Damascene Cosmology – Conclusion

We now come to the end St. John’s cosmological argument. We see that all things must either be created or uncreated. There simply is no in-between for them. Something cannot be not created and not uncreated; it must be created or uncreated.

We also know that if something is mutable it is created and if something is immutable then it is uncreated. If it is mutable, it requires a creator because we know that an infinite regress is impossible. The immutable creator, however, is not subject to an infinite regress because he would not be compose of parts or changes and therefore could not be measured by time.

Everything that falls within our experience and all possible objects that could exist that we have yet to experience all require a creator. Such a creator would be, by necessity, God.

But this argument does not leave Christianity void and empty. We know that the Christian God does not change and in being Trinitarian he is the only possible God in existence if God is loving. We know that God did not change in the Incarnation, but rather he changed us.

To the Christians who have read this, I hope that it has strengthened your faith beyond measure. I hope mostly that rather than giving you ammunition to use in some apologetic debate, it has forced you to sit and contemplate on God and grow in him. To those who have sat on the fence, unsure of whether or not God exists, I hope that this removed your intellectual doubts. I hope that it has opened up the path for you to discover Jesus as he is, free from the skepticism of whether or not he existed. I hope you can now embrace that he exists and from there you can discover the beauty that is Christ. To those who remain unconvinced, I hope you at least see that Christianity is reasonable and logically solid. Even if you disagree with my premises, I would hope you see that the argument is sound and would abandon your cries that Christianity is illogical. I hope you have gained a new-found respect for the intellectual capability of Christianity, that we do not accept everything by blind faith, but test all things. To those who are skeptical, hold hostile feelings towards Christianity, and still find Christianity to be stupid, I pray that you will embrace civility and reason. To all, I pray that these arguments either make your current relationship with God deeper or would open you up to have a relationship with him, for intellectual acknowledgement is not enough; we must love him as he has loved us. Continue reading

Damascene Cosmology – Is God moved?

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

Damascene Cosmology – Does the Christian God Change? – Introduction

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

Damascene Cosmology – Does the Damascene Cosmological argument prove the Christian God is the only God?

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

Damascene Cosmology – the Second Premise: Everything we experience is mutable

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

Damascene Cosmology – On the Nature of Immutable Beings

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

Damascene Cosmology – The First Premise: All things are either created or uncreated

The First Premise – “All things are either created or uncreated”

The first premise in the Damascene Cosmological argument is that all things are either created or uncreated. This is a premise that most people should be able to accept. Even naturalists agree upon this premise with their acceptance that energy is uncreated.

The idea that something could both be non-created and non-uncreated is a logical impossibility. If something exists, then it was either created or has always existed. There is no middle ground on the first premise.

However, the first premise does lead to two sub premises, namely that if something is created, it is mutable (that is, changeable) and if it is uncreated it is immutable (that is, unchangeable). Thus far, little controversy would arise over such a claim. The controversy begins when the Damascene claims that the opposite of these claims is also true, that if something is mutable then it is created (and therefore requires a creator) and if something is immutable then it does not require a creator.

Some would like to point out that something might be changeable, but this does not mean it requires a creator. In other words, the naturalist would argue that some things that change require creators while some things that change do not require creators; they have simply always changed. Others would argue that even if God is immutable, He requires a creator. One of the famous sophomoric responses to, “God is the first cause” is, “Well then who caused God?” Though easily refuted, I will deal with it once we come to the second sub-premise.

For now, I must deal with the idea that all things that are changeable are created and that a creator is needed because an infinite regress of events is impossible.


This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.