The sustaining cause argument

[Vera_Ljuba]

One of the arguments for God’s existence is the “sustaining cause” argument. It says that the world would simply flicker out of existence, if God would not maintain every particle, atom, molecule in existence, every second, every minute, every hour.

Contrary to the deist type of god, it was not enough that God created the world with all the laws of nature, and then rest on the seventh day. God plays a constant role in sustaining the world. Of course that does not preclude some “extra” interference - if and when it is needed - in the form of “miracles”. But that is the exception, not the rule. God must “toil” all the time, to make sure that every particle keeps on existing. And not just “existing” in the abstract, but existing at its proper spatial and temporal coordinates, its “where” and “when”.

A few questions about this scenario.

Was it impossible for God to create a “self-sufficient” set of laws of nature? To start the “ball” rolling and simply allow the world exist according to the “laws of nature” - which were also created by God?

But there is a more important problem. We are supposed to have “free will”. Our actions do not occur on a pre-defined path. We can do whatever we want - within the framework limited by the “laws of nature”. So, for example, we are free to grab a gun, and fire it at someone. At that moment, God takes over, and sustains the bullet on its trajectory, all the way to victim’s head.

This, of course makes God a “co-murderer” in this case. If he would let his concentration “wander” for a split second, the bullet would simply disappear or disintegrate in mid flight. But this is not the worst problem. Many people argue that God is the “boss”, he can do whatever he wants, and we are not supposed to complain. Fine. I don’t “complain”.

But God is also supposed to be “sovereign” (supreme, absolute, unlimited, unrestricted, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional) - not contingent in any way. And also “simple” - meaning that God has no parts, his “essence” cannot be separated into “parts”. In other words, God’s “action” is inseparable from his existence. (Pretty strange, but let’s not quibble.)

Here comes the real kicker. If our actions are primary, and God’s sustaining action is caused by our action, then God is NOT sovereign. God’s sustaining action is contingent upon our (free!) decisions.

And this is the problem the believers must face.

 

[Wesrock]

Was it impossible for God to create a “self-sufficient” set of laws of nature? To start the “ball” rolling and simply allow the world exist according to the “laws of nature” - which were also created by God?

No, though to be clear, God is not pulling puppet strings on everything, but causing all things to exist according to their nature. Classical thinking on causation is also a wider definition than most materialist philosphy uses. Four causes are usually identified: formal, material, efficient, and final. But to keep things simple, when a classical theist says that God is the cause of X, they mean that X has some type of ontological dependence on God for existence.

All non-God things that exist are a composition of some sort. Of course it may have parts extended through space. But there’s also it’s act and potential, form and matter, substance and accident, essence and existence. There’s nothing intrinsic to any non-God essence that requires any of these compositions to actually exist from moment to moment. There’s more formal discussion of this, but just quickly touching bases.

But there is a more important problem. We are supposed to have “free will”. Our actions do not occur on a pre-defined path. We can do whatever we want - within the framework limited by the “laws of nature”. So, for example, we are free to grab a gun, and fire it at someone. At that moment, God takes over, and sustains the bullet on its trajectory, all the way to victim’s head.

This, of course makes God a “co-murderer” in this case. If he would let his concentration “wander” for a split second, the bullet would simply disappear or disintegrate in mid flight. But this is not the worst problem. Many people argue that God is the “boss”, he can do whatever he wants, and we are not supposed to complain. Fine. I don’t “complain”.

It’d be like calling someone imaging something co-murdering one imaginary character with another, but not quite. God holds things that exist in existence such that they behave according to their nature, and He permits evils to occur from these secondary causes impacting each other. To interfere would be to prevent things from acting according to their nature.

But God is also supposed to be “sovereign” (supreme, absolute, unlimited, unrestricted, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional) - not contingent in any way. And also “simple” - meaning that God has no parts, his “essence” cannot be separated into “parts”. In other words, God’s “action” is inseparable from his existence. (Pretty strange, but let’s not quibble.)

Here comes the real kicker. If our actions are primary, and God’s sustaining action is caused by our action, then God is NOT sovereign. God’s sustaining action is contingent upon our (free!) decisions.

And this is the problem the believers must face.

God wills that we act voluntarily and that while the first cause may be perfect, that the contingency (degradeability) of things can lead to defective proximate causes. The ontological dependence on God is prior to our action, but does not necessitate our action. God Himself remains unmoved by any action we take. He does not change moment to moment, nor does He exist by way of duration from moment to moment. Nor do events pass successively from His perspective. His one act, knowledge, and will extends to all points in time.

I’ve seen this addressed systematically before, as it’s not a new objection, but (searching on my phone and being bad company at another’s home), haven’t found my source yet.

Edit: Aquinas addresses these concerns across Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapters 67 through 88, at least. I will continue my search for a more contemporary response, but have to put my phone down for now.

 

[petra22]

I feel like I stepped into a class that was way over my head… but keep talking and I may be able to fill in the blanks…!

 

[Gorgias]

VL,

Thanks for bringing this point to its own thread! I’m going to disagree with some of the ways you frame up this thought (but hey… is that a surprise? ), but thanks for raising these questions!

One of the arguments for God’s existence is the “sustaining cause” argument. It says that the world would simply flicker out of existence, if God would not maintain every particle, atom, molecule in existence, every second, every minute, every hour.

Reasonably good, so far…

God must “toil” all the time, to make sure that every particle keeps on existing.

I think I’d respond that it’s not ‘toil’ – and certainly not “temporal toil” – but rather, an overarching commitment to keep in existence what He has brought into existence.

And not just “existing” in the abstract, but existing at its proper spatial and temporal coordinates, its “where” and “when”.

This is the first important point on which we disagree. It’s not a “in a particular state” or “in a spatial or temporal coordinate”, or in a “where” or “when”. Just an assertion of creation in existence, without the implications that you’re asserting here.

Was it impossible for God to create a “self-sufficient” set of laws of nature?

The laws are self-sufficient… presuming that the material upon which they act is, in fact, in existence.

But there is a more important problem. We are supposed to have “free will”. Our actions do not occur on a pre-defined path. We can do whatever we want - within the framework limited by the “laws of nature”. So, for example, we are free to grab a gun, and fire it at someone. At that moment, God takes over, and sustains the bullet on its trajectory, all the way to victim’s head.

No. Absolutely, unequivocally, no. God is the primary cause of the existence. Individuals, however, cause the effects that they set in motion.

This, of course makes God a “co-murderer” in this case. If he would let his concentration “wander” for a split second, the bullet would simply disappear or disintegrate in mid flight.

The implication is merely that God has given us creation and tasked us with being responsible stewards of this creation.

Here comes the real kicker. If our actions are primary, and God’s sustaining action is caused by our action, then God is NOT sovereign. God’s sustaining action is contingent upon our (free!) decisions.

No. God’s sustaining action is not caused by our action. Our results – the results of our actions – is caused by us. God provides the materials, and he gives us the freedom to will (and, given the constraints of “how things work” in creation, to act) in ways for which we bear responsibility.

And this is the problem the believers must face.

Not seeing the problem here. God gives us a gift. God gives us opportunities to act, and more to the point, opportunities to act in concert with his will. Do we accept this responsibility… or do we blame him when we do it wrong? You seem to want to want it both ways: he’s not good because he’s given us freedom, and he’s not good because he doesn’t bear the responsibility when we abuse that freedom.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think I’d respond that it’s not ‘toil’ – and certainly not “temporal toil” – but rather, an overarching commitment to keep in existence what He has brought into existence.

The word “toil” is used tongue in cheek. Use “act” if you prefer. If the laws of nature are sufficient, then the world “works as intended” without any further interference - except for the occasional miracle to fix something. BTW, a “perfectly” designed and created world would never need further “tinkering”, would never need a “miracle”. The miracles would be the “norm” and no one would recognize them as “miracles”. But that is another conversation.

This is the first important point on which we disagree. It’s not a “in a particular state” or “in a spatial or temporal coordinate”, or in a “where” or “when”. Just an assertion of creation in existence, without the implications that you’re asserting here.

Of course we disagree. There is no mere “existence”. A hydrogen atom is not merely a proton and an electron, it needs the strong nuclear force to keep them together. It is not enough to keep the proton and the electron in “existence”, it also needs the force to keep them at their respective “position” at every specific “time”. The spatial and temporal coordinates are not just something that we “add” to the mere existence, they are integral parts to keep the hydrogen atom in existence. In other words, if only the proton and the electron would be sustained (and the “where” and “when” would not), this whole shebang we call the universe would disappear into a “cloud” of subatomic particles. So your “mere existence” is simply incorrect. I would suggest that you abandon it.

If the basic laws of nature are sufficient to keep the sub-atomic parts of the hydrogen atom in “place”, then there is no further need to sustain them.

The most basic laws of nature are the conservation laws. Conservation of matter, energy, spin, momentum, etc. If these laws are sufficient, there is no need for further “sustenance”. You cannot declare that all the other laws are sufficient, except the basic “conservation laws”. That simply does not fly.

No. Absolutely, unequivocally, no. God is the primary cause of the existence. Individuals, however, cause the effects that they set in motion.

Oh, yes. I did not question that God is the “primary” cause. But our “free actions” are the secondary cause - uncaused by God. That bullet, which we fire in the direction of someone else’s head needs to be maintained on its course. That makes God definitely a co-murderer. Just like if someone with Parkinson’s disease would attempt to fire that gun, and would need you to steady his hand. You would be a co-murderer in that case.

No. God’s sustaining action is not caused by our action.

No? It just happens by sheer accident? Since you are wrong to “limit” God’s alleged sustenance to “existence”, it is obvious that God’s action to maintain that bullet on its course - is caused by our action. Therefore God is contingent upon our actions.

Of course all this would be irrelevant if the church would have been satisfied with God creating the world, and allowed it to work according to the laws of nature. After all God “rested” on the seventh day. The trouble is that church’s teachings would have needed a publishing editor, to weed out the nonsense and the contradictions. But there was none. And now the church painted itself in a corner, and must keep denying it. Rather uncomfortable position.