An argument against God's eternity

[Ghosty]

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.

It is not a contradiction to say that, from the perspective of time, my death hasn’t happened yet, but that from the perspective of eternity it has. There is no contradiction because eternity transcends time, and therefore statements about one don’t necessarily apply to the other.

So when I make statements about eternity abutting the time of my death, I’m making a statement about eternity, not about time. Since the “now” of the future" will be the same “now” that is the present (from the side of eternity), the same eternity exists in the present moment that will exist at the time of my death. The fact that my death hasn’t really happened yet has no relevance when speaking of eternity, since there is only one moment of eternity.

If eternity worked the way you are proposing it would not be eternity at all, but simply temporal. You are proposing the contradiction, not me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

It’s a relational property, like being a father, poet, or teacher.

So people cease to be fathers if their children have died?
Retired teachers are not teachers?
Poets are not if they are not producing poetry at the time?

 

[greylorn]

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. God created the universe.
3. God’s being a creator had a beginning.
4. Therefore, God’s character is not eternal because he is a Creator and his “Creator-ness” had a beginning.

Thoughts?

Excellent logic.

Take it one more step and you’ll realize that God, too, had a beginning.

 

[JDaniel]

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. God created the universe.
3. God’s being a creator had a beginning.
4. Therefore, God’s character is not eternal because he is a Creator and his “Creator-ness” had a beginning.

Thoughts?

Luke:

Premise # 3 is where your syllogism went wrong. The Church believes that God is Eternal Fecundity. That is, he is always creating. We cannot assume the universe to be his first and only creation. After all, he did create the Angelic multitude and the heavens, as well as every intricate quantum part necessary for the continuous rolling-out of created things.

Of course, once # 3 went bad, so did # 4.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Luke:

If I recreation-ally catch a fish does that make me a fisherman? If, as a child, my mom lets me drive the car for half a foot, does that make me a driver? If I write one very bad poem, am I suddenly a poet? No to all of these. Each of these are vicariously held vocations accidental to my being. An apple is still an apple when it is green.

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.

This, alone, should tell you he is not in Time. If he were, he would have become the form, the soul. Instead, he assumed a body and the form of a man. But, it did not add to his essence. He lacked nothing, thus, nothing could possibly be added to him.

“Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three Gods, but one God, because the divine nature which the Holy Ghost eternally receives from the Father and Son, which Son eternally receives from Father, is numerically one and the same. One Person is not greater than another, one is not before another; all three are equal and co-eternal. Seek no perfection in the Father which is not equally in the Son, no perfection in these which is not in their Holy Spirit; their perfection is their Godhead, which is identical in each. They are distinct really, but merely, by their reciprocal relations. Think of no time in which Father was without his son, or Father and Son without their Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God, without beginning or end, changeless, eternal.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Ch. II, pp 39, 1962.

Fine. God necessarily wills his own goodness, but he freely willed to create and thus his will can change.

He eternally wills to create. His mind never changed. That is a human affectation.

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.

God is not in time, but he works with time. This cannot be otherwise as he only works with, i.e., creates, finite exigencies. He does not create infinite exigencies any more than another instantiation of your body could stand inside of your body.

Craig’s is a false dilemma. His logic here is very weak. Think it through: how is it possible that an Infinite Being can be in time? That tensed words are completely intelligible means that they can be completely understood. How else can a tense-less Being work with finite things? But, mere understanding does not mean that God necessarily must be in time. (I must admit that I have not read much of Craig; now I am glad that I didn’t.)

I fully understand the future perfect tense. That does not mean that I am in the future, or even that I will ever see that future.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Luke:

It should be a sin to surmise what we cannot surmise about God. But, it isn’t - most of the time. To me, the words, “space-time,” are scientistic, not scientific. Space and time are still two separate exigencies. Space is corporeal, thus, it is in time. Time was created at the beginning, along with space. That they are co-relative stands to reason. That they are in some way modified essentially by conflating them, does not. Perhaps it works in some maths. But, as we know, math is imaginary. It is a reification from the real, but it is not itself reality. It expresses conditions about the real, in much the same way as red and green express conditions about an apple. We can observe a green apple and reify, i.e., abstract, redness to it.

 

[Luke_K]

An apple is still an apple when it is green.

That is exactly my point. As I posted already, a square’s essence as a square does not change when it is increased in size or colored differently (like in MS Paint on your computer) but the fact those things can and do change about the square show that it is not timeless. God’s essence does not change and had no beginning and that is what is eternal about him. Nevertheless, certain attributes of God are temporal, and he is not completely outside of time.

This, alone, should tell you he is not in Time. If he were, he would have become the form, the soul. Instead, he assumed a body and the form of a man. But, it did not add to his essence. He lacked nothing, thus, nothing could possibly be added to him.

The Son is one person, with one eternal divine essence, and then he assumed a second, temporal essence to his personhood. An essence was added to the person of the Son that he did not have before.

He eternally wills to create. His mind never changed. That is a human affectation.

Then he never made the choice, and did not have the free will to create. Eternity is a nice-sounding concept, but from my understanding it just makes one into a frozen, inept statue.

Craig’s is a false dilemma. His logic here is very weak. Think it through: how is it possible that an Infinite Being can be in time? That tensed words are completely intelligible means that they can be completely understood. How else can a tense-less Being work with finite things? But, mere understanding does not mean that God necessarily must be in time. (I must admit that I have not read much of Craig; now I am glad that I didn’t.)

God’s essence is not in time, as it had no beginning and does not change. However, God is not altogether timeless. He interacts temporally with the temporal world. It is incoherent that a God who can only experience the universe as eternal can also know what the actual, present moment is, because they are all actual and present for him. God necessarily has a true knowledge in his mind of the present for us humans, which is always changing.

I fully understand the future perfect tense. That does not mean that I am in the future, or even that I will ever see that future.

Exactly, because the future simply does not exist. Not for me, not for God, not for anyone. It exists only as a concept, not reality.

Ghosty:

It is not a contradiction to say that, from the perspective of time, my death hasn’t happened yet, but that from the perspective of eternity it has. There is no contradiction because eternity transcends time, and therefore statements about one don’t necessarily apply to the other.

So when I make statements about eternity abutting the time of my death, I’m making a statement about eternity, not about time. Since the “now” of the future" will be the same “now” that is the present (from the side of eternity), the same eternity exists in the present moment that will exist at the time of my death. The fact that my death hasn’t really happened yet has no relevance when speaking of eternity, since there is only one moment of eternity.

If eternity worked the way you are proposing it would not be eternity at all, but simply temporal. You are proposing the contradiction, not me.

I can’t agree. One perspective- or mode of being- cannot contradict the ontological truth of something perceived from another perspective or mode of being.

The fact is: You (a temporal being). Are. Not. Dead.
For God it is: You. Are. Dead.

Contradiction, plain as day. If God perceives all of the history of the universe as one “now” then he is holding innumerable ontological contradictions in his mind! For God, I am both existing and NOT existing right now! It is simply incoherent.

I am not proposing a contradiction because I’m saying that God exists eternally with respect to his essence, but temporally in relation to the world.

 

[Prophesy]

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. God created the universe.
3. God’s being a creator had a beginning.
4. Therefore, God’s character is not eternal because he is a Creator and his “Creator-ness” had a beginning.

Thoughts?

This actually fails when not applied to God. If I drink a quart of chocolate milk (I assure you that I have accomplished this). Whether or not the universe implodes, combusts, freezes over, turns to goo, fades away or goes communist, it does not change the fact that I have drank a quart of chocolate milk.

Whether or not God’s creation fades away, the Creator element to God does not cease to be. Same as despite God the Son receiving the name Christ does not mean that He will end.

That said, talking about God, being outside of time, it is meaningless to discuss completely limited to a field of time.

-Prophesy

 

[JDaniel]

That is exactly my point. As I posted already, a square’s essence as a square does not change when it is increased in size or colored differently (like in MS Paint on your computer) but the fact those things can and do change about the square show that it is not timeless.

Luke:

Think that through a bit more. Any instantiation of a square can possess differences from another one. But, the essence called squareness cannot ever alter. Unless we arbitrarily call it by another name. But, even that does not alter its essence.

God’s essence does not change and had no beginning and that is what is eternal about him. Nevertheless, certain attributes of God are temporal, and he is not completely outside of time.

Again, think this through a bit more. How can infinity change? How can an exigency that entails the most excellent instantiation of every possible determinant ever change? I say to you that it cannot. If it could, then we are wrong about God and have been wrong since the beginning of Revelation. The Infinite cannot be partly infinite and partly finite. That is contradictory, besides being non-sensical. None of God’s attributes are temporal.

If you work with clay, say to make a statue, you aren’t clay yourself. You touch it. You maleate it. You apply it. But, you do not become it.

The Son is one person, with one eternal divine essence, and then he assumed a second, temporal essence to his personhood. An essence was added to the person of the Son that he did not have before.

No. The Son is God: always was and never changed. He didn’t assume anything. God united with the essence of “man” to take on the form of a man.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Then he never made the choice, and did not have the free will to create.

Luke:

He made the choice in another way, as someone has previously explained. I don’t have to choose to love my children. That is something that one just does. It is a part of our natures.

Eternity is a nice-sounding concept, but from my understanding it just makes one into a frozen, inept statue.

I hate to say this in this way, but, your understanding of it is utterly absurd.

God’s essence is not in time, as it had no beginning and does not change. However, God is not altogether timeless. He interacts temporally with the temporal world.

How on earth does that make him in any way temporal?

It is incoherent that a God who can only experience the universe as eternal can also know what the actual, present moment is, because they are all actual and present for him. God necessarily has a true knowledge in his mind of the present for us humans, which is always changing.

Incoherent, yes, but not impossible. You must stop thinking that God has to think like you and I do. Infinite Being can handle far more than we can ever begin to conceive it to handle. Since He is permeates the bubble that is our universe, not merely surrounds it, but is actually intricately involved in creating it in an ongoing fashion, he has to have true knowledge of the finite. BTW, I don’t think God has a mind; rather, I think God is mind, but mind infinitely different from ours.

Exactly, because the future simply does not exist. Not for me, not for God, not for anyone. It exists only as a concept, not reality.

You are correct when you say that the “future does not exist for God,” but not in the way you are probably thinking about it. Infinite Being does not exist into a future. Infinite Being overspans all exigency, past, present and future. Do you understand what infinite means? I mean, not just infinite by virtue of the perfection of his determinants, but infinite in magnitude as well? Do you understand that an infinite being consumes and subsumes everything? That our universe, as big as it is, is a mere, imponderably tiny bubble in comparison? That all of its contingencies are fulfilled? That it is imponderably large? That there is no number that represents infinity? That none of us can ever live long enough to see the end (border) of infinite magnitude?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

God’s essence does not change and had no beginning and that is what is eternal about him. Nevertheless, certain attributes of God are temporal, and he is not completely outside of time.

Luke:

First: show me where that is a tenet of Catholicism.

Second, Infinite Being cannot possibly exist in time, in any possible way. It is as simple as that. That would be a severe contradiction. That would be timeless time. God would entail timeless time. What is more, God would entail, i.e., consist of, time and timelessness at the same time. How could that be possible?

I know you like Craig, but, seriously.

My bedtime.

God bless,
jd

 

[FurtherSuntime]

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. God created the universe.
3. God’s being a creator had a beginning.
4. Therefore, God’s character is not eternal because he is a Creator and his “Creator-ness” had a beginning.

Thoughts?

Against better judgment but irresistable…are you suggesting that you know or have a good amount of confidence that…
The Universe is not and has not, been expanding and collapsing for infinity…?
Its prob going to collapse…what about the hypothetical black hole? implications-possibilities-unknowns? I could say what about multi-verse, but I’m not going to let you catch me on that.

Plus…you forgot about the nature of time, the idea of infinity and potential…relativity. Just saying I think its a bit much to list a group of consequential wonders as though there is a presumed logical sequence going on. Don’t worry I have a new huge responcibility and prob won’t be back

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Distracted by a really interesting thread and don’t want to leave you empty handed…
Try Paul Davies(Physicist)…book…“About Time”. A laymens approach…that’ll clear out your murky water time idea. Plus you seem like a thinker. I like that. Its “time” you are talking about
Time is a great subject…

 

[lifetone]

This is a good stall against what was keeping me from sleep…

1. The universe had a beginning.

Yes and no. That statement would be fallacious in terms of what is trying to be proven although it appears to be true. Yes the physical manifestation and instantiation of God’s creation had a beginning. There was also linear time before Jesus as physical being, hence B.C and A.D. However it is not even logically correct to say that from God’s point of view there was ever a time before the created universe existed and that the universe has a beginning. Which is, I believe, the thesis.

God created time, the succession of events happening one after the other.

I always think of this in terms of being a writer or a computer programmer, both of which involve instantiating ideas and skills I have prior to anyone seeing a novel or computer program (neither of which are ubiquitous and both of which are separate entities from myself.) Imperfect analogy but it helps me to see it.

Yes, a computer program has a ‘beginning’ and I have a ‘beginning’ in a sense as a computer programmer the first time I write one (?) or become good enough to write one (?) but the problems inherent in using the proof that I’ve written a working computer program (or novel) to show I’m really a computer program or writer can illuminate - I think - why it is wrong to say The universe has a beginning - and therefore so does God as a Creator.

Conversely, I think we all understand that God must be a Creator before He can possibly create anything and does not become a Creator as a result of having created something. Including time. Provided that we are compassionate enough to see it with faith and not requiring proof. God always teases me - when we talk - that us human beings are always putting the cart before the horse in that regard. We can’t help it in a way because we always have to work backwards to understand God - not actually being Him. I think it’s funny anyway.

But then again, maybe you were just being funny and setting us up. I’m new here so maybe that’s the kind of thing people do. I’m mostly stalling for time, because I was wondering whether it would be better to ask about intellectual versus imaginary visions here or in the Spirituality forum. And thinking I’m not sure if I really want to ask at all.

Hope this helps. It seems to me that the the issue here is a confusion between causality and eternity, at least that’s the language I use when talking to God, in terms of how we as temporal beings see things (either in terms of causality or even simply just in linear time). It’s possible that I don’t really understand the question and if so, sorry. But this kind of confusion is usually something we simply sidestep in prayer by saying that’s because it’s okay if people get confused about issues of causality. It’s not like murdering people or anything like that. So I don’t think what you’re saying is bad, if you want to believe that God has a beginning in some sense. It’s just not logically correct. Which is not a sin, to be logically incorrect. If so I’d be in crazy amounts of trouble.

Will pray for Him to help you out. I think it’s awesome to seek His face and to know Him more deeply.

God bless!
Anne

 

[codeyrolley]

God never lied about anything else so why would he lie about being the beginning and the end, alpha and omega. We cannot know God like he knows us, he has not completely revealed himself to us. God revealed himself to us by being made flesh through his son Jesus who was with him at the beginning of time.

 

[Big_Dummy]

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. God created the universe.
3. God’s being a creator had a beginning.
4. Therefore, God’s character is not eternal because he is a Creator and his “Creator-ness” had a beginning.

Thoughts?

I would simply ask them who created God? Then they would be stuck with infinite regressions of gods, and will still be stuck with who created God. The first God or cause would have to be eternal since nothing comes into existence out of nothing, and it is silly to say matter is eternal because one would be stuck with explaining how that is even possible, which it is not.

 

[Big_Dummy]

May 11, 2011
More Arguments for a Necessary Being and One for a First Cause
Consider Joshua Rasmussen’s Modal Argument from Beginnings as proffered in his forthcoming article ‘A New Argument for a Necessary Being’ [1]]:

(1) Normally, for any intrinsic property p that (a) can begin to be exemplified, and (b) can be exemplified by something that has a cause, there can be a cause of p’s beginning to be exemplified. (Premise)

(2) The property of c being a contingent concrete particular is an intrinsic property. (Premise)

(3) Property c can begin to be exemplified. (Premise)

(4) Property c can be exemplified by something that has a cause. (Premise)

(5) Therefore, there can be a cause of c’s beginning to be exemplified (by UI and such from 1—4).

(6) Therefore, if (5), then there is a necessary being.

(7) Therefore, there is a necessary being. (Modus Ponens)

Here is a similar kind of argument which was inspired by Josh’s work (I think somewhere in an email Josh said something like (1)-(5), but I’ve changed things a bit, and tacked on some additional info. Better to cite him than not at all ):

(1) Normally, everything that exhibits a beginning can be possibly causally explained. [Premise]

(2) It is impossible for there to be a causal explanation of the beginning of the exemplification of the property, being such that one/it is causally unexplained. [Premise]

Quite obviously, if you have an entity x, which has the property ‘being causally unexplained’ then x cannot be causally explained, since it has the property ‘being causally unexplained.’

(3) Therefore, the property, being causally unexplained, never begins to be exemplified [from (1) and (2)].

(4) Therefore, no beginning is causally unexplained [from (1)-(3)]

(5) Therefore, every beginning has a causal explanation [from (4)]

(6) The universe exemplified the property ‘began to exist’ and so exhibited a beginning. [Premise]

(7) Therefore, the universe’s beginning to exist had a causal explanation. [from (5) and (6)]

…

christophergweaver.typepad.com/scientia-et-veritas/apologetics/

 

[Luke_K]

Luke:

Think that through a bit more. Any instantiation of a square can possess differences from another one. But, the essence called squareness cannot ever alter. Unless we arbitrarily call it by another name. But, even that does not alter its essence.

That’s exactly what I said.

Again, think this through a bit more. How can infinity change? How can an exigency that entails the most excellent instantiation of every possible determinant ever change? I say to you that it cannot. If it could, then we are wrong about God and have been wrong since the beginning of Revelation. The Infinite cannot be partly infinite and partly finite. That is contradictory, besides being non-sensical. None of God’s attributes are temporal.

God’s essence as God is eternal. God’s role as creator- which is not a necessary part of his eternal essence- is not eternal. That is what I’m saying.

If you work with clay, say to make a statue, you aren’t clay yourself. You touch it. You maleate it. You apply it. But, you do not become it.

God didn’t become creation, and nowhere did I say he did.

No. The Son is God: always was and never changed. He didn’t assume anything. God united with the essence of “man” to take on the form of a man.

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly (not eternally!) the divine ways of the Trinity:98
…
476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, **Christ’s body was finite.**112

There you go, a finite aspect to a divine Person.

Do you understand that an infinite being consumes and subsumes everything?

Absolutely not, because that would make me a pantheist, and make the divine nature of the Son subsume his human nature.

I hate to say this in this way, but, your understanding of it is utterly absurd.

Then correct it. In eternity nothing ever changes, so everything is the same as it always was and always will be. There are no new thoughts or actions possible (analogous to being a frozen statue) because if there were it wouldn’t be eternity. God’s first action apart from his eternal essence as a triune community of loving persons was to create, and that was the beginning of time.

How on earth does that make him in any way temporal?

His essence is eternal, but he must act temporally with things that are ontologically temporal. If I could go back and change my original post and thread title, I would call it an argument against God’s timelessness, not eternity. In other words, God and time are not like oil and water. Just like your essence as a human never changes yet you interact temporally with the world, so God’s essence is eternal and unchanging even though he interacts temporally with temporal things.

First: show me where that is a tenet of Catholicism.

It’s not a tenet of Catholicism either way, as far as I know. So I can propose it and not be a heretic.

Second, Infinite Being cannot possibly exist in time, in any possible way. It is as simple as that. That would be a severe contradiction. That would be timeless time. God would entail timeless time. What is more, God would entail, i.e., consist of, time and timelessness at the same time. How could that be possible?

Good, you recognize that timeless time is a contradiction. Therefore, you should recognize the absurdity of God experiencing and interacting with ontologically temporal things as though they were non-temporal (as in experiencing the whole of temporal history as one, big now).

What I am proposing is the solution to this contradiction. God’s essence as God is eternal, but he is capable and logically required to have temporal relations with temporal things. His creator-ness, being a relation to a temporal reality, is temporal. His knowledge of the reality of the ever-changing now of creation is changing. His free will to do something apart from his essence is temporal, since his essence is eternal and anything apart from his essence is non-eternal.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

If God had a beginning, what created God? Something would have to have all of the characteristics of God, in order to create a God. The Universe had a beginning, because some entity created the Universe.

That entity is a being that we call God.

Because our minds are finite, we simply can not comprehend an infinite God. So, we attempt to make God over, into an image that we CAN understand. But, in doing that, we then diminish our concept of God to the point that we are really denying his existence by attempting to fit him into a mold that is familiar to us.

In fact, in order to have the power to create something like the Universe, with all of its elements (and I am certain that there are many more that we have not yet discovered), with all of the creatures; all of the plants and other flora that exist; it would require a being with infinite powers.

Sadly, because YOU can not understand how an infinite God could possibly exist, you have to effectively deny his existence ion order to “make your argument fit”.

The problem is, your thesis is wrong from it’s very beginning, and your “proof” is anything BUT proof. It proves nothing, because it is what is known in Philosophy as a “Circular Argument”.

 

[tdgesq]

Although I admire Craig and think much of what he writes has merit, this particular lecture given to the Evangelical Philosophical Society is not his best work. Here is where he begins:

To say that God is timeless is simply to say that He is not temporal. So one is the negation, or denial, of the other. If God is timeless, He is not temporal; if He is temporal, then by definition He is not timeless. Very often, lay people will say, “Well, why can’t God be both? Why can’t He be both temporal and atemporal?” Well, the problem with that answer is that unless you can provide a model that makes sense of that claim, it is flatly self-contradictory and therefore cannot be true.

The terms “time” and “temporal” are clearly being used in the colloquial sense of units or intervals that measure change. To say that God is timeless or that He exists outside of time is to say he can’t be measured by time, presumably because he is not changing. To say that God is temporal or exists within time is to say he can be measured by time because, again, he is changing in some way. Then Craig does something strange. He asserts that God is temporal and is subject to change but denies that God changes in Himself, what Craig calls intrinsic change.

The first argument is the argument based upon God’s causal relationship to the world. In order to understand this, you need first to understand the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic change. Something changes intrinsically if one of its properties changes, which it has in isolation from its relationship to anything else. For example, a ripening apple turns from green to red; that’s an intrinsic change in the apple. Something changes extrinsically if it changes in its relations to something else. For example, I was once taller than my son John, but I am now shorter than my son John, not because of any intrinsic change in me, but because of an intrinsic change in him.

It is really only extrinsic change that Craig attributes to God (he does later soften this a bit with regard to his notion of tensed facts). Extrinsic relational changes are really a change in something other than God. What I find strange about this is that Craig doesn’t really explain why something else changing in relation to God (requiring God to be temporal) is important.

He does mention God’s act of creation as an example where God must be temporal since something has changed in relation to him, namely the existence of the universe. However, Craig in many other places admits that the beginning of the universe under the Big Bang theory requires that there a is cause beyond time at the point of the singularity. The cause of the universe, including the beginning of time, must have had a timeless cause. His insistence then that God must be temporal at the beginning of the universe seems contradictory. He goes on to criticize Aquinas’ interpretation.

Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas attempted to elude the force of this argument by denying that God sustains any real relations with the created order. Aquinas granted that if God does come into new relations at the moment of creation, like being Lord, then He would be temporal. So Aquinas was driven to deny that God sustains any real relations to the world. Aquinas said that we as creatures are related to God as His effects, but God is not really related to us as our cause or Creator.

To Craig’s credit, he is trying to find a way to make sense out of biblical statements that suggest God is in the world. Things like God becoming Lord, becoming man, sending the Holy Spirit, dwelling within us, etc. Aquinas sees these things not as God himself entering time, but instead as the effects of God in some other mode of presence. Craig can certainly disagree with Aquinas, but this has major implications for God’s omniscience.

If you look at the questions asked of Craig at the end of presentation, the major ones are about how God can be omniscient if He enters time, becoming temporal. One question was whether God forgets everything he knew when He was beyond time now that He is temporal. The other question was whether God has knowledge of future contingent acts. If God is inside of time and not eternally able to view everything timelessly (including all actions that occur in time) then it is difficult to see how God is omniscient.

I think Craig is wrong.