Is Jesus unchanging?

[rossum]

It almost sounds like you don’t read my posts.

I do, but I do not accept many of the assumptions that you make.

My understanding of off topic is that something is not important to answering the OP’s question.

Is Jesus God? If yes, then God is on topic. Specifically, whether or not God changes is on topic.

I brought up Aristotle, to refresh your memory again, not because I thought Aristotle was Christian, but because he held that God is immutable and that God is the Uncaused Cause.

Aristotle was not referring to a triune God who talked with Abraham, Moses and the Jewish prophets. Aristotle was talking about a philosophical God, who lacked many of the characteristics of the Christian God. You might as well say that Aristotle was talking about the Islamic Allah, the Sikh Onkar, the Hindu Brahman or any other major God who shares the same Aristotelian properties. There is nothing specifically Christian about what Aristotle describes.

Again, since you seem to forget post 55:

One thing cannot have opposed properties. It cannot be both A and ~A. Aristotle accepts the law of the excluded middle. If A is “this thing changes” then we cannot have both A and ~A simultaneously true. Either there are two different things (or possibly two parts of a compound), or you are rejecting one of the fundamental rules of logic.

If God never changes, yet God’s actions change, then God must be separate from God’s actions. Hence God did not part the Red Sea, but it was God’s actions that did it. We now have two separate entities, which we can analyse further. The point it that there are two different entities, and what applies to one does not always apply to the other. God did not part the sea.

No one said that Aristotle’s conception of God is the Christian conception of God. Nor that what is said of one is necessarily true of the other.

I agree. Aristotle’s concept of God is not relevant here, where we are discussing the Christian God.

I said that Aristotle taught that God is immutable and that God is the Uncaused Cause.

Which is irrelevant, because Aristotle is not talking about either Jesus or the Christian God. Aristotle’s idea of God is off topic for this thread.

I did not say “as is the Christian conception of God.” My point was (and is) that you looked (and look) foolish saying that if God is immutable then He cannot Cause anything.

Almost right. An immutable cause can never start causing anything or stop causing anything. It can remain constantly causing something. Any temporary effect cannot be caused by a permanent cause. Only a permanent effect can be caused by a permanent cause. Only a temporary cause can cause a temporary effect.

I would like to say something like: “The Divine Essence is eternal.” “Jesus’ human nature changed.”

Then we still have two entities, Jesus(D) and Jesus(H) as I called them. Those two entities have different properties and so cannot be the same.

I will restate my case more formally.

Consider P = “The Red Sea is parted”. P is temporary, and it is a caused effect.

During the time of Abraham P was false: ~P at T(A).

During the time of Moses, P was true: P at T(M).

During the time of David, P was false again: ~P at T(D).

Now consider the cause of P, call it X.

If X is the cause of P, then we have X → P.

During T(A) we have ~P and X → P. Hence we can derive ~X: the cause of P does not exist during the time of Abraham.

During T(M) we have P and X → P. We cannot derive any more from those two statements. They are consistent with both X and ~X.

During T(D) we have ~P and X → P. Hence we can derive ~X: the cause of P does not exist during the time of David.

If you assert that X cannot change, then the only consistent resolution of the logic is ~X, that the cause of P does not exist at any of the three time periods. In all three time periods, only ~X does not change. That is my problem with an unchanging cause of a temporary effect. If the effect is temporary, then any unchanging cause must be non-existent. A changing cause may exist, at least during T(M). If X → P, then when ~P is in effect, we have ~P → ~X. The cause of a temporary effect cannot be permanent, but must itself be temporary.

rossum

 

[Cathoholic]

Rossum. Please tell me how you are defining “reification” in your post 74.

Nagarjuna has a number of excellent arguments against “substance”, indeed against all reification.

I looked up “reification” and found it used different ways so I want to see how YOU are using “reification” here on this thread since you brought it up.

 

[rossum]

Rossum. Please tell me how you are defining “reification” in your post 74.

I mean taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real. That is, projecting that mental construct out into the world outside ourselves and thinking that the internal entity actually has some form of real existence out there.

There is no water in a mirage, but inside our minds we “see” water. Reification is the error of thinking that the water we “see” actually exists in the real world.

Usually I am talking about things like “soul”, “essence”, “substance” that arise in philosophical discussion. A common sign of a reified entity is that it is unchanging. One of the fundamentals of Buddhism is that everything changes, though some things may change very slowly. Hence my somewhat different approach to this thread. There is a great deal of Buddhist philosophical analysis of change, which starts from a very different set of premises than most Western philosophy.

HTH

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

I mean taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real. That is, projecting that mental construct out into the world outside ourselves and thinking that the internal entity actually has some form of real existence out there.

There is no water in a mirage, but inside our minds we “see” water. Reification is the error of thinking that the water we “see” actually exists in the real world.

Usually I am talking about things like “soul”, “essence”, “substance” that arise in philosophical discussion. A common sign of a reified entity is that it is unchanging. One of the fundamentals of Buddhism is that everything changes, though some things may change very slowly. Hence my somewhat different approach to this thread. There is a great deal of Buddhist philosophical analysis of change, which starts from a very different set of premises than most Western philosophy.

HTH

rossum

you have spent a lot of time asking us questions about is God in time is God out of time ect. But a simple question for you. Is God inside or outside of time?

 

[rossum]

you have spent a lot of time asking us questions about is God in time is God out of time ect. But a simple question for you. Is God inside or outside of time?

God is Inside time. In Buddhism all the gods are inside time. They change and are impermanent, though they may be very long lived.

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

God is Inside time. In Buddhism all the gods are inside time. They change and are impermanent, though they may be very long lived.

rossum

if if God or gods are inside of time how can the world exist at all?

Understand that I am using the principle of sufficient reason. Everything must have a reason for it’s existence either in itself or in another. Even an infinite universe must have a reason for it’s existence, again either in itself or in another.

 

[jameswalter]

Rossum
You are at a loss to reconcile faith with human intellect. Intellect will win until you allow God to call you his own. The cost is your eternal life. Torment indefinitely for refusing to embrace the good people that want you to know your Savior.
If it is Gods nature to be God then only by NOT being God (I.e. Only by NOT parting the Red Sea) would God be changing. Think about that. Read it again. It makes sense. Like the only constant is change,etc. Easy stuff here.
What does it matter anyway? Are you more likely to develop your faith for an Un changing God if you can perceive him that way?
God being God is not change. God ceasing to be God would be change. Your references to actions changing the actor are irrelevant until you prove God has taken any action post creation. If you can assume his actions are done within creation (time and space) then you are allowing others to assume his actions are outside time and space even though their effects occur within.
When your life passes before you you will see how small you are and how your free will sentenced you to eternal damnation because of a ridiculous theory you couldnt prove anyway.
Praying for you
JW

 

[rossum]

if if God or gods are inside of time how can the world exist at all?

What do you mean by “the world”? If you mean the material universe that started at the Big Bang, then I suggest that you ask a cosmologist. If you mean the more philosophical universe of “all that exists” then any existent God, or gods, are obviously inside the ATE universe.

Understand that I am using the principle of sufficient reason. Everything must have a reason for it’s existence either in itself or in another. Even an infinite universe must have a reason for it’s existence, again either in itself or in another.

From the Buddhist point of view everything has a cause. The cause of the universe now is the universe as it was an instant ago. If the earlier universe did not exist, then the current universe would not exist either. In all cases the cause is ‘other’, not itself. The universe one instant ago was not the same as the universe now.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You are at a loss to reconcile faith with human intellect. Intellect will win until you allow God to call you his own. The cost is your eternal life. Torment indefinitely for refusing to embrace the good people that want you to know your Savior.

From the Buddhist point of view, both eternal hell and eternal heaven are the same thing.

All good Christians, and good Buddhists(*), love their neighbours as themselves. If their neighbours are being tortured eternally, then it as if they themselves are also being tortured eternally. Can you be eternally happy being eternally tortured? Can you be eternally happy while those you love are being eternally tortured?

I do not seek a saviour, I seek enlightenment.

Praying for you

Thankyou. May I suggest, the Jesus Prayer.

(*) “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra 91.

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

What do you mean by “the world”? If you mean the material universe that started at the Big Bang, then I suggest that you ask a cosmologist. If you mean the more philosophical universe of “all that exists” then any existent God, or gods, are obviously inside the ATE universe.

I was talking about how the philosopher understands the universe. But it is wrong to say that the universe is all things that exist. The way Thomas Aquinas would understand the universe is all contingent existing beings exist in the universe, and the universe is also contingent. It isn’t possible (in view of Aquinas and myself) for God to be contained by anything, so to say that God exists in the universe is limiting a God who can’t be limited. God is the only one outside of the universe and time.

From the Buddhist point of view everything has a cause. The cause of the universe now is the universe as it was an instant ago. If the earlier universe did not exist, then the current universe would not exist either. In all cases the cause is ‘other’, not itself. The universe one instant ago was not the same as the universe now.

Logically follow out if everything has a cause. If you understand the principle of sufficient reason and how it relates to causality at-least and Aquinas and Aristotle understood it. (Note: Aquinas built off Aristotle and made his philosophy a Catholic Philosophy) If everything had a cause nothing could possibly exist. There MUST be something that exists without a cause, namely God.

If Buddhism is correct than you have to explain how causality can exists if EVERYTHING is caused by another. Even in terms of an infinite regress that is impossible.

 

[rossum]

I was talking about how the philosopher understands the universe.

Fine, Nagarjuna was a philosopher.

But it is wrong to say that the universe is all things that exist.

We disagree.If a thing exists, then it is within the sphere of philosophical (or theological) discourse. If it can be discussed, then it is part of the universe of discussion. Since it exists, it is by definition a member of “all that exists”. That is how I define the universe.

The way Thomas Aquinas would understand the universe is all contingent existing beings exist in the universe, and the universe is also contingent.

That is only because Aquinas carefully excluded anything non-contingent from his universe. If I say the universe is “all that is blue”, then it is hardly surprising if I declare that “everything in the universe is blue.” This is why I use the ATE universe. It is all too easy to make statements about God if He is defined as being outside the area of discussion. By ensuring that He is included, your case for God being treated differently is much weaker. The Abrahamic God is not as special in Buddhism as He is in the Abrahamic religions.

It isn’t possible (in view of Aquinas and myself) for God to be contained by anything, so to say that God exists in the universe is limiting a God who can’t be limited. God is the only one outside of the universe and time.

Is God omniscient? If so then He is limiting Himself because He can never ever learn anything new – He already knew it. Is God omnipresent? If He is then He is limiting Himself by being unable to move. He can never leave the start line, and He is already at the finish line. Does God exist? If so then He is contained within the set, {All that exists}. Any use of words to describe God will constrain God.

Logically follow out if everything has a cause. If you understand the principle of sufficient reason and how it relates to causality at-least and Aquinas and Aristotle understood it. (Note: Aquinas built off Aristotle and made his philosophy a Catholic Philosophy) If everything had a cause nothing could possibly exist. There MUST be something that exists without a cause, namely God.

I disagree. There may have been something which existed without a cause, but there is no requirement that it still exists today. A cause can have effects long after the cause has ceased to exist. Buddhism has no problem with an eternal universe. Indeed, the “all that exists” universe is eternal in the Abrahamic religions as well.

If Buddhism is correct than you have to explain how causality can exists if EVERYTHING is caused by another. Even in terms of an infinite regress that is impossible.

An infinite regress is only impossible if there is not infinite time. I have no problem with infinite time. How else can you explain an eternal God if there is not infinite time? The word “eternal” has no meaning in the absence of time.

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

Fine, Nagarjuna was a philosopher.

We disagree.If a thing exists, then it is within the sphere of philosophical (or theological) discourse. If it can be discussed, then it is part of the universe of discussion. Since it exists, it is by definition a member of “all that exists”. That is how I define the universe.

ok so our definition of universe differs. So God is in the universe of all things that exist but isn’t in the universe of the created. I understand the universe as everything that is created because God isn’t created than he isn’t apart of the universe.

That is only because Aquinas carefully excluded anything non-contingent from his universe.

Prove to me something other than God exists as a non-contigent being.

but that isn’t really what he did. He examined the universe around him, and saw that everything he sees is contingent, from those continent beings he argues to a non-contingent being.

If I say the universe is “all that is blue”, then it is hardly surprising if I declare that “everything in the universe is blue.” This is why I use the ATE universe.

OK, but that doesn’t change my argument. God isn’t outside of our universe, but that doesn’t change that I’m arguing that contingent beings need a non-contingent being to exist.

It makes sense now why this thread has been so heated, we are working from different points of view. I’ll accept your ATE universe and rephrase my argument to say this. All continent beings need at-least one non-contingent being to exist. We claim that being is God. There is an issue that comes up when you begin to multiple non-contigent beings.

Aqunias understands that we all participate in the one existence of god. If there are multiple non-contigent beings than there are multiple existences so to speak.

Aquinas doesn’t just posit something he uses argumentation to prove everything.

It is all too easy to make statements about God if He is defined as being outside the area of discussion. By ensuring that He is included, your case for God being treated differently is much weaker. The Abrahamic God is not as special in Buddhism as He is in the Abrahamic religions.

see above

Is God omniscient? If so then He is limiting Himself because He can never ever learn anything new

That is not limiting God. learning something necessitates that you are adding something to yourself, your knowledge was once limited now it is less limited. Because God’s knowledge is perfect he has no need to learn anything.

Is God omnipresent? If He is then He is limiting Himself by being unable to move.

That doesn’t limit God. Motion is understood as a movement from potentiality to actuality. God has no potentiality in him and that is perfection. Being potentially something means you lack something. To say God can’t move is the exact nature of God. Godd can’t move because God can’t have potentiality. His Non-movement is necessitated by his simplicity.

He can never leave the start line, and He is already at the finish line. Does God exist? If so then He is contained within the set, {All that exists}. Any use of words to describe God will constrain God.

Yes because our language is contrasting. But why should the language of finite continent beings be sufficient in explaining a infinite non-contigent being?

I disagree. There may have been something which existed without a cause, but there is no requirement that it still exists today. A cause can have effects long after the cause has ceased to exist. Buddhism has no problem with an eternal universe. Indeed, the “all that exists” universe is eternal in the Abrahamic religions as well.

a being that can fail to exist is a continent being. No contingent being can have a cause within itself because it could fail to exist and because it is continent you must logically follow to a time where nothing will exist.

But I think there is yet another mix up in terms. I’m positive you are explaining causality as a causing b. Causality in the way aquinas explains it is why something exist instead of doesn’t exist. There is a horizontal line of causality but there is also a vertical line of causality, the cause which allows all things to exist.

An infinite regress is only impossible if there is not infinite time. I have no problem with infinite time. How else can you explain an eternal God if there is not infinite time? The word “eternal” has no meaning in the absence of time.

Eternal doesn’t need time in order to be explained. Eternal simply means no beginning no end. If time has a beginning eternal would be outside of time by necessity. IF time has no beginning or end than it is eternal.

 

[AndrewW94]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Those are straw men. Like most of your arguments.

One thing cannot have opposed properties. It cannot be both A and ~A.

One thing cannot be both A and ~A AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME WAY. The way you “think”, my house couldn’t exist because it’s sides are white and it’s roof is black.

I do [read your posts], but I do not accept many of the assumptions that you make.

I offer what are called “objections.” It is customary to reply with what we call a “rebuttal” to my objections. Saying the same thing over and over doesn’t get you anywhere.

If X is the cause of P, then we have X → P.

As I explained before (post 67) that’s not what cause means. I quote:

You have a mistaken notion of cause. Consider a fictional user RossumPrime in discussion:Andrew: The sun exists. The sun causes trees to grow.
Rossum: A causes B means that IF A THEN B.
This implies IF (NOT A) THEN (NOT B). But not all trees grow. Therefore the sun does not exist.
That simply is not what cause means.

Thus your argument is unsound.

I await an actual rebuttal of my objections.

 

[mdcpensive1]

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b9..._article/width926x450/3q3bvxxf-1353902236.jpg

Those are straw men. Like most of your arguments.

Good picture.

There are inconsistencies all over rossum’s arguments. One of them is about time. We have an eternal God. Therefore He is outside of time. He showed Himself in the Incarnation. This was such a unique act that it will not be done again. It can only be re-presented, not re-created. This act is both in and outside of time which was not one of the arguments rossum addressed. God’s actions can be so unique that they just exist in and out of time.

Another flaw is that rossum said that his gods all exist in time. His world goes on in a change one second after another. But one rule of philosophy is that something cannot create itself. Something outside had to create it. Where did rossum’s gods come from? If they always were in time then they had a beginning as did time itself.

 

[Cathoholic]

Quote from me (Cathoholic):

Originally Posted by Cathoholic

QUOTE:
Rossum. Please tell me how you are defining “reification” in your post 74.

Your reply in post 83 was:

QUOTE:
I mean taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real. That is, projecting that mental construct out into the world outside ourselves and thinking that the internal entity actually has some form of real existence out there.

If by this (“taking a mental construct, that only exists inside OUR HEADS, and making it real.”—because I thought of the tree) I have no issue with that.

When I see a tree then later think about its “treeness”, that doesn’t make the tree real because of my thinking of essential aspects of that tree (“tree universals”). It is a real tree whether or not you or I think of it.

(I suspect this is not what you are referring to though)

But . . . . If by this: “taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real.”) you really mean (“taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real.” And applying this to God, I am going to have a BIG issue with that (for a couple of reasons).

Or if you are trying to say: “Nothing is real”, I am also going to take issue with that idea rossum.

Please clarify what you mean by “reification”. Thank you.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[rossum]

ok so our definition of universe differs.

Agreed.

Prove to me something other than God exists as a non-contigent being.

God is a contingent being. The prime mover cannot be a prime mover unless something has been moved. A ‘prime unmover’ is obviously not a prime mover. If there is nothing that has been moved/caused/created then there can be no prime mover. There might be a potential prime mover, which has not yet got round to moving anything, but that potential prime mover will need to change to actually become a prime mover. A parent cannot be a parent unless there are some children around. Causes are dependent on effects. If something has no effect then it cannot be a cause because it hasn’t actually caused anything.

OK, but that doesn’t change my argument. God isn’t outside of our universe, but that doesn’t change that I’m arguing that contingent beings need a non-contingent being to exist.

As I have pointed out upthread, there can be no non-contingent being that has any temporary effect. Any non-contingent being is eternally frozen in stasis, unable to change and unable to cause anything that is not itself also eternal.

All continent beings need at-least one non-contingent being to exist.

Any creative non-contingent being needs at least one created entity to exist, hence it cannot be non-contingent. Only a non-creative non-contingent being can exist.

That is not limiting God.

It shows that there are things we can do that God cannot.

Yes because our language is contrasting. But why should the language of finite continent beings be sufficient in explaining a infinite non-contigent being?

Because many followers of that being claim that He is correctly described in the words of scripture and of the infallible pronouncements of the Church. The God of written scripture is, by definition, described in a human language.

But I think there is yet another mix up in terms. I’m positive you are explaining causality as a causing b.

Basically, yes. Though it is more often the case that (a & b & c & …) cause x.

Causality in the way aquinas explains it is why something exist instead of doesn’t exist. There is a horizontal line of causality but there is also a vertical line of causality, the cause which allows all things to exist.

That I do not accept. You are setting up two types of causality, and I strongly suspect that your ‘vertical causality’ is a reification.

Eternal doesn’t need time in order to be explained. Eternal simply means no beginning no end.

Please define “beginning” without referring to time. Please define “end” without referring to time. Unless you can define both adequately, then the word “eternal” has no meaning.

If time has a beginning eternal would be outside of time by necessity.

That depends how you define “eternal”. One possible definition is, “X is eternal if there is no time when X does not exist.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

One thing cannot be both A and ~A AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME WAY. The way you “think”, my house couldn’t exist because it’s sides are white and it’s roof is black.

Your house is not “one thing”, it is a compound made of walls, roof, floor etc. Different parts of a compound can have opposed properties. The simultaneous existence of opposed properties is a sign that we are dealing with a compound, and not with a unitary entity.

As I explained before (post 67) that’s not what cause means.

Sunshine is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for tree growth. In effect you are taking my simple A → B, expanding it into (A’ + X) → B and correctly pointing out that we can no longer rely on the simple A’ → B

rossum

 

[rossum]

We have an eternal God.

You assert you have an eternal God. I disagree. Twenty billion years ago God was not the creator of the universe because there was no universe. Hence God twenty billion years ago differed from God now. Hence God is not eternal because God changes; in this case from non-creator to creator.

But one rule of philosophy is that something cannot create itself. Something outside had to create it.

THen it is impossible for your philosophy to explain the “all that exists” universe, since any proposed cause outside that universe would not exist, by definition. I suggest that you rethink your philosophy here.

Where did rossum’s gods come from?

They failed to attain nirvana in their previous lives, and so were reborn. Their actions in their previous lives caused them to be reborn as gods, rather than as humans, animals or in one of the hells.

If they always were in time then they had a beginning as did time itself.

Time has no beginning; there is no time when time does not exist, hence time is eternal.

rossum

 

[rossum]

When I see a tree then later think about its “treeness”, that doesn’t make the tree real because of my thinking of essential aspects of that tree (“tree universals”). It is a real tree whether or not you or I think of it.

Our brains are good at pattern recognition. They hold patterns, like: horse, wolf, tree. These patterns are useful because they help us to predict how things will act in future. The mistake of reification is to project these internal patterns onto the outside world, and to think that they are real.

You can see a real actual tree. You can never see the ‘treeness’ of the tree, because the treeness is our internal pattern. One of the purposes of Buddhist meditation is to let us recognise the difference between what is really out there and what we are projecting over that external reality from inside our heads.

But . . . . If by this: “taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real.”) you really mean (“taking a mental construct, that only exists inside our heads, and making it real.” And applying this to God,

Yes I do. The eternal unchanging Abrahamic God is indeed a reification. He must be, because nothing is unchanging.

Or if you are trying to say: “Nothing is real”, I am also going to take issue with that idea rossum.

Things are real, but they are often not real in the way we think that they are real. A mirage is not nothing; nothing would look very different to a mirage. However, a mirage is not what it appears to be either, there is no real water in a mirage. A mirage fools our brains into matching the pattern, “water” and we project that pattern out onto the real world, so thinking that there is real water in the mirage.

The world is not nothing. The world is also not what we think it is. The world sits somewhere in between.

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artefacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”

“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.

“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”

“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

“Are you worshipping firewood?” ask the monks who are confused for what he was doing.

“No. I am treating these statues as holy artefacts and am honouring the Buddha.” replied Dan Xia.
Are the pieces of wood holy artefacts or firewood? The pieces of wood have not changed, all that changed was the mental pattern used to match them. The mental pattern changed from ‘holy artefact’ to ‘firewood’ to ‘holy artefact’. The actual pieces of wood did not change at all.

Our view of the world is conditioned by our internal mental patterns as well as by what is actually out there. It is important to recognise the difference between the two, otherwise we might freeze to death with plenty of firewood available.

HTH

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

Agreed.

God is a contingent being. The prime mover cannot be a prime mover unless something has been moved. A ‘prime unmover’ is obviously not a prime mover. If there is nothing that has been moved/caused/created then there can be no prime mover. There might be a potential prime mover, which has not yet got round to moving anything, but that potential prime mover will need to change to actually become a prime mover. A parent cannot be a parent unless there are some children around. Causes are dependent on effects. If something has no effect then it cannot be a cause because it hasn’t actually caused anything.

Not really. We are talking about the prime mover from our perspective. We have to explain him as the prime mover because things are moving. God is a prime mover not because he must be a prime mover rather he choose to do it. Now again this is all of our language. Everything God does he does actively for all eternity.

While I want to use your definition of the universe I think it creates some problems.

I’m trying to explain God in a way that transcends our reality. When you criticize my view of God you bring him down to our reality and say well he wouldn’t work in our reality.

As I have pointed out upthread, there can be no non-contingent being that has any temporary effect. Any non-contingent being is eternally frozen in stasis, unable to change and unable to cause anything that is not itself also eternal.

again as I said because God is outside of time, or to put it another way that he experiences all actualities at once, his action is eternal doesn’t change. God is eternally creating the universe, eternally creating his son, eternally doing miracles. the in breaks of God in our perspective of time looks like one instant. For God he is still experience creation in the same way he is experiencing the clap of thunder I just heard. This is the case for every moment of time for all eternity.

Any creative non-contingent being needs at least one created entity to exist, hence it cannot be non-contingent. Only a non-creative non-contingent being can exist.

No he doesn’t

all of the language we give God is from our perspective. his creatures are dependent on his creation, but he isn’t dependent on us for his existence. Think of it this way, a person creates a new element. The new element is dependent on it’s creator to exist, but the person doesn’t need his creation to exist to exist. Sure if he is a creator than he needs a creation to be called that. But that is an accidental property of the person. When I create I become a creator, my substance doesn’t change because I create something, rather an accidental property is added onto my substance.

the creative aspect of the non-contigent being is not it’s substance rather just how we explain him. God’s substance is pure act, that pure act is what caused the creation of the cosmos.

It shows that there are things we can do that God cannot.

You are missing the point.

We can move yes, but our motion is an action, God is fully active. When we change we move from place to place, we are moving from potentiality to actuality. The reason God can’t do this is because he has the fullness of actuality

the logic of your argument is basically this.

God can’t have the fullness of knowledge (definition of omniscient) because he can’t learn anything more with full knowledge.

That makes no sense, when you break down the basic structure of your argument.

A glass is full, but not really because it lacks the ability to become more full.

but we do things God doesn’t do because we lack the fullness. Back to the glass being full analogy, a glass that isn’t full can’t become more full, but that isn’t a limit on a full glass because it can’t receive anymore. Everything we do that God doesn’t do is because we LACK something. If God has the fullness of knowledge, the fullness of power, the fullness of existence, than it isn’t a limit to say that we can become more powerful and God can’t.

Because many followers of that being claim that He is correctly described in the words of scripture and of the infallible pronouncements of the Church. The God of written scripture is, by definition, described in a human language.

You are taking my point and confusing it with scripture.

Think of it this way.

If you are not at the highest part of reality, your view of that reality is limited. For example: My reality is limited to black and white, I can’t explain a color reality because I don’t know it. If we are limited by being inside of time and moving right to left on the time line, than our language can’t possibly be able to describe the reality of what it is like for someone who doesn’t exist in that way, or for example God who exists at all points of time fully.

Basically, yes. Though it is more often the case that (a & b & c & …) cause x.

see above

That I do not accept. You are setting up two types of causality, and I strongly suspect that your ‘vertical causality’ is a reification.

I need to brush up on this, but this is Aquinas Aristotle, Augustine along with many others.

Please define “beginning” without referring to time. Please define “end” without referring to time. Unless you can define both adequately, then the word “eternal” has no meaning.

see my explanation of limited reality. We can’t explain eternity without time because we don’t know anything that lacks the existence of time. That doesn’t mean it can’t exist.