The metaphysical argument put forward by Spinoza has several interesting and different approaches from many other philosophers of his time. One of the main interesting points he makes lies in his view of his monistic metaphysics of God/Nature. In a brief overview, this argument is to assert that there is only one substance with infinite attributes, finite modes, and that it is God/Nature. Spinoza's argument for substance monism takes place in his writings of "Ethics I". In this argument, Spinoza considers God and Nature as one and does not use the previous arguments for the existence of God/Nature. This raises several questions that will be addressed later in this article. According to Spinoza, everything in the universe exists either as a substance or as a mode. Spinoza then defines both mode and substance using a very interesting method. For Spinoza, a substance is that which is independent and does not need anything else to be conceived or to exist. He then explains that a mode is something that needs a substance to exist. This means that without substance, a mode cannot exist. So, this leads Spinoza to explain that there is only one substance in the universe and he describes it as God/nature. Another important definition to define is what Spinoza defines as God. In Spinoza's mind, God is a substance that possesses infinite attributes, or an infinite being. This substance must have the qualities of being absolutely eternal and absolutely infinite. Spinoza does not argue for a specific God of any religion, but rather defines God and nature as the same thing. With all this, according to Spinoza, all animals, plants, humans, etc. are not substances, as many other philosophers maintain, but rather modes of this unique substance (112). of paper ......to each other. This is important because you will need to be able to explain multiple essences and rule out the possibility that a single attribute is repeatedly perceived in the wrong way, thereby creating multiple incorrect essences that actually relate to a single essence. These two elements would give much thought to the validity and clarity of Spinoza's argument. Ultimately, Spinoza's argument lacks the support and clarity necessary to truly make his argument concrete in its assertions. If the arguments clearly explained what an attribute is and its relationship to other attributes and the essence of substance, it would gain a lot of traction. Additionally, the idea that a single substance can only arise due to the idea that two substances cannot share attributes lacks logic and leaves much to be explained. Overall, this is an interesting but flawed argument.