A new substance that is caused by God as is illustrated above when I discuss the act of creation from nothing. — 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. — 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. — MoK
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.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. — Corvus
That is not how I defined a substance.Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc. — Corvus
I don't believe that God is made of matter; otherwise, God would be visible to us. That also applies to spiritual agents.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. — Corvus
What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument: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. — Corvus
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 — 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? — MoK
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. — Quentin Meillassoux
What do you mean by contemplation then? — MoK
Elsewhere in this thread, you mentioned that we cannot understand God's essence even in Heaven. — MoK
I then asked what the point of contemplation is if we cannot understand God's essence. — 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? — MoK
I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion. — MoK
Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being.It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct. — Arcane Sandwich
↪Arcane Sandwich
I see and thanks for your post. — MoK
Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being. — MoK
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.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? — 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. — MoK
Thank you very much for your very positive contribution to this thread. — 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. — MoK
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:As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me. — MoK
The idea of uncaused cause? Isn't it a contradiction? It sounds like timeless time or unmoved movement.to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one, — MoK
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.