Are God's acts of will necessarily eternal?

[JDaniel]

Which does not bring Craig any further, I am afraid, because an eternal God not only has always willed to create and has always had the power to create,

Belorg:

No argument here.

but, since He is supposed to be timeless, also has always been exrecising this power.

The bold words are irrelevant, unless they are supposed to be a not so subtle dig.

Hence, as Luke K says “It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.”
God, as understood by classical Theism, cannot have created a finite universe.

A confusion of "words:"although the word “eternal” means, in its usual sense, “infinite,” that is not always what we necessarily internally cogitate. We know, for example, that human beings have beginnings, and more than likely so did our universe, yet we read that both are eternal (at least in one direction).

And this example illustrates more clearly the absurdity of the notion of an eternal being creating a temporal effect.
For a timeless, eternal being, there is no such thing as ‘about 1240 BC’.

Why? Is “1240 BC” not within him? If he surrounds it (as the Infinite must)? Is it possible that it is within him but not as finite distention? It is hard for us to imagine how Infinity “sees” temporality. But, we most certainly should not anthropomorphize it!

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Excellent, how wonderful that the two of us are such friendly people accepting each other’s friendly advice in such a fashion.

Is there any reason why we should be hostile towards each other?

Except that since you are proposing the argument, the burden is on you to carry it. So stated, your argument looks like little more than a bare assertion and not a very plausible one, but I will look at it again.

Fine

The best I can tell, these are your relevant passages. You are trying to claim that:

1. time must already exist in order for God to exercise his causal power.

Let me clarify this a bit: time must already exist in order for God to go from an eternal state to a specific event. If we presuppose a temporal infinity(that is an infinity of past time) that nevertheless is caused by God (in some sort of simultaneous causation, which I’ll accept FTSOTA) then there is no problem. The problem arises once we suppose that God eternally willed to create time and then for some reason or other his will remained unfullfilled until at one instant, time began. this means time already exists causally prior to the creation of time.

1. Since time must already exist for Him to exercise his causal power, God’s exercise of his causal power cannot result in the creation of time.

That’s correct.

1. Therefore, if God is eternal in the sense of atemporal, He cannot be the cause of creation.

That’s also correct.

The problem is that premise 1 is not evidently true and actually seems plainly false. You haven’t supported it, just offered a series of assertions the reiterate the point, but do not support it.

Oh yes, i support it. Because an unchanging state (as god is in in His atemporal mode) cannot change if there is no time, and time cannot begin if there is no change to the unchanging state.

Why should time already exist in order for God to exercise his causal power? It might be true that God cannot exercise his causal power and remain atemporal, but it does not follow that he must be temporal in order to exercise his causal power.

If he has always been exercising it, then he need not be temporal, but if he begins to exercise it, he must be temporal.

God’s exercise of his causal power is simultaneous (though causally prior) with the beginning of time. By exercising his causal power and creating the universe, God changes and thence time begins.

The point is that either He has always been exercising His power, which means time has no beginning, or He begins to exercise it, which means there must be a time for Him to beging to exercise it.

The creation of time is thus temporally simultaneous with God’s exercise of his causal power, though his exercise of his causal power is causally prior to it.

No, His exercise is not causally prior to it, because it cannot begin without time existing, and since time cannot begin without His exercise, we are still stuck with a huge contradiction.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

The bold words are irrelevant, unless they are supposed to be a not so subtle dig.

The bold parts are necessary to indicate that we are presuppsoing this for the sake of the argument.

A confusion of "words:"although the word “eternal” means, in its usual sense, “infinite,” that is not always what we necessarily internally cogitate. We know, for example, that human beings have beginnings, and more than likely so did our universe, yet we read that both are eternal (at least in one direction).

If you had read my argument, you would have noticed that by ‘infinite’, I mean ‘without a beginning’. I am not talking about a possible end of the universe.

Why? Is “1240 BC” not within him?

Sort answer: no

If he surrounds it (as the Infinite must)? Is it possible that it is within him but not as finite distention? It is hard for us to imagine how Infinity “sees” temporality. But, we most certainly should not anthropomorphize it!

It is not a matter of how infinity ‘sees’ temporality’, it is a matter of having a referent and from eternity, 1240 BC makes no sense because it presupposes a temporal ‘distance’ between ‘non-beginning’ and ‘somewhat later than non-beginning’, which is obviously absurd.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Let me clarify this a bit: time must already exist in order for God to go from an eternal state to a specific event.

Belorg:

Unfortunately, that is only an unfounded postulation. It is your “anthropomorphic presupposition” that God must change, which is per se impossible for an infinite being to do. How he does what he does, we can only guess. And, there are quite a number of good guesses out there. But, he Himself has told us that “he does not change.” So, no matter what, for any guess to be “good,” this must be kept in mind.

If we presuppose a temporal infinity(that is an infinity of past time)

But, this cannot be: Time is the aggregating succession of non-contemporaneous distentions. In order for past time to remain un-contradictory, it cannot contain either dimensionless distentions, or an infinite distention. Neither are finite distentions, of which Time consists. Both of these make past time completely contradictory and completely unknowable. IOW, we would have dead-alive cats, and there-not left yet travels, and no potency whatsoever, to mention but a few.

The problem arises once we suppose that God eternally willed to create time and then for some reason or other his will remained unfullfilled until at one instant, time began.

This presupposes that succession cannot exist. Is there a possible world where timeless succession can exist? There’s far more plausibility for that than for a world where naught but conditioned beings exist!

this means time already exists causally prior to the creation of time.

A non-sequitur.

Oh yes, i support it. Because an unchanging state (as god is in in His atemporal mode) cannot change if there is no time, and time cannot begin if there is no change to the unchanging state.

Providence and Creation are only a " temporal roll-out" for anthopomorphs, like you and I. That God touches (moves, causes) each and every s-frame in the entire universe and beyond is presupposed by infinite being. That all of this complexity is here and is doing what it does - all by itself - is what is infinitely more inscrutable.

If he has always been exercising it, then he need not be temporal, but if he begins to exercise it, he must be temporal.

In our anthropomorphic view, he has always been exercising His power to move, cause and create. In His Divine view, it is a singular exigency.

The point is that either He has always been exercising His power, which means time has no beginning,

Another non-sequitur. We cannot know the precise point at which mobile beings began. But, time would not have begun until there were mobile beings. And, it would have taken no less than two.

or He begins to exercise it, which means there must be a time for Him to beging to exercise it.

Not so. Time is a result of more than one mobile being. There’s no rule or law that requires that multiple mobile beings had to have been produced simultaneously.

No, His exercise is not causally prior to it, because it cannot begin without time existing, and since time cannot begin without His exercise, we are still stuck with a huge contradiction.

Not so, as I have shown immediately above. A singular mobile being can be brought into existence instantly, without Time. If an infinitesimally tiny singularity is created, then begins to expand, God remains free from “time.” It could have taken far less than one Planck length after the beginning of its expansion for Time to begin. The primordial singularity would have been, in the current cosmological view, that from which multiple mobile beings ensued.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The bold parts are necessary to indicate that we are presuppsoing this for the sake of the argument.

Belorg:

OK. I’ll go along with that.

If you had read my argument, you would have noticed that by ‘infinite’, I mean ‘without a beginning’. I am not talking about a possible end of the universe.

DON’T MAKE ME ANGRY! :blackeye:

Respectfully, I did read your argument. The problem is that defining “infinite” to mean, “without a beginning,” makes no sense. We are at this precise point in time, therefore, one, or more, distentions can (and, no doubt will) be added to the aggregation. (In fact, some already have been added.) IOW, it’s not done yet! To be actually infinite means to be completely done, otherwise it’s a finity that is only potentially infinite.

God bless,
jd

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Yes, that’s a nice solution: everything is eternally unchanging but we only experience it as changing.
It has already been predestined since eternity what I am going to eat tomorrow, and whether I’ll go to heaven or hell. Bye bye libertarian free will.
With Catholics like this, who needs calvinism?

No need for the sarcasm.

Predestined? Straw man. You gathered the wrong interpetation of my post. Given that I do not agree with your concept of free will and divine foreknowledge, there’s very little to argue from here.

 

[belorg]

No need for the sarcasm.

Predestined? Straw man. You gathered the wrong interpetation of my post. Given that I do not agree with your concept of free will and divine foreknowledge, there’s very little to argue from here.

I does not have anything to do with any kind of free will.
You claimed that we live in a completely changeless wolrd, that for some reason or other we perceive as changing, but from God’s POV, there is no change at all. Fine, I’ll accept that FTSOTA.
But that means that what you or I or anyone else wil dio tomorrow also already exiosts now, and that neither you or anyone else can do anything to change that, not even God can do that.Everything everybody does or doesn’t do is and has always been an unchanging fact, and since God is supposed to be the creator of everything, this unchangeable fact was createsd by God, which means everything is predestined even more than under calvinism.
That’s the logical consequence of your belief. And if you don’t like it, you should reconsider your belief. That’s what i did, BTW

 

[belorg]

DON’T MAKE ME ANGRY! :blackeye:

Angry? Why would youi be angry?

Respectfully, I did read your argument. The problem is that defining “infinite” to mean, “without a beginning,” makes no sense. We are at this precise point in time, therefore, one, or more, distentions can (and, no doubt will) be added to the aggregation. (In fact, some already have been added.) IOW, it’s not done yet! To be actually infinite means to be completely done, otherwise it’s a finity that is only potentially infinite.

God bless,
jd

If, after reading my argument, you still feel your replies have any relevance, then it is clear that you do not understand what I am talking about, because nothing of what you say has any relevance to my argument.

 

[BigFellaMick]

Indeed, he remains seated until something changes and he gets up.
But, wait a minute, something changing? Isn’t God supposed to be unchanging?
Craig, the non-Thomist Craig, that is, claims that ‘sans’ creation, God is timeless, but becomes temporal with creation, and gets up.
But when exactly is ‘creation’?
Let’s suppose God eternally wills the universe, but he needs to push a red button in order for the universe to begin.
Now, pushing the red button is a change, because if He had been eternally pushing the red button, the universe should have been eternal too.
So, God’s willing to push the button and God actually doing it is not the same.
But, if God is timeless, there can be no change in God, so he cannot push the red button. He can only do so if there is time.
But remember: time is a result of pushing the red button. So, pushing the red button is only possible once the red button has been pushed.
Nw, I do not know about you, but to me, this sounds like a huge contradiction.

Just take some time to read what I wrote above, and maybe you will find it a bit more ‘obvious’

Well, that’s an honest answer. But have you really studied all the implications of Catholicism enough to assess Catholicims?

God existed long before the universe. God always existed. He will exist long after the universe as well. He exists outside of time and space. I don’t see how just because He is eternal means He is incapable of acting in a temporal fashion. Making a temporal action does not mean He is not eternal or unchanging

 

[belorg]

God existed long before the universe. God always existed. He will exist long after the universe as well. He exists outside of time and space. I don’t see how just because He is eternal means He is incapable of acting in a temporal fashion.

Well, if that is the case, God existed for an infinity of time before the universe, which, according to most theists would be imossible, because God would never arrive at the moment art which he created the universe.
And that ‘he will exist long after the universe’ is far fropm sure, because the first law of thermodynamics means the universe in some form will exist forever.

And if God exists outside of time, he does not exist ‘before’ or ‘afetr anything’, since those are time-indicators.

Making a temporal action does not mean He is not eternal or unchanging

Yes, it does. Unchanging beings cannot make temporal actions because a temporal action entails temporality, which entails change.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I does not have anything to do with any kind of free will.
You claimed that we live in a completely changeless wolrd, that for some reason or other we perceive as changing, but from God’s POV, there is no change at all. Fine, I’ll accept that FTSOTA.

Rom422 actually gives a nice reason why we precieve reality as changing. In case you didn’t catch his post it’s a good read.

But that means that what you or I or anyone else wil dio tomorrow also already exiosts now, and that neither you or anyone else can do anything to change that, not even God can do that.Everything everybody does or doesn’t do is and has always been an unchanging fact, and since God is supposed to be the creator of everything, this unchangeable fact was createsd by God, which means everything is predestined even more than under calvinism.

An unchanging fact to God alone. “Predestination is not anything in the predestined; but only in the person who predestines.” How was this not contemplated when reading of His eternity, belorg? It follows that If He is outside of time, He is therefore actively existing in all time, present and future. I don’t agree with your assertion of Calvinism predestination in this subject as I hold that God’s sovereignty includes free will and predestination as infallible foreknowledge. You seem to think that because events are already known and carried out by Him, all are shackled into predeterminism when the reality is whatever is predestined is a response to people’s free will. This is going to evolve into a debate about predeterminism and free will and I know your position on the subject which I disagree with.

 

[belorg]

Rom422 actually gives a nice reason why we precieve reality as changing. In case you didn’t catch his post it’s a good read.

I have read it and it entails exactly what I said it entails.

An unchanging fact to God alone. “Predestination is not anything in the predestined; but only in the person who predestines.” How was this not contemplated when reading of His eternity, belorg? It follows that If He is outside of time, He is therefore actively existing in all time, present and future.

If he is outside time he is not actively existing in any time.
The contradiction is so obvious that I really do not know why I have to constantly explain it.

I don’t agree with your assertion of Calvinism predestination in this subject as I hold that God’s sovereignty includes free will and predestination as infallible foreknowledge. You seem to think that because events are already known and **carried out **by Him, all are shackled into predeterminism

Yes, that’s what I think, because if something in the future is already carried out now, that future fact is predestined in a very fundamental way.

when the reality is whatever is predestined is a response to people’s free will.

If reality is unchanging, there is no response to anything.

This is going to evolve into a debate about predeterminism and free will and I know your position on the subject which I disagree with.

No, it’s not going to evolve into such a debate, because free will does not even enter the picture here. Reality is, was, has been and will be completely the same. Period. there is really nothing more to say about it.
If you want to have your cake and eat it, then just do so.

 

[JDaniel]

If, after reading my argument, you still feel your replies have any relevance, then it is clear that you do not understand what I am talking about, because nothing of what you say has any relevance to my argument.

Belorg:

As you seem to have several arguments strewn hereabouts, all of which I’ve read, please point out a particular post and I’ll respond to it, if that’s what you wish. In my paragraph, I wanted to respond to your equivocal definition of “infinity.” (as merely, “without beginning.”) That’s all. I think that that is the crux of your inability to understand the role “infinity” plays in this. Yours is nothing but a part of the definition of “infinity,” and the absurd juxtaposition of the following words: “infinite past time.” You cannot go from here into an infinite past as that presupposes that we’re here, at some end point of an infinite succession of sequential finite distensions. Yet, we’re still adding more of them. Can’t you see that?

God bless,
jd

 

[rom422]

Good morning, folks!

Sorry I cannot participate in your discussions all the time, but that’s not lack of interest, just that my time is limited. Still, I like contributing my 2 cents.

I like defining my terms, and I like staying on the topic. I suppose there are things I can also say about predestination, but I will hold off on that for now.

Just for continuity, this post must be read in conjunction with my earlier post - Post #17 above.

1. First, let me define what I mean by “duration.” By “duration” I mean persistence in being. In God His duration (or persistence in being) consists in the* unchanging and absolute possession of boundless being.* And this is called “eternity.” In mobile being, which the world is, duration consists in the successive and continuous acquisition of being, because the world only continues to exist by losing its present existence and acquiring existence again. And that is what “time” is.

Eternity and time are, therefore, two very distinct kinds of duration. Only God is truly eternal, because He is immutable in His being, and possesses boundless being in the NOW. Mobile beings are necessarily temporal, because they persist in existence only by continuously losing their present existence and acquiring it again.

Now, a temporal being is said to be temporal because of the kind of duration that it has. It does not mean that a temporal being cannot exist forever. It can, but it will be forever dependent on God for its being. It can exist by forever losing its present existence and continuously receiving existence again from God - without end. Hence, it is possible to have an everlasting world - a world without end, - but because of the kind of duration that it has, it will still be a temporal world, not an eternal world.

Sometimes we use the word “eternal” to mean “forever” or “everlasting.” And I agree that an eternal being, such as God, is everlasting and exists forever. But, strictly speaking, eternity belongs to God alone. A so-called “eternal” material world is really nothing but a temporal world that exists forever - a world that exists for an infinitely long time. God, on the other hand, is truly eternal, everlasting, and exists forever - but it is incorrect to say that He is existing for an infinitely long time, because His duration is not time at all; it is a “non-time” duration.

Actually, Thomas Aquinas at one time was engaged in a debate whether our world always existed. He ended up saying that reason alone, or philosophy alone, cannot prove whether this world had a beginning or not. That means, there is no way of proving that this world is not forever. It is possible that our world is an everlasting world, - a created world that is forever dependent on God, - but one that has no beginning and no end. Aquinas said that our belief that this world had a beginning is an article of faith.

So, is it possible for an eternal God to produce a temporal effect? My answer: YES! Because, if an immutable being can produce a mutable effect, then an eternal Creator can produce a temporal creature.

1. Now allow me to elucidate the nature of time further. Time is a continuum, just like a line is. Just as a line may, for analytical purposes, be thought of as consisting of an infinite series of points, so time may be analyzed as consisting of an infinite series of indivisible “instants”. Yet, although we can think of a point in the line, a line strictly speaking is not a series of points; it is a continuum. Likewise, we can speak of an indivisible instant of time, but strictly speaking, time does not consist of discrete instants of time; it is a continuum, just like a line is.

Why did I bring this up? Because I want to point out that although God does not exist “in” time, His existence is nevertheless simultaneous with the world. I am here bringing up the concept of simultaneity. However, notice again that it would be incorrect to define simultaneity in this case as “happening at the same time.” Because God’s duration is not time. Simultaneity must be defined, not in terms of time, but in terms of being. Two things in two different durations are said to be simultaneous if, and only if, when one thing exists in one duration, the other also exists in the other duration. Although time and eternity are two entirely different durations, there can be simultaneity in the two. In fact, every “instant” of time, and every event in the world is always simultaneous with God’s unchanging NOW.

 

[JDaniel]

Belorg:

I suppose that this is your “argument?” I thought it was ridiculous and that Danserr was handling it appropriately, so I wasn’t compelled to respond to it. But, now I am.

First, let me warn you: I am not a big fan of WL Craig’s. So, I really don’t much care what his argument is/was. As wretched as my philosophy is compared to Aquinas’, I consider myself to be at least an armchair Thomist.

Indeed, he remains seated until something changes and he gets up.
But, wait a minute, something changing? Isn’t God supposed to be unchanging?

A childish metaphor.

Craig, the non-Thomist Craig, that is, claims that ‘sans’ creation, God is timeless, but becomes temporal with creation, and gets up.

See my opening.

But when exactly is ‘creation’?

When exactly were you conceived? Both are stupid questions, the first one attributable to you, and the second one to me.

Let’s suppose God eternally wills the universe, but he needs to push a red button in order for the universe to begin.

Again: a childish metaphor. I wouldn’t suppose that ever. What are you trying to demonstrate here?

Now, pushing the red button is a change, because if He had been eternally pushing the red button, the universe should have been eternal too.

Sure, in your childish scenario.

So, God’s willing to push the button and God actually doing it is not the same.
But, if God is timeless, there can be no change in God, so he cannot push the red button. He can only do so if there is time.

If that’s what Craig said, then (believe it or not) I don’t blame you!

But remember: time is a result of pushing the red button. So, pushing the red button is only possible once the red button has been pushed.

I wrote a post which handled this; in a maturer manner.

Now, I do not know about you, but to me, this sounds like a huge contradiction.

Take it up with Craig.

In another of my posts I indicated that God has always been a Creator. We are only objectively aware of this small patch of reality. Sequentially prior to us, Scripture tells us that God created. He (co-)created the Son and the Holy Spirit. He created all of the Angelic multitude. And, yes, it is possible that He created other universes. All prior in succession to this one. And, in the absence of our Time.

Scripture tells us that God is Infinite, which means: “there is no place that He could (would be able to) move to?” That He is Pure Simplicity (part-less), which means, “there are no parts that can move around.” That He is the most fecund of all possible Beings, which means, “He must always be, and have been creating.”

Now, all of what I have said is not easy to grasp. But, that all of this complexity and continuing complexification is merely the product of pure, unadulterated chance, with no thought, or order, or control, is infinitely harder to grasp. Like Liberalism, I think Atheism is a mental disorder. It is the relentless desire to refuse a gift at all costs.

God bless,
jd

 

[danserr]

Is there any reason why we should be hostile towards each other?

I see none, nor am I under the opinion we have been.

The problem arises once we suppose that God eternally willed to create time and then for some reason or other his will remained unfullfilled until at one instant, time began. this means time already exists causally prior to the creation of time.

The reason is that without the exercise of his causal power, God’s will is not fulfilled. With the exercise of his causal power, God changes (at least on the conception I am defending at the moment) and time begins. This change on God’s part is simultaneous with creation, hence time is not required to exist already.

If he has always been exercising it, then he need not be temporal, but if he begins to exercise it, he must be temporal.

Which does not follow, as I show above. All that follows is that God might not be able to exercise his causal power and *remain *atemporal.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

As you seem to have several arguments strewn hereabouts, all of which I’ve read, please point out a particular post and I’ll respond to it, if that’s what you wish. In my paragraph, I wanted to respond to your equivocal definition of “infinity.” (as merely, “without beginning.”) That’s all. I think that that is the crux of your inability to understand the role “infinity” plays in this. Yours is nothing but a part of the definition of “infinity,” and the absurd juxtaposition of the following words: “infinite past time.” You cannot go from here into an infinite past as that presupposes that we’re here, at some end point of an infinite succession of sequential finite distensions. Yet, we’re still adding more of them. Can’t you see that?

God bless,
jd

Yes, i can see that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument, so please, either address my argument or don’t, but don’t pretend you have rebutted my arguemnt when you haven’t even addressed it.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I suppose that this is your “argument?” I thought it was ridiculous and that Danserr was handling it appropriately, so I wasn’t compelled to respond to it. But, now I am.

First, let me warn you: I am not a big fan of WL Craig’s. So, I really don’t much care what his argument is/was. As wretched as my philosophy is compared to Aquinas’, I consider myself to be at least an armchair Thomist.

A childish metaphor.

See my opening.

When exactly were you conceived? Both are stupid questions, the first one attributable to you, and the second one to me.

Again: a childish metaphor. I wouldn’t suppose that ever. What are you trying to demonstrate here?

Sure, in your childish scenario.

If that’s what Craig said, then (believe it or not) I don’t blame you!

I wrote a post which handled this; in a maturer manner.

Take it up with Craig.

In another of my posts I indicated that God has always been a Creator. We are only objectively aware of this small patch of reality. Sequentially prior to us, Scripture tells us that God created. He (co-)created the Son and the Holy Spirit. He created all of the Angelic multitude. And, yes, it is possible that He created other universes. All prior in succession to this one. And, in the absence of our Time.

Scripture tells us that God is Infinite, which means: “there is no place that He could (would be able to) move to?” That He is Pure Simplicity (part-less), which means, “there are no parts that can move around.” That He is the most fecund of all possible Beings, which means, “He must always be, and have been creating.”

Now, all of what I have said is not easy to grasp. But, that all of this complexity and continuing complexification is merely the product of pure, unadulterated chance, with no thought, or order, or control, is infinitely harder to grasp. Like Liberalism, I think Atheism is a mental disorder. It is the relentless desire to refuse a gift at all costs.

God bless,
jd

JD, if the only thing you can do is call things’ childish’, then I am finished with you.
If you have no arguments, just admit it, I am sure you can do that without insulting people.
BTW, the ‘childish’ metaphor about a siiting man willing fro eternity to get up is not my metaphor, I belive it was danserr who brought it up here, so if you want to call him ‘childish’ too, be my guest.
One thing I do agree with you is that WL Craig’s pseudo-thomist idea of creation does not make any sense at all, but it’s part of one of the ‘champion arguments’ for theism, namely the KCA, which lots of people, including prominent philosophers of religion find very persuasiive. So, while I don’t agree with Craig at all, I don’t think it’s appriopriate to call his argument ‘childish’.
I happen to find Thomism logically incoherent, but I do not call Thomist arguments ‘childish’, and I don’t think Chrsitianity is a mental disorder either.
So if you have a serious argument, then I am willing to discuss it, but I am not going to have you insult me…

 

[belorg]

I see none, nor am I under the opinion we have been.

Great.

The reason is that without the exercise of his causal power, God’s will is not fulfilled. With the exercise of his causal power, God changes (at least on the conception I am defending at the moment) and time begins.

God’s will is not fullfilled? How can God’s will not be fullfilled? What prevents God’s will from being fullfilled?
Answer: nothing at all, since there is nothing to prevent it. Once the will exists (which is ‘always’) it is fullfilled. If it’s not, then there is some ‘time’ in between his will and the fullfilment of it. But, that is what is ansent in this scenario.

This change on God’s part is simultaneous with creation, hence time is not required to exist already.

Change cannot occur in a changeless state, and God’s a-temporality is a changeless state. The exercise of God’s causal power is a change that can never take place because nothing can change.

Now, of course I do not believe that God has an unbeginning, changeless will, and I do not believe God is a-temporally eternal, but if He is, then the consequences are that He cannot begin to create anything at all.
The universe, or at least, the ‘very first thing God created’ must be eternal, which contradicts the KCA.

Thomists come up with another ‘solution’. For a Thomist, the universe might be eternal. Unfortunately for Catholic Thomiusts, the Aristotelean-Thomist God is a deist God, a ‘first mover’. This God is a first mover because, to put it simply: he cannot be a second mover in any sense, because any ‘second move’ entails a change.
I’ll leave the theological implications to you.

 

[JDaniel]

JD, if the only thing you can do is call things’ childish’, then I am finished with you.
If you have no arguments, just admit it, I am sure you can do that without insulting people.
BTW, the ‘childish’ metaphor about a siiting man willing fro eternity to get up is not my metaphor, I belive it was danserr who brought it up here, so if you want to call him ‘childish’ too, be my guest.
One thing I do agree with you is that WL Craig’s pseudo-thomist idea of creation does not make any sense at all, but it’s part of one of the ‘champion arguments’ for theism, namely the KCA, which lots of people, including prominent philosophers of religion find very persuasiive. So, while I don’t agree with Craig at all, I don’t think it’s appriopriate to call his argument ‘childish’.
I happen to find Thomism logically incoherent, but I do not call Thomist arguments ‘childish’, and I don’t think Chrsitianity is a mental disorder either.
So if you have a serious argument, then I am willing to discuss it, but I am not going to have you insult me…

Belorg:

You were never insulted. The notions you put down on paper, so to speak, were what I consider, “childish.” I can hate the sin, and love the sinner. So please, stop with the self-applied “victim” thing.

I would never call Danserr “childish!” We’re on the same team!

Nevertheless, I agree that WL Craig, if in fact he says those things, does not necessarily represent Catholicism with such remarks. However, if I am wrong, I’m willing to learn. When God tells us that “He does not change,” I take Him at His word.

It is possible that sequentiality is different within God. And, since we have only these words and ideas to work with, that may be our best methodology of expressing that. But, smarter men and women than me have ascribed to that argument too, and you might well be one of them. If you are, then you are not above being scolded!

Anyway, as far as my argument goes, I stand by it - until and unless I am proven wrong. I don’t know all or even half of Scripture (it’s a work in progress). So, I remain pensive.

God bless,
jd