Uncaused cause=Pantheism

[STT]

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?

Proof. You accepted that something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else. Where is your proof? I am just arguing that there is no need for God given what you accepted. In my example there are two things, non of them being God. Two things can sustain each other given what you accepted (bold part).

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I do not have the burden of proof. You do! It’s your thread, and you have yet to articulate any workable proof for your claim.

 

[STT]

I do not have the burden of proof. You do! It’s your thread, and you have yet to articulate any workable proof for your claim.

I didn’t claim that: “Something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else.” That is your claim, first cause and intermediate cause. I just assume that your claim is correct and show that there is a problem.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

You are obfuscating.

You are attempting to argue something which (to this point) remains completely illogical. So much so, that you cannot formulate a proof for your argument. I merely asked you what your thoughts were on Aquinas.

 

[STT]

Ok, there is a gap in here: “But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not only act but also act for an end. And consequently, since both are from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they act for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary.” How does bold part follow from the rest?

 

[STT]

You are obfuscating.

You are attempting to argue something which (to this point) remains completely illogical. So much so, that you cannot formulate a proof for your argument. I merely asked you what your thoughts were on Aquinas.

Aquinas thought that there is a first cause and and intermediate cause. Doesn’t he? He think that “something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else.” Read it this way, the first thing being human for example and second thing his voluntary act. Don’t you believe that something like human which his existence is due to God can cause something?

 

[STT]

STT:

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.

I didn’t say the bold part. That is you who accepted that something which its very existence depends on something else can cause something else.

STT:

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.

I just accept the uncause cause a the first premise and show that it leads to Pantheism.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Ok, there is a gap in here: “But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not only act but also act for an end. And consequently, since both are from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they act for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary.” How does bold part follow from the rest?

The principle that is in them is a part of their nature. It is intrinsic to them and can be moved by intrinsic act.

Does that answer your question? If not, please explain the problem you see.

Aquinas thought that there is a first cause and and intermediate cause. Doesn’t he? He think that “something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else.” Read it this way, the first thing being human for example and second thing his voluntary act. Don’t you believe that something like human which his existence is due to God can cause something?

What man can cause himself is limited by our very nature.

It is only through reason (an intrinsic principle) that we can act toward a particular end (voluntarily).

The will was created by God and is moved by Him inasmuch as the will is universally oriented toward good. As such, our will is also moved directly by God. It’s not all voluntary act (inasmuch as it was created and must be sustained). But for God (the first cause) sustaining our will it would cease.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

I am responding first to this: “Things however can be divided into two categories when it comes to essence, essencefull (real) and essenceless (illusion).”

 

[STT]

STT:

Ok, there is a gap in here: “But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not only act but also act for an end. And consequently, since both are from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they act for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary. ” How does bold part follow from the rest?

The principle that is in them is a part of their nature. It is intrinsic to them and can be moved by intrinsic act.

What is the principle? “They not only act but also act for an end.”
He then conclude that because of this principle “the movement of such a things are said to be voluntary.”

These two part are not connected. The very fact that the act of an agent is for an end does not mean that the agent has free will.

 

[STT]

I am responding first to this: “Things however can be divided into two categories when it comes to essence, essencefull (real) and essenceless (illusion).”

I am defining essence as: A property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist. You however define essence as what a thing is.

 

[Gorgias]

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

The proof doesn’t work, however. Too big a leap from “first cause” to “part of all things”. Even worse, “part of all things” does not imply “all things are God”, which is the heart of pantheism.

You’re missing a good two or four steps to make your proof work.

 

[STT]

The proof doesn’t work, however. Too big a leap from “first cause” to “part of all things”. Even worse, “part of all things” does not imply “all things are God”, which is the heart of pantheism.

It is easy to expand the argument to cover that.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

You still need to provide proof for your premise 2 that the cause of causes is pantheistic.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The proof doesn’t work, however. Too big a leap from “first cause” to “part of all things”. Even worse, “part of all things” does not imply “all things are God”, which is the heart of pantheism.

It is easy to expand the argument to cover that.

Umm… ok, then…?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The very fact that the act of an agent is for an end does not mean that the agent has free will.

It means that reason was used to make a choice. One cannot choose unless one is free to choose. It follows that the agent has free will.

 

[STT]

You still need to provide proof for your premise 2 that the cause of causes is pantheistic.

That is very heart of Pantheism, there is only one God in Pantheism. You have more than one God if premise (2) is incorrect. So either we are illusion and there is one God or we are Gods.

 

[STT]

Umm… ok, then…?

So we are illusion.

 

[STT]

It means that reason was used to make a choice. One cannot choose unless one is free to choose. It follows that the agent has free will.

No, your conclusion does not follow because your second sentence is not correct. We can choose rationally, in favor of reason, like a robot. We can also choose against reason, free choice, unlike to a robot.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

It means that reason was used to make a choice. One cannot choose unless one is free to choose. It follows that the agent has free will.

No, your conclusion does not follow because your second sentence is not correct. We can choose rationally, in favor of reason, like a robot. We can also choose against reason, free choice, unlike to a robot.

What you just said does not contradict my point. Additionally, what makes a choice robotic? Is not the decision to use reason in that way a choice itself?