The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[tonyrey]

You might as well argue that our properties change when we create something yet we do not lose our identity.

Our properties change but **we **do not change. Otherwise the term “our” is meaningless…

Causing change is not equivalent to changing ourselves.

Yes it is. At the very least our memory has changed.

Then the term “our” is meaningless…

It doesn’t follow that the divine Son must change because a human son is created
Then we have two different sons and a four person Trinity: Father, Son1, Son2 and Spirit. I am sure the theologians are going to have fun with that one.

Non sequitur. The divine Son and the human Son are not separate individuals but two aspects of one divine Person who became incarnate.

We are essentially the same persons throughout our lives.

I do not accept the existence of such philosophical essentials. They are a convenient mental construct, but they are purely internal mental constructs. It is an error to reify them and to think that they have a real existence.

In that case you reject every legal system in the world based on the concept of an individual’s unique identity from conception till death. Aren’t you responsible for anything you have done in the past?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The idea of an atemporal creator is incoherent. Any creator has to change from “I will create” to “I am creating” to “I have created”.

Well, no. Any temporal creator has to change from “I will create” to “I am creating” to “I have created.”

But again, God is eternal. That would entail that what God creates (the universe, for example) exists eternally although it may have within it a temporal or limited time signature – a beginning, a middle and an ending, along with a chronology inherent within it. That does not mean the entirety of the thing – the universe, for example – could not exist eternally.

When speaking of the universe having a beginning, that implies a beginning as an aspect of the integral ordering within the universe, but that need not imply a beginning with respect to God’s timelessness.

A story or narrative in a book, by analogy, has a beginning, a middle and an ending, but that chronology does not apply holus bolus to the reality where the author of the book dwells “outside” and independent of the story. If a book or a story existed eternally, it could still have a beginning, a middle and an ending (and all other changing aspects) within it without those necessitating changes to the chronos outside of the story where the author lives. There is nothing in the book or story – even if seas are parted or restored – which would necessarily imply anything whatsoever about the writer of the story having undergone changes as a result.

God parted the sea for Moses. He did not part the sea in the time of Abraham; he is not parting the sea now. He must have changed from not parting to parting to not parting again. If God can change in time, then God is not atemporal.
rossum

Why would God, himself, had to have changed when parting the Red Sea? Certainly the Red Sea changed, but why does that entail God changed in any integral sense?

God, in classic theism is the fullness of Being Itself. All things exist fully in God. Nothing integral to God changes although contingently existing things can change relative to their own nature.

If the universe as an entirety – beginning, middle, end – exists eternally, whatever change occurs within it as an aspect of it need not entail anything with regard to the changelessness of God. The universe as an entirety may exist eternally even though change occurs within it as an aspect of its integral chronology. Its internal chronology, however, says nothing about God’s chronology, unless you assume God is constrained in some way by the chronology found within the universe. I see no reason to assume that and you have made no convincing case with that regard, except to project your perspective from within the timeframe of the universe onto God as if God has no other possible option.

 

[Cheiron]

God is pure spirit. He does not take up space the way you or I would take a seat on a bus.

And while there are those who would agree that God does exist in time (cf. William Lane Craig, reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity-2), most people agree that God’s experience of time is very different from our own. He experiences the past, the present and the future simultaneously. All is “present” for Him.

I’d like to see evidence that God experiences time this way. Not only a assertion that He does.

You’ve asked a HUGE question that is the subject of countless books. Surely, you don’t expect a comprehensive answer here.

Actually, I do. 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

However, I can offer a few examples of the evidence that is available for your consideration:

There are numerous philosophical arguments that suggest that God’s existence is reasonable. Further, Jesus’ claims to be divine taken together with His miracles performed in support of His claims offer further evidence. Finally, evidence from creation suggests the existence of a creator and a giver of natural law giver.

I think we’re at an impasse. I haven’t yet heard a philosophical argument that makes sense, the testimony of Jesus’s miracles is unreliable and I see no evidence of creation, let alone a creator. Also, natural law doesn’t require a law giver. Natural laws are descriptions of regularities within nature.

Simple. In the sense theists use the term, being eternal includes existing before time began.

I fear I differ with many people here about what words like ‘existence’ and ‘eternal’ mean.

This is simply a logical conclusion of thinking about what attributes a Maximally Great Being must have. God, as theists define Him, simply IS a being who is outside of space and time. Examples of the evidence for God’s existence was given above.

A Catholic recently told me that God is pure spirit, not a being. Even so, what is a Maximally Great Being and what is your evidence that God is one? It isn’t good enough to say that that’s the way theists define Him. I know they do that. I want to see evidence for the traits they ascribe to God.

Not really. I have not suggested that God cannot enter into creation;

Others have. My argument is with those who maintain God is outside space and time.

 

[rossum]

Our properties change but **we **do not change. Otherwise the term “our” is meaningless…

Our bodies change, so our bodies are not “we”. Our memories change, so our memories are not “we”. Our minds change so our minds are not “we”. Our souls change (from unsaved to saved or vice versa) so our souls are not “we”.

There is no component of a human being that does not change. How many of the components that make up “we” existed one day before our conception? Everything that makes up “we” changes. When you take away all the things that change, what do you have left?

The designation “we” is a convenient mental label that refers to a collection of changing parts. It is merely a convenient shorthand.

Non sequitur. The divine Son and the human Son are not separate individuals but two aspects of one divine Person who became incarnate.

Did this “one divine person” complete with its two aspects exist in 100 BCE? If it did we have a human being existing eternally from well before Adam. If not, then one of the persons of the Trinity has changed by adding a second aspect to its first aspect after 100 BCE.

In that case you reject every legal system in the world based on the concept of an individual’s unique identity from conception till death.

The great majority of legal systems recognise divorce, with some allowing abortion and/or same sex marriage. I suggest that you do not try to base your theology on what legal systems say.

Aren’t you responsible for anything you have done in the past?

The changing causal chain of which I am part is responsible for the past actions of that changing causal chain. A connection to the past does not require an unchanging core; it merely requires a causal connection. You are not Adam, yet because of your causal connection to Adam (by being his descendant) you are held in part responsible for Adam’s actions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But again, God is eternal. That would entail that what God creates (the universe, for example) exists eternally

Agreed. If God is a sufficient cause of the universe, then the universe has existed as long as God. If the universe has existed for a shorter time, then God is not a sufficient cause, and there must be some other causal component which appears just before the universe is caused. In that case God may be necessary, but He is not a sufficient cause.

Why would God, himself, had to have changed when parting the Red Sea? Certainly the Red Sea changed, but why does that entail God changed in any integral sense?

If God did not change, then what moved all those water molecules? Something else was also involved. Again, God ceases to be the sufficient cause, and requires some auxiliary causative factor in order to be able to do something. This makes it rather difficult for me to see how such a God-who-needs-assistance can be described as omnipotent.

Immutability is a very restricting property. No old action can ever be stopped and no new action can ever be initiated. Both require change (defined as difference in time) and hence both are impossible for an immutable entity.

rossum

 

[levinas12]

It is possible for God to have two natures …

I was already to buttress the possibility of God assuming human nature with another “clarification”. God is not only "outside of space and time; He is “outside” of the set of all “beings” (including immaterial beings like angels who themselves are outside of space and time) - God is totally “other” (and thus cannot just be “a being” among other beings) -
some Catholics may object to this - but what I mean by “a being” is an entity where the essence is really distinct from the act to be (the esse).

… otherwise He wouldn’t be God.

You are of course referring only to Jesus.

Sure. Now what evidence do you have that this God exists and that He has this double nature?

What would count as evidence for a God who is totally other than the universe itself? We won’t be able to perform a scientific experiment which verifies a mathematical formula. So what other types of evidence might there be? Well, what kind of evidence is used in legal proceedings? Eyewitness reports perhaps.

 

[levinas12]

What can I say - It’s been a while since I’ve done multiple quotes

 

[levinas12]

I was already to buttress the possibility of God assuming human nature with another “clarification”. God is not only "outside of space and time; He is “outside” of the set of all “beings” (including immaterial beings like angels who themselves are outside of space and time) - God is totally “other” (and thus cannot just be “a being” among other beings) - some Catholics may object to this - but what I mean by “a being” is an entity where the essence is really distinct from the act to be (the esse).

… otherwise He wouldn’t be God.

 

[levinas12]

It is possible for God to have two natures…

I was already with another “clarification” … God is not only “outside” space and time"; God is “outside” the set of all “beings” (including immaterial beings like angels) - He is totally other than the universe. Some Catholics might not agree with this; but, if, by “a being”, I mean "a being where the essence is really distinct from the act of ‘to be’ (the esse), at least the Thomists will be OK with this.

… otherwise He wouldn’t be God…

That is, Jesus …

Now what evidence do you have that this God exists and that He has this double nature?

Eyewitnesses (with respect to Jesus)

And, for God’s existence, indications (e.g., intelligiblity without which no science or mathematics; contingency, i.e., the world doesn’t have to be or why is there anything as opposed to nothing).

 

[tonyrey]

Our properties change but we do not change. Otherwise the term “our” is meaningless…

Your atomistic view of a person doesn’t correspond to modern medicine which is based on a holistic approach to both physical and psychological illness.

There is no component of a human being that does not change. How many of the components that make up “we” existed one day before our conception? Everything that makes up “we” changes. When you take away all the things that change, what do you have left?

Your atomistic view of a person doesn’t correspond to the legal principle that a human being is an enduring entity from birth to death…

The designation “we” is a convenient mental label that refers to a collection of changing parts. It is merely a convenient shorthand.

Do you treat your family and friends as “collections of changing parts”? The best test of any theory is whether it corresponds to the way we live and treat others…

Non sequitur. The divine Son and the human Son are not separate individuals but two aspects of one divine Person who became incarnate.

Did this “one divine person” complete with its two aspects exist in 100 BCE? If it did we have a human being existing eternally from well before Adam. If not, then one of the persons of the Trinity has changed by adding a second aspect to its first aspect after 100 BCE.

The Creator is not subject to man-made rules about what can be created…

In that case you reject every legal system in the world based on the concept of an individual’s unique identity from conception till death.

The great majority of legal systems recognise divorce, with some allowing abortion and/or same sex marriage. I suggest that you do not try to base your theology on what legal systems say.

Neither divorce nor abortion alter a person’s identity and continuity.

Aren’t you responsible for anything you have done in the past?

The changing causal chain of which I am part is responsible for the past actions of that changing causal chain. A connection to the past does not require an unchanging core; it merely requires a causal connection. You are not Adam, yet because of your causal connection to Adam (by being his descendant) you are held in part responsible for Adam’s actions.

A “causal chain” is a hopelessly inadequate definition of an **individual **member of the human race who makes choices and decisions for which he or she is responsible. I would enjoy hearing you tell your family and friends they are causal chains!

Our bodies change, so our bodies are not “we”. Our memories change, so our memories are not “we”. Our minds change so our minds are not “we”. Our souls change (from unsaved to saved or vice versa) so our souls are not “we”.

In that case we all have split personalities which have nothing in common!

There is no component of a human being that does not change. How many of the components that make up “we” existed one day before our conception? Everything that makes up “we” changes. When you take away all the things that change, what do you have left?

Yourself!

The designation “we” is a convenient mental label that refers to a collection of changing parts. It is merely a convenient shorthand.

It is a convenient mental label for those who accept the self-contradictory dogma that everything changes - including the self-contradictory dogma that **everything **changes! Why doesn’t the dogma itself change?

 

[tonyrey]

Then God’s is nature is immutable (unchanging) but God’s nature is dynamic (changing). Since the same entity cannot be both changing and unchanging, we have a minimum of two entities here. You are only causing confusion by using the same words “God’s Nature” to refer to both entities. Something that is unchanging is static, by definition. Something that is dynamic is changing, by definition. You can have one or the other, but not both in a single entity. In order to have both you need a minimum of two entities.

You are correct that an immutable unchanging God cannot create in time. Your problem is that the act of creation is a change from no universe to an existing universe, and an unchanging entity cannot cause such a change.

Were all the required components to cause the universe present 100 billion years ago? Obviously not, because the universe is a lot younger than that. Since your proposed unchanging God was present 100 billion years ago, we can see that your unchanging God is not a sufficient cause for the universe. There must be something else (not the unchanging God) that changed from one state to a different state and triggered the origin of the universe.

Is your memory part of you? Your memory changes every second as new items are added to it and as old items are forgotten. “You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.”

rossum

If everything is constantly changing the fact that everything is constantly changing is constantly changing! In other words it is self-contradictory and self-destructive…

 

[tonyrey]

Now you are moving the goalposts from the truth to “what another says is the True Religion[sup]®[/sup].” I asked a very simple question: When faced with the actual truth are you – according to your religion – obligated to accept it or can you still make up your own mind and construct your own truth with impunity?

No, actually, I don’t have a burden of proof to prove that it is ALL wrong, I only have a burden of proof to prove that truth exists, because if truth exists it would seem that the truth is what is and we would either be compelled to accept that as what truly is – i.e., the truth – or, as you seem to be claiming, you would still in some sense “always be free to make up your own mind.”

At that point it becomes rather nonsensical to claim making up one’s own mind about what is the truth has anything remotely to do with the truth – i.e., that which truly is independent of my thoughts about it.

It would seem then that we have but one obligation with regard to the truth: to accept it for what it is.

But you must remember that nothing ever remains the same - including obligations, the Four Noble truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Five Precepts, the Dhamma, Karma and Nirvana…

 

[levinas12]

I was already with another “clarification” … God is not only “outside” space and time; God is “outside” the set of all “beings” (including immaterial beings like angels)

I did this clarification because of the angels - these creatures are immaterial beings - as such, they are themselves “outside” space and time (because space and time pertain only to material beings).

But the angels themselves are still part of the universe of “beings”.

God is totally other than material and immaterial beings - just like “Being” is not itself “a being” (is not an Aristotelian entity).

Just an aside. Aristotle’s “god” is an entity inside the world.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Agreed. If God is a sufficient cause of the universe, then the universe has existed as long as God.

Well, no that doesn’t follow because “as long as” puts God into a temporal and by implication (given the continuity of space-time) spatial framework. No, there is no “as long as” that applies to God because God is eternal, i.e., no time constraints apply to God.

You keep trying to squirrel time back into eternity to make your point, but that means you haven’t “agreed” but have redefined the point to suit your view.

If the universe has existed for a shorter time, then God is not a sufficient cause, and there must be some other causal component which appears just before the universe is caused. In that case God may be necessary, but He is not a sufficient cause.

Nope. The eternality of God does not mean we must smuggle time back into how he creates. The beginning of the universe is only the “beginning” with respect to the internal integrity of the universe and the space-time structure that holds within it.

That the universe has a “beginning” does not carry implications “outwards” to God and eternity, just as the beginning of a novel does not imply anything about when the novel was written. If the novel simply exists in a timeless reality, the story within the novel may have a beginning but the novel itself need not have a beginning.

The universe as a whole may exist eternally (timelessly or with no reference to time) even though a specific chronology – beginning, middle, ending – is integral to it.

You keep trying to insist what applies within the universe must necessarily apply outside of it. You haven’t demonstrated that, just assumed it.

 

[Tomdstone]

… no time constraints apply to God…

Not sure because God chose a particular point in time to come down from heaven and become man.

 

[rossum]

Your atomistic view of a person doesn’t correspond to modern medicine which is based on a holistic approach to both physical and psychological illness.

So, next time I need brain surgery I will ask my psychologist to do the operation?

Your atomistic view of a person doesn’t correspond to the legal principle that a human being is an enduring entity from birth to death.

Your Church’s doctrine does not correspond to the legal principle that divorce is allowed. When your Church changes its doctrine to conform to legal principle, then I will consider your argument valid.

Do you treat your family and friends as “collections of changing parts”?

Yes. As my mother is getting older she cannot do as much for herself as she used to, so now I do more for her than I used to. I treat her as changing. If I did not, then I would not provide the additional help that she needs now that she did not need in the past. I recognise that people change.

The Creator is not subject to man-made rules about what can be created…

To me, this means that you have no answer to my argument and are falling back on the general “God is special” argument. I do not accept that argument. You are correct in understanding that the concept of Jesus as both God and man has huge logical problems. Sweeping those problems under the carpet does not solve them.

A “causal chain” is a hopelessly inadequate definition of an individual member of the human race who makes choices and decisions for which he or she is responsible.

No it is not. Your personal opinion is of no relevance here.

In that case we all have split personalities which have nothing in common!

We are all part of the same causal chain.

Why doesn’t the dogma itself change?

Because the dogma is not a “thing” in that context, it is a meta-thing: a description of things.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well, no that doesn’t follow because “as long as” puts God into a temporal and by implication (given the continuity of space-time) spatial framework. No, there is no “as long as” that applies to God because God is eternal, i.e., no time constraints apply to God.

If God is a sufficient cause of the universe then the existence of God implies the existence of the universe. Reversing the implication gives that the non-existence of the universe implies the non-existence of God. In symbolic terms:

(G => U) => (~U => ~G)

God-as-sufficient-cause cannot exist unless the universe also exists.

Nope. The eternality of God does not mean we must smuggle time back into how he creates.

We do not have to “smuggle” in time. Creation is an action, and actions require time. With any action there is a before and an after. Action results in change, and change is a difference in time. Time is impossible to remove from the act of creation. “In the beginning…” The word “beginning” refers to time. God cannot create without time any more than He can draw a square circle.

You keep trying to insist what applies within the universe must necessarily apply outside of it. You haven’t demonstrated that, just assumed it.

For philosophical discussions I use the definition: “the universe is all that exists” (ATE). Using that definition there is nothing outside the ATE universe. This means that any existing God is included in the ATE universe. Similarly if any existing thing is eternal then the ATE universe is also necessarily eternal.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Not sure because God chose a particular point in time to come down from heaven and become man.

. . . time, every moment of which He brings into existence as the one Ground of all their being.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t see how God can be immovable and yet be moved by our prayers.

Clearly, your ideas about God have been immovable.

In the parable about the unjust judge and the persistent woman, the judge relents. One might understand this analogy to our relationship with God as indicating that He too relents to our pleadings. However, consider that it is we who change. God as the Centre of our being, the Centre of all being, awaits us. And, we who have been created with a free will to choose the good, are guided to and by Him. In situations as that described by the parable, every time we are not granted justice, we are challenged to grow in faith and hope. Ultimately, we are left to surrender to His will. It is a process of purification, in which God as loving Creator does not change. Our relationship with Him changes as we travel the living Way to communion in the Beatific Vision, wherein all creation lies before Him in glory, within His eternal gaze.

 

[tonyrey]

Clearly, your ideas about God have been immovable.

In the parable about the unjust judge and the persistent woman, the judge relents. One might understand this analogy to our relationship with God as indicating that He too relents to our pleadings. However, consider that it is we who change. God as the Centre of our being, the Centre of all being, awaits us. And, we who have been created with a free will to choose the good, are guided to and by Him. In situations as that described by the parable, every time we are not granted justice, we are challenged to grow in faith and hope. Ultimately, we are left to surrender to His will. It is a process of purification, in which God as loving Creator does not change. Our relationship with Him changes as we travel the living Way to communion in the Beatific Vision, wherein all creation lies before Him in glory, within His eternal gaze.

Indeed. Belief in justice implies that implies that everyone - including animals - has rights which are not merely human conventions but facts based on the immense value of life. If we were just freaks of nature produced by mindless processes we would be worth no more than the dust beneath our feet from which we are supposed to emerge for no reason or purpose whatsoever. The burden of proof is on atheists to explain why we have inalienable rights if we exist entirely by chance in an irrational, valueless and meaningless universe…