Are God's acts of will necessarily eternal?

[Luke_K]

If God’s will is necessarily eternal, then his willing of creation must be eternal as well. However, as long as the cause is present the effect must also be. Therefore, it seems that the universe should be eternal under this view. But, we know from experience that the universe is not eternal, but temporal. Therefore, God’s act of creation must be a temporal act of will.

Other examples can be given. God willed the Red Sea to part for the Israelites to cross. But if he eternally wills everything he wills, then the Red Sea must still be parted, as God is still willing it. But it’s not parted now.

It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.

Thoughts?

 

[danserr]

If God’s will is necessarily eternal, then his willing of creation must be eternal as well. However, as long as the cause is present the effect must also be. Therefore, it seems that the universe should be eternal under this view. But, we know from experience that the universe is not eternal, but temporal. Therefore, God’s act of creation must be a temporal act of will.

Other examples can be given. God willed the Red Sea to part for the Israelites to cross. But if he eternally wills everything he wills, then the Red Sea must still be parted, as God is still willing it. But it’s not parted now.

It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.

Thoughts?

WL Craig answers part of this in a reply to Wes Morrison (published on his site- the last paragrpah is the most directly relevant one). In brief, he denies that God’s will alone is sufficient cause for an action. Instead, God must also exercise his causal power.

In terms of eternally willing the red sea, God might have eternally willed that the red sea should be parted for a period of 2 hours in about 1240 BC. It does not follow that is must still be happening.

 

[belorg]

WL Craig answers part of this in a reply to Wes Morrison (published on his site- the last paragrpah is the most directly relevant one). In brief, he denies that God’s will alone is sufficient cause for an action. Instead, God must also exercise his causal power.

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.

In terms of eternally willing the red sea, God might have eternally willed that the red sea should be parted for a period of 2 hours in about 1240 BC. It does not follow that is must still be happening.

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

 

[Kismetji]

…And thus God is not free.

So far nobody has shown me otherwise why God could be free under this understanding…

 

[Luke_K]

WL Craig answers part of this in a reply to Wes Morrison (published on his site- the last paragrpah is the most directly relevant one). In brief, he denies that God’s will alone is sufficient cause for an action. Instead, God must also exercise his causal power.

In terms of eternally willing the red sea, God might have eternally willed that the red sea should be parted for a period of 2 hours in about 1240 BC. It does not follow that is must still be happening.

I thought about this before reading the link and came to the conclusion, as did Craig, that it would require an intrinsic change on God’s part. For the base of God’s “exercise of his causal power” must be God himself. But isn’t an intrinsic change in the Pure Act, God, contrary to Catholic theology?

And anyways, it seems that Craig, citing J. P. Moreland, describes “will” as merely the intention to do something. So fine, under that definition I suppose God can intend to do a temporal action from eternity. But I was thinking more along the lines of “Are God’s exercises of causal power necessarily eternal?” Apparently Craig, and you, think not.

 

[belorg]

I thought about this before reading the link and came to the conclusion, as did Craig, that it would require an intrinsic change on God’s part. For the base of God’s “exercise of his causal power” must be God himself. But isn’t an intrinsic change in the Pure Act, God, contrary to Catholic theology?

It is contrary to Thomism

And anyways, it seems that Craig, citing J. P. Moreland, describes “will” as merely the intention to do something. So fine, under that definition I suppose God can intend to do a temporal action from eternity.

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

But I was thinking more along the lines of “Are God’s exercises of causal power necessarily eternal?” Apparently Craig, and you, think not.

If God is a beginningless, timeless, eternal and unchanging being, then it follows that God’s execise of causal power is necessarily eternal.
Wes Morriston was quite correct in ponting that ouit.

 

[danserr]

I thought about this before reading the link and came to the conclusion, as did Craig, that it would require an intrinsic change on God’s part. For the base of God’s “exercise of his causal power” must be God himself. But isn’t an intrinsic change in the Pure Act, God, contrary to Catholic theology?

And anyways, it seems that Craig, citing J. P. Moreland, describes “will” as merely the intention to do something. So fine, under that definition I suppose God can intend to do a temporal action from eternity. But I was thinking more along the lines of “Are God’s exercises of causal power necessarily eternal?” Apparently Craig, and you, think not.

At least I think that there is a coherent understanding possible of creation that entails that God’s exercise of his causal power is not eternal, even though his will is. I agree that I am not sure how to explain how this works with God as pure act.

 

[belorg]

At least I think that there is a coherent understanding possible of creation that entails that God’s exercise of his causal power is not eternal, even though his will is. I agree that I am not sure how to explain how this works with God as pure act.

Then how can you claim that “there is a coherent understanding of creation that entails that God’s exercise of His causal power is not eternal?”

As it is, let me assure you: if God is truly Pure Act, there is NO coherent understanding of creation that entails that God’s exercise of His causal power is not eternal.
Saying that Pure Act changes is a contradictio in terminis.
William Lane Craig tries to work his way around this, but

1. He is not a Thomist and does not believe God is Pure Act
2. His ‘solution’ does not work even if we assume Thomism is wrong.

 

[danserr]

Then how can you claim that “there is a coherent understanding of creation that entails that God’s exercise of His causal power is not eternal?”

As it is, let me assure you: if God is truly Pure Act, there is NO coherent understanding of creation that entails that God’s exercise of His causal power is not eternal.
Saying that Pure Act changes is a contradictio in terminis.
William Lane Craig tries to work his way around this, but

1. He is not a Thomist and does not believe God is Pure Act
2. His ‘solution’ does not work even if we assume Thomism is wrong.

Thank you, but I do not accept your assurance on either point. Nothing I have said would prevent God from eternally willing something, but having the exercise of his causal power not be eternal. A man might will from all eternity to stand, but without exercising his causal power and standing, he remains seated. Perhaps similarly with God. Craig’s solution does indeed work, you are I have discussed it before and your skepticism rests on the highly dubitable claim that if God’s will is eternal, then the exercise of his causal power must be, which is not obvious.

As for Thomist theology of God as pure act, I recognize that it is Catholic doctrine (as opposed to dogma or infallible dogma), but have not made up my mind on the issue yet, not yet understanding Thomism well enough to assess it.

 

[belorg]

Thank you, but I do not accept your assurance on either point. Nothing I have said would prevent God from eternally willing something, but having the exercise of his causal power not be eternal. A man might will from all eternity to stand, but without exercising his causal power and standing, he remains seated.

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.

Perhaps similarly with God. Craig’s solution does indeed work, you are I have discussed it before and your skepticism rests on the highly dubitable claim that if God’s will is eternal, then the exercise of his causal power must be, which is not obvious.

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

As for Thomist theology of God as pure act, I recognize that it is Catholic doctrine (as opposed to dogma or infallible dogma), but have not made up my mind on the issue yet, not yet understanding Thomism well enough to assess it.

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

 

[danserr]

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’

No, not more obvious at all.

I am not trying to defend the view that God is pure act here, so any attack you launch on God as creator based on God as pure act is misguided in respect to the view I defend here.

In pushing the red button, creation occurs and time begins. You make much of the question “what is creation?” I don’t see why that is confusing. In creation, space, time and matter all begin to exist out of nothing. Note that your supposed contradiction, would not only prevent God’s creation of the universe, but also the universe’s creation as supposed in standard Big Bang cosmology. But this hardly seems plausible.

The error in your supposed contradiction is as follows. you say:
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.

There is not change in God without creation. With the exercise of his causal power, however, this would bring about a change in God, whereby time would begin. This change is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe. God being timeless does not *prevent *the exercise of his casual power, it only means that he cannot exercise his causal power and remain timeless. Hence, by the exercise of God’s causal power, he enters time with the creation of the universe.

In the same way a man sitting from all eternity cannot remain timeless if he stands, but so what. The fact that he was sitting from all eternity does not prevent him from standing, it only means that in standing he enters time.

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

Yes.

 

[belorg]

In pushing the red button, creation occurs and time begins. You make much of the question “what is creation?” I don’t see why that is confusing. In creation, space, time and matter all begin to exist out of nothing. Note that your supposed contradiction, would not only prevent God’s creation of the universe, but also the universe’s creation as supposed in standard Big Bang cosmology. But this hardly seems plausible.

No, it would not prevent the Big Bang, but that not relevant here.

There is not change in God without creation.

Exactly

With the exercise of his causal power, however, this would bring about a change in God, whereby time would begin.

yes, the exercise of God’s CP’s bring about a change in God, but the probelem is: the exercise of God’s CP’s are also **the result **of a change in God, otherwise, God would have to be exercsising these powers forever.

This change is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe.

OK, but irrelevnat.

God being timeless does not *prevent *the exercise of his casual power, it only means that he cannot exercise his causal power and remain timeless.

Here where you are wrong: God being timeless does prevent the exrecise of His causal powers. if it didn’t, the exrcise of God’s CP’s would be eternal, just becasue it is an exercise (and not an eternal state, e.g.) it requires time.

Hence, by the exercise of God’s causal power, he enters time with the creation of the universe.

I know that’s what Craig claims, but the correct way of putting it is: God can only exercise His CP’s when He has time to do so, but only has time to do so as a result of his Cp’s.

We have a genuine contradiction here., since we require time to be causally prior (I am not saying temporally prior) to the exercise of His CP’s, time cannot be a result of God’s CP’s… That woukld be analogous to a blackmsith a hammer by using the very same hammer to form the hammer.

In the same way a man sitting from all eternity cannot remain timeless if he stands, but so what. The fact that he was sitting from all eternity does not prevent him from standing, it only means that in standing he enters time.

I don’t think you realise the absurdity od what you are claiming here. the causal power to stand up cannot be exercised if there is no time, without time, the man would be sitting eternally. Without time, God would be timeless and unbale to exercise anything.

Yes.

I would look into it once again it I were you.

 

[danserr]

We have a genuine contradiction here., since we require time to be causally prior (I am not saying temporally prior) to the exercise of His CP’s, time cannot be a result of God’s CP’s.

Except we do not require time for something to be causally prior. This is not obvious and actually evidently untrue.

Imagine 2 books on top of each other. The lower is is causally prior to the higher one and is the cause of the higher book being raised, but it is not necessarily temporally prior. The books might have been placed there at the same time. Or they might have been sitting there from all eternity. Or imagine a chandelier hanging from a hook on the ceiling. The hook is causally prior to the chandelier without being temporally prior to it.

I don’t think you realise the absurdity od what you are claiming here. the causal power to stand up cannot be exercised if there is no time, without time, the man would be sitting eternally. Without time, God would be timeless and unbale to exercise anything.

You seem to have made two mistakes here:
1). You have confused temporal priority with causal priority and so mistakenly think that time must exist for one thing to be causally prior to another.

2). You have confused the plausible (but not necessarily true) claim “an eternal being (in the sense of atemporal) cannot cause something in time and still remain atemporal,” with the highly dubitable claim “an atemporal being cannot cause a temporal effect.”

I would look into it once again it I were you.

Thank you. I would like to offer you the same friendly advice.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If God’s will is necessarily eternal, then his willing of creation must be eternal as well. However, as long as the cause is present the effect must also be. Therefore, it seems that the universe should be eternal under this view. But, we know from experience that the universe is not eternal, but temporal. Therefore, God’s act of creation must be a temporal act of will.

No. The universe is both eternal and temporal/finite. There is never a time in which the universe comes in to reality, because time itself begins with the universe. Time has always existed. Thus the cause has to be timeless and non-spatial. Because the cause is timeless, there is no process of events between the causer and the beginning of change. Because the cause is non-spatial the cause does not move through space in order to have an effect. Therefore because God is timeless and because there is no before time for God, it follows that God exists simultaneously with the universe; rather than before or after it. However, there is still a point from which time extends temporally and has its origin. The first cause is pure actuality and its will is an eternal expression of its nature. Thus time is not necessary. One only requires a perfect mind and will; and also a perfectly good nature to account for why the cause is both eternal and simultaneous to its effect without changing. A perfect being already is what it will do from all eternity.

Other examples can be given. God willed the Red Sea to part for the Israelites to cross. But if he eternally wills everything he wills, then the Red Sea must still be parted, as God is still willing it. But it’s not parted now.

Well i am not sure how to take that story in terms of history. However, what i can say is that God is an eternal expression of love and thus the universe itself responds appropriately to Gods eternal expression; not the other way round.

It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.

Thoughts?

Its counter intuitive to common-sense that time can be relative, but it is. From our perspective there is change. From Gods perspective all potential change is actual and exists eternally and holistically in his presence. Even for scientists it is popular to speak of a block universe since time is treated as a dimension. This is not something that goes against other forms of rational inquiry.

 

[belorg]

Except we do not require time for something to be causally prior. This is not obvious and actually evidently untrue.

I amnot claiming we require time for something to be causally prior. I am claiming that we require time existeing causally prior to change. Change requires time and time requires change

Imagine 2 books on top of each other. The lower is is causally prior to the higher one and is the cause of the higher book being raised, but it is not necessarily temporally prior. The books might have been placed there at the same time. Or they might have been sitting there from all eternity. Or imagine a chandelier hanging from a hook on the ceiling. The hook is causally prior to the chandelier without being temporally prior to it.

I am not disputing this. I can accept for the sake of the argument that a cause can be completely simultaneous to its effect, but that has nothing to do with my argument.

You seem to have made two mistakes here:
1). You have confused temporal priority with causal priority and so mistakenly think that time must exist for one thing to be causally prior to another.

No, I don’t think that. That’s a strawman. I know you do not mean to build a strawman, but you just do not understand my argument.

2). You have confused the plausible (but not necessarily true) claim “an eternal being (in the sense of atemporal) cannot cause something in time and still remain atemporal,” with the highly dubitable claim “an atemporal being cannot cause a temporal effect.”

No, I have not confused anything here, I have actually given a solid argument for why one particular atemporal being cannot cause a temporal effect.
So, if it’s dubitable, then explain how it is possible for this cause to produce a temporal effect. Saying that you cannot see a reason why it couldn’t just does not suffice.

Thank you. I would like to offer you the same friendly advice.

Believe it or not, danserrn but I am constantly looking into matters over and over again, so I accept your friendly advice, but I would really like you to do the same.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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

God’s will has a delayed effect in our continuum, but to Him it has already happened. To Him, He has already carried out the effects of the second coming even while we exist in this moment. I think the problem you’re facing is you’re looking at this from the bottom up, look at it from the top down (from God’s perspective.) To Him, the effect is eternal but the way we experience it is this temporal reality. The why is another discussion.

 

[rom422]

If God’s will is necessarily eternal, then his willing of creation must be eternal as well. However, as long as the cause is present the effect must also be. Therefore, it seems that the universe should be eternal under this view. But, we know from experience that the universe is not eternal, but temporal. Therefore, God’s act of creation must be a temporal act of will.

Other examples can be given. God willed the Red Sea to part for the Israelites to cross. But if he eternally wills everything he wills, then the Red Sea must still be parted, as God is still willing it. But it’s not parted now.

It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.

Thoughts?

Because God is an immutable being, His duration is called eternity, which is completely different from the duration of bodily creatures, which is time. Time is the duration of beings that are mutable both with regard to their existence, and with regard to their operations. It is properly the duration of bodily creatures, and exists only with the bodily world. Without the material world, there will not be time.

There is another kind of duration that belongs to purely spiritual creatures, or the angels, and it is called eviternity. It is the duration of beings that are immutable with regard to their existence, but mutable with regard to their operations. But let me not talk about angels and eviternity for now, so we could focus on the important distinction between eternity and time. This distinction is important if we want to understand certain things about God and the world.

As I said earlier, time is the duration proper to bodily beings, or creatures that are mutable in their very being or existence. For bodies continue to exist only by receiving existence now, then losing it, and then receiving it again, and so on. Their being is, in a sense, in a successive or continuous flux. Their being itself is in a state of motion, and therefore it is measured, as Aristotle says, according to a before and after. To be sure, a bodily being exists in the “now.” But its being before (now), no longer is. Its being after (now), is not yet. This is what we mean when we say that bodies exist in time. They continue to exist according to a succession of before and after.

God’s being is entirely different. He does not lose existence, as bodies lose their past being, nor does He acquire new existence, as bodies acquire their future being. Instead God possesses the entirety of His infinite being in His boundless NOW. This kind of duration or permanence in being belongs to God alone, and is called eternity. God, therefore, is in a completely different duration, a duration that may be called “non-time.” For this reason, it would be incorrect to think of eternity as “an infinitely long time,” because it is not time at all.

Now, God’s will and His exercise of causal power are one and the same thing, because God’s Will is the cause of all things. Also, God’s will and His exercise of causal power are one and the same with His Being, because in God there is no distinction between His Perfections (acts of knowing, willing, etc.) and His Being. Therefore, if God’s being is eternal, so is His will, and so is His exercise of causal power. His acts are one with the simplicity of His Being in His eternal NOW.

God willed the creation of the world from His eternal now. But the world, because it is a mutable being, began to exist, and continues to exist only in time. Time, therefore, is on the part of the creature, not on the part of the Creator. God has complete and boundless existence in His eternal NOW; the bodily world acquires its existence continuously and successively in time.

Let me now go to the original post. It said, “If God’s will is necessarily eternal, then his willing of creation must be eternal as well. However, as long as the cause is present the effect must also be.” I agree with the first sentence, but I must qualify the second. It is true that as long as the cause (of being) is present, the effect (existence) must also be - but the effect does not necessarily need to have the same type of duration as the cause! The Cause can be eternal, but the effect can be temporal. Because existence, as a perfection, is received according to the nature of the recipient, or as they say it in Latin, *quoquod recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur. *Therefore the mode of being received by mutable beings is that mode which agrees with their nature as mutable beings, that means, successive existence in time.

I hope this helps.

 

[belorg]

God’s will has a delayed effect in our continuum, but to Him it has already happened. To Him, He has already carried out the effects of the second coming even while we exist in this moment. I think the problem you’re facing is you’re looking at this from the bottom up, look at it from the top down (from God’s perspective.) To Him, the effect is eternal but the way we experience it is this temporal reality. The why is another discussion.

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?

 

[danserr]

Believe it or not, danserrn but I am constantly looking into matters over and over again, so I accept your friendly advice, but I would really like you to do the same.

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

I have actually given a solid argument for why one particular atemporal being cannot cause a temporal effect.
So, if it’s dubitable, then explain how it is possible for this cause to produce a temporal effect. Saying that you cannot see a reason why it couldn’t just does not suffice.

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.

We have a genuine contradiction here., since we require time to be causally prior (I am not saying temporally prior) to the exercise of His CP’s, time cannot be a result of God’s CP’s… That woukld be analogous to a blackmsith a hammer by using the very same hammer to form the hammer.

I don’t think you realise the absurdity od what you are claiming here. the causal power to stand up cannot be exercised if there is no time, without time, the man would be sitting eternally. Without time, God would be timeless and unbale to exercise anything.

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.

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.
2. 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.
3. Therefore, if God is eternal in the sense of atemporal, He cannot be the cause of creation.

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.

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.

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 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. (Think of the chandelier hanging from the hook on the ceiling).

 

[JDaniel]

If God’s will is necessarily eternal, then his willing of creation must be eternal as well. However, as long as the cause is present the effect must also be.

Luke:

There are two problems with this, as I see it: (1) There is no absolute necessity that what God wills must be eternal (at least in so far as we understand that concept where God is concerned) as he has the power to create and annihilate. But, perhaps eternality is a primary objective, nonetheless. (2) There is no rule that proscribes that the effect must remain co-eternal with its creator. As a practical example, a child usually lives long after both parents are gone.

Therefore, it seems that the universe should be eternal under this view.

And, it may well be. Also, he may not let the universe die from entropy. He may restore it to health at some time in the future.

But, we know from experience that the universe is not eternal, but temporal.

But, Time, though “temporal,” may be potentially infinite (into the future, at least).

Therefore, God’s act of creation must be a temporal act of will.

Does not follow.

Other examples can be given. God willed the Red Sea to part for the Israelites to cross.

We do not know all of the history regarding the Red Sea’s parting. Inferring more than we know may our problem!

But if he eternally wills everything he wills, then the Red Sea must still be parted, as God is still willing it.

God does not of necessity will everything eternally:

I am the Lord, He tells us Himself by the mouth of the prophet Isaias, and there is none else. I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. (Is. 45:66-7)

It is I who bring both death and life, I who inflict wounds and heal them, He said to Moses. (Deut. 32:39)

'The Lord killeth and maketh alive, it is written in the Canticle of Anna, the mother of Samuel, He bringeth down to the tomb and He bringeth back again; the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. (1 Kings 2:6-7)

Shall there be evil (disaster, affliction) in a city which the Lord hath not done? (Amos 3:6)asks the prophet Amos: Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God Solomon proclaims. (Ecclus. 11:14) And there are many more.

It doesn’t make sense for there to be eternal causes to temporal effects.

Non-sequitur.

God bless,
jd