God is immutable.a immutable thing cannot be the cause of any new effect,as that would imply change in his nature.

how valid is this argument?what if God's immutibility only refer to his substance or essence and not his actions?

  • Valid means "formally valid"; obviously, the argument above is not so: on what ground the conclusion follows from the premises ? You are assuming: "if something cause a new effect, this will imply a change "in itself"." Why so ? May 13 '20 at 7:34
  • Having said that, in order to be conclusive a "proof" like that above must be "formally" valid and it must start from true premises. The first one is an assertion about the concept "God"; the second one is a general statement regarding a sort of "metaphysical law": a immutable thing cannot be the cause of any new effect. Why ? On what ground can we assert so general a statement ? May 13 '20 at 7:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.