The Buddhist approach differs from the usual Western approach to the nature of the world. In Buddhist philosophy change needs no explanation as to its origin since the world is change.
Then Buddhism is just serving an assertion with out question.
Since you have shown no evidence that you have really addressed my last post and acknowledged the logical contradictions that you face in supporting your position, i don’t think that i can consider your choice of Buddhism a surprise.
It is stasis, non-change, that needs the explanation.
I am no-longer interested in answering your posts, but for the sake of other people who honestly want to learn, i will give one more attempt at an explanation.
First of all; Necessity does not need an explanation and neither does it require your understanding, and we cannot expect to fully understand it because we do not experience it directly in the same way that we experience immediate physical objects. This is not a cop-out, since on the other hand, we know that potential reality needs an explanation because we understand it and thats because we experience it directly; and because of that we can also understand that potentiality cannot exist by itself and therefore it would be dishonest of us to leave it unexplained. The only possible explanation is a “
reality” that is not synonymous with potential beings or events. The existence of such a reality is a necessary existential prerequisite of potentiality and so does not need an explanation in-order to be accepted as real, since it must be accepted in-order to preserve objective logic. Its not just that potentiality needs an explanation, but also rationality and logical truth itself needs an existential foundation that is not potentially real or a product of potentiality; and this is because
logical truth is eternal, it does not change. The first cause is absolutely necessary for the existence of these things, we cannot question its existence without destroying logical discourse.
Thus in-order to preserve objective logic we must admit that therefore the idea of a unchanging first cause is only apparently contradictory because of our epistemological limitations, and not ontologically contradictory.
The first cause is still an intellectual problem, but not because of a flaw in the idea of a first cause. Rather it exists because of our finite capacity to understand. However, we can still grasp some understanding of how it is possible.
It begins in the understanding that the first cause is absolutely perfect in its existence and nature. We must also accept that the first cause cannot be something that is non-intelligent. We must also understand that because the first cause is perfect that therefore its intelligence and will is also perfect in its expression of that existence. We must also understand that a perfect will as a perfect expression somethings nature has no beginning because it is one with its nature. Because it is one with its nature, it does not change and does need to because its will is to express its nature perfectly. We must also understand that God does not create for any imperfect reason, since this would cause a change in its nature, and since the first cause is already a perfect being, to seek perfection is contradictory. Thus we must understand that the will to create is the will to share its perfection, and that this will is a perfect expression of its nature, and because its will is a perfect expression of its nature, the will to create does not have a beginning, and thus never changes, because it has always existed with God. The act of sharing ones perfections is act of love, and thus love is an intrinsic and timeless expression of the first cause in respect of its nature. To love is intrinsic to the nature of perfection. To love is to share ones perfections. One of those perfections is to “exist”. Thus we can understand why things other than God exist, because they are all to varying degrees sharing in Gods perfection. Because love does not discriminate, all things that are logically possible could exist, but whether or not they come to exist will not be determine directly via fiat by God, but rather God timelessly creates a seed of potentiality which contains principles and laws which is left to freely evolve.
God is not non-activity (
stasis), but rather God is pure activity. Pure activity is not made up of many things or potential events, but rather is one and simple. This kind of activity cannot be imperfect, and this is to say that it does not take on more existence. His “perfect will” is eternally present in his “perfect being” and is a perfect expression of his nature. Since the will of such a being is to express its nature perfectly, its will never changes because its nature has always existed. The world in a sense is
eternally created; and this would be to say that “creation” for God is not an “event”, but rather it is something that has forever existed, since it is a timeless expression of Gods timeless will. Time itself sits on the eternal will of God. Gods creativity has never not existed.
An unchanging cause cannot cause a changing effect.
Not true.
An imperfect nature with an imperfect will cannot cause an effect without changing. Also an imperfect cause does not have in its nature alone the power to bring about the reality of the effect because it not itself the source of reality, but rather it is a mere medium to reality. The universe cannot exist without perfection.
