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

[levinas12]

I thought that according to Roman Catholic teaching, God does not and could not change? But you are saying that God assumed a human nature at a specific time. So before that time God did not have that human nature, but only afterward He had that human nature? So God changed which is contrary to the belief that God does not change?

It depends on what you mean by change. If God is not an entity, does not have “content” or “essence” (as ordinarily understood in the context of worldly beings), then “change” in the ordinary sense of the word cannot apply to Him.

Only a concrete entity with a “finite” or “delimited” content, a “this something” in Aristotle’s language, can undergo change. But God, as the pure act “to be”, as the ipsum esse, is not a concrete entity - He is completely “outside” the universe of concrete entities, “outside” of space and time, “outside” of all delimitations.

Briefly, here’s the argument: only things can change, God is not a thing, therefore God cannot change.

But you counter: God “became” a man, a thing - therefore, God underwent some sort of “change”. Yes and no. In Aristotle, there are only two types of changes: substantial changes and accidental changes. When God “became” a man, He did not undergo “substantial change” (He did not cease being God); and He did not undergo “accidental” change (human nature is not an accident). So, within the Aristotelian metaphysical frame, there was no change (from God’s “side”) - but there was a big change (from human nature’s “side”).

 

[inocente]

But why did “Jesus” happen? So God could definitively “appear” in our world.

Sure there were hints and suggestions before Jesus. But God still remained “outside” the universe, “outside” the world of entities.

I think Jews and Muslims, along with some Christians, would disagree with you.

*Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day - Genesis 3

God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty - Exodus 6

That night God appeared to Solomon - 2 Chron 1*

 

[levinas12]

I think Jews and Muslims, along with some Christians, would disagree with you.

*Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day - Genesis 3

God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty - Exodus 6

That night God appeared to Solomon - 2 Chron 1*

Perhaps “hints and suggestions” was an understatement. What I meant was that, in the Incarnation, we could now see, touch, hear, etc a physical human being … this definitive “visibility” is different from previous “manifestations” of God … how “different”? … maybe this could be a topic for another thread …

 

[levinas12]

It is an impossible task:

• God is immortal and cannot die.
• Jesus died on the cross.
• Jesus is God.

Those three statements are logically incompatible, and yet orthodox (small ‘o’) Christianity asserts that all three are true. Any two can be true, but not the third.

rossum

The first and third statements view God from one perspective (His divine “nature”); the second statement, from another perspective (His human nature).

The pivot here is that the sense of “nature” employed in the phrase “divine nature” is not univocally the same as the sense of “nature” employed in the phrase “human nature”. This lack of univocity is based on the grounds that God as pure act of being does not have the same type of specificity as a finite “thing”, i.e., He is not one entity alongside other entities.

This is why Thomists bring in analogy - there is a link between the two “senses” but they are not univocally the same.

Analogy is what makes it possible for Jesus to have two “natures” and “to die” without logical contradiction.

All of this relates to the point in my previous posting about God being “outside” the universe of concrete entities and thus being able to blend with one of the “natures” inside that universe (without Himself changing).

It’s like in Cantor - you can add a finite number to aleph 0 without affecting aleph 0, or you can add aleph 0 to aleph 1 without affecting aleph 1, and so on ad infinitum. (I know, this is a very rough “analogy”).

To tell you the truth, I’m not entirely comfortable with the phrase “divine nature” - because “nature” is originally a term Aristotle applied to “concrete entity”, in Greek, “a tode ti”, in English, a “this something”, like my table-now-in this location. God in his “divine nature” is not a “this something” because He is not “a being”…

I admit that Aristotelian metaphysical categories are stretched here (perhaps to the breaking point).

 

[levinas12]

God in his “divine nature” is not a “this something” because He is not “a being”…

Maybe this isn’t phrased optimally … I’m trying to distinguish between a pure act of “to be” and a concrete entity whose essence is distinct from its esse … by God not being “a being” , I mean God not being a concrete entity as one entity among other entities … God is not a part of the universe, even a Supreme part …

 

[hu324b]

I thought that according to Roman Catholic teaching, God does not and could not change? But you are saying that God assumed a human nature at a specific time. So before that time God did not have that human nature, but only afterward He had that human nature? So God changed which is contrary to the belief that God does not change?

John 1:1-2 simply states this when it says

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Jesus has always been there - there is no change.

 

[tonyrey]

With regard to the topic, no one may compel another to justify his beliefs. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_competency

Or as Miley Cyrus put it “Remember only God can judge you … It’s our song we can sing if we want to, it’s my mouth I can say what I want to”.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_competency

In that case there is no point in participating in this thread…

 

[tonyrey]

But they still do not describe your version of God. I define the set: “things that can be approached by analogy”, and your God is excluded from that set by your own argument.

 

[tonyrey]

An ad hominem is only used against arguments. Therefore…

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

-wikipedia
“melodramatic” and “careless” both fit the bill!

 

[Tomdstone]

John 1:1-2 simply states this when it says

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Jesus has always been there - there is no change.

I didn’t know that Jesus was always present in human form? How come God did not reveal this to the Jews?

 

[Tomdstone]

It depends on what you mean by change… Yes and no.

Yes and no seems ambiguous to me. The Jews didn’t know about Jesus before He was born, and yet they were the chosen people.

 

[levinas12]

Jesus has always been there - there is no change.

No.

Jesus, the hypostatic union of divine nature and human nature, the God-Man, began a little more than 2,000 years ago. However, the person of Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always existed.

Until the Incarnation occurred in year 1 or so in Nazareth, this Person did not have a human nature.

But when the Second Person of the Trinity “blended” with human nature, there was no change in His divine “nature”. I have used italics here because God’s nature is unusual - God can blend with human nature without this “blending” affecting His divinity.

Bishop Barron points to the burning bush as a precursor for this “blending” - the fire does not consume the bush but leaves it intact “as a bush”.

 

[Tomdstone]

No.

One Catholic says yes, the other says no? It is confusing.

 

[levinas12]

One Catholic says yes, the other says no? It is confusing.

I apologize - I’ve just posted a further clarification.

This topic has its own pitfalls and subtlety. It took Christianity hundreds of years to hammer out a theological articulation. And, as you can see, the conversation continues.

 

[levinas12]

Yes and no seems ambiguous to me.

We have to think about God as radically transcendent, as so “outside” the universe that He doesn’t have the specificity of a particular nature, shape or form (as these notions are understood in ancient Greek metaphysics).

The ancient Hebrews understood this radical transcendence when they prohibited “images” of God.

Now, Rossum’s three statements in a previous posting provide a good segue to this discussion. Zeus is immortal, deathless but Zeus is still in time, is still a part of the universe, is still a concrete entity. If Zeus took up a human nature, he would cease to be Zeus; or, more likely, the human nature would be obliterated - there could be no blending where Zeus’ “divinity” and the human nature would remain intact. so in that case Rossum is perfectly right about contradiction.

However, God as radically transcendent is “outside” time altogether - so God’s “immortality” is not the same as Zeus’ immortality. This is why analogy is constantly invoked in these discussions. Analogy allows us to speak about God in a certain way (with an abundance of italics) - and thus a totally negative theology is precluded. But all this can sometimes strike people as obfuscating and double-talk.

 

[Cheiron]

We have to think about God as radically transcendent, as so “outside” the universe that He doesn’t have the specificity of a particular nature, shape or form (as these notions are understood in ancient Greek metaphysics).

The ancient Hebrews understood this radical transcendence when they prohibited “images” of God.

Now, Rossum’s three statements in a previous posting provide a good segue to this discussion. Zeus is immortal, deathless but Zeus is still in time, is still a part of the universe, is still a concrete entity. If Zeus took up a human nature, he would cease to be Zeus; or, more likely, the human nature would be obliterated - there could be no blending where Zeus’ “divinity” and the human nature would remain intact. so in that case Rossum is perfectly right about contradiction.

However, God as radically transcendent is “outside” time altogether - so God’s “immortality” is not the same as Zeus’ immortality. This is why analogy is constantly invoked in these discussions. Analogy allows us to speak about God in a certain way (with an abundance of italics) - and thus a totally negative theology is precluded. But all this can sometimes strike people as obfuscating and double-talk.

That’s because this transcendent God outside space and time is not the God of the Bible and Christianity. The Judeo-Christian God intervenes in the world. He talks directly to Moses and various other people, He sends plagues to Egypt, He splits the sea, He appears to Paul. He wrestles with Jacob and touches his hip. I can go on and on and on with examples of God intervening in this particular space and time.

 

[Tomdstone]

However, God as radically transcendent is “outside” time altogether - .

Not true, because Jesus was in time and secondly, at each Mass, the Host becomes God and Catholics can receive Him in time.

 

[inocente]

In that case there is no point in participating in this thread…

You are not making sense.

 

[inocente]

If that were the case all spiritual reality would be excluded from human discourse as irrational - including Buddhist beliefs…

Buddhism is certainly relevant to the topic because it is concerned with an aspect of reality which atheists reject. Do you believe it is restricted to human sets?

Rossum has simply been reading back the implications of your “God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets”. If that were true then even the very idea of God could never have occurred to any human. I already pointed out to you that Anselm’s argument relies on the concept of God existing in what you quaintly call a human set. Read the linked article:

Transcend doesn’t mean we can’t understand anything at all. Even though Pascal says “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”, he goes on to say we do know through faith. And Anselm claims that the concept of God, as that which no greater can be conceived, is in the set of ideas the non-theist has in her understanding.

princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans008.htm

 

[inocente]

We have to think about God as radically transcendent, as so “outside” the universe that He doesn’t have the specificity of a particular nature, shape or form (as these notions are understood in ancient Greek metaphysics).

*Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.

• Ode to Joy, Schiller*

Medieval cosmology had Earth at the center of a (small) universe which orbits the Earth, and beyond the starry canopy in all directions is paradise, where dwells a loving Father.

I’m no expert but it seems they were reading the cosmology of Genesis 1 through Aristotle’s glasses. A comforting bubble, until burst by Galileo observing through his telescope moons orbiting Jupiter, which wasn’t supposed to happen.

I think the understanding of God evolves throughout the OT and has continued to evolve, but there is a divide between the God of the philosophers and the God of the bible.

Ask anyone where a loved one goes to when they pass on, and chances are they will look up to the heavens, no matter how many philosophers say heaven isn’t a place beyond the stars. We still fly away to where God lives - youtube.com/watch?v=uz-0C2dhKlg