Some might desire to reject the Trinity for various reasons, but such a rejection would actually be extremely unwise. Since we know via the Damascene Cosmological argument that God is unnecessary and must be an unmoved mover (immutable), many theistic beliefs take for granted the idea that God is love. However, I wish to prove that if God is love then he must be Trinitarian. If we can prove that God is love (or accept the presupposition with reasons to embrace such a presupposition) then we can prove that God is Trinity. Thus, if God is necessary and God is love, then God is necessarily Trinity.
How would we go about proving that God is love? For instance, we could simply have a Deistic God who created all things and simply left them to be, growing disinterested in them or lacking a way to relate to them. How can we call such a God loving? I would argue that it is in the very act of creation that we find proof that God is love, but first we must define what love is.
In our modern Western minds, love is a muddled idea. When we describe sex, we call it “making love.” We use the same term “love” to describe an intense like for something (like ice cream or boating). We also use the word “love” to describe what occurs between a husband and wife. I believe that because we use this word so often, so flippantly, and ascribe so many meanings to it that we have lost a sense of what true love is. I want to look at some of the definitions the world offers as an idea of “true love” and show how all of these definitions are inadequate and how there is only one definition of love that defines true love, a love that all other forms of love flow from. Continue reading
While the previous answer given to “Does God change” might be adequate to some since it allows for us to understand that God does not operate in the way we do, meaning he can change his mind without changing his nature, to others such an answer is unsatisfactory.
For instance, even if we say that God’s emotions are higher than our own – such as when he’s angry he’s not holding some different quality of angry as we do, but instead holds the entire property of angry without actualizing on the entire property – the critic could point out that God’s emotional state is still a reaction to something we have done. When we look to Moses, God changed his mind after he listened to Moses, that is, he reacted to Moses.
If God reacts to us then that means he is, at times, moved by us. Many lay theologians, pastors, and even professional theologians argue that while God is immutable, by creating us he opened himself up to be moved by us at times. Such a view, however, ignores that (1) Scripture is emphatic that God did not lower himself to relate to us, but rather raises us up to relate to him and (2) God still had mutability within his nature under such a view. If God lowered himself in creation so that he could be moved by his creation at times, that means within his nature he changed from immutable to mutable, which would indicate that he was never immutable to begin with. As we discovered earlier, if anything has mutability within its nature, that is it has the potential to change, then it is mutable. Immutable beings must be immutable by nature. If God lowered himself in the act of creation, then he is not immutable and therefore we must abandon the idea of the Christian God. Continue reading
The attention of the argument now turns away from trying to prove God to instead proving how the Christian God is not eradicated by St. John’s argument. As the Damascene Cosmological argument goes, anything that is mutable requires a creator. At this point, many critics of Christianity are quick to point out that the God of Christianity is mutable. They point to the fact that the Bible shows him changing his mind, having emotional reactions to human beings, creating out of a need, and then changing in the Incarnation.
If it can be shown that the God of the Bible changes then we must be open-minded enough to change our beliefs. It is unfair for the Christian to require the non-theist to be open-minded in considering the existence of God, but to remain close-minded in considering the existence of his own God. Therefore, if it can be shown that the Christian God changes, either the Damascene Cosmological argument is wrong or the God of the Bible does not exist.
What follows was no easy undertaking and was in fact much more difficult to write than the first part of this argument. I would make an argument for God changing, answer the argument, and find a retort to my own answer. I did this until I could go no further on each argument; I did not do this to solidify my beliefs, but rather to test them. I will say that while challenged, my beliefs withstood the test. I did not create any strawman and any critic of Christianity who would like to point out that the Damascene Cosmological argument contradicts Christianity should be pleased with the objections against Christianity I raise. Continue reading
Some might be quick to point out that the Damascene Cosmological argument doesn’t necessarily prove the Christian God. They would say that I have wasted my time in trying to prove my faith because all I have proven is that “a god” exists, but this doesn’t give me specific details as to what type of God he (or she, or it) might be. Shockingly enough, I have run into quite a few atheists who feel that this is an adequate reply to any cosmological argument. “Well you haven’t proven the Christian God exists” they say as they smile, sit back, and fold their arms.
I would tend to agree with the atheists on this point; the Damascene Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of the Christian God. However, I believe that Christians are justified in using the Damascene argument for the following reasons: Continue reading
It is at this point that many readers will squirm, but such a reaction is simply not justified when considering the previous two premises. Though the idea of admitting the existence of God may not be palatable to certain readers, if they desire to base their beliefs off what is known rather than what stands in contradiction to reality, they must abandon naturalism and admit that God is the creator of the universe.
The conclusion is true because it logically follows from the premises and both premises are true. To review on why the conclusion is true:
1) All things are either mutable (movable and changeable) or immutable (immovable and unchangeable)
2) If something is movable then it requires a creator because an infinite regress is impossible
3) An infinite regress is impossible because it would never allow events to come about
4) Immutable objects are above an infinite regress because they do not move and therefore cannot be measured by time
5) Everything we experience is mutable, therefore requiring a creator
6) By definition, the creator must be God (due to what is needed in order to be immutable) Continue reading
It may seem like a broad claim to say that everything within our experience is mutable, but I don’t think the claim is as broad as it might seem. For instance, does everything within our experience fall within time? If so, this means that it is subject to change and therefore mutable. However, this seems too simplistic a handling of the subject, so let us look at the issue with more depth.
In all of human experience, if we ignore the claims of experiencing God, then everything we have experienced is subject to change of some type. The most obvious experience is matter. In matter we see dirt, we see wood, we see televisions, we see ourselves, and we see everything else. All of what we see is “matter” or “material,” but is manifested in different forms, showing that there is a change within these forms. Some things are bigger than others and all matter can be duplicated, which shows an incomplete nature (or imperfect nature) that is subject to change.
Energy is also mutable within our experience. Some things can have more or less energy. The heat of the water in a bathtub is less than the heat of a nuclear explosion, indicating that a nuclear explosion has more energy built within it than a bathtub. In other words, within material objects, energy is dispersed in degrees. Whereas God is equally over all things (necessarily so and not as a case of special pleading and not in a pantheistic sense), energy can be in something to a different degree. This indicates that energy is mutable because its entire being is found in different degrees. Continue reading
Second Sub-Premise – “If they are immutable, then they are uncreated”
As the first sub-premise says that anything that is created is also mutable (which implies the need for a creator), the second sub-premise provides the opposite, that if something is uncreated, then it is immutable.
The first thing to understand about immutability is that if a being is immutable, it does not require a creator. If an immutable being had a creator then we could posit that at one time the immutable being was created; this would mean that the immutable being was no longer immutable. If something came into existence it went from one state S1 to another S2. That is, the being went from non-existence to existence, which is a change of state for the being. Thus, to be immutable, by definition a being must be without a creator or without a beginning.
This means that whatever is immutable is also eternal. If we accept Aristotle’s explanation that time is motion (that is, the measurement of things) and combine it with Einstein’s theory of relativity, then it would seem that time can speed up or slow down depending upon the motion of matter, meaning that time is the measure of the motion of matter. Continue reading