@Arcane Sandwich
I read the quotes that you mentioned a few times but I have difficulty understanding them. So, I searched on the net and I found an article from Christian Klotz entitled "Substance and Subject, from Kant to Hegel". From my reading, it seems there are two interpretations of Hegel's idea of what the subject is. Let's discuss the first interpretation first: "Thus, Charles Tayler explains the Hegelian claim that the Absolute is equally subject in the following way: “God thus posits the world in order to think himself in it” (Taylor, 1975, p. 108). According to Taylor, in Hegel’s conception the world is understood as that expression of God which is necessary for God’s selfknowledge. In this interpretation, the notion of subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge."

What do you think of this interpretation?

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

When you say A caused B, you must be able to give out the detail of the cause. Simply saying A caused B, is not meaningful or informative.

If a stone caused window to break. It has further implied explanation that someone threw a stone at the window, which caused breaking.

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

It is informative in my opinion. A car is a substance, by this I mean it is made of matter, and it has a set of properties, such as form, color, weight, etc.

It is informative in my opinion. A car is a substance, by this I mean it is made of matter, and it has a set of properties, such as form, color, weight, etc. — MoK

Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc. God is not a physical matter, is it? Could you prove God is a physical matter? Definition is not a proof. Some definitions need proof to be meaningful.

How though? — Corvus

This is off-topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not willing to discuss whether P1 is true or false. So I am not willing to discuss how the act of creation from nothing is possible either. I assume that P1 is true and see what this assumption leads to.

This is off-topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not willing to discuss whether P1 is true or false. So I am not willing to discuss how the act of creation from nothing is possible either. I assume that P1 is true and see what this assumption leads to. — MoK

OK fair enough. But you know philosophical topics cannot be discussed meaningfully without reference to reality and the facts of the world we live in. Truth, logic and the laws of reasoning are based on the reality and the facts of the world, and they always come first in the proof process.

Hence an If statement with non-factual premises will be rejected. Some folks will say it is denial of antecedent. I say, it is a nonsense. Reality and the facts of the world is the basis of logical arguments. When someone gives with an IF statement with nonsense premise, then it has to be rejected.

If the Moon is made of cheese, then God is a substance.

The premise is a nonsense. The Moon is not made of cheese. Hence the statement is not worthy of consideration. It is not denying premise.

When you say A caused B, you must be able to give out the detail of the cause. Simply saying A caused B, is not meaningful or informative.

If a stone caused window to break. It has further implied explanation that someone threw a stone at the window, which caused breaking. — Corvus

This is off-topic too but I answer that. I make a distinction between due to cause and ultimate cause. By due to cause I mean that there exists something without it a change is not possible. So, in the example of a stone breaking a window, the stone is due to cause. By the ultimate cause, I mean that there exists something that is the cause of all changes. I call this thing the unmoved mover. So, in the example of a stone breaking a window, the motion of the stone and the change in the state of the window are caused by the uncaused cause.

This is off-topic too but I answer that. — MoK

But if the argument is full of nonsense, then should it not be pointed out? Claiming the clarification process as off-topic sounds irrational too.

Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc. — Corvus

That is not how I defined a substance.

God is not a physical matter, is it? Could you prove God is a physical matter? Definition is not a proof. Some definitions need proof to be meaningful. — Corvus

I don't believe that God is made of matter; otherwise, God would be visible to us. That also applies to spiritual agents.

OK fair enough. But you know philosophical topics cannot be discussed meaningfully without reference to reality and the facts of the world we live in. Truth, logic and the laws of reasoning are based on the reality and the facts of the world, and they always come first in the proof process.

Hence an If statement with non-factual premises will be rejected. Some folks will say it is denial of antecedent. I say, it is a nonsense. Reality and the facts of the world is the basis of logical arguments. — Corvus

What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

But if the argument is full of nonsense, then should it not be pointed out? Claiming the clarification process as off-topic sounds irrational too. — Corvus

It is not irrational. To focus on an argument we have to limit the scope of discussion, otherwise, we don't get anywhere.

What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes — MoK

The argument has many premises, but each premises need to be debated and verified for its coherence and soundness in order to proceed to the next premise and then to the conclusion. I am not sure if some folks just blindly accept any premises laid out as valid premise, and go crazy if the premise was denied, or assert that premises must be accepted without checking them out. But to me that is not logic.

Each premises must be checked out and verified for its validity and soundness. If you don't agree, then the argument cannot be reasoned between us. You need to discuss it with someone who insist all premises must be accepted as truth no matter what the premises say such as the Moon is made of cheese, or The King of France has 50 fingers.

This is a super large topic, because we must start with the first premise "God exists". This proposition has been in discussion for hundreds of years in history of philosophy.

I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion.

Because we are no longer mortal creatures when we are in that state of contemplation. And since we are mortal creatures right now, we cannot comprehend it. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you saying that we cannot contemplate when we are mortal? — MoK

No, Mok, that's not what I'm saying. Let me quote Meillassoux again:

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

Notice that he says eternal contemplation. That sort of contemplation is impossible for us, since we are not eternal. We can only contemplate in a non-eternal way. You might say "but it's still contemplation in both cases." And you would be correct. But non-eternal contemplation is distracted by other things, such as our need to hydrate, eat, and sleep. Presumably, none of those needs exist in Heaven, so our contemplation in that state (presumably) is not distracted by anything. All of this is just speculation, though.

What do you mean by contemplation then? — MoK

To contemplate something, in the literal sense, is to look at it. For example, when I look at my kitchen table, I am contemplating it. In a figurative sense, to contemplate something means to think about it.

Elsewhere in this thread, you mentioned that we cannot understand God's essence even in Heaven. — MoK

Exactly. Suppose (if only for the sake of argument), that after you die, you go to Heaven. It follows from Meillassoux's suggestions that all there is to do there, is to contemplate the Image of God. But here's the point: God is not identical to his Image, just as you're not identical to your appearance. In general, nothing is identical to its appearance. God's being (understood in the manner of Harman's interpretation of Heidegger) unlike His Image, is inaccessible to us, and even to Himself.

I then asked what the point of contemplation is if we cannot understand God's essence. — MoK

Well, what is the point of contemplating your kitchen table, if we cannot understand its essence? No essence can be understood, not even the essence of fictional characters.

Arcane Sandwich
I read the quotes that you mentioned a few times but I have difficulty understanding them. So, I searched on the net and I found an article from Christian Klotz entitled "Substance and Subject, from Kant to Hegel". From my reading, it seems there are two interpretations of Hegel's idea of what the subject is. Let's discuss the first interpretation first: "Thus, Charles Tayler explains the Hegelian claim that the Absolute is equally subject in the following way: “God thus posits the world in order to think himself in it” (Taylor, 1975, p. 108). According to Taylor, in Hegel’s conception the world is understood as that expression of God which is necessary for God’s selfknowledge. In this interpretation, the notion of subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge."

What do you think of this interpretation? — MoK

It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct.

I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion. — MoK

I was discussing about the logical problems in the argument of the OP, but you seem to think it is not related to the OP.

Philosophical discussion is all about clarification and verification with reasoning and logical inference on the given arguments. It is not about blindly accepting premises, assumption and definitions randomly made up.

I see and thanks for your post.

It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct. — Arcane Sandwich

Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being.

↪Arcane Sandwich

I see and thanks for your post. — MoK

No problem, happy to help. :up:

Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being. — MoK

That's an extremely complicated question as far as Hegelian scholarship is concerned. Why don't you tell me what you think about it, in order to see if your view matches Hegel's view?

As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me. Other philosophers in this forum are interested in the topic though. My main reason for opening this thread was to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one, where the uncaused cause is an unchanging thing and cause of all changes whereas God is the creator. To me, this is a significant contribution.

That's an extremely complicated question as far as Hegelian scholarship is concerned. Why don't you tell me what you think about it, in order to see if your view matches Hegel's view? — Arcane Sandwich

Well, I think my understanding of His work is not complete as I only spent a few hours reading the article that I cited. In this article, it is mentioned that "In this interpretation, the notion of the subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge.". That seems to be one interpretation though so I was unsure whether my understanding is correct or not.

Think of it like this, MoK. The title of this Thread is "God changes". That's an unproblematic claim for a Hegelian. Of course he changes, is what the Hegelian would say. Everything does. That's what Heraclitus meant with his example of the river.

OK, thanks.

Sure, no problem. If you have any other questions, I'll try to respond to them, to the best of my ability. Which is proof of nothing, though. There are better philosophers out there.

I am not a philosopher by a physicist by training so I need the help of other philosophers to refine my ideas and make them concrete. Thank you very much for your very positive contribution to this thread.

I am not a philosopher by a physicist by training so I need the help of other philosophers to refine my ideas and make them concrete. — MoK

Well, then you might be interested in the work of Mario Bunge.

Thank you very much for your very positive contribution to this thread. — MoK

Sure mate, happy to help.

Cheers.

There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using.
— Philosophim
There are several arguments for that. Please see Count Timothy von Icarus post here. By change, I mean going from one state to another state. — MoK

My point is that's a gross misunderstanding of the text and quite frankly, stupid. If someone holds that argument don't even waste your time.

As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me. — MoK

I never said that. As you confirmed you said it, and it sounds too hasty judgements based on your feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests again. :roll: :smile:

to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one, — MoK

The idea of uncaused cause? Isn't it a contradiction? It sounds like timeless time or unmoved movement.

Philosophy is to point out contradictions and clarify them whether they are acceptable for the arguments and contexts. You seem to be happy to accept the contradictions disguised as significant contribution (whatever that means) without philosophical clarification. :wink:

There are arguments for the existence of God. For example, the argument from motion by Aquinas:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change
8. Therefore, God exists.

However, this argument has problems: 3 is not necessarily true, and there is a jump from 6 to 7. I developed a new argument for the uncaused cause that you can find here. As always, your criticisms and input are welcome.

There are arguments for the uncaused cause, such as Aquinas's argument from change. However, he mixes the concept of God, the creator of creation from nothing, with the uncaused cause. Here, I am trying to establish that the uncaused cause and God are different.