Is God a contingent being?

[tobias]

This is all getting very circular.
As I understand it, everything in any world, including the world itself is caused.
Though the Prime Existence pervades all worlds, and is sensible of the state of all worlds, yet the Prime Existence is not part of any world or existence, rather all worlds and existences are part of the Prime Existence.
That is how I understand Classical Theism.

That was the point of the last post. Even if ‘world’ means all that exixts and that includes God, given the initial premise of God as understood in classical theism, then the origionation of all contingencies is still the same God. For a possible world to truly be possible it must be considered, to be this world rewound to its origen then taken to on a different path. If this is not the case, then modal logic is a failed sytem, because possible merelly becomes a play of words.

It may be that Modal Logic is incompatible with Classical Theism.

I think modal logic is incompatible with the eternal. All it’s components are temporal.

 

[cpayne]

I think modal logic is incompatible with the eternal. All it’s components are temporal.

Logical truths are always a priori, necessary, and eternal, not temporal. However, the thread has taken a few turns away from the OP’s actual question, so I think I’ll disappear from here for a while. See you all elsewhere!

 

[tobias]

Logical truths are always a priori, necessary, and eternal, not temporal. However, the thread has taken a few turns away from the OP’s actual question, so I think I’ll disappear from here for a while. See you all elsewhere!

If a being can be contingent, which is fundamental to modal logic, then it is a logical truth that a being can be contingent, but the being is temporal and the truth that the being is contingent is neccessary. Otherwise modal logic would be utter nonsense.

That may have been your point, but I’m not arguing that, since there does not seem to be unanimity as to the proper usage of modal logic

 

[Bill_Cherry]

What sort of question is that?

Do you think God is like Peter Pan or something?

I think we are contingent on God,dude.

I don’t want to hurt your feelings ,but.



gee wiz man…

 

[cpayne]

What sort of question is that?

Do you think God is like Peter Pan or something?

I think we are contingent on God,dude.

I don’t want to hurt your feelings ,but.



gee wiz man…

Summa Theologica, Part I, Article 9, Question 1: “Is God altogether immutable?” If it was a meaningful question for Aquinas to reflect upon, I suppose it would be okay for us as well, wouldn’t it? Unless Aquinas was also silly for even considering such a question.

At any rate, as I said before, see you all elsewhere.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

HEY! Don’t run away!
I don’t necessarilly think that only I get and you dont.
I think most of us realize that your only trying to argue against something you instinctively know is real but are afraid to accept because it would mean TOTAL SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF GOD.
and,yeah,its tough.
I miss a mark or two everyday.And trust me.we all know the world is getting worser everyday.That’s why we pray…
OUR FATHER...

 

[cpayne]

Hi. Well, I’m not really running away. It’s just that I think on this thread, I’ve given my best ideas so far, which to me don’t seem satisfactory yet. So I’m going to go off and study a bit more on this particular topic.

But I really don’t have anything more to contribute right now. SO—so long for now!

 

[Bill_Cherry]

HA!
It’s MY…island!!!
:irish1:
HA!

HAHAHAHA!!!:knight2:

:shamrock2: :shamrock2: :shamrock2:

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Summa Theologica, Part I, Article 9, Question 1: “Is God altogether immutable?” If it was a meaningful question for Aquinas to reflect upon, I suppose it would be okay for us as well, wouldn’t it? Unless Aquinas was also silly for even considering such a question.

At any rate, as I said before, see you all elsewhere.

I am forced to ask: what do you mean by immutable?
Do you mean that G_d cannot respond to a changed situation with a change of attitude?
Does a person become a different person when moved from joy to misery and anger. The attitude changes, yes, but not the person.

 

[Greg27]

I think your question is really about how can God’s simplicity (in the sense of God having only a single essence) be reconciled with the existence of different attributes. The existence of different attributes in God, which themselves may change - God may will one thing and then will another for example, without necessarily involving a situation that is logically contradictory (such as creating a universe and then destroying it) seems to imply God is not simple, and also can change. But this contradicts the argument that God’s essence is both simple and unitary and also unchanging.

There are a number of ways to answer this question. It was one of the key debates in medieval philosophy. I think the notion of divine simplicity is elegant, but not without certain problems, including the one raised here.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

HA!
It’s MY…island!!!
:irish1:
HA!

HAHAHAHA!!!:knight2:

:shamrock2: :shamrock2: :shamrock2:

I believe in God because He believed in me first.If God ceases to believe in me,I will cease to exist.It is not I who alters the course through petition and civil action.It is God working through me.

I hope…

I suppose this is contingent on my submission to God’s WILL,and not mine.
This is what is shown in Romans 8:28-30
28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him,who are called according to His purpose.
29 For those whom He forknew He alsopredestined to be conformed to the image of His son,in order that He might bethe first born among many brethren.
30.And those whom He predestined He also called;and those whom He called he also justified;and those whom He justified He also glorified.

Who are called according to His purpose…

The changes that occur happen because God WILLS it.

Not because a whole lot of people believe it,and this somehow morphs reality.

Am I on the right track here?
Or am I missing something?

 

[MindOverMatter]

This makes no sense. If “existence” exists, it cannot be greater than all being, for it cannot be greater than itself.

I never meant to say that Existence is greater then itself. In fact that’s the point. There is nothing greater then “Existence”. God, by the Christian definition of being God, is the “highest being”; God is the greatest of all beings because God is “Existence” its very-self.
A sense of Existence can be indirectly known by existing things, but Existence is not the things themselves, but rather the ultimate- reality or being through which any number of possibilities can be expressed. Nothing can exists or “possibly” come to exist with out there first being such a thing as “Existence”; the ultimate reality of things. That’s the one unifying reality of all beings. Otherwise nothing could be possible.

Moreover, it doesn’t follow that the “existence” which exists in this world is the same as that which exists in another possible world.

There cannot be any otherworld or possibilities with out Existence. Existence remains the same at all times so far as its fundamental nature is to ultimately exist. If its fundamental nature of existing were to change, then there is only one thing that it can change to, and that is non-existence; and you can say goodbye to everything else along with it. The things which derive their beings from Existence have the ability to change because that’s the nature that has been given to them from Existence. So, contingent things may in fact exist differently in other worlds, but they are unified by the fact of “Existence”, and they require the unchanging factor of Existence in order to have such qualities; not to mention the ability to exist. In other worlds; in order for there to be contingent beings that change overtime; there first has to be such a thing as an ultimate being through which these things can possibly occur, for there can be no possibilities without an ultimate Existence; a timeless unchanging Existence.

So does “existence” derive its being and natural qualities from itself?

I’m not sure what you mean by derive.
Existence is ultimate-being. It is impossible for it to derive its “existence” or “qualities” from anything else but itself, because Existence is not a “contingent being”. Otherwise we must believe that out of nothing, we can get something, which is the same as believing that we can have many contingent beings without an ultimate being. Existence has no beginning or end. It is timeless, space-less, and without “physical” dimension.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I never meant to say that Existence is greater then itself. In fact that’s the point. There is nothing greater then “Existence”. God, by the Christian definition of being God, is the “highest being”; God is the greatest of all beings because God is “Existence” its very-self.
A sense of Existence can be indirectly known by existing things, but Existence is not the things themselves, but rather the ultimate- reality or being through which any number of possibilities can be expressed. Nothing can exists or “possibly” come to exist with out there first being such a thing as “Existence”; the ultimate reality of things. That’s the one unifying reality of all beings. Otherwise nothing could be possible.

There cannot be any otherworld or possibilities with out Existence. Existence remains the same at all times so far as its fundamental nature is to ultimately exist. If its fundamental nature of existing were to change, then there is only one thing that it can change to, and that is non-existence; and you can say goodbye to everything else along with it. The things which derive their beings from Existence have the ability to change because that’s the nature that has been given to them from Existence. So, contingent things may in fact exist differently in other worlds, but they are unified by the fact of “Existence”, and they require the unchanging factor of Existence in order to have such qualities; not to mention the ability to exist. In other worlds; in order for there to be contingent beings that change overtime; there first has to be such a thing as an ultimate being through which these things can possibly occur, for there can be no possibilities without an ultimate Existence; a timeless unchanging Existence.

I’m not sure what you mean by derive.
Existence is ultimate-being. It is impossible for it to derive its “existence” or “qualities” from anything else but itself, because Existence is not a “contingent being”. Otherwise we must believe that out of nothing, we can get something, which is the same as believing that we can have many contingent beings without an ultimate being. Existence has no beginning or end. It is timeless, space-less, and without “physical” dimension.

Sometimes you guys make me feel like such a simplton

However,I think I understood that…
I think

I obviously exist or I wouldn’t be here.

The concept of non-existance is actually quite absurd.

Unless we are all figmants of each others imaginations,…in which case,we would HAVE to exist in order to imagine each other.

But its OK

I did drugs once too!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Sometimes you guys make me feel like such a simplton

However,I think I understood that…
I think

I obviously exist or I wouldn’t be here.

The concept of non-existance is actually quite absurd.

Unless we are all figmants of each others imaginations,…in which case,we would HAVE to exist in order to imagine each other.

But its OK

I did drugs once too!

Do not demean yourself.
The philosophical aspects of logic can entirely abstruse.
The real problem here has been the insistance by some posters that the Prime Existence is part of the created existence.
This clearly is not the case.
Aspects of the Prime Existence can be perceived from inside Creation, but this is only seen through a glass darkly.
If you apply a discipline to what lies outside the domain of that discipline, then absurd errors can occur.
We loosely say that all numbers have a reciprocal, but we forget at our peril, that zero, though a true number, lies outside the domain of numbers having a reciprocal.
1/0 is completely undefined.
It has infinite magnitude, but unknown, and indefinite sign.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Ok.
But,…I maintain that i exist because God wants me to exist.
I believe because too many 'coincidences’have occurred for me to discount the evidence.
And,quite frankly,(in spite of how interesting this is)I don’t see the significance of the arguement.I,mean,Just because these people want to disprove something thats as obvious as the nose on our faces,…this isn’t going to change anything.
And with that I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread,because it makes my head spin…
I couldn’t disbelieve in God any more than I could deny my own existance.

sorry.no hard feelings…

 

[cpayne]

The real problem here has been the insistance by some posters that the Prime Existence is part of the created existence.

Let me uch: say it just one more time. Absolutely NO ONE on this thread has ever said or even implied that God is part of creation. NO ONE. Not me, not the OP, not ANYONE. The original argument we were engaged in does not imply this. “Possible worlds” arguments do not imply this. Modal logic does not imply this. No one has implied this. It was not part of the problem under debate. It has never been part of the problem under debate. If the thread ever gets picked up again (and back on track), it will NEVER BE part of the problem under debate.

HOPE THIS WAS HELPFUL. (Once you start typing in all caps, it’s hard to relinquish that feeling of power. ) And at this point, I’m skipping my way back to that “unsubscribe” option. God bless!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Let me uch: say it just one more time. Absolutely NO ONE on this thread has ever said or even implied that God is part of creation. NO ONE. Not me, not the OP, not ANYONE. The original argument we were engaged in does not imply this. “Possible worlds” arguments do not imply this. Modal logic does not imply this. No one has implied this. It was not part of the problem under debate. It has never been part of the problem under debate. If the thread ever gets picked up again (and back on track), it will NEVER BE part of the problem under debate.

It seems that you miss my point.
If you include the being of the Prime Existence in the domain of all existence, then you are saying in effect that the Prime Existence is part of all existence.
If you include the Prime Existence in logic statments concerning all existence, then you are including Prime Existence in the domain of your logic.
This is exactly what Modal Logicisians have been doing.
This is their error.
This is why their logic produces absurd conclusions.
I hope that clears up my objections.

HOPE THIS WAS HELPFUL. (Once you start typing in all caps, it’s hard to relinquish that feeling of power. ) And at this point, I’m skipping my way back to that “unsubscribe” option. God bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

According to classical theism, God is absolutely simple. What this means is that there is absolutely no composition in God; His essence is identical **in substance **to His knowledge, His will, His justice, His mercy, and all of His other attributes and powers.

Now, imagine other possible worlds with a different set of contingent beings (or no contingent beings). These could only occur because God willed them so. But since God’s will is different in these worlds, that means His essence is also different, which means it is a different being, a different God, in these worlds. Which means that the God in this world is not a necessary being, but a contingent one, since the same God does not exist in all possible worlds.

Or, alternatively, one could posit (although contrary to classical theism, which posits God’s freedom in creation) that this world is the only possible one. This would save God being a necessary being, but at the cost of every other being also being a necessary being.

The purpose of the universe is Christ.​

In other worlds, there could be different modes of Christ’s Primacy, & of His Necessity: but the fact of that necessity would be equally factual. An unfallen world needs no rescuing, but it is no less Christ-intended than this one. A world of talking beasts or intelligent horses is as Christ-centred as any other.

IMHO, there is one universe, but many worlds. A universe can in principle exist in more than one manner - so all potential universes would really be part of the one universe.

Because God is simple, His Will is the same in other worlds as in ours; the difference is not in God, but in His creatures He would not be simple otherwise, but composite, & so, changeable.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

G_d is not ‘a being’.
G_d is the being of ALL beings.