How does immortality of God follow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
What is only a statement. 1, 2, and 3, the whole thing?
Click to expand...
1 is only a statement.
Click to expand...
Yes, logic is to show two statements (predicates) and a third conclusion.
 
Yes. And we have to agree that the first two statements are correct. I don’t agree that the first one is correct.
 
STT said:
Yes. And we have to agree that the first two statements are correct. I don’t agree that the first one is correct.
Click to expand...
So you do not accept the premise that “Only what is created can be mortal.” It is correct per the defined meaning of the word.

Oxford dictionary defines mortal (noun) as:
1. A human being subject to death, as opposed to a divine being.
‘capacities only possible of God rather than mortals’

Webster’s Learners Dictionary has for mortal (noun):
: certain to die
  • Every living creature is mortal .
    — opposite 1 immortal (see below)
    1 an immortal being (such as a god or goddess)
 
STT said:
But uncaused cause is necessary for the first cause/creation. Why it is necessary afterward?
Click to expand...
You’re using ‘necessary’ in an everyday sense, not the philosophical one. We’re talking ‘necessary’ as opposed to contingent, not ‘necessary’ as opposed to gratuitous.
STT said:
The immortality doesn’t follow. Uncaused cause can cease to exist on its own.
Click to expand...
Again, you’re missing the point of the concept of a “necessary being.” If it’s ‘necessary’, then it must exist always. It’s kinda the definition of the concept. 😉
 
STT said:
Thanks. Can you show a link between uncaused cause/necessary and immortality?
Click to expand...
It’s what @Usagi mentioned to you already. If a being is ‘necessary’, that means that this being cannot not-exist. Its existence is not contingent on anything else. The former statement speaks to ‘necessity’ (and, by definition, therefore the fact that it’s an eternal being (hence ‘immortality’)) and the latter to its being an ‘uncaused cause’.
 
That does not really follow. There is a gap between not being contingent and immortal.
 
STT said:
You either need to prove (1) or we should agree that that is a fact.
Click to expand...
What word would you use to discuss this issue, to the exclusion of the noun mortal (which by definition God is not, because God is not a creature)?
 
STT said:
That does not really follow. There is a gap between not being contingent and immortal.
Click to expand...
How so? If a being is necessary – that is, it is not possible that it not exist – then how does that not imply eternal?
STT said:
By the way, you left our discussion when it was incomplete.
Click to expand...
Some of us have day jobs, and get busy with work from time to time. 😉
 
STT said:
No, that is the part I have problem with.
Click to expand...
I know it is. 😉

So, if a being is necessary – that is, it must exist – then that being cannot be a part of the temporal universe or created in any way. After all, that would mean that the being is contigent and not necessary.

If that being is not part of the temporal universe, then, it is part of the definition (of being necessary) that this being is eternal. Things that are eternal in this way have no beginning and no end. QED.

(Angels, on the other hand, are ‘eternal’ in a slightly different way – they were created, and so, they have a beginning but no end.)
 
Gorgias said:
If that being is not part of the temporal universe, then, it is part of the definition (of being necessary ) that this being is eternal. Things that are eternal in this way have no beginning and no end. QED.
Click to expand...
This part doesn’t follow. A necessary being can be subjected to time.
 
STT said:
This part doesn’t follow. A necessary being can be subjected to time.
Click to expand...
Time is a creation. If a necessary being is “subjected to time”, that implies that they are created, no? That’s a contradiction:

created implies contingent. contingent =/= necessary.

So… no. A necessary being must, by definition, be eternal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top