Gemini:

Certainly! Here’s a summary of the ideas presented in your writings:

1. Immateriality of God: This notion posits that God lacks a physical form. He exists beyond the confines of the material universe, unlike deities in certain faiths that are illustrated in human likeness.
2. Immutability of God: This principle indicates that God does not undergo change. His essence, character, and intentions remain constant over time, often linked to the idea of divine perfection—an entity that is perfect would not require alteration.

These ideas are fundamental to many monotheistic faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, prompting intriguing philosophical and theological inquiries:

• How can we establish a connection with an immaterial God?
• If God is unchanging, how does He engage with a world in constant flux?

Possible Responses to Your Articles: The feedback you garnered on Medium may include:

• Agreeing Views: Individuals aligned with your understanding of God’s immaterial and unchangeable nature may express their concurrence through comments or likes.
• Contradicting Opinions: Those who hold differing beliefs regarding God’s characteristics might provide counterarguments or seek clarification.
• Personal Anecdotes: Some readers may recount their experiences or insights related to these ideas.

Exploring Further: If you wish to deepen your understanding, consider these resources:

• Articles on Monotheism and the nature of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
• Philosophical discussions on Immutability: https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win2017/entries/concepts-god/

Would you like to delve into specific feedback you received or explore other facets of these themes?

The Apologists argue for certain characteristics of God: He is immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. They assert that He is the First Cause, or the Uncaused Cause. Their reasoning is that every cause must have an effect, and tracing it back cannot continue indefinitely. They claim that God is at the very beginning of this chain. However, if God is unchanging, the First Cause would imply some form of action or motion. A being that is unchanging cannot initiate change, which presents a challenge to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) that I’ve discussed previously.

Gemini:

Your argument indeed poses a compelling challenge to the KCA. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

KCA and The Uncaused Cause: - The KCA maintains that everything that comes into existence must have a cause. - If the universe originated (as suggested by the Big Bang), it must have a cause. - This cause cannot itself require a cause, preventing an infinite regress. - Thus, a First Cause, often identified with God, must exist.

Your Argument’s Challenge: - You contend that if God is immutable and timeless, His existence wouldn’t represent an “action” necessary for causation. - An unchanging entity would be akin to something that does not exist, incapable of inciting change (causing effects).

Strengths of Your Argument: - It emphasizes an inherent contradiction in the KCA: If God is genuinely immutable and timeless, how can He be the source of anything?

Points to Consider: - Definitions of Cause: The KCA may not depend on a cause requiring action. God’s existence outside of time could itself be the cause of the universe’s existence within time. - Timeless Cause: Some theologians argue that God transcends time as we know it. His existence may serve as the foundation for time itself. - Alternative Attributes of God: Defenders of the KCA might assert that God can be both unchanging and capable of causing change, possibly introducing other characteristics of God, such as being personal or possessing will.

Your argument effectively challenges the KCA, highlighting the ongoing debate around the definitions of “cause” and the nature of God’s existence in relation to time and change.

Further Exploration: - Responses to the Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/royally-bad-objections-to-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument - The Problem of Divine Action: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/

I came across a formula derived from relativity, P = mc²*gamma/t, which is based on E = mc²*gamma and P = E/t. This formula shows that an immaterial God has zero mass. Plugging in zero for God’s mass results in zero power. Theists may argue that God possesses infinite power, but an immaterial being cannot possess infinite power according to this equation. They might suggest that immaterial signifies absence of physical matter as found in our universe, but claim God has a type of “god-matter” that grants Him power. This redefinition lacks grounding in reality and fails to address the real implications of immateriality.

Gemini:

You raise a thought-provoking point regarding the intersection of divine power and scientific principles like mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²). Here’s an analysis of the ideas and additional considerations:

Science and God: - Science pertains to the tangible universe and observable phenomena, while God, as a transcendent entity, lies outside scientific inquiry.

Mass and Power: - Your referenced equation (P = mc²*gamma/t) illustrates the equivalence of mass and energy, showing that substantial energy is released when mass is converted into energy.

God and Materiality: - Many faiths portray God as immaterial, existing beyond physical constraints and not limited by laws governing mass and energy.

The Argument: - You argue that if God is immaterial and devoid of mass, then according to the scientific formula, He would lack power. You perceive the notion of “god-matter” as an attempt to redefine immateriality to circumvent this conclusion.

Points to Consider: - Definitions of Power: Scientific definitions of power may not align with the theological understanding of divine power, which often includes the ability to create and act beyond the physical realm. - Limits of Science: While science is a powerful tool for understanding the physical world, it may not fully explain the essence of God or existence itself. - Theology and Analogy: Theists typically utilize philosophical and theological arguments, rather than scientific formulas, to articulate God’s nature and attributes, often employing analogies to explain God’s power beyond physical properties.

While science can provide valuable insights, God’s power is a theological concept that transcends scientific measurement.

Merely stating that God’s power is infinite does not counter the principles of relativity.

Gemini:

You’re correct. Claiming that God’s power is infinite does not directly address the issue raised by the physical equation. Here’s why:

• Different Realms: Science, including the equation you mentioned, pertains to the physical realm, while God’s power, as depicted in various faiths, transcends this realm—these are fundamentally distinct categories.
• Incompatible Definitions: The power defined in the equation (P = mc²*gamma/t) relates to the physical universe’s mass-energy conversion, while the concept of divine power may not be constrained by such parameters.

Here are some potential responses from apologists to your argument:

• Separate Domains: They might assert that science elucidates the physical world, while God’s power operates on a different plane, beyond scientific measurement.
• Reframing Power: They could argue that God’s power is not limited to energy conversion, but encompasses creation, sustaining the universe, and acting beyond our comprehension.
• Focus on Qualities: The emphasis might shift to God’s qualitative attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, which would not be explained by physics.

The Bottom Line: The discourse surrounding God’s power and its relationship to scientific principles is intricate and ongoing. Your argument underscores the challenges of employing a physics equation to delineate something as profound as divine power. Different frameworks—science and theology—are employed to interpret these concepts.

If a theist asserts that their God exists outside of space and time, that is acceptable. God can exist in a realm beyond our understanding. However, when a theist prays for assistance—such as for a car to endure until payday—God would need to cross the vast expanse of space to intervene. Once within our universe, He would be subject to its laws, including the speed of light, which constrains His ability to traverse the distances from the cosmos to our planet and subsequently to the car. Such actions necessitate power as defined by the equation, and an immaterial God lacks mass, therefore cannot exert influence in our universe.

Gemini:

You raise a significant issue regarding the nature of God’s interaction with the physical world, particularly when factoring in the constraints dictated by physics. Here’s an analysis of the arguments and considerations:

Theist’s Dilemma: - You present a challenge for theists who believe in a God existing outside of space and time. - When someone prays for divine intervention (such as repairing a car), how can a timeless, spaceless God act within the limitations of our universe (like the speed of light and physical laws)?

Theological Responses: Here are some possible theistic responses:

• Indirect Influence: God may not need to physically enter our universe. Instead, He might initiate natural laws that indirectly affect events, such as prolonging the car's functionality.
• Timeless Action: Some argue that God’s actions are not confined to the temporal framework as we understand it. Perhaps His response to prayer is already integrated into the structure of time.
• Focus on the Spiritual: The emphasis may shift to the spiritual essence of prayer, suggesting it’s about aligning oneself with divine will rather than directly intervening in physical events.

Limits of Analogy: - Our limited human language and comprehension can make discussing God challenging. Concepts like “travel” or “fixing” a car may not translate accurately to divine actions.

Beyond Science: - Many theists maintain that God’s power transcends scientific boundaries. The notion of divine responses to prayers might involve miraculous phenomena.

Ultimately, understanding how God engages with the physical realm is a matter of faith and theological interpretation. While science can offer insights, it may not comprehensively explain divine actions.

Additional Points: Some theists might argue that God doesn’t need to physically repair the car; perhaps prayer is about discovering resources or inner strength to face the challenges.

The conversation regarding God and the physical universe is rich and multifaceted. Your argument highlights the intriguing tension between the constraints of physics and the notion of divine intervention in our lives.

This concludes my session with Gemini. It became clear that an immutable God cannot serve as the uncaused cause. In another discussion with a theist, I argued that God could instigate change without undergoing any transformation, which seems contradictory. I refer to this concept as the Unchanged Change. Nevertheless, Gemini allows for the possibility of an immaterial God interacting within our universe, even in light of an undeniable equation that argues against such interaction while that being exists within our universe.

Thank you for engaging with my thoughts.