If you choose to make it concrete, then that is a change.
If a being is engaged in the same action eternally, does that being ever change? In other words, what is the necessary logical problem with an eternally unchanging changer?
No problem. You have to remember who you are talking to. Some people do no accept Divine Revelation, nor will they accept any logic which challenges their cherished beliefs.
That depends on what you mean by “the same action eternally”.
Since I have no ‘belief’ I accept any ‘logic’. the question is: are you wiling to accept logic which challenges your ‘belief’?No problem. You have to remember who you are talking to. Some people do no accept Divine Revelation, nor will they accept any logic which challenges their cherished beliefs.
By default, your position is one of belief, you cannot demonstrate your your world view is correct. And no, I would not accept any " logic " that challenged my Faith, because, De fide, it would be wrong.
I do not even claim my worldview is completely correct. I am opne-minded enough to accept that there are aspects of my world-view that could be wrong. I am also glad that you admit being a fideist. I am not.
Your last comment is as subjective as the human mind can get.I don’t apologize for that. St. Thomas’ faith was a great boon to his philosophical/theological efforts. It just so happens the philosophy of St. Thomas, as read in his own works as opposed to views of commentators is as logical as the human mind can get.
An honest answer. As to the last sentence, not a " fideist " in the sense I have no reasons that are not valid. One who has faith does have reasons for that Faith. This is what most modern commentators lacking faith miss. Usually they view us as credulous, as being without valid reasons.
And I would disagree.
Not unlike the way I am constantly viewed around here. Although I too have reason for what I think.
That’s your subjective opinion, something you are of course entitled to.And I would disagree.
no, belorg. the only change, as you have said, is to it, not to me.
Next, regarding the idea of soul and someone’s comment about how you can’t assume it’s existence - in classical philosophy, specifically anything rooted in Aristotle and Aquinas, there is a recognition that there is something different between a piece of firewood waiting to be burned and a tree. Basically the firewood is not living and the tree is. Now, what makes a tree alive and firewood, not? The reasoning goes, there is some animating principle present in the tree that is no longer present in the firewood. The Latin root in animate is also the word for soul. The Greek root interestingly is psyche - in both cases it is simply the animating principle, or the soul. So, stripped of any overtly religious connotations, the soul is simply that which animates a living being. Given that this is simply a definition, not unlike defining a triangle as a figure having three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees,we don’t have to prove the existence of a soul because, simply, we have noted that whatever it is that makes a difference between a piece of firewood and a living tree, there is something that makes a difference and we have called that something “soul.”
Since you have
you’ve gone and done it again, belorg. you said; since X is in your mind, you change. by saying ‘you’ and ‘your’ you are indicating that i am still the same person. ie, unchanged.
Yeah, so if I say, “Hey, Paddy, you look better with your beard than before you had one” I must be indicating that you have always had a beard.
yes. because a beard concept is an aspect, or attribute of me. if it was not and then i had a beard then that would be your change/movement in my immutability.
Well, for some time I was actually under the impression we were having a serious discussion here. My mistake.
How’s that? Could you be more specific? Somehow the human mind gets confused by this kind of coincidence. I don’t believe that is a proof; why in English and not Greek or Latin? If it worked for all human languages, then perhaps you would have a case…
you dragged my beard into the discussion, belorg. genetics tells me it always existed in me. immutable.
It always existed in you, but not immutable. At one time before puberty, it was sleeping gene, at a certain moment it became active. That’s a change.