A closer look at the first way

[JDaniel]

Hi belorg,

Excuse my ignorance, but would you mind expanding what you mean by this “ontic instant” and premise 2 in general?

Thanks

Andy:

If I may answer in his stead, from Belorg’s earlier post:
1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1)
Belorg is of the opinion that God is somehow intimately involved in Time - even though He is infinite. One can deny the infinity of God, which, of course, opens up the begging of a number of questions that aren’t answerable, and then deny that God is outside of finite Time, but then we’re left back at the good old infinite aggregation of finite event(s) and existence(s), which is unreasonable, illogical, and unprovable.

Belorg’s No. 2 is a postulation. IOW, it is a mental construct that has no referent when considered in reference to an Infinite Being. Belorg’s No. 2 (no pun intended) is a mental construct the basis of which is ‘Time,’ that is, “temporality.” St. Thomas has concerned himself with the “angelic multitude,” with the ontology of “infinities,” with the eternality of the “creative” attribute of God, the fact that you can’t aggregate finite exigencies into an infinity, and so forth. What we understand God to be completely destroys the possibility of any “ontic (i.e., ontological) instant.” The only counter-argument is categorical denial sans (any) rationale. That is why he has continually pointed at his No. 2 and gives us no explanation for it whatsoever. (I can’t put that into any more genteel words than that.)

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Andy:

If I may answer in his stead, from Belorg’s earlier post:
1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1)
Belorg is of the opinion that God is somehow intimately involved in Time - even though He is infinite. One can deny the infinity of God, which, of course, opens up the begging of a number of questions that aren’t answerable, and then deny that God is outside of finite Time, but then we’re left back at the good old infinite aggregation of finite event(s) and existence(s), which is unreasonable, illogical, and unprovable.

Belorg’s No. 2 is a postulation. IOW, it is a mental construct that has no referent when considered in reference to an Infinite Being. Belorg’s No. 2 (no pun intended) is a mental construct the basis of which is ‘Time,’ that is, “temporality.” St. Thomas has concerned himself with the “angelic multitude,” with the ontology of “infinities,” with the eternality of the “creative” attribute of God, the fact that you can’t aggregate finite exigencies into an infinity, and so forth. What we understand God to be completely destroys the possibility of any “ontic (i.e., ontological) instant.” The only counter-argument is categorical denial sans (any) rationale. That is why he has continually pointed at his No. 2 and gives us no explanation for it whatsoever. (I can’t put that into any more genteel words than that.)

God bless,
jd

Not even close, JD.

 

[belorg]

Hi belorg,

Excuse my ignorance, but would you mind expanding what you mean by this “ontic instant” and premise 2 in general?

Thanks

To really answer your question, Andy. ‘Ontic instant’ or ‘ontological instant’ just is another way of saying a logically prior state. There is no temporal element involved anywhere.

 

[JDaniel]

Not even close, JD.

Belorg:

Then you state it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

To really answer your question, Andy. ‘Ontic instant’ or ‘ontological instant’ just is another way of saying a logically prior state. There is no temporal element involved anywhere.

Belorg:

A thing is either “ontological,” or “logical.” It can’t be both in the same respect. “Logic” is a mental construct, that, like mathematics, is a possible explanation of the ontological or leads to, by abstraction, the ontologicality of a thing. If they were the same (identicality), we would not need the two words, and you would be very, very confused.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

A thing is either “ontological,” or “logical.” It can’t be both in the same respect. “Logic” is a mental construct, that, like mathematics, is a possible explanation of the ontological or leads to, by abstraction, the ontologicality of a thing. If they were the same (identicality), we would not need the two words, and you would be very, very confused.

God bless,
jd

That’s why I said ‘another way of saying’. In this respect it comes down to the same thing.
Logically prior to anything else existiong, there was only God and it is also true that ontologically prior to anything else existing, there was only God.

 

[JDaniel]

That’s why I said ‘another way of saying’. In this respect it comes down to the same thing.
Logically prior to anything else existiong, there was only God and it is also true that ontologically prior to anything else existing, there was only God.

Belorg:

What I will write below will probably not sit too well with you, given your religious non-preference, but it ought to be considered under the circumstances.

“Who are these three Persons with whom the whole Christian life is so intimately and essentially connected? They are the one God whom we worship. Who is the Father? He is God, who from eternity begets the Son. And the Son? He is God, eternally begotten of the Father. And the Holy Ghost? He is God, the Spirit from eternity breathed by Father and Son. They are really three, really distinct; distinct because the begetter is not the begotten, the breather is not the Spirit breathed; distinct by their reciprocal relations, yet in nature, in Godhead ineffably one. One in nature, not as you and I are one, united by the bond of our common human species, under which we are classified together as individuals. Your human nature is not mine, nor is mine yours, and therefore we are not one man, but two. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three Gods, but one God, because the divine nature which the Holy Ghost eternally receives from the Father and Son, which Son eternally receives from Father, is numerically one and the same. One Person is not greater than another, one Person is not before another; all are equal and co-eternal. … They are distinct really, but merely, by their reciprocal relations. Think of no time in which Father was without his Son, or Father and son without their Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God, without beginning or end, changeless, eternal.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol. 1, Ch. II, pp. 38 - 39, The MacMillan Company, 1962.

So, God the Father was NEVER without his Son and the Holy Ghost. Now, this dogma was not just recently erected in order to refute arguments such as yours. It has been an essential part of Christian dogma from the time of Christ’s existence. Of course, many of the non-theists frequenting these threads repeatedly testify that those early “Neanderthals” weren’t very astute, nor did they possess the ability to see into the future, so they could not have known about your argument. Yet, there it is: an undissociated series of statements that rely on each other for the Truth of the whole.

But, what does this all have to do with your argument? It shows that there was never an ontic moment when it was only God the Father. God has been begetting forever.

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

I wonder if candide is going to answer my post?

Is she worried?

 

[JDaniel]

I wonder if candide is going to answer my post?

Is she worried?

RR:

No. She’s probably busy.

God bless,
jd

 

[AndyT_81]

Thanks belorg and JDaniel.

Belorg - would it be an accurate paraphrase to state that you are essentially arguing that because God is eternally changeless that He can’t create anything which is changing (and therefore temporal)? Or is your position more nuanced than that? Sorry for the questions, just want to be sure I understand your position properly.

If that is the case, I will suggest that this is a mis-representation of God’s eternal nature. Aquinas’ understanding of the eternal life of God (which he derived from Boethius’ understanding) is two-fold “First, by the fact that what is in eternity is illimitable … Secondly, by the fact that eternity itself lacks succession, existing all at once” (Summa Theologica Ia.10.11). So the first part (illimitable) is that the eternal life has no beginning or end, the second part is that the eternal life is “all at once”. Therefore, with this in mind I think your (2) is false. By trying to state an “ontic instant” where only God existed is to try and segment God’s being or eternal life in some way into parts - but God is entirely simple and has no successions within His being whatsoever. Whatever creation He performs (temporal creation included) He performs eternally and this eternal creation is a part of the eternal life “all at once”.

I think the introduction of the words “instant” and adding “-ed” to “exist” is implicitly smuggling in some temporal component into the argument. I think if you change (2) to:

1. God is ontologically prior to his creation

or something similar it is difficult to see how (6) follows.

What do you think?

PS Thanks for the comments, very interesting

 

[belorg]

But, what does this all have to do with your argument?

I

Nothing whatsoever.

It shows that there was never an ontic moment when it was only God the Father. God has been begetting forever.

God bless,
jd

Nobody that I know Of has ever claimed that the Father created the son from nothing.
So, one more strawman I guess.

 

[belorg]

Thanks belorg and JDaniel.

Belorg - would it be an accurate paraphrase to state that you are essentially arguing that because God is eternally changeless that He can’t create anything which is changing (and therefore temporal)? Or is your position more nuanced than that? Sorry for the questions, just want to be sure I understand your position properly.

It is more nuanced than that, although I think that it is certainly true that a changeless being cannot create anything changing.
My argument is that the whole of reality was (is)changeless (onto)logically prior to it becoming (being)
changeable. IOW a changeless state changed (changes, is changing, will be changing)i nto a state of change.This, I would think is so obviously contradictory that I really cannot see why anyone would deny this.

If that is the case, I will suggest that this is a mis-representation of God’s eternal nature. Aquinas’ understanding of the eternal life of God (which he derived from Boethius’ understanding) is two-fold “First, by the fact that what is in eternity is illimitable … Secondly, by the fact that eternity itself lacks succession, existing all at once” (Summa Theologica Ia.10.11). So the first part (illimitable) is that the eternal life has no beginning or end, the second part is that the eternal life is “all at once”. Therefore, with this in mind I think your (2) is false. By trying to state an “ontic instant” where only God existed is to try and segment God’s being or eternal life in some way into parts - but God is entirely simple and has no successions within His being whatsoever. Whatever creation He performs (temporal creation included) He performs eternally and this eternal creation is a part of the eternal life “all at once”.
I think the introduction of the words “instant” and adding “-ed” to “exist” is implicitly smuggling in some temporal component into the argument. I think if you change (2) to:

Adding “-ed” to exist is just a matter of speech. It is hard to express a state of a-temporality and (onto)logical priority without using some seemingly temporal markers.
But, you can use whatever grammatical tense you want.

1. God is ontologically prior to his creation

or something similar it is difficult to see how (6) follows.

Of course, with this formulation, we’ll have to modify 6 from “There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5)”

To “(Onto)logically prior to changeable reality there is an enternally unchnageable reality”.

I think the argument still works that way.

PS Thanks for the comments, very interesting

I think there is at least something to think about, here.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Nobody that I know Of has ever claimed that the Father created the son from nothing.

Nor did JD, he said ‘beget,’ not ‘create.’

Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri.

 

[belorg]

Nor did JD, he said ‘beget,’ not ‘create.’

Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri.

That’s exactly why JD’s claim has nothing to do with my argument, since** I** am talking about “create” and not “beget”. The universe is not thought to be “consubstantiálem Patri”.

 

[AndyT_81]

Thanks very much for that clarification Belorg

My argument is that the whole of reality was (is)changeless (onto)logically prior to it becoming (being)
changeable. IOW a changeless state changed (changes, is changing, will be changing)i nto a state of change.This, I would think is so obviously contradictory that I really cannot see why anyone would deny this.

I think that if creation was a part of God’s being, then your criticism would be dead right. While temporal creation certainly depends on God sustaining it in being, it is not a part of His being. The changeless “state” is God who is truly changeless, but He eternally willed (and therefore did not have a “change” in his being) the creation of a temporal state which is separate to Him. Therefore I would rephrase your middle sentence above as:

“A changeless state (God), eternally willed the creation of a changing/temporal state, and because it was eternally willed, the changeless state did not change”

Of course, with this formulation, we’ll have to modify 6 from “There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5)”

To “(Onto)logically prior to changeable reality there is an enternally unchnageable reality”.

I think the argument still works that way.

Thanks, yes I agree, 6 needs modification. I will restate your argument below:

1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2.God is ontologically prior to his creation
3 The universe is changing (common experience)
4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino)
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino)
6 (Onto)logically prior to changeable reality there is an eternally unchangeable reality (from 2,4 and 5)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong

For reasons stated above, I don’t think 7 follows from 6.

 

[belorg]

I think that if creation was a part of God’s being, then your criticism would be dead right. While temporal creation certainly depends on God sustaining it in being, it is not a part of His being.

Your criticism comes down to “it wasn’t God that changed, it was something else”. But there is no “something else” to be changeable. God, (ontologically) prior to creation, is the whole of reality.

The changeless “state” is God who is truly changeless, but He eternally willed (and therefore did not have a “change” in his being) the creation of a temporal state which is separate to Him. Therefore I would rephrase your middle sentence above as:

“A changeless state (God), eternally willed the creation of a changing/temporal state, and because it was eternally willed, the changeless state did not change”

The state of reality in this case still changed, and since (onto)logically prior to creation, God is the whole of reality, and after creation, God is not the whole of reality anymore, the whole of reality changed and therefore God changed.
It is not the case that apart from God, there is some sort of ‘barren land’ that could be changed into something else. Catholic dogma entails that apart from God, there is absolutely nothing.The whole of creation does not consist of “God + nothing”, the whole of creation consists of God. “Nothing” is not an entity. So it definitely is the case that prior to creation, reality was eternally unchangeable, which means that any change in it entails a contradiction. Saying that ‘willing’ something into existence means the changeless state did not change is sating that causally prior to creation, there was God and something else.

BTW, that is what Aristotle believed. Aristotle believed that the Prime Mover and the universe were co-eternal and that the PM was not the creator of the universe, but only the ‘mover’ of the universe. The problem is the reconciliation of that Aristotelean notion with the Catholic notion of a creator God. That is simply logically impossible.

Thanks, yes I agree, 6 needs modification. I will restate your argument below:

1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2.God is ontologically prior to his creation
3 The universe is changing (common experience)
4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino)
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino)
6 (Onto)logically prior to changeable reality there is an eternally unchangeable reality (from 2,4 and 5)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong

For reasons stated above, I don’t think 7 follows from 6.

7definitely follows from 6, you’ll have to deny 6 to refute my argument. And you tried to deny it, but for reasons I explained above, this does not work.

 

[ReapReason]

The state of reality in this case still changed, and since (onto)logically prior to creation, God is the whole of reality, and after creation, God is not the whole of reality anymore, the whole of reality changed and therefore God changed.

There is no before and after creation. Creation itself includes the manifestation of physical time. God exists relatively to that manifestation, and is not confined within it like a physical object. Relatively speaking, time simply does not exist for God; but rather all potential events are already actual in the mind of God from all eternity, and that is because God - being non-physical - is not subject to the physical standards of space & time.

 

[JDaniel]

That’s exactly why JD’s claim has nothing to do with my argument, since** I** am talking about “create” and not “beget”.

Belorg:

From the Oxford Dictionary online:

verb (begets, begetting; past begot /-ˈgat/; past participle begotten)[with object] literary

1 (typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction:

they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen

There must be, in your mind, some major difference?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Nobody that I know Of has ever claimed that the Father created the son from nothing. So, one more strawman I guess.

Belorg:

And, Catholicism does not say, “the Father created the on from nothing.” Nor does it say, “the Father created [anything} *from nothing.” Catholicism says, “God [through the power of His creative ability] makes something to be where there was absolutely nothing.” (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol 1, Ch VI, God the Creator, p. 181, 1962.) Which, it is admitted, is not a perfect transliteration due to the fact that we don’t have more precise words, in the English language (nor do the best words exist in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.) At least I am not being disingenuous. Which is what one is when one “spins” definitions to suit an agenda.

There was no “strawman.” (I wish you’d learn to be less meaningless. )

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

From the Oxford Dictionary online:

verb (begets, begetting; past begot /-ˈgat/; past participle begotten)[with object] literary

1 (typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction:

they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen

There must be, in your mind, some major difference?

God bless,
jd

No, JD, there is absolutely no difference between bringing something into existence by the process of reproduction and bringing something into existence from nothing.?!?
God just impregnates nothingness by His mighty seed.