Another hidden premise. — 180 Proof

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

Why not? – a third hidden premise. :roll: — 180 Proof

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

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 — MoK

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.

FC) Therefore, God changes — MoK

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. :)

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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. — MoK

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.

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

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.

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."

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). — Count Timothy von Icarus

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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) — Count Timothy von Icarus

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

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). — Count Timothy von Icarus

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.

Boethius and others argument that God does not exist in time and is not a thing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

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?

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good and evil are fundamental properties of the existence. So, I won't buy that God and all things that exist 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" — Count Timothy von Icarus

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.

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

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.

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

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

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

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.

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.

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

The essence of God is incomprehensible to human reason.

Then there can be no purpose in discussing it.

Or rather, discussing it will not improve our understanding.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 — MoK

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

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

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.

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 — MoK

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.)

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.

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

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.

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. — Philosophim

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

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

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.

God changing is at odds with divine simplicity. — Banno

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

:up:

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

Cool. :up:

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. — Fire Ologist

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

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. — Fire Ologist

Yes, God is the creator hence that requires a 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. — Fire Ologist

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

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

Cool.

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." — Fire Ologist

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

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

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

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. — Fire Ologist

Cool. Let's go ahead.

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. — Fire Ologist

Cool. Let's go ahead.

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. — Fire Ologist

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

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). — Fire Ologist

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

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

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

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

I don't think we need this premise.

C2: So, God changes. — Fire Ologist

I don't see how that follows.

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.) — Fire Ologist

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.

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. — 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

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.

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

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

God understand His essence? — MoK

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