Bill Craig's objection to Thomist God

[empther]

Only an atheist could talk like this

Belorg wrote:
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’).

So although the ‘timeless immaterial object’ was necessary for the Big Bang,

something else caused it?

Do you see, ladies and gentlemen, how these atheists can keep grinding out more nonsense every day? All they have to do is take an old sentence and substitute a few words. Whether the new sentence really means anything doesn’t matter. We’re ‘philosophers’ !

 

[JDaniel]

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.

You have to try to get past the enunciation of it in temporal words, and consider an ontology of pure sequence. How else could an Infinite Being wrap His mind around ‘first or last’, ‘before or after’, ‘sooner or later’, etc? Yet, He has to understand both sequence and time. Both have to be fully intelligible to Him, otherwise He could not create. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t have a problem (yet) with the idea that what God “creates” is ‘eternal’ from the moment it comes into being. but, that does not mean that creatures are “infinite.” I think the idea of an infinite singular determinant is a contradiction. For example, a finite thing of infinite expansion, like an infinite table top.

“Refrain,” from the Oxford Dictionary on line:
Origin:
Middle English (in the sense ‘restrain a thought or feeling’): from Old French refrener, from Latin refrenare, from re- (expressing intensive force) + frenum ‘bridle’

I think that in the sense that theologists use the word, it means 'the use of a great amount of force to (literally) “pull back on the bridle” (of a horse), to get him under control, slow him down, or, stop him. The effects we can only know in time. But, “to refrain,” God can (must be able to) know from inside infinity. It is impossible for us to even imagine it. It is so other-worldly from “finity” that we can only know it by what it (probably) isn’t.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

No, that is not the “truth.” (Properly, it is a conjecture, or conclusion, based upon how you understand the evidence.) I admit that it is not an easy thing to wrap one’s mind around, but, we are here. So now we have to work backward to try to understand the ‘how’ of it. I have no problem with an Infinite Being creating “eternally” for eternity. Matter is not destroyed - even entropy merely changes its state. Matter is reconfigured - until, ultimately, God refrains from reconfiguring - if He ever does. At that point, perhaps He’ll be creating something else.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Perlexity:

This would mean that the two must co-exist indefinitely, would it not? Your conclusion would imply that all of God’s creations durationally match - beginning to end - His infinite duration, correct? Now, we know that our bodies are finite, lasting only about 70 years. We understand that the stuff of our bodies undergoes chemical and bio-chemical changes (moreso after our deaths than before it) and may become fertilizer, or just fully entropied detritus. So, what would match God’s Infinite duration then: our souls, aka, forms?

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Only an atheist could talk like this

So although the ‘timeless immaterial object’ was necessary for the Big Bang,

something else caused it?

No, not ‘something else’. Nothing ‘caused’ it, although there was a necessary condition for it.

 

[belorg]

No, that is not the “truth.” (Properly, it is a conjecture, or conclusion, based upon how you understand the evidence.)

The question is: is it true or not?

I admit that it is not an easy thing to wrap one’s mind around, but, we are here. So now we have to work backward to try to understand the ‘how’ of it.

Sure

I have no problem with an Infinite Being creating “eternally” for eternity.

Neither have I.

Matter is not destroyed - even entropy merely changes its state. Matter is reconfigured - until, ultimately, God refrains from reconfiguring - if He ever does. At that point, perhaps He’ll be creating something else.

So the unchanging God can chnage from sustaining and reconfiguring to refrain from this and all this in one timeless, unchanging state?
A timless state, that, apparenrtly is subdivided into an ‘ever’ and ‘a point’ at which He changes His mind without changing.
This is not just not an easy thing to wrap my mind around, it’s downright contradictory.

 

[JDaniel]

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’).

Belorg:

Why do you think “necessary condition” does not equal “sufficient condition?” What makes them different, in your view?

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.

It’s possible that his position does contain a contradiction, but, I’m looking at the Kalam in its simplest formulation. What I see is that you have have conflated two terms: “cause” with “condition.”

A “cause” is that from which anything proceeds (with dependence). A “condition” is that which must exist in order for something else to exist or come to be. “Air” is a condition for most life on this planet, but it is not the cause of life. The two words are very close in meaning, but they are not absolutely tautologous.

So, I’m wondering why you chose “condition” and why you stick with it so vehemently. Hmmm. Very clever, Senor!

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

Belorg’s reply to my brilliant observaition:

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Only an atheist could talk like this *

So although the ‘timeless immaterial object’ was necessary for the Big Bang,

something else caused it?

No, not ‘something else’. Nothing ‘caused’ it, although there was a necessary condition for it.

Like I said, only an atheist can talk like that. :hey_bud: :yukonjoe::takeoff::whackadoo:

If there is a ‘necessary condition’ ( ). then there must be something before the universe.

 

[JDaniel]

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’).

Belorg;

God is both cause and condition. God is the cause that brought the universe, and all things, and all of their actions, into existence. God is also the condition: precisely because, without His Being, nothing can endure. God is He who dispenses persistence. I’m not sure how much additional weight the modifier, “sufficient,” brings to the table, in combination with the word “condition.” Perhaps you can enlighten me?

God bless,
jd

 

[levinas12]

. “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.

We’ve wrestled with this issue a number of times on this forum.

Anselm is helpful here. “God plus the world” is not greater than “God without the world”. The “world” or “creation” doesn’t add anything to God. There is no “increase” in divine being.

If God is “motivated” by “agape” love, this may not be too difficult to follow. Agape implies that God doesn’t “get something out of it.”

But Pope Benedict has added a twist. In his encyclical “God is Love”, he tore down the theological wall between agape and eros. But Benedict insists that the divine eros does not imply a lack in God.

We are now dealing with a Derridean or, should I say, a Marion moment. That is, we may not be able to wrap our minds around it. As Marion might say, it’s become a “saturated” phenomenon.

 

[JDaniel]

The question is: is it true or not?

I can’t unequivocally state that that is true - and neither can you. I will say, that for now, I believe it to be so.

So the unchanging God can chnage from sustaining and reconfiguring to refrain from this and all this in one timeless, unchanging state?
A timless state, that, apparenrtly is subdivided into an ‘ever’ and ‘a point’ at which He changes His mind without changing.
This is not just not an easy thing to wrap my mind around, it’s downright contradictory.

Good question. I don’t think God ever “refrains,” in the sense you are suggesting. I think He continues reconfiguring in indifferently varying directions, at indifferently varying speeds. One of the reasons we humans pull back on a horse’s bridle is to modify speed. Another, is that it helps us alter direction. And further, it helps us to not wear out the horse. How much deference do we pay to these exigencies, I don’t know. Probably not much.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg;

God is both cause and condition. God is the cause that brought the universe, and all things, and all of their actions, into existence. God is also the condition: precisely because, without His Being, nothing can endure.

Yes, the traditional views of God entail that God is both sufficient cause and necessary condition, which is precisely why this kind of God cannot create a beginning effect.

God is He who dispenses persistence. I’m not sure how much additional weight the modifier, “sufficient,” brings to the table, in combination with the word “condition.” Perhaps you can enlighten me?

I use sufficient condition as a synonym for cause. A condition as such is not a cause, but a sufficient condition is a cause.
The reason I use condition is because under at least some intrepretations of quantum mechanics, things come into existence from a pre-existing condition but the condition itself is not sufficient to bring about the effect.
IOW given a certain condition, some effect may or may not occur. As such, qunatum events are described as uncaused, although they require a pre-existing condition.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Why do you think “necessary condition” does not equal “sufficient condition?” What makes them different, in your view?

I explained that in my previous post.

It’s possible that his position does contain a contradiction, but, I’m looking at the Kalam in its simplest formulation. What I see is that you have have conflated two terms: “cause” with “condition.”

I also explained that in my previous post.

A “cause” is that from which anything proceeds (with dependence). A “condition” is that which must exist in order for something else to exist or come to be. “Air” is a condition for most life on this planet, but it is not the cause of life. The two words are very close in meaning, but they are not absolutely tautologous.

No, but if air were a sufficient condition for life on this planet, it would be the cause of life.

So, I’m wondering why you chose “condition” and why you stick with it so vehemently. Hmmm. Very clever, Senor!

I explained that in my previous post.

 

[belorg]

Belorg’s reply to my brilliant observaition:

Maybe you should let the readers decide whether your obsevrvation is really so brilliant, empther.
There used to be a time when catholics were humble.

Like I said, only an atheist can talk like that. :hey_bud: :yukonjoe::takeoff::whackadoo:

If there is a ‘necessary condition’ ( ). then there must be something before the universe.

That depends on how we define universe, but I do not have any problems with ‘something before the universe’ I do not belivee that things can come from nothing, not even if some being wills this.

 

[empther]

belorg blabbered:

That depends on how we define universe, but I do not have any problems with ‘something before the universe’ I do not belivee that things can come from nothing, not even if some being wills this.

Universe is anything that is not God.
Before the Big Bang there may have been something else. What? It’s unimaginable.
And before that there may have been something else. And so on.

But you can’t go back to an infinite past.
God had to start it all.
As to whether God could create something from nothing,
if there were no God, then at some remote past there was nothing, and there would still be nothing if nothing can come from nothing. But God isn’t nothing. His essence is existence and he can give existence.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yes, the traditional views of God entail that God is both sufficient cause and necessary condition, which is precisely why this kind of God cannot create a beginning effect.

This is a compete non sequitur.

I use sufficient condition as a synonym for cause. A condition as such is not a cause, but a sufficient condition is a cause.
The reason I use condition is because under at least some intrepretations of quantum mechanics, things come into existence from a pre-existing condition but the condition itself is not sufficient to bring about the effect.
IOW given a certain condition, some effect may or may not occur. As such, qunatum events are described as uncaused, although they require a pre-existing condition.

Several problems here: a. Another non sequitur. Even given the understanding of quantum mechanics you present, sufficient condition can still not be equated to cause.
b. God is not understood to be a quantum event. c. God is understood to be both condition and cause. You are doing something akin to bait and switch by equivocating the two in order to reduce them into insufficiency.

 

[empther]

Belorg’s latest stream of words that mean nothing:

I use sufficient condition as a synonym for cause. A condition as such is not a cause, but a sufficient condition is a cause.
The reason I use condition is because under at least some intrepretations of quantum mechanics, things come into existence from a pre-existing condition but the condition itself is not sufficient to bring about the effect.

Absolute nothingness is not a condition and has no condition, and therefore cannot be a cause, sufficient or otherwise.

There had to be a God above any kind of universe in whatever form you want to think of it.

 

[belorg]

This is a compete non sequitur.

Why?

Several problems here: a. Another non sequitur.

Why?

Even given the understanding of quantum mechanics you present, sufficient condition can still not be equated to cause.

Why not?

b. God is not understood to be a quantum event.

That’s actually my point.

c. God is understood to be both condition and cause.

That’s also my point.

You are doing something akin to bait and switch by equivocating the two in order to reduce them into insufficiency.

Just read again, prodigalson. In am in no way trying to reduce them into insuffiency. Au contraire, God is definitely supposed to be both a necessary condition and a sufficient condition AKA a cause. And that’s where the problem. God does not begin to be a necessary condition, nor does He begin to be a cause.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Why?

For the simple reason that your premises has no logical link to the conclusion. I would be very interested in hearing an explanation as to how a necessary condition/sufficient cause cannot have a beginning effect. By your logic, the necessary condition of gravity and the sufficient cause of tripping cannot produce the effect of beginning to fall.

Why?

Since this objection is continued in the proceeding statement, I will address it there.

Why not?

Because a condition is a state, and a cause is an action.
For example, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being a mammal. However, being a dog is not the cause of being a mammal.
Having lemons and water is a sufficient condition for making lemonade, but having lemons and water does not cause one to make lemonade.
Similarly, being omnipotent is a sufficient condition for creating a universe, but the condition of omnipotence does not in itself cause the universe.
You actually betray your (perhaps unintentional) dishonesty in your last statement here. I’ll address it in my reply to said statement.

Just read again, prodigalson. In am in no way trying to reduce them into insuffiency. Au contraire, God is definitely supposed to be both a necessary condition and a sufficient condition AKA a cause. And that’s where the problem. God does not begin to be a necessary condition, nor does He begin to be a cause.

Now, you say you’re not trying to equivocate, but I think I’ve already shown you are. And further, you as much say so yourself. I quote:

The reason I use condition is because under at east some intrepretations of quantum mechanics, things come into existence from a pre-existing condition but the condition itself is not sufficient to bring about the effect.

To reiterate, you’ve just admitted you replace cause with condition because a condition cannot be a cause.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Also:

An important distinction is that statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time, whereas conditional statements do not require this temporal order. Confusion commonly arises since many different statements in English may be presented using"If …, then …" form (and, arguably, because this form is far more commonly used to make a statement of causality). The two types of statements are distinct, however.

The necessity of linear time in statements of causality is a very important distinction. A distinction that, in fact, when considered along with the fact that conditions do NOT require a temporal order, completely negates your assertion that a sufficient condition can necessarily be a cause.

Further, to elaborate on my last post, the greatest distinction I see is that while conditions can be created by action, it is still the state created by the action that forms the condition, not the action/cause itself.