Is an eternally created universe possible?

[lmelahn]

I agree that from God’s perspective future does exist as now and past in his eternal now. The problem is why do we experience only now if past and future does exist.

Actually, the past and the future do not exist. (That is why they can’t be direct causes, actually). It is just that God sees all His creation in a single act. Aquinas deals with this at length in his De potentia if you are interested.

No. A timeless God can only have one eternal act otherwise is not timeless.

Agreed.

Thomas often pointed out that God’s sustaining causality is nothing but a continuation of God’s creating act. But Thomas did not speculate on how the details of an eternal creation would work. I like to think of it as something similar to his eternal begetting of his Son.

And that is a very serious problem. That is why his philosophy is wrong because he couldn’t realize that a eternal universe cannot have a dynamic.

No, I don’t think an “eternal” creation (I explained in my answer why I hesitate to apply the word “eternal” to any kind of creation) would be like the procession of the Eternal Word. As a matter of fact, a very important philosopher, namely Plotinus, posited something along those lines, and Aquinas clearly rejected that view.

Remember that even a universe infinitely extended in time would have a beginning, just not at temporal beginning. God would simply be decreeing that there should be an infinity of creatures, arranged in a temporal succession without a temporal beginning.

Or, to put it a different way, in the present moment, a universe with no temporal beginning would not be very different from a universe with such a beginning.

Therefore, I don’t see why an universe with no temporal beginning cannot be dynamic. (I would be interested to know why Bahman thinks this.)

How he could make a claim when he present an incomplete philosophy which does not even address the dynamic of creation?

I think that Aquinas considered it a purely academic question, since, he argues, in fact the universe does have a temporal beginning. (And it wouldn’t make a huge difference if it didn’t.) He deals quite a lot with the dynamic of creation, actually: that is the subject of his De potentia and the treatise on creation in the Summa.

 

[lmelahn]

But the parents do not generate the nature of the child, they only make it possible to be in this child. Therefore the parents are secondary causes. It is God who is the generator of the nature of the child, of the soul directly and of the body more remotely, going back via secondary causes to the original human bodies. Also, it is God who directly sustains all that exists at any time. Thomas would use the same arguments to establish an eternally created universe as on which was created in time ( S.T. 1, ques 44-49 ).

Linus2nd.

They are secondary causes, certainly, but also direct (“per se”) causes, at the moment of conception. (As you point out, they merely dispose the matter, so that God can create the human nature.)

But once the new human being exists, he does not depend on his parents anymore (not for his sheer existence).

 

[Bahman]

Actually, the past and the future do not exist. (That is why they can’t be direct causes, actually). It is just that God sees all His creation in a single act. Aquinas deals with this at length in his De potentia if you are interested.

That cannot be possibly correct. You agreed that God can only perform one eternal act meaning that creation namely, past, now and future must objectively exist.

No, I don’t think an “eternal” creation (I explained in my answer why I hesitate to apply the word “eternal” to any kind of creation) would be like the procession of the Eternal Word. As a matter of fact, a very important philosopher, namely Plotinus, posited something along those lines, and Aquinas clearly rejected that view.

That is definition of deist God not theist God. Creation is either eternally exist because of act of creation or it only exist at now and proceed but not both.

Remember that even a universe infinitely extended in time would have a beginning, just not at temporal beginning. God would simply be decreeing that there should be an infinity of creatures, arranged in a temporal succession without a temporal beginning.

Or, to put it a different way, in the present moment, a universe with no temporal beginning would not be very different from a universe with such a beginning.

Therefore, I don’t see why an universe with no temporal beginning cannot be dynamic. (I would be interested to know why Bahman thinks this.)

I think that Aquinas considered it a purely academic question, since, he argues, in fact the universe does have a temporal beginning. (And it wouldn’t make a huge difference if it didn’t.) He deals quite a lot with the dynamic of creation, actually: that is the subject of his De potentia and the treatise on creation in the Summa.

The beginning is not an issue right now.

 

[lmelahn]

Name one view of mine that is unorthodox? I was just upset with Imelahn because I explained this to her (Imelda?) before and she is acting as if my explanation didn’t exist. And William Carroll said in that quote that Genesis is not “theology and philosophy, properly speaking”. Finally, the First Way doesn’t even make sense if motion was eternal, as I’ve also shown in a previous thread, as you know. How is it logical to leap from eternal motion to an eternal Person keeping the motion “alive”. Why cannot the motion just be explained by other motion, going back eternally? You know well enough I’ve explained this before and shown direct contradictions in Aquinas’s own words

I am sorry if I upset you; that was not my intention.

And your view is not unorthodox. Plenty of people have subscribed to it, including most famously St. Bonaventure.

As I tried to show in our previous posts, I think that St. Thomas’ intention in Summa I, q. 7, a. 4, is to deny that an infinitude can be counted, not its raw possibility for existing. That is the technical sense in which he takes the term infinite multitude. If you compare this text, as I said in that post, to Aquinas’ commentary of the Metaphysics of Aristotle, then that becomes quite clear, it seems to me. Moreover, Aquinas takes a very clear position in favor of the possibility of an “eternal” world in his De aeternitate mundi (On the Eternity of the World), the link to which Linus2nd kindly provided.

Since you mention Summa, q. 46, a. 2 ad 7, I would highlight the following argument made by St. Thomas:

In efficient causes …] there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are “per se” required for a certain effect. …] But it is not impossible to proceed to infinity “accidentally” as regards efficient causes.

There cannot be an infinity of direct (“per se”) causes. But there could (at least in theory) by an infinity of circumstantial (“per accidens”) causes.

You don’t have to agree with St. Thomas, obviously. I happen to think that Aquinas’ argument makes the most sense, that is all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

evolutionnews.org/2010/04/what_was_thomas_aquinas_view_o034061.html

Summa contra Gentiles 2:17, in which he spells out the doctrine of creation: “God’s action, which is without pre-existing matter and is called creation, is neither a motion nor a change, properly speaking.” then he says “properly speaking.”

“Any word may be used in two ways–that is to say, either in its original application or in its more extended meaning” (I:67:1). The same is true with the word “creation.”

 

[lmelahn]

That cannot be possibly correct. You agreed that God can only perform one eternal act meaning that creation namely, past, now and future must objectively exist.

OK. I understand your objection better now.

God performs one eternal act (or better said, is one eternal act), but that act produces many effects. I think that is obvious, when we look, for example, at the multitude of different creatures that exist here and now.

God can call things into being, and he can also bring them out of being. Until they are called into being, they do not yet exist; once they have gone out of being, they no longer exist.

It is in that sense that the past and the future do not exist. Where is the Battle of Waterloo? In history books and in some archaeological artifacts, and not much else. I hope to get a doctorate in about three years’ time. But I don’t have it yet.

That is all that I mean. (I am curious: in what sense did you mean that the past and future exist really?)

However, everything is “present” to God inasmuch as it is the immediate effect of His unique eternal act. (Obviously, when we speak of “present” with respect to God, we mean something a little different than when we speak of our present, because God outside of time.)

Even if the past were still present to us (in which case, it wouldn’t really be the past, but let’s just play with this), I don’t think that would harm the argument any, because God, who is infinitely powerful, is perfectly capable of creating an infinitude of creatures, even in our own present.

(I am well aware that thinkandmull does not agree with me on this point, and interprets a certain passage of the Summa differently than I do, but I think we will have to agree to disagree amicably .)

That is definition of deist God not theist God. Creation is either eternally exist because of act of creation or it only exist at now and proceed but not both.

If I understood correctly, you are saying that a world infinitely extended into the past would entail a sort of necessary “procession” from God (as in Plotinus), rather than a true creation. (Correct me if I got you wrong.)

But what if God brought each creature freely into existence, just indefinitely extended into the past? (God would, obviously, bring each of them into existence, and maintain them in existence, through a single creative act.)

 

[Bahman]

OK. I understand your objection better now.

God performs one eternal act (or better said, is one eternal act), but that act produces many effects. I think that is obvious, when we look, for example, at the multitude of different creatures that exist here and now.

I think you didn’t get my objection yet.

When I say that theist God can do one act of creation I mean that creation must objectively exist, hence past, now and future. The whole must exist yet we don’t observe that meaning that at each instant from our prescriptive God only create what exist at now. This requires the knowledge of now which is problematic since question the concept of changeless God. Why? Because nowness brings subjectivity over time in which God has to be subjected to it otherwise creation does not have a correct dynamic. To elaborate consider frame of a movie as what represent the creation at a given time and the whole movie as creation. God of course know all movie but to give the action a right dynamic he must know one thing more, namely the position of current frame which of curse changes by time hence God knowledge becomes subject to time.

God can call things into being, and he can also bring them out of being. Until they are called into being, they do not yet exist; once they have gone out of being, they no longer exist.

No he cannot because that requires many acts. Please also read previous comment.

It is in that sense that the past and the future do not exist. Where is the Battle of Waterloo? In history books and in some archaeological artifacts, and not much else. I hope to get a doctorate in about three years’ time. But I don’t have it yet.

That is all that I mean. (I am curious: in what sense did you mean that the past and future exist really?)

A timeless God cannot only create what is at now. Please read the first comment.

However, everything is “present” to God inasmuch as it is the immediate effect of His unique eternal act. (Obviously, when we speak of “present” with respect to God, we mean something a little different than when we speak of our present, because God outside of time.)

Even if the past were still present to us (in which case, it wouldn’t really be the past, but let’s just play with this), I don’t think that would harm the argument any, because God, who is infinitely powerful, is perfectly capable of creating an infinitude of creatures, even in our own present.

(I am well aware that thinkandmull does not agree with me on this point, and interprets a certain passage of the Summa differently than I do, but I think we will have to agree to disagree amicably .)

If I understood correctly, you are saying that a world infinitely extended into the past would entail a sort of necessary “procession” from God (as in Plotinus), rather than a true creation. (Correct me if I got you wrong.)

But what if God brought each creature freely into existence, just indefinitely extended into the past? (God would, obviously, bring each of them into existence, and maintain them in existence, through a single creative act.)

That is not possible. Please read the first comment.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Could you please explain how we all can only experience very now if universe is created eternally?

You are experiencing it now, right? And God created it. For an explanation of how it is possible read Thomas’ Summa Theologiae, part 1, ques. 44-49. Or you can read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Of course, under the hypothetical condition of an Eternal Creation God would still be creating. That does not mean that he is creating everything right now, much of what he has created in the past still exists today - at least the ultimate structure of reality. That does not mean we should see it all now, nor does it mean we can see what he is creating now. All we know is what we see before us now and that may have been in existence for a long time, much of it ( the ultimate particles, etc.) for millions of years maybe. You are asking for details known only to God. God does not intend for us to know everything, he expects us to use what we know and use that to work out our salvation according to his will.

Linus2nd

 

[GaryTaylor]

The space-time continuum is viewed from inside as opposed to outside. This is seeing the painting being painted, not already completed. But outside, everywhere and always are the same time, so a connected conscience can be known. So the body and soul are ontologically equal insofar as they are both created and co-constitutive of the human substance, insofar as man constitutes a totality. The eternal Word that creates him also predetermines him as such, that is, as a soul with a particular body. So the inner is in contact with the outer consciousness within and without of the time continuum of which God created and is not subject to.

 

[John_Martin]

God IS one eternal act - his being. And if we describe that, he is “knowing and loving what he knows”. But he is knowing it as a “big picture”, as a whole.

What does he know in timelessness and love?
He knows himself and loves himself.
And he knows and loves what is not him, what is not God, meaning something he must create in order for it to be real and knowable and loveable. If he must create it to know and love it, then it is not always being as he is always. Instead anything “not God” that he knows has a “before it was being” and a “time of being” and a “no longer being” (unless he knows it as something that he wants to love always after it comes into being. Then it would have a “beginning” and a “time of being”.

Now, he does know it all as a complete picture, but the thing he knows as “John Martin”, in his big picture, he knows as a being that was not, and then “is created”. He knows me as changing in my being (such that I measure my experience of change to change with “time”) contingently. I experience myself somewhat similarly to how God eternally knows me - He knows me as created and changing, and I then experience my reality matching what he knows: I experience in time first birth, then growth, then acting both in sin and repentance and virtue, and understanding happens over time. My parents were the direct or efficient cause of my appearance in reality where God knows me as “was not and then being”. But God knows me as a created and changing being, He does not know me as always being born even though he knows my birth always. So my parents are no longer effectively causing my body (in fact, my mother has passed on). Yet God is still causing me because I am from eternity known as one of the “not God” beings that he knows in his big picture, and at today’s date I am exactly what he knows and loves.

In God’s act of being there is a “priority” of things, even though all is eternal. So, if in God’s knowing he knew of what is not God and always created (such that we would experience that the time of the universe appears to have no beginning) still there would be the priority of things in God. And creation could not be eternal as he is eternal.
God must “know and love”, priority-wise. And then in his knowing there is the object he knows within himself. That object is as real as the knower. Therefore, priority-wise he first knows himself - he himself is then the object of his own knowing. And, knowing himself he then imagines (knows) what is not God, but instead is caused by him, and he imagines (knows) himself causing it. And it is as real as his knowledge of himself. But he knows it as caused, therefore changing, therefore temporal being. Yet even if it extended infinitely back so that we could not number the years, yet being caused it would have a beginning, and it would not be the “aveternity” (sp?) of the angels, but contingent change just as we experience, due to the formal disposition of matter. God would still know it all in one glance, and know it as “not God”, caused, contingent, etc.

I am at the end of knowing how to say this more clearly - I think lmelahn or perhaps Linusthe2nd might want to frame it better.

 

[Bahman]

You are experiencing it now, right? And God created it. For an explanation of how it is possible read Thomas’ Summa Theologiae, part 1, ques. 44-49. Or you can read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Of course, under the hypothetical condition of an Eternal Creation God would still be creating. That does not mean that he is creating everything right now, much of what he has created in the past still exists today - at least the ultimate structure of reality. That does not mean we should see it all now, nor does it mean we can see what he is creating now. All we know is what we see before us now and that may have been in existence for a long time, much of it ( the ultimate particles, etc.) for millions of years maybe. You are asking for details known only to God. God does not intend for us to know everything, he expects us to use what we know and use that to work out our salvation according to his will.

Linus2nd

This is inconsistent with the concept of timeless God.

 

[lmelahn]

I will try to illustrate with a diagram. (I hope this works.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This diagram is attempt to show the duration of temporal, material creatures in time. God is entirely outside of time, and for Him all things are present.

Now, in reality, God does not do a number of distinct actions; the entire work of creation is a single act, which is identical to God’s own being.

However, that single act produces many effects. When God creates a creature, He decrees when in time that creature begins to exist, how long it will endure, and when it will cease to exist. Since God is outside of time, He can see every moment in time in an eternal “present.”

When I said that the past and future do not, strictly speaking, exist, all I mean is that creatures do not exist until they come into existence (i.e., the future has not yet arrived), and creatures cease to exist when then come out of existence (i.e., the past has gone and will not return).

This is a point that St. Augustine makes in his treatise on time, actually, so it is not an idea that is unique to St. Thomas.

Anyway, regarding this thread, there is nothing (in my opinion) that would have stopped God from creating creatures since an indefinitely extended past. There need not (speaking hypothetically) be a temporal beginning to the universe. Nor is it absolutely necessary for there to be a temporal end, either. (We are certainly grateful that there will be a temporal end, and we can all enjoy the New Heaven and the New Earth together with God, but there is nothing stopping God from doing things a different way, that is all.)

Apparently, from what I have seen on this forum, some of the posters seem to be concerned that the hypothesis of an infinitely old universe somehow takes away from God’s sovereignty, but I don’t think that follows. In such a case, God would still be the creator of each creature, ex nihilo.

(The triangle is the classic symbol to represent the Triune God, in case you were wondering.)

 

[Bahman]

I will try to illustrate with a diagram. (I hope this works.)

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7464/15942337830_1a33818261_o_d.png

This diagram is attempt to show the duration of temporal, material creatures in time. God is entirely outside of time, and for Him all things are present.

Now, in reality, God does not do a number of distinct actions; the entire work of creation is a single act, which is identical to God’s own being.

However, that single act produces many effects. When God creates a creature, He decrees when in time that creature begins to exist, how long it will endure, and when it will cease to exist. Since God is outside of time, He can see every moment in time in an eternal “present.”

When I said that the past and future do not, strictly speaking, exist, all I mean is that creatures do not exist until they come into existence (i.e., the future has not yet arrived), and creatures cease to exist when then come out of existence (i.e., the past has gone and will not return).

This is a point that St. Augustine makes in his treatise on time, actually, so it is not an idea that is unique to St. Thomas.

Anyway, regarding this thread, there is nothing (in my opinion) that would have stopped God from creating creatures since an indefinitely extended past. There need not (speaking hypothetically) be a temporal beginning to the universe. Nor is it absolutely necessary for there to be a temporal end, either. (We are certainly grateful that there will be a temporal end, and we can all enjoy the New Heaven and the New Earth together with God, but there is nothing stopping God from doing things a different way, that is all.)

Apparently, from what I have seen on this forum, some of the posters seem to be concerned that the hypothesis of an infinitely old universe somehow takes away from God’s sovereignty, but I don’t think that follows. In such a case, God would still be the creator of each creature, ex nihilo.

(The triangle is the classic symbol to represent the Triune God, in case you were wondering.)

Thank you for the figure. May I ask you a question? Where is now in that picture? Lets say it is somewhere in the middle and moves from left to right. You argue that the stuff which existed in past does not exist any longer as the stuff which will come in future. This means that only stuff exist at now hence God must create them at the very moment. This however subjects timeless God to time since creation is in motion and needs a sustainer.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents: @ Bahman

Measuring the dimensions of the moment, we find the stop watch simply goes around and around.

As a finite but eternal beings, the moment is where we are, have been, and always will be.
The here and now that is our rational soul, brings the universe into perspective.
The past, present and future constitute our personal relationship with God.
It is here is our spirit exists in relation to God.

A unity of matter and spirit, time and eternity, we are in this moment becoming the person, the life that includes and exists outside of time in this world.
The past is the person we have become thus far through our choices, unchangeable but forgivable.
The present is where we make our choices.
The future is where we are heading in our personal voyage.

If the moment is hard, marvel at its wonders.

 

[lmelahn]

Thank you for the figure. May I ask you a question? Where is now in that picture? Lets say it is somewhere in the middle and moves from left to right. You argue that the stuff which existed in past does not exist any longer as the stuff which will come in future. This means that only stuff exist at now hence God must create them at the very moment. This however subjects timeless God to time since creation is in motion and needs a sustainer.

As far as where to place “now,” that would be a fair interpretation of the figure, yes.

However, I fail to understand two things:

(1) In precisely what sense does a past event exist? Doesn’t the fact that it is past mean that it is no longer there? (I could ask the same thing about a future event.)

(2) Do you consider God to be the creator of time itself? In that case, why does the fact that He creates continually make Him subject to time?

(In other words, I agree that creation is in motion–that is evident. I also agree that it needs a sustainer. The step that I do not understand is why the sustainer needs to be subject to time. That is sort of like saying that the painter is subject to being made out of paint, it seems to me.)

 

[Bahman]

As far as where to place “now,” that would be a fair interpretation of the figure, yes.

However, I fail to understand two things:

(1) In precisely what sense does a past event exist? Doesn’t the fact that it is past mean that it is no longer there? (I could ask the same thing about a future event.)

(2) Do you consider God to be the creator of time itself? In that case, why does the fact that He creates continually make Him subject to time?

(In other words, I agree that creation is in motion–that is evident. I also agree that it needs a sustainer. The step that I do not understand is why the sustainer needs to be subject to time. That is sort of like saying that the painter is subject to being made out of paint, it seems to me.)

This I already explain it at post #26: Consider a frame of a movie as what represent the creation at a given time and the whole movie as creation. God of course know all movie but to give a right dynamic to movie he must know one thing more, namely the position of current frame which of curse changes by time hence God knowledge becomes subject to time hence God.

 

[Bahman]

:twocents: @ Bahman

Measuring the dimensions of the moment, we find the stop watch simply goes around and around.

As a finite but eternal beings, the moment is where we are, have been, and always will be.
The here and now that is our rational soul, brings the universe into perspective.
The past, present and future constitute our personal relationship with God.
It is here is our spirit exists in relation to God.

A unity of matter and spirit, time and eternity, we are in this moment becoming the person, the life that includes and exists outside of time in this world.
The past is the person we have become thus far through our choices, unchangeable but forgivable.
The present is where we make our choices.
The future is where we are heading in our personal voyage.

If the moment is hard, marvel at its wonders.

Thank you very much for your post. It didn’t resolve my problem but I am very thankful.

 

[John_Martin]

This I already explain it at post #26: Consider a frame of a movie as what represent the creation at a given time and the whole movie as creation. God of course know all movie but to give a right dynamic to movie he must know one thing more, namely the position of current frame which of curse changes by time hence God knowledge becomes subject to time hence God.

God knows the whole movie, without having to see each scene move to the next scene. He does not create each scene along a timeline. He is not like a physical director at each step of the way. Instead he is like the writer of the movie who has it all in his “imagination” as a finished product (a living movie with contingency in the characters).

Since he knows it, has its wholeness in his understanding, then the movie in its own eyes plays out it time. God does not sustain each of our “now” moments by causing or triggering that moment individually, but by knowing the whole movie complete. Therefore the “now” moment is sustained because it is part of his whole knowing of the movie.

 

[Bahman]

God knows the whole movie, without having to see each scene move to the next scene. He does not create each scene along a timeline. He is not like a physical director at each step of the way. Instead he is like the writer of the movie who has it all in his “imagination” as a finished product (a living movie with contingency in the characters).

Since he knows it, has its wholeness in his understanding, then the movie in its own eyes plays out it time. God does not sustain each of our “now” moments by causing or triggering that moment individually, but by knowing the whole movie complete. Therefore the “now” moment is sustained because it is part of his whole knowing of the movie.

But existence need creation in your philosophy hence God must act as a director since there is no other being in charge.

 

[lmelahn]

This I already explain it at post #26: Consider a frame of a movie as what represent the creation at a given time and the whole movie as creation. God of course know all movie but to give a right dynamic to movie he must know one thing more, namely the position of current frame which of curse changes by time hence God knowledge becomes subject to time hence God.

OK. I think I missed that post. Nice image.

But I think you are making an assumption about how God knows things.

When we know something, that thing makes a kind of image or impression in our minds (for the moment, there is no need to discuss exactly the nature of this image). In other words, the thing known has to exist first, and then our minds adjust to that thing.

With God, it is different. He knows by looking at His own Essence. He does not need to adjust to the thing known. Rather, the thing that He knows has to adjust to Him.

So, using our movie frame analogy, God certainly knows which “frame” we are at, here and now. But His Intellect does not have to adjust to that frame. Rather, it is the frame that is adjusting to Him.

It does not follow, therefore, that a moving “frame” would cause movement in God.