O
oldcelt
Guest
No…better to do what I believe he did…leave much of the universe to take care of itself. When a supreme, omniscient being starts messing with sentient beings…the results cannot be just.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
belorg
Guest
If an allegedly immutable being changes his mind, he doesn’t remain the same and therefore cannot be immutable. Causa finita est.We can change our minds but **we **do not change. There is no doubt whatsoever that you, I and everyone else remain the same persons for all personal, moral, legal, social, medical, economic, philosophical and theological purposes. *Causa finita est.
*
B
belorg
Guest
For someone who admits this, he spends an awful lot of time and effort job describing what he means by “immutable”. He had better take his own advice then.St Thomas would admit any description is inadequate.
By their own logic, they have no basis even calling it Sacred Scripture.They do have a basis. It’s what Sacred Scripture says.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Of course we do. God reveals Himself to us. Simply because something is beyond understanding doesn’t mean we can’t understand it as much as humanly possible.For someone who admits this, he spends an awful lot of time and effort job describing what he means by “immutable”. He had better take his own advice then.
By their own logic, they have no basis even calling it Sacred Scripture.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If we remain the same persons so does God! The onus is on you to explain why there is a change of identity given that we remain the same persons for** all** personal, moral, legal, social, medical, economic, philosophical, theological and** practical** purposes. You are refusing to face incontrovertible facts.We can change our minds but **we **
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Which is precisely why you have to be careful making statements such as God is immutable and saying that is the fullness of truth. As I said, God is beyond mutability and immutability.If an allegedly immutable being changes his mind, he doesn’t remain the same and therefore cannot be immutable. Causa finita est.
B
belorg
Guest
I don’t have to explain why there is change of indentity. Immutability means the impossibility of any sort of change.If we remain the same persons so does God! The onus is on you to explain why there is a change of identity given that we remain the same persons for** all** personal, moral, legal, social, medical, economic, philosophical, theological and** practical** purposes. You are refusing to face incontrovertible facts.
B
belorg
Guest
If somethig is beyond understanding, we can’t understand it. Period. If we can understand something as much as is humanly possible, it is not beyond understanding.Of course we do. God reveals Himself to us. Simply because something is beyond understanding doesn’t mean we can’t understand it as much as humanly possible.
B
belorg
Guest
I am glad you admit that religious truth claims are not justified.Which is precisely why you have to be careful making statements such as God is immutable and saying that is the fullness of truth. As I said, God is beyond mutability and immutability.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
There are many things that we don’t fully understand, where our understanding is constrained by human limitation.If somethig is beyond understanding, we can’t understand it. Period. If we can understand something as much as is humanly possible, it is not beyond understanding.
O
oldcelt
Guest
For the time being.There are many things that we don’t fully understand, where our understanding is constrained by human limitation.
B
belorg
Guest
Beyond understanding is not the same as not fully understanding.There are many things that we don’t fully understand, where our understanding is constrained by human limitation.
Anyway, if you don’t fully understand something, you cannot declare the truth of it.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Of course you can as far as God has revealed it.Beyond understanding is not the same as not fully understanding.
Anyway, if you don’t fully understand something, you cannot declare the truth of it.
B
belorg
Guest
You cannot claim the truth of God’s revelation to you.Of course you can as far as God has revealed it.
Maybe you mistake something else for God’s revelation, or maybe God, for some mysterious reason, chose to reveal something to you that wasn’t true.
After all, God is beyond truth or untruth.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Of course we can proclaim the truth of God’s revelation to us. He revealed it.You cannot claim the truth of God’s revelation to you.
Maybe you mistake something else for God’s revelation, or maybe God, for some mysterious reason, chose to reveal something to you that wasn’t true.
After all, God is beyond truth or untruth.
B
belorg
Guest
I have already answered that.Of course we can proclaim the truth of God’s revelation to us. He revealed it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are assuming **causing **change implies **being **changed which is certainly not self-evident - especially in the case of the Creator. St Paul sums it up beautifully:I don’t have to explain why there is change of indentity. Immutability means the impossibility of any sort of change.
Acts 17:28For **in **him we live and move and have our being.
“in” is obviously analogical because the relation of created persons to their Creator is not spatial but ontological. Our origin and dependence on God cannot be explained in scientific terms. The uniqueness of creation ex nihilo precludes any objection to divine immutability on the grounds of what occurs in the physical universe. Even human minds cannot be adequately explained neurologically.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you believe we shall eventually understand everything?!For the time being.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Certainly not in my lifetime. But all things are possible given time.Do you believe we shall eventually understand everything?!
B
belorg
Guest
That causing change implies being changed is self-evident, but even if we assume for the sake of the argument that causing change doesn’t imply being changed, my argument is about the impossibility of interfering in an ongoing (chnaging) process.You are assuming **causing **change implies **being **changed which is certainly not self-evident - especially in the case of the Creator. St Paul sums it up beautifully:
I am not talking about scientific terms, I am talking about logical consequences.“in” is obviously analogical because the relation of created persons to their Creator is not spatial but ontological. Our origin and dependence on God cannot be explained in scientific terms. The uniqueness of creation ex nihilo precludes any objection to divine immutability on the grounds of what occurs in the physical universe. Even human minds cannot be adequately explained neurologically.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.