Uncaused cause=Pantheism

[mrsdizzyd]

I would not make a distinction between “rational” and “free.” I’d make the distinction between necessary and contingently.

Necessary is a case where “B follows A necessarily.”

Contingent is a case where “Y follows X, but not necessarily.” X does not always produce Y.

Furthermore, we can make a further distinction between voluntary and involuntary, where involuntary is when Y does not knowledgeably move itself by intrinsic principles towards ends and voluntary where Y does knowledgeably move itself by intrinsic principles towards ends.

Precisely. Saying something is rational as opposed to free is a distinction without a difference. @STT has demonstrated no such distinction.

Now, necessary vs. contingent and voluntary vs. involuntary are distinguishable

 

[STT]

No, it’s not a matter of origin at some point in the past. It’s from where it’s derived in any given moment. If I hang a chain of links from a ceiling and then cut the chain in the middle, the bottom half will fall. It doesn’t matter whether it was hung up at some distant origin in the past, it matters that it has no innate, underived ability on its own to hang here and now. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if A and B started to exist at some point i the past, neither has an innate, underived ability to actualize its own existence in the here and now.

So you are talking about vertical causation? There is no need for vertical causation when A sustain B and B sustain A.

Yes, but what causes it to be A and B instead of X and Y or something else? What factors determine it to be this system instead of some other system?

The A and B were eternally (from infinite past) A and B.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No, it’s not a matter of origin at some point in the past. It’s from where it’s derived in any given moment. If I hang a chain of links from a ceiling and then cut the chain in the middle, the bottom half will fall. It doesn’t matter whether it was hung up at some distant origin in the past, it matters that it has no innate, underived ability on its own to hang here and now. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if A and B started to exist at some point i the past, neither has an innate, underived ability to actualize its own existence in the here and now.

So you are talking about vertical causation? There is no need for vertical causation when A sustain B and B sustain A.

You need to demonstrate that a closed causal loop explains an hierarchical series of causes. I’ve repeatedly demonstrated it doesn’t multiple times. A and B are only instrumental causes in the manner we are considering. By virtue of that, you have an hierarchical series.

Wesrock:

Yes, but what causes it to be A and B instead of X and Y or something else? What factors determine it to be this system instead of some other system?

The A and B were eternally (from infinite past) A and B.

Yes, but why A and B instead of X and Y?

 

[STT]

You need to demonstrate that a closed causal loop explains an hierarchical series of causes.
I’ve repeatedly demonstrated it doesn’t multiple times. A and B are only instrumental causes in the manner we are considering. By virtue of that, you have an hierarchical series.

What do you mean with hierarchical series? This is new in our discussion.

Yes, but why A and B instead of X and Y?

It could be anything combination of pair. Once you have a pair in the place it could sustain itself afterward. That is my point.

 

[Wesrock]

Post 1 of 2

Wesrock:

You need to demonstrate that a closed causal loop explains an hierarchical series of causes.
I’ve repeatedly demonstrated it doesn’t multiple times. A and B are only instrumental causes in the manner we are considering. By virtue of that, you have an hierarchical series.

What do you mean with hierarchical series? This is new in our discussion.

I’ve brought it up before in this topic and elsewhere An hierarchical series is a series of instrumental causes. It can be contrasted with a linear series.

Examples of a linear series: The most classical example is that of a father begetting a son. Then that son becomes a father by begetting a son. Then that son becomes a father by begetting a son. A son’s ability to continue the series is independent of his father. His father caused him at some point in the past, but the son is no longer dependent on him. The father could die, it doesn’t effect the continuation of the series. Another example I used is a line of dominoes. A domino falls and causes the next domino to fall and then the next domino, and then the next one. The series continues even if the already fallen dominos are taken away. The fallem dominoes do not continue to act in the series. The continuation of the dominos falling has no bearing on prior members. We can have an infinite or circular series of this type (maybe the dominoes are on springs and right themselves, and in a frictionless world the falling just keeps on going around in a circle). Maybe our universe will spawn another universe which will spawn our universe.

 

[Wesrock]

@STT

Post 2 of 2

An hierarchical series has members that are instrumental causes. A classical example is a stone being moved by a stick, and the stick being moved by the hand, and the hand being moved by the arm, and the arm being moved by the contracting muscles. The movement of the stone only continues to be actualized so long as the stick continues to move, and the movement of the stick against friction only continues to move as the hand continues to move, and so on. The contingent members of the series are always instrumental, always dependent. They don’t become independent actors. An example I’ve used is a series of chain links. If one hangs it from the ceiling, each link remains hung only so far as prior members continue to act upon it. They have no inmate ability to hang themselves against gravity. Linking the chains in a circle does not cause the chain to hang where it is against gravity. It must be acted upon, whether by being fastened to a ceiling or suspended by magnets or what have you. Likewise with a glass of water. The water exists only because the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up the H2O molecules exist. But these have no innate ability to actualize their own existence, so they only exist insofar as protons, neutrons, and electrons exist. But a proton has no innate ability to actualize its own existence, it only exists insofar as its quarks exist. And so on.

A having no intrinsic tendency to keep itself actualized and B having no intrinsic tendency to keep itself actualized means that “A actualizes B and B actualizes A” is insufficient to justify why the system of A and B is kept actual at all. The system has no reason for its own existence, and so must be ontologically dependent on something external to itself to explain it.

Wesrock:

Yes, but why A and B instead of X and Y?

It could be anything combination of pair. Once you have a pair in the place it could sustain itself afterward. That is my point.

It could be any combination, I agree. So why one instead of another? What determined it to A and B instead of something else?

 

[STT]

A having no intrinsic tendency to keep itself actualized and B having no intrinsic tendency to keep itself actualized means that “A actualizes B and B actualizes A” is insufficient to justify why the system of A and B is kept actual at all. The system has no reason for its own existence, and so must be ontologically dependent on something external to itself to explain it.

That is not true. There would be no problem if I say that A sustains itself and B sustains itself. But there is problem if A sustains B and B sustains A. I don’t see why there is a problem in the second case and there is no problem in the first case.

It could be any combination, I agree. So why one instead of another? What determined it to A and B instead of something else?

That is only one possibility among infinite possible other choices.

 

[Gorgias]

Do we vanish if God doesn’t sustain us? Yes. Therefore we are illusion.

The light doesn’t have any existence separate from you.

Both of these fail to be convincing. The light I create does exist – and I’m neither ‘light’ nor ‘electricity’, so it’s existence is separate from me! Oh, I’m one of the causes of the light, but I’m not part of the light! That’s where your assertions of ‘illusion’ and ‘pantheism’ fail to hold!

After all, when you look at the light, do you say to yourself, “oh, look! There’s @Gorgias!” No… of course not!

 

[Vico]

…
What I am trying to say is that a hallucination cannot have free will.

OK. I though we were pursuing the idea that: “Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.”

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I think the illusions have something to do with a “proof” for polytheism, but it’s really not clear…

I think the argument is that if we are created by God we are illusions. That not being the case, polytheism explains existence.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

A having no intrinsic tendency to keep itself actualized and B having no intrinsic tendency to keep itself actualized means that “A actualizes B and B actualizes A” is insufficient to justify why the system of A and B is kept actual at all. The system has no reason for its own existence, and so must be ontologically dependent on something external to itself to explain it.

That is not true. There would be no problem if I say that A sustains itself and B sustains itself. But there is problem if A sustains B and B sustains A. I don’t see why there is a problem in the second case and there is no problem in the first case.

Below you indicate that A and B are only two among infinite possible other choices. A and B might not have existed. There is nothing necessary to having A instead of X or Y. We talked previously about a real distinction between what a thing is (its essence) and that it is (its existence). In that vein, there is nothing essential to either A or B that says it must or should exist. There’s nothing about being A or being B that necessitates its being at any given moment. Therefore, A cannot sustain itself. B cannot sustain itself.

Likewise, if there’s nothing essential about A that causes it to exist and there’s nothing essential about B that causes it to exist, then there’s nothing essential about the system of A and B, which we’ll call C, which necessitates that it exist. A cannot impart to B what it does not have, and B cannot impart to A what it does not have. Therefore, A must have a cause external to it, B must have a cause external to it, and the system C must have a cause external to it.

Wesrock:

It could be any combination, I agree. So why one instead of another? What determined it to A and B instead of something else?

That is only one possibility among infinite possible other choices.

That is precisely the issue. It’s one possibility. So why is this possibility actual while the other possibilities are not?

 

[STT]

OK. I though we were pursuing the idea that: “Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.”

If accept that we have no free will then Pantheism follows.

 

[STT]

I think the illusions have something to do with a “proof” for polytheism, but it’s really not clear…

I think the argument is that if we are created by God we are illusions. That not being the case, polytheism explains existence.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please expound?

 

[STT]

Below you indicate that A and B are only two among infinite possible other choices. A and B might not have existed. There is nothing necessary to having A instead of X or Y. We talked previously about a real distinction between what a thing is (its essence) and that it is (its existence). In that vein, there is nothing essential to either A or B that says it must or should exist. There’s nothing about being A or being B that necessitates its being at any given moment. Therefore, A cannot sustain itself. B cannot sustain itself.

Likewise, if there’s nothing essential about A that causes it to exist and there’s nothing essential about B that causes it to exist, then there’s nothing essential about the system of A and B, which we’ll call C, which necessitates that it exist. A cannot impart to B what it does not have, and B cannot impart to A what it does not have. Therefore, A must have a cause external to it, B must have a cause external to it, and the system C must have a cause external to it.

That is precisely the issue. It’s one possibility. So why is this possibility actual while the other possibilities are not?

We are not talking about if A or B or any other combination should or must exist. We are talking about possibility.

Moreover I don’t understand why the bold part follows from the rest.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

No I can’t!

 

[Gorgias]

I think the argument is that if we are created by God we are illusions. That not being the case, polytheism explains existence.

not “polytheism” (many gods) but “pantheism” (everything is god).

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Yes. That was a typo (which I can no longer correct). Sorry.

 

[Wesrock]

Vico:

OK. I though we were pursuing the idea that: “Therefore we are dealing with Pantheism.”

If accept that we have no free will then Pantheism follows.

Er… no.

I mean, I accept free will.

But a world in which there were no beings with free will would not then be pantheism.

 

[STT]

Er… no.

I mean, I accept free will.

But a world in which there were no beings with free will would not then be pantheism.

You need to show two things: (1) Things which are sustained can have free will and (2) God sustains us.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Wesrock:

Er… no.

I mean, I accept free will.

But a world in which there were no beings with free will would not then be pantheism.

You need to show two things: (1) Things which are sustained can have free will and (2) God sustains us.

You did it again.

You have the burden of proof. You introduced the claim that people don’t have free will and that God is pantheism. We are still waiting for you to prove these things. So far, all your attempts at proofs have failed to hold.