Changeless God cannot create

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is why Bahman is wrong and has always been wrong for the past year.

The error here is the assumption that that God can be placed in the box of human reasoning. He can’t. He told us himself that he does not change, yet he also tells us that he created us and the whole order of creatures and spirits in time, out of nothing.
Therefore God’s creation and governance do not mean that God changes.

That God is simple and changeless is both a philosophical conclusion and an element of Divine Revelation.

That God created the universe out of nothing, in time is an element of Divine Revelation only.

Bahman has mixed data from Philosophy and Revelation together to reach a philosophical conclusion. That is inadmissable. One must argue strictly from philosophy or from Divine Revelation. The basis of the former is human reason, the basis for the later is Divine Revelation. Bahman cannot reach a valid conclusion by mixing arguments based on two mutually exclusive modes of reasoning, one natural and the other Divine. This is to mix apples and oranges.

Therefore the argument fails.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

This is where you made your mistake. Why does the fact that creation has a beginning in time require that God change?

I think you are probably confusing eternality with sempiternality here. God is eternal; He is outside of time altogether and does not change. He is not sempiternal; He is not “along for the ride” so-to-speak on an infinite timeline that just happens to coincide with the finite timeline of creation. God is eternally causing the universe to be real at every point in time. That does not require a change in God since He is always doing that and has always been doing that. The universe has been eternally present to Him. But that does not mean that the universe must have an infinite past. All it requires is that God is always present to every point on the timeline. There was never a time at which God was not sustaining the universe in existence whether or not the universe is past-finite. His effects unfold in time but His eternal creative act does not unfold in time.

Here’s an analogy that another CAF poster used in the past: imagine a light source situated above a string. In between the string is a filter that separates the light into all the colors of the visible spectrum. So the one end of the string is red and progresses all the way to violet on the opposite end. There is certainly a change in color as you progress down the string, but there is no change in the light source, nor will there ever be a change in the light source, and the change in colors along the string is only made manifest due to the continual action of the light source. That is analogous to what God is doing as it concerns His eternal creative act and the universe’s mutability (and I don’t claim it as a perfect analogy, only as something to get you thinking about it the right way).

I’m also not sure how you interpret your second premise. Creation is not a part of God’s intellect. God is one simple intellective act. Creation is again an effect of God’s intellection and not a property of it.

1. God is changeless and eternal
2. Assume that creation has a beginning
3. This requires a change in existence since we are dealing with a situation that something does not exist then it does
4. This requires a change in God which is contrary to (1)
5. Hence (1) is wrong unless creation is the result of accident

 

[Bahman]

The error here is the assumption that you think that God can be placed in the box of human reasoning. He can’t. He told us himself that he does not change, yet he also tells us that he created us and the whole order of creatures and spirits in time, out of nothing.
Therefore God’s creation and governance do not mean that God changes.

That God is simple and changeless is both a philosophical conclusion and an element of Divine Revelation.

That God created the universe out of nothing, in time is an element of Divine Revelation only.

You have mixed data from Philosophy and Revelation together to reach a philosophical conclusion. That is inadmissable. You must argue strictly from philosophy or from Divine Revelation. The basis of the former is human reason, the basis for the later is Divine Revelation. Your conclusion is based on human reason. Apples and oranges.

You have been doing this for a year. That is why your arguments fail.

Linus2nd

Well, I can assume that God exist and changeless as a philosophical axiom and see if I reach to an contradiction. Couldn’t I?

 

[Bahman]

Just one observed example we know: The uncertain principle from quantum mechanics is a unchanging(at least for now) principle, yet it creates temporary mass all the time. God himself is an unchanging living principle that created the universe. Look for energy time uncertainty

So you mean that creation is the result of an accident?

Creation is not infinite, but God keeps it for ever alive. For example by delaying the end like forever.

You are contradicting yourself here. Creation is either is finite in time or infinite, the first one is purposeless and the second one is impossible.

 

[Bahman]

I never said anything of the sort, and I think you know that. When I say “infinite” and “finite,” of course, I don’t mean that in a way confined to mere temporal extension, but rather that to be finite is to be limited, and to be infinite is to be unlimited. If something had a finite beginning, but has continual extension beyond that, then it is still limited, since there was a time when it did not have being. So far from accepting the destruction of creation, I have simply pointed out that God is limitless, and his creation is limited, since an effect cannot exceed its cause. This does not necessarily mean all that is created will be destroyed, just that it is not limitless, since it had a beginning and was contingent on a being without beginning or end.

Well, a universe that has no end suffer from the same problem of a universe which has no beginning just consider a shift of infinity toward the end which means that you have no beginning.

Think of it in mathematical terms. If God is like a line (this of course being an analogy, and thus limited, since God is not a mere set of points that continues without limit in both directions), then creation is like a line segment–it is begun, and thus continues on without limit from the point where it began, sustained in being by God.

-ACEGC

Lets accept God as a changeless line. What cause a change at the moment of creation, if it is not God then it has to be an accident!

 

[Bahman]

God is not subject to existence, God is being (pure actuality, no potentiality) No begining, no end and therefore has the power to bring forth things into or out of existence.

A changeless God can only create an eternal universe since God existence and creation has to lay at the same point.

This requires no change in God by strict definition.

It does if creation has a beginning.

That something comes into existence by God’s will does not mean that God changes. It means God causes…

This negates your #4 and 5 and affirms #1

The assumption that God and Creation are the same, making God subject to change, is a gross error and where your argument falls apart.

The question is whether universe has a beginning or not. An eternal universe does not impose any change in God whereas a creation with beginning does require a change. An eternal creation however cannot be created since infinity exhausts infinity.

 

[belorg]

Just one observed example we know: The uncertain principle from quantum mechanics is a unchanging(at least for now) principle, yet it creates temporary mass all the time. God himself is an unchanging living principle that created the universe. Look for energy time uncertainty

The uncertainty principle doesn’t create anything.
The philosophical implications of the UP are, among other things, that there is no such thing as immutability.

 

[balto]

1. God is changeless and eternal
2. Assume that creation has a beginning
3. This requires a change in existence since we are dealing with a situation that something does not exist then it does
4. This requires a change in God which is contrary to (1)
5. Hence (1) is wrong unless creation is the result of accident

The error comes in at premise 3. The only reason why we have a coherent notion of time is because we exist in a changing universe. There is no such thing as a “time before the universe” as I said earlier. So it is not the case that there was a time before the universe when there was nothing and then all of a sudden there is something. If there really were a time before the universe, then this “time before the universe” would not be “nothing” (understood as no-thing, metaphysical nothingness) but something like empty space, or a quantum vacuum, or an empty multiverse. In that case, “creation” refers to the universe plus this finite or infinite state “before the universe” so you still have an eternal, changeless God sustaining creation at every moment of its existence (since “every moment” now refers to the universe plus this pre-universe state) only now you’ve proposed the existence of extra entities and/or states.

 

[Bahman]

The error comes in at premise 3. The only reason why we have a coherent notion of time is because we exist in a changing universe. There is no such thing as a “time before the universe” as I said earlier. So it is not the case that there was a time before the universe when there was nothing and then all of a sudden there is something. If there really were a time before the universe, then this “time before the universe” would not be “nothing” (understood as no-thing, metaphysical nothingness) but something like empty space, or a quantum vacuum, or an empty multiverse. In that case, “creation” refers to the universe plus this finite or infinite state “before the universe” so you still have an eternal, changeless God sustaining creation at every moment of its existence (since “every moment” now refers to the universe plus this pre-universe state) only now you’ve proposed the existence of extra entities and/or states.

Can you define creation please? I think everybody agree that this by definition is the causing of something from nothing.

 

[dmar198]

A changeless God can only create an eternal universe since God existence and creation has to lay at the same point.

I think God can eternally create something with a beginning point. In His eternal mind, He would just think about it having a timeline with a beginning point, and then the creation would have a temporal beginning without anything changing in God. Does that make sense?

 

[balto]

Can you define creation please? I think everybody agree that this by definition is the causing of something from nothing.

Yes, I agree with that definition. The problem is, I suspect, that you and I have different understandings of what it means for God to create from nothing. I think you are conceiving of God in an essentially deistic way, where God is something complex, albeit very powerful, composed of actuality and potentiality, and essentially acts by reducing potentials to act like a human does. But a classical theist that argues that God is purely actual and hence absolutely simple would deny that this understanding of God is correct. Even if something like the deistic conception of God were true, then that “God” would need the classical theistic God to sustain him in existence just like the rest of the universe does.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I can assume that God exist and changeless as a philosophical axiom and see if I reach to an contradiction. Couldn’t I?

You can go either way, you can stick to pure reason or stick to pure Revelation. But Revelation trumps. Any reasoning process, whether of philosophy or of science which contradicts Revelation would be in error.

Linus2nd

 

[JButky]

A changeless God can only create an eternal universe since God existence and creation has to lay at the same point.

But they do not begin together, God is being, not subject to coming in or going out of existence. You seem to want to ignore that.

The question is whether universe has a beginning or not. An eternal universe does not impose any change in God whereas a creation with beginning does require a change. An eternal creation however cannot be created since infinity exhausts infinity.

It doesn’t really matter whether or not it has a beginning or not, but, we do know that the universe is in a constant state of change, meaning, it is not being and must have come into existence at some point. (something demonstrating change means it was created and cannot be being itself) It is therefore different from God. God is being (without beginning or end, not created) and different than the universe, so it is not possible that something without a beginning “started” (meaning was created) at the same time as the universe.

Trying to somehow associate God’s existence with the start of the universe is not rational. Trying to associate God as the universe is equally irrational strictly from the argument from motion (change)

 

[Nurabsal]

I think the error in the original post lies in its lack of distinction between intrinsic and so-called “Cambridge change,” or extrinsic change.

The classic example of Cambridge change is a person A who is at first 5’6", who then grows to 5’8", all while person B remains 5’6". After person A is heightened, person B acquires the extrinsic property of being shorter than person A, although no intrinsic change in him as it did in person A. As such, God eternally wills to create the world and all that happens in it; yet our immutable Creator only undergoes Cambridge/extrinsic change with respect to it.

 

[Michael19682]

1. God does not change
2. Creation was a part of God’s thought
3. From (1) and (2) we can deduce that creation has to be eternal
4. Creation has a beginning though hence it require change in God
5. (3) and (4) contradict each other hence (1) is wrong

Why can’t you make God’s will single pointed and unwavering in your enumeration of the totality— so that creation is the single effect of his unchanging love,

plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,
captures it, but nor exactly,

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. God does not change
2. Creation was a part of God’s thought
3. From (1) and (2) we can deduce that creation has to be eternal
4. Creation has a beginning though hence it require change in God
5. (3) and (4) contradict each other hence (1) is wrong

Philosophically you are wrong.

1. Correct, God does not change.
   2, Correct.
2. Correct only from a philosophical point of view.
3. Wrong, philosophically, creation does not have to have a beginning. Philosophically, # 2 is correct and #3 is wrong.Therefore your conclusion is incorrect.
   Further, something to change it must be composed of potentiality and existence. In God there is no potentiality, he is pure existence or pure act. So he cannot change.
   5, #1 is correct and # 5 is wrong. The reason it is correct has nothing to do with creation. The reason it is correct is that in God there is no potentiality to change,he is pure act, so he cannot change. Since God cannot change, his knowledge, thought, will and acts are eternal and one with his Essence. His ad extra acts ( from our point of view ) are one and eternal with his Essence, he exists and acts in the eternal now. It is we who are changeable and mutable.

According to Divine Revelation you are wrong.

1. We know from Faith that God does not change, " For I am God, and I change not. " ( Hebr. 6, 17, Mal, 3, 6 ). And it is a Defined Dogma of the Catholic Church that God does not change.
2. Creation is not eternal. " In the beginning God created heaven and earth. " And it is Defined Dogma of the Catholic Churdh that God created the entire universe in time, out of nothing.
3. Creation had a beginning because God revealed to us that it had a beginning. This does not require a change in God. Revelation teaches that God is one, uncomposed, eternal, does not change, is all powerful, and knows all things. And the Catholic Church theaches all these things Dogmatically. And since God has revealed that he does not change and that he has created the universe in time, we conclude that creation causes no change in God, we conclude that he has the power and the will to do what he says, and that it causes no change in him.
4. Your conclusion is wrong according to Revelation and Catholic Dogma. Faith trumps all.

Linus2nd.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, I agree with that definition. The problem is, I suspect, that you and I have different understandings of what it means for God to create from nothing. I think you are conceiving of God in an essentially deistic way, where God is something complex, albeit very powerful, composed of actuality and potentiality, and essentially acts by reducing potentials to act like a human does. But a classical theist that argues that God is purely actual and hence absolutely simple would deny that this understanding of God is correct. Even if something like the deistic conception of God were true, then that “God” would need the classical theistic God to sustain him in existence just like the rest of the universe does.

In Fact my problems is with theist God. My argument is very simple: Anything that has a beginning requires a change in what caused it. Anything that sustains a changeable thing requires changes as well. How theist God can sustain the creation without knowledge of the current time which is subject to change since creation changes. Hence a God who sustains creation has to change unless one argue that the creation as a whole is constant which resolves the issue of sustainability but the problem of beginning still stands.

 

[Bahman]

You can go either way, you can stick to pure reason or stick to pure Revelation. But Revelation trumps. Any reasoning process, whether of philosophy or of science which contradicts Revelation would be in error.

Linus2nd

So you mean that God embedded us in a universe which is logical yet himself being illogical?

Moreover, I don’t agree that revelation is a trump especially if there is no way to justify it, even worst if it is irrational. Belief is simply an state of mind and could be wrong.

 

[Bahman]

But they do not begin together, God is being, not subject to coming in or going out of existence. You seem to want to ignore that.

I meant that universe has to be eternal as well.

It doesn’t really matter whether or not it has a beginning or not, but, we do know that the universe is in a constant state of change, meaning, it is not being and must have come into existence at some point. (something demonstrating change means it was created and cannot be being itself) It is therefore different from God. God is being (without beginning or end, not created) and different than the universe, so it is not possible that something without a beginning “started” (meaning was created) at the same time as the universe.

Trying to somehow associate God’s existence with the start of the universe is not rational. Trying to associate God as the universe is equally irrational strictly from the argument from motion (change)

It is not clear to me that why something that changes has to have a beginning. I have been thinking for a while on this topic but I couldn’t come with a solid argument. I would be happy to hear any argument from you.

 

[Bahman]

Why can’t you make God’s will single pointed and unwavering in your enumeration of the totality— so that creation is the single effect of his unchanging love,

plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,
captures it, but nor exactly,

All the problem arises from the fact when creation has a beginning. I cannot imagine a changeless God which can cause a change in existence. Could you? The only way to avoid this tension is to claim that creation does not need any change in state of existence which is quite irrational in my opinion.