An absolutely necessary reality does not change because all of its reality is necessarily actual and therefore not potentially actual.
Where did you get that from?
Where did you get that from?
This doesn’t follow.
God by definition is the creator. It is not absolute necessary being. The act of creation is logically impossible because time cannot be initiated. I have an argument for that: Time is the fundamental variable of the universe since it dictates how the fabric of universe should change. Therefore we cannot have a theory with time as an emergent variable since time itself is the fundamental variable of any theory.
Its quite simple actually. An absolute necessary reality does not have actualized potential in its nature. If it did, then parts or aspect of its nature would not necessarily be actual, which is contradictory to the fact that it is an absolute necessary reality. A necessary reality is fully actual, not potentially actual. In other-words it is pure-actuality.
Where did you get that idea?
I think my definition is more fundamental unless you can show that any necessary being has the ability to create too.
Are you suggesting that you can get ride of problem with adding the notion of proto-time? You would need another proto-time to create a proto-time. That leads to infinite regress.
I’m not even sure how to respond to this, because the point seems to repeatedly be missed. If it can be argued that there is a first cause, the first cause must obviously be capable of causing. If there is an unchanging changer, it obviously must be capable of changing things external to itself while not changing itself. You don’t say, “okay, you’ve demonstrated that the stick is moving the rock, but you haven’t demonstrated that the stick has the power to move the rock!” By demonstrating the former you’ve inevitably arrived at the latter. Likewise, you don’t say, “okay, you’ve demonstrated that things as they exist are caused by what you call God, now demonstrate that what you call God has the power to cause!” The former demonstrates the latter.
No. I’m suggesting that you’re the one assuming proto-time in your objection, even if not conscious of doing so.
He is trying to get something from nothing by saying there was no time before time and therefore there cannot be a cause of time. He arrives at this simplistic conclusion because he places the very idea of causality strictly within the framework of time. He of course ignores the ontological contradictions inherent in this view but anybody that is pro-naturalism will prefer this answer over the idea of an absolute non-physical necessary being and think themselves pretty smart for doing so.
That is in fact the definition of the universe. The nature of the universe doesn’t change. It is just forms which changes according to the laws of nature.
You need to show that a necessary being necessary has ability to create too otherwise.
The overall physicality implied by its changing parts does not change, but it certainly is changing. And that’s the point. Potentiality is being actualized whether that be physical forms or otherwise.
As another poster has already stated. if an absolute necessary being exists then it is necessarily the cause of everything that is not necessary.
You are a secondary cause. Or, if you don’t mind me saying, you are a second-hand cause
.I understand what you are saying but I am afraid that I cannot understand how your answer is related to my question. Why a necessary being necessary has the ability to create? The universe is necessary if “nothing” cannot exist yet it has no ability to create.
No, I was not saying that. I am saying that time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory therefore it cannot be an emergent variable in the same theory which is supposed to describe the act of creation. That is the only way to escape infinite regress: you have to assume that time is an emergent property of the same dynamical theory.
Cause and effect the first proceeds the later. How could you define causality without any time? I don’t know.
Do you have free will? If yes then you are uncaused-cause. If not you are a machine so you don’t need to feel pathetic.
Does the nature of the universe changes?
I am afraid that I am not convinced yet. Could you please elaborate?
It depends on what you mean.
I’m afraid this is one of those cases where something follows logically and necessarily and somebody like yourself just doesn’t get it.
Let me ask you this question. Does laws of nature changes? That says you something about the nature of universe.
It is not. If “nothing cannot exist”, the only necessary being that must exist is that which we call God. Anything else is dependent on God as its cause, even if it has existed for infinite time. The fact that the universe cannot “create” is precisely part of why it cannot be the necessary being that is the first cause, unmoved mover, etc…
Again, I think this stems from you imagining our model as proposing a temporal change from God only to God + everything else (including time), as if there was some type of before.