I understand your approach. However, as I said, you are generalizing both with respect to belief and bias and, in the human world, knowledge is not exclusively of the scientific kind. There are types of belief that cannot be reached through bias elimination; but which in fact function through bias-amplification (which could be described as the instantiation of value, which is one way that a bias could be described). Any creative human enterprise, for example, goes beyond materialistic-reductive facts to assemble complex fact-value syntheses. It is these artefacts which form the basis of human civilization. And, in fact, science itself is one such construct. Science was discovered through pre-scientific thought, after all.

Well, you can start with human consciousness, which clearly evolves both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. — Pantagruel

This sounds more scientific theory than philosophical or metaphysical statements. If it is a science theory, what supporting evidence does the claim have?

Which therefore also links unproblematically (for me) with consciousness in other species. If you research the nature of consciousness in the natural world, you can read examples of how primitive colony organisms exhibit purposive behaviours (in The Global Brain, by Howard Bloom, for example). — Pantagruel

But could it not also be viewed as biological survival instinctive behaviours which has nothing to do with human intelligence, reasoning and thoughts?

Indeed, you can even pursue the concept to the limits of the animate-inanimate boundary and discover how natural systems can be seen as instantiating teleonomic properties (Incomplete Nature, by Deacon). The spectrum of organic consciousness alone is sufficient warrant however. — Pantagruel

How can you or Deacon prove the instantiation of the teleonomic properties of the nature is related to human consciousness? And indeed how human consciousness is related to God, if God is something that you cannot define, but something that have to presume or deduce from the natural world? It sounds like a serious circular reasoning going on in your explanations.

No. Simply put, Spinoza argues that nature (i.e. infinite & eternal (i.e. completely immanent) substance) excludes the existence of a 'transcendent, supernatural person' (e.g. the God of Abraham, the OOO-deity of theology, etc). Thus for most Spinozists, nature itself counts as strong evidence against all forms of theism (& deism (except maybe pandeism)). — 180 Proof

Does it mean then, Spinoza was an atheist? Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God? How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?

How can you or Deacon prove the instantiation of the teleonomic properties of the nature is related to human consciousness? And indeed how human consciousness is related to God, if God is something that you cannot define, but presume or deduce from the natural world? It sounds like a serious circular reasoning going on in your explanations. — Corvus

All I did was provide some evidential bases for my perspective. You yourself are drawing the inferences to the point where they fail, because you are unfamiliar with the evidential bases, and are just using my cursory synopses, which don't purport to be exhaustive.

I stated that human consciousness displays an evident spectrum both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. This is a statement of fact, entrenched in both developmental psychology and evolutionary biology and archaeology. So yes, it is a scientific fact. My hypothesis is congruent with known scientific facts. It is not itself a scientific fact.

As to the Deacon, again, you aren't really familiar with the work so it isn't fair of you to form conclusions about it. Teleonomy doesn't prove panpsychism, but it could certainly be viewed to be congruent with such an hypothesis.

All I did was provide some evidential bases for my perspective. — Pantagruel

I stated that human consciousness displays an evident spectrum both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. This is a statement of fact, entrenched in both developmental psychology and evolutionary biology and archaeology. So yes, it is a scientific fact. My hypothesis is congruent with known scientific facts. It is not itself a scientific fact. — Pantagruel

It appears to be not enough detail of the evidence for the claims, hence was asking for more details.

As to the Deacon, again, you aren't really familiar with the work so it isn't fair of you to form conclusions about it. Teleonomy doesn't prove panpsychism, but it could certainly be viewed to be congruent with such an hypothesis. — Pantagruel

I do admit I am not familiar with Deacon. I only did read synopsis of his theory. But still I don't recall the synopsis mentioning anything about God. Does Deacon's Incomplete Nature also define what God is?

I understand your approach. However, as I said, you are generalizing both with respect to belief and bias and, in the human world, knowledge is not exclusively of the scientific kind. — Pantagruel

Since I'm describing a gradual journey from free thought to unbiased conclusions I don't think it is generalizing at all. Between the two points are numerous positions to hold, it's only that final conclusions that become universalized conclusions from which we build a human knowledge consensus. That end point cannot incorporate a belief treated as axiomatic truth. But the journey to that point consist of many layers of thought and reasoning as well as hypotheses and fiction.

It sounds more like you didn't contemplate on what I wrote enough to see these nuances in my argument?

There are types of belief that cannot be reached through bias elimination; but which in fact function through bias-amplification (which could be described as the instantiation of value, which is one way that a bias could be described). — Pantagruel

I think you are applying too many vague definitions of biases within the context of this topic. A human cognitive bias is simply a gravitational pull towards interpretations without a knowledge-based foundation for it. And rather focus on emotional influences than logic and rational reasoning.

Any conclusion that produce a foundation for universalized truths cannot incorporate human biases or at least requires a demand for mitigation of any that arise. A concept that does not have such end point may incorporate biases, but rarely are concepts benefitted by them.

Do you have any examples of concepts that benefit from biases? Or are the biases within those concepts only there as temporary necessities because we've yet to answer the concepts fully? Either by lack of further information or lacking conceptual frameworks.

Any creative human enterprise, for example, goes beyond materialistic-reductive facts to assemble complex fact-value syntheses. It is these artefacts which form the basis of human civilization. And, in fact, science itself is one such construct. Science was discovered through pre-scientific thought, after all. — Pantagruel

But isn't that just part of the journey I described? You are conflating the end point, the final conclusions with the journey to its point.

As I described many times now. The gradual journey from free thought, including creative thinking, abstract explorations etc. towards a point of universalized conclusions is a gradual journey. The methods go from being free in thought, no bounds or limitations - towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges. Without this journey we cannot form further knowledge. Just like Einstein didn't just straight up write his equations on the chalk board, he used his creative "thought lab" and explored concepts through very abstract thinking, but he manifested them as rational theories through math and later verified through experiments. Almost no notable physicist in history have arrived at a theory by just pure math and cold reasoning based on previous evidence. The exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid.

And the history of science follows this journey as well. It started maybe as early as the first human's with human cognition looked up at the sun wondering what that round element of warmth was. Creatively forming explanations that in their lack of unbiased methods formed the foundation of religion. And through our history as a species we've moved closer and closer to better ways of defining knowledge and truths about reality around us. The scientific methods of today are much more effective than even ten years ago. We journey further and further towards a scientific system that removes more and more of human bias influences on it.

So however we view knowledge and our ability to form it; it always shows that form of exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order, through all gradual steps in-between. But if a religious belief stands in the way through that journey, then the person holding those beliefs will have to move their goal posts further and further and eventually rid themselves of that bias towards their beliefs if to ever find themselves able to form that final state of knowledge. And even if we can't reach that final stage, it is the act itself to move towards it that builds our consensus of knowledge and the act of mitigating anything in the way that clouds our ability to move forward. If someone stops their journey and settles down with a bias towards a certain belief as an act of just deciding before the end, what the end is; they effectively just chose to not look any further and that can never lead to final or further knowledge.

I think you are applying too many vague definitions of biases within the context of this topic. — Christoffer

Here I was thinking the same about you.

Do you have any examples of concepts that benefit from biases? Or are the biases within those concepts only there as temporary necessities because we've yet to answer the concepts fully? — Christoffer

The concept that we must put a man on the moon was a bias that flew in the face of current technology (so to speak). The resultant Saturn V project was a monument to the power of human creative thought resulting in countless technological innnovations.

And rather focus on emotional influences than logic and rational reasoning. — Christoffer

Who says that logic and rational reasoning are the sole measure of validity? Again, this is one of your own biases....

towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges. — Christoffer

the exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid. — Christoffer

exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order — Christoffer

Again, these are all scientifically biased, with respect to the role that science plays in human existence. To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject.

Does it mean then, Spinoza was an atheist? — Corvus

The 18th century romantic poet-philosopher Novalis referred to Spinoza as "a God-intoxicated man" because, when closely read, Spinoza's Ethics expressed a sort of religious nontheism (or rational mysticism) rather than mere "atheism". Like S. Maimon, JG Fichte, GWF Hegel et al, I understand Spinoza to be (mostly) an acosmist (for whom the cosmos exists though it is not real, only divinity (re: the logico-mathematical structure of the cosmos) is real instead.

Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?

AFAIK, it was more likely Spinoza's irrefutably rationalist critiques of the Torah specifically and sectarian Judaism broadly, not any explicit statement of "atheism", that brought down the cherem upon him.

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God?

If my previous post is not clear enough, then you ought to either read Spinoza's Ethics, part one "Of God" or, at least, read this summary

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?

Again, Corvus, read the Ethics or this article

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

Here I was thinking the same about you. — Pantagruel

In what way? You either have the broad definition of bias as something that gravitate towards something or how bias is described in thinking and reasoning, which is what this is about.

The concept that we must put a man on the moon was a bias that flew in the face of current technology (so to speak). The resultant Saturn V project was a monument to the power of human creative thought resulting in countless technological innnovations. — Pantagruel

How is that a bias? It was an ambition and goal, how is any of that a bias?

And the Saturn V wasn't enabled by creative thinking. Once again, creative thinking aren't conclusions, they're explorations. The conclusions that made Saturn V possible weren't abstractions mounted together into a functioning form, it was creative thinking that guided the journey towards rigid and factually based conclusions, i.e the final form of Saturn V that functioned did so because of the unbiased end point of that exploration. Creative thinking didn't enable Saturn V to do anything, it was the unbiased science that made it function. Belief doesn't take you to the moon, it was the hard work of unbiased reasoning that enabled it and that may start with creative thinking, but must end without bias, or else that belief will blow the thing up.

So, what biases helped build the Saturn V and make it fly? Creative thinking and ambition or goals aren't cognitive biases. Exploration in itself isn't the knowledge or conclusion. My point is that the journey towards factual conclusions can be filled with creative thinking, but anyone who stops moving towards the conclusions that lies past their biases will find themselves in a blown up rocket.

Who says that logic and rational reasoning are the sole measure of validity? Again, this is one of your own biases....

towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges.
— Christoffer
the exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid.
— Christoffer
exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order
— Christoffer

Again, these are all scientifically biased, with respect to the role that science plays in human existence. To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel

How are they biases? What are they biases towards?

Would you say that a conclusion that is formed on no solid grounds, that only relies on abstract random ideas; is on equal terms with a conclusion that has been formed by stripping away lose ends, beliefs and been built on further and further verifications and support in evidence?

If not, then the first quote is not a bias or biased in any way, it is an observation of how knowledge is actually acquired. Case point is the Saturn V rocket. It can start with a creative thought and idea, but you can never have a biased conclusion as the foundation for the rocket's function. Belief has no place on its blueprint.

You conflate exploration with conclusions, that's the problem here. You say something is biased but don't provide any argument that uses the term properly. You use the term in a vague form. Human biases, in the context of this thread; belief, is an end point that appears before a conclusion in truth. Having a bias towards a belief stops the journey from reaching actual rational conclusions. Belief didn't enable the Saturn V to fly, it was the engineering and math, the conclusions so rigid in their truth that they rhymed with the physical laws of the universe, far beyond any beliefs in our heads.

To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. — Pantagruel

That's not what this is about. This thread is about what limitations that theistic or religious belief has on the process of philosophical thinking and in science.

For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel

Did you understand what I meant by the journey from free thought to rigid and solid conclusions? That's the core of my argument. Because you are conflating the journey with it's destination. Belief, ambition, creativity, abstraction or emotion may be the initial state of the Saturn V rocket, but the destination was a machine that could fly us to the moon. You cannot fly a rocket on belief alone, you can not design a rocket if you have a bias towards an engineering solution that is simply just based on belief.

The journey is not the destination. And in context of this thread, conflating the journey for the destination is exactly the problem with bias that theists and religious thinkers have. Stopping their journey before the destination purely on the belief that they are already there. And when presented evidence that they're not, they just move a little bit closer, but never arriving until they rid themselves of beliefs and biases.

Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?
AFAIK, it was more likely Spinoza's irrefutably rationalist critiques of the Torah specifically and sectarian Judaism broadly, not any explicit statement of "atheism", brought down the cherem upon him. — 180 Proof

Yes, Proposition 36 is one stop shopping for a view of theism that discards the Covenant, the Christian view of a personal God, and the logic of the Scholastics simultaneously:

Proposition 36
Nothing exists from ​whose nature some effect does not follow.
Proof
Anything that exists expresses the nature or essence of God in a specific and determinate way (by p25c), i.e. (by p34) anything that exists ​expresses the power of God, which is the cause of all things, in a specific and determinate way, and therefore (by p16) some effect must follow from it. Q. E. D.

Appendix
With this I have explained the nature of God and his properties: that he necessarily exists; that he is unique; that he is and acts solely from the necessity of his own nature; that he is the free cause of all things and how this is so; that all things are in God and so depend upon him that without him they can neither be nor be conceived; and finally that all things have been predetermined by God, not however by his freedom of will or at his absolute pleasure but by God’s absolute nature or infinite power. ​

Furthermore, whenever the opportunity arose, I have taken pains to eliminate the prejudices that could prevent my proofs from being grasped. But there are still quite a few prejudices left to deal with that have also been extremely effective in the past, and still are effective, in preventing people from being able to accept the connection of things in the way I have explained it. And so I think it is worthwhile here to subject them 34to the scrutiny of reason. ​Now all the prejudices that I undertake to expose here depend upon a single one: that human beings commonly suppose that, like themselves, all natural things act for a purpose. In fact they take it as certain that God directs all things for some specific purpose. For they say that God made all things for the sake of man, and that he made man to worship him. I will therefore begin by considering this single prejudice, by asking first what is the cause that most people accept this prejudice and are all so ready by nature to embrace it. Then I will prove the falsity of it. Finally I will show how prejudices have arisen from it about good and bad, merit and sin, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness and other things of this kind.

This is not the place to deduce these prejudices from the nature of the human mind. It will be enough here if I take as my foundation something that everyone must acknowledge – namely that all human beings are born ignorant of the causes of things and all have an appetite to pursue what is useful for themselves and are conscious of the fact. For it follows from this, first, that human ​beings believe they are free because they are conscious of their own volitions and their own appetite, and never think, ​even in their dreams, about the causes which dispose them to want and to will, because they are ignorant of them. It follows, secondly, that human ​beings act always for a purpose, i.e. for the sake of something useful that they want. Because of this they require to know only the final causes ​of past events; once they have learned these they are satisfied, clearly because they have no cause to have any more doubts about them. But if they can’t learn these causes from anyone else, they can only turn back on themselves and think of the purposes by which they themselves are normally determined to do similar things, and so they necessarily judge of another person’s character by their own.

Moreover they find in themselves and outside of themselves a good many instruments that help them to obtain something useful for themselves, such as eyes to see with, teeth to chew with, plants and animals for food, the sun to give light and the sea to sustain fish. Because of this they have come to consider all natural things as instruments designed to be useful to themselves. They know that they found these instruments in place and did not make them, and this gave them cause to believe that there is someone else who made these things for them to use. For after they had come to consider the things 35as instruments, they could not believe that the things made themselves, but from the instruments which they regularly made for themselves, they had to conclude that there was a governor or governors of nature, endowed with human freedom, ​who provided everything for them and made it all for their use. But they had not heard anything about the character of these governors, and so they were obliged to conjecture it from their own. This is how they decided that the Gods direct all things for human use in order to form a bond with human beings and receive great kudos from them. This is how it came about that they each invented different ways of worshipping God based on their own character so that God would love them more than other people and direct the whole of nature to the service of their blind desire and insatiable avarice. ​This is how this prejudice turned into a superstition ​and put down deep roots in their minds, and this is the reason why they have each made the most strenuous endeavor to understand and explain the final causes of all things.

But in striving to prove that nature never acts in vain (i.e. not for the use of human beings), they seem to have proved only that nature and the Gods are as deluded as human beings. I mean, look how things have turned out! Among the many advantages of nature they were bound to ​find quite a few disadvantages, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases and so on. They decided that these things happened because the Gods were angry about the offenses that human beings had committed against them or the sins ​they had perpetrated in their ritual. Despite the daily evidence of experience to the contrary, which proves by any number of examples that advantages and disadvantages indiscriminately befall the pious and the impious alike, they did not abandon their inveterate prejudice. It was easier for them to add this to all the other unknown things whose use they did not know, and so maintain the existing state of ignorance ​they were born in rather than overthrow the whole structure and think out a new one. — Ethics, Spinoza, translated by Silverthorne and Kisner

That is about one quarter of the way through the Appendix.

And in context of this thread, conflating the journey for the destination is exactly the problem with bias that theists and religious thinkers have. — Christoffer

So if I ignore the evidence of virtuous behaviours of a social group I dislike, that is confirmation bias. But if I ignore the evidence that a certain practice is socially accepted, but I still reject the practice and subsequently succeed in overturning it (such as racism) then that is not confirmation bias. Both those biases are contrary to fact. But one is productive. I don't see at all how theists conflate the journey for the destination and what that might have to do with bias.

Specifically, in cases of purely objective knowledge, biases are as you describe them. However, in any case where the states of affairs confirming or disconfirming belief are themselves influenced by beliefs, the biases can just as easily be viewed as convictions. You presented initially what amounts to a positivistic argument for bias-elimination. But your positivistic argument only applies to scientific facts, of which the theism-atheism issue is not one. Hence your claim is normative (we ought to think in this way) and so itself exemplifies the kind of bias-as-conviction phenomenon that I am describing, and which you endorse eliminating.

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God?
If my previous post is not clear enough, then you ought to either read Spinoza's Ethics, part one "Of God" or, at least, read this summary

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?
Again, Corvus, read the Ethics or this article — 180 Proof

Thanks for the link. Spinoza has been in my reading list, but still haven't managed to start.
When I opened the "Ethics", and read a page or two, I could see Spinoza starting the book with a title "Concerning God". So God or the concept of God seems to have had been a main part of Spinoza's philosophy. He seems to be using the concept of "Substance" to attribute the concept of God.
Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else?

Monotheism, on the contrary, the rigid consequence of the doctrine of one normal human being—consequently the belief in a normal God, beside whom there are only false, spurious Gods—has perhaps been the greatest danger of mankind in the past: — Vaskane

But then, most of the major religions in the world have been Monotheism. Would it mean that, the majority of population in the societies in history preferred the monotheism? Or could it mean that monotheism was used for some other purposes than pure religious practices viz. control of the society and population through the enforced educations and political means?

How, may I ask, can anyone rage objectively? They are antithetical. I would posit that the origins of a raging atheist extend more from a psychosis or ism. Carl Jung, (Freud's protege) rightfully contended the practical need for religion as a societal construct. Like it or not, our rule of law is fashioned from the well reasoned and respectful Ten Commandments. Peace.

He seems to be using the concept of "Substance" to attribute the concept of God.
Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus

Related to Aristotelian, but mostly how philosophers of the time were using it, basically: something that exists.

“By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” — SEP

Very in line with Descartes' use, he influenced Spinoza.

what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins

A God (defined as an omnipotent/omniscient being who intentionally created the world) provides a solution to all philosophical conundrums. If the world of metaphysical explorations can be considered a jigsaw puzzle, the "God" piece is a ball of putty that can be used to fill any empty space in the puzzle.

Naturalist philosophers have to do more work, since they don't have this handy fits-all puzzle piece.

A God (defined as an omnipotent/omniscient being who intentionally created the world) provides a solution to all philosophical conundrums. If the world of metaphysical explorations can be considered a jigsaw puzzle, the "God" piece is a ball of putty that can be used to fill any empty space in the puzzle.

Naturalist philosophers have to do more work, since they don't have this handy fits-all puzzle piece. — Relativist

:100: :up:

Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus

Spinoza's conception of substance is derived from – and, in his mind, critically corrects – Aristotle's / Descartes' "idea of substance". For instance, there is necessarily one substance argues Spinoza – thus, acosmisn – rather than many / two substances.

I understand Spinoza to be (mostly) an acosmist (for whom the cosmos exists though it is not real, only "divinity" (re: the logico-mathematical structure of the cosmos) is real ...) — 180 Proof

Simply put, Spinoza's "substance means" 'natura naturans (i.e. reality (which, as he points out, most traditions and his contempories superstitiously called "God")) as distinct from natura naturata (i.e. existents/things)'.

Again, read Spinoza's Ethics or the SEP article:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

*

Anyway, back to the OP's topic (as I understand it) which is the foreground of this thread discussion:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/875902

He seems to be using the concept of "Substance" to attribute the concept of God.
Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus

The meaning of 'substance' in philosophy is anything but obvious, but it's much nearer in meaning to what we would think of as 'subject' or 'being' than what we would usually call 'substance' in the day-to-day sense. The philosophical term 'substantia', 'what lies underneath' or 'the bearer of attributes', was a Latin neologism used to translate 'ouisia' in Aristotle's works. For the meaning of 'ouisia' see
The Meaning of Ouisia in Plato (and the following section for Aristotle).
Also 17th Century Theories of Substance.

From which

In contrast to contemporary philosophers, most 17th century philosophers (Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes) held that reality comes in degrees—that some things that exist are more or less real than other things that exist. At least part of what dictates a being’s reality, according to these philosophers, is the extent to which its existence is dependent on other things: the less dependent a thing is on other things for its existence, the more real it is.

That is also reflected in the Christian doctrine that souls are created directly by God, and so are in greater proximity to the divine nature than material particulars. Also that the word 'creature' reflects the etymology of 'created being' (whereas God is 'uncreated being', and knowledge of God 'the wisdom uncreate').

So in this sense, Spinoza's 'single substance' might be better conceptualised as a 'single subject', although with many caveats and qualifications.

Naturalist philosophers have to do more work, since they don't have this handy fits-all puzzle piece. — Relativist

But this misses the point, which is that for those who actually believe in God, it has real consequences. Whereas to believe that it's simply a 'puzzle-solver is a meaningless hypothetical.

Note this remark in the IEP entry on Aristotle, written by Joe Sachs, whom I believe to be a noted scholar, in respect of 'substance' in philosophy:

a word designed by the anti-Aristotelian Augustine to mean a low and empty sort of being turns up in our translations of the word whose meaning Aristotle took to be the highest and fullest sense of being. Descartes, in his Meditations, uses the word 'substance' only with his tongue in his cheek; Locke explicitly analyzes it as an empty notion of an I-don’t-know-what; and soon after the word is laughed out of the vocabulary of serious philosophic endeavor. It is no wonder that the Metaphysics ceased to have any influence on living thinking: its heart had been cut out of it by its friends.

I did some reading in the link and the published books on substance and God, but I couldn't quite see what the true existence of substance at all. Spinoza seems to be saying that Substance is infinite. It exists on its own, and knows itself. It is independent from causal effect.

In Aristotle, it seems to be anything which is not compound. Therefore even a human can be a substance. In Descartes, body is substance, because it has mass which can be measured in size and weight. It persists through time. Mind is substance, because it thinks. But God is not substance, unlike Spinoza's view. Hence Spinoza's God is not a traditional religious God in Christianity or Judaism. His God seems to be nature itself. But then what is the point of God? Why not just call it nature rather than God?

My question is still is there anything which represents "substance" in the actual world? If there is, then what is it? Or is it some deduced or inferred object in the mind via reasoning?

My question is still is there anything which represents "substance" in the actual world? — Corvus

As I said, 'substance' is a (mis)translation of the Greek word, 'ouisia', which is a form of the verb 'to be', so it's nearer in meaning to 'being' than what we call 'substance' in everyday speech. Those two refs I linked to in the post above provide more detail.

Spinoza's God is not a traditional religious God in Christianity or Judaism. His God seems to be nature itself. But then what is the point of God? Why not just call it nature rather than God? — Corvus

That's a good question, and what I think enables secular philosophers to claim Spinoza as one of their own, notwithstanding the mystical implications of his 'intellectual love of God'. But again, if Spinoza is translated as saying there is one real Subject or Being, I think it conveys his meaning better than saying there is a single substance. It is very close in spirit to some forms of Indian Vedanta philosophy.

Related to Aristotelian, but mostly how philosophers of the time were using it, basically: something that exists.
“By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.”
— SEP — Lionino

Wouldn't it be the case, then to relate / attribute God to substance seem an ambiguous attempt in logical connection.

Very in line with Descartes' use, he influenced Spinoza. — Lionino

In what sense did he?

But again, if Spinoza is translated as saying there is one real Subject or Being, I think it conveys his meaning better than saying there is a single substance. — Wayfarer

Then would it be the God in Christianity or Judaism with emotions and passions like those of humans'?
That would be the God usually normal religious folks think of, and are familiar with. It wouldn't be the Spinozan God for the usual religious folks believe in, which is supposed to be substance, infinite, cause-proof, effect-proof, and unknown. They wouldn't have even a faint idea what it is in actuality.

It is very close in spirit to some forms of Indian Vedanta philosophy. — Wayfarer

Not familiar with Indian Hinduism, but aren't they a religion founded in polytheism?

My question is still is there anything which represents "substance" in the actual world? — Corvus

For Spinoza, speculatively substance is the logico-mathematical structure of the universe (as distinct from the empirical contents in the universe) aka "the laws of nature". In other words, Spinoza's substance is like a player piano and "the actual world" is like a waltz it's playing.

the logico-mathematical structure of the universe — 180 Proof

aka "the laws of nature — 180 Proof

That sounds like the substance of Spinozan God is purely mental, conceptual and immaterial. Would it be correct?

Spinoza's substance (i.e. nature or god) is a metaphysical supposition , not an empirical theory.

Then would it be the God in Christianity or Judaism with emotions and passions like those of humans'? — Corvus

Does God have emotions and passions like humans? I would regard that as anthropomorphic projection.

Vedanta is one of the philosophical schools of Hinduism, based on the Upaniṣads. Advaita Vedanta, non-dualism, has been very influential in contemporary culture, courtesy such figures as Swami Vivekananda and Ramana Maharishi.

Spinoza's substance (i.e. nature or god) is a metaphysical supposition , not an empirical theory. — 180 Proof

So, what does Spinoza's God do for Spinoza or for the rest of us in this planet?