A question about Kreeft's Argument from Change

[Ben_Sinner]

The Argument from Change

Nothing changes itself… The universe is the sum total of all these moving things… if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change.

"This is really stupid. Things “change themselves” all the time. The only changes in a physical system that aren’t examples of the system “changing itself” are caused by something outside the system. So Kreeft would have to assume that there is something “outside the universe” in order to prove that there is something outside the universe. See the problem??"

The above quote is not from me, but from an atheist. The discussion can be found here: asktheatheists.com/questions/778-whats-the-best-way-to-deal-with-lists-like-twenty-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/)//)

He raises a point, especially the the red highlighted section. My question is what would be the rebuttal to his claim?

 

[Ontheway]

Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and an author of dozens of books.
The “atheist” comment comes from a person who is not familiar to me. I am assuming that this person does not have an equivalent degree in a discipline that would qualify him as an authority on philosophy or religion. I could be wrong on this as I have no idea who he is, but judging by his counter argument to Kreeft - “this is stupid”, suggests that his response is not well thought out.
Perhaps it is not necessary for us to begin a debate with someone whose only argument against Kreets is - “this is stupid”.

 

[e_c]

Ben - This seems awfully familiar to another thread you recently started…

Things do not change themselves in the way the counter argument assumes. Give that a thought and see what you can come up with.

 

[Tomdstone]

If the question is whether or not a being can change by itself, it does seem from Scripture, that God, by Himself, can change His mind. It is true that there are several Bible passages which say that God cannot change, and it is also true that Roman Catholic philosophers say that God cannot change. But this is very puzzling to me, because there are passages in Scripture which indicate otherwise: ( your translation may be slightly different):
Jeremiah 26:3.
“Perhaps they will listen and each one will turn back from his evil way, and I will change my mind concerning the calamity that I intend to bring on them because of their evil deeds.”—Jeremiah 26:3.
…
Exodus 32:1
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
…
Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.
…
Amos 7:6
The LORD changed His mind about this. “This too shall not be,” said the Lord GOD.
…
Jonah 3:10
When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
…

Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
…
Jeremiah 26:13
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

The Argument from Change

Nothing changes itself…

Not true because if we turn to Holy Scripture, we see that a Being can change his mind all by Himself.

 

[Inquiringperson]

If the question is whether or not a being can change by itself, it does seem from Scripture, that God, by Himself, can change His mind. It is true that there are several Bible passages which say that God cannot change, and it is also true that Roman Catholic philosophers say that God cannot change. But this is very puzzling to me, because there are passages in Scripture which indicate otherwise: ( your translation may be slightly different):
Jeremiah 26:3.
“Perhaps they will listen and each one will turn back from his evil way, and I will change my mind concerning the calamity that I intend to bring on them because of their evil deeds.”—Jeremiah 26:3.
…
Exodus 32:1
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
…
Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.
…
Amos 7:6
The LORD changed His mind about this. “This too shall not be,” said the Lord GOD.
…
Jonah 3:10
When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
…

Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
…
Jeremiah 26:13
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Not true because if we turn to Holy Scripture, we see that a Being can change his mind all by Himself.

I think those are metaphorical expressions. Trent Horn with an explanation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=839398

 

[StJoseph8]

Change is an ambiguous term. Define change, or look up what Kreeft means by change.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think those are metaphorical expressions.

What is and what is not metaphorical in the Bible? A priest wrote an article in the local Catholic newspaper recently saying that the concept of eternal hellfire was metaphorical. Protestants say that you should not call any man Father, but Roman Catholics say that passage is metaphorical. Protestants say that the Eucharist is symbolic and the words of Consecration are metaphorical. Some say that the divinity of Jesus is metaphorical. Adam and Eve are metaphorical? That God was seen walking in the garden is metaphorical. That you should hate your mother and father is metaphorical. The fact that you need to be baptised by water to be saved is metaphorical. Limbo is metaphorical. Is original sin metaphorical? Is the apple that Eve gave to Adam metaphorical? Was the flood metaphorical? Was the virgin birth metaphorical? The idea that slaves should be obedient to their masters is metaphorical. That in order to be perfect you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor and follow Jesus is metaphorical. People today think that the commandment thou shalt not kill is metaphorical and it is all right to use drones to kill people, many of whom are innocent civilians, because there is a perceived danger from Islam.
I show you several passages which state that God has changed His mind, and you say that is metaphorical.
Please give us an official list of what is and what is not metaphorical in Scripture.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Kreeft is using Aquinas. Any change in a system is itself a series of changes from one part of the system to another, such that no part acts without it’s potential being actualized by another part in that system. In other words if you break a system down into it’s components the idea that nothing changes itself still holds true. A potential remains a potential unless actualized by something else with the ability to actualize that potential. In order for my arm to move my brain must actualize the motor neurons that control the muscles in my arm. I am indeed moving my arm, but it is done internally according to the a chain of causes. The arm does not magically move itself. It must have among other things motor neorons actualizing it to move. Without these chain of causes for its movement it would be just dead weight.

Of course one can trace the cause of change itself back to an unchanged changer. Or an Actualizer who is fully actualized.

 

[Tomdstone]

Kreeft is using Aquinas. Any change in a system is itself a series of changes from one part of the system to another, such that no part acts without it’s potential being actualized by another part in that system. In other words if you break a system down into it’s components the idea that nothing changes itself still holds true. A potential remains a potential unless actualized by something else with the ability to actualize that potential. In order for my arm to move my brain must actualize the motor neurons that control the muscles in my arm. I am indeed moving my arm, but it is done internally according to the a chain of causes. The arm does not magically move itself. It must have among other things motor neorons actualizing it to move. Without these chain of causes for its movement it would be just dead weight.

Of course one can trace the cause of change itself back to an unchanged changer. Or an Actualizer who is fully actualized.

When God came down from heaven and became man, did He not do this Himself?

 

[Tomdstone]

Change is an ambiguous term.

Change is an instance of becoming different. For example, when God came down from heaven and became man, – that seems to me to be a change since before 1 B.C., God did not appear in human form as Jesus on earth, but later on He did.
Another example of a change is a passage from Purgatory to Heaven. When someone dies, he could be sent to Purgatory for a certain punishment. However, his relatives on earth may gain an indulgence and apply it to him. At that point, God may change the length or intensity of the sentence. So it would be a change. Originally, God had determined that the punishment would be of a certain quality or quantity in Purgatory. But after the application of the plenary indulgence, God may change His first decision and lessen the punishment.

 

[fisherman_carl]

When God came down from heaven and became man, did He not do this Himself?

This is off topic. We are talking about Kreeft’s argument from change within the realm of natural philosophy. The inner workings of the Trinity are through divine Revelation.

Since God is that which first cause that actualizes all else he does not himself need to be actualized by an external agent.

 

[Inquiringperson]

What is and what is not metaphorical in the Bible? A priest wrote an article in the local Catholic newspaper recently saying that the concept of eternal hellfire was metaphorical. Protestants say that you should not call any man Father, but Roman Catholics say that passage is metaphorical. Protestants say that the Eucharist is symbolic and the words of Consecration are metaphorical. Some say that the divinity of Jesus is metaphorical. Adam and Eve are metaphorical? That God was seen walking in the garden is metaphorical. That you should hate your mother and father is metaphorical. The fact that you need to be baptised by water to be saved is metaphorical. Limbo is metaphorical. Is original sin metaphorical? Is the apple that Eve gave to Adam metaphorical? Was the flood metaphorical? Was the virgin birth metaphorical? The idea that slaves should be obedient to their masters is metaphorical. That in order to be perfect you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor and follow Jesus is metaphorical. People today think that the commandment thou shalt not kill is metaphorical and it is all right to use drones to kill people, many of whom are innocent civilians, because there is a perceived danger from Islam.
I show you several passages which state that God has changed His mind, and you say that is metaphorical.
Please give us an official list of what is and what is not metaphorical in Scripture.

Short answer: What is metaphorical and what isn’t metaphorical? Well, you can ask the same question when reading a novel, and you’ll get the same answer: context clues. Read the context, and that will often time give you a sense of whether it is metaphorical or literal.

If you would like an answer with more elaboration, I’d recommend either contacting Trent Horn (trenthorn.com/contact-me/) or ask an apologist, or both actually.

 

[e_c]

The magisterium teaches Scripture authoritatively, not Father So and So.

The Incarnation is not a change in God. It’s a change in creation… Matter being united to God…

Change is a broad concept. It has a very precise meaning in this argument.

 

[rossum]

The Argument from Change

Nothing changes itself… The universe is the sum total of all these moving things… if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change.

"This is really stupid. Things “change themselves” all the time. The only changes in a physical system that aren’t examples of the system “changing itself” are caused by something outside the system. So Kreeft would have to assume that there is something “outside the universe” in order to prove that there is something outside the universe. See the problem??"

The above quote is not from me, but from an atheist. The discussion can be found here: asktheatheists.com/questions/778-whats-the-best-way-to-deal-with-lists-like-twenty-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/)//)

He raises a point, especially the the red highlighted section. My question is what would be the rebuttal to his claim?

Two points. First, there are material things which generate change internally. Certain sub-atomic particles will decay (=change) spontaneously into other particles with no external influences. These are random, uncaused statistical phenomena. The classic example is beta decay. Given a number of atoms of some radioactive elements, then a certain known proportion will decay in a given time, but it is impossible to tell which particular atoms will decay and which will not in the given time.

Second, the “nothing changes itself” argument fails on a philosophical level. In philosophy, the universe can be defined as “all that exists” (ATE). Since God exists, and God can cause change within the ATE universe, then the ATE universe is something which changes itself. The ATE universe changes from God only to God and the material universe purely from a process of change generated within God; the change from I-will-create to I-am-creating. All change-causing actions by any entity with the ATE universe cause change within the ATE universe. My writing this post generates a small change within both the ATE universe and the material universe, since the material universe is a subset of the ATE universe.

rossum

 

[Tomdstone]

First, there are material things which generate change internally.

Yes. Consider the example of free will. Does free will move internally, or does it move only because of reasons or causes outside of the control of the individual. If free will moves internally then the axiom whatever moves is moved by another cannot hold because free will is moving itself. But if the will moves because of reasons and causes outside of the control of the individual, then the criminal is not morally responsible for his actions.