Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: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.

You need to distinguish between things like "change in identity" and "change in relationship to another thing." There is reason to question whether a Supreme Being could every be thought to do the former, but no reason whatsoever to think this transfers to the latter.

A fixed point does not move. Other points around it might, and their movement would change the space, distance or relationship between the two points: but that would not make the original point "unfixed." It would be changeless in the important sense.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: 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.

You need to distinguish between things like "change in identity" and "change in relationship to another thing." There is reason to question whether a Supreme Being could every be thought to do the former, but no reason whatsoever to think this transfers to the latter.

A fixed point does not move. Other points around it might, and their movement would change the space, distance or relationship between the two points: but that would not make the original point "unfixed." It would be changeless in the important sense.

I am aware of that difference in changes. I meant change in relationship with another thing when it comes OP. Even we don't change our identity when it comes to a relationship.

bahman wrote:I am aware of that difference in changes. I meant change in relationship with another thing when it comes OP. Even we don't change our identity when it comes to a relationship.

Okay, then.

But when people speak of God as "changeless" they never mean "relationally changeless"; they mean "identity changeless." So your OP doesn't work anymore, because it contains what we call and "amphiboly": an error in which you let one term slip into another.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I am aware of that difference in changes. I meant change in relationship with another thing when it comes OP. Even we don't change our identity when it comes to a relationship.

Okay, then.

But when people speak of God as "changeless" they never mean "relationally changeless"; they mean "identity changeless." So your OP doesn't work anymore, because it contains what we call and "amphiboly": an error in which you let one term slip into another.

We behave because we need certain things which could be fulfilled when it comes to our mutual relationships (relationships in a society for example). God however doesn't need anything hence he is changeless when it come to a mutual relationship. This means that we cannot cause any change in God. This means that we cannot expect anything from Him.

bahman wrote:We behave because we need certain things which could be fulfilled when it comes to our mutual relationships (relationships in a society for example). God however doesn't need anything hence he is changeless when it come to a mutual relationship. This means that we cannot cause any change in God. This means that we cannot expect anything from Him.

Well, first, "relationships" are, by definition, between two or more things. So "relational change" is not a "change in God." God is the fixed point: if we move, that does not move him...it only changes the relationship.

What we can "expect" from God will depend on who He is, on what kind of "character" He actually has. When we move or change, that will change our status relative to Him. But it will not change Him.

For example, when I break the law, that does not change the law. It changes me, perhaps; it certainly changes my status relative to the law. But the law says what the law says. It need not change. In fact, if it does, it's not really a "law" at all, is it?

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: 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.

You defined "relationship" earlier as "mutual cause and effect." You could certainly have mutual cause and effect with a painting, for example, no? Otherwise you must be thinking of something more specific than simply "mutual cause and effect."

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: We behave because we need certain things which could be fulfilled when it comes to our mutual relationships (relationships in a society for example). God however doesn't need anything hence he is changeless when it come to a mutual relationship. This means that we cannot cause any change in God. This means that we cannot expect anything from Him.

Well, first, "relationships" are, by definition, between two or more things. So "relational change" is not a "change in God." God is the fixed point: if we move, that does not move him...it only changes the relationship.

What we can "expect" from God will depend on who He is, on what kind of "character" He actually has. When we move or change, that will change our status relative to Him. But it will not change Him.

For example, when I break the law, that does not change the law. It changes me, perhaps; it certainly changes my status relative to the law. But the law says what the law says. It need not change. In fact, if it does, it's not really a "law" at all, is it?

I think you didn't get my point. There is no relationship if God doesn't move. He doesn't need anything so we cannot expect anything from him because we cannot cause any change to him. He simply doesn't need any relationship!

Lets consider your example: Lets say that I break the laws but there is no law keeper to punish me. That is true that my relation changes with respect to the laws but who cares if there is no laws keeper?

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: 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.

You defined "relationship" earlier as "mutual cause and effect." You could certainly have mutual cause and effect with a painting, for example, no? Otherwise you must be thinking of something more specific than simply "mutual cause and effect."

No, you only can make one-directional type of a relationship with a painting. Your relationship cannot be bi-directional (mutual).

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: 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.

You need to distinguish between things like "change in identity" and "change in relationship to another thing." There is reason to question whether a Supreme Being could every be thought to do the former, but no reason whatsoever to think this transfers to the latter.

A fixed point does not move. Other points around it might, and their movement would change the space, distance or relationship between the two points: but that would not make the original point "unfixed." It would be changeless in the important sense.

I am aware of that difference in changes. I meant change in relationship with another thing when it comes OP. Even we don't change our identity when it comes to a relationship.

But this is basically the same thing I explained to you, and you said you mean "change in identity" not "changing relations to other things"--that's my (a) and (b) respectively.

God can't possibly be changeless in relation to other things, because other things change. For example, I just typed this post. So his relations to me changed as I typed this post.

bahman wrote: No, you only can make one-directional type of a relationship with a painting. Your relationship cannot be bi-directional (mutual).

Well, someone could drop the painting on my foot, right, and I could push the canvas with my finger, no? So the painting caused an effect with respect to me, and I caused an effect with respect to it. That's just one simple example of many we could give.

bahman wrote:I think you didn't get my point. There is no relationship if God doesn't move.

And you don't understand the comments we're making to you, unfortunately. If you're talking about the idea of change in the sense of changing relations to other things--which you just said is what you're talking about--then God doesn't need to "move" in order for him to have changing relations to other things. Only the other things needs to move.

I think part of the problem is that you're not expressing all of the details of your view precisely, but I wonder if you've really worked out all of the details in your head to express them in the first place.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: No, you only can make one-directional type of a relationship with a painting. Your relationship cannot be bi-directional (mutual).

Well, someone could drop the painting on my foot, right, and I could push the canvas with my finger, no? So the painting caused an effect with respect to me, and I caused an effect with respect to it. That's just one simple example of many we could give.

Yes, that is a sort of mutual relationship. But what about when you are just looking at a painting? Is it mutual too?

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: No, you only can make one-directional type of a relationship with a painting. Your relationship cannot be bi-directional (mutual).

Well, someone could drop the painting on my foot, right, and I could push the canvas with my finger, no? So the painting caused an effect with respect to me, and I caused an effect with respect to it. That's just one simple example of many we could give.

Yes, that is a sort of mutual relationship. But what about when you are just looking at a painting? Is it mutual too?

Well, light waves reflected from it cause effects in you (and more "abstractly," your contemplation of it and so on is an effect it has on you), while on the other side, you have a gravitational effect on it (it also has a gravitational effect on you), light waves reflected off of you hit the painting just as well, and so on.

It would be possible to set up a scenario where you'd have no effect on it, or where we could say the effect is negligible, but it's not so easy to do that really.

bahman wrote:There is no relationship if God doesn't move.

My country has never moved. I have relationship to it. I have moved many times.

He doesn't need anything so we cannot expect anything from him because we cannot cause any change to him. He simply doesn't need any relationship!

"Need" is the wrong word. Of course God doesn't "need" anything. But in a good relationship, it's not because you "need" something from someone that you love them: it's an act of free and generous love...and in the case of God, of love undeserved by its object (us). He loves us because, as the Bible says, "God is love." He does not love us because we are loveable, and certainly not because he "lacks" or "needs" anything from us.

Lets consider your example: Lets say that I break the laws but there is no law keeper to punish me. That is true that my relation changes with respect to the laws but who cares if there is no laws keeper?

But there is.

Just because sentence doesn't fall on a criminal immediately does not mean he's not, so to speak, "on borrowed time." We're all under the righteous judgment of God -- maybe not today, but tomorrow or soon. Justice will come: count on it.

Or we can accept his gracious offer of forgiveness and love instead. For the God of Justice has offered us pardon, if we will take it.

If we will not, then it is by free choice of our own that we will not. And we certainly cannot complain if we get exactly what we said we wanted.

Immanuel Can wrote: My country has never moved. I have relationship to it. I have moved many times.

I'd say your country has moved/changed. I don't think there are any existents that are static, plus I'm a nominalist including in the sense where I do not buy any real abstracts.