Was the creation of the universe necessary?

[inocente]

I don’t see how that particular argument you are responding to is circular, could you point out the error?

The argument says the universe exists because Gods wills it, and God wills it so the universe exists. Circular.

Another way of putting it is that before God said let there be light, the argument’s logic would conclude that the universe could never exist because God hadn’t willed it yet and so could never will it.

In the OP you don’t say who originally posted the argument, but I recommend you give up trying to convince them that it is false. A number of posters have invented pet theories involving tortured logic or pseudo-science. My experience is that it’s impossible to convince them that their pet theory is false even though it’s often impossible to see any point to it at all, as with this argument. Tell the guy more Christ and less theorizing, and leave it at that.

 

[polytropos]

Aquinas argues that God’s creation was completely generous, ie. it was not necessary. The act of creation is completely generous because it does not (and cannot) increase His own goodness. He did not have to do it; He could have created a different universe or could have not created the universe at all.

But he also says that, now that God has willed this particular universe (even though the act of willing was not necessary), it is necessary in the sense that God cannot not change his will, so He would not choose to, say, stop holding the universe in existence.

So it looks like the issue is in premise 5. This blog post by Edward Feser is relevant. The post is part of a larger response to William Lane Craig regarding divine simplicity, but I think it makes a good case for why the act of creation does not affect God’s essence.

Here, building on a distinction famously made by Peter Geach, we need to differentiate between real properties and mere “Cambridge properties.” For example, for Socrates to grow hair is a real change in him, the acquisition by him of a real property. But for Socrates to become shorter than Plato, not because Socrates’ height has changed but only because Plato has grown taller, is not a real change in Socrates but what Geach called a mere “Cambridge change,” and therefore involves the acquisition of a mere “Cambridge property.” The doctrine of divine simplicity does not entail that God has no accidental properties of any sort; He can have accidental Cambridge properties.

Now it was Aquinas’s position that “since therefore God is outside the whole order of creation, and all creatures are ordered to Him, and not conversely, it is manifest that creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God there is no real relation to creatures, but a relation only in idea, inasmuch as creatures are referred to Him” (ST I.13.7). As Barry Miller points out in his book A Most Unlikely God, this amounts to the claim that while the relation of creatures to God is a real one, the relation of God to creatures is a mere Cambridge one, so that (for example) God’s creating the universe is one of His merely Cambridge properties.

How can this be so? As Brian Davies points out in his chapter on divine simplicity in An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion (3rd edition), what is essential to acting is the bringing about of an effect in another thing, not undergoing change oneself as one does so. What is essential to teaching, for example, is that one cause someone else to learn, and not that one lecture, write books, or the like. Of course, in created things, bringing about an effect is typically associated with undergoing change oneself (e.g. for us to cause another to learn typically requires lecturing, writing, or the like as a means). But that is accidental to agency per se, something true of us only because of our status as finite, created things. We should not expect the same thing to be true of a purely actual uncaused cause of the world. Hence there is no reason to suppose that God’s creation of the world entails a change in God Himself.

 

[shoe]

Since God is not in need of anyone or anything, His act of creating the universe was not a necessary act on His part. God is neither constrained nor obligated to anyone or anything to bring the universe into existence: “…Neither is He served with men’s hands, as though He needed any thing” (Acts 17:25). Therefore, God’s free-will act in making the “world, and all things therein” was a revelation of His love. God’s creative thoughts always have existed with Him eternally; consequently, God’s act of creating the universe could not have stemmed from some inner compulsion or drive that made creating necessary for Him; rather, God brought the universe into being simply out of love.

 

[Birdmanman]

The argument says the universe exists because Gods wills it, and God wills it so the universe exists. Circular.

Another way of putting it is that before God said let there be light, the argument’s logic would conclude that the universe could never exist because God hadn’t willed it yet and so could never will it.

In the OP you don’t say who originally posted the argument, but I recommend you give up trying to convince them that it is false. A number of posters have invented pet theories involving tortured logic or pseudo-science. My experience is that it’s impossible to convince them that their pet theory is false even though it’s often impossible to see any point to it at all, as with this argument. Tell the guy more Christ and less theorizing, and leave it at that.

Hi inocente; the short argument given in my last post “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 not the same as the circular argument you are refuting. To elaborate:

1. What God wills to exist cannot fail to exist, since God’s will is perfect.
2. God wills the universe to exist.
3. (from 1 and 2) The universe cannot fail to exist, because of God’s will that it exist.
4. God’s will is unchanging.
5. (from 2 and 4) God’s will to create the universe is unchanging.
6. That which cannot fail to exist, must exist.
7. (from 3 and 5 and 6) Because of God’s unchanging will that the universe exist, the universe must exist.

God is outside of time, so even ‘before’ God said “let there be light”, God eternally willed there to be light in the created universe. (There is no such thing as ‘before’ God willed this or that; God’s will is eternal).

The poster who originally made this argument, which I am (in a devil’s advocate fashion) resurrecting, is probably long gone, and I presume the thread on which this original argument was made is somewhat old. I am not actively engaged in a debate on this with any other poster (besides on this thread). We could all use Christ in our lives, and I hope the original arguer has Him in his. Thanks for your participation so far, inocente!

 

[Birdmanman]

Aquinas argues that God’s creation was completely generous, ie. it was not necessary. The act of creation is completely generous because it does not (and cannot) increase His own goodness. He did not have to do it; He could have created a different universe or could have not created the universe at all.

But he also says that, now that God has willed this particular universe (even though the act of willing was not necessary), it is necessary in the sense that God cannot not change his will, so He would not choose to, say, stop holding the universe in existence.

So it looks like the issue is in premise 5. This blog post by Edward Feser is relevant. The post is part of a larger response to William Lane Craig regarding divine simplicity, but I think it makes a good case for why the act of creation does not affect God’s essence.

This is a really insightful response, polytropos. Thank you for your time in preparing it.

It must be agreed by necessity of reason that the act of creation could not increase God’s own goodness (He is simply and perfectly good, you can’t get better than that, since that would be adding to something purely simple).

You say God could have created a different universe, or could have not created the universe at all; in reality I agree with this, but I want to understand what is meant by this, since ‘could have not created the universe’ means, “there was really a situation such that God did not need to create the universe”. You report that Aquinas says that, since God has willed this particular universe, it is necessary (insofar as it is willed), since God cannot change His will. However, God’s will is eternal, it is not subject to time. This means that, eternally, God wills to create the universe. If this is so, and God eternally wills to create the universe, then there is no ‘time’ or situation or state of affairs that exists or existed in which God did not need to create the universe, since whenever He wills to create the universe (which is in a sense always (yet without time), or eternally), He must necessarily, in order to act in accord with His will, will to create the universe.

His will alone produces this necessity, but it would seem that this necessity that results from His will is likewise eternal, since His will is eternal. Thus, it is eternally necessary, because of God’s will, that the universe be created.

So, my thoughts on the Edward Feser piece (which I have not completed reading yet):
-I love Edward Feser
-Is it consistent with Catholic Teaching to hold the act of creation, or the fact that God
created creation, as a mere Cambridge property of God?
-It would seem necessary to hold the act of creation as a Cambridge property for God, in order to maintain that God is truly simple.
A thought experiment to illustrate this: (This is going to get really convoluted, please forgive me)

1. God is simple and one
2. God is His will
3. God is eternal
4. A direct result of God’s will is that a toy bear begins to exist
5. A direct result of God’s will is that a toy boat begins to exist
6. God’s will is simple (from 1 and 2).
7. God’s one, simple, will produced 2 different, distinct results.
8. God’s will cannot contain within it 2 different, distinct things; or rather, God cannot have 2 particular acts of will, since He is simple. (from 6). God’s will in Itself cannot be distinct, or have distinction, or contain distinction.
9. Yet God’s will caused 2 different, distinct results, without God’s will having a distinction within it to cause this result, or that result.
10. In the same way that God’s will caused 2 different, distinct results, without God’s will having a distinction within it; so God’s will may cause any distinct thing, without their being a distinction within His will (or in Himself), yet only a distinction in the results of His will.
11. For a distinct or different result to occur by cause of God’s will, no distinction or difference need (or even can) exist in God’s will Itself.
12. There is no distinction or difference in God’s will in Itself whether God’s will results in the creation of the universe, or not the creation of the universe. The result of God’s will in these 2 cases is indeed distinct (a universe, or no universe), but there is nothing different in God’s will Itself between these two results (since His will is simple).
13. Thus, even though God cannot and could not possibly be different from Himself for all Eternity, or God’s will cannot and could not possibly be different from what It itself is for all eternity, the results of God’s will can possibly be different even when His will Itself is not possibly different for eternity.

I think this is really cool.

[Again, please not that I am Catholic, and assent to all Catholic teachings on God and Free Will and such; I do believe with certainty that God, with Free Will, made the universe, and is in His Divine Nature simple and so forth.]

 

[polytropos]

You say God could have created a different universe, or could have not created the universe at all; in reality I agree with this, but I want to understand what is meant by this, since ‘could have not created the universe’ means, “there was really a situation such that God did not need to create the universe”. You report that Aquinas says that, since God has willed this particular universe, it is necessary (insofar as it is willed), since God cannot change His will. However, God’s will is eternal, it is not subject to time. This means that, eternally, God wills to create the universe. If this is so, and God eternally wills to create the universe, then there is no ‘time’ or situation or state of affairs that exists or existed in which God did not need to create the universe, since whenever He wills to create the universe (which is in a sense always (yet without time), or eternally), He must necessarily, in order to act in accord with His will, will to create the universe.

His will alone produces this necessity, but it would seem that this necessity that results from His will is likewise eternal, since His will is eternal. Thus, it is eternally necessary, because of God’s will, that the universe be created.

I think what complicates this is our perspective in time. You are right that there was not a moment prior to which God was not willing this particular universe, because “moments” would have only existed after he created the universe.

Perhaps it makes more sense to say that God’s unchangeable nature is essentially or logically (rather than temporally) prior to creation. As in, this particular universe is not essential to what God is (Pure Act) (any act of creation could not be essential to His nature because it couldn’t be perfect, but He nevertheless does it out of generosity), but His will to create it “has never changed” simply because He is outside of time. It is necessary in that it exists in all possible worlds, but it is not part of God as a necessary being. Similarly certain abstract objects (or immaterial beings like angels) might exist in all possible worlds but are not prior to God.

I’ll try to think about this a bit more, and I’ll take a look at your other thoughts when I have a bit more time.

 

[Birdmanman]

I think what complicates this is our perspective in time. You are right that there was not a moment prior to which God was not willing this particular universe, because “moments” would have only existed after he created the universe.

It is definitely tough to talk about God and eternity. To summarize my (convoluted) other thoughts: Because God’s will is simple, there is no distinction in God’s Will Itself between God’s Will resulting in this particular universe and God’s Will not resulting in this particular universe, so even though God’s Will Itself is eternally the same and cannot be different, the results of His Will can possibly be different. No change is needed (or possible) in God’s Will Itself, in order for there to be a change in the results or possible results of God’s Will. The difference is in the results, not His Will itself.

[And as usual throughout the thread, I am talking about God, in Substance, in His Divine Nature]

 

[StrawberryJam]

So far, we have a few things on the table.
Based on what?

 

[Birdmanman]

So far, we have a few things on the table.
Based on what?

? I think my initial question has been answered: The creation of the universe is not necessary for God:

**i. God’s Will in Itself is God, and is Simple; (It has no parts and anything other than It in Itself is not God’s will.)
ii. The results of God’s Will are distinct from God’s Will Itself (they are willed by God, but they are not identical to God’s Will Itself; they are not God.)
iii. Given a possible result of God’s Will (C), and another possible result of God’s will (B, ~C), God’s Will would in Itself remain the same whether (C) or (B, ~C) occurs as a result of His Will. (Since God’s Will is in Itself Simple, the distinctions contained/that exist within the results of God’s Will are not contained/do not exist within God’s Will in Itself).
iv. Thus, even though for eternity God’s Will cannot possibly be different from Itself (since It is simple), the results of God’s will can possibly be different. (Since God’s Will in Itself is distinct from the results of God’s will; and the distinctions that exist between possible results of God’s Will do not exist in/are not contained within God’s Will in Itself; so that if in one state of things C exists as a result of God’s Will, and in another state of things ~C exists as a result of God’s Will, there is nothing in God’s Will Itself that changes or is different between these two states of things, even though the results of God’s Will changed and are different).
v. Since the results of God’s Will can possibly be different, even as God’s Will in Itself is eternally the same as Itself, a particular result of God’s Will (the created universe), prior to the result of the created universe, could possibly have not been a result of God’s Will (prior to its existence, the created universe could possibly have not existed), even if God’s Will in Itself cannot possibly be different.

*[Notice here that I say “prior”, and not “before”; I mean by this to denote the sense of ‘prior’ in causal series, if the reader feels uncomfortable with talking about ‘prior’ to time. I actually think that saying something is ‘prior’ to time is proper, since I consider time the measure of the changes between states of things, and not the measure of the states of things in themselves; so that there was a state of things prior to the first change between states of things.]

Again, keep in mind that in this thread I am speaking about God, in substance, in His Divine Nature. Also keep in mind that I am Catholic, that I will easily discard with anything I say here if it is found not in keeping with the teachings of Holy Mother Church (so please warn me if it is not), and that, regardless of what I say in this thread (because I am sort of playing devil’s advocate), I agree/assent to all the teachings of The Church to which I am bound to agree/assent.

 

[StrawberryJam]

? I think my initial question has been answered: The creation of the universe is not necessary for God:

**i. God’s Will in Itself is God, and is Simple; (It has no parts and anything other than It in Itself is not God’s will.)
ii. The results of God’s Will are distinct from God’s Will Itself (they are willed by God, but they are not identical to God’s Will Itself; they are not God.)
iii. Given a possible result of God’s Will (C), and another possible result of God’s will (B, ~C), God’s Will would in Itself remain the same whether (C) or (B, ~C) occurs as a result of His Will. (Since God’s Will is in Itself Simple, the distinctions contained/that exist within the results of God’s Will are not contained/do not exist within God’s Will in Itself).
iv. Thus, even though for eternity God’s Will cannot possibly be different from Itself (since It is simple), the results of God’s will can possibly be different. (Since God’s Will in Itself is distinct from the results of God’s will; and the distinctions that exist between possible results of God’s Will do not exist in/are not contained within God’s Will in Itself; so that if in one state of things C exists as a result of God’s Will, and in another state of things ~C exists as a result of God’s Will, there is nothing in God’s Will Itself that changes or is different between these two states of things, even though the results of God’s Will changed and are different).
v. Since the results of God’s Will can possibly be different, even as God’s Will in Itself is eternally the same as Itself, a particular result of God’s Will (the created universe), prior to the result of the created universe, could possibly have not been a result of God’s Will (prior to its existence, the created universe could possibly have not existed), even if God’s Will in Itself cannot possibly be different.

*[Notice here that I say “prior”, and not “before”; I mean by this to denote the sense of ‘prior’ in causal series, if the reader feels uncomfortable with talking about ‘prior’ to time. I actually think that saying something is ‘prior’ to time is proper, since I consider time the measure of the changes between states of things, and not the measure of the states of things in themselves; so that there was a state of things prior to the first change between states of things.]

Again, keep in mind that in this thread I am speaking about God, in substance, in His Divine Nature. Also keep in mind that I am Catholic, that I will easily discard with anything I say here if it is found not in keeping with the teachings of Holy Mother Church (so please warn me if it is not), and that, regardless of what I say in this thread (because I am sort of playing devil’s advocate), I agree/assent to all the teachings of The Church to which I am bound to agree/assent.

How can anyone argue against this kind of brilliance?
I say we must submit. If we do not, we do so in willful ignorance.
I would like to be known as willfully ignorant and worthy of the wrath of the God of the Catholic Church if I had to believe any single thing about the natural world by dogma.
The Church has told us what we must believe.
The Church has not prepared many for what they are telling us we must remain ignorant of.

 

[Birdmanman]

How can anyone argue against this kind of brilliance?
I say we must submit. If we do not, we do so in willful ignorance.
I would like to be known as willfully ignorant and worthy of the wrath of the God of the Catholic Church if I had to believe any single thing about the natural world by dogma.
The Church has told us what we must believe.
The Church has not prepared many for what they are telling us we must remain ignorant of.

I think that both you and I already gain much of our knowledge about the natural world from doctrine, from the teaching of some authority or another. An authority we might submit to on matters of science is a scientific journal, or on history a historical writing, and the authority of the people who contributed to those works. We may sometimes reasonably trust these sources and, out of trust, submit to their expert knowledge in order to increase our own knowledge. You might not trust The Church on matters of the natural world, and so submit to Her teaching on them, but you do trust some authorities on these matters, and submit to their teachings. You and I have a sort of dogmas and doctrines even of our own that we submit to, provided by a religious institution or not.

This is all besides the purpose of this thread; if you would like to start another thread on your distaste for dogmas and doctrines that relate to the natural world, I welcome you to do so. I hope that we can work together through this forum in an honest and respectable pursuit of Truth.