God changes

Quoting MoK

I assume that P1 is true and see what it leads to.

I think your fundamental unexpressed presupposition in this formulation is that God exists in time, which I don't see as self-evident or even likely given the kind of God you are describing.

Reply to T Clark

:up:

That was going to be my comment. Also, God would not be "undecided."

Creare [creation] can never be used to indicate the generation of things from or by what is itself a contingent finite being.Creation is the “act” whereby a thing has being; generation is what determines it, at any instant(including the instant of first creation), as this-or-that. As the Nicene Creed makes clear, all things are created by God: whatever is, insofar as it is, “participates” in self-subsistent being, or it would not be. As Aquinas puts it, “a created thing is called created because it is a being, not because it is this being. . . God is the cause, not of some particular kind of being, but of the whole universal being.” On the other hand, the changing and ephemeral identities of things are governed by the processes of nature, and in this sense, almost everything is subject to generation and corruption.

One might say: insofar as the metaphysics of Dante’s Comedy things exist, they “depend” directly on the Empyrean; insofar as they exist as this-or-that, most things also depend on nature (particularly on the spheres, beginning from the Primo Mobile).23 All things are therefore created, and most of them are also made. This does not imply that some things (such as the spheres or angels) were created first and then “made” others. It only means that some things are ontologically dependent on others: there is a hierarchy of being in the order of nature (distinction), in which some things cannot exist as what they are unless a whole series of other things exist as what they are. These other things may be said to
be logically prior or “prior in nature,” but they are not “prior in duration” or in time: nothing stands between any thing and the ground of its being. It is in this sense that Aquinas says, “The corporeal forms that bodies had when first produced came immediately from God”; as he explains, this simply means that “in the first production of corporeal creatures no transmutation from potentiality to act can have taken place.” In other words, there was no becoming.

This in no way implies that at the moment of first creation the hierarchy of ontological dependence inherent in the distinction of being did not exist, or that in the first production of things God “had to do something special,” which “later” the spheres did. The moment of first creation is only conceptually, but not essentially, different from any other: the only difference is that before that moment there was nothing. Indeed, for Aquinas the created world could very well have always existed, with little consequence for the Christian understanding of creation; we only know that the world is not eternal because Scripture tells us so. The “act” of creation (the radical dependence of all things on the ground of their being at every instant they exist) logically implies, but must not be identified with, the hierarchical dependencies of determinate form within spatiotemporal being.24

Christian Moevs - The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy - Introduction: Non-Duality and Self-Knowledge - pg. 119-120

The point, as I have said, is that that home (the Empyrean [God]) is nowhere at all. It does not exist in space or time; thus neither does the spatiotemporal world it “contains.” The Empyrean is the subject of all experience, it is what does the experiencing. As pure awareness or conscious being, its relation to creation, that is, to everything that can be described or talked about, may be metaphorically conceived in one of two ways: It may be imagined as an infinite reality containing the entire universe of every possible object of experience (this cosmological picture is the framework of the Paradiso) or it may be conceived as a point with no extension in either space or time, which projects the world of space and time around itself, as a light paints a halo onto mist. In the Primo Mobile, the ninth sphere, which is the nexus between the Empyrean and the world of multiplicity, between the subject of experience and every possible object of experience, Dante takes both these tacks.

pg. 6

Reply to MoK I'm trying to see how your argument could be formalized. Clearly, propositional logic is insufficient here. So, we need, at the very least, first order predicate logic (if not second order or higher order). Be that as it may, let's focus on the first part, if only for the sake of simplicity. How would you formalize the following?

Quoting MoK

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing
C1) Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God (from P1 and D1)

One possibility could be the following one:

P1) Cga
D1) a = [sub]df[/sub] c(s,n)
C1) ?x(x=g)

I don't think this would be a good formalization, because even though it's valid, you wouldn't need P1 and D1 to conclude C1, because C1 is tautological.

So, I'd like to know how you would formalize your own argument.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

That was going to be my comment. Also, God would not be "undecided."

I think the common theme of my comment and your quote from Moevs' is that it doesn't make sense to think that God, at least this kind of God, is limited or defined by human conceptions or logic. That would put us somehow above God.

Reply to T Clark
Yes, that means that God exists in time. Any change requires time. I have an argument for that. It is off-topic and I wanted to discuss it in another thread but here you go since you asked for it: Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise these states occur simultaneously and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on different points of a variable, let's call these points tx and ty. ty, however, comes after tx to allow that X comes after Y. This variable I call time.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I'm trying to see how your argument could be formalized. Clearly, propositional logic is insufficient here. So, we need, at the very least, first order predicate logic (if not second order or higher order). Be that as it may, let's focus on the first part, if only for the sake of simplicity. How would you formalize the following?

Thank you very much for your interest and offering to help me write the argument in first-order predicate logic. I am not a logician, so I need your help to understand what you mean by your notation.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

P1) Cga

What do you mean by "C" here? I guess by "g" you refer to God and by "a" you mean the act of creation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

D1) a = df c(s,n)

I think I understand that. So we are on the same page.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

C1) ?x(x=g)

I think this step means that there is an x such that x is God. My C1, however, says a different thing. There is x such that there exists a God and nothing else.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I don't think this would be a good formalization, because even though it's valid, you wouldn't need P1 and D1 to conclude C1, because C1 is tautological.

Therefore, I think that C1 follows from P1 and D1, so it is not tautological.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

So, I'd like to know how you would formalize your own argument.

Perhaps changing C1 from " Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God" to " Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there exists God but nothing else". That is what I meant by the first form but perhaps the second form is more clearer.

Quoting MoK

Yes, that means that God exists in time.

As I noted, this is one of the presuppositions of your argument, but you haven’t made it explicit. I think you should because 1) It’s not self evident and 2) your argument falls apart without it.

I don’t mean to distract from the point of your original post, so I won’t take this any further.

Reply to T Clark
Thank you very much for your note.

Quoting MoK

Thank you very much for your interest and offering to help me write the argument in first-order predicate logic.

Sure, no problem. Happy to help :up:

Quoting MoK

What do you mean by "C" here? I guess by "g" you refer to God and by "a" you mean the act of creation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed. The predicate letter "C" means "causes", in this case. So, Cga means "God causes the act of creation". I'd prefer not to use "C" as a two-place predicate, but you need something that relates "g" and "a". You might even want to ditch "a", and simply say: Ag. That's another possibility.

Quoting MoK

I think this step means that there is an x such that x is God. My C1, however, says a different thing. There is x such that there exists a God and nothing else.

I see. In principle, you have several different alternatives, as far as formalization goes. Instead of symbolizing God with an individual constant "g", you could instead use a predicate letter, "G" like so:

C1) ?x?y(Gy ? (x=y))

Now C1 is no longer tautological. But if you do this, then P1 and D1 would have to be rewritten. Another option is to keep "g" for "God", and to formalize C1 like so:

C1) ?x(x=g)

Alternatively, you could say:

C1) ¬?x(¬(x=g))

These are not tautologies either. What's a bit confusing is the way that you're expressing some of these ideas. For example, when you say:

Quoting MoK

Perhaps changing C1 from " Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God" to " Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there exists God but nothing else". That is what I meant by the first form but perhaps the second form is more clearer.

Is the state of affairs in question something different from God? If it is, then it's not true that only God exists and nothing else, since there would exist a state of affairs. In other words, you'd have two things 1) God, and 2) the state of affairs itself.
On the other hand, if you want to say that there is only God, then you have two options: 1) to declare that God is identical to the state of affairs itself, or 2) to drop the notion of a state of affairs entirely, at least here.

Quoting MoK

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing
C1) Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God (from P1 and D1)

Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ...

First – (D1) "from nothing" contradicts (P1) "caused by an agent"; thus, (C1) is invalid.

Second – (C1) also does not follow "from P1 and D1" whereby you conflate "nothing" (D1) with "nothing but God" which are not ontologically equivalent.

(C1) is consistent with "... an act of creation of something from God" (D1 revised); however, this revision implies pan-en-theism (or even a-cosmism) instead of theism.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Indeed. The predicate letter "C" means "causes", in this case. So, Cga means "God causes the act of creation". I'd prefer not to use "C" as a two-place predicate, but you need something that relates "g" and "a".

Thanks for the elaboration. I see what you mean.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

You might even want to ditch "a", and simply say: Ag. That's another possibility.

What does "A" mean here? Does "Ag" mean that God is the creator? If yes, I think it is useful to keep this in mind and see how things evolve.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

C1) ?x?y(Gy ? (x=y))

I guess that "Gy" means that "y" is God or God exists. Please correct me if I am wrong. All I need for the first part of the argument is to conclude that there is a situation in which God only exists, so I just want to stress on "only". I understand what your C1 is saying but I am sure that it can be simplified further.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Now C1 is no longer tautological. But if you do this, then P1 and D1 would have to be rewritten.

I spent the whole morning trying to rewrite the first part of the argument. I have two formulations right now but I think the first formulation is simpler and more suitable to be written in first-order predicate logic. Here is the first formulation:

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

Let me know what you think. By the way, thank you very much for helping me write my argument using first-order predicate logic and for criticizing it.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Another option is to keep "g" for "God", and to formalize C1 like so:

C1) ?x(x=g)

I understand what C1 says here, but I believe that it is not suitable. All I want to say is C2 in the new formulation. Please let me know what you think.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Alternatively, you could say:

C1) ¬?x(¬(x=g))

I have a difficult time understanding this one. Could you please write this one in English?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Is the state of affairs in question something different from God? If it is, then it's not true that only God exists and nothing else, since there would exist a state of affairs. In other words, you'd have two things 1) God, and 2) the state of affairs itself.
On the other hand, if you want to say that there is only God, then you have two options: 1) to declare that God is identical to the state of affairs itself, or 2) to drop the notion of a state of affairs entirely, at least here.

I changed the conclusions, C1 and C2, accordingly to avoid further confusion. Please let me know what you think.

Quoting 180 Proof

Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ...

No, that in my opinion does not follow at all. Anyhow, I changed the argument to remove the problems and ambiguities. Please find the new argument in the following:

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

Quoting 180 Proof

First – (D1) "from nothing" contradicts (P1) "caused by an agent"; thus, (C1) is invalid.

No, there is no contradiction. By "creation from nothing" I mean that the creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

Quoting 180 Proof

Second – (C1) also does not follow "from P1 and D1" whereby you conflate "nothing" (D1) with "nothing but God" which are not ontologically equivalent.

I agree that the argument in the former format is not clear enough. That was the main reason that I offered a revision, please see the new argument in my first comment.

Quoting 180 Proof

(C1) is consistent with "... an act of creation of something from God" (D1 revised); however, this revision implies pan-en-theism (or even a-cosmism) instead of theism.

I cannot see how that follows. Do you mind elaborating?

Quoting MoK

What does "A" mean here? Does "Ag" mean that God is the creator? If yes, I think it is useful to keep this in mind and see how things evolve.

"A" means "causes the act of creation", so "Ag" means "God causes the act of creation".

Quoting MoK

I spent the whole morning trying to rewrite the first part of the argument.

I'm not sure if I should encourage you to keep working on it, or if I should tell you to take a break from this argument and to occupy your mind with something else.

Quoting MoK

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

Here's my two cents. Ideally, you would want to use propositional logic to formalize your arguments. You should only use predicate logic when propositional logic is insufficient for your purposes. Think of it like this: why would you use a formula one race car to go to the supermarket, when an ordinary car is enough for that purpose?

Quoting MoK

C1) ¬?x(¬(x=g)) — Arcane Sandwich

I have a difficult time understanding this one. Could you please write this one in English?

It means: there is no x, such that x is not identical to God.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

"A" means "causes the act of creation", so "Ag" means "God causes the act of creation".

Ok, thanks.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I'm not sure if I should encourage you to keep working on it, or if I should tell you to take a break from this argument and to occupy your mind with something else.

Thanks but don't worry about my time. I am a retired person so I have plenty of time. I however have several interests so I have to manage my time accordingly.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Here's my two cents. Ideally, you would want to use propositional logic to formalize your arguments. You should only use predicate logic when propositional logic is insufficient for your purposes. Think of it like this: why would you use a formula one race car to go to the supermarket, when an ordinary car is enough for that purpose?

So what do you think of the new revision for the first part of the argument?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

It means: there is no x, such that x is not identical to God.

I see. I however want to say that there is a situation in which God only exists.

Quoting MoK

So what do you think of the new revision for the first part of the argument?

Well, it's like the argument's domain of discourse is placing God and the act of creation on equal footing, in the sense that both of them could be individual constants that are ranged over by some variables. It's a bit of a slippery slope, since it also seems that the creation mentioned in P2, as well as the situation mentioned in C1 and C2, are also within that domain of discourse. Ideally, you would want to have the least number of elements populating your domain of discourse, and you would want to delegate almost everything else to the predicate letters. So I'm unsure as to what would be a good formalization of your argument.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Ok, let's see what is my domain of discourse. The concepts that I am dealing with are God, the creation, the act of creation, the situation before the act of creation, and the situation after the act of creation. That is all and they are all necessary for my argument. What do you think?

Reply to MoK In your new version, you say:

Quoting MoK

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

Whereas I think that something like the following would work better:

P1) God exists.
P2) If so, then the act of creation can be defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing.
C1) So, the act of creation can be defined as an act of creation the creation from nothing.
P3) If so, then there is a situation in which the creation does not exist.
P4) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists.
C2) So, there is a situation in which only God exists.

Why does this other version work better? Because it now it can be formalized using propositional logic, like so:

P1) p
P2) p ? q
C1) ? q
P3) q ? r
P4) r ? s
C2) ? s

Here's the tree proof. Basically, your argument just needed the use of conditionals (if, then), symbolized by "?". My only objection here, from a strategic (not logical) standpoint, is that you're giving your detractors way too many premises to deny. Think of it like this: why would you give them so many potential targets? Additionally, an argument with less premises is more parsimonious, and parsimony is arguably a good thing.

Reply to MoK

By creating, God becomes change.

So God wasn't change until God created, and now God moves in and with what is created.

So in a linear way, I agree with the idea that God changes - there was God before creation, and THEN there is God after creation, so God, after creation, exists in a new context, and, from our perspective, looks new, and therefore, is changed and new.

This is theology - for believers who want to understand. It's not science, for empiricists who seek to explain.

God is impossible to think of. God and creation make no sense, empirically.

The explanation empirically is probably something like, God the Father draws motion, but does not move; God the Son moves to the Father and through the Son all things (like us) exist; God as Spirit unifies the Father and Son as one God, and therefore is both motion and permanence at once.

Impossible.

Even without a proper argument we can see in history God changes... based on the perception of "who," which also becomes a matter of "when."

Quoting MoK

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
[s]C1) Therefore[/s], there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
[s]C2) Therefore[/s], there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true and P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator").

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Whereas I think that something like the following would work better:

P1) God exists.
P2) If so, then the act of creation can be defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing.
C1) So, the act of creation can be defined as an act of creation the creation from nothing.
P3) If so, then there is a situation in which the creation does not exist.
P4) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists.
C2) So, there is a situation in which only God exists.

Why does this other version work better? Because it now it can be formalized using propositional logic, like so:

P1) p
P2) p ? q
C1) ? q
P3) q ? r
P4) r ? s
C2) ? s

Thank you very much for investing the time and effort to change my version of the argument to yours. I think that is a great step since you refined the argument into two syllogisms.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Here's the tree proof. Basically, your argument just needed the use of conditionals (if, then), symbolized by "?". My only objection here, from a strategic (not logical) standpoint, is that you're giving your detractors way too many premises to deny. Think of it like this: why would you give them so many potential targets? Additionally, an argument with less premises is more parsimonious, and parsimony is arguably a good thing.

I agree that the first half of the argument is slightly long but I don't see any way to make it shorter than what it is now. My first argument was pretty short. It has three premises, one definition, and the rest were conclusions. I think I can write the argument in a better form after considering the criticisms and objections of people but the new short form might not be suitable to put it in first-order predicate logic so let's don't take that path right now since we have a great progress right now.

By the way, what do you think of the other half of the argument in OP? Your criticisms and objections are always welcome.

Quoting Fire Ologist

So in a linear way, I agree with the idea that God changes - there was God before creation, and THEN there is God after creation, so God, after creation, exists in a new context, and, from our perspective, looks new, and therefore, is changed and new.

My point, as you noticed, is that the act of creation requires a decision so God has to change to create.

Quoting Fire Ologist

God is impossible to think of. God and creation make no sense, empirically.

The explanation empirically is probably something like, God the Father draws motion, but does not move; God the Son moves to the Father and through the Son all things (like us) exist; God as Spirit unifies the Father and Son as one God, and therefore is both motion and permanence at once.

Impossible.

Here, I am not going to discuss the Christian God.

Quoting 180 Proof

Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true

As I mentioned in OP, in this thread I am not interested in discussing whether P1 is true or false. I assume it is true and see what it leads to.

Quoting 180 Proof

P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator").

God is by definition the creator. To make this explicit I can change P1 from "God exists", to "God exists and is the creator".

Reply to MoK Ideally you'd want to have an argument that is as short as possible, as far as the number of premises go. When I see a lengthy argument, the first thing that I try to determine is if it can be shortened. Sometimes that's not possible, but it's something to keep in mind.

Quoting MoK

By the way, what do you think of the other half of the argument in OP?

I'll leave that to you : )

The Tree Proof Generator which I linked before is a great place for getting your feet wet as far as symbolic logic goes. It supports propositional logic, first-order predicate logic, and it also has modal operators (should you need them). Just mess around with it for a few hours, you'll learn symbolic logic much faster this way, than just doing textbook exercises.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
I spent several hours working on the argument. I changed P1 slightly and discarded P2, C1, and P3 because I no longer needed them. And here is the new argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
C1) So, there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
C2) So, the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

Please let me know what you think. As always, your criticisms and input are welcome.

Reply to MoK Your argument looks much better! Here's the structure:

P1) p
P2) p ? q
C1) ? q
P3) q ? r
P4) r ? s
C2) ? s
P5) s ? t
P6) t ? u
C3) ? u

It's a valid argument. A very long argument, but valid nonetheless. Its soundness (or unsoundness) is a different matter, though. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true as well. But folks will probably claim that one of the premises is false. I'm guessing that the main target will be P1. In that case, you can construct a secondary argument, in which P1 is the conclusion.

EDIT: Here's a tip. You don't need to explicitly state C1 and C2. If you remove them, the structure will look like this:

P1) p
P2) p ? q
P3) q ? r
P4) r ? s
P5) s ? t
P6) t ? u
C3) ? u

In which case, your argument will read like so:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

Reply to God Changes, and yet god is supposedly unchanging.

So much the worse for god.

Quoting MoK

I assume it is true ...

Another hidden premise.

God is by definition the creator.

Ad hoc ...

To make this explicit I can change P1 from "God exists", to "God exists and is the creator".

Why not? – a third hidden premise. :roll:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Your argument looks much better! Here's the structure:

P1) p
P2) p ? q
C1) ? q
P3) q ? r
P4) r ? s
C2) ? s
P5) s ? t
P6) t ? u
C3) ? u

It's a valid argument. A very long argument, but valid nonetheless.

Thank you very much for your support. I learned from you how to write an argument in such a format.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Its soundness (or unsoundness) is a different matter, though. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true as well. But folks will probably claim that one of the premises is false. I'm guessing that the main target will be P1. In that case, you can construct a secondary argument, in which P1 is the conclusion.

As I mentioned in OP, I assume that P1 is true and see where it leads. The trueness of P1 is not the subject of this thread.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

EDIT: Here's a tip. You don't need to explicitly state C1 and C2. If you remove them, the structure will look like this:

P1) p
P2) p ? q
P3) q ? r
P4) r ? s
P5) s ? t
P6) t ? u
C3) ? u

In which case, your argument will read like so:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Oh, I see. This is even shorter. Thank you again for your contribution.

Reply to Banno
I guess that you are referring to the argument of change for God from Aquinas. I think there is a jump in his argument when he refers unmoved mover as God, the creator. I think that unmoved mover refers to another entity that I call the Mind. The Mind is an Omnipresent substance in spacetime with the ability to experience and cause. The object of experience and causation is another substance. So I believe in a sort of substance dualism. I will shortly open another thread on this topic. I have a few threads open right now and am very busy with them. So until then.

Quoting 180 Proof

Another hidden premise.

It is not a hidden premise. I already mentioned it in OP.

Quoting 180 Proof

Why not? – a third hidden premise. :roll:

I already changed the argument. Please find it in the following and let me know what you think of it. Here is the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Quoting MoK

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing

Your second premise contradicts your first. If God created something, then that something came from God, not nothing.

We can still hold C1, but that only comes from P1 if we assume D1 is false.

Quoting MoK

FC) Therefore, God changes

Yeah, everything else leads to that, no issues here. My greater question would be what you're trying to point out. If you're trying to say that in prose writing someone said, "God is unchanging", do you understand what the term means? Do they mean unchanging as in, "God has never moved and is frozen in time," or "God has always existed." Because its usually the latter, and only the confused cite the former. :)

Quoting Philosophim

Your second premise contradicts your first. If God created something, then that something came from God, not nothing.

Not at all. I just defined the act of creation in D1. The act is due to God. The type of act is defined as an act of creation of the creation from nothing. By from nothing I simply mean ex nihilo or out of notion. I don't mean that creation comes from nothing.

Quoting Philosophim

We can still hold C1, but that only comes from P1 if we assume D1 is false.

No, D1 defines the act of creation and C1 follows from P1 and D1.

Quoting Philosophim

Yeah, everything else leads to that, no issues here. My greater question would be what you're trying to point out.

This is against the idea that God is changeless and is the uncaused cause. I also started this thread for my future thread when I will discuss what is the uncaused cause.

Quoting Philosophim

If you're trying to say that in prose writing someone said, "God is unchanging", do you understand what the term means?

By unchanging I mean something that is not subject to change.

Quoting Philosophim

Do they mean unchanging as in, "God has never moved and is frozen in time," or "God has always existed."

By unchanging I simply mean that it never moves or changes. God could have existed since the beginning of time and by unchanging I don't mean that.

By the way please consider my new version of the argument for future discussion. Here is the final form (this version is the result of my discussion with @Arcane Sandwich and I am very thankful for his contribution):

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Quoting MoK

By unchanging I simply mean that it never moves or changes. God could have existed since the beginning of time and by unchanging I don't mean that.

No worry, that's just a misinterpretation of prose to mean God has always existed, or that his standard of good and plan have been known since the beginning. Of course God changes in the act of 'acting'. He even spoke to people in the bible, which requires action and reaction.

Reply to Philosophim
Yes, several verses in the Bible indicate that God even changed his mind: Exodus 32:14 for example and there are more.

Reply to T Clark

I think the common theme of my comment and your quote from Moevs' is that it doesn't make sense to think that God, at least this kind of God, is limited or defined by human conceptions or logic. That would put us somehow above God.

That's certainly one way the difficulties have been taken, particularly in the modern period. The opposing view would tend to be that "human concepts and logic" come from "the world" and thus reflect the way the world is, the way "being is." That is, our concepts and logic come from the world at the individual level (i.e. from learning and sense experience), and perhaps also at the species level (our lineage's interaction with being, and the effects of this interaction at the biological and cultural level). On the assumption of a creator, such notions come, ultimately, from the creator.

This makes God, in the terminology of Dionysius the Areopagite superintelligible as opposed to unintelligible. A key difference then is that God does not violate rationality, is not devoid of it as First Principle and source of the Logos, but is rather beyond human logos. Yet the transcendent is not absent from what it transcends.

This allows for an approach to philosophical theology that runs through the via negative, apophatic theology that precedes by negation (e.g. "what God is not.") But others go a step further with the analogy of being, the analgoia entis, whereby God is approached through analogy. On this view, "wise" can be intelligibly predicated of God. This is not the predication of mere human wisdom, but it is also not an entirely equivocal usage either. It is an analogy of proper proportion.

Either approach might work for the OP since the question seems to be more about implying something about God from what is thought to be true of creation. However, I agree that it is a topic where things are fraught.

Reply to Philosophim Reply to MoK

Yes, God also "repents" of making Saul king over Israel in I Samuel. Aside from being immutable, God is often taken to be impassible, but there are many references to changes in God's emotional state in Scripture. This is often interpreted as figurative, instructional, or analogical language. Then there is also the distinction between knowledge of God's energies, which are immanent and mutable in effects, and God's essence (generally held to be unknowable and immutable).

The latter is probably the distinction most often called upon re "God's changing acts in history."

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Then there is also the distinction between knowledge of God's energies, which are immanent and mutable in effects, and God's essence (generally held to be unknowable and immutable).

What is the argument for God's essence to be immutable?

Quoting MoK

What is the argument for God's essence to be immutable?

My understanding again is this is meant to convey that God cannot be created or destroyed. God always was, and always will be.

Reply to MoK

It's both philosophical and Scriptural. So on the latter, there is:

• Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
• Malachi 3:6 - For I the LORD do not change
• James 1:17 - Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
• Numbers 23:19 - God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.(This is repeated in I Samuel and I'm pretty sure elsewhere).
• Hebrews 6:17–20 - So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
• Psalm 102 - to paraphrase: the world will wear out and pass away, but God never changes (Ecclesiastes has similar lines)

From a philosophical perspective there are several lines of argument:

• Aristotle's argument that the Prime Mover must be pure act with no potency. Something without potency cannot change. If God had any potency, then the part of God that was pure act would be the part that was really the Prime Mover (and in any event, God having parts was also denied).
• Boethius' argument that to be mutable is to not possess all of oneself at once (made less well by others previously.)
• Boethius and others argument that God does not exist in time and is not a thing.
• The difficulty of explaining what God's will would be attracted towards if it changed since God is the Good itself by which all things are good.
• The difficulty in explaining how anything would act on God if God is the ground of all being "in which we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17).
• The idea that causes/principles have a higher ontological level than their effects (downwards causality), but that God is the first principle.
• The idea that true knowledge must be of the immutable "intelligibles," and that these were generally thought of as "ideas in the mind of God/Logos." If they were changing, knowledge would be impossible; but knowledge is possible, thus they cannot be changing.

I'm sure there are others. These are the "classical" ones, "classical "simply in the sense that they are old and embraced by the Church Fathers.

Quoting Philosophim

My understanding again is this is meant to convey that God cannot be created or destroyed. God always was, and always will be.

I asked for the argument for God being unchanging. I didn't ask whether God is immortal or not.

First of all, I would like to ask your opinion about my argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Malachi 3:6 - For I the LORD do not change
James 1:17 - Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Numbers 23:19 - God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.(This is repeated in I Samuel and I'm pretty sure elsewhere).
Hebrews 6:17–20 - So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
Psalm 102 - to paraphrase: the world will wear out and pass away, but God never changes (Ecclesiastes has similar lines)

Please let's put the Bible verse aside since many verses tell otherwise.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Aristotle's argument that the Prime Mover must be pure act with no potency. Something without potency cannot change. If God had any potency, then the part of God that was pure act would be the part that was really the Prime Mover (and in any event, God having parts was also denied).

I am familiar with that argument. I am however wondering how we can relate the Prime Mover to God who is the creator of the creation. According to my argument God, the creator, is the subject of change therefore, God and the Prime Mover cannot be identical.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Boethius and others argument that God does not exist in time and is not a thing.

But according to my argument, God not only changes but He is the subject to time. There is a point before creation and a point after creation which requires that God is subject to time. God cannot possibly create unless He decides to create and that requires a change too.

Moreover, how could God be the cause of every change if He does not exist in space and time?

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The difficulty of explaining what God's will would be attracted towards if it changed since God is the Good itself by which all things are good.

Good and evil are fundamental properties of the existence. So, I won't buy that God and all things that exist are good.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The difficulty in explaining how anything would act on God if God is the ground of all being "in which we live and move and have our being"

I simply differentiate between God and the Unmoved Mover. God is the creator of the creation whereas the Unmoved Mover is a substance that all changes are caused by It.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The idea that causes/principles have a higher ontological level than their effects (downwards causality), but that God is the first principle.

Are you talking about the argument from contingency here? I agree that that all things owe their existence to the Prime Mover but as I said before I differentiate between God and the Prime Mover.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The idea that true knowledge must be of the immutable "intelligibles," and that these were generally thought of as "ideas in the mind of God/Logos." If they were changing, knowledge would be impossible; but knowledge is possible, thus they cannot be changing.

The true knowledge that I call the Absolute Truth is objective and it does not require God to be true.

Quoting MoK

I asked for the argument for God being unchanging. I didn't ask whether God is immortal or not.

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using. I'm noting that 'immutable' in this sense is the fact of the eternal nature. You have to be very careful to understand the context and not just use out of context meaning of the words. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that God literally cannot act, think, evolve, etc. Your argument is a straw man. If you want to attack what people are saying, note the fact of God's eternal existence or ineffability.

Reply to MoK God changing is at odds with divine simplicity. So if you are going to say god changes, you will need to re-define god in a fairly extreme way. Perhaps you can do so. For my part, i remain unconvinced that the notion of god can be made coherent.

Quoting Banno

i remain unconvinced that the notion of god can be made coherent.

The essence of God is incomprehensible to human reason.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich Then there can be no purpose in discussing it.

Or rather, discussing it will not improve our understanding.

Reply to Banno If you agree with Graham Harman when he says that every object has an essence, and that in every case, every essence is incomprehensible to human reason, then the picture looks quite different from theological discussions.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich I'll leave you to explain that, if you feel the need. So far as I can see the notion of essence is either a nonsense or a tautology.

Quoting Banno

I'll leave you to explain that, if you feel the need.

Sure. Every object needs to have an essence, because this is what guarantees their multiplicity. If objects had no essences, there would be no multiplicity, there would be univocity instead.

Quoting Banno

So far as I can see the notion of essence is either a nonsense or a tautology.

Think of it like a property that an object has, as it it were length, height, or duration, or mass, or energy. Or any other physical property.

Quoting MoK

In this argument, P refers to the premise, D to the definition, C to the conclusion, and FC to the final conclusion. And here is the argument:

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing
C1) Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God (from P1 and D1)
P2) God is in the undecided state about the creation where there is nothing but God
P3) There cannot be any change in this state of affairs unless God decides to create
C2) Therefore, a change from an undecided state to a decided state in God is required (from P2 and P3)
FC) Therefore, God changes

Here, I am not interested in discussing whether P1 is true or not. I assume that P1 is true and see what it leads

If God without necessity created the world then his knowledge of his act would be inside him and since everything inside his is himself, then his creating the world changed he himself QED

Quoting MoK

Here, I am not going to discuss the Christian God.

I am sort of Nietzschean when it comes to the God of the philosopher - everyone sort of makes up their own placeholders when they mean "God" in a philosophical argument. So if reference to "Father" not moving, "Son moved" as one and the same thing called "God" is off-putting because it admittedly sounds Christian, then all that was poor choice of words that didn't help me describe what I'm trying to say to you.

First of all, I agree, God, itself, changes, is moving. If someone else, like Aquinas or anyone thinks God can't move, or doesn't change at all, I am suspicious of what they mean if they mean an agent can create without moving; even creation from nothing doesn't mean an agent has not moved to effect something new, and therefore this agent has changed. So I agree with your ultimate conclusion.

And I agree that if you accept the premises of your argument, the conclusion follows.

When I talk about "God", since I am a believer, I am talking about something I think I know, in my case, as a Catholic, about some one I think I know. So whether God changes or does not change has the meaning to me of getting to know God himself. Just to digress from the logic and metaphysics to let you know I am not merely playing here. (We are all playing here, but I, to myself, am not merely playing, even when I say "God".)

So it's an interesting question - we Catholics learn that God is eternally perfect, unmoved, and never changing, not deprived of anything ever that would beg something be moved. He could not move as he is already where he would move to. Etc., etc.

Yet, God must have moved in order for his creation from nothing to have been first not created, and then by God's movement, created. Without God changing, nothing would have been created. Nothing itself would have changed, if God were not changing nothing to something. And since nothing did change to something (because now is something), and only God could do it, God had to do, had to move, has to change.

I like the use of "undecided state" to represent before nothing was changed into creation, because it makes an agent out of God, which makes sense for a creator God. Agents need hands to move things, even if those things are nothing into somethings. So agents, are moving, changing things, changing their hand from here, to now there, holding something, from what was nothing in hand.

But, if I am going to analyze not the validity of your argument, but whether I think you've created a proof for the motion of God who is creator, I think P2 is not necessary, and so C1 would not necessarily follow.

I think somehow, this argument could be shortened.

Quoting MoK

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
C1) So, there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
C2) So, the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

P1. God is the creator of creation from nothing. And this God exists. No reason to differ here and we are off to the races.

P2. If God exists and is the creator of creation from nothing, then there is a situation in which only God exists.

Although I understand why you are referring to a situation before creation as a situation in which God only exists; before anything else existed, there was nothing, but God, and if God created creation from nothing, then all that needed to be was God for there to be creation. I get it. Before many things were created, there was only one creator only, so "only God exists."

But couldn't God create all of creation from nothing, and yet not be the only thing that exists while he is doing it? Like this: before creation, there was God and a blob of X (imagine anything, in a blob or a heap if you will, shaped in some limited way, and imagine whatever you imagine as "God" next it, and imagine absolutely nothing else).

So P1 works still in the God plus blob pre-created situation; God can exist and be the creator of the creation from nothing, as long as God doesn't create anything using that blob of X. The problem with P2 (for me) is the "If so, then".

If God is the creator of the creation from nothing, it does not follow that, if so, then there is a situation in which only God exists. It could be otherwise.

Now we can assert P2 anyway and, like P1, just assert: 1, there exists a creator God, and 2, the God, before creation, was the only thing that existed.

But now C1 is not a logical conclusion from P1 plus P2, but is instead a restated of P2.

But let's move on anyway.

Let's assume, for the sake of arguing whether God as we conceive of it is changing or not, we have established that God exists, is a creator from nothing, and that prior to any such creation, "there is a situation in which God only exists."

P3 and the rest of the argument follow without any issues I can see.

I like the term "undecided state" because it requires both a Decider (presumably God), and a new state after a decision has been made. It works.

But it includes time, which may be fine, and necessary (as any change seems to require time be spent changing), but if time can be eliminated, maybe the point about God changing, even outside of time, would be made sharper.

At P3 you said:
If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists.

How about:
If so, God exists in relation to nothing (as only God exists from P2).

And then P4 would be:
If so, then, by creating, God exists in relation to the created things, (no longer in relation to nothing).

And then we need a new P5:
Created things exist.

C2: So, God changes.

So my totally new argument, based on yours, but left on the stove probably too long, (and certainly an analytic mess but I'm just spit-balling about "God" and we can work out the logic later if useful):

P1) God exists, and created things exist from nothing.
P2) There is the situation in which created things do not exist (have not been created).
C1) So, since God exists, God is the creator of the creation from nothing.
P3) If so, absent creation, God exists in relation to nothing.
P4) If so, then, by creating, God exists in relation to the created things.
P5) Created things exist.
C2) So, God changes. (from creator in relation to nothing, to creator in relation to things.)

Quoting Philosophim

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using.

There are several arguments for that. Please see @Count Timothy von Icarus post here. By change, I mean going from one state to another state.

Quoting Philosophim

I'm noting that 'immutable' in this sense is the fact of the eternal nature.

I am saying there is a difference between the uncaused cause and God. I distinguish between God who is the creator and the uncaused cause who is the ultimate cause of everything.

Quoting Philosophim

You have to be very careful to understand the context and not just use out of context meaning of the words. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that God literally cannot act, think, evolve, etc. Your argument is a straw man.

What argument are you talking about? I am arguing that acting, thinking, etc. require a change. Don't you agree?

Quoting Philosophim

If you want to attack what people are saying, note the fact of God's eternal existence or ineffability.

God does not exist eternally. That is the uncaused cause that exists eternally. And there is nothing ineffable here. People use ineffable when they face a contradiction.

Quoting Banno

God changing is at odds with divine simplicity.

That is the uncaused cause (what I call the Mind for the reason I have) that is simple and not God.

Quoting Banno

So if you are going to say god changes, you will need to re-define god in a fairly extreme way.

I define God as the creator of the creation from nothing. God is an agent who acts, thinks, etc. within the Mind.

Quoting Banno

Perhaps you can do so. For my part, i remain unconvinced that the notion of god can be made coherent.

As I mentioned before I believe in a version of substance dualism in which the Mind is the unmoved mover and It has certain abilities, namely the ability to experience and cause. The object of experience and causation is another substance that is subject to change. So everything is coherent.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

The essence of God is incomprehensible to human reason.

Does God understand His essence? If so, then God's essence is also comprehensible to humans.

Reply to Gregory
:up:

Quoting Fire Ologist

I am sort of Nietzschean when it comes to the God of the philosopher - everyone sort of makes up their own placeholders when they mean "God" in a philosophical argument. So if reference to "Father" not moving, "Son moved" as one and the same thing called "God" is off-putting because it admittedly sounds Christian, then all that was poor choice of words that didn't help me describe what I'm trying to say to you.

I use two concepts here, the unmoved mover and God, the unmoved mover is the ultimate cause of everything whereas God is the creator of the creation. So we are on the same page. We are just using different words for different concepts.

Quoting Fire Ologist

First of all, I agree, God, itself, changes, is moving. If someone else, like Aquinas or anyone thinks God can't move, or doesn't change at all, I am suspicious of what they mean if they mean an agent can create without moving; even creation from nothing doesn't mean an agent has not moved to effect something new, and therefore this agent has changed. So I agree with your ultimate conclusion.

And I agree that if you accept the premises of your argument, the conclusion follows.

Cool. :up:

Quoting Fire Ologist

So it's an interesting question - we Catholics learn that God is eternally perfect, unmoved, and never changing, not deprived of anything ever that would beg something be moved. He could not move as he is already where he would move to. Etc., etc.

That is the definition of the unmoved mover to me and not God (the bold part).

Quoting Fire Ologist

Yet, God must have moved in order for his creation from nothing to have been first not created, and then by God's movement, created. Without God changing, nothing would have been created. Nothing itself would have changed, if God were not changing nothing to something. And since nothing did change to something (because now is something), and only God could do it, God had to do, had to move, has to change.

Yes, God is the creator hence that requires a change.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I like the use of "undecided state" to represent before nothing was changed into creation, because it makes an agent out of God, which makes sense for a creator God. Agents need hands to move things, even if those things are nothing into somethings. So agents, are moving, changing things, changing their hand from here, to now there, holding something, from what was nothing in hand.

Yes, God is an agent like us that can be in an undecided state and a decided state.

Quoting Fire Ologist

But, if I am going to analyze not the validity of your argument, but whether I think you've created a proof for the motion of God who is creator, I think P2 is not necessary, and so C1 would not necessarily follow.

I already made the argument shorter by removing C1 and C2. Here is the new form:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

P2 necessarily follows from P1. If God is the creator of the creation then there is a situation in which creation does not exist. God exists. Therefore, there is a situation in which only God exists.

Quoting Fire Ologist

P1. God is the creator of creation from nothing. And this God exists. No reason to differ here and we are off to the races.

Cool.

Quoting Fire Ologist

P2. If God exists and is the creator of creation from nothing, then there is a situation in which only God exists.

Although I understand why you are referring to a situation before creation as a situation in which God only exists; before anything else existed, there was nothing, but God, and if God created creation from nothing, then all that needed to be was God for there to be creation. I get it. Before many things were created, there was only one creator only, so "only God exists."

Cool. So, you agree that P2 follows from P1.

Quoting Fire Ologist

But couldn't God create all of creation from nothing, and yet not be the only thing that exists while he is doing it? Like this: before creation, there was God and a blob of X (imagine anything, in a blob or a heap if you will, shaped in some limited way, and imagine whatever you imagine as "God" next it, and imagine absolutely nothing else).

So P1 works still in the God plus blob pre-created situation; God can exist and be the creator of the creation from nothing, as long as God doesn't create anything using that blob of X. The problem with P2 (for me) is the "If so, then".

If God is the creator of the creation from nothing, it does not follow that, if so, then there is a situation in which only God exists. It could be otherwise.

Yes, there could be other things. If so, therefore, God is not the creator of those things. We can change the argument slightly and still follows that God has to change to create other things.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Now we can assert P2 anyway and, like P1, just assert: 1, there exists a creator God, and 2, the God, before creation, was the only thing that existed.

But now C1 is not a logical conclusion from P1 plus P2, but is instead a restated of P2.

But let's move on anyway.

I already removed C1 in the new form of the argument. Please see above.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Let's assume, for the sake of arguing whether God as we conceive of it is changing or not, we have established that God exists, is a creator from nothing, and that prior to any such creation, "there is a situation in which God only exists."

P3 and the rest of the argument follow without any issues I can see.

Cool. Let's go ahead.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I like the term "undecided state" because it requires both a Decider (presumably God), and a new state after a decision has been made. It works.

Cool. Let's go ahead.

Quoting Fire Ologist

But it includes time, which may be fine, and necessary (as any change seems to require time be spent changing), but if time can be eliminated, maybe the point about God changing, even outside of time, would be made sharper.

No, any change requires a time so God cannot act outside of time and He indeed exists within time.

Quoting Fire Ologist

At P3 you said:
If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists.

How about:
If so, God exists in relation to nothing (as only God exists from P2).

I don't understand what this means. Are you reformulating P3?

Quoting Fire Ologist

And then P4 would be:
If so, then, by creating, God exists in relation to the created things, (no longer in relation to nothing).

I don't understand what "in relation to" refers to here.

Quoting Fire Ologist

And then we need a new P5:
Created things exist.

I don't think we need this premise.

Quoting Fire Ologist

C2: So, God changes.

I don't see how that follows.

Quoting Fire Ologist

So my totally new argument, based on yours, but left on the stove probably too long, (and certainly an analytic mess but I'm just spit-balling about "God" and we can work out the logic later if useful):

P1) God exists, and created things exist from nothing.
P2) There is the situation in which created things do not exist (have not been created).
C1) So, since God exists, God is the creator of the creation from nothing.
P3) If so, absent creation, God exists in relation to nothing.
P4) If so, then, by creating, God exists in relation to the created things.
P5) Created things exist.
C2) So, God changes. (from creator in relation to nothing, to creator in relation to things.)

I almost spent a day reformulating my argument in OP in a form that is suitable for first-order predicate logic. I don't think that your formulation is suitable for that yet. I don't understand your P3 and P4 either.

Quoting MoK

The essence of God is incomprehensible to human reason. — Arcane Sandwich

Does God understand His essence? If so, then God's essence is also comprehensible to humans.

Quoting Quentin Meillassoux

The Christian dogmatist claims to know (because he has supposedly demonstrated it) that our existence continues after death, and that it consists in the eternal contemplation of a God whose nature is incomprehensible from within the confines of our present existence.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Life after death although is a very interesting topic it is beyond the scope of this thread. An eternal life requires an incorruptible substance though something people call the soul. I am agnostic to the idea of soul and life after death since I don't have any argument in favor or against it. It is a subject that I am currently thinking about. I have a simple picture in my mind, there is an omnipresent substance, the unmoved mover that is the cause of all changes. There is also a substance that is subject to change and it is the object of causation. So, to the best of my understanding, I am dealing with substance dualism, and that suffices to explain the material world. Whether there is a spiritual world is the subject of debate and it is only valid if one has a spiritual experience such as life after death. Regardless, the claim that God's essence requires eternal contemplation requires proof that I am not aware of any.

Quoting MoK

Regardless, the claim that God's essence requires eternal contemplation requires proof that I am not aware of any.

Well, what else would there be to do in Heaven? Nothing, really.

Quoting MoK

God understand His essence?

John the Scott said no, Aquinas said "of course". The former was condemned

Quoting MoK

P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state

You are assuming that a decision making process must occur that didn't previously exist and then concluding what you've assumed, which is that the entity went from State A to State B. That is, if you assume that God is in the undecided State A at T-1 and then he moves to the decided State B at T-2, then you're assuming your conclusion, which is that there is a change from A to B from T1 to T2 and thus the entity is different and changed.

If you assume though that the eternal being God is so constructed at his inception that he will decide at T2 to create the universe, then nothing changes in God over time. Every instance of behavior of God could be posited to exist eternally within God within his initial constitution and he would not be changing.

If you're going to creatively construct what you believe is the constitution of God, it seems easy enough to create it however you want it to be.

Quoting Gregory

John the Scott said no, Aquinas said "of course". The former was condemned

John the Scott was right, Aquinas was wrong.

Quoting MoK

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

I like it, but I still don’t see how P2 necessarily follows from P1.

God exists, and created things only exist after God creates them, but how does it logically follow that the situation before God creates created thing is a situation where only God exists? We can assert “God exists” and we can assert “nothing else but God exists before God created,” but I don’t see that only God existing has to follow. The “if so, then” need not be so in P2.

Just like we don’t know God exists and have to assert it to get going here, and just like we don’t know God creates from nothing and have to assert it, we don’t know from these two assertions that God was the only thing that existed before God created from nothing. “If P1, then P2” is not logically necessary. There could be other uncreated things.

I don’t think you need God to be the only thing that exists to make your argument.

You need God to create from nothing, but you don’t need there to be nothing else besides God before creation from nothing, you just need God not to use anything else to cause the creation.

Quoting MoK

We can change the argument slightly and still follows that God has to change to create other things.

I guess maybe you see my point then. I agree you can still likely make the argument without establishing God is the only thing that exists before God created creation.

I think you need to assert somewhere that created things exist. It may be implicit in P1, but P1 makes God’s existence explicit, so the argument seems to beg we make the existence of created things just as explicit.

We all assume it, but it is missing from the argument. Maybe right before the conclusion:

…P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
New P6) Created things exist.
P7) If so, then God changes.
C) so, God changes.

Quoting MoK

FC) Therefore, God changes

What does "God changes" mean here? Is it physical change or metaphysical change? Changes can happen in different levels i.e. physical, logical, metaphysical, biological, syntactic or semantical ... etc.
Of course physical changes require space and time for its precondition. Biological changes can be the same changes as physical or chemical changes.

You came to the conclusion, but the conclusion need to clarify himself what he means by "changes". I would guess that it would be tricky to clarify the nature of change without first knowing what God means.

The OP seems to assert he doesn't want to talk about God. But the conclusion you arrived seems to be forcing for revelation under the logical necessity here between "changes" and "God". Without the clarification, the conclusion would sound empty and blind.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Well, what else would there be to do in Heaven? Nothing, really.

As intellectual agents, I don't think that there is anything to be known once we figure out everything. We could still have fun, have sex, drink fine wine, listen to music, smoke weed, etc. until we get used to everything, and living further turns into torture! Perhaps there are things like meaning that we don't have access to right now and that could make the living eternally meaningful and durable. I know a friend from another forum who claims that he experiences meaning! Perhaps we could become Godly and create our creations and have fun by confusing our creatures. So who knows!?

Quoting MoK

As intellectual agents, I don't think that there is anything to be known once we figure out everything. We could still have fun, have sex, drink fine wine, listen to music, smoke weed, etc. until we get used to everything, and living further turns into torture

In Heaven, the contemplation of God is preferable to anything else. There is no fun in Heaven. There is no sex in Heaven. There is no drinking in Heaven, and there are no fine wines (alcohol does not go to Heaven). There is no music in Heaven. There is no smoke in Heaven. There is no weed in Heaven.

There is only God, and the souls of men and women that have entered Heaven. There is nothing for these souls to do there, other than to stare at the Imago Dei for all eternity.

Quoting Hanover

You are assuming that a decision making process must occur that didn't previously exist and then concluding what you've assumed, which is that the entity went from State A to State B. That is, if you assume that God is in the undecided State A at T-1 and then he moves to the decided State B at T-2, then you're assuming your conclusion, which is that there is a change from A to B from T1 to T2 and thus the entity is different and changed.

Correct.

Quoting Hanover

If you assume though that the eternal being God is so constructed at his inception that he will decide at T2 to create the universe, then nothing changes in God over time. Every instance of behavior of God could be posited to exist eternally within God within his initial constitution and he would not be changing.

I don't understand what you mean by eternal being and state. If the act of creation is necessary then the scenario in which the existence of God and the act of creation lay at the same point is feasible otherwise we are dealing with a scenario in which God as an agent is able to not create and this means that there is a situation in which only God exists.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I like it, but I still don’t see how P2 necessarily follows from P1.

God exists, and created things only exist after God creates them, but how does it logically follow that the situation before God creates created thing is a situation where only God exists? We can assert “God exists” and we can assert “nothing else but God exists before God created,” but I don’t see that only God existing has to follow. The “if so, then” need not be so in P2.

If God is the creator of the creation then there is a situation in which creation does not exist. God exists. Therefore, there is a situation in which only God exists. It is late now. I will see if I can change the argument to implement these points tomorrow morning.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Just like we don’t know God exists and have to assert it to get going here, and just like we don’t know God creates from nothing and have to assert it, we don’t know from these two assertions that God was the only thing that existed before God created from nothing. “If P1, then P2” is not logically necessary. There could be other uncreated things.

I don’t think you need God to be the only thing that exists to make your argument.

You need God to create from nothing, but you don’t need there to be nothing else besides God before creation from nothing, you just need God not to use anything else to cause the creation.

Yes, there could be other uncreated things but we can change the argument slightly to include them. There is a state in which uncreated things and God exist and there is a state in which uncreated things, God, and created things exist. The rest of the argument then follows naturally.

Reply to Corvus
God is a substance. By change, I mean a change in the substance.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Are you talking about the beatific vision?

Quoting MoK

God is a substance. By change, I mean a change in the substance.

God is also a subject, as are we. A human being is both a substance and a subject.

Quoting MoK

?Arcane Sandwich
Are you talking about the beatific vision?

No, I am not. If I was, I would have said so. The concept of beauty does not apply to God, in any way, shape, or form. Aesthetic notions do not apply to a divine being.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

God is also a subject, as are we. A human being is both a substance and a subject.

What do you mean by a subject here?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

No, I am not. If I was, I would have said so. The concept of beauty does not apply to God, in any way, shape, or form. Aesthetic notions do not apply to a divine being.

But the article you mentioned is only about the image of God and the act of creation of humans in it.

Quoting MoK

What do you mean by a subject here?

The same thing that Hegel means in The Phenomenology of Spirit, when he says that God is both substance and subject.

Quoting MoK

But the article you mentioned is only about the image of God and the act of creation of humans in it.

Let me speak clearly, Mok. There is no happiness in Heaven. And there is no beauty either. There is only the contemplation of the Image of God. There is nothing else to do. The souls of men and women that have entered Heaven do not engage in small talk amongst themselves. They are not catching up for old time's sake. There is only the contemplation of the Image of God. Everything else is worthless by comparison.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

The same thing that Hegel means in The Phenomenology of Spirit, when he says that God is both substance and subject.

I am not familiar with Hegel and his work. Do you mind elaborating?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Let me speak clearly, Mok. There is no happiness in Heaven. And there is no beauty either. There is only the contemplation of the Image of God. There is nothing else to do. The souls of men and women that have entered Heaven do not engage in small talk amongst themselves. They are not catching up for old time's sake. There is only the contemplation of the Image of God. Everything else is worthless by comparison.

So you only enjoy intellectual activity!? I do but I also enjoy other things as well. By the way, how about other creatures, like animals?

Quoting MoK

— Arcane Sandwich

I am not familiar with Hegel and his work. Do you mind elaborating?

Quoting Hegel

5. The absolute is subject –

? 17. In my view – a view which the developed exposition of the system itself can alone justify – everything depends on grasping and expressing the ultimate truth not as Substance but as Subject as well. At the same time we must note that concrete substantiality implicates and involves the universal or the immediacy of knowledge itself, as well as that immediacy which is being, or immediacy qua object for knowledge. If the generation which heard God spoken of as the One Substance was shocked and revolted by such a characterisation of his nature, the reason lay partly in the instinctive feeling that in such a conception self-consciousness was simply submerged, and not preserved. But partly, again, the opposite position, which maintains thinking to be merely subjective thinking, abstract universality as such, is exactly the same bare uniformity, is undifferentiated, unmoved substantiality. And even if, in the third place, thought combines with itself the being of substance, and conceives immediacy or intuition (Anschauung) as thinking, it is still a question whether this intellectual intuition does not fall back into that inert, abstract simplicity, and exhibit and expound reality itself in an unreal manner.

6. – and what this is

? 18. The living substance, further, is that being which is truly subject, or, what is the same thing, is truly realised and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite. As subject it is pure and simple negativity, and just on that account a process of splitting up what is simple and undifferentiated, a process of duplicating and setting factors in opposition, which [process] in turn is the negation of this indifferent diversity and of the opposition of factors it entails. True reality is merely this process of reinstating self-identity, of reflecting into its own self in and from its other, and is not an original and primal unity as such, not an immediate unity as such. It is the process of its own becoming, the circle which presupposes its end as its purpose, and has its end for its beginning; it becomes concrete and actual only by being carried out, and by the end it involves.

Quoting MoK

So you only enjoy intellectual activity!?

No, you do not. There is no joy in Heaven, you enjoy nothing.

Quoting MoK

I do but I also enjoy other things as well.

Which is why the essence of God is incomprehensible from the perspective of creatures, such as you and me.

Quoting MoK

By the way, how about other creatures, like animals?

They live in a zen-like state throughout their lives. For the most part. If they saw the Image of God, they would prefer that, and nothing else.

Thanks for the comments on Hegel's ideas. I will read it tomorrow since it is very late now and the text is dense. I will then comment on it if I understand it well.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Which is why the essence of God is incomprehensible from the perspective of creatures, such as you and me.

Why should we get involved in contemplating something incomprehensible? It is eternal torture as well.

Quoting MoK

Why should we get involved in contemplating something incomprehensible?

Because we are no longer mortal creatures when we are in that state of contemplation. And since we are mortal creatures right now, we cannot comprehend it.

Quoting MoK

It is eternal torture as well.

No, it isn't. That's Hell, not Heaven.

Quoting MoK

I don't understand what you mean by eternal being and state. If the act of creation is necessary then the scenario in which the existence of God and the act of creation lay at the same point is feasible otherwise we are dealing with a scenario in which God as an agent is able to not create and this means that there is a situation in which only God exists.

This is your point:

Let us suppose that God creates the universe on 2/11/25 at 3:22 p.m. If God made that decision to create at 3:21 p.m., you argue that God changed from 3:20 to 3:21. At 3:20, his mind was clear of any decision. At 3:21, his mind had a decision within it. God therefore changed from a non-decision making thing to a decision making thing, and so God changed between 3:20 and 3:21.

This is my point:

God's decision to create the universe on 2/11/25 at 3:22 p.m. has always been a part of God and when it occurred on that date and time, nothing changed in God. It was always his decision within him. The decision didn't occur at 3:21. It was always there, forever and ever, just like everything else about God.

Quoting MoK

God is a substance. By change, I mean a change in the substance.

What is substance? Would it be some sort of mass or matter? Mass or matter would be perceivable i.e. sensible i.e. tangible, visible and locatable. Is this what you mean by substance?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Because we are no longer mortal creatures when we are in that state of contemplation. And since we are mortal creatures right now, we cannot comprehend it.

Are you saying that we cannot contemplate when we are mortal? What do you mean by contemplation then? Elsewhere in this thread, you mentioned that we cannot understand God's essence even in Heaven. I then asked what the point of contemplation is if we cannot understand God's essence.

Quoting Hanover

God's decision to create the universe on 2/11/25 at 3:22 p.m. has always been a part of God and when it occurred on that date and time, nothing changed in God. It was always his decision within him. The decision didn't occur at 3:21. It was always there, forever and ever, just like everything else about God.

A few issues are here: 1) How can a timeless agent act within time? 2) How can a timeless agent know what time is? 3) Your scenario requires that God wait until the proper time and the waiting requires time.

Quoting Corvus

What is substance? Would it be some sort of mass or matter? Mass or matter would be perceivable i.e. sensible i.e. tangible, visible and locatable. Is this what you mean by substance?

By substance, I mean something that exists, such as matter, and has a set of properties.

Quoting MoK

By substance, I mean something that exists, such as matter, and has a set of properties.

But there are billions of things which exist and have a set of properties in the world. Are they all God?

Quoting Corvus

But there are billions of things which exist and have a set of properties in the world. Are they all God?

No, God by definition is the creator of the creation from nothing.

Quoting MoK

No, God by definition is the creator of the creation from nothing.

If God is substance, then God is the creator of the creation from nothing. Is it what you are saying?

Quoting Corvus

If God is substance, then God is the creator of the creation from nothing. Is it what you are saying?

No, I am saying that God is a substance and the creator of the creation from nothing.

Quoting MoK

No, I am saying that God is a substance and the creator of the creation from nothing.

Saying X is a substance sounds not informative. It needs further elaboration with detail and evidence.
The creator of the creation from nothing? What does it mean? Is it from the Bible? What is "the creation" here?

Quoting Corvus

Saying X is a substance sounds not informative. It needs further elaboration with detail and evidence.

I already defined a substance as something that exists and has a set of properties.

Quoting Corvus

The creator of the creation from nothing? What does it mean?

We have two different types of acts, 1) The act of building and 2) The act of creation from nothing. By first, I mean that there exists a substance and an agent changes the form of the substance, such as building a car, constructing ideas in the human brain, etc. By second, I mean there is no substance but an agent. This agent can cause a new substance though.

Quoting Corvus

Is it from the Bible?

It is a general belief of theists.

Quoting Corvus

What is "the creation" here?

A new substance that is caused by God as is illustrated above when I discuss the act of creation from nothing.

Quoting MoK

I already defined a substance as something that exists and has a set of properties.

Sure, but it is not informative to be meaningful in saying that God is a substance.

Quoting MoK

By second, I mean there is no substance but an agent. This agent can cause a new substance though.

How though? Who is an agent?

@Arcane Sandwich
I read the quotes that you mentioned a few times but I have difficulty understanding them. So, I searched on the net and I found an article from Christian Klotz entitled "Substance and Subject, from Kant to Hegel". From my reading, it seems there are two interpretations of Hegel's idea of what the subject is. Let's discuss the first interpretation first: "Thus, Charles Tayler explains the Hegelian claim that the Absolute is equally subject in the following way: “God thus posits the world in order to think himself in it” (Taylor, 1975, p. 108). According to Taylor, in Hegel’s conception the world is understood as that expression of God which is necessary for God’s selfknowledge. In this interpretation, the notion of subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge."

What do you think of this interpretation?

Quoting MoK

A new substance that is caused by God as is illustrated above when I discuss the act of creation from nothing.

When you say A caused B, you must be able to give out the detail of the cause. Simply saying A caused B, is not meaningful or informative.

If a stone caused window to break. It has further implied explanation that someone threw a stone at the window, which caused breaking.

Quoting Corvus

Sure, but it is not informative to be meaningful in saying that God is a substance.

It is informative in my opinion. A car is a substance, by this I mean it is made of matter, and it has a set of properties, such as form, color, weight, etc.

Quoting MoK

It is informative in my opinion. A car is a substance, by this I mean it is made of matter, and it has a set of properties, such as form, color, weight, etc.

Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc. God is not a physical matter, is it? Could you prove God is a physical matter? Definition is not a proof. Some definitions need proof to be meaningful.

Quoting Corvus

How though?

This is off-topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not willing to discuss whether P1 is true or false. So I am not willing to discuss how the act of creation from nothing is possible either. I assume that P1 is true and see what this assumption leads to.

Quoting MoK

This is off-topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not willing to discuss whether P1 is true or false. So I am not willing to discuss how the act of creation from nothing is possible either. I assume that P1 is true and see what this assumption leads to.

OK fair enough. But you know philosophical topics cannot be discussed meaningfully without reference to reality and the facts of the world we live in. Truth, logic and the laws of reasoning are based on the reality and the facts of the world, and they always come first in the proof process.

Hence an If statement with non-factual premises will be rejected. Some folks will say it is denial of antecedent. I say, it is a nonsense. Reality and the facts of the world is the basis of logical arguments. When someone gives with an IF statement with nonsense premise, then it has to be rejected.

If the Moon is made of cheese, then God is a substance.

The premise is a nonsense. The Moon is not made of cheese. Hence the statement is not worthy of consideration. It is not denying premise.

Quoting Corvus

When you say A caused B, you must be able to give out the detail of the cause. Simply saying A caused B, is not meaningful or informative.

If a stone caused window to break. It has further implied explanation that someone threw a stone at the window, which caused breaking.

This is off-topic too but I answer that. I make a distinction between due to cause and ultimate cause. By due to cause I mean that there exists something without it a change is not possible. So, in the example of a stone breaking a window, the stone is due to cause. By the ultimate cause, I mean that there exists something that is the cause of all changes. I call this thing the unmoved mover. So, in the example of a stone breaking a window, the motion of the stone and the change in the state of the window are caused by the uncaused cause.

Quoting MoK

This is off-topic too but I answer that.

But if the argument is full of nonsense, then should it not be pointed out? Claiming the clarification process as off-topic sounds irrational too.

Quoting Corvus

Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc.

That is not how I defined a substance.

Quoting Corvus

God is not a physical matter, is it? Could you prove God is a physical matter? Definition is not a proof. Some definitions need proof to be meaningful.

I don't believe that God is made of matter; otherwise, God would be visible to us. That also applies to spiritual agents.

Quoting Corvus

OK fair enough. But you know philosophical topics cannot be discussed meaningfully without reference to reality and the facts of the world we live in. Truth, logic and the laws of reasoning are based on the reality and the facts of the world, and they always come first in the proof process.

Hence an If statement with non-factual premises will be rejected. Some folks will say it is denial of antecedent. I say, it is a nonsense. Reality and the facts of the world is the basis of logical arguments.

What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Quoting Corvus

But if the argument is full of nonsense, then should it not be pointed out? Claiming the clarification process as off-topic sounds irrational too.

It is not irrational. To focus on an argument we have to limit the scope of discussion, otherwise, we don't get anywhere.

Quoting MoK

What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

The argument has many premises, but each premises need to be debated and verified for its coherence and soundness in order to proceed to the next premise and then to the conclusion. I am not sure if some folks just blindly accept any premises laid out as valid premise, and go crazy if the premise was denied, or assert that premises must be accepted without checking them out. But to me that is not logic.

Each premises must be checked out and verified for its validity and soundness. If you don't agree, then the argument cannot be reasoned between us. You need to discuss it with someone who insist all premises must be accepted as truth no matter what the premises say such as the Moon is made of cheese, or The King of France has 50 fingers.

This is a super large topic, because we must start with the first premise "God exists". This proposition has been in discussion for hundreds of years in history of philosophy.

Reply to Corvus
I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion.

Quoting MoK

Because we are no longer mortal creatures when we are in that state of contemplation. And since we are mortal creatures right now, we cannot comprehend it. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you saying that we cannot contemplate when we are mortal?

No, Mok, that's not what I'm saying. Let me quote Meillassoux again:

Quentin Meillassoux:
The Christian dogmatist claims to know (because he has supposedly demonstrated it) that our existence continues after death, and that it consists in the eternal contemplation of a God whose nature is incomprehensible from within the confines of our present existence.

Notice that he says eternal contemplation. That sort of contemplation is impossible for us, since we are not eternal. We can only contemplate in a non-eternal way. You might say "but it's still contemplation in both cases." And you would be correct. But non-eternal contemplation is distracted by other things, such as our need to hydrate, eat, and sleep. Presumably, none of those needs exist in Heaven, so our contemplation in that state (presumably) is not distracted by anything. All of this is just speculation, though.

Quoting MoK

What do you mean by contemplation then?

To contemplate something, in the literal sense, is to look at it. For example, when I look at my kitchen table, I am contemplating it. In a figurative sense, to contemplate something means to think about it.

Quoting MoK

Elsewhere in this thread, you mentioned that we cannot understand God's essence even in Heaven.

Exactly. Suppose (if only for the sake of argument), that after you die, you go to Heaven. It follows from Meillassoux's suggestions that all there is to do there, is to contemplate the Image of God. But here's the point: God is not identical to his Image, just as you're not identical to your appearance. In general, nothing is identical to its appearance. God's being (understood in the manner of Harman's interpretation of Heidegger) unlike His Image, is inaccessible to us, and even to Himself.

Quoting MoK

I then asked what the point of contemplation is if we cannot understand God's essence.

Well, what is the point of contemplating your kitchen table, if we cannot understand its essence? No essence can be understood, not even the essence of fictional characters.

Quoting MoK

Arcane Sandwich
I read the quotes that you mentioned a few times but I have difficulty understanding them. So, I searched on the net and I found an article from Christian Klotz entitled "Substance and Subject, from Kant to Hegel". From my reading, it seems there are two interpretations of Hegel's idea of what the subject is. Let's discuss the first interpretation first: "Thus, Charles Tayler explains the Hegelian claim that the Absolute is equally subject in the following way: “God thus posits the world in order to think himself in it” (Taylor, 1975, p. 108). According to Taylor, in Hegel’s conception the world is understood as that expression of God which is necessary for God’s selfknowledge. In this interpretation, the notion of subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge."

What do you think of this interpretation?

It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct.

Quoting MoK

I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion.

I was discussing about the logical problems in the argument of the OP, but you seem to think it is not related to the OP.

Philosophical discussion is all about clarification and verification with reasoning and logical inference on the given arguments. It is not about blindly accepting premises, assumption and definitions randomly made up.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
I see and thanks for your post.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct.

Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being.

Quoting MoK

?Arcane Sandwich

I see and thanks for your post.

No problem, happy to help. :up:

Quoting MoK

Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being.

That's an extremely complicated question as far as Hegelian scholarship is concerned. Why don't you tell me what you think about it, in order to see if your view matches Hegel's view?

Reply to Corvus
As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me. Other philosophers in this forum are interested in the topic though. My main reason for opening this thread was to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one, where the uncaused cause is an unchanging thing and cause of all changes whereas God is the creator. To me, this is a significant contribution.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

That's an extremely complicated question as far as Hegelian scholarship is concerned. Why don't you tell me what you think about it, in order to see if your view matches Hegel's view?

Well, I think my understanding of His work is not complete as I only spent a few hours reading the article that I cited. In this article, it is mentioned that "In this interpretation, the notion of the subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge.". That seems to be one interpretation though so I was unsure whether my understanding is correct or not.

Reply to MoK Think of it like this, MoK. The title of this Thread is "God changes". That's an unproblematic claim for a Hegelian. Of course he changes, is what the Hegelian would say. Everything does. That's what Heraclitus meant with his example of the river.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
OK, thanks.

Reply to MoK Sure, no problem. If you have any other questions, I'll try to respond to them, to the best of my ability. Which is proof of nothing, though. There are better philosophers out there.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
I am not a philosopher by a physicist by training so I need the help of other philosophers to refine my ideas and make them concrete. Thank you very much for your very positive contribution to this thread.

Quoting MoK

I am not a philosopher by a physicist by training so I need the help of other philosophers to refine my ideas and make them concrete.

Well, then you might be interested in the work of Mario Bunge.

Quoting MoK

Thank you very much for your very positive contribution to this thread.

Sure mate, happy to help.

Cheers.

Quoting MoK

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using.
— Philosophim
There are several arguments for that. Please see Count Timothy von Icarus post here. By change, I mean going from one state to another state.

My point is that's a gross misunderstanding of the text and quite frankly, stupid. If someone holds that argument don't even waste your time.

Quoting MoK

As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me.

I never said that. As you confirmed you said it, and it sounds too hasty judgements based on your feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests again. :roll: :smile:

Quoting MoK

to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one,

The idea of uncaused cause? Isn't it a contradiction? It sounds like timeless time or unmoved movement.

Philosophy is to point out contradictions and clarify them whether they are acceptable for the arguments and contexts. You seem to be happy to accept the contradictions disguised as significant contribution (whatever that means) without philosophical clarification. :wink:

Reply to Philosophim
There are arguments for the existence of God. For example, the argument from motion by Aquinas:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change
8. Therefore, God exists.

However, this argument has problems: 3 is not necessarily true, and there is a jump from 6 to 7. I developed a new argument for the uncaused cause that you can find here. As always, your criticisms and input are welcome.

Reply to Corvus
There are arguments for the uncaused cause, such as Aquinas's argument from change. However, he mixes the concept of God, the creator of creation from nothing, with the uncaused cause. Here, I am trying to establish that the uncaused cause and God are different.

Reply to MoK Reply to MoK We mustn't forget that every Dragon is born from an egg. And the average lifespan of a Dragon far surpasses the average lifespan of a human. Right?

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
If we accept that God exists for the sake of argument then God is either the result of evolution or He simply exists as an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. However, God's substance could be corruptible or incorruptible so He is either the subject of destruction because of aging or He can live forever.

Reply to MoK Well MoK, an atheist such as myself would say that God does not exist. And I say that as a Hegelian. Why? Because the Ultimate Synthesis, for Hegel, is the following one:

Ultimate Thesis: Art Itself
Ultimate anti-Thesis: Religion Itself
Ultimate Synthesis: Philosophy Itself.

In other words, MoK, according to Hegel, the following formula is True (it has a "T" value):
Philosophy > (Art + Religion).

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Well MoK, an atheist such as myself would say that God does not exist. And I say that as a Hegelian. Why? Because the Ultimate Synthesis, for Hegel, is the following one:

Ultimate Thesis: Art Itself
Ultimate anti-Thesis: Religion Itself
Ultimate Synthesis: Philosophy Itself.

In other words, MoK, according to Hegel, the following formula is True (it has a "T" value):
Philosophy > (Art + Religion).

What is art to Hegel? What is religion to Hegel? What is philosophy to Hegel?

Reply to MoK

Art is what Aesthetics studies.
Religion is what Theology studies.
And Philosophy is what Science studies.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Ok, and thanks.

Reply to MoK Don't take my word for it, though.

Quoting MoK

He is either the subject of destruction because of aging or He can live forever.

The eternal God already has OldTimer's disease, for He can't recall His earliest memory!

Quoting Corvus

If the Moon is made of cheese

The moon is dusty and full of craters; that's what happens when you leave cheese out!

Quoting MoK

I don't believe that God is made of matter; otherwise, God would be visible to us. That also applies to spiritual agents.

Or some believers have Invisibility Disorder of imaginary friends.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

The eternal God already has OldTimer's disease, for He can't recall His earliest memory!

Probably! Who knows!?

Quoting PoeticUniverse

Or some believers have Invisibility Disorder of imaginary friends.

Maybe!

Quoting PoeticUniverse

The moon is dusty and full of craters; that's what happens when you leave cheese out!

"If the moon is made of cheese" is a nonsense premise, hence it was rejected outright with whatever follows from it. :)

Quoting MoK

Here, I am trying to establish that the uncaused cause and God are different.

Metaphysical theories can be established only via the refutations and arguments against their critics, not by avoidance of the critics. Keep arguing rationally and logically until the sound conclusions are reached is the way of the establishment.

Reply to MoK :roll:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966656

Reply to 180 Proof
I already change the argument to include your objection:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Quoting Corvus

Metaphysical theories can be established only via the refutations and arguments against their critics, not by avoidance of the critics. Keep arguing rationally and logically until the sound conclusions are reached is the way of the establishment.

Here is the argument from Change for God by Aquinas:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change
8. Therefore, God exists.

There are two objections here: a) 3 is not necessarily true and b) there is a jump from 6 to 7. Accepting b) is a correct objection the argument looks like this:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.

This argument is valid and sound if we accept that objection a) is not valid or there is a way to answer this objection. This is an argument for the existence of uncaused cause though. All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause. I argue that God, given His definition, is subject to change therefore God cannot be the uncaused cause since the uncaused cause is changeless.

Quoting MoK

All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause.

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument? I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me.

Quoting Corvus

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument?

It means that it is not caused and it is the cause of everything else.

Quoting Corvus

I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me.

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it.

Quoting MoK

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it.

What is your argument for it? Just to reconfirm. Please elaborate with the reason why it is valid with supporting examples and evidence from real world. Thanks.

Reply to Corvus
Please find my argument here.

Quoting MoK

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change

Does experience exist? Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience? Does experience change? From what to what does it change?

Quoting Corvus

Does experience exist?

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience.

Quoting Corvus

Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience?

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences.

Quoting Corvus

Does experience change? From what to what does it change?

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book.

P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist? From this case, can we say all experiences exist? Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't. In that case, it is correct to say experience exist?

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical?

Quoting MoK

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience.

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Quoting MoK

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences.

Experience whatever experiences? Isn't it a tautology? They also know whatever they know. MoK likes whatever MoK likes. :chin:

Quoting MoK

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book.

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed.

It would be nice of you if you discuss this topic in another thread

Quoting Corvus

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist?

Because you have never been there.

Quoting Corvus

From this case, can we say all experiences exist?

Sure not.

Quoting Corvus

Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't.

Yes.

Quoting Corvus

In that case, it is correct to say experience exist?

Yes, certain experience exists.

Quoting Corvus

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical?

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain.

Quoting Corvus

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed.

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc.

Quoting MoK

Because you have never been there.

So do you agree that experience cannot be said to exist? You either have it, or don't have it. You can only have experience of something if you had perceived something from the empirical world. You can only be aware of your own experience. No one else's. I don't have a single scooby clue what experience you have. I just know of my own.

Quoting MoK

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain.

It is just feeling the pain, not experiencing it. Experience happens when I conceptualise the pain from the memory, and tell someone about it. I experienced the pain of getting kicked.
You seem to confusing between feelings and concepts.

Quoting MoK

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc.

It is the same thing. When I watch movie, I am having visual and auditory perception. Later when I recall it from memory, and tell someone about it, then I could say it was my experience of disappointment or enjoyment etc. Experience is an abstract mental state, which is a concept. It is not sensation or perception. If something in one's mind, and totally private to the individual, then it is impossible to say it exists or not existing. It would be illogical to say mental events exists. One can either have the mental events or not. It can only be verified objectively by one's explanation about the events.

Quoting Corvus

So do you agree that experience cannot be said to exist? You either have it, or don't have it. You can only have experience of something if you had perceived something from the empirical world. You can only be aware of your own experience. No one else's. I don't have a single scooby clue what experience you have. I just know of my own.

I think I was clear with what I said. If you are not in Australia then you cannot experience Australia.

Quoting Corvus

It is just feeling the pain, not experiencing it. Experience happens when I conceptualise the pain from the memory, and tell someone about it. I experienced the pain of getting kicked. You seem to confusing between feelings and concepts.

Feeling pain is a sort of experience and I am not talking about concept here.

Quoting Corvus

It is the same thing. When I watch movie, I am having visual and auditory perception.

But visual and auditory perception are sorts of experiences.

Quoting Corvus

Experience is an abstract mental state, which is a concept. It is not sensation or perception.

Experience is a conscious event that contains information, whether it is perception, recalling memory, having emotion, etc.

Quoting MoK

I think I was clear with what I said. If you are not in Australia then you cannot experience Australia.

Experience is a word of empty shell when it is said with no information on the owner and content i.e. whose experience it is, and what the experience is about.

Reply to MoK Quoting MoK

Experience is a conscious event that contains information, whether it is perception, recalling memory, having emotion, etc.

Ditto

Quoting MoK

But visual and auditory perception are sorts of experiences.

Ditto

Quoting MoK

Feeling pain is a sort of experience and I am not talking about concept here.

Experience is only meaningful when it was given with the info about the owner and content of the experience. "Experience exists" says nothing meaningful. Experience is one's mental content which only the experiencer knows, and cannot be said to exist until described in intelligible language to other humans.

Quoting Corvus

Experience is a word of empty shell when it is said with no information on the owner and content i.e. whose experience it is, and what the experience is about.

Of course, I am not an Idealist so by experiencing I mean that there is an agent who experiences something.

Reply to MoK Who is the agent, and what is the experience about?

Could you please continue this discussion in another thread?
Reply to Corvus
Me, you, etc.

Quoting MoK

Could you please continue this discussion in another thread?

I don't jump into a thread where the OP has been engaging discussion with the other folk. It wouldn't be fair to the party criticised by more than one debater, whoever happens to be criticised, supported or condoned in the debate.

That action would be like ganging up with others like the gangs in the streets, and wouldn't be fair for the lone defender. It would not likely yield true and fair conclusions, and anyone ganging up in the debates are not neutral or genuine debaters. Waiting for 1:1 engagement is my etiquette in debates. I am quite happy to wait, and take things easy and slow.

You know philosophical debates not all about proving one is right and the other is wrong, one is better than the others, one knows more than the others etc. That would be pointless psychological masturbation.

Philosophical discussions are for pursuit of fair truths by all parties involved in the discussions motivated by mutual fairness, good spirits and eudaimonia.

Let me know when you ended the engagement in the other thread, then I will read the OP to see if I have any points to contribute in the argument. :)

Quoting MoK

Me, you, etc.

Well, frankly I don't know anything about your experience, hence it would not be meaningful to agree your experience exists. X cannot exist, if X passed and belong to the past, or if X is unknowable. So "MoK's experience exists." would be a meaningless statement to me, unless MoK tells me what the experience is about MoK was meaning.

I know my own experience which need to be conceptualised into linguistic form, if someone wants to hear about it.

Quoting Corvus

I don't jump into a thread where the OP has been engaging discussion with the other folk. It wouldn't be fair to the party criticised by more than one debater, whoever happens to be criticised, supported or condoned in the debate.

That action would be like ganging up with others like the gangs in the streets, and wouldn't be fair for the lone defender. It would not likely yield true and fair conclusions, and anyone ganging up in the debates are not neutral or genuine debaters. Waiting for 1:1 engagement is my etiquette in debates. I am quite happy to wait, and take things easy and slow.

I have no problem being criticized by many. It would be nice of you if we could continue this discussion in another thread since our discussions relate to that thread and your question could be a question from others.

Quoting Corvus

You know philosophical debates not all about proving one is right and the other is wrong, one is better than the others, one knows more than the others etc. That would be pointless psychological masturbation.

Philosophical discussions are for pursuit of fair truths by all parties involved in the discussions motivated by mutual fairness, good spirits and eudaimonia.

Correct.

Quoting Corvus

Well, frankly I don't know anything about your experience, hence it would not be meaningful to agree your experience exists. X cannot exist, if X passed and belong to the past, or if X is unknowable. So "MoK's experience exists." would be a meaningless statement to me, unless MoK tells me what the experience is about MoK was meaning.

I know my own experience which need to be conceptualised into linguistic form, if someone wants to hear about it.

Yes, let's focus on you. Could we agree that you are an agent and have certain experience?

Quoting MoK

I have no problem being criticized by many. It would be nice of you if we could continue this discussion in another thread since our discussions relate to that thread and your question could be a question from others.

You seem to have strong psychology. Cool man. :up:

Quoting MoK

Yes, let's focus on you. Could we agree that you are an agent and have certain experience?

Am I an agent? No, I am just a bundle of perceptions.

Do I have certain experience? I do. But I need to dig out the past events which are dead and gone now from my memory, and then package into concepts called experience.

It is a kind of reduction of the past memories into the conceptualised concept called experience.

Does it exist? Experience only exists in one's mind. Could we call it as existence? You tell me.

Quoting Corvus

You seem to have strong psychology. Cool man. :up:

MoK a Dragon, what do you expect?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

MoK a Dragon, what do you expect?

Do dragons have horns? Never seen one with the horns must admit.
I thought it was some type of bird, but not sure now. Could we call it drabird? A mixture of dragon and bird? Better ask MoK himself on that, suppose.

Do dragons exist? When saying X exists, it must be supplied with at least three properties.
1) The location of existence (In mind or in the world)
2) The structure of existence (what it is made of)
3) Time of existence (past present or future)

Without the qualities of existence, claim of existence sound unclear.

Reply to Corvus All of your questions have their corresponding answers in the 2nd and 3rd Editions of the Draconomicon.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich I am afraid I am not familiar with dragons.

Reply to Corvus If you want to know more about them, I just gave you two references.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich I would only be interested in their nature and status of existence in ontology and epistemology.

Reply to Corvus All of that is in the references that I told you.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich ok thanks.

Reply to Corvus No problem, happy to help :up:

Here's more information about the references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconomicon

Quoting Corvus

Am I an agent? No, I am just a bundle of perceptions.

So you are an idealist. So you are not made of physical?

Quoting Corvus

Do I have certain experience? I do. But I need to dig out the past events which are dead and gone now from my memory, and then package into concepts called experience.

How could you have memory? Memory must be stored somewhere.

Quoting Corvus

It is a kind of reduction of the past memories into the conceptualised concept called experience.

How could you construct any coherent thoughts if you are mere perception? Any coherent thought requires a memory of ideas you experienced in the past. It also requires a process on the memory as well.

Quoting Corvus

Does it exist? Experience only exists in one's mind. Could we call it as existence? You tell me.

What is the mind to you?

Quoting MoK

So you are an idealist. So you are not made of physical?

I am not an idealist. I don't belong to any of these isms. My ideas are flexible depending on what topics we are talking about. I am perceptions means that when I try to find my own self, all I can find is a bundle of perceptions about me i.e. perceptions on the body and the content of mind. There is nothing called an agent in me at all. You need to read Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature to understand this point.

Quoting MoK

How could you have memory? Memory must be stored somewhere.

There is no place called memory. Maybe there is biologically and physically, maybe you can locate where the memory functions happening in your brain. But I suppose it would be a topic of brain science, rather than Metaphysics.
When I can remember something, I call that function of mind as memory. The object which is remembered is called "the content" of memory.

Quoting MoK

How could you construct any coherent thoughts if you are mere perception? Any coherent thought requires a memory of ideas you experienced in the past. It also requires a process on the memory as well.

Again you need to read "A Treatise of Human Nature". Everything that appears in your mind is perception including ideas and impressions on the external objects in the world, the contents of memories and imagination, feelings and sensations, emotions etc. They are all types of perception.

Quoting MoK

What is the mind to you?

Mind is, again, a bundle of perception. If you don't have perception, then you don't have a mind. You just have a body. Mind needs its body where it is generated from. When the body dies, the mind evaporates too.

Quoting Corvus

I am not an idealist. I don't belong to any of these isms. My ideas are flexible depending on what topics we are talking about. I am perceptions means that when I try to find my own self, all I can find is a bundle of perceptions about me i.e. perceptions on the body and the content of mind. There is nothing called an agent in me at all. You need to read Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature to understand this point.

I didn't say that there is an agent in you. I said whether you are an agent by this I mean you are physical with a set of properties.

Quoting Corvus

There is no place called memory. Maybe there is biologically and physically, maybe you can locate where the memory functions happening in your brain. But I suppose it would be a topic of brain science, rather than Metaphysics.

The existence of memory is very relevant to the philosophy of the mind.

Quoting Corvus

When I can remember something, I call that function of mind as memory.

That is called recalling memory.

Quoting Corvus

The object which is remembered is called "the content" of memory.

Correct.

Quoting Corvus

Again you need to read "A Treatise of Human Nature". Everything that appears in your mind is perception including ideas and impressions on the external objects in the world, the contents of memories and imagination, feelings and sensations, emotions etc. They are all types of perception.

I call all of these experiences rather than perception. Please do not offer me to read a book on a topic that does not address my points.

Quoting Corvus

Mind is, again, a bundle of perception. If you don't have perception, then you don't have a mind. You just have a body. Mind needs its body where it is generated from. When the body dies, the mind evaporates too.

So, how could you have coherent thoughts and memory if the mind to you is just a bundle of perception?

Quoting MoK

I call all of these experiences rather than perception. Please do not offer me to read a book on a topic that does not address my points.

I only offered the Original Text by Hume, because it answers everything you have been asking about.

Quoting MoK

So, how could you have coherent thoughts and memory if the mind to you is just a bundle of perception?

I thought it was obvious. This is what I mean. The answer is in the book by Hume "A Treatise of Human Nature". Having not read it causes folks in confusion and mystified state of their knowledge on the obvious facts. Thoughts are also perception. :)

Quoting MoK

I didn't say that there is an agent in you. I said whether you are an agent by this I mean you are physical with a set of properties.

Of course you did. But as I am not an agent, I was looking around me, and in me and in my mind to see if I am an agent. I couldn't find any impressions or ideas matching an agent at all. At this point, I was wondering what made MoK to imagine I was an agent.

Quoting Corvus

I thought it was obvious. This is what I mean. The answer is in the book by Hume "A Treatise of Human Nature". Having not read it causes folks in confusion and mystified state of their knowledge on the obvious facts. Thoughts are also perception.

Could you please quote a part of his book on this matter or elaborate on your understanding of his book?

Quoting Corvus

Of course you did. But as I am not an agent, I was looking around me, and in me and in my mind to see if I am an agent. I couldn't find any impressions or ideas matching an agent at all. At this point, I was wondering what made MoK to imagine I was an agent.

No, I didn't. I asked whether you are an agent. By agent I mean you are physical with a set of properties. So, again, are you an agent? Yes or no.

Quoting MoK

No, I didn't. I asked whether you are an agent. By agent I mean you are physical with a set of properties. So, again, are you an agent? Yes or no.

Well if that is your definition of agent, I would day your definition is not quite right. Please consult the dictionary on the meaning.


agent
/?e?d?(?)nt/
noun
1.
a person who acts on behalf of another person or group.
"in the event of illness, a durable power of attorney enabled her nephew to act as her agent"
???:
representative
negotiator
business manager
emissary
envoy
factor
go-between
proxy
surrogate
trustee
liaison
broker
delegate
spokesperson
spokesman
spokeswoman
frontman
mouthpiece
rep
2.
a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.
"these teachers view themselves as agents of social change"

I am a person, and have physical body of course with the usual properties. I am not a dragon or bird, if you didn't know.

Reply to Corvus
An agent is also defined as a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect. Anyhow. You mentioned that you have a physical body that calls it a person. That is all right to me.

Reply to MoK I am not sure if agent is a technical term to mean what you mean. But if you said you are a person, then it would have been clearer. :D Carry on my friend ~

Quoting MoK

An agent is also defined as a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.

Why was your definition not in the dictionary?

Quoting Corvus

I am not sure if agent is a technical term to mean what you mean. But if you said you are a person, then it would have been clearer. :D Carry on my friend ~

I am waiting for a quote from his book or your understanding of the book.

Quoting Corvus

Why was your definition not in the dictionary?

The Google dictionary gives another definition as well. Anyway, I am happy to call myself a person or agent. I already defined what I mean by agent anyway. Let's put this aside and focus on your understanding of Hume's works.

Quoting MoK

The Google dictionary gives another definition as well.

I don't trust the big companies. They usually have lot of false info too. The sole purpose of these large business are making profits, not pursuit of truths.

Quoting MoK

Anyway, I am happy to call myself a person or agent.

Stick with person mate. We need to stick to common language which delivers the clearest meanings. Not cooked up jargons especially in philosophical discussion where clarity is the most critical element of the subject.

Quoting MoK

Let's put this aside and focus on your understanding of Hume's works.

I have read enough of Hume. I have a wall of the other books I am reading, and have no time to read Hume again. It is you who seems in desperate need to reading Hume, because you keep asking the questions which the answers all laid out in Hume's books written almost 300 years ago.

Reply to MoK Any questions on Hume's topics? Start a new OP.

Quoting Corvus

I have read enough of Hume. I have a wall of the other books I am reading, and have no time to read Hume again. It is you who seems in desperate need to reading Hume, because you keep asking the questions which the answers all laid out in Hume's books written almost 300 years ago.

So you cannot report your understanding of his work yet claiming that he addressed my questions?

Quoting MoK

So you cannot report your understanding of his work yet claiming that he addressed my questions?

Will discuss about Hume with you, if you start a new OP on the topic. Discussing Hume in here would be likely grossly off-topic.

Quoting Corvus

Any questions on Hume's topics? Start a new topic.

I am not an expert on his work so please feel free to open a new thread and I would be happy to join.

Quoting Corvus

Will discuss about Hume with you, if you start a new OP on the topic. Discussing Hume in here would be likely grossly off-topic

It is off-topic on this thread! It is not off-topic on the other thread!

Quoting MoK

I am not an expert on his work so please feel free to open a new thread and I would be happy to join.

You don't need to be an expert to be able to create a new OP on Hume. ^_^

Reply to Corvus
I am not familiar with his work so I don't even know how to start a new thread on the topic. So please, open a new thread and I would be happy to join you there.

Reply to MoK

I am not an expert on Hume either.  I just read some parts of his books, and agreed with some of his points. 

We read the original works be it Hume, Kant or Nietzsche, so we could try to find the parts which resonate with our own ideas on understanding the world.   The readings would be pointless, if we just read them, and parrot them away as if they are the holy grail verses from the Bible.

The original classic works are being read by the contemporary readers like us, because we would like to find the resonating points with our own ideas on interpreting and understanding the world, truth, mind and knowledge, which could be achieved by our own interpretations.

One of the ideal original thinkers, who is good for our own creative interpretation, is Nietzsche, because his works are written in poetic sarcasms and metaphors and rhetoric in large part.

More terse writers such as Kant or Hume wouldn't allow that kind of freedom for creative interpretation.  But still, the bottom line is, without your own interpretations and resonations, the original works would be of little value for spending time on readings.  That is just my opinion.  You are free to disagree.

But going back to the OP, the suggestion for a new OP was made purely due to the nature of your questions directed at me.  I just thought the answers are all in Hume's work.  Why not read them, and save time?  After that, if your mind is still filled with lingering interests and curiosities on his work and thought, then why not start an OP to discuss with more members who are the actual experts?

It was just a suggestion. Not a plea or request.  Now you have two good OPs to concentrate on.   After that, if you still feel you would be interested in discussing Hume's work, then let me know exactly what area of his philosophy you are interested in.  We could work out then on the ideal title of the new topic you might want to launch. :)

Although I sometimes quote Hume's ideas, neither I am an expert, nor my main interest lies in his philosophy. I am just a casual reader.

Reply to Corvus
I am afraid that I am so busy with too many things right now. I am not even sure if Hume's works are relevant here. You are more knowledgeable than me and if you think that his work is relevant then opening a new thread is due to you.

Reply to MoK

You are a busy man. OK no probs mate. I don't think Hume is directly linked to the OP. So no worries.

As I said, the only reason I quoted Hume was because you asked me, if I am an agent. Whenever someone asks me what I am, my answer has always been, a bundle of perception. Because that is what I believe who I am.

Reply to Corvus
Ok, no problem, and I hope we can discuss other topics elsewhere. Have a good time mate!