Is God a Controller of the Universe?

[belorg]

Of course not; you can’t expect somebody to understand nonsense.

If you really have nothing substantial to add, you had better leave this discussion up to people who know what they are talking about.

 

[belorg]

Not exactly. God sustains the universe in being. It does not exist by its own power.

Whether it exist by its own power or by God’s power does not have any bearing on the fact that a God not able to change His mind is a deist God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Whether it exist by its own power or by God’s power does not have any bearing on the fact that a God not able to change His mind is a deist God.

What God wills, is an eternal expression of his mind. Why would he change it? Why do you think its relevant? A perfect being simply wills that which is perfect; he perfectly responds. A perfect being wouldn’t do anything that wasn’t perfect.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

This is a logical consequence of the Aristotelean (and Thomist) concept of God as a-temporal and unchanging. Once time is set in motion, the only way to influence anything in time would be by changing your mind; something an unchanging being by definition cannot do.

Is this the argument that casual powers of God taking effect in time is basis for mutability?

I am not gravitating to a calvinistic-like stance. I am telling you that your position of a God controlling everything through ‘intermediate causes’ leads to a Calvinistic stance.

Not so when the Thomistic position is actually understood in it’s fullness.

You should take that up with Calvinists.

Hard to find one these days, I wonder why

No, that is not my stance. I am not even talking about foreknowledge here.

I understand that, but we both know that the subject is interconnected with determinism.

 

[empther]

This is too good!
In post #41 boring belorg wrote:

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

Of course not; you can’t expect somebody to understand nonsense.

If you really have nothing substantial to add, you had better leave this discussion up to people who know what they are talking about.

In the very next post, #42,
Belorg wrote this total nonsense which even a child can see is ridiculous:

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

Not exactly. God sustains the universe in being. It does not exist by its own power.

Whether it exist by its own power or by God’s power does not have any bearing on the fact that a God not able to change His mind is a deist God.

:extrahappy:

 

[belorg]

Is this the argument that casual (causal?)powers of God taking effect in time is basis for mutability?

No.

Not so when the Thomistic position is actually understood in it’s fullness.

I disagree.

Hard to find one these days, I wonder why

Well, I know a few. And where I live, it’s hard to finda catholic these day too.

I understand that, but we both know that the subject is interconnected with determinism.

It’s interconnected with control.

 

[belorg]

What God wills, is an eternal expression of his mind. Why would he change it? Why do you think it’s relevant? .

It’s not just that He wouldn’t change it, He cannot change it even if He wanted.
It’s relevant because this immutability entails the total incoherence of an intervening theist God, as well as the incoherence of a judging God., something that seems essential to most barnds of Christianity that I am familiar with and most certainly with catholicism.

So this prefect being has no need to act in time or to intervene

A perfect being simply wills that which is perfect; he perfectly responds

To respond entails to change ones mind.

.A perfect being wouldn’t do anything that wasn’t perfect

A perfect being would not create, sustain or enable something that wasn’t perfect. Hence for this pereffct being to judge the imperfections of His own creation is a completely incoherent idea.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s not just that He wouldn’t change it, He cannot change it even if He wanted.

False; he wouldn’t have made the choice in the first place if it were a possibility that he would want to change it.

It’s relevant because this immutability entails the total incoherence of an intervening theist God, as well as the incoherence of a judging God., something that seems essential to most barnds of Christianity that I am familiar with and most certainly with catholicism.

You are just asserting this. I won’t apologize for not accepting this assertion.

So this prefect being has no need to act in time or to intervene

That depends on what you mean by acting in time.

to respond entails to change ones mind.

Not necessarily. Our physical understanding of response certainly entails the physical limitations of a physical response. However I use the word response analogously simply to identify the fact that God eternally acts for the perfect good. However Gods nature is as such that all situations and conditions that participate in his being are automatically fulfilled by Gods goodness depending on the context and relationships of contingent events in respect of the end for which they are in act and was brought into Gods being. God does not need to change, but rather physical reality itself reacts appropriately in the presence of Gods eternal nature and will when a moral good ought to be actual.

A perfect being would not create, sustain or enable something that wasn’t perfect.

A perfectly good being would share the good of his existence with creatures lesser than himself, since the good of sharing is the natural expression of love and to love is the nature of God, and love does not discriminate.

Hence for this pereffct being to judge the imperfections of His own creation is a completely incoherent idea.

First of all I don’t know what you mean by perfect; and in any case that is straw-man of what Catholics mean by it.

Secondly, God only judges according to what we are in control of. He does not judge us according to our imperfections; that is correct. But we do have freewill, and we have the power to will the good, even if we fail because our imperfections. He judges us according to our will to be good, according to what is in our hearts, and in the end God will cause us to be good according to what we will and that which is in our hearts. The Catholic faith, specifically makes it clear that good works alone do not get you in to heaven. That is why it is completely possible for a person to live a completely ignorant and wicked life and yet come to accept the wickedness of his or her behavior and genuinely repent and be saved. God seeks an honest heart, not a perfect saint. Only God can make saints.

**Warning: **Fighting-talk commencing.

Do you have any more straw-men and red herrings up your sleeve belorg? I would of thought that you would have at least gave a cautionary study of Gods attributes before being so arrogant as to dictate to us how ridiculous our God is. As it stands, its seems you really don’t know anything beyond the musings of a ten year old, accept the second or third hand accounts written by so called Atheist Philosophers and Scientists like Richard Dawkins who also has the brain of a ten year old when it comes to religious philosophy. He is so bad that Richard gets criticized by atheists.

You’re an embarrassment to the Atheist Movement as well as being a clone.

 

[belorg]

**Warning: **Fighting-talk commencing.

Do you have any more straw-men and red herrings up your sleeve belorg? I would of thought that you would have at least gave a cautionary study of Gods attributes before being so arrogant as to dictate to us how ridiculous our God is. As it stands, its seems you really don’t know anything beyond the musings of a ten year old, accept the second or third hand accounts written by so called Atheist Philosophers and Scientists like Richard Dawkins who also has the brain of a ten year old when it comes to religious philosophy. He is so bad that Richard gets criticized by atheists.

You’re an embarrassment to the Atheist Movement as well as being a clone.

You are getting frustrated again, Mind.
You should consider some counselling or you’ll end up in deep trouble.

If instead of answering to arguments you feel the need to insult me ( not a very Catholic attitude, I would think) that means you actually have nothing substantial to offer after all.

So, I won’t respond to you anymore.

If somebody a little bit more civilized wants to discuss this with me, that’s a totally different matter pf course.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are getting frustrated again, Mind.
You should consider some counselling or you’ll end up in deep trouble.

If instead of answering to arguments you feel the need to insult me ( not a very Catholic attitude, I would think) that means you actually have nothing substantial to offer after all.

So, I won’t respond to you anymore.

If somebody a little bit more civilized wants to discuss this with me, that’s a totally different matter pf course.

Assuming that your posts have been all civilized.

All you have done for the duration of your stay on this forum is assert the irrelevance of any epistemology that does not reconcile with your naturalistic “belief system” and your pseudo-epistemology in relation to science. And on the basis of that assertion you have been rude to people.

So It is not surprising that you have found another excuse to ignore the fact that much of your thinking is flawed, as is made evident by the fact that you have selectively quoted my post and conveniently not commented on the parts that make you look ignorant.

So your accusation of mental health does not fade me at all; and your claim that i didn’t address your fallacious arguments is false…

 

[empther]

belorg wrote this trash addressed to mom2:

If instead of answering to arguments you feel the need to insult me ( not a very Catholic attitude, I would think) that means you actually have nothing substantial to offer after all.

So, I won’t respond to you anymore.

If somebody a little bit more civilized wants to discuss this with me, that’s a totally different matter pf course.

Somebody a little more civilized wouldn’t waste his time talking to you, belorg,
but you won’t be lonely.
I’m still here. :bounce:
:extrahappy:

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

No.

This is a logical consequence of the Aristotelean (and Thomist) concept of God as a-temporal and unchanging. Once time is set in motion, the only way to influence anything in time would be by changing your mind; something an unchanging being by definition cannot do.

Not if what He wills in time is willed from eternity, but this necessary to assume and not an “if” situation. An eternal being experiences no before and after, the effects of His will in time are but an accident to us but already accomplished to Him.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Oh, foolish theists, don’t you know that atheists are the new pantheon?

An answer to an age old question has finally been revealed:

Who can understand the mind of God?

Why, atheists of course!

 

[belorg]

Not if what He wills in time is willed from eternity, but this necessary to assume and not an “if” situation. An eternal being experiences no before and after, the effects of His will in time are but an accident to us but already accomplished to Him.

Let me try to explain my point using an analogy, Trevor.

God wills a certain temporal sequence of events from eternity, let’s say the sequence t1,t2,t3,t4…tn…and that’s what he gets.
Now let’s suppose God wants to influence something in time. That means that upon exercising this influence, the temporal sequence is changed, e.g. to t1,t2, t3b,…

Now, God cannot do that without changing his mind. He could, from eternity, have chosen to create/enable the second sequence, of course. but he cannot change the first into the second without changing his mind. This would be something like God originally wanted sequence 1 but changed his mind and instead created sequence 2.

So, once the temporal chain is said in motion, God cannot change it anymore.

Now, either He has control. That means that whatever sequence He created is fixed.
Let t3 be the event 'Belorg becomes an atheist". That means that by creating this sequence, God made it so that I would become an atheist.

The other possibility is that God creates a chain that is governed by probability instead of certainty. That means that t3 haoppening has a certain probability, but is not certain. t2 could be followed by t3 but also by t3b In this case, something might go very wrong at some time, and God would not be able to do anything about it.

 

[belorg]

Oh, foolish theists, don’t you know that atheists are the new pantheon?

An answer to an age old question has finally been revealed:

Who can understand the mind of God?

Why, atheists of course!

Of course I can’t understand the mind of God. But I can understand the mind of people believing in God.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Let me try to explain my point using an analogy, Trevor.

God wills a certain temporal sequence of events from eternity, let’s say the sequence t1,t2,t3,t4…tn…and that’s what he gets.
Now let’s suppose God wants to influence something in time. That means that upon exercising this influence, the temporal sequence is changed, e.g. to t1,t2, t3b,…

Now, God cannot do that without changing his mind. He could, from eternity, have chosen to create/enable the second sequence, of course. but he cannot change the first into the second without changing his mind. This would be something like God originally wanted sequence 1 but changed his mind and instead created sequence 2.

It would follow that seq 1 would change but if He willed this to be the case all along then this does not imply change in His mind as this event was nothing more than a transition of what He ultimately, as an end goal, has in mind.

 

[belorg]

It would follow that seq 1 would change but if He willed this to be the case all along then this does not imply change in His mind as this event was nothing more than a transition of what He ultimately, as an end goal, has in mind.

I don’t think you really get what i mean.
A temporal sequence by definition changes, but that is not the point. The point is that either sequence 1 is created as t1,t2,t3… or as t1,t2,t3b… but cannot be changed from having a t3 to having a t3b.
So, the classic interventionist theist God is impossible on an Aristotean God concept and also on a Thomistic God concept.

 

[empther]

belorg’s nonsense about sequences of events is pure hogwash.

If God intervenes in wordly events, he knew from eternity he would do this. It’s not changing his mind.

The concept is so simple, even belorg should be able to understand it.

 

[empther]

A common technique of charlatans llike belorg is to bury their absurbdity in the middle of their argument so you don’t notice.

God wills a certain temporal sequence of events from eternity, let’s say the sequence t1,t2,t3,t4…tn…and that’s what he gets.
Now let’s suppose God wants to influence something in time. That means that upon exercising this influence, the temporal sequence is changed, e.g. to t1,t2, t3b,…

Now, God cannot do that without changing his mind. .

What do you mean “the temporal sequence is changed” ?

Case 1: Has the sequence already happened and God wants to change the past? That’s a logical impossibility, a self-contradiction like a square circle, and even God cannot make something both be and not be.

Case 2: If the temporal sequence has not already happened, then the sequence that does happen is what God intended or knew about from eternity. He didn’t change his mind.
Nor are there two temporal sequences in his mind as you imply, but only one, the one he knew from eternity would happen.

---

---

You see how easy it is to slam these atheists, folks ? :extrahappy:

 

[ivebeenshown]

Now let’s suppose God wants to influence something in time.

This sort of supposition that you explain in full detail is ultimately fruitless. In one eternal and unchanging moment, God knows all things. There is nothing to change.