How I know God is unreal

[GioD]

Thinking is a process that implies temporality by definition.

I do have difficulty explaining this concept... but I'll try.

Thinking is temporal for us because 1) we are finite and 2) we are in time. God's thinking is instantaneous because he, unlike us, does not need to "put together" thoughts - all of it happens within the same movement.

However, so as not to belabor this point, I will simply ask you to describe thinking by giving me some examples which you believe could support the idea of a-temporal thinking itself.

Analogies don't work well in this case.

[robertb]

I do have difficulty explaining this concept... but I'll try.

Thinking is temporal for us because 1) we are finite and 2) we are in time. God's thinking is instantaneous because he, unlike us, does not need to "put together" thoughts - all of it happens within the same movement.



Analogies don't work well in this case.

This is exactly why I pointed out the problem. You are trying to redefine the word thinking to mean something other than it actually does. In fact, I would not use the word think in relation to the god of classical theism. I would simply use the word know instead.

[GioD]

This is exactly why I pointed out the problem. You are trying to redefine the word thinking to mean something other than it actually does. In fact, I would not use the word think in relation to the god of classical theism. I would simply use the word know instead.

Well if "know" includes all the traits God has related to the issues at hand, then nothing's wrong with that.

[robertb]

Well if "know" includes all the traits God has related to the issues at hand, then nothing's wrong with that.

It would mean something like god is by nature aware of, (knows), everything "at each and every instant" with no effort (intention) on god's part to do so.

[GioD]

It would mean something like god is by nature aware of, (knows), everything "at each and every instant" with no effort (intention) on god's part to do so.

This would seem to be agreeable from a CT perspective.

[robertb]

This would seem to be agreeable from a CT perspective.

Indeed and helps with the question of divine immutability that we discussed earlier as well.

[SatanTheAlien]

To Giod.

“So now you're restricting reality to what we can describe?”

I’m saying that if we cannot even imagine what it is you are talking about, this thing you call God, then we might as well be talking about nothingness. At last give a framework for how it works. If I told you, hey Blip is so awesome, it thinks but has nothing like a brain. It just has a free floating mind. I hope you would ask me to explain how that could work, so that you could at least picture it.

“No... I'm claiming God is a being who thinks.”

How does God think? What happens in God when God thinks? Thinking is the working of the mind. Does God have a mind? If so, how does mind work without stuff? If spirit is not “stuff,” a very generic word, then what is spirit exactly? Explain spirit so that I may imagine it. If not, you might as well be talking about nothingness.

“First of all thoughts are caused. Second. the thought being the being doesn't follow from thoughts not being caused.”

What causes the thoughts to happen? What “stuff” is moving? Explain the dynamics or mechanics so that I know you aren’t just talking about nothingness and claiming it as something.

[GioD]

\I’m saying that if we cannot even imagine what it is you are talking about, this thing you call God, then we might as well be talking about nothingness. At last give a framework for how it works. If I told you, hey Blip is so awesome, it thinks but has nothing like a brain. It just has a free floating mind. I hope you would ask me to explain how that could work, so that you could at least picture it.

How does God think? What happens in God when God thinks? Thinking is the working of the mind. Does God have a mind? If so, how does mind work without stuff? If spirit is not “stuff,” a very generic word, then what is spirit exactly? Explain spirit so that I may imagine it. If not, you might as well be talking about nothingness.

What causes the thoughts to happen? What “stuff” is moving? Explain the dynamics or mechanics so that I know you aren’t just talking about nothingness and claiming it as something.

This is essentially a concession to what I said - you're restricting possibility to what can be described. Considering not even all of actuality can be described, I doubt we should limit possibility to such concepts. Besides, I give very simplistic outlines of some CT ideas to Robertb and somebody else - I forget who - in this thread. If you want more than that, it's time for you to actually start studying issues before you comment on them.

[SatanTheAlien]

This is essentially a concession to what I said - you're restricting possibility to what can be described. Considering not even all of actuality can be described, I doubt we should limit possibility to such concepts. Besides, I give very simplistic outlines of some CT ideas to Robertb and somebody else - I forget who - in this thread. If you want more than that, it's time for you to actually start studying issues before you comment on them.

Everything we experience can be explained. We can make a model up to describe how it works too. Everything. This just shows me that your God is nothingness, unless you can describe how it works.

You also claimed that God thinks in one moment. That makes no sense at all, which is why you said you had a hard time explaining it. Describe how all thoughts can happen in one moment.

I blows my mind that people choose to believe in nothingness and call it God.

[GioD]

Everything we experience can be explained.

I'm not talking about explanation, I'm talking about description. Two different concepts.

We can make a model up to describe how it works too. Everything.

A "model"? Maybe in physics and chemistry, but not for everything.

This just shows me that your God is nothingness, unless you can describe how it works.

More non-sequiturs from STA. How is that which is inexplicable automatically equivocal to "nothing"? Maybe something undefined, but not something defined but partially inexplicable.

You also claimed that God thinks in one moment. That makes no sense at all, which is why you said you had a hard time explaining it. Describe how all thoughts can happen in one moment.

Because God doesn't have to "piece together" his thoughts as we do. He "experiences" (in quotes for lack of a better word) all of what are for us the elements of thought and action simultaneously.

I blows my mind that people choose to believe in nothingness and call it God.

You need to shut up and actually study issues before you comment on them. Considering multiple skeptics in this thread have criticized your understanding of basic philosophy,

[37818]

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

Only if the said entity has both an immutable nature and a mutable nature.

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

The Son of God, the Word created the universe. (Colossians 1:16, 17) ". . . created through Him and for Him." (see John 1:3.)

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.

Immutability means God's thoughts do not change. (see Malachi 3:6.)
Omniscience means God knows all things. So there is no need for God's thoughts to change.
God being omnipresent means God is everywhere. Transcendent, outside of time, timeless and in time, past, present and future. Which goes along with God being omniscient.

[GioD]

Only if the said entity has both an immutable nature and a mutable nature.

No. The point was that God has only an immutable nature, but not all actions change his nature.

The Son of God, the Word created the universe. (Colossians 1:16, 17) ". . . created through Him and for Him." (see John 1:3.)

Since the Son bears the full essence of God, this doesn't seem to solve the problem.

[37818]

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

Is what, whom, that is with God God? (John 1:2.)

God's nature is indeed immutable. The Word, the Son of God, has two natures. And it is in the temporal mutable nature which changed to become human. (John 1:14.)

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

As I explained, the Son of God is God the Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17.)

No. The point was that God has only an immutable nature, but not all actions change his nature.

God's nature does not change. God's nature being immutable.

Since the Son bears the full essence of God, this doesn't seem to solve the problem.

The Son having also a temporal mutable nature is the solution. Two natures. Always had two natures. Only the temporal mutable nature changes. Not the immutable divine nature of being the second Person of the Godhead. The Son having a different nature than immutability is what makes Him with God as a second Person. And the uncaused (immutable) cause (an action, a mutability) the Creator (Genesis 1:1).

All temporal acts of God is, and is because of the Son of God. (see John 1:18 KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV) (An example John 5:56, Genesis 12:7.)

[JimL]

Is what, whom, that is with God God? (John 1:2.)

God's nature is indeed immutable. The Word, the Son of God, has two natures. And it is in the temporal mutable nature which changed to become human. (John 1:14.)

As I explained, the Son of God is God the Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17.)

God's nature does not change. God's nature being immutable.


The Son having also a temporal mutable nature is the solution. Two natures. Always had two natures. Only the temporal mutable nature changes. Not the immutable divine nature of being the second Person of the Godhead. The Son having a different nature than immutability is what makes Him with God as a second Person. And the uncaused (immutable) cause (an action, a mutability) the Creator (Genesis 1:1).

All temporal acts of God is, and is because of the Son of God. (see John 1:18 KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV) (An example John 5:56, Genesis 12:7.)

You're contradicting yourself my friend. You are claiming both that the Son of God, is God, and too, that he has a different nature than God. One immutable substance cannot at the same time be logically defined as mutable.

[37818]

You're contradicting yourself my friend. You are claiming both that the Son of God, is God, and too, that he has a different nature than God. One immutable substance cannot at the same time be logically defined as mutable.

The incarnation of the Word becoming man, being both fully God and fully human says you are wrong in your understaing.