Are God's acts of will necessarily eternal?

[JDaniel]

By the way, Belorg, I’m simply going through and answering all of your posts, since you won’t tell me where your “argument” is.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

“Occur,” in my context, means, “come into being.”

jd

 

[JDaniel]

JD, what do you expect to accomplish by taking all my words out of context?
I suggest we continu this discussion once you actually understand my position. It’s really not so difficult.

Will somebody please tell me what his position is, as he seems not to want to divulge it? I am going through each and every one of his posts, trying to find it - by answering all of them. But, alas, to no avail. It must be hidden between the lines.

I think he has told everyone of us that we are not responding to his position, or argument. So, perhaps, none of us has a clue of what his argument is. Perhaps that’s the way he wants it. Perhaps he is merely running us around in circles. Good grief!

Belorg, if you’re so proud of your unanswered argument, re-state it. Cogently and not hidden, this time.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That’s why I said it encompasses all change. The thought itself, however, does not change. In this way it is dynamic in regards to what it encompasses, but static in regards to what it is.

Just as long as we agree that God’s thought is immutable/eternal.

Ivebeen:

Much better said than mine! This adds something very important to anything that I have heretofore said. Thank you!

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Will somebody please tell me what his position is, as he seems not to want to divulge it? I am going through each and every one of his posts, trying to find it - by answering all of them. But, alas, to no avail. It must be hidden between the lines.

I think he has told everyone of us that we are not responding to his position, or argument. So, perhaps, none of us has a clue of what his argument is. Perhaps that’s the way he wants it. Perhaps he is merely running us around in circles. Good grief!

Belorg, if you’re so proud of your unanswered argument, re-state it. Cogently and not hidden, this time.

God bless,
jd

I am not God, so I cannot make the blind see, JD, nor the ones who only see what they want to see.

 

[tdgesq]

I am not God, so I cannot make the blind see, JD, nor the ones who only see what they want to see.

Belorg,

I must be brief, so please don’t interpret the following as dismissive of your position. The “pushing the red button” analogy doesn’t really work here. If God is eternal (outside of time) then any creative act of his (viewed from his perspective) is timeless. More to the point, someone pushing a red button is a material reality. It implies a prior cause to the button pusher, meaning that a change has occurred to the button pusher - a prior cause. God is asserted to be immaterial being precisely because it does not necessitate a prior cause.

Now if you can demonstrate that it is logically impossible for an immaterial first cause to effect change (creation of the universe, and therefore time) without changing God, then you have something. I have not seen this demonstration. There is certainly change in relation to God (the universe and time), but I assert it is not required that God (immaterial and the first cause) changed as a result. I think his immutability has not been disproved by your argument.

 

[belorg]

Belorg,

I must be brief, so please don’t interpret the following as dismissive of your position. The “pushing the red button” analogy doesn’t really work here. If God is eternal (outside of time) then any creative act of his (viewed from his perspective) is timeless.

Which means he cannot push a red button.

More to the point, someone pushing a red button is a material reality. It implies a prior cause to the button pusher, meaning that a change has occurred to the button pusher - a prior cause. God is asserted to be immaterial being precisely because it does not necessitate a prior cause.

The red button is an analogy, nowhere am I implying that God has to really push a button. What I do imply is that in order for time to really have a beginning (and not just from our POV but a real beginning) that would imply God beginning to do something , which you claim is impossible, because God is eternal and any creative act is timeless.
So, while the universe, or time, from our POV appears to have begun, in reality it didn’t begin.
I think you basically agree with me without realizing you do,tdgesq.

Now if you can demonstrate that it is logically impossible for an immaterial first cause to effect change (creation of the universe, and therefore time) without changing God, then you have something.

While I do think it is completely impossible for an immaterial first cause to effect chnage without changing that is not what I am trying to demonstrate in this thread.

I have not seen this demonstration. There is certainly change in relation to God (the universe and time), but I assert it is not required that God (immaterial and the first cause) changed as a result. I think his immutability has not been disproved by your argument.

I haven’t been trying to prove His immutability false, what I have been trying to do is argue that if God is immutable, then nothing he creates can have a real beginning. In fact I have been making your point all along, and even JD’s, but because I am an atheist, he chose to ridicule me instead of trying to find out what my argument was really about. I thank you for going to the troible of actually trying to understand me.

 

[tonyrey]

“God’s eternal thought” is a human description which does not do justice to divine reality because God’s thought is creative and dynamic…

The problem is that “static thought” gives the impression of inactivity and/or predictability.

 

[rom422]

What I do imply is that in order for time to really have a beginning (and not just from our POV but a real beginning) that would imply God beginning to do something , which you claim is impossible, because God is eternal and any creative act is timeless.

For time to have a beginning, it is enough that creatures (with time duration) begin to exist. It is not necessary that God (whose duration is the ever-present NOW) also begins to act because He already is in Act. For an eternal being, to begin to act is meaningless and, therefore, impossible. But if God does not begin to act, it does not mean that nothing would be created, but only that the Creator would remain unaffected by the creature’s coming to be. The logic is very consistent.

I haven’t been trying to prove His immutability false, what I have been trying to do is argue that if God is immutable, then nothing he creates can have a real beginning.

This is a non-sequitur. If God is immutable, then what he creates may or may not have a beginning, for it is not impossible for this world to have always existed. As Thomas Aquinas once said, reason alone cannot prove that the world had a beginning in time, because it is possible that the created world always existed. That the material world had a beginning is an article of faith. Now, assuming that the world always existed, then this does not mean that the world is eternal (with a NOW duration), but that it is simply everlasting, that means, it is existent for an infinitely long time. If this material world always existed, then the world would still be always dependent on God for its everlasting existence.

 

[Whadyamean]

The problem is that “static thought” gives the impression of inactivity and/or predictability.

This may be why a Christian Science synonym for God, “Principle,” is so useful.

 

[belorg]

For time to have a beginning, it is enough that creatures (with time duration) begin to exist. It is not necessary that God (whose duration is the ever-present NOW) also begins to act because He already is in Act.

If He doesn’t beging to act (or to create) then whatever He creates is eternal.

But if God does not begin to act, it does not mean that nothing would be created,

It means that nothing would begin.

but only that the Creator would remain unaffected by the creature’s coming to be.

There is ‘coming to be’. everything that exists has always been,
the logic is very consistent.

This is a non-sequitur. If God is immutable, then what he creates may or may not have a beginning,

No, this is not a non-sequitur. If God does not begin to Act, He does not beging to create time, which means time may be causally dependent on God, but time must necssarily be eternal too.

for it is not impossible for this world to have always existed. As Thomas Aquinas once said, reason alone cannot prove that the world had a beginning in time, because it is possible that the created world always existed. That the material world had a beginning is an article of faith. Now, assuming that the world always existed, then this does not mean that the world is eternal (with a NOW duration), but that it is simply everlasting, that means, it is existent for an infinitely long time. If this material world always existed, then the world would still be always dependent on God for its everlasting existence.

Which I do not deny, at least not in this thread.

 

[rom422]

If He doesn’t beging to act (or to create) then whatever He creates is eternal.

By eternal you mean everlasting? A material world, or a mutable world, never exists except in time; therefore, it is necessarily temporal. It is possible to have an everlasting world, or a material world that is always existing, but as long as its existence is by a successive or continuous acquisition of existence, rather than by the total possession of being in the NOW (which is eternity), then it is necessarily temporal.

Now let me go back to your statement: “If he doesn’t begin to act (or to create), then whatever he creates is eternal (everlasting).” Non-sequitur. Even if He doesn’t begin to act, - because “beginning to act” is incompatible with the NOW duration, - the mutable world He creates would be temporal, but it could still be either everlasting or had a beginning. We couldn’t prove the one or the other, as St. Thomas says, but at least I can say that the fact of the world being everlasting does not necessarily follow, or is not a necessary consequence of, God’s “non-time” Act of Creation.

Belorg, I think the problem is that you think of God’s Act of Creation as if it is an act of a creature, which necessarily occurs in time. Remember that we are dealing here with a Creator in the “non-time” or NOW duration, whereas its mutable effect (the world) is in the time duration. Do you think this is impossible? I don’t think so. This is impossible only if these two durations could never be simultaeneous. The truth is, every moment in the world’s duration is simultaneous with God’s duration because at any given time when the world exists, God also exists. There could possibly be a time when the world did not exist, and so it could have a beginning. But because God is outside time, so He could be simultaneously existing when the world is beginning. Therefore, God’s Act in the NOW duration is simultaneous with the world’s beginning in the time duration.

He always is, even in the world’s past time. “I am who am,” so He told Moses.

It means that nothing would begin.

Non-sequitur again. If God did not begin to create, it does not mean that nothing would begin. It means that “to begin to create” does not occur in a non-time duration, but the beginning of the world could still take place in the time duration. I think that it is important to keep the distinction between these two durations always in mind in any discussion involving God’s Actions in the world. It is incorrect to think that if there is no beginning in God’s Act, then there could be no beginning of existence in the world. Likewise, it is incorrect to think that the beginning of the world implies a beginning in God’s Act.

I will not make this post too long by giving a response to every single one of your statements. But I think I have stated my position enough for all those who follow this thread to see where we both stand on this issue. So I will stop now and I am letting you have the last word.

It’s a pleasure reasoning with you, Belorg!

 

[belorg]

By eternal you mean everlasting? A material world, or a mutable world, never exists except in time; therefore, it is necessarily temporal. It is possible to have an everlasting world, or a material world that is always existing, but as long as its existence is by a successive or continuous acquisition of existence, rather than by the total possession of being in the NOW (which is eternity), then it is necessarily temporal.

I do not think that is true, but I can accept it FTSOTA. it does not chnage my position.

Belorg, I think the problem is that you think of God’s Act of Creation as if it is an act of a creature, which necessarily occurs in time.

No

Remember that we are dealing here with a Creator in the “non-time” or NOW duration,

We are dealing with a Creator in non-time, who, because He is in non-time cannot begin to do something; IOW is always diong what He is doing.

Do you think this is impossible?

Yes

I don’t think so. This is impossible only if these two durations could never be simultaeneous.

They cannot be simultaneous.

The truth is, every moment in the world’s duration is simultaneous with God’s duration because at any given time when the world exists, God also exists. There could possibly be a time when the world did not exist, and so it could have a beginning.

No, there cannot possibly be a time when the world does not exist, because what would that time be simultaneous with? With God’s duration, which is always creating.

But because God is outside time, so He could be simultaneously existing when the world is beginning. Therefore, God’s Act in the NOW duration is simultaneous with the world’s beginning in the time duration.

But God’s act in the now duration (which is the act of creating time) is also simultaneous with the time before time begun. But what time exist before time?

Non-sequitur again. If God did not begin to create, it does not mean that nothing would begin. It means that “to begin to create” does not occur in a non-time duration, but the beginning of the world could still take place in the time duration.

But also in non-time duration, which means there is no real beginning, just a perceived beginning.

I think that it is important to keep the distinction between these two durations always in mind in any discussion involving God’s Actions in the world. It is incorrect to think that if there is no beginning in God’s Act, then there could be no beginning of existence in the world. Likewise, it is incorrect to think that the beginning of the world implies a beginning in God’s Act.

No, my friend, that is actually pure logic. God’s creative act in non-duration time also has an effect in non-duration time, so the beginning of time is also in non-duration time and therefore cannot be considered a real beginning.

I will not make this post too long by giving a response to every single one of your statements. But I think I have stated my position enough for all those who follow this thread to see where we both stand on this issue. So I will stop now and I am letting you have the last word.

I am not really intersted in having the last word.

It’s a pleasure reasoning with you, Belorg!

Well, the feeling is mutual. I really enjoy discussing things with someone who doesn’t start insulting me because I happen not to agree with him.

 

[tdgesq]

The red button is an analogy, nowhere am I implying that God has to really push a button. What I do imply is that in order for time to really have a beginning (and not just from our POV but a real beginning) that would imply God beginning to do something , which you claim is impossible, because God is eternal and any creative act is timeless.

There are some things here you say that are true. It is true that I hold God is immutable and cannot change. It is also true that I hold that God exists apart from time. Everything for him is an eternal now. In that sense, his creative act is timeless. More accurately stated, his eternal will to create the universe is timeless. One of the reasons for my position is that God is immaterial. Material being by its nature changes. Immaterial being does not. One of the ways change (motion) in material being is measured is by time.

Your argument appears to be that if an immaterial timeless being (God) creates material being (the universe) then God “began” to do something in time. This is not obvious to me or even coherent given my definitions. When God created the material universe, time also came into existence - that is- there was in that moment of creation material being that changes and is measured by time. Please note: there is no “before” the creation of the universe.

I simply don’t see the alleged contradiction. God’s creative will to form the universe is timeless. God creates the material universe. Time begins as a measure of change and motion in the universe.

 

[belorg]

There are some things here you say that are true. It is true that I hold God is immutable and cannot change. It is also true that I hold that God exists apart from time. Everything for him is an eternal now. In that sense, his creative act is timeless. More accurately stated, his eternal will to create the universe is timeless. One of the reasons for my position is that God is immaterial. Material being by its nature changes. Immaterial being does not. One of the ways change (motion) in material being is measured is by time.

Your argument appears to be that if an immaterial timeless being (God) creates material being (the universe) then God “began” to do something in time.

No, that’s not my argument. My argument is that, if God is eternal and immutable and does not begin to do something, the material universe may exist, but cannot have begun in a real sense. I do not deny that the material univiverse and time appear to have a beginning, but that is an illusion. From God’s POV, which is the only complete perspective, both time and the universe are eternal too. As you say, there is no ‘before’ the creation of the universe, which means that God has always been creating and time has always existed.

This is not obvious to me or even coherent given my definitions. When God created the material universe, time also came into existence - that is- there was **in that moment of **creation material being that changes and is measured by time. Please note: there is no “before” the creation of the universe.

Since God is timeless, there is no moment of creation.

I simply don’t see the alleged contradiction. God’s creative will to form the universe is timeless. God creates the material universe. Time begins as a measure of change and motion in the universe.

I think I have demonstrated the contradiction above. If God’s creative will to form the universe is timeless, then there cannot be a moment of creation.
That is, if we stick to one perspective.
If we take God’s perespective, then there is no moment of creation and no beginning.
If we take our own perspective, then the universe began, but so did God.

 

[Whadyamean]

Since God is timeless, there is no moment of creation…

I have to agree with this. As far as physics is concerned, time as we perceive it doesn’t even exist; it is an illusion of perspective. This agrees with what mystics have said since before Jesus. And the beginning of what we see as the Universe is only what we see given our limitations of perception and consideration. is any one of us a match for God? Do we really arrogantly think that the interpretation of some dessert dwellers of 4000 years ago as to how things happened is adequate to the actuality of God? I submit that whatever we think is thoughts about God and have no areal ability to comprehend what is so far beyond the capacity of mortal mind that it is absurd for us to even be having such a discussion except as a scientific endeavor to discover how we might understand the dynamics of wherein we live.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No, that’s not my argument. My argument is that, if God is eternal and immutable and does not begin to do something, the material universe may exist, but cannot have begun in a real sense. I do not deny that the material univiverse and time appear to have a beginning, but that is an illusion. From God’s POV, which is the only complete perspective,** both time and the universe are eternal too**. As you say, there is no ‘before’ the creation of the universe, which means that God has always been creating and time has always existed.

Since God is timeless, there is no moment of creation.

I think I have demonstrated the contradiction above. If God’s creative will to form the universe is timeless, then there cannot be a moment of creation.
That is, if we stick to one perspective.
If we take God’s perespective, then there is no moment of creation and no beginning.
If we take our own perspective, then the universe began, but so did God.

Time is eternal … God is timeless.
How it’s supposed to work together?

 

[belorg]

Time is eternal … God is timeless.
How it’s supposed to work together?

I don’t think it can work together.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I don’t think it can work together.

God is timeless and in His Mind there is an image/snapshot of all positions of universe particles from the beginning till the end of time.
These space-time projections are eternal (without time dimension) in His Mind.
Not only that, God keeps/knows images of every possible permutation of the universe particles.

We are here, an instance, inside of these images, within the space-time.
A moment will come when God will take us out, we’ll get rid off these space-time dimensions and God will give us new ones that will not include time. We’ll be timeless - eternal.

 

[tdgesq]

As you say, there is no ‘before’ the creation of the universe, which means that God has always been creating and time has always existed.

If we are consistent with the definition of eternity (no time) then it is error to say that God has “always” been creating time. What we can say consistently is that God eternally created the universe, and therefore time. I think you are using the term “always” to refer to infinite time. That is not the definition of eternity.

Since God is timeless, there is no moment of creation.

If you accept the definition of eternity (no time) then God can eternally will the existence of the universe. In fact, if God were not eternal then the universe and time could not begin. Your argument only works if we define eternity as infinite time. Since that is not the definition of eternity, your argument fails.

If we take God’s perespective, then there is no moment of creation and no beginning.

God’s perspective is one of knowledge, not one of ontological experience. If God is omniscient, he can foreknow the effects of his own creation perfectly - more perfectly than we can ever experience them. Simply because God can perfectly foreknow all moments in time does not entail that the universe exists in one timeless moment.