How does immortality of God follow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
How does immortality of God follow from the fact that He is uncaused cause?
 
If the uncaused cause is pure act with no passive potency, it necessarily follows that the uncaused cause is immutable and eternal. For if it was mutable or temporal it would have passive potency, and since the cosmological arguments demonstrate it doesn’t, the “what if it was mutable/temporal” is shown absurd by reductio.
 
STT said:
40.png
Wesrock:
If the uncaused cause is pure act with no passive potency, it necessarily follows that the uncaused cause is immutable and eternal.
Click to expand...
You say that it follows. I cannot see how.
Click to expand...
…Read the rest of the previous post you just quoted?
 
Last edited:
There are two things in here. You first assumed a relation between uncaused cause and pure act so it seems tho me that uncaused cause is not immortal unless it pure act. Second you say both immutability and eternality follows from cosmological argument while cosmological argument is only an argument for existence of God who is not contingent (His existence does not depend on something else).
 
We know from our experience that
(1) we are caused causes (e.g. by our parents)
(2) we have physical parameters from our cause (e.g. brown hair, height, etc from our parents)
(3) we know that everything we see with the physical parameters from the prior cause is mortal (e.g. friends/family pass away and get old, leaves die on trees, etc) due to those physical parameters
(4) we know that uncaused cause doesn’t have prior cause and thus would not have (2)-(3) since if it did it would have a prior cause and thus would not be uncaused cause
 
STT said:
There are two things in here. You first assumed a relation between uncaused cause and pure act so it seems tho me that uncaused cause is not immortal unless it pure act. Second you say both immutability and eternality follows from cosmological argument while cosmological argument is only an argument for existence of God who is not contingent (His existence does not depend on something else).
Click to expand...
We’re mixing terms here, you and I both. You accuse me of referring to the Prime Mover and not the Uncaused Cause, but then you do the same thing in referring to contingency, which is related to the argument for a Necessary Being, not Uncaused Cause (at least, not immediately).

Are you referring specifically to Aquinas’ Second Way? Which argument are you contesting which speaks of an Uncaused Cause?
 
Last edited:
The fact that uncuased cause does not have a prior cause does not mean He is immortal.
 
I can accept God being uncaused cause as granted. I was wondering if there is a direct way to show that uncaused cause is immortal.
 
If nothing caused a thing to happen or a being to be, but it exists anyway and happens anyway – what thing or act is going to be able to stop it from happening or existing?
 
Last edited:
In any case, if you are wanting good faith discussion, you will have to agree on some common sense definitions of words.

Parsing the words just leads to circularity.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
The fact that uncuased cause does not have a prior cause does not mean He is immortal
Click to expand...
Yes because we know from our experience that everything that is mortal is mortal precisely due to it having a prior cause, e.g. I have finite lifespan due to aging gene in DNA I received from parents.

Thus, logically something without a prior cause would not have that same morality built in.

Also, something without prior cause is not finite with physical/finite characteristics in physical/finite world, again since it doesn’t have prior cause (again, a prior cause is what provides things with physical /finite characteristics) and we also know from experience that things have lifespan that is measured based on the presence of those physical/finite characteristics thus absence of them means no mortal lifespan, in fact means lifespan is irrelevant and meaningless. They transcend lifespan
 
Last edited:
No, I mean immortal, not being subjected to destruction unless by eternal you mean existing forever rather than being timeless.
 
I can show that any agent, like human, who can freely decide is uncaused cause. Yet following your argument you believe that human i snot immortal. So there is a conflict in here.
 
STT said:
I mean immortal, not being subjected to destruction
Click to expand...
uncaused cause isn’t subject to destruction since its not subject to creation. It doesn’t exist in finite/physical realm. If it did, it would necessarily have to have a prior cause in which case it wouldn’t be uncaused cause.
 
Something which does not have any cause could simply stop to exist. I don’t see that as a impossibility. In another world I don’t see any relation between being uncaused and survival.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top