Atheist questions

[JDaniel]

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.

Rossum:

My apologies for deserting you. I really didn’t; but the holidays increased my “other” activities tremendously. I don’t know if you celebrate the time of year as we do, but, if you do, I hope you and your family had a very good holiday time. (No pun intended!)

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

No it does not; it implies a sequential sequence only. See below . . .

A man uses a stick to push an object along the sidewalk. For all intents and purposes, it is a sequentially causative event. All that is occurring is occurring simultaneously, the chain from brain to object. For mobile beings, like us, of course, we are able to cause change, in this case, local motion, in this manner, which, of course, introduces the actions to before and after, i.e., time. From now to now, or, moment to moment, each privation-to-act sequence provides the necessary change in order for us to experience that time has transpired. Time is, therefore, the measure of motion (or change).

First, this definition is unsatisfactory. God did not make something from nothing, unless God Himself is nothing.

Please re-read what I wrote. What I wrote was that saying he made something out of nothing was unsatisfactory. That does imply that indeed he took a handful of “nothing” tossed it around a bit, and voilà, something appeared magically. And, God is not “nothing.”

One of the (name removed by moderator)uts into the process was God.

Yes; in his predicate as a spiritual rather than material being, he is the one and only (name removed by moderator)ut.

Making something from nothing requires zero (name removed by moderator)uts into the process.

Not so. This is an assertion, the only purpose of which is to straw man the Christian argument.

At best God created without using anything apart from Himself, with zero additional (name removed by moderator)uts.

In part, yes. But, he did not use any part of himself, except his omnipotent power.

Second, the definition uses the word “action”. How can we define “action” in the absence of time?

Exactly. Time begins at the precise moment of the beginning of change: the initiality of what we call the big bang.

In the absence of time actions cannot start, they have no duration and they cannot finish.

Not so. See above. Furthermore, if there was only a single entity in the universe, and it did not physically change, it would have pure duration without time.

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.

Illogical. A mirage is a substance of a lesser presence. It is the alteration of appearances to us, due to the action of heat upon that small amout of oxygen and hydrogen always present in nature.

Does Substance exist?

Yes.

If it exists then it cannot cease to exist, because then it wouldn’t have been Substance in the first place.

Matter is substance. The law of thermodynamics applies. But, matter can change substantially. Water into hydrogen and oxygen, for example. A once living creature into inert chemicals after it dies.

Is the Substance of the wood that goes into the fire the same as the Substance of the ash that remains after?

No: that is substantial change. The substance is altered. Molecules of wood become dry carbon.

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?

No: see above.

The problem of Substance is that if it exists then it cannot change.

Sure it can. As I just explained.

Given that things do change hence Substance is an incorrect model of the world.

I really hate to say it, but, no, so: you have slightly incorrect understanding it, that’s all.

I am not worried about the gods; they are of small importance.

Our God is not “small importance” to us! If your gods are of small importance that leads me to believe that your gods are pure postulations, pure imaginary human positings. No wonder that Buddhism has no proofs for their claims that men come from gods, and gods come from men. Then it is no more than the mere substantial change in the quantity of information, or wisdom, stored in the minds of men. Why even use the term “god?” Why not say what you mean? “Better people.” That rubs Christians the wrong way.

I would also disagree with you on the nature of scientific ‘proof’, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

That’s fine.

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

As we say in the south: “You bet!”

God bless,
jd

 

[The_Exodus]

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.

The effect is in time, but God is outside of time and eternal. Therefore, God does not change.

See St. Thomas, who presents to himself the objection you raise:

Objection 3. Further, whatever God does, He does voluntarily. But God does not always do the same thing, for at one time He ordered the law to be observed, and at another time forbade it. Therefore He has a changeable will.

Reply to Objection 3. It does not follow from this argument that God has a will that changes, but that He sometimes wills that things should change.

newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article7

Well, to be honest, I have no idea how to converse with a person who has not said anything!

 

[JDaniel]

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:

I am having a big ol’ problem with this. There are no gods in Buddhism, as you just said in an earlier post. There are only postulations. Postulations are only good for the purposes of dialectic. As such, it could be called a “dialectical dialectic.” Look, that other non-religion religion, which we have discussed and which derives substantially from Buddhism, according to their followers at least, tells it like it is. They actually do regard themselves as “better people,” although they are afraid to say that to newcomers at first. They do not regard their Buddhist-like concepts as offensive. It seems that Buddhists sometimes do.

The major differences though, render down to: that they do not hold to any of your commandments. Their primary commandment is that the primary dynamic of things is: life. All else derives from that first principle, which they do call a postulate. Of course, they refer back to Buddhism in order to de-emphasize our Judeo-Christian God. And, they have no problem with harming.

The other problem I have is with calling them the Five Moral Rules. There is no real basis of calling them Moral rules. They are simple rules that are postulated, I guess because, early Buddhists recognized that humans were afflicted with imperfections of one sort or another. I guess it was felt that it was better to nip that in the bud, so that humans might be less distracted while attaining higher states? Whatever the reasons, the resulting code was at least to some extent good.

Our Christian Ten Commandments derive from the singular directive - from God - to Love one another as he loves us and as we love ourselves. Is this how you see it?

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

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.

These are metaphors, of course!

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.

There is a significant difference. The caused universe is physical and whereas the First Cause is spiritual.

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.

Strictly speaking they are irrelevant in a philosophical discussion.

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?

The idea of a temporal continuum between spiritual and material reality seems unintelligible.

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.

Your body is not you!

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.

I agree but there is an element of freedom which overrides physical causes that requires explanation.

 

[rossum]

My apologies for deserting you. I really didn’t; but the holidays increased my “other” activities tremendously. I don’t know if you celebrate the time of year as we do, but, if you do, I hope you and your family had a very good holiday time. (No pun intended!)

We do celebrate and I had a good time with my family. Like you there are other activities competing for my time.

All that is occurring is occurring simultaneously, the chain from brain to object.

Nerve signals do not travel at infinite speed so any travel outside the brain requires time. Light requires a nanosecond to travel a foot and nerve impulses are a lot slower than light.

Exactly. Time begins at the precise moment of the beginning of change: the initiality of what we call the big bang.

Then the universe has existed for all of time and has no need for a cause. If something has existed for all of time then that thing is eternal and has no need for a cause.

Furthermore, if there was only a single entity in the universe, and it did not physically change, it would have pure duration without time.

How could you measure that duration without time? How could you tell a duration of one nanosecond from a duration of three millennia without a scale of time against which to measure? You cannot have duration without time. You need a clock to measure duration and without a clock you cannot measure.

Illogical. A mirage is a substance of a lesser presence. It is the alteration of appearances to us, due to the action of heat upon that small amout of oxygen and hydrogen always present in nature.

On the contrary it is extremely logical. We can only sense what we can sense. We cannot sense polarised light the way a bee can. Someone who is red-green colour blind does not sense the world the same way as most of us. What we sense is limited by our senses and is in turn affected by those senses. As a mirage shows, our senses can be fooled. We cannot sense the Substance of something, only the Accident. Even our sensing of the Accident is imperfect. Reality is not nothing, but neither is it what it appears to be on the surface. A mirage looks like water, but it is not actually water. Nothing would not look like water so we can tell that a mirage is not nothing but we can also know that a mirage is no water either. Reality hovers midway between nothing and its appearance. It is another aspect of the Middle Way of Buddhism, it is the Middle Way between existence and non-existence.

Matter is substance. The law of thermodynamics applies. But, matter can change substantially. Water into hydrogen and oxygen, for example. A once living creature into inert chemicals after it dies.

Is water Substance or Accident? Water contains the hydrogen and oxygen atoms all along. We can dissociate those atoms and release them from the compound water molecule.

No: that is substantial change. The substance is altered. Molecules of wood become dry carbon.

The carbon atoms themselves are unchanged, they are still carbon atoms. Rather than being bound in one compound they are now bound in another compound. I do not see a substantial change from the point of view of a carbon atom; internally it is still the same, just its external neighbours have changed.

Our God is not “small importance” to us! If your gods are of small importance that leads me to believe that your gods are pure postulations, pure imaginary human positings.

Here is one of the Buddhist gods describing himself:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be.”

– Brahmajala sutta 42
I suspect that god might seem familiar to you: “the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme”. Be careful what you say about the Buddhist gods until you know which gods they are. Even that god is of small importance in Buddhism because he is irrelevant to the path. No god can get me to nirvana. Since my goal is nirvana then all gods are irrelevant to my attainment of my goal.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The effect is in time, but God is outside of time and eternal. Therefore, God does not change.

In this thread I have already quoted how an unchanging God would look in Genesis. Every day God says the same thing, “Let there be light”. An unchanging God can only ever do the same thing every day, that is the definition of unchanging.

Reply to Objection 3. It does not follow from this argument that God has a will that changes, but that He sometimes wills that things should change.

Saint Thomas has just lost the argument. Read what he says again: “He sometimes wills that…” Sometimes He will one thing and at other times He does not will that thing. Therefore God is changing because what He wills changes. At one time He wills one thing and at another time He wills a different thing. God’s will has changed. If God’s will has changed then either God’s will is different from an unchanging God or we have a changing God with a changing will.

One end of the process is changing; everyone agrees that there is change in the world. If you posit an unchanging God then at some point in the chain connecting God to the world an unchanging entity has to cause a changing entity. It is at that point of connection where the weakness in the argument lies. An unchanging entity can cause at most one thing and the caused thing must itself be unchanging. There is always a weakness somewhere in the chain because the two ends of the chain are incompatible.

Well, to be honest, I have no idea how to converse with a person who has not said anything!

I have no problem with conventional existence, something along the lines of Thomist Accident. I have big problems with the existence of Thomist Substance.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am having a big ol’ problem with this. There are no gods in Buddhism, as you just said in an earlier post.

I cannot recall saying that. There are no important gods in Buddhism though there are tens of thousands of unimportant gods.

The other problem I have is with calling them the Five Moral Rules. There is no real basis of calling them Moral rules. They are simple rules that are postulated, I guess because, early Buddhists recognized that humans were afflicted with imperfections of one sort or another. I guess it was felt that it was better to nip that in the bud, so that humans might be less distracted while attaining higher states? Whatever the reasons, the resulting code was at least to some extent good.

Christians derive their moral rules from God. Buddhists do not. To a Buddhist the rules of morality are built into the universe in much the same way as the rules of gravity are built into the universe. Moral rules are discovered, not revealed. Hence my example of throwing a stone in the air and having it come down on your head.

Our Christian Ten Commandments derive from the singular directive - from God - to Love one another as he loves us and as we love ourselves. Is this how you see it?

Of course:[The Buddha said] “Love others as you love yourself.”

– Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.
rossum

 

[rossum]

There is a significant difference. The caused universe is physical and whereas the First Cause is spiritual.

Whether physical or spiritual it is still involved in causation. If you can suspend the rules of causation for one then I can just as easily suspend the rules of causation for the other.

The idea of a temporal continuum between spiritual and material reality seems unintelligible.

Just as to me the idea of a chain of causation between an unchanging spiritual entity and a changing physical world is unintelligible. How can something unchanging cause something that changes?

Your body is not you!

But is is a part of me. My physical body is one of the five parts into which Buddhist theory analyses a human being. Given that part of me is physical then I am subject to physical limitations such as gravity.

I agree but there is an element of freedom which overrides physical causes that requires explanation.

Our pasts set limits on what we can do in the present. Our actions in the present will impact our freedom to act in the future. The explanation lies in our pasts. Due to my past actions I was born as a human, not as a bird. As a human I have the freedom to do some things that birds cannot do. Were I a bird then I would have the freedom to do other things that birds can do but humans cannot. Our presents are conditioned by our pasts.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

We do celebrate and I had a good time with my family. Like you there are other activities competing for my time.

Glad to hear that. I enjoyed the time, too.

Nerve signals do not travel at infinite speed so any travel outside the brain requires time. Light requires a nanosecond to travel a foot and nerve impulses are a lot slower than light.

Nothing travels at infinite speed. I will acknowledge that there are things that travel at speeds approaching infinity. Simultaneity is thus slightly modified, in Reality, for us. It, too, may be thought of as speed approaching pure simultaneity.

Then the universe has existed for all of time and has no need for a cause. If something has existed for all of time then that thing is eternal and has no need for a cause.

That’s a misrepresenting of the words to make them appear to mean infinite. More properly, the universe should be said to have existed correlative with time since its beginning. Time began at the creation of mobile being. That which has a beginning has a cause. That which has an end has a cause. That which has a middle has a cause. An infinite time has no beginning, no middle, and no end. So, despite your misrepresentation, the universe is still finite. - in time. Your misrepresentation is irrelevant.

How could you measure that duration without time?

Why should it have to be measured by us? Duration means,
“Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration…” - Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton

How could you tell a duration of one nanosecond from a duration of three millennia without a scale of time against which to measure? You cannot have duration without time. You need a clock to measure duration and without a clock you cannot measure.

The measurement of time is irrelevant to the absolute of duration.

On the contrary it is extremely logical. We can only sense what we can sense. We cannot sense polarised light the way a bee can. Someone who is red-green colour blind does not sense the world the same way as most of us. What we sense is limited by our senses and is in turn affected by those senses. As a mirage shows, our senses can be fooled.

Of course it doesn’t. Perhaps in some long absence from water, the minds of some men suffering from dehydration might be fooled. But, I see mirages every day and I am not fooled!

We cannot sense the Substance of something, only the Accident.

One the contrary. I see an apple. Its color is red. That is one of its accidents. I don’t misunderstand it to be a shoe that is red. Apple is subsistent and persistent substance. It was still an apple when its color, one of its accidents, was green.

Even our sensing of the Accident is imperfect. Reality is not nothing, but neither is it what it appears to be on the surface.

Perhaps.

Reality hovers midway between nothing and its appearance. It is another aspect of the Middle Way of Buddhism, it is the Middle Way between existence and non-existence.

Many pardons, but that sounds like gobbledegook. A being exists or it doesn’t. The mind does not make that so. That the pictures of reality snapped by our minds can be altered by our own electro-chemical aberrations, is irrelevant to being.

Is water Substance or Accident? Water contains the hydrogen and oxygen atoms all along. We can dissociate those atoms and release them from the compound water molecule.

In its molecular form, it is substance. In its dissociated form, it is hydrogen and oxygen. The transformation is called substantial change. When the skin of an un-ripe apple changes from green to red, that is called accidental change. In optics, the color of a substance depends on the distinction between what is reflected and what is absorbed.

The carbon atoms themselves are unchanged, they are still carbon atoms. Rather than being bound in one compound they are now bound in another compound. I do not see a substantial change from the point of view of a carbon atom; internally it is still the same, just its external neighbours have changed.

Who cares what it looks like from a carbon atoms point of view? Good grief! Are you a carbon atom, or, a human being? Substance is the fundamental; accident is the superficial.

Here is one of the Buddhist gods describing himself:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be.”
– Brahmajala sutta 42

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

continuation…

It goes without saying that I would have just a few questions of him, or, of anyone professing to know what he is:

(1) When he says, “the subjector of all to his wishes…” does he mean all as in all?
(2) When he says, “omnipotent,” does he mean really omnipotent?
(3) When he says, “the maker, the creator,” does he mean the “the maker, the creator of all?”
(4) When he says, “the supreme,” does he mean “the pinnacle of all that exists?” Does he mean the ultimate and very top of his category?
(5) When he says, “the controller,” does he mean the controller of all else?
(6) When he says, “father to all . . .” does he mean we, and all other beings are his children?

I suspect that god might seem familiar to you: “the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme”. Be careful what you say about the Buddhist gods until you know which gods they are.

That’s what I’m trying to find out. What gods are what and who.

Even that god is of small importance in Buddhism because he is irrelevant to the path. No god can get me to nirvana. Since my goal is nirvana then all gods are irrelevant to my attainment of my goal.

I will have a question on this later.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

In this thread I have already quoted how an unchanging God would look in Genesis. Every day God says the same thing, “Let there be light”. An unchanging God can only ever do the same thing every day, that is the definition of unchanging.

Precisely!

Genesis is a story about Creation written in the languages of men and usually men can only understand it from man’s finite, contingent and limited points of view, and, that is sometimes subject to aberations. But, what you said above is truer than you think. So, be careful what you say about God, as may change his mind about you, and no longer will you into existence each day, as he does the light.

Saint Thomas has just lost the argument. Read what he says again: “He sometimes wills that…” Sometimes He will one thing and at other times He does not will that thing.

Again, your perception is peculiarly human. God’s Will is as Infinite as he is. What is Infinite Free Will? It is certainly not the participation of a composite being in an interdependent system. The elements and orders of being in the universe exist for each other. Change is a condition of this interdependence. But, God is non-composite and independent. So, how can one simply define everything from our peculiar and limited perspective? We don’t. Christians, at least, try to see the bigger picture.

Therefore God is changing because what He wills changes. At one time He wills one thing and at another time He wills a different thing. God’s will has changed. If God’s will has changed then either God’s will is different from an unchanging God or we have a changing God with a changing will.

Well, since that is obviously impossible, then perhaps it is us who should expand our limited perceptions to try to see it as it must be. There are three types of change: qualitative change, as in intensification or reduction; quantitative change, as in growth or withering; and, local change, which consists of movement from place to place. But, all of such changes are dependent upon something else. All require some sort of stimulus from without, even if it is interior change. This indicates that change is not identical with the thing that undergoes change.

Nothing can of itself move or change in any respect. That includes its quanta. That its quanta is endowed with the energy with enables motion or change indicates that said endowment came from something that is not within the universe. Clearly, one cannot trace the beginning of motion to any element within the universe. And, the same is true for any possibility of a multiverse. Matter is indifferent to rest or motion, potential or act. Energy, once it is influenced by something else, begins motion. Radioactive decay, once it is endowed with the necessary instability of the system, begins the motion of decay. It is merely our contention that the universe (multiverse) was so endowed at and during its creation.

So the question is, how must we view the Will as regards God? We exist within a system. In order to change or move, we must be influenced and must, in turn, be capable of influencing. Our wills exist within a system, as well. They must be able to be influenced and to influence. But, this in no way discounts freedom. Nor does it imply absolute limitation. To some extent, it posits limited limitation. We can only know what we know. We do not know what we don’t know, except and unless we participate in some form of endeavor that causes our knowledge to grow. In humans, this is through a gradual intensification, as we know.

God exists outside of any system. His alterations of will, as they appear to us to be, must be part of the pure Act of Will, which is God. They must be infinitely willed. That we “see” them as recent changes, for example, is due to our imperfection of knowledge. Since we must acquire knowledge gradually, we can only see infinite changes of God’s will from our temporal mountaintop. Such apparent changes are from God’s Infinite Will and his Onni-fecundity. They are part of God’s ongoing Act of Creation.

One end of the process is changing; everyone agrees that there is change in the world. If you posit an unchanging God then at some point in the chain connecting God to the world an unchanging entity has to cause a changing entity. It is at that point of connection where the weakness in the argument lies. An unchanging entity can cause at most one thing and the caused thing must itself be unchanging. There is always a weakness somewhere in the chain because the two ends of the chain are incompatible.

There is no reason why, “An unchanging entity can cause at most one thing and the caused thing must itself be unchanging.” While I agree that an unchanging thing can cause at most one thing, I completely disagree that the effect must be unchanging. We are a created system of mobile beings. The system was endowed with motion from its beginning. Since neither the system, nor its elements, could have created and so endowed the universe, it must have been something outside of it that is not subject to influence from any other outside influence.

I have no problem with conventional existence, something along the lines of Thomist Accident. I have big problems with the existence of Thomist Substance.

Yes, we can see that!

God bless,
jd

 

[phoenixrrt62]

+JMJ+

Isn’t there an atheism topic ban in place right now? Sorry to burst your bubble, I really do like debates with atheists, but shrug

God bless!

Really? why on earth…
was someone disrespectful or something?

I notice on the atheism forums they will boot you if you persist in trying to convert someone and not have a legit discussion about religion (or lack of same)…

 

[rossum]

Simultaneity is thus slightly modified, in Reality, for us.

I am not talking about theoretical ideals, but only about reality. Remember that I don’t like reification, which results in such theoretical ideals.

That’s a misrepresenting of the words to make them appear to mean infinite.

I disagree. To me ‘eternal’ means “for all of time”. If something exists for all of time then that thing is eternal. If time has a ‘beginning’ then that beginning cannot, by definition, be “in” time but must be outside time. If it is outside time then we cannot measure it in temporal terms. We need some higher dimension in which to measure it and some new set of terms with which to describe it.

Why should it have to be measured by us? Duration means,
“Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration…” - Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton

A mathematical absolute time is fine for mathematics, but it is not for the real world. Remember that Newtonian physics is only an approximation, as Einstein noticed. Duration is an extent in time from point A in time to point B in time. Both points are in time, hence there is no meaning to ‘duration’ if one or both points are outside time.

Of course it doesn’t. Perhaps in some long absence from water, the minds of some men suffering from dehydration might be fooled. But, I see mirages every day and I am not fooled!

Correct. Which is why enlightenment is possible. It is possible to see things correctly and not be fooled by the mirage. Our senses can be fooled but it is possible for us to un-fool ourselves.

Apple is subsistent and persistent substance.

A few months earlier that apple was a blossom on the tree. How can the Substance be persistent? Where was the Substance of the apple when it was a blossom? Where is the Substance of the blossom when it is an apple? What about years earlier when both apple and blossom were a seedling bearing no resemblance to either blossom or apple?

A being exists or it doesn’t.

Does the blossom exist? What happens to the blossom when it changes into an apple? Something that has a hard, fixed, existence can never cease to exist. Things we see in the real world have a soft existence that comes and goes. A blossom changes into an apple, but is no longer a blossom. An apple is eaten and is no longer an apple. Any model of existence must allow for change.

That the pictures of reality snapped by our minds can be altered by our own electro-chemical aberrations, is irrelevant to being.

Correct. Which is precisely why we must never mistake the pictures of reality inside our head for actual reality. Actual reality cannot be sensed because our senses inevitably distort our perceptions. That is where my image of a mirage comes in. We can only model reality inside our heads and our models are imperfect. It is a cardinal error to mistake the model for the thing it is modelling. The two are not the same.

Who cares what it looks like from a carbon atoms point of view? Good grief! Are you a carbon atom, or, a human being? Substance is the fundamental; accident is the superficial.

Which is why I reject Substance. How can the fundamental nature of the blossom change into the fundamental nature of an apple? At which arbitrary point along the continuum between the two does one substance switch off and the other substance switch on?

… continued …

rossum

 

[rossum]

So, be careful what you say about God, as may change his mind about you, and no longer will you into existence each day, as he does the light.

Joking aside, God did change his mind about me one day. there were many days in the past when I did not exist, August 14 1536 for example. Then one day in the twentieth century God changed His mind and I did exist. An unchanging cause cannot sustain a changing effect.

But, God is non-composite and independent.

I disagree. How can the Creator be independent of His creation? If there is no creation then He cannot be a Creator. There is a mutual dependence between Creator and creation, one cannot exist without the other.

Nothing can of itself move or change in any respect.

THen how does the First Cause initiate the process of causation? How does it change from “I will creaate” to “I am creating”? If it is always in the state of “I am creating” then there is no “In the beginning…” there is just “Always…”

That includes its quanta.

Probably not. Quantum mechanics is extremely strange and our internal models, which work well for macroscopic phenomena, fail miserably when dealing with quantum phenomena.

We can only know what we know. We do not know what we don’t know, except and unless we participate in some form of endeavor that causes our knowledge to grow. In humans, this is through a gradual intensification, as we know.

Are you sure your name isn’t Donald Rumsfeld? Known unknowns, unknown unknowns etc.

God exists outside of any system.

But Christian theology has it that God existed inside the system of the Early Imperial Roman province of Palestine for 33 years. If God is omnipresent then He is inside every system, otherwise He would not be omnipresent.

His alterations of will, as they appear to us to be, must be part of the pure Act of Will, which is God. They must be infinitely willed.

Why? If God’s unchanging will is willing my existence since forever then why did I not exist on August 14 1536? Was God’s will somehow impotent until my conception? Did God’s will change from ‘impotent will’ to ‘potent will’? How can an omnipotent God have an impotent will?

Such apparent changes are from God’s Infinite Will and his Onni-fecundity. They are part of God’s ongoing Act of Creation.

You say “apparent changes”. Are you denying that the Substance of the blossom is different from the Substance of the apple? Is that an Accidental or a Substantial change?

There is no reason why, “An unchanging entity can cause at most one thing and the caused thing must itself be unchanging.” While I agree that an unchanging thing can cause at most one thing, I completely disagree that the effect must be unchanging.

On Monday the unchanging cause creates a mouse, which runs away. On Tuesday the unchanging cause creates a mouse, which runs away. On Wednesday the unchanging cause creates a mouse, which runs away. On Thursday … We do not see this in real life. Things do not appear like bullets from a Hollywood pistol with infinite ammunition. Each human is only created once, not recreated in the same state every day. We grow and change, we do not remain as a single celled zygote.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

I am not talking about theoretical ideals, but only about reality. Remember that I don’t like reification, which results in such theoretical ideals.

Rossum:

There is no abstraction here! There is nothing theoretical here. This is nothing more than a description of how things happen. In local motion, we never witness absolute simultaneous motion. We recognize that almost imperceptible prior movement of the prior mover. Almost imperceptible does not equal abstraction. This in no way denies the existence of absolute simultaneity in the universe.

I disagree. To me ‘eternal’ means “for all of time”. If something exists for all of time then that thing is eternal. If time has a ‘beginning’ then that beginning cannot, by definition, be “in” time but must be outside time. If it is outside time then we cannot measure it in temporal terms. We need some higher dimension in which to measure it and some new set of terms with which to describe it.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Concepts of eternity have developed in a way that is, as a matter of fact, closely connected to the development of the concept of God in Western thought, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers; particularly to the idea of God’s relation to time, the idea of divine perfection, and the Creator-creature distinction. Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished.

You might want to adjust your definition.

A mathematical absolute time is fine for mathematics, but it is not for the real world. Remember that Newtonian physics is only an approximation, as Einstein noticed. Duration is an extent in time from point A in time to point B in time. Both points are in time, hence there is no meaning to ‘duration’ if one or both points are outside time.

You are using only one possible definition again: there are at least two: there is the concept of duration within time and, there is the concept of timeless duration. Both are, unfortunately, reifications. But, if we don’t reify time, from time to time, we will be stuck in the present.

A few months earlier that apple was a blossom on the tree. How can the Substance be persistent? Where was the Substance of the apple when it was a blossom? Where is the Substance of the blossom when it is an apple? What about years earlier when both apple and blossom were a seedling bearing no resemblance to either blossom or apple?

No. The blossom, per se, does not become the apple. Rather, the ovarian apparatus within the flower becomes the apple. The specific ovarian substance changes quantitatively to become the substance of the apple.

Does the blossom exist? What happens to the blossom when it changes into an apple? Something that has a hard, fixed, existence can never cease to exist. Things we see in the real world have a soft existence that comes and goes. A blossom changes into an apple, but is no longer a blossom. An apple is eaten and is no longer an apple. Any model of existence must allow for change.

But, that is no reason to re-define them. Substance does not equal eternal persistence. Substance is that which we see and understand to be subsistent. It is impossible to clearly define the color of an object without attaching it to the substance of which it is made, without saying, as Merleau-Ponty points out, “of this blue rug, for example, that it is ‘woolly blue’?”

Correct. Which is precisely why we must never mistake the pictures of reality inside our head for actual reality. Actual reality cannot be sensed because our senses inevitably distort our perceptions. That is where my image of a mirage comes in. We can only model reality inside our heads and our models are imperfect. It is a cardinal error to mistake the model for the thing it is modelling. The two are not the same.

That’s as it may be, but, our senses are well known to be able to perceive said “reality” in its being-ness. As Merleau-Ponty continues, “Our ability to recognize an object defined by certain constant properties despite changes of lighting stems, not from some process by which our intellect takes the nature of the incident light into account and deduces the object’s real color from it, but from the fact that the light which dominates the environment acts as lighting and immediately assigns the object its true color.” An accident, such as color, does not make the object/substance to be what it is. If one peruses an object, the object can immediately be determined to be an apple even if its color is orange. Our ability to gather and keep snapshots of reality is, therefore, more than merely a tiny “picture” of it. It is a grasping of reality that is usually more than merely one or two accidental properties: it is tone-audio, color-visio, odor-smell, surface-tactile, and flavor-taste. All of these are instantly memorized and stored: all of this information.

Which is why I reject Substance. How can the fundamental nature of the blossom change into the fundamental nature of an apple? At which arbitrary point along the continuum between the two does one substance switch off and the other substance switch on?

(See above.) Nevertheless, there is, as we know from experience, more than one kind of change. We perceive accidental changes and we perceive substantial changes. If we didn’t, we could say nothing that made sense. We might say, “That water, which is paint, which is alcohol, which is now . . ., will turn into steam, which is gasoline fumes, which is smoke, which is now . . .” We might never be able to simply say, “upon heating to 212 degrees, that water will evaporate in the form of steam.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Joking aside, God did change his mind about me one day. there were many days in the past when I did not exist, August 14 1536 for example. Then one day in the twentieth century God changed His mind and I did exist. An unchanging cause cannot sustain a changing effect.

Not so. You are subjecting the infinite creative act to be a series of actions-in-time. Only for us are they actions-in-time. For God, they all occur without dependence on time. They occur, as many of us have said, over and over again, in an Eternal Now. How else would an Infinite Being perceive it and participate in it? To say that an Infinite Being participates in finite actions in time, is a logical contradiction. He participates in them all at once.

How can the Creator be independent of His creation?

How can one be a part of his creation? If he is a part of his creation, he would have created himself, which is impossible. Another contradiction.

If there is no creation then He cannot be a Creator. There is a mutual dependence between Creator and creation, one cannot exist without the other.

Linguistically. However, it is true that the creation cannot exist without the Creator. Do you think that the universe was God’s only creation? Do you not understand that the so-called dependence of the Creator-creation duality can occur in simultaneity? Do you understand that God is still, for us, creating us? And, that it is one act of creation of timeless duration?

Then how does the First Cause initiate the process of causation? How does it change from “I will create” to “I am creating”? If it is always in the state of “I am creating” then there is no “In the beginning…” there is just “Always…”

Yes. I agree. I think God has always been creating, is creating, and always will be creating. That’s why I have no problem with the notion of a multi-verse, or of an undulating universe. The Church said that this is the universe; there are no others. But, we haven’t “seen” all of our universe. It might be a lot bigger than we think.

Are you sure your name isn’t Donald Rumsfeld? Known unknowns, unknown unknowns etc.

It might have been. Then I changed into just me, jd.

But Christian theology has it that God existed inside the system of the Early Imperial Roman province of Palestine for 33 years. If God is omnipresent then He is inside every system, otherwise He would not be omnipresent.

Yes, in the form of an hypostatic union of God and man - not exactly matter and not exactly form, which combined is the soul of an earthbound man. The Council of Chalcedon defined that Christ is one person who has two natures, united by an hypostatic union. “But although the terms nature and person may have a particular philosophical connotation, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in defining the dogma of the hypostatic union had not in mind any esoteric meaning to be attached to them: the words were used in their popular sense.” (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, pg 374, 1962.)

Why? If God’s unchanging will is willing my existence since forever then why did I not exist on August 14 1536?

As we can no doubt see, for us creation appears to be a roll out. For God, this is instantaneousness. It would be illogical to think otherwise. We are finite, composite beings, therefore, we are bound to motion/change. God is infinite, non-composite being, therefore, no motion, therefore no time. If he blasted all there was, is, and will be into existence at one time, providence would be an unadulterated, immense chaos. (And, if you continue to refuse to see the difference, we are at an impasse.)

On Monday the unchanging cause creates a mouse, which runs away. On Tuesday the unchanging cause creates a mouse, which runs away. On Wednesday the unchanging cause creates a mouse, which runs away. On Thursday … We do not see this in real life. Things do not appear like bullets from a Hollywood pistol with infinite ammunition. Each human is only created once, not recreated in the same state every day. We grow and change, we do not remain as a single celled zygote.

I guess we’re back to this again: Rossum “is only created once, not recreated in the same state every day. We grow and change, we do not remain as a single celled zygote.” Rossum is not a re-creation every day. Rossum is that object/substance that undergoes accidental changes every day. Creation is a one-time, roll-out event of potentially infinite duration for the universe as a whole.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Concepts of eternity have developed in a way that is, as a matter of fact, closely connected to the development of the concept of God in Western thought, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers; particularly to the idea of God’s relation to time, the idea of divine perfection, and the Creator-creature distinction. Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished.

You might want to adjust your definition.

Nagarjuna did not develop his ideas based on either the Greek philosophers or the concept of God in Western thought. He developed his ideas in response to the different schools of Buddhist, Hindu, Jain etc thought. If we are using two different versions of eternity then for accuracy we need two different words to distinguish the two different meanings.

You are using only one possible definition again: there are at least two: there is the concept of duration within time and, there is the concept of timeless duration.

I will grant you the first. I will not grant you the second. Duration is a measurable quantity that is measured in units of time. You cannot have a ‘timeless duration’ any more than you can have a ‘lengthless length’.

No. The blossom, per se, does not become the apple. Rather, the ovarian apparatus within the flower becomes the apple. The specific ovarian substance changes quantitatively to become the substance of the apple.

So, does the ovarian apparatus have Substance? Where was the Substance of the apple when it was an ovarian apparatus? Where is the Substance of the ovarian apparatus when it is an apple? What about years earlier when both apple and ovarian apparatus were a seedling bearing no resemblance to either ovarian apparatus or apple? You will no doubt note that I can repeat my questions no matter how finely you divide the process of change. Change and Thomist Substance do not make comfortable bedfellows.

But, that is no reason to re-define them. Substance does not equal eternal persistence. Substance is that which we see and understand to be subsistent. It is impossible to clearly define the color of an object without attaching it to the substance of which it is made, without saying, as Merleau-Ponty points out, “of this blue rug, for example, that it is ‘woolly blue’?”

If I remove one molecule from the rug does its substance change? I can in turn remove and replace each single molecule in the rug does its substance change? If I remove all the molecules in the rug simultaneously does its substance change? Is there anything in the rug apart from the molecules that it is made of? Show me this Substance, or is it merely a mental construct?

That’s as it may be, but, our senses are well known to be able to perceive said “reality” in its being-ness.

I disagree. Our senses are imperfect receptors. Can you smell as well as a bloodhound? Is what we smell more or less real than what a bloodhound smells? Is what a colour-blind person sees more or less real than what someone with normal colour vision sees?

We perceive accidental changes and we perceive substantial changes.

I have no problem with Accidental changes. Since I reject Substance I obviously reject Substantial changes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Not so. You are subjecting the infinite creative act to be a series of actions-in-time. Only for us are they actions-in-time. For God, they all occur without dependence on time.

This is nonsensical. Me at one year old was different from me at ten years old. Difference-in-time is fundamental to the difference between the two different versions of me. Without time there is no difference between them. Nor do I see any ‘infinite creative act’ because I see nothing created that is itself infinite. All created things have at least a beginning and so cannot be infinite.

They occur, as many of us have said, over and over again, in an Eternal Now.

A concept which I do not accept. In an eternal now I would be simultaneously past, present and future. I would be simultaneously yet to be conceived, alive and dead. The ‘Eternal Now’ is logically impossible unless I can be both alive and dead at the same instant of now.

How can one be a part of his creation?

I did not say “part of”, I said “How can the Creator be independent of His creation?” If there is no creation then obviously there is no creator since any supposed creator would not have created anything. A lion tamer cannot be a lion tamer unless he has actually tamed a lion or two. Any creator is dependent on their creation in order to be a creator.

Do you not understand that the so-called dependence of the Creator-creation duality can occur in simultaneity? Do you understand that God is still, for us, creating us? And, that it is one act of creation of timeless duration?

If two events are simultaneous then neither can cause the other. Causation requires that one event (the cause) exists before the other event (the effect). If they are simultaneous then we cannot determine which is cause and which is effect.

I know that God’s creation of me is not timeless. When I was conceived I was a single cell with no brain, no bones, no limbs etc. Today I have a brain, bones limbs etc. I have changed and I am certainly not timeless. God’s creation of me was not a timeless creation.

If he blasted all there was, is, and will be into existence at one time, providence would be an unadulterated, immense chaos.

Agreed. Since we do not see such chaos we can know the He did not do that. Instead He rolls out His creation over time with different things appearing at different times. Hence we can know that His actions in the world change over time.

I guess we’re back to this again: Rossum “is only created once, not recreated in the same state every day. We grow and change, we do not remain as a single celled zygote.” Rossum is not a re-creation every day. Rossum is that object/substance that undergoes accidental changes every day. Creation is a one-time, roll-out event of potentially infinite duration for the universe as a whole.

Since I reject Substance, just as Buddhism rejects souls, then all I am is Accident. We can, I think, both agree that Accident changes from day to day.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Apologies for a belated reply!

There is a significant difference. The caused universe is physical and whereas the First Cause is spiritual.

                             Whether physical or spiritual it is still involved in causation. If you can suspend the rules of causation for one then I can just as easily suspend the rules of causation for the other.We cannot suspend the rules of spiritual causation because we don't know what they are or how they function. The very fact that they are spiritual is a good reason to believe they are immutable like the laws of spiritual development.

The idea of a temporal continuum

between spiritual and material reality seems unintelligible.Just as to me the idea of a chain of causation between an unchanging spiritual entity and a changing physical world is unintelligible. How can something unchanging cause something that changes?Change can occur within an entity without affecting its fundamental nature. The goodness and power of the Creator does not change because they are infinite.

Your body is not you!

But is is a part of me. My physical body is one of the five parts into which Buddhist theory analyses a human being. Given that part of me is physical then I am subject to physical limitations such as gravity.But your mind isn’t subject to physical limitations.

I agree but there is an element of freedom which overrides physical causes that requires explanation.

Our pasts set limits on what we can do in the present. Our actions in the present will impact our freedom to act in the future. The explanation lies in our pasts. Due to my past actions I was born as a human, not as a bird. As a human I have the freedom to do some things that birds cannot do. Were I a bird then I would have the freedom to do other things that birds can do but humans cannot. Our presents are conditioned by our pasts.I agree but they aren’t completely conditioned; otherwise we wouldn’t be responsible for anything we think or do.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

whoops!!