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
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
That was going to be my comment. Also, God would not be "undecided." — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.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
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.P1) Cga — Arcane Sandwich
I think I understand that. So we are on the same page.D1) a = df c(s,n) — 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.C1) ∃x(x=g) — Arcane Sandwich
Therefore, I think that C1 follows from P1 and D1, so it is not tautological.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
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.So, I'd like to know how you would formalize your own argument. — Arcane Sandwich
Yes, that means that God exists in time. — MoK
Thank you very much for your interest and offering to help me write the argument in first-order predicate logic. — 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. — 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. — 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. — MoK
Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ...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
Thanks for the elaboration. I see what you mean.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
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.You might even want to ditch "a", and simply say: Ag. That's another possibility. — 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.C1) ∃x∀y(Gy ↔ (x=y)) — 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:Now C1 is no longer tautological. But if you do this, then P1 and D1 would have to be rewritten. — 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.Another option is to keep "g" for "God", and to formalize C1 like so:
C1) ∀x(x=g) — Arcane Sandwich
I have a difficult time understanding this one. Could you please write this one in English?Alternatively, you could say:
C1) ¬∃x(¬(x=g)) — Arcane Sandwich
I changed the conclusions, C1 and C2, accordingly to avoid further confusion. Please let me know what you think.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
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:Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ... — 180 Proof
No, there is no contradiction. By "creation from nothing" I mean that the creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.First – (D1) "from nothing" contradicts (P1) "caused by an agent"; thus, (C1) is invalid. — 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.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 cannot see how that follows. Do you mind elaborating?(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
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
I spent the whole morning trying to rewrite the first part of the argument. — 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) — MoK
C1) ¬∃x(¬(x=g)) — Arcane Sandwich
I have a difficult time understanding this one. Could you please write this one in English? — MoK
Ok, thanks."A" means "causes the act of creation", so "Ag" means "God causes the act of creation". — 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.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
So what do you think of the new revision for the first part of the argument?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
I see. I however want to say that there is a situation in which God only exists.It means: there is no x, such that x is not identical to God. — Arcane Sandwich
So what do you think of the new revision for the first part of the argument? — 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) — MoK
Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true and P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator").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
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.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
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.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
My point, as you noticed, is that the act of creation requires a decision so God has to change to create.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
Here, I am not going to discuss the Christian God.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
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.Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true — 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".P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator"). — 180 Proof
By the way, what do you think of the other half of the argument in OP? — MoK
Thank you very much for your support. I learned from you how to write an argument in such a format.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
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.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
Oh, I see. This is even shorter. Thank you again for your contribution.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
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.