Whatever else Genesis says or implies, it is fairly clear that God is not in a constant frenzy of creating. Why else would Genesis say He rested? Is there some metaphorical meaning of “rest” that you guys are privy to that I am not?Yes, I think that is about it. Linus2nd
They have to knowingly reject all moral truth with finality. God does not judge what we don’t know.“All moral truth” == Love. There is no Truth beyond Love.
Matthew 22:34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
When it’s done, if that day ever comes.Will you stop preaching.
It seemed to me rather that you were being very touchy and defensive, as if you had an agenda to guard. I could be wrong, but, it did not seem to me our discussion was very open. I’d love to have an actually open discussion, but our history contains interchanges like this one:We are ( at least we were) trying to have an open philosophical discussion, so throwing in theological assertions and treats is way out of line.
Several times, you have been asked to state your argument formally. If I haven’t yet asked you to do so also, I am asking you now. Your one-liners don’t cut it.I could say the exact same things about you, just changing a few words and names and the above is about you.
But I won’t do that, because that is not the way I want to discuss things. I love the truth, even if it turns out the truth is not as pleasant as I would like it to be and I will change my mind as sson as a convincing argument against my position is presented. But so far, theer have ben pages and pages of futile attemps at redefining just about every concept in order for it to fit you preferred ‘truth’. And after all these pages, my argument is still left untouched.
There is No Truth beyond Love.They have to knowingly reject all moral truth with finality. God does not judge what we don’t know.
A Simple Being cannot have several states. A Purely Actual Being is always purely actual. A Purely Actual Creator creates from His state of Pure Actuality. There is no change in Pure Act, since all change is from potentiality to actuality.Just one sentence will suffice. An immutable being can only have one possible state.
Another flaw in your logic here is that it is impossible for any finite creature to know “all” of any kind of truth. So it is impossible for any finite creature to know all moral truth, and thus impossible for any finite creature to knowingly reject all moral truth.They have to knowingly reject all moral truth with finality. God does not judge what we don’t know.
Again, this begs the question. I have explained to Eleve that, if God decides not to create, he does not apply his creative force (whatever that may be), and when he decides to create he does apply it. A state in which this force is applied (or being applied) is different from a state inw which this force is not being applied. That means that God has two different states. Now Eleve thinks that God being eternal and timeless avoids this problem because in that case there is ot a state of not applying F (creative force) followed by a state in which F is applied.A Simple Being cannot have several states. A Purely Actual Being is always purely actual. A Purely Actual Creator creates from His state of Pure Actuality. There is no change in Pure Act, since all change is from potentiality to actuality.
The instant before God creates, He is Pure Act. In the act of creating, He is Pure Act. After He has finished creating, He is Pure Act. What has changed about God?
If you understand the implications of Thomism, you should know that, regradsless of time, the immutability of God, together with His essential simplicity, entails that God cannot have two possible states. It is impossible under Thomism (and Thomiist can correct me if I am wrong) for God to have property X in one possible world and property Y in another possible world.Then how, precisely, are you arguing that creation is contrary to immutability? Seems to me the only way to do that is to argue that creation entails that God be in one way at one time and in another way at another time, which is impossible to do without speaking of a temporal ordering.
Again, if you would care to spell out your argument yourself, in a paragraph or so, instead of by one-line responses to other attempts to tease it out, it would be very helpful.
No, that’s not what I think; I would be rather silly to think that, since one state could never follow another for a timeless being.Again, this begs the question. I have explained to Eleve that, if God decides not to create, he does not apply his creative force (whatever that may be), and when he decides to create he does apply it. A state in which this force is applied (or being applied) is different from a state inw which this force is not being applied. That means that God has two different states. Now Eleve thinks that God being eternal and timeless avoids this problem because in that case there is ot a state of not applying F (creative force) followed by a state in which F is applied.
Thomas is explicit that “God can do what he does not.”If you understand the implications of Thomism, you should know that, regradsless of time, the immutability of God, together with His essential simplicity, entails that God cannot have two possible states. It is impossible under Thomism (and Thomiist can correct me if I am wrong) for God to have property X in one possible world and property Y in another possible world.
Because God is infinite, all possibilities exist in God; God is pure spirit (non-material).If you understand the implications of Thomism, you should know that, regradsless of time, the immutability of God, together with His essential simplicity, entails that God cannot have two possible states. It is impossible under Thomism (and Thomiist can correct me if I am wrong) for God to have property X in one possible world and property Y in another possible world.
Creation is no “part of” God. God has no parts.That which is created is separated from God while still being “a part” of God"
There are no good arguments to show that God is mutable. If you think there are, produce one.Again, this begs the question. I have explained to Eleve that, if God decides not to create, he does not apply his creative force (whatever that may be), and when he decides to create he does apply it. A state in which this force is applied (or being applied) is different from a state inw which this force is not being applied. That means that God has two different states. Now Eleve thinks that God being eternal and timeless avoids this problem because in that case there is ot a state of not applying F (creative force) followed by a state in which F is applied.
And that’s why I use possible world semantics and say that an immutablebeing can only have one possible state, and you seem to agree with that.
However, youi claim that, since God is said to be Pure Act,althouigh having having different possible states clearly entails mutability, God is Pure Act and cannot change.
What you are saying is
God is Pure Act
There are good arguments that show that God is mutable
But God cannot be mutable because he is Pure Act.
While I say
God is claimed to be Pure Act
There are good arguments that show that God is mutable
Therefore God cannot be Pure Act.
My argument is valid and its soundness depends on whether the second premise is true. Your argument begs the question.
I think my spelling mistake lead to this confusion.No, that’s not what I think; I would be rather silly to think that, since one state could never follow another for a timeless being.
I fail to se how that’s related to my argument.Instead, I think that God timelessly causes various events which have a temporal ordering in the world. So using the brackets to avoid ambiguity, it would be “God causes that ,” not “God, at different times, causes that .” It’s a bit like if I set two alarm clocks. I could be causing one to go off tomorrow and one to go off a year from now. But I’m not acting a year and a day apart. I’m acting at once in order to bring about events separated by a year.
This Thomas quote does not address my argument.Thomas is explicit that “God can do what he does not.”
Nobody has denied that. My statement remains irrefutable and reasonable.There is No Truth beyond Love.
I have been doing that for several pages . But regardless whether there are good arguments or not, your reply is question-begging.There are no good arguments to show that God is mutable. If you think there are, produce one.
It addresses your claim that God only has one possible state. If God possibly does differently than what he actually does, that means he can possibly be in the state of doing X while actually be in the state of doing Y. So it is no part of Thomism that God only has one possible state, or that God has precisely the same properties in all possible worlds. Perhaps there is a possible world where God caused the Eiffel Tower to turn red in January 2003. Thomism does not rule this out.This Thomas quote does not address my argument.
The problem is that you restrict logic to the strictures of materialism or naturalism. So any logic outside this artificially errected barrier is false. People put blinders on horses so they won’t be freigntened. This is what you have done to yourself. Linus2ndYes, you asserted that God, who is immutable, has some sort of creative power that can be applied or not applied, but this does not make any difference. I know that you believe this, but you cannot back it up with logic.
I don’t think he has.The problem is that you restrict logic to the strictures of materialism or naturalism.
Firstly, I can understand how someone can claim that God can do diiferent things in diffrent worlds. There may be some weird magical property of God’s creative force that allows it to have different results indiffrent worlds. To be honest, I think that is a crazy idea, but I am willing to say for the sake of the argument that this is not really a different or a changing property of God. IOW, I am willing to grant that God’s creative force could create a rabbit in one world and a dove in another, all be remaininf exactly the same.It addresses your claim that God only has one possible state. If God possibly does differently than what he actually does, that means he can possibly be in the state of doing X while actually be in the state of doing Y. So it is no part of Thomism that God only has one possible state, or that God has precisely the same properties in all possible worlds. Perhaps there is a possible world where God caused the Eiffel Tower to turn red in January 2003. Thomism does not rule this out.
Well, I really don’t understand why you keep replying to something you do not understand.Of course, it is hard to say how this addresses your argument, because you have yet to give any extensive exposition of your argument.
If there are two sort of logic, there is no way to discuss this. Because, who knows, that beyond the strictures of materialism or naturalism, things may just pop into existendce completely uncaused?The problem is that you restrict logic to the strictures of materialism or naturalism. So any logic outside this artificially errected barrier is false. People put blinders on horses so they won’t be freigntened. This is what you have done to yourself. Linus2nd