Uncaused cause=Pantheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
What you just said does not contradict my point.
Click to expand...
It does. One does not need to be free in order to choose, like a robot.
mrsdizzyd said:
Additionally, what makes a choice robotic?
Click to expand...
To follow rationality.
mrsdizzyd said:
Is not the decision to use reason in that way a choice itself?
Click to expand...
Not always. As I said we can decide against reason.
Click to expand...
There are still intrinsic choices being made in every statement you offered.
 
STT said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
There are still intrinsic choices being made in every statement you offered.
Click to expand...
I am not against existence of choices.
Click to expand...
To choose is to exercise reason even if you ultimately choose to act against reason. It is inescapable. We are in control of our actions. We are free to choose. To be free to choose is to possess free will.
 
You are making a distinction without a difference. You are still talking about voluntary intrinsic acts based on reason. It’s still using reason to achieve a particular end. We could not use our reason in pursuit of a particular end unless we were free to do so.
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
I am responding first to this: “Things however can be divided into two categories when it comes to essence, essencefull (real) and essenceless (illusion).”
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
An essential property of an object it must have, but an accidental property it could lack. So I say “If an illusion is created then it is a thing and has the created essence of illusion” means that if an illusion is a created then it is a thing and has the created essential property of illusion.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
But what is the cause of that system existing?
 
STT said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because to act knowledgeably towards an end from an intrinsic principle is simply what it means for an act to be voluntary.

The error seems to be in trying to define free will as being “free from causes,” but that’s really not what anyone means by free will at all. We just mean that the decisions stem from intrinsic principles in us and we’re not moved about like puppets by gods or cosmological objects.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
You are making a distinction without a difference. You are still talking about voluntary intrinsic acts based on reason. It’s still using reason to achieve a particular end. We could not use our reason in pursuit of a particular end unless we were free to do so.
Click to expand...
I am saying that there are two type of decisions, rational and free. Rational is when the weight of options are different so we naturally pick up the option with higher weight. Free is when the weight of option are equal.
 
Vico said:
An essential property of an object it must have, but an accidental property it could lack. So I say “If an illusion is created then it is a thing and has the created essence of illusion” means that if an illusion is a created then it is a thing and has the created essential property of illusion.
Click to expand...
Yes, illusion has a set of properties, color, shape, etc. It leads to experience but it cannot cause anything. Think of hallucination.
 
Wesrock said:
But what is the cause of that system existing?
Click to expand...
The system is self-sufficient. Each thing hold another one in existence accepting the fact that you believe: Something which its very existence depends on something else can cause existence of something else.
 
Wesrock said:
Because to act knowledgeably towards an end from an intrinsic principle is simply what it means for an act to be voluntary.
Click to expand...
To me that doesn’t make any sense.
Wesrock said:
The error seems to be in trying to define free will as being “free from causes,” but that’s really not what anyone means by free will at all. We just mean that the decisions stem from intrinsic principles in us and we’re not moved about like puppets by gods or cosmological objects.
Click to expand...
Free will of course depend on existence of options but it is free from cause. We in fact create a chain of causality when we decide freely.
 
No, but why do we have a system to begin with? Why this system and not a different system?

Furthermore, this circular system is unintelligble. A derivatively receives E from B. B derivatively receives E from A. But if neither A nor B actually have E in an underived way, then E shouldn’t be in the system at all. From where is E derived? It cannot be from A or B. A circular system does not explain why it IS essentially to begin with. It is symbiotic in some fashion, but still must require a “first” member (not in counting order, but as primary and not secondary).
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
Because to act knowledgeably towards an end from an intrinsic principle is simply what it means for an act to be voluntary.
Click to expand...
To me that doesn’t make any sense.
Click to expand...
What part of it doesn’t make sense?
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
The error seems to be in trying to define free will as being “free from causes,” but that’s really not what anyone means by free will at all. We just mean that the decisions stem from intrinsic principles in us and we’re not moved about like puppets by gods or cosmological objects.
Click to expand...
Free will of course depend on existence of options but it is free from cause. We in fact create a chain of causality when we decide freely.
Click to expand...
It cannot be free from cause, otherwise it would not be. The hangup may be in the conception that the principle of causality states “B follows from A necessarily.” We deny that notion of causality, at least, we deny that it is descriptive of all cause and effect.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
No, but why do we have a system to begin with?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? I don’t understand how this question is related to our discussion.
Wesrock said:
Why this system and not a different system?
Click to expand...
That is just an example of system which could exist.
Wesrock said:
Furthermore, this circular system is unintelligble. A derivatively receives E from B . B derivatively receives E from A . But if neither A nor B actually have E in an underived way, then E shouldn’t be in the system at all. From where is E derived? It cannot be from A or B . A circular system does not explain why it IS essentially to begin with. It is symbiotic in some fashion, but still must require a “first” member (not in counting order, but as primary and not secondary).
Click to expand...
What is E?

And there is no first member.
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
An essential property of an object it must have, but an accidental property it could lack. So I say “If an illusion is created then it is a thing and has the created essence of illusion” means that if an illusion is a created then it is a thing and has the created essential property of illusion.
Click to expand...
Yes, illusion has a set of properties, color, shape, etc. It leads to experience but it cannot cause anything. Think of hallucination.
Click to expand...
You are indicating mental perception as hallucination. However scientists have found that the brain is reflects what we are feeling, even if it is not what really happened. And our sensory apparatus does not have the acuity to directly detect the underlying laws of physics. However the laws of physics which operate are the illusion and this is real, i.e., it is a real illusion. Since God is the prime mover, all laws of physics are secondary causes.
 
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
No, but why do we have a system to begin with?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? I don’t understand how this question is related to our discussion.
Wesrock said:
Why this system and not a different system?
Click to expand...
That is just an example of system which could exist.
Wesrock said:
Furthermore, this circular system is unintelligble. A derivatively receives E from B . B derivatively receives E from A . But if neither A nor B actually have E in an underived way, then E shouldn’t be in the system at all. From where is E derived? It cannot be from A or B . A circular system does not explain why it IS essentially to begin with. It is symbiotic in some fashion, but still must require a “first” member (not in counting order, but as primary and not secondary).
Click to expand...
What is E?
Click to expand...
We could consider E to be A and B’s acts of existence. Or the actualization of a potential in general.

If neither A nor B are capable of explaining their own existence they’re incapable of explaining the other’s existence.

Both A and B have E derivatively, and E does not originate in either A or B. Therefore, E must originate from something else.

A and B are parts of system C. C has E but only in a derivative way. From what does C derive E?

Adam and Bob cannot print their own money. Each can only receive it from someone else. Adam gives Bob $20. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. Adam is able to give Bob $20 because he is given $20 by Bob. Bob is able to give Adam $20 because he is given $20 by Adam. None of this explains why Adam and Bob have $20 to begin with, or the origin of the $20 between them, even if I were to write it out an infinite number of times, since neither inherently had $20.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top