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.
That last bit seems like a bit of a leap. Wouldn’t it be simpler to them assume everything is god undivided?
Sure, everything that has existed excepting Himself, though it’s an ongoing creation, not something different.
What? Why? Rather, things that are are a composite of two co-principles, essence and existence. These are not said to be able to exist separately, though they must be distinct principles. You have a possible essence brought to actuality in a specific instance.
I disagree that your point follows.
A wrong turn was taken at a previous point so I’m not going to bother with this yet.
Which part is like a leap?
It seems so according to their doctrine.
Because anything which has essence does not need a sustainer otherwise they don’t have any essence meaning that they are mere illusion which are sustained.
Why is it true that things which have an essence cannot be ontologically dependent on something else?
I divided things into two categories: (1) Essencefull (real) and (2) Essenceless (illusion). The first one does not need a sustainer whereas the second one needs.
Okay. But why? Why do things that have an essence not need a sustainer? Why are things that need a sustainer not real?
Yep. “No essence” does not follow from “God holds everything in existence.”
There is no why. I define things first and deduce things afterward. What is real or have essence in my definition does not need a sustainer and vice versa.
I see no reason to give your arguments any credence if they’re all nominal definitions with no basis in actual reality.
I understand that to those unfamiliar with Aristotlean terms like essence and existence might say that also seems similarly arbitrary in definitions, but it’s not. When an Aristotlean says essence and existence are distinct, sure, they had to posit that through human reason and using human langauge, but it’s then followed up with inquiry about whether we have good reason to think they’re distinct, why it’s a real distinction and not just a conventional one, etc… It’s not just defined as true and that’s the end of it.
God created everything that was in potentiality, not everything absolutely.
Eek, good catch.
So you have three or more categories of things? What they are?
I understand what you are trying to say. What is your opinion about the rest of the argument?
I agree with this premise.
I already disputed this premise.
Existence may be univocal, but essence is not. This may help:
By essence I mean: a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.
Everything that was in potentiality derive their existence from God. We may still conceive of their essences in our mind even if they do not exist in actuality.
That I understand. Here we are talking about the fact that the created things that are sustained do not have any essence given the definition of essence (a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is) therefore they are illusion and we are dealing with Pantheism.
You’re thinking of the properties as being prior to existence, but it’s the other way around. If the thing did not exist, there would be no real properties. A thing cannot be blue, or round, or combustible, if it does not first exist.