It’s basically about uniting theology with philosophy ie. what is the truth being the subject in hand. Yes, you can argue Spinoza was an atheist, but you can equally argue he was theist, and ‘atheism’ is a misnomer. :)
well Spinoza was arguably an atheist. and thats fine you can define god as a fact i suppose (youd have to flesh out what that actually even means) but that means you cant go around making any of the normal claims made about god. so whats the point of defining that as god? thats not what atheists reject. its not what most theists reject. its not what god means in normal language. you can stipulate this definition of god but why? why not just talk about facts? and just like your definition of god as truth what happens here if were deflationary on facts?
like this just seems like a very weird thing to do. this isnt what basically anybody in the modern world means by god. like youre just pointing at a thing and saying "thats god" when almost nobody means that thing when they say god. its just not what is being discussed when anybody discusses god. it feels almost identical to jordan petersons "atheists dont understand what theyre rejecting when they reject god" and then just defining god as "the thing you prioritize above all other things". like thats just not what anybody but peterson means by god.
this doesnt respond to any of what i said.
in order to say that the fundamental reality is god you need to show that it has the properties we generally associate with god (eg omnipotence omniscience omnibenevolence perfection necessity agency etc)
and in order to even talk about "the fundamental reality" you need to show that there even is one.
ok but then god just is reality and youre just equivocating on god. like that doesnt entail really any of the qualities of god. it cant be conscious, have knowledge, have powers, be moral, etc. and its not maximally great or perfect. in what sense is it anything like any conception of god?
also if were deflationary on existence (which is a view im very tempted by) the idea of a foundational reality is literally incoherent nonsense
@leonheden but thats still just as ambiguous as truth because its defined relative to our definition of truth
also plenty of people are deflationary on truth