An argument against God's eternity

[Luke_K]

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.

Yes, I’ve addressed this several times in this thread already. Your intrinsic essence as a human does not change even though you can interact with the world. A square in Microsoft Paint that you can change in size and color does not change in it’s intrinsic essence as a square, even though it is changing in other ways. God’s essence as the divine, omnipotent trinity does not change (nor have a beginning) but he is still capable of experiencing and interacting with temporal reality in a temporal way- as when the Son became a finite human with a changing material body.

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.

Because it shows that God isn’t timeless. If God were timeless, he would eternally be the creator, eternally know ontologically temporal truths, eternally will things that require a change apart from his essence (as in becoming a creator), eternally be a human, etc. God temporally relates to temporal things, not eternally.

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.

There was no temporal reality before creation, so God was completely timeless. From his free act of will to create, however, time necessarily entered into the picture because God acted apart from his eternal essence.

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.

Perhaps God is just so incredibly smart that his future predictions are necessarily dead-on. It would be trivial considering his perfect knowledge of the laws of physics he created, and human hearts and wills are so finite and clear to him that he knows what we are going to do.

 

[tdgesq]

Yes, I’ve addressed this several times in this thread already. Your intrinsic essence as a human does not change even though you can interact with the world. A square in Microsoft Paint that you can change in size and color does not change in it’s intrinsic essence as a square, even though it is changing in other ways. God’s essence as the divine, omnipotent trinity does not change (nor have a beginning) but he is still capable of experiencing and interacting with temporal reality in a temporal way- as when the Son became a finite human with a changing material body.

Accidental change isn’t what Craig is referring to when he makes the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic change. An apple turning from green to red is an accidental change. It isn’t a change of the form of the apple - of the appleness of the apple. But Craig isn’t attributing accidental change to God, presumably because God is purely spirit and purely immaterial. In fact, he is only willing to go as far as (tensed facts perhaps excepted) saying that things external to God change in relation to God. While this may require God to be temporal, it isn’t clear why other things changing in relation to God is important.

Because it shows that God isn’t timeless. If God were timeless, he would eternally be the creator, eternally know ontologically temporal truths, eternally will things that require a change apart from his essence (as in becoming a creator), eternally be a human, etc. God temporally relates to temporal things, not eternally.

Most of this is correct, but all it really says is that if God is timeless he is eternally creator, does eternally know future propositions, and has eternally experienced the hypostatic union. Unless these statements contain an internal contradiction or are otherwise logically impossible then they could be the case. Craig doesn’t offer any demonstration of a contradiction though.

There was no temporal reality before creation, so God was completely timeless. From his free act of will to create, however, time necessarily entered into the picture because God acted apart from his eternal essence.

Well, the point still stands. Simply because God caused time to exist does not mean His causing time changed God. Neither does it mean that God acted within time to create time; no more than the cause of the Big Bang at the singularity can be said to have occurred in time. It is just as plausible, if not more so, to state that God caused the existence of time and the universe outside of time. If that is the case, then there is no external change in relation to God.

Perhaps God is just so incredibly smart that his future predictions are necessarily dead-on. It would be trivial considering his perfect knowledge of the laws of physics he created, and human hearts and wills are so finite and clear to him that he knows what we are going to do.

This is probably the best argument to maintain God’s asserted temporality and his omniscience. The problem is that apparently God can’t know tensed facts until he actually experiences them - at least that’s what Craig asserts. So if God can’t know tensed future facts before they occur then it implicates his omniscience. It implicates that God can’t know them until they actually occur. Hmmm… A timeless God is looking better all the time.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

My position is that most thought on this subject is somewhat off base. God cannot be held to contemplate or “think-relate” as man. God would be God. The assumptions in association to creation being considered are basically human guesses.based on human abilities & imagined
approximations. Limited again in the imagine.

Why don’t you guys start with something reasonable…for example…

If God is Love, can we assume a continuing nature of eternal perfect momentum. Is there a momentum within Divinity. A lack of momentum…An all composing “constant”(relativity) momentum. Where does our relative perception fit in?

Why in the world or how, can man begin to install things like Gods association to creation when associations infer ratification in Nature-God (momentum)…that have not even been thought of!!!

 

[Luke_K]

Most of this is correct, but all it really says is that if God is timeless he is eternally creator, does eternally know future propositions, and has eternally experienced the hypostatic union. Unless these statements contain an internal contradiction or are otherwise logically impossible then they could be the case. Craig doesn’t offer any demonstration of a contradiction though.

I think they are contradictory. If God is eternally a creator then the universe must eternally exist, which we know it doesn’t. An eternal cause cannot produce a temporal effect because it would be eternally producing its effect, and the effect would thus be eternal. This is Craig’s argument for the cause of the universe being a personal agent, because if the cause of the universe (which must be eternal) was not freely caused (by a personal agent), it would eternally produce the universe which we know it didn’t.

If God experienced temporal reality as though it were eternal, then he would experience innumerable ontological contradictions. For example, I both exist and do not exist right now for God. The Son is both a man and not a man right now. Etc. As C.S. Lewis said, “Nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we add the words ‘God can’ before it.”

This is probably the best argument to maintain God’s asserted temporality and his omniscience. The problem is that apparently God can’t know tensed facts until he actually experiences them - at least that’s what Craig asserts. So if God can’t know tensed future facts before they occur then it implicates his omniscience. It implicates that God can’t know them until they actually occur.

And if God can’t know what the actual changing reality is for temporal beings then he is not omniscient. However, it does not implicate God’s omniscience to not know things as existing which do not exist, such as the future. God can know what will happen in the future with certainty based on his perfect knowledge of physical laws and human natures with their finite wills.

Hmmm… A timeless God is looking better all the time.

Not to me.

 

[tdgesq]

I think they are contradictory. If God is eternally a creator then the universe must eternally exist, which we know it doesn’t.

I would need to see a syllogism using premises to which we both agree. I would attempt to diagram the argument myself except I think I would end up misrepresenting your position. Right off I don’t think you are using the term “eternal” in the same way I am. By eternal I mean that God exists outside of and apart from time. You would agree I think that causally prior to the existence of the universe God is outside of time. If that is so, then your argument proves too much.

Even Craig admits that there was no “before” the beginning of the universe in terms of time. There was a causally prior event, but this cause must have occurred outside of time. Why? Because the universe, and therefore time, did actually come into existence. Causes precede effects. There was no time until it was created, and this must then have its cause apart from time. If your argument is correct, then God couldn’t have created the universe at all.

An eternal cause cannot produce a temporal effect because it would be eternally producing its effect, and the effect would thus be eternal.

Again, I don’t think your concept of the eternal is correct. You are using it in a temporal sense, as in a very very long time. When you say God would be “eternally” producing its effect, it seems you are really stating that God would “always” (temporal) be producing its effect. But eternity is the state of being outside of time. You cannot measure the length and duration of an effect as if time exists. If causes always precede effects, and if God exists eternally, then the beginning of the universe and time (effect) must have had its beginning (cause) apart from the universe and time.

This is Craig’s argument for the cause of the universe being a personal agent, because if the cause of the universe (which must be eternal) was not freely caused (by a personal agent), it would eternally produce the universe which we know it didn’t.

Actually, I think Craig’s argument is that something changed (the existence of the universe) in relation to God. But this is because he assumes that God entered time at the moment of creation. He does so because he believes this is necessary for God to be personal, not because God would lack freedom. If that were his argument then he would have to admit that God lacked freedom when he was timeless. The fact remains, causes precede effects. God necessarily caused the beginning of time and the universe outside of time.

If God experienced temporal reality as though it were eternal, then he would experience innumerable ontological contradictions. For example, I both exist and do not exist right now for God. The Son is both a man and not a man right now.

God doesn’t experience temporal reality. He is outside of time. We experience temporal reality and so can say things like I existed at the moment of my conception and the Son of man was born around 4 B.C. That would not be the case from God’s perspective though. His knowledge about such things would remain timeless as one existing now, although he would have knowledge about how human beings view time. I don’t think this is what C.S. Lewis was referring to when he made his comment about nonsense.

And if God can’t know what the actual changing reality is for temporal beings then he is not omniscient. However, it does not implicate God’s omniscience to not know things as existing which do not exist, such as the future. God can know what will happen in the future with certainty based on his perfect knowledge of physical laws and human natures with their finite wills.

I would assert that God can know about how human beings view time without Himself being temporal, for the exact reason you claim that God can know the future with certainty. Our view of reality through time is really a deficient mode of perception when compared with God’s. To say that He isn’t omniscient because he doesn’t experience our limited view of reality through the lens of tensed facts, while at the same time he can view all of reality in one singular now, is really stretching things. Particularly when God can have knowledge about how we view things in time even though he doesn’t actually experience them. On the other hand, you have just handed me the dagger that stabs in the heart Craig’s view that God must experience tensed facts.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . CONTINUED

If God is temporal, he can’t experience future tensed facts until they occur. You say this isn’t important. Then why is it important that God experience past and present tensed facts? God can certainly have knowledge about how we experience them without entering time to experience them himself.

The death knell for Craig’s theory of tensed facts really occurs though once we consider its implications for God’s immutability and his omniscience. If God enters time and experiences tensed facts then he has just learned something. It also means that He has changed. If God experiences a present tensed fact X at time Y, then he has just experienced and learned something that He didn’t before. God’s knowledge has changed. Craig somewhat sheepishly admits this when he states:I do think God also changes in intrinsic ways—for example, knowing what time it is. He knows it’s now t1, now it’s t2, now it’s t3. But I think that these kinds of trivial changes are not at all threatening to an orthodox concept of God. What is crucial is that God not change in His attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, love, eternality, necessity, and all the rest. Those would all be preserved as essential attributes of God on this model.
Notice that he conspicuously omits God’s omniscience and immutability. That’s because God has now learned something he didn’t know before (what time it is), meaning that God has changed in his knowledge of the universe. It is actually worse than this though if we were to consider the change in God’s knowledge of future contingent propositions once they occur. Contrary to what you suggest, Craig’s solution actually destroys God’s omniscience and immutability.

 

[greylorn]

I would need to see a syllogism using premises to which we both agree. I would attempt to diagram the argument myself except I think I would end up misrepresenting your position. Right off I don’t think you are using the term “eternal” in the same way I am. By eternal I mean that God exists outside of and apart from time. You would agree I think that causally prior to the existence of the universe God is outside of time. If that is so, then your argument proves too much.

Even Craig admits that there was no “before” the beginning of the universe in terms of time. There was a causally prior event, but this cause must have occurred outside of time. Why? Because the universe, and therefore time, did actually come into existence. Causes precede effects. There was no time until it was created, and this must then have its cause apart from time. If your argument is correct, then God couldn’t have created the universe at all.Again, I don’t think your concept of the eternal is correct. You are using it in a temporal sense, as in a very very long time. When you say God would be “eternally” producing its effect, it seems you are really stating that God would “always” (temporal) be producing its effect. But eternity is the state of being outside of time. You cannot measure the length and duration of an effect as if time exists. If causes always precede effects, and if God exists eternally, then the beginning of the universe and time (effect) must have had its beginning (cause) apart from the universe and time.Actually, I think Craig’s argument is that something changed (the existence of the universe) in relation to God. But this is because he assumes that God entered time at the moment of creation. He does so because he believes this is necessary for God to be personal, not because God would lack freedom. If that were his argument then he would have to admit that God lacked freedom when he was timeless. The fact remains, causes precede effects. God necessarily caused the beginning of time and the universe outside of time.God doesn’t experience temporal reality. He is outside of time. We experience temporal reality and so can say things like I existed at the moment of my conception and the Son of man was born around 4 B.C. That would not be the case from God’s perspective though. His knowledge about such things would remain timeless as one existing now, although he would have knowledge about how human beings view time. I don’t think this is what C.S. Lewis was referring to when he made his comment about nonsense.I would assert that God can know about how human beings view time without Himself being temporal, for the exact reason you claim that God can know the future with certainty. Our view of reality through time is really a deficient mode of perception when compared with God’s. To say that He isn’t omniscient because he doesn’t experience our limited view of reality through the lens of tensed facts, while at the same time he can view all of reality in one singular now, is really stretching things. Particularly when God can have knowledge about how we view things in time even though he doesn’t actually experience them. On the other hand, you have just handed me the dagger that stabs in the heart Craig’s view that God must experience tensed facts.

After observing you and Luke dance around fundamental philosophical issues and one another, I feel compelled to point out that you are dancing to no music. You both keep using the word “time” as if you know what it means.

I propose that before you continue your erudite exchange you make it a tad more meaningful by defining the nature of time. When you’ve done that you might want to pass the information along to the author of this statement:

“I am confident that well before 2040 we will nail down what dark matter is. Identifying dark energy will be harder, but we might nail that, too. And if I allow my imagination to run wild, I would love it if we had some deep insight that let us know what space and time actually are.”

—Brian Greene, string theorist and author of The Elegant Universe. The quote is from a Discover Magazine interview, Oct. 2010.

Doesn’t it seem a waste of “time” to discuss the Creator in the context of something about which you know nothing?

 

[tdgesq]

Hi greylorn,

I am using the term “time” in the same way that Craig does to demonstrate inconsistencies within his model. I mentioned that here:

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7936915&postcount=40

I will look into Greene’s comments about dark matter and try to determine his model of time. The last time I checked, I believe that dark matter was theoretical only and hadn’t been observed. I am no expert in physics though. I will get back to you on this.

 

[greylorn]

Hi greylorn,

I am using the term “time” in the same way that Craig does to demonstrate inconsistencies within his model. I mentioned that here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7936915&postcount=40

I will look into Greene’s comments about dark matter and try to determine his model of time. The last time I checked, I believe that dark matter was theoretical only and hadn’t been observed. I am no expert in physics though. I will get back to you on this.

tg,
Serves me right, jumping into a conversation without first studying the background. I stand corrected. Your chosen definition of time is better than most. Close enough to the common opinion of it to be workable in your discussion. Kindly forgive my interruption, although I’m glad that I did it.

I don’t know that Greene has an opinion about time. Seems like if he did, he’d not have spoken as if he did not. I don’t think you’ll find any cheese in that tunnel.

Dark matter has been part of the circumstantial cosmological picture for quite a while. It began as an hypothesis necessary to explain the gravitational cohesion of galaxies. In the last decade or so, improved computer models have verified the existence of something within galaxies which has the properties attributed to d.m, particularly, mass, but without electric charge. That’s the circumstantial part of the evidence.

More interestingly, if the pop science journalism is accurate, a theoretician has actually made visual maps of dark matter blobs in deep space, by applying the principle that d.m. can act as a gravitational lens which warps passing light from distant objects. I do not know if his work has been extended or reproduced. I’m certain that Greene has had nothing to do with it, since that is out of his chosen specialty.

If you find the “time” concept worthy of further discussion, perhaps you’ve shared an experience of mine, which is common to most people with whom I’m discussed it. That is the instantaneous appearance of ideas.

I find that my best ideas, the extremely good ones (like virtual memory), appear in mind spontaneously and unbidden. Moreover, they appear in what seems to me an instant of real time. One moment they are there, fully formed as complete concepts. Moreover, they never involve (for me) language, or any visual or auditory component.

I have found that if I want to retain these concepts I must introduce them to my brain by putting them into words, using that handy voice in the head. Or, write them down, or discuss them with someone.

These experiences have convinced me that there is a soul-level process going on between the ticks of conventional time. It is like the blank black space that appears on a movie screen while the projector changes frames, that our eyes and brain never resolve, but where the work of real thought is done.

 

[4Horsemen]

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?

#3 confuses existence with essence. You are comparing what we, as humans, define as creator in our physical world to the idea of God as Creator. They are analogous in some ways. But God is not one individual thing among others who reasons, chooses, creates, etc. . . He is pure being or existence itself, distinct from the world of time, space, and objects but maintaining them. He is not a composite of essence and existence, in that there are no parts or components in Him. So He doesn’t fall under any general categories. (But’s it’s useful for our knowledge to compartmentalize things, as long as we understand that God’s nature is pure simplicity).

Our minds can only have an idea of intellect, goodness, power, etc. as distinct attributes because that’s how we envision God’s attributes from our own experience of what they are. But in God they exist as ONE. God’s intellect is His goodness, which is His justice and so on.

None of His creation, including angels, is without components, or simple, as God is. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of Augustine’s thinking that “angel” is the name of their office – their existence or what they do as messengers. Their nature is spirit.

Besides, God is above any definition we can put forth of God-ness. He is not something to be grasped. Our intellect is way too limited. But, of course, it’s interesting to conjecture.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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?

Premise Number 3 assumes that existence and “change” are synonymous, and thus to speak of a beginning is also to speak of the beginning of all reality. But there is no potentiality in that which is truly absolutely nothing because reality and nothing are absolutely distinct. Therefore change cannot be a measure of existence, since there must first be an absolute reality before one can actualise potentiality (change). Potentiality cannot actualise itself, because by itself it has no reality. Thus it follows necessarily that change is rooted in an ultimate reality that is not itself changing and is thus essentially distinct in nature from that which is changing.

In other-words, anything that changes, is not ultimate reality, and does not exist by its own power.

We must admit this as fact, otherwise we must accept that reality and nothing are only superficially distinct; which is in it self logically impossible.

 

[Luke_K]

Right off I don’t think you are using the term “eternal” in the same way I am. By eternal I mean that God exists outside of and apart from time. You would agree I think that causally prior to the existence of the universe God is outside of time.

I don’t agree that God being eternal in his essential attributes means that he must be totally apart from any temporal, accidental aspect. God and time and not like oil and water.

Even Craig admits that there was no “before” the beginning of the universe in terms of time. There was a causally prior event, but this cause must have occurred outside of time. Why? Because the universe, and therefore time, did actually come into existence. Causes precede effects. There was no time until it was created, and this must then have its cause apart from time. If your argument is correct, then God couldn’t have created the universe at all.

God’s being a creator is indeed causally prior to time, but that doesn’t mean he is eternally a creator. Without the effect, the cause is not a cause. Because God is not necessarily a creator, without creation, God is not a creator. Therefore, God’s being a creator is indeed a temporal attribute because without the effect, which is temporal, God’s being a creator is not a cause. God’s being a creator and creation were temporally simultaneous.

Again, I don’t think your concept of the eternal is correct. You are using it in a temporal sense, as in a very very long time. When you say God would be “eternally” producing its effect, it seems you are really stating that God would “always” (temporal) be producing its effect.

I am not using it in the sense of a very long time. I am using it in the sense of never changing from what it is. When I say that God would eternally be producing the universe, I mean that the universe would not have a past or future, which it does. The universe would be a single block of 4-dimensional space-time with the past, present, and future all existing as one big now.

If that were his argument then he would have to admit that God lacked freedom when he was timeless.

He didn’t lack the freedom. It’s just that using that freedom logically requires the beginning of time.

If God is temporal, he can’t experience future tensed facts until they occur. You say this isn’t important. Then why is it important that God experience past and present tensed facts? God can certainly have knowledge about how we experience them without entering time to experience them himself.

It is important for past and present events because they actually existed/exist. It is not important for future events because they ontologically do not exist for any entity, regardless of whatever kind of mysterious mode of being we come up with. Just like we can’t say God could experience a square as being a circle, neither can he experience something that doesn’t exist (the future) as existing.

The death knell for Craig’s theory of tensed facts really occurs though once we consider its implications for God’s immutability and his omniscience. If God enters time and experiences tensed facts then he has just learned something. It also means that He has changed. If God experiences a present tensed fact X at time Y, then he has just experienced and learned something that He didn’t before. God’s knowledge has changed. Craig somewhat sheepishly admits this when he states:

Notice that he conspicuously omits God’s omniscience and immutability. That’s because God has now learned something he didn’t know before (what time it is), meaning that God has changed in his knowledge of the universe. It is actually worse than this though if we were to consider the change in God’s knowledge of future contingent propositions once they occur. Contrary to what you suggest, Craig’s solution actually destroys God’s omniscience and immutability.

It is not a limit on God’s omniscience for him to not know things that are in principle unknowable, just like it is not a limit of God’s omnipotence to not create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. God created the universe in a state of journeying, of constant change in what is actually true for the present moments. Now, since we know that it is a brute fact that the universe IS temporal, God must necessarily experience it as such. Just like if God created a square, he must experience it as a square, not a circle.

The immutability of God’s nature as God has not been compromised because God’s knowledge of tensed facts is not essential to his nature.

We experience temporal reality and so can say things like I existed at the moment of my conception and the Son of man was born around 4 B.C. That would not be the case from God’s perspective though. His knowledge about such things would remain timeless as one existing now, although he would have knowledge about how human beings view time.

His knowledge of my death is in the sense of foreknowledge, not of present knowledge. Your view is that God knows my death in the sense that it is really present to him. I think that is nonsensical. My view is that God knows my death in the sense that it’s future reality is known with predictive certainty, as God is the perfect evaluator of his creation’s development. Thus, God’s knowledge of creation is timeless in a certain sense, in that it never changes, but it is not timeless in the sense that there are divisions between God’s post, present, and future knowledge.

To say that He isn’t omniscient because he doesn’t experience our limited view of reality through the lens of tensed facts, while at the same time he can view all of reality in one singular now, is really stretching things.

I’m not saying he can view all of temporal reality as one singular now. I am saying the opposite of that.

 

[Luke_K]

But there is no potentiality in that which is truly absolutely nothing because reality and nothing are absolutely distinct. Therefore change cannot be a measure of existence, since there must first be an absolute reality before one can actualise potentiality (change). Potentiality cannot actualise itself, because by itself it has no reality. Thus it follows necessarily that change is rooted in an ultimate reality that is not itself changing and is thus essentially distinct in nature from that which is changing.

In other-words, anything that changes, is not ultimate reality, and does not exist by its own power.

We must admit this as fact, otherwise we must accept that reality and nothing are only superficially distinct; which is in it self logically impossible.

I agree- creation and God’s being a creator are both dependent on God’s essence as the ultimate reality. But both of these facts are temporal facts, not eternal ones. God had the potential to be a creator, which we know because he freely chose to be one, not necessarily be one.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree- creation and God’s being a creator are both dependent on God’s essence as the ultimate reality. But both of these facts are temporal facts, not eternal ones. God had the potential to be a creator, which we know because he freely chose to be one, not necessarily be one.

Gods nature and will is eternal/timeless. “Existence” necessarily and ontologically proceeds all change/potentiality and is thus distinct from these experiential facts; this is to say that ultimate reality is not change or potentiality. This is what I proved in my first post. I also proved by this fact that God is essentially distinct from that which is changing, not just in the sense of power or nature, but rather he is distinct from the act of change itself. To believe otherwise would be to believe, not just in a contradiction, but in the idea that Gods existence is in a state of constant becoming, and had a beginning with time. Which is false, for God is the creator of time. God is a perfect expression of existence, and thus it cannot be something God becomes; he cannot be in a state of becoming. Time is a creation and is intrinsically and existentially limited; it is an intrinsic part of the universe. God is not the universe.

Gods will is a perfect expression of his nature, and is thus not something God becomes but rather something that God is. God does not do anything arbitrary or by whim of some contingent desire as if to say he has parts which he desires to fulfil, but rather he acts according to his nature which is intrinsically an eternal act of love and cannot change or be otherwise. Gods love for human beings does not have a beginning and thus neither does his will to create them. For his will is identical with his nature which is love. Therefore God is the eternal creator. God is an eternal act of love, he does not become love; God is love. Gods will is not like a human will. It has no beginning in time. God does not choose between good and evil or make choices that are morally neutral (recreational choices for the sake of fun). Human freedom is merely an expression of our contingency on God. God is not contingent on anything. Human freedom is not really a freedom in itself and by itself. It is good only in reference to our relationship with God and Gods will for us to choose “perfection”. Outside of that context human freewill unfulfilled in absolute perfection is a limitation and is thus not a true expression of Gods freedom, for the simple fact that the possibility of choosing evil is the opposite of moral perfection. God is absolute freedom from all moral imperfection, this also includes all possibility of moral imperfection; including the imperfection of change. This includes ontological choices, for all of Gods choices are intrinsically moral choices, this is to say that they are nothing less than an expression of Gods love. God’s will is identical with his perfection, both morally and ontologically. We are not.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God’s being a creator is indeed causally prior to time, but that doesn’t mean he is eternally a creator. Without the effect, the cause is not a cause.

You just admitted that God created time.

Therefore God is a timeless cause.

Because God is not necessarily a creator.

That depends on what you mean by necessity. Gods choice, by your own admittance, is non-temporal; thus his will to create is a timeless expression of his being.

Therefore, God’s being a creator is indeed a temporal attribute because without the effect, which is temporal, God’s being a creator is not a cause. God’s being a creator and creation were temporally simultaneous.

Gods freedom is not our freedom. Your error lies in your misunderstanding of what it really means for God to be free, and thus you see a limitation where there is none. First and for most God is love. Secondly, love and existence is identical. Love by its nature is creative in so far as the fact that love is the act of sharing ones perfections, therefore God did what he would always do given his nature. There was always going to be a Jesus. God was always going to send his eternal logos in to the world. God does not do things that are not eternally true of his nature. There was always going to be a universe, for Jesus is eternally begotten for it, sent by the eternal father.

The fact that God is absolutely predictable does not mean that God is not free. It means that God is absolute freedom. The universe is both a contingent and a necessary fact. It exist necessarily because God is love, but at the same time it is contingent for its existence on the love of God. Thus in one context, the universe is necessary in so far as the fact that “perfect love” is predictable; however, in the context of ontology, it is true to say that God is the only being that must exist, but this is said only in the sense that God is intrinsically existence, and everything else is dependent on God for existence.

 

[Luke_K]

MoM2:

God’s will is eternal in the sense that he eternally wills goodness and love. But, that does not require the creation of contingent beings, or of this particular universe. Our particular universe is not a necessary fact of God’s will. The fact that it was created for love is necessary, but not the unique contingent facts about it such as physical laws, the number, kind, and arrangement of matter and energy, human bodies and mode of thinking, etc. God is eternally creative in the workings of the Trinity.

But after thinking about this some more, I think I am willing to concede that God is eternally a creator. He is eternally a creator of the universe because his being a creator of the universe has never changed from something else. The universe, in contrast, is always changing. However, I still hold that God does not perceive the universe eternally, because the universe is in fact temporal.

Gods freedom is not our freedom. Your error lies in your misunderstanding of what it really means for God to be free, and thus you see a limitation where there is none. First and for most God is love. Secondly, love and existence is identical. Love by its nature is creative in so far as the fact that love is the act of sharing ones perfections, therefore God did what he would always do given his nature. There was always going to be a Jesus. God was always going to send his eternal logos in to the world. God does not do things that are not eternally true of his nature. There was always going to be a universe, for Jesus is eternally begotten for it, sent by the eternal father.

Yes, God does what he would always do given his nature of love, which is to be a dynamic, creative community of persons. This does not require the creation of contingent beings. The Son is indeed eternally begotten, but he is not eternally a man. For a man by his very nature is not eternal. Jesus the man did not exist 5000 years ago. Jesus the man did not exist until Mary, in her finite and temporal will, said yes.

 

[tdgesq]

God’s being a creator is indeed causally prior to time, but that doesn’t mean he is eternally a creator. Without the effect, the cause is not a cause. Because God is not necessarily a creator, without creation, God is not a creator. Therefore, God’s being a creator is indeed a temporal attribute because without the effect, which is temporal, God’s being a creator is not a cause. God’s being a creator and creation were temporally simultaneous.

Then give me an example of some other event where cause and effect were simultaneous. You are denying that cause precedes effect. Other than speculation within the area of quantum mechanics (with which there is good reason to disagree) I don’t know of any such instance.

I am not using it in the sense of a very long time. I am using it in the sense of never changing from what it is. When I say that God would eternally be producing the universe, I mean that the universe would not have a past or future, which it does. The universe would be a single block of 4-dimensional space-time with the past, present, and future all existing as one big now.

If what you have said is true - that God is so intelligent that he could know the all future contingencies without them yet existing - then it still doesn’t require that He be temporal. He could still know such things outside of time.

He didn’t lack the freedom. It’s just that using that freedom logically requires the beginning of time.

If freedom requires time then there is logically no freedom outside of time. What that means is that God cannot experience freedom unless he becomes temporal. God’s immutability has changed once again. He didn’t experience freedom outside of time, but now that he is allegedly in time he has experienced freedom. His omniscience was also incomplete. He didn’t know the experience of freedom until he entered time. There is a serious problem here. Apparently freedom isn’t an essential attribute of God.

It is important for past and present events because they actually existed/exist. It is not important for future events because they ontologically do not exist for any entity, regardless of whatever kind of mysterious mode of being we come up with. Just like we can’t say God could experience a square as being a circle, neither can he experience something that doesn’t exist (the future) as existing.

Even if this is correct, it has nothing to do with God being temporal or outside of time. If God can know all future propositions temporally without experiencing them, then he can know all of them outside of time as well. For that matter, he can know all past and present events in the same way. Why is it any limit upon his omniscience then to assert that God exists only outside of time?

It is not a limit on God’s omniscience for him to not know things that are in principle unknowable, just like it is not a limit of God’s omnipotence to not create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

You just told me that the future is knowable to God, even though he can’t experience it. Are you changing your position now and stating that it is logically impossible for God to know the future?

The immutability of God’s nature as God has not been compromised because God’s knowledge of tensed facts is not essential to his nature.

Then why does Craig care one bit about it? You want tensed facts to be important, but according to you they aren’t important to God’s essential nature. If it’s important then tell me why it’s important.

His knowledge of my death is in the sense of foreknowledge, not of present knowledge. Your view is that God knows my death in the sense that it is really present to him. I think that is nonsensical.

Under a B theory of time this isn’t a problem. I tend to think that it isn’t a problem under an A theory of time either, but it is a more difficult question to answer. If God’s mode of being is such that He does have perfect knowledge of all future events, and this includes his knowledge of all future events at the instant of creation, then is it necessary for Him to experience them in time the way that human beings do? I don’t think so. God still has his timeless experience of perfect knowledge about the future. If at the moment of creation he knows all future events perfectly and timelessly, it seems there is no necessity for Him to experience those actually occurring events in time.

My view is that God knows my death in the sense that it’s future reality is known with predictive certainty, as God is the perfect evaluator of his creation’s development.

That is my view as well, and it is true whether God is outside of time or whether he is temporal. Whether God “views” my actual death in time or whether he “views” it as a result of his perfect prior knowledge seems to make no difference. I would argue viewing an event in time like human beings do is an inferior mode of knowledge and experience compared to God’s experience of his own perfect knowledge of the event.

I’m not saying he can view all of temporal reality as one singular now. I am saying the opposite of that.

I realize that, but I can certainly create images in my own mind of what the future will be like. No doubt my images of the future are imperfect in many respects when compared with reality. But God has no such limitation. He can have perfect knowledge of the future and an image of that future outside of time, and it will be superior to whatever sensory data I actually experience in reality. This view preserves God’s immutability and omniscience. You seem to want to place God in the same deficient mode of knowledge and experience that we human beings have of reality. The moment you assert that God only experiences freedom once he enters time should be a serious warning sign that Craig is missing something.