There was no begining

[ProdglArchitect]

No, wait, I won’t let you go. My point doesn’t break at (3). (3) cannot be wrong because of a strong reason.

1. Assume that one and only one being is not eternal namely has a beginning
2. This means that the existence of the being imposes a change in Gods thought since it has a beginning

Am so unclear?

I think the problem lies in your understanding of “Changeless” as it relates to God. Changeless does not mean that he sits, stoic, doing nothing throughout all of eternity; changeless means that the very core of His nature and judgment is constant. He will never contradict himself, or do something that is against his Nature.

I’m not very good at explaining it because I haven’t studied it much, but I have a genuinely friendly suggest for you. Next Monday on the Catholic Answers radio show, they’re doing their open forum for non-Catholics. This is the perfect opportunity for you to call up and get the answer from a certified apologist.

Essentially, what you’re wanting to know is how an unchanging God could make a choice to create. Call them and ask that, and they’ll give you an answer that is far better than anything I could come up with. You can listen to the program on the website here, they live stream it, and they give out the number at the beginning of the show.

I hope to hear you on the show, because I’m keen to know what they will say on the subject.

 

[empther]

Something that must exist from absolute necessity, such as God, cannot change and is outside time,
which by the way is not a fabric of the universe but simply a mental concept to measure change but having no substantial existence.

Everything in the universe changes and cannot exist from absolute necessity. But the very fact it changes means it had a beginning since it could not be absolutely necessary one moment and then changing, therefore no longer absolutely necessary, the next moment, which would be adsurb. But something that changes cannot have existed for an infinite past because every instant in time happened a finite time ago.

So the universe began.

That takes care of that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What is wrong with my logic?

It isn’t important what is wrong with your logic. Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma say that God created all orders of being, in time, out of nothing. Now that is a fact. It is not the result of logical reasoning, it is a Divine Revelation, God does not lie. You can trott out all the arguments you want to " prove " your point, they will not change what God has Revealed.

Even Thomas Aquinas said and taught that it cannot be proven that the world did not always exist. Yet he believed that it had a beginning, because God revealed it and that it must be accepted as a matter of Faith for that reason.

Linus2nd

 

[jimmy]

Lets assume that there was a beginning lets call it B

1. There was a beginning
2. This means that there was a point B at which there was no even before, no change before
3. This also means that there was point B at which there was an single event after, one single change after
4. This means that point B is anomalous since it separate change from no change
5. This anomaly is an entity that should exist to explain the current subject matter
6. This means that we have to assume a point at which this anomaly start to exist which requires changes leading to infinite regression
7. hence (1) is wrong

You need to rephrase your post. It is completely incomprehensible as it is, at least to me. I have no idea what you are saying in half of your steps.

What the concept of a universe with a beginning implies is that there was nothing, not even time or space, prior to the beginning of the universe. So speaking about what it was like prior to the beginning is meaningless. Speaking of immutability prior to that is meaningless because there is no prior. There is the beginning

I have no idea how you pull the concept of infinite regression from the idea that the universe is finite in time. The idea of a beginning contradicts the infinite regression.

The fact is that if there was no beginning, the past would be infinite and that would lead to an infinite regression. If the past is infinite, how did we reach the present? We would have had to traverse an infinite number of years.

 

[jimmy]

No, wait, I won’t let you go. My point doesn’t break at (3). (3) cannot be wrong because of a strong reason.

1. Assume that one and only one being is not eternal namely has a beginning
2. This means that the existence of the being imposes a change in Gods thought since it has a beginning

Am so unclear?

I will restructure your argument.
If the universe had a beginning
then God is mutable

Is that an accurate reconstruction of your argument?

Like you did in your original post, you contradict yourself. On the one hand you speak of a beginning, but then you posit that beginning as a change of what was before. The problem is you can’t speak of before because there was no before. God didn’t have a change of thought because speaking of change is a contradiction. There was no before, so there was no point in time at which a change could occur.

 

[Bahman]

You need to rephrase your post. It is completely incomprehensible as it is, at least to me. I have no idea what you are saying in half of your steps.

You are correct. There are some typos here and I tried to rephrase thing slightly:

1. There was a beginning
2. This means that there was a point B at which there was no nothing before, no event, no change
3. This also means that there was point B at which there was an single being after, one single event, one single change
4. This means that point B is anomalous since it separate existence form non-existence, change from no change
5. This anomaly should exist to explain the current subject matter, namely existence from non existence
6. This means that this anomaly should exist before B which is not acceptable unless you assume that B was not a beginning which leads to infinite regression
7. hence (1) is wrong either way around

What the concept of a universe with a beginning implies is that there was nothing, not even time or space, prior to the beginning of the universe. So speaking about what it was like prior to the beginning is meaningless. Speaking of immutability prior to that is meaningless because there is no prior. There is the beginning

What I am claiming does go even further than concept of universe since the concept of universe exist is very complex. What it is claimed is that the idea that “there was a beginning” is logically impossible.

I have no idea how you pull the concept of infinite regression from the idea that the universe is finite in time. The idea of a beginning contradicts the infinite regression.

I slightly change original post and I hope that things are clear now.

The fact is that if there was no beginning, the past would be infinite and that would lead to an infinite regression. If the past is infinite, how did we reach the present? We would have had to traverse an infinite number of years.

There are ways to resolve this problem. First, you couldn’t experience infinite past if you didn’t exist so there is no problem. Second, the present is the current moment which could coincide to any point in past. Third, everything is a cycle in large scale.

 

[Bahman]

I will restructure your argument.
If the universe had a beginning
then God is mutable

Is that an accurate reconstruction of your argument?

Like you did in your original post, you contradict yourself.

No, I just show that the concept of beginning and immutable God are not consistent. In another word, we try to hide the problem of existence by introducing the concept of God as an anomaly but this anomaly appears somewhere else as a inconsistency.

On the one hand you speak of a beginning, but then you posit that beginning as a change of what was before. The problem is you can’t speak of before because there was no before. God didn’t have a change of thought because speaking of change is a contradiction. There was no before, so there was no point in time at which a change could occur.

And raise another problem, if God is immutable and existence should emerge from him then existence is eternal since there was no beginning for God hence existence. In another word the concept of creation assuming that there was a beginning is false.

 

[Bahman]

It isn’t important what is wrong with your logic. Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma say that God created all orders of being, in time, out of nothing. Now that is a fact. It is not the result of logical reasoning, it is a Divine Revelation, God does not lie. You can trott out all the arguments you want to " prove " your point, they will not change what God has Revealed.

Even Thomas Aquinas said and taught that it cannot be proven that the world did not always exist. Yet he believed that it had a beginning, because God revealed it and that it must be accepted as a matter of Faith for that reason.

Linus2nd

You don’t believe in reason then. How we could create a philosophical framework without reason?

 

[Bahman]

Something that must exist from absolute necessity, such as God, cannot change and is outside time, which by the way is not a fabric of the universe but simply a mental concept to measure change but having no substantial existence.

That is problematic since you cannot sum an immutable God with creation which has a starting since God is eternal and immutable and any existence gets its credit from God hence any existence is eternal since God is eternal.

Everything in the universe changes and cannot exist from absolute necessity.
But the very fact it changes means it had a beginning since it could not be absolutely necessary one moment and then changing, therefore no longer absolutely necessary, the next moment, which would be absurd. But something that changes cannot have existed for an infinite past because every instant in time happened a finite time ago.

That I disagree because there is no beginning but changes hence any changes comes from absolute necessity.

So the universe began.
That takes care of that.

No.

 

[ericc]

No, I just show that the concept of beginning and immutable God are not consistent. In another word, we try to hide the problem of existence by introducing the concept of God as an anomaly but this anomaly appears somewhere else as a inconsistency.

And raise another problem, if God is immutable and existence should emerge from him then existence is eternal since there was no beginning for God hence existence. In another word the concept of creation assuming that there was a beginning is false.

Perhaps you have this the other way round. God is eternal. This universe is not. This universe may or may not be the one or only or last universe that God made. God in deciding to create something now rather than some other time does not determine he is mutable.

 

[Bahman]

Perhaps you have this the other way round. God is eternal. This universe is not. This universe may or may not be the one or only or last universe that God made. God in deciding to create something now rather than some other time does not determine he is mutable.

How God which is unchangeable could cause changeable things? This as it was discussed is not consistent within.

 

[ericc]

How God which is unchangeable could cause changeable things? This as it was discussed is not consistent within.

Christians believed in an omnipotent God which has no problem being immutable while creating things that are changeable. You may have a mental block coming to terms with that and hence difficulty in accepting this. For a Being which is outside of time and space, that is not too difficult to visualize why God is immutable. Although “change” to you may have a dimension of time/space, it does not apply to the Christian God.

 

[Bahman]

Christians believed in an omnipotent God which has no problem being immutable while creating things that are changeable. You may have a mental block coming to terms with that and hence difficulty in accepting this as routine. For a Being which is outside of time and space, that is not too difficult to visualize.

I think opposite since I used to think like you hence there is nothing that blockes my visualization. We are hiding the truth behind the word omniscience, omnipotence, etc to resolve the problem we cannot fully comprehend. Why, because any illogical things is possible when we use the word omnipotence. Let me ask you this question then, could God does something which is logically impossible? This is very very old question and the answer to it is no. Now I raise the second question namely, how any existence could be transient considering the fact that God is eternal? To open the question we have to notice that the act creation has to have a beginning in order to be transient yet it cannot have a beginning since it is attached to God who is eternal, namely immutable being with no beginning. In another word, to have a beginning one need a change in God which is contradictory to assumption hence there is no beginning or creation. Don’t you see the contradiction?

 

[empther]

Bahman’s post 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
Something that must exist from absolute necessity, such as God, cannot change and is outside time, which by the way is not a fabric of the universe but simply a mental concept to measure change but having no substantial existence.

That is problematic since you cannot sum an immutable God with creation which has a starting since God is eternal and immutable and any existence gets its credit from God hence any existence is eternal since God is eternal.

That is a gratuitous claim.
God is outside time and his eternity does not keep him from creating a universe in time.

This has already been discussed on this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
Everything in the universe changes and cannot exist from absolute necessity.
But the very fact it changes means it had a beginning since it could not be absolutely necessary one moment and then changing, therefore no longer absolutely necessary, the next moment, which would be absurd. But something that changes cannot have existed for an infinite past because every instant in time happened a finite time ago.

That I disagree because there is no beginning but changes hence any changes comes from absolute necessity.

So now change is absolutely necessary? :bigyikes:
Not existence?
Nothing that exists can* exist *with absolute necessity?
Oh, yeah. That would be God. We can’t have that.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman’s post 29

That is a gratuitous claim.
God is outside time and his eternity does not keep him from creating a universe in time.

This has already been discussed on this forum.

So now change is absolutely necessary? :bigyikes:
Not existence?
Nothing that exists can* exist *with absolute necessity?
Oh, yeah. That would be God. We can’t have that.

The problem is that God was accepted as an axiom to resolve the problem of beginning, yet it cannot since the creation is attached to God hence it is eternal.

 

[davidv]

The problem is that God was accepted as an axiom to resolve the problem of beginning, yet it cannot since the creation is attached to God hence it is eternal.

This indicates a skewed perspective as well as faulty logic.

God is not a axiom, He a real being, revealed to our first parent and to various prophets throughout the ages and finally as a human person to the people of Palestine.

Philosophically He has been shown to be the un-caused cause.

 

[empther]

The problem is that God was accepted as an axiom to resolve the problem of beginning, yet it cannot since the creation is attached to God hence it is eternal.

Creation is not attached to God.
Creation is not co-eternal with God.
Creation is not part of God.
Creation does not add anything to God.
Creation does not take anything away from God.
Creation is not needed by God.
Creation does nothing for God.
Creation cannot happen without God.
Creation is a free choice of God.

That should cover it.

 

[ericc]

The problem is that God was accepted as an axiom to resolve the problem of beginning, yet it cannot since the creation is attached to God hence it is eternal.

No, the God of Abraham /Moses was not invented to solve the problem of beginning. 5000 yrs ago or so Moses has bigger problems to deal with i.e. unruly people to manage. He wrote what he was told: God created the universe. And that was that. I didn’t expect him to crack his head wondering whether God is illogical or not.

To open the question we have to notice that the act creation has to have a beginning in order to be transient yet it cannot have a beginning since it is attached to God who is eternal, namely immutable being with no beginning. In another word, to have a beginning one need a change in God which is contradictory to assumption hence there is no beginning or creation. Don’t you see the contradiction?

No there is no contradiction. God is outside of space and time. When you say change, change with respect to what? If your answer is with respect to time, then you are being illogical as something which is outside of time can not be held against that same measurement.

My question to you is then this: if God is timeless, is it logical that he is immutable? If your answer is yes, then the problem is that you have difficulty accepting a being with this attribute and therefore it is not an illogical thing. If your answer is “no”, then you need to explain why not in order for your assertion that it is illogical for an eternal being to create something. The issue is not the beginning isn’t it? It is the creating that you have an issue with. To go deeper still, anything that God did would be illogical because he being eternal, the things he did aren’t . I can see where you are taking this. If you win this argument, then this God is a God that does nothing. And a God that does nothing is no God.

Yet you have not proven why an Eternal God can not make something changeable. All you have done is made that statement. You have not demonstrate that reasoning is true. Or you assumed that it is an impossibility of God’s nature?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You don’t believe in reason then. How we could create a philosophical framework without reason?

Through philosophy and common sense we know that God exists, but they do not tell us all the things about God and what he has done and our relationship to him. These things require Divine Revelation.

So reason is wonderful, but it doen’t tell us everything.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

No, the God of Abraham /Moses was not invented to solve the problem of beginning. 5000 yrs ago or so Moses has bigger problems to deal with i.e. unruly people to manage. He wrote what he was told: God created the universe. And that was that. I didn’t expect him to crack his head wondering whether God is illogical or not.

No there is no contradiction. God is outside of space and time. When you say change, change with respect to what? If your answer is with respect to time, then you are being illogical as something which is outside of time can not be held against that same measurement.

My question to you is then this: if God is timeless, is it logical that he is immutable? If your answer is yes, then the problem is that you have difficulty accepting a being with this attribute and therefore it is not an illogical thing. If your answer is “no”, then you need to explain why not in order for your assertion that it is illogical for an eternal being to create something. The issue is not the beginning isn’t it? It is the creating that you have an issue with. To go deeper still, anything that God did would be illogical because he being eternal, the things he did aren’t . I can see where you are taking this. If you win this argument, then this God is a God that does nothing. And a God that does nothing is no God.

Yet you have not proven why an Eternal God can not make something changeable. All you have done is made that statement. You have not demonstrate that reasoning is true. Or you assumed that it is an impossibility of God’s nature?

Here you go:

1. God is unchangeable meaning that he is complete
2. God is eternal meaning that he has no beginning and no end
3. The thought of creation is a part of Gods thought
4. Creation can be defined as a being caused by God and has a beginning
5. From (1), (2) and (3) we can however deduce that thought of creation also doesn’t have any beginning hence the creation
6. (4) and (5) contradict with each other hence either (4) is wrong, or (1) or (2)