Bill Craig's objection to Thomist God

[prodigalson2011]

No, a universe is possible, but that does not mean the universe began.

Well, the best scientific understanding we have accepts as a fact that the universe did begin, so there’s not much point in arguing that at this time.

That’s a non-sequitur. Omnipotnce may be able to create a universe, but it cannot create a beginning universe, beacsue that is logically impossible.

I simply disagree. I see no contradiction in that statement at all. It is only logically impossible if you put God in time. Time is a product of the universe. If God created the universe, he also created time. Time itself is therefore contingent upon God, and the concept of beginning is itself contingent upon time. So you could essentially say that the very concept of “beginning” is itself one of God’s creations.

I Hage already explaiend why that entails a huge contradiction;

Again, I don’t think it does. To put it another way, more in keeping with my line of argument in this post, it is only contradictory if you assume God to have no free will. A free and perfect will could very well arrange for his plans to come about in time, which is itself one of his creations.

That is true in everyday situations, but it does not apply to metaphysics.

In the case of free agents, of which God is the ultimate form, it does apply. The police officer must first will to arrest the person and then act upon it. Likewise, God must will and put His will into action. There is no reason to think that, just because God is eternal, he cannot order his creative act into a temporal order. The un-eternal state of that act does not contradict his eternity. To say that God’s action must manifest eternally with His will ignores his free agency. If he is omnipotent, He is perfectly capable of ordering his will into something like time.

 

[Perplexity]

There are teenagers visiting these threads. They’re not equipped to handle these issues.
I’m just warning them about what’s going on so that they don’t get mislead.

And if what happens to them doesn’t worry you,
I couldn’t care less what you think.

You’re not equppied to debate atheists though

 

[belorg]

Y

Do you?

I don’t know.I’m leaving the possibility open, at least for the sake of this argument, and so should you, because if you hold to your definition, God cannot possibly be a cause

For the same reason that different parts of you require a distinct description. Your history and your personality are inseparable, yet a description of one does not provide a description of the other. Your thoughts and actions are equally parts of the whole that is you, yet there is distinction between them.

We are talking about aGod who is supposed to be ultimately simple, not consisting of any parts whatsoever. So, either this is true, and everything about God must be decribable wthout making any sort of distinctions. If you think that’s impossible, you should chnage your definition of God.

“Giving birth” may have been another poor choice of words in this case, but I couldn’t think of a better way to word it at the time. Also note that I’m not arguing that a condition can never be a cause,

Yes, they are causes if they are sufficient to bring about an effect. That’s what I am arguing.

but that certain conditions cannot have causal effect, though I do not claim that this is exactly the case with God. As God is understood to be a person, I think the situation is a bit more fluid…

Personhood has nothing to do with it.

Not so. To use a more cliched example, well accepted in philosophical literature, being a bachelor is a sufficient condition for being a male.

I am not using condition in that sense.

“Sufficient condition” is a fairly flexible term, so we must be careful how rigidly we apply it, which has been my point thus far, though I may have failed to adequately express it as such.

‘Sufficient condition’, the way I use it, in a metaphysical, atemporal sense, is completely inseparable from ‘cause’.

I don’t think this is true. In examples such as this (as well as in the case of God), the involvement of a free agent is clearly understood. I would argue that having the necessary ingredients, a container, perhaps a spoon to mix with, and a person WILLING to mix it provides sufficient condition to make lemonade.

OK but that does not change anything. The will is part of the sufficient condition.

It is still left for the person to take the action of mixing it.

But even if that is true, the person (God) does not begin to take the action.If He did, He would be temporal

I’ll rephrase. Any contingent cause requires temporal order. A first cause necessarily precedes temporal order.

Since ‘precede’ already requires temporal order, you are once again contradicting yourself.

I would argue that the sufficient condition of willing to create the universe and acting upon that will are in total keeping with omnipotence. They don’t contradict it in any way.
Omnipotence does not exclude free agency. In fact, I would argue free agency is a very necessary part of omnipotence. If one did not have the ability to not create things, one would not be omnipotent. So I don’t think it follows that everything logically possible would have always existed.

Anyway, since you have included both the will and the action in the sufficient condition, you have lost your case for a beginning universe.

I see no logical contradiction in stating that an eternal, omnipotent, perfect being with a perfect will, could create something that is not itself eternal.

Then you must account for God beginning to do something. Can you?

His will to create must exist eternally, but the action of creation must not.

That, again, presupposes time where there is none.

God can stay his hand and still be changeless, perfect, etc. There is no reason why God’s will must be executed “immediately”, for lack of a better term, as time does not apply to God.

Since time does not apply to God, everything He does is done ‘immediately’ . That’s my whole point. By saying that God does not do all things ‘immediately’ you are the one sneaking time in where none can be.
And this becomes painfully clear in your next reply. But I’ll address it there.

 

[belorg]

Well, the best scientific understanding we have accepts as a fact that the universe did begin, so there’s not much point in arguing that at this time.

Well, if we accept this scientific understanding, then the God of christianty is logically impossible.

It is only logically impossible if you put God in time.

No, it is logically impossible just because** I don’t** put God in time.

Time is a product of the universe. If God created the universe, he also created time. Time itself is therefore contingent upon God, and the concept of beginning is itself contingent upon time.

I am not asking anything about contingency. Time may be contigent upon God, but time cannot begin if created by God.

So you could essentially say that the very concept of “beginning” is itself one of God’s creations.

Then it is no real beginning, only a concept.

To put it another way, more in keeping with my line of argument in this post, it is only contradictory if you assume God to have no free will. A free and perfect will could very well arrange for his plans to come about in time, which is itself one of his creations.

No, He cannot, because doing so requires time to be both causally prior and causally posterior to creation. ‘For His plans to come about in time’ presupposes His plans to create time will come about in time. That is a huge contradiction.

In the case of free agents, of which God is the ultimate form, it does apply. The police officer must first will to arrest the person and then act upon it. Likewise, God must will and put His will into action.

But not ‘and then put His will into action.’. And that’s my whole point.

There is no reason to think that, just because God is eternal, he cannot order his creative act into a temporal order.

Yes, there is. If God is atemporal, He acnnot order anything in a temporal way. That presupposes that first God did X, and then God did Y, which means God is temporal.

To say that God’s action must manifest eternally with His will ignores his free agency. If he is omnipotent, He is perfectly capable of ordering his will into something like time.

µ

Either God is timeless, which means He cannot do that, or He is temporal. You cannot have it both ways.
If you choose to go down the track of ‘God can order His actions in a temporal way but still be timeless’, I am afraid I am going to leave this discussion.
With all due respect, but I do not want to waste my time on such an inconsistent concept.

 

[prodigalson2011]

sigh

So I just spent about 30 minutes typing up a reply and my login expired before I posted. Usually, logging in immediately continues the posting process but for some reason, that was not the case tonight. I’m a little bit too ticked and frustrated with the waste of time to recompose it right now, so I’ll try and get back to this tomorrow.

 

[Shike]

I’ve been trying to follow this conversation as best as I can. And here are some of my thoughts, for what they are worth.

1. It is very important for fellow Catholics to not just keep things civil, but to love others through patience (and for non-Catholics as well!). I am not always the best at this but, God willing, I am improving. We also can’t treat teenagers as if they are stupid. Some teenagers may not be formed as well as others, but, if they really have a thirst for knowledge and a genuine relationship with God, we can only expect them to grow. The intent in warning teenagers seems noble, however.
2. I am intrigued by the different definitions and uses of the words, “condition, cause, sufficient condition, sufficient cause” and the like. I do say including action in the definition of “condition” seems counter-intuitive–I think here the word “sufficient” is misleading belorg into changing the core meaning of “condition” rather than merely modifying it (as any good adjective should do).

That said, I am trying to understand and translate the terms “cause” and “condition” under the framework of Aristotle’s 4 causes. Under such a structure, it would seem that a “cause” requires action and corresponds to Aristotle’s efficient-cum-final cause while a “condition” does not require action and corresponds to Aristotle’s formal cause.

This being the case, it is easier to see how a sufficient condition fully determines the formal cause of a being without determining the being’s existence. A sufficient condition is the formal snapshot that must obtain if the effect obtains. But since there is no action in the hypothetical formal snapshot, then one can’t say that a sufficient condition is an efficient-cum-final cause. Maybe this confuses things more, but for me it helped.

1. God creating something with a beginning is not the same as God beginning to create something.

In another thread I maintained that time is relative. I think the proper analysis of time is vital in shedding light on the alledged contradiction between an atemporal being and a creation that has a beginning. If time is merely the measure of change, then where there is no change there is no time. Thus under the classical theistic conception, God is atemporal. But we also have a universe that is undergoing change and therefore it is in time.

So the real question that gets to the heart of the matter, from a classical theistic perspective, is this: can an unchanging being create something that changes? Under the anthropomorphized definition of “create” it does not make much sense as such a meaning includes finitude. But if the function of the word is taken analogically (which is not the same as mere analogy), then there is something about the meaning of the word that does apply to God… and I would say that the part of “create” which does apply is the “dependence of one thing on another for its existence”.

Also, under the classical theistic perspective, God is Pure Actuality. It is erroneous to think that such a being cannot create something that changes as Pure Actuality contains the origin and perfection of all change. Much confusion enters the picture when God’s inability to change (not a defect) is thought of as something more creature-centered and static.

So, all in all, I find it always important to go back to fundamentals. I would say that we know with demonstrable certainty (in the cold and hard-hearted Scholastic sense) that classical theism is correct. I would also say we know with the same level of certainty that our world is changing. In fact, it is precisely because the world is changing that we come to the position of classical theism.

So for me, if I found a logical contradiction between both the reality of change and classical theism, I would have to throw out the reality of change (and thus the reality of classical theism).

But as they say, the devil is in the details… and let’s get back to them.

 

[belorg]

1. I am intrigued by the different definitions and uses of the words, “condition, cause, sufficient condition, sufficient cause” and the like. I do say including action in the definition of “condition” seems counter-intuitive–I think here the word “sufficient” is misleading belorg into changing the core meaning of “condition” rather than merely modifying it (as any good adjective should do).

Action is not included in the normal definition of condition, but we are not talking about normal everyday notions of condition and cause, we are talking about a very special case, a timeless case. And if including action in a conditionis counter-intuitive, then including action in a timless state is at least equlaly counter-intuituive.

That said, I am trying to understand and translate the terms “cause” and “condition” under the framework of Aristotle’s 4 causes. Under such a structure, it would seem that a “cause” requires action and corresponds to Aristotle’s efficient-cum-final cause while a “condition” does not require action and corresponds to Aristotle’s formal cause.

Yes, in the normal sense they do, but not in a timeless context. In a timless context ‘action’ makes no sense unless it is a continuous, never changing type of action. And that’s exactly my point. There is no significant difference between such an ‘action’ and a ‘condition’.

A sufficient condition is the formal snapshot that must obtain if the effect obtains. But since there is no action in the hypothetical formal snapshot, then one can’t say that a sufficient condition is an efficient-cum-final cause. Maybe this confuses things more, but for me it helped.

There is never any ‘action’ in a formal snapshot, otherwise it wouldn’t be a snapshot.
That’s why, from a timless perspective, 'condition ’ and ‘cause’ are completely the same.

1. God creating something with a beginning is not the same as God beginning to create something.

It sure is.

In another thread I maintained that time is relative. I think the proper analysis of time is vital in shedding light on the alledged contradiction between an atemporal being and a creation that has a beginning. If time is merely the measure of change, then where there is no change there is no time.

Indeed

Thus under the classical theistic conception, God is atemporal. But we also have a universe that is undergoing change and therefore it is in time.

Yes. And the logical conclusion is that at least one of the two is incorrect. Either the universe isn’t really changing (e.g. under a B-theory of time) or the classical theistic conception is flawed.

So the real question that gets to the heart of the matter, from a classical theistic perspective, is this: can an unchanging being create something that changes?

That is indeed a very important question, but not the one we are discussing here. We are discussing whether an unchanging being can bring something into being that in an absolute sense begins to exist.

Under the anthropomorphized definition of “create” it does not make much sense as such a meaning includes finitude. But if the function of the word is taken analogically (which is not the same as mere analogy), then there is something about the meaning of the word that does apply to God… and I would say that the part of “create” which does apply is the “dependence of one thing on another for its existence”.

You are, again, mixing up dependence (or contingency) with temporal beginning’.
I am not disputing here that the universe can be contingent upon God, but I am claiming that this dependent relation cannot have begun.

Also, under the classical theistic perspective, God is Pure Actuality. It is erroneous to think that such a being cannot create something that changes as Pure Actuality contains the origin and perfection of all change. Much confusion enters the picture when God’s inability to change (not a defect) is thought of as something more creature-centered and static.

That is an interesting point, and I am willing to discuss it, but it is irrelevant to what I am saying here. So, if you want to start another thread on it, I will participate.

So, all in all, I find it always important to go back to fundamentals. I would say that we know with demonstrable certainty (in the cold and hard-hearted Scholastic sense) that classical theism is correct.

That’s not a good starting point for a genuine discussion, Shike. You have to be open for other possibilities in order to have a real rational discussion. If you start from “I know that I am right, so whatever argument against my position must be wrong” there is no point in even discussing this.

So for me, if I found a logical contradiction between both the reality of change and classical theism, I would have to throw out the reality of change (and thus the reality of classical theism).

Or you could consider another possible explanation for the change and just throw out classical theism.

 

[belorg]

sigh

So I just spent about 30 minutes typing up a reply and my login expired before I posted. Usually, logging in immediately continues the posting process but for some reason, that was not the case tonight. I’m a little bit too ticked and frustrated with the waste of time to recompose it right now, so I’ll try and get back to this tomorrow.

Yes, that sometimes happens.
If I really have a longish reply, I usually type in in a Word-file and copy-paste it into the thread.

But, take your time.

 

[Shike]

Action is not included in the normal definition of condition, but we are not talking about normal everyday notions of condition and cause, we are talking about a very special case, a timeless case. And if including action in a conditionis counter-intuitive, then including action in a timless state is at least equlaly counter-intuituive.

Agreed. We need to start with the normal definitions and see where we end up.

Yes, in the normal sense they do [conditions require action], but not in a timeless context. In a timless context ‘action’ makes no sense unless it is a continuous, never changing type of action. And that’s exactly my point. There is no significant difference between such an ‘action’ and a ‘condition’.

You are correct in that action makes no sense in a timeless context. But condition does make sense in a timeless context so both action and condition are different in a timeless context… and as you know, I would also say that they are different in the context of time.

There is never any ‘action’ in a formal snapshot, otherwise it wouldn’t be a snapshot.
That’s why, from a timless perspective, 'condition ’ and ‘cause’ are completely the same.

If the notion of cause requires any action or change then a timeless being isn’t caused. Neither on such a definition could a timeless being cause anything. However, that being said, we have reason to treat the function of the word “cause” somewhat differently when applied to the ground of all existence. In such a context the word would be closer to an ontological dependence. And, as I’ve said before, I see no contradiction with something changing being dependent on something that isn’t.

That is indeed a very important question, but not the one we are discussing here. We are discussing whether an unchanging being can bring something into being that in an absolute sense begins to exist.

Not only is it a very important question but it is the fundamental question to this thread, whether you like it or not. Answer that question and any apparent contradiction disappears.

And I agree that we are discussing whether an unchanging being can bring something into being that in an absolute sense begins to exist, but only depending on what you mean by “absolute”. If you mean by absolute no dependence on anything else the notion is incoherent. If you mean by absolute to contrast with the notion of time being relative, then you are making a mistake just like Newton with regards to absolute space. The most charitable reading of absolute is that you use it as a synonym for objective.

And of course, that time is relative is not subjective but objective. It may be experienced subjectively, but that does not change the fact that it has objective relations.

You are, again, mixing up dependence (or contingency) with temporal beginning’.
I am not disputing here that the universe can be contingent upon God, but I am claiming that this dependent relation cannot have begun.

There are at least two relations because of the relative nature of time.

That is an interesting point, and I am willing to discuss it, but it is irrelevant to what I am saying here. So, if you want to start another thread on it, I will participate.

My words are not necessarily directed at you.

That’s not a good starting point for a genuine discussion, Shike. You have to be open for other possibilities in order to have a real rational discussion. If you start from “I know that I am right, so whatever argument against my position must be wrong” there is no point in even discussing this.

Why do you assume that I have reached my conclusions without careful argument to back everything up? And why do you assume that I am not open to dialogue? I can know that I am right (I can apprehend the truth of something) and still be willing to help others see the truth of a given position. Or, for instance in the case of mathematics, do I have to doubt the truth of 2+2=4 in order to engage in a rational discussion with someone who doesn’t know the equation? (rhetorical)

I’m not saying you have a problem with this, but in general, the attitude that you allude to is indicative of Descartes’ methodical doubt and is one of the major errors in the history of philosophy. If I experience a piece of wax I know I do. Methodical questioning is permissible but not to the exclusion of the existence of the fact.

Or you could consider another possible explanation for the change and just throw out classical theism.

I could consider another ‘possibility’ and discuss such things, sure. But objectively there is no other possible explanation for change. I can’t even change the principles that make up the aristotelian notion of change because they underlie any possible change whatsoever.

ciao,
Michael

 

[belorg]

I could consider another ‘possibility’ and discuss such things, sure. But objectively there is no other possible explanation for change. I can’t even change the principles that make up the aristotelian notion of change because they underlie any possible change whatsoever.

ciao,
Michael

Sorry, Michael, but, although I can understand your attitude, it leaves no room for any genuine discussion, so I am not going to discuss this any further with you.

 

[Shike]

Sorry, Michael, but, although I can understand your attitude, it leaves no room for any genuine discussion, so I am not going to discuss this any further with you.

Genuine discussion = both parties don’t know anything.

But it’s your choice to leave and, quite frankly, the show can continue as this thread has other commentators–again, everything I said was not necessarily directed at you.

 

[mytruepower2]

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.

Well, I agree with that, and I don’t consider it condescending. In fact, I wish everyone would convert to Catholicism; atheists and apologists especially, since they seem to have so much energy and time to bring to the task of evangelizing.

But with regard to the topic of the thread, I’m working on a Thomistic critique of one of Dr. Craig’s books right now, and here’s the relevant portion…

"He brings up the viewpoint of St. Aquinas briefly; that God stands in no ‘real relation’ to his creations.

There’s just one problem. Thomas Aquinas never said that. He never even implied it.

This aspect of Thomistic theology is part and parcel with divine simplicity; namely, that God’s relationship to us is timeless, although our relation to him may change from one moment to the next.

Likewise, St. Thomas didn’t claim that God’s propositional knowledge is necessary, nor that his will to bring about events in the universe is divisible into propositions which are willed. According to St. Thomas Aquinas; God is too simple to have parts to himself to divide into propositions. He has one thought only, which is not propositional, and that thought contains only and all true knowledge. That one thought is also only one will, which wills all things that happen. That one thought and one will are also one divine nature, which is perfect in every way. This is the teaching of Thomism on the subject of God’s relation to us. The reason his relation to us doesn’t change is that to him, all times are one, and his relationship to those times remains the same. God’s relationship to 5:13 AM, December 13th, 1259 AD will always be the same, because of his simplicity, though he may have chosen different specific actions in the relationship of other places and times to him.

The reason St. Thomas doesn’t view this as a change of relationship within God is that nothing really changes within God because of it. God eternally engages in the act of creating, supporting, interacting with, etc… the universe and its people. This is, for him, all a single act, which he does eternally and timelessly, and his perception of our re-actions to him is also seen eternally and timelessly by reason of his omniscience. Therefore, nothing that connects the universe to God changes in any way -within the divine nature.- Of course, for us, who perceive time passing all around us, it all seems to be changing, but we have no good reasons for assuming that this is true of God as well."

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I know its been answered on this thread already but I’m too stupid to understand the answer. What is God’s relation to us?

 

[Ismael]

And, unless you happen to believe God can do the logically impossible, you just don’t get off the hook by claiming that God has ‘abilities the humna mind cannot fathom’.

As usual you make illogical comments.

You assume here that the human mind can even in principle ‘understand anything that is logical’.

In reality it’s a weak assumption. Very weak. First of all we have no guarantee we can fully comprehend the world around us.

Most people are incapable of understanding physics and mathematics to an advanced level. This gives us a clue that the human mind and human understanding is limited. Some minds more than others.
So claiming that ‘logical’ = ‘what humans can understand’ is something that needs to be proven and so far the evidence points towards the fact that this equation is false.

Omnipotnce may be able to create a universe, but it cannot create a beginning universe, beacsue that is logically impossible.

Again you have a very confused concept of temporality and eternity.

As goinf back to your previous mistake: you seem quite incapable, or perhaps unwilling, to understand certain concepts that are really nothing new and have been pondered about for centuries.

Sincerely your spamming is getting quite… boring as you continue to make non sequitur arguments and when people debunk them claim they do not understand you.

:yawn:

 

[Jeanne1184]

The only thing the atheist truly desires is to be shown the way to know Truth for himself. To have the experience of Faith, not the adoption of beliefs.

What the majority of Christians cannot tell the atheist is how to find the Holy Spirit for himself - because Christians don’t know the experience of *conscious contact" with the Holy Spirit either, let alone the “Indwelling”. 1 Cor 12:3 - “…no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”

The lost atheist has one thing over the religious-but-lost Christian: The atheist knows that he doesn’t know the Truth of Christ. The atheist has a bit of an advantage because, “It is impossilbe for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”- Epictetus.

The most interesting things, to me, about Thomas Aquinas are the circumstances surrounding his death:

On 6 December 1273 (accounts differ as to what Thomas Aquinas was actually doing at the moment of Spiritual Insight).

But what is likely accurate is:

"After this exchange something happened, but Thomas never spoke of it or wrote it down. Because of what he saw, he abandoned his routine and refused to dictate to his socius Reginald of Piperno.

When Reginald begged him to get back to work, Thomas replied: **‘Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me.’"

From my experience, what I recognized in reading the above account of Thomas was The Moment when I suddenly understood, beyond doubt: My whole life had been a lie. All the ‘good’, the ‘accomplishments’, all the learning … worthless on this side of the veil - though not altogether usless on the Other Side as the Holy Spirit has put new use/new Understanding to some things.

Then Thomas was scheduled to, once again, be celebrated at a council - and he was prevented through yet further circumstances. If his last words are true, the puncture of his pride of rational intellect hadn’t been near enough,

“The monks nursed him for several days, and as he received his last rites he prayed: ‘I receive Thee, ransom of my soul. For love of Thee have I studied and kept vigil, toiled, preached and taught…’”

If Thomas had truly Understood that all he had written was ‘vain imagination’/straw, his last words might have been more like, “It was for the Love of self and the praise of men that I toiled; please forgive me. I was so wrong.”

The Way of the Cross is simple (tho not easy at the beginning of changes) - no doctorate in theology required. I can question the workings of the Cosmos on the Spiritual side of the veil - and do - but not to the exclusion of continuing the examination and purifying of the heart as prompted and accomplished by direction of the Holy Spirit. And ever vigilent not to backslide or become complacent. Temptations show up in the strangest places.

On Enlightenment - Anthony de Mello

On the question of his own Enlightenment the Master always remained reticent, even though the disciples tried every means to get him to talk.

All the information they had on this subject was what the Master once said to his youngest son who wanted to know what his father felt when he became Enlightened.

The answer was:

“A fool.”

When the boy asked why, the Master had replied, “Well, son, it was like going to great pains to break into a house by climbing a ladder and smashing a window and then realizing later that the door of the house was open.”**

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread is over a year old: closed.