We cannot have a relationship with God

[Terrapin Station]

Mutuality was part of OP. We cannot have something back form something changeless no matter how hard we try. Relationship with God is then meaningless.

You might have been thinking "mutual," and thinking that you'd define that as "the same cause/effect" (noting that it's unusual to define it that way), but your initial post in this thread didn't say anything like that.

[bahman]

Mutuality was part of OP. We cannot have something back form something changeless no matter how hard we try. Relationship with God is then meaningless.

You might have been thinking "mutual," and thinking that you'd define that as "the same cause/effect" (noting that it's unusual to define it that way), but your initial post in this thread didn't say anything like that.

Mutuality was part of OP: "As an example, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you."

[Terrapin Station]

To me that reads like just one of many possible types of examples though. Not like you're only talking about it being the same thing on both sides.

[Immanuel Can]

How God could be love and respond to us, our needs and prayers, if He is changeless?

Define "changeless."

God is "character-changeless." But nobody says he's "relationally-changeless." For "relationship" is always between two people, not merely one.

So your premise is just wrong. In the sense you appear to intend to assert it, nobody is saying God is "changeless."

Likewise, with "responding," if God has a consistent character, he can respond in any way He wishes, so long as He responds in keeping with His declared nature and identity. His character has not thereby "changed."

Part of the problem may consist in you not realizing that God is, so to speak, a "Person," meaning that He has a specific kind of consciousness, identity, wishes, intentions, and so on. In fact, our own "personalities" are weak derivatives and copies of the Great Person -- for where else could the whole concept of "person" come from but the Supreme Being?

Persons can "change" relationally. Only impersonal "forces" are entirely incapable of change. God's not an impersonal force: at least, not according to Western thought, whether Jewish, Christian or even Islamic.

[Immanuel Can]

Mutuality was part of OP. We cannot have something back form something changeless no matter how hard we try. Relationship with God is then meaningless.

In your first sentence above, it seems you want to use the word "changeless" as an absolute. Then in the second, you want to use is as an adjective describing the noun "relationship." Logically, though, you can't just jump from the first claim to the second. It does not follow. It's a non-sequitur, and it's created by amphiboly of the term "changeless".

Thus the OP is not sound. Or to put it another way, it does not work. It is not logical.

[bahman]

To me that reads like just one of many possible types of examples though. Not like you're only talking about it being the same thing on both sides.

So you agree that mutuality in relationship was part of OP?

[Terrapin Station]

To me that reads like just one of many possible types of examples though. Not like you're only talking about it being the same thing on both sides.

So you agree that mutuality in relationship was part of OP?

per the way you turned out to define "mutual" you gave an example that would count as mutual, yes.

[bahman]

Define "changeless."

Changeless: Remain the same.

God is "character-changeless." But nobody says he's "relationally-changeless." For "relationship" is always between two people, not merely one.

Relationally-changeable? What do you mean with that if God is changeless? Perhaps we are talking about different God. God to me is timeless and dwells in eternal now whereas we are temporal and live in now. There is no way to establish a relationship between two being, one temporal and another eternal.

So your premise is just wrong. In the sense you appear to intend to assert it, nobody is saying God is "changeless."

My premise is not wrong. God is changeless and timeless. I don't see why that should be wrong.

Likewise, with "responding," if God has a consistent character, he can respond in any way He wishes, so long as He responds in keeping with His declared nature and identity. His character has not thereby "changed."

Part of the problem may consist in you not realizing that God is, so to speak, a "Person," meaning that He has a specific kind of consciousness, identity, wishes, intentions, and so on. In fact, our own "personalities" are weak derivatives and copies of the Great Person -- for where else could the whole concept of "person" come from but the Supreme Being?

That is correct. I have problem with your definition of God who has similar personality like us: Conscious, wishful, etc. For example, we experience things whereas God knows things. God has no wishes because he knows everything.

Persons can "change" relationally. Only impersonal "forces" are entirely incapable of change. God's not an impersonal force: at least, not according to Western thought, whether Jewish, Christian or even Islamic.

So your understanding of God is incoherent as it is explained in previous comment. Are you Catholic?

[bahman]

Mutuality was part of OP. We cannot have something back form something changeless no matter how hard we try. Relationship with God is then meaningless.

In your first sentence above, it seems you want to use the word "changeless" as an absolute. Then in the second, you want to use is as an adjective describing the noun "relationship." Logically, though, you can't just jump from the first claim to the second. It does not follow. It's a non-sequitur, and it's created by amphiboly of the term "changeless".

Thus the OP is not sound. Or to put it another way, it does not work. It is not logical.

Do you agree with the first sentence? If yes, then how do you describe a relationship with God? I mean if it is not meaningless then what it is?

[Immanuel Can]

Changeless: Remain the same.

In what regards?

God is "character-changeless." But nobody says he's "relationally-changeless." For "relationship" is always between two people, not merely one.

Relationally-changeable?

Misquotation. I said "relationaly-changeless." What this means is that other things change in their relation to God: NOT that God Himself has to change. I had hoped I had made that clear: should I try again?

There is no way to establish a relationship between two being, one temporal and another eternal.

Why? Please show that this is true. We would need reasons to believe it. Personally, I know of no such proof: it looks like a mere assumption, and what it's based on I cannot say.

My premise is not wrong. God is changeless and timeless. I don't see why that should be wrong.

Because you think it means "other people's relations to God have to also remain changeless." This isn't true, by definition. So your premise is guilty of an error logicians have called "amphiboly." And when a syllogism (your OP) contains an amphiboly, it means that the conclusion is no longer reliable.

Take out the amphiboly (the slide between "changeless" as it applies to God's nature, on the one hand, and to relationships to God on the other) and we'll see if your OP stands. But you need to get rid of the fallacy first.

That is correct. I have problem with your definition of God who has similar personality like us: Conscious, wishful, etc. For example, we experience things whereas God knows things. God has no wishes because he knows everything.

Yes, good: I thought that might be where we're missing each other.

I can only clarify this way: if you think God is not "conscious" then your view is not the same as the Western view of the Supreme Being. Then your OP (minus the fallacy) would perhaps prove a good argument for Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists, but would have no application to God as He's known in the West.

I'm happy to grant you the OP for Hinduism or Buddhism, if you like. But I can't tell you whether HIndus or Buddhists themselves will agree or not. I'm not one of them. I can only tell you that it doesn't work in the West. The concept of God is different here. Here, "God" refers to a Divine Person, not a "universal force."

So your understanding of God is incoherent as it is explained in previous comment. Are you Catholic?

No it isn't. It's just not the Eastern view. And No.

[Immanuel Can]

[Do you agree with the first sentence? If yes, then how do you describe a relationship with God? I mean if it is not meaningless then what it is?

What I don't agree with is the accidental slide between the use of "changeless" in the first sentence and its usage in subsequent premises. That's a very evident error in logic. Rationally, no one should agree with that.

If you look up the term "amphiboly" you'll see what's wrong there, I hope.

[Terrapin Station]

bahman, do you not see God as being the creator of the world?

[bahman]

In what regards?

In any regards.

God is "character-changeless." But nobody says he's "relationally-changeless." For "relationship" is always between two people, not merely one.

Relationally-changeable?

Misquotation. I said "relationaly-changeless." What this means is that other things change in their relation to God: NOT that God Himself has to change. I had hoped I had made that clear: should I try again?

I am amused with the concept of relationaly-changeless then if God remains the same.

Why? Please show that this is true. We would need reasons to believe it. Personally, I know of no such proof: it looks like a mere assumption, and what it's based on I cannot say.

Because God is timeless and we are temporal. There is no way that God could know our needs at a given time since we are living in temporal now and God dwell in eternal now. That is true because temporal now is subject to change and God cannot have the knowledge of it since that knowledge requires change.

Because you think it means "other people's relations to God have to also remain changeless." This isn't true, by definition. So your premise is guilty of an error logicians have called "amphiboly." And when a syllogism (your OP) contains an amphiboly, it means that the conclusion is no longer reliable.

Take out the amphiboly (the slide between "changeless" as it applies to God's nature, on the one hand, and to relationships to God on the other) and we'll see if your OP stands. But you need to get rid of the fallacy first.

I am not following you right now.

I can only clarify this way: if you think God is not "conscious" then your view is not the same as the Western view of the Supreme Being. Then your OP (minus the fallacy) would perhaps prove a good argument for Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists, but would have no application to God as He's known in the West.

I'm happy to grant you the OP for Hinduism or Buddhism, if you like. But I can't tell you whether HIndus or Buddhists themselves will agree or not. I'm not one of them. I can only tell you that it doesn't work in the West. The concept of God is different here. Here, "God" refers to a Divine Person, not a "universal force."

So you believe that is conscious meaning that He experience things? What is the point of experience if He knows everything.

No it isn't. It's just not the Eastern view. And No.

Well, I think I have issues with Western definition of God.

[bahman]

Do you agree with the first sentence? If yes, then how do you describe a relationship with God? I mean if it is not meaningless then what it is?

What I don't agree with is the accidental slide between the use of "changeless" in the first sentence and its usage in subsequent premises. That's a very evident error in logic. Rationally, no one should agree with that.

If you look up the term "amphiboly" you'll see what's wrong there, I hope.

Well, this then mean that I have to change the second sentence in order to convey my message well. How about this: Mutuality was part of OP. We cannot have something back form something changeless no matter how hard we try. Trying to have a relationship with God is then hopeless.

Or what about forgetting the second sentence?

[bahman]

bahman, do you not see God as being the creator of the world?

I can accept God as a concept for sake of argument, namely the creator.