How I know God is unreal

[robertb]

Right, it doesn't change the form of a dog but it changes the nature of that specific dog. If it's no longer a dog, then that proves exactly my point!

No, you just commited the same error I referred to earlier.

[GioD]

No, you just commited the same error I referred to earlier.

What error is that?

Besides, here's another one: a dog can lose its leg. It's nature changes, it's still a dog, and the change isn't dependent on what the definition of a dog is or how that changes.

And do you know the Classical theist defense of Divine Immutability? I think going over that will help you see why this analogy is failing.

[robertb]

What error is that?

Besides, here's another one: a dog can lose its leg. It's nature changes, it's still a dog, and the change isn't dependent on what the definition of a dog is or how that changes.

And do you know the Classical theist defense of Divine Immutability? I think going over that will help you see why this analogy is failing.

A dog losing its leg does not change its nature, so no.

Your error, as I said before is immutable except for XYZ/not immutable except for UVW.

Same error.

[GioD]

A dog losing its leg does not change its nature, so no.

It changes the individual dog's nature. The definition of something doesn't have to change in order for its nature and essence to.

Your error, as I said before is immutable except for XYZ/not immutable except for UVW.

I clearly explained that that wasn't an argumentative error because I gave an objective reason for immutability not including XYZ. In addition, this isn't even the case with the dog dying example!

I'm going to ask again, so we can get this debate back on track: Do you know the Classical Theist Argument for Divine Immutability, or do you want to go over it so I can explain why I am not committing a fallacy?

[37818]

Immutability excludes any kind of change. Immutability excludes the adding of anything. In order to have any kind of mutability, mutability must be co-eternal with immutability or there can be no mutability.

And unless there can be mutability there cannot be any kind of cause.

[Adrift]

Immutability excludes any kind of change. Immutability excludes the adding of anything. In order to have any kind of mutability, mutability must be co-eternal with immutability or there can be no mutability.

And unless there can be mutability there cannot be any kind of cause.

You're still talking about properties here, rather than the natures that those properties belong to. So I'm not sure I can agree. Nor am I sure that the framers of the hypostatic union would agree with you (or that God would agree with you or them), but eh... maybe I'm misunderstanding it all... Like I said, I'm no expert on Christology.

[37818]

You're still talking about properties here, rather than the natures that those properties belong to.

Those properties must be inherent to those natures in some way. Immutability is inherent to the nature of God. Both immutability and mutability must be inherent to the nature of the Word. So is immutability and mutability one nature or two?

An uncaused existence needs no God. And what is uncaused is inherently immutable in that it is uncaused. Now a cause must be mutable in nature. Causes are actions which bring about effects (reactions). Actions are changes (mutabilities) which constute causes.

[GioD]

Immutability excludes any kind of change. Immutability excludes the adding of anything. In order to have any kind of mutability, mutability must be co-eternal with immutability or there can be no mutability.

Then acts God performs that do not change him are obviously not excluded by immutability!

[37818]

Then acts God performs that do not change him are obviously not excluded by immutability!

How? Why? Is this a special pleading?

[GioD]

How? Why? Is this a special pleading?

If immutability only excludes change, as you explicitly state, and there are actions God can perform that do not change him - such as creating the universe or incarnating himself - then these actions are clearly not excluded by immutability!

[GioD]

A dog losing its leg does not change its nature, so no.

Your error, as I said before is immutable except for XYZ/not immutable except for UVW.

Same error.

Upon further thought I realized what you may have meant with this. My response is that while the nature and essence of what makes a dog a dog doesn't change, individual dogs are not immutable because they are more complex than that minimum nature and essence, and so change in becoming simpler (closer to) or more complex (farther from) the "minimum essence" of a dog.

[37818]

If immutability only excludes change, as you explicitly state, and there are actions God can perform that do not change him - such as creating the universe or incarnating himself - then these actions are clearly not excluded by immutability!

Immutability excludes action on the part of the entity or thing which is immutable. Only that which is mutable can do an action.

[GioD]

Immutability excludes action on the part of the entity or thing which is immutable. Only that which is mutable can do an action.

Why? If the action doesn't change the one doing it, shouldn't it be possible for an immutable being to do it?

And how do you reconcile this view of immutability with God's creating the universe and the Word becoming Flesh?

[SatanTheAlien]

God can act while timeless. Why couldn't he?

That's not the problem. The problem is, you claim God wasn't creating before he started creating. You claim God is timeless. This means God must have been in a
timeless state not creating. This means God must be timelessly NOT creating.

[SatanTheAlien]

I'm not really part of the change argument, as my argument has to do with God's timeless state changing, but I do have a question about God's change as I have been following your guy's backs and forths.

If God is intrisicly immutable, then how do we define God thinking? We know that when we think, parts must move. There is a mechanism that gives us the ability to think. Now, if we have a spirit, I imagine it also thinks, and therefor has some sort of spirit mechanism that has movement, which let's us think. I can see no other way for thinking to work, for thinking is the ordering of individual ideas and leading to logical conclusions.

Unless we can think of a way for thought to happen without the movement of anything inside the person, giving them that ability to think, then we cannot claim the thing is thinking.

I ask again. If God is instrisicly immutable, then how do we define God thinking?

If we say, yes, God has moving parts, and those parts have always been moving timelessly, then you can't really call it timeless. Eternal is now the better word. If anything is moving, then we have time. Time is just the interpretation and/or intervals of stuff. If God has always been thinking, why did it take forever to come to the idea of creating other stuff, that is not the stuff he is? Why did it take him forever to act on creating this stuff if the idea had always been there?

WIlliam Craig understands this issue. I don't think most here do.