How does immortality of God follow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
It depends what do you mean with truth.
Click to expand...
I think i have already explained what i mean by eternal truth, and you have yet to really address my argument.

Here it is again.
  1. There can be no such thing as eternal truth without existence because there is no truth in absolutely nothing.
  2. There is such a thing as eternal-truth, a truth that cannot fail to be true.
  3. If there were even a small possibility that there could be absolutely nothing, then it would also be possible that an eternal truth could fail to be eternally true, which is absurd.
Conclusion: There must therefore be an eternal existence.
 
I cannot see how your conclusion follow. To me a truth which explains a temporary state of affair is eternal.
 
STT said:
I cannot see how your conclusion follow. To me a truth which explains a temporary state of affair is eternal.
Click to expand...
If there is absolutely nothing there is no eternal truth. Truth is an expression of existence or existing things.

Things are true be cause there is such a thing as existence.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
If there is absolutely nothing there is no eternal truth. Truth is an expression of existence or existing things.

Things are true be cause there is such a thing as existence.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you stated up to here. The question is how you can conclude eternal existence from truth rather that temporary one.
 
STT said:
The question is how you can conclude eternal existence from truth rather that temporary one.
Click to expand...
Thats not the question at all

If you agree that truth is an expression of existence, and you agree that there are truths that cannot fail to be true, then it follows necessarily that there cannot be any such thing as absolutely nothing, because there is no truth in absolutely nothing. Therefore there must be an eternal existence precisely because there is an eternal truth.

Eternal truth cannot begin to be true or cease to be true, so we cannot say that eternal truths like 2 + 2 = 4 are caused by temporary things, thus it must be an expression of an eternal-nature.

What you have said about temporary beings and eternal truth is irrelevant to my argument. But even so, it can be eternally true that a temporary thing existed, but in-order for that to be the case there has to be such a thing as eternity because if everything ceased to exist it would no-longer be eternally true that a temporary being existed because there is no truth in absolutely nothing, and that would be a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Thats not the question at all

If you agree that truth is an expression of existence, and you agree that there are truths that cannot fail to be true, then it follows necessarily that there cannot be any such thing as absolutely nothing, because there is not truth in absolutely nothing. Therefore there must be an eternal existence precisely because there is an eternal truth.
Click to expand...
I accepted that there is no truth in absolutely nothing if the truth is about a state of affair. Your conclusion however doesn’t follow. There is a gap in what you propose, the existence of eternal truth and eternal existence since as I said the existence could be temporary.
IWantGod said:
Eternal truth cannot begin to be true or cease to be true, so we cannot say that eternal truths like 2 + 2 = 4 are caused by temporary things, thus it must be an expression of an eternal-nature. It can be eternally true that a temporary thing existed, but in-order for that to be the case there has to be such a thing as eternity because if everything ceased to exist it would no-longer be eternally true that a temporary being existed because there is no truth in absolutely nothing, and that would be a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Truth is not caused by temporary or permanent thing.
 
STT said:
since as I said the existence could be temporary.
Click to expand...
If there can be absolutely nothing, then it is possible that 2 + 2 = 4 can no-longer be true, which is a contradiction. Thus this kind of eternal truth cannot be true only because of temporary things. There has to be an eternal-nature that makes it true, because there is no truth in absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Truth is not caused by temporary or permanent thing.
Click to expand...
Eternal truth is an expression of an eternal-nature. You are correct to say that eternal truth cannot be caused to be true, thus you cannot attribute eternal truth to temporary things, because eternal truth cannot begin to be true or cease to be true. This is to say that you cannot claim that the reason there are eternal truths is only because of a temporal being.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
If there can be absolutely nothing, then it is possible that 2 + 2 = 4 can no-longer be true, which is a contradiction. Thus this kind of eternal truth cannot be true only because of temporary things. There has to be an eternal-nature that makes it true, because there is no truth in absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
2+2=4 is always true even if there is nothing since it doesn’t say anything about a state of affair. It is an abstract object. 2 apples plus 2 apples equals to 4 apples is however explains a state of affair if apples really exist.
 
STT said:
2+2=4 is always true even if there is nothing
Click to expand...
There is no truth in absolutely nothing. Truth is only an expression of existence or existing things.
STT said:
It is an abstract object.
Click to expand...
The concept of 2 + 2 = 4 is abstract. But the conclusion is true regardless of whether or not there are apples or an humans to think of it. The truth of it is simply a necessary out-come of the principle of non-contradiction which is itself intrinsic to the act of reality.

You have to accept that conclusion otherwise you are saying that it is not eternally true that 2 + 2 = 4 and that it is only true when we think of it or have apples to represent it, which would mean that this kind of truth is not really truth at all but instead arbitrary. This is contradictory, and you are contradicting yourself.

You cannot have it both ways.
 
STT said:
We are uncaused cause since we can interrupt a chain of causality and decide. Where is free decision come from? If your answer is a previous thing then the decision is not free and we are simply following a chain of causality.
Click to expand...
I see your point. It is a question as to whether or not free will is caused. If our choices are determined by some cause, then how can it be possible that we have free will? Could it be that free will is an illusion? But if free will is an illusion, then criminals are not responsible for their crimes and we have to look for causes other than their free choices.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
I see your point. It is a question as to whether or not free will is caused. If our choices are determined by some cause, then how can it be possible that we have free will? Could it be that free will is an illusion? But if free will is an illusion, then criminals are not responsible for their crimes and we have to look for causes other than their free choices.
Click to expand...
Can you not see the difference between causing something to exist and controlling it’s operation?
 
AlNg said:
Are the free choices we make caused or determined by some cause?
Click to expand...
In most cases you are the genesis of you’re operation, but that doesn’t mean that you are causing your actuality or existence.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
IWantGod:
In most cases you are the genesis of you’re operation, but that doesn’t mean that you are causing your actuality or existence.
Click to expand...
Are your free choices uncaused or are they determined?
Click to expand...
You err in assuming “caused” means “determined.” It doesn’t. To be caused does not in itself means our nature is deterministic. It may just be that it’s in the nature of the thing caused to then direct itself by intrinsic principles in a knowledgeable and voluntary and non-deterministic way. Think of this cause as a dependency, perhaps crudely like the way a computer is dependent upon a power source. The power source is a cause of it but does not determine its actions.

Our free choices are dependent upon ourselves existing, and we are caused. Therefore the efficient cause of the will is really just the efficient cause of the person.

And the way Thomists (for one) use the word “cause” is simply in the sense that Subject B is in some way dependent on Subject A (which is external and non-identical to Subject B). The notion of causality isnt restricted to just events.

Anyway, as to whether our choices are deterministic, that’s another debate among theists.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Are your free choices uncaused or are they determined?
Click to expand...
Choices are partly determined and partly not. That is true since choices are partly result of decision we made in past and partly because we also follow a chain of causality in past.
 
Wesrock said:
Think of this cause as a dependency, perhaps crudely like the way a computer is dependent upon a power source. The power source is a cause of it but does not determine its actions.
Click to expand...
The power source is only one cause. When you put all the causes together, you have that the combination of all the causes, determines the action of the computer. The actions of the computer are not uncaused. Similarly the choices we make can be determined by several causes, not just one cause.
Wesrock said:
as to whether our choices are deterministic, that’s another debate among theists.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is another debate. It is a question brought up by STT in relation to whether or not an uncaused event can have a beginning and does not have to be immortal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top