Uncaused cause=Pantheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe the type of sustaining you are referring to is occasionalism. So you might be asking the wrong people.
 
I’m a pantheist, it will be interesting to see where you go with this! 🍿
 
Wesrock said:
You’re thinking of the properties as being prior to existence, but it’s the other way around. If the thing did not exist, there would be no real properties. A thing cannot be blue, or round, or combustible, if it does not first exist.
Click to expand...
No. I am just saying that something with essence does not need a sustainer given the definition of essence (a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is). I also claim that anything without essence need a sustainer and it is illusion. Finally an illusion cannot cause anything therefore God is the only uncaused cause and we are dealing with Pantheism.

By the way, you didn’t answer my question in post #14 (So you have three or more categories of things? What they are?).
 
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
You’re thinking of the properties as being prior to existence, but it’s the other way around. If the thing did not exist, there would be no real properties. A thing cannot be blue, or round, or combustible, if it does not first exist.
Click to expand...
No. I am just saying that something with essence does not need a sustainer given the definition of essence (a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is).
Click to expand...
While I would agree in part with the idea that essence has to do with a thing “being what it is,” the term “without which it could not exist” I find questionable. I can know of the essence of a certain polygon that does not exist, or even a certain atom, and its supposed properties, and none of that entails that it _does_exist. Now, an existing thing does have an essence. It would be kind of nonsense that something existed without having being a “what” of anykind, but the essence doesn’t impart existence to itself.

Also, not all properties of a thing are necessarily essential properties.
STT said:
By the way, you didn’t answer my question in post #14 (So you have three or more categories of things? What they are?).
Click to expand...
This topic is moreso about substantiating your claims about the definition of essence and pantheism, but I may be able to comment some more later.
 
Wesrock said:
While I would agree in part with the idea that essence has to do with a thing “being what it is,” the term “without which it could not exist” I find questionable. I can know of the essence of a certain polygon that does not exist, or even a certain atom, and its supposed properties, and none of that entails that it _does_exist. Now, an existing thing does have an essence. It would be kind of nonsense that something existed without having being a “what” of anykind, but the essence doesn’t impart existence to itself.
Click to expand...
You are having trouble because you are sticking to your definition of essence. Just accept my definition of essence to see where the argument leads to.
Wesrock said:
This topic is moreso about substantiating your claims about the definition of essence and pantheism, but I may be able to comment some more later.
Click to expand...
I will be waiting for that.
 
STT said:
40.png
SalamKhan:
What do you believe is meant by sustaining?
Click to expand...
It means that soul and body are sustained. They simply vanishes if God doesn’t sustain them. Occasionalism is completely different story.
Click to expand...
An Aristotlean wouldn’t consider an essence to be a thing in itself. I am not an essence. Neither is my soul an essence in the way I think you mean it. The essence/existence distinction is just stating that there is a real distinction between what type of thing I am and that I am.
 
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
While I would agree in part with the idea that essence has to do with a thing “being what it is,” the term “without which it could not exist” I find questionable. I can know of the essence of a certain polygon that does not exist, or even a certain atom, and its supposed properties, and none of that entails that it _does_exist. Now, an existing thing does have an essence. It would be kind of nonsense that something existed without having being a “what” of anykind, but the essence doesn’t impart existence to itself.
Click to expand...
You are having trouble because you are sticking to your definition of essence. Just accept my definition of essence to see where the argument leads to.
Click to expand...
This makes as much sense to me as “Just accept that 1+1=3 and see where that leads to.” We’re starting by accepting a definition that you readily admit is completely nominal and which we’re being asked to accept without good reason.
 
You did not answer what you think is meant by sustaining. You simply restated your position but replaced ‘everything’ with ‘body and soul’.

So instead of:
“God sustains everything”

You said:
“God sustains body and soul”

What do you believe is meant by sustaining?
 
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
While I would agree in part with the idea that essence has to do with a thing “being what it is,” the term “without which it could not exist” I find questionable. I can know of the essence of a certain polygon that does not exist, or even a certain atom, and its supposed properties, and none of that entails that it _does_exist. Now, an existing thing does have an essence. It would be kind of nonsense that something existed without having being a “what” of anykind, but the essence doesn’t impart existence to itself.
Click to expand...
You are having trouble because you are sticking to your definition of essence. Just accept my definition of essence to see where the argument leads to.
Click to expand...
Rather, I don’t have hours to devote right now to an article on the real distinction between essence and existence and scholastic/classical understanding of the idea of essence, substantial properties, accidental properties, and relations, all of which are sometimes just referred to as “properties” in the casual vernacular of today.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
This makes as much sense to me as “Just accept that 1+1=3 and see where that leads to.” We’re starting by accepting a definition that you readily admit is completely nominal and which we’re being asked to accept without good reason.
Click to expand...
That is not true but let’s stick to your definitions existence (It is there) and essence (It is what). Does creation and things within it need a sustainer? Yes. I am claiming that anything that is sustained is an illusion since it vanishes if God does not sustain it. This means that this thing cannot cause anything. This means that all causes originated in God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.
 
SalamKhan said:
You did not answer what you think is meant by sustaining. You simply restated your position but replaced ‘everything’ with ‘body and soul’.

So instead of:
“God sustains everything”

You said:
“God sustains body and soul”

What do you believe is meant by sustaining?
Click to expand...
It vanishes if God doesn’t sustain it.
 
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
This makes as much sense to me as “Just accept that 1+1=3 and see where that leads to.” We’re starting by accepting a definition that you readily admit is completely nominal and which we’re being asked to accept without good reason.
Click to expand...
That is not true but let’s stick to your definitions existence (It is there) and essence (It is what). Does creation and things within it need a sustainer? Yes. I am claiming that anything that is sustained is an illusion since it vanishes if God does not sustain it. This means that this thing cannot cause anything. This means that all causes originated in God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.
Click to expand...
What makes it an illusion?
Why would it lack the power to cause anything?

The entire idea of the Unmoved Mover is that the things of our experience would lack the power to cause anything unless this causal power was imparted to them to do so. That is, their causal power (by existing in the first place) is non-essential, and is entirely derivative.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
What makes it an illusion?
Click to expand...
The very fact that they vanish if God does not sustain them.
Wesrock said:
Why would it lack the power to cause anything?
Click to expand...
Because it is an illusion. Illusion is not a being therefore it cannot cause anything.
Wesrock said:
The entire idea of the Unmoved Mover is that the things of our experience would lack the power to cause anything unless this causal power was imparted to them to do so. That is, their causal power (by existing in the first place) is non-essential, and is entirely derivative.
Click to expand...
What is the source of all causal chains? God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism. In another world creation does not have any power to cause anything. Human cannot decide for example since the very act of decision requires the power to cause independently. We apparently don’t have this power since the causal power is not originated form us. Do you see the problem?

No need to say that there is another challenge to this world view. How God could know what we are going to do? He knows it eternally. Is that in principle possible that one person knows what he is going to do in advance by asking God? Yes. Is that possible that the person does the opposite of what he is revealed? Yes. Therefore there is a contradiction. No need to say that one can ask where this knowledge come from?
 
You repeated yourself once again. So I will assume you believe that sustaining means keeping an essence in existence. Of course, you claim that any essence that needs sustaining means that it is not a real essence, so already my assumption is wrong because you are keeping your view vague, or my assumption is right which would make your original position wrong.
 
Last edited:
SalamKhan said:
You repeated yourself once again. So I will assume you believe that sustaining means keeping an essence in existence. Of course, you claim that any essence that needs sustaining means that it is not a real essence, so already my assumption is wrong because you are keeping your view vague, or my assumption is right which would make your original position wrong.
Click to expand...
I can work with that definition of essence (it is what) instead of (a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.).

The question that I am raising is that what is the source of any causal chain? God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.
 
You’re using an enthymeme. You are either concealing a premise to make your conclusion seem right (even though it doesn’t seem right at all), or the second premise doesn’t exist yet you are assuming your conclusion to be true.

Premise 1: The cause of efficient causes is God.

Conclusion: Therefore Pantheism.

Do you see how incoherent this arguement is?
 
STT said:
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.
Click to expand...
A being in the universe could not have created the universe as that being could not have existed prior to the universe’s creation. The un-caused cause cannot be an effect of its own creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top