What Caused God to Create the Universe?

[NowAgnostic]

This is a false statement, and the root of your problem. It is equivalent to saying that since the universe is caused, God is caused.

No, it isn’t. The statement again was:

Now, if the universe is contingent, God’s creative action is also contingent.

This follows from: if God’s creative action is necessary, the universe is necessary by modus tollens.

The cause of the universe is the simple will of God. Since God is Himself First Cause, there need be no cause outside Himself for His willing anything, since He is His own Will.

Peace and God bless!

And if He is necessary, so is His will, if He is His own will.

 

[NowAgnostic]

When you think about God, many generally think of a being that is more intelligent than us. I would say that’s an understatement, but nonetheless, more intelligent.

How can we ever wrap our brains around the reason why God would create the universe?
That’s like a mouse wondering why an engineer created a house.

Kalos:

A great question, and i would like to give you a spiritual and Biblical answer. The reason why God created remained a mystery throughout the old testament, but then St. Paul revealed it for us in the book of Colossians. This book is centered on Christ. We find in the first chapter that all things were created for Christ. The Father desired to create all things for the glory of the Son.

This is one of the great revelations of the Bible. i hope you do not find it too simplistic because it is really very deep.

The appeal to “mystery” is not very convincing. It is made just when the proposed philosophical explanation begins to break down. If this is allowed, then anything goes. The atheist’s response to how can something come from nothing is, I don’t know, it’s a “mystery”.

 

[NowAgnostic]

In the first sentence, you are distinguishing between the Being [God] and His Action [Creation], but in the second sentence, you are mixing these up again…saying that since His Action is ‘unexplained’ then the Being is ‘without explanation’…

That is not what I said. Nowhere did I claim God’s existence was without explanation. I’m assuming, as per the cosmological proofs, that He is a necessary being.

the INTELLECT [meaning He has the means to create if He wants to],
and the FREE WILL [meaning He has the Freedom to Act if He so desires to]…
the nature of the BEING would explain the ‘necessity’ or the logical argument for the Creation of all that is ‘seen and unseen’ to come into existence ‘out of nothing’ by the power of this Being…

And what is the cause of His wanting to or desiring to?

I am not familiar with this theory…can it be similar to what I explained in that the nature of the Being is not just its existence but also its action?

In other words, dogs bark, ducks quack, Humans reason, God Exists * and Creates…their ‘being’ includes their ‘actions’ or their ‘actions’ are part of the nature of their ‘being’…
*

That’s exactly where I’m going with this… if God’s actions are His nature… then the universe is as necessary as God. God’s nature can’t be otherwise and thus His actions can’t be either.

 

[HyeDetroit]

The appeal to “mystery” is not very convincing. It is made just when the proposed philosophical explanation begins to break down. If this is allowed, then anything goes. The atheist’s response to how can something come from nothing is, I don’t know, it’s a “mystery”.

I guess some questions will never get a true answer in your eyes. You can try to rationalize all you want, but you’re still speculating.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How can we ever wrap our brains around the reason why God would create the universe?
That’s like a mouse wondering why an engineer created a house.

Does it really matter to the mouse, as long as he gets fed and has a place to live?
Will he ever understand the achitectual and structual aspects of the house?

But by seeking, you discover that indeed someone built that house and that removes a lot of question.

 

[Ghosty]

This follows from: if God’s creative action is necessary, the universe is necessary by modus tollens.

This is also a false statement, however (it also doesn’t follow from your previous argument, but that’s another issue). Things that follow on necessary things are not themselves necessary; for example, the force of gravity is necessary, but my jumping off a cliff and falling is contingent even though the falling is caused by gravity. My falling is contingent because a contingent cause (my will) is a contributing factor in the final outcome, even though the force that drives that final outcome is necessary.

I bring this up merely to point out the flaw in your reasoning. When you’re not thinking through (or at least demonstrating) the actual steps and definitions you will always come to error.

And if He is necessary, so is His will, if He is His own will.

It is necessary that He HAS will, yes, but the determination of His will does not follow from Him having a will. As a human person it is necessary, not contingent, that I have a will as well (having will is one of the definitions of humanity), but what I determine by that will is not necessary.

It can also be said that it is necessary that God willed the universe in a certain sense, on account that God does will the universe, but this is a necessity based on supposing what already is (since I am Ghosty, it’s necessarily true that I am Ghosty), not an absolute necessity based on the nature of will itself (Ghosty is a contingent being, so although I am Ghosty if I am at all, the fact that I am is not absolutely necessary but contingent; this is similar to how falling off the cliff is a contingent action, but the falling is necessary supposing I choose to jump).

So God necessarily wills, since will is His very being, but WHAT He wills is not necessary, but contingent based on His own council and choice. What He wills is necessary insofar as His will can’t be blocked, but not in its (the thing willed) very nature. It is necessary that God wills, and God wills the universe, therefore (following on the supposition that God wills the universe) the universe necessarily exists. God willing the universe, however, is not necessary, and no factors of necessity infringe upon its nature as a simple choice. God does not choose to will (neither do we; we will by definition), but God chooses what to will (as we do).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If God’s creative action is necessary, the universe is necessary…

God’s creative action is not necessary. It is a choice that flows out of His character. Nevertheless, He could have had the same character, and yet not created. This is the meaning of free will – not an *uncaused *cause, but an *undetermined *cause.

 

[James_S_Saint]

God’s creative action is not necessary.

I’d have to disagree with that one.

Anyone who knows all things and makes any decision is going to make the one choice that is the most balanced. God could not be God and make any other choice.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’d have to disagree with that one.

Anyone who knows all things and makes any decision is going to make the one choice that is the most balanced. God could not be God and make any other choice.

The wonderful thing about the free will problem is that, any way you slice it, it seems perfectly incomprehensible. This is why I’m glad I don’t follow the doctrine that we are capable of deriving all knowledge from the physical world.

But you would say God did not act freely?

 

[James_S_Saint]

But you would say God did not act freely?

God is the least free of all entities. God is totally confined to rationality, else God would be irrational.

The entity that truly and exactly balances ALL concerns is what we call “Holy Spirit”. Any imbalance at all would make it Unholy and is exactly what is meant by “unholy”.

Thus God has absolutely no choice but to be exactly the most wise and balanced entity. If God were to decide to make the inside of any box larger than the outside, his entire universe would have to instantly vanish.

Man has free will due to his ignorance. If men truly knew all things, every man would do exactly what was most wise with no choice to do anything else.

There is nothing more confining that omniscience.

 

[Ghosty]

God is the least free of all entities. God is totally confined to rationality, else God would be irrational.

The entity that truly and exactly balances ALL concerns is what we call “Holy Spirit”. Any imbalance at all would make it Unholy and is exactly what is meant by “unholy”.

Thus God has absolutely no choice but to be exactly the most wise and balanced entity. If God were to decide to make the inside of any box larger than the outside, his entire universe would have to instantly vanish.

Man has free will due to his ignorance. If men truly knew all things, every man would do exactly what was most wise with no choice to do anything else.

There is nothing more confining that omniscience.

Making the wise choice every time is the MOST free. We make faulty choices because we are constrained by our finite and fallible nature. What is good does not change, and our will is always for the good, but our will falls short of the absolute good because of our impotence.

What you are calling freedom is actually limitation. Freedom is not merely a plethora of options (though the absolute good can be found in a plethora of choices), but rather the ability for the will to be fulfilled, and since the will ALWAYS wills the good, the ultimate freedom would be in knowing the absolute good, and being able to fulfill the absolute good. So, far from being the least free, God is the most free, because His will is always fulfilled, and all wills are directed for the good, whether erroneously perceived or absolute.

Peace and God bless!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Making the wise choice every time is the MOST free.

Sorry, but I don’t see that. “The wisest choice” is but one - no choice at all in merely one.

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry, but I don’t see that. “The wisest choice” is but one - no choice at all in merely one.

Again, it’s not the number of choices which determine the freedom, but the power of the will to make them. A constrained will, like ours, has many choices, but it is less free than a will which is empowered to choose the better good.

Since every choice is ultimately a choice for good, if there is an ultimate good then all wills are “aiming” at the ultimate good. That we have numerous choices that appear good and contrary to eachother merely indicates that we are constrained in some way.

To use an analogy, if every mouse is seeking cheese, and some have a straight line to the cheese, while others have a twisting maze between themselves and the cheese, it is the mice with the straight line that are the freest; the ones that have to pass through the maze of “choices” are constrained from their end. The choices of the mice going through the maze are merely attempts to reduce the path to a straight line, and the more complications and obstacles, the more “choices” they have in how to reach the cheese.

You would say that the mouse caught in the maze is more free than the mouse with a straight path to the cheese.

Peace and God bless!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Again, it’s not the number of choices which determine the freedom, but the power of the will to make them.

I think that is where I am stuck. How can you have the power to make any other choice if there is only one to be made???

 

[Eucharisted]

When First Cause cosmological arguments get to the end, they posit an Uncaused Cause, which is taken to be “God”; the word however is used equivocally. The necessary distinction is not made between God’s existence and God’s action. God’s existence is not the direct cause of the universe. His creative action is, and this would be uncaused unless one wishes to posit that His existence is the cause of His action. That would make His action logically necessary (since a necessary cause produces a necessary effect), and lead to modal collapse.

Now, if the universe is contingent, God’s creative action is also contingent. Which means, God’s creative action is a totally unexplained brute fact, an entity which exists without cause or explanation. Which means, ultimately, theism has no more explanatory power than atheism insofar as there is an unexplained brute fact. And, moreover, anything logically contingent cannot be a purely actual entity (since a purely actual entity, if it exists, exists necessarily) - thus God’s action cannot be purely actual, and the causal chain ends up with an eternal entity but one a mixture of potency and act.

The doctrine of divine simplicity, however, would make God’s existence identical to His action since He can have no real distinctions. In that case His action would be logically necessary as is His existence.

I find it arrogent that an agonstic is trying to tell Catholics what God is and what He dose.

Arrogence is the reason you can’t find God, because you want to put Him under a microscope, and you won’t believe in Him until He submits to your experiments. But even if He did submit, you still wouldn’t believe in Him - because you already believe He doesn’t exist. It is like a scientist who already makes up his mind about the results before he dose the experiment, and dose it in such a way that it supports his assumed results. Science doesn’t work that way and neither does the search for God.

 

[NowAgnostic]

This is also a false statement, however (it also doesn’t follow from your previous argument, but that’s another issue). Things that follow on necessary things are not themselves necessary;

I am sorry, but this is REALLY silly on your part. What was obviously meant was things that ONLY follow on necessary things are themselves necessary, when there is no additional contingent cause or explanation, which there isn’t, because God’s creative act is the ONLY cause for the existence of the universe. I guess I need to go ahead and show the obvious.

…for example, the force of gravity is necessary,

No, it isn’t but I’ll let that go.

but my jumping off a cliff and falling is contingent even though the falling is caused by gravity.

Because your jumping off the cliff is contingent.

My falling is contingent because a contingent cause (my will) is a contributing factor in the final outcome, even though the force that drives that final outcome is necessary.

Right you are. But if your jumping were necessary, and gravity were necessary, your falling would likewise also be necessary.

I bring this up merely to point out the flaw in your reasoning. When you’re not thinking through (or at least demonstrating) the actual steps and definitions you will always come to error.

There is no flaw in my reasoning. Perhaps you’re the one who hasn’t thought things through and used actual steps and definitions and therefore has come to error. But since you want it all spelled out, here we go.

1. God’s creative act is the only cause of the existence of the universe. (premise from orthodox monotheism).
2. If God’s creative act were necessary, the universe would be necessary. (from modal logic - Necessarily if a, then b implies If necessarily a, then necessarily b.)
3. If the universe were contingent, then God’s creative act would be contingent. (from 2 and modus tollens).

Now this is really pretty obvious.

It is necessary that He HAS will, yes, but the determination of His will does not follow from Him having a will.

Well this is exactly the point of contention. People like Leibniz disagree. You need to do better than simply argue by assertion.

As a human person it is necessary, not contingent, that I have a will as well (having will is one of the definitions of humanity), but what I determine by that will is not necessary.

In the first place, this is not so obvious if you have been following all the debates on free will. Even the Catholic Church disagrees with you to a point. It maintains the souls in heaven are absolutely incapable of sinning, and the souls in hell are absolutely incapable of repentance. It maintains a soul receiving efficacious grace infallibly (though “freely”) chooses the good. The determinists and compatibilists (soft determinists) also disagree with you insofar as they maintain one’s choice can be completely predetermined by prior factors (which, in a deterministic universe, are themselves completely predetermined).

In the second place, it is still a false analogy in any event - God is an absolutely simple being and we are not.

It can also be said that it is necessary that God willed the universe in a certain sense, on account that God does will the universe, but this is a necessity based on supposing what already is (since I am Ghosty, it’s necessarily true that I am Ghosty), not an absolute necessity based on the nature of will itself (Ghosty is a contingent being, so although I am Ghosty if I am at all, the fact that I am is not absolutely necessary but contingent; this is similar to how falling off the cliff is a contingent action, but the falling is necessary supposing I choose to jump).

This is not the sense I mean “necessary”. I mean necessary in the sense of modal logic, that is, absolute, logical necessity. “Necessary by supposition” simply means unchangeable.

So God necessarily wills, since will is His very being, but WHAT He wills is not necessary, but contingent based on His own council and choice.

And how are His own council and choice not also His very being as well, given that He is absolutely simple?

Or are His own council and choice totally unexplained, uncaused entities?

This is the ENTIRE point of the OP. If the latter, you have an unexplained brute fact. You have an entity with absolutely no explanation for its existence.

What He wills is necessary insofar as His will can’t be blocked, but not in its (the thing willed) very nature.

Sigh… are you just cut-and-pasting from Aquinas or are you actually attempting to follow the argument? The argument is not (and was never made anywhere here) that God’s will is necessary due to the nature of the thing being willed, but that it might be necessary due to the nature of God.

God willing the universe, however, is not necessary, and no factors of necessity infringe upon its nature as a simple choice. God does not choose to will (neither do we; we will by definition), but God chooses what to will (as we do).

Again you have not shown this (the formal possibility of God willing something else).

And there are two powerful counterarguments.

God, being supreme Goodness, it is in the nature of His will to diffuse that goodness as much as possible. Therefore, He will create a universe, and it will be the best possible universe so that His goodness can be diffused as much as possible - His nature demands that He do this.

God, being pure act, cannot have an unrealized potency, which conflicts with the traditional view of omnipotence. Saying “God could create a new planet tomorrow” if, in fact, His immutable will is not creating that planet tomorrow, is false, since His will cannot change, because He has no potency. But this means there is no potency in Him to create a new planet.

 

[Ghosty]

I think that is where I am stuck. How can you have the power to make any other choice if there is only one to be made???

It’s not about power to make “other” choices, it’s about power to make a choice, and to choose (and enact) the best choice. If you can’t choose the ultimate good you must choose the best possible good, and if you don’t know the best possible good you must figure it out. All of these things “add” to the number of possible choices, but each of them represents a diminishment of power, both of will and of understanding; choice is multiplied by weakness and impotency.

Now it’s also true that choices can be reduced by impotency as well, but that is not the case with God. The number of choices He has is reduced not from impotency, but by the potency and freedom of His will, since He can always choose the ultimate good.

It seems you difficulty comes from a limitation in modern understanding of freedom; we tend not to view freedom as a “freedom to” something, but as “freedom from” things. We rarely speak of the freedom to choose to be with the perfect mate, even though that would be a much greater freedom than the “freedom” to be with any number of imperfect mates. If you were offered the choice of being with the most perfect and fulfilling mate, but lose the chance to be with the billions of people who would be a less than perfect fit, would you really feel that your freedom had been lessened? If the one perfect mate was taken away forever, but you were allowed to choose from any number of imperfect mates, would you feel freed?

Hopefully this helps illustrate the nature of true freedom of will.

Peace and God bless!

 

[NowAgnostic]

I find it arrogent that an agonstic is trying to tell Catholics what God is and what He dose.

Arrogence is the reason you can’t find God, because you want to put Him under a microscope, and you won’t believe in Him until He submits to your experiments. But even if He did submit, you still wouldn’t believe in Him - because you already believe He doesn’t exist. It is like a scientist who already makes up his mind about the results before he dose the experiment, and dose it in such a way that it supports his assumed results. Science doesn’t work that way and neither does the search for God.

IOW, you don’t really have a response so you just resort to flinging ad hominems. Think that is really convincing?

 

[Eucharisted]

IOW, you don’t really have a response so you just resort to flinging ad hominems. Think that is really convincing?

Care to explain how my observation is an ad hominem?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I find it arrogent that an agonstic is trying to tell Catholics what God is and what He dose.

And I find it arrogant of a Catholic to make such a statement.

NA is working through reasoning initiate by Aquinas. He is not demanding anything of you. In effect, he is asking for clarification with each statement he makes.

What else would this forum be for besides letting Atheists propagandize?

NA is philosophizing, just as this forum indicates as its purpose.