How does immortality of God follow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
The gears interact because their atoms interact. Atoms interact through electromagnetic field.
Click to expand...
🤦‍♂️

No, the gears interact because physical force is applied to them. It’s not an electromagnetic dynamic.
looskanal said:
It’s basically the same as falling dominoes.
Click to expand...
No – the point is that the interaction is fundamentally different from the “falling dominoes” example. (I was kinda hoping that this wasn’t what you were thinking.)

In the dominoes example, there’s a one-time event for each domino. Moreover, the events for dominoi and dominoj (i << j) are not simultaneous. However, in the gear example, the events for geari and gearj are simultaneous, for all intents and purposes. Moreover, they’re continuous events, and therefore, we’ve got simultaneous (yet distinct) ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ actions.

The two examples (dominoes and gears) are canonical examples of different scenarios. That’s the whole point. 😉
 
looskanal said:
They occur at different points in time.
Click to expand...
Please explain, in the context of the gear example. How does the “cause” of gear 1 not occur simultaneously with the “effect” of gear 2? More to the point, how does the “effect” in gear 3 not occur simultaneously with the “effect” in gear 2?

Remember, we’re not talking about the initiation of motion (in which, we might say, there is slippage) – we’re talking about the ongoing motion / change / causation!
 
Well, take the terms premise and what is stems from: mortality. Thus, if you attach im-mortality. That acquaints the condition of the being for whom is laying out that God is not mortal. Or non-mortal.

Thus, to ask: How does immortality of God follow? Comes as the question/viewer of mortals.

In the world of Christianity, God created man in His image, and after His likeness. That might be a start. His immortality follows from infinite love. For He created out of love. His nature, as Saint John the Apostle stated: God is love. Hence, that is how His immortality follows.

In the Garden, man fell into deception. And, that was believing a lie over God. Actually believing God was hiding something. As if God was denying man something. As if God did not love them. Or not enough. Why would God place this in our midst, tell us not to eat it, allow for the weight and burden of death? Is there something maybe more and desiring about it? Hence, the questions brought forth by the serpent.

It was questioning God’s love. When He says His first “Thou shalt not.” Not to eat that fruit. Why? Because, it would jeopardize the soul in the Garden. Man has freewill. Man’s will to completely reject God, and what He told them. To believe a lie. Man has this freedom. To deny the Truth. Hence, the question can also be asked, how does mortality of man follow? It follows from death due to sin. Or violation of love and trust.

The contra to the paradigm of caritas. Call it contra-caritas (i.e. contrary to love.)

Man’s idea of immortality, because of the error due to sin, the grievous and great fall of mankind. Man thinks of immortality in the way the serpent spoke in the Garden. Man does not need the fruit anymore, he seeks and desires it so in his finite will. Thinking his will is endless. Thus, corrupted Theology.

God is God. He is love. Man is not God. Man is made in the image and after the likeness of that Love. But man is not Love itself. Thus, that is where immortality follows from. The wellspring of God, the infinite and eternal Creator, Who is infinite Love itself. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Do the gears are made of atoms?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. But, if you picture a hand-cranked set of gears, and try to assert that they move due to electromagnetic force, then I think we’re done here. :roll_eyes:
 
Gorgias said:
Yes, they are. But, if you picture a hand-cranked set of gears, and try to assert that they move due to electromagnetic force, then I think we’re done here.
Click to expand...
Can we agree that atoms are just electrons distribution around nucleus? If yes, then we know that electron has charge so we are dealing with a charge distribution around nucleus. This charge distribution produces a electromagnetic filed around atoms. This is main force involved when your gears are moving together. Electromagnetic field moves with speed of light. Therefore the process of moving gears is not simultaneous.
 
looskanal said:
In the quantum world everything happens at the same time.
Click to expand...
Sure, the quantum world exists, in a manner of speaking. However, we’re not just viewing it through a lens, as if our ‘view’ is only a perspective on things. Outside the “quantum realm”, things really do happen in a temporal framework.

However, when we talk about simultaneity, in a philosophical discussion, we’re not really talking about quantum effects. We’re talking about how we experience the world.

And, in our world, if you took a series of snapshots – each capturing an instant – you’d see that a series of gears actually are acting simultaneously. So, yeah… it really is simultaneous, and not just from a ‘quantum world’ perspective.

(p.s., I’m hoping I gave you a way to envision this. But, similarly, I’m not too hopeful… 😉 )
STT said:
This charge distribution produces a electromagnetic filed around atoms. This is main force involved when your gears are moving together.
Click to expand...
No. The gears aren’t moved by the force of an electromagnetic field, generated by the atoms of the gears. If they were, then the force of cranking the gears wouldn’t be necessary. That mechanical force is necessary, however. Therefore, despite the fact that an electromagnetic dynamic is in play, it’s not sufficient to explain the motion of the gears. The gears – per se – are moving simultaneously. (NB: their individual atoms may be said to be moving independently, but that’s immaterial.)
 
Correct, and if uncaused cause cannot be acted upon, it cannot be subject to change.

Now, mortality is that state in which a living thing is subject to bodily disintegration- change.

Therefore the uncaused cause is not subject to mortality.

It is therefore immortal.
 
Gorgias said:
No. The gears aren’t moved by the force of an electromagnetic field, generated by the atoms of the gears. If they were, then the force of cranking the gears wouldn’t be necessary. That mechanical force is necessary, however. Therefore, despite the fact that an electromagnetic dynamic is in play, it’s not sufficient to explain the motion of the gears. The gears – per se – are moving simultaneously. (NB: their individual atoms may be said to be moving independently, but that’s immaterial.)
Click to expand...
I cannot really help it. 😦
 
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
despite the fact that an electromagnetic dynamic is in play, it’s not sufficient to explain the motion of the gears. The gears – per se – are moving simultaneously.
Click to expand...
I cannot really help it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know you can’t. It’s true. 😉
 
It clearly follows. Demonstrate the contrary.

Mortality is not a choice, but a condition of being subject to dissolution.

Now, the act of dissolution occurs when agents act on patients and they no longer cohere as a material unity.

But this is to be subject to change, fundamentally.

Now first cause, as source of being, is beyond change and necessarily immortal.
 
False. Uncaused cause has no potentiality. For since nothing is prior to it there is nothing for it to aspire to, and therefore to seek change would seek to move from an imperfect to a more perfect state.

But this is absurd because uncaused cause is prior to every condition and cannot move from imperfection to perfection because imperfection would be defect. But no defect can exist in the cause prior to every being, for there is nothing for it to lack in comparison to another.

Moreover, to change is to move from one state to another. What is an uncaused cause comparing itself to to move from one state to another?

Therefore it is beyond change and therefore-

Uncaused cause is immortal.
 
Last edited:
Uncaused cause is pure actuality because there is no room for potentiality, and there is no mean between act and potency.

Potentiality requires room for change.

Now uncaused cause is prior to all being.

Therefore it is prior to change, which can only occur in beings.

Therefore it is purely actual.
 
Creation is not a change in the first cause, but a change outside of it by an act of will.
 
STT said:
Uncaused cause could change after the first change, creation.
Click to expand...
St Augustine showed that this is impossible in post 303. If the uncaused cause is perfect, then it is immutable. (Any change would imply a movement from lesser to greater perfection (or vice versa), and would lead to contradiction, since it means that God is not always fully perfect.)

Therefore, immutable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top