A closer look at the first way

[belorg]

Belorg:

First of all – despite your disclaimer – there is no “outside [of] God.” There can be no “outside of infinity.”

That’s excatly my point: if there is chnage, it cannot be 'outside God", so it has to be intrenal to God.
And since there is chnage, God chnages, which contradicts the First Way. QED.

Second, “originally (ontologically)” is a wholly temporal description, whether you want to admit it or not. “Originally” is prior to when? To the present? Or, to the moment of Creation?

“Originally” means ontologically prior to. It does not mean rzmprally prior to. Whether this makes sense or not is not my concern because I am only conceding FTSOTA that a ‘timeless personal being’ makes sense It is most probably a nonsensical concept.

Third, a “part” cannot be something belonging to God. Your sentence is a contradiction.

I’m glad you see it, because, once again, you make my point.

Further, there is no real “new reality.” There is only “a new reality” from an entirely singular human and, admittedly, inadequate perspective, that relies on nothing else but an “anthropomorphism.” Consider the word “new” in your description; it is completely temporal.

So now you are once again claiming that reality is only apparently changing,from our limited perspective, which means there is no real change, an therefore, no ‘mover’ is needed.

And, this creates two additional problems: 1) it’s an arrogance for anyone to assume that he understands the “Infinite,” when, no disrespect intended, he clearly doesn’t.

If you want to go down that road again, I will leave this discussion. I do not feel like being insulted by you are anybody else.
So, stop being condescending or leave this thread.

And 2) it’s a misunderstanding of “thought” to posit it as a thing “outside of God.” Besides, even you admitted that this “new reality” would have to “move to the outside.” Our reality is God’s thought.

I am not talking about “thought”.

Again, this is the result of an inadequate conception of “infinity.” The only way God can be understood in relation to the “point” is to understand Him as the totality of all points. A line segment has points; but, no aggregation of points can make a line. This is mathematical. The only way you can make a line is to aggregate “line segments.” God can easily, without contradiction, be the totality of all points and, therefore, an infinity of them, precisely because they are not parts of Him (A point on a line divides two parts of a line from each other and also joins them but is not part of the line itself), and, because they cannot be aggregated to extrapolate, i.e., fill, an infinity.

Think of it as the “configuring” of “points.” Space-points, to be more precise. Reifications, NOT PARTS - as they would necessarily be being “thought.”

God is uncomposed of anything, so there is nothing to reconfigure.

But, don’t you see, this is an anthropomorphism. The whole idea of efficient causality is precisely that the efficient cause moves the effect simultaneously - except when a first cause is operating through secondary causes. There is not a successionary event here.
If you would say the sentence as it should be said, when speaking of Creation, you would have said, “Something comes to be where there was nothing.” This is the Catholic dogma on creation. There must be no words that indicate a past tense, or a future tense.

Last time I checked, “was’” is a word that indicates a past tense. The Catholic dogma on creation definitely entails a sequence, and I am willing, again, FTSOTA, to concede that they do not mean a temporal sequence, but merely a causal chain, or an ontological chain. But if you think this has any effect on my argument, you are wrong.

All of the words should indicate - as well as possible - a Now. A Now divides time into its two parts,** the past and the future**, without itself being a part of time, much the same as the point. “The Now is like a point on a line, and time is like a line.” This too, is Thomistic understanding. See: Physics, Bk. IV, ch. 13, 222a, 14 - 16; and Commentary on the Physics, Bk. IV, les. 18, n. 1120

Which ‘past and future’? According to you, there is no such thing.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi belorg,

My apologies, the reason you didn’t spill much ink responding to my comment was probably because you are being bombarded on all sides with queries. So I will respond to your original criticisms:

No, I do not have to show that. all I have to show is that reality changes.

I disagree, what you need to show is that God changes, because that is what is really in question here. If you want to say that reality changes, and that this entails that God also changes, you need to include in God the universe as far as I can see.

Catholic dogma says that God brought the universe into being. That necessrily entails a succession from not-being to being.

It does, it entails the succession of the universe from non-being to being. It does not entail a succession of states in God. This is what you have to show. If God eternally wills the creation of the temporal universe, there is no succession of states in Him to affect the creation of the universe. Again, ontological priority does not necessarily mean a succession of states.

Note, I do not agree that the universe is a part of God, it is its own being which is sustained in existence by the eternal action of God. Therefore, you have given me no reason to back off my original statement, namely:

1b. God → change → God + temporal creation

The problem that you need to deal with, as I see it, is to show that the “change” in 1b is an actual change (i.e. a succession of states) within God, not just an ontological priority.

You also said:

Firstly, I have lots of problems with an eternal vase resting on an eternal table involving any sort of causation, I really do not buy into that. But even if I accept this omehow entails causation, the ‘state’ of resting on the table of the vase is not brought into being, unlike in the case of the universe and God. So, that’s where I think you’ve got it wrong

The point of this example was not to be an exact analogy of what we are talking about here. What it is intending to show is that there are ontological priorities that do not need to involve successions of states (and I need a reason why you think that the table does not support and therefore cause the position of the vase to be above the floor).

Look forward to your response

 

[belorg]

Hi belorg,

I disagree, what you need to show is that God changes, because that is what is really in question here. If you want to say that reality changes, and that this entails that God also changes, you need to include in God the universe as far as I can see.

If God is the whole of reality and the whole of reality changes, then God does change. Unless you can show that God is not part of reality, not just that God is not part of the universe.
If you want to posit a reality completely independent of God, you can do that, but this would automatically entail a refutation of the first way.

It does, it entails the succession of the universe from non-being to being. It does not entail a succession of states in God.

It does entail a succession of states in reality, which IS God.

This is what you have to show. If God eternally wills the creation of the temporal universe, there is no succession of states in Him to affect the creation of the universe. Again, ontological priority does not necessarily mean a succession of states.

There is a succession of states in reality, which IS ‘God’ in one state and is ‘more than God’ in another state. That’s a change in unchangeable reality, which you can only deny by claiming that reality 2 is unrelated to reality 1. But that denies both Catholic dogma and the first way.

Note, I do not agree that the universe is a part of God,

It does not have to be ‘part of God’. But you do agree that it is created by God, don’t you?
And whether you like it or not ‘creating’ , unlike ‘sustaining’ entails a succession. It requirs an ontological state in which God did not ‘apply’ His creative force and another state at which He does.

it is its own being which is sustained in existence by the eternal action of God.

No, it is not merely sustained in existence. if that were the case, my objection would fail. But Catholic dogma has it that the universe is not only sustained but brought into being. Created. I’ve explained above why this entails a succession and also a succession in God.

I think you are confusing the original Aristotelean First Way , which is indeed immune to my criticism (at least this one) with the Catholic First way, which must be reconciled with catholic dogma of creation from nothing.

The point of this example was not to be an exact analogy of what we are talking about here. What it is intending to show is that there are ontological priorities that do not need to involve successions of states

But ‘bringing into existence’ is not an ontological priority that need not involve successions of states. It by definition entails a succession of states.

(and I need a reason why you think that the table does not support and therefore cause the position of the vase to be above the floor).

This is not relevant to our discussion but if the vase is eternally above the floor, then it is above the floor due to its eternal unchangeable position, which has nothing to do with the table. It’s actually a direct consequence of ‘nothing can move itself’. An eternal vase by definition does not move, it can only be moved by another ‘mover’. So whether there is a table or not, the vase will not move unless moved by something else.
The whole analogy of a vase on a table and a ball on a pillow completely misses the point. If an indentation in a pillow is eternal it needs a ‘force’ to go away, so it is not ‘caused’ by the ball at all. The whole idea of timless causation is shaky, and even more shaky is the idea that, although timeless, some personal being can brijng something into existence.
Maybe it is indeed nonsensical to speak about succession in an atemporal context, but that’s the problem of Catholic dogma, not of my argument, which FTSOTA concedes that all these apparent incoherent notions are coherent.
I don’t think they are, but that’s for another thread.

L

 

[JDaniel]

That’s excatly my point: if there is chnage, it cannot be 'outside God", so it has to be intrenal to God.
And since there is chnage, God chnages, which contradicts the First Way. QED.

“Originally” means ontologically prior to. It does not mean rzmprally prior to. Whether this makes sense or not is not my concern because I am only conceding FTSOTA that a ‘timeless personal being’ makes sense It is most probably a nonsensical concept.

I’m glad you see it, because, once again, you make my point.

So now you are once again claiming that reality is only apparently changing,from our limited perspective, which means there is no real change, an therefore, no ‘mover’ is needed.

If you want to go down that road again, I will leave this discussion. I do not feel like being insulted by you are anybody else.
So, stop being condescending or leave this thread.

I am not talking about “thought”.

God is uncomposed of anything, so there is nothing to reconfigure.

Last time I checked, “was’” is a word that indicates a past tense. The Catholic dogma on creation definitely entails a sequence, and I am willing, again, FTSOTA, to concede that they do not mean a temporal sequence, but merely a causal chain, or an ontological chain. But if you think this has any effect on my argument, you are wrong.

Which ‘past and future’? According to you, there is no such thing.

Belorg:

I should have known that re-entering a hopefully non-disingenuous conversation with you would result in the same sort of disingenuous arguments from you. You try to put a spin on words and phrases, and you’re not good enough at it to do an adequate job. In fact, about 5% of the time you can’t even spell. Conversing with you makes me think I am talking with a child - which you might be, for all I know. And, if you are then bless you.

I’m going to leave this conversation now, not because you’ve intimidated me, because no one can do that. If you think you can, then I’ll gladly meet you in any gym where you can load the bar for me, and I’ll load the bar for you, then we’ll talk. Furthermore, your insinuation that I condescended is disingenuous as well. You and EVERYONE else knows that that is not so.

Anyway, it’s not worth my time to attempt to reason with the unreasonable - by which I mean you, of course. So, goodbye and God bless,

jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I should have known that re-entering a hopefully non-disingenuous conversation with you would result in the same sort of disingenuous arguments from you. You try to put a spin on words and phrases, and you’re not good enough at it to do an adequate job. In fact, about 5% of the time you can’t even spell. Conversing with you makes me think I am talking with a child - which you might be, for all I know. And, if you are then bless you.

I’m going to leave this conversation now, not because you’ve intimidated me, because no one can do that. If you think you can, then I’ll gladly meet you in any gym where you can load the bar for me, and I’ll load the bar for you, then we’ll talk. Furthermore, your insinuation that I condescended is disingenuous as well. You and EVERYONE else knows that that is not so.

Anyway, it’s not worth my time to attempt to reason with the unreasonable - by which I mean you, of course. So, goodbye and God bless,

jd

So, when you cannot counter an argument, just call it ‘disingenious’ and run away from it.
Well, good riddens, maybe I can discuss this with someone who is really interested and knows what he is talking about now.

 

[yppop]

I do understand the nature of infinity, and an infinitty may not chnage in cardinality, but that’s not what we are taliing about here

I don’t think you do understand infinity and here is why: consider your statement in post #157:

post #157 - Consider a three dimensional infinity and then substract all points so that it becomes two-dimensional. Even though the cardinality of both infinities remains the same, one is three-dimensional and the other is two dimensional.

This answer tells me that you don’t understand infinity or else you would know that there are the same number of points in three dimensions as there are in the extended (meaning: to infinity) 1-dimensional real number line. Two sets have the same power if there exists a 1 to 1 correspondence between them. Cantor proved that n-dimensional space has the same power as the power of the real number line. This means that 3-dimensional space has the same number of points as the 1-dimensional real number line. Consequently, in the same way that you cannot diminish the extended real number line (Aleph (1)) by removing points, you can not diminish 3-dimensional space.

I do not define a point. The Thomist God is one single uncomposed entity and it has no points to be added or removed.

This comment indicates that you don’t understand the continuum. Continuous space is “uncomposed” and contains an infinite number of points.

Uncomposed space cannot be characterized by a number, except maybe 1

.
The rational for equating points in space (a physical element) with numbers (an abstraction) is the Cantor-Dedekind Axiom of Continuity. Since there are no gaps between real numbers, i.e., there is no “next” number on the real number line, and since real numbers define the continuum, “uncomposed space” can be characterized by a number aleph (1). The real numbers define the continuum and each one represents a “point”

Consider this: if you remove a cup of water from the ocean, the ocean is changed by one cup, even though there is no “hole” where you removed the cup of water. That the ocean is changed by one cup is true if the ocean is finite, which they normally are; but it is not true if you imagine the ocean to be infinite. The infinite minus 1 cup of water is still infinite. You cannot diminish the infinite. God is infinite and just as it is possible to extract points from the real number line (or 3-dimensional space) without changing the real number line, God can create change without changing.

You have been writing many responses on this thread and “removing” lots of words from your mind and it hasn’t changed your mind one bit and I suspect never will.

Yppop

 

[belorg]

This answer tells me that you don’t understand infinity or else you would know that there are the same number of points in three dimensions as there are in the extended (meaning: to infinity) 1-dimensional real number line.

Of course I know that. That’s why I said that the cardinality of the two sets is the same.

Two sets have the same power if there exists a 1 to 1 correspondence between them. Cantor proved that n-dimensional space has the same power as the power of the real number line. This means that 3-dimensional space has the same number of points as the 1-dimensional real number line. Consequently, in the same way that you cannot diminish the extended real number line (Aleph (1)) by removing points, you can not diminish 3-dimensional space.

That’s true, you cannot ‘diminish’ the 3-dimensional space, but you can ‘transform’ it into a 1-dimensional line by neglecting all points with coordinates (x is not 0).
Anyway, this is irrelevant to my argument.

This comment indicates that you don’t understand the continuum. Continuous space is “uncomposed” and contains an infinite number of points.

But these ‘points’ are mathematical abstractions, which given the uncomposed ‘whole’ is unchangeabl, cannot be moved in any way.

.

The rational for equating points in space (a physical element) with numbers (an abstraction) is the Cantor-Dedekind Axiom of Continuity. Since there are no gaps between real numbers, i.e., there is no “next” number on the real number line, and since real numbers define the continuum, “uncomposed space” can be characterized by a number aleph (1). The real numbers define the continuum and each one represents a “point”

True, but once again, irrelevant.

Consider this: if you remove a cup of water from the ocean, the ocean is changed by one cup, even though there is no “hole” where you removed the cup of water. That the ocean is changed by one cup is true if the ocean is finite, which they normally are; but it is not true if you imagine the ocean to be infinite. The infinite minus 1 cup of water is still infinite. You cannot diminish the infinite. God is infinite and just as it is possible to extract points from the real number line (or 3-dimensional space) without changing the real number line, God can create change without changing.

No he can’t. I’ll explain why. Take your exmaple of an infinite ocean. If I take a cup from an infinite ocean and use it to make soup, then the result is a still infinite ocean plus a cup of soup. Which is a chnage.

You have been writing many responses on this thread and “removing” lots of words from your mind and it hasn’t changed your mind one bit and I suspect never will.

Yppop

I has in fact changed my mind quitet a bit, Yppop.

 

[Shike]

Actually there are lots of things I appreciate in Aquinas. I think he was a great philosopher, but he wasn’t infallible.

Great! Then we have another thing in common.

belorg:

Yes, you are correct. In restating my premise 6 at Andy’s request, I forgot something very important. “(Onto)logically prior to changeable reality there is an eternally unchangeable reality” should be “(Onto)logically prior to changeable reality the whole of reality is eternally unchangeable.”

---

Maybe that’s a good idea, seems redundant upon closer look/

Okay, well then if you don’t mind I’d like to revise my previous formulation to include my suggestions and your premise modification.

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 (6*). (Onto)logically prior to changeable reality the whole of reality is eternally unchangeable (from ?)
5. Therefore everything is unchangeable

And here’s the PL:

1. ∀x(Cxg & x≠g)
2. ∀y(Pgy & y≠g)
3. ∀x(Xx & x≠g)
4. Ig
5. ∀x∀y(Ix & Xy & Pxy & y≠g)
6. ∀x(~Xx)

Where:
Cxy = x is created by y
Pxy = x is ontologically prior to y
Xx = x is changing
Ix = x is eternally unchanging and unchangeable
g = God

And right off the bat it is easier (at least for me) to see the following:

• Premise 5 is not internally consistent. It shows that there are some objects that are both changing and unchangeable. And since from a contradiction, as we know, anything follows, we might as well leave out everything except 5 and 6.
• It is not clear where premise 5 is coming from. At the very least there needs to be a premise somewhere in there that says God is identical with all of reality. And while I respect JDaniel’s point that ‘outside God there is nothing’, such a statement does not mean that God is identical to everything (Pantheism is demonstrably false).

And, given the following quotes, it might be a good idea to look closer at what ontological analysis is and is not, the definition of ontological, and its scope (which I will leave to a subsequent post if you do not care to jump through my hoops).

belorg:

No, ontological analysis of the whole of reality includes changing entities. It does not include unchanging ones, for the very reasons I stated in my argument.

belorg:

Now ontologicallly, God is the whole of reality, so even if an ultimately simple being were to possess some ‘powers’, they are part of this ‘original’ whole reality and even if they could have any sort of ‘producing’ effect, the effect would be in that same reality, which means an unchnageable reality changed, and we are back to our contradiction.

belorg:

To bring into being from nothing means that there is a state of nothingness ontologically prior to the universe.

Here’s a teaser: Ontological analysis is an analysis of existence which means its scope is, in principle, all that exists, has existed, or will exist… ontological analysis doesn’t care about time. This means that if changing and unchanging realities do exist, both fall under its scope.

Take care,
Michael

 

[belorg]

1. ∀x(Cxg & x≠g)
2. ∀y(Pgy & y≠g)
3. ∀x(Xx & x≠g)
4. Ig
5. ∀x∀y(Ix & Xy & Pxy & y≠g) from 1,2,3 and 4
6. ∀x(~Xx)

Where:
Cxy = x is created by y
Pxy = x is ontologically prior to y
Xx = x is changing
Ix = x is eternally unchanging and unchangeable
g = God

And right off the bat it is easier (at least for me) to see the following:

• Premise 5 is not internally consistent. It shows that there are some objects that are both changing and unchangeable. And since from a contradiction, as we know, anything follows, we might as well leave out everything except 5 and 6.
• It is not clear where premise 5 is coming from.

I’ve added the bolded part. 5 follows from 1, 2, 3 and 4. If God is the creator of everything and God is ontologically prior to creation and the universe is changing and God is eternally unchnaging and unchangeable then it follows that ontologically prior to the universe (= changing reality), there was only one eternally unchangeable God and nothing else (since veerything else was created and therfore ontologically posterior)…
If there was only an eternally unchangeable God and nothing else, then at that ontological stage, reality as a whole was eternally unchangeable.
That’s why we cannot leave out 1 to 4.
And since 5 is indeed not intrenally consistent since it does indeed show that some objects are both chnaging and unchangeable, at least one of the first 4 premises is false.
And since premise 1 to 4 are directly from Aquinas and Catholic dogma, it follows that either Aquijnas or Catholic dogma is false.

At the very least there needs to be a premise somewhere in there that says God is identical with all of reality.

Premise 1 and 2 entail that God is identical with all of reality.

And while I respect JDaniel’s point that ‘outside God there is nothing’, such a statement does not mean that God is identical to everything (Pantheism is demonstrably false).

Well, Michael, I am not a pantheist. But premsie 1 and 2, together with JD’s point logically entails that God is identical to everything.

If there is only God, then God is identical to everything that exists.
If nothing exists outside of God then every possible change is internal to God.
Since according to Aquinas, there cannot be any chnage internal to God, and there cannot be any change external to God (because there is no sucgh thing as outside God) it follows that
either everything is unchangeable (and chnage is an illusion), which means that the First Way loses one of its key premises,
or

It is false that God is unchangeable.

or

It is false that nothing can chane itself.

Here’s a teaser: Ontological analysis is an analysis of existence which means its scope is, in principle, all that exists, has existed, or will exist… ontological analysis doesn’t care about time. This means that if changing and unchanging realities do exist, both fall under its scope.

Take care,
Michael

Yes, IF changing and unchanging realities do exist, they fall under Ontological analysis.
But my argument shows that if changing realities exist, no unchnageing reality can lie at their basis. So, ontological analysis actually only shows a chnaging reality, and not an unchanging one.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

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.

Did it? Eternally unchanging being eternally wills to create, there was no prior when this whole state (Creator + created) did not exist then. This has nothing to do with creatio ex materia, if you’re getting that idea.

 

[Boojie]

If God is the whole of reality and the whole of reality changes, then God does change. Unless you can show that God is not part of reality, not just that God is not part of the universe.
If you want to posit a reality completely independent of God, you can do that, but this would automatically entail a refutation of the first way.

It does entail a succession of states in reality, which IS God.

There is a succession of states in reality, which IS ‘God’ in one state and is ‘more than God’ in another state. That’s a change in unchangeable reality, which you can only deny by claiming that reality 2 is unrelated to reality 1. But that denies both Catholic dogma and the first way.

It does not have to be ‘part of God’. But you do agree that it is created by God, don’t you?
And whether you like it or not ‘creating’ , unlike ‘sustaining’ entails a succession. It requirs an ontological state in which God did not ‘apply’ His creative force and another state at which He does.

No, it is not merely sustained in existence. if that were the case, my objection would fail. But Catholic dogma has it that the universe is not only sustained but brought into being. Created. I’ve explained above why this entails a succession and also a succession in God.

I think you are confusing the original Aristotelean First Way , which is indeed immune to my criticism (at least this one) with the Catholic First way, which must be reconciled with catholic dogma of creation from nothing.

But ‘bringing into existence’ is not an ontological priority that need not involve successions of states. It by definition entails a succession of states.

This is not relevant to our discussion but if the vase is eternally above the floor, then it is above the floor due to its eternal unchangeable position, which has nothing to do with the table. It’s actually a direct consequence of ‘nothing can move itself’. An eternal vase by definition does not move, it can only be moved by another ‘mover’. So whether there is a table or not, the vase will not move unless moved by something else.
The whole analogy of a vase on a table and a ball on a pillow completely misses the point. If an indentation in a pillow is eternal it needs a ‘force’ to go away, so it is not ‘caused’ by the ball at all. The whole idea of timless causation is shaky, and even more shaky is the idea that, although timeless, some personal being can brijng something into existence.
Maybe it is indeed nonsensical to speak about succession in an atemporal context, but that’s the problem of Catholic dogma, not of my argument, which FTSOTA concedes that all these apparent incoherent notions are coherent.
I don’t think they are, but that’s for another thread.

L

 

[Boojie]

Dear Belorg, Your arguments are based on a wrong premise which says:

“If God is the whole of reality and the whole of reality changes, then God does change.”

God is the permanent reality. Universe is the temporary reality. God is the cause. Universe is the effect. You are confusing yourself because you are trying to merge or meld the two, the cause and the effect, as one. Just keep the cause and the effect distinct from each other , and your confusion would be gone. Thanks to you and Andi.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi belorg,

I don’t have time to reply in depth at the moment, but Shike is doing an admirable job. I concur with pretty much everyone else, you are simply wrong to say that:

Premise 1 and 2 entail that God is identical with all of reality.

They certainly do not, and you have failed to show it. Your adherence to this position is the cause of all your troubles. If JDaniel is saying that God is identical to his creation (which he probably is not, but I’ll have to let him answer for himself) then I disagree with him and you can’t just assume that that position is what the Catholic Church or Aquinas holds - as Shike said that is pantheism which is clearly not what Aquinas held.

Despite your denials to the contrary, your argument only works if you conflate ontological priority with temporal priority, as has been argued plenty of times now by many different people and which you have failed to refute. To keep going round and round in circles on this matter is futile, so I will bow out of this exchange at this time.

Thanks for the discussion and good luck with your search

All the best and God bless,
Andy

 

[Boojie]

Dear Belorg, yes, like JD said, you are playing with words and phrases. “Eternally creating” phrase does not necessarily entails succession. God, as a pure act being, is eternally creating or causing the universe to exist. What’s wrong with that statement?

Forget for how Catholics particularly teach and phrase their doctrine of creation. Forget that they even exist.

Stick on the issue: “Eternally creating” phrase does not necessarily entails succession. God, as a pure act being, is eternally creating or causing the universe to exist. What’s wrong with that statement? Is that statement contradictory? If you cannot find any contradiction, then the issue is closed.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Dear Belorg, Your arguments are based on a wrong premise which says:

“If God is the whole of reality and the whole of reality changes, then God does change.”

God is the permanent reality. Universe is the temporary reality. God is the cause. Universe is the effect. You are confusing yourself because you are trying to merge or meld the two, the cause and the effect, as one. Just keep the cause and the effect distinct from each other , and your confusion would be gone. Thanks to you and Andi.

Think he’s trying to dovetail his argument to the “eternal cause, temporal effect problem” argument. A beginning of causation has a prior to it of non-causation; simple response is there was no prior to the beginning of causation with a causer who’s pure actuality.

 

[belorg]

Dear Belorg, Your arguments are based on a wrong premise which says:

“If God is the whole of reality and the whole of reality changes, then God does change.”

Seems pretty logical to me, so what exactly is wrong with this presmise?
Eveerybody herekeeps asserting I am wrong, but none of you gives any real alternative.

God is the permanent reality

.

Yes, God is the permanent and eternaly unchangeable reality.

Universe is the temporary reality. God is the cause. Universe is the effect. You are confusing yourself because you are trying to merge or meld the two, the cause and the effect, as one. Just keep the cause and the effect distinct from each other , and your confusion would be gone. Thanks to you and Andi.

No, Boojie, I am not merging cuase and effect, in fact I am ontologically (and NOT temporally) separating them.

Dear Belorg, yes, like JD said, you are playing with words and phrases. “Eternally creating” phrase does not necessarily entails succession. God, as a pure act being, is eternally creating or causing the universe to exist. What’s wrong with that statement?

Eternally creating does entail a succession, nut, as I have repeated countless times, not temporal succession but (onto)logical succession.
Does that make sense? I do not know, because frankly, I do not think that timeless causation is a coherent notion, but if it is, and FTSOTA, I am willing to assume it does, there definitley is ontological succession.

Forget for how Catholics particularly teach and phrase their doctrine of creation. Forget that they even exist.
Stick on the issue: “Eternally creating” phrase does not necessarily entails succession. God, as a pure act being, is eternally creating or causing the universe to exist. What’s wrong with that statement? Is that statement contradictory? If you cannot find any contradiction, then the issue is closed.

It is not contradictory if eternally is only meant in a temporal sense. It is contradictory if it entails there is no ontological succession.

 

[belorg]

They certainly do not, and you have failed to show it. Your adherence to this position is the cause of all your troubles. If JDaniel is saying that God is identical to his creation (which he probably is not, but I’ll have to let him answer for himself) then I disagree with him and you can’t just assume that that position is what the Catholic Church or Aquinas holds - as Shike said that is pantheism which is clearly not what Aquinas held.

JD isn’t saying that. JD syas that there cannot be anything outside God, and that is what Aquinas holds.
You seem to be holding a view of God as some entity floating around in some sort of empty space in which there is room for all sorts of newly created realities.
But that’s not what the Thomist concept of God entails. The Thomist concept has (onto)logical priority for God, which entails that (oto)logically prior to ‘everything else’ there was only God. IOW God at that ontological instant is the whole of reality.

Despite your denials to the contrary, your argument only works if you conflate ontological priority with temporal priority, as has been argued plenty of times now by many different people and which you have failed to refute.

Correction: this has been asserted by a few different people, but was never argued for.

To keep going round and round in circles on this matter is futile, so I will bow out of this exchange at this time.

Well, you could try to step out of the circle for a moment, but it’s actually you who keeps repeating that I conflate logical and temporal priority, which most certainly is not the case here.

Thanks for the discussion and good luck with your search

Likewise thanks for the discussion, Andty. Unlioke some other around here you have managed to state your ideas without ad hominem attacks.

 

[belorg]

Did it? Eternally unchanging being eternally wills to create, there was no prior when this whole state (Creator + created) did not exist then. This has nothing to do with creatio ex materia, if you’re getting that idea.

There was no temporal prior, but there most certainly was an ontological prior.
Ans I have never claimed it has anything to do with “creatio ex material”.

Think he’s trying to dovetail his argument to the “eternal cause, temporal effect problem” argument. A beginning of causation has a prior to it of non-causation; simple response is there was no prior to the beginning of causation with a causer who’s pure actuality.

No, I am not. That is a serious problem, but not one I am using in this thread.
And you are the one who is conflating temporal priority and ontological priority now.
Which explains why you do not seem to understand my argument.

 

[Shike]

I’ve added the bolded part. 5 follows from 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Good, when I get the time I will reformulate the argument to drop out 6 and make 5 the conclusion to reflect closer the inner structure of the argument.

If God is the creator of everything and God is ontologically prior to creation and the universe is changing and God is eternally unchnaging and unchangeable then it follows that ontologically prior to the universe (= changing reality), there was only one eternally unchangeable God and nothing else (since veerything else was created and therfore ontologically posterior)…

If you really do have a notion of ontological priority that is devoid of time, then sure, God sustains everything else in existence. That does not mean what you think it does. In my ontological analysis, yes, I see that God is the only sustainer of creation, eternally. But if I then say because only God is eternally the sustainer than nothing else exists, I have committed a fallacy, in less I want to bring in some notion of time into ontological priority. I look forward to my next post where I hope it will be even more clear that you are mixing up your method with reality.

If there is only God, then God is identical to everything that exists.

That is a tautology that isn’t supported by ontological analysis. Include changing reality alongside unchanging reality and you will see that ontological priority, which merely means dependence, says nothing about which one exists or not.

Yes, IF changing and unchanging realities do exist, they fall under Ontological analysis.
But my argument shows that if changing realities exist, no unchnageing reality can lie at their basis. So, ontological analysis actually only shows a chnaging reality, and not an unchanging one.

Your argument starts with unchanging reality and attempts to deny changing reality, not the other way around. If what you say is true, however, it seems like it denotes some kind of unchanging reality.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

There was no temporal prior, but there most certainly was an ontological prior.

And in this ontological prior state, the prime mover still had the will to move. The will produces the particular agent, form, which precedes matter, as matter exists for form. And with this passive power of matter existing from an active will of the mover, it is not necessary to conclude that the ontology of the prime mover was changed when the ontology of the whole was made fitting to its intended end.

Ans I have never claimed it has anything to do with “creatio ex material”.

Not saying you were was just making a pre-defense before any assumptions leaked through.