Are God's acts of will necessarily eternal?

[JDaniel]

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:

I thought your “argument” was intended for Danserr, and believed that it was not mine to rebut. However, since you’ve made a big deal out of it, :slapfight: I think I rebutted it in a recent post.

By the way, I was not “pretending” anything. You and I can go nose-to-nose on that. I’m not scared! :nunchuk:

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

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!

Too bad for you, because he used the analogy you call ‘childish’
Anyway, you say I have a mental disorder, and that is an insult. If I were ever to call a Catholic mentally disordered, I would have this whole board on my head.

Nevertheless, I agree that WL Craig, if in fact he says those things, does not necessarily represent Catholicism with such remarks.

WL Craig is not a Catholic.

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.

If you are truly willing to learn, then start by having some respect for other people’s thoughts.

It is possible that sequentiality is different within God.

There is no ‘sequentiality’ 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!

I do not think anybody should be scolded, but maybe that’s because I suffer from a mental disorder called respect.

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.

Then think twice before you write something.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I thought your “argument” was intended for Danserr, and believed that it was not mine to rebut. However, since you’ve made a big deal out of it, :slapfight: I think I rebutted it in a recent post.

You haven’t even touched it.

By the way, I was not “pretending” anything. You and I can go nose-to-nose on that. I’m not scared! :nunchuk:

God bless,
jd

You never know what mentally disordered people might do, so maybe you should be scared.

 

[JDaniel]

Too bad for you, because he used the analogy you call ‘childish’
Anyway, you say I have a mental disorder, and that is an insult. If I were ever to call a Catholic mentally disordered, I would have this whole board on my head.

Belorg:

Go ahead; I dare you! Again, my comment was a general one. If it happens to fit the foot, well, so be it. But, then I spelled out what I meant by that. Which is, that it is “an inordinate refusal to accept free gifts.” You see, you cannot, by yourself come to an acceptance of Catholicism. It is only through God’s free gift(s) of grace, that you could. But, I’m sure that you knew that already.

WL Craig is not a Catholic.

Yes, I know. What I don’t know is what Catholics in general think of him. I simply haven’t had the interest to follow that.

If you are truly willing to learn, then start by having some respect for other people’s thoughts.

That sounds like you want me to acquiesce. Sorry; however, if I responded to your thoughts, that means that I respected them.

There is no ‘sequentiality’ within God.

Says who?

I do not think anybody should be scolded, but maybe that’s because I suffer from a mental disorder called respect.

No, it’s probably because I’m older than you and more parental.

Then think twice before you write something.

If I were to do that, I could get things posted much, much more quickly!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You haven’t even touched it.

Then where is it?

You never know what mentally disordered people might do, so maybe you should be scared.

Yes I do! Years ago, I worked for an institute for incorrigible young criminals (in Hollywood, FL)! No matter how much one of them might have liked me, at any moment he could have grabbed a knife and plunged it into my stomach. Needless to say, my wife (and children) got me to quit that position after about a year.

By the way, you weren’t in there, were you?

God bless,
jd

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

If he is outside time he is not actively existing in any time.

He being outside of time follows that all time to Him is an eternal now, thus He actively exists in all time.

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.

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

Not if what is predestined is based off of what is foreknown, foreknowledge does not merit the cause or reason of predestination. As predestination includes will, it follows that foreknowledge of will and all events was first then followed predestination.

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.

You brought up free will, thought it mattered to you in this subject. Apologies for keeping it in the debate.

 

[rom422]

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.

Hi Belorg,

Maybe we can continue with the subject now? There has been a little bit of digression on this thread, but it’s not too late to go back, is it?

You say many things on this thread, but I want to limit my discussion to key ideas. So I have selected the quote above.

You said, “Change cannot occur in a changeless state, and God’s a-temporality is a changeless state.” If you intend to imply that because God is in a changeless state, then in the act of causing He remains unchanged, then I agree. For God is the Unmoved Mover, which means that He causes motion without Himself being moved. But if you mean that because God is in a changeless state, then He cannot create or cause change at all, then I disagree.

And that seems to be what you are saying, that God cannot cause change unless He Himself suffers change. Because you continued: "The exercise of God’s causal power is a change that can never take place because nothing (on God’s part) can change. * You are saying that God cannot cause change because He is an unchanged being.

First of all, the act of causing change, just like the act of creation, is not a change (on God’s part). No change occurs in God in the act of causing change. The act of causing is predicated on the cause being in act; it is not predicated on the cause having to move from potency to act. For example, fire causes something to be hot because it is actually hot, not because it is moving from not heating something to heating it. The change actually occurs only on the part of the thing being heated, because it is being moved from potency to act. Therefore, it is not necessary for the cause itself to suffer change to cause change; it is sufficient that it be in act. God being in Pure Act causes change without Himself being changed.

Then you say,“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.” (Italics added for emphasis.) That he cannot begin to create, I agree, because “to begin” is to introduce temporality to One who is eternal. That He cannot create at all, I disagree. Why couldn’t He create if He has a changeless Will to create?

However, it is true to say that God does not “begin” to create. Because God does not live in time, where the “beginning” and “end” of an act has a meaning. It is meaningful to speak of the beginning of the world, or the time of the world’s creation, but it is meaningless to speak of the beginning of God’s Act of Creation. For God’s Act is one with Himself, and is in a different duration. It is in the NOW of eternity, where it is meaningless to speak of a beginning or end.

In writing the above, I assume that you and other readers have read my earlier posts, where I explained the meaning of key ideas - such as duration, eternity, time, etc.*

 

[Curious_Seed]

God, alone, is cause.

An eternal cause does not lead to the conclusion that its effects must also be eternal.

If that were true, then there would be perpetual identical re-occurrence of every aspect of all phenomenon, which is clearly not the case.

So, all change is temporal; all change is effect.

The universe is temporal.

The dividing of the Red Sea is temporal.

Is any effect eternal?

Death is said to be eternal.

Life is said to be eternal.

Both are effects; but, neither has been observed.

So, conceivable to be eternal, but not yet observable, as eternal.

Everything changes, except God, as we understand Him.

So, if God does not change, then God is not an effect.

If not effect, then cause, unless shown an effect can also be eternal.

No effect has yet to be shown to be eternal.

Therefore, God, only God, is cause because God, only God, never changes.

 

[belorg]

Hi Belorg,

Maybe we can continue with the subject now? There has been a little bit of digression on this thread, but it’s not too late to go back, is it?

You say many things on this thread, but I want to limit my discussion to key ideas. So I have selected the quote above.

You said, “Change cannot occur in a changeless state, and God’s a-temporality is a changeless state.” If you intend to imply that because God is in a changeless state, then in the act of causing He remains unchanged, then I agree. For God is the Unmoved Mover, which means that He causes motion without Himself being moved. But if you mean that because God is in a changeless state, then He cannot create or cause change at all, then I disagree.

That is not what I am claiming here, what I am claiming here is that an eternal, unchanging God cannot begin to create.

And that seems to be what you are saying, that God cannot cause change unless He Himself suffers change. Because you continued: "The exercise of God’s causal power is a change that can never take place because nothing (on God’s part) can change. * You are saying that God cannot cause change because He is an unchanged being.*

Although I do think that something causing anythinh without itself changing is completely incoherent, that is NOT what I am climing in this thread.

First of all, the act of causing change, just like the act of creation, is not a change (on God’s part). No change occurs in God in the act of causing change. The act of causing is predicated on the cause being in act; it is not predicated on the cause having to move from potency to act. For example, fire causes something to be hot because it is actually hot, not because it is moving from not heating something to heating it.

You are completely wrong here, but it’s irrelevnat to the current discussion, so, I’ll concede this FTSOTA

Then you say,“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.” (Italics added for emphasis.) That he cannot begin to create, I agree, because “to begin” is to introduce temporality to One who is eternal. That He cannot create at all, I disagree. Why couldn’t He create if He has a changeless Will to create?

For lots of reasons, but, as I said, I was referring to ‘beginning’ to create. I am glad somebody agrees with me. Now just convince the rest of the Catholics here.

 

[belorg]

He being outside of time follows that all time to Him is an eternal now, thus He actively exists in all time.

That does not follow at all. If He is outside time, then He is outside time and if He actively exists in all time, then He is in time. You just want to have it both ways…

Not if what is predestined is based off of what is foreknown, foreknowledge does not merit the cause or reason of predestination. As predestination includes will, it follows that foreknowledge of will and all events was first then followed predestination.

The reason I say this is because in your scenario, there isn’t even any will (except God’s), let alone free will.

You brought up free will, thought it mattered to you in this subject. Apologies for keeping it in the debate.

Yes, I said that free will was impossible because in your scenario there is no will .

 

[danserr]

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.

Nothing at all, except that God does not exercise his causal power. This is not, as you try to imply, because he is hindered by some external force, but simply by the fact that he does not do it.

You seem to be suggesting that God’s will is a sufficient cause to produce an effect. This is simply untrue. In the case of agent causation, both 1. the agent’s will is required and 2. an exercise in the agent’s causal power. Though God willed from eternity to create the universe, without the exercise of his causal power, he did not create the universe. With the exercise of his causal power, however, God created the universe and time began.

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.

Thank you, but since I don’t think either of us understand them and I am not trying to defend Thomism here, not being a good enough Thomist, I leave Thomist solutions aside for now.

And there is not need for them anyway, since your continued claim that “change cannot occur in a changeless state” does not in any way prevent God’s creation of the universe. There is nothing incoherent in a man sitting from all eternity who stands up. With the exercise of his causal power he becomes temporal and the universe is created. As I have said, you are demonstrating nothing more than (at most) that God cannot create the universe a remain atemporal. You err in thinking that something atemporal cannot change. Rather, something atemporal does not change (that is much of what makes it atemporal), but if it does, then it becomes temporal.

 

[belorg]

Nothing at all, except that God does not exercise his causal power. This is not, as you try to imply, because he is hindered by some external force, but simply by the fact that he does not do it.

When doesn’t he do it?

You seem to be suggesting that God’s will is a sufficient cause to produce an effect. This is simply untrue. In the case of agent causation, both 1. the agent’s will is required and 2. an exercise in the agent’s causal power. Though God willed from eternity to create the universe, without the exercise of his causal power, he did not create the universe. With the exercise of his causal power, however, God created the universe and time began.

What changed in His unchanging state so that God suddenly started to exercise His causal power?

Thank you, but since I don’t think either of us understand them and I am not trying to defend Thomism here, not being a good enough Thomist, I leave Thomist solutions aside for now.

Well, since you don’t seem to understand a-temporality either, maybe you’d better leave that aside too.

And there is not need for them anyway, since your continued claim that “change cannot occur in a changeless state” does not in any way prevent God’s creation of the universe. There is nothing incoherent in a man sitting from all eternity who stands up.

Well, just take this up with JDaniel. He thinks this analogy is childish, and he is not a mentally disordered atheist like I am, so maybe you believe him.

 

[danserr]

When doesn’t he do it?

What changed in His unchanging state so that God suddenly started to exercise His causal power?

What changed was his exercise of his causal power, as I have said.

When doesn’t he do it?

This is simply a trick I refuse to fall for.

Well, since you don’t seem to understand a-temporality either, maybe you’d better leave that aside too.

Well, just take this up with JDaniel. He thinks this analogy is childish, and he is not a mentally disordered atheist like I am, so maybe you believe him.

Since you have nothing left to add but ridicule, I suppose our discussion is at an end. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[belorg]

This is simply a trick I refuse to fall for.

It’s not a trick. There is simply no way to answer this question, because it is meaningless to talk about an unchnging being changing. You are stuck with ‘exercising His causal powers’ as a completely uncaused event

Since you have nothing left to add but ridicule, I suppose our discussion is at an end. Thank you for the discussion.

This is not ridicule, just read JD’s posts and you’ll find out that he is the one ridiculing your position.
I, on the other hand, am just offering an intellectual argument against it, which you may accept ot not, but I would never ridicule someone else’s ideas.

 

[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, but, since He is supposed to be timeless, also has always been exrecising this power.
Hence, as Luke K says “It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.”
God, as understtood by classical Theism, cannot have created a finite universe.

OK, since you won’t point out the post(s) wherein your argument is, then I’ll start from your first post, in this thread.

Luke K says, “It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.” Question, “Why?” (You may be correct, but, I’d like to know your reasoning.)

And this example illustrates more clearly the absurdity of the notion of an eternal being creating a temporal effect.

How so?

For a timelss, eternal being, there is no such thing as ‘about 1240 BC’.

Why?

This view has God eternally and unchangeable willing for something to happen… later, IOW, God’s will has a ‘delayed’ effect. But delayed from when? There is no ‘when’ to delay an action from.

Not so. There is only “later” for temporal beings, not for an a-temporal being. However, even though God might will, within His Infinite Now, Creation, it can occur as an ongoing roll-out, for temporal beings, as it must!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is contrary to Thomism

And contrary to Catholicism.

He can intend to do so, but there can never be a moment when he actually does a temporal action.

Of course, He has no “moments.” Why would He need “moments?”

If God is a beginningless, timeless, eternal and unchanging being, then it follows that God’s execise of causal power is necessarily eternal.

You may be right, but, why?

jd

 

[belorg]

Not so. There is only “later” for temporal beings, not for an a-temporal being. However, even though God might will, within His Infinite Now, Creation, it can occur as an ongoing roll-out, for temporal beings, as it must!

jd

I am not interested in how something ‘occurs’, I am interested in what something is.
A sphere may ‘occur’ to be a circle, but it is a sphere.
That’s all.

 

[belorg]

And contrary to Catholicism.

Again, go and tell that to other Catholics, like danserr.

Of course, He has no “moments.” Why would He need “moments?”

Who says He needs moments?

You may be right, but, why?

jd

TBO (The Bloody Obvious). It folows from the definition of timeless, eternal and unchanging that, well, God cannot change. And a beginning ‘exrecise’ of His causal power is a change. I have explained that several times to danserr.
I am not sure why you don’t take this up with him, after all, I am just a poor mentally disordered atheist who will burn in hell for eternity, but there may be hope for danserr, who is just a deluded Catholic.

 

[ivebeenshown]

To God, it would not even be a matter of “I created the world, then I gave life to Adam and Eve, and next I am sending my Son.” It’s more like “I create the world, I give life to mankind, I send my beloved Son.” But even then, it would be inaccurate, because to God, one word would not even follow another – he possess full consciousness of all things as one eternal moment.

I think the thread might have some kind of issue with it when it talks of God’s causal power. Everything exists or happens because God knows about it. I was born, I grew up, and I am posting here because God knows about it. He knows “Derek is born, Derek grows up, Derek makes these choices”, which again is inaccurate because to God, there is no succession of words in thought as if he thought procedurally rather than eternally.

So it’s not like God is one moment creating the world and then the next moment sending his Son. He simply KNOWS “The world is created”, “I send my Son”, “Derek chooses to post on a message board”, and because he knows these things, these things are true.

We think procedurally (one thing after the other.) Thus it is hard to conceive the notion that an eternal being would not think procedurally, but eternally – let alone imagine how that would be.

 

[belorg]

To God, it would not even be a matter of “I created the world, then I gave life to Adam and Eve, and next I am sending my Son.” It’s more like “I create the world, I give life to mankind, I send my beloved Son.” But even then, it would be inaccurate, because to God, one word would not even follow another – he possess full consciousness of all things as one eternal moment.

I think the thread might have some kind of issue with it when it talks of God’s causal power. Everything exists or happens because God knows about it. I was born, I grew up, and I am posting here because God knows about it. He knows “Derek is born, Derek grows up, Derek makes these choices”, which again is inaccurate because to God, there is no succession of words in thought as if he thought procedurally rather than eternally.

So it’s not like God is one moment creating the world and then the next moment sending his Son. He simply KNOWS “The world is created”, “I send my Son”, “Derek chooses to post on a message board”, and because he knows these things, these things are true.

We think procedurally (one thing after the other.) Thus it is hard to conceive the notion that an eternal being would not think procedurally, but eternally – let alone imagine how that would be.

That’s a perfectly logical position. It probably has some unwanted theological consequences for the average Catholic, but that’s another discussion.