The begining is relative

[ynotzap]

I am not handy with the computer so please bear with me, thanks.

When you say we can have an infinite set of changes, that statement is relative to the Absolute meaning that the Absolute is the primal cause of movement ( this is what change is ) a movement from incompleteness to completeness, from capacity to fulfillment, from not knowing to knowing)

Once the Prime Mover,or the unmoved mover causes movement, the Prime Mover can sustain the movement infinitely. In that sense we can say we can have an infinite set of changes, but a beginning is necessary, we do not move ourselves, we are not the source of motion, we are moved by Another.

We do need two: the Absolute, the agent, and the one acted upon, the recipient, that’s creation, us One is No Change (Pure Act,) the other is Change , (Act and Potency)

I agree to remain in contact with objective reality is where we get our knowledge and assurance of truth, our knowledge of our existence. Truth being external to ourselves means that, truth is not subjected to our thinking but our thinking is subjected to the truth, thus the difference between subjective and objective thinking. Beginning is relative is a subjective statement, because there would be not beginning if there were no Primal Cause and that is an objective statement. There is an Absolute.

 

[ynotzap]

Question; Isn’t being conscious of our awareness, I know that I know an act of motion, from not being aware of myself, to being aware of myself, so the first act of knowledge is self-awareness? And isn’t that self-evidence? Of course this self- awareness, or bending back on our selves is one of the proofs of our souls being spiritual, because this phenomenon is not physical, part outside part. Emperical scientists are trying to prove animals have self awareness. Self-awareness is an intellectual process, and the intellect is a faculty of the soul, not of the brain. Although in our present mode of existence the soul is extrinsically dependent upon the brain to supply sensory data.

 

[ynotzap]

Question : can being aware of oneself be called "objective knowledge"or reality, and if this is true, than we would only need two the Absolute, and the recepient, and not another object, so we wouldn’t need another observer to relate to. I see that it can, because if I didn’t exist, I couldn’t be aware of myself, so the truth is self-evident. It speaks for itself. And it is a real fact from human experience.

 

[Bahman]

I am not handy with the computer so please bear with me, thanks.

It is alright.

When you say we can have an infinite set of changes, that statement is relative to the Absolute meaning that the Absolute is the primal cause of movement ( this is what change is ) a movement from incompleteness to completeness, from capacity to fulfillment, from not knowing to knowing)

That is correct. What I am trying to say that you need two beings to have an infinite set of changes. An intellect however can be exposed to different subjective realities where it has to exit a dual for any subjective reality to allows changes possible. Like good and evil, pleasure and pain, beautiful and ugly etc.

Once the Prime Mover,or the unmoved mover causes movement, the Prime Mover can sustain the movement infinitely. In that sense we can say we can have an infinite set of changes, but a beginning is necessary, we do not move ourselves, we are not the source of motion, we are moved by Another.

That is subject of discussion whether the prime mover can sustain the creation without influencing it. To me creation or state of existence has to be perfectly balanced meaning for any subjective reality there is dual completely opposite hence it does not need the prime mover assistance since it is stable.

We do need two: the Absolute, the agent, and the one acted upon, the recipient, that’s creation, us One is No Change (Pure Act,) the other is Change , (Act and Potency)

By two I meant the elements of creation but it could apply to existence as well as you mentioned.

I agree to remain in contact with objective reality is where we get our knowledge and assurance of truth, our knowledge of our existence. Truth being external to ourselves means that, truth is not subjected to our thinking but our thinking is subjected to the truth, thus the difference between subjective and objective thinking.

Whatever that is experienced by intellect is subjective toward intellect and represents an objective reality, including thoughts, feelings, objects, time, space…

Beginning is relative is a subjective statement, because there would be not beginning if there were no Primal Cause and that is an objective statement. There is an Absolute.

The beginning is subjective statement to an intellect but it cannot be conceived without an objective reality. There is of course no beginning for existence since otherwise it could not be experienced because existence is equivalent to the ability to experience an objective reality which is beginning in this case which itself it requires two beings. And this is contradictory.

Simple there is no me without you hence the beginning is not absolute but relative since it requires two.

This means that there is no absolute beginning for existence.

 

[Bahman]

Question; Isn’t being conscious of our awareness, I know that I know an act of motion, from not being aware of myself, to being aware of myself, so the first act of knowledge is self-awareness? And isn’t that self-evidence? Of course this self- awareness, or bending back on our selves is one of the proofs of our souls being spiritual, because this phenomenon is not physical, part outside part. Emperical scientists are trying to prove animals have self awareness. Self-awareness is an intellectual process, and the intellect is a faculty of the soul, not of the brain. Although in our present mode of existence the soul is extrinsically dependent upon the brain to supply sensory data.

There is no way to have direct self-awareness since the intellect cannot be open to itself because this act requires that the intellect to be objective toward itself in order to experience it at the same time subjective in order to be experienced which is impossible. There is however indirect self-awareness granted by objective reality that the intellect can affect.

 

[Bahman]

Question : can being aware of oneself be called "objective knowledge"or reality, and if this is true, than we would only need two the Absolute, and the recepient, and not another object, so we wouldn’t need another observer to relate to. I see that it can, because if I didn’t exist, I couldn’t be aware of myself, so the truth is self-evident. It speaks for itself. And it is a real fact from human experience.

That is true if we could experience the absolute. We cannot conceive the absolute since the absolute is static and we are changing. This means that there is no end as well because the end is the experience of no changes which cannot be conceived by an intellect.

 

[ynotzap]

I’m not proficient with the computer so I have to take each statement individually, and it’s a slow process for me.

Statement:We need two beings to have an infinite set of changes

I assume that you mean two created beings, if you do I disagree, because neither created beings (Potency and act) are the movers of change. Change is caused by the Prime Mover, the Uncaused cause, and Pure Act, and neither can produce an infinite set of changes.

Now I would agree if you stated that One is Pure Act or Pure Being, Prime Mover and the other was Act and Potency the Moved,. One was infinite, the other finite, one Created, the Other uncreated

Statement: Intellect can be exposed to different subjective realities

If it is subjective realities, then it is only a reality in the mind, and not objective reality. Examples given: good and evil: Good is not a subjective reality, all creation is good because it exists Evil is the absence of good, and that is objective reality, pleasure and pain is an objective reality. Our human experience is the criteriion for knowledge and truth
Subjective has to do with the perception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind. Truth comes from the external to internal, not from internal to external, what is internal can be called opinion, what is external is called fact

Statement: Whether the Prime Mover can sustain creation without influencing it.
It doesn’t need the assistance of the Prime Mover.

Creation was given existence by the Prime Mover, Pure Act, Pure Being, God who has existence as his nature, His Essence is Existence, He is Susistent. We on the other hand are completely dependent for our existence upon Him. He can give it because He is Existence. Every thing He brings into creation necessarily depends on Him to sustain it, creation does not have existence for its nature, if it did it would have always existed. Instead through the real phenomenon of “Cause and effect” we necessarily depend on the Uncaused cause for our beginning, and existence, so His power keeps us in existence. We never become subsistent, independent of God (continued)

 

[ynotzap]

The Prime Mover gives us free will, and even that is moved by the Prime Mover, He causes the will to move, make a choice, a person can direct his choices, he has that freedom .
It is directed by the mind, or intellect, and its appetite is for the good, or well being or happiness.
Beginning is relative can be a free floating statement and has no relevance unless you qualify your statement, so it is subjected to what ever you are referring to. I was convinced that you had a specific point in mind, and you stated that question whether the Prime Mover could sustain creation without influencing it So you did qualify it

 

[ynotzap]

God’s influence is constant, He is the cause, and we are the effect, and depend on Him to keep causing us, He is independence, we are constantly dependent, He is existence, and we who are not are because of Him who is. He is unchanging, we are constantly changing. He is perfection, we are being perfected He is infinite we are finite. He is infallible, we are fallible. He is giver, we are recipients. He doesn’t create and leave His creation alone ever.

 

[KingCoil]

We have to first demonstrate what intellect is and what it does.

In reality the only thing that an intellect can observe are events. Lets say that we observe a set of events so called changes, E={E1,E2,E3…} which E1 happens earlier than E2 etc. By earlier we mean that the intellect is aware that E1 happened in advance compared to E2, etc. How does intellect could be aware of such a thing is subject of discussion (please read the following). The intellect however can experience the rate at which changes happen as well which.

We can now talk about the concept of beginning in which changes start. As you see the role of intellect or observer (what ever it is, whether is a single particle or a human being) is crucial since no changes can be observed without an intellect meaning that changes is a relative concept which means at least two entities are needed by which one is subjective and another one objective. In reality what is subjective to X belongs to outside X because it is experienced by X and what is experienced lets call Y is objective to X. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is experienced by Y is subjective to Y because it is experienced which is objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the pictures. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its own existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vise versa but Y could not experience anything but X and vice versa which means that the event beginning which express the existence of subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. This means that the existence of X or T is necessary for beginning but not sufficient hence the beginning is relative.

This also means that the idea of time cannot exist as a subjective reality prior to existing of an objective reality.

Dear Bahman:

You write so much words just to say “This also means that the idea of time cannot exist as a subjective reality prior to existing of an objective reality.”

Suppose you just say that man must first exist before he can have any idea of time, but time has existed before man came about into existence, and when man goes out of existence time still exists.

But what is your point at all in its core direction?

Is it that there is no creator of the universe?

Well, if man does not exist then there is no man around to think about the existence of a creator of the universe.

But as man now exists and he thinks, then he with his intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, he infers to the existence of God as creator of the universe.

You see, Bahman, you go into a lot of words just to point readers to your idea that there is no God creator of the universe.

That is typical gimmick of atheists.

You describe yourself as “Religion: Wherever it may go.”

Why don’t you just come out as atheist or hard core skeptic.

I will describe you as a manipulator of words to just get folks here all baffled up, and cannot anymore be certain that there exists God creator of yourself, and of course everything that has a beginning, the universe.

On my part I used to call myself defector from Catholicism, but now I call myself Catholic on leave of absence.

And, please, don’t complain that I am not attending to your words i.e. message but to your person; that is correct, but what you want folks here to be or to operate, like robots, and to react to your words like robots on a wild goose chase, still yours truly will always in-sight into your core thrust however baffling your manipulation of words and concepts.

KingCoil

 

[ynotzap]

That is true if we could experience the absolute. We cannot conceive the absolute since the absolute is static and we are changing. This means that there is no end as well because the end is the experience of no changes which cannot be conceived by an intellect.

We are not talking about conceiving or experiencing the Absolute, we are talking about the existence of the Absolute. It is self evident that we couldn’t conceive or experience the absolute, for how could finiteness contain infiniteness, So to expect to conceive or experience the Absolute is impossible, a no-brainer.in other words I can never have human certainty unless I conceive or experience the Absolute.? All truth, and objective reality leads to the Absolute, since the Absolute is the source of all truth Aren’t we experiencing something of the Absolute when we are experiencing truth? Even though our experience is not complete?

 

[Bahman]

Statement:We need two beings to have an infinite set of changes

I assume that you mean two created beings, if you do I disagree, because neither created beings (Potency and act) are the movers of change. Change is caused by the Prime Mover, the Uncaused cause, and Pure Act, and neither can produce an infinite set of changes.

I don’t agree with that. You can have a infinite set of changes once you have two beings (lets stick to creation beings) since any change in one creates a new state of being, change, which is observable by another, etc.

Now I would agree if you stated that One is Pure Act or Pure Being, Prime Mover and the other was Act and Potency the Moved,. One was infinite, the other finite, one Created, the Other uncreated

Now lets stick to new beings, one creator and another created. One existed always and the other comes to existence. Who was the initial mover at the moment in which the second beings comes to existence? The creator is changeless hence neutral so how the created could act based on potency. You need two beings which are not neutral to have potency toward changes.

Statement: Intellect can be exposed to different subjective realities

If it is subjective realities, then it is only a reality in the mind, and not objective reality. Examples given: good and evil: Good is not a subjective reality, all creation is good because it exists Evil is the absence of good, and that is objective reality, pleasure and pain is an objective reality. Our human experience is the criteriion for knowledge and truth.

All your example are subjective reality. Nothing in objective reality is good or bad. It is duty of intellect to categorize them as good and evil. Is fire good or evil? None. Fire could be evil if it cause harm to intellect and it is good if it benefit the intellect so it is matter of it is experienced which means goodness or evilness are subjective because they do depend on how intellect are exposed to.

Subjective has to do with the perception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind.

That is not correct. The subjective reality cannot exist without mind. It owes its reality to mind.

Truth comes from the external to internal, not from internal to external, what is internal can be called opinion, what is external is called fact

I don’t know about truth but knowledge is the result of abstraction of intellect from exposure to a subjective reality so it is constructed within intellect.

Statement: Whether the Prime Mover can sustain creation without influencing it.
It doesn’t need the assistance of the Prime Mover.

Creation was given existence by the Prime Mover, Pure Act, Pure Being, God who has existence as his nature, His Essence is Existence, He is Susistent. We on the other hand are completely dependent for our existence upon Him. He can give it because He is Existence. Every thing He brings into creation necessarily depends on Him to sustain it, creation does not have existence for its nature, if it did it would have always existed. Instead through the real phenomenon of “Cause and effect” we necessarily depend on the Uncaused cause for our beginning, and existence, so His power keeps us in existence. We never become subsistent, independent of God (continued)

1. How a changeless thing can cause anything?
2. How a changeless thing can create anything?
3. How a changeless thing can sustain anything?

Changeless is neutral unless it could manifest itself as an objective reality in which an intellect can experience it. Could you experience God? Your answer is no. Then how your being could be affected by God? How God could sustain you without you noticing it?

Hence we are independent unless you can answer the above questions.

 

[notorelativism]

God is a Pure Act of Being. Change is define as a movement from potency to an act. Thus, God is changeless.

Now, since God created something which is not eternal like Himself, it shows that He has freedom. As, a being which is not free and eternal, can only beget a being which is eternal.

Let’s put it a like this. This is an analogy I got from the book of Fr. Leo Trese, “The Faith Explained”. A painter has many beautiful images in his mind. He put those in a canvass. What he painted doesn’t add anything to his mind full of beautiful image. Therefore, it is not impossible for a changeless being to create a changeable beings which are imperfect. So with God. God is still Changeless, even though He created which changes.

Time is also created by God. That’s why change can only occur in created beings. For, if God is under time, then God would not be God, who is a Pure Act of Being, Whom doesn’t have a potency, a limit, like in time.

We know that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. But the cause can be greater than the effects. A Changeless Being is perfect, more perfect than to beings which have room for changes. Therefore, it is not impossible that Changeless Being can cause beings which can change.

 

[Bahman]

The Prime Mover gives us free will, and even that is moved by the Prime Mover, He causes the will to move, make a choice, a person can direct his choices, he has that freedom .

Lets go back to the previous question: How a changeless being can cause anything?
One cannot resolve any problem by using words like prime mover unless s/he can clearly explain how.

It is directed by the mind, or intellect, and its appetite is for the good, or well being or happiness.

Happiness is against sadness. So we again have two things since happiness is meaningless without sadness and vice versa. We cannot possibly conceive happiness if we could not conceive the opposite, namely sadness, and they are both necessary.

Beginning is relative can be a free floating statement and has no relevance unless you qualify your statement, so it is subjected to what ever you are referring to. I was convinced that you had a specific point in mind, and you stated that question whether the Prime Mover could sustain creation without influencing it So you did qualify it

My point is very simple:

1. One being, owning an intellect, cannot change unless it is exposed to a objective reality
2. Beginning is the point at which changes is separated from no change
3. The beginning can only happen when when one being can experience an objective reality
4. Beginning at least depend on existence of two things

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman:

Dear KingCoil

You write so much words just to say “This also means that the idea of time cannot exist as a subjective reality prior to existing of an objective reality.”

Suppose you just say that man must first exist before he can have any idea of time, but time has existed before man came about into existence, and when man goes out of existence time still exists.

Because time is subjective reality so we need an intellect and a objective reality. Just try to imagine a universe with one being. What is the meaning time if there is no objective reality and no changes?

But what is your point at all in its core direction?

That the beginning needs two beings, one is objective to another and vice versa, otherwise you cannot have any changes, no time.

Is it that there is no creator of the universe?

This is beyond the topic of this thread. What I am claiming that a creation with two beings can sustain itself so it doesn’t need God intervention.

Well, if man does not exist then there is no man around to think about the existence of a creator of the universe.

But as man now exists and he thinks, then he with his intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, he infers to the existence of God as creator of the universe.

I think the very core idea is existence which include God as well. From there we have to deal with one main question that is whether there was any beginning. The beginning is possible but not from a changeless eternal God and I have an argument for that:

1. God is changeless hence his thoughts
2. Thought of creation was a part of Gods thoughts
3. God has no beginning because it is changeless hence his thoughts
4. What is Gods thoughts about creation should manifest itself into existence
5. From (3) and (4) we can deduce that creation has no beginning
6. Creation has a beginning by definition
7. Either (1) is wrong or (6)

You see, Bahman, you go into a lot of words just to point readers to your idea that there is no God creator of the universe.

I don’t know what God and creation are but I know what they aren’t.

That is typical gimmick of atheists.

I am not an atheist.

You describe yourself as “Religion: Wherever it may go.”

That only means that I am following the reasoning and see where it may goes. Simply I am open to myself since otherwise I could become cognitively close to an concept.

Why don’t you just come out as atheist or hard core skeptic.

Because I am non of them.

I will describe you as a manipulator of words to just get folks here all baffled up, and cannot anymore be certain that there exists God creator of yourself, and of course everything that has a beginning, the universe.

On my part I used to call myself defector from Catholicism, but now I call myself Catholic on leave of absence.

Could we stick to our argument instead of giving each other a name?

And, please, don’t complain that I am not attending to your words i.e. message but to your person; that is correct, but what you want folks here to be or to operate, like robots, and to react to your words like robots on a wild goose chase, still yours truly will always in-sight into your core thrust however baffling your manipulation of words and concepts.
KingCoil

No comment.

 

[Bahman]

We are not talking about conceiving or experiencing the Absolute, we are talking about the existence of the Absolute. It is self evident that we couldn’t conceive or experience the absolute, for how could finiteness contain infiniteness, So to expect to conceive or experience the Absolute is impossible, a no-brainer.in other words I can never have human certainty unless I conceive or experience the Absolute.?

So how could then Absolute affect our beings, namely sustaining us?

All truth, and objective reality leads to the Absolute, since the Absolute is the source of all truth Aren’t we experiencing something of the Absolute when we are experiencing truth? Even though our experience is not complete?

And what if there is no Absolute? Do you have any prove for it? If not we just have to wait and see where our critical minds take us based on sole objective reality that we experience.

 

[Bahman]

God is a Pure Act of Being. Change is define as a movement from potency to an act. Thus, God is changeless.

Now, since God created something which is not eternal like Himself, it shows that He has freedom. As, a being which is not free and eternal, can only beget a being which is eternal.

Let’s put it a like this. This is an analogy I got from the book of Fr. Leo Trese, “The Faith Explained”. A painter has many beautiful images in his mind. He put those in a canvass. What he painted doesn’t add anything to his mind full of beautiful image. Therefore, it is not impossible for a changeless being to create a changeable beings which are imperfect. So with God. God is still Changeless, even though He created which changes.

Time is also created by God. That’s why change can only occur in created beings. For, if God is under time, then God would not be God, who is a Pure Act of Being, Whom doesn’t have a potency, a limit, like in time.

We know that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. But the cause can be greater than the effects. A Changeless Being is perfect, more perfect than to beings which have room for changes. Therefore, it is not impossible that Changeless Being can cause beings which can change.

1. God is changeless hence his thoughts
2. Thought of creation was a part of Gods thoughts
3. God has no beginning because it is changeless hence his thoughts
4. What is Gods thoughts about creation should manifest itself into existence
5. From (3) and (4) we can deduce that creation has no beginning
6. Creation has a beginning by definition
7. Either (1) is wrong or (6)

 

[davidv]

1. God is changeless hence his thoughts
2. Thought of creation was a part of Gods thoughts
3. God has no beginning because it is changeless hence his thoughts
4. What is Gods thoughts about creation should manifest itself into existence
5. From (3) and (4) we can deduce that creation has no beginning
6. Creation has a beginning by definition
7. Either (1) is wrong or (6)

5 is false. None of what is offered in 1-4 leads to 5. What assumption have you made in arriving at 5 that was not included in 1-4?

Given the error in 5. 7 is a false dictomy.

 

[Bahman]

5 is false. None of what is offered in 1-4 leads to 5. What assumption have you made in arriving at 5 that was not included in 1-4?

Given the error in 5. 7 is a false dictomy.

I thought you just need (3) and (4) to deduce that (5) is correct. I am really puzzled since you don’t offer your argument that why (5) is incorrect so I can provide another argument. It is like that I say that (5) is right in response to you hence the rest follows.

Lets put (3) and (4) together and assume the opposite to see where do we go:

…
3) God has no beginning because it is changeless hence his thoughts
4) What is Gods thoughts about creation should manifest itself into existence
5) Creation can be defined as a entity with beginning
6) From (4) and (5) we can deduce that Gods thought of creation has a beginning as well
7) (6) and (3) confer each other, so either (3) is wrong or (5)

 

[davidv]

I thought you just need (3) and (4) to deduce that (5) is correct.

I am convinced that you are thinking wrongly.

I am really puzzled since you don’t offer your argument that why (5) is incorrect so I can provide another argument.

I gave a reason. Your committed a logical falacy, namely a non sequitur.

It is like that I say that (5) is right in response to you hence the rest follows.

And I say it does not follow. And since it is your claim I need a better explanation of why it is so.

Lets put (3) and (4) together and assume the opposite to see where do we go:

…
3) God has no beginning because it is changeless hence his thoughts
4) What is Gods thoughts about creation should manifest itself into existence
5) Creation can be defined as a entity with beginning
6) From (4) and (5) we can deduce that Gods thought of creation has a beginning as well
7) (6) and (3) confer each other, so either (3) is wrong or (5)

What you haven’t demonstrated is that God’s eternal, unchanging thoughts must occur instantaneously. Rather our experience, in time, says otherwise. To claim otherwise sounds like question begging to me.