Yes. They are immutable in their existence in every way because of what they are, and their existence itself does not participate in causality. Their existence is unaffected by everything to beings that cannot interact with them. The example you gave doesn't really work since they aren't physical beings. So the argument is that their changeless existence would include causality as one of the things it transcends.
I don’t see how those examples really translate to existential or ontological immutability. I don’t see how appearance equals a being’s existence. Something can look unchanging while still changing internally or fundamentally in existence. The same goes for the eternal youth part; it doesn’t translate to ontology like it does in my scans, so it’s a category error.
So a concept normally should be unchanging, immutable; an obvious thing. Or are you suggest that concept constantly changing??, that mean everything that under the concepts should changing over time as well.
Bruh, what are you even talking about? That's a huge NLF. You're just assuming that concepts are immutable by default as a universal rule. If you were talking about Platonic Forms, then sure, but not concepts in general, especially concepts in fiction. A concept isn't automatically changeless or immutable in its existence by default. That's like saying a concept is independent by default, or that it can't be manipulated, or assigning it any other property of that nature, it simply doesn't follow.
I’ve already made it clear that I’m not talking about vague immutability, but immutability in existence, with evidence that said existence transcends or does not participate in causality. Causality is a type of change, so something that is immutable in its being can include causality with context.
are you larping Neoplatonism, Platonism here or you have argument instead?
U-uhm… like, you are saying some weird shi like being more Immutable (whatever this can imply) or…
I felt like the need to elaborate since just ratioing is very rude.
You don't need direct thing, just evidence that God is immutable due to transcending, beyond causality or whatever similar
We already know that not all forms of immutability qualify for ACA Type 5. It’s just that the examples you used were not good for explaining it. We know ACA Type 5 requires both “beyond causality” and “unchangeable existence” to be linked, meaning they refer to the same ontological level. The immutability of Gods in T7 is tied to their supreme existence, which is basically a level above everything in the verse, which includes causality.
Can i see the scan about above everything including causality in the verse, i'm fine with the immutable scan, my gripe is the beyond causality thing
Here it is already accepted that laws=concepts.
You wanna do it or want me to do it
I'll do it. I just want to rewrite some justifications for a few things when adding to the page.
Only for them to get rizzed up by the MC and added to his harem, thereby rendering them defeated by harem rizz alone.
