God creating the universe would mean he is not eternal?

[rossum]

However, this does not imply that God acts solely in time.

Any action within time is enough to show that the actor changes. Hence if God acts in time then He changes. Any changing entity cannot be eternal by definition, since an eternal entity is the same for all time and thus cannot change.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Any changing entity cannot be eternal by definition, since an eternal entity is the same for all time and thus cannot change.

Agreed – God, in His divinity, does not change.

Hence if God acts in time then He changes.

And here’s the catch: the act takes place as something identifiable in time, but God’s actions are in eternity. It’s as if, from eternity, he reaches in and causes a change within the context of the created universe. However, he himself does not change as a result. (I think you’ve got the basic concept down pat… but are improperly applying the concepts to God.)

 

[anon65111186]

There is a separation between cause and effect otherwise cause and effect lie at the same point which this makes the state of affair ill-defined.

“Same point” is a material based analogy. You seem to be using your imagination rather than your understanding.

Cause and effect describe a relationship rather than physical movement.

Just as adding 1 + 1 causes there to be 2, you do not say there is a space between 1 and 1.

 

[Gorgias]

There is a separation between cause and effect otherwise cause and effect lie at the same point which this makes the state of affair ill-defined.

You realize, don’t you, that when you move from one thread where an assertion you’ve made is disproven, to another thread (where you make the same assertion), we can still see you, right?

No, it is not the case that “there must be [temporal] separation between cause and effect”; simultaneous causation, likewise, is possible.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

This doctrine is unreasonable.

It could be that the doctrine was unreasonable or that Xuanzang did not understand it.

If you want to defend the doctrine that Xuanzang was criticizing, first you need to know it thoroughly; otherwise you would be misunderstanding Xuanzang.

If owing to certain similarities you tend to think that Xuanzang was criticizing Saint Thomas Aquinas doctrine, you would be wrong, because Xuanzang lived and died centuries before Saint Thomas was born.

 

[rossum]

It is possible that Xuanzang was criticising either Islam or Nestorian Christianity, both of which were present in China at the time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

And here’s the catch: the act takes place as something identifiable in time, but God’s actions are in eternity.

No, God’s actions are not eternal. Is the Red Sea parted today? Is the Sun standing still in the sky as for Joshua? If God is eternal and God’s actions are not eternal, then we have two different entities: an eternal God who cannot act and God’s actions which can act but are not eternal.

he reaches in and causes a change within the context of the created universe. However, he himself does not change as a result.

How does he “reach in” and yet not change? Before He was not reaching, during He is reaching and after He is no longer reaching. not reaching → reaching → not reaching. That is change by any measure.

Or are you proposing God’s arm as another changing entity alongside God’s actions? As always, an eternal entity cannot change/act. An acting/changing entity cannot be eternal. You will have to find some way to square this circle.

Some Jews have tried to solve the problem with the Sefirot, and IIRC Gnostic Christians were looking at something similar with their Demiurges. This is a long standing problem with the Abrahamic God.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

No, God’s actions are not eternal. Is the Red Sea parted today? Is the Sun standing still in the sky as for Joshua? If God is eternal and God’s actions are not eternal, then we have two different entities: an eternal God who cannot act and God’s actions which can act but are not eternal.

No, but that’s an honest attempt at understanding.

God’s actions proceed from eternity. Their effects are felt within the temporal framework of the created universe. Yes, the Red Sea was parted within time, but God’s action was from outside the temporal framework.

How does he “reach in” and yet not change? Before He was not reaching, during He is reaching and after He is no longer reaching. not reaching -> reaching -> not reaching.

This is the joy of attempting – as beings created within the temporal framework – the nuances of eternity (that is, what occurs outside the temporal framework). It’s not intuitive, and it’s easy to get it wrong.

God was never in a state of “before reaching” or “during reaching” or “after reaching”. It’s experienced by us as a “before” and a “during” and an “after”, but that’s not constitutive of God’s will. What’s mind-bending here is that God is eternally willing these act … even if we experience them as if they were actions in a particular time and particular space within creation.

This is a long standing problem with the Abrahamic God.

Nah… it’s a long standing misunderstanding by those who disbelieve the Abrahamic God. It’s ok… it’s really difficult to deal with.

 

[rossum]

God’s actions proceed from eternity. Their effects are felt within the temporal framework of the created universe. Yes, the Red Sea was parted within time, but God’s action was from outside the temporal framework.

Are God’s actions caused or uncaused? If they are caused, then what caused them? That cause has to be temporal because otherwise they would be eternally caused and eternally active. Whatever caused God’s action in parting the Red sea was not active during Abraham’s lifetime. Hence that cause must have changed between Abraham and Moses.

Since God is eternal, He can only cause eternal effects: he cannot change the effect from ‘on’ to ‘off’. One possibility is that God is a necessary, but not sufficient cause. He is present, but cannot act unless the necessary non-eternal co-cause is present. The various co-causes are not eternal, so do not have a problem with acting inside time.

I am not sure how God as a necessary, but not sufficient, cause sits with omnipotence. That is one for the theologians to resolve.

God was never in a state of “before reaching” or “during reaching” or “after reaching”.

Not God, then, but there was something doing the reaching. If there was no reaching then there was no parting of the sea. We still come back to the problem of an eternal unchanging God causing changing actions inside time. You are trying to reconcile change with no-change, and I am picking at the joints where you try to glue the two together. The technique is an old one, dating back to Nagarjuna.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Are God’s actions caused or uncaused?

Strictly speaking, God is the “uncaused cause”.

If they are caused, then what caused them? That cause has to be temporal because otherwise they would be eternally caused and eternally active.

What do you mean by a ‘cause’, then?

Whatever caused God’s action in parting the Red sea was not active during Abraham’s lifetime. Hence that cause must have changed between Abraham and Moses.

I think you’re conflating the types of causes, as well as failing to distingush between a per se cause and a per accidens cause…

 

[STT]

“Same point” is a material based analogy. You seem to be using your imagination rather than your understanding.

Cause and effect describe a relationship rather than physical movement.

Just as adding 1 + 1 causes there to be 2, you do not say there is a space between 1 and 1.

Nah.

You could have a set and an operator for the set such as [1,2] and + respectively. Cause and effect cannot be defined as a set. You need a sequence and direction is important in a sequence. You however cannot have direction without spaciality.

 

[STT]

You realize, don’t you, that when you move from one thread where an assertion you’ve made is disproven, to another thread (where you make the same assertion), we can still see you, right?

Yes, and you keep following me not paying any attention to what I am say.

No, it is not the case that “there must be [temporal] separation between cause and effect”; simultaneous causation, likewise, is possible.

Simultaneous causation is the most wrong concept has ever created by man kind. Please read previous post for more illustration.

 

[anon65111186]

You could have a set and an operator for the set such as [1,2] and + respectively. Cause and effect cannot be defined as a set. You need a sequence and direction is important in a sequence. You however cannot have direction without spaciality.

If you could come up with a measure of cause and effect not based in the material world, like direction, space, then maybe you could make a reasonable argument about the state in which only God and no creation exists.

 

[STT]

If you could come up with a measure of cause and effect not based in the material world, like direction, space, then maybe you could make a reasonable argument about the state in which only God and no creation exists.

I think I was clear enough. There is a sense of directionality in cause and effect and you cannot argue otherwise.

 

[anon65111186]

I think I was clear enough. There is a sense of directionality in cause and effect and you cannot argue otherwise.

If you imagine a diagram on a piece of paper, with a line going from cause to effect with an arrow on it, I guess you could say that in an analogous way.

You are still thinking in terms of images, not concepts.

 

[STT]

If you imagine a diagram on a piece of paper, with a line going from cause to effect with an arrow on it, I guess you could say that in an analogous way.

You are still thinking in terms of images, not concepts.

Could you please elaborate what you have in your mind in term of concepts? I think I was clear enough but you not.

 

[anon65111186]

Could you please elaborate what you have in your mind in term of concepts? I think I was clear enough but you not.

Cause = the producer of an effect, result, or consequence. It is first.
Effect = something brought about by a cause or agent; a result. It comes second.

The producer is God, and the result simply comes into existence out of nothing. There was nothing for it to come from, no space, no time.

Time and space started when God caused it to be.

 

[STT]

Cause = the producer of an effect, result, or consequence. It is first.

Effect = something brought about by a cause or agent; a result. It comes second.

The producer is God, and the result simply comes into existence out of nothing. There was nothing for it to come from, no space, no time.

Time and space started when God caused it to be.

What do you mean with the first and second? How could you define them in a timeless state?

 

[anon65111186]

First meaning necessary as a principle for a result.
Second describes the dependent relationship on the principle.

They are ordinal, pertaining to order, not in time but in relation.

 

[STT]

First meaning necessary as a principle for a result.

Second describes the dependent relationship on the principle.

So the first, the cause, and the second, the effect, lay in a timeless point? Why do you need the first there if the second is already there? I mean why do you need cause if effect is there?