Spinoza believed that everything that exists is God but that God was more then the sum of everything that exists. He believed that the highest happiness was found in the knowlege of God but that there was no reward given by God for seeking this. It was just part and parcel of knowing God. His ideas on God are not consistent and are often contradictory. He tried to use logical formulae to establish his God but it doesn't really work. I read a lot of Spinoza back in college and my personal conclusion is the guy loved his logical inferences but couldn't see the forest for the trees and missed all the problems in his work. I get basic pantheism though I don't see how saying "everything is an impersonal God" is different then saying "there is no God". It seems to me like a God built to have everything we want and nothing we don't. When you want to imagine that the Universe is a thing of surpassing beauty the idea of pantheism can fill it with mysticism and beauty and being more then just happenstance. On the other hand you do not have to deal with a God who lays down laws or might think badly of things you do with your life. All the good stuff with the harder stuff tossed out. Spinoza's pantheism is even more ambitious. He wants an impersonal God that is everything and more but that more does not include personhood or anything Spinoza can explain well. Gaining knowledge is to know God. Understanding yourself is to love God. God does not love people but God loves himself (itself?) because we intellectually love our own minds.....it just doesn't add up. I respect the attempt but I don't buy it. 1
Gray Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 16 hours ago, Ahab said: I still see it as an incomplete concept of what God really is rather than a concept which I would say is wrong or false, so I would still leave out the Not part. God as everything in existence means he is each and every real thing and the only thing God is Not is whatever is Not, like whatever is only in someone's imagination but not in real existence. I would say that there is no circle you could possibly draw that would exclude God.
Gray Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: I read a lot of Spinoza back in college and my personal conclusion is the guy loved his logical inferences but couldn't see the forest for the trees and missed all the problems in his work. I get basic pantheism though I don't see how saying "everything is an impersonal God" is different then saying "there is no God". It seems to me like a God built to have everything we want and nothing we don't. When you want to imagine that the Universe is a thing of surpassing beauty the idea of pantheism can fill it with mysticism and beauty and being more then just happenstance. On the other hand you do not have to deal with a God who lays down laws or might think badly of things you do with your life. All the good stuff with the harder stuff tossed out. It's a matter of definitions, isn't it? In Mormonism God is a powerful alien being. You can call that being God, or you can say he's not God, but instead he's just a powerful extraterrestrial. Your choice. It's the same thing with Existence. Whether you choose to label Existence as God is subjective. The difference between the two concepts of course is that we all know existence exists. It's tautological. Existence also works as the "first cause" in the cosmological argument for God. And really, in Mormonism with its past-eternal lineage of Gods, Existence really is a kind of God - the supreme God, really. God didn't create Existence. Gods, rather, spring up out of Existence - in other words, Existence creates gods. The gods serve Existence, and even have to follow its rules, or cease to be gods. Edited October 27, 2016 by Gray
The Nehor Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 6 hours ago, Gray said: It's a matter of definitions, isn't it? In Mormonism God is a powerful alien being. You can call that being God, or you can say he's not God, but instead he's just a powerful extraterrestrial. Your choice. It's the same thing with Existence. Whether you choose to label Existence as God is subjective. The difference between the two concepts of course is that we all know existence exists. It's tautological. Existence also works as the "first cause" in the cosmological argument for God. And really, in Mormonism with its past-eternal lineage of Gods, Existence really is a kind of God - the supreme God, really. God didn't create Existence. Gods, rather, spring up out of Existence - in other words, Existence creates gods. The gods serve Existence, and even have to follow its rules, or cease to be gods. I disagree. At that point the word God becomes meaningless and should be discarded. I may call the thing that gives me light in the darkness my god but you call it a lamp. It is all subjective. 1
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: I disagree. At that point the word God becomes meaningless and should be discarded. I may call the thing that gives me light in the darkness my god but you call it a lamp. It is all subjective. If that's the case then Mormonism is in real trouble. The vast majority of Christians, not to mention Muslims and Jewish people, wouldn't recognize the idea that a space alien could be called God. But that's exactly what God is in Mormonism. Of course there's more to it than that, but when you start talking about worshiping lamps, then I must start talking about space aliens. The fact is God has never been well-defined. There are many thousands of different models for God. Pantheism is an older model than the standard LDS model. Edited October 28, 2016 by Gray
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 31 minutes ago, Gray said: If that's the case then Mormonism is in real trouble. The vast majority of Christians, not to mention Muslims and Jewish people, wouldn't recognize the idea that a space alien could be called God. But that's exactly what God is in Mormonism. Of course there's more to it than that, but when you start talking about worshiping lamps, then I must start talking about space aliens. The fact is God has never been well-defined. There are many thousands of different models for God. Pantheism is an older model than the standard LDS model. Yeah, probably. Except for the end bit. Pretty sure the Councils in Heaven where the LDS model was in play predates Pantheism but it is hard to get accurate records to show historians and anthropologists. 1
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, probably. Except for the end bit. Pretty sure the Councils in Heaven where the LDS model was in play predates Pantheism but it is hard to get accurate records to show historians and anthropologists. I happen to know that pantheism was discussed in prelude to the first council in heaven, so there's that. 1
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 42 minutes ago, Gray said: I happen to know that pantheism was discussed in prelude to the first council in heaven, so there's that. I ran a think-tank a week before where we discussed the gospel. 1
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 16 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I ran a think-tank a week before where we discussed the gospel. There was a water cooler brain storming session the week for that about pantheism vs panentheism. 1
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 41 minutes ago, Gray said: There was a water cooler brain storming session the week for that about pantheism vs panentheism. At the dawn of time I spoke to the daelmon sultan Azathoth about Arianism and the LDS divinity of Christ. 1
Recommended Posts