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

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.

: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

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?

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) — MoK

One possibility could be the following one:

P1) Cga
D1) a = _df 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.

That was going to be my comment. Also, God would not be "undecided." — Count Timothy von Icarus

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.

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.

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? — Arcane Sandwich

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.

P1) Cga — Arcane Sandwich

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.

D1) a = df c(s,n) — Arcane Sandwich

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

C1) ∃x(x=g) — Arcane Sandwich

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 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. — Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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.

Yes, that means that God exists in time. — MoK

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.

Thank you very much for your note.

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

Sure, no problem. Happy to help :up:

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. — MoK

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.

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. — MoK

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:

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. — MoK

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.

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) — MoK

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.

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". — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for the elaboration. I see what you mean.

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

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.

C1) ∃x∀y(Gy ↔ (x=y)) — Arcane Sandwich

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.

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

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.

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

C1) ∀x(x=g) — Arcane Sandwich

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.

Alternatively, you could say:

C1) ¬∃x(¬(x=g)) — Arcane Sandwich

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

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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

Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ... — 180 Proof

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)

First – (D1) "from nothing" contradicts (P1) "caused by an agent"; thus, (C1) is invalid. — 180 Proof

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

Second – (C1) also does not follow "from P1 and D1" whereby you conflate "nothing" (D1) with "nothing but God" which are not ontologically equivalent. — 180 Proof

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.

(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. — 180 Proof

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

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. — MoK

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

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

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.

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) — MoK

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?

C1) ¬∃x(¬(x=g)) — Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

Ok, thanks.

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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.

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? — Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

In your new version, you say:

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) — MoK

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.

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."

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) — MoK

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

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 — Arcane Sandwich

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.

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

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

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. — Fire Ologist

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

Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true — 180 Proof

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.

P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator"). — 180 Proof

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

, and yet god is supposedly unchanging.

So much the worse for god.

I assume it is true ... — MoK

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:

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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.

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 — Arcane Sandwich

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

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.