Is God Designed?

[Leonhard]

If the universe were defined, the way you define god, i.e.as immutable, could it actualize anything?

[JimL]

Right, and what if like god, the universe was immutable? Then it couldn't actualize anything, right?

[Leonhard]

Right, and what if like god, the universe was immutable? Then it couldn't actualize anything, right?

Why would God be unable to actualize anything because of His immutability?

[JimL]

Why would God be unable to actualize anything because of His immutability?

Why would the universe be unable to actualize any potentialities within it if it was immutable?

[Leonhard]

Why would the universe be unable to actualize any potentialities within it if it was immutable?

[JimL]

I think we're talking past each other. The question is, how can a cause, also be immutable. How can that which doesn't change be the cause of anything, like actualizing a potentiality. The universe, or the substance thereof, actualizes potential forms of itself, yes? But it does this because it is mutable, and does change. How are you suggesting that the immutable actualizes a potentiality?

[Leonhard]

I think we're talking past each other. The question is, how can a cause, also be immutable. How can that which doesn't change be the cause of anything, like actualizing a potentiality.

What prevents it from actualizing a potentiality?

The universe, or the substance thereof, actualizes potential forms of itself, yes?

Only in a set of historical causes, such one domino brick falling on another. I was talking about essentially ordered causality, such a cup that is on a table remaining in position. What is the cause of the cup remaining in its position? It's the table beneath it. What is the cause of the table's properties? It is it's structure and material. Where does it's material get its properties from in turn, it gets it from the micromechanical properties of it's wooden fibers, etc... Each layer simultaneously exists with the other.

But since each layer has potentiality and actuality, then in order for them to exist and undergo change and all they have to be actualized by something else which is already actual. Therefore in order for anything that exists to undergo change, something purely actual has to exist.

That is the argument.

There is nothing that prevents a timeless cause from having a timeless effect. It is not going from a state of not-acting, to a state of acting. That would be accidentally ordered causality. It is just pure act, always in action.

[JimL]

What prevents it from actualizing a potentiality?



Only in a set of historical causes, such one domino brick falling on another. I was talking about essentially ordered causality, such a cup that is on a table remaining in position. What is the cause of the cup remaining in its position? It's the table beneath it. What is the cause of the table's properties? It is it's structure and material. Where does it's material get its properties from in turn, it gets it from the micromechanical properties of it's wooden fibers, etc... Each layer simultaneously exists with the other.

But since each layer has potentiality and actuality, then in order for them to exist and undergo change and all they have to be actualized by something else which is already actual. Therefore in order for anything that exists to undergo change, something purely actual has to exist.

That is the argument.

There is nothing that prevents a timeless cause from having a timeless effect. It is not going from a state of not-acting, to a state of acting. That would be accidentally ordered causality. It is just pure act, always in action.

How are you suggesting that god creates. Does he just speak, or think things into existence? What kind of cause is god? Change is inherent in the nature of the universe itself. As the Budhists, i think, would say, the world is one of ever changing form, its the cause of it's own internal effects. So, how does god cause that which is non-existent to exist?

[Leonhard]

How are you suggesting that god creates. Does he just speak, or think things into existence?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Speaking, thinking? Do you want me to explain what God is doing using human analogies? I don't think there's anything we can compare with in our mundane experience that would be equivalent to what God is doing.

What kind of cause is god?

Asking 'what kind' something is, is to ask what sort of class something belongs to. Because of God's properties he transcends any classification.

Change is inherent in the nature of the universe itself.

And yes, it needs a purely actual cause in order to for something that goes change, to do exist. That's what I've been arguing. Stating the opposite conclusion is no argument at all.

So, how does god cause that which is non-existent to exist?

By actualizing a potentiality that exists. It is possible for things to exist (do you intend to deny this?). God simply actualized this possibility.

[JimL]

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Speaking, thinking? Do you want me to explain what God is doing using human analogies? I don't think there's anything we can compare with in our mundane experience that would be equivalent to what God is doing.

Well, who says that there are even potential existents that could be actualized or caused to be? Why assume that that even happens, why assume that there is a non-existent but potentiality that is somehow brought into existence out of nothing? If there is no way to explain how that could be done, why assume it to have been done?

Asking 'what kind' something is, is to ask what sort of class something belongs to. Because of God's properties he transcends any classification.

That's assuming that there is a god and that he has the properties to somehow do that, i.e. to actualize a potential, but non-existent thing, from out of nothing.

And yes, it needs a purely actual cause in order to for something that goes change, to do exist. That's what I've been arguing. Stating the opposite conclusion is no argument at all.

I think you're the one that's simply asserting this without an argument. Why does an actual cause need be distinct from that which it causes? Why is what you call a purely actual cause necessary at all?

By actualizing a potentiality that exists. It is possible for things to exist (do you intend to deny this?). God simply actualized this possibility.

And how does god create the non-existent to become existent? On what basis should it be believed that non-existent things even exist as potentialities. Why should one believe that the substance of existence was at one time just a potential existent which potential was actualized by a being that has the power to create things out of nothing? Upon what reasoning should that be believed?

[Leonhard]

How are you suggesting that god creates. Does he just speak, or think things into existence?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Speaking, thinking? Do you want me to explain what God is doing using human analogies? I don't think there's anything we can compare with in our mundane experience that would be equivalent to what God is doing.

Well, who says that there are even potential existents that could be actualized or caused to be? Why assume that that even happens, why assume that there is a non-existent but potentiality that is somehow brought into existence out of nothing? If there is no way to explain how that could be done, why assume it to have been done?

Asking 'what kind' something is, is to ask what sort of class something belongs to. Because of God's properties he transcends any classification

That's assuming that there is a god and that he has the properties to somehow do that, i.e. to actualize a potential, but non-existent thing, from out of nothing.

This response makes very little sense. God as I described Him would defy all attempts at classification, except to say that He would be unlike anything that exists.

This would be true regardless of whether or not He existed.

I think you're the one that's simply asserting this without an argument. Why does an actual cause need be distinct from that which it causes?

Why is what you call a purely actual cause necessary at all?

This follows from the argument that I have repeated to you a couple of times now.

And how does god create the non-existent to become existent? On what basis should it be believed that non-existent things even exist as potentialities. Why should one believe that the substance of existence was at one time just a potential existent which potential was actualized by a being that has the power to create things out of nothing? Upon what reasoning should that be believed?

de novo