Bill Craig's objection to Thomist God

[Perplexity]

Before giving WLC’s objection, let me cite a Thomist so that we’re clear on what WLC is objecting to.

“As soon as we ask: Is creation eternal or non-eternal? it is clear that the question itself is ambiguous. It may mean: (1) Is creation, i.e., God’s creative act, eternal[1] or non-eternal? or (2) Is creation, i.e., the created world, eternal or non-eternal? Taking the question in the first sense, the answer is that God’s creative act is eternal. It must be so, because God’s action is identical with his essence. Besides, if the creative act were not eternal, then God would at one time not act and at a later time act, which is impossible since God is pure actuality, changeless, and independent of time. But does it follow that because God’s act of creating is eternal the thing created must be eternal? Many philosophers both medieval and modern, say, “Yes, it does follow.” St. Thomas says, “Not, it does not.”…God is immutable, and therefore His act of creation is eternal.” - Gerrity, Benignus. Nature, Knowledge and God; an Introduction to Thomistic Philosophy. Milwaukee: Bruce Pub., 1949. pp. 570-71.

“Aquinas tacitly agrees that if God were really related to the temporal world, then he would be temporal. For in the coming to be of creatures, certain relations accrue to God anew and thus, if these relations are real for God, he must be temporal in light of his undergoing relational changes. So Thomas denies that God has any real relation to the world. According to Aquinas, while the temporal world does have the real relation of being created by God, God does not have a real relation of creating the temporal world. since God is immutable, the new relations predicated of him at the moment of creation are just in our minds; in reality the temporal world itself is created with a relation inhering in it of dependence on God. Hence, God’s timelessness is not jeopardized by his creation of a temporal world. This unusual doctrine of creation becomes even stranger when we reflect on the fact that, on Thomas’s view, God in creating the world does not perform some act extrinsic to his nature; God just is, and creatures simply begin to exist with a relation to God of being created by God. According to this doctrine, then, God in freely creating the universe does not really do anything different than he would have, had he refrained from creating. The only difference is to be found in the universe itself: instead of God existing alone without the universe, we have a universe springing into being at the first moment of time possessing the property being created by god, even though God, for his part, bears no real reciprocal relation to the universe made by him. It hardly needs to be said that Thomas’s solution, despite its daring and ingenuity, is extraordinarily implausible. “Creating” clearly describes a relation that is founded on something’s intrinsic properties concerning its causal activity, and therefore creating the world ought to be regarded as a real property acquired by God at the moment of creation. It seems unintelligible if not contradictory to say that one can have real effects without real causes. Yet this is precisely what Aquinas affirms with respect to God and the world.” - Moreland, James Porter, and William Lane. Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. pp. 559-60.

So, what might a Thomist say in response?

[1]

"The term eternal wherever used in the paragraphs above in relation to the created world is not taken in strict meaning as applied to God, but has the sense of “existing without a beginning, without a first moment, yet in time.” - Benignus’ foot-note.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m at work at the moment, but I’ll be mulling this over.

 

[Alindawyl]

So, what might a Thomist say in response?

A Thomist would say that relation is accidental, not substantial. By treating God’s relation to creation as if it was substantial, Craig betrays a lack of understanding of these two very basic metaphysical concepts.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A Thomist would say that relation is accidental, not substantial. By treating God’s relation to creation as if it was substantial, Craig betrays a lack of understanding of these two very basic metaphysical concepts.

ooooooh yeahhhhhhhhhh

 

[razredge]

I agree with Craig and was arguing as much in a thread a while back - I never did understand why insisting God was completely changeless was so important (as opposed to just being immutable with regards to substance)

 

[JDaniel]

According to this doctrine, then, God in freely creating the universe does not really do anything different than he would have, had he refrained from creating.

Here is the beginning of WLC’s and JPM’s error: both gentlemen have failed to properly understand that a Perfect God, would, necessarily have a Perfect Will. Now, let’s see, how would a will be perfect? Not by the ability to change its mind or its choices, for that would expose an imperfection in the one choosing. A “Perfect Will” is one that chooses indifferently from all eternity. Now, if a Perfect Being with a Perfect Will can choose indifferently from all eternity and never change His mind, then there is nothing that inheres in the Perfect Being from what is willed. This is what Creation means, that God has no need to change anything that He has forever willed, for any reason whatsoever. This indifference, then, permits the one willing perfectly to “refrain from creating” in precisely the same way: indifferently.

The only difference is to be found in the universe itself: instead of God existing alone without the universe, we have a universe springing into being at the first moment of time possessing the property being created by god, even though God, for his part, bears no real reciprocal relation to the universe made by him.

This is their second problem. God’s being is the Perfect Act of Existing. there is no “alone” opposed to “with (someone)” within a perfect act of existing, or else, once again, we have imperfection. God creates from precisely the same act that is His essence.

It hardly needs to be said that Thomas’s solution, despite its daring and ingenuity, is extraordinarily implausible.

Which it would be if the one to whom it is “implausible” reduces what God does down to the level of what humans do.

“Creating” clearly describes a relation that is founded on something’s intrinsic properties concerning its causal activity, and therefore creating the world ought to be regarded as a real property acquired by God at the moment of creation.

It is God’s act of willing, which is identical with His essence, that chose “creation” from all eternity, by way of God’s Supreme Wisdom, without any need for alteration of any kind. God freely chooses to create creatures precisely because He is never compelled to do so. Since Creation understood in this way is pure freedom to choose, there is no residue that inheres in God because, as we humans like to say, “he has no skin in the game.”

It seems unintelligible if not contradictory to say that one can have real effects without real causes.

A sad straw man, as it is derived from the proposer’s very limited understanding of this subject, rather than from any ulterior motive.

Yet this is precisely what Aquinas affirms with respect to God and the world."

No it’s not - as I have shown.

God bless,
jd

 

[AquinasWasRight]

Oh Billy Craig, accusing the Catholics of nestorianism and sabellianism while he himself holds onto apollinarinism and tritheism.

 

[tdgesq]

“But does it follow that because God’s act of creating is eternal the thing created must be eternal? Many philosophers both medieval and modern, say, “Yes, it does follow.” St. Thomas says, “Not, it does not.”…God is immutable, and therefore His act of creation is eternal.” - Gerrity, Benignus. Nature, Knowledge and God; an Introduction to Thomistic Philosophy. Milwaukee: Bruce Pub., 1949. pp. 570-71.

Perplexity,

On this narrow question alone, I agree with Aquinas. Eternity is a state of “timelessness” or “no time.” Aquinas’ opponents here are arguing that a timeless act of creation necessitates that what is created is also timeless. It is not obvious to me that this conclusion follows. Opponents would need to prove that the following proposition is logically impossible: A timeless act of creation may result in a temporal creation.

How this is supposed to look ontologically is another question. However, I do not see any inconsistency between Aquinas’ position and the notion that the universe began to temporally exist.

 

[PermanentMarker]

I know this will sound condescending and triumphalist to non-Catholics, but it has to be said that Bill Craig would make a wonderful Catholic and his conversion would be a very powerful example to the non-Catholic apologists out there. It would be epic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I know this will sound condescending and triumphalist to non-Catholics, but it has to be said that Bill Craig would make a wonderful Catholic and his conversion would be a very powerful example to the non-Catholic apologists out there. It would be epic.

Thats true; he is a powerful speaker. I also think Richard Dawkins conversion would be earth shattering to the faiths of atheists worldwide.

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity,

On this narrow question alone, I agree with Aquinas. Eternity is a state of “timelessness” or “no time.” Aquinas’ opponents here are arguing that a timeless act of creation necessitates that what is created is also timeless. It is not obvious to me that this conclusion follows. Opponents would need to prove that the following proposition is logically impossible: A timeless act of creation may result in a temporal creation.

How this is supposed to look ontologically is another question. However, I do not see any inconsistency between Aquinas’ position and the notion that the universe began to temporally exist.

Hm, I think Aquinas’ opponents could also take the incoherence route. To show that proposition to be impossible would be to assume it’s intelligible, it can’t be false in every possible world if we don’t know what ‘it’ actually means. That’s where I’d fall on this issue. I know that something is being asserted, but no more than that.

 

[tdgesq]

Hm, I think Aquinas’ opponents could also take the incoherence route. To show that proposition to be impossible would be to assume it’s intelligible, it can’t be false in every possible world if we don’t know what ‘it’ actually means. That’s where I’d fall on this issue. I know that something is being asserted, but no more than that.

What part of the proposition could WLC and proponents claim is unintelligible when they find the following intelligible?: “[If] God’s act of creating is eternal the thing created must be eternal.” Apparently they find nothing incoherent about that conditional proposition.

 

[Perplexity]

What part of the proposition could WLC and proponents claim is unintelligible when they find the following intelligible?: “[If] God’s act of creating is eternal the thing created must be eternal.” Apparently they find nothing incoherent about that conditional proposition.

Sorry. The incoherence seems to be in the claim that the causation of an effect can obtain eternally whilst the effect doesn’t.

 

[fhansen]

This indifference, then, permits the one willing perfectly to “refrain from creating” in precisely the same way: indifferently.

What I can’t wrap my head around is the answer to the question: “When”…“during”…eternity did God cease to “refrain from creating”? I mean, the term “refrain” is still a temporal concept.

 

[belorg]

What I can’t wrap my head around is the answer to the question: “When”…“during”…eternity did God cease to “refrain from creating”? I mean, the term “refrain” is still a temporal concept.

So is ‘cease’ for that matter. the truth is that the Thomas’ God cannot begin nor cease to create.

 

[empther]

Perplexity is at it again:

Sorry. The incoherence seems to be in the claim that the causation of an effect can obtain eternally whilst the effect doesn’t.

It’s extremely simple to those who want the truth.

All ‘temporal’ terms have no meaning with reference to God. It is not correct to ask if he existed “before” the universe, how “long he waited” “before” creating the universe, or anything of that nature. He is outside of time which he created ( in that time is the measure of change in the universe ).
Asking whether he created from eternity is also meaningless. Apples and oranges. No connection.

Now watch. Perplexity will try to confuse this simple idea with his usual nonsense.

 

[empther]

Perplexity tries to overload you with lots of verbiage.

Here’s something from the wikepedia article about Bill Craig that says it quickly:

In terms of God’s relationship to time, Craig argues that God must exist in time if he is to be regarded as a causal agent. He rejects the view that God could exist timelessly with creation as he did sans creation on the grounds that nothing outside time could have temporal interactions with the world.

Well of course this is hogwash.
To exist in time means you are susceptible to change, because time is the measure of change.
Furthermore, to exist in time means you are somehow limited to what time allows you, such as knowledge.
Neither of these two ideas is compatible with an infinite God, but a finite God is no God at all.

Every phrase in this post would require its own book chapter for a complete explanation,
and Perplexity will use that fact to try to confuse you with tons of verbiage,
but if you’ve been around Catholic websites for many years what I said above will be immediately recognizable and understandable.

 

[Anthony_V]

St. Thomas Aquinas firmly believed that God relates to creation in a way that is proper to its nature as well as his; That is, God does not stoop down to creation, rather God brings creation up to his level. An intimacy with God requires a bridge between the infinite gap of creature and creator. For this, God is the first mover, as he creates the bridge. God then intimately relates to his creation in a manner that is proper to both his nature, and theirs, which is freely. The creature, which is lower that the creator, can come up to the the creator, in the sense that their virtue of relations are identical. Catholics call this beatific vision.
If you hold a diamond up to the light, the diamond captures the essence of the light. While the diamond is not the light, is shares in the beauty and life of the light. In this manner, creatures can share in the blessed life of God through beatific vision because it is proper to their nature.

 

[tdgesq]

Sorry. The incoherence seems to be in the claim that the causation of an effect can obtain eternally whilst the effect doesn’t.

Well, then demonstrate a logical contradiction. I actually don’t think that is Craig’s argument for incoherence, although it is obviously somebody’s argument. Even some atheists commit to the position that a timeless immaterial object caused the big bang.

 

[belorg]

Well, then demonstrate a logical contradiction. I actually don’t think that is Craig’s argument for incoherence, although it is obviously somebody’s argument. Even some atheists commit to the position that a timeless immaterial object caused the big bang.

No, the incoherence in Craig’s argument lies in the fact that he has a sufficient condition for an effect to occur is eternal while the feect itself sin’t. And that’s a clear contradiction.
The ‘timeless immaterial object’ that caused the Big Bang’ although a necessary condition for the BB, is not seen as a sufficient condition (or ‘cause’).
That’s why, although the atheist’s position cannot currently be proved, there is no logical contradiction in it, while Craig’s position does have a logical contradiction.