Uncaused cause=Pantheism

[Gorgias]

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.

So, suppose I’m pedaling a stationary bicycle attached to a generator, and the wires lead to a light bulb. As long as I’m pedaling, I’m creating electricity, and the electricity causes the light bulb to light up. However, if I stop pedaling, the electricity stops flowing, and the light bulb stops illuminating.

Am I not causing the light bulb to light up? Is the light from the light bulb an ‘illusion’ or is it real?

No… the light is real. I am its cause. I sustain it.

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

Wow. Just… wow.

OK – here’s the counter-example that shows your claim to be false:

1. My parents are the cause of myself and my siblings.
2. My parents are not ‘part’ of me.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

STT:

There was no need for God if something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else.

Except for the issue of an infinite regress of an hierarchical series. Consider a cup on a table full of coffee. Coffee exists, but not necessarily so. Coffee exists because water molecules and other molecules exist. But the water molecules don’t exist necessarily. We have water molecules because we have oxygen and hydrogen atoms. But the oxygen atoms don’t exist necessarily, and so on, in a regress. There must be a First Principle to this series for, without it, the series would not exist at all, for all members that are not First Principles only exist in a derivative fashion.

You need to refute infinite regress, circular causation, interconnected causation, etc.

Yes it’s been done. Classical argumentation referred to the difference between per se series and per accidens series, also called essential and accidental series, also called hierarchical and linear series, and analysis of those series. I discussed it in my Argument From Motion topic on the Philosophy board. Aquinas and other classical thinkers addressed it. It’s been addressed numerous times in conventional literature.

 

[SalamKhan]

Of course you do need to prove it otherwise what you are saying is a mere claim.

LOL, much like many of your assertions that you have yet to prove. Explain why I need to prove your claim that an intermediary cause must have knowledge of its dependence upon the first cause to be able to cause an effect. I in fact disputed this claim of yours that you wanted me to prove.

There is no need for the first cause. You need to refute infinite regress, circular causation, interconnected causation, etc.

Said without any conviction whatsoever. I know this because you yourself posited the premise that God is the cause of causes. I feel as though you are simply trying to win a trivial argument online with strangers you can neither see nor hear. What makes it worse is that there were no demonstrative arguments at all from your side. You expect us to do the demonstrations yet disagree and repeat the same incoherent points, or go on to contradict those incoherent points and hope no one notices.

 

[Wesrock]

@STT

This is the main section on Free-Will:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm#article1

Also http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2006.htm

There’s more in Summa Contra Gentiles, too, though both are only intended as primer texts.

 

[AlNg]

Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.

I suppose it is possible. Assuming that the universe is uncaused, and that there is an underlying unobserved consciousness field analogous to the observed electromagnetic field and that our individual consciousness (and free will) is an excitation of that field could lead one to support a form of pantheism since each person would be somehow sharing in something divine.

 

[STT]

This is the part that I found related to our discussion (Article 1 Objection 3).

But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause.

Here is where I have an objection: There was no need for God (first cause) if something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else. Example, consider two things, A and B. A causes B and then B causes A… Both A and B exists and they don’t need God as sustainer.

 

[Vico]

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.

If an illusion is a created then it is a thing and has the created essence of illusion.

 

[STT]

STT:

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.

So, suppose I’m pedaling a stationary bicycle attached to a generator, and the wires lead to a light bulb. As long as I’m pedaling, I’m creating electricity, and the electricity causes the light bulb to light up. However, if I stop pedaling, the electricity stops flowing, and the light bulb stops illuminating.

Am I not causing the light bulb to light up? Is the light from the light bulb an ‘illusion’ or is it real?

No… the light is real. I am its cause. I sustain it.

Yes. That is a good example. Generator is the cause and you are the first cause. There is no light when you stop pedaling.

STT:

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 or it caused by, immanent God (from wiki)
3. Therefore Pantheism is true

Wow. Just… wow.

OK – here’s the counter-example that shows your claim to be false:

1. My parents are the cause of myself and my siblings.
2. My parents are not ‘part’ of me.

We are talking about first and intermediate cause. God is the source of all cause and your father is not.

Here is the final proof, by the 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

 

[mrsdizzyd]

This is the part that I found related to our discussion (Article 1 Objection 3).

But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause.

Here is where I have an objection: There was no need for God (first cause) if something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else. Example, consider two things, A and B. A causes B and then B causes A… Both A and B exists and they don’t need God as sustainer.

Except that the first cause is the source of the will, and he sustains the will insomuch as it is universally oriented toward the good. However, this does not preclude the will from moving itself in somethings. Aquinas argues that the will can move itself only when it has knowledge of a particular end. In this case, the will moves itself toward a particular end. The fact that the will can move itself in certain situations has no impact on the necessity of the first cause.

 

[STT]

Yes it’s been done. Classical argumentation referred to the difference between per se series and per accidens series, also called essential and accidental series, also called hierarchical and linear series, and analysis of those series. I discussed it in my Argument From Motion topic on the Philosophy board. Aquinas and other classical thinkers addressed it. It’s been addressed numerous times in conventional literature.

I don’t understand. You accept that something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else. I give you an example: Consider A and B as two things in which A causes B and B causes A… They could exist and they don’t need God as a first cause.

 

[STT]

Also http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2006.htm

There’s more in Summa Contra Gentiles, too, though both are only intended as primer texts.

This is a little long. Could you please be more specific and tell me which article and objection is related to our discussion?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Wesrock:

Also http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2006.htm

There’s more in Summa Contra Gentiles, too, though both are only intended as primer texts.

This is a little long. Could you please be more specific and tell me which article and objection is related to our discussion?

I’ll answer for him: Articles 1-3 with article 1 being the most important though article 2 and 3 add greatly to understanding the argument.

 

[STT]

If an illusion is a created then it is a thing and has the created essence of illusion.

My claim is that illusion cannot cause anything.

 

[STT]

Except that the first cause is the source of the will, and he sustains the will insomuch as it is universally oriented toward the good. However, this does not preclude the will from moving itself in somethings. Aquinas argues that the will can move itself only when it has knowledge of a particular end. In this case, the will moves itself toward a particular end. The fact that the will can move itself in certain situations has no impact on the necessity of the first cause.

You are claiming that God sustain things therefore things owe their very existence to God. I accept that. I however argue that there was no need for God if something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else. I gave you an example. Could you please tell me what is wrong with my example?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Could you please tell me what is wrong with my example?

The problem with your example is that you do not take into account that the will is not moved entirely by itself. Rather the will is universally moved by God.

Have you read question 6 article 1 yet?

 

[STT]

The problem with your example is that you do not take into account that the will is not moved entirely by itself. Rather the will is universally moved by God.

There is no needs for God as it is illustrated in the example.

Have you read question 6 article 1 yet?

There is no such a thing.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

STT:

Wesrock:

Also http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2006.htm

There’s more in Summa Contra Gentiles, too, though both are only intended as primer texts.

This is a little long. Could you please be more specific and tell me which article and objection is related to our discussion?

I’ll answer for him: Articles 1-3 with article 1 being the most important though article 2 and 3 add greatly to understanding the argument.

@STT have you read this yet?

 

[STT]

have you read this yet?

Not yet. I am slow. Be patient with me.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

The problem with your example is that you do not take into account that the will is not moved entirely by itself. Rather the will is universally moved by God.

There is no needs for God as it is illustrated in the example.

As had been mentioned numerous times, there is a logical error with your example.

If God is A, and man is B you are saying God creates man and man creates God. This is incomplete. Further, where is your proof for this?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

have you read this yet?

Not yet. I am slow. Be patient with me.

Ok. Read Aquinas’ proof that in humans somethings are involuntary and some are voluntary. Then come back and properly construct your syllogism.