Is Jesus unchanging?

[AndrewW94]

You seem to have dropped the “Aristotle was a Christian” straw man. Glad to see we made some progress.

Your house is not one thing, it is a compound made of walls, roof, floor etc.

Wrong. My house is “one thing”. It has parts, but it also has unity. If this were not of the essence of “house” how would you distinguish between a roof next to four walls (that do not enclose a region) and some flooring plastered to the walls and a real house? Saying “I have a house” is not the same as saying “I have a roof, walls, and a floor, etc.”

The fact that my house is one thing is a reason why the usual formulation of the principle of non-contradiction is: “A and not A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect (way).”

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

Note how you switch from sunshine is a cause to sunshine is a condition. This should be a hint to you that you are changing the meanings.

As regards my claim that A → B is an inadequate way of symbolizing “A caused B”, see *A Companion to Philosophical Logic *pg. 30: “However, today we also make a clear distinction between implication, consequence, inference and causal grounding.” Or a much longer read (that’s probably over your head) is here sussex.ac.uk/Users/christay/Tayl93.pdf Last I checked, you can’t get a Ph.D. by writing that A causes B is adequately symbolized as A → B. Of course, that symbolization will work for some things, but you can’t just blindly substitute.

If / when you decide to make a serious study of symbolic logic, you will learn that when we translate a natural language sentence into symbolic form some meaning is usually lost. Translating it back to a natural language can help you to see this. If we take your symbolization, we would translate it into English as something like: “If God exists, then the Red Sea is parted.” (“is parted” being true whenever it is true that God exists–at all times (but not limited to that).) This is of course ridiculous. (For many reasons, not the least of which is that I claim God is eternal and the Red Sea is not.) If we are going to simplify causation to A → B, we wouldn’t say something silly like “God exists implies the Red Sea is parted.” I won’t pretend to know how God works, but imagine that we could say something like: “If God exists and Moses raised his staff over the Red Sea an odd number of times, then the Red Sea is parted.” This, while not perfect, is clearly superior to your phrasing. Thus your argument is baseless.

But now I want to challenge you. As I demonstrated before (post 67), Aristotle thought that God is immutable and that God is the Uncaused Cause. As you correctly pointed out, he lived in the 300’s B.C. That leaves us well over 2000 years between the time the Stagarite walked the earth and the present day. His writings were widely studied for most of this time. It seems that this gaping “contradiction” you discovered would have been noticed does it not? Could you point me to a few people of the many millions studying Aristotle who saw this contradiction? It would be best if they lived before 1500, as Aristotle has been widely misunderstood in modern times.

 

[mdcpensive1]

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.

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.

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.

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

rossum

You have a lack of good logic in your explanations.

1. God does not exist because the universe did not exist twenty billion years ago is illogical. You have parents even though they did not exist yet twenty billion years ago.
2. God does not change as you say because he is not in time his present past and future is the same. He is in all of them. You use past and future just as benchmarks in your humanity. God does not need that.
3. I don’t know what an “all that exists” universe is, I guess because I have not been watching the discovery channel. Did you just make up the idea that any cause outside our universe cannot exist. I think you did. I think that Steven Hawking might also disagree with you if you would accept his explanation of a multi-verse. BTW, rethinking my philosophy reaffirms the concepts.
4. Recycling souls is a green concept that the present administration would love to hear more about. How do wandering souls finding another body? Do they somehow pick the same body and become soul twins ? Do your souls grow old since they are in time? They can’t be eternal since they are in time. Is this a logic problem for you? Just curious and a bit facetious but am interested in your answer.

 

[rossum]

We are talking about the prime mover from our perspective.

Then God’s property of prime movership is an externally assigned property, imputed to Him by us and no intrinsic to Himself? I think you are in dangerous waters here.

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

I find it clarifies a lot of problems, usually of the variety, “God is outside the universe so X does not apply to God.” By including God inside our defined universe a great deal of special pleading is avoided.

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.

You already know what I think of reification. By keeping things strictly confined within the universe of “all that exists” a great deal of reification can be avoided. If God is real, then He exists in reality. If He is not real, then all this discussion is moot.

God is eternally creating the universe, eternally creating his son, eternally doing miracles.

No He is not. One of His miracles was parting the Red Sea. He is not doing that eternally because we can observe that the Red Sea is currently not parted. If all of God’s actions are eternal, then we can say both, “God is eternally parting the Red Sea,” and, “God is eternally not parting the Red Sea.” That gives an obvious logical impossibility: God is eternally both A and ~A. This is the reasoning behind my non-acceptance of an unchanging entity causing temporary effects.

his creatures are dependent on his creation, but he isn’t dependent on us for his existence.

He is dependent on us for the designation “creator”. If there were no creation, then the description “creator” would be false. Prior to creation there was no creator. Prior to giving birth, there is no mother; only a mother-to-be. The mother-to-be undergoes a change to become a mother. Similarly the creator-to-be undergoes a change, by acting: “Let there be light,” and becomes a creator.

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.

To be correctly described as “creator” then the element must exist. In the absence of the element, then “wannabe creator” is the correct description. Creator is a contingent property. Does God have contingent properties?

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.

I do not accept the Thomist distinction between Accident and Substance. Accident exists in the real world. Substance is just another reification with all the usual reified properties of being unchanging, unobservable, eternal etc. I have already quoted Jay Garfield, who refers to this problem:

“Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.”

Everyone agrees on the surface – the Accident. The illusion is that we assume there is something “more real” behind the surface: Thomist Substance. There isn’t. It is just a projection of what is inside our heads: a reification, a mirage.

You are taking my point and confusing it with scripture.

How? Scripture comprises words in a human language. You said, “But why should the language of finite continent beings be sufficient in explaining a infinite non-contigent being?” I pointed out that you needed to answer your own question in order to show that written scripture is of any use at all. The only scripture without error is a blank page: “The Tao that can be written is not the true Tao”.

If you are not at the highest part of reality, your view of that reality is limited.

That is already obvious. We cannot see as sharply as an eagle, we cannot see all the colours that bees do, we cannot smell as well as dogs. Our senses are limited, so our view of reality is necessarily limited.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Wrong. My house is “one thing”. It has parts, but it also has unity. If this were not of the essence of “house” how would you distinguish between a roof next to four walls (that do not enclose a region) and some flooring plastered to the walls and a real house? Saying “I have a house” is not the same as saying “I have a roof, walls, and a floor, etc.”

“House” is a designation for a particular collection of parts arranged in a certain way. It is not one thing and it certainly has no “essence”.

Remove one molecule from your house. Where is the “essence of house”, is it in the molecule you have removed or is is in the remaining molecules? Repeat the process, and the question until all the molecules of the house have been removed. Where is the “essence of house” now? Is it in the empty space where the house used to be? Is it in the pile of removed molecules, heaped up in no particular order, nearby? Where is the “essence of house”.

Note how you switch from sunshine is a cause to sunshine is a condition. This should be a hint to you that you are changing the meanings.

IIRC it was you who first introduced the specific example of sunshine. I was talking more generally about cause and effect, not limited to any specific example.

But now I want to challenge you. As I demonstrated before (post 67), Aristotle thought that God is immutable and that God is the Uncaused Cause. As you correctly pointed out, he lived in the 300’s B.C. That leaves us well over 2000 years between the time the Stagarite walked the earth and the present day. His writings were widely studied for most of this time. It seems that this gaping “contradiction” you discovered would have been noticed does it not? Could you point me to a few people of the many millions studying Aristotle who saw this contradiction? It would be best if they lived before 1500, as Aristotle has been widely misunderstood in modern times.

You do me far too much honour. The contradiction you speak of was noticed by Nagarjuna between 150CE and 250CE in his discussions with other Hindu and Buddhist philosophers. Much of my argumentation here is taken from the writings of Nagarjuna and his many interpreters. It probably appears new to you because Nagarjuna has not been well known in the West until recently:

Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life.

– IEP: Nagarjuna.

rossum

 

[rossum]

1. God does not exist because the universe did not exist twenty billion years ago is illogical. You have parents even though they did not exist yet twenty billion years ago.

God-as-creator did not exist then, because back then He had not created anything. At most, He was ‘God-the-creator-to-be’. I am pointing out that God changed from one to the other. Since He has changed, then He cannot be unchanging.

1. God does not change as you say because he is not in time his present past and future is the same. He is in all of them. You use past and future just as benchmarks in your humanity. God does not need that.

Please define “change” without reference to past, present, future or time. If you cannot then it is not possible either to define God as “unchanging” or as “changing”. In order either to change, or not to change, there must be some relation with time.

1. I don’t know what an “all that exists” universe is, I guess because I have not been watching the discovery channel. Did you just make up the idea that any cause outside our universe cannot exist. I think you did.

My ATE-universe is intended to include non-material existent entities: heavens, hells, angels, gandhabbas, gods etc. Any multiverse that exists would obviously also be included. You are correct in that there can be no external cause for such a universe. It is internally caused, uncaused or eternal.

1. Recycling souls is a green concept that the present administration would love to hear more about.

Perhaps so, but they will not be hearing about it from me. Ask a Hindu, a Sikh or a Jain about that. Buddhism denies the existence of any soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

How do wandering souls finding another body?

A human being comprises five parts: form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. The formations, sometimes called “karma formations”, are carried over from a previous, unenlightened, life. Other parts develop and change through gestation and life. For example, perceptions are not present until the sense organs, brain and the required nervous connections have developed. None of the five is permanent, none of the five is unchanging, none of the five is a soul.

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

I’m backing out of this argument rossum. For many reasons

1. you missed a lot of my points and one of the biggest points I made about your illogical statement you flat out ignored. I claim that you are making illogical statements you just ignore them.
2. I’ve had to make similar points multiple times and you continue to use the same arguments even though I appear to address them.
3. your world view is so drastically different than mine I have to spend most of my time trying to convince you of my world view. (Substance, Accidence, the nature of time, etc.) I don’t have time to actually prove God is unchanging.

There are a few other reasons but I’m backing out of this.

God Bless.

 

[catholictiger]

My last post probably

From the time of Aristotle we believe that God simply IS. That means God is purely existence, and nothing else.

God as prime mover, God as first cause, God as creator, etc. are our limited ways to try to explain God. BUT God simply is, nothing more, nothing less.

If God is simply existence than he has no time, he has no motion, he does not change. He simply is.

God is pure act. (which is the same thing as simply is) That means he has no potentiality
God is pure existence (which is the same things as simply is) That means his essence is his existence.
God is simply form (which is the same thing as simply is) that means he has no matter.
God is simply substance (which is the same thing as simply is) that means he has no accidents in him.

The reason he must be all of these things is because All things that have potentiality must have an external cause of their motion from potential to actual, If God wasn’t pure act he couldn’t have caused motion. What can be logically shown is that in order for us to exist, there must be something that doesn’t have to be externally cause meaning no potentiality.

Than you just go down the list. Existence is act, essence is potential. His essence must be his existence because he is pure act.

God must be only form because all matter is potential and in motion. (Matter can take on the existence of a form, form always is)

Accidents are potential because they can like matter potentially be added on to a form. Substance is act because it is always that way. The Human substance is always the human substance, it changes when accidents are added on to it. Because God has no accidents in him his substance never changes.

From this argument, if Jesus is God than he must be unchanging. Unfortunately this won’t convince someone who doesn’t have faith that Jesus is God.

 

[rossum]

I’m backing out of this argument rossum. For many reasons

1. you missed a lot of my points and one of the biggest points I made about your illogical statement you flat out ignored. I claim that you are making illogical statements you just ignore them.
2. I’ve had to make similar points multiple times and you continue to use the same arguments even though I appear to address them.
3. your world view is so drastically different than mine I have to spend most of my time trying to convince you of my world view. (Substance, Accidence, the nature of time, etc.) I don’t have time to actually prove God is unchanging.

There are a few other reasons but I’m backing out of this.

That is fine. Like many of the discussions here, both sides have their say, and neither side moves much from their original positions, (though they may have to find some new ways to defend then).

God Bless.

Thank you.

May all living beings avoid greed.
May all living beings avoid hatred.
May all living beings avoid delusion.

May all living beings attain peace.
May all living beings attain happiness.
May all living beings attain nirvana.

rossum

 

[AndrewW94]

“House” is a designation for a particular collection of parts arranged in a certain way. It is not one thing and it certainly has no “essence”.

By calling it “a particular collection”, you tacitly admit that it is one thing. Perhaps this was a slip of the tongue?

Remove one molecule from your house. Where is the “essence of house”, is it in the molecule you have removed or is is in the remaining molecules? …

I’m not entirely certain on your meaning here, but it seems that you assume that the essence is material. Why?

On the other hand, if you meant to go into the classic problem of exactly how much of a house you need before you have a house, I will point out that this same problem confronts Nominalists. It’s just not brought up because Nominalism has much bigger problems. “When is the designation inappropriate? What if I remove one molecule? Two? …” However, I’m not sure that this is what you are saying and I don’t want to attack a straw man.

IIRC it was you who first introduced the specific example of sunshine. I was talking more generally about cause and effect, not limited to any specific example.

While I did bring up sunshine, I always called it a cause. When you mistranslated my statement to a symbolic form, you called it a “condition.” As I said, this should be a hint to you that you changed the meaning. A “condition” and a “cause” aren’t the same thing.

I said:

Could you point me to a few people of the many millions studying Aristotle who saw this contradiction?

You pointed me to Nagarjuna. I haven’t studied him in any detail, but I am under the impression that he did not study Aristotle. It makes a huge difference because he could not understand Aristotle without studying him. Aristotle’s different concepts of cause, essence, etc. are not addressed by Nagarjuna, as far as I am aware. Can you show me a few people, from the millions who read him, (and preferably who understood him), who thought his simultaneous claims that God is immutable and God is the Uncaused Cause were inconsistent?

 

[mdcpensive1]

From rossum:

[SIGN][God-as-creator did not exist then, because back then He had not created anything. At most, He was ‘God-the-creator-to-be’. I am pointing out that God changed from one to the other. Since He has changed, then He cannot be unchanging.[/SIGN]

I am a physicist. I don’t do anything in physics right now even though I have a degree in physics. I could if I wanted to. But I do exist as a physicist, but not according to your logic. Do you want to keep using this problematic opinion?

[SIGN]Please define “change” without reference to past, present, future or time. If you cannot then it is not possible either to define God as “unchanging” or as “changing”. In order either to change, or not to change, there must be some relation with time.[/SIGN]

I quote from Exodus. I AM. If Aristotle knew about this his philosophy would be more like Plato’s.

[SIGN]My ATE-universe is intended to include non-material existent entities: heavens, hells, angels, gandhabbas, gods etc. Any multiverse that exists would obviously also be included. You are correct in that there can be no external cause for such a universe. It is internally caused, uncaused or eternal.[/SIGN]

Not what I said. I said that something cannot start itself. Or in other words, a cause cannot cause itself. If a rock moves it must be moved by something outside the rock itself.

[SIGN]Perhaps so, but they will not be hearing about it from me. Ask a Hindu, a Sikh or a Jain about that. Buddhism denies the existence of any soul:[/SIGN]

The soul is the principle of life. Can you make a human just out of the chemicals that make up the body and hope that they come together with reason? That would be like a cooking recipe.

[SIGN]“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7[/SIGN]

Some people’s wisdom are other people’s opinions. I liken this to politics.

rossum

 

[rossum]

By calling it “a particular collection”, you tacitly admit that it is one thing. Perhaps this was a slip of the tongue?

No I do not admit anything of the sort. Your house has one designation, that does not make it one thing. If I designate all the people in Idaho as “the population of Idaho”, does that mean that there is only one thing in Idaho? The word “house” is a convenient designation for a particular collection and arrangement of oojects.

I’m not entirely certain on your meaning here, but it seems that you assume that the essence is material. Why?

My apologies for not making myself clearer. I do not assume that essence is material, quite the opposite. I am trying to tease out the link between the material atoms of the house and your proposed non-material essence.

As we remove each molecule, is the essence removed with the atom? Does the essence stay behind with the remainder of the house? Does the essence split in two, with part staying in the molecule and the rest in what is left of the house?

You pointed me to Nagarjuna. I haven’t studied him in any detail, but I am under the impression that he did not study Aristotle.

No, he did not. He may have come across some fragments of Aristotle since the Empire of Alexander extended to parts of Pakistan and North India, but those fragments would have been filtered through a great many Greek and Indian intermediaries.

Nagarjuna’s arguments examine the basis of many common assumptions made in both Greek and Indian philosophy. He shows that those common assumptions are incorrect. Where Aristotle also makes those assumptions, then Aristotle is also incorrect.

For example, consider a seed and a tree. The seed continuously changes/grows into the tree. What of the essence of the seed? Is it the same as the essence of the tree? If it is then there has been no change and all change everywhere is denied. Is the seed’s essence different to the tree’s essence? Then we have two ‘essentially’ different things and there is no connection between them.

Essences have a very strange impact on obvious things like causation.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am a physicist.

Congratulations. My degree is in Mathematical Physics.

But I do exist as a physicist, but not according to your logic.

What definition of “physicist” are you using. On the “working in physics” definition, then neither you nor I are physicists. On the “has a degree level qualification in physics” definition then we are both physicists.

I quote from Exodus. I AM.

You have failed to answer my question. The word “AM” is the present tense of the verb ‘to be’. Your answer cannot refer to past, present or future.

Not what I said. I said that something cannot start itself. Or in other words, a cause cannot cause itself. If a rock moves it must be moved by something outside the rock itself.

A cause requires an effect. Without an effect, then the alleged cause hasn’t actually caused anything, and it is incorrect to describe it as a cause. Effects require causes and also causes require effects. Children require parents. Parents require children, otherwise they are not parents.

The soul is the principle of life.

The soul is just another reified construct that only exists as a pattern inside our minds.

Can you make a human just out of the chemicals that make up the body and hope that they come together with reason?

Only one of the five parts that make up a human being is material, our physical body. The other four parts are non-material. None of the four non-material parts is a soul.

rossum

 

[CrossofChrist]

Hello everyone.

I am just looking for some clarification about Hebrews 1:12 and 13:8. 13:8 reads, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” How do we square this with the fact that Jesus coexisted eternally with the Father and Holy Spirit without a human body, then came the Incarnation and He took on flesh, and now He has ascended into Heaven and exists eternally with His glorified human body? That sounds like changing.

Any thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks.

God himself doesn’t change, but united humanity to himself. It’s an elevation of human nature to God, so that the new human created is a divine person.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Congratulations. My degree is in Mathematical Physics.

What definition of “physicist” are you using. On the “working in physics” definition, then neither you nor I are physicists. On the “has a degree level qualification in physics” definition then we are both physicists.

You have failed to answer my question. The word “AM” is the present tense of the verb ‘to be’. Your answer cannot refer to past, present or future.

A cause requires an effect. Without an effect, then the alleged cause hasn’t actually caused anything, and it is incorrect to describe it as a cause. Effects require causes and also causes require effects. Children require parents. Parents require children, otherwise they are not parents.

The soul is just another reified construct that only exists as a pattern inside our minds.

Only one of the five parts that make up a human being is material, our physical body. The other four parts are non-material. None of the four non-material parts is a soul.

rossum

It is interesting that you are also a physicist. We could have much to discuss. Of course most of physics is defined by mathematics coming from supposition, observation and experimentation. It is interesting for me to note that in John 1, the 2nd person of the Trinity is the Logos, the divine intelligence and truth.
Rossum, you may not be far off from this truth.
You are correct in the fact that AM is the present tense of “to Be”. That is my point. Being does not require time. It just is. Is this a concept that is foreign to you ??? Let me know.

You speak about causes having effects. I am not talking about effects. If a rock starts to roll down a hill something other than the rock must have acted on it. ( Just a little bit of Newtonian physics )
Our souls are about life. Without one we would be just a pile of chemicals in a reaction if we were lucky. The human soul is the place where are partly in touch with the divine nature. It is the place of divine inspiration and encounter, especially through prayer.

Your description of the human makeup is quite interesting. To me it is another way of saying we have will and intellect, so to speak.

I have to wonder how you came to believe in Buddhism. Is it because it seemed logical to you? For me, it is about a God that has revealed Himself. He was the fulfillment of centuries of prophesies coming into history. He was what He said He was going to be and did what He prophesied to do. He worked miracles and gave His life for us. I can’t see how a buda or Buddhism has that kind of history that was written about and testified to. People gave their lives because of this which is powerful. Granted I don’t know much about Buddhism but how does that compare with Christianity ???

 

[AndrewW94]

No I do not admit anything of the sort.

You tacitly did. You may not intend to, but that is the meaning of the English sentences that you wrote. Each word: “a”, “particular”, and “house” is singular.

If I designate all the people in Idaho as “the population of Idaho”, does that mean that there is only one thing in Idaho?

Nice try. The relevant question here would be “If I designate all [of] the people in Idaho as ‘the population of Idaho’, does that mean that there is only one population of Idaho?” The answer is yes.

The word “house” is a convenient designation for a particular collection and arrangement of oojects.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

I am trying to tease out the link between the material atoms of the house and your proposed non-material essence.

Fair enough.

As we remove each molecule, is the essence removed with the atom? Does the essence stay behind with the remainder of the house? Does the essence split in two, with part staying in the molecule and the rest in what is left of the house?

Your talk about the essence “splitting in two” makes me rather dubious that you really are considering it as immaterial. Suppose we have two houses. I say they both instantiate the essence (I prefer to say form) of house. I you destroy one, this doesn’t destroy the essence of house. The other still instantiates it.

But I’ll assume that you do get this, and that I just misread you…

This is a quite interesting question. I wish you would put it on it’s own thread. Note, however, that the position is even worse for the nominalist. At what point is the “designation” going to fail? In my case, I can say there is an objective point, though I don’t necessarily know it, where it is no longer a house. In your case, there is the designation in someone’s mind, and the failure will differ from person to person. This is one of the fundamental problems with nominalism. How do you know we are talking about the same thing?

Nagarjuna’s arguments examine the basis of many common assumptions made in both Greek and Indian philosophy. He shows that those common assumptions are incorrect. Where Aristotle also makes those assumptions, then Aristotle is also incorrect.

From the fact that you don’t answer my question, even when I emphasize what I actually asked, but instead point to Nagarjuna, I will assume that you do not know of anyone who studied Aristotle and saw this alleged “contradiction.” ** Don’t you think that is rather telling?**

While it is true that one can reject Aristotle’s view without actually reading Aristotle, it is surely different than hearing him out as he defends his view.
Secondly, have you actually read enough Aristotle to say that Nagarjuna is rejecting the same positions? Your previous posts make me extremely dubious.
Thirdly, is Nagarjuna really rejecting Aristotle’s view? You (rightly) speak of his view as something existing apart from Aristotle (As you could reject it without studying Aristotle). However, this doesn’t fit in very well with nominalism. I’ll wait for you to clarify whether you are a nominalist, or whether there are just similarities between nominalism and your position before going into the contradiction further (though it should be fairly obvious).

 

[rossum]

You are correct in the fact that AM is the present tense of “to Be”. That is my point. Being does not require time. It just is. Is this a concept that is foreign to you ??? Let me know.

Your use of ‘being’, (or is that “Being”?), is yet another reified concept. A ‘more real reality’ sitting behind the ordinary everyday reality we observe. There is no such ‘more real reality’, what we see is what we get. That and nothing more.

Does your ‘being’ exist? If it does, then it also has its own ‘being’: ‘being of being’. Does ‘being of being’ exist? If it does then we have an infinite regress. Much simpler never to start the regress in the first place.

You speak about causes having effects. I am not talking about effects. If a rock starts to roll down a hill something other than the rock must have acted on it.

Similarly, if a non-creator starts to create, having previously not been creating, then something has acted on that non-creator to initiate the action of creating. Initiating an action is a change.

Our souls are about life. Without one we would be just a pile of chemicals in a reaction if we were lucky. The human soul is the place where are partly in touch with the divine nature. It is the place of divine inspiration and encounter, especially through prayer.

Our soul is our non-material component. Buddhists split that non-material component into four parts, none of which is eternal and all of which are changing. We do have a non-material component (as do all animals) but that non-material component is not at all like the Christian soul.

I have to wonder how you came to believe in Buddhism. Is it because it seemed logical to you?

Because it works. I tried it and it delivered on its promises: Buddhists ‘really are happier’

I can’t see how a buda [Buddha] or Buddhism has that kind of history that was written about and testified to.

Buddhism is far less interested in history, and much more interested in what works here and now:

At one time the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa Grove. Then the Blessed One, taking a few Simsapa leaves in his hand, said to the monks: “What do you think, monks? Which are the more numerous, the few leaves I have here in my hand, or those up in the trees of the grove?”

“Lord, the Blessed One is holding only a few leaves: those up in the trees are far more numerous.”

"In the same way, monks, there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a little. And why, monks, have I not revealed it?

"Because, monks, it is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or Nibbana. That is why I have not revealed it. And what, monks, have I revealed?

"What I have revealed is: ‘This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, and this is the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.’ And why, monks, have I revealed it?

"Because this is related to the goal, fundamental to the holy life, conduces to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana, therefore I have revealed it.

“Therefore, monks, your task is to learn: ‘This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, this is the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.’ That is your task.”

– Simsapa sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 56.31

rossum

 

[rossum]

You tacitly did. You may not intend to, but that is the meaning of the English sentences that you wrote. Each word: “a”, “particular”, and “house” is singular.

So, since the word “God” is singular in English, you deny the existence of the Trinity? Your argument is very weak. The word “water” is singular, does that negate the scientific finding that water is composed of extremely large numbers of molecules?

Nice try. The relevant question here would be “If I designate all [of] the people in Idaho as ‘the population of Idaho’, does that mean that there is only one population of Idaho?” The answer is yes.

Is there one God or three Gods?

Your talk about the essence “splitting in two” makes me rather dubious that you really are considering it as immaterial.

Why cannot the immaterial split? Identical twins arise from a single conception, yet there are two different people. At what point does “essence of zygote” split into “essence of twin 1” and “essence of twin 2”? Or if the essence cannot split, does one twin not have any essence at all?

Suppose we have two houses. I say they both instantiate the essence (I prefer to say form) of house. I you destroy one, this doesn’t destroy the essence of house. The other still instantiates it.

Consider the earth before any houses were built. Where was “essence of house” then?

From the fact that you don’t answer my question

I answered your question with a question, about the essence of a seed and the essence of the tree that grows from the seed:

For example, consider a seed and a tree. The seed continuously changes/grows into the tree. What of the essence of the seed? Is it the same as the essence of the tree? If it is then there has been no change and all change everywhere is denied. Is the seed’s essence different to the tree’s essence? Then we have two ‘essentially’ different things and there is no connection between them.

This is taken straight from Nagarjuna. What is the relationship, in terms of essence, between the tree and the seed?

However, this doesn’t fit in very well with nominalism.

I am not a nominalist, I am a Prasangika-Madhyamika. You are making an error in trying to classify me in an incorrect category.

rossum

 

[AndrewW94]

The word “water” is singular, does that negate the scientific finding that water is composed of extremely large numbers of molecules?

Saying that something is “one thing” does not imply a lack of parts. I thought this was common knowledge. Sorry for not clarifying.

Is there one God or three Gods?

One God. A cursory knowledge of Christianity would tell you that.

Your argument is very weak.

Before making such unsubstantiated claims, I think a little research might have been advisable. Take a look here:
(alas, the link seems to get my post blocked. Google: “one thing” site:britannica.com just like that, with quotes, to see what I meant. I limit it to Britannica because the normal search return a plethora of songs with “one thing” in the title.)

As you should see, the vast majority of people disagree with you. Perhaps you have your own definition of what “one thing” means and by this definition the thing cannot have parts? You should be aware that this is not how most people use that phrase. Also, I am curious, in your estimation, what qualifies as “one thing”? Would one molecule of water? It has parts too.

Why cannot the immaterial split?

I never said it couldn’t. I am also not saying that it can. However, based on how you talk about splitting, it sounds like you are thinking in terms of matter.

Identical twins arise from a single conception, yet there are two different people. At what point does “essence of zygote” split into “essence of twin 1” and “essence of twin 2”? Or if the essence cannot split, does one twin not have any essence at all?

You speak is if there’s an essence that has to be moved around. What did I say to imply that essences “split” at all? Both of the humans instantiate the essence. There is no “limit” of essence that requires one to lack it if the other has it. (speaking loosely of having and lacking)

Where was “essence of house” then?

See what I mean? “Where” implies that it is material.

I answered your question with a question, about the essence of a seed and the essence of the tree that grows from the seed:

If I asked whether 2 + 2 is 4, and you replied by asking if chess must be won by white with best play from both sides, you didn’t answer my question:

Can you show me a few people, from the millions who read him, (and preferably who understood him), who thought his simultaneous claims that God is immutable and God is the Uncaused Cause were inconsistent?

Asking a question does not answer me. (Though of course, you could quote the question from someone who fulfilled the conditions–someone who studied Aristotle and “saw” your alleged “contradiction.” That you still won’t answer me only reinforces my belief that you don’t know of any such person. **Don’t you think that is rather telling?
**

Then we have two ‘essentially’ different things and there is no connection between them.

The essence of seed is different than the essence of tree. However, your ridiculous jump to “then there is no relationship between them” is false. “Is water hydrogen? Then there is no relationship between water and hydrogen.” Silly, but your leap in “reasoning” is just as absurd.

I am not a nominalist, I am a Prasangika-Madhyamika.

Thank you for answering my question. (And it was a question, not a declaration.)

You are making an error in trying to classify me in an incorrect category.

You said you read my posts? I’ll assume you aren’t lying.
You said I classify you “in an incorrect category.” I’ll assume you aren’t lying. Then you are merely mistaken. However, I am at a loss as to how you could fail to understand what I wrote.

I quote from my post to which your reply is directed:

However, this doesn’t fit in very well with nominalism. I’ll wait for you to clarify whether you are a nominalist, or whether there are just similarities between nominalism and your position before going into the contradiction further (though it should be fairly obvious).

**

What could I have said to make this more clear? **(And yes, I do really want an answer to that.)

 

[rossum]

One God. A cursory knowledge of Christianity would tell you that.

I am well aware of that. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of saying that a singular word must refer to a singular, non-compound, entity. This discussion of houses started about the question of whether a house could be both black and white.

As you should see, the vast majority of people disagree with you.

And in 100 AD the vast majority of people disagreed with Christianity. The argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you have your own definition of what “one thing” means and by this definition the thing cannot have parts?

I was talking about opposed properties. If something has opposed properties, like a part white and part black house, then we can deduce that the thing is a compound. By searching for opposed properties we can analyse whether or not a thing is a compound.

I am curious, in your estimation, what qualifies as “one thing”?

Would one molecule of water? It has parts too.
It is a compound thing since, as you correctly point out, it has parts. There are very few uncompounded things.

I never said it couldn’t. I am also not saying that it can.

Then why do you talk about essences if you do not know their properties?

However, based on how you talk about splitting, it sounds like you are thinking in terms of matter.

Again, non-material things can split.

Both of the humans instantiate the essence.

I disagree with “the essence”. Humans come as male and female. Males do not instantiate the female essence and vice versa. Does a female cat instantiate the female essence? Is it the same female essence as human females instantiate or a different female essence?

Asking a question does not answer me.

But it does help me to clarify what you mean by “essence”, when you yourself are not even sure whether or not essences can split. Unless both of us are clear what we mean by our terms then our discussion will be at cross-purposes.

The essence of seed is different than the essence of tree.

Thank you. Now, when does the essence change, or the old essence disappear and the new essence apply? The change from seed to tree is gradual, and different people may place the change at different time. What is the objective point at which the change happens?

However, your ridiculous jump to “then there is no relationship between them” is false.

A seed has essence-of-seed. Does essence-of-seed cause essence-of-tree? No, otherwise there would be essence-of-tree for the entire duration of the existence of the seed. An acorn is not an oak tree, and does not possess essence-of-tree. However, when we have essence-of-tree, we no longer have essence-of-seed; an oak tree is not an acorn. Since the seed no longer exists when the tree exists, the essence-of-seed has disappeared and no longer exits. Something which no longer exists cannot cause anything.

If your essences are general, then they are reifications of the pattern matching sections of our minds. We have two different patterns in out heads: tree and seed. Some objects match one or other pattern. Those patterns exist inside our heads. It is an error to think that they have any real existence outside our heads.

You said I classify you “in an incorrect category.”

You have implied that you do so by calling me “nominalist”. I am not a nominalist, but a Prasangika-Madhyamika. Feel free to indicate the similarities and differences between nominalism and the Prasangika-Madhyamika position.

In a way, this is an example of pattern matching. You have a pattern in your head: nominalism. You have decided that I match that pattern. I do not, I match a pattern in my own head: Prasangika-Madhyamika. Those two patterns do not have independent existence, but are only found inside our heads.

rossum

 

[mdcpensive1]

Your use of ‘being’, (or is that “Being”?), is yet another reified concept. A ‘more real reality’ sitting behind the ordinary everyday reality we observe. There is no such ‘more real reality’, what we see is what we get. That and nothing more.

Does your ‘being’ exist? If it does, then it also has its own ‘being’: ‘being of being’. Does ‘being of being’ exist? If it does then we have an infinite regress. Much simpler never to start the regress in the first place.

rossum

I think I prefer to take one topic at a time. “Being” is having existence. I am not sure that it is logical in English to say that existence exists unless you are talking about the word itself. Can you agree on that ??