Was the creation of the universe necessary?

[Birdmanman]

I read through a post on the subject, and would like to see if anyone might assist me in finding holes in the following argument:

1. God is simple
2. God is pure actuality
3. God is necessary (a necessary being, a logical necessity, etc.)
4. God performed the act of creating the universe*
5. (4 and 1 and 2) God’s performance of the act of creation is not distinct from God himself, since God is simple. [the created universe is still distinct from God, but in this premise, the act of creation is itself not distinct from God]
   Conclusion: 6. (from 5 and 3) God’s performance of the act of creation is necessary

Now, I do not agree with the conclusion here, and would like to see how others deny this conclusion.

My current objection is that 4 is an over-simplication of the real act that God performs (or is), which is Love, and the outcomes of this Love (in this case, creation) are unnecessary and external to the act of Love itself.
An alternative objection I can think of is that, since God has freely chosen from eternity to create the universe, it is necessary because of that eternal choice that the universe exists, although this eternal choice could have been otherwise (God not choosing to create the universe), in which case the universe would necessarily not exist (as a result of this choice from eternity to not create the universe). This alternative objection accepts 6., but still maintains that God freely chose from eternity to perform the act of creation, which perfect choice cannot afterward be altered (and so becomes necessary) because God is immutable. (This implies that willing something from eternity for God does not require change, that is, the eternal ‘decision’ or the eternal ‘choice’ was truly eternal yet truly a free choice, even though it is eternally unchangeable)

*to say God performed the act of creating the universe is merely to point out a particular
aspect of the unity that is God, since to me it seems the ultimate Love that is God (in a manner of speaking) is in reality and substance a simple and unitary act, which to us with our limited ability to comprehend God appears through aspects as multiple acts. (Please correct this footnote if you find something in it incorrect).

 

[Rete]

I think the problem is where you claim God’s act of creation is indistinguishable from Himself. First, God is pure act, and when you state it like that, it almost sounds as if the argument confuses potentiality with act. Secondly, nothing which is contingent is by itself necessary. Only God is necessary. This argument seeks to prove that everything is necessary and therefore everything is God. But it never really shows that everything is necessary. Lots of things are accidental and can be logically shown as such. Thirdly, and most importantly, by conflating what God creates with Himself, you describe an argument for some form of pantheism, which is a heresy. So if this is a Catholic making the argument, then just follow his own argument out to its pantheistic conclusion, followed by a reference to infallible Church dogma which refutes it. I think that is how they would have done it in the past in persuasio.

 

[Birdmanman]

I think the problem is where you claim God’s act of creation is indistinguishable from Himself. First, God is pure act, and when you state it like that, it almost sounds as if the argument confuses potentiality with act. Secondly, nothing which is contingent is by itself necessary. Only God is necessary. This argument seeks to prove that everything is necessary and therefore everything is God. But it never really shows that everything is necessary. Lots of things are accidental and can be logically shown as such. Thirdly, and most importantly, by conflating what God creates with Himself, you describe an argument for some form of pantheism, which is a heresy. So if this is a Catholic making the argument, then just follow his own argument out to its pantheistic conclusion, followed by a reference to infallible Church dogma which refutes it. I think that is how they would have done it in the past in persuasio.

Hi Rete! Thanks for responding.
The post (from long ago, I imagine) has a non-Catholic making the argument, I think.
To your third point, the argument does not state that the creation God has made is indistinguishable and identical to Himself (which is pantheism), but rather it states that His act, His activity, His making of creation is indistinguishable from Himself, since He has willed/caused creation from eternity (I am not saying that the creation existed for eternity, but that the will/cause of creation exists and is made eternally). Basically, this argument claims that God’s activity is identical to Himself (so, carrying out justice, or loving, or having mercy, are what we see as activities that God does (even though these ‘activities’ are really simple and one in Him)).

To your second point, I do think this argument I am repeating from the non-Catholic seeks to show that everything God created is necessary, since the act of creation is (argued to be) necessary, but I do not think that this necessarily implies that everything is God (pantheism), unless God is simply defined as “whatever exists necessarily”, or unless you can get from showing that something is necessary to showing that necessary thing(s) are really unique and one.

If, as you state in your second point, nothing which is contingent is by itself necessary, would you say that God’s choice to create, or God’s act of creation, is contingent, and therefore created? That is, is there a distinction between God, and God’s act of creation, such that God is not-contingent, yet God’s act of creation is contingent? How could the act of creation then exist (if it has an existence distinct from God), without God first creating it? God’s creation of the act of creation would require yet another act of creation, and another, ad infinitum. So it seems that the act of creation is not distinct from God, otherwise the act of creation (or choice to create) itself must be created (or caused, or what have you).

To your first point, the addition of the premise that God is pure act (in the sense of actuality; elsewhere in this post I use the word act with the meaning ‘activity’), while assumed in the argument, doesn’t need to be placed there (I did not mean to imply that God was not pure act).

I hope you understand I assent to whatever Holy Mother Church teaches, and I am here merely trying to defeat an argument that claims that the act of creation is necessary for God to do, since it seemed difficult to dissect on my own.

 

[Birdmanman]

Right now I consider the answer to the argument to be the following:

God’s performance of the act of creation was/is indeed necessary, not in itself, but
because God from eternity willed/performed this act, while He could have willed/performed otherwise from eternity. It is not necessary in the logical sense because God could have willed eternally otherwise (meaning creation could have possibly not happened), but upon eternally willing the act of creation, God made His performance of the act of creation necessary, since He is immutable in His Divine Nature.
This further implies that creation itself is necessary, albeit only insofar as God willed it.

 

[inocente]

Right now I consider the answer to the argument to be the following:

God’s performance of the act of creation was/is indeed necessary, not in itself, but
because God from eternity willed/performed this act, while He could have willed/performed otherwise from eternity. It is not necessary in the logical sense because God could have willed eternally otherwise (meaning creation could have possibly not happened), but upon eternally willing the act of creation, God made His performance of the act of creation necessary, since He is immutable in His Divine Nature.
This further implies that creation itself is necessary, albeit only insofar as God willed it.

Don’t think so. If God had to say let there be light then God would be no different from a force of nature, having to acting blindly according to laws He laid down earlier.

Perhaps there’s a principle at work here - God’s motives and actions cannot be retrospectively dictated by philosophers.

 

[Birdmanman]

Don’t think so. If God had to say let there be light then God would be no different from a force of nature, having to acting blindly according to laws He laid down earlier.

Perhaps there’s a principle at work here - God’s motives and actions cannot be retrospectively dictated by philosophers.

God didn’t simply “have” to, God willed to, but because God willed to and only because God willed to, then as a result of God willing to, God had to (since He cannot go against His will in His Divine Nature).
In His Divine Nature, He does have to act exactly in accord with His Unchangeable, Eternal Will; it may appear to us to change (a miracle happens one day but doesn’t happen another), but that is only because we cannot, as mere humans, understand God in His Essence. (That is, the results of His Will may change to accomodate for His Will, and complex results may occur in accord with His Will, but His Will is really absolutely simple and one).

 

[inocente]

God didn’t simply “have” to, God willed to, but because God willed to and only because God willed to, then as a result of God willing to, God had to (since He cannot go against His will in His Divine Nature).
In His Divine Nature, He does have to act exactly in accord with His Unchangeable, Eternal Will; it may appear to us to change (a miracle happens one day but doesn’t happen another), but that is only because we cannot, as mere humans, understand God in His Essence. (That is, the results of His Will may change to accomodate for His Will, and complex results may occur in accord with His Will, but His Will is really absolutely simple and one).

But according to that logic didn’t God also have to create the Brooklyn Bridge? I mean you could say anything and everything is necessary because God’s will is unchanging.

Not sure that is what’s meant by an unchanging God.

 

[Birdmanman]

But according to that logic didn’t God also have to create the Brooklyn Bridge? I mean you could say anything and everything is necessary because God’s will is unchanging.

Not sure that is what’s meant by an unchanging God.

Yes, according to this logic, God willed from eternity to sustain the Brooklyn Bridge in being at a point in time, therefore He had to, because He willed to, sustain the Brooklyn Bridge in being at that point in time. He cannot act against Himself. He could have willed otherwise from eternity, but cannot change His Will from eternity, since He cannot change.

By unchanging God, I mean a God who is eternal in His Divine Nature; Who is not dependent on or subject to time (which is a measure/process of change) in His Divine Nature.
If God changed, from some God-state1 to some God-state2, then God-state1 would have to somehow be different from God-state2, otherwise there is no change. But God is simple and one in substance, so the only thing that can differ from something that is simple, one (in substance), and whole is something entirely else. That is, in order for God to become different (to change), He cannot merely become different in some part of Himself, for He has no parts, so because He is simple, He must become entirely and wholly different when changed; if He changes (in His Divine Nature), He must become not God. (There are other reasons why God cannot change in His Divine Nature).
To simplify: For purposes of this argument, an added assumption to the argument will be that God (in His Divine Nature) is immutable.

[The person of Christ did indeed undergo physical change in His Human Nature, for example by growing in age, but the Divine Nature does not undergo change].

 

[Birdmanman]

Another version of the argument I am trying to defeat (or nullify the apparent negative effects of):

1. God is absolutely necessary
2. God is simple
3. God has will
4. (From 2 and 3) God is His Will, God and His Will are identical.
5. (From 4 and 1) God’s Will is absolutely necessary
6. As a matter of His Will, God willed to create the universe
7. (from 5 and 6) As a matter of His Absolutely Necessary Will, it was absolutely necessary that God willed to create the universe.

 

[BobDanners]

Another version of the argument I am trying to defeat (or nullify the apparent negative effects of):

1. God is absolutely necessary
2. God is simple
3. God has will
4. (From 2 and 3) God is His Will, God and His Will are identical.
5. (From 4 and 1) God’s Will is absolutely necessary
6. As a matter of His Will, God willed to create the universe
7. (from 5 and 6) As a matter of His Absolutely Necessary Will, it was absolutely necessary that God willed to create the universe.

Why don’t you give the clear, plain, honest and factual answer

1. 
   *]God is a mystery
   *]God is a mystery
   *]God is a mystery
   *]God is a mystery
   *]God is a mystery
   *]God is a mystery
   *]God is a mystery
   
   Seriously I never understand people applying natual logic to the supernatural.

 

[Birdmanman]

Seriously I never understand people applying natual logic to the supernatural.

Thanks for your participation, BobDanners! Applying our God-given logic and reason to understanding God or the Divinely revealed truths He has taught us is basically a task of Theology.

 

[empther]

God does not have to will to create the universe,

and if he wills to create the universe he can’t not will to create the universe since that’s a self-contradiction,

and if I want to win the lottery I can’t simultaneously not want to win the lottery,

but this doesn’t mean God necessarily had to create the universe,

or I have to necessarily will to win the lottery.

The argument and conclusion in the original post is not logical or supportable.

 

[inocente]

Yes, according to this logic, God willed from eternity to sustain the Brooklyn Bridge in being at a point in time, therefore He had to, because He willed to, sustain the Brooklyn Bridge in being at that point in time. He cannot act against Himself. He could have willed otherwise from eternity, but cannot change His Will from eternity, since He cannot change.

The logic commits the fallacy of circular reasoning - whatever exists must exist because what must exist exists, and whatever doesn’t exist must not exist because whatever must not exist doesn’t exist, and whatever God wills to exist must exist because what exists God willed to exist.

 

[BobDanners]

Thanks for your participation, BobDanners! Applying our God-given logic and reason to understanding God or the Divinely revealed truths He has taught us is basically a task of Theology.

I understand that…I’m just saying not everything can be answered because God is a Mystery. The only theologian who has ever come closed to scratching the surface is Saint Thomas Aquanis

 

[Linux]

I read through a post on the subject, and would like to see if anyone might assist me in finding holes in the following argument:

1. God is simple
2. God is pure actuality
3. God is necessary (a necessary being, a logical necessity, etc.)
4. God performed the act of creating the universe*
5. (4 and 1 and 2) God’s performance of the act of creation is not distinct from God himself, since God is simple. [the created universe is still distinct from God, but in this premise, the act of creation is itself not distinct from God]
   Conclusion: 6. (from 5 and 3) God’s performance of the act of creation is necessary

It depends on what you mean by necessary. It is not necessary in the sense that God is caused or forced to create against his will or irrespective of it. However God only does what is in his nature to do since his will is identical with his nature; and he expresses his nature fully without arbitrary restraint (it would be selfish to do otherwise and it is impossible for God to be selfish). Creation is a necessary expression of an intellectual will that is **identical with love **in the sense that creation is just what love does. In this respect God eternally wills love and therefore whatever “reflects” the glory of that love is necessarily manifest. Hence we are created in the image of God.

God does not do arbitrary things. Therefore whatever he has willed from eternity is something that he would have always willed.

In respect of Gods love there is not a possible reality in which God would have chose not create. That’s a contradiction of Gods love; However God is not forced to act against his nature, and so the universe is not necessary in that sense.

 

[Birdmanman]

God does not have to will to create the universe,

and if he wills to create the universe he can’t not will to create the universe since that’s a self-contradiction,

and if I want to win the lottery I can’t simultaneously not want to win the lottery,

but this doesn’t mean God necessarily had to create the universe,

or I have to necessarily will to win the lottery.

The argument and conclusion in the original post is not logical or supportable.

Hi Empther, thanks for responding to this thread and attempting to help me resolve this issue.
So, is God identical to God’s performance of the act of creation?
If no, then something besides God already exists before anything besides God was created.
If yes, and God is absolutely necessary, then God’s performance of the act of creation is absolutely necessary.

If X (God’s performance of the act of creation) = Y (God)
and Y is A (Absolutely necessary)
Then X is A.

Is this not logically valid?

 

[Birdmanman]

The logic commits the fallacy of circular reasoning - whatever exists must exist because what must exist exists, and whatever doesn’t exist must not exist because whatever must not exist doesn’t exist.

I agree here that these 2 statements are fallacious, because knowing that what must exist exists, does not necessarily mean that what exists must have needed to exist.

Whatever God wills to exist must exist because what exists God willed to exist.

Whatever God wills to exist must necessarily exist because God wills it; if God wills something to exist, His will will cannot fail, and so that thing must exists because of God’s will. The things that God wills to exist are not inherently necessary, the only reason they must exist is because God wills them to exist, but that still means they must exist.

Now, God cannot change His will, and God’s will never began (it is Eternal), so from eternity God wills whatever does exist; which means from eternity God willed the universe, which means it has never, ever, been the case that the universe could not exist, since from eternity God willed it, so from eternity it must exist*.
So, could God have willed from eternity otherwise?

1. God cannot and could not possibly be different than what He is (in substance) (He is simple, so any difference between His substance and another substance is difference in entirety)
2. God’s will is Himself
3. (from 1 and 2) God’s will cannot and could not possibly be different from what It is.
4. God’s will ‘includes’ creating the universe.
5. (from 3 and 4) God’s will to create the universe cannot and could not possibly be different from what It is.

(*This does not mean, and I am not saying, that the universe is eternal)

 

[Birdmanman]

It depends on what you mean by necessary. It is not necessary in the sense that God is caused or forced to create against his will or irrespective of it. However God only does what is in his nature to do since his will is identical with his nature; and he expresses his nature fully without arbitrary restraint (it would be selfish to do otherwise and it is impossible for God to be selfish). Creation is a necessary expression of an intellectual will that is **identical with love **in the sense that creation is just what love does. In this respect God eternally wills love and therefore whatever “reflects” the glory of that love is necessarily manifest. Hence we are created in the image of God.

God does not do arbitrary things. Therefore whatever he has willed from eternity is something that he would have always willed.

In respect of Gods love there is not a possible reality in which God would have chose not create. That’s a contradiction of Gods love; However God is not forced to act against his nature, and so the universe is not necessary in that sense.

So, you are saying is not possible that God could not have created the universe?
By necessary, I don’t mean something compelling God to do something against His will or irrespective of His Will. Anything that is ‘necessary’ in the sense I am using is necessary only because and on account of of God’s Will, whose active and true Will cannot possibly change or fail. So I don’t think you are in disagreement here with the point I am (in a devil’s advocate sense) trying to make.
But if God’s will cannot change, and God’s creation is done through His love (I do not actually think creation necessarily follows from His Love as you seem to say…but that’s a topic for another day), could it have even possibly been that God did not create the universe?

The Catechism teaches:

"295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: “For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

Is a Will really free when it could not possibly have done anything else?
**

 

[inocente]

Whatever God wills to exist must necessarily exist because God wills it; if God wills something to exist, His will will cannot fail, and so that thing must exists because of God’s will. The things that God wills to exist are not inherently necessary, the only reason they must exist is because God wills them to exist, but that still means they must exist.

Now, God cannot change His will, and God’s will never began (it is Eternal), so from eternity God wills whatever does exist; which means from eternity God willed the universe, which means it has never, ever, been the case that the universe could not exist, since from eternity God willed it, so from eternity it must exist*.
So, could God have willed from eternity otherwise?

1. God cannot and could not possibly be different than what He is (in substance) (He is simple, so any difference between His substance and another substance is difference in entirety)
2. God’s will is Himself
3. (from 1 and 2) God’s will cannot and could not possibly be different from what It is.
4. God’s will ‘includes’ creating the universe.
5. (from 3 and 4) God’s will to create the universe cannot and could not possibly be different from what It is.

(*This does not mean, and I am not saying, that the universe is eternal)

I can see what you’re trying to do but you can’t make a circular argument valid by adding a get-out-of-jail-free clause.

Even then it’s a dark theology, a form of predeterminism in which god willed Hurricane Katrina from before the big bang, and both we and god are powerless to have it any other way. No point praying since god is trapped by his nature into willing everything that has passed. If we want things to be better we must fight against god’s inability to change his will.

Which leaves the question - what’s the point, why not just believe in Fate?

 

[Birdmanman]

I can see what you’re trying to do but you can’t make a circular argument valid by adding a get-out-of-jail-free clause.

Even then it’s a dark theology, a form of predeterminism in which god willed Hurricane Katrina from before the big bang, and both we and god are powerless to have it any other way. No point praying since god is trapped by his nature into willing everything that has passed. If we want things to be better we must fight against god’s inability to change his will.

Which leaves the question - what’s the point, why not just believe in Fate?

I don’t see how that particular argument you are responding to is circular, could you point out the error? Whatever thing God wills to exist, must exist, not because of the thing itself, but only because God wills it, and God’s will necessarily brings about what He wills. Is there something wrong with that statement?

In this scenario, God is not ‘powerless’, He is all powerful and is the ultimate determining factor of whether or not creation exists. Once He has willed to create the universe, however, or since He has eternally willed to create the universe, He is ‘bound’ to His eternal will, not as though anything else determined it for Him, but because He himself wills to do it, and he cannot act contrary to Himself. I think from this we can see that God truly is free in what He wills, since nothing else has authority over Him or can compel Him to act; but even though He is free, His will is eternal, and cannot be changed. [Our perception of His will, and the results of His will, can be changed, however.].
If by ‘necessary’, all I mean is ‘willed by God, such that whatever He wills will not fail to come about’, I do not think that this is very controversial. But the issue is that His will cannot change (since it is Himself, and He cannot change); therefore there is no scenario in which the universe wouldn’t come about, unless somehow the universe coming about is a mere extrinsic result of His will, and was not an inherent part of God’s will.
So I guess the question is, could God’s will have possibly been otherwise? Or, could God have been otherwise?

I see no reason that God’s actions cannot take into account our free will, since God is omniscient and would know what we will even before we will it out of our free will. I also do not mean to imply that God can somehow determine our free will. For example, God’s will ‘before’ God created us is the same as God’s will when someone is praying (God’s will is simple and unchanging), but God’s will ‘before’ God created that person can still take that person’s future prayer into account because God is omniscient. Simply knowing the future is not the same as determining the future.

And please note that in this thread I am in part playing devil’s advocate, and in reality I do accept all Catholic teaching regarding free will, God, creation, and every other matter that I am bound to assent to. I am trying here to understand/defend it better.
Also, keep in mind that in this thread I am strictly speaking about God in His Divine Nature.