The one substance.
Not a person, not a mind, not a maker — and therefore not something that can want anything from you. Spinoza still called it God, and meant it.
Filed as the ultimate rather than as a figure with a biography, because that is the structural point of pantheism — the thing that occupies the position a god occupies in other traditions is the world itself. It cannot be depicted, since any image would be of a part rather than the whole, and it cannot be petitioned, since it has no perspective from which to prefer one outcome. What it can be, on the pantheist account, is understood; Spinoza's highest good is the intellectual love of God, which turns out to mean knowing the world as it is and taking pleasure in that. It is a form of devotion with no possibility of reciprocation, and pantheists regard the absence of reciprocation as the honest part.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.