The begining is relative

[ynotzap]

Anser

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.

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.

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

Ans. to 1) Being exposed to reality humanly speaking can only be accomplished by the act of knowing which is done by the intellect or mind. Our existence does not depend on “our act of knowing” which is a function of the mind, the mind or intellect is a faculty of the soul. Potency and Act is a condition of our nature, and it effects our total being, not just part of it *(mind) Now it is true the mind as a unit of our nature can not change, if it isn’t operating, (because the intelligence needs sense data which is gotten from the brain which is being renewed by sleep). When it is conscious it knows objective reality or subjective reality (in the mind, internal opposed to objective reality)

ans.2) Beginning is the point at which we are given existence, change is a condition of our nature, there are other conditions, such as matter and form, essence and existence. We are created with a nature that has the capacity to become (Potency) to becoming (Act) This is a real fact of our human experience. We are born and we go through stages of becoming mature adults, to old age and death. This is fact not fiction, not subjective reality but objective reality.3) You are again making our beginning a condition of experiencing objective reality which is done by the mind. Do people who don’t know objective reality exist. You bet!!

ans 4) You got that right if the two things are 1) the Creator, the uncaused cause, and 2) the caused, creation.

I rest my case, I can’t make it any clearer, you can believe what you desire, I can’t change your mind,thats the power of free will, even God won’t interfere.

 

[Bahman]

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

And why it is so?

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.

1. God lives in eternal now
2. There is no before and after from a being who lives in eternal now
3. Gods thought about creation should manifest itself
4. From (2) and (3) we know that Gods thought about creation should must occur instantaneously

 

[KingCoil]

QUOTE=Bahman;12089969 ]

…]

Quote ]
Originally Posted by KingCoil

Is it that there is no creator of the universe?

/quote ]​

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.

…]

/QUOTE ]

Well, that is what you have discovered, that there can be a, no, not trinity in God, but ‘bi-nity’ in God creator of the universe.

I can accept that, because there is nothing wrong with a collective God like the Holy Trinity, one God, one substance, one nature, but three persons.

Now, your God creator of the universe has two persons, Father and Son; stick around and one day you will discover the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Christian triune God, which Holy Spirit is in charge of sanctifying everything, and He is namely the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son.

See?

KingCoil

 

[ynotzap]

Statement made by Bahman:

One can not resolve any problem by using words like PRIME MOVER unless s/he clearly explains it.

I answer: In motion (change) we have a series of movers. For example: on a billiard table we have balls, when one ball a cue ball hits another ball and that ball hits another, and another and another, if we go back , from effect to cause, we will go back to the cue ball. Now the cue ball if it had motion for its nature it could move itself and it would not need to be hit by the pool stick operated by the person. Since all that is in motion is caused by another, we must come to the first mover, and if the first mover is moved by another it isn’t the first mover. Therefore the First Mover, or Prime Mover has to have movement for its nature in order to impart it, we call it the Prime Mover, the Unmoved Mover. One that has movement for it’s nature it can move itself is called “Pure Act” and Pure Act is God the cause of all motion (change) He is the unchanging changer. God is the sum total of His attributes.

 

[Bahman]

Ans. to 1) Being exposed to reality humanly speaking can only be accomplished by the act of knowing which is done by the intellect or mind. Our existence does not depend on “our act of knowing” which is a function of the mind, the mind or intellect is a faculty of the soul.

I agree up to here.

Potency and Act is a condition of our nature, and it effects our total being, not just part of it *(mind) Now it is true the mind as a unit of our nature can not change, if it isn’t operating, (because the intelligence needs sense data which is gotten from the brain which is being renewed by sleep). When it is conscious it knows objective reality or subjective reality (in the mind, internal opposed to objective reality)

I didn’t get what do you want to say. What do you mean with “Potency and Act is a condition of our nature, and it effects our total being”?

ans.2) Beginning is the point at which we are given existence, change is a condition of our nature, there are other conditions, such as matter and form, essence and existence. We are created with a nature that has the capacity to become (Potency) to becoming (Act) This is a real fact of our human experience. We are born and we go through stages of becoming mature adults, to old age and death. This is fact not fiction, not subjective reality but objective reality.3) You are again making our beginning a condition of experiencing objective reality which is done by the mind. Do people who don’t know objective reality exist. You bet!!

I define beginning in where changes start. Could we agree on this? A being who exist but is not exposed to an objective reality cannot experience anything hence no changes. I didn’t make any argument against the necessity of two beings for existence but changes.

 

[Bahman]

Statement made by Bahman:

One can not resolve any problem by using words like PRIME MOVER unless s/he clearly explains it.

I answer: In motion (change) we have a series of movers. For example: on a billiard table we have balls, when one ball a cue ball hits another ball and that ball hits another, and another and another, if we go back , from effect to cause, we will go back to the cue ball. Now the cue ball if it had motion for its nature it could move itself and it would not need to be hit by the pool stick operated by the person. Since all that is in motion is caused by another, we must come to the first mover, and if the first mover is moved by another it isn’t the first mover. Therefore the First Mover, or Prime Mover has to have movement for its nature in order to impart it, we call it the Prime Mover, the Unmoved Mover. One that has movement for it’s nature it can move itself is called “Pure Act” and Pure Act is God the cause of all motion (change) He is the unchanging changer. God is the sum total of His attributes.

This framework unfortunately is not enough rich to accommodate free will. Free will is in fact the ability to break the causality chain otherwise our minds function similar to billiard bard hence we are reduced to simple machine.

 

[ynotzap]

If you say so, I tried my best to clarify, but it seems that nothing of much of what I say seems to satisfy you. You always have an answer that seems to me to be fuzzy thinking
I’m not infallible, so check it out, compare it to the teachings of St.Thomas. I don’t care to go around and around, and thats what I find myself doing with you. So I rest my case. You are free to think as you please.

 

[Bahman]

If you say so, I tried my best to clarify, but it seems that nothing of much of what I say seems to satisfy you. You always have an answer that seems to me to be fuzzy thinking
I’m not infallible, so check it out, compare it to the teachings of St.Thomas. I don’t care to go around and around, and thats what I find myself doing with you. So I rest my case. You are free to think as you please.

I am not thinking fuzzy and I am very clear. You present Tomas theory and I question how you could embed free will in a model which is purely casual? Am I so unclear?

 

[ynotzap]

I am not thinking fuzzy and I am very clear. You present Tomas theory and I question how you could embed free will in a model which is purely casual? Am I so unclear?

It’s amazing how you think that the thinking of St. Thomas is theory. That speaks a lot of your own thinking. How could God the cause of all things, and even cause free will, how then could free will be free. He doesn’t cause us to make the choices we make, if He did then He would contradict Himself. His will is not for us to sin. Do we sin, you bet!! So even though He moves our wills to make a choice, we have the freedom to choose God does enforce the choices we make, Its sort of like you have a choice to accept or reject my answers And if it so happens that you see truth in them, you can still disagree. Thats why I say you a free to think what you desire. If you don’t see truth in them, then I have to accept that fact. I wonder how many see truth in them?

 

[Bahman]

It’s amazing how you think that the thinking of St. Thomas is theory. That speaks a lot of your own thinking. How could God the cause of all things, and even cause free will, how then could free will be free. He doesn’t cause us to make the choices we make, if He did then He would contradict Himself.

That is the problem I have with Aristotle or Thomas framework. There is no room left for free will in a picture which is purely causative.

His will is not for us to sin. Do we sin, you bet!! So even though He moves our wills to make a choice, we have the freedom to choose God does enforce the choices we make, Its sort of like you have a choice to accept or reject my answers.

The will is the faculty of intellect, not God, otherwise you wouldn’t need to eat.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman,

God causes all the acts of man only indirectly. He caused our bodies to exist through the secondary causality of our parents. He created our soul directly and gave it a nature such that the soul governs all the activities of the body, but he programed the soul to govern man’s intellect and will freely. In other words the soul has been given the powers of intellect and will, but the intellect and will were programed to act freely. God can of course " inspire " the intellect with reasons to do good and avoid evil, but the will is not bound to follow these " inspirations. " He also sets before the intellect all the facts of our environmental, cultural, educational surroundings. These help the intellect to understand what is good and bad, but the will is still free to choose. And good and bad angels can influence us in the same way, only God controls their access to our intellect. Generally they act through our surroundings and cultural, social, educational milieu. But even if these are bad, the intellect has been programed to sort out and recognize what is good or bad, and the will is still free.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

That is the problem I have with Aristotle or Thomas framework. There is no room left for free will in a picture which is purely causative.

The will is the faculty of intellect, not God, otherwise you wouldn’t need to eat.

The will is not the faculty of the intellect, it is the faculty of the soul, the elans vital, the principle of life, the source of immanent activity in our bodies The will and the intellect are two sources of operation of the soul. The intellect is in its operation the power to know, The will in its operation is the power to choose. Again I state: God is not the cause of our choices, He dosen,t interfere with that power, although He sustains that power. I can’t make it plainer. The intellect makes known to the will what choices are available. Your will or God’s will for example. You have a choice, God’s will (if you accept His existence and know His will) and if you do, you can still refuse. How is that causal, did He cause you to reject His will? That is absurd. If you weren’t caused we wouldn’t have this problem, because you wouldn’t exist.

 

[ynotzap]

That is the problem I have with Aristotle or Thomas framework. There is no room left for free will in a picture which is purely causative.

The will is the faculty of intellect, not God, otherwise you wouldn’t need to eat.

This is what I call “fuzzy thinking” Do you even consider the possibility that you may be wrong? Or do you suffer from what most of us do, We think we are right because we think we are right. We are so inclined to "self-righteousness’ I think it therefore its true. No one wants to be wrong, but were are all fallible, Thats the beauty of Christianity, God the cause of all things guarantees us “Infallibility” through His Church. Thank you Jesus!!
By the way, if you are not an atheist, or an agnostic, or someother, what would you call yourself? In all honesty, I don’t mean any negative conotations, jjust curious about your belief system.