Avoiding Monism and Polytheism

[Birdmanman]

I recently started a thread that may have been a bit confusing in how it laid out its central question, so perhaps by starting anew I might be able to avoid any misconceptions or confusion about the apparent (but not real) dilemma I wish to see resolved.

** Please note: Nothing below is meant to discourage anyone from following and holding as absolutely true all that Holy Mother Church in Her Magisterium teaches. I am merely asking a question out of my flawed knowledge, and any contradiction between my reasoning and Her teaching is a lacking on my part.**

Assumptions:

1. God Exists
2. God, in His substance, is changeless
3. God, in His substance, is timeless
4. God has no potential/potency (He is entirely actual, pure act, in the Thomistic sense)
5. God made (or makes) the physical universe
6. The physical universe exists
   +(Additional, implicit assumptions that may be apparent in the argument but which I have not listed).

Dilemma:
If
I. There is no potential in God
then
II. There is no potential for God to create the Universe
because
III. That which does not have potential cannot potentially cause, but must be actually causing
so,
IV. God is actually causing the physical universe
but
V. God is timeless
so,
VI. God is timelessly actually causing the physical universe
which means that
VII. The physical universe is timelessly being caused by God
so that
VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless (even though time is an attribute of the universe, and the universe has a temporal beginning, if my reasoning so far is correct (which it isn’t) it does not have an ontological beginning of its existence, since it is timelessly caused by God, meaning it timelessly exists with God)

This, then (wrongly) means that either:
IX. There are two timelessly existing, co-eternal substances, one being God, the other being the universe (This is akin to Polytheism, and is undoubtedly false)
or
X. Since two timelessly existing substances must be identical, that is, only one timelessly existing substance may exist, for timelessly there is no time nor space for their division or difference, and no potentials may exist timelessly (that is, timelessly, the physical universe has no potential and is purely actual), then God and the universe are identical and the same, which is essentially Monism, and is also undoubtedly false.

So, because I know my conclusions IX and X are false, where is my reasoning flawed? For example; Is God not timelessly causing the physical universe? Is the physical universe also not being timelessly caused by God, and so timelessly exists? **I would greatly appreciate any assistance in finding out where this line of reasoning is wrong, as it undoubtedly is. ** Thanks for your time!

 

[Julia_Mae]

For example; Is God not timelessly causing the physical universe? Is the physical universe also not being timelessly caused by God, and so timelessly exists? **I would greatly appreciate any assistance in finding out where this line of reasoning is wrong, as it undoubtedly is. ** Thanks for your time!

Yes. Yes. You aren’t wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

The flaw in the argument that God cannot create the universe - or anything else for that matter! - because He has no potential/potency is due to a misapplication of the term. It fails to distinguish between the Creator and that which is created. It implies God is static rather than dynamic - which is absurd… What has happened to the potential for Creation?

 

[Formosus]

If
I. There is no potential in God
then
II. There is no potential for God to create the Universe
because
III. That which does not have potential cannot potentially cause, but must be actually causing
so,
IV. God is actually causing the physical universe
but
V. God is timeless
so,
VI. God is timelessly actually causing the physical universe
which means that
VII. The physical universe is timelessly being caused by God
so that
VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless (even though time is an attribute of the universe, and the universe has a temporal beginning, if my reasoning so far is correct (which it isn’t) it does not have an ontological beginning of its existence, since it is timelessly caused by God, meaning it timelessly exists with God)

Well your first problem is Assumption 2 and 3 to an extent. God is not just changeless in His substance nor is His substance timeless. God, in His entirety is changeless being that He is Simple and not composite. Further God is not so much Timeless as “beyond time” (perhaps “hyperaionos” and “hyperchronos.” in Greek). The universe though, is a created thing, it has composition and can in theory dissolve into nothing if God so allowed it to. So, assuming your logic is correct that the universe has a “timeless” existence, the universe’s timelessness is not a negative category like God’s, but a positive category. God is “timeless” in that He is beyond time. The universe, under this reasoning, would be timeless in that it has no conceivable beginning but is itself still a temporal entity, like a line in the geometric sense. The universe(as in created reality, not necessarily the “physical universe”) then could conceivably be “eternal” (aionos), but it is still composed of parts and hence change. It changes (quite frequently) and since it changes it must be a dependent entity, it can not exist on its own. If the universe were to exist on its own, its constant change would bring it to nothingness (see Heraclitus and Parmenides). Further, unlike God, it is an existing thing, an entity that we can properly categorize with Aristotelian categories, unlike God who can only be categorized by describing what God is not (apophatic theology). No composed, dependent entity, can be said to “co-exist timelessly” with God. God’s “timeless” causation of the Universe is its creation and continuation. If God were not constantly creating the universe, the universe would cease existing, where as God is not caused by anything else.

Your other fault in reasoning is assuming that God can not create an entity that is separate from Himself. If the Universe were an attribute of God, then your argument would be correct. But, God can not change, can not be filled with opposing qualities, can not be deceptive or evil. Yet the universe is filled with change and opposing qualities. If these qualities are “illusions,” then God is causing evil by deceiving us. If all that exists is God, then He is “tricking Himself” which is completely absurd.

“VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless (even though time is an attribute of the universe, and the universe has a temporal beginning, if my reasoning so far is correct (which it isn’t) it does not have an ontological beginning of its existence, since it is timelessly caused by God, meaning it timelessly exists with God)”

Here is where your fault is most evident. Time is an attribute of the “timeless universe”. meaning that the universe

1. suffers change
2. is composed and not simple

Since God

1. does not Change (established in your assumptions)
2. is not composed (part and parcel with changelessness)
3. and has no beginning and no cause

The universe can not be identical to God.

 

[Birdmanman]

Yes. Yes. You aren’t wrong.

Hello again, Julia Mae! Thanks for participating in this thread!

And I know I’m quite wrong, or rather, I know the line of reasoning I expressed in my first post is flawed somehow, as the conclusions (Monism or weird-universe-polytheism) are both incorrect. My issue is just finding where I am wrong, so I can correct my line of thinking, and be prepared if someone else raises a similar line of reasoning against me.

 

[Birdmanman]

The flaw in the argument that God cannot create the universe - or anything else for that matter! - because He has no potential/potency is due to a misapplication of the term. It fails to distinguish between the Creator and that which is created. It implies God is static rather than dynamic - which is absurd… What has happened to the potential for Creation?

Hi Tonyrey, thanks for your response!

Could you perhaps explain more in depth how I am misapplying the term “potential/potency”? If God has no potential, and is unchanging, and that which is unchanging is also static, then does that not mean that God is static, as a pure, unchanging Act/Being?

Let’s put it another way:
If

1. There is no potential in God, He is pure Act (and is also timeless)
   and
2. All that exists timelessly is God (if anything else besides Him existed timelessly, it would be co-eternal with God, and we run into the weird-universe-polytheism that I wish to avoid)
   and
3. Potential either exists or does not exist
   then
4. There is no timeless potential (since all that exists timelessly is God, and God has no potential)
   which means
5. There is no potential for God to create the universe, or anything.

However, God’s timeless and eternal creation of the universe could be an aspect of His Pure Actuality, but this would seem to imply that the universe in its existence is also timeless and co-eternal with God (see my first post). Of course, I do not think it is tenable to say that the universe is timeless and co-eternal with God, I am a Catholic which is why I am seeking help on this thread, so that someone can point out the flaw in my thinking.

 

[davidv]

Hi Tonyrey, thanks for your response!

Could you perhaps explain more in depth how I am misapplying the term “potential/potency”? If God has no potential, and is unchanging, and that which is unchanging is also static, then does that not mean that God is static, as a pure, unchanging Act/Being?

Let’s put it another way:
If

1. There is no potential in God, He is pure Act (and is also timeless)
   and
2. All that exists timelessly is God (if anything else besides Him existed timelessly, it would be co-eternal with God, and we run into the weird-universe-polytheism that I wish to avoid)
   and
3. Potential either exists or does not exist
   then
4. There is no timeless potential (since all that exists timelessly is God, and God has no potential)
   which means
5. There is no potential for God to create the universe, or anything.

However, God’s timeless and eternal creation of the universe could be an aspect of His Pure Actuality, but this would seem to imply that the universe in its existence is also timeless and co-eternal with God (see my first post). Of course, I do not think it is tenable to say that the universe is timeless and co-eternal with God, I am a Catholic which is why I am seeking help on this thread, so that someone can point out the flaw in my thinking.

I think 2 and 4 are questionable. 3 is not helpful as it states nothing other than one of the axioms of logic, the principle of noncontradiction.
Given this the soundness of 5 is questionable.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hi Formosus, thanks for responding! I just want to preface my reply with a reminder that I am Catholic and am simply working through a line of reasoning/thinking. No matter what I say above or below, I do indeed believe God made the universe, that God and the universe aren’t the same, and everything else that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church so rightly and justly compels me to believe.

Well your first problem is Assumption 2 and 3 to an extent. God is not just changeless in His substance nor is His substance timeless. God, in His entirety is changeless being that He is Simple and not composite. Further God is not so much Timeless as “beyond time” (perhaps “hyperaionos” and “hyperchronos.” in Greek).

I can agree for the sake of the argument that God is entirely changeless, but when I said “in His substance” I was trying to avoid saying “in His entirety” because of the following:

1. God is changeless in His entirety
2. Jesus is God and is changeless in His entirety (Not just in His Divine Nature, but also in His Human Nature otherwise His Person is not God in His Entirety)
3. Jesus is Man
4. Man has change
5. Jesus, in His entirety, has change and does not have change (Contradiction)

For the sake of the argument, would you say that God is timeless? Otherwise, wherever my original (and no doubt flawed) argument in my first post says “Timeless” just substitute the term “Beyond Time”.

The universe though, is a created thing, it has composition and can in theory dissolve into nothing if God so allowed it to. So, assuming your logic is correct that the universe has a “timeless” existence, the universe’s timelessness is not a negative category like God’s, but a positive category. God is “timeless” in that He is beyond time. The universe, under this reasoning, would be timeless in that it has no conceivable beginning but is itself still a temporal entity, like a line in the geometric sense. The universe(as in created reality, not necessarily the “physical universe”) then could conceivably be “eternal” (aionos), but it is still composed of parts and hence change.

What happens if I deny change and time(in its typical understanding) within the physical universe? Saying that in time, individuals may perceive relative change, but their perceptions themselves are unchanging, while the timelessly universe itself does not change. This requires the B-theory of time to be true, and many other things, but is there any way to entirely defeat the denial of change?

It changes (quite frequently) and since it changes it must be a dependent entity, it can not exist on its own. If the universe were to exist on its own, its constant change would bring it to nothingness (see Heraclitus and Parmenides). Further, unlike God, it is an existing thing, an entity that we can properly categorize with Aristotelian categories, unlike God who can only be categorized by describing what God is not (apophatic theology). No composed, dependent entity, can be said to “co-exist timelessly” with God. God’s “timeless” causation of the Universe is its creation and continuation. If God were not constantly creating the universe, the universe would cease existing, where as God is not caused by anything else.

(See above for the denial of change, which also requires me to retract that portion of my original line-of-reasoning in my first post where I said that time was an attribute of the created universe).

Your other fault in reasoning is assuming that God can not create an entity that is separate from Himself. If the Universe were an attribute of God, then your argument would be correct. But, God can not change, can not be filled with opposing qualities, can not be deceptive or evil. Yet the universe is filled with change and opposing qualities. If these qualities are “illusions,” then God is causing evil by deceiving us. If all that exists is God, then He is “tricking Himself” which is completely absurd.

If God has no potential, is it proper to say that he “can” do something? He must have already timelessly (or beyond-time-ly) done it, it must be a part of its actuality; for example, since He has no potential to create, and also has no potential to create something with potential, either He is timelessly creating something else with potential or actual, but that thing with potential itself would be timeless in its existence, and no potential can exist timelessly. So He could not create something with potential, so the Universe is timelessly actual, like God. (Please note, I do not actually believe this, as I noted above in this response, I am just playing devil’s advocate to correct my own line of thinking and prepare myself for someone to bring up this argument against me)

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my original question!

 

[Birdmanman]

I think 2 and 4 are questionable. 3 is not helpful as it states nothing other than one of the axioms of logic, the principle of noncontradiction.
Given this the soundness of 5 is questionable.

Thanks for responding, Davidv!

If you deny 2, then we are left with something else existing timelessly with God, co-eternally with God. Is this tenable for a Catholic, like myself?

If you deny 4, and there is timeless potential, then it would never have any time by which to become actual; there would be no change from potential to actual, since time is a measure of change. That is, whatever thing we are talking about that has timeless potential, if that potential could ‘ever’ be actualized, it would already have been timelessly actualized, such that it would be both timelessly actual and timelessly potential, which is a logical contradiction. If the timeless potential could ‘never’ be timelessly actualized, then that is the same as saying there is no timeless potential, for it has not the potential to be potentially actualized (that is, saying that a potential will ‘never’ or, timelessly will not happen, is the same as saying it is impossible or not potential, which is equivalent to saying that there is no potential to ‘begin’ with).

 

[Formosus]

What happens if I deny change and time(in its typical understanding) within the physical universe? Saying that in time, individuals may perceive relative change, but their perceptions themselves are unchanging, while the timelessly universe itself does not change. This requires the B-theory of time to be true, and many other things, but is there any way to entirely defeat the denial of change?

(See above for the denial of change, which also requires me to retract that portion of my original line-of-reasoning in my first post where I said that time was an attribute of the created universe).

If God has no potential, is it proper to say that he “can” do something? He must have already timelessly (or beyond-time-ly) done it, it must be a part of its actuality; for example, since He has no potential to create, and also has no potential to create something with potential, either He is timelessly creating something else with potential or actual, but that thing with potential itself would be timeless in its existence, and no potential can exist timelessly. So He could not create something with potential, so the Universe is timelessly actual, like God. (Please note, I do not actually believe this, as I noted above in this response, I am just playing devil’s advocate to correct my own line of thinking and prepare myself for someone to bring up this argument against me)

If you accept the existence of individuals that are distinct from God, then you can’t deny either time or change. Anything that is composite must change. If there is a universe, and the universe is made up of things that can be perceived and individuals to perceive it, then you have created a composite reality and so change and time must always occur. Even if you do not accept the existence of individuals or hold reality to be an illusion, it still begs the question as to why there is even an “appearance” of plurality and compositeness. If there is how things appear, and how things are, then reality is still a composite of sorts and can not truly be Eternal nor identical with God. Thus change must still occur, and time must still move onwards.

Or if you really want to argue that all things are identical to God, then you have to accept that God is evil since He is willing to lie about the nature of reality, and furthermore has the power to delude Himself, since all things really are Him, which makes no logical sense.

Further, you misunderstand the Incarnation. The Logos is the subject of the acts of both the human and divine natures. So the Logos is unchangeable, yet changeable, impassible, yet suffers. Not the human nature of the Logos does not become impassible because of the Hypostatic union, nor does the Divine nature become changeable. So the Divinity is unchangeable in its entirety is a completely accurate statement.

Here is another problem in your argument

“He must have already timelessly (or beyond-time-ly) done it”

God hasn’t “done” anything,nor will He do, nor does. These are all time bound categories. God’s acts transcend any category we can come up with, There is no time when God hasn’t acted, has acted, or will act.

Further, Aquinas distinguishes between God’s necessary willing, that is willing in relation to Himself, and His voluntary willing that relates to the universe. Both wills are unchangeable, but only those things He wills for Himself (His Goodness, etc) are necessary. Just because God is Pure Act, and thus Creates free from time, does not logically mean the things created by that Act are free of time, unless you want to limit God and suggest that He lacks the power to will things separate from Himself. In which case God is no longer Perfect since He would be lacking a power to create. If He is no longer Perfect, then He can not be Pure Act since He would be lacking and thus have potentiality. So your entire line of reasoning would be self contradictory.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hi again Formosus, thank you for continuing to help me find problems with my (flawed) argument!
I think we both agree that the conclusions of my first post are wrong, and can even be shown to be wrong by the absurdity of an evil God, or a God lacking perfection, or the impossibility of a God who is in His Substance and entirely purely identical with something composite and changing.
But my issue remains in that I am having trouble finding where exactly the argument I made in my first post is invalid or unsound. I will restate it, perhaps more clearly, and maybe you might indulge me by citing the premise or implicit assumption that leads to these incorrect conclusions:

**If
I. There is no potential in God
then
II. There is no potential for God to create the Universe, nor is there potential for God to cause anything
because
III. That which does not have potential cannot potentially cause, but must be actually causing (or must “actually cause”)
**
[Is everything correct so far? I think we both agree there is no potential in God, and that therefore there is no potential for God to create the Universe; for if God is the First Cause, and He is pure Act without any admixture of potential, then neither does He have potential to cause anything, but instead He must be already actually causing, since timelessly we cannot say He “will cause” or “may cause” or “potentially might cause”.]

so,
IV. God is actually causing the physical universe
but
V. God is timeless
so,
VI. God is timelessly actually causing the physical universe
which means that
VII. The physical universe is timelessly being caused by God

Note now, because no time may pass between God’s being without the universe, and God’s being with the universe, the universe must timelessly exist with God; God can be causing or cause it, but He cannot begin to cause it because there is no time; as part of His Pure Actuality He must be causing the physical universe.

so that
VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless.

I have cut off the further conclusions so that we can focus directly on the meat of the argument. Of course, anyone else who finds this as invalid or unsound is invited to also critique it. I know there is something wrong with it, but I am unable to determine where the error lies.

 

[Formosus]

"if
I. There is no potential in God
then
II. There is no potential for God to create the Universe, nor is there potential for God to cause anything
because
III. That which does not have potential cannot potentially cause, but must be actually causing (or must “actually cause”)

so,
IV. God is actually causing the physical universe
but
V. God is timeless
so,
VI. God is timelessly actually causing the physical universe
which means that
VII. The physical universe is timelessly being caused by God

so that
VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless."

I am not an expert on Thomistic metaphysics, but I will try this one more time. Where in your argument does it necessitate that God can not create something that is time bound? God is timeless, in that He is outside of time because He does not change. Creation does change, it has a specific moment where it arose out of nothing. God’s timeless creation does not imply that the universe exists timelessly, but that God’s creative act is timeless, but the result of that creative act is a separate thing from the act itself. The creative act of God is changeless, while the result of that act is changeable because at one point it was nothing and then it became something. Whereas God’s creative act could never have been nothing. So your argument is flawed in that it assumes God’s creative act is not separate from the results of that creative act.

 

[Birdmanman]

I am not an expert on Thomistic metaphysics, but I will try this one more time. Where in your argument does it necessitate that God can not create something that is time bound? God is timeless, in that He is outside of time because He does not change. Creation does change, it has a specific moment where it arose out of nothing. God’s timeless creation does not imply that the universe exists timelessly, but that God’s creative act is timeless, but the result of that creative act is a separate thing from the act itself. The creative act of God is changeless, while the result of that act is changeable because at one point it was nothing and then it became something. Whereas God’s creative act could never have been nothing. So your argument is flawed in that it assumes God’s creative act is not separate from the results of that creative act.

Thanks again Formosus, and for your patience too.

If true, I think my error lies in confusing God’s creative act with the results of the creative act, like you said. But let’s look more in depth at the relationship between the creative act and the result (creation):

1. God is changeless and timeless
2. God is pure actuality
3. God’s creative act is timeless
4. God’s creative act does not fail to produce its result (creation)
5. God’s creative act timelessly produces creation
6. (restatement of 5.) God’s creation is timelessly produced by His creative act
7. That which is produced, exists. (otherwise it is not yet produced, which is not possible timelessly)
   so
8. God’s creation timelessly exists.

Is it possible for God’s timeless creative act to not timelessly produce its result? To use a temporal analogy: If the act “making” the result goes on forever, then the result constantly being made goes on forever.
Likewise, If the act “making” the result is timeless, the result is timeless, since there is no ‘moment’ for the result to not have been made.

(Disclaimer: what I say above is wrong somewhere, and I am trying to find out precisely where it is wrong. Let nothing I have written here be thought of as an attempt to teach anything contrary to Church teaching; I am asking a question out of my flawed knowledge).

 

[Formosus]

Thanks again Formosus, and for your patience too.

If true, I think my error lies in confusing God’s creative act with the results of the creative act, like you said. But let’s look more in depth at the relationship between the creative act and the result (creation):

1. God is changeless and timeless
2. God is pure actuality
3. God’s creative act is timeless
4. God’s creative act does not fail to produce its result (creation)
5. God’s creative act timelessly produces creation
6. (restatement of 5.) God’s creation is timelessly produced by His creative act
7. That which is produced, exists. (otherwise it is not yet produced, which is not possible timelessly)
   so
8. God’s creation timelessly exists.

Is it possible for God’s timeless creative act to not timelessly produce its result? To use a temporal analogy: If the act “making” the result goes on forever, then the result constantly being made goes on forever.
Likewise, If the act “making” the result is timeless, the result is timeless, since there is no ‘moment’ for the result to not have been made.

That which is produced though, did not exist at one point. It was created ex nihilo, since the produced object is subject to composition and hence change. You are not making a logical connection between 7 and 8. You have proven that God’s creative act occurs timelessly, but you have not proven that the result is timeless.

Creation, being a dependent entity, has a beginning because it is from God’s voluntary will that the creative act “begins” (obviously it doesn’t begin in God the same way since God is pure Act). God’s creative act is Himself, and is eternal since God is eternally creating. There is no reason for the result of that act to be eternal though, since the ACT never changes and is simple but the result of the act changes and is composite. Timeless just means that it never changes. God never changes from His creative act. So God’s creative act is unchangeable because it is God’s existence, but the result of that creative act does change, hence it is “temporal” and not part of God.

And also, there is really no need to keep saying stuff like “I am not trying to contradict church teaching etc.”

 

[Psychlo]

VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless (even though time is an attribute of the universe, and the universe has a temporal beginning, if my reasoning so far is correct (which it isn’t) it does not have an ontological beginning of its existence, since it is timelessly caused by God, meaning it timelessly exists with God)

This, then (wrongly) means that either:
IX. There are two timelessly existing, co-eternal substances, one being God, the other being the universe (This is akin to Polytheism, and is undoubtedly false)
or
X. Since two timelessly existing substances must be identical, that is, only one timelessly existing substance may exist, for timelessly there is no time nor space for their division or difference, and no potentials may exist timelessly (that is, timelessly, the physical universe has no potential and is purely actual), then God and the universe are identical and the same, which is essentially Monism, and is also undoubtedly false.

So, because I know my conclusions IX and X are false, where is my reasoning flawed? For example; Is God not timelessly causing the physical universe? Is the physical universe also not being timelessly caused by God, and so timelessly exists? **I would greatly appreciate any assistance in finding out where this line of reasoning is wrong, as it undoubtedly is. ** Thanks for your time!

I do not see why the two substances need be “identical” much less both God…

As for the universe existing timelessly… you are right, it still has a “beginning” but one completely unlike any beginning in the history of time…being preceded immediately as it were by eternity… As such, it cannot even be likened to any ordinary beginning. Analytical thought wastes itself on this point, in my view.

 

[Formosus]

As for the universe existing timelessly… you are right, it still has a “beginning” but one completely unlike any beginning in the history of time…being preceded immediately as it were by eternity… As such, it cannot even be likened to any ordinary beginning. Analytical thought wastes itself on this point, in my view.

There is a great difficulty for us to grasp this. Gregory of Nyssa talks of the great ontological gap (diastema) between us and the Creator and that when our reason runs up against this gap we are left bewildered and confused. I think its difficult for the OP to find his logical proof (assuming he isn’t just trolling since I just saw he has two threads on this exact same topic going), because going beyond created existence and trying to understand the exact nature of God’s creative act hits this diastema.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hello again, Julia Mae! Thanks for participating in this thread!

And I know I’m quite wrong, or rather, I know the line of reasoning I expressed in my first post is flawed somehow, as the conclusions (Monism or weird-universe-polytheism) are both incorrect. My issue is just finding where I am wrong, so I can correct my line of thinking, and be prepared if someone else raises a similar line of reasoning against me.

This is what I responded to:

Is God not timelessly causing the physical universe?
Is the physical universe also not being timelessly caused by God, and so timelessly exists?

Both of those are correct. What does “timelessly” mean to you? Perhaps something different than it means to me. The “Universe” is not Space/Time, it is all that is not-God which includes all dimensions. The Universe is not dependent on time, it exists timelessly. Perhaps you meant something else?

“VIII. The universe, in its existence, is timeless (even though time is an attribute of the universe, and the universe has a temporal beginning, if my reasoning so far is correct (which it isn’t) it does not have an ontological beginning of its existence, since it is timelessly caused by God, meaning it timelessly exists with God)”

That’s correct. First we have to ask what it means for God to “create” the Universe. God isn’t an old guy at a drafting table making choices about what He wishes to design. That which is not-God exists in response to God.

My analogy is the swimming pool. You stand in the water and in the place you are is a shape like yourself but in no way yourself created in the water where there is no water. Now we have a “something definable” - a shape that can be measured and has volume and dimension - that is neither water nor you but exists as long as you are there and will cease when you are not there.

Or, you are standing at a busstop on a sunny morning and you cast a shadow. It’s neither you nor the light, you didn’t decide what it would look like, it exists as long as you are there.

In both of these you can discern something about the “creator” from the result of the existence of the creator without whom the “thing” we are describing cannot exist. Yet, neither thing, though definable, actually is anything at all.

Thus my answers are the same: yes, yes, you are correct.

 

[Birdmanman]

That which is produced though, did not exist at one point. It was created ex nihilo, since the produced object is subject to composition and hence change. You are not making a logical connection between 7 and 8. You have proven that God’s creative act occurs timelessly, but you have not proven that the result is timeless.

Creation, being a dependent entity, has a beginning because it is from God’s voluntary will that the creative act “begins” (obviously it doesn’t begin in God the same way since God is pure Act). God’s creative act is Himself, and is eternal since God is eternally creating. There is no reason for the result of that act to be eternal though, since the ACT never changes and is simple but the result of the act changes and is composite. Timeless just means that it never changes. God never changes from His creative act. So God’s creative act is unchangeable because it is God’s existence, but the result of that creative act does change, hence it is “temporal” and not part of God.

And also, there is really no need to keep saying stuff like “I am not trying to contradict church teaching etc.”

Hi Formosus, sorry for the delay in responding, I had school and other things to attend to. I say all that “I am not trying to contradict church teaching” stuff because I want it to be clear that what I am arguing ‘for’ I know is false, but am just trying to find where it is false so the argument cannot be made against me. Also, if anyone reads through this thread and sees my arguments, I want them to not think that such an argument actually presents an obstacle between them and being obedient to the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

That which is produced through, did not exist at one point…you have proven that God’s creative act occurs timelessly, but you have not proven that the result is timeless…creation has a beginning because it is from God’s voluntary will that the creative act “begins”.

Perhaps you could be more specific; is it not logical to say that something that is produced at a given time, or is produced timelessly, exists at that given time, or exists timelessly? If I “magically” produce a football from thin air, when (at the moment) I produce it, it exists. If for the sake of the argument, hypothetically God existed in ‘infinite time’ instead of timelessly, an infinite time composed of infinite moments, then at every moment He ‘produces’ creation, creation also exists. If, further, God is unable to change His inherent Act from one act to another act, which here is the act of producing creation, we see at all moments of this pretend infinity He is producing creation. Thus, in this pretend hypothetical, for-the-sake-of-the-argument scenario, creation would exist infinitely, and God would exist infinitely, even though creation and God are distinct and God is the cause of creation.

Now, if the creative act occurs timelessly, then it never begins, for there is no ‘time’ at which the creative act is not occurring. The creative act never changes, never starts or stops, it just is.
Now, ‘whenever’ or ‘if’ the creative act is occurring, then creation is existing, for it is impossible for the creative act to be occurring without accomplishing its end, which is creation. If the creative act timelessly occurs, the creative act never begins, and whenever (or if) the creative act is occurring creation is existing, does it not follow from this that creation timelessly exists as the creative act timelessly occurs?

Of course, as you know, somewhere here I am wrong, and I know I am wrong; for I know God created the universe, and the universe is not timeless, but I am having trouble demonstrating by reason that the contradiction of this (that God created the universe but the universe is timeless) is false, or potentially false. Thanks again for your help in finding where I am wrong, so that I can learn from my misunderstanding.

(Disclaimer: Let nothing I have written here be thought of as an attempt to teach anything contrary to Church teaching; I am asking a question out of my flawed knowledge).

 

[Birdmanman]

There is a great difficulty for us to grasp this. Gregory of Nyssa talks of the great ontological gap (diastema) between us and the Creator and that when our reason runs up against this gap we are left bewildered and confused. I think its difficult for the OP to find his logical proof (assuming he isn’t just trolling since I just saw he has two threads on this exact same topic going), because going beyond created existence and trying to understand the exact nature of God’s creative act hits this diastema.

I hope this is not the case, and that I am able to find proof through reason that the universe is not timeless in its existence, or at least potentially not timeless in its existence, given the timeless Creator who made it.
(I assure you I am not trolling; I realize that both of my threads are on similar territory, and if I could merge them I would).

 

[Birdmanman]

Both of those are correct. What does “timelessly” mean to you? Perhaps something different than it means to me. The “Universe” is not Space/Time, it is all that is not-God which includes all dimensions. The Universe is not dependent on time, it exists timelessly. Perhaps you meant something else?

Hi again Julia Mae!
It seems to me that the universe does not timelessly exist, but I am merely trying to see how it can be shown false or at least potentially false that the universe does not timelessly exist. When I say “timelessly” I mean “unchangingly”; for time is a measure of change. Change is what occurs when a potential becomes actual. If there is no potential in God (who is entirely actual), and no potential in nothing (which does not exist), it seems to me then that the universe cannot be made to go from potentially existing to actually existing, but must ‘already’ actually be existing.
Of course, perhaps there is potential “for” God, or God’s actuality can contain or have potential without being potential, but I don’t see how a Being who is purely actual can logically be said to ‘have’ or ‘be’ potential, or have potential ‘for’ Him.

Essentially: I am confused on this topic, and would like to be able to say and reasonably back up at least the mere possibility that God is fully and purely actual, that the universe is not fully and purely actual, that the universe (creation) exists changingly, that God is unchanging and timeless, and the the universe (creation) is not timeless.

Yet, neither thing, though definable, actually is anything at all.

The Creator exists and is something, the universe exists and is something, and the shape in the water exists as a distinct configuration of the water’s physical placement and is something. (the shape is the water, or the air-or-what-have-you between you and the water, and is caused by your body being there).
God exists, and you exist; I hope you don’t disagree haha!