The act creation is logically impossible

[Theophorus]

I slightly change the argument as following:

1. Creation is the state of existence but created
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed and act creation requires omniscience change
4. The act creation is logically impossible

Drawing on my last post I want to reformulate your sequence with an affermative result:

1)The act of creation is the bringing into existence of something from nothing.
2) Creation requires omnipotence in the Creator.
3) Creation is the Actualisation of something which existed as possible in the mind of the Creator, something which the Creator already had in mind to actualise.
4) The Creator has perfect knowledge in the particular/individual of each thing He will create(omniscience) [and indeed of each thing He can possibly create but has eternally decided not to]
5) Omniscience cannot be changed [agreed as it is total knowledge of all possible and actual things]
6) The act of creation does not require omniscience to change
7) The act creation is logically possible [and indeed when other metaphysical realities are taken into consideration, the most likely solution]

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

1)The act of creation is the bringing into existence of something from nothing.

Of the same kind that is. But isn’t God existence himself?

1. The Creator has perfect knowledge in the particular/individual of each thing He will create(omniscience) [and indeed of each thing He can possibly create but has eternally decided not to]
2. Omniscience cannot be changed [agreed as it is total knowledge of all possible and actual things]

But what is Omniscience? Is it not eternally begotten of the introspection of God? Existence precedes essence in this case.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Bahman, if everything changes then should not “everything changes” also change? But then you have to agree that not everything changes.

 

[dshix]

It amuses me, how many threads Bahman makes which put forth a set of premises, one or more of which is false, and causes a big splash in the pond with his “logical” conclusion.

 

[Aloysium]

It amuses me, how many threads Bahman makes which put forth a set of premises, one or more of which is false, and causes a big splash in the pond with his “logical” conclusion.

I think it is because the words are hot.
Their grouping in the statement may not make sense, but in themselves, they trigger reflection on the nature of existence.

act - the universe is comprised of beings that behave, do, transform, etc - it is amazing that there are persons that effect what is, that there is anything at all
creation - wow! nothing more need be said: sit back and take it all in
logic - reason, truth, understanding, intellectual relationship with reality
impossible - certainty that something is not, faith, how we know anything

 

[fhansen]

To complete the argument one need the definition omniscience and omnipotent:

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
Omnipotent is having unlimited power to perform any act which is logically possible.

1. Creation is the state of existence but created, in another it was not existed before the act creation hence its knowledge didn’t exist
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed hence nothing can be created
4. The act creation is logically impossible

God doesn’t exist in time so there can be no change, no moment before which something was unknown and after which it was known.

 

[mytruepower2]

That is your sole memory that could be retrieved to consciousness mind, so you in fact experiencing your memory of past. If past was real we could remember all details of our actions which we could not.

Incorrect. When I refer to past events, I don’t mean “events that I remember,” but rather “events which causally effect my present.” Nothing can causally effect anything else unless both things exist.

Also, when you say that if the past were real, we should remember it fully, this is a -terrible- argument. There’s no reason at all to think that we should remember everything that we know to be real fully, in the same way that we don’t perfectly see for a mile and a half through a thick mist. Worse yet, on the tenseless theory, which I hold to, the future is also equally real, yet, we don’t remember it -at all.- This is simply not a good counter-argument.

But God in state of timeless cannot measure time, so God created nothingness.

That’s like saying that we can’t measure a two-dimensional line because we’re not two-dimensional.

You’re also reifying nothingness, which is as much of a joke here as it was in Homer’s story of Odysseus and the cyclops, thousands of years ago.

Measuring time? We just measure/experience instantaneous events in nature then for example call a period in which a pendulum reach the same location as a second. That is all, there is not such a thing like second. The fact that we experience pendulum at the same location does not mean that we experience the same quality hence it is logically impossible to experience the pendulum in the same location as it was in the past, since past is dead.

I’m confused. Which premise of my argument are you arguing is false?

1. On the tensed theory, the measuring of moments is little more than a fiction, since only the present moment exists.
2. I know that my watch is right when it counts three seconds in a row.
   C. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

You seem to be arguing against the second premise, but this premise is always confirmed and never disconfirmed, so you will need some powerful evidence in order to disprove it in any sort of reasonable way. I await your evidence eagerly.

You assume that God knowledge of truth as an axiom which I don’t agree with it. In fact my focal attack point is God omniscience rather than act creation.

Your “focal attack point” is simply too weak, as it rests on a fallacious theory of time.

God in state of timeless has its own restriction, namely God can only perform one action which is creation since performing the second action define a sequence of events/actions in another word time in state of timeless. Such a God is causally separated from creation.

God is utterly transcendant in relation to creation. As for creating and interacting with creation, this is not a limitation for God, because creation and interaction are both -results- of the same -single, divine action.- Therefore, this is not a serious limitation.

You again assume God omniscience as an axiom which of course lead to the fact that future is true. Accepting the future is real however lead to determinism meaning that we solely experience the events and the process of decision making or free will is a delusion.

Accepting that the future is real in no way results in the claim that -future happenings are inevitable,- which would indeed result in determinism.

I’ve said, again and again, that Gods knowledge is -not a causal factor at all,- and so does not prevent certain events from happening.

What type of knowledge is that? What is truth for a game is how players exactly play and what is the final score! How you or God could know that?

Now, that’s a good question, but it’s not relevant to the issue at hand. The issue, and you’ve yet to refute this, is that knowledge alone does not restrict what may or may not happen. Even if I can predict your every reply, that doesn’t mean that you lack free will, or other such nonsense.

We have liberty to perform our action at the spot and the effect appears at the spot. We don’t need the future to perform our action or make choices.

On the contrary, as I outlined, effects of an action are -very rarely- simultaneous with the action itself. For example, a car crash. The action is that you react to someone entering your lane by swerving to the left. The result is a crash with the car to the left of you, which doesn’t take place until a second and a half -later.- This is a knock-down argument against your position on this subject. Therefore, if you want us to believe that you’re right about this, you must first prove that a car crash -does not- happen later than the decision to swerve (not merely assert that it doesn’t,) and then present some good evidence that all decisions are simultaneous with their effects. Until you do this, your position can’t be considered a reasonable one to hold.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

the future is also equally real, yet, we don’t remember it -at all.-

Your future is your past. Worse, one cannot even define simultaneity because some enter the eternal 7th day & others no.

On the contrary, as I outlined, effects of an action are -very rarely- simultaneous with the action itself.

There are analogous things happening that are not related by causality e.g., one is reading “Edwin M. Curley, Descartes again”, looks at the keyboard and sees “ergo”. (Happens all the time).

You’re also reifying nothingness, which is as much of a joke here as it was in Homer’s story of Odysseus and the cyclops, thousands of years ago.

The concept of nothing is not nothing, it is something. Only it applies to no thing.

Accepting that the future is real in no way results in the claim that -future happenings are inevitable,- which would indeed result in determinism.

Determinism is not lack of freedom. Imagine your essence as an open set. Its boundary would be your existence. Essence corresponds to wish, existence to fact. Knowing yourself is knowing what you want. Doing what you want is freedom. Determinism is not necessity but harmony: the closure of the open set i.e., its union with its boundary.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How does a rock create itself? If a rock cannot create itself, then how could the universe create itself? Therefore the universe requires a creator who simply always existed. And if you say the universe always existed, then this creator had to have been eternally creating the universe. That makes more sense than saying the universe has been eternally creating itself.

Linus2nd,

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Bahman,

That is your sole memory that could be retrieved to consciousness mind, so you in fact experiencing your memory of past. If past was real we could remember all details of our actions which we could not.

It is a logical possibility that the existence of mind [separate from matter] is an empirically decidable question. This possibility is not a conjecture. They don’t even realize that there is an empirical question behind it. They begin with an assumption that no [separate] mind exists. It is a reasonable assumption that in some sense one can recall every experience in one’s life in every detail: if this assumption is true, the existence of mind may already be provable from it.

The mere possibility that there may not be enough nerve cells to perform the function of the mind introduces an empirical component into the problem of mind and matter. For example, according to some psychologists, the mind is capable of recalling all details it ever experienced. It seems plausible that there are not enough nerve cells to accomplish this if the empirical storage mechanism would, as seems likely, be far from using the full storage capacity. Of course other possibilities of an empirical disproof are conceivable, while the whole question is usually disregarded in philosophical discussions about mind and matter. (K. Gödel in “A logical journey: from Gödel to philosophy”, H. Wang)

 

[mytruepower2]

Your future is your past. Worse, one cannot even define simultaneity because some enter the eternal 7th day & others no.

All people pass into eternity. The only question is whether it’s an eternity in union with God, or in rejection to him, as nothing but the remains of a person.

As for the future being the same as the past, that’s false. Future is that which we have no perception of, while we may have a dim or incomplete perception of the past.

There are analogous things happening that are not related by causality e.g., one is reading “Edwin M. Curley, Descartes again”, looks at the keyboard and sees “ergo”. (Happens all the time).

Not all things are causally-related to one another, but that wasn’t the point I was making.

The concept of nothing is not nothing, it is something. Only it applies to no thing.

He didn’t say “the concept of nothing.” He said “nothingness,” which is only characterized by its lack of existence.

Determinism is not lack of freedom. Imagine your essence as an open set. Its boundary would be your existence. Essence corresponds to wish, existence to fact. Knowing yourself is knowing what you want. Doing what you want is freedom. Determinism is not necessity but harmony: the closure of the open set i.e., its union with its boundary.

Oh, believe me; the idea of a disordered and non-deterministic universe can be most unpalatable, but let’s not ignore the facts. Determinism is the belief that all actions and events happen the way they do -because they’re determined to happen that way.- Now, there is a rare group that thinks determinism is compatible with free will (“compatiblists,”) but I’m not one of them.

The very existence of the Catholic Church seems to imply that people can choose wrongly, since otherwise, why would the Church need to guide them back to the right path? Since they can choose wrongly, they must have free will, and therefore, unless you’re a compatiblist, determinism must be false.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

All people pass into eternity. The only question is whether it’s an eternity in union with God, or in rejection to him, as nothing but the remains of a person.

Not according to Ezekiel & Revelation: those who live on earth keep dreaming the same spacetime dream again & again. The second death consists in falling asleep in the nightmare of spacetime only to dream that very same nightmare again. An unchangeable Groundhog Day punctuated by striking déjà vus. Those who live in heaven, at the 7th trumpet, wake up in eternity. But they blink their eyes / fall asleep & dream one of 2 dreams: in the one they are the 2 witnesses, in the other they are of the 7 angels. Both dreams are one at the 6th trumpet: the marriage supper. The next time they blink their eyes in the 7th day they dream the other dream & so on.

The very existence of the Catholic Church seems to imply that people can choose wrongly, since otherwise, why would the Church need to guide them back to the right path?

The suffrage universel is always wrong: see this. Hence

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division (Luke 12.51)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not according to Ezekiel & Revelation: those who live on earth keep dreaming the same spacetime dream again & again. The second death consists in falling asleep in the nightmare of spacetime only to dream that very same nightmare again. An unchangeable Groundhog Day punctuated by striking déjà vus. Those who live in heaven, at the 7th trumpet, wake up in eternity. But they blink their eyes / fall asleep & dream one of 2 dreams: in the one they are the 2 witnesses, in the other they are of the 7 angels. Both dreams are one at the 6th trumpet: the marriage supper. The next time they blink their eyes in the 7th day they dream the other dream & so on.

Where did you " dream " this up? That is certainly is not the interpretation of the Catholic Church. Ezekiel certainly had a dream, that was the usual way God spoke to the Prophets. But it was a dream about a coming reality. See the Book of Revelation by John. According to the common interpretation of the Church, much of it has already taken place. Thus we can expect confidently that the rest of it will come to pass. And it will not be a dream when it does. Study the history of Judism and the Roman Empire and you will see that much of it has indeed already occurred.

The suffrage universel is always wrong: see this. Hence

What in the world is " suffrage universal " and how does it apply to the O.P.? The link didn’t seem to apply to any thing except " new age " think.

Linus2nd

 

[mytruepower2]

Not according to Ezekiel & Revelation: those who live on earth keep dreaming the same spacetime dream again & again. The second death consists in falling asleep in the nightmare of spacetime only to dream that very same nightmare again. An unchangeable Groundhog Day punctuated by striking déjà vus. Those who live in heaven, at the 7th trumpet, wake up in eternity. But they blink their eyes / fall asleep & dream one of 2 dreams: in the one they are the 2 witnesses, in the other they are of the 7 angels. Both dreams are one at the 6th trumpet: the marriage supper. The next time they blink their eyes in the 7th day they dream the other dream & so on.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Jesus speaks quite clearly about -eternal- fire, the worm that dies not, the fiery furnace, etc… As bad as this life is, it’s not an eternal, fiery furnace.

Now, if you wanted to say that some part of -Purgatory- was probably like this, I wouldn’t have much problem believing it, but Purgatory, by all accounts, is not eternal.

The suffrage universel is always wrong: see this. Hence

This whole thing you cite is just a fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

To be blinded by the revealed repetitions in the book of Revelation, one should see what is concealed in Ezekiel 39.1-4, Revelation 19.17-21, Ezekiel 39.17-20 & Revelation 20.7-10. Hint: Gog & Magog, all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Now, if you wanted to say that some part of -Purgatory- was probably like this, I wouldn’t have much problem believing it, but Purgatory, by all accounts, is not eternal.

The purgatory is a corruption of an early church belief: when Christ returns, his thousand years reign with his brothers is a baptism of fire unto those who are wicked. If you were to happen in that Gehenna

I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite. (Luke 12.59)

After the thousand years second death it was believed that most should go to heaven. But as Ezekiel & Revelation show, this is not the case: those who die the second death have no eternal i.e., out of time life, they rest not in the 7th day but keep doing the verbatim exact same spacetime thing from time immemorial & forevermore. They are the beast i.e., Gog & Magog.

The purgatory is, of course, anti-biblical for nobody is in heaven till Christ returns:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Revelation 6.9-11)

And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Revelation 15.8)

This whole thing you cite is just a fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum.

That most believe the paper to be mistaken shows that it is not mistaken.

 

[Bahman]

Reality does not depend on our actions, it is objective not subjective. [Knowledge equals conformity of the human intellect with the thing in reality, not the other way around] It is real whether we choose to believe it is or not.

In addition and following on from that, I’m afraid you artificially restrict omniscience and the concept of knowledge to fit your model(which by definition excludes speculative or theoretical knowledge.) Even on a human level knowledge of the possible/the potential can exist before the actual. Your exclusion of the possible from omniscience is still logically flawed.

Especially if God exists outside of time(ie doesn’t change, has ‘no before and after’), and does not require to come to know by abstraction as finite human beings do, [indeed to speak of ‘foreknowledge’ on such a view does not really make sense]. Human knowledge however can and does err, because it cannot directly know the essence of a thing, however that does not change the fact that reality does not depend on our actions.

By reality I didn’t mean absolute truth instead what we perceive and observe which clearly depends on our action.

To me future does not exist and it depends on our actions which will take place on future. To you future does exist and it true since God has its knowledge. To me the action of creation is impossible unless we accept that omniscience is subject to change depending on our actions, to you it is possible.

The main question is if the future is true then our contribution to future, through our actions, is to just make future true hence free will in each situation can lead to only one outcome which is true so free will is not real.

 

[Bahman]

Drawing on my last post I want to reformulate your sequence with an affermative result:

1)The act of creation is the bringing into existence of something from nothing.
2) Creation requires omnipotence in the Creator.
3) Creation is the Actualisation of something which existed as possible in the mind of the Creator, something which the Creator already had in mind to actualise.
4) The Creator has perfect knowledge in the particular/individual of each thing He will create(omniscience) [and indeed of each thing He can possibly create but has eternally decided not to]
5) Omniscience cannot be changed [agreed as it is total knowledge of all possible and actual things]
6) The act of creation does not require omniscience to change
7) The act creation is logically possible [and indeed when other metaphysical realities are taken into consideration, the most likely solution]

The act of creation and existence of God lies on a same point hence premise 3 is false. It cannot be otherwise since we have to deal with two state of beings, first sole God then God and creation which needs the definition of metatime which leads to infinite regression. In this sense the creation is as necessary of God existence.

Omniscience is subject to change, please read my previous post #56 so so premise 5 is not correct. In fact my focal attack point is omniscience rather than creation.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, if everything changes then should not “everything changes” also change? But then you have to agree that not everything changes.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say, could you please elaborate?

 

[Theophorus]

By reality I didn’t mean absolute truth instead what we perceive and observe which clearly depends on our action.

Our observation/experience of reality is certainly based on our actions/perception however there is more to reality than our perception of it. a tree is still a tree even when I’m not perceiving it, reality exists objectively and independently of our perceptions.

To me future does not exist and it depends on our actions which will take place on future. To you future does exist and it true since God has its knowledge. To me the action of creation is impossible unless we accept that omniscience is subject to change depending on our actions, to you it is possible.

We agree, properly speaking, the future does not yet exist. when we speak in temporal terms, I mean time is a measure of before and after, we speak of a linear progression and there are things which have not yet occurred. However God as a metaphysical reality is an atemporal reality, there is no change, no measure of time in God. The terms before and after, past and future don’t make sense when we speak of God.

There is a misconception that ‘eternity’ means all time/forever, however in Catholic Philosophy and Theology, ‘eternity’ is no time whatsoever. This comes to us from pre-christian Greek philosophy and it still gives the best account of existent reality both physical and metaphysical, whether you believe in God or not.

‘Omniscience’, ‘Omnipotence’ and ‘Timeless, Unchanging Eternity’ go together in the Christian conception of God(Philosophically speaking God is pure act, Being which subsists in itself).

The main question is if the future is true then our contribution to future, through our actions, is to just make future true hence free will in each situation can lead to only one outcome which is true so free will is not real.

We cannot speak of the future as being ‘true’ our capacity to comprehend reality does not allow it as the future has not happened yet.

Gods view of temporal reality(creation) sees all existent reality at once, what we would call past, present and future all at once. This does not deny free will, there is no determinism here. There is a difference between seeing all actual and possible events and then determining each outcome. God sees what we will do with our free will (To use a poor analogy if every moment of temporal existence were represented as a photograph, God sees each photograph in their individuality and sees them all at once, like some sort of massive collage of creation. He doesn’t decide which order they go in, like they were dominos.)

 

[mytruepower2]

The purgatory is a corruption of an early church belief: when Christ returns, his thousand years reign with his brothers is a baptism of fire unto those who are wicked. If you were to happen in that Gehenna

Then you’re a protestant, because the existence of Purgatory is a dogma of the Catholic Church, and there are strong biblical proofs of its existence implicitly in 2 Maccabees 12:46, Revelation 21:27, Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:59, all of which refer to or imply redemption after death, which is not possible in Heaven -or- in Hell.

However, I believe that the existence of Purgatory can be arrived at with only a basic understanding of Christian theism; even if there were no bible at all.

The following simple line of reasoning demonstrates how…

What happens to the people who haven’t rejected God, but aren’t quite ready for Heaven either?

The very fact that such people do exist is an obvious indication that -something- exists between these two states; either a state of existence; a place where they stay for a certain period of time, or a process to prepare them for Heaven. Since God’s goal is to take as many people to Heaven as possible, his plan for all the people in that state or process would naturally be to prepare them for Heaven.

Now, here, again, we need to draw just a couple more conclusions.

Premise 1: The people who aren’t quite ready for Heaven are perfected by God through some means before they get there.

Premise 2: God does not perfect anyone against their will.

Premise 3: All of the people who didn’t end up in Hell choose to go along with God’s plan.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the process which God uses on these people goes along with their will.

Conclusion 2: This, in turn, proves that the people involved in this process are still able to have a will.

Conclusion 3: Therefore, they are conscious of at least some of their surroundings.

Conclusion 4: Therefore, they are in some state, and not a mere process of which they are unaware.

Final Conclusion: There is a third state between Heaven and Hell, in which God prepares those who want to do his will, but who aren’t yet perfected. This place is referred to, in Catholic theology, as Purgatory.

Beware of rejecting Purgatory. It’s good news for everyone who isn’t yet perfect, and the rejection of it has always been very bad news, ever since it inspired Martin Luther to rebel against the church, out of which sprang Protestantism, our of which sprang the philosophical “enlightenment,” out of which sprang secularism, out of which sprang modernism, out of which sprang rampant immorality and misery, and finally, the popularity of agnosticism and atheism, in a most unhappy world. The vast majority of the ills of modern man descend, as in a family tree, from the rejection of Purgatory. Be careful in these waters.