Atheist questions

[MindOverMatter2]

I think to make out of nothing can be accomplished only by a power that is infinite and only God can do that.

In ontological terms this is true. But in terms of human understanding a person cannot know why an infinite power can create out of nothing simply by saying that a being is infinite. In a certain context you are saying that God can do logically impossible things. But this is false. Simply saying that a being is infinite doesn’t tell me why I should consider it a possibility. If God can create something from nothing, then it means that things can come out of nothing; which means that logically impossible things can happen so long as there is enough power, which leaves the atheist or the debater wondering why they must consistently reason that one requires infinite power. Since rationality and consistency is no-longer required to find an explanation, one can simply say that the universe came out of nothing by itself.

If we are to be taken seriously at all, we must continue to argue that it is always true regardless of the degree of power available that out of absolutely nothing comes nothing.

The distinction between Esse & Essense

But is it possible in any other context? This is where things get interesting because firstly I think you can prove that physical or finite essences are essentially not the same thing as God (for example; an apple is essentially not God, just like it is essentially not a table or a mouse); and in this sense they are created partly through Gods knowledge of himself and also through the potential possibilities that exist in relation to himself. This doesn’t yet tell us how it is possible that God creates; but it provides a foundation to work on since it explains that there is essentially an absolute difference between a blue elephant and God, that is, once you understand the meaning of essence. We should also know that Creation is certainly impossible if you mean that you can get “esse”, that is “existence”, out of absolutely nothing.

Now that we have those two requirements dealt with we can move on to what it means to exist. To come in to existence; is to come in to God. To have existence is to have God. This is where the distinction of esse an essence becomes important in-order to avoid essential pantheism. To cut a long story short, we share or participate in Gods esse (we exist through God and we share in Gods eternal act of reality), but we have our own essence. God is existence or esse; in other words God is that by which a potential thing becomes real and is real because God is the act of reality. Thus in conclusion God intimately shares his reality with us, and God is that by which a thing is real. On the other had, when it comes to finite things, one cannot say that a mouse is real on the basis that it is a mouse. If it was real because it was a mouse, it would have always been real, because in that case to essentially be a mouse is to be real. But this is not the case because a mouse is a potential being and thus its esse is not the same is its essence. Therefore one must conclude there is something that is making potential reality real and is sustaining it in reality and this thing is quite distinct from the essential nature of a mouse of what ever else you have in mind. In fact the esse does not belong to the mouse because the esse is God and the mouse is not. We are, by our selves, quite literally nothing. The only thing that truly exists by its nature is God.

But to understand this you will have to learn about the distinction between essence and esse. You will have to understanding that the existence of an apple is not the same as the essence of an apple.

I believe it is possible to further demonstrate this logically in terms of how God creates essence without contradicting the rule that out of nothing comes nothing. However; to be fair to Aquinas; it is he who developed the esse/essence distinction. I am merely a humble student.

 

[The_Exodus]

The God of Genesis changes as well.

Because the effects of God change, it does not follow that his essence changes.

See newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm#article1

rossum:

Think of the two as two different frames of the same film. Each frame is connected to the previous frame and to the next frame. They are at the same time separate frames and also parts of the same film.

If they are separate frames, then they are distinct in and of themselves, even if they are joined together by a stretch of film. In fact, the word “they” denotes they are individuated, and therefore not essentially one.

Now, if this were the case with the person (or with all things in general), you could not use the term “I” or “me” in any meaningful sense because, as soon as you’ve said it, you’ve changed into something else.

This is why Heraclitus and his followers were reduced to silence.

 

[tonyrey]

The choice is between a caused and an uncaused universe.

A mixture is uneconomical! “neither caused nor uncaused” needs justification. I define the universe as “everything that exists in the physical universe”.

You are assuming that nothing but this universe has been created!

Normally I take “universe” to mean “all that exists”. In the case of this argument I am prepared to allow the definition “all that exists except for a possible First Cause”. To do that you would need establish the existence of such a First Cause, and we have already agreed that logic is not a good tool to do that.

I haven’t agreed! The First Cause corresponds to our knowledge of causality and also coheres with purpose. There is no reason to believe the universe exists necessarily because it is composed of contingent elements.

It is not self-evident that “eternity” must be equated with “all of time”.

It is to me. If something exists for all time then that thing is eternal. That is inherent in the definition of ‘eternal’.

It is also defined as “The timeless state following death” and “The condition of timeless existence”. Spiritual realities like truth and justice are not temporal.

In its usual context of spiritual reality it is understood as “beyond time (and space”).

If something is beyond time then it cannot act within time. If it acts within time then at lest a part of it is inside time and conforms to the usual rules governing the temporal: change, impermanence etc.

God can act from “beyond” time and space without any “part” being in time because spiritual power and influence are not subject to the limitations of time and space. Rules governing the temporal do not apply to intangible reality. Even our minds and thoughts can transcend the past, present and future.

If Buddhists dispense with purpose and free will they become helpless spectators who have no power to influence their destiny? Is that what you believe?

No. I have free will within limits. I cannot run faster than a speeding bullet, though I can run faster than a speeding building. I cannot leap tall buildings with a single bound, though I can leap tall bullets. I am constrained in my actions by the situation I am in.

How is there scope for free will within the chain of causality?

As for purpose, that is something I set for myself.

If purpose is only something you set for yourself it is meaningless to regard the quest for enlightenment as an objective purpose.

If Buddhism doesn’t make a big separation between the material and the spiritual how do persons differ from things?Buddhism does make a small separation. Humans are analysed into five parts. Only one of those parts is physical. A thing will only have physical parts.

This seems a rather arbitrary and uneconomical belief. On what evidence is it based?

 

[rossum]

But, even that shenanigan will not deter a rational baseball player from knowing their correct sequence.

The rational player knows that their sequence in time is 1, 2, 3, 4. If he does not touch the bases in that precise temporal order then no run is scored.

If one straw-mans so as to confuse that which is outside of time with our human conception of it from within time, one can certainly perform word games - which often are nothing more than nonsense.

All that we can discuss are human conceptions. Words are human conceptions and words are all we have.

A dependence that “requires the other in order to exist?” Epistemically, perhaps. Ontologically, not so. Although, I will acknowledge that we require God in such way.

Show me a parent where there is no child. Show me a child where there is no parent. Each requires the other.

I suggested that appropriate proofs might be in order here.

We both agree that life continues after death. We each have precisely as much proof as the other for that. We disagree about whether life extends before birth. The amount of proof is the same in both directions.

Sequentially: before the beginning of time. You asked the wrong question.

And how do we determine sequence if we are “before” time. How do we determine “before” if time in inexistent? You cannot use a word like “before” if you do not have time.

When was the last time you beat your wife?

She plays chess really badly.

A matter, that exists in a universe all by itself, as it were, can exist sans time, and thus, without “time slots.”

Agreed. This would obviously be a changeless universe.

It follows, therefore, that if matter could create, it would be creating in the absence of time slots. But, we know matter does not create. It cannot create itself. That would be an ontologically and logically impossible productive act.

You will have to define “create” in a manner that does not involve time. In you space/matter only universe there is no time so anything involving time is not possible in that universe.

That’s not the science that I’ve been reading. My readings of the scientific literature describe “clumping” beginning to occur somewhat later, after the initial spewing forth from the primordial singularity.

My apologies for not being clearer. Mass and energy are interconvertible. By “matter” I mean “mass/energy”. In the early stages of our current universe everything was energy. The mass only condensed out later. In general philosophical terms I would include the physicists’ multiverse in the philosophers’ universe. The philosophical universe is all that exists, whether organised as one or many physical universes.

Again, those hateful contraries! Christianity believes that we, as beings, exist some place in the middle. While we acknowledge that we are changing, to some smaller degree, we further acknowledge that we remain the same, to a larger degree. Rather than changing substantially, we change only accidentally. Our sameness remains. I believe that our experience parallels this.

Thomist philosophy emphasises Accident over Substance, just as Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions emphasise stasis over change. Buddhism does the opposite. In Thomist terms Accident is emphasised over Substance. When Nagarjuna describes things as “empty” (shunya) he is saying that they have no Substance. We erroneously reify things by thinking that they have Substance. All that exists is the Accident. Buddhism sees reality as change overlaid with a veneer of apparent stasis.

Where, or, rather, how, is Thomistic causation an abstraction? Maybe this would help me to understand why you keep repeating that.

How can a Substance cause a second Substance? If the second Substance already exists then it does not need any cause because it already exists. If the second Substance does not exist then it does not need any cause because something that does not exist does not require any cause. In both cases there is no need for any cause. In both cases the first Substance is not a cause and it is an error to describe it as such. Permanent fixed unchanging Substances can never be causes except of permanent fixed unchanging effects. Remember my “Let there be light” example. An unchanging cause is like a Hollywood six-shooter with an infinite ammunition supply. It can only cause one thing and it constantly causes that one thing for all time.

One of the problems with thinking that only Buddhism builds “a correct understanding of the world,” is that it tends to place mankind at its source. Thus, sans man, there is no world. In order for the world to be, imaginations are required - perhaps even cumulatively. I don’t think Christians will ever adhere to that philosophy.

Remember that both gods and men figure in Buddhism. Each can be reborn as the other. Do the gods have no imaginations?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Because the effects of God change, it does not follow that his essence changes.

Then we have two things, God, who changes, and ‘Essence of God’ (EoG) which does not. Since one thing cannot both change and not change we obviously have two different things here. An unchanging EoG, which cannot act. And a changing God who can act and whose actions are described in Genesis.

If they are separate frames, then they are distinct in and of themselves, even if they are joined together by a stretch of film. In fact, the word “they” denotes they are individuated, and therefore not essentially one.

Correct. The unity of a film is apparent, not real. There is a relationship between the different frames but the relationship is not one of identity or unity.

Now, if this were the case with the person (or with all things in general), you could not use the term “I” or “me” in any meaningful sense because, as soon as you’ve said it, you’ve changed into something else.

Correct. Buddhism denies all forms of soul. Enlightenment is in part the realisation that what you thought was you actually wasn’t. “I” is merely a convention and a convenient abbreviation, just as the film is a convenient abbreviation for many thousands of still photographs.

This is why Heraclitus and his followers were reduced to silence.

Which is perhaps why Jesus answered Pilate with silence.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

– Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I define the universe as “everything that exists in the physical universe”.

Then angels are not part of the universe? Are souls part of the universe? You are using a very limited definition of ‘universe’ here, and one which is far better discussed by physicists than philosophers.

I haven’t agreed! The First Cause corresponds to our knowledge of causality and also coheres with purpose.

My apologies, I thought you had. You said:

The First Cause is not bound by human categories.

Could you please explain again. Does the First Cause correspond or not correspond to human categories such as causality?

It is also defined as “The timeless state following death”

Not in Buddhism. The state following death is another life similar to this one and just as bound up within time.

God can act from “beyond” time and space without any “part” being in time because spiritual power and influence are not subject to the limitations of time and space.

If God is parting the Red Sea then God is having a physical effect on physical water inside time. Some part of God must be in time to actually shift those water molecules from one place to another.

How is there scope for free will within the chain of causality?

I have a constrained free will. There are some things I cannot do, no matter how much I want to. Other things I can do as I wish. I cannot avoid death, no matter how much I might want to. I can freely choose to have eggs or cereal for breakfast.

This seems a rather arbitrary and uneconomical belief. On what evidence is it based?

Humans have five parts: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Form is our physical body which has ample evidence. Feelings are pleasant, painful or neutral. Have you experienced these? There is your evidence. Perceptions are what we see, smell hear etc. Do you have perceptions? There is your evidence. Impulses are our accumulated memories, experience etc. Do you have memories? There is your evidence. Consciousness is our current consciousness of ourselves. Are you conscious of yourself? There is your evidence.

rossum

 

[danserr]

If an actual infinite cannot exist, does it follow that God cannot exist? If nothing can only come from nothing, does it follow that there is no such a thing as a God that can create out of nothing? Is the First Cause argument for the existence of God begging the question?

I assume when you ask if about an actual infinite you are referring to the first philosophical argument in support of the kalam cosmological argument, which I like, and that says an actual infinite can’t exist, and therefore an actual infinite number of things (past events) can’t exist, so the universe had a beginning. Sometimes people also say (correctly), that this shows an infinite number of multiverses can’t exist.

-The reason this is different from God, is because God is qualitatively infinite, the number of multiverses or past events is quantitatively infinite. When we say an actual infinite can’t exist, we mean an actually infinite number of things can’t exist.
-But God is not made up of an actually infinite number of things. When we call him infinite, we just mean he is morally perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, metaphysically necessary etc. So his infinite is qualitative. On the other hand, an infinite number of things, which is impossible, is a quantitative infinite.

God did not come out of nothing. He always existed.

 

[DPMartin]

If I throw a stone straight up in the air it will come down on my head. The bump on my head is the result of my action in throwing up the stone. Action gives rise to result. There is no judgement in the process. Karma is similar to gravity. It acts but it is not judgement. If you don’t want the results then don’t do the actions that cause those results. If you don’t want a bump on the head then don’t throw stones straight up in the air. There is no sin in Buddhism, nor is there any forgiveness of sin. There is only action and result.Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2
You are assuming an Abrahamic model while Buddhism works on a Dharmic model. The underlying assumptions are different.

I know that death is different to life. I know that someone who is alive one day and dead the next has changed by any reasonable definition of change. I know that someone who is dead one day and alive the next day has changed by any reasonable definition of change. If you say that Jesus has not changed then either you are not using a reasonable definition of “change” or you are denying the death and resurrection of Jesus. I cannot see any other possibility.

rossum

rossum

thanks for the reply

If a man dies and goes to Heaven what has changed, God or the man? God doesn’t change, the man’s relationship to and with God has changed. In your example of the stone up in the air shows this. The gravity didn’t change, the result will not change unless with knowledge and understanding of the Truth of the matter changes in the person throwing the stone, but the Truth of the matter never changes.

In order for mankind’s relationship to change in respect to His Creator what must change? Hence the Power of Life to live does not change it takes the same power to live yesterday today and forever. Who Jesus is has never changed, He is the Truth the Way the Life from God, what changed was mankind’s ability to change his relationship with his Maker (this is what is given in Christ, actually restored). And only God can establish the acceptable Way for mankind to receive this. Hence the Presence of God in and with mankind. Therefore that Way must be establish in the world (human existence) in order for mankind to know God in His Gracious Peace. Hence Jesus the Christ, the Truth the Way the Life of God, in the Son of man. And mankind’s relationship will continue to change until all, according to what God has said be fulfilled. Therefore the Truth the Life the Way never changes. When all is fulfilled where are you now and where will you be then? Surly a child is wise enough to stop throwing the stone that drops on his own head.

 

[The_Exodus]

Then we have two things, God, who changes, and ‘Essence of God’ (EoG) which does not. Since one thing cannot both change and not change we obviously have two different things here. An unchanging EoG, which cannot act. And a changing God who can act and whose actions are described in Genesis.

Not at all. We do, as you rightly say, have two things however: God (which is the same thing as his essence), and his effects (which is creation.)

rossum:

Correct. Buddhism denies all forms of soul. Enlightenment is in part the realisation that what you thought was you actually wasn’t. “I” is merely a convention and a convenient abbreviation, just as the film is a convenient abbreviation for many thousands of still photographs.

I’ve pointed out the absurdity of this already, even though, unfortunately, you’ve failed to see it. If “I” is merely conventional, there is no time in which you exist, and a person who does not exist cannot make an argument.

Ergo, your position does not exist, and so is neither true nor false but meaningless.

rossum:

Which is perhaps why Jesus answered Pilate with silence.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

– Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

rossum

And yet you keep saying quite a bunch, eh?

But how can you say anything, if you do not exist?

I don’t think I agree with your quote, though it is interesting. I can’t imagine Jesus’ silence really meant Buddhist and Wittgensteinian “Heraclitizing.”

You ought really to read Aristotle’s Metaphysics Book IV. You can see Aquinas’ commentary on it here. dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics4.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Then angels are not part of the universe? Are souls part of the universe? You are using a very limited definition of ‘universe’ here, and one which is far better discussed by physicists than philosophers.

If you prefer we can define it as “everything that exists” - with the proviso that the Source of existence doesn’t come into that category.

I haven’t agreed! The First Cause corresponds to our knowledge of causality and also coheres with purpose.

My apologies, I thought you had. You said:
The First Cause is not bound by human categories.
Could you please explain again. Does the First Cause correspond or not correspond to human categories such as causality?

Being uncaused the First Cause does not correspond exactly to our experience of either personal or physical causality.

It is also defined as “The timeless state following death”

Not in Buddhism. The state following death is another life similar to this one and just as bound up within time.

I don’t think specific religious beliefs are philosophical criteria.

God can act from “beyond” time and space without any “part” being in time because spiritual power and influence are not subject to the limitations of time and space.

If God is parting the Red Sea then God is having a physical effect on physical water inside time. Some part of God must be in time to actually shift those water molecules from one place to another.

The exercise of spiritual power may have an effect in time (although not necessarily) but the power itself does not exist in time. Spiritual reality is independent of matter because it is not produced by matter.

How is there scope for free will within the chain of causality?

I have a constrained free will. There are some things I cannot do, no matter how much I want to. Other things I can do as I wish. I cannot avoid death, no matter how much I might want to. I can freely choose to have eggs or cereal for breakfast.

Are you sure such choices are free? How are they exempt from physical causes?

Humans have five parts: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Form is our physical body which has ample evidence. Feelings are pleasant, painful or neutral. Have you experienced these? There is your evidence. Perceptions are what we see, smell hear etc. Do you have perceptions? There is your evidence. Impulses are our accumulated memories, experience etc. Do you have memories? There is your evidence. Consciousness is our current consciousness of ourselves. Are you conscious of yourself? There is your evidence.

Surely the list is incomplete. What about thoughts, intuitions, inspirations, aspirations, emotions, efforts and decisions?

 

[rossum]

If a man dies and goes to Heaven what has changed, God or the man?

Does God sustain His creation? If He does then He has changed. Previously He was sustaining that man’s live body and soul on Earth. Now he is sustaining that man’s dead corpse on Earth and that man’s living soul in heaven. If God is sustaining a changing creation then God is also changing along with His creation.

A God who does not change cannot sustain a changing creation; He becomes a distant Deist-style non-intervening God. As I understand it, that is not the God of Christianity.

Sur[e]ly a child is wise enough to stop throwing the stone that drops on his own head.

Indeed. That is why most religions, Christianity and Buddhism included, have come to much the same conclusions about what is moral and what is not moral.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Not at all. We do, as you rightly say, have two things however: God (which is the same thing as his essence), and his effects (which is creation.)

God cannot be the same as His Essence. You say that God changes and that His Essence does not change. This is a logical impossibility since the same thing cannot both change and not change. One or the other; A cannot equal ~A.

I’ve pointed out the absurdity of this already, even though, unfortunately, you’ve failed to see it. If “I” is merely conventional, there is no time in which you exist, and a person who does not exist cannot make an argument.

Since all words are merely conventional we can never converse at any level other than the conventional. At a conventional level “I” is as well defined as anything else. It is only when we dig deeper that we find that, though the conventional “I” is convenient to use, it does not reflect the underlying reality.

But how can you say anything, if you do not exist?

I exist conventionally and I speak conventionally using conventional words. Talking non-conventionally I do not exist and I am saying nothing.

It is sometimes necessary to be precise about when we are talking conventionally, using words as a convenient shorthand, and when we are talking about the underlying base of things. We should not mistake mere words, or our mental constructs surrounding those words, for reality. “Lighter” may describe something which can light a cigarette, but the word “lighter” cannot light anything, it is just marks on paper or electrons on a screen.

A word is a finger pointing at the moon. We should not mistake the finger for the moon.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If you prefer we can define it as “everything that exists” - with the proviso that the Source of existence doesn’t come into that category.

Agreed. If there is a source of existence then it is outside the universe. Everything else is inside.

Being uncaused the First Cause does not correspond exactly to our experience of either personal or physical causality.

Being uncaused, the universe does not correspond exactly to our experience of either personal or physical causality. If you are claiming special rules for your uncaused First Cause, then I am claiming special rules for my uncaused universe.

I don’t think specific religious beliefs are philosophical criteria.

The belief in an eternal life of the soul after this life is specific to the Abrahamic religions. We follow different religions so at some point we are going to disagree on religious ideas.

The exercise of spiritual power may have an effect in time (although not necessarily) but the power itself does not exist in time.

Of course the power existed in time. It was present enough to shift those water molecules from where they started to where they ended up. How could it possibly do that without at least a part of it actually being present in time?

Spiritual reality is independent of matter because it is not produced by matter.

I am not produced by gravity yet I am not independent of gravity. Your argument fails.

Are you sure such choices are free? How are they exempt from physical causes?
Surely the list is incomplete. What about thoughts, intuitions, inspirations, aspirations, emotions, efforts and decisions?

Much of what we are is conditioned by what we were; our pasts influence our presents. Our choices are not exempt from physical causes. I cannot exempt myself from gravity with a mere wish. We are free within limits. Our freedom is not unlimited but constrained.

rossum

 

[The_Exodus]

God cannot be the same as His Essence. You say that God changes and that His Essence does not change. This is a logical impossibility since the same thing cannot both change and not change. One or the other; A cannot equal ~A.

I’m not claiming God is the same as his essence. I’m saying there are two things to consider here: God, and his effects (i.e. creation). The latter change; the former does not.

What is a tad ironic is that you here offering a criticism of your own view of a Heraclitian reality. If “the same thing cannot both change and not change” and “a cannot equal ~a” then how in the world can you be you (a definite something) and simultaneously be in the process of change, without positing the Aristotlean distinction between potency and act? Change denotes moving from one term to another. And term implies a fixed status. Yet, if all things are always changing, there are never any terms in which to move from one to the other. The word “thing” becomes meaningless, even in the statement “everything always changes.” But this is all redundant.

 

[JDaniel]

The rational player knows that their sequence in time is 1, 2, 3, 4. If he does not touch the bases in that precise temporal order then no run is scored.

I see you’ve watched a game or two. Yes. The bases are as numbers, extending sequentially beginning with the number “1” and proceeding forward by the sequential addition of another “1.” Good. We’re agreed on that.

Show me a parent where there is no child.

On the front side of live birth, a parent already has a child. That it is inside her is irrelevant. A quick slit with a scalpel will prove that.

Show me a child where there is no parent. Each requires the other.

On the back side, epistemologically, yes, the parent is “required,” and, of course, I use that term broadly here. Ontologically, they require each other.

We both agree that life continues after death. We each have precisely as much proof as the other for that.

Yes we do both believe that, but, I have never seen the Buddhist’s proof, so, I’m at a loss to agree with your second sentence. But, I’ll take you at your word, as you are an honorable man (who, also, doesn’t beat his wife!).

We disagree about whether life extends before birth. The amount of proof is the same in both directions.

No, not a chance. Show me Buddhist proof for life before birth, rather, more precisely, before conception.

And how do we determine sequence if we are “before” time.

Imagine a printer that can print, oh, let’s say, 100 sequential numbers, simultaneously. A printing press, such as an offset press, can be easily set up to do this. Yet, the numbers remain sequential, do they not?

How do we determine “before” if time in inexistent? You cannot use a word like “before” if you do not have time.

OK. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Replace the word “before” with the word “prior,” or, with the words “front side,” or, the Latin, a priori, which means “to the prior.”

She plays chess really badly.

Man, I’d love to play chess with you! I probably won’t live long enough to do that.

You will have to define “create” in a manner that does not involve time.

The word create is easy to define:

“the word is properly applied in a special and distinctive way to that action, requiring the exercise of infinite power, by which God – to use the ordinary but not wholly satisfactory phrase – makes something out of nothing, or – to speak more precisely – makes something to be where there was absolutely nothing.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Chap VI.

In you space/matter only universe there is no time so anything involving time is not possible in that universe.

Since I have always agreed with that assertion, I have been careful not to suggest an exigency that involves time. I have only spoken of that exigency that the Church speaks to, in this respect.

My apologies for not being clearer. Mass and energy are interconvertible. By “matter” I mean “mass/energy”. In the early stages of our current universe everything was energy. The mass only condensed out later. In general philosophical terms I would include the physicists’ multiverse in the philosophers’ universe.

Since not all physicists are in concurrence with that fictional abstraction, I cannot agree to that stipulation. Instead, I will stipulate only to the actual universe that we know exists, and not those other postulated universes.

Thomist philosophy emphasises Accident over Substance, just as Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions emphasise stasis over change.

That’s a very interesting statement. Actually, you have it reversed. Thomistic philosophy, and Catholic theology, and the other Abrahamic religions emphasize substance over accident.

[SNIP]

When Nagarjuna describes things as “empty” (shunya) he is saying that they have no Substance. We erroneously reify things by thinking that they have Substance. All that exists is the Accident. Buddhism sees reality as change overlaid with a veneer of apparent stasis.

That, to me, is so wrong that I don’t know where to begin. :banghead:

“Substance” is not posited by Abstraction. Experience and our senses correctly recognize it.

For substance is the fundamental material or mobile being in our world, and the contraries in changes of substance are the fundamental principles of matter. Substance is fundamental because accidents depend on it.- Paraphrased from the Physics by Aristotle, Book I, chapter 5.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

How can a Substance cause a second Substance?

It appears that you do not have a clear idea of agency, i.e., efficient cause, but I digress. To answer your question, man (substance # 1) makes a house (substance # 2). But, I don’t think that’s what you’re looking for.

Instead, allow me to explain substantial change and accidental change. In substantial change, a whole mobile (material) being is changed into another mobile being; in accidental change, a material thing remains essentially what it was but is changed according to some modification such as quality, quantity, or place.

Examples of substantial change would be the burning of wood which yields ashes, or, the death of an animal, which results in inanimate chemicals. Examples of accidental change would be the growth of an animal with the animal remaining the same throughout the process or the transportation of the same wood from one location to another.

If the second Substance already exists then it does not need any cause because it already exists. If the second Substance does not exist then it does not need any cause because something that does not exist does not require any cause. In both cases there is no need for any cause. In both cases the first Substance is not a cause and it is an error to describe it as such. Permanent fixed unchanging Substances can never be causes except of permanent fixed unchanging effects. Remember my “Let there be light” example. An unchanging cause is like a Hollywood six-shooter with an infinite ammunition supply. It can only cause one thing and it constantly causes that one thing for all time.

See above, as we may be talking past each other. Actually, I think we may not be that far apart. (Wouldn’t that be terrible! )

Remember that both gods and men figure in Buddhism. Each can be reborn as the other. Do the gods have no imaginations?

But you have not proved the gods of Buddhism. The God of Christianity has been proven - to our satisfaction - by dialectical inductions by Aquinas and others. Now, you could contend that a logic is not a real proof. But, remember, then neither would be most of the theories and laws of science and physics. We have as much proof for God as physics has for gravity, or space/time, for examples.

Always a pleasure; I always learn something new from you. I really enjoy that.

God bless and Happy Holidays to you and yours,
jd

 

[DPMartin]

Does God sustain His creation? If He does then He has changed. Previously He was sustaining that man’s live body and soul on Earth. Now he is sustaining that man’s dead corpse on Earth and that man’s living soul in heaven. If God is sustaining a changing creation then God is also changing along with His creation.

A God who does not change cannot sustain a changing creation; He becomes a distant Deist-style non-intervening God. As I understand it, that is not the God of Christianity.

Indeed. That is why most religions, Christianity and Buddhism included, have come to much the same conclusions about what is moral and what is not moral.

rossum

rossum

thanks for the reply

There is always the goings on about the wrath of God. And what is against His Peace and Good Will toward men, is what stirs His wrath. And causes a great gulf between God and men. It is man’s nature to provoke anger and strife with his neighbor for who knows how many reasons, (usually self interest) but who works in the interest of God’s Peace and Good Will toward men?

Take the mention of what is moral or maybe better said, agreed as moral. If a man agrees with God then surly the man is not far from God. Since it is apparent that though you are not of western culture in your religion of which I am not familiar with I will take the presumption that you are some what familiar with what is understood in western culture and presume you are at the lest aware of the Ten Commandments. Which is considered by most Christian oriented communities as a moral code (so to speak). But to Israel the Ten Commandments are a Covenant, a agreement with God of God, which the Israelites say, and have witnessed are of God. God’s agreement doesn’t change, it is fulfilled. There would be no integrity or ethics or righteousness in the change of agreement. If a word is given by some one, it’s fulfillment proves.

Two people can live in the same household and be far from one another, even though physically they are close. Hence the wisdom in what Jesus preached, repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. The Living God is no farther then one’s repentance from himself and toward Him, through the fulfilled agreement of God with mankind, Jesus Christ.

God’s intervention in the world ( human existence ) is His agreement with men and then fulfills it. For He has the Power to do so, that no one, nor nothing can stop. Considering all that they have been through, and there is still, the Children of Israel.

You might find the Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch) an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, an interesting read.

 

[rossum]

I’m not claiming God is the same as his essence.

It appeared to me that you did:

Not at all. We do, as you rightly say, have two things however: God (which is the same thing as his essence)… (Emphasis added)

I’m saying there are two things to consider here: God, and his effects (i.e. creation). The latter change; the former does not.

If God is causing something in time, then something must trigger the change. If the trigger is God then God mush change in time from “I will create” to “I am creating”. We both agree that the effect changes. However, unless you are saying that the effect is uncaused, and hence nothing to do with God, then God also has to change. If God was unchanging then all the effects would have been present from the beginning of time.

Change denotes moving from one term to another. And term implies a fixed status.

You are coming from an Aristotelian position. I am coming from a Nagarjunan position. Objects are merely conventional, they have no underlying substance.

Yet, if all things are always changing, there are never any terms in which to move from one to the other. The word “thing” becomes meaningless, even in the statement “everything always changes.” But this is all redundant.

Correct. In the final analysis, “thing” is indeed meaningless. It is merely a convenience that does not refer to anything substantial.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Imagine a printer that can print, oh, let’s say, 100 sequential numbers, simultaneously. A printing press, such as an offset press, can be easily set up to do this. Yet, the numbers remain sequential, do they not?

Integers are sequential, but not sequential in time. The Peano axioms make no mention of time. Causation is sequential in time and is not governed by the Peano axioms.

OK. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Replace the word “before” with the word “prior,” or, with the words “front side,” or, the Latin, a priori, which means “to the prior.”

Firstly, “prior” in this context implies a time sequence. Second, how are you going to define “side” with respect to time?

The word create is easy to define:

“the word is properly applied in a special and distinctive way to that action, requiring the exercise of infinite power, by which God – to use the ordinary but not wholly satisfactory phrase – makes something out of nothing, or – to speak more precisely – makes something to be where there was absolutely nothing.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Chap VI.

First, this definition is unsatisfactory. God did not make something from nothing, unless God Himself is nothing. One of the (name removed by moderator)uts into the process was God. Making something from nothing requires zero (name removed by moderator)uts into the process. At best God created without using anything apart from Himself, with zero additional (name removed by moderator)uts.

Second, the definition uses the word “action”. How can we define “action” in the absence of time? In the absence of time actions cannot start, they have no duration and they cannot finish.

That’s a very interesting statement. Actually, you have it reversed. Thomistic philosophy, and Catholic theology, and the other Abrahamic religions emphasize substance over accident.

My error. Thank you for the correction. Substance is indeed emphasised over Accident.

“Substance” is not posited by Abstraction. Experience and our senses correctly recognize it.

For substance is the fundamental material or mobile being in our world, and the contraries in changes of substance are the fundamental principles of matter. Substance is fundamental because accidents depend on it.- Paraphrased from the Physics by Aristotle, Book I, chapter 5.

What we see as ‘Substance’ is mere appearance, and deceptive appearance. A mirage looks like water, it appears to be water, but in reality there is no water present. Thomist Substance is just like the water in a mirage, it appears to be there but the appearance is deceptive.

In substantial change, a whole mobile (material) being is changed into another mobile being; in accidental change, a material thing remains essentially what it was but is changed according to some modification such as quality, quantity, or place.

Does Substance exist? If it exists then it cannot cease to exist, because then it wouldn’t have been Substance in the first place. Is the Substance of the wood that goes into the fire the same as the Substance of the ash that remains after? If the Substance of the wood exists then that existence is a necessary property of the wood and it can never leave. Are you saying that wood and ash are identical, that there is no difference in Substance between them?

The problem of Substance is that if it exists then it cannot change. Given that things do change hence Substance is an incorrect model of the world.

But you have not proved the gods of Buddhism. The God of Christianity has been proven - to our satisfaction - by dialectical inductions by Aquinas and others. Now, you could contend that a logic is not a real proof. But, remember, then neither would be most of the theories and laws of science and physics. We have as much proof for God as physics has for gravity, or space/time, for examples.

I am not worried about the gods; they are of small importance. I would also disagree with you on the nature of scientific ‘proof’, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

Always a pleasure; I always learn something new from you. I really enjoy that.

Ditto. You make me think, which is a good thing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Take the mention of what is moral or maybe better said, agreed as moral. If a man agrees with God then surly the man is not far from God. Since it is apparent that though you are not of western culture in your religion of which I am not familiar with I will take the presumption that you are some what familiar with what is understood in western culture and presume you are at the lest aware of the Ten Commandments.

I am aware of the Ten Commandments. The Buddhist equivalent is the Five Moral Rules (panca sila):* to avoid injury to life.

• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

The first few Commandments, about God and the Sabbath, are irrelevant to Buddhists. The rest of the Christian ten cover similar ground to the Buddhist five.

One difference is that the Buddhist moral law (karma) applies just as much to gods as it does to everyone else. The Old Testament God is not a good example to follow. Jesus is a much better example, and is often considered to be a Bodhisattva. When talking to a Buddhist you are probably better off emphasising Jesus and de-emphasising the OT God.

rossum