Well, it has never been the infallible position of the Catholic church that God changes. God is a perfect being, he does not change his mind, he does not make errors in his judgement. There are anthropomorphic elements in scripture in how it expresses God’s activity in the world.
It seems that G-d does not agree with you.
You have not shown that matter is unnecessary. The universe is necessary for man to exist.
I have. Physical reality changes. A necessary act or reality does not.
Because we have a physical nature we cannot be physical without there being a physical reality. But it doesn’t follow that therefore the universe, including ourselves, necessarily exists.
Physical reality never changes essentially. Matter can never be created or destroyed. The changes that you see in physical reality are inessential changes. These transformations in matter do not change the essential Nature of Matter. It is similar to the situation of God coming down from heaven or of God becoming man. Essentially, God has not changed, even though it might seem so. All the changes we see in God are inessential ones and do not touch upon his Nature.
It clearly does in some way shape or form. A necessary act of reality does not change at all.
Just because matter doesn’t stop being matter doesn’t mean it does not change. Neither does it mean that it necessarily exists, since it moves from potential to actuality.
It’s irrelevant. Having an intellect is essential to my being a rational being. But the act of that nature changes nonetheless. Therefore i am not a necessary act of reality.
All the changes that we see in physical reality are inessential because the essential Nature of Matter does not change.
So what? It’s irrelevant.
If we accept your interpretation then God is not infallible and does not have a perfect intellect since he does things that he will eventually regret (like a human).
It is not an interpretation. It is a direct quote from the LORD G-d:
The LORD Himself tells us that there are circumstances when He will change His mind. This is a quote, not an interpretation.
True. It is also not necessarily true that once something has been created then its cause must remain.Bradskii:
It is not necessarily true that once something has been created that it’s cause must cease to exist.
I’m not adding cycles. There is just the one. Which has no beginning and no end. Hence no need for a creator.Bradskii:
I don’t see the idea of a creator and a cyclical universe as being mutually exclusive. You can’t explain away contingency by adding an infinite number of cycles.
You are making a straw-man of my argument.
So we have a direct quote from God saying that he is imperfect and makes mistakes?
And why is that?
I do agree. But you are making an implied assumption. I would like to head it off at the pass. For example, you said:Bradskii:
You are making a straw-man of my argument.
I never claimed that once something has been created then its cause must remain.
I argued that in order for contingent beings to exist a necessary act of reality must exist.
I have made my argument for why i think you are incorrect in regards to the first premise of the OP. You can either address that argument and show why it’s wrong, or you can ignore it. Either way, assertions are unacceptable; don’t you agree?
If the cycle is infiite, it has no begining. Hence no creator. It’s like asking where the start point of a circle is.Bradskii:
And why is that?
Correct, because there cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist.