HOME | DD

Description
The argument starts with the assumption that “God” if so exists, can only be timeless.
For it to be timeless, God “IS”, never “was” and never “will be”.
That is, God does not change, because change implies motion, and all motion has a beginning and an end—and for God to exists, it cannot have a beginning nor an end.

In short, God is a “Being”: it is complete and motionless, and is therefore timeless (no beginning nor end) for it never move.  It does not change and never changed before.

The implication arises from this idea is: because “Being” never change, then why is there observable changes?
Being is motionless, therefore being cannot exists with “constant flux/changes” (we will call this flux/changes as “Becoming”)
The existence of changes give “Being” a reference with “Becoming” with respect to time—and thus Being, as it is comparable with Becoming through time, is no longer a Being(by definition).

It’s sort of complicated, so the best way to imagine Being no longer a Being is through mathematical graph:
Being, is “zero dimensional”: it has nothing to measure against, it is simply a “DOT”; a point without dimension.
Becoming is a “two dimensional” graph; it is some line function with respect to time.
When Being and Becoming exists together; it becomes  a “three dimensional” graph:
Being (x axis), Becoming (y axis), Time (z axis)
The “dot’s” position is constantly changing through time, and thus it is moving and therefore the “dot” cannot be a Being. Being does not exists

In other word, Being cannot exist with Becoming. And because Becoming absolutely exists, then Being cannot exists.

But this then becomes a problem: if everything is a becoming; everything has a beginning and an end.
This means that the very first beginning must have a beginning, and the beginning of that first beginning must also have a beginning and so on—this makes no sense.  There must be something that has no beginning to start all changes (the unmoved mover).

Conclusion:
Being cannot exists with Becoming, and Becoming exists, therefore Being does not exists
However, Becoming cannot exists without Being, and thus because Being does not exists, Becoming does not exists.  So nothing exists. But Something do exists.
A contradiction

Before we go anywhere with this contradiction, let’s first discuss briefly Aristotle’s “Substance”

Every “THING” in this world is made of substance (not the chemistry definition).
Substance is ONE but is made out of “Form / Actuality” and “Matter / Potentiality”.  These two exists together, and inseparable in a given substance.

Now, let’s define what is Form and what is Matter.

Simply put, Form is the “shape” or “structure” of an object, it is nonphysical and does not exist in the material—it is also what the “substance” can do (what it actually is/can do)
Matter is whatever it is that fill that shape, however with different arrangement, matter can be something else and therefore it is called the potentiality, because its function/use is dependent upon the Form

Example:  An iron ball
The spherical shape is the Form, and the iron is the Matter.
Iron, with a different structure can “potentially’ be a sword, but in this case it is “actually” a ball.

That said, we have to understand that Matter cannot exists without Form (an object may have a random shape, but it cannot have NO shape, because it is material),
BUT Form can exists independently of matter : imagine again the iron ball—you can see it in your head, but it does not exists in the material world—it has no matter;
or an artist’s imagination of the painting he/she is going to create—the painting does not yet exists in the material world, but the shape already exists.

We will go back to this later on.

So, what is the significant of Substance being both Form and Matter to the previous contradiction?

With the concept of “Form and Matter” We now can solve Being and Becoming.
Let’s look at the dependent and independent variable.

Being DOES NOT require Becoming to exist – Form DOES NOT require Matter to exist
Becoming DOES require Being to exist – Matter DOES require Form to exist

From that generalization we can separate Being = Form and Becoming = Matter.
Because Being is non-physical (characteristic of Form)
And Becoming is physical (characteristic of Matter)
We cannot compare these two together.

It’s like saying an Area is 3times a Volume.  It makes no sense.
Area is 2D, Volume is 3D.  You cannot compare them.

To summarize up to this point; it is established that Being and Becoming can exists together, and God, if so exists, must then be non-physical.

The question that follows now is: can the non-physical affect the physical? Can the non-material affect the material?
The answer is absolutely and undeniably YES.  The non-physical can affect the physical.

The simplest example would be: yourself and your actions.
Talking is a great example.  Because we “want” to say something, our vocal cord vibrates and makes a sound.  The “want” is non-physical, yet, it can make the vocal cord—a physical object moves.

So for this reason, then Yes; God if so exists, even though non-physical can affect the physical world.

Up to this point, we have discussed that God is Being, and Being is a Form – it is non-physical but has the ability to affect the physical world.

In the previous example, we said talking as an example of the non-physical to affect the physical, we say this act of talking is of a “want” , and any other non-physical things, in its purest form is Being.
The problem with using the word “want” is that we can now say that we no longer “want” something.  That gives a contradiction to the definition of Being, because we can no longer want, and thus Being can now be non-Being.

But is it true that we no longer “want” at all?
Or simply another type of “want” now overcomes the first?
How can a “want” changes?

A “want” , a non physical, can change not only because the effect of another non-physical things, a want can change with the change in the presence of another physical things.
For example: A person wants to eat a fruit, but that person sees an ice-cream and now the person want’s to eat the ice-cream.

This show: a want is affected by physical things and non-physical things.

So let us again separate the physical and non-physical.  The physical , as previously defined,  is Matter.  The pure non-physical that affect a “want” is Form, and is now will also be defined as a “WILL”

Assigning “Will” as a “Form” can simplify and fully align the different characteristics of Form, as both non-matter and structure or shape.

The “Will” governs everything.  The “Will” exists independently of matter.  A “Will” can be stronger than another.  A “Will” is Being.  God, if so exists, is a “Will”.

To be honest, it is very hard to define what a “Will” is because of the extensive meaning.
But maybe, I can give an example of the characteristics of “Will” to help clarify it.

The Will can manifest itself as different things, depending on its strength:

The Will desires to continuously extend itself absorbing more and more matters to make itself larger and larger. But many times, it faces a bigger Will that overcame itself.
An example that is analogous to this idea is Gravitation.  All objects, big or small, “attract” another object around it, trying to take them into themselves—exerting a gravitational force.  This is what I mean by the individual “Will” to extend.

A smaller, weaker Will is the simple things like Quarks (or whatever smaller than that)
A bigger Will would be protons, electrons or neutrons (because it is composed of different quarks)
A bigger Will than that would be Element of the Periodic table: H, He, Na, Mg, Al, etc.
An even bigger will would be certain chemicals; Such as NaOH, or Amino acids, etc
An even bigger would be an protein (combinations of Amino acid)
Then cells
Then organs
Then whole body ; human, animals or plants.

Why would a proton attract electron? Because it’s just “is”
Why would a carbon atom wants to make 4 bond? Because it’s just “is”

The Will is what “IS” and completely unexplainable.

So let’s go back to the main idea of this thread, What is the characteristic of God, if so exists?

God is the largest Will that governs, retains, maintain, and expand the universe’s existence.

Why is there a need for the existence of a very large, undeniable Will that govern everything else that exists in this world?

Because things, as random as they are, all substances have the same source (proton, electron, electron—and whatever made those)
They are random, but at the same time MUST always follow a certain rules (Will) that is undeniable, unbreakable.

But to what extent is the power of the “largest” Will?
Can the largest Will completely overcome the smaller will?
Or does the largest Will only govern the simplest part of the rest of the smaller Will because it already overstretch itself as large as it can?

If so, we define the Human mind as also a form of Will.
Can a Human control their actions?
Yes, only to some degree.
There are 3 basic things that the Will control:
a. Conscious
To run, to walk (completely controlled)
b. Subconscious
Breathing (we don’t think to breathe, but we can control our breathing when we want to)
c. Unconscious
Digestive System (completely uncontrolled) – the electrons and protons in our body (even completely uncontrolled)

I can’t say or proof how far our life is controlled by the largest “Will”.  It would probably can never be answered.

Description
The argument starts with the assumption that “God” if so exists, can only be timeless.
For it to be timeless, God “IS”, never “was” and never “will be”.
That is, God does not change, because change implies motion, and all motion has a beginning and an end—and for God to exists, it cannot have a beginning nor an end.

In short, God is a “Being”: it is complete and motionless, and is therefore timeless (no beginning nor end) for it never move.  It does not change and never changed before.

The implication arises from this idea is: because “Being” never change, then why is there observable changes?
Being is motionless, therefore being cannot exists with “constant flux/changes” (we will call this flux/changes as “Becoming”)
The existence of changes give “Being” a reference with “Becoming” with respect to time—and thus Being, as it is comparable with Becoming through time, is no longer a Being(by definition).

It’s sort of complicated, so the best way to imagine Being no longer a Being is through mathematical graph:
Being, is “zero dimensional”: it has nothing to measure against, it is simply a “DOT”; a point without dimension.
Becoming is a “two dimensional” graph; it is some line function with respect to time.
When Being and Becoming exists together; it becomes  a “three dimensional” graph:
Being (x axis), Becoming (y axis), Time (z axis)
The “dot’s” position is constantly changing through time, and thus it is moving and therefore the “dot” cannot be a Being. Being does not exists

In other word, Being cannot exist with Becoming. And because Becoming absolutely exists, then Being cannot exists.

But this then becomes a problem: if everything is a becoming; everything has a beginning and an end.
This means that the very first beginning must have a beginning, and the beginning of that first beginning must also have a beginning and so on—this makes no sense.  There must be something that has no beginning to start all changes (the unmoved mover).

Conclusion:
Being cannot exists with Becoming, and Becoming exists, therefore Being does not exists
However, Becoming cannot exists without Being, and thus because Being does not exists, Becoming does not exists.  So nothing exists. But Something do exists.
A contradiction

Before we go anywhere with this contradiction, let’s first discuss briefly Aristotle’s “Substance”

Every “THING” in this world is made of substance (not the chemistry definition).
Substance is ONE but is made out of “Form / Actuality” and “Matter / Potentiality”.  These two exists together, and inseparable in a given substance.

Now, let’s define what is Form and what is Matter.

Simply put, Form is the “shape” or “structure” of an object, it is nonphysical and does not exist in the material—it is also what the “substance” can do (what it actually is/can do)
Matter is whatever it is that fill that shape, however with different arrangement, matter can be something else and therefore it is called the potentiality, because its function/use is dependent upon the Form

Example:  An iron ball
The spherical shape is the Form, and the iron is the Matter.
Iron, with a different structure can “potentially’ be a sword, but in this case it is “actually” a ball.

That said, we have to understand that Matter cannot exists without Form (an object may have a random shape, but it cannot have NO shape, because it is material),
BUT Form can exists independently of matter : imagine again the iron ball—you can see it in your head, but it does not exists in the material world—it has no matter;
or an artist’s imagination of the painting he/she is going to create—the painting does not yet exists in the material world, but the shape already exists.

We will go back to this later on.

So, what is the significant of Substance being both Form and Matter to the previous contradiction?

With the concept of “Form and Matter” We now can solve Being and Becoming.
Let’s look at the dependent and independent variable.

Being DOES NOT require Becoming to exist – Form DOES NOT require Matter to exist
Becoming DOES require Being to exist – Matter DOES require Form to exist

From that generalization we can separate Being = Form and Becoming = Matter.
Because Being is non-physical (characteristic of Form)
And Becoming is physical (characteristic of Matter)
We cannot compare these two together.

It’s like saying an Area is 3times a Volume.  It makes no sense.
Area is 2D, Volume is 3D.  You cannot compare them.

To summarize up to this point; it is established that Being and Becoming can exists together, and God, if so exists, must then be non-physical.

The question that follows now is: can the non-physical affect the physical? Can the non-material affect the material?
The answer is absolutely and undeniably YES.  The non-physical can affect the physical.

The simplest example would be: yourself and your actions.
Talking is a great example.  Because we “want” to say something, our vocal cord vibrates and makes a sound.  The “want” is non-physical, yet, it can make the vocal cord—a physical object moves.

So for this reason, then Yes; God if so exists, even though non-physical can affect the physical world.

Up to this point, we have discussed that God is Being, and Being is a Form – it is non-physical but has the ability to affect the physical world.

In the previous example, we said talking as an example of the non-physical to affect the physical, we say this act of talking is of a “want” , and any other non-physical things, in its purest form is Being.
The problem with using the word “want” is that we can now say that we no longer “want” something.  That gives a contradiction to the definition of Being, because we can no longer want, and thus Being can now be non-Being.

But is it true that we no longer “want” at all?
Or simply another type of “want” now overcomes the first?
How can a “want” changes?

A “want” , a non physical, can change not only because the effect of another non-physical things, a want can change with the change in the presence of another physical things.
For example: A person wants to eat a fruit, but that person sees an ice-cream and now the person want’s to eat the ice-cream.

This show: a want is affected by physical things and non-physical things.

So let us again separate the physical and non-physical.  The physical , as previously defined,  is Matter.  The pure non-physical that affect a “want” is Form, and is now will also be defined as a “WILL”

Assigning “Will” as a “Form” can simplify and fully align the different characteristics of Form, as both non-matter and structure or shape.

The “Will” governs everything.  The “Will” exists independently of matter.  A “Will” can be stronger than another.  A “Will” is Being.  God, if so exists, is a “Will”.

To be honest, it is very hard to define what a “Will” is because of the extensive meaning.
But maybe, I can give an example of the characteristics of “Will” to help clarify it.

The Will can manifest itself as different things, depending on its strength:

The Will desires to continuously extend itself absorbing more and more matters to make itself larger and larger. But many times, it faces a bigger Will that overcame itself.
An example that is analogous to this idea is Gravitation.  All objects, big or small, “attract” another object around it, trying to take them into themselves—exerting a gravitational force.  This is what I mean by the individual “Will” to extend.

A smaller, weaker Will is the simple things like Quarks (or whatever smaller than that)
A bigger Will would be protons, electrons or neutrons (because it is composed of different quarks)
A bigger Will than that would be Element of the Periodic table: H, He, Na, Mg, Al, etc.
An even bigger will would be certain chemicals; Such as NaOH, or Amino acids, etc
An even bigger would be an protein (combinations of Amino acid)
Then cells
Then organs
Then whole body ; human, animals or plants.

Why would a proton attract electron? Because it’s just “is”
Why would a carbon atom wants to make 4 bond? Because it’s just “is”

The Will is what “IS” and completely unexplainable.

So let’s go back to the main idea of this thread, What is the characteristic of God, if so exists?

God is the largest Will that governs, retains, maintain, and expand the universe’s existence.

Why is there a need for the existence of a very large, undeniable Will that govern everything else that exists in this world?

Because things, as random as they are, all substances have the same source (proton, electron, electron—and whatever made those)
They are random, but at the same time MUST always follow a certain rules (Will) that is undeniable, unbreakable.

But to what extent is the power of the “largest” Will?
Can the largest Will completely overcome the smaller will?
Or does the largest Will only govern the simplest part of the rest of the smaller Will because it already overstretch itself as large as it can?

If so, we define the Human mind as also a form of Will.
Can a Human control their actions?
Yes, only to some degree.
There are 3 basic things that the Will control:
a. Conscious
To run, to walk (completely controlled)
b. Subconscious
Breathing (we don’t think to breathe, but we can control our breathing when we want to)
c. Unconscious
Digestive System (completely uncontrolled) – the electrons and protons in our body (even completely uncontrolled)

I can’t say or proof how far our life is controlled by the largest “Will”.  It would probably can never be answered.