First Cause

[rossum]

yes, the only constant is change. The earth rotating around sun is constant, but at the same time the position of the earth is always changing.

Ten billion years ago the earth was not rotating round the sun. No change can be constant.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No, razredge said God exist outside his creation.

That maybe your definition but is irrelevant to what razredge said.

Which is why I asked my question, to try to get the two into line.

God created creation but He did not create the universe of all that exists.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God’s immutability identifies a quality of God’s nature and does not signify that God cannot think, know, create, or experience things.

Then God can only think one unchanging thought. He can only know one unchanging thing. He can only create one unchanging thing. He can only experience one unchanging thing. He can never think a new thought because that would be a change. He can never stop experiencing anything because that would be a change.

The basic character of free will is to utilize that free will. If a person decides one morning (free will) to walk to work rather than to take his or her usual bus, that decision did not change or alter that person’s nature. That person is the same person before, during and after the decision.

Here is where we disagree. You have a person, who does change, and a ‘nature of person’ which does not change. Those must be two different things because they have opposed properties. One thing cannot both change and not change simultaneously.

God is the uncaused first cause.

For the purposes of this argument I will grant you that God is uncaused. He cannot be a cause unless there is actually something He has caused, “cause” is contingent. He cannot be first unless there is some way of distinguishing first from second, “first” is contingent. While God may not be contingent, the “First Cause” most certainly is. Trying to equate the two is going to cause big logical problems.

Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.

Define “beginning” outside of time. Define “end” outside of time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In Malachi 3:6 God says “I am the Lord and I change not”.
According to your logic, once God made that statement He abdicated! He was no longer God because He changed!

Of course He changed. One day He said “Let there be light.” and on another day He said “I am the Lord and I change not”. How can that not be change? God’s nature does not change, as you said above, but God does change as He Himself says. Hence God is not the same as God’s nature and we can proceed to analyse two separate entities.

Until you begin to understand that God is not a detached, unfeeling, impervious, heedless power, then we can’t progress.

I take “unchanging” to mean “does not change”. I take change to mean “difference over time”. If something does not change then it is the same at whatever time you look at it. If its thoughts, feelings etc. are different then it has changed. This is a standard Buddhist analysis of the implications of changelessness and is the reason Budhism emphasises change rather than stasis.

In other words, to answer another of your questions, he can think of you today and of your great-great grandfather a couple of hundred years ago and still have the same unchanging nature.

I have mentioned before my problems with X and nature-of-X and this is an excellent example. If God is thinking different things at different times then God is changing. If nature-of-God doesn’t change then we are back to two separate entities with opposed properties.

You are not accepting of the notion of God having a nature, just like you have a nature and a tree has a nature.

Buddhism completely rejects the idea of a ‘nature’ or ‘esence’ behind things. No Platonic ideals or Thomist substances.

God is immutable. His creation is mutable. And contingent!

How can an unchanging God create in time? How can an unchanging God sustain a changing creation?

The Christian notion of God is that His nature does not change. The Bible is explicit on this.

The Bible is also explicit that God speaks and acts differently at different times. Hence the logical incoherence of the Christian position. The Buddhist position is the change is ubiquitous, even for the gods.

cont.d

The term we were discussing was “immutability”, not “unchangeability”. There is a massive difference.

I do not see a difference. What do you see as the difference?

You are attempting to prove that God is an uncaring, detached, rock.

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I am attempting to show that the property of unchangability renders the object incapable of any action. It locks the object rigidly into place negating any possibility of change.

After all I wrote that - The immutability you seem to envisage would indicate a being of sheer power, but indifferent, insensitive and unresponsive, like a magic rock. That doesn’t accord with the Christian concept of God" You agreed.

I am trying to show the impossibility of an active God, such as the Christian God, being “unchanging”. The “magic rock” is the logical consequence of “unchanging”. Since that does not correspond to the Christian God then it should be obvious that the solution is to drop the insistence on “unchanging”, since it is that which is generating the logical problems.

Buddhism is not the subject of this thread. I find it strange that you need to convolute the meaning of accepted Christian terms by introducing Buddhist philosophy to try to prove a point.

I find Nagarjuna’s analysis of change to be compelling. Since it is not well known in the West I trot it out sometimes to get discussion going. It is a very different approach to the subject than taken by most Western philosophers.

PS: last I heard, Nirvana had disbanded.

A bit after my time. I was more Velvet Underground and Hendrix.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m in a quandary: “logical existence?” What is ‘logical existence’ contingent on?

Can a childless parent logically exist? Logic tells us that all parents must have children if they are to be parents. There can be no parent unless somewhere there is also at least one child. There is a mutual logical dependency between parent and child. The same relationship exists between cause and effect.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

X does not equal G-d, which brings us back to the question you are trying to answer.

I don’t follow. What is it about things changing that makes G-d change?

 

[JDaniel]

In what sense do you ask this question?

Rossum:

I was curious, that’s all. I was simply curious as to whether the sign designation of ‘parenthood’ was ascribed on this side of the womb or the other. That’s all.

Something is contingent if it does not have independent absolute existence separate from everything else.

Again, I am confused: do you mean ‘independent absolute existence’ or do you mean “absolutely independent existence?”

A thing is contingent if it is dependent on something else.

Isn’t everything in the physicalist’s realm “contingent” then?

My life is contingent on the ambient temperature remaining within a certain range, on the presence of enough (but not too much) oxygen in the atmosphere and on many other things.

Do you know all of the ‘separate things’ upon which you are contingent? Or, could there be something that humans are unaware of?

God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can a …
rossum

Did you miss post #48?

 

[JDaniel]

Can a childless parent logically exist? Logic tells us that all parents must have children if they are to be parents. There can be no parent unless somewhere there is also at least one child. There is a mutual logical dependency between parent and child. The same relationship exists between cause and effect.

rossum

Rossum:

OK. Then, on the one hand, the existence of that item of required dependency must be ontological, as well as logical?

What is the difference between “ontological” and “logical?”

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

Again, I am confused: do you mean ‘independent absolute existence’ or do you mean “absolutely independent existence?”

Both.

Isn’t everything in the physicalist’s realm “contingent” then?

Yes. Everything in the Buddhists’ realm is contingent also. Absolutes have a lot of logical problems; contingency is much easier to deal with.

Do you know all of the ‘separate things’ upon which you are contingent? Or, could there be something that humans are unaware of?

We are contingent on a huge number of things. It is practically certain that we are not aware of all of them.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes, I did miss your post #48. My apologies.

X does not equal G-d, which brings us back to the question you are trying to answer.

If God is sustaining X then God has also changed. God-sustaining-X(-200) =/= God-sustaining-X(0) because we know X(-200) =/= X(0).

If God-sustaining-Napoleon hadn’t changed then Napoleon would still be around.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Then, on the one hand, the existence of that item of required dependency must be ontological, as well as logical?

That dependency is observed. A child observably depends on its parents; parents observably cannot be parents without a child.

What is the difference between “ontological” and “logical?”

It is you who have introduced “ontological”. What extra does it bring to the argument?

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

No change can be constant.

So there is a time when things stop changing in order to stop their constant changing?

 

[Stephen168]

God created creation but He did not create the universe of all that exists.

Is there a difference?

 

[razredge]

Which is why I asked my question, to try to get the two into line.

God created creation but He did not create the universe of all that exists.

rossum

Can’t we say that the Big Bang was the First Cause that created the universe and that God created the Big Bang?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, I did miss your post #48. My apologies.

If God is sustaining X then God has also changed. God-sustaining-X(-200) =/= God-sustaining-X(0) because we know X(-200) =/= X(0).

If God-sustaining-Napoleon hadn’t changed then Napoleon would still be around.

rossum

G-d is neither X, nor Napoleon. G-d has not changed in your examples the contingent beings have. Omnipresent means that G-d is equally present at every point that can be said to exist. This implies that all X is entailed in G-d, hence, the metaphysical objection to a changing G-d.

 

[Stephen168]

Everything in the Buddhists’ realm is contingent also. Absolutes have a lot of logical problems; contingency is much easier to deal with.

Buddhism completely rejects the idea of a ‘nature’ or ‘esence’ behind things.

So Buddhism believes all events are random?

 

[John21652]

Of course He changed. One day He said “Let there be light.” and on another day He said “I am the Lord and I change not”. How can that not be change? God’s nature does not change, as you said above, but God does change as He Himself says. Hence God is not the same as God’s nature and we can proceed to analyse two separate entities.

If God is not the same as God’s nature, then God can’t have a nature and that’s just plain illogical.For example, if God created the Universe then his nature cannot be reflected in that creation. God’s nature couldn’t have created the universe, because, according to you, God’s nature is not God.

I take “unchanging” to mean “does not change”. I take change to mean “difference over time”. If something does not change then it is the same at whatever time you look at it. If its thoughts, feelings etc. are different then it has changed. This is a standard Buddhist analysis of the implications of changelessness and is the reason Budhism emphasises change rather than stasis.

I gave biblical quotes and there is a plethora of literature which all states the same, Christian belief, which is that God has an immutable nature. God’s nature includes free will, so He can do whatever he wants, whenever He wants, always according to His immutable nature.
You have moved the goal posts so you can introduce the concept of “unchanging” to show that God is a powerful pet rock. Wont work.

I have mentioned before my problems with X and nature-of-X and this is an excellent example. If God is thinking different things at different times then God is changing. If nature-of-God doesn’t change then we are back to two separate entities with opposed properties.

Every X has a nature which defines X as being an X. It’s that simple. Natures have properties.

Buddhism completely rejects the idea of a ‘nature’ or ‘esence’ behind things. No Platonic ideals or Thomist substances.

So? This thread isn’t about Buddhism. Only you are!

How can an unchanging God create in time? How can an unchanging God sustain a changing creation?

We;ve already dealt with your first question. The second contains a whole lot of other assumptions.

The Bible is also explicit that God speaks and acts differently at different times.

Yes, according to His immutable nature. God even says so Himself in malachi 3:6.

Hence the logical incoherence of the Christian position.

The "logical incoherence’ is in the minds of those who attempt to change the immutability of God’s nature into a concept of unchangeability.

The Buddhist position is the change is ubiquitous, even for the gods.

God’s nature is immutable, everything He created is mutable, with a couple of exceptions which I’ll leave to you to figure out.

I do not see a difference. What do you see as the difference?

First up, the reference is to God’s nature. His nature has parameters. The Bible, for one, attests to this. Your concept of unchangeability, as applied by you to God’s nature would mean he could not choose an action, such as creation. So your concept renders God as a powerful rock, trapped in a wheelchair, incapable of action, because any action would make him not-God.

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I am attempting to show that the property of unchangability renders the object incapable of any action. It locks the object rigidly into place negating any possibility of change.

See above.

I am trying to show the impossibility of an active God, such as the Christian God, being “unchanging”. The “magic rock” is the logical consequence of “unchanging”. Since that does not correspond to the Christian God then it should be obvious that the solution is to drop the insistence on “unchanging”, since it is that which is generating the logical problems.

Exactly! You introduced the concept of “unchangeability” into an argument which was always about God’s nature.

I find Nagarjuna’s analysis of change to be compelling. Since it is not well known in the West I trot it out sometimes to get discussion going. It is a very different approach to the subject than taken by most Western philosophers.

Whenever we read of someone writing or speaking of God’s immutability, they invariably leave out the word nature. The Bible, and all literature since written, speaks of God’s immutable nature. Therefore use of the term immutability is always in reference to God’s nature. One merely has to read through the Bible, or read later revelatory literature to know and understand that God has free will. Therefore, he can make decisions and, yes, do things differently if he so desires. However, it is always within the parameters of that nature that He acts and he promised to be reliable! Read Numbers 23:19, for example.

A bit after my time. I was more Velvet Underground and Hendrix.

rossum

I loved Jimi! Despite his music changeing, he was always Hendrix!!

 

[shoe]

Then God can only think one unchanging thought. He can only know one unchanging thing. He can only create one unchanging thing. He can only experience one unchanging thing. He can never think a new thought because that would be a change. He can never stop experiencing anything because that would be a change.

Here is where we disagree. You have a person, who does change, and a ‘nature of person’ which does not change. Those must be two different things because they have opposed properties. One thing cannot both change and not change simultaneously.

Yes, I do believe that we disagree on this. I do see the difference between God’s Immutability on the one hand and on the other hand God’s ability from within His Immutability to make decisions without changing His nature. I believe this to be the Christian view.

Define “beginning” outside of time. Define “end” outside of time.

I think that the words “beginning” and the “end” in this sense are used to indicate that eternity is not a place with an eternal hourglass infinitely measuring the passage of time; rather, eternity is a new dimension with new experiences that will go on everlastingly.

 

[rossum]

So there is a time when things stop changing in order to stop their constant changing?

A change from A to B is not the same as a change from B to C. It is a different change and hence a change from the first change.

rossum