B
Bahman
Guest
What do you mean with eternal? Do you mean that there was no beginning for Gods thoughts , if it is so why there should be any beginning at all, so called creation!? Don’t you see that contradiction?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
B
Bahman
Guest
No, I didn’t assume so. I assume that God is complete hence it cannot change. It is eternal, so it has no beginning no end. Gods thoughts should be manifested as creation as creation concept itself is a thought which should exist in Gods thoughts. This means that creation is eternal, namely have no beginning no end as it is attached to no changing God unless you accept there could be changes in God which is contrary. But the creation per se is defined as something that has a beginning which is contrary with what we said in last sentence, meaning that you cannot sum up an unchanging God and creation together.
Read previous comment.
Y
yppop
Guest
If you remove an infinity of points associated with the integers from the real number line there will still be an infinity of real numbers left. Since the integers are included in the real numbers, we have a situation where the part is equal to the whole. Mathematically speaking, the infinite can not be changed by subtraction of an infinite number of integers. If mathematicians can devise this seemingly implausible situation, why couldn’t God do the implausible, such as think and not change?
God is infinite, consequently we should have no trouble understanding how God can remain immutable while still thinking. God could do anything, for example, devise the manner (that surely included thought) in which a universe is created and still remain unchanged…
Perhaps you’d like to address the point I made that your two modalities of “created” time must lead to an infinite regress?
Yppop
D
davidv
Guest
That seems to be the basis of your claim in post #39. How else do you explain your assertion there?
Bahman#39:
I only see an unsound, in not invalid, argument.
B
Bahman
Guest
No, because it the set is not complete then. Lets assume that you just remove one single number, lets say 3. There comes a naggy guy eventually asking what is the result of 1+2 which is 3 that you don’t have it in your set hence you are going to have a problem.
Because there is nothing implausible in mathematics since it is exact. Your set is not complete as previously stated so you are no allowed to remove one single element.
You mean that Gods knowledge is infinite so anything can be added to it without changing the infinite!? That is a false argument, please read first comment.
Infinite regressing has a deep root in incompleteness of an assertion. It simply means that what you assume is not complete hence you face an anomaly soon or late hence you cannot get ride of infinite regression.
B
Bahman
Guest
Now I got you. That was the response to “Why do you think God’s thought can be separate from His being?”. I put myself in your shoe and can accept that Gods thoughts are not separate from him. However, nothing can be add to this set of thought since God is complete otherwise. God however has no beginning not end, hence his thoughts. Moreover, any thought in Gods mind should manifest itself as existence meaning that any being but God is as eternal as God. Now lets add the concept of creation to this set of thoughts which state that there are some being which have beginning. This however confer the idea of completeness and eternality of God hence it cannot be a God thought since it requires changes or in another word not being eternal. So the concept creation is a big lie, where it comes from? I don’t know.
D
davidv
Guest
We exist, so creation is more than a concept. Not a lie.
The key difference between between us and God is time (change). To project our time based understanding on God is a major error.
B
Bahman
Guest
No, what I am claiming is that you exist, hence you are eternal. You probably didn’t get my point. The problem is that there could not be any beginning since 1) God is eternal, 2) 2) God is complete hence cannot change, 3) His thought should manifest into existence, hence you are eternal. You didn’t simply have a beginning.
D
davidv
Guest
Without evidence, or valid logic, you claim is empty. I have evidence that I had a beginning in time, therefore I am not eternal.
Actual I believe I do. I don’t accept it as a truth.
This is faulty logic and is evidence of the falsity of you claim.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
God does not think, he knows: S.T., Part 1, Ques 14, Art 7
Article 7. Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?
Objection 1. It seems that the knowledge of God is discursive. For the knowledge of God is not habitual knowledge, but actual knowledge. Now the Philosopher says (Topic. ii): “The habit of knowledge may regard many things at once; but actual understanding regards only one thing at a time.” Therefore as God knows many things, Himself and others, as shown above (2,5), it seems that He does not understand all at once, but discourses from one to another.
Objection 2. Further, discursive knowledge is to know the effect through its cause. But God knows things through Himself; as an effect (is known) through its cause. Therefore His knowledge is discursive.
Objection 3. Further, God knows each creature more perfectly than we know it. But we know the effects in their created causes; and thus we go discursively from causes to things caused. Therefore it seems that the same applies to God.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv), “God does not see all things in their particularity or separately, as if He saw alternately here and there; but He sees all things together at once.”
I answer that, In the divine knowledge there is no discursion; the proof of which is as follows. In our knowledge there is a twofold discursion: one is according to succession only, as when we have actually understood anything, we turn ourselves to understand something else; while the other mode of discursion is according to causality, as when through principles we arrive at the knowledge of conclusions. The first kind of discursion cannot belong to God. For many things, which we understand in succession if each is considered in itself, we understand simultaneously if we see them in some one thing; if, for instance, we understand the parts in the whole, or see different things in a mirror. Now God sees all things in one (thing), which is Himself. Therefore God sees all things together, and not successively. Likewise the second mode of discursion cannot be applied to God.
First, because this second mode of discursion presupposes the first mode; for whosoever proceeds from principles to conclusions does not consider both at once; secondly, because to discourse thus is to proceed from the known to the unknown. Hence it is manifest that when the first is known, the second is still unknown; and thus the second is known not in the first, but from the first. Now the term discursive reasoning is attained when the second is seen in the first, by resolving the effects into their causes; and then the discursion ceases. Hence as God sees His effects in Himself as their cause, His knowledge is not discursive.
Reply to Objection 1. Altogether there is only one act of understanding in itself, nevertheless many things may be understood in one (medium), as shown above.
Reply to Objection 2. God does not know by their cause, known, as it were previously, effects unknown; but He knows the effects in the cause; and hence His knowledge is not discursive, as was shown above.
Reply to Objection 3. God sees the effects of created causes in the causes themselves, much better than we can; but still not in such a manner that the knowledge of the effects is caused in Him by the knowledge of the created causes, as is the case with us; and hence His knowledge is not discursive.
Linus2nd
Article 7. Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?
Objection 1. It seems that the knowledge of God is discursive. For the knowledge of God is not habitual knowledge, but actual knowledge. Now the Philosopher says (Topic. ii): “The habit of knowledge may regard many things at once; but actual understanding regards only one thing at a time.” Therefore as God knows many things, Himself and others, as shown above (2,5), it seems that He does not understand all at once, but discourses from one to another.
Objection 2. Further, discursive knowledge is to know the effect through its cause. But God knows things through Himself; as an effect (is known) through its cause. Therefore His knowledge is discursive.
Objection 3. Further, God knows each creature more perfectly than we know it. But we know the effects in their created causes; and thus we go discursively from causes to things caused. Therefore it seems that the same applies to God.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv), “God does not see all things in their particularity or separately, as if He saw alternately here and there; but He sees all things together at once.”
I answer that, In the divine knowledge there is no discursion; the proof of which is as follows. In our knowledge there is a twofold discursion: one is according to succession only, as when we have actually understood anything, we turn ourselves to understand something else; while the other mode of discursion is according to causality, as when through principles we arrive at the knowledge of conclusions. The first kind of discursion cannot belong to God. For many things, which we understand in succession if each is considered in itself, we understand simultaneously if we see them in some one thing; if, for instance, we understand the parts in the whole, or see different things in a mirror. Now God sees all things in one (thing), which is Himself. Therefore God sees all things together, and not successively. Likewise the second mode of discursion cannot be applied to God.
First, because this second mode of discursion presupposes the first mode; for whosoever proceeds from principles to conclusions does not consider both at once; secondly, because to discourse thus is to proceed from the known to the unknown. Hence it is manifest that when the first is known, the second is still unknown; and thus the second is known not in the first, but from the first. Now the term discursive reasoning is attained when the second is seen in the first, by resolving the effects into their causes; and then the discursion ceases. Hence as God sees His effects in Himself as their cause, His knowledge is not discursive.
Reply to Objection 1. Altogether there is only one act of understanding in itself, nevertheless many things may be understood in one (medium), as shown above.
Reply to Objection 2. God does not know by their cause, known, as it were previously, effects unknown; but He knows the effects in the cause; and hence His knowledge is not discursive, as was shown above.
Reply to Objection 3. God sees the effects of created causes in the causes themselves, much better than we can; but still not in such a manner that the knowledge of the effects is caused in Him by the knowledge of the created causes, as is the case with us; and hence His knowledge is not discursive.
Linus2nd
B
Bahman
Guest
We have two options here, either you didn’t have a beginning, namely you are eternal or God has to change. There is no other option around.
Moreover, You could hardly remember your childhood how you could remember what you were and how you were doing before? Each birth is only a new beginning with the price of forgetting yourself.
Y
yppop
Guest
I take it that you are not familiar with transfinite numbers. Consider this:
The infinite set of rational numbers is designated aleph(0). The infinite set of real numbers is designated aleph (1). The infinite set of real numbers that is designated as aleph(1) includes the rational numbers. It has been shown that “aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1)”. In other words we can remove an infinity of rational numbers without changing aleph(1) one iota.
I did not say that mathematics is implausible and I fail to see how you extracted that from what I did say, namely, that subtracting the infinity (of real numbers) cannot be changed by subtracting an infinity (of integers) is SEEMINGLY implausible. You proved that what I said was seemingly implausible yourself by not believing it even though it’s true. Look it up if you find it seemingly implausible.
You should learn about infinity, it’s a very interesting concept that can help you to avoid making inane comments about it.
I don’t understand you definition of infinite regression, but don’t bother to respond because I know what infinite regressing is.
Yppop
D
davidv
Guest
This is false dicotomy. There is a third option. I can be created by God while God does not change.
Historical testimony is sufficient to demonstrate my beginning.
I don’t understand the last sentence.
B
Bahman
Guest
Introducing the concept of infinity doesn’t really help to resolve the problem since God being infinite mind should have knowledge of any single thought and that should be exhaustive for two reason, 1) thoughts are not complete if mind is bigger than thoughts, 2) adding any single thought affect God’s knowledge hence God.
Consider a framework for describing a subject matter. The framework might have one or more anomalies meaning that it could explain a part of subject matter but not the whole namely anomalies. Anomalies are resolvable if the framework is well-defined and you at least need two anomalies to do so. The framework could be well defined if you have one anomaly meaning that you have to use the sole anomaly to have a well defined framework meaning that you need a infinite regression if and only if the new framework after using the anomaly has the similar feather as old one, otherwise the framework is ill-defined.
The infinite regression as it was explained has a deep root in completeness of a framework since a complete framework is anomaly free since it could completely explain the subject matter.
B
Bahman
Guest
There is no third option.
- God is unchangeable meaning that he is complete
- God is eternal meaning that he has no beginning and no end
- The thought of creation is a part of God thought
- From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that thought of creation also doesn’t have any beginning
- Creation can be defined as a being caused by God and has a beginning
- (4) and (5) contradict with each other hence either (5) is wrong, or (1) or (2).
What is that?
It means that you could have no beginning yet constantly subject to change. The birth however defined as the exposure to new subject matter in general which is not possible unless you forget your old being.
D
davidv
Guest
So you claim. Your faulty logic does not support the claim, as #6 is a non sequitur.
What old being are you talking about?
B
Bahman
Guest
I did meant that you cannot marry unchangeable God with something which has beginning.
Why confused?
You without any doubt can say that you exist hence you have a self namely, an internal world which can experience external world, and this cannot come from nowhere hence it did exist yet your self used to experience something which is old to you and it is experiencing something new which is familiar to you. The perfect birth is the line which cut the your old world from the new one with the price that you forget all old experience.
A
Aloysium
Guest
This isn’t entirely clear, but you are talking about reincarnation; right?
Ok, there are, what, eight billion people on the planet and growing?
Where would the additional souls have come from?
How would the soul(s) first come into existence?
B
Bahman
Guest
No. The birth and death of each being happens at on instance with the exception that nothing is lost, all your old experiences which leaded to knowledge becomes internal to you at the time of death and you open your eyes open to new reality with the aim to have constant progress namely finding the absolute truth.
That is correct.
That is outcome of complexity left in old world. In reality a set of two entities is never equal to simple sum of two entities the extra quality is called complexity. It is complex because the by product has an internal world. The extra self comes from sex meaning that we are at the bottom.
There was no first soul since there was no beginning.
- Status