Why didn't God create the world sooner?

[punkforchrist]

The debate between proponents of A-theory and B-theory is one of the most stimulating and intriguing philosophical issues today. Craig’s book Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time is definitely worth checking out for those with any interest, even a beginner’s interest, in the philosophy of time.

Many of us here are committed Thomists who look at the moment of creation as just another gem to be further explored. Of course, the TCA can even grant for the sake of argument that the universe is eternal. There just cannot be an infinite regress of simultaneously existing causes. An house would still have to have a foundation. By analogy, nature still needs to be grounded in a First Cause.

1. Finite things exists.
2. Every finite thing has a cause.
3. If there is no First Cause, then nothing will be caused.
4. Therefore, a First Cause exists.

(1) is uncontroversial, since we observe things with certain limitations.

(2) is grounded in the metaphysical principle that states the following: out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit). For any finite object, trees, mountains, galaxies, and so forth, each can be explained in terms of various causal relations.

(3) A. Every attribute of nature that has been observed is finite.
B. The regress of causes is an attribute of nature.
C. Therefore, it is most likely that the regress of causes is finite.

Of course, given the finite regress, there must be a First Cause that all intermediate causes are grounded in.

The leaves us with (4). If the opponent asks, “If everything has a cause, then what caused the First Cause?,” we can reply by pointing out the premise under consideration does not say that everything has a cause, but that every finite thing has a cause. The First Cause must be infinite, and not finite, since otherwise the First Cause would have a cause, and wouldn’t be first to begin with, which is a contradiction.

Now, whatever is infinite must also be unique. For, if there were more than one infinite beings, then there would be distinctions between them. But, distinctions can only be possible if one lacks something the other possesses. Further, a thing can only lack something if it is finite. Therefore, the infinite First Cause is also unique. With just these simple tools, we have a good case for monotheistic belief.

What I like about the TCA is that from the outset it aims to demonstrate less. Even if the universe is eternal, monotheism is still true. But with the advent of Big Bang cosmology and the general consensus that the universe did have a beginning in time, we now have even more reason to accept monotheism.

The question, I think, still stands. Why did God not create sooner than later? I think the solution is to stress the Creator’s personality. Only a free agent, who could freely choose to bring about a temporal effect from a timeless cause, can make sense out of why the age of the universe is what it is, and not something else. I don’t know if there is a sufficient reason for God to choose one age of the universe instead of another. That might not be necessary, considering that these are presumably free libertarian actions.

 

[awatkins69]

The TCA is better. It doesn’t depend on the whimsies of science.

 

[JimG]

You embrace the tenseless or B-theory of time. And with this view, of course you cannot understand my problem. I pointed out as much in post #10 in saying:

Gee, I’ve truly got some psychic powers!

Craig has defended his view in a number of sophisticated articles(check out reasonablefaith.org) but also presented it in a popular manner, like here closertotruth.com/video/Is-God-Temporal-or-Timeless-Part-1-of-2-William-Lane-Craig-/997 and here closertotruth.com/video/How-Could-God-Know-the-Future-Part-2-William-Lane-Craig-/639

I watched the last video cited, and it seemed to me that during the entire discussion they were speaking of God as though He were a temporal creature, but he isn’t.

I don’t believe in a “tenseless” theory of time when it comes to creatures immersed in time, such as human beings. We all have a past, present, and future, and our future is in part predicated upon our own free choices. That future will work itself out and come to pass.

But God does live in a “tenseless” manner. He knows the future not because he predicts it, or determines our choices, but simply by seeing it: He sees our past, present, and future, along with everything else, in his present tense, which is his mode of existence. Problems arise when we attempt to place God within time. That is not in his nature.

Even from a human standpoint, once our life has run its course with all our choices complete, one could view any person’s worldline as a unique 4-D object having extensions in space and time. But since we are temporal creatures, we cannot view the entirety of it while still immersed in it and making choices that will determine its shape.

God, who is not a temporal being, simply sees the whole thing at once. It doesn’t relate to a theory of time, but to his mode of existence.

 

[Twiggzro]

The question itself is an abstraction. If the creator of the universe is infinite, then the question of “sooner” loses meaning. how can you be sooner or later compared to infinity? infinity has no start or finish therefore sooner or later have no reference point to compare to. Sooner can only exist if there is a beginning to refer to. Sooner compared to what? things we dont know exist or when they existed? because we have no frame of reference to understand infinity, infinity is an abstract concept for the something that begins and ends. You cant apply the concept “sooner” to something that has no beginning or end. God exists outside of time as we know it. The fact that we exist is not proof that God entered time, only that he inserted us into it. I can insert an ice cube into a glass of water but I dont have to climb in to do it.

 

[TheWhim]

What I like about the TCA is that from the outset it aims to demonstrate less. Even if the universe is eternal, monotheism is still true. But with the advent of Big Bang cosmology and the general consensus that the universe did have a beginning in time, we now have even more reason to accept monotheism.

True, true, very true. But I don’t quite see how your post relates at all to the thread. I’m not concerned here about the TCA, but about the Kalam cosmological argument, whose validity I question due to the particular reservation I have about it. And that’s why I started this thread… it’s about the Kalam cosmological argument.

The question, I think, still stands. Why did God not create sooner than later? I think the solution is to stress the Creator’s personality. Only a free agent, who could freely choose to bring about a temporal effect from a timeless cause, can make sense out of why the age of the universe is what it is, and not something else. I don’t know if there is a sufficient reason for God to choose one age of the universe instead of another. That might not be necessary, considering that these are presumably free libertarian actions.

I even think it could never happen that God chooses one age of the universe instead of another. It’s almost… a logical impossibility. If God created the world(again, in line with the kalam argument) it’s a logical impossibility that the universe could be 14 billion years old as well as 40 billion years old as well as any age old save an infinite age. Think of God, the timeless being. There’s no change in God. That means, he has the timeless intention to create the universe and carries this intention out without any delay. There’s no waiting time in God. There’s no time at all in God. There’s no waiting, but always one single intention: I’ll create the universe. There never is the intention: I won’t create the universe just right now but rather some time later. There is no time in God. There also is no withholding the action to carry out the intention, since withholding would imply time in God. - How come, then, the universe can be finite? And how come, if it’s finite, it can be any age instead of another age since God had no choice at all in “choosing the age of the universe” since every such choosing would imply to get time into God, as I explained? I agree with you that one could explain the age of the universe by saying God chose that particular age. But God cannot choose any particular age when he has the timeless intention to create!

 

[tonyrey]

Think of God, the timeless being. There’s no change in God.

That is **not **a Christian belief. “In God we live, move and have our being”. Since we have not always existed there has indubitably been change in God! Your use of the term “in” is equivocal…

 

[punkforchrist]

True, true, very true. But I don’t quite see how your post relates at all to the thread. I’m not concerned here about the TCA, but about the Kalam cosmological argument, whose validity I question due to the particular reservation I have about it. And that’s why I started this thread… it’s about the Kalam cosmological argument.

Sorry, I tried to tie it all in by noting how the kalam argument gives us an advantage that the TCA does not have - namely, how it demonstrates the personal freedom of the Creator. I’m simply in the habit of describing the TCA whenever cosmological arguments are being discussed, since I notice the two arguments are often conflated. Not by you, but just generally-speaking.

. . . I agree with you that one could explain the age of the universe by saying God chose that particular age. But God cannot choose any particular age when he has the timeless intention to create!

You might think about submitting your question to Craig himself at his website: reasonablefaith.org

Craig might mention that God does not timelessly will anything, but begins to will something simultaneously with His act of creating the universe. As a result, God enters into time at the moment of creation, which you alluded to already.

To be honest, I consider myself an A-theorist by default, but not because I know a whole lot about the nature of time. So, this is an issue I’m entirely open to and I would be excited to see what answers you come up with.

 

[tonyrey]

Think of God, the timeless being. There’s no change in God.

That is **not **a Christian belief. “In God we live, move and have our being”. Since we have not always existed in that respect there has certainly been change in God! Your use of the term “in” is equivocal…

You imply that God is static whereas God is dynamic. The nature of God does not change but the very Act of Creation implies that God **produces **change. You are trying to impose human categories on divinity - which is obviously a presumptuous enterprise… In the Creed we say we believe in the “Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of life, Who B]proceeds from the Father and the Son”, not just once but for all eternity…

You might as well ask “Why didn’t God create the world later?” It would be more to the point to ask “Why did God create the world at all?” To which there is only one answer. Perfect Love wishes to share the gift of existence without expecting anything in return, the joy of creating other beings capable of love and joy being its own reward… In this context time is “immaterial”!

 

[JimG]

That is **not **a Christian belief. “In God we live, move and have our being”. Since we have not always existed in that respect there has certainly been change in God! Your use of the term “in” is equivocal…

You imply that God is static whereas God is dynamic. The nature of God does not change but the very Act of Creation implies that God **produces **change. You are trying to impose human categories on divinity - which is obviously a presumptuous enterprise… In the Creed we say we believe in the "Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of life, Who B]proceeds

from the Father and the Son", not just once but for all eternity…

You might as well ask “Why didn’t God create the world later?” It would be more to the point to ask “Why did God create the world at all?” To which there is only one answer. Perfect Love wishes to share the gift of existence without expecting anything in return, the joy of creating other beings capable of love and joy being its own reward… In this context time is “immaterial”!I think it is a propostion of Catholic philosophy that in fact God does not change. He is all act and no potency. At the same time, I’m not sure that the phrase “God always had the timeless intention to create,” can be meaningful with respect to God, since the very uttering of it seems to imply that God exists in a temporal continuum. God didn’t create then, he only creates now.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it is a proposition of Catholic philosophy that in fact God does not change. He is all act and no potency. At the same time, I’m not sure that the phrase “God always had the timeless intention to create,” can be meaningful with respect to God, since the very uttering of it seems to imply that God exists in a temporal continuum. God didn’t create then, he only creates now.

I did point out that the nature of God does not change but God produces change. God is ultimately responsible for all change. Otherwise there would be no universe. There has been a change from nothing to everything that is caused by God. What else?

 

[JimG]

I did point out that the nature of God does not change but God produces change. God is ultimately responsible for all change. Otherwise there would be no universe. There has been a change from nothing to everything that is caused by God. What else?

Yes, that’s right. God is infinite spirit, absolute act, no potency, and no change. He creates matter / space / time / the universe / which is material, contingent, has potency, and does change.

 

[TheWhim]

Craig might mention that God does not timelessly will anything, but begins to will something simultaneously with His act of creating the universe. As a result, God enters into time at the moment of creation, which you alluded to already.

Well, I submitted my question to Dr. Craig now. He already answered the question why the world wasn’t created an infinite time ago: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5839, so I posed my question differently, firstly by asking why the world is as old as it is, why it is 14 and not 40 billion years old(and how a specific age of the world respective a difference in ages of possibly created worlds can be logically possible at all given God’s timeless intention to create), and, secondly, by asking how we are to deal with the sceptic’s rejection of the Kalam argument if we adopt(so it seems to me) the same line of thinking in defending the Kalam argument!
I already paralleled St. Augustine and Mr. Sceptic in post #17 and copied this piece into my query to Craig.

Well, punkforChrist, you’re quite right with what you say. But prior to God’s willing, that is, choosing to create, he had the timeless intention to create(according to Dr. Craig, of course). Dr. Craig writes(cf. the above Internet-source):* “So long as one’s intentions don’t change they can be timelessly held. That’s why I said that God can exist without the universe with a timeless intention to create a world with a beginning.*”

Well, let’s return a moment to the question why God didn’t create the world sooner. Craig writes(source mentioned above): “If you ask, “But why didn’t God execute His intention sooner?”, you’ve fallen back into the Newtonian view of thinking of God as existing temporally prior to creation. On the Augustinian view, the question is unintelligible.”

This answer has deeply troubled me and somehow it’s the cause to this thread. Let’s let this sink into our minds: “On the Augustinian view, the question is unintelligible.” But likewise on the Augustinian view the question is unintelligible why the universe should be any older than it actually is, why it should be infinite.
Dr. Craig writes:
“The universe has ‘always’ existed in the sense that there is no past moment of physical time at which it did not exist; but it has not ‘always’ existed in the strong sense of being permanent, since it had a beginning of its existence, and therefore it is sensible to ask for its cause.”
(reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5176)

I daresay, to the contrary, this question is as insensible as asking “Why didn’t God execute his intention sooner?”. How does Dr. Craig ascertain the universe had a beginning to its existence? Well, he says: the universe is not infinitely old, it is not permanent. When looking at the 14-billion-years-universe, the question Dr. Craig raises is this: “Why isn’t this world permanent? In other words: why isn’t this world infinitely old? In other words: why isn’t this world older than it is?” - But, on an Augustinian view of time, how can the world be older than it is? How can there be a time before time? - Therefore I think the distinction between “always” and “permament” that Dr. Craig draws simply fails.

The sceptic must not bother about the Kalam argument. He can be content with the assertion that the universe always existed since there was no time t when it did not exist. The Kalamist, then, will say: “Hey! But the universe began to exist!” -
The sceptic will retort: “How so? It has always existed.” -
The Kalamist will persist: “Yeah, but why is it 14-billion-years old and not older, not infinitely old when indeed it has always existed?” -
And the sceptic serenely responds: “This is absurd. You’re asking why the world isn’t older than it actually is. But if it could be older than it is this would imply there could be a time before time(and time coexists with the actual universe). This is absurd. And this is exactly the same reply you give me when I ask a similar question. When I ask you why God, who had the timeless intention to create the universe, didn’t thus make an older or infinitely old universe - why he didn’t carry out his intention sooner - you reply likewise that this question is absurd because there can be no time before time(and time coexists, or, as you would say, began with the actual universe), and therefore no sooner and older in comparision to the universe as it is. You see, I’m using your own weapons against you.”

By employing the same kind of reasoning the proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument adopts, the sceptic can reasonably deny the second point of the Kalam argument: The universe began to exist. And in consequence the Kalam argument fails.

What do you think, punkforChrist(and others, please join)? Am I committing a fallacy somewhere?

 

[o_mlly]

…
Augustine, when faced with the question “Why, then, didn’t God create the world sooner?” replied that the question was senseless, because time began with the beginning of the universe and there was no time the universe could have sooner been created in before the beginning of the universe, before the beginning of time.

But is this really a sufficient reply?

…Well, what do you think?

The thread’s question anthropomorphizes God, that is, the question limits God’s ways to man’s ways.

The only intersection of eternity and time is the present. So, the only way to speak of God acting is in the present participle – God is eternally creating the universe. The universe is an eternal idea in the mind of God – and so are you.