We cannot have a relationship with God

[Terrapin Station]

double post

[bahman]

double post

You can delete it.

[bahman]

How about addressing any of this (which is one of the reasons why I prefer chatting--it's less easy to just ignore stuff:)

Which basically comes down to whether you're counting sameness vs change (a) as an issue of something "with respect to itself" only, or (b) a la relations (in a broader ontological sense) to other things.

If (a), then cause and effect can obtain with something changeless, so that a God could be changeless and we could have a relationship with God after all.

Do you mean that God can cause something while being in a relationship without changes?

??? That comment didn't have anything specifically to do with the idea of God. It's about two different ways that you can posit something as changeless. Both of them have some problems, though (with respect to what you're attempting to argue).

If (b), then it's dubious that you can have something changeless period, because the changes of other things would be changes of the thing in question, too. For example, x might not interact with anything else and might not change with respect to itself, but maybe x was 5 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and since y moved, x is now 6 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and thus x changed, because relations (in that broader ontological sense) to other things count as a change in x, too.

I understand this but that is not what I mean with relation.

So then presumably you meant my (a) above. However, under (a), nothing precludes something from causing effects in other things yet being changeless.
[/quote]

Your post is messed up and I cannot follow you. Could you please again describe what (a) and (b) are?

[bahman]

Do you mean that God can cause something while being in a relationship without changes?

??? That comment didn't have anything specifically to do with the idea of God. It's about two different ways that you can posit something as changeless. Both of them have some problems, though (with respect to what you're attempting to argue).

If (b), then it's dubious that you can have something changeless period, because the changes of other things would be changes of the thing in question, too. For example, x might not interact with anything else and might not change with respect to itself, but maybe x was 5 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and since y moved, x is now 6 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and thus x changed, because relations (in that broader ontological sense) to other things count as a change in x, too.

I understand this but that is not what I mean with relation.

So then presumably you meant my (a) above. However, under (a), nothing precludes something from causing effects in other things yet being changeless.

Your post is messed up and I cannot follow you. Could you please again describe what (a) and (b) are?

[Terrapin Station]

Your post is messed up and I cannot follow you. Could you please again describe what (a) and (b) are?

Quoting myself:

"Which basically comes down to whether you're counting sameness vs change (a) as an issue of something 'with respect to itself' only, or (b) a la relations (in a broader ontological sense) to other things.

"If (a), then cause and effect can obtain with something changeless, so that a God could be changeless and we could have a relationship with God after all.

"If (b), then it's dubious that you can have something changeless period, because the changes of other things would be changes of the thing in question, too. For example, x might not interact with anything else and might not change with respect to itself, but maybe x was 5 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and since y moved, x is now 6 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and thus x changed, because relations (in that broader ontological sense) to other things count as a change in x, too."

[bahman]

"Which basically comes down to whether you're counting sameness vs change (a) as an issue of something 'with respect to itself' only, or (b) a la relations (in a broader ontological sense) to other things.

"If (a), then cause and effect can obtain with something changeless, so that a God could be changeless and we could have a relationship with God after all.

So you are thinking that we can be in relation with God although He is changeless?

"If (b), then it's dubious that you can have something changeless period, because the changes of other things would be changes of the thing in question, too. For example, x might not interact with anything else and might not change with respect to itself, but maybe x was 5 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and since y moved, x is now 6 meters to the right of y from perspective p, and thus x changed, because relations (in that broader ontological sense) to other things count as a change in x, too."

So you are saying that changing in y produce a change in x? This we are not really interested to when it comes to relationship if I understand you well.

[Terrapin Station]

So you are thinking that we can be in relation with God although He is changeless?

Yes, logically, you can have a monad, say, that causes effects in other things and that is itself effected so that its momentum changes, say, with the monad not changing with respect to itself--it only changes in relation to other things.

So you are saying that changing in y produce a change in x? This we are not really interested to when it comes to relationship if I understand you well.

In this second sense, yes. If we're counting relations to other things as part of the thing in question, then a change in y is a change in x, because x's relation to y has changed.

[bahman]

Yes, logically, you can have a monad, say, that causes effects in other things and that is itself effected so that its momentum changes, say, with the monad not changing with respect to itself--it only changes in relation to other things.

I don't understand how something could be changeless with respect to itself and changes in relation to others.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't understand how something could be changeless with respect to itself and changes in relation to others.

I can see it.

Let's suppose you're a father or mother. You are a consistent and kind one. As your child grows, the words "consistent" and "kind" don't change in their application to you: you don't change.

But your child does. At age 4, being consistent and kind entails sending him to bed at 8 each evening, for his physical and psychological well being. But that is not entailed at 14, so you have stopped doing it. Or at 8, you don't let him drink alcohol, but at 18 you let him make his own decision, or even give him some so he can find out what it is about and have a balanced attitude to its consumption.

You haven't changed: but he has. So has your relationship to him.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, logically, you can have a monad, say, that causes effects in other things and that is itself effected so that its momentum changes, say, with the monad not changing with respect to itself--it only changes in relation to other things.

I don't understand how something could be changeless with respect to itself and changes in relation to others.

Again, say that it's a moad effectively--a single thing with no parts. That single thing with no parts strikes something else and changes its momentum, say. Well, the single thing with no parts is still the same single thing with no parts. It's not changed from that at all. Likewise, it can be struck by something else and change its momentum. But it's still that same single thing with no parts.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Monadism is a theory that does no work and answers no questions.
It's empty BS.

[bahman]

I can see it.

Let's suppose you're a father or mother. You are a consistent and kind one. As your child grows, the words "consistent" and "kind" don't change in their application to you: you don't change.

But your child does. At age 4, being consistent and kind entails sending him to bed at 8 each evening, for his physical and psychological well being. But that is not entailed at 14, so you have stopped doing it. Or at 8, you don't let him drink alcohol, but at 18 you let him make his own decision, or even give him some so he can find out what it is about and have a balanced attitude to its consumption.

You haven't changed: but he has. So has your relationship to him.

Well, lets consider the following scenarios: (1) Your kid follows you accordingly and (2) Your kid breaks the rules. You don't change in the first case but you do change in the second case so your relationship is mutual and it is subjected to kid's action and what you expect from him/her. In simple word, we should expect change in both sides to have a relationship.

[bahman]

y that it's a moad effectively--a single thing with no parts. That single thing with no parts strikes something else and changes its momentum, say. Well, the single thing with no parts is still the same single thing with no parts. It's not changed from that at all. Likewise, it can be struck by something else and change its momentum. But it's still that same single thing with no parts.

That sort of relationship is not mutual. You need to have changes in both sides in order to have a mutual relationship.

[Terrapin Station]

y that it's a moad effectively--a single thing with no parts. That single thing with no parts strikes something else and changes its momentum, say. Well, the single thing with no parts is still the same single thing with no parts. It's not changed from that at all. Likewise, it can be struck by something else and change its momentum. But it's still that same single thing with no parts.

That sort of relationship is not mutual. You need to have changes in both sides in order to have a mutual relationship.

You said mutual cause and effect earlier. We have that.

If you're now requiring changes instead, then obviously a changeless thing doesn't change. Who would disagree with that? If they disagreed it would just show that they don't understand how to use language.

[bahman]

You said mutual cause and effect earlier. We have that.

If you're now requiring changes instead, then obviously a changeless thing doesn't change. Who would disagree with that? If they disagreed it would just show that they don't understand how to use language.

Could you make a relationship with a song, movie, painting, etc.? You can make relationship in your way of thinking but not in my way of thinking.