An argument against God

[Raxus]

P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being

The manner by which one exists.

So…God can’t have a manner in which he exists??? Says who?

As to all the rest, I get it. Still hard to read, tho’.

 

[quaestio45]

So…God can’t have a manner in which he exists??? Says who?

No no no, thats not how it should be taken. God cannot be concieved as being in different manners of existence, not no manner of existence.

 

[Raxus]

No no no, thats not how it should be taken. God cannot be concieved as being in different manners of existence, not no manner of existence.

Ok. If it’s a question of the TYPE of God’s existence, I think that gets down into unnecessary splitting of hairs. There are enough proofs for the existence of God that I don’t need to focus on what are, frankly, unnecessary questions to the finding of the truth itself.

 

[quaestio45]

If it’s a question of the TYPE of God’s existence, I think that gets down into unnecessary splitting of hairs.

Its more than that. We know God created, yes? To be in a state of creation is different then the state of not creating anything (for example, me eating a chocolate bar is necessarily different then me not eating a chocolate bar). Now, a Thomist says that God cannot be in a different manner of existence then his current because he is immutable and perfect. But, God is perfect by himself, otherwise he is not peak perfection (as peak perfection is total independence of necessity of externalities). As such, God is perfect in creating and not in creating. So why did God create? Out of necessity? It cant be. So it was voluntary and optional. But wait… to be voluntary and optional means it could’ve been different, just like me voluntarily eating chocolate means I could’ve not eaten chocolate. But that contricts the Thomist along with premise 3. As such, we find paradox. So God can’t exist.

There are enough proofs for the existence of God that I don’t need to focus on what are, frankly, unnecessary questions to the finding of the truth itself.

Correct. I have an argument from contingency in a forum. So I believe God exists, and needs to exist. But, he can’t exist if all the promises in the argument I made here are true. Thus, one must be rejected. I say, take away premise 3. No one supports that though.

 

[Richca]

I addressed this here, tell me what you think:

The reason I think the Thomist will disagree with me is because this necessarily means God is open to different state of beings, to which challenges to some extent total immutability. But allow me to make a defense for my proposal; God is by definition actuality and perfection itself. If that be so, whatever God is, actuality is, and whatever God isn’t, actuality isn’t. As such, what we conceive as actuality is simply a reflection of God’s current, eternal state of being. This is further supported when we consider how creation makes God no more perfect, yet nonetheless it is seen as a higher mode of existence when we do meaningfully create (relationships, families, lasting legacies) then when we don’t or do the opposite. As such, the actuality of a state of constant creation must be found in God too, who is actuality. Yet this creation, I say oncemore, does not add to God’s perfection, for it was equally perfect for him to never create, for oncemore I say that the state of God determines actuality and perfection.

Thus, it may not be a contradiction to call God pure actuality and simultaneously say he may have been in a different mode of existence then he currently is. It also isn’t a contradiction to say that God is immutable after his eternal choice yet ontoligically, oncemore, may have chosen differenlty then how he chose. Thus, God may be both voluntarily choosing and pure act all at once.

I have been out of town for the last week and I haven’t been able to reply to your post here. I would not agree with what your saying here though. I answer that God’s will to create or not to create does not change his ‘state’ of being or existence which cannot change nor does pure actuality refer to his current eternal state of being in the sense that he could of had a current eternal different state of being. Creation does not add being or existence to God but it is about God communicating what he already eternally possesses, namely, being to creatures who do not have being. God exists whether creation exists or not and God can will to create because he can create, i.e., God has within himself eternally the power to create. A cause cannot give to an effect what it doesn’t itself possess. God is the cause of the being of creation.

For one thing, if God’s will can be ‘different’ in reference to creation or creatures in that he can freely choose to either create or not create, you wrote above that this is at least a partial rejection of P3 which I just argued is not possible. So using the word ‘different’ in reference to God you take it appears as meaning God can be in various ‘states of existing’, changeable, etc., when I’m arguing that is not possible.

quote="quaestio45:
certainly commiting to creating and not commiting to creating in intention can’t be the exact same, otherwise we commit contradiction.

God creating is about God communicating what he already eternally possesses in its totality, namely, being to creatures who are not Being.

 

[quaestio45]

I have been out of town for the last week and I haven’t been able to reply to your post here.

I hope you had a good time.

God exists whether creation exists or not and God can will to create because he can create, i.e., God has within himself eternally the power to create.

Sure, but we can’t say he’d be exactly the same. For we can come to some rather obvious differences in him were he to not create in comparison to if he did, for example, in a world where he creates he’d have intention to create. We’d know this because he actually creates, as God is diverse simple and to intend is to act for him. If God doesn’t create, he wouldn’t intend creation, and as such there is no creation. This of course must be categorized as a difference, I would assume.

God creating is about God communicating what he already eternally possesses in its totality, namely, being to creatures who are not Being.

Well then there is a difference between him creating and not, for to create is to communicate whilst not creating means God isn’t communicating. Thus, there is a distinction being made between commitment and passivity.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

I have been out of town for the last week and I haven’t been able to reply to your post here.

I hope you had a good time.

Reply: Richca: Thank you I did, went camping with the family.

God exists whether creation exists or not and God can will to create because he can create, i.e., God has within himself eternally the power to create.

Sure, but we can’t say he’d be exactly the same. For we can come to some rather obvious differences in him were he to not create in comparison to if he did, for example, in a world where he creates he’d have intention to create. We’d know this because he actually creates, as God is diverse simple and to intend is to act for him. If God doesn’t create, he wouldn’t intend creation, and as such there is no creation. This of course must be categorized as a difference, I would assume.

Reply: Richca: I disagree with your first sentence above. I answer that we can say and must say that God is exactly the same whether he creates or not. God is the first unmoved mover which also means he is pure act. Unmoved means that while God moves or changes creatures he himself is unmoved or changed.

God creating is about God communicating what he already eternally possesses in its totality, namely, being to creatures who are not Being.

Well then there is a difference between him creating and not, for to create is to communicate whilst not creating means God isn’t communicating. Thus, there is a distinction being made between commitment and passivity.

Being pure act and the first unmoved mover, God is not passive in any way. Being passive is to be acted upon from without and changed. For example, our senses are passive powers as they are put into act from external objects around us in creation. There is nothing in God’s nature for him to be passive about as there is nothing that exists but God (and those things he creates) for him to be acted upon from without and changed. In regards to creation, God in no way is passive to creation so as to be acted upon by creatures and changed. Rather, as he is the cause of creatures, he acts upon them and changes them.