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

[Peter_Plato]

The biblical apologist, eh? Whose presumptions and assumptions and therefore arguments will always lead in one predetermined, pre-packaged direction with laser like accuracy.

I suppose the same critique could apply to the seeker of truth, eh?

Whose presumptions and assumptions and therefore arguments will always lead in one predetermined, pre-packaged direction with laser like accuracy to the truth.

If you start with the Christian God, as a biblical apologist obviously does, then is it at all surprising that his arguments are formulated in such a way as to lead back to the Christian God?

If you start with the truth, as a truth seeker obviously does, then is it at all surprising that his arguments are formulated in such a way as to lead back to the truth?

Are you claiming, Bradski, that there is no truth and therefore arguments for anything should just spiral off madly in all directions?

Is that where your presumptions and assumptions and therefore your arguments will always lead – in all kinds of undeterminable and unpackaged directions like so much scatter shot?

 

[rossum]

His immutable nature is not static but dynamic as one would expect from the Creator.

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.

Causing change does not necessarily entail **being **changed.

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.

Otherwise we would lose our identity whenever we make a decision or create something!

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

 

[rossum]

These are only changes in flesh not in person/soul.

An unchanging soul is a very dangerous concept for everyone, except Jesus. An unchanging soul cannot change from unsaved to saved, or vice versa. That moves instantly to extreme Calvinism with arbitrary immutable election. It denies any possibility of sin or the sacraments having any effect on our soul.

The idea of temporal God is incoherent. Please read the second comment in post #328.

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”. 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

 

[rossum]

A false dilemma! It is quite possible for the Creator of the universe to have two aspects, one divine and the other human.

No it is not. It is clear that the human aspect cannot be “creator of the universe” because you are telling me that the human aspect did not come into existence until well after the creation of the universe. Only the divine aspect can have created the universe. The human aspect cannot have created the universe because it did not exist at that time. Hence it is an error to call the combination of the two aspects “creator of the universe”. Only one aspect can possibly be “creator of the universe”.

It is a mistake to impose human limitations on Ultimate Reality.

And we are back to being unable to describe God. You are using humanly limited words in this post, so everything you say here about God must be a mistake.

rossum

 

[rossum]

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

Our properties do change. We now have a memory of that creative act, which we did not have before. We may have worn a little skin off our fingers as we worked. We have done a little exercise moving our muscles. We are changing all the time. It is just that we use an unchanging word to refer to our changing selves. The word does not change; we do. The city called Chicago is changing all the time; the word used to refer to it does not change. It is an error to confuse the unchangingness of the word with the changing nature of the thing referred to.

Causing change is not equivalent to changing ourselves.

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

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.

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 the external world.

rossum

 

[Tomdstone]

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”. 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.

I agree with that. I think that if God came down from heaven and became man, then that is a change. Before He came down from heaven, He was not man, but after, He was. Even the fact that God came down from heaven, signifies a change. Further, God responds to our prayers and releases the souls in Purgatory early if we apply a plenary indulgence to that soul. I don;t see how God could be immovable if He responds to our prayers.

 

[Cheiron]

What kind of necessity are you invoking here? In Kantian terminology, is it synthetic a priori or analytic a priori?

I have no idea about Kantian terminology. I think I’m very clear: without space and time, there can’t be existence. There is no time for God to exist if He’s outside time. There is no place for Him to be if He’s outside space. The logical consequence of a God outside space and time is atheism.

“Sometimes” is a temporal word - and thus cannot apply to God if He is radically “outside”.

It’s not as if we can say that God, at one time, is “outside” and, at another time, He’s “inside”.

But from our side of the equation, it looks as if God is “outside” and then “inside” - but from His side, He’s remains “outside” even when He has entered into time and space.

So God is outside space and time even when He’s not. Contradictions are not arguments and I prefer not to believe contradictory things.

This is not true of us. We can be outside a specific place and a specific time but we have to be in some place and some time.

Using Hegelian terminology, time and space involve absence (time - past is no longer, future is not yet; space - here is not there).

God is without absence.

You also asserted He’s outside space and time. That means God is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Another contradiction.

So what about Jesus? Wasn’t He subject to absence? Yes and no. The humanity of Jesus involved absence (temporal and spatial). But Jesus’ person was not human but divine. So He was able to “assume” human nature at a particular time and place but without “discarding” his divine nature.

We are not divine persons. So we cannot “assume” human nature. That’s a critical difference between us and Jesus…

So God is everywhere (or: without absence) and Jesus was God; yet Jesus wasn’t everywhere. You heap contradiction upon contradiction.

 

[inocente]

His immutable nature is not static but dynamic as one would expect from the Creator.

Does not compute.

dynamic = characterized by constant change, activity, or progress
immutable = unchangeable; changeless

inocente;14252184:

Please cite a link defining what in heaven’s name a “human set” might be, I’ve never seen the term and no search engine can find it anywhere.

According to rossum it is a human category…

By shrugging your shoulders are you saying you repeatedly used the term without ever knowing what it meant, or that you once knew what it meant but have since forgotten? You’ve used the term in several posts to me, what do you think it means?

inocente;14252147:

You: What individuals want is irrelevant.
Me: With regard to the topic, no one may compel another to justify his beliefs.
You: In that case there is no point in participating in this thread.

It is a principle of my religion, and of human rights, that each person is absolutely free to believe what he wants without compulsion, yet you say “What individuals want is irrelevant”, and you now call it wishful thinking.

Can you not see that you’re not making sense? I asked you to explain yourself as one adult to another. Why not do so?

You keep ignoring my request.

inocente;14252147:

Your Church does not agree with you that descriptions must be analogical:

CCC 36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

Rather than God “not included in any human set”, it says we are “in the image of God”.
“in the image of God” does not imply that it is literally true.

Yes it does, see CCC 365 etc. and CCC 1701 etc. The divine image is present in every man.

We should try to hear the author’s intention to his original audience. By image (= a mental representation or idea, OED), the author is literally referring to morally and spiritually, he’s not saying God has a belly button.

 

[Aloysium]

I agree with that. I think that if God came down from heaven and became man, then that is a change. Before He came down from heaven, He was not man, but after, He was. Even the fact that God came down from heaven, signifies a change. Further, God responds to our prayers and releases the souls in Purgatory early if we apply a plenary indulgence to that soul. I don;t see how God could be immovable if He responds to our prayers.

God creates all time. He creates change. He is immovable because He creates all movement. He is in time as it’s Creator from eternity, the ever-presents all encompassing Now. Though His loving act of creation, He remains ever in intimate relation to all creation. He became one of us at the centre of time with the incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection of the Word. He guides through the workings of the Holy Spirit, responding to our prayers as eternal Father, and is one with us in Jesus Christ, the Son having emptied Himself, becoming human and thereby the living Way to God. You clearly have a misunderstanding of what is meant by the word “immovable”. Confusion arises if you use the term in one way to prove that God is solely in time and therefore changes. As Existence itself, He cannot change. He causes change, is within it and encompasses all of it, as the Triune Godhead.

 

[inocente]

Clearly, if God can come and go, acting inside what we call space/time, whenever He wants, (immanence) then He is not bound by that space, time, matter, energy, etc.

Then the nature of Jesus, and hence the nature of the Trinity, has changed between 500 BCE and today.

I think that if God came down from heaven and became man, then that is a change.

God creates all time. He creates change. He is immovable because He creates all movement.

I looked round and found this article on immutability, in the IEP. It’s a round-up of current thinking.

Turns out that philosophers are still working out the logic for all three persons of the Trinity being totally unchanging. It currently involves a complicated scheme which seems to me to treat God as a hologram, allowing immutability to appear responsive. That would seem to involve a gigantic number of bits of information, don’t know how they reconcile that with God not being made of parts. Seems a long way from ordinary peoples’ beliefs.

 

[levinas12]

I have no idea about Kantian terminology. I think I’m very clear: without space and time, there can’t be existence.

A simple assertion even if very clear is not a philosophical argument.

I’m also surprised that you are not familiar with Kant’s distinctions between synthetic and analytic, between a priori and a posteriori, and finally between synthetic a priori and analytic a priori.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is inherent in the word. Someone existing outside space and time seems to me as incomprehensible as saying someone can swim outside water. You need a space and time for existence, in the same way you need water for swimming.

Swimming is, by definition, something that you do in water. Therefore, swimming outside the water is logically incoherent.

However, you haven’t explained why God’s existence outside of space and time is incoherent. If God is an uncreated, eternal spirit, why must He exist within the space and time of our universe? We need those things for our existence, but God is not like us.

And there is another problem. The god of the Bible does exist within space and time. I’ve given a few examples a few pages back of God intervening in this world. So even if a god exists outside space and time, it wouldn’t be the god of the Bible.

That does not follow. I see nothing that would prevent an omnipotent being from intervening in His own creation any more than a hobbyist would be prevented from moving the plants and rocks around in his own aquarium.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14252147:

It is a principle of my religion, and of human rights, that each person is absolutely free to believe what he wants without compulsion, yet you say “What individuals want is irrelevant”, and you now call it wishful thinking.

Are individuals in your religion under any compulsion to believe the truth, or are they absolutely free to discount the truth and make up their own if they want?

Is what individuals want the ONLY relevant thing?

Is the truth more or less relevant than what individuals are free to want to believe?

Is what each person wants to believe and is free to believe more relevant to your religion than the truth?

Isn’t it possible that what individuals want is relevant to the degree that what they want is the truth and what individuals want is irrelevant to the degree that what they want is mere wishful thinking?

Take your time

The issue is freedom of conscience - are you ever obligated to unquestioningly accept what another says is the True Religion[sup]®[/sup], or ought you always be free to make up your own mind?

*You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. - Matt 7

There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? - James 4

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. - Romans 14*

From which we get to “only God can judge you” and responsibility for beliefs:

*"Soul competency is a Christian theological perspective on the accountability of each person before God. According to this view, neither one’s family relationships, church membership, or ecclesiastical or religious authorities can affect salvation of one’s soul from damnation. Instead, under this view, each person is responsible to God for his or her own personal faith in Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. …]

The basic concept of individual soul liberty, as Baptists refer to soul competency, is that, in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made.

A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination, an adherent to another world religion, or to choose no religious belief system, and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. In addition, a person may change his/her mind over time." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_competency*

Exactly the same sentiment is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

and in the CAF stickies:

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.

and in popular culture (this from NCIS):

Deputy Tyler Barrett: You know, it truly is a screwed-up religion where you got to blow yourself up just to get lucky.
[Ziva twists his arm behind his back] Deputy Tyler Barrett: Ow!
Officer Ziva David: When you insult his religion, you insult mine and your own. Tell him you’re sorry.
Deputy Tyler Barrett: [quietly] Sorry.
Officer Ziva David: I don’t think he heard you.
Deputy Tyler Barrett: I’m sorry!
Masoud Tariq: Apology accepted.

So, it seems the burden of proof is on you to prove that’s all wrong, if that’s what you want. Take your time

 

[levinas12]

You heap contradiction upon contradiction.

Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction:

The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect …

Another translation:

It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect .

Notice the repetition of “same” - “same thing”, “same time”, “same respect”.

If Jesus has two natures, there are two “things”, two “respects” … no “same”

The key here is whether it is possible to have two “natures”.

It is not possible for a lion to have two natures, e.g., a lion nature and a giraffe nature, and still remain simply a lion (and not some monstrous hybrid).

But is it possible for God to have two natures? Yes, because God’s “nature” is not like a intra-worldly “nature” - God does not have a finite essence separate from His act to be (esse) - His esse is His essence. As such, He is “outside” the universe. But precisely because He is ipsum esse, He can “assume” human nature while still retaining His divine “nature”. This is true only of divine “nature”; no other “nature” can do this.

For more on this, see Robert Sokolowski’s God of Faith and Reason.

 

[Tomdstone]

He is immovable because He creates all movement. … He guides through the workings of the Holy Spirit, responding to our prayers as eternal Father,.

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

 

[Cheiron]

A simple assertion even if very clear is not a philosophical argument.

I’m also surprised that you are not familiar with Kant’s distinctions between synthetic and analytic, between a priori and a posteriori, and finally between synthetic a priori and analytic a priori.

I notice you haven’t given me an answer about how someone can exist in no time and no space. Or is it possible for God because He is God?

Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction:

The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect …

Another translation:

It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect .

Notice the repetition of “same” - “same thing”, “same time”, “same respect”.

If Jesus has two natures, there are two “things”, two “respects” … no “same”

The key here is whether it is possible to have two “natures”.

It is not possible for a lion to have two natures, e.g., a lion nature and a giraffe nature, and still remain simply a lion (and not some monstrous hybrid).

But is it possible for God to have two natures? Yes, because God’s “nature” is not like a intra-worldly “nature” - God does not have a finite essence separate from His act to be (esse) - His esse is His essence. As such, He is “outside” the universe. But precisely because He is ipsum esse, He can “assume” human nature while still retaining His divine “nature”. This is true only of divine “nature”; no other “nature” can do this.

For more on this, see Robert Sokolowski’s God of Faith and Reason.

It is possible for God to have two natures, otherwise He wouldn’t be God. Sure. Now what evidence do you have that this God exists and that He has this double nature?

Swimming is, by definition, something that you do in water. Therefore, swimming outside the water is logically incoherent.

However, you haven’t explained why God’s existence outside of space and time is incoherent. If God is an uncreated, eternal spirit, why must He exist within the space and time of our universe? We need those things for our existence, but God is not like us.

How is it possible to be eternal without time?

But let’s assume for the sake of argument God can exist outside space and time. What is the evidence that He does exist outside space and time?

That does not follow. I see nothing that would prevent an omnipotent being from intervening in His own creation any more than a hobbyist would be prevented from moving the plants and rocks around in his own aquarium.

There is a problem if you assert that the hobbyist is outside the aquarium. If he moves stuff around, then he is inside the aquarium. Or at least his hands are. In any case, the idea that the hobbyist is outside the aquarium falls apart.

 

[tonyrey]

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

You have a good sense of humour.

 

[tonyrey]

Does not compute.
dynamic = characterized by constant change, activity, or progress
immutable = unchangeable; changeless

It still doesn’t follow that the agent of change is changed…

By shrugging your shoulders are you saying you repeatedly used the term without ever knowing what it meant, or that you once knew what it meant but have since forgotten? You’ve used the term in several posts to me, what do you think it means?

“Sets are well-determined collections that are completely characterized by their elements”.

You keep ignoring my request.

Which request?

Yes it does, see CCC 365 etc. and CCC 1701 etc. The divine image is present in every man.
We should try to hear the author’s intention to his original audience. By image (= a mental representation or idea, OED), the author is literally referring to morally and spiritually, he’s not saying God has a belly button.

It still doesn’t follow that human words are literally true of divine attributes…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I notice you haven’t given me an answer about how someone can exist in no time and no space. Or is it possible for God because He is God?

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.

It is possible for God to have two natures, otherwise He wouldn’t be God. Sure.

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have a single nature: divine. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, had both a divine nature and a human nature. How God the Son experiences being both God and man simultaneously is above my pay grade.

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

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

How is it possible to be eternal without time?

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

But let’s assume for the sake of argument God can exist outside space and time. What is the evidence that He does exist outside space and time?

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.

There is a problem if you assert that the hobbyist is outside the aquarium. If he moves stuff around, then he is inside the aquarium. Or at least his hands are. In any case, the idea that the hobbyist is outside the aquarium falls apart.

Not really. I have not suggested that God cannot enter into creation; in fact, it is the theist position that HE HAS DONE JUST THAT. God maintains all creation by His own existence; without Him, it would cease to exist at all. But He can come and go as He pleases.

And if He should choose to do so, why would this be a problem?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The issue is freedom of conscience - are you ever obligated to unquestioningly accept what another says is the True Religion[sup]®[/sup], or ought you always be free to make up your own mind?

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?

So, it seems the burden of proof is on you to prove that’s all wrong, if that’s what you want. Take your time

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.