Uncaused cause=Pantheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You did it again.
Well, let’s summarize things which we discussed so far.
You have the burden of proof. You introduced the claim that people don’t have free will and that God is pantheism. We are still waiting for you to prove these things. So far, all your attempts at proofs have failed to hold.
First, I didn’t say that people do not have free will. I said something which its very existence depends on something else does not have free will since his existence depends on something else.

Second, I already argue that a pair of thing can sustain each other, A and B for example. They are not necessary beings but possible beings.

Third, let’s discuss the first comment from another point of view. Let’s accept that God sustain things/beings. Beings have free will so knowledge of their decision is needed. God has the knowledge of our decision eternally. So far so good. The problem arises when someone become aware what is going to decide through revelation. He can of course do opposite otherwise he is not free. This means that God knows that the person does two things opposite of each other which is problematic.

Finally, I think the question that I raised is part of your system of belief so you could prove them.
 
Last edited:
First, I didn’t say that people do not have free will. I said something which its very existence depends on something else does not have free will since his existence depends on something else.
This is certainly what you imply since you challenge the religious notion of God as creator and sustainer of all things. Let’s not split hairs here.
Second, I already argue that a pair of thing can sustain each other, A and B for example. They are not necessary beings but possible beings.
Yes, you raise this, but as Wesrock points out and you admit, that A and B sustain themselves necessarily is not a given. Something that only potentially exists cannot be equated with something whose existence is necessary. At best, you leave open the notion that A and B are sustained by an uncaused first cause. Your proof does not hold.
Third, let’s discuss the first comment from another point of view. Let’s accept that God sustain things/beings. Beings have free will so knowledge of their decision is needed. God has the knowledge of our decision eternally. So far so good.
So far so good.
The problem arises when someone become aware what is going to decide through revelation. He can of course do opposite otherwise he is not free. This means that God knows that the person does two things opposite of each other which is problematic.
???

God exists outside of space and time. He is not bound by linear time as we are. God, being omniscient, would know that someone would act opposite a revelation. There is no problem here.
Finally, I think the question that I raised is part of your system of belief so you could prove them.
I think you misunderstand our system of belief.
 
Last edited:
You wrote the following in the first post, so I pursued the idea of illusion which was commented on later:
Here we assume that there is an uncaused cause so called God. We also assume that God created everything and sustains everything in existence. The later means that anything but God does not have any essence since otherwise it could hold its existence. Things however can be divided into two categories when it comes to essence, essencefull (real) and essenceless (illusion). Illusion however cannot cause anything. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.
 
Last edited:
The problem arises when someone become aware what is going to decide through revelation. He can of course do opposite otherwise he is not free. This means that God knows that the person does two things opposite of each other which is problematic.
This “problem” only arises if a person learns of a particular act in a particular point in time and space. Revelation doesn’t give us these kinds of predictions and therefore, there’s no “problem” here… 😉
 
40.png
STT:
First, I didn’t say that people do not have free will. I said something which its very existence depends on something else does not have free will since his existence depends on something else.
This is certainly what you imply since you challenge the religious notion of God as creator and sustainer of all things. Let’s not split hairs here.
I am challenging God as sustainer.
40.png
STT:
Second, I already argue that a pair of thing can sustain each other, A and B for example. They are not necessary beings but possible beings.
Yes, you raise this, but as Wesrock points out and you admit, that A and B sustain themselves necessarily is not a given. Something that only potentially exists cannot be equated with something whose existence is necessary. At best, you leave open the notion that A and B are sustained by an uncaused first cause. Your proof does not hold.
No. My point was that A and B which are not necessary can sustain each other. I am not comparing A and B with God. A and B could for example created by God afterward they can sustain each other therefore there is no need for sustainer.
40.png
STT:
Third, let’s discuss the first comment from another point of view. Let’s accept that God sustain things/beings. Beings have free will so knowledge of their decision is needed. God has the knowledge of our decision eternally. So far so good.
So far so good.
Great.
40.png
STT:
The problem arises when someone become aware what is going to decide through revelation. He can of course do opposite otherwise he is not free. This means that God knows that the person does two things opposite of each other which is problematic.
???

God exists outside of space and time. He is not bound by linear time as we are. God, being omniscient, would know that someone would act opposite a revelation. There is no problem here.
I didn’t said that God is inside time. Of course God could not know what we are going to do given the revelation of future decision. Correctness of God’s foreknowledge is subjected to ignorance of us.
40.png
STT:
Finally, I think the question that I raised is part of your system of belief so you could prove them.
I think you misunderstand our system of belief.
I don’t think so otherwise you could answer my objection.
 
Please stick to OP. I meant if we could not cause anything then Pantheism follows.
 
This “problem” only arises if a person learns of a particular act in a particular point in time and space. Revelation doesn’t give us these kinds of predictions and therefore, there’s no “problem” here… 😉
I ask God for my decision in a particular point is time.
 
He is obliged to tell me.
Huh? So… God, who created you, is beholden to you? He must do as you command?

I think you’ve got it backward, STT… 😉
Otherwise I am not obliged to submit to Him
So, your faith is conditional on God performing actions you command? :roll_eyes:
 
40.png
STT:
He is obliged to tell me.
Huh? So… God, who created you, is beholden to you? He must do as you command?

I think you’ve got it backward, STT… 😉
Well, everybody is obliged to follow some norms when it comes to a relationship. Is God amoral? 🤨
40.png
STT:
Otherwise I am not obliged to submit to Him
So, your faith is conditional on God performing actions you command? :roll_eyes:
My faith is conditioned on God proving that He is God. 😏
 
Please stick to OP. I meant if we could not cause anything then Pantheism follows.
I am sticking to the OP.

See Catholic Encyclopedia for an understand of the Christian teaching:
There is nevertheless a fundamental unity which Christian philosophy has always recognized, and which has God for its centre. Not as the universal being, nor as the formal constituent principle of things, but as their efficient cause operating in and through each, and as the final cause for which things exist, God in a very true sense is the source of all thought and reality (see St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes”, I). His omnipresence and action, far from eliminating secondary causes, preserve each in the natural order of its efficiency-physical agents under the determination of physical law and human personality in the exercise of intelligence and freedom. the foundation of the moral order. The straining after unity in the pantheistic sense is without warrant, the only intelligible unity is that which God himself has established, a unity of purpose which is manifest alike in the processes of the material universe and in the free volition of man, and which moves on to its fulfilment in the union of the created spirit with the infinite Person, the author of the moral order and the object of religious worship.
Pace, E. (1911). Pantheism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top