The Creator is not Eternal

[rossum]

My argument is intended to show that the two statements "God is eternal," and "God is the creator of all else that exists," are inconsistent and cannot both be true.

I shall use "Eternal" to mean the God in the statement "God is eternal," and "Creator" to mean the God in the statement "God is the creator of all else that exists." In this sense, "Creator" is synonymous with "Causer", and "created" is synonymous with "effect". We cannot assume that these two are the same God, since the basis of my argument is to show that they cannot be the same.

In essence the argument runs:

1 The Eternal exists at all times. There is no time when the Eternal does not exist.

2 There was a time in the past when the Creator did not exist.

3 Therefore there was a time in the past when the Creator did not exist and the Eternal did exist.

4 Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

5 Therefore the Eternal and the Creator cannot be the same thing. In other words God cannot both be eternal and be the creator of all else that exists.


Detailed arguments for these points follow.

1 The Eternal exists at all times. There is no time when the Eternal does not exist.

1.1 This is basically a tautology. Anything eternal exists for all past time, the present and all future time. That is what eternal means.


2 There was a time in the past when the Creator did not exist.

2.1 There is no cause without an effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless it has an effect. To be a cause without an effect is like being a parent while not having had any children. If a cause does not have an effect then it is not a cause, since it has caused nothing. At most it may be a potential cause.

2.2 By 2.1 above, for the Creator to exist it is necessary for at least one effect to exist, since without an effect the Creator cannot be a cause, which is a contradiction. This would be like a childless parent, or a sibling with no brothers or sisters, and so not exist.

2.3 From 2.2 we have at least one effect needed for the Creator. We will look at the first such effect to happen; if multiple first effects occur at the same time then we can select any one of them. No other effect happened before it. This first effect can be either eternal or not.

2.3.1 If the first effect specified in 2.3 is eternal then it was not caused by the Creator since the effect has no start, and therefore no cause. The cause must come before the effect, and there is no "before" for something eternal. Therefore the Creator did not cause this particular effect and so this eternal effect does not establish the Creator's existence. We can eliminate this "effect" as not an effect, we made a mistake, and return to 2.3 to pick another first effect. We know that some effects are not eternal, a mayfly say, so we do not have an infinite loop here.

2.3.2 If the first effect in 2.3 is not eternal then that effect was caused by the Creator at some point in time. Before that point in time the first effect did not exist. Neither did any other relevant effect, since in 2.3 we have defined the effect we are looking at as the first effect.

2.4 By 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 the first effect can only establish the Creator if it is not eternal. Therefore by 2.1 there was a time, before the first effect, when the Creator did not exist. In the absence of any effect there cannot be a cause and we have established that there was indeed a time when there were no effects.

2.5 This meakes sense. If the Creator was eternal we would get something like "On the -2th day God said 'Fiat lux', and on the -1th day God said 'Fiat lux', and on the 0th day God said 'Fiat lux', and on the first day God said 'Fiat lux', and on the second day God said 'Fiat lux'" and so on. Eternal causes have this machine-gun-like property, continually producing their effects.


3 Therefore there was a time in the past when the Creator did not exist and the Eternal did exist.

3.1 This follows from 1 and 2.


4 Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

4.1 This is a basic law of logic, the law of the excluded middle.


5 Therefore the Eternal and the Creator cannot be the same thing. In other words God cannot both be eternal and be the creator of all else that exists.

5.1 By 3 and 4 the Eternal and the Creator are not the same thing. We can say that the two statements "God is eternal" and "God is the creator of all else that exists" are not consistent with each other.

5.2 This is not a new observation. The Gnostics were aware of the problem and solved it by having more than one God; their version ran "God1 is eternal," and "God2 is the creator of all else that exists." Nagarjuna also uses the same argument against any eternal cause.


rossum

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 02:28 PM post located here
rossum:

2.1 There is no cause without an effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless it has an effect. To be a cause without an effect is like being a parent while not having had any children. If a cause does not have an effect then it is not a cause, since it has caused nothing. At most it may be a potential cause.

2.2 By 2.1 above, for the Creator to exist it is necessary for at least one effect to exist, since without an effect the Creator cannot be a cause, which is a contradiction. This would be like a childless parent, or a sibling with no brothers or sisters, and so not exist.

rossum

It seems to me that I existed before I was a parent. "Parent" was a role I took on at some point in my existence. I existed, though I had not "caused" any children.

Similarly, your argument (as presented thus far) does not address God having existed though not having yet created.

Thanks for a great post!

[Peek-a-boo-baby]

From your argument, I am understanding that your problem is with calling God both Eternal and Creator. But I don't really understand how this is a conflict. You have a very linear (limited) view of how events happen: cause and effect. But there can be cause with multiple effects, or there can be multiple causes for one effect. To call God "Creator" does not limit him in time. The "cause" you are looking for in your line of cause-effect reasoning is not God himself, but God's command. Nothing created comes into being until "God said..."

If I am misunderstanding your reasoning please correct me.

[wwatts]

2.3.1 If the first effect specified in 2.3 is eternal then it was not caused by the Creator since the effect has no start, and therefore no cause. The cause must come before the effect, and there is no "before" for something eternal. Therefore the Creator did not cause this particular effect and so this eternal effect does not establish the Creator's existence. We can eliminate this "effect" as not an effect, we made a mistake, and return to 2.3 to pick another first effect. We know that some effects are not eternal, a mayfly say, so we do not have an infinite loop here.

Some people believe in simultaneous causation. That is to say that a cause and a effect can occur at the same time.

[rossum]

prgmrdave,

Something did exist before you became a parent, but that something was not a parent. That parent-to-be had to undergo a change in order to become a parent. Something that changes is not eternal so neither the parent-to-be nor the parent is eternal. Similarly, the Creator-to-be may have existed before the first act of creation, but the Creator-to-be had to change into the Creator. Inevitably there was a change of state from "I will create in the future," to "I am creating now," to "I have created." If something changes then is is different from what it was before. Is it legitimate still to use the same designation to describe it? Certainly we cannot use a designation like "Creator" to describe something that has not created yet. An eternal God cannot change, so it cannot make the move from Creator-to-be to Creator. If this entity changed then this entity was not eternal. Being eternal can be a very restrictive property.


Peek-a-boo-baby,

I do indeed reject the notion of an eternal creator. You are right that a single cause can have multiple effects, but the cause still has effects and the effects all have a cause. Multiple causes is a different question, since causation is then possibly contingent depending on which of the "causes" are neccessary or not. However, I am arguing against a single eternal creator; multiple causes would involve an argument against multiple eternal creators.

To call god "Creator" must limit her in time, since "Creator" is a contingent property, dependent on the existence of something created which itself will be limited in time. As my argument showed there was a time when nothing created existed so the designation of "Creator" could not have been truthfully applied.

God's command "Let there be light." has the same problem. God has to change from "I am about to speak," to "I am speaking," to "I have spoken." This is a change. As I said to prgmrdave anything that changes cannot be eternal. A God who speaks is not eternal, since speech inevitably involves change over time. Again the Creator, who is the one speaking, cannot be eternal. The Eternal, who does not speak, cannot create.

The notion of Creator implies some sort of change. The Eternal cannot change. These two cannot be the same.


wwatts,

Some people may say that, I don't. If cause and effect are simultaneous then how can we tell which is which? Does God cause light or does light cause God? We tell cause and effect apart by noting which one comes first and calling it the cause. The cause has to come first or else there is nothing in place before the effect, so the effect could pop up anywhere without prior cause.

In any case, my argument is not affected since if they arise simultaneuosly then the Creator arises at the same time as the first effect. There is still a time when the Creator does not exist and the rest follows as before.

I have to log off now, I will be interested to see what tomorrow brings.

rossum

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 03:53 PM post located here
rossum:

The notion of Creator implies some sort of change.

How come?

The Eternal cannot change.

How come?

[Captain Ochre]

prgmrdave has fingered the basic problem. "Cause" is merely a attribute of the eternal creator. Additionally, all causes are logically prior to their effects, thus it is seeminly difficult to justify the contention that causation is contingent on effect, as rossum's argument appears to do.

[wwatts]

Some people believe in simultaneous causation. That is to say that a cause and a effect can occur at the same time.

wwatts,

Some people may say that, I don't. If cause and effect are simultaneous then how can we tell which is which? Does God cause light or does light cause God? We tell cause and effect apart by noting which one comes first and calling it the cause. The cause has to come first or else there is nothing in place before the effect, so the effect could pop up anywhere without prior cause.

You seem to be saying that 'if event A occurs before another event B, then event A caused event B'. But that can't be what you are thinking. But if you are not saying that, then all you are saying is 'if event A comes before event B and event A causes event B then event A is in causal relations with event B'. But this is what we are discussing!

I'm saying all that is required for event A to cause event B is for event A to be in causal relations with event B!

Now I think it's true that we never observee 'backwards causation' where event B happens before event A, *and* event A still causes event B, but that doesn't mean that simultaneous causation doesn't occur or that we don't observe it.

In any case, my argument is not affected since if they arise simultaneuosly then the Creator arises at the same time as the first effect. There is still a time when the Creator does not exist and the rest follows as before.
rossum

I would say that saying the creator 'arises' at a first moment in time would be inaccurate. The worst you could say, given this simultaneous view, is that the creator exists at the first moment in time and the creator is in causal relations with the first moment in time!

Some other things I think need to be discussed here is the idea of physical time versus metaphysical time. Basically, if physical time is a property of matter there is no reason someone would need to associate a physical time to an immaterial thing. That immaterial thing could have a relationship with a metaphysical time and not a physical time until the beginning of the universe, and then a relationship with the physical time since the beginning of the universe.

[FirstSunday33ad]

1. Without time there is no such concept as "eternal" only "now"

2. Time has not always existed.

3. Therefore God is not "eternal" God is "now".

4. The creation is dependent on the creator.

5. The creator is not dependent on the creation.

6. Therefore, there can be a "time" when the creator hasn't yet created but not a "time" when the creation existed without the creator.

7. A creator who has not yet created anything - including time - is in the NOW not eternity.

8. Therefore, the creator and the eternal are the same.

[JCA]

Today @ 12:04 PM post located here
wwatts:

Now I think it's true that we never observee 'backwards causation' where event B happens before event A, *and* event A still causes event B, but that doesn't mean that simultaneous causation doesn't occur or that we don't observe it.

Actually, I thought we had observed this with some tests that have been done with Photons in the last few years..

I can't remember it all right now, but I beleive that running a photon through a specific chamber of certain gases, it was observed that the 'light' was actually leaving the 'gas' before it had even finished being entered..

In other words, the light left the box before it was all in.. the effect actually came before the cause..

So, I'm not sure how that all fits, but I thought I would bring it up

IN Love and Peace

JCA

[wwatts]

2.1 There is no cause without an effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless it has an effect. To be a cause without an effect is like being a parent while not having had any children. If a cause does not have an effect then it is not a cause, since it has caused nothing. At most it may be a potential cause.

I think you have a defeater here against your defeater for simultaneous causation. Let me try to make an argument out of this

1) A cause must be in causal relations to it's effect in the moment immediately prior to the effect's existance
2) A cause may not exist in causal relations to an effect in the moment that the effect exists (simultaneous causation)
3) At least one cause and one effect exist in causal relations
4) Therefore a cause exists without an effect (existing)

I deny (1) but you hold (1) , (2), and (3) so it's necessarily the case that you believe in a cause that exists without an effect, which is against your view.

[rossum]

Sorry for the delay in replying. "To err is human, but for a real snarl-up try a computer." I will reply to the more recent posts later - I prefer not to reply on-line, but to compose replies off-line.

prgmrdave,

You had two questions:

1 Why does the notion of Creator imply some sort of change?

As I said in my first post, I am using "create" as a synonym of "cause". When a creator creates something, the creator is acting as the cause of the created thing. So does a cause have to change? I shall show this by looking at the effect an unchanging cause (UC) would have. The UC causes its effect. The next moment in time, the UC has not changed, so it causes its effect again. The next moment in time it causes its effect yet again. An unchanging cause can never stop producing its effect. We have a machine-gun-like stream of effects. Furthermore, given that the UC has always been the same, this particular machine-gun has always been firing; the stream of effects extends back into the past as far as we can see as well as into the future. Obviously one of those Hollywood guns with an infinite supply of ammunition.

An unchanging cause would be something like:

... and on the zeroth day God said "Let there be light," and on the first day God said "Let there be light," and on the second day God said "Let there be light," and on the third day God said "Let there be light," and on the fourth day ...

This conforms to neither science nor the Bible so I don't think anyone here would accept it.

All these paradoxes arise from an unchanging cause/creator. In order to avoid the paradoxes all that is necessary is to drop the "unchanging". A changing cause can easily cause something once, "Let there be light," and then itself change to avoid becoming a repeating cause.

2 How come the Eternal cannot change?

Something eternal exists at all times: past, present and future. Change involves a difference over time, there are two times T1 and T2 when the changing thing is different. What constitutes the difference? There are three possibilities, something has been added, something has been taken away or a mixture of both.

2.1 Something has been added: At time T1 we have entity (E). At a later time T2 we have entity (E + F), F has been added. F cannot be eternal since it did not exist at time T1. E might be eternal, but E has not changed. F has changed but it is certainly not eternal. The Eternal has not changed in this case.

2.2 Something has been removed: At time T1 we have (E + G). At a later time T2 we have (E). G has been removed. G has changed, but it is not eternal since it does not exist at time T2. E is possibly eternal, but it has not changed. The Eternal has not changed in this case.

2.3 A mixture of both: At time T1 we have (E + H). At a later time T2 we have (E + J). Neither H nor J are eternal, H does not exist at time T2 and J does not exist at time T1. E may be eternal but it has not changed in this case. The Eternal has not changed in this case.

In all three cases the Eternal has not changed. Whatever is eternal cannot change; something that is eternal is the same at all times. Whatever is changing cannot be eternal; something that changes is not the same at all times.

This is true in most philosophy, whatever is eternal is ipso facto unchanging given the definitions of "eternal" and "changing". God is seen as eternal and unchanging in most theologies - the "Rock of Ages".


Captain Ochre said:

"Cause" is merely a[n] attribute of the eternal creator.

My point is that an "eternal creator" involves a logical paradox and cannot exist. Can something without existence have an attribute like "cause"?

Dropping the problematic "eternal", the statement becomes:

"Cause" is merely a[n] attribute of the creator.

In this instance, the attribute "cause" is not "mere". The Creator cannot be the creator without also being a cause. Remember I am using "cause" and "create" as synonyms. This attribute is essential to the designation "Creator". Can someone truly claim to be an author without having written anything? A Creator must have created/caused something, or else their claim to be a creator is false. The entity in question cannot be the Creator until she has created something. Naturally, this implies a change in the entity, with consequent effects on attempts to describe her as eternal.

all causes are logically prior to their effects

Correct.

causation is contingent on effect

This is indeed what I am saying. Being a cause is a contingent property, dependent on the effect. Without an effect, cause-and-effect obviously cannot exist, and hence cause cannot exist. How could we show the existence of cause-and-effect if there are no effects? I do not see this as difficult to establish. Naturally, being an effect is also contingent on the existence of a cause. Both cause and effect are mutually contingent - neither can exist without the other. Creator and creation are exactly similar, both are contingent.

rossum

[prgmrdave]

rossum,

You've often mentioned time in your posts in reference to the eternality of a thing. Could you be more specific what time stream you refer to, whether it is the one my physical body inhabits, or some other?

Thanks!

[prgmrdave]

Is it correct to say that, according to your PoV, "causing" has an effect on the "causer"?

In other words, something, having caused, is thereafter not identical to (different from, changed from) what it was before the causing?

[rossum]

Thankyou all for some interesting responses.

wwatts,

I do not say that any prior event is a cause. Not all prior events are causes.

Simultaneous causation does not make sense as there is no cause in place to trigger the effect - the effect has no prior cause. Without a prior cause there is nothing to prevent the effect occurring at random.

Trying to redefine the problem as the existence of a "cause-and-effect" relation does not solve it as there can be no cause-and-effect relation without either a cause or an effect. Can there be a parent-and-child relation when neither parent nor child exists?

I would say that saying the creator 'arises' at a first moment in time would be inaccurate. The worst you could say, given this simultaneous view, is that the creator exists at the first moment in time and the creator is in causal relations with the first moment in time!

In the absence of time there can be no causal relationship. Cause and effect are differentiated by their respective positions in time. Hence whatever relation there is between time and the Creator-to-be (I do not yet grant her the status of creator) it is not a cause-and-effect relationship. Once we are inside time, then my argument about the first effect comes into play. You are right in that the existence of time is implicit in my argument, however I do not see this as a problem since the existence of time is implicit in any cause-and-effect relationship.

The relationship between cause and effect is not simple.

1 The cause cannot exist before the effect, because while there is no effect there cannot be a cause.

2 The cause cannot exist simultaneously with the effect because in that case there is no cause present in the prior moment to trigger the effect.

3 The cause cannot exist after the effect because then the effect is already in existence and requires no cause to trigger it.

As I said earlier the two are mutually contingent, neither can be established on their own. Any attempt to establish the independent existence of either cause or effect will collapse into absurdity. A similar relationship exists between Creator and created. Being a creator is a contingent property.

I would need a better definition of "metaphysical time" and how it differs from "material time" before I would be prepared to consider including it in the discussion. Even then I am not sure that it would add much.

1) A cause must be in causal relations to it's effect in the moment immediately prior to the effect's existence
2) A cause may not exist in causal relations to an effect in the moment that the effect exists (simultaneous causation)
3) At least one cause and one effect exist in causal relations
4) Therefore a cause exists without an effect (existing)

Your 1) is false because there can be no relation between an existing cause and a not-yet-existing effect. Relationships only apply between existing things. 2) is correct. 3) is only true if both "cause" and "effect" are taken as contingent. 4) is nonsense. No cause exists without an effect, that would make "cause" non-contingent and there are no non-contingent causes.


FirstSunday33ad said:

1. Without time there is no such concept as "eternal" only "now"

How can "now" be defined in the absence of time? I will suspend acceptance/rejection of this point until I see your definition of "now". You are correct in that "eternal" has no meaning in the absence of time - eternal is contingent on time.

2. Time has not always existed.

Agreed in the general sense, though we need to be very careful with the use of a word like "always" in this context. A lot of words implicitly assume the existence of time. A better way of saying it would be "Time has a beginning," which keeps all the time-dependent words within the bounds of time.

3. Therefore God is not "eternal" God is "now".

Does your "God" correspond to the "Eternal" in my initial post, to the "Creator" in my initial post or to a third entity? I will not accept any definition that assumes that the Eternal and the Creator are the same entity - the point of my argument is to show that they cannot be the same entity.

4. The creation is dependent on the creator.

Agreed.

5. The creator is not dependent on the creation.

Certainly not. How can there be a Creator who has not created anything? Are you saying that the Creator is making a false claim? At most I will allow the existence of a Creator-to-be prior to creation.

Until you have established points 1, 3 and 5 the rest of your argument does not convince me.


JCA,

Photons are often thought of as very small sub-atomic particles. However, when you look at the time taken for an electron to switch levels in say a Sodium atom and multiply by the speed of light you find that photons of visible light are about 3m long. That is around ten feet. Provided the gas container is smaller than 3m then it is perfectly possible for a photon to start leaving before it has finished entering.

You are generally right in that at the quantum level time does very strange things; it is often absurdly easy to run time backwards in quantum interactions.