Proof Of An Intelligent Neccesary Cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see the proof that there was a time when quantum fluctuations did not exist.
Click to expand...
Time and quantum fluctuations would have come into existence simultaneously, no?

So what you don’t see is how time and quantum fluctuations came in to existence together.

Well that’s a perfectly reasonable position, just because you can’t see the act of Creation.

As Einstein put it, “Something deeply hidden had to be behind things.”
 
Tomdstone said:
What is the experimental proof that quantum fluctuations are actualized potential.
Click to expand...
Its changing and is always changing in the very instant of its being. Necessary existence, the antithesis of nothing, does not change at all which is explained in premise 4.

Premise 4: If something necessarily exists, then every aspect of its being is necessarily actual and therefore does not change. Its being is not potentially actual, it does not become potentially more than what it is because it is eternally everything that it is and ever will be. There is no potency in it.

You do not need experimental proof, Science is not the only way of knowing. If something follows necessarily in an ontological respect, you can know it to be true.
 
IWantGod said:
Necessary existence, the antithesis of nothing, does not change at all.
Click to expand...
But God has changed. At one point in time He was in heaven and created Adam and Eve. that was a change because before that there was no Adam and Eve. Then, later on, He came down to earth and became man. Before that He was not a man on earth. Then He preached on earth and He died and then was resurrected. Before the Resurrection He was on earth preaching. After the Resurrection He ascended into Heaven. So God changed in time as we see from the history Judaism and Christianity.
 
Tomdstone said:
But God has changed. At one point in time He was in heaven and created Adam and Eve. that was a change because before that there was no Adam and Eve. Then, later on, He came down to earth and became man. Before that He was not a man on earth. Then He preached on earth and He died and then was resurrected. Before the Resurrection He was on earth preaching. After the Resurrection He ascended into Heaven. So God changed in time as we see from the history Judaism and Christianity.
Click to expand...
You present a good point. However…
  1. Jesus as the word is eternally begotten, word made flesh.
  2. Jesus changed as a man, but not as the word of God, even though the word (GOD) exists simultaneously with his being.
Jesus is true man and true God. The rest is a mystery. However it is a genuine philosophical problem to consider.🙂

That being said, I think I answered your argument considering quantum fluctuations which are always changing.
 
IWantGod said:
.
  1. Jesus as the word is eternally begotten, word made flesh. .
Click to expand...
I don’t see how Jesus was eternally “word made flesh”. I thought that He was made flesh at a time of about 2020 years ago as Mary, the Mother of God accepted Him as Her Son.
 
IWantGod said:
  1. Jesus changed as a man, but not as the word of God, even though the word (GOD) exists simultaneously with his being.
Click to expand...
.
Before the conception of Christ, the word was not a man.
After the conception of Christ, the word became flesh. He was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit. Before that God was not incarnate. After that God was incarnate.
If God was not incarnate at one point in time, but at a later point in time God was incarnate why would that not mean that God changed from being not incarnate to being incarnate?
Similarly, if God was in heaven at one point in time, but then later on He came down from heaven, why would that not indicate a change in position?
 
Tomdstone said:
.
Before the conception of Christ, the word was not a man.
After the conception of Christ, the word became flesh. He was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit. Before that God was not incarnate. After that God was incarnate.
If God was not incarnate at one point in time, but at a later point in time God was incarnate why would that not mean that God changed from being not incarnate to being incarnate?
Similarly, if God was in heaven at one point in time, but then later on He came down from heaven, why would that not indicate a change in position?
Click to expand...
The man changed, the flesh, but not the nature of God, not the nature of the Word. God is simultaneous with the incarnation of Christ. God’s being and his Word is simultaneous with creation and every event that has existed and will ever exist because God is the very being in which created things have their being and change. This is consistent with and follows necessarily from premise 1 to 4. Jesus is **eternally **begotten of the Father consistent with the eternal knowledge and wisdom of the Father. Jesus was true Man and true God.

But ultimately the Trinity is accepted as a mystery of faith and I too accept it as such.
 
IWantGod said:
The man changed, the flesh, but not the nature of God, not the nature of the Word. God is simultaneous with the incarnation of Christ. God’s being and his Word is simultaneous with creation and every event that has existed and will ever exist because God is the very being in which created things have their being and change. This is consistent with and follows necessarily from premise 1 to 4. Jesus is **eternally **begotten of the Father consistent with the eternal knowledge and wisdom of the Father. Jesus was true Man and true God.

But ultimately the Trinity is accepted as a mystery of faith and I too accept it as such.
Click to expand...
At one time God was in heaven, and at a later time God came down from heaven and was made man.
 
Tomdstone said:
At one time God was in heaven, and at a later time God came down from heaven and was made man.
Click to expand...
How you describe it implies change, and there is nothing wrong with describing it that way so long as you understand “later” and “before” is simply how beings in time perceive God’s behaviour because they are in time. The idea that God came “down” from heaven, insofar as it describes God’s nature ontologically speaking, can only be ascribed to him analogously. But that is not correct in a literal ontological sense. God does not come “down” from anywhere. The word has become flesh, but not in the sense that requires motion. The Man Jesus, his human nature, is in motion, but the word’s actuality and expression as such is simultaneous with the human nature by which we identify Jesus as “Christ” and is not in motion. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and this does not involve a change and neither is it theologically considered to be a change in God, although there is clearly a physical change in the behaviour of Jesus.
 
IWantGod said:
God does not come “down” from anywhere. .
Click to expand...
Here’s part of what Catholics believe and recite at almost every Mass as a profession of faith:
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

Do you believe and accept what is stated in the creed or do you take it metaphorically? Is it all right for Catholics to take the creed metaphorically and not literally?
 
Tomdstone said:
Here’s part of what Catholics believe and recite at almost every Mass as a profession of faith:
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

Do you believe and accept what is stated in the creed or do you take it metaphorically? Is it all right for Catholics to take the creed metaphorically and not literally?
Click to expand...
It is in essence true, but the language being used to describe it such as “he came down from heaven” is not indicative of there actually being motion in God’s being. It is simply describing the incarnation from our perspective in space-time. Analogies.
 
God is in every moment. We exist in time.
He is with us at our conception, right here right now and at the moment of our death, hearing our last prayer.
He cannot change as He transcends each and every moment, bringing them all to life in their time time.
Here and now, every here and now is where He meets us as the Triune Godhead.
The sacrifice of the innocent Lamb for our salvation was decided upon at the foundation of the earth and was revealed in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (See 1Peter18-20.)
 
IWantGod said:
It is in essence true, but the language being used to describe it such as “he came down from heaven” is not indicative of there actually being motion in God’s being. It is simply describing the incarnation from our perspective in space-time. Analogies.
Click to expand...
The Bible tells us that thousands of years before Christ, God was walking around and moving in a garden on earth. So God does move. God also moves by responding to our prayers.
 
Tomdstone said:
The Bible tells us that thousands of years before Christ, God was walking around and moving in a garden on earth. So God does move. God also moves by responding to our prayers.
Click to expand...
I have said what i have said.
 
God is a Trinity of Divine persons. He is beyond and in everything. He is unchanging as He encompasses all time in addition to being its source. God is unchanging, not static.
 
Tomdstone said:
Yes, you did. But I can’t go along because God does respond to our prayers. A response is a move.
Click to expand...
Well that is if you think of God as thinking in the same way that we do. When we think, it is a process in time, and thus this kind of thinking cannot be attributed to God accept in a purely analogous sense because God is eternal. It is not (name removed by moderator)ut and output, it is not a sequence in God’s being. Thus this cannot be how God responds to prayer. We do not cause motion in God’s being in literal ontological sense with our prayers…

Prayer and its effects, insofar as they occur in time, our in fact a response to God’s nature. If it is true that the effect of a prayer is consistent with what is truly good (God’s nature) then the effect will become actual in time because it is consistent with the the good plan (divine providence), not because God is moving his ear to our call and responding in time. The universe is responding to God, not the other way round. Gods love is an eternal act, and, in respect of miracles or prayer, creation arranges itself according to the eternal will and plan of God’s eternal divine providence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top