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 — MoK

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.

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

John the Scott was right, Aquinas was wrong.

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

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.

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

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.

FC) Therefore, God changes — MoK

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.

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

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!?

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 — MoK

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.

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. — Hanover

Correct.

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. — Hanover

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

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

Are you talking about the beatific vision?

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

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

↪Arcane Sandwich
Are you talking about the beatific vision? — MoK

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.

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

What do you mean by a subject here?

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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

What do you mean by a subject here? — MoK

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

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

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.

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

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

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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?

— Arcane Sandwich

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

5. The absolute is subject –

Φ 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

Φ 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. — Hegel

So you only enjoy intellectual activity!? — MoK

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

I do but I also enjoy other things as well. — MoK

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

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

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.

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

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

Why should we get involved in contemplating something incomprehensible? — 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.

It is eternal torture as well. — MoK

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

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. — MoK

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.

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

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?

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? 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.

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. — Hanover

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.

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? — Corvus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

Is it from the Bible? — Corvus

It is a general belief of theists.

What is "the creation" here? — Corvus

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

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

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

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

How though? Who is an agent?