William Lane Craig Temporal God

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Nope. The act of creation is eternal. The created universe , however, has a temporal dimension.

No. The act of creation is obviously temporal. No universe then universe. This is a temporal process.

The creation of the universe occurs in eternity. It is timeless. There is no temporal dimension in eternity and therefore, as @Wesrock points out, there is no “point without universe” followed by a “point with universe”.

Was there a point that only God existed?

Not a temporal point. God is metaphysically prior to the universe, however.

I didn’t ask if there was a point in time. I asked if there was a point.

“A point” implies a temporal dimension.

That didn’t address my point.

That’s because your “point” is logically inconsistent. You’re attempting to address creation as if it took place in a temporal framework. It didn’t.

If there was no point that only God existed, then the universe exists eternally as well.

Yes! You’ve got it!!!
Externally to itself, the universe is timeless. Internally with respect to itself, the universe operates within a temporal framework.

There must be a point that only God exist.

Nope. Watch the (invalid) move you’re about to make:

STT:

God then creates, then there is creation.

See the invalid move? You’ve just implicitly encapsulated God within a temporal framework.
That’s erroneous.

Read point as a state of affair.

God doesn’t have varying “states”. He is stateless.

 

[John_Martin]

And it follows that there must be only God at that point since there was no universe.

You forget that God is not alone, but three persons, and only IN the Father’s knowing the Son is creation. Creation is not apart from the Trinity of God. There is no creation with no Trinity, or no God without Trinity.

 

[whatistrue]

Read point as a state of affair.

Doesn’t really answer the question. Point (or even State) of what? Location? Time? Attitude? None of these really apply to God.

 

[STT]

The creation of the universe occurs in eternity. It is timeless. There is no temporal dimension in eternity and therefore, as @Wesrock points out, there is no “point without universe” followed by a “point with universe”.

So, the universe is eternal.

Not a temporal point. God is metaphysically prior to the universe, however.

I guess, by this, you mean that God caused the universe.

“A point” implies a temporal dimension.

No. A point is a state of affair. You can have one point and nothing more, like an eternal state.

That’s because your “point” is logically inconsistent. You’re attempting to address creation as if it took place in a temporal framework. It didn’t.

The act of creation is temporal. To say otherwise is inconsistent.

Yes! You’ve got it!!!

Externally to itself, the universe is timeless. Internally with respect to itself, the universe operates within a temporal framework.

But the universe does not need a creator if it is eternal.

Nope. Watch the (invalid) move you’re about to make:

See the invalid move? You’ve just implicitly encapsulated God within a temporal framework.
That’s erroneous.

I am just following logic. If God follows to be temporal then He is. A temporal God, however, is the subject of time so He cannot create time.

God doesn’t have varying “states”. He is stateless.

God is existence. That is a state of affair/being.

 

[STT]

You forget that God is not alone, but three persons, and only IN the Father’s knowing the Son is creation. Creation is not apart from the Trinity of God. There is no creation with no Trinity, or no God without Trinity.

No, I didn’t forget Trinity. I am wondering how that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[STT]

Doesn’t really answer the question. Point (or even State) of what? Location? Time? Attitude? None of these really apply to God.

All other geometrical objects are made of points. Point can exist on its own. So a point that is not part of anything else is a meaningful thing.

 

[whatistrue]

You mentioned one point then another point. So two distinct points with a relationship between them. What is the relationship? Or even just the nature of the relationship?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Why?

That is how I see the problem. There are two states of affair: 1) God only exists and 2) God and the universe exist. If you say that there was no point that only God existed, excluding the first option, then it follows that the second option is the only possible option which means that God and the universe exist together. Therefore, the universe is eternal as well. That is true since it must be a point that there was no universe if you believe in act of creation. And it follows that there must be only God at that point since there was no universe.

The things of the universe do not possess their acts of existence necessarily. They only possess them derivatively. Creatures are therefore dependent on God for their being. Even if the universe has existed for infinite time (which I do not claim) it does not mean they could exist independent of God willing them to exist.

 

[Gorgias]

So, the universe is eternal.

Externally? Yes. It exists in eternity, and is not encapsulated within a temporal framework.

STT:

Not a temporal point. God is metaphysically prior to the universe, however.

I guess, by this, you mean that God caused the universe.

Yes.

STT:

No. A point is a state of affair. You can have one point and nothing more, like an eternal state.

God is stateless, though.

STT:

That’s because your “point” is logically inconsistent. You’re attempting to address creation as if it took place in a temporal framework. It didn’t.

The act of creation is temporal. To say otherwise is inconsistent.

No, it’s not inconsistent. Your problem here is that you’re doing some invalid extrapolation. You’re taking the notion of how things work inside the universe, and attempting to conflate that with a discussion of how things work external to the universe. That’s what’s leading you into error.

Here’s how you can fix your problem:
“The act of creation inside a temporal framework is temporal.”

The creation of the universe doesn’t take place inside a temporal framework; therefore, it is not temporally bound.

STT:

But the universe does not need a creator if it is eternal.

Untrue. Now you’re getting yourself stuck on the other horn of your dilemma! You’ve just moved from “the universe is externally temporal” to “the universe has no metaphysically prior cause.” Both are erroneous. We’re saying that the universe is eternal, not uncaused.

STT:

God doesn’t have varying “states”. He is stateless.

God is existence. That is a state of affair/being.

Nope. If we were to say “God is in state X”, then we could ask “what gives rise to state X?”

God. Is. Stateless.

 

[STT]

You mentioned one point then another point. So two distinct points with a relationship between them. What is the relationship? Or even just the nature of the relationship?

I am talking about the act of creation. I am arguing that there must be two states of affair/points to make the act of creation meaningful, these points are: 1) Only God exists and 2) God and the universe exist. If you exclude (1) then God and the universe exist that means that the universe is eternal as well so there cannot be an act of creation. If you exclude (2) then it means that only God exists so there is no universe so there is no act of creation yet. The universe exist so we cannot exclude (2) if we believe in God. (1) cannot be excluded too therefore we have two points. The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1) (the other combination is the act of annihilation). So we are dealing with a situation consist of two points one comes after another one. This is by definition is a temporal situation which makes God subject to time which is contrary since time itself is an element of creation. Therefore, the concept of God cannot resolve the problem of the beginning.

 

[Wesrock]

I am arguing that there must be two states of affair/points to make the act of creation meaningful.

And that is not correct.

 

[whatistrue]

This is by definition is a temporal situation which makes God subject to time

And that’s where your argument falls apart. It is a temporal situation only in a temporal framework. God is not part of a temporal framework, therefore it is not a temporal situation.

 

[STT]

The things of the universe do not possess their acts of existence necessarily. They only possess them derivatively. Creatures are therefore dependent on God for their being. Even if the universe has existed for infinite time (which I do not claim) it does not mean they could exist independent of God willing them to exist.

You are talking about the act of sustaining now that is completely different issue. Free agent however cannot be sustained. I have two arguments for that: 1) Argument of prophecy, 2) Argument of freedom and 3) Argument of uncaused cause

1:
A free agent can always do opposite of what s/he is prophesied. Therefore, s/he cannot be sustained.

2:
Let’s assume otherwise, free agent is sustained/caused by God. The decision of free agent is caused by God too since the free agent itself is caused by God. Simply, the free agent existence is due to God hence anything that follows from the free agent is due to God. This means that free agent is not really free if it is caused. Therefore, free agent cannot be caused.

3:
Any free agent is uncaused cause since otherwise the decision made by the free agent is caused by something else which therefore is not free. Let’s assume that free agent exist. This means that the free agent is uncaused cause. Therefore, it cannot be caused/sustained.

 

[STT]

Untrue.

True. If the universe is eternal then it doesn’t have any creator.

 

[STT]

And that is not correct.

It is correct as it is stated and argued.

 

[Aquinas11]

I didn’t ask if there was a point in time. I asked if there was a point.

define “point”

 

[STT]

And that’s where your argument falls apart. It is a temporal situation only in a temporal framework. God is not part of a temporal framework, therefore it is not a temporal situation.

You are not following my argument properly. That is the conclusion of my argument not the premise. To invalidate the argument you need to argue against premises or explain why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

 

[whatistrue]

I assert that your premise is faulty. You are couching it in terms that don’t apply. Just as you are still misusing “uncaused cause” after being corrected on it numerous times.

 

[Wesrock]

You are talking about the act of sustaining now that is completely different issue. Free agent however cannot be sustained. I have two arguments for that: 1) Argument of prophecy, 2) Argument of freedom and 3) Argument of uncaused cause

1:
A free agent can always do opposite of what s/he is prophesied. Therefore, s/he cannot be sustained.

Who spoke of prophecy?

2:
Let’s assume otherwise, free agent is sustained/caused by God. The decision of free agent is caused by God too since the free agent itself is caused by God. Simply, the free agent existence is due to God hence anything that follows from the free agent is due to God. This means that free agent is not really free if it is caused. Therefore, free agent cannot be caused.

The agent is caused by God but is not directed like a puppet. The agent is caused to be according to its nature, which in the case of humans includes the capacity to voluntarily choose between two choices. It is voluntary because the reasons the agent chooses one instead of another are intrinsic to the agent, even if the reason the agent exists according to its nature is extrinsically created.

3:
Any free agent is uncaused cause since otherwise the decision made by the free agent is caused by something else which therefore is not free. Let’s assume that free agent exist. This means that the free agent is uncaused cause. Therefore, it cannot be caused/sustained.

I would reject your notion of libertarian free agency as absurd as the things you’re calling free agents are composed and change, and such attributes mean they must have causes.

 

[Aquinas11]

I am arguing that there must be two states of affair/points to make the act of creation meaningful, these points are: 1) Only God exists and 2) God and the universe exist. If you exclude (1) then God and the universe exist that means that the universe is eternal as well so there cannot be an act of creation. If you exclude (2) then it means that only God exists so there is no universe so there is no act of creation yet. The universe exist so we cannot exclude (2) if we believe in God. (1) cannot be excluded too therefore we have two points. The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1) (the other combination is the act of annihilation). So we are dealing with a situation consist of two points one comes after another one. This is by definition is a temporal situation which makes God subject to time which is contrary since time itself is an element of creation.

No because time was created in (2) along with the Universe, thus time didn’t precede (2).