Uncaused cause=Pantheism

[STT]

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?

The only missing part is the definition of Pantheism.

1. God is the source of all cause
2. Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God (from wiki)
3. Therefore Pantheism is true

 

[STT]

A being in the universe could not have created the universe as that being could not have existed prior to the universe’s creation.

We could have infinite regress.

The un-caused cause cannot be an effect of its own creation.

I agree. But how that is related to our discussion?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What makes it an illusion?

The very fact that they vanish if God does not sustain them.

That’s not an illusion.

Wesrock:

Why would it lack the power to cause anything?

Because it is an illusion. Illusion is not a being therefore it cannot cause anything.

That’s not an illusion. They still have reality. They still exist. Only they exist contingently, not necessarily.

Wesrock:

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.

What is the source of all causal chains? God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.

Pantheism is stating that all things are God. We’re simply stating that all things except God are caused by God (not as a starting assumption, but as a conclusion to a cosmological argument).

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?

I take it you meant to start “In other words”. That would make more sense.

An act of the will requires the power to choose voluntarily. It does not require that our existence be uncaused or non-derivative.

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?

Rather, God could not create a state of contradictory affairs. Therefore if revealing a certain truth would make it false, there can be no real capacity for that possibility to occur, and therefore God could not do it. Now, SalamKhan may take a different approach, given what I understand of Muslim theology, but I’ll leave that up to him to address if he wishes.

 

[Wesrock]

SalamKhan:

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?

The only missing part is the definition of Pantheism.

1. God is the source of all cause
2. Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God (from wiki)
3. Therefore Pantheism is true

No, that doesn’t follow, for no Christian or Muslim would claim that things caused by God are parts of God.

 

[SalamKhan]

The only missing part is the definition of Pantheism.

1. God is the source of all cause
2. Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God (from wiki)
3. Therefore Pantheism is true

Allow me to simplify this for you, for you appear to be completey oblivious as to how incoherent and irrational your arguement is.

Let us represent the terms in your ‘syllogism’ with letters as symbols.

God being A.
Cause of causes being B.
Pantheism being C.

So your ‘syllogism’ can be reduced to this absurd mess:

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: C is A
Conclusion: Therefore C

 

[STT]

STT:

The very fact that they vanish if God does not sustain them.

That’s not an illusion.

How do you define illusion?

STT:

Because it is an illusion. Illusion is not a being therefore it cannot cause anything.

That’s not an illusion. They still have reality. They still exist. Only they exist contingently, not necessarily.

What reality? How do you define reality?

STT:

What is the source of all causal chains? God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.

Pantheism is stating that all things are God. We’re simply stating that all things except God are caused by God (not as a starting assumption, but as a conclusion to a cosmological argument).

Personality is an illusion in Pantheism therefore it follows that all things are caused by God including the fake personalities.

STT:

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?

I take it you meant to start “In other words”. That would make more sense.

An act of the will requires the power to choose voluntarily . It does not require that our existence be uncaused or non-derivative.

Yes, I meant in another word. Thanks for the correction.

Where we could get the power to choose when our very existence is caused and sustained by God?

STT:

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?

Rather, God could not create a state of contradictory affairs. Therefore if revealing a certain truth would make it false, there can be no real capacity for that possibility to occur, and therefore God could not do it. Now, SalamKhan may take a different approach, given what I understand of Muslim theology, but I’ll leave that up to him to answer.

So God cannot answer the question of what I am going to do?

 

[STT]

No, that doesn’t follow, for no Christian or Muslim would claim that things caused by God are parts of God.

Ok, let me change this slightly:

1. God is the source of all cause
2. Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing or it caused by, immanent God (from wiki)
3. Therefore Pantheism is true

 

[Calliope]

In Pantheism god and the Universe are the same, the Universe doesn’t “tell” people anything, so no, god cannot answer that question because in pantheism it’s not how the divine operates. This entire argument is bizarre because it sort of follows the idea that the divine in pantheism operates like a divine being, it doesn’t. the entire premise is bizarre

 

[Wesrock]

Post 1

Wesrock:

STT:

The very fact that they vanish if God does not sustain them.

That’s not an illusion.

How do you define illusion?

I wouldn’t use it as a metaphysical term. Conventionally, it applies to things that are experienced that don’t represent an actual state of affairs, or more generally, when one’s perceptions do not match actual reality. That said, an illusion in this case is not the same thing as non-being, only a case of a person’s real mental experience not being the same as the external reality causes his senses to react.

Wesrock:

STT:

Because it is an illusion. Illusion is not a being therefore it cannot cause anything.

That’s not an illusion. They still have reality. They still exist. Only they exist contingently, not necessarily.

What reality? How do you define reality?

Something that has being. That exists. It is other than non-being.

Wesrock:

STT:

What is the source of all causal chains? God. Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.

Pantheism is stating that all things are God. We’re simply stating that all things except God are caused by God (not as a starting assumption, but as a conclusion to a cosmological argument).

Personality is an illusion in Pantheism therefore it follows that all things are caused by God including the fake personalities.

Fake? Now you’re introducing another term. So by assuming pantheism is true we can prove pantheism is true?

 

[Wesrock]

Post 2

Wesrock:

STT:

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?

I take it you meant to start “In other words”. That would make more sense.

An act of the will requires the power to choose voluntarily . It does not require that our existence be uncaused or non-derivative.

Yes, I meant in another word. Thanks for the correction.

Where we could get the power to choose when our very existence is caused and sustained by God?

God gives existence to our nature, and our nature operates based on internal operations, some of which are voluntarily and not in deterministic fashion.

Wesrock:

STT:

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?

Rather, God could not create a state of contradictory affairs. Therefore if revealing a certain truth would make it false, there can be no real capacity for that possibility to occur, and therefore God could not do it. Now, SalamKhan may take a different approach, given what I understand of Muslim theology, but I’ll leave that up to him to answer.

So God cannot answer the question of what I am going to do?

If it brings about a contradictory state of affairs, no. There is no such thing as a capacity to do that.

 

[STT]

Allow me to simplify this for you, for you appear to be completey oblivious as to how incoherent and irrational your arguement is.

Let us represent the terms in your ‘syllogism’ with letters as symbols.

God being A.
Cause of causes being B.
Pantheism being C.

So your ‘syllogism’ can be reduced to this absurd mess:

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: C is A
Conclusion: Therefore C

Let’s write it in another way:

God being A.
Cause of causes being B.
Pantheism being C.

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: B is C
Conclusion: Therefore A is C

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No, that doesn’t follow, for no Christian or Muslim would claim that things caused by God are parts of God.

Ok, let me change this slightly:

1. God is the source of all cause
2. Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing or it caused by, immanent God (from wiki)
3. Therefore Pantheism is true

So if we arbitrarily change the definition of pantheism to be something other than what people mean whenever they say pantheism, pantheism is true? That’s shifting the goalposts and also just making the argument meaningless. Your claim is that everything is God, not “everything is God even if it’s not God.”

 

[STT]

In Pantheism god and the Universe are the same, the Universe doesn’t “tell” people anything, so no, god cannot answer that question because in pantheism it’s not how the divine operates. This entire argument is bizarre because it sort of follows the idea that the divine in pantheism operates like a divine being, it doesn’t. the entire premise is bizarre

We were not arguing Pantheism when I argue about asking God a question about my future activity.

 

[Calliope]

mea culpa. though honestly, you’re not arguing pantheism at all. I’m bowing out, since this is a philosophical chess game and clearly made for two. Interesting.

 

[Wesrock]

Black is white.

Why?

Because I’ve redefined black to include things that are both black and white.

Victory.

 

[SalamKhan]

God being A.
Cause of causes being B.
Pantheism being C.

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: B is C
Conclusion: Therefore A is C

But that is not what you said at all. Allow me to remind you:

God is the source of all cause

1. God (A) is Cause of causes (B)

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing or it caused by, immanent God (from wiki)

This was not a premise at all, but merely a definition of Pantheism, so I did the courtesy of making it into a premise for you:
2. Pantheism [C] is God (A)

But this is what you actually did:
2. Definition of Pantheism [C]

Therefore Pantheism is true

1. Affirmation of Pantheism [C]

Let us simplify all of this:

Premise 1: A is B
‘Premise’ 2: C (Definition)
Conclusion: Therefore C

So please do not try to convince me that you even got the form of a syllogism correct, let alone attempting to convince anyone that your ‘premises’ are true. Your new second premise (B is C) needs to be proven prior to being given as a premise.

 

[po18guy]

You have defined your own terms and arrived at the inescapable, but erroneous conclusion that you have. Of all thoughts, it is best for each of us to question our own before those of others. Expand your horizons beyond the limited capabilities of human thought. Delve into the concept of transcendence first, as any lack of understanding of the transcendent will hinder your search for, or understanding of God.

 

[STT]

STT:

How do you define illusion?

I wouldn’t use it as a metaphysical term. Conventionally, it applies to things that are experienced that don’t represent an actual state of affairs, or more generally, when one’s perceptions do not match actual reality. That said, an illusion in this case is not the same thing as non-being, only a case of a person’s real mental experience not being the same as the external reality causes his senses to react.

How do you distinguish reality from illusion?

STT:

What reality? How do you define reality?

Something that has being. That exists. It is other than non-being.

What do you mean with being?

 

[o_mlly]

The un-caused cause cannot be an effect of its own creation.

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God (from wiki)

Because the uncause-cause must transcend creation.

 

[STT]

STT:

Where we could get the power to choose when our very existence is caused and sustained by God?

God gives existence to our nature, and our nature operates based on internal operations, some of which are voluntarily and not in deterministic fashion.

Let’s see what is your answer to former questions.

STT:

So God cannot answer the question of what I am going to do?

If it brings about a contradictory state of affairs, no. There is no such thing as a capacity to do that.

Interesting, I thought that God’s foreknowledge is real and God has the power to reveal it. The examples of God revealing His foreknowledge is tremendous in scripture.