How does immortality of God follow?

[STT]

Time is an active entity.

I did. You just needed to follow my post.

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.

I did explain it well. I repeat the argument again for your convenience: 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.

Please let me know where do you lack understanding or where do you think is wrong.

Time is different from watch.

Watch is a device that we measure the change in time.

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

What do you mean with eternal in here?

 

[STT]

That I believe is how STT is visualizing time, not merely as a means of measuring change, but as one of the necessary dimensions in which change occurs. Just as with space, if there is no time, then change can’t happen.

Yes. That is one of the things that I am trying to say.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

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.

Correct.

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.

Do you not see a difference between immortal and 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.

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.

Correct. And I explained why. Therefore, you’ll have to do more than keep repeating the same objection which has already been answered if you want to move this discussion along. At least, it seems like you’re objecting.

Are you objecting or simply making an observation?

 

[STT]

Do you not see a difference between immortal and eternal?

Can’t we equate uncaused with uncreated? If yes, then there is a contradiction in what you said.

I don’t understand how your question is related to what I said but the answer is they are the same if by eternal you mean a being that will live forever.

Moreover, it seems to me that you are equating uncreated by eternal which I don’t agree with it.

 

[Gorgias]

Think of two events that one causes another, X causes Y. Without time X is either simultaneous with Y or Y never happens.

OK. Stop right there, please. Do you see that what you’ve done right there is presume that time is an active entity, without ever having proven (let alone asserted) it? You can’t use your conclusion as a premise. That’s invalid argumentation.

Without time X is either simultaneous with Y

“Simultaneity” means “at the same time”. If there is no time, then there is no simultaneity.

So, things that happen eternally do not happen “at the same time.” Nevertheless, that does not imply that there is no causation in eternity.

In addition, you seem to be saying that the only priority is temporal priority. It isn’t; there’s ontological priority. Therefore, it’s possible to talk about causation that isn’t strictly temporally ordered. So, that leads us to the conclusion that it isn’t true that it is time which allows change.

What do you mean with eternal in here?

Always in existence. (See how ‘necessity’ and ‘eternity’ complement each other?)

 

[Gorgias]

The ongoing discussion between Gorgias and STT illustrates something that I find fascinating, and that is people’s seemingly complete inability to understand the other person’s position.

No, I think I understand STT’s position; I just reject it. He attempts to make philosophical arguments without understanding the concepts in the discussion or their nuances, and then presents arguments from physics as if they refute the philosophical arguments. (They don’t.)

But in this case STT’s argument seems fairly straight-forward and logical.

Straightforward? Sure. Logical? Sometimes. (Sometimes, his arguments rely on non sequiturs or logical fallacies.) But – and here’s the rub – they’re ultimately unconvincing.

Think about time in the same way that you think about space.

I would argue that this is an improper foundation. Objects in the universe possess properties of spatial extension: they have ‘length’ and ‘width’ and ‘depth’. These are objective properties belonging to the entity itself. However, objects in the universe do not possess temporal extension: you can’t say that an object possesses a certain number of “seconds” or “years.” What you can say about an object, in terms of time, is a measurement about how the object has changed. So, the measurement – as a measurement of change – is itself constantly changing. It’s not a measurement of the thing itself. So, from the very beginning, your explanation doesn’t really hold up. But, let’s keep looking at it…

You can’t move from point A to point B if there is no space in which to do so. In such a case, space isn’t simply a means by which we measure motion, it’s an entity which allows motion. A dimension “in” which motion occurs.

OK – I would agree that there is extension in spatial dimensions. However, there’s not extension in the temporal dimension, in that way. So, an object doesn’t exist “in time” in the same way that it does “in space”; rather, time is just a measure that we use in order to be able to describe spatial motion.

That I believe is how STT is visualizing time, not merely as a means of measuring change, but as one of the necessary dimensions in which change occurs.

I agree. It just happens to be an inaccurate way to look at it, and therefore, it leads to inaccurate conclusions.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to try to be one of those open minded, intelligent people.

Sometimes, the issue isn’t with both the interlocutors in a discussion.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Do you not see a difference between immortal and eternal?

Can’t we equate uncaused with uncreated?

Yes.

If yes, then there is a contradiction in what you said.

How?

I don’t understand how your question is related to what I said but the answer is they are the same if by eternal you mean a being that will live forever.

By eternal I mean a being that has always existed. No beginning and no end.

You seem to be merely focused on the future. God has always existed and always will.

Moreover, it seems to me that you are equating uncreated by eternal which I don’t agree with it.

Duly noted. But simply saying that you disagree with a concept does not give me a reason to consider it valid.

What created being could destroy that which was never created. God is on a different order of existence from any other thing that exists. He transcends time. He is the only being that already sees the past, present and future, simultaneously.

So, give me your reason so that I might understand why you disagree with this.

 

[po18guy]

I say reverse the question. Everything follows from God’s eternal nature.

 

[STT]

Think of two events that one causes another, X causes Y. Without time X is either simultaneous with Y or Y never happens.

I assume that time does not exist and then show that it has to exist otherwise we have to deal with two contradictions.

Without time X is either simultaneous with Y

So you agree about that reality is temporal. The reality is not simultaneous.

So, things that happen eternally do not happen “at the same time.” Nevertheless, that does not imply that there is no causation in eternity.

I didn’t say so.

In addition, you seem to be saying that the only priority is temporal priority. It isn’t; there’s ontological priority. Therefore, it’s possible to talk about causation that isn’t strictly temporally ordered. So, that leads us to the conclusion that it isn’t true that it is time which allows change.

Time exists. I just consider two events. Those event could be any thing.

What do you mean with eternal in here?

That is not apply to your God. Always implement temorality.

 

[STT]

No, I think I understand STT’s position; I just reject it. He attempts to make philosophical arguments without understanding the concepts in the discussion or their nuances, and then presents arguments from physics as if they refute the philosophical arguments. (They don’t.)

Of course our premises are simply facts about reality that we agree upon. Even Aquinas used physics/empirical facts about reality, the existence of change for example, to show that God exists.

 

[STT]

Can’t we equate uncaused with uncreated?

Great.

If yes, then there is a contradiction in what you said.

Please review your post: #246. In one place you agreed that that there is no relation between immortality and uncaused cause. We agreed that uncaused and created are equal. Therefore you cannot say that uncreated is eternal which you did (in post #246).

I don’t understand how your question is related to what I said but the answer is they are the same if by eternal you mean a being that will live forever.

First that is not the Catholic God. Catholic God is timeless. Second, you need to answer to my objections.

Moreover, it seems to me that you are equating uncreated by eternal which I don’t agree with it.

I am asking whether immortality of God follows from the fact that He is uncaused cause.

What created being could destroy that which was never created. God is on a different order of existence from any other thing that exists. He transcends time. He is the only being that already sees the past, present and future, simultaneously.

So, give me your reason so that I might understand why you disagree with this.

You need to show that God is not temporal given that He is uncaused cause. You didn’t prove that.

 

[De_Maria]

Please review your post: #246. In one place you agreed that that there is no relation between immortality and uncaused cause.

Correct. Because “immortal” means “won’t die”. But in order to have the attribute “won’t die”, that thing must be created. Since only created things, die.

You keep confusing “immortal” with “eternal”. They don’t mean the same thing.

We agreed that uncaused and created are equal.

Uncaused and UNcreated. Right.

Therefore you cannot say that uncreated is eternal which you did (in post #246).

I don’t know why? Both uncaused and uncreated would lead to the conclusion that God is eternal.

First that is not the Catholic God. Catholic God is timeless.

Timeless is another word for eternal. Correct. That means that I am speaking of the Catholic God.

Second, you need to answer to my objections.

I did. And I explained why each of your objections is wrong.

I am asking whether immortality of God follows from the fact that He is uncaused cause.

I already answered that question. I am referring to your confusing eternal with immortal.

There is only one uncreated being. And He is eternal. There are many immortal beings. And they are all creatures.

You need to show that God is not temporal given that He is uncaused cause. You didn’t prove that.

Basically, when you admit that He is the uncaused cause, you admit that He is not temporal.

Time is a creation. God created time. Since God was not caused and He is the cause of everything else, then God caused time. Thus God is not bound by time. He who created time can also bring it to an end.

 

[De_Maria]

Think of two events that one causes another, X causes Y. Without time X is either simultaneous with Y or Y never happens.

I assume that time does not exist and then show that it has to exist otherwise we have to deal with two contradictions.

No. You’re confusing issues. Let me show you. You said,

“Think of two events that one causes another, X causes Y.”

a. Those are not two events. There is only one. X caused the event, Y.

b. Reading this, all Catholics will assume that you mean, X = God
and Y= time.

Because God caused time. Not the other way around.

But, apparently, you don’t mean that. Because you follow with:

Without time X is either simultaneous with Y or Y never happens.

So, what you’re trying to prove is that God is a creature which came into being at the same time as Y. But what is Y? The universe? There is a definition for the universe. It is defined as “space and time”. Thus, God caused Y to come into being. God caused space and time to be born.

But, you’ve given time a promotion. You have time already existing. But even science proves that both space and time came into existence at the Big Bang.

So, go back to your premise and define your X and Y’s, because as they stand, the statement is nonsense.

 

[STT]

I don’t know why? Both uncaused and uncreated would lead to the conclusion that God is eternal.

I am afraid that you need to prove that.

First that is not the Catholic God. Catholic God is timeless.
Timeless is another word for eternal. Correct. That means that I am speaking of the Catholic God.

In post #246 you said: God is eternal. He always existed and will continue to exist because…
Always, will, etc. implement temorality. Catholic God is not temporal.

Second, you need to answer to my objections.
I did. And I explained why each of your objections is wrong.

No, you didn’t. You need to prove that uncaused cause is immortal. Or you need to show that uncaused cause is timeless.

I am asking whether immortality of God follows from the fact that He is uncaused cause.
I already answered that question. I am referring to your confusing eternal with immortal.

I know the difference.

You need to show that God is not temporal given that He is uncaused cause. You didn’t prove that.

These are all claims: (1) Time is created and (2) God created time. The conclusion, God is not bounded by time, also does not follow from premises.

 

[STT]

No. You’re confusing issues. Let me show you.

I don’t think so.

You said,
“Think of two events that one causes another, X causes Y.”

Well, we can think of two independent events too.

a. Those are not two events. There is only one. X caused the event Y.

X is one event. Y is another event. Therefore we have two events. You can also call causation of Y as an event. You still have two events.

b. Reading this, all Catholics will assume that you mean, X = God
and Y= time.

Y can be any thing but time. I have an argument for that (please see the following).

Because God caused time. Not the other way around.

But, apparently, you don’t mean that. Because you follow with:

Without time X is either simultaneous with Y or Y never happens.

So, what you’re trying to prove is that God is a creature which came into being at the same time as Y. But what is Y? The universe? There is a definition for the universe. It is defined as “space and time”. Thus, God caused Y to come into being. God caused space and time to be born.

But, you’ve given time a promotion. You have time already existing. But even science proves that both space and time came into existence at the Big Bang.

So, go back to your premise and define your X and Y’s, because as they stand, the statement is nonsense.

And here is the argument (time cannot be created or be emergent): Time is the fundamental entity of any dynamical theory. Therefore time cannot be emergent entity of the same theory since you need time in first place to have a dynamical theory.

 

[De_Maria]

I am afraid that you need to prove that.

Since you didn’t mention the fact that I also said:

What created being could destroy that which was never created. God is on a different order of existence from any other thing that exists. He transcends time. He is the only being that already sees the past, present and future, simultaneously.

In other words, no created being has the power to destroy that which was never created. A created being can not discern the uncreated God. That’s the reason for the incarnation.

In post #246 you said: God is eternal. He always existed and will continue to exist because…
Always, will, etc. implement temorality. Catholic God is not temporal.

I think you mean to say, “imply temporality”. No. That’s not the case. When we speak of God, we speak of Him from our perspective. We live in time and thus, for us, He existed in our past and exists in our present and will exist in our future. But for Him, there is no such passage of time.

Now, if you can speak of God in words which express timelessness perfectly, I’d like to see that. I’ve never met anyone else, who could.

No, you didn’t.

Yes, I did.

You need to prove that uncaused cause is immortal. Or you need to show that uncaused cause is timeless.

I’ve already explained it to the best of my ability. The ball is in your court.

I know the difference.

Ok.

These are all claims: (1) Time is created and (2) God created time.
The conclusion, God is not bounded by time, also does not follow from premises.

Your question is not whether God is immortal or eternal. You are actually questioning whether God exists. Otherwise, I would have thought that these “claims” would be our common ground from which we begin the discussion.

Ok. I’ll have to regroup and engage later.

 

[Gorgias]

I assume that time does not exist and then show that it has to exist otherwise we have to deal with two contradictions.

No. What you’ve done here is assume time does not exist, and then nevertheless express the situation in temporal terms! (“Simultaneous” means at the same time. If there’s no time, then there’s no simultaneity!) So, your first step fails, since it’s internally contradictory!

So you agree about that reality is temporal. The reality is not simultaneous.

No, that’s not what I’m saying here. What I’m saying is that, if you’re going to propose that time does not exist, you cannot then express things in temporal terms!

That is not apply to your God. Always implement temorality.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say, here. Could you rephrase?

I am afraid that you need to prove that.

We’ve done that a few times already.
‘Uncreated’ implies “not part of the universe”, since all entities within the context of the universe are created.
“Not part of the universe” implies “not part of temporal existence”.
“Not part of temporal existence”, along with “uncreated”, implies eternal.
QED.

 

[De_Maria]

And here is the argument (time cannot be created or be emergent): Time is the fundamental entity of any dynamical theory. Therefore time cannot be emergent entity of the same theory since you need time in first place to have a dynamical theory.

That’s a horse of a different color.

So, you’ve stated your theorem. Theorems can be questioned and disputed. They are not facts simply because they are stated.

So, let’s begin.

First error. (time cannot be created or be emergent)

That’s a simple claim. Time can certainly be created and be emergent and the Big Bang theory is one explanation of how it can be created or emerge.

Second error. You have assumed the parameters for your dynamical theory are acceptable to everyone. They are not. Whereas, God is absolute. God is unchanging. There is nothing dynamical until God creates something. Therefore, the dynamical part of existence began when God created the universe.

Third error. There is more than one fundamental entity in God’s creation (i.e. the universe).
a. Space and time.
b. In addition, space and time are inextricably linked. One can not exist without the other.
c. Whereas time emerges from the existence of space. If space did not exist, time would not exist since time is the measurement of the change in space.
d. But God, the uncaused cause, exists but does not need either space or time in order to remain in existence.

 

[STT]

I am afraid that you need to prove that.

I am sorry but what you said (bold parts) does not make any sense. Moreover you need to prove that God is timeless.

In post #246 you said: God is eternal. He always existed and will continue to exist because…
Always, will, etc. implement temorality. Catholic God is not temporal.

God exists.

You need to prove that uncaused cause is immortal. Or you need to show that uncaused cause is timeless.

Explaining is not enough. You need to provide an argument.

These are all claims: (1) Time is created and (2) God created time.
The conclusion, God is not bounded by time, also does not follow from premises.

No. I accept that God exists and He is uncaused cause. I am looking for a way to show that uncaused cause is immortal.

 

[STT]

I assume that time does not exist and then show that it has to exist otherwise we have to deal with two contradictions.

Ok, then I would change simultaneous with timeless point. Does that make sense now?

So you agree about that reality is temporal. The reality is not simultaneous.

Ok, can I say that reality is not timeless?

I am afraid that you need to prove that.

What if uncreated becomes a part of creation upon creation. How you can show that they are separate now.

“Not part of the universe” implies “not part of temporal existence”.

That is not correct. Time funamental entity of any dynamical theory so it is required for creation of any thing but itself. Therefore time cannot be created.

“Not part of temporal existence”, along with “uncreated”, implies eternal.
QED.

Therefore, the conclusion doesn’t follow.