Agreed.
I disagree. How do you know it is “First” and not “Second”? How can it be a cause without actually having caused something? If it had never caused anything then it cannot correctly be called “Cause”. Both parts of its designation require that it is contingent on something else.
Take your example of trees. Start with a large forest, composed of many trees. If I remove a single tree from the forest, then do I still have a forest? Yes, it is still a forest. If the forest is still a forest than the ‘nature of the forest’ is obviously not in the individual tree I have removed. Replace that tree and remove the next tree. Again, the ‘nature of the forest’ is not in that tree either. Replace the second tree and pick a third tree. Repeat until you have shown that the ‘nature of the forest’ does not reside in any individual tree. Since we cannot see the forest for the trees, we now remove each tree in turn, without replacing it. We have shown that none of the individual trees contain the ‘nature of the forest’ so removing the individual trees must leave the ‘nature of the forest’ behind. When all the individual trees have been removed, what is left must be the ‘nature of the forest’ because we have not removed it. What do you think is left?
We disagree. Counting from 1 to 2 is different from counting from 101 to 102, at least I hope my Bank thinks so. Stopping counting would be a change, but a different change.
We start from a single God with no parts. This God is immutable, unchanging. This God does different things at different times. Since change is incompatible with immutability you are in a logical paradox.
How do you define change if you are outside time? Change means that something at one time is different to another time. Ten years ago in time I was not the same as I am now; I have changed. How can I know if I have changed if I am outside time and “ten years ago” has no meaning?
You have an unchanging God. I have no problem with that. I have problems when you tell me that your unchanging God is changing.
A First Cause must be contingent. It cannot be “First” without depending on time; it cannot be a “Cause” without there being an effect. You can have your necessary non-contingent unchanging God, but that God cannot be the First Cause. The First Cause is contingent and changing.
But God is not a physical being, so your argument fails. If you do believe He is a physical being, then there is no common basis for our discussion, and nothing you say demonstrates anything against what we believe.
So now you have to avoid the argument because you cannot counter what I stated. Instead of admitting that the thing acted upon does not necessarily acquire the properties of the one who has acted (which was your original point), now you seek to focus on the Actor Himself. Your whole argument again depends on assuming God is a physical being bounded by space and time, which, as previously stated, makes no dent in the belief of Christians.
Again, you are confusing the concept of Being with the concept of action. An action does not change the being of the one acting. Again, your argument depends on the premise that God is a physical being, which does not make a dent in the belief of Christians.
Whether a person is a billionaire or not does not change the being of the person. He can even lose alll his money, but that does not change his being.
Again, you are confusing Being with action. Even your analogy fails. That Helen has a baby does not change the fact that Helen is still Helen.
By this statement, you admit that what is outside time cannot change. Problem solved.
Now you are just begging the question. You are mistaking our statements about God as claims of what God believes Himself to be. You have proposed an invalid argument.
Your problem rests in your assigning physical properties to God.
Sure. It is contingent on the Being Who is First Cause, because “First Cause” merely describes something the Being does. But to a non-physical Being, outside of space and time, His Being is not contingent upon His action.
As I said in a previous post, your philosophical distinctions are possible. But they have no bearing on the actual Being of God.
A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. A species of tree has its own essence; the thing that makes it a tree. Migrating animals have a nature that demand they migrate.
I think your bank would agree that to change your bank account from 1 to 2, or 101 to 102 would require the addition of one dollar; the same change in account balance. I’m glad you can see there can be two ways to look at change.
He is.
He was.
G-d is Actus Purus, the very act of existing. Therefore G-d is present at every point that can be said to exist. This is what it means to be Omnipresent. Every point in existence is present to G-d simultaneously. He is not in one state and then another. He is in all states that can be said to exist simultaneously.
Even with a completely spiritual God, and action in time requires change from about-to-act to acting-now to finished-acting. Those are three different states. Consider the creation of Adam. In the about-to-act stage there was just God. During the acting-now stage God was manipulating physical earth somehow (which implies physical movement or force) and in the finished-acting stage we have Adam as well as God.
If god acts in the physical world, then He must have some way of manipulating the physical world. How does He do that without some form of change? Is He still parting the Red sea?
I have just countered it. God is not parting the Red sea now. He did so in the past, ergo God has changed.
The properties have no existence apart from the Actor. If you remove all properties then there is no Actor left. You cannot separate the two. This is back to my point about natures/essences.
I am sorry for not making myself clearer. God is acting within space and time, so that part of God which is doing the acting is within the ambit of my argument. A God who is entirely outside space and time does indeed escape my argument, but such a God cannot then act within space and time.
Look back over this thread. You are here using ‘Being’ as a synonym for ‘Nature’, ‘Essence’ and other terms people have used – the capital letter is a dead giveaway. I reject all such reification.
See my analogy of the forest. Repeat with all of the person’s possessions and all of the molecules of his body. If you remove all the parts then there is nothing left.
But Helen-the-mother-to-be is not the same as Helen-the-mother. She is a different age and she is getting less sleep (though she doesn’t have to visit the smallest room as often as she used to).
Then how can you claim that what is outside time can act inside time? Problem returns. Unless there are two Gods, one outside and one inside time. I believe the Gnostics used the Demiurge as their solution to this problem.
Then God did not physically part the Red sea? Is God incapable of acting in the physical world?
But his correct description is contingent on His action. I can describe myself as a multi-billionaire, but it would not be a correct description. You are proposing to use a contingent description, “First Cause”, to describe a non-contingent being. That description will not always be correct, and we can reject incorrect deescriptions immediately.
Please indicate the relationship between the “Being of God” and “God”. Are they the same? Then one is redundant. Are they different? In which case we can proceed to analyse them separately.
As you may have noticed by now, I reject all reification of “essence”. It is useful as a conventional description, but it is not a fundamental property. When does a migrating animal become a non-migrating animal? Does a journey of 100 miles count? 50 miles? 25 miles? 10 miles? 5 miles? 1 mile? When looked at closely the concept of an ‘essence’ becomes intolerably fuzzy. How many trees make up a wood? Does adding one more tree make it a forest? We know what we mean, but it is an error to hang too much on it. It is like relying on a mirage; we know what it looks like, but when we get close it is not actually what it looked like from a distance.
Not my bank, it adds one pound.
There are two examples of different “essences” of “add one”. There are plenty of others.There are many ways, all different.
Can you bring up the picture of Moses on Google Earth then please.
Moses had gills when he was very very young? Or was he a fish in a previous life? I thought Christianity didn’t accept reincarnation?
This is demonstrably false. Is the Red sea still parted? Are all physical actions by God still continuing? Is God simultaneously dead and alive always and everywhere?
I don’t.
True, things can change without changing
The constant nature of God can create change.
Yes, for G-d the Red Sea is still parted, not parted, dried up, lost in Pangaea, merged into the Indian Ocean, and eventually boiled away by a dying sun. The entirety of everything that can be said to exist does so simultaneously for G-d.
I believe that the Immutability of God delineates His nature, which does not mean, suggest, or imply that God cannot create things. By definition, God has the ability within His nature to actively create things; but He does not have the ability within His nature to actively or passively change His Being in any way other than God.
The act does not change the Being, but only changes things that are incidental to the Being.
Agreed.
If I start a fire, I do not become the fire, and neither does the fire become me. The logic you are using is fallacious.
Warpspeedpetey gave you an irrefutable answer.
You have not countered the fact that no exchange of properties occurs between the actor and the thing acted upon. Also Warpspeedpetey gave a great answer to this current argument you propose.
A clear non-sequitur. The properties have no existence apart from the Actor, but an Actor can exist even without those properties. As is clear from your example with the billionaire. That billionaire can lose all his money, but the person still exists. There is no necessity in God. That He is First Cause came because of His Will, not because of any necessity. So it is false to claim that the properties determine the Being of the Actor, though it is indeed true that the properties are wholly dependent on the Actor.
Since an exchange of properties between the Actor and the action or thing acted upon is not necessitated, then your argument fails.
Correct.
As stated, since there is no common premise between our positions, your arguments cannot make a dent in our beliefs.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I can understand where you are coming from. However, what you have to remember is that even though God is Actus Purus, His actions are not necessitated. Though God is First Cause, there was no necessity that He is First Cause. that God is First Cause came about by an Act of Will. So, to repeat and earlier statement, though properties/actions are dependent on the Actor, the Actor Himself is not dependent on the properties/actions.
Again, God is not physical, nor is He bound by physical laws. Your arguments based on the premise that God is a physical Being don’t make the slightest dent in our beliefs.
As admitted earlier, we are referring to essence/nature/being. Helen will always be Helen no matter what properties she may display that are different from one point in time to the next. If this is so even for tactile creatures, it is even moreso for God who is outside of time and is not a tactile Being.
