Again, irrelevant. You demonstrate **no **understanding of the nature of God’s actions: God does everything at once, exists outside of time but can work inside time. JD’s infinite past universe problem is not a problem for theists because God does it all at one point, no need to wait until a certain point.
I disagree.
If God is outside time then whatever acts inside time cannot be God. You have a Deist-style God.
God **acts ** in time after time is created, but his essence and being exist outside and before time.
Because he acts in time but exists outside of time. I already explained this. God exists outside of time, but occasionally works in it, so he isn’t affected by JD’s infinite past problem.
You are starting to sound like our “esteemed” former Prime Minister…
Not only do I reject your statement, I reject it because I have proven it to be false, using logic. I demonstrated, using the universally accepted logical method of proof by contradiction that First Cause is logically necessary. Being logically necessary absolutely excludes First Cause from any contingency or dependency. This means First Cause is not contingent or dependent on anything for any reason. Not causes, not effects, not language, not rules of grammar, nothing.
God can hardly act in time before time is created can He. You are also separating God and ‘Essence of God’. Are these two different things or are they one thing? If they are two different things then please specify the differences between them. If they are the same thing then one of them is redundant, so please rephrase what you are saying.
If God exists outside time then is He present inside time? If He is only “occasionally” active inside then He cannot be sustaining the world, because the world is sustained constantly, not “occasionally”.
I am Buddhist. My philosophical position is Madhyamika. A lot of things that are taken for granted in Western philosophy, and a lot of the approaches common in Western philosophy, are rejected by the Madhyamika:Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life. All such assumptions are called into fundamental question by Nagarjuna’s unique perspective
Your logic fails because your First Cause contains potentiality. Actus Purus cannot contain potentiality. QED.
God exists outside of time. He intervenes IN time. As an example, take reaching your hand in a pond. You are INTERVENING in the pond, but you do not exist in the pond - you exist beyond the pond, on land.
BUT, your argument AGAIN fails because not ALL of God’s work is in time! Creating the Universe is not IN time. Plus, while God reaches his hand in time, he isn’t bound by it! He does all at once, not in a “line” of work as we do!
Adhering to a school of thought which rejects certain “assumptions” does not alter the rule that a restatement is not a rebuttal. If Nagarjuna rejects that, than you’re worst than those Last Thursday-ists you endlessly complain about!
Causes may be potential or actual, necessary or sufficient. By definition First Cause is actual as it is defined to be necessary, without any potentiality.
You still don’t get it. Actus Purus, the act of existing, is First Cause.
If you stand by this thinking, don’t blame others for rejecting it. You have not demonstrated an act of existing for your God.
So, God has two parts. One part is outside time, as part of me is outside the pond, and part of God is inside time, as part of me is in the pond.
None of God-A’s work is in time. All of God-B’s work is in time. Which God are you talking about? You are switching between two gods, with different properties, and one God.
Nagarjuna has reasons for rejecting those assumptions.
The Madhyamika has been described as “philosophical ju-jitsu”. It uses the opponents’ arguments to demolish the opponents own position while putting forward no position of its own.
The First Cause cannot be an actual cause unless and until there is a First Effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless and until it has actually caused an effect. Before it has caused something it can at most be a potential cause.
Actus Purus is not the act of existing it is pure actuality, without any potentiality at all. Read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia: Actus Purus.
Uhh… no. God is made of no parts but is present everywhere. His presence is in time, that is to say he is present in time, but he is existing outside of it, meaning he isn’t bound by it.
The hand allegory was imperfect, but God is effectively in multiple places at once. He is outside time AND inside time, but he is not bound by time, so he does all at once and does not need to wait for a certain point from an allegedly infinite past, both because time didn’t exist and everything happened at once anyway, and that he does everything at once, his actions to not lead into one another but function as they are.
I said I was fine with Nagarjuna rejecting what it listed (I obviously think it’s wrong, but I can tolerate it), but if it rejected that a restatement is not a rebuttal than it’s nothing more than cognitive dissonance disguised as philosophy.
Well, you aren’t really demolishing my arguments. Your objections are pretty weak and strawman-like. And if there is no position to defend, why debate?
The first cause is pure actuality, since it does not gain its being from anything that is changing. Therefore the first cause is not changing since its being does not proceed from potentility. Since all potential reality proceeds from an actual reality, the first cuase cannot possibly be said to be in the order of things that potentially exist or has the potentility of change, since its very being stands outside the order of change neccesarily because it is the cause of it. Thus it is neccesarily a timless and “perfect” act. A perfect mind doesn’t require time inorder to act or know, since its act and being and knowledge are all one in its perfection, and thus trancends all contingency and time itself. God has never not created the universe. Creation is a timless act of Gods perfect will.
You still aren’t getting it. First Cause=Actus Purus. Your sentence says “The Actus Purus is not pure actuality so it cannot be Actus Purus.” It is nonsensical.
A cause cannot be dependent on something that is not actualized. It is called a cause because it is simply a matter of fact, not a requisite dependency.
Here is where we disagree. It cannot be an actual cause until after the First Effect exists. If there is no First Effect then the First Cause can only be a potential cause, and not an actual cause. If you allow an unchanging eternal First Effect in parallel with the First Cause then I will grant that the First Cause can be pure actuality. However, it is still dependent on the First Effect for its purely actual status.
Only if the First Effect is also eternal. Otherwise the First Cause has to change from potential cause to actual cause.
I assume that causes must have effects in order to be actual causes. If the effect had a beginning then its cause has to change from potential to actual. If the effect has no beginning then its cause does not have to change and can always be actual.