Can God the Son not be uncaused?

How could the action of begetting/generating the Son not be a cause? Can an action like in the sentence "He ate chicken" not be a cause (for example, the cause of the chicken to be eaten etc)? If the Son is caused, he has no aseity, not being God.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Ο Σολιταίρ

    >How could the action of begetting/generating the Son not be a cause
    Because it's not
    More specifically, God exists outside of time itself and transcends cause and effect (a function of time)

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can God the Son be uncaused?*

      >God exists outside of time itself
      Causality doesn't depend on temporal succession
      >and transcends cause and effect (a function of time)
      Then what does begotten mean? Was the expression "begotten, not made" built simply so that the aseity of the Son wouldn't be violated?

      It's a relational distinction, there was never a moment the Son was not the Son or a moment where the Father wasn't the Father of the Son. Aseity is a attribute of being not personhood.

      Causality doesn't depend on temporal succession, but I don't get your point:
      >Aseity is a attribute of being not personhood
      If the Son has no aseity, he's not God, right?

      • 7 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        >Causality doesn't depend on temporal succession
        explain why and how

        >Was the expression "begotten, not made" built simply so that the aseity of the Son wouldn't be violated?
        no, it's because the Bible says that Christ is the Only-Begotten of the Father while saying he is eternally existent God.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >explain why and how
          First, that's proving a negative. You should explain why causality depends on temporal succession. But I will say that causality (according to the counterfactual view), works like that:
          "X causes Y if and only if, without X, Y would not exist".

          >no, it's because the Bible says that Christ is the Only-Begotten of the Father while saying he is eternally existent God
          Fair enough, but the point of causality it's still up. Even if it's also in the NT, it doesn't demonstrate how the Son is not caused by the Father.

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >X causes Y if and only if, without X, Y would not exist
            how does this account for a reality which is outside of the progression of time?
            If I posit that both X and Y have always existed in all timeless eternity, then even if they are intrinsically connected* they cannot cause one another as there has not been, nor ever will be the opportunity to do so.
            God is not caused; God IS.
            While I'm sure you are unsatisfied, certainly you begin to see why Christians view relationship between Christ and the Father differently than that of God to creation itself? Creation had a beginning; and Christ did not.
            To be a son is to be begotten. To be God is to be uncreated.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how does this account for a reality which is outside of the progression of time?
            I told you, the definition of causation doesn't need temporal succession.

            >If I posit that both X and Y have always existed in all timeless eternity, then even if they are intrinsically connected* they cannot cause one another as there has not been, nor ever will be the opportunity to do so.
            You are just implying time is necessary for causation
            >God is not caused; God IS
            Ok, now demonstrate how the Son is not caused
            >While I'm sure you are unsatisfied, certainly you begin to see why Christians view relationship between Christ and the Father differently than that of God to creation itself? Creation had a beginning; and Christ did not.
            Again implying temporal succession is necessary for causation. Explain how the Son wouldn't be eternally caused by the Father by the action of begetting.
            >To be a son is to be begotten. To be God is to be uncreated.
            Explain how the action of begetting is not a cause of the Son's existance.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except it does. If one thing causes the other, one has to occur or act before the other in time. The Holy Trinity existed before time itself and the Father through the Son created the world and time itself.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If one thing causes the other, one has to occur or act before the other in time
            I've already conceded the discussion FYI, but demonstrate that

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            simple. Cause comes before effect so it has to happen in time.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
            Read "Concept"

            >"Three persons each being God logically imply three gods"
            Non sequitur

            Can you show me why?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Because the persons are not the being of God. As you know. That's why you wanted to substitute a different term that implies distinct existence. You're very disingenuous.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I said word games. Why isn't a person an entity? How doesn't it have distinct existence?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Make an argument that the trinitarian concept of being amounts to distinct entities therefore entails polytheism

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not about the concept of being though, it's about the concept of person. My argument has already been given: "Persons are entities. Three entities being God entail three Gods by matter of counting."

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            >persons are entities
            Strawman

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you show me why?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            The doctrine of the trinity states that the three persons are one being.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            And? How does from that it follows that a person in not an entity?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            An entity is a thing with distinct and independent existence.
            The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is, not me to prove that it is not.

            This is a word that you chose to introduce, not used in any trinitarian formulation.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Entity, from google: a thing with distinct and independent existence.
            A person is a thing with distinct and independent existence, no?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            I just answered this question
            Make an argument

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll do something better. Let's use the word "thing", so that it's easier to work.
            "A person is a thing. Three things being God imply three Gods by matter of counting". How do you respond to that? Will you ask me to prove that a person is a thing?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            That's fine. Thing does not imply distinction and independent existence.
            It's a non sequitur, as the various trinitarian analogies demonstrate. Three leafs on a clover are all clover. Three states of water are all H2O. Three accurate statements are all true.

            You do not actually believe that argument holds, right? That's why you're framing it like this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Three leafs on a clover are all clover
            I thought Partialism wasn't accepted by Trinitarianism. The leafs are parts of the clover, not the whole clover, right? Same for Modalism (modes of water) and Tritheism (three true statements).

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            They're analogies. New argument?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You do not actually believe that argument holds, right? That's why you're framing it like this
            My argument? I do. What's the problem with my argument? You said that it was a non sequitur and that analogies would show that, and then apparently agreed that these very analogies are not functional.

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            The analogies are functional. They have an analogous, not an identical, relationship to the position I'm defending.

            Three leafs are one clover. Is this possible?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Three leafs are one clover. Is this possible?
            Yes, why not?

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            That's my point. It's perfectly logical. The argument as stated fails and the analogy proves it.
            Three of something can be one of something else. You have to prove that the relationship in question for the doctrine of trinitarianism is impossible (three persons, one god). You cannot do this because there's no logical contradiction involved.

            A lot of people get hung up here because they reason from thinking it's not actual, therefore it's not possible. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can distinguish between these two concepts.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, I concede that it's possible for three of something to be one of something else. This works for the clover case, but as a consequence, each leaf is just a part. The relationship is not transferable to the Trinity case. In the case of three true statements, that also wouldn't be possible and the counting would be 3. What is the functional relationship in the Trinity that stays in line with the doctrine?

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            Are you asking me what the doctrine of the trinity is?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that when you phrase the relationship you don't say "the Father is person, the Son is person, the Holy Spirit is person, and together they form God" (working with actually two distinct things). You say "the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is one God" (only working with one thing and counting as if you were working with two different things, so that the first would be parts of the second). So in this case, the argument doesn't fail and three Gods are implied.

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            What are you counting?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Both persons and Gods.

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            So 3 persons and 1 god. Right?

            Make an argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you name each of the persons a God, instead of just "person", then you are counting three Gods. You can say that the Father is person, the Son is person and the Holy Spirit is person, but not the each one of them are God, because that would be 3 persons, 3 Gods and 1 God instead of 3 persons and 1 God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            not that each one of them is God*

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            >a god
            The same one god
            As you already conceded, three of something can be one of something else.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >three of something can be one of something else
            >three of something
            >three persons
            So you have to say "the Father is person, the Son is person and the Holy Spirit is person", not "the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God".

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            If you're serious then you have no idea what you're talking about and should stop posting. If you're not being serious it's offensive that you're being so insincere.

            Father, son, and spirit are the persons who are each god. You already know this.
            I accept your concessions but I'm not going to entertain this any more

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the persons, who are each God
            Demonstrate

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Will you demonstrate how three things summing up one God can be God each one of them?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In other words, yes, 3 persons = 1 God is possible but heretical (Partialism), but 3 God = 1 God is not possible.

          • 6 months ago
            SageDirk

            >3 god = 1 god
            Strawman

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then what is stated if not that there are three things that are God?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is one leaf being a clover.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If one thing causes the other, one has to occur or act before the other in time

            No. Causation only ever happens simultaneously. If there is no temporal overlap then there is no reason to connect the two, because until the effect actually exists something could frustrate/block the cause from bringing it about, everything not temporally overlapping is therefore extraneous in causal relationships.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Son is God, without beginning. The Father has always been the Father of the Son and the Son has always been the Son of the Father. The Son has aseity by virtue of being God.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Causality doesn't depend on temporal succession. Explain how the Son wouldn't be eternally caused by the Father by the action of begetting.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Begotten not made, there was never even a logical moment/step where the Son wasn't the Son. The Son being the only begotten son of God is the relational distinction between them, you seem to think it's an action taken to make the Son. Do you understand that the Father is the Father by his being the Father of the Son? How could he be Father without Son, are you questioning his asceity also?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you understand that the Father is the Father by his being the Father of the Son? How could he be Father without Son, are you questioning his asceity also?
            Ok, but how is begetting not an action?

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because I get to believe whatever crazy incoherent nonsense I want and you can't stop me nahnahnahnahnahNAH! Also here's me saying the same thing with some obscruantist word games.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a relational distinction, there was never a moment the Son was not the Son or a moment where the Father wasn't the Father of the Son. Aseity is a attribute of being not personhood.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How could the action of begetting/generating the Son not be a cause?
    It is.
    >If the Son is caused, he has no aseity, not being God.
    Says who?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseity

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >says autistic medieval monks
        Ok I don't care then.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think Protestants agree with it as well.

          Begotten not made, there was never even a logical moment/step where the Son wasn't the Son. The Son being the only begotten son of God is the relational distinction between them, you seem to think it's an action taken to make the Son. Do you understand that the Father is the Father by his being the Father of the Son? How could he be Father without Son, are you questioning his asceity also?

          >you seem to think it's an action taken to make the Son
          First, the action verb "beget" implies an action. Second, what does begotten/generated mean, then?
          https://www.theopedia.com/eternal-generation-of-the-son

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your answer is there quite clearly on that page
            >an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son
            Framing the begetting of the Son as an action in the manner you are implies the Father is choosing to make the Son, or otherwise could choose not to make the Son. For the Father not to beget the Son is as impossible as a square circle, as it's a necessary result of God's nature.

            >Do you understand that the Father is the Father by his being the Father of the Son? How could he be Father without Son, are you questioning his asceity also?
            Ok, but how is begetting not an action?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Framing the begetting of the Son as an action in the manner you are implies the Father is choosing to make the Son, or otherwise could choose not to make the Son
            No, I'm no talking about choice. I'm talking about the meaning of the word "begotten/generated" and how it can not be a eternal cause for the Son's existance. If it's not a cause for the Son's existance, it's for the son begotten-ness, whatever begotten means. So if he wasn't begotten, he wouldn't be the Son as described in the Athanasian Creed, and there would be two unbegotten entities, something like two Fathers.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you understand what the Son being God means. There are no logical steps where the person of the Son doesn't exist, the Son exists necessarily by the nature of God just as the Father. An eternal cause would only be needed to produce another eternal being, but God is 1 being.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Son exists necessarily by the nature of God just as the Father
            Ok, but begetting is still an action, right? Begetting the Son implies causing the Son, doesn't it?

            No. Since "begotten" in this sense is purely an adjective.
            And he's God
            thus all his attributes are uncreated/uncaused.

            But how would the Son have the description on "begotten", which is the past participle of "beget", without having been begotten?
            >An eternal cause would only be needed to produce another eternal being, but God is 1 being
            The three persons are three entities.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>An eternal cause would only be needed to produce another eternal being, but God is 1 being
            >The three persons are three entities.
            Sorry, meant for

            I don't think you understand what the Son being God means. There are no logical steps where the person of the Son doesn't exist, the Son exists necessarily by the nature of God just as the Father. An eternal cause would only be needed to produce another eternal being, but God is 1 being.

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            What do you want me to say?
            I don't think you accept the premise of "God" as defined by most monotheists.
            Therefore, you want explanations for God which monotheists inherently don't think are appropriate or adequate.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, that later paragraph was for the other anon. I just meant to send this to you:
            But how would the Son have the description on "begotten", which is the past participle of "beget", without having been begotten?

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >But how would the Son have the description on "begotten", which is the past participle of "beget", without having been begotten?
            Because he's God
            this what I mean; I don't think you except the general premises of an omnipotent God.
            I can pretty much repeat
            >because he's God
            a million times and I* know what I mean, but I think you don't know* or accept* what I mean.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait, but do you agree that God cannot make illogical or paradoxal things like creating a rock it cannot carry? If your answer is that he can create, then he would be able to stop being God. But how could God stop being God?

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            you've said this before 10 times lol
            you are not the arbiter of reality sadly.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So your argument is that the Son is not caused by the action of the Father of begetting because the Son can have the description of begotten without having been begotten? I mean, you haven't even proven that the Son is God.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>An eternal cause would only be needed to produce another eternal being, but God is 1 being
            >The three persons are three entities.
            Sorry, meant for [...]

            Yes the Son is eternally begotten from eternity, this was described before as a relational distinction not one of being, hence "begotten not made." I also don't see the significance of saying "entity." As said before, aseity is an attribute of being and not person

            It's a relational distinction, there was never a moment the Son was not the Son or a moment where the Father wasn't the Father of the Son. Aseity is a attribute of being not personhood.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes the Son is eternally begotten from eternity
            Just to make it clear, so do you agree that the begetting is a cause?

            >this was described before as a relational distinction not one of being
            But it's still an action, right?

            >I also don't see the significance of saying "entity." As said before, aseity is an attribute of being and not person
            It's because if the entity Son doesn'f have aseity, the Son can't be God, do you agree?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oops, sorry for quoting you thrice.

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            Begotten =/= begetting
            two different words (past participle adj. vs. verb)
            and in Greek it's purely adjectival.

            He is* begotten, not "He has been begotten"
            And, the NT calls him the "Word of God"
            so, perhaps that may help illustrate how he is begotten and uncreated.
            Do you "create" the words you say? or are they "begotten" of you? (I know this sounds strange, but think about it)

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He is* begotten, not "He has been begotten"
            What's the difference? Begotten implies being begotten.

            >Do you "create" the words you say? or are they "begotten" of you? (I know this sounds strange, but think about it)
            I don't understand your metaphor.

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            Is implication all it takes to make something true?
            Begotten for us implies being* begotten.
            But if Christ is* begotten without being* begotten, then that's just how it is.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But if Christ is* begotten without being* begotten, then that's just how it is
            So do you consider the idea that the Son is begotten without being/having been begotten is illogical?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            consider that the idea*

          • 7 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            No. Since "begotten" in this sense is purely an adjective.
            And he's God
            thus all his attributes are uncreated/uncaused.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder: if the Son was unbegotten, then he wouldn't be the Son as described in the Athanasian Creed. There would be two unbegotten entities, something like two Fathers.

  6. 7 months ago
    SageDirk

    > Can an action like in the sentence "He ate chicken" not be a cause
    Do you think by eating the chicken you caused it to exist? That's idiotic.

    You already conceded threads ago that the trinitarian position does not compromise aseity, that is, eternal generation does not constitute causing the son. Why are you still making a point you already conceded?

    Why are you flooding the board with all these threads on the same topic, and why are you being disingenuous? Don't ask "how can X not be Y", say "X must be Y because Z" Make an argument.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Do you think by eating the chicken you caused it to exist?
      The subject caused it to be eaten, like the Father caused it to be begotten. If the Father didn't cause the Son to exist, it at least caused the Son to have begotten-ness, whatever begotten means.
      >You already conceded threads ago that the trinitarian position does not compromise aseity, that is, eternal generation does not constitute causing the son. Why are you still making a point you already conceded?
      The Trinitarian position, by what you are arguing, is that the Father wasn't the cause for the Son in anything. What I'm saying is that that's absurd and impossible, since actions are always causes and the Father has the action of begetting the Son.

      • 7 months ago
        SageDirk

        Like I told you before, if the son were not begotten he would be unbegotten and eternal. His begottenness is not what causes him to exist. You're equivocating on "cause".

        >that's absurd and impossible
        You have yet to demonstrate this

        >actions are always causes
        That's the equivocation
        My son acts on me. Is he my cause? No, that's actually absurd. I am a cause of his existence. He can be a cause of my joy or my pain.

        Mary caused Jesus to perform a miracle at the wedding feast. Does Mary pre-exist Jesus? No. You mean to be asking about causes in the ontological sense. You need to come up with a different argument that the son must not be eternal.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Son needs begotten-ness to be the Son, since that's what defines him as the Son. The Father caused his begoten-ness. Thus, the Father caused his existance. If the Father had not begotten the Son, the Son would be another entity, unbegotten, something like the Father.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            >thus the father caused his existence
            Non sequitur

            If the son wasn't begotten then sure he wouldn't be the son, but he wouldn't be non existent any more than a wife is non existent before becoming married. The action in question is not a beginning to exist. Do you get that?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            A wife starts to exist as wife when she becomes married. The Son exists as the Son while he is the Son, i.e. has the characteristics of the Son, one of them being unbegotten.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Ok. Argument?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, I think I concede. Jesus would still exist (in the Trinitarian view), he just wouldn't be Son of the Father, if the father didn't do the action of begetting. Right?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Yes

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just think it seems like polytheism, but that's another point.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            >One God
            >Seems like polytheism

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It seems like three gods. Since each of the three entities are God.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Ok

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If that was the argument, what would you respond with?
            "Three entities being God imply three Gods."
            Non sequitur? Explanation?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Strawman
            As you already know, there is one god in trinitarianism

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, how is the counting of Gods one?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Make an argument

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wasn't

            If that was the argument, what would you respond with?
            "Three entities being God imply three Gods."
            Non sequitur? Explanation?

            an argument?
            "If three entities are God, thus the counting of Gods is three".

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            No, it was a strawman. The things counted as three are not gods in trinitarianism. Polytheism means multiple gods.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The things counted as three are not gods in trinitarianism
            They are entities though. Three entities being God.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            I reject your arbitrary terminology and whatever assumptions go into it.
            The position to be refuted is three persons, one god.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This position is inexistent for being illogical, three entities each being God logically imply three Gods.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            >three persons can't be one god because... Because they just can't!
            You concede

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I'm arguing this combination is impossible and I gave you the explanation.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            You replaced the fundamental term under dispute and merely stated that there's an issue. You've not made an argument and the non argument you've made doesn't represent the position.

            Why can three divine persons not be one god? Without an answer you have no argument, and therefore concede

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You replaced the fundamental term under dispute and merely stated that there's an issue
            What's the problem in replacing person by entity when a person is an entity? You can call it "thing" if you want, it wouldn't matter.

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            What's the problem with using the term person?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sometimes it gives space for word games, bu it would be like this:
            "Three persons each being God logically imply three gods"

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            >"Three persons each being God logically imply three gods"
            Non sequitur

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is the Son dependent or independent of the Father?

          • 7 months ago
            SageDirk

            Not an argument

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            being begotten*

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isn’t this the thing that divided Catholics and Orthodoxy in the 11th century?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Show me where in the Bible as a christian I have to accept the eternal generation of the son. Or at least show me some consensus in the antenicene fathers.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *