- God is omnipresent (omnipresent means to present everywhere at the same time)
- Creation is subject of expansion (we know this by scientific fact)
- From (1) and (2) we can deduce that God is subjected to change
Doesn’t matter how far the galaxies unravel, they are still within the bounds of the finite.
God is infinite.
He’s not present spatially.
Therefore, just because the space changes, it doesn’t follow that He does.
I thought we already established this elsewhere. :shrug:
Hebrews 13:8. Please ask actual questions instead of making assertions.
Bahman forgetting all the rest for a minute hear this:
In English the meaning of “Nine = 9”
In German the meaning of “Nine = No”
Linguistically to a Catholic “God = changeless”
To speaking the language of Bahman “God = Changeable”
So in your linguistic manner, yes God changes.
The error in the opinion comes from the fact that God is not present in the way that the OP is suggesting by the syllogism. Firstly, because the substance of God is disinct from the substance of the universe, and secondly, because God is not in the universe as say liquid is in a container. There is not “more” of God in a cubic mile than in a cubic inch. God is present in the universe by His preserving power, whereby He keeps all things in existence and directs them towards their end. Hence the conclusion that God is subject to change does not follow.
I must disagree, “nein” is German for no. Not nine. Just happens to sound the same. Yay polyglotism. (Well, if I were fluent). Let me respond to the OP with a hymn from the Byzantine liturgy “Only-begotten Son and Word of God,
immortal as You are. You condescended for
our salvation to take flesh of the holy
Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and
without undergoing change, You became
Man. You were crucified, O Christ God, and
crushed Death by Your death. You are One
of the Holy Trinity, equal in glory with the
Father and the Holy Spirit: save us.”
I think this sums up our beliefs about God quite succinctly.
I’ve dabbled at good bit in German.
Phonetically, for the sake of argument, it illustrates homophone confusion. The same spoken word with vastly different meanings depending on the culture of the person saying it.
In that sense, I think it proves the point excellently.
I do believe that’s what I said above.
Bahman often needs simple statements… English is not his first language.:shrug:
- Are you aware of this guy? The talks to satan, has his own definitions, possibly needs to be commmited guy???
Adding confusion does not help especially when your technicalities are something he would say.
No in Russian = But in English.
Russians do not use the latin alphabet BUT using it then it is “No”
Okay? Is that good enough?
I am not researching for this, just going off similar linguistics for POINT MAKING. And not a language studies class.
Quite frankly at least Bahman talks to Satan… Idk what your excuse is for being a …
No disagreement there. It’s a good example of how things that can sound similar but can be very different. Heck, even in English we have words that are their own opposites depending on how they are used. I really hope Bahman doesn’t know Mandarin, if that’s the case.
For being a what? Go ahead and say it. I was actually AGREEING with you.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::
Oh just saw where you were agreeing or whatever…
Idk you confused me with where you started that…
Ok we can be okay then
Hmmm honestly poorly presented for OP.
He will only see the bold and say the second is not possible.
Also the bold was why I thought you were trying to completely disagree
Your post did start with “i disagree”
You were being uncharitable. Calling me a lunatic is hurtful, as I have Aspergers and MDD. Please, just stop responding.
There is a movie with Paul Hogan in which he encounters a disabled man in a wheelchair.
The disable man gives Paul’s character a hard time and they end up in a fight.
The many people around are horrified as who would dare take on the disabled man!!!
The disabked man and Paul become best friends. For you see the disabled man was a good man and all he wanted was to be treated as a man… and not patronized and catered to as a toddler.
Some men however are not like this movie character and will shout out at a moments notice any reason they should receive special treatment
Where is this?
God’s spiritual substance does not change, but from the Bible it appears that God can change His mind:
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
“Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves.”
The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.
The LORD changed His mind about this. “This too shall not be,” said the Lord GOD.
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
Premise #1 is flawed. “Omnipresent” Does NOT mean “present everywhere at the same time”. It means present everywhere at ALL times. Look it up.
Hence, we can deduce that God is NOT subject to change.
Sheesh, you exhaust me with your silly “premises” You consistently make God too small.
Here, let me help:
adjective | om·ni·pres·ent |-zənt\
Definition of omnipresent
1 : present in all places at all times
Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary
I wonder why we all get dragged into Baham’s debates. He can not prove or disprove the reality of God. He wants YOU to do it for him. I think he gathering ideas for his next great thesis. I’m not going to help him. God just IS-it is also called a leap of faith, therefore I don’t need to chase after all the answers to all the questions of the universe. Nothing Baham presents has a provable answer. However, I am interested in how people struggle with the Mystery of God and all that HE encompasses. Peace.
Theists argue that God is above time and so is not subject to change, since change requires time. Personally, I don’t see how Catholics can convincingly argue that since God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, came down from heaven and became man in the time manifold.