Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote:
That is no question begging based on definition. The question begging or circular reason is when the conclusion supports premise.

You may be right but it is beside the point. The fact remains that your argument relies on God being changeless. If it turns out that God isn't changeless, you no longer have an argument. What you must first do is provide proof that God is changeless, only then can you proceed with your argument.

Reflex wrote:

bahman wrote:God is changeless. Relationship is about cause and effect. 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. This means that making relationship with God is impossible since we cannot change Him.

Sez who? We either have, or have not; there is no "making" a relationship. And although God does not change, we do. Our relating to and with God in ongoing and progressive.

Well, this type of relationship is similar to relationship we make with a painting. This type of relationship is not mutual. You can be happy with such a unmutual relationship though.

Harbal wrote:

bahman wrote: That is no question begging based on definition. The question begging or circular reason is when the conclusion supports premise.

You may be right but it is beside the point. The fact remains that your argument relies on God being changeless. If it turns out that God isn't changeless, you no longer have an argument. What you must first do is provide proof that God is changeless, only then can you proceed with your argument.

All I am saying is that you cannot make any relationship with God if you believe that God is changeless. Changeless God is well accepted concept in many system of believes (you can google it yourself). Whether this can be proved or not is subject of another thread.

Reflex wrote: God does not change, we do.

That which appears to change never changes.

bahman wrote:

Harbal wrote:

bahman wrote: That is no question begging based on definition. The question begging or circular reason is when the conclusion supports premise.

You may be right but it is beside the point. The fact remains that your argument relies on God being changeless. If it turns out that God isn't changeless, you no longer have an argument. What you must first do is provide proof that God is changeless, only then can you proceed with your argument.

All I am saying is that you cannot make any relationship with God if you believe that God is changeless. Changeless God is well accepted concept in many system of believes (you can google it yourself). Whether this can be proved or not is subject of another thread.

Why believe God exists at all? Doesn't it make everything more complicated?

bahman wrote:

Reflex wrote: Sez who? We either have, or have not; there is no "making" a relationship. And although God does not change, we do. Our relating to and with God in ongoing and progressive.

Well, this type of relationship is similar to relationship we make with a painting. This type of relationship is not mutual. You can be happy with such a unmutual relationship though.

Don't be silly. Changeless personality does not imply immobility. (No offense, but your argument sounds like the kind of superstitious nonsense atheists posit to cast doubt.)

Let me explain a few things. First of all, along with being immutable, God is also described as infinite, eternal and free. To deny the possibility of his volitional self-limitation and/or self-differentiation amounts to a denial of the very concept of God's volitional absoluteness.

Second, even though some theistic models are dualistic, theism itself does not imply it.

Third, a human being is the relating of a relation -- a synthesis of the Infinite and finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. What sets God apart from us is the absence of finitude, temporality and necessity.

sthitapragya wrote: Why believe God exists at all? Doesn't it make everything more complicated?

Because atheism makes everything incoherent.

Reflex wrote: Don't be silly. Changeless personality does not imply immobility. (No offense, but your argument sounds like the kind of superstitious nonsense atheists posit to cast doubt.)

So God is mobile and can change? Could you please tell me what could be changeable in the case of God?

Reflex wrote: Let me explain a few things. First of all, along with being immutable, God is also described as infinite, eternal and free. To deny the possibility of his volitional self-limitation and/or self-differentiation amounts to a denial of the very concept of God's volitional absoluteness.

That I could agree with.

Reflex wrote: Second, even though some theistic models are dualistic, theism itself does not imply it.

I don't understand how this could be related to our discussion.

Reflex wrote: Third, a human being is the relating of a relation -- a synthesis of the Infinite and finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. What sets God apart from us is the absence of finitude, temporality and necessity.

That I agree with too.

sthitapragya wrote:

bahman wrote:

Harbal wrote: You may be right but it is beside the point. The fact remains that your argument relies on God being changeless. If it turns out that God isn't changeless, you no longer have an argument. What you must first do is provide proof that God is changeless, only then can you proceed with your argument.

All I am saying is that you cannot make any relationship with God if you believe that God is changeless. Changeless God is well accepted concept in many system of believes (you can google it yourself). Whether this can be proved or not is subject of another thread.

Why believe God exists at all? Doesn't it make everything more complicated?

You need to resolve the problem of beginning somehow. Believing in God is one way to answer the question of beginning.

bahman wrote: So God is mobile and can change? Could you please tell me what could be changeable in the case of God?

Mobility is not equivalent to change. Personality is changeless -- permanence -- in the presence of change.

bahman wrote:

Reflex wrote: Second, even though some theistic models are dualistic, theism itself does not imply it.

I don't understand how this could be related to our discussion.

It's not, not really. It's preemptive: there will always be some moron who comes along who tries, in one way or another, to make the case that God implies dualism and is therefore equivalent to a magical old man with white hair and a long beard. (Sthitapragya and uwot, among others, do it all the time.)

Yes I can. He's on PlentyofFish. (Actually, that was his son.)

Harbal wrote:

bahman wrote:
That is no question begging based on definition. The question begging or circular reason is when the conclusion supports premise.

You may be right but it is beside the point. The fact remains that your argument relies on God being changeless. If it turns out that God isn't changeless, you no longer have an argument. What you must first do is provide proof that God is changeless, only then can you proceed with your argument.

Good point, H.

"Changeless" needs to nuanced. There are good "changes" and bad "changes." There are "changes" of personality or identity, and also "changes" of attitude or relationship.

Have we any reason to think that every kind of "change" is wrong to posit of the Supreme Being?

Sez who?

Reflex wrote: Mobility is not equivalent to change. Personality is changeless -- permanence -- in the presence of change.

What do you mean with mobility?

Reflex wrote: It's not, not really. It's preemptive: there will always be some moron who comes along who tries, in one way or another, to make the case that God implies dualism and is therefore equivalent to a magical old man with white hair and a long beard. (Sthitapragya and uwot, among others, do it all the time.)

I see.

bahman wrote:

Reflex wrote: Mobility is not equivalent to change. Personality is changeless -- permanence -- in the presence of change.

What do you mean with mobility?

Movement. Many have the impression that movement implies change, but the acting nature of God, the personality of God, is changelessness in the presence of change.

bahman wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

bahman wrote:
All I am saying is that you cannot make any relationship with God if you believe that God is changeless. Changeless God is well accepted concept in many system of believes (you can google it yourself). Whether this can be proved or not is subject of another thread.

Why believe God exists at all? Doesn't it make everything more complicated?

You need to resolve the problem of beginning somehow. Believing in God is one way to answer the question of beginning.

Why do you need to resolve the problem of beginning? How will it help you? How do you think jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion that God created the world will help? Also which God should one believe in?