Bill Craig's objection to Thomist God

[empther]

All this mumbo jumbo about conditions versus causes neither of which is clearly definend because the last thing atheists want is clarity,

take us away from the basic truth: there could not have been an infinite past.

Therefore the universe began and it was caused by something *eternal, *
because if cause existed in time it would be changeable,
not infinite and unchanging
and therefore it would be part of the universe not the cause of the universe.

Yes, I know it’s hard to follow that. Well, I’m sorry. That’s how it is.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Belorg:

It seems to me that you are still conflating, only this time it’s “reason” with “cause.” Below is the definition of “sufficient reason,” from the Oxford Dictionary online

noun
mass noun] Philosophy
the principle (associated particularly with G.W. Leibniz) that all events must ultimately be explicable in terms of the reasons a divine being would have had for choosing one alternative rather than another

I do not think that “sufficient cause” is any kind of noteworthy Catholic notion. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is. But this is the use of “cause” as I defined it earlier, “as that on which a thing (the effect) depends in being or in coming-to-be.” It is a “principle,” except that a true principle is that from which anything flows without dependence.

I use sufficient condition as a synonym for cause. A condition as such is not a cause, but a sufficient condition is a cause.

OK. But, that is not what is meant by it, and it may lead to confusion, as it looks like it’s done already.

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.

Are those things still called “virtual?” Never mind. The problem is that you are using the word in two completely different senses. In the sense that “condition” is that which “conditions,” it is very different from a “condition” which is a thing’s state.

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.

This exemplifies the confusion. If I, in my car, run over an animal, I, and my car, are the cause(s) of its death. The state (or, condition) of death is: lifelessness. These are the two sense you are blurring together.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I explained that in my previous post.

Yes, I know.

I also explained that in my previous post.

Yes, I know.

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

No. It would be a “state in which life could flourish,” in the sense that living things had already been caused to come-to-be. Nothing more.

You are re-creating the language to suit a purpose. But then, that makes what you are trying to convey unintelligible, for all intents and purposes. Anyway, I now know what you mean.

My eyes are shutting down. I want to continue this, but, I hope you can wait until tomorrow.

I explained that in my previous post.

Yes, I know.

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

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.

This is difficult…it’s not intelligible enough to me to be able to clearly identify a contradiction. But, if there was such a contradiction, I’m not sure it’d be logical since it’d probably concern the content and not the form.

I’ll try and flesh this out a little though…

It seems to be a part of what it means for a cause to successfully ‘cause’ that its effect obtains. That is, it’d be extremely difficult to understand what someone means if they were to say something like “The striking of this match caused the flame; but, the flame doesn’t exist yet.”

No, if something actually causes anything, then the effect has obtained.

So, the difficulty seems to be in saying that God has successfully caused creation to exist from all eternity, even though creation didn’t actually exist from all eternity. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean.

 

[belorg]

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.

Since you obviously do not understand my argument, I am not going to repeat itover and over again.
Your last example makes that painfully clear. If the necessary condition of gravity did not begin and the tripping did not begin, then the falling did not begin either.

Because a condition is a state, and a cause is an action.

If you use cause in a limited sense, you are right. But I use it more broadly, and for a reason.

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.

Being a dog is not a necessary condition for being a mammal, so I don’t see your point.

Having lemons and water is a sufficient condition for making lemonade, but having lemons and water does not cause one to make lemonade.

Having lemon and water is not a sufficient condition for making lemonade.

Similarly, being omnipotent is a sufficient condition for creating a universe,

No, it is not. Being omnipotent may be a necessary condition for creating a universe, but it iks not a sufficient condition at all.

but the condition of omnipotence does not in itself cause the universe.

Beacsue it is not a sufficient condition. Otherwise, it would cause the universe.

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:

A necssary and sufficient condition IS a cause, otherwise God could not cause anything at all.

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

A cause is a condition but a condition is not necessarily a cause.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

It seems to me that you are still conflating, only this time it’s “reason” with “cause.” Below is the definition of “sufficient reason,” from the Oxford Dictionary online

noun
mass noun] Philosophy
the principle (associated particularly with G.W. Leibniz) that all events must ultimately be explicable in terms of the reasons a divine being would have had for choosing one alternative rather than another

I do not think that “sufficient cause” is any kind of noteworthy Catholic notion.

That is not really my problem.

“First Cause,” on the other hand, is. But this is the use of “cause” as I defined it earlier, “as that on which a thing (the effect) depends in being or in coming-to-be.” I

I have already explained why I use ‘sufficient’ And I don’t really care whether Catholics use it or not.

OK. But, that is not what is meant by it, and it may lead to confusion, as it looks like it’s done already.

I don not see why it would lead to confusion.

Are those things still called “virtual?”

Maybe, but that’s not important.

Never mind. The problem is that you are using the word in two completely different senses. In the sense that “condition” is that which “conditions,”

Yes, a condition is that which conditions. I knwo that in English ‘condition’ is also used as a synonym for ‘which a thing is’ or ‘state’.
So, now you know what I mean by ‘condition’ , maybe you can actually address the argument. BTW, in the context of my argument, there is no significant differnece between the two definitions.

This exemplifies the confusion. If I, in my car, run over an animal, I, and my car, are the cause(s) of its death. The state (or, condition) of death is: lifelessness. These are the two sense you are blurring together.

No, I am not blurring them together, because , in the context of my argument, they are not different.

 

[belorg]

No. It would be a “state in which life could flourish,” in the sense that living things had already been caused to come-to-be. Nothing more.

No, JD, if X is a sufficient condition for Y to occur, then whenever X is true, so is Y. If somethiong else (Z) caused Y, then obviously X is not a sufficient condition of Y.

Anyway, I now know what you mean.

I do not think you do, JD.

My eyes are shutting down. I want to continue this, but, I hope you can wait until tomorrow.

I am a very patient man.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Since you obviously do not understand my argument, I am not going to repeat itover and over again.
Your last example makes that painfully clear. If the necessary condition of gravity did not begin and the tripping did not begin, then the falling did not begin either.

Ok. I came to the argument a little late. So your argument is that something outside of the temporal order cannot have a causal effect on anything inside a temporal order. Fair enough, but I see no reason to think so. This requires as much presumption as the inverse, initially, but, assuming omnipotence, the opposite seems more likely. An omnipotent power would, de facto, have abilities the human mind cannot fathom. You are attempting to gauge the supernatural by natural measures.

If you use cause in a limited sense, you are right. But I use it more broadly, and for a reason.

There is no more broad sense. A cause is a cause is a cause. A cause requires temporal order. The condition of omnipotence allows the creation of temporal order. The condition gives birth to the cause. In the case of God, as a prefect whole, the condition and cause are inseparable in the realest sense, but must be distinct in description.

Being a dog is not a necessary condition for being a mammal, so I don’t see your point.

We’re not talking about necessary conditions. We’ve talking about sufficient conditions, which you claim are synonymous with causes. Being a dog IS a sufficient condition for being a mammal, yet it is not the cause. Don’t change the subject.

Having lemon and water is not a sufficient condition for making lemonade.

I’m sorry, did I forget sugar? Someone to mix it? You’re grasping at straws. Please read my seconds post. Causes require temporal order, conditions do not. Even given whatever would qualify for you as sufficient conditions for making lemonade, it does not follow that lemonade is then made.

No, it is not. Being omnipotent may be a necessary condition for creating a universe, but it iks not a sufficient condition at all.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how it is insufficient. Seeing as omnipotence implies infinite ability, it follows there can be no greater ability or force in existence, so by your logic, there is no possible sufficient condition for creating a universe, so, therefore, the universe can’t exist.
Omnipotence can, by definition, do anything possible. As we are here, the beginning of a universe is clearly possible. Therefore, omnipotence can begin a universe.

Beacsue it is not a sufficient condition. Otherwise, it would cause the universe.

I’ve already addressed this fallacy. Sufficient conditions do not require temporal order. Therefore, sufficient conditions need not be causes. The condition of omnipotenceconfers the ability to create; the action (causal agency) of omnipotence can create because of the condition.

A necssary and sufficient condition IS a cause, otherwise God could not cause anything at all.

Not true at all. There is a clear distinction between causes and conditions, whether necessary or sufficient or both. For example, being a police officer is both a necessary and sufficient condition for arresting a criminal, but it does not cause you to arrest a criminal.

A cause is a condition but a condition is not necessarily a cause.

No. Causes HAVE conditions. Conditions don’t necessarily have causes.

 

[empther]

belorg’s analysis in post #46

No, JD, if X is a sufficient condition for Y to occur, then whenever X is true, so is Y. If somethiong else (Z) caused Y, then obviously X is not a sufficient condition of Y.

Friends, if you just discovered catholic.com forums and wonder what these discussions are about, I’ll explain it to you. It’s very simple.

The atheists refuse to talk about and avoid like the bubonix plague
the simple fact that the universe cannot have existed through an infinite past. Acknowledging that would force them to admit there had to be a God to start it all.

So the atheists come up with all kinds of mumbo jumbo to divert your attention away from the truth, and well-meaning but naive believers try to counter them
by talking about the atheists’s own mumbo jumbo!!

So the believers let the atheists determine the site of battle and predictably the believers will never win the war. :slapfight: :blackeye: :takethat:

 

[prodigalson2011]

belorg’s analysis in post #46



Friends, if you just discovered catholic.com forums and wonder what these discussions are about, I’ll explain it to you. It’s very simple.

The atheists refuse to talk about and avoid like the bubonix plague
the simple fact that the universe cannot have existed through an infinite past. Acknowledging that would force them to admit there had to be a God to start it all.

So the atheists come up with all kinds of mumbo jumbo to divert your attention away

1. 
   
   from the truth, and well-meaning but naive believers try to counter them
   by talking about the atheists’s own mumbo jumbo!!
   
   So the believers let the atheists determine the site of battle and predictably the believers will never win the war. :slapfight: :blackeye: :takethat:

1. 
   If one is a believer, one knows the war has already been won.
   
   It is one’s duty, as a believer, to evangelize. For those with the ability, philosophical discourse may play a part in that. By waving off atheists, you not only neglect your duty to them, but to those who may be influenced by them.
   
   Whether or not one party concedes, I see nothing “naive” about addressing specific arguments proposed by atheists, rather than saying “God is obviously necessary.” If it were that simple, there would be no reason for theology. Aquinas would never have written the Summa. You are not only dismissing the opposition, but the very tradition you claim to support. You should note that Aquinas’ entire Summa, which is almost incomprehensibly long, begins each section by presenting an opposing view which he then attempts to refute.
   
   IThese objections were often many, and he would carefully address each one. He didn’t just wave them off, throw out a blanket answer and then hurl insults at anyone who attempted to continue dialogue on either side. Since he is considered a doctor of the Church,I think you would do well to follow his example. Philosophy is an ongoing dialogue. If you grow tired of the discussion at hand, simply leave the thread. There is no ned to go around hurling insults at everyone involved.

 

[belorg]

Ok. I came to the argument a little late. So your argument is that something outside of the temporal order cannot have a causal effect on anything inside a temporal order.

No, that is not my argument

You are attempting to gauge the supernatural by natural measures.

No I am attempting to see the logial implacations of certain claims.
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’.

There is no more broad sense. A cause is a cause is a cause. A cause requires temporal order.

Well not everybody would agree with that statement.

The condition of omnipotence allows the creation of temporal order. The condition gives birth to the cause.
In the case of God, as a prefect whole, the condition and cause are inseparable in the realest sense, but must be distinct in description.

Why would two things that are inseparable in the realest sense require a distinct description. And a condition ‘given birth to something’ sounds dabngerouysly close to a cause.

We’re not talking about necessary conditions. We’ve talking about sufficient conditions, which you claim are synonymous with causes. Being a dog IS a sufficient condition for being a mammal, yet it is not the cause.

If being a dog is a sufficient condition as you describe it, then bein g a dog is the cause of being a mammal.

Don’t change the subject.

I’m sorry, did I forget sugar? Someone to mix it? You’re grasping at straws.

If you add all possible things that make up the sufficient condition for lemonade, then lemonade is caused.

Please read my seconds post. Causes require temporal order, conditions do not.

Then God cannot be a cause. because then He would have to cause that which He requires to cause something. That’s a contradiction.

Even given whatever would qualify for you as sufficient conditions for making lemonade, it does not follow that lemonade is then made.

Yes it does. Otherwise, the condition would have been insufficient. If there is no lemonasde, then obviously something is lacking.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how it is insufficient. Seeing as omnipotence implies infinite ability, it follows there can be no greater ability or force in existence, so by your logic, there is no possible sufficient condition for creating a universe, so, therefore, the universe can’t exist.

The universe can exist, it just cannot begin to exist. But being onmipotent in itself is not a sufficient condition for the universe to exist. the sufficient condition would have to entail: willing to create the universe and acting upon that will.
If omnipotence were truly a sufficient condition, then everything logically possible wouild always have existed.

Omnipotence can, by definition, do anything possible.

It can do anything possible, but it does not necessarily do everything possible. You should include ‘will’ into the equation.

As we are here, the **beginning **of a universe is clearly possible.

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

Therefore, omnipotence can begin a universe.

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.

The condition of omnipotenceconfers the ability to create; the action (causal agency) of omnipotence can create because of the condition.

I Hage already explaiend why that entails a huge contradiction;

Not true at all. There is a clear distinction between causes and conditions, whether necessary or sufficient or both. For example, being a police officer is both a necessary and sufficient condition for arresting a criminal, but it does not cause you to arrest a criminal.

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

No. Causes HAVE conditions. Conditions don’t necessarily have causes.

 

[belorg]

If one is a believer, one knows the war has already been won.

It is one’s duty, as a believer, to evangelize. For those with the ability, philosophical discourse may play a part in that. By waving off atheists, you not only neglect your duty to them, but to those who may be influenced by them.

Whether or not one party concedes, I see nothing “naive” about addressing specific arguments proposed by atheists, rather than saying “God is obviously necessary.” If it were that simple, there would be no reason for theology. Aquinas would never have written the Summa. You are not only dismissing the opposition, but the very tradition you claim to support. You should note that Aquinas’ entire Summa, which is almost incomprehensibly long, begins each section by presenting an opposing view which he then attempts to refute.

IThese objections were often many, and he would carefully address each one. He didn’t just wave them off, throw out a blanket answer and then hurl insults at anyone who attempted to continue dialogue on either side. Since he is considered a doctor of the Church,I think you would do well to follow his example. Philosophy is an ongoing dialogue. If you grow tired of the discussion at hand, simply leave the thread. There is no ned to go around hurling insults at everyone involved.

If only more people around here agreed with that.

 

[empther]

If you grow tired of the discussion at hand, simply leave the thread. There is no ned to go around hurling insults at everyone involved.

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.

 

[prodigalson2011]

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.

No, on the contrary, it does concern me. However, I think setting an example of reasonable discourse is more likely to make a positive impression of believers to a confused young person than mean-spirited, snide remarks and dismissal. And I say this as someone who became an atheist in large part due to the prevalence of such attitudes in the faith community. I think you are doing more harm than good. Painting a picture of believers as a people who demean anyone who disagrees is not going to win many hearts.

P.s. Belorg, your last post has given me food for refinement of thought. I’ll respond later when I have more time.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Well not everybody would agree with that statement.

The statement was that a cause is a cause is a cause. Did you just seriously deny that a cause is a cause? Who on earth, except Satan or one of his minions, would deny that a cause is a cause?

If I said that a cat is a cat is a cat, assuredly some people might disagree with that statement. But that’s because they are either engaging in rascalism or because they are crazy.

Cause and effect is the single most universally attested to and agreed upon principle/observation in all of human history. It is truly a universal.

Therefore please explain yourself: What exactly do you understand and define a cause to be, if not what everyone knows it to be?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Forgive me if this has been answered already.

The Catholic Church when it comes to predestination allows people to believe like the Thomists do–BUT you can also believe as the Molinists do.

Would Craig be in agreement with the Molinists when it comes to God and predestination?

I guess what I’m asking is does Craig have a problem with Catholic Doctrine or only Thomist theological opinion that is allowed by the Catholic Church but not normally defined by the Catholic Church in areas where one is able to differ with Thomism and still be orthodox in Catholic doctrine–an example being the Molinists?

 

[belorg]

The statement was that a cause is a cause is a cause. Did you just seriously deny that a cause is a cause?

No, the statement was that a cause requires temporal order. And I didn’t deny that, all I said was that not everybdoy agrees with this.

Who on earth, except Satan or one of his minions, would deny that a cause is a cause?

I most certainly wouldn’t.

 

[belorg]

No, on the contrary, it does concern me. However, I think setting an example of reasonable discourse is more likely to make a positive impression of believers to a confused young person than mean-spirited, snide remarks and dismissal. And I say this as someone who became an atheist in large part due to the prevalence of such attitudes in the faith community.

Hence your forum name?
BTW that is not a good reason to become an atheist.

I think you are doing more harm than good. Painting a picture of believers as a people who demean anyone who disagrees is not going to win many hearts.

I would like to add that this is supposed to be a discussion board and that it won’t hurt teenagers to learn that there are people who think differently what their reasons are for doing so.
I sincerely hope for the sake of catholicism that catholic teenagers can deal with criticism.
I am sure they can, because, a long time ago, I used to be a catholic teenager.

P.s. Belorg, your last post has given me food for refinement of thought. I’ll respond later when I have more time.

Take your time,

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The facts speak for themselves without the need to appeal to the opinions of well-known individuals…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Hence your forum name?
BTW that is not a good reason to become an atheist.

Yes, hence the forum name. And that was not the main reason I became an atheist, but it didn’t help when I started moving in that direction. Science, philosophical inquiry and personal problems all played parts as large as my perception of the Christian world.
My point was that if there are skeptical teens about, his behavior isn’t likely to shift the balance in his favor. Anyway, back to the main discussion…

No, that is not my argument

Perhaps I could have worded that better. But you are suggesting that if God is eternal and changeless, he cannot begin to create; his creation must also be eternal. I’m leaving aside our ongoing discussion of necessary and sufficient conditions for the moment, but I’ll come back to it…

No I am attempting to see the logial implacations of certain claims.
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’.

Well, I don’t believe that the idea that an eternal God can create a universe that is not itself eternal is logically impossible, nor am I trying to get off the hook. But the fact is, whatever side of the argument you stand on, you must concede that if there is a God, there are going to be certain things about Him that we cannot comprehend in the fullest sense. We can certainly ascertain whether or not these things are logically possible, but as for understanding the complete how and why of it, such will remain impossible.

Well not everybody would agree with that statement.

Do you?

Why would two things that are inseparable in the realest sense require a distinct description. And a condition ‘given birth to something’ sounds dabngerouysly close to 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.

“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, 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…

If being a dog is a sufficient condition as you describe it, then bein g a dog is the cause of being a mammal.

Not so. To use a more cliched example, well accepted in philosophical literature, being a bachelor is a sufficient condition for being a male. Clearly the former did not cause the latter. “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.

If you add all possible things that make up the sufficient condition for lemonade, then lemonade is caused.

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

Then God cannot be a cause. because then He would have to cause that which He requires to cause something. That’s a contradiction

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

Yes it does. Otherwise, the condition would have been insufficient. If there is no lemonasde, then obviously something is lacking.

Already addressed this a few points back…

The universe can exist, it just cannot begin to exist. But being onmipotent in itself is not a sufficient condition for the universe to exist. the sufficient condition would have to entail: willing to create the universe and acting upon that will.
If omnipotence were truly a sufficient condition, then everything logically possible wouild have always existed.

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.

It can do anything possible, but it does not necessarily do everything possible. You should include ‘will’ into the equation.

I have not argued that omnipotence does do everything possible. And I have very much included will in the equation. I was inferring this heavily in my ‘lemonade’ and ‘police officer’ examples. 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. If God is perfect in Himself, and creating does nothing to add or subtract from his perfection, it does not follow that His creation must exist eternally. His will to create must exist eternally, but the action of creation must not. 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.