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

[Peter_Plato]

You have proved my point. As well as yourself and you unique product, you have a third thing: your decision to proceed or not to proceed. Because of that element, you are not a sufficient cause on your own. Similarly with God, He is not on His own a sufficient cause. A third element is required, perhaps God’s decision to create now, rather than next week. Since that decision is not eternal (because the created universe is not eternal) then that decision cannot be the eternal God. It is something different from the eternal God.
rossum

You keep smuggling time into the way in which God works as if he is constrained by time. I have been denying that. His decision to create and his act to create only function in the way you depict if you assume a temporal process and impose that on God.

Merely because that is the only way that you can understand it does not mean God is constrained to that paradigm.

If God is eternal then, again, that does not mean God is restricted to only one point in time for eternity.

If there is no before and after with God because he is eternal, then his decision to create cannot come “before” his act to do so. That is squirreling time back into eternity rather than drawing a logical implication about eternity.

 

[Tomdstone]

He can assume human nature without Himself changing, .

I don’t see it.
At one point, God did not have a human nature.
At another point, God did have a human nature.
Is that not an instance of becoming different, which is a definition of change?

 

[Tomdstone]

The assumption that God is a sufficient cause of the universe leads either to an eternal created universe or to a non-eternal God.

I don’t see the contradiction because God can be a sufficient cause of a universe which is not eternal.

 

[STT]

I think your argument doesn’t show what you suppose it does.

It does. We just need to agree whether two acts are involved in creation of universe: The first act is God’s decision and the second act is God’s act of creation. The act of decision must precedes the act of creation if God is supposed to decide. This is however impossible for a God in timeless state. This means that God can only perform the act of creation and cannot decide about the act of creation. This indicate that G=>U. This is however problematic since one cannot differ between God who can decide and a Cosmic force.

If you are arguing a “timeless” state then you can’t be arguing a severely time constrained state as if timeless means there is only one absolute timestate. God is not constrained by time – he has complete control over time. He can create it as he wills and use it as he wills.

I can understand this and I agree with it but this has nothing to do with my argument.

You keep trying to insist eternity (timelessness) means having only one time or one opportunity. Instead of allowing that God is not constrained by time as within a sequence you are insisting that he is constrained by time to a single point in time.

Yes, God can only perform one eternal act. Otherwise we are talking about two acts in timeless state which is senseless.

So instead of God acting within time represented by a line from beginning to end, as we are:

Beginning |______________________________________| Ending

What you are insisting is that God has to be constrained to a single point in time:

Which is the reason you claim he cannot will and then create because, according to your idea of God, he is limited to a single point in time, from which he cannot logically extract himself.

No, I am not talking about single time. I am talking about single act. Can you imagine two acts which one has to follow another one in timeless state?
.

That doesn’t adequately depict eternity, timelessness or being unconstrained by time. That constrains God even more than we human beings in time are constrained by it.

Your view of eternity is severely stilted.

Could we agree that God can perform one single eternal act in timeless state? Could we agree that two acts one following another one is not possible in timeless state?

 

[levinas12]

I don’t see it.
At one point, God did not have a human nature.
At another point, God did have a human nature.
Is that not an instance of becoming different, which is a definition of change?

Are you familiar with Cantor’s infinities?

The number of integers (and other collections) is the lowest level of infinity (aleph 0).
The number of real numbers is the continuum (aleph 1).

Cantor was able to generate an infinite number of infinities, each one "bigger
than the preceeding one.

Suppose you add 153 (which itself is an interesting number but that’s another story) to aleph 0. The sum of these two numbers is aleph 0. Likewise, if you add aleph 0 to aleph 1, the sum of these two numbers is aleph 1.

Just like there is no change in aleph 0 and aleph 1, there is no change in the Christian God when He assumes human nature. Again, because the Christian God is outside beings, and hence outside time, He cannot undergo change.

Only a being can change. According to Aristotle, there are only two types of change: substantial change and accidental change. The Christian God is not a substance (at least in Aristotle’s sense of substance) and does not have accidents. So what kind of change can the Christian God undergo?

Other types of god can undergo change. For example, Zeus can fall in and out of love for some mortal woman. Zeus can do this because he is an entity. But the Christian God is not an entity (in Aristotle’s sense of entity).

So what happens when the Christian God assumes human nature? This is not the change of one substance into another substance. And it is not a change in accidents.
And God, like aleph 0, remains unchanged.

 

[levinas12]

A disclaimer.

It is not yet proven that the continuum is the next infinite number after aleph 0.

 

[Tomdstone]

Are you familiar with Cantor’s infinities?

The number of integers (and other collections) is the lowest level of infinity (aleph 0).
The number of real numbers is the continuum (aleph 1).

Cantor was able to generate an infinite number of infinities, each one "bigger
than the preceeding one.

Suppose you add 153 (which itself is an interesting number but that’s another story) to aleph 0. The sum of these two numbers is aleph 0. Likewise, if you add aleph 0 to aleph 1, the sum of these two numbers is aleph 1.

Just like there is no change in aleph 0 and aleph 1, there is no change in the Christian God when He assumes human nature. Again, because the Christian God is outside beings, and hence outside time, He cannot undergo change.

Only a being can change. According to Aristotle, there are only two types of change: substantial change and accidental change. The Christian God is not a substance (at least in Aristotle’s sense of substance) and does not have accidents. So what kind of change can the Christian God undergo?

Other types of god can undergo change. For example, Zeus can fall in and out of love for some mortal woman. Zeus can do this because he is an entity. But the Christian God is not an entity (in Aristotle’s sense of entity).

So what happens when the Christian God assumes human nature? This is not the change of one substance into another substance. And it is not a change in accidents.
And God, like aleph 0, remains unchanged.

What you say is not quite true. Consider the set of natural numbers, N= {1,2,3,4,5,…} It has cardinality aleph0, as it is countably infinite. Consider now the set of integers, Z= {0,-1,1,-2,2,-3,3,…} it also has cardinality aleph0, since it too is countably infinite. Similarly with the rational numbers. It is true that when you add the negative integers and zero to the set of natural numbers, the cardinality does not change. However, you are going from N to Z. N and Z are two different sets. So going from N to Z is a change in the elements making up the set, but not a change in the cardinality of the set. The cardinality is only one aspect of a set. So there is a change. Therefore if God goes from a God who does not have a human nature to a God who does have a human nature, to me, that seems like a definite change, although God still remains infinite, He has changed. And, AFAIK, this has nothing to do with the number of real numbers being strictly greater than the number of integers as Cantor has proved.

 

[rossum]

Holding that there are “things” that possess existence and other “things” that don’t (unicorns) implies that ideas are primary.

It is useful to be able to separate the real world, horses, from the unreal, unicorns.

There is a material world in which the colour “blue” exists as a frequency of 606–668 THz and wavelength of 450-495 nm.

No. Electromagnetic radiation with those characteristics does exist. The “blue” is a mental construct applied to those photons when they arrive at our eyes. We see “blue” because certain cells in our retinas are excited while others are not. Had we evolved with black and white vision (as some animals have) then we would have no concept of “blue” any more than we have a concept of the ‘colour’ that birds see when they detect ultra-violet light.

The “blue” is not a property of the photons; it is a property of the structure of our retinas, and hence influences our mental models of the world which are inevitably influenced by our senses.

The other physical property of the colour blue has to do with retinal cone cell…

Yes. Blue is an internal human thing. All the exists externally is a particular range of wavelengths.

Colours are a constituent part of one’s personal relationship with the physical universe.

They are indeed “personal”. Someone who is red-green colour blind will see different colours from a tetrachromat who will see different colours from someone with standard vision. Because colours are personal, they have no intrinsic external existence, but are dependent on our specific sense organs.

It is not a reification to speak about God as the Being or Existence itself.

God exists. Therefore God has Being. Hence Being-of-God exists, therefore Being-of-God has Being. Hence Being-of-Being-of-God exists, therefore…

If there is only God, but not Being-of-God, then we can drop the whole infinite regress and agree that Being-of-X is a false reification for all values of X. It is enough to say “God exists” without all the logical problems caused by having a parallel “Being-of-God”.

You think we are talking about a thing, and when someone qualifies the matter and talks about no-thing you think that it means God doesn’t exist. You are failing to understand what is being said.

Read the Brahmajala sutta. Here is one of the gods talking about himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

I have highlighted a few words to help you see how this god might appear in Abrahamic scripture. I have no problem with the existence of God. I do have problems with some of the properties His human followers assign Him.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

… Read the Brahmajala sutta. Here is one of the gods talking about himself:
"I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings."I have highlighted a few words to help you see how this god might appear in Abrahamic scripture. I have no problem with the existence of God. I do have problems with some of the properties His human followers assign Him.

rossum

Occam’s Razor disposes of polytheism. Why believe in more than one supreme, omnipotent Creator who is father to all?

 

[rossum]

You have just proved my point by implying that the physical body has immaterial feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness - implying that physical reality is fundamental and produces immaterial phenomena.

You have misread me. Here is what I posted:

A human being has five components, one of which is material (the physical body) and the other four are immaterial: feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness.

A human being has five components. The material body is just one of those components, it does not own the other four. All five are required to make a human being.

Why do you put the physical body first

Because that is the traditional order found in scripture: rūpa, vedanā, saññā, sankhāra and viññāna. It is easier to remember them in the standard order.

The Church’s doctrine about divorce has nothing to do with the right to life.

But the Church’s doctrine on divorce does ignore the legal consensus that divorce is allowed. Hence your argument from the legal consensus is obviously flawed. If it were a correct argument then the Church would conform to the legal consensus. You made a bad argument there, I suggest that you stop using it.

In other words **she has not lost her identity **and is **fundamentally **the same person.

She is still part of the same chain of causation, but the individual link in the chain is different. A chain is made of many different connected links.

Do you mean that you can justify all your beliefs in Buddhism rationally? Or is there an element of faith?

See Buddhists ‘really are happier’. Many studies have been done on the effects of Buddhist meditation.

Memory is not an adequate explanation of responsibility nor is being a link in a chain of events.

I used memory as an example of something that is a) specific to each individual chain of causation and b) that is passed forwards down the chain. Similarly, responsibility for past actions is specific to each individual chain and is passed forwards down the chain.

Like persons the world changes but it retains its identity.

It retains its label, but the label applies to a different thing. The label is an internal mental construct. The thing itself changes a lot more than the label. I still have the same name as when I was born. The person that name is attached to has changed greatly since then. It is an error to think that an unchanging label indicates an unchanging entity to which the label is attached.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why is an eternal created universe an error?

All the indications are the the created universe we live in is not eternal. I could narrow the definition of God to “The sufficient cause of the observable material STEM universe” if you wish. I suspect that even theologians are not very interested in any other universes that God may have caused, whether eternal or not. Theoretical cosmologists might have some interest though.

The entirety of the universe – beginning, middle and end – exist in an atemporal state (a state not constrained by time.) I don’t have a problem with that. Why do you keep insisting it is an error when you haven’t shown anything errant about it?

The created universe is manifestly not atemporal; it changes. If you are talking about God residing in some fifth or higher dimension, then you are going to have to develop a new vocabulary to describe that dimension. Not an easy task. All the words we have at the moment refer to four dimensions.

Presumably if God is eternal, then what he creates is also eternal although it may have a time signature written into it, as our universe does.

Eternal in what dimension? how do you define “eternal” in the fifth dimension you seem to be proposing to hold God?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t see the contradiction because God can be a sufficient cause of a universe which is not eternal.

Only a similarly non-eternal God can be the sufficient cause of a non-eternal universe. If God is a sufficient cause, then the effect is present whenever the cause is present. Hence the universe must be the same age as its sufficient cause.

An eternal God alone cannot be the sufficient cause of a non-eternal universe. The sufficient cause must be (G & T) where T is a time dependent causal element which was not present 50 billion years ago but was present when the universe was caused. If that T was not needed, then the universe would be 50 billion years old at least.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Occam’s Razor disposes of polytheism. Why believe in more than one supreme, omnipotent Creator who is father to all?

My point was that I have no problem, in principle, with the existence of gods.

As to His properties we probably differ. “Supreme” in what sense? More powerful, then yes. Kills fewer humans, no – the Buddha was a lot better at not killing people.

“Omnipotent” is impossible to prove. We know that the creator has created one universe. There is no evidence that the creator is powerful enough to create two, three or four universes. No such claim is made in Abrahamic scriptures. A claim of omnipotence is impossible to prove, so I reject it by Occam’s razor. I would settle for “powerful enough to do all the things claimed and no more.”

“Father to all” is false. I know who my father was, and he was not a god. I would also point out that God is not father to Himself, so at the most He can be “father to all except Himself.” Zeus came closer to being “father to all” than the Abrahamic God who had either zero or one son, depending on which version of Abrahamic religion you follow.

rossum

 

[levinas12]

What you say is not quite true.

Cantor’s infinite sets were used as a rough analogy.

Finite number (e.g., 153) = human nature
Aleph0 = divine nature

Adding 153 to aleph0 does not change the cardinality of aleph0.

I probably shouldn’t have mentioned aleph1. It only muddled the analogy.

But back to the basic point.

Your argument applies not only to the Christian notion of God but also to Jewish and Islamic notions of God. It covers not only the Incarnation but any historical intervention by God. Essentially, you are arguing against the “timelessness” of a God who reveals Himself to humanity at some point in time - and not only just a revelation - your argument would preclude a “timeless” God from creating the world in the first place.

But what is your philosophical notion of time? your notion of change?

This is the hinge of the discussion.

In Aristotle, time applies to a being that has both presence and absence. This being is actual (presence) but also not actual (absence) - it is “moving” to fulfill its “potential” - it is striving to become a “full presence” without any more potentiality left unactualized. There is an ontological “lack” driving the whole process.

The Christian God is not like this. He is “always” a “full presence”. He has no “lack”. This is the sense of His “timelessness”.

But this God has an overflowing “full presence” - a loving generosity that produces creation and subsequent revelations and finally the Incarnation itself - but these productions are “voluntary”- not necessary - this contrasts Christianity with neo-Platonism where emanations necessarily unfold like deductions in Euclidean geometry.

I would be willing to admit that the “overflowing” is “laced” with “changes” but not the sort of changes that are driven by an ontological “lack” - and, if they are not driven by lack, then these “changes” are not associated with time (as it is understood by Aristotle and Plato) - so God remains “timeless” in the metaphysical sense of the word.

 

[Aloysium]

It is useful to be able to separate the real world, horses, from the unreal, unicorns.
No. Electromagnetic radiation with those characteristics does exist. The “blue” is a mental construct applied to those photons when they arrive at our eyes. We see “blue” because certain cells in our retinas are excited while others are not. Had we evolved with black and white vision (as some animals have) then we would have no concept of “blue” any more than we have a concept of the ‘colour’ that birds see when they detect ultra-violet light. The “blue” is not a property of the photons; it is a property of the structure of our retinas, and hence influences our mental models of the world which are inevitably influenced by our senses. Yes. Blue is an internal human thing. All the exists externally is a particular range of wavelengths. They are indeed “personal”. Someone who is red-green colour blind will see different colours from a tetrachromat who will see different colours from someone with standard vision. Because colours are personal, they have no intrinsic external existence, but are dependent on our specific sense organs.
God exists. Therefore God has Being. Hence Being-of-God exists, therefore Being-of-God has Being. Hence Being-of-Being-of-God exists, therefore…
If there is only God, but not Being-of-God, then we can drop the whole infinite regress and agree that Being-of-X is a false reification for all values of X. It is enough to say “God exists” without all the logical problems caused by having a parallel “Being-of-God”.
Read the Brahmajala sutta. Here is one of the gods talking about himself:
“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”
I have highlighted a few words to help you see how this god might appear in Abrahamic scripture. I have no problem with the existence of God. I do have problems with some of the properties His human followers assign Him.
rossum

:twocents:

There are worlds of physics, of biology, of art and literature, which correspond to some of the various ways in which we relate to the world. While we understand (granted that not all believe this) that creation is good, there does exist evil in the world. Our relationships with reality have been damaged by humanity’s choices away from love, which is the true connection with what is other. Our human nature includes ignorance and deceit. We have difficulty seeing things as they truly are. This reaches the point that some even say that they believe there is no Truth. It isn’t that existence separates the reality of horses from that of unicorns, since they both exist within their own realm. In terms of ideas, the latter represents an elaboration for artistic purposes, of the images and thoughts that have to do with the former.

You isolate colour as a mental phenomenon having to do with perception. Speaking of the sensory experience, although it is of a different quality to concepts such as wavelengths and frequency, it is very similar in its capacity to connect us to what physically exists. Our intellect tells us if the structure of the material object which we appreciate through our visual sense. As mental phenomena, we can use colours in art, and we can create mathematical systems and have fun with sudoku. I’m not sure what you mean by colours not having an “extrinsic existence”. Clearly your perception and understanding of these words is extrinsic to my being.

With regards to some of the other points you make, it is better stated that the Christian God does not merely exist, but is rather Existence itself. As opposed to eastern concepts, which are varied and not well defined, God, as He has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, is Love. He has a relational nature wherein the Father eternally begets the Son, who returns all He is to the Father, the connection being the Holy Spirit. This is the very short explanation of what is the Triune Godhead. A better revelation of God, in Hinduism is Vishnu who rests on Ananta Sesha floating in an ocean of bliss. The eternal five-headed serpent holds the stars in his hood and perpetually sings Vishnu’s praises. Lakshmi, Vishnu’s consort who massages his feet, represents creation. When Vishnu sleeps, a lotus with Brahman comes into being - a new universe, and as Shesa uncoils, time unfolds. The understanding of eastern philosophies is only as good as one’s guru or master, but within the hodge-lodge of stories and ideas we can get some idea of how the Divine has made Itself known to all humanity. If we analyze what points to the deepest of mysteries, we see that it is all about relationships, perfect at the very Centre of reality from which springs all that is in existence.

 

[Tomdstone]

But what is your philosophical notion … of change?
.

An instance of becoming different.

 

[Tomdstone]

C
But what is your philosophical notion of time?.

The irreversible progress of events.

 

[inocente]

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?

You came in on a conversation half-way through, which would have been finished several days ago if not for the other poster’s constant evasions. As well as being a Christian principle, it’s also a basic human right that in matters of belief each person is free to decide for himself what is true. I seem to remember seeing documents on vatican.va saying the same. Unless you disagree, can’t see what’s to discuss.

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.”

Truth is that which is “in accordance with fact or reality”, and in matters of fact yes there are truths which we can all agree on - the likely result of jumping off a high building is a truth we can all agree on.

But when it comes to religion and beliefs, two issues:

First, we ought never allow another to coerce or force us into what they say is true. Romans 14. “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”. Our obligation is to not go against what we each believe is the truth, because “everything that does not come from faith is sin”.

Second, that includes your assumption that “the truth is out there”. Yes, perhaps Plato was right and essence precedes existence. But perhaps Sartre was right and existence precedes essence. Sartre didn’t sin by questioning, but he would have sinned if he had doubts, because “everything that does not come from faith is sin” which Sartre even calls “bad faith”.

 

[inocente]

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

In post #336 you said "His immutable = unchangeable; changeless] nature is not static but dynamic = characterized by constant change], which is incoherently self-contradictory.

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

We all know what a set is, but you’ve used the term “human set” in several posts to me, and I’ve asked you many times what does it mean, and you keep evading. Yet again I ask that as you’ve used the term “human set” in several posts to me, what do you think it means?

Which request?

You’ve evaded answering this several times now. Here again is my request:

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?

I suspect that you keep evading because you were disrespecting my religion, against forum rules. Why else would you not just honestly explain yourself, as I’ve asked repeatedly?

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

Not my problem if you disagree with the Catechism of your own Church.

Shrugging shoulders indicates indifference. Is that why your posts to me these days end with that “shrug” smilie?

 

[inocente]

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.

There are multiple philosophical issues with the doctrine of divine immutability - see iep.utm.edu/div-immu/