How does immortality of God follow?

[AlaricB]

Physics suggests that it is. The notion that time began with the expansion of space following the big bang means that time is dependent on the universe. If the universe froze or collapsed, so would time. Before the big bang there was no time.

 

[STT]

Physics suggests that it is. The notion that time began with the expansion of space following the big bang means that time is dependent on the universe. If the universe froze or collapsed, so would time. Before the big bang there was no time.

The act of creation and act of sustains are different. Why should time need a sustainer?

 

[tafan2]

@STT I will give it another try.

First, we accept that there is a first mover, God, the uncaused cause.
Now, this first mover must be all together simple. If it was not, it would be a composite, but a composite is always the result of its parts being moved. Which could not be the first mover, or the uncaused cause.
Now, if God is all together simple, He cannot be moved himself, as anything that is moved is by necessity a composite, so God is not movable, ie He is immutable.
Since time is a result of movement, and God is immutable, he is therefore eternal, ie outside of time. Which is a more proper way of saying immortal.

 

[STT]

First, we accept that there is a first mover, God, the uncaused cause.

This is granted.

Now, this first mover must be all together simple. If it was not, it would be a composite, but a composite is always the result of its parts being moved. Which could not be the first mover, or the uncaused cause.

I agree. The uncaused cause is simple.

Now, if God is all together simple, He cannot be moved himself, as anything that is moved is by necessity a composite, so God is not movable, ie He is immutable.

What do you mean with: He cannot be moved himself?

Since time is a result of movement, and God is immutable, he is therefore eternal, ie outside of time. Which is a more proper way of saying immortal.

Let’s wait to reach to an agreement on the answer to the last question.

 

[tafan2]

What do you mean with: He cannot be moved himself?

Because he is simple. To move something (ie act upon it) is necessarily to change it, either subtract or add to it. But if he is simple, that means he is not a composite, so nothing can be added or subtracted. Hence he is immutable, ie unchanging.

 

[STT]

Because he is simple. To move something (ie act upon it) is necessarily to change it, either subtract or add to it. But if he is simple, that means he is not a composite, so nothing can be added or subtracted. Hence he is immutable, ie unchanging.

Yes, you cannot add or subtract from it because it is simple. But why it doesn’t vanishes?

 

[AlaricB]

God could only vanish if he commits suicides, and that can’t happen. He can only act in a way that is consistent with his nature which is that of supreme goodness. He couldn’t lie for example nor will harm, and neither could he commit suicide.

 

[tafan2]

So, it us a given that it cannot be moved/changed, but you are claiming t could simply cease to exist, which would not count as a change?

 

[STT]

So, it us a given that it cannot be moved/changed, but you are claiming t could simply cease to exist, which would not count as a change?

You cannot subtract anything from a simple thing since it has no part. You also cannot add anything to it since otherwise it wouldn’t be simple anymore. Simple thing could however simply vanishes and this is different from subtracting or adding. I agree with the first two changes, subtracting or adding, are impossible given the definition but I have a problem with the third change, vanishing.

 

[Gorgias]

How can you prove that time is contingent?

Time is the measure of change of physical objects. Physical objects must have a creator. Therefore, physical objects are contingent. Time itself is contingent on the existence of physical objects.

 

[STT]

Time itself is contingent on the existence of physical objects.

I don’t think so.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think so.

If there are no physical objects whose change can be measured, what would the telos of time be?

 

[STT]

Time is an entity which allows change in an object. Therefore it should be independent of existence of change in the object.

 

[Gorgias]

Time is an entity which allows change in an object.

Time is passive, not active. It neither ‘causes’ nor ‘allows’ anything. It would be interesting to see how you might suggest that time has an active role. After all, it’s a measurement. My ruler doesn’t “allow” an inchworm to be one inch long – it merely measures what already exists.

 

[STT]

Time is passive, not active.

Time is an active entity.

It neither ‘causes’ nor ‘allows’ anything. It would be interesting to see how you might suggest that time has an active role.

It doesn’t cause but it allows. Think of two events that one causes another, X causes Y. Without time X is either simultaneous with Y or Y never happens. The reality is however temporal therefore X cannot exist at the same point as Y. The only option which is left without time is that Y never happens. This means that time allows change.

My ruler doesn’t “allow” an inchworm to be one inch long – it merely measures what already exists.

Time is different from watch.

 

[De_Maria]

How does immortality of God follow from the fact that He is uncaused cause?

It doesn’t.

I sort of agree with Vico. But I would change it slightly.

Only what is created can be mortal or immortal. God was not created, therefore, God is eternal.

Mortal means it will die. But does not imply how it came to be.
Immortal means it will never die. But also does not imply how it came into being.
Both terms are temporal and focused on a future outcome.

God is eternal. He always existed and will continue to exist because nothing caused Him to come into existence and nothing can cause His existence to be extinguished.
The term “eternal” transcends time and describes an “absolute” existence which neither has a beginning nor an end.

 

[Gorgias]

Time is an active entity.

Please prove that this is true. Or, at least, provide a demonstration of what you’re asserting.

The reality is however temporal therefore X cannot exist at the same point as Y. The only option which is left without time is that Y never happens. This means that time allows change.

You’ve tried – and failed – to use this argument in the past.

Time is different from watch.

A watch is just device which represents time.

Only what is created can be mortal or immortal. God was not created, therefore, God is eternal.

Right. @STT keeps getting hung up on the difference between ‘immortal’ and ‘eternal’.

 

[tafan2]

Only what is created can be mortal or immortal. God was not created, therefore, God is eternal.

I thought about saying this exact think, but instead just effectively changed the question to eternal.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Only what is created can be mortal or immortal. God was not created, therefore, God is eternal.

I thought about saying this exact think, but instead just effectively changed the question to eternal.

It’s a difficult subject to wrap one’s head around.

 

[STT]

How does immortality of God follow from the fact that He is uncaused cause?
It doesn’t.

Great. So you think that there is no relation between immortality and uncaused cause.

I sort of agree with Vico. But I would change it slightly.

Only what is created can be mortal or immortal. God was not created, therefore, God is eternal.

I don’t understand how the bold part follows. You said that it doesn’t follow that uncaused cause is immortal.

Mortal means it will die. But does not imply how it came to be.
Immortal means it will never die. But also does not imply how it came into being.
Both terms are temporal and focused on a future outcome.

I agree.

God is eternal. He always existed and will continue to exist because nothing caused Him to come into existence and nothing can cause His existence to be extinguished.

Again, you agreed that it doesn’t follow that uncaused cause is immortal.