L
Luke_K
Guest
- The universe had a beginning.
- God created the universe.
- God’s being a creator had a beginning.
- Therefore, God’s character is not eternal because he is a Creator and his “Creator-ness” had a beginning.
- Status
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
Being a Creator is not God’s essence but what God did. It’s an act. By the same logic applied here, is God really God simply because He doesn’t help part the Red Sea in the 21st Century, or conjure up another version of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
On the other hand, God will always be all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient) and all-loving (omnibenevolent).
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
L
Luke_K
Guest
If God’s essence is to be totally eternal, then nothing about him can change, including adding the new relational truth of being a Creator. The fact of the matter is, God IS our cause. God IS our creator. These are relational truths about God, himself.
Or from another perspective, if God acts, then something about him changes- his will- which is part of his essence. If God’s will is eternal, then all his actions are necessary truths and God does not have free will. So either God’s will is temporal and free, or eternal and necessary. Pick your poison.
Thirdly, if God is omniscient, then he truly knows temporal facts. He knows that it is presently May 27th, 2011 for us humans. But this truth of the present is constantly changing, and so the true knowledge in God’s mind of the present is always changing. Therefore, God’s omniscience is temporal as a consequence of temporal truths.
I guess what I’m saying is that God is not over-arching, all-around eternal. Yes, his omni-love,power, and existence will never change, but other things about him do.
I invite you to read this article by William Craig on God’s timelessness.
J
JP2Admirer
Guest
I think you are conflating eternity and simplicity. God has no beginning and no end, so nothing changes about Him being eternal by the act of creation.
Furthermore, to state that relational truth changes the essence of God seems far fetched to me. For instance, if I write a poem about my wife, what about me writing that poem changes my essence as man? Do I somehow, because of that relation, change in my essence as a rational animal? I don’t think so. I think what changes is something external to myself that I made.
What changes when God wills creatures is the means to the end that He is willing anyway, but that doesn’t affect His simplicity, it just shows that bonum est diffusivum sui.
From Summa Contra Gentiles BK 1 CH. 80:
“For it was shown above that God wills His own being and His own goodness as His principal object, which is for Him the reason for willing other things. In everything willed, therefore, God wills His own being and His own goodness, just as sight in every color sees light. But it is impossible for God not to will something in act, for He would be willing only in potency, which is impossible since His willing is His being. It is therefore *necessary *(my emphasis) that God will His own being and His own goodness.”
In the very next chapter Aquinas explains why God’s will is free because the object of God’s will is His own goodness, and the end can be obtained without creatures necessarily existing. Thus, God necessarily wills Himself, but His will is not determined to act in any certain way…i.e. create things. Choice consists in the means to an end…the means to obtaining an object. So I wake up in the morning and want coffee so I choose the means of attaining that end…do I go to starbucks, brew some at home, of forego it because of the labor involved. Similarly, God necessarily wills the end, which is His own goodness, but He is free to choose any means to attain that end…whether that be by sharing that goodness with creatures or not. Thus, He is free.
Christian philosophy has always held that God exists outside of time. I think you are thinking too temporally here. If all of time was present to you at one time, would it be changing?
While it is currently changing for those of us constrained by time…God has seen this for all of eternity because He is outside of time, thus His knowledge does not change, although things do change.
So He knew *this *moment, me sitting at my computer typing this message, for eternity, even though this moment is only currently happening.
H
HickmanJosh
Guest
Doesn’t His being eternal mean he exists outside of time? buy his very nature God is not made of matter nor subject to time, so to say a part of Him has a beginning is strange, time began when the universe did.
L
Luke_K
Guest
When you write a poem, you become a poet. Something can be attributed to you that couldn’t before, and therefore you exist temporally. You are still JP2Admirer- that has not changed. God’s simplicity has not changed, but it does show that he does not exist totally apart from time.
And of course, I didn’t even bring up the Incarnation, in which a person of the Trinity assumed a human soul and body, and thus added to his essence.
Fine. God necessarily wills his own goodness, but he freely willed to create and thus his will can change.
But from your explanation, he doesn’t know what is actually currently happening. He can only see the universe as a 4-dimensional solid block of space-time, but not see what humans are experiencing in the now.
From William Craig:
P
puzzleannie
Guest
fallacy
God is not limited by his action as Creator, that is a job description, not his essence
L
Luke_K
Guest
Of course, by the brute logic of definitions, God’s essence does not change. A square will always, always have 4 sides. But a square can be colored black, then yellow, or be 1 inch across and then 2 inches across, and still be a square. But that goes to show that the square is not entirely eternal. Yes, it’s squareness is eternally square, just as God’s “God-ness” is always the same, but nevertheless he can become a Creator, know tensed facts, and change his will towards a certain means (as St. Thomas put it).
J
JP2Admirer
Guest
God’s effects exist in time…that in no way suggests that He is in time or temporal, except relationally. If I God creates us as an eternal being, then creator can be assigned to him in relation to us.
Indeed, when I write a poem something can be attributed to me that couldn’t before, but that attribution is via relations that are exterior to my essence. That is, it is not my essence to be a poet…it is my essence to be a rational animal. So, I can agree with you that in the act of creation, there is a new relation (i.e. before and after) as far as the act of creation is concerned, but this doesn’t change God’s eternity. All that changes is the creaturely relation to the First Cause. Similarly, my essence doesn’t change because I have children, although there is a new relation added to me, i.e. that I have children. If I were in some way eternal (without beginning and without end), although I am the father of my children, it still does not change by essence, although there is a new relational value added to what can be attributed to me. It wouldn’t change my whatness, only how I come to be understood by beings in time.
God is understood to be the supreme good because He created us…and good diffuses itself…thus we come to understand something of the essence of God, but it doesn’t change God because we exist.
“One in being with God”
One being…two natures. Both human and divine. We can speak about each in their respective natures. Christ was in time both fully God and fully man, but His human nature was temporally constrained, not His divine nature. I’ll leave it there, because I don’t feel like digging this deep this early.
There was a time when God created. There was not a time when God did not will there be creation. He simply did not NEED their to be creatures. His will could’ve been otherwise, but it never was because His will is one simple act. In willing His own goodness He willed us. So, in some sense it was necessary that we existed because it was God’s will that we exist, but He could’ve freely willed otherwise.
I admit these concepts are difficult to grasp because we are basically at the limits of human understanding. I can see where this would look like God is unfree, but it’s because grasping what an eternal moment is like is very difficult given that all of our knowledge is built upon ens mobile.
God sees things as being their cause. Thus, successive moments( i.e. effects) are known to him in a singular moment. So “tensed” knowledge i.e. July 21, and so on, is known to him as being the cause of that tensed moment in a singular moment.
G
Ghosty
Guest
What you are referring to is an accidental, external relation for God, and it doesn’t indicate change because it doesn’t refer to God Himself but rather simply signifies the opposite relation to an essential trait of creatures.
Furthermore, it’s not as if God existed for some time and then created the universe, but rather time is a creation as well. God, being eternal, exists in the infinite “now”, and so His act of creation is eternal. This doesn’t mean, however, that creation is eternal because creation is essentially measured by time; so while it’s inaccurate to say that there was a time when the universe didn’t exist, or that there was a time when God wasn’t Creator, it’s correct to say that the universe did not always exist because it is measured by time, by before and after.
Peace and God bless!
Furthermore, it’s not as if God existed for some time and then created the universe, but rather time is a creation as well. God, being eternal, exists in the infinite “now”, and so His act of creation is eternal. This doesn’t mean, however, that creation is eternal because creation is essentially measured by time; so while it’s inaccurate to say that there was a time when the universe didn’t exist, or that there was a time when God wasn’t Creator, it’s correct to say that the universe did not always exist because it is measured by time, by before and after.
Peace and God bless!
L
Luke_K
Guest
Yes, just read my reply to puzzleannie. God’s “God-ness” is eternal, but he still has temporal aspects to him.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I did read your reply to puzzleannie, and that’s specifically what I was responding to. Just because God has interactions with temporal things doesn’t mean God has temporal aspects. Since eternity encompasses time as a singular state, God’s eternal Essence interacts with time from its singular, eternal "now. So God didn’t “become” the Creator when the universe began, because there was literally no time when God wasn’t the Creator. God didn’t “become” the Creator of Ghosty when I was conceived, because God has created me from eternity. I exist within time, and am bound by time, so there was a time when Ghosty did not exist; if I was also eternal, like God, then there would not be a time when I didn’t exist (such as the relationship between the Father and the Son; begotten but not created).
Only if God existed within time, and was bound by time, could you say that God has temporal aspects. It’s not just a matter of accidents versus essence (which is the heart of your response to puzzleannie), but the eternity of that essence which defines the timelessness of all accidents of God. It is impossible for “accidental relationships” to be temporal for God.
Peace and God bless!
D
danserr
Guest
I haven’t read enough on this to give you a good answer, but I find the question interesting, anyway. One brief note, is that you should not characterize this as an argument against God’s eternity, but against divine timelessness. Craig would still say that God is eternal in the sense of never having a beginning.
I have a strange and unsophisticated question to ask. I’ve never heard a serious academic mention it, which means I don’t know how seriously to take it, but I wonder if the Trinity helps in this. ie, that the Father remains atemporal, but the Holy Spirit explains how he acts in time?
Another note, and this complicates the question. I think Aquinas made God’s atemporality work by holding that God is absolutely simple and stands in no real relation to the world. Most philosophers think this is hard to explain philosophically, but Alexander Pruss has an article where he suggests that maybe we can made some sense of it. If this were possible, it might be easier to defend divine timelessness.
L
Luke_K
Guest
I disagree. My essence as Luke K- a human soul with a capability for reasoning and love- does not change from the moment I was conceived,even though I change in other ways. The same goes for God, except that his essence has no beginning and is therefore eternal.
If God didn’t begin to be the Creator, then the universe did not begin to exist. But God did begin to be a Creator. Therefore, his Creator-ness is not eternal. Simple as that. You and JP2Admirer emphasize that God stands outside of the 4-dimensional space-time block known as the universe (B-Theory of time), but that just ignores the absolute fact that time and becoming are truths about the universe and about us. I am truly not existing in the future right now, so God can’t know something as existing that just simply doesn’t. Neither can God exist in the future right now because it simply doesn’t exist. You’re assessment of God’s eternity with respect to accidents is contradictory. God cannot exist in the now for something that is truly, non-existent.
If you hold a B-Theory of time, that the past, present, and future are all real at once, then I suppose your position holds. Otherwise, you’re in effect saying that an A-Theory universe=B-Theory universe, which is a contradiction.
G
Ghosty
Guest
You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of eternity. Eternity doesn’t simply mean “no beginning”, it means “without time”. There is literally no “before” and no “after” for an eternal being. All moments in time (as in all moments in our reality) are a singular “now” for an eternal being, without temporal sequence or measure. God does indeed “exist in the future”, from the perspective of time, because the coming moments of time are present to eternity. When God sees me, He sees every moment of me. My conception, birth, puberty, and death are all under one singular gaze for God.
A-theory and B-theory really have no relevance for this discussion because we’re talking about eternity and not time. Even B-theory is a temporal measure, and can’t be applied to God. Time is indeed a flow, with genuine cause and effect, and before and after are real facts for time (I guess this would make me an A-theorist). These facts are irrelevant when dealing with the transcendent eternal, however, as the one eternal “moment” touches every sequential moment in time equally and at once. It’s really two completely different ways of being.
Peace and God bless!
A-theory and B-theory really have no relevance for this discussion because we’re talking about eternity and not time. Even B-theory is a temporal measure, and can’t be applied to God. Time is indeed a flow, with genuine cause and effect, and before and after are real facts for time (I guess this would make me an A-theorist). These facts are irrelevant when dealing with the transcendent eternal, however, as the one eternal “moment” touches every sequential moment in time equally and at once. It’s really two completely different ways of being.
Peace and God bless!
J
jonathanjlinn
Guest
This must be a conclusion from a previous argument. A list of premises that have not been proven either a priori or a posterior or through divine revelation does not constitute a proof for the claim that God had a beginning.
I.e. It must be:
Premise 1
Premise 2
…
Conclusion - “God being a creator had a beginning”Just because someone has created something with a beginning, does not mean the creator too had a beginning.
For example, if it were proven that all creators had a beginning then the proof would work. Fortunately this is not the case - nor will it ever be - because God is eternal.
L
Luke_K
Guest
God cannot see or exist in relation to something that does not exist. That is the consequence of your view (as you are an A-theorist), and therefore you are holding a contradiction. Do you think you are actually dead now? Of course not. Then God cannot be present for something that is not actually present. Your view is equivalent to saying that a circle for me is a square for God.
L
Luke_K
Guest
You are misunderstanding my conclusion, which is my fault. As danserr pointed out, I’m not arguing against the eternity of God’s essence, but against his all-together timelessness. God IS a creator, but his beginning as a creator shows that his creator-ness is temporal. Just like my essence as a personal, rational, love-capable being never changes even though I can become a poet, God’s essence as an omnipotent “I AM” never changes (or had a beginning) even though he can become a creator.This must be a conclusion from a previous argument. A list of premises that have not been proven either a priori or a posterior or through divine revelation does not constitute a proof for the claim that God had a beginning.
I.e. It must be:
Premise 1
Conclusion - “God being a creator had a beginning”
Premise 2
…
Just because someone has created something with a beginning, does not mean the creator too had a beginning.
For example, if it were proven that all creators had a beginning then the proof would work. Fortunately this is not the case - nor will it ever be - because God is eternal.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point here.
But the beginning is a property of the creation. Not the creator.
L
Luke_K
Guest
It’s a relational property, like being a father, poet, or teacher.
- Status