Spinoza's Argument For The Existence Of God

Spinoza lays down a series of definitions and propositions that are comparable, contrasting, and also unique from Descartes’ philosophy in order to eventually prove God’s existence. Consequently, I find his argument compelling because I believe he is elevating human qualities or possibly attempting to liberate Descartes’ ideas of human doubt and imperfection. Spinoza builds his argument for the existence of God and thus qualities of human nature with general propositions; for example, in contrast with Descartes’ view: Spinoza suggests one substance cannot be produced by another substance. In comparable to Descartes’ assertion that God’s existence is inseparable from his nature, Spinoza suggests existence belongs to the nature of substance and in addition, the more modes of a substance there are, the likelihood of the substance being reality is increased. I find his opening statements interesting through their structure: he creates a set of definitions for his audience so his intent can be as clear as possible, and presents his propositions almost as facts, which sharply contrasts with Descartes’ doubt. …show more content…
Spinoza’s supporting details again contrast with Descartes’: Spinoza suggests that every substance is necessarily infinite and indivisible, thus drawing similarities between humankind and God. Descartes on the other hand, emphasizes the differences between an infinite being and flawed human status. Spinoza’s assertion then grows into Proposition 14: “There can be, or be conceived, no other substance but God.” (149). And therefore, I find this compelling as Spinoza seems to conclude that human existence must be the same as God’s