Suggestions(2)
Exact(14)
Here Norris diverges from Malebranche's view as stated in the second dialogue of Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion that God is "infinitely infinite," which strikes the reader as comparable to Spinoza's infinite attributes.
This leads to the monumental conclusion of Proposition 11: "God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists".
From the definition of God as a substance with infinite attributes and other propositions about substance, it follows that "there can be, or be conceived, no other substance but God" (Proposition 14) and that "whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God" (Proposition 15).
The infinite substance consists of infinite attributes (1D6).
Then, prove that there is a substance with infinite attributes (i.e., God) (Ip11).
God or Nature is the unique substance (Ip14), existing essentially (Ip7), infinite in power (Ip8), and characterized by infinite attributes, each constituting its essence (Id4).
Similar(46)
With the collapse of the divide between created substances and the infinite substance, attributes play a new role for Spinoza; traditional divine attributes are eliminated while attributes traditionally associated with created substances (Extension in particular) are attributed to the infinite substance.
MultiplicityElement defines an inclusive interval of non-negative integers beginning with a lower bound, attribute lower (default value is one), and ending with a possibly infinite upper bound, attribute upper (default value is also one).
In Crescas's doctrine, as in that of Spinoza, God's attributes are infinite in number.
God is known by human beings through only two of his attributes thought and extension (the quality of having spatial dimensions)—though the number of God's attributes is infinite.
As was mentioned earlier, Spinoza identifies God, or the infinite substance with the attributes (1P4, 1P19 and 1P20Cor).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com