A proof of Palamite Panentheism, Idealism, and Acosmism

[JuanFlorencio]

That’s a semantic fight that can be worked out. Also, you were the one that said “perfect”. Perfect isn’t a predicate in my argument. That was an example you brought up.

That is how @Acosmic-Otaku understands “great”, according to one of his posts above.

If you can work the semantic fight out, go ahead!

 

[Rhubarb]

I didn’t see any definition of great. They and I spoke about numbers, in an imperfect analogy.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I didn’t see any definition of great. They and I spoke about numbers, in an imperfect analogy.

Just read post 25:

"Greater than” here refers to degrees of perfection, hence why God is described as (“Maximally Great”). Perfection entails such properties, from a Christian perspective at least, of Power (Omnipotence), Love (Agape), Being (Actus Purus), Self-Sufficiency (Aseity), Presence (causal Omnipresence), Goodness (Omnibenevolence), Mercy, Justice, Grace, Honor, etc.

 

[Rhubarb]

You’re jumbling concerns. A premise being wrong isn’t a matter of validity. That’s a matter of soundness.

You want P2 to read “If God is not The All, then either God and The All are equally great or God is greater than The All, or The All is greater than God.”

So you’re saying that there’s a false dichotomy in the original P2 - there’s another option. That is not a problem with the validity of the argument. That affects the soundness. Like I said before, I agree with you that

That being said…

I see what you mean, you want to change the premise to what you think is sound. You want P2 (my P1) to ~(g=a) ⊃ (Ega v Gga v Gag) Which, yes, means we can’t do a MT with that first statement (God and The All are equally perfect) in the consequent of the conditional. However, it’s an easy fix. If you agree to the premises.

If two things are equally perfect, then they are the same thing - that premise would give a valid derivation to the same conclusion. You can deny that two different things can be equally perfect. (That would be a huge pain to symbolize, but it can be done) and that would let you derive ~Ega, which would let the MT work again. How would you feel about those premises? Because if you agree to either of those, then the argument is sound and enthymematic, which isn’t great. But it can be explained further to make it valid.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You’re jumbling concerns. A premise being wrong isn’t a matter of validity. That’s a matter of soundness.

You want P2 to read “If God is not The All, then either God and The All are equally great or God is greater than The All, or The All is greater than God.”

So you’re saying that there’s a false dichotomy in the original P2 - there’s another option. That is not a problem with the validity of the argument. That affects the soundness. Like I said before, I agree with you that

That being said…

I see what you mean, you want to change the premise to what you think is sound. You want P2 (my P1) to ~(g=a) ⊃ (Ega v Gga v Gag) Which, yes, means we can’t do a MT with that first statement (God and The All are equally perfect) in the consequent of the conditional. However, it’s an easy fix. If you agree to the premises.

If two things are equally perfect, then they are the same thing - that premise would give a valid derivation to the same conclusion. You can deny that two different things can be equally perfect. (That would be a huge pain to symbolize, but it can be done) and that would let you derive ~Ega, which would let the MT work again. How would you feel about those premises? Because if you agree to either of those, then the argument is sound and enthymematic, which isn’t great. But it can be explained further to make it valid.

As I said above, in one of my posts:

if we have a set of two horses, each horse having the same degree of perfection as the other, it would happen that one horse would have the same degree of perfection as the set of two horses.

Or if you prefer, if a horse A is more perfect than another horse B, as it possesses all the perfections of B and more, the set of the two horses and horse A possess the same degree of perfection, but are not the same “being”.

Therefore, I do not accept all the premises in @Acosmic-Otaku’s argument.

 

[mkoopman]

This is explaining why your argument is invalid. God and the all are not equal, especially in perfection. God is not a composite, and is especially not a creature, or a created thing. You equate God and the all based on reductive materialism and you can not perceive this.
What you have really proven is your invincible, or let us hope, nearly invincible ignorance.
An atheist can never define God, believe this.

 

[IWantGod]

God exists. There can be no reasonable doubt about it.

 

[Rhubarb]

Eeeh. It’s not my argument, bro. I already gave a laundry list of reasons why I think it fails.

Validity isn’t the problem. Validity relates to the form of an argument. Propositions being false is soundness, not validity.

 

[Rhubarb]

Then you have a problem with the soundness of the argument.

Let me clarify because it seems people are getting confused. I also think the argument fails because it is unsound. All I’m doing is explaining how first-order logic works. When we’re discussing logic, “valid” means a very specific thing.

 

[mkoopman]

The domain is entirely improper. The equate is between the infinite and the finite which does not sum to infinity. Nothing beyond this is valid for this reason. The only way to identify this as valid is to reduce God to the trivial.
In terms of physics the eternal is compared to that which has a beginning. The logical constructs do not consider this. So, even if you believe God to be trivial, the biggest and fattest elf on the block, the associative principle does not account for the properties of the immortal, fat elf that you conceive with your proposition. It fails and is derogatory, a clear reflection of current social and moral norms.

 

[Rhubarb]

Sure. That might make a fine counter-argument. But again, that doesn’t affect the validity of the first argument.

I don’t have a horse in the God vs The All race. I don’t believe in either of them. I’m merely trying to talk about the logic.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Then you have a problem with the soundness of the argument.

Let me clarify because it seems people are getting confused. I also think the argument fails because it is unsound. All I’m doing is explaining how first-order logic works. When we’re discussing logic, “valid” means a very specific thing.

I know that.

I will explain now why I insist that @Acosmic-Otaku’s argument is not only unsound but also invalid. There is this proposition contained in the argument, though he did not declare it independently:

P0. God is part of The All (Contained in P3, and to be understood rigorously as when we say that “a” is part of the set A {a, b, c}):

P3. If God is greater than The All, then God is greater than himself for God is part of The All.

Therefore, his argument is faulty (invalid) when he concludes that “God is the All”, as this conclusion implies that “God is not part of The All”, which contradicts P0.

This is enough. But besides, as I said before, his second premise

P2. If God is not The All, then either God is greater than The All, or The All is greater than God.

is incomplete. It needs to be completed this way:

P2’. If God is not The All, then either God is greater than The All, or The All is greater than God, or The All and God are equally great.

With this completed premise @Acosmic-Otaku cannot conclude as he pretends to conclude. And so, the argument is invalid.

You might say you can fix it, but you have not done it so far. So, it remains invalid as it is.

 

[mkoopman]

It seems the truth and logos is significant and especially in definition of predicate constructions in the logical calculus to be applied. First order logic is dependent upon the ontology within the application on which it acts. Domain and premises require precedent order bound , licit construction.
As a domain that intends to include the immediate now, that flux relevant to God’s omniscience, especially, is beyond difficult for conjecture. Many truth logics of causal forms lose validity. This is the basis for many philosophical venues declaring free will an illusion or delusional falsehood. These are flawed and only validate the loss of coherence which results in modernism. The present teacher is a ghost of this phenomenon in many aspects. That is, the present teacher is potentially disordered in not relinquishing moral truth to the wholeness of the mystical body conjectured upon the fullness of the faith.
The relationship of the all and God is non-trivial in a way the truth logics do not capture. This loss is in a way the binary logic and even the finite automata constructed from the same may be incapable of modeling. This would imply that current information theory can not resolve completions for universal discourse. A weak form is not present to capture the richness what differs from a simple density measure. A mustard seed and the vine may come to mind. The germ or kernel has not the grain size requisite for domain capture.
The construction represents nothing of sin in neglecting a conjectural space including holiness to put it succinctly. God creates the all which in turn can produce sin, an agent outside of God. What predicate logic can capture this mapping?
Then it is discovered that this margin not included within God is bounded within infinite mercy, The Divine Mercy.
God is forgiving and topological congruence may have the potential to model the foldings of pure love acting upon a selfish bubble of sin repented. However, this is a simple image of the pure love of the godhead. To equate God and all is either to assume Hell is not eternal or the final enfolding of pure love annihilates a subject of the agape found in the blood of Jesus.
That is, this argument can represent nothing other than heresy in the metaphysical reality made existent by God.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes, @Acosmic-Otaku’s conclusions are the enunciation of pantheism, which has been declared as heresy by the Catholic Church, as @Vico said from the beginning. And from a logical standpoint, @Acosmic-Otaku’s argument is simply badly constructed.

 

[Acosmic-Otaku]

Pantheism does not equal panentheism.

I did not ever say the universe is God. That is an uncharitable interpretation which I’ve already denied.

I will return later today or tomorrow to address the fleet of comments.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Pantheism does not equal panentheism.

I did not ever say the universe is God. That is an uncharitable interpretation which I’ve already denied.

I will return later today or tomorrow to address the fleet of comments.

So, how is it in your opinion? Is the universe different from God, and both are parts of what you call “The All”; but at the same time God is “The All”?

 

[Acosmic-Otaku]

So, how is it in your opinion? Is the universe different from God, and both are parts of what you call “The All”; but at the same time God is “The All”?

The Universe is not The All since The All is “Being Itself” and there is more to existence than the Universe. God, for example, is nonlocal and atemporal (what we traditionally call “Transcendent”) as well as immaterial and existing a se, and thus cannot be conceived as being apart of the Universe which is local, temporal, physical, and contingent, and so The All must express a concept beyond the universe and yet immanent within it.

I have been informed by a friend that “within” is likely a better way to explain the relationship between The All and Not All, than “part of”, so I’ll accept the mistake as a failure on my part. I’ll double check with the local deacon to hammer out some of the issues that have come out in this thread regarding the language and logical coherence (since communication in person is easier than through typography), but that may take a few days to arrange.

My position is that the Universe (really all universes in the off chance of a multiverse) is within the mind of God. All physical structures (particles, gauge fields, spacetime geometries, bodies, etc) are psychical constructs, like objects in a dream. Similarly I hold that all minds are nested within the mind of God, and are completely distinct and independent from God with their own wills and unified centers of subjectivity. That all platonic objects, such as numbers, sets, moral values and duties, forms, and logical absolutes also arise from the mind of God. Finally, that the physical and the mental are just two different aspects of one fundamental ontic substance (dual-aspect monism).

Consider a man in a dream. While he himself is not actually within his dream, his mind necessarily contains, permeates, and sustains all points and things with the dream. Similarly, as God, who is a single being with three minds, is not within the universe (this gives us Transcendence), his mental powers permeate and sustains the being of all points within Creation (this gives us Actus Purus, Immanence, and Omnipresence).

Now obviously God is not actually asleep, we’re not talking Brahmā, this is merely an analogy; and just as the contents of a dream are not identical to the dreamer himself, nor demand an expansion of the dreamer in any regard, so too are the contents of Creation non-identical to The All, nor require an expansion of The All. Allowing us to avoid the idea that The All expands, as previously critiqued, as well as avoiding Kabbalah’s concept of Tzimtzum (צמצום) where the infinite “contracts” so as to allow finite universes.

The only thing equal to The All is that which contains All, and the only things which contains All are the minds of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Does this help?

 

[Acosmic-Otaku]

God is radically different from the world – the apophatic source of all being.

In a nutshell, the Council of Lateran IV opposed the belief:

of the world being eternal, as proposed by many Aristotelians.
of the visible material world not being within God’s power (counter the Manichees)
that the world was not created solely by God’s omnipotent power (counter the the medieval Neo-Platonists)

I agree that the Universe is contingent and not eternal, that the “material world” is not outside of God’s power, nor that the world was created solely though God’s omnipotence, I also agree that God is Actus Purus. Here we’re actually in agreement.

What I questioned is the materiality of the physical world. Rather I am positing that all physical structures in the universe from fundamental particles, to spacetime geometry, to gauge fields, and bodies are psychical constructs in the mind of God. Interfaces, if you will, for his children to interact through.

I responded to @JuanFlorencio in another comment attempting to clear up the misconception that I am positing pantheism (especially since the Universe and The All are not the same thing). I’m artificially abbreviating this response for the sake of saving textual space, and subsequently reading time. I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[Acosmic-Otaku]

Everything is not mental, this implies God is not pre-existent

No… God, who is a communion of three divine minds with infinite cognitive power btw, clearly does fill the roles of actus purus, ground of being, first cause, etc. There was no space, no time, no mass-energy, no contingent minds until God commanded “Be”. You have not showed how Dual-aspect idealism is incoherent with Monotheism.

that is, omnipresent with the understanding that this means inclusive of all time.

I am a presentist. I have never heard a compelling argument for eternalism, perdurantism, or four-dimensionalism, but I have heard somewhat amusing arguments for the growing block universe. My views of time closely resemble those of Dr. Craig, so I’d suggest visiting his site and doing a cursory search for articles on time.

God is existence, itself, true essence.

Kinda my point, actually.

Don’t expect that because I was never honored to take down a lynched member of Lam Cham’s family that I do not know what a fish truck full of newspaper means.

I honestly have no earthly clue what you are talking about at this point.

and I greatly resent your clandestine implication upon my person.

I’ve reread the comment you responded too four times now and don’t know what it is you’re on about.

I hope to rise to the occassion in not reflecting upon your political slant personally.

What politics? Are you talking about the modernism thing? I was asking you to genuinely explain to me how I fell into modernism, as you claimed. Believe it or not, I’ve never been a big fan of modernism or postmodernism.

You can wink and make indistinct references to special point theories which make the Real distinction about how I must have green teeth and the monsterously big God of whom I attempt to speak has clearly the most green pointy teeth of all behemoths but this in no way asserts that you are correct.

What? My point in referring to the set theory was that creation does not entail the contraction or expansion of The All, and I’ve recently posted in another comment about why that is.

Quarks in The Eucharist are not critical, not the key, that key of David which let’s the light of Christ shine from The True Presence. The electron spin does not provide The Logos. Christ is The Logos and the light of Christ enables the electrons to step, as He has from the beginning.

Of course quarks and leptons are not critical in the eucharist. No one ever said they were.

 

[Acosmic-Otaku]

You equate God and the all based on reductive materialism and you can not perceive this.

Except, if anything, what I posited would be closer to a reductive immaterialism such as Yogācāra, Hermeticism, and Solipsism. Hardly an atomist’s worldview, but even that’s not right as my view is best described as dual-aspect monism. One substance which can express two aspects, physical and psychical.

I think this might help with the issues regarding Panentheism, as it doesn’t necessarily entail God is The All, but the variety I am positing (which is still a variety of weak panentheism) does.

God is not a composite, and is especially not a creature, or a created thing.

The All isn’t the Universe, nor is it any other created thing as The All is “Being Itself”. I also never said God was a composite. And as explained in another comment, I accept that the confusion is largely my fault for saying “part of” instead of “within”. Poor vocabulary on my part.

An atheist can never define God, believe this.

I am not an atheist. I haven’t been for about six years now.