>>18136509
I am aware that you did not literally say that. And anyway, if responding to another human being had only to do with literally quoting what they said, then you would have to establish that I literally said that you said that, which I did not. I inferred it just as you inferred that. You inferred wrongly but that's okay since I really want to move on and would rather not have this devolve into an exchange of quips.
As I said later on, that was probably not the Aristotelian way to phrase it. As you might have gleamed from what I wrote if you did read it, I do not think that there is necessarily a difference between God changing and a new God coming to exist. The difference between being X and not being X is based on the framing being used. This is the same sense in which, in a conception in which identity is decided by the literal persistence of each individual cell in a human being, everyone is constantly not the same thing. Skin and blood cells die, memories change, etc. That's not a popular framing when dealing with human beings because it doesn't allow us to explain a lot of social phenomena. Reality makes a lot of sense if a baby assumes that the woman that just breastfed it five hours ago and the one straddling it now are the same. For one, it means it can expect milk from it. There's no problem with this, and we just need to know the consequences of the abstraction and know when to give it up for a better one.
As I said, the way that I imagine you would phrase it is not that God "came to exist" but that God changed at some point. I am assuming here that you would consider a merger a change to both parties. In the typical sense, it implies that at least one of them ceases to exist. This is also another problem for a very strict Aristotelian reading since that should be impossible; a merger would mean that neither exists as they were anymore, or the merger would be equivalent to the annihilation of the absorbed.
