A closer look at the first way

[belorg]

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

Great, I tel you that “Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the Father created the son from nothing.” And you refute this by saying that Catholicism never claimed that the Father created the son from nothing.
I mean, really, JD, is this discussion going anywhere or are you just planning on continuing to knock down strawmen.
If the latter is true, then I advise you to leave this thread and go and annoy someone else with your childish behaviour.

 

[belorg]

ReapReason:

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.

I agree that there is no before and after creation in a temporal sense, but that’s not what I am talking about.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Belorg:

You have a point; to that even I will concede.

But, your point has probity only because your iteration presupposes that “there is Time prior to there being Time.” Nowhere is the concept out-of-the-blue that God is not temporal. That “God is infinite” is not only reasonable and logical, but also, historical. Before your argument can be valid, you must first deny “infinity.” But you must presuppose no infinity BEFORE you deny it, or any of its properties - including the one you are now trying so hard to disabuse everyone of.

Christianity has almost always apologized for its use of relatively inappropriate terms to describe the “Infinite.” It is, unfortunately, one of those concepts that can best be defined by the via negativa. It is also undefinable mathematically. These two exigencies tend to make it easy pickens for denial.

Belorg, do you deny “infinity?”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

You have a point; to that even I will concede.

But, your point has probity only because your iteration presupposes that “there is Time prior to there being Time.” Nowhere is the concept out-of-the-blue that God is not temporal. That “God is infinite” is not only reasonable and logical, but also, historical. Before your argument can be valid, you must first deny “infinity.” But you must presuppose no infinity BEFORE you deny it, or any of its properties - including the one you are now trying so hard to disabuse everyone of.

Christianity has almost always apologized for its use of relatively inappropriate terms to describe the “Infinite.” It is, unfortunately, one of those concepts that can best be defined by the via negativa. It is also undefinable mathematically. These two exigencies tend to make it easy pickens for denial.

Belorg, do you deny “infinity?”

God bless,
jd

No, I do not deny infinity, and I do not presuppose that there is Time prior to there is Time.
Again, you totally misunderstand my argument and keep knocking down strawmen, perhaps inadvertedly, but so far, you haven’t even touched my argument.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Belorg:

I categorically deny your premise. It is plainly wrong, as everyone else seems to agree.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Great, I tel you that “Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the Father created the son from nothing.” And you refute this by saying that Catholicism never claimed that the Father created the son from nothing.
I mean, really, JD, is this discussion going anywhere or are you just planning on continuing to knock down strawmen.

Belorg:

The “strawmen” I am “knocking down” ARE YOUR strawmen. You are the one making “strawmen” by your continual refusal to structure your sentence correctly. Correctly structured, as the Catholic Church has done, your restatement of it is the one and only “strawman.”

If the latter is true, then I advise you to leave this thread and go and annoy someone else with your childish behaviour.

I have been trying to get you to stop twisting the sentence to reflect the meaning you wish it to have. Everyone can see that. Except, apparently, you. I think it is you that is being “childish.” Or, you are working desperately to trick me into saying something inhospitable. But, you can’t. You can’t trick me and you can’t intimidate me. I will continue to ask that you refrain from misappropriating the verbiage the Catholic Church uses. And, I will point this out to anyone new that comes to the topic.

And still I ask God to bless you,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

RR:

I can see why he thinks that the “state of reality has changed.” But, he is not understanding what “reality” is. To him, it appears that it can only be that which we sense. That makes sense from a materialist/positivist’s point of view, and can only be done, I think, by denying the spirituality of God and Heaven.

Am I wrong? Is he saying something I’m missing?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, I do not deny infinity, and I do not presuppose that there is Time prior to there is Time.
Again, you totally misunderstand my argument and keep knocking down strawmen, perhaps inadvertedly, but so far, you haven’t even touched my argument.

Belorg:

Then I will humbly ask again (as I did numerous times in a previous thread) that you carefully and succinctly restate your argument in the most efficacious words at your disposal - and, not the one in your kitchen. Leave nothing that might help in understanding you out of your restatement. It will only take you a couple of seconds, perhaps a minute. You will not need “thought time” as you have been thinking about this for months.

No aspersions intended.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

RR:

I can see why he thinks that the “state of reality has changed.” But, he is not understanding what “reality” is. To him, it appears that it can only be that which we sense. That makes sense from a materialist/positivist’s point of view, and can only be done, I think, by denying the spirituality of God and Heaven.

Am I wrong? Is he saying something I’m missing?

God bless,
jd

Yes. You are missing just about everything he says.
But never mind

JDaniel:

Then I will humbly ask again (as I did numerous times in a previous thread) that you carefully and succinctly restate your argument in the most efficacious words at your disposal - and, not the one in your kitchen. Leave nothing that might help in understanding you out of your restatement. It will only take you a couple of seconds, perhaps a minute. You will not need “thought time” as you have been thinking about this for months.

No aspersions intended.

In the other thread I carefully and succinctly restated my argument at least half a dozen times and you kept misunderstanding it. There’s only so much a human being can do, JD.
My argument is very simple, and ifyou truly have a more than superficial knowledge of Thomism and my argument is really wrong, then it should be a piece of cake to refute it.

I am waiting, JD.

 

[ReapReason]

Yes. You are missing just about everything he says.
But never mind

In the other thread I carefully and succinctly restated my argument at least half a dozen times and you kept misunderstanding it. There’s only so much a human being can do, JD.
My argument is very simple, and ifyou truly have a more than superficial knowledge of Thomism and my argument is really wrong, then it should be a piece of cake to refute it.

I am waiting, JD.

It seems to me that you were saying that before physical reality existed there was only God; and then God created physical reality, which means that God’s reality changed from one state to another.

Is that what you are saying?

A clear yes or no will suffice.

 

[JDaniel]

It seems to me that you were saying that before physical reality existed there was only God; and then God created physical reality, which means that God’s reality changed from one state to another.

Is that what you are saying?

A clear yes or no will suffice.

RR:

You won’t get one. This is the game he plays. But, we’ll see. Maybe someone new can draw it out of him. But, I’m here for the duration.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Belorg:

This is the crux of your argument: that “a changeless ontological ‘state’ changed from being a ‘changeless’ state to being a ‘changeful’ state, which is contradictory.” That’s a very interesting premise and take. This is worthy of discussion. But, first, am I stating your argument correctly?

(I’m not going to worry about the word ‘changeful’ being spot on. I know what you are trying to say.)

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

It seems to me that you were saying that before physical reality existed there was only God; and then God created physical reality, which means that God’s reality changed from one state to another.

Is that what you are saying?

A clear yes or no will suffice.

Yes, except that ‘before’ in this case has no temporal meaning and that I prefer “the whole of reality” instead of “God’s reality”.

 

[belorg]

RR:

You won’t get one. This is the game he plays. But, we’ll see. Maybe someone new can draw it out of him. But, I’m here for the duration.

God bless,
jd

I am not playing a game. I am trying to have a real discussion here, and maybe I could have one if you did’nt keep poisoning the well.

Belorg:

This is the crux of your argument: that “a changeless ontological ‘state’ changed from being a ‘changeless’ state to being a ‘changeful’ state, which is contradictory.” That’s a very interesting premise and take. This is worthy of discussion. But, first, am I stating your argument correctly?

(I’m not going to worry about the word ‘changeful’ being spot on. I know what you are trying to say.)

God bless,
jd

So, now it’s a ‘very interesting premise and take’. If it’s worthy of discussion, then discuss it. You’ ve had the chance now for sveeral pages and all you’ve done so far is trying to ridicule me. If you have anything meaningful to say, then do it now or otherwise forever remain silent on this issue.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Yes, except that ‘before’ in this case has no temporal meaning and that I prefer “the whole of reality” instead of “God’s reality”.

If temporality has no meaning in this argument then the simple rebuttal is from the point of view of the PM, all that is, is actual. From our point of view, all that is, is still progressing to actuality. So from His perspective, who is the beginning and end, this whole state of reality has always been, not co-eternal but eternally contingent on Him.

 

[JDaniel]

So, now it’s a ‘very interesting premise and take’. If it’s worthy of discussion, then discuss it. You’ ve had the chance now for sveeral pages and all you’ve done so far is trying to ridicule me. If you have anything meaningful to say, then do it now or otherwise forever remain silent on this issue.

Belorg:

You lodge accusations that you know aren’t true - and, EVERYONE here knows that. The post that I responded to, that seemed to explain your premise intelligibly, was one of your most recent responses to another poster, who, interestingly enough, asked the same question that I’ve been asking. Your description, in that post, is the most succinct description that I had read to that point. So, either accept my apology or not.

And, you still did not answer my very, very simple question: Is that an accurate restatement of your premise? If it is, then I’d be happy to discuss it with you. If it’s not, then let’s not waste each other’s time. As another poster indicated, “a simple answer will suffice.”

BTW, if there is anything that I’ve said that sounded like ridicule to you, that was not my intention. I was simply pushing you to get an intelligible answer, at least to me. In fact, anyone else herein is/was more than welcome to come to the aide of that objective. No one did, and you were too shy to reiterate as you finally did in your response to another. (My compliments!)

To reiterate: Is that a cogent representation of your premise? Do you wish to alter it in any way? Or, can we make a new beginning?

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

You lodge accusations that you know aren’t true - and, EVERYONE here knows that. The post that I responded to, that seemed to explain your premise intelligibly, was one of your most recent responses to another poster, who, interestingly enough, asked the same question that I’ve been asking. Your description, in that post, is the most succinct description that I had read to that point. So, either accept my apology or not.

If you truly want to apologize, then of course I will accept that, but I must say your use of ‘accusation’ makes me a bit suspicious as to your motives. Anyway, I do not care too much for apologies, what’s more important to me is whether you are willing to have a serious discussion. If that’s the case, let’s proceed.

And, you still did not answer my very, very simple question: Is that an accurate restatement of your premise? If it is, then I’d be happy to discuss it with you. If it’s not, then let’s not waste each other’s time. As another poster indicated, “a simple answer will suffice.”

If you think it’s s simple matter, I am afraid there isn’t much to discuss, because it is a fairly coplex matter from where I stand.
But, to answer your question. Yes, this restatement of my premise is more or less accurate.

BTW, if there is anything that I’ve said that sounded like ridicule to you, that was not my intention. I was simply pushing you to get an intelligible answer, at least to me. In fact, anyone else herein is/was more than welcome to come to the aide of that objective. No one did, and you were too shy to reiterate as you finally did in your response to another. (My compliments!)

I am not ‘shy’. I answered the other poster because his tone was far less arrogant than yours. Now maybe this was unintentional on your part, so let’s forget it.

To reiterate: Is that a cogent representation of your premise? Do you wish to alter it in any way? Or, can we make a new beginning?

God bless,
jd

For now, this representation will do. I

 

[belorg]

If temporality has no meaning in this argument then the simple rebuttal is from the point of view of the PM, all that is, is actual. From our point of view, all that is, is still progressing to actuality. So from His perspective, who is the beginning and end, this whole state of reality has always been, not co-eternal but eternally contingent on Him.

I am afarid it’s not that simple. Eternally contingent is still contingent and it still means there is a non-temporal state of affairs in which this whole state of reality did not exist.

 

[JDaniel]

If you truly want to apologize, then of course I will accept that, but I must say your use of ‘accusation’ makes me a bit suspicious as to your motives. Anyway, I do not care too much for apologies, what’s more important to me is whether you are willing to have a serious discussion. If that’s the case, let’s proceed.

If you think it’s s simple matter, I am afraid there isn’t much to discuss, because it is a fairly coplex matter from where I stand.
But, to answer your question. Yes, this restatement of my premise is more or less accurate.

I am not ‘shy’. I answered the other poster because his tone was far less arrogant than yours. Now maybe this was unintentional on your part, so let’s forget it.

For now, this representation will do. I

Belorg:

This is the crux of your argument: that “a changeless ontological ‘state’ changed from being a ‘changeless’ state to being a ‘changeful’ state, which is contradictory.” From:

“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) into a state of change. This, I would think is so obviously contradictory that I really cannot see why anyone would deny this.”

But then I noticed, in another response to another poster, this:

“…except that ‘before’ in this case has no temporal meaning and that I prefer “the whole of reality” instead of “God’s reality”.

Before we begin I’m going to write your premise in a form that makes sense, from a sequenced reasoning perspective. If I am wrong, please say so.

1. 
   *] The whole of reality was changeless – which must be God, as we don’t have any other choices, precisely because per your argument, if He is/was all there is/was, then it is/was He who existed as your prior ‘changeless state’.
   
   *] Then, at some moment, before it changed to ‘changeful’, this ‘changeless state’ changed into a ‘changeful state’.
   
   *] How can that be? God, which was the ‘whole of reality’, is said to be ‘changeless’ and, therefore, It/He cannot change.
   
   *] But, this is contradictory.
   
   If this is about right, even though I am not perfectly happy with my interpretation (believe it or not!), we can begin. Is it OK to invite participants?
   
   God bless,
   jd