What created God?

[Gorgias]

The thing is that once you step outside of time it’s impossible to say that this thing created that thing, because neither one of them could’ve preceded the other.

Right. So, I can’t ask a question about temporal precedence outside (or across) the boundaries of temporal existence, although I certainly can ask such a question about logical precedence!

In other words, God didn’t “temporally precede” the universe, per se, since temporal precedence isn’t a construct that straddles eternity and the temporal universe. However, we can ask the question in terms of logical precedence!

 

[ASC]

This is why he is God. He simply is, and always has been. It doesn’t make any sense, yet sense tells us that it has to be the case.

 

[Maximus1]

God is not Contingent. Simple, the act of being, UNCREATED and ineffable.

 

[lelinator]

Nonsense.

Ouch…that was harsh. But honestly, when I wrote that post you were the one that I was hoping would respond. I guess that they’re right, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.

If the existence of one thing is wholly derived or dependent on something else, and the other exists independently in an underived way, that’s all you need to know.

This is another one of those times when the “if” at the beginning of a statement can be very important. Trust me, I’ve been trying to figure this thing out for hours now, but so far without luck. But I’ve got my hopes pinned on you. So let’s go through this.

If the existence of one thing is wholly derived or dependent on something else

The first problem, is how do I differentiate one thing from another thing in the first place? Such that I could then establish that this thing caused that thing, or is derived from that thing. Rather than simply assuming that it’s but two attributes of the same thing. How do I know that I have two separate things?

If two things are not identical, they are distinct.

Let’s say that even outside of space and time it is indeed possible to differentiate between two things somehow. Can I then actually demonstrate that one caused the other, or is derived from the other?

The only example that I can think of, (And it’s probably a bad one) is the Trinity…Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here we supposedly have three distinct (probably the wrong word) things, and yet no theist that I know of would ever argue that the Father caused the Son.

Once you step outside of space and time, it seems to me that it’s extremely difficult to establish even a hierarchical causal series. I just don’t see any way to do it.

But as I say, I’ve got my hopes pinned on you. Is it actually possible to identify a cause once you’re outside of space and time?

 

[Wesrock]

@lelinator

You’re asking how we can empirically differentiate between two things without time. However, the flaw in the question is that observation and empiricism in general are methods that require time to be employed. The only manner to have such knowledge if we ourselves were timeless would be to have this knowledge either infused (simply given as part of our existence) or to simply have he knowledge, as God does, insofar as he knows himself and what he’s doing. Observation as a method is impossible if the alleged observer is actually timeless.

Or is your question simply in regard to God not temporally preceding the rest of reality? Reality itself isn’t an eternal object, though. (Some would disagree with treating reality as a whole object in itself, in fact, I would, but I’m not sure that is needed for this discussion). Anyway, we can observe the things in our reality because it is temporal, and we can reach general conclusions, and we can determine that these things must be caused. And we can reason in what ways the Ultimate Cause must be distinct from everything else. I know you don’t agree with reaching general principles in the manner I argue, but your question seems less about that.

I’m still struggling with understanding where the objection is coming from, as it seems to stem from seeing reality as being mind-dependent on a temporal mind, as opposed to existing in a mind-independent way.

What two things are we having trouble distinguishing between?

 

[Wesrock]

@lelinator

Part of this understanding order of dependencies is unique to the idea of God. You’re right, in part, I think, that it would be hypothetically difficult to determine an order of dependency between a number of contingent objects in an eternal state. But the First Cause is not an object among those objects. If I can deduce that a given hypothetical eternal object is not self-actual, is not contingent, is composed, is materially extended through space, and so on, I know it must be dependent on a First Cause. If it’s dependent upon any other given finite thing in an hierarchical series between the First Cause and itself, perhaps I’d be unable to know the difference (without infused knowledge) by observation as I can’t subject them to any testing as testing requires time and change. But I know that it’s dependency must terminate in the First Cause, and the first cause, once you understand what that is, cannot be caused and is unique. So you know one is ontologically prior to the other, that one is the cause and the other is an effect that stems from it.

I feel like the above paragraph could be cleaned up. As I said, if we were non-temporal the only manner in which we could have knowledge is knowing oneself (not in any discursive way) and infused knowledge. But I’ll leave it there for now.

 

[Gab123]

What created God? If God has existed an infinite amount of time in the pasts and an infinite amount of time in the future, how is it that God came to be?

God is not a thing. Thus He never came into being, as God is existence itself. Thus when Moses asked God who He is, God said I AM WHO AM. -Exodus 3:14

For something to have a beginning, it must exist in space and time. Science today explains that time and matter came into existence with the Big Bang, thus the Cause of time and matter is outside of time (eternal) and outside of matter (spiritual).

A spirit has no size, no weight, no shape, has no parts, occupies no space… We understand what Spirit means by how a spirit operates, namely, the power to produce ideas . Being that you were made in the image and likeness of God, you too have the ability to will things into existence.

Fir example, simply look around you. Everything you see, I.e. the computer, the chair, the walls, the floor, the phone, the watch, the airplane in the sky, etc. —all of these things began as ideas in the mind of their inventors who conceived them in their mind and willed their idea into existence by wrapping the thought with matter (plastic, wood, metal, glass, etc.)

God, being the Infinite All-Powerful Spirit, always existed; meaning that HE is the Infinite Eternal God who conceived the idea of time and matter itself— a reality that is beyond the tiny finite mind of man.

Thus it is a great privilege to exist, and it should make anyone who realizes this to wake up every day full of awe and joy to simply know that we have been given the gift of existence and invited to have a share in God’s Eternal Glory—and privileged to be called sons and daughters of Almighty God through the action of the Most Holy Trinity.

Here is a video that gives a glimpse of God’s Inner Life, the Source of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty—and How He shares Himself, in order to save, sanctify and perfect souls, so that we can see Him and enjoy Him in the gift of eternal life beyond the grave. As Jesus said: “so that your joy may be complete”.

 

[lelinator]

Or is your question simply in regard to God not temporally preceding the rest of reality?

My post was specifically in regards to the OP, and the question of what created God. And my thoughts on the subject are likely to evolve as I consider it. So beware! That said, I’m going to switch from the previous line of reasoning to something completely different. I hope that you can keep up.

The only manner to have such knowledge if we ourselves were timeless would be to have this knowledge either infused (simply given as part of our existence) or to simply have the knowledge, as God does, insofar as he knows himself and what he’s doing.

This is where it really starts to get tricky. If we disregard all of God’s other knowledge about you, me, and everything else, and where all that knowledge came from. And we focus only on God’s perception that “I am”, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the existence of this thing (God) which perceives that it exists, must have an underlying cause that doesn’t perceive that it exists, but which then gives rise to that which does perceive that it exists?

So the question is, are existence, and the perception of existence, two separate things? Or is it that the perception of existence must always be accompanied by existence itself, such that the very question presumes the existence of both?

Once we answer that question, we’re left with another question. Is there anything else that must exist in order to even consider the question of where everything came from? For example, is the perception that “I am” contingent upon the concept of what the statement “I am” even means? In other words, are there certain concepts that must necessarily go along with the perception that I am? If so, then where does this line of necessary things end?

Are these the only three necessary things, existence, the perception of that existence, and the knowledge of what existence is?

Boy, I sure went down the rabbit hole with this post. This is why it’s good to have Wesrock around. He’s about the only one that I can think of that has any hope of understanding this gibberish. And that may be asking a lot, even for Wesrock

 

[Gab123]

of this thing (God)

God is not a thing. A thing occupies time and space. God is Spirit. A spirit has no size, no weight, no shape, has no parts, occupies no space. We understand what a Spirit is , by how a spirit operates, namely, the power to produce ideas

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The only manner to have such knowledge if we ourselves were timeless would be to have this knowledge either infused (simply given as part of our existence) or to simply have the knowledge, as God does, insofar as he knows himself and what he’s doing.

This is where it really starts to get tricky. If we disregard all of God’s other knowledge about you, me, and everything else, and where all that knowledge came from. And we focus only on God’s perception that “I am”, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the existence of this thing (God) which perceives that it exists, must have an underlying cause that doesn’t perceive that it exists, but which then gives rise to that which does perceive that it exists?

First, let me say language and our own perspective on things makes discussing things transcendent to those notions difficult. In some cases, in English, the simplest way to say something might be to speak of God having knowledge or of God’s knowledge. But if we need to drill down on that topic, then we need to be more precise.

Perception is another one of those words. For us, perception follows from the senses, which follow from things acting on us. It is part of observing. But God in his divinity has no senses, and he does not observe. Thomist’s understand that God’s knowledge of actual things other than himself is not received through observation, but stems entirely from God being the cause of all things other than himself. God knows himself perfectly, and God knows his action perfectly, so as cause God knows all his effects.

God also doesn’t perceive himself in the way you perceive yourself. There is no discursive thought process. It is immediate and total knowledge.

God’s knowledge also does not follow from what he is. What he is, his essence, is analogous to what knowledge is in us.

What you say actually reminds me of Neo-Platonist philosophy in which the Nous proceeds from The One, but the Neo-Platonists were incorrect.

I think it fundamentally is related to the notion of being and truth being convertible. From Subsistent Being is derived all concepts of being. Or to Subsistent Being belong all concepts of being. They belong to it virtually, which is analogous to what it means for us to have knowledge.

 

[Wesrock]

@lelinator

So the question is, are existence, and the perception of existence, two separate things? Or is it that the perception of existence must always be accompanied by existence itself, such that the very question presumes the existence of both?

You see it written that “God is existence itself.” That’s not so much incorrect, but it is misleading. God is his own existence. And all other things he causes are like him in their existence, but distinct beings in themselves. I think I started to touch on it in my last paragraph, but all types of being belong in a virtual way to Subsistent Being itself. Subsistent Being to Knowledge of Being (full stop) are identical. The latter doesn’t proceed as something non-identical to the former.

Once we answer that question, we’re left with another question. Is there anything else that must exist in order to even consider the question of where everything came from? For example, is the perception that “I am” contingent upon the concept of what the statement “I am” even means? In other words, are there certain concepts that must necessarily go along with the perception that I am? If so, then where does this line of necessary things end?

It belongs to Subsistent Being by nature. It’s not a separate Platonic Form existing separately, nor is it arbitrarily defined by the Divine Intellect.

Are these the only three necessary things, existence, the perception of that existence, and the knowledge of what existence is?

I’m having difficulty understanding the question, but I think the answer, upon reflection, is that these are not actually different when one grasps Subsistent Being, insofar as we can understand it by what it is not. The perception isn’t different from the knowing in the case of God, and the knowing in this case is identical to Subsistent Being. We have to strip the concept of knowing of its creaturely baggage down to the bare minimum of “being in a “thing” in a virtual (and non formal) way,” and all the concepts we have in knowledge are derivative of that and so belong to Subsistent Being as Subsistent Being. Our knowledge is having things in us in a virtual way, too, but not as our formal cause or our being in itself. Not to even get into how we come to knowledge in a discursive way.

 

[Wesrock]

lelinator:

of this thing (God)

God is not a thing. A thing occupies time and space. God is Spirit. A spirit has no size, no weight, no shape, has no parts, occupies no space. We understand what a Spirit is , by how a spirit operates, namely, the power to produce ideas

You’re right that God is not a thing or even “a” being. Our language makes it difficult to speak of God otherwise. He’s not conditioned by any time or space and transcends all of our concepts and other types of being in his mode of being.

Though I wouldn’t say it’s because he’s a spirit. An angel is also pure spirit but is a being and “a thing” (in the sense we are, not to be rude about calling a person a thing).

I think someone who’s philosophy is based on the univocity of being would be unable to even say God exists, as God is so other to us (unless they were a monist) . This isn’t to equate God with nothing, either. If we think of existence as something all creaturely things have, and then we think of the negation of that, God would be neither, in a truly univocal sense, but something unique and other.

As a Thomist I don’t hold to the univocity of being, though. Thomist’s believe in the analogy of being, so we can refer to God as being (or Subsistent Being) . We just need to strip away certain creaturely baggage when applying terms.

Talk about gibberish, right? It makes sense, I swear.

 

[lelinator]

Talk about gibberish, right? It makes sense, I swear.

After reading all of your preceding posts, all that I can say is…Dang good stuff.

I think that it’s good having you around.

 

[lelinator]

From Subsistent Being is derived all concepts of being. Or to Subsistent Being belong all concepts of being.

But how do you make the jump from a Subsistent Being, to a conscious being? I could easily conceive of a subsistent being as simply a quantum field(s). Which contains within itself all possible “knowledge”, in other words all those things that might ever have the potential to exist.

Why should I presume that the Subsistent Being is conscious?

 

[Wesrock]

But how do you make the jump from a Subsistent Being, to a conscious being? I could easily conceive of a subsistent being as simply a quantum field(s). Which contains within itself all possible “knowledge”, in other words all those things that might ever have the potential to exist.

I’m not sure I’d use the word “conscious” for Subsistent Being. As far as precision goes, it seems to miss the mark of what is being referred. Consciousness for me conveys a type of animal sense of self. It refers to observing, sensing, and turning that into thoughts. Perhaps more importantly, it conveys a sense of discursive thinking or ratiocinate processes. Subsistent Being doesn’t sense or observe. It’s knowledge isn’t discursive and it has no ratiocinate processes. Subsistent Being doesn’t think, if thinking means moving from one thought to the next, a process, piecemeal, etc… So that is why I hesitate over the word conscious. I have trouble breaking it from those processes above which do not belong to Subsistent Being.

Perhaps one way to think of it is to state that Subsistent Being is the cause of all other things, which can then be thought of as effects. Every effect is in its cause (or causes).

The first thing we’ll think of when we say that is the effect being in the cause formally. To use an old example, a match has the form of a fire (I’m not being too technical here with the word form) , and it gives the form of fire to its effect of a lit candle wick. Another example, I give you $20 from my wallet. I have the form of having $20, and I cause you to have the same form.

But an effect does not always exist in its cause formally. Another way is eminently, in which you don’t have the form of your effect but have power over something else that can produce the effect. Say you don’t have $20 but have eminent power by being able to call the Federal Reserve and print one off for me. As one of the causes of me having $20, the effect is in you in an eminent way.

The last way is virtually. An architect may have an idea for a house in his mind. As one of the causes of the effect (the house), the effect is in him as the cause virtually. Another example, going back to the $20, is me not having $20 on me but in my bank account, and I write you a check for $20.

For an effect to be in a cause in a virtual and non-material way, though, is essentially the same thing as having it as a thought or knowledge.

I’ve gone around my fist to get to my thumb, I know. But to try to answer your question, Subsistent Being has all its effects in it in a virtual way, which just is, when you examine what it is to know something, knowledge. So while I hesitate to use the word conscious, I will saying it is knowing. So there is an analogy between what it is for us to have knowledge and Subsistent Being on that front, but Subsistent Being is not a human mind of consciousness and doesn’t operate in that way. It is just eternal knowing and action following from that knowing.

I admit I could do better with more time on the mode of having an effect in the cause virtually and its relation to knowing.

 

[Wesrock]

There are “theistic personalists” out there who do think of God as having a vastly superior mind and consciousness. So it’s not other but it’s just the maximum end of a sliding scale. But in terms of popularity among theologians that’s a relatively recent trend.

And, I mean, am I saying every lay Catholic for thousands of years understood God this way? No. It’s not that it’s hidden or secret knowledge, but it isn’t really relevant to daily living or being a good Christian, and it can be a very abstract pursuit. It takes a special interest. And even widespread secular education is a recent thing. It does seem more relevant to discussion in today’s age of increased skepticism to get down to brass tacks, though.

I think theistic personalism is what most people are exposed to growing up, just as a belief throughout pop culture because it’s natural to relate to God through our manner of doing things, and that does have a huge amount of issues (imo) that skeptics rightly point out.

 

[lelinator]

Subsistent Being doesn’t sense or observe. It’s knowledge isn’t discursive and it has no ratiocinate processes. Subsistent Being doesn’t think, if thinking means moving from one thought to the next, a process, piecemeal, etc… So that is why I hesitate over the word conscious.

I’m going to have to leave for a while, but I wanted to present one last thought before I go.

In the description that you gave above I fail to see a real distinction between a Subsistent Being and a quantum field(s). In that both contain knowledge in some form, but neither of them come by this knowledge through discursive or ratiocinate processes.

However, theists seem to ascribe to God intent or will which would seem to suggest consciousness, and isn’t something that one would expect a quantum field(s) to be capable of.

So how does intent not imply that God is conscious?

You can take your time, as I’ll be gone for a while.

 

[Wesrock]

I forgot the QM portion.

Quantum fields are extended through space and fluctuate for one. I can divide this region of a field from another region. They are material, under what a philosopher could mean by the term. Nor is what a quantum field is identical to its own existence. These alone are enough that they must require a cause, if you’ll allow me for a moment to appeal to general principles.

Let’s for the sake of argument suppose that these fields are the First Cause. I think that’s wrong. But just for a moment… it would still follow it must be omnipotent, omniscient, intentional, etc… These items would still not be ruled out.

Anyway, as for Subsistent Being having a will. At minimum, this will is also what Subsistent Being is, the way the knowledge is what Subsistent Being is. They are only distinct in Subsistent Being by our intelligible notion of them and how it relates to our separate faculties. Woah, I’m getting off track. What I meant to say is that, at minimum, what Subsistent Being does is voluntary in that it’s not coerced or caused by anything else, and knowledgeable as it follows from its knowledge. And what is a rational will but an agent knowledgeably and voluntarily acting?

One addendum, knowledge qua knowledge can’t be in a thing in a material way. That’s not to say it’s in it in a ghostly way or that our material brains aren’t very involved in our process of knowing and thinking. That is a whole other side topic.

 

[lelinator]

Hey, I’m back for a few minutes. Aren’t you so glad. However, I’m going to have to make this short.

Quantum fields are extended through space and fluctuate for one.

I do believe that you’re wrong on both counts. To say that a quantum field has an extension in space and time is akin to saying that God has an extension in space and time. Because they both perform the same function, they sustain the existence of everything, everywhere.

Now you know Aquinas’ arguments about how God is everywhere, much better than I do. So I’ll include this link just as a reference.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm

Aquinas’ answers about God’s omnipresence might just as reasonably be applied to a quantum field. And a quantum field may be no more “physical” than God supposedly is.

As for quantum fields fluctuating, they don’t. The term quantum fluctuations is just a case of unfortunate and misleading terminology. The best way that I’ve seen this put, is that a quantum fluctuation is a fluctuation in the measurement, not a fluctuation in the thing being measured.

Let’s for the sake of argument suppose that these fields are the First Cause. I think that’s wrong. But just for a moment… it would still follow it must be omnipotent, omniscient, intentional, etc…

A quantum field could be regarded as being omnipotent I suppose, because nothing could exist without the quantum field sustaining that existence. And as for it being omniscient, that would probably take some creative reasoning. But it might be possible. However intentionality, that one I find to be highly unlikely. Then again, perhaps you’ve already described it better than I could, with the quote below.

Anyway, as for Subsistent Being having a will. At minimum, this will is also what Subsistent Being is, the way the knowledge is what Subsistent Being is. They are only distinct in Subsistent Being by our intelligible notion of them and how it relates to our separate faculties. …

…What I meant to say is that, at minimum, what Subsistent Being does is voluntary in that it’s not coerced or caused by anything else,