Is Jesus unchanging?

[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 ??

I was talking about “Being” in the sense of a Platonic Real, or a Thomist Substance. Those philosophical concepts are incorrect. Simple existence is not a problem. It is the surrounding philosophical reification I reject.

rossum

 

[mdcpensive1]

I was talking about “Being” in the sense of a Platonic Real, or a Thomist Substance. Those philosophical concepts are incorrect. Simple existence is not a problem. It is the surrounding philosophical reification I reject.

rossum

I’ll accept that we agree on being.

 

[mdcpensive1]

From rossum post #116

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.

I think that this is where we will have issues with semantics or definitions. My contention is that when God the creator is out of time then anything that is “done” as you say is not a change but was planned from all eternity. It is not something new but just is manifested. An all knowing being is Superior to us and our ways. He is the cause of creation to exist and has known what will and has happened for all eternity. That is not change.

Hope you are understanding my point

 

[rossum]

My contention is that when God the creator is out of time then anything that is “done” as you say is not a change but was planned from all eternity.

A creator is of necessity a cause. Causation requires time, since the cause must exist before the effect. A non-existent cause cannot cause anything. Hence we cannot have a cause “outside” time. All causation must happen inside time. If the effect is inside time – I have used the example of the parting of the Red Sea – then the cause must also be inside time. Something caused that water to move, and that something was inside time.

Without time we cannot tell whether the cause is before the effect or the effect is before the cause. We cannot distinguish the two.

It is not something new but just is manifested.

Then that something has changed, from unmanifested to manifested. What caused that change? The manifested version is not the same as the unmanifested version, so something has changed. At least a part of it has changed.

He is the cause of creation to exist and has known what will and has happened for all eternity. That is not change.

Yes it is. Knowledge of X is not the same as X. There is still a change from unmanifested to manifested. From “will be” to “is”.

rossum

 

[AndrewW94]

Your post contains some good points and some nonsense. I want to settle the nonsense before moving on.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of saying that a singular word must refer to a singular, non-compound, entity.

That is not what singular means. (google.com/search?q=singular&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=singular+definition&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial)

I really don’t see what is so complicated here. When we say “one thing” it doesn’t mean that the one thing has no parts. Your usage of the phrase is bizarre and incorrect.

The argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Once again, an inadequate grasp of basic logic proves your undoing.

**Just because an “argument form” is invalid, it does not follow that every “instantiation” of that “form” is invalid. See Peter Smith An Introduction to Formal Logic pg. 25-27.

The redeeming element of my argument is the fact that languages are developed by convention. Believe it or not, there is nothing about the sound wrong that necessitates that the word wrong should mean what it does. The word represents a concept, but the choice of what sound or symbols we will use to represent that concept is a convention.

Because the phrase “one thing” is common (over 67 million google results for an exact match), and because languages are developed by convention, taking the common usage is an entirely reasonable way to see what it means–in fact, you could perhaps say it is THE reasonable way to see what it means. Surely it’s better than your ipse dixit.

That, followed by this, really raises some eyebrows:

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

First, I didn’t say or imply that I didn’t know. I also refuse to do so now. You are jumping to unfounded conclusions. Why couldn’t I refuse to bring this up because:
a) You have a tendency to go off topic. OR
b) You are unclear about what “split” means. Do we get two wholes? One divide the parts? To completely different and new things?

A bit of straw man mixed with an ad hominem. Not pretty.

Second, you imply that I shouldn’t talk about things unless I fully understand them. I reject this claim. But more to the point, you are being somewhat hypocritical. **As your past posts have demonstrated, your grasp of logic is sorely lacking. Does this mean you can’t talk about logic? ** Your grasp of English is wanting as well. Perhaps you shouldn’t talk at all?

Now, as I said, I reject your claim and thus I don’t say you should stop trying to use logic and stop trying to write English. But if you are going to apply this principle, start with yourself.

You have implied that you do so by calling me “nominalist”.

I did not call you a nominalist. We have a record of everything I said, show me where I said that.

I said several things that could maybe be streched to mean that, but my search through this thread indicates that I pointed out that Nominalism has problems that are similar to the problems in your position. I also said:

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).

Do you expect me to include a disclaimer like this every time I use the word “nominalism”? Once should be enough. On that note, I noticed you missed my question:

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

Once you separate all of your rubbish from your actual arguments, I’ll answer those.

 

[rossum]

Just because an “argument form” is invalid, it does not follow that every “instantiation” of that “form” is invalid.

Nor does it follow that every instantiation is correct. You need to find a better argument form to show that your point is valid.

The redeeming element of my argument is the fact that languages are developed by convention.

Agreed. Language is not reality; it is a model of reality that we hold in our heads. Confusing the model for the reality is a source of error. Unchanging essences are part of the model, not part of reality.

First, I didn’t say or imply that I didn’t know. I also refuse to do so now.

So, you do know, but you won’t say? That is hardly a very sensible way to conduct this discussion. I deny essences. You appear to accept essences, but refuse to describe the qualities of the essences that you do accept. Not very helpful.

A bit of straw man mixed with an ad hominem.

Once again, an inadequate grasp of basic logic proves your undoing.

Just because an “argument form” is invalid, it does not follow that every “instantiation” of that “form” is invalid. See Peter Smith An Introduction to Formal Logic pg. 25-27.

Once you separate all of your rubbish from your actual arguments, I’ll answer those.

Well put and excellent advice. I suggest that you follow it.

rossum

 

[mdcpensive1]

A creator is of necessity a cause. Causation requires time, since the cause must exist before the effect. A non-existent cause cannot cause anything. Hence we cannot have a cause “outside” time. All causation must happen inside time. If the effect is inside time – I have used the example of the parting of the Red Sea – then the cause must also be inside time. Something caused that water to move, and that something was inside time.

Without time we cannot tell whether the cause is before the effect or the effect is before the cause. We cannot distinguish the two.

Then that something has changed, from unmanifested to manifested. What caused that change? The manifested version is not the same as the unmanifested version, so something has changed. At least a part of it has changed.

Yes it is. Knowledge of X is not the same as X. There is still a change from unmanifested to manifested. From “will be” to “is”.

rossum

Sorry, but your premise is not correct. You base your understanding on any cause has to be in time. That is just not true. A spirit like an angel is not in time but is eternal. Angels do not grow old. A thought does not grow old. etc. You base your understanding only on human terms. There is much more.

 

[rossum]

Sorry, but your premise is not correct. You base your understanding on any cause has to be in time. That is just not true. A spirit like an angel is not in time but is eternal. Angels do not grow old. A thought does not grow old. etc. You base your understanding only on human terms. There is much more.

In order to have an effect, a cause must exist. A non-existent cause cannot have any effects. If the effect is inside time, then at least a part of the cause must also be inside time. I say nothing about effects that are outside time. When we are talking about effects that are inside time, such as God’s actions in the world, then we require that the cause exists before the effect.

If we are outside time, then the words “cause” and “effect” probably do not apply, since it is not possible to determine which one came before the other.

rossum

 

[mdcpensive1]

In order to have an effect, a cause must exist. A non-existent cause cannot have any effects. If the effect is inside time, then at least a part of the cause must also be inside time. I say nothing about effects that are outside time. When we are talking about effects that are inside time, such as God’s actions in the world, then we require that the cause exists before the effect.

If we are outside time, then the words “cause” and “effect” probably do not apply, since it is not possible to determine which one came before the other.

rossum

To have an effect there must be a cause. TRUE. And you are right that you are not saying anything outside of time. But that is the problem.

Let me try this.
You and I are thinking linearly. Our arguments are “if-then”:

But what if God does not act that way? He is always in the present so maybe we can say that all causes have already been caused and the effects are just for those of us in time. It is impossible for us to understand a supernatural being and mind. He is so much above our nature and understanding.

I offer this for your thoughts.

 

[rossum]

But what if God does not act that way?

What if God is not capable of being described in human language, hence invalidating all of scripture?

What if God does not conform to human logic, hence invalidating a great deal of theological speculation?

What is we are all in The Matrix/brain-in-a-jar(*) so nothing that we sense is actually real?

There are a great many what-ifs we could speculate about.

(*)I would highly recommend Steve Martin’s “The Man With Two Brains” in this context. In particular, Dr. Necessiter’s interior designer.

rossum

 

[AndrewW94]

Since you just happened to “miss” this part of my previous two posts, I’ll include it in a post by itself.

It appears that you speak English fairly fluently (apart from insisting that you get to make up meanings for “one thing” and “singular”). As such, I am rather at a loss for how you could say:

You have implied that you do so by calling me “nominalist”.

This is, of course, another of your straw man arguments.

I asked you to:

show me where I said that.

Of course, you couldn’t show me because I never did say that. Rather awkward for you. Here is what I actually said:

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.)

Of course, I’m not yet finished exposing your pathetic fallacies, but I want you to answer this. There’s just not much point in talking to you if you can’t understand something as simple as my above quote. I have better things to do with my time than teaching you elementary logic and English.

 

[rossum]

Since you just happened to “miss” this part of my previous two posts, I’ll include it in a post by itself.

It appears that you speak English fairly fluently (apart from insisting that you get to make up meanings for “one thing” and “singular”). As such, I am rather at a loss for how you could say:

This is, of course, another of your straw man arguments.

I asked you to:
Of course, you couldn’t show me because I never did say that. Rather awkward for you. Here is what I actually said:

Of course, I’m not yet finished exposing your pathetic fallacies, but I want you to answer this. There’s just not much point in talking to you if you can’t understand something as simple as my above quote. I have better things to do with my time than teaching you elementary logic and English.

You would do better to address my actual arguments.

• How does an unchanging God move molecules of water inside time?

• How does He cause those molecules to move, and later to cease to move?

•How does He do this without at least a part of Himself changing?

rossum

 

[Cathoholic]

Your “actual arguments” have been addressed rossum.

You keep conflating God, who is outside of time with you or I who are bound by time.

You have ignored the fact that God acting outside of time is ABOVE reason (not contrary to it) and cannot be completely unpacked with natural reason alone.

 

[rossum]

Your “actual arguments” have been addressed rossum.

You keep conflating God, who is outside of time with you or I who are bound by time.

You will notice that I do not focus on God, so much as God’s actions. God’s actions are inside time, so those actions start, sustain and cease, all within time. If God causes those actions, then God is doing something within time to start, sustain and stop those actions.

It is the part of God that is acting within time that I am concentrating on. If God is omnipresent, then He is also present within time as well as outside it.

My arguments would indeed fail for a non-active Deist-style God who was, and remained, permanently outside time. However, that is not the Christian God, who is present within time and who acts inside time.

You have ignored the fact that God acting outside of time is ABOVE reason (not contrary to it) and cannot be completely unpacked with natural reason alone.

So, all reasoned theology is useless, and we don’t ever have to read Aquinas again. A thousand theology students heave great sighs of relief.

rossum

 

[AndrewW94]

Rossum, I don’t like how you change the subject whenever you realize you are wrong. It makes the thread look like a grasshopper.

I was about to say: “Well, if it didn’t kill my first twenty times it won’t kill me now.”

Then I saw this:

So, all reasoned theology is useless, and we don’t ever have to read Aquinas again. A thousand theology students heave great sighs of relief.

What Cathoholic said, with my emphasis, is this:

You have ignored the fact that God acting outside of time is ABOVE reason (not contrary to it) and cannot be completely unpacked with natural reason alone.

There’s no point in trying to carry out a discussion with you if you can’t understand what other people write.

---

So again:

How do you get from me saying this:

QUOTE: 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).
To you saying this:

QUOTE: You have implied that you do so by calling me “nominalist”.
I did not call you a nominalist.

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

---

How can you expect me to explain anything to you, even something so simple as say, 2+3 = 3+2, if you can’t understand something as simple as what I wrote above?

What could I have said to make this more clear?

 

[CrossofChrist]

You would do better to address my actual arguments.

• How does an unchanging God move molecules of water inside time?

• How does He cause those molecules to move, and later to cease to move?

•How does He do this without at least a part of Himself changing?

rossum

You’re asking questions that (IMO) really can’t be answered. We don’t know how God does this, only that he does this. And we know this from reason and also faith.

For instance, Chalcedon explains that Christ has a human and divine nature, but it doesn’t bother trying to explain how this is.

Your arguments, which are more questions than arguments, are great questions for speculative theology and they have been asked in one form or another from Augustine to Rahner. But it would be wrong to imply that our incapability of grasping the “how” invalidates the Christian understanding of God.

 

[rossum]

Your arguments, which are more questions than arguments, are great questions for speculative theology and they have been asked in one form or another from Augustine to Rahner.

In some aspects, Nagarjuna’s methods were similar to Socrates’. He asked questions of his opponent until the faults in the opponents’ position became obvious.

I am, in my own small way, following the same course. Any temporary action within time requires change: start, sustain and stop. Any unchanging entity cannot do all three, at most the unchanging entity can only do one. It is that contradiction that I am aiming at.

But it would be wrong to imply that our incapability of grasping the “how” invalidates the Christian understanding of God.

But it does make it a lot more difficult for non-Christians to accept:

Q: How can the Invisible Pink Unicorn be both pink and invisible?

A: It is a mystery, which she performs by the power of Her Holy Hooves.

Most unsatisfactory, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t like how you change the subject whenever you realize you are wrong.

You would do well not to tell me what I am thinking. You do not have mind reading powers, and so far you have not shown any of my arguments to be wrong.

For my part, I don’t like that you have ignored my questions. Here they are again:

• How does an unchanging God move molecules of water inside time?

• How does He cause those molecules to move, and later to cease to move?

• How does He do this without at least a part of Himself changing?

I look forward to your answers.

rossum

 

[Cathoholic]

Rossum states:

Quote:
Q: How can the Invisible Pink Unicorn be both pink and invisible?

A: It is a mystery, which she performs by the power of Her Holy Hooves.

An inappropriate and pretty offensive comment rossum. It is not a big deal insulting me, but you are wrongly posting blasphemy. This type of thing is not a discussion and I want to encourage a proper tone.

 

[rossum]

An inappropriate and pretty offensive comment rossum. It is not a big deal insulting me, but you are wrongly posting blasphemy. This type of thing is not a discussion and I want to encourage a proper tone.

My apologies, no offence was intended. The IPU is a parody or satire and is one of the standard methods of countering the “God is special so your logic does not apply” argument presented by some theists.

It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove that she does not exist (or indeed that she is not pink). This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God—that God, as creator of the universe, is not subject to its laws and thus not physically detecting him tells us nothing about his existence or lack thereof.

– Wikipedia: IPU.