Christians claim that Jesus is God, who entered the world to die for the sins of man. We claim that this is a false belief, because that would be a change on the part of God, and it is rationally impossible for a beginningless being to change. To prove this, we argue:
- Whatever has the potential to change, is inseparable from accidents.
- Whatever is inseparable from accidents, is emergent.
- Therefore, whatever has the potential to change is emergent.
Premise 1: Whatever has the potential to change, is inseparable from accidents
The first premise proposes that it is impossible for a being that can change, to exist without any accidents.
Accident: a quality that is not necessary for the being it is attributed to. Such that, if this quality ceases to exist, it is not necessary for this being to cease to exist.
This premise is true, because “change” occurs when a being loses one accident, and acquires another. When the first accident ceases to exist, the second emerges into existence.
For example: a body that changes from rest to motion, transitions from being attributed with rest, to being attributed with motion. When rest ceases to exist, motion then emerges into existence.
Thus, change by definition, requires the changing being to be attributed with some accident. For if this being were not attributed with any accidents, then it would be impossible for it to lose an accident in order for change to occur.
Premise 2: Whatever is inseparable from accidents, is emergent
The second premise proposes that it is necessary for a being that is inseparable from accidents, to have emerged into existence.
This premise is true, because the set of all accidents is emergent. And since the being in question is inseparable from accidents, it could not have existed before the set of all accidents emerged into existence. Which means that this being’s existence is preceded by its non-existence (i.e. it is emergent).
The set of all accidents is emergent, because each accident is emergent, and the number of accidents that emerged into existence in the past is finite. Each accident is emergent because accidents exist contingently, not necessarily. For if their existence were necessary, then this would make it impossible for them to cease to exist. And if it were impossible for them to cease to exist, then those accidents wouldn’t be accidents. The number of accidents that emerged into existence in the past is finite, because each accident is an event, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have occurred in the past.
Therefore, whatever has the potential to change is emergent
The two premises are true, so the conclusion necessarily follows. Therefore, whatever can change, must have emerged into existence. And since God is beginningless by agreement, God is necessarily immutable. Which means that the incarnation is impossible.
 Consider the distinction between a body, and the motion of this body. If this motion ceases to exist, it is not necessary that the body cease to exist as well. Motion is therefore, said to be accidental for the body.
 As that would make it impossible for the being attributed with this accident, to exist without it. Whereas an accident is (by virtue of what it is) a quality that accepts cessation, such that the being attributed with it can exist without it.
 Given the impossibility of Tasalsul. The occurrence of an infinite number of past events is impossible, because the past is that sequence of events which leads up to, and then ends with the present moment. To claim that the past is infinite, is therefore tantamount to claiming that a sequence which came to an end is endless. And that is a clear contradiction. More on this here.
3 thoughts on “The Incarnation of the Immutable God”
i try to understand this in lay man language.
they say that the almighty is omniscient.
so this means that omniscience is an attribute of God which is permanent and inherent .
human being sees, but his seeing is not inherent in him, when the eyes are taken out, a human becomes blind and can no longer see.
now how can they apply this to almighty?
they say that almighty saw like a human sees i.e limited in sight.
if the almighty is ALREADY omniscient, then what does it mean “god sees like a limited man sees” ?
some of them will have god put away his omniscience and plug in human sight to his person.
so omniscience is able to exist independently of person,does that make sense?
some of them will say “god is omniscient” and “limited in sight” at the same time.
how does that work? if god has ADDED “limited sight” to himself and is STILL omniscient , then wouldn’t that mean that THROUGH his omniscience he EXPERIENCES limited human sight, wouldn’t that mean that gods omniscience is subject to change?
or they will speak as if they are talking about TWO persons .
they imagine their god like a human who wears the following type of glasses
cats eyes glasses
so when the human/x puts on his “cats eyes glasses” he sees like a cat, but if “human glasses”/b are inherently in the person, then sorry to say, x through B sees like A.
In layman’s terms we can say:
God is not man. And man is not God.
So to claim that Jesus is both God and man, is to claim that Jesus is both God and not-God. Or that Jesus is both man and not-man. And this is a clear contradiction.
And if it is said: “we believe Christ has two natures, a Divine nature, and a human nature.”
We say: this nothing but a rewording of the belief we’ve proven to be false. For the point under dispute is precisely that (i.e. that it is impossible for the single Christ to have both a Divine nature and a human nature, because this would entail that he be both God and not-God, or man and not-man).
We muslims believe that Allah has power over all things.
The christians seem to be portraying a god who has power over itself. so you will see them say that god can temporary “let go” of his omniscience and can temporarily weaken himself.
the strange thing is that they say that the divine nature does not change. if this is the case, then is god subject to his powers and is dependent on them while he is weak?
once they say god can do impossible, then he can be anything and everything as long as he gains back his power
they seem to be worshiping a god who loses and gains
Is not a God who always is as He is greater than a god who gains and loses ?
weakness itself is a creation of Allah, so christians must agree that their god creates his own weakness.