How does immortality of God follow?

[STT]

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.

Free will is not an illusion. I have one example of a situation that only a free agent can resolve, the situation being when we want two options equally. A deterministic system can not resolve such a situation and choose one option.

 

[STT]

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.

An uncaused being simply has existed and cannot have a cause. The question is whether it will exist forever.

 

[Wesrock]

AlNg:

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.

An uncaused being simply has existed and cannot have a cause. The question is whether it will exist forever.

The only demonstably uncaused cause is Actus Purus, which is necessarily immutable, and so is necessarily immortal.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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.

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.

The power source analogy is just an analogy and so limited. Otherwise, I agree that our choices have multiple causes.

as to whether our choices are deterministic, that’s another debate among theists.

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.

He confuses “caused” with “deterministic” and “deterministic” as incompatible with free will.

 

[AlNg]

You err in assuming “caused” means “determined.” It doesn’t.

I thought that determinism in the case of our choices would mean that our choices are ultimately determined by causes external to ourselves.

 

[IWantGod]

An uncaused being simply has existed and cannot have a cause. The question is whether it will exist forever.

Do you think absolutely nothing can exist? Some would argue that such is impossible, and therefore a necessary act of existence must exist…

 

[STT]

Nothingness is imaginable therefore it is a possibility. I think there is no proof for necessity of existence or necessity nonexistence exist. That is why we strive to facts when we want to make premises.

 

[IWantGod]

Nothingness is imaginable therefore it is a possibility.

Is it? Can you demonstrate that?

 

[STT]

Is it? Can you demonstrate that?

There would be no experience, no decision, and no causation if there is no mind. All these depend on existence of mind. Can you imagine the case when there is no mind?

 

[StAugustine]

Because the author of a category stands outside that category. Now God, being the author of being itself stands outside every category of being. Therefore he is not subject to the change in being, for he is totally without potential, pure act. Therefore he cannot die because he cannot change because he is not a being- rather he is the cause of Being itself. Read Dionysius the areopagites Divine Names, book one. Every name predicated of God is only analogically true, nor univocally. So God is just, but his justice is perfect and infinite, yet we only know it because of how he acts in creatures. He is the cause of being, because he himself sustains all being, and we sometimes say he is a being in the sense of his personal reality. But the truth is he excels every created conception ontologically and logically.

 

[IWantGod]

There would be no experience, no decision, and no causation if there is no mind. All these depend on existence of mind. Can you imagine the case when there is no mind?

This doesn’t answers my question, and it seems here you are saying that a mind necessarily exist because you cannot imagine there not being one or any causality without one.

 

[STT]

This doesn’t answers my question, and it seems here you are saying that a mind necessarily exist because you cannot imagine there not being one or any causality without one.

One mind or none. I would say it is indifferent 50 50, 100 0, etc. I don’t see any reason to say 100 0. Do you have any reason to argue it is 100 0 when you are not using any fact?

Have you ever had a sleep without any dream, when you experience nothing? Nothingness should be like that.

 

[STT]

Because the author of a category stands outside that category. Now God, being the author of being itself stands outside every category of being.

This really doesn’t follow.

Therefore he is not subject to the change in being, for he is totally without potential, pure act. Therefore he cannot die because he cannot change because he is not a being- rather he is the cause of Being itself.

I think that Being cause of your Being is contrary. Being simply exists. Moreover pure actuality does not exist otherwise there could be no change.

 

[StAugustine]

This is all dealt with in Aquinas you realize…

 

[IWantGod]

Have you ever had a sleep without any dream, when you experience nothing?

That is not the same thing as experiencing absolutely nothing. You either didn’t have an experience or you did and you don’t remember.

Nothing/no-thing, in the philosophical sense of the word, is the ontological absence of some possibility or possible being. But if there were absolutely nothing/no existence at all, there would be no possibility of anything because there is nothing in absolutely nothing and out of nothing comes nothing. Thus possibility can only be an expression of existence.

Thus it cannot be true that absolutely nothing is a possible state of affairs since nothing is the absence of possibility, and we know that there is such a thing as possibility.

Even if we ignore this argument, the following argument still follows as true…

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, and no thing can begin to exist without being caused to exist by some being that already exists and has the power to give existence.
2. A thing either exists because it is it’s nature to exist, or it is being caused to exist. There is no other option.
3. Things exist that are not necessarily real since they move from potentiality to actuality, and thus they do not naturally exist because they are being made to exist…
4. There must therefore be a being that necessarily exists because it is it’s nature to exist and has the power to give existence to potential things, otherwise there would be no possibility of any potential thing being actualized since out of absolutely nothing comes nothing at all. This being is called an existential-cause or the ultimate cause (also known as the prime-mover or first cause or the ground of all possible and potential things etc).
5. If the ultimate/existential-cause exists, but does not exist because it is it’s nature to necessarily exist, there would be no reason for it to exist. It’s existence would be arbitrary and therefore fundamentally irrational, contradicting premise 2.

Conclusion: A necessary being exists. And this is what we call God.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You err in assuming “caused” means “determined.” It doesn’t.

I thought that determinism in the case of our choices would mean that our choices are ultimately determined by causes external to ourselves.

One’s agency could be by an intrinsic principle, as opposed to an extrinsic principle, even if that intrinsic principle acted in a determinable way by something with full knowledge of it.

 

[Vico]

I am afraid that this is not an argument.

Per Aristotle, a logical argument can be reduced to two premises (1, 2) and a conclusion (3):

1. Only what is created can be mortal.
2. God is not created.
3. Therefore God is not mortal but rather immortal.

 

[AlNg]

One’s agency could be by an intrinsic principle

IOW the cause of your free will making a specific choice is your free will and there are no extrinsic causes other than your free will. Well, your argument is circular because you have not said why your free will makes the specific choice that it does. Unless there were no set of causes which determined why your free will made that specific choice. In that case, your choice was uncaused.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

One’s agency could be by an intrinsic principle

IOW the cause of your free will making a specific choice is your free will and there are no extrinsic causes other than your free will. Well, your argument is circular because you have not said why your free will makes the specific choice that it does. Unless there were no set of causes which determined why your free will made that specific choice. In that case, your choice was uncaused.

A rational choice is dependent upon the intellect. All rational choices are made based on knowledge of a situation, knowledge about how they think the outcome will be, and desired outcomes. My choice about whether to have orange juice or milk to drink is dependent upon my thirst and the objects being available. These are all causes. But the movement is intrinsic to you; it’s not because you’re being pulled about entirely by external puppet strings. But more essentially STT misses the distinction between the movement of the will, which is intrinsic, with having the capacity or nature for such voluntary movement, which is externally, essentially caused.

 

[STT]

Nothing / no- thing , in the philosophical sense of the word, is the ontological absence of some possibility or possible being.

No. Nothing is absence of any thing. It is a possibility.

But if there were absolutely nothing/no existence at all, there would be no possibility of anything because there is nothing in absolutely nothing and out of nothing comes nothing. Thus possibility can only be an expression of existence.

No. The possibility is not an expression of existence.

Thus it cannot be true that absolutely nothing is a possible state of affairs since nothing is the absence of possibility, and we know that there is such a thing as possibility.

I am afraid that this doesn’t follow.

Even if we ignore this argument, the following argument still follows as true…

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, and no thing can begin to exist without being caused to exist by some being that already exists and has the power to give existence.

You need to prove bold part.

1. A thing either exists because it is it’s nature to exist, or it is being caused to exist. There is no other option.

There is a third option: Nothing.

1. Things exist that are not necessarily real since they move from potentiality to actuality, and thus they do not naturally exist because they are being made to exist…

The bold part doesn’t make any sense to me.

1. There must therefore be a being that necessarily exists because it is it’s nature to exist and has the power to give existence to potential things, otherwise there would be no possibility of any potential thing being actualized since out of absolutely nothing comes nothing at all. This being is called an existential-cause or the ultimate cause ( also known as the prime-mover or first cause or the ground of all possible and potential things etc ).

Again, you need to prove that out of nothing comes nothing. Moreover, you need to prove that a pure actual being has the power to create potential things.

1. If the ultimate/existential-cause exists, but does not exist because it is it’s nature to necessarily exist, there would be no reason for it to exist. It’s existence would be arbitrary and therefore fundamentally irrational, contradicting premise 2.

Conclusion: A necessary being exists. And this is what we call God.

I think that we were looking for an argument for immortality of God granting that He is uncaused cause.