First Cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shoe said:
I think that to posit God, who by Webster’s definition is “the supreme or ultimate reality," as the uncaused first cause of the universe is valid because no evidence to the contrary has ever been produced. And since Christians are not postulating that God had a beginning but that He is infinite and eternal in nature, it therefore isn’t necessary for them to have to explain God as the first cause.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with an eternal and unchanging God: On the first day God said “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day God said “Let there be light,” and on the fifth day…

How can an unchanging God sustain a changing universe? 200 years ago He wasn’t sustaining any of us here now. How can He now be sustaining us without Himself changing from what He was 200 years ago?

rossum
 
rossum said:
If time starts with the first effect, how can you tell that the cause came ‘before’ the effect. There is no ‘before’ if there is no time. Causation requires time in order to be able to distinguish between the cause and the effect. If they are simultaneous, or eternal, how can you tell which was which?
rossum
Click to expand...
Simultaneous causation. God always existed, but the universe began to exist. The causation was not temporal, but simultaneous. That is to say, God caused the universe and the universe began all at once. The latter requires the former, however. It’s difficult to explain, but that’s the case.
 
rossum said:
How can an unchanging God sustain a changing universe? 200 years ago He wasn’t sustaining any of us here now. How can He now be sustaining us without Himself changing from what He was 200 years ago?

rossum
Click to expand...
Unchanging means he doesn’t change His mind. He always planned what to do, knows what we will do, and is simply implementing His plan. He changed what He was DOING in those 200 years but not His PLAN or DESIRE.
 
rossum said:
…
How can an unchanging God sustain a changing universe? 200 years ago He wasn’t sustaining any of us here now. How can He now be sustaining us without Himself changing from what He was 200 years ago?

rossum
Click to expand...
G-d is omnipresent. He is equally present at every point that can be said to exist. All change therefore is entailed within G-d. Actus Purus. The act of existing.
 
Pieman333272 said:
Unchanging means he doesn’t change His mind.
Click to expand...
If it is His mind and it changes then He changes. If He does not change then the mind that is changing is not His mind.

The problem with an unchanging God is that everything suddenly gets set in concrete. How can the mind of an unchanging God change?

rossum
 
rossum said:
If it is His mind and it changes then He changes. If He does not change then the mind that is changing is not His mind.

The problem with an unchanging God is that everything suddenly gets set in concrete. How can the mind of an unchanging God change?

rossum
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. What is your point?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
G-d is omnipresent. He is equally present at every point that can be said to exist. All change therefore is entailed within G-d. Actus Purus. The act of existing.
Click to expand...
Then God changes because things change, as e can observe. An unchanging God is not in accordance with observations.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Then God changes because things change, as e can observe. An unchanging God is not in accordance with observations.

rossum
Click to expand...
No, because the things are infinitely separate from God. You seem to think we are Panentheists. We aren’t. God and the Universe are 2 distinct things.
 
rossum said:
How can an unchanging God sustain a changing universe? 200 years ago He wasn’t sustaining any of us here now. How can He now be sustaining us without Himself changing from what He was 200 years ago? rossum
Click to expand...
God’s nature is always the same. The Bible says that God is the same today, tomorrow, and forever. But the God-created universe is separate from God in that it has a different nature. And since God made the universe with a different nature from His own, it is not logically necessary that the universe should share in God’s nature of immutability. In other words, the universe may change but God’s nature of immutability, eternal life, love, etc., does not.
 
Pieman333272 said:
No, because the things are infinitely separate from God. You seem to think we are Panentheists. We aren’t. God and the Universe are 2 distinct things.
Click to expand...
I define the universe as “all that exists”. If God is distinct from the universe then God does not exist.

What definition are you using for the universe?

rossum
 
shoe said:
God’s nature is always the same.
Click to expand...
As a Buddhist I have immense problems with the reification of God into God Himself and ‘God’s nature’. If God is different to ‘God’s nature’ then we have two different things to discuss. If God is the same as ‘God’s nature’ then why add a redundant extra term with no extra meaning?
The Bible says that God is the same today, tomorrow, and forever.
Click to expand...
No it does not. Read Genesis 1. God does different things on different days. Different is not the same.
But the God-created universe is separate from God in that it has a different nature. And since God made the universe with a different nature from His own, it is not logically necessary that the universe should share in God’s nature of immutability.
Click to expand...
By observation we can see that the universe is not immutable. Things change.
In other words, the universe may change but God’s nature of immutability, eternal life, love, etc., does not.
Click to expand...
Then God’s nature is contingent. How can we tell He is immutable without time? How can we tell He is eternal without time? That makes ‘God’s nature’ contingent on time. Going back to my opening paragraph, have you now established that God and ‘God’s nature’ are two different things?

rossum
 
rossum said:
Does God sustain things? Does God sustain me? 200 years ago God was not sustaining me. Now He is. That is a change.

rossum
Click to expand...
G-d is equally present at all points that can be said to exist. That’s the point of being omnipresent. What you consider to be 200 years ago to you, is now to Him.
 
God is not part of the universe, he is outside it - if things change in the universe they do not meant that God has changed also.
As a Buddhist I have immense problems with the reification of God into God Himself and ‘God’s nature’. If God is different to ‘God’s nature’ then we have two different things to discuss. If God is the same as ‘God’s nature’ then why add a redundant extra term with no extra meaning?
Click to expand...
And as I understand it God is identical to his nature. I think by nature they mean the attributes of God.
 
rossum said:
Then the First Cause is not God either. The First Cause is dependent on the First Effect; if there is not effect then there cannot have been a cause. A cause requires and effect just as an effect requires a cause.
Click to expand...
Let’s see: ‘dependent’: what do you mean when you use this term here?
All causes are dependent on some effect in order that they are a cause. A parent cannot be a parent without children.
Click to expand...
So, if the only child of two people dies, they stop being ‘parents’? Does it matter when the child dies?
Since any First Cause is contingent,
Click to expand...
Let’s see: ‘contingent’: what do you mean by the use of this term here?
it depends on something else, it cannot be God under your definition.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s sort out the semantics first, then we’ll see.

God bless,
jd
 
rossum said:
Correct. Also the description “First” implies the existence of time since we are talking about “First in time”. Without time we cannot decide between the First Cause and the Second Cause.

rossum
Click to expand...
Rossum:

So, a ‘second grader’ who is only six cannot be called a ‘second grader’ because he is temporally not seven. He must therefore be called a ‘first grader’ just like all of the other six years olds as they are only in first grade?

But, nevermind, you are probably right in this. Within the initial Planck era of the universe, there was time: and all that existed, at that time, was the first effect and the First Cause. That was tough. Whew!

God bless,
jd
 
rossum said:
As a Buddhist I have immense problems with the reification of God into God Himself and ‘God’s nature’. If God is different to ‘God’s nature’ then we have two different things to discuss. If God is the same as ‘God’s nature’ then why add a redundant extra term with no extra meaning?
Click to expand...
God is not different to “God’s nature,” as you put it. Everything that exists has a nature. The eagle has the nature of an eagle. We humans have a human nature. And the Divine Nature of God is loving, righteous, patience, pure, kind, good, etc. (And when Jesus walked upon the earth, He mirrored God’s Divine Nature perfectly.)
No it does not. Read Genesis 1. God does different things on different days. Different is not the same.
Click to expand...
“For I am the Lord, and I change not: and you the sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6).

“But thou art always the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail” (Psalm 102:27).

“Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same forever” (Hebrew 13:8). (Since Jesus is God incarnate, His Deity and Holiness are also the same forever.)

“Every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father of lights, with whom is no variation nor shadow of turning” (James 1:17).
Then God’s nature is contingent. How can we tell He is immutable without time? How can we tell He is eternal without time? That makes ‘God’s nature’ contingent on time. Going back to my opening paragraph, have you now established that God and ‘God’s nature’ are two different things?rossum
Click to expand...
God is the creator of time and is therefore independent of time. God is neither contingent on time nor restrained with the constraints of anything in His creation. Actually, it’s the other way around: everything that God has made is contingent upon God, but God is not contingent upon anything that He has made, including time.
 
Look at how smart we all are! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top