It bears mentioning that attempting to define god is as impossible as defining infinity, omnipotence, or ubiquity. Once you define them, you set limit on them, and, surely, you’d not want to set limits on your god, would you?
Anyone who wishes to learn about “Spinoza’s God” must, surely, find out what was it about his beliefs that deserved banning. But be careful. Albert Einstein said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
That’s a fairly good recommendation coming from a very Jewish gentleman. Was Einstein a ‘believer’? Not by any religious definition. He was my mine. Orderly harmony of what exists. I’d add of what did or could exist.
By the same token, there is a big problem with infinity and particularly with ubiquity. Let’s face it. If god is omnipresent, then I must be, by definition, within god. By the same argument, god must be within me. There is absolutely no way out of this congruity. Perhaps that is why a man, some two thousand years ago claimed that the two are inseparable. They are one.
Even… as we are. You and I.
And it follows that if anyone cannot find divinity within their own potential, within their own ‘soul’, they are unlikely to find it in any temple, church or synagogue. Not even in nature. Or anywhere else. After all, all else is Maya—an illusion. Sooner or later we arrive at the conclusion that the seeker and that which he seeks are one—the perceiver and the perceived. For some reason, most of us seem to prefer to base our realities on Delusions. I wonder why. I gather, so did Einstein.
PS. Please, don’t forget to write a brief review on the Amazon for
Delusions. Your thoughts are important to me.
My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org