The implausible timeless God

Hello guys, today i will be discussing the problems and implications on a timeless God causing the universe. 

View 1: Timeless God as the creator of time/universe

A timeless God must have created time. But clearly God cannot precede the existence of time, for that would be to say that there was a time when he existed, a time which was before the first time – and that would be simply self-contradictory. So God cannot be related to time by the concept of sequential causation. So because God's is timeless. Could it be the case, then, that God’s relationship with time is that of simultaneous causation? If we are thinking of sequential causation, there is a temporal difference between the two events which allows us to pick out one as the cause (the earlier event) and the other as the effect (the later event). Simultaneous causation is when the cause and the effect are simultaneous.

I'm not the one who came up with simultaneous causation. It's what some philosophers came up with to avoid the problems of God being the cause of the universe without space time existing (as we know causality happens within space time). Simultaneous causation is when the cause and effect have no temporal gap. Which makes sense for causation in a timeless setting because causality (if it's possible) in a timeless setting cannot have temporal gaps.

Change cannot happen timelessly, why? Because to change requires two states of being that cannot exist at the same time/simultaneous, otherwise you'd get a contradiction: A = ￢A. This is logically impossible.

Before we move on, one may say that the word 'simultaneous' implies its temporal. But it in fact doesn't, simultaneous events go against Einsteins special relativity. Simultaneous causation is only when the cause and effect do not have temporal gaps in between.

Problems with Simultaneous Causation

Point 1. One problem with simultaneous causation is that if A can cause B at the same time, what's not to say that A can cause B which can cause C at the same time too? You can then imagine an infinite amount of causes and effects and say they all occur simultaneous and end up with a what can appear to be nonsensical. If an infinite number of simultaneous causes and effects isn't possible, then one occurring simultaneous probably isn't either. Temporal procession between effects and their cause prevents this problem. To say that a cause doesn't have to precede its effects opens you up to these kinds of consequences.

Point 2. Secondly, The worst implication of simultaneous/timeless causation is that it makes the universe eternal. God timelessly wills to create the universe with a beginning. There can be no temporal gap between the time at which it does the willing and the time at which the thing willed actually happens. (Simultaneous causation), Since God, is causally sufficient for the existence of a physical universe, and that the beginning of the universe coincides with the beginning of time, so that universe "comes into being" only in the extra-temporal sense. If God is really eternal, then the universe cannot have a beginning in a ontological sense. Why not? Because no matter when the universe ''begins'', God would already have produced it.. Since there is no time in eternity, From the point of view of eternity, there is no time at which Universe does not yet exist. Consequently, there is no time/moment at which God has failed to produce universe, and no time/moment at which God would already have produced universe. In short, this point of view implies a eternal universe.

• P1: The universe had a beginning
• P2: God's willing-to-create the universe is eternal
• P3: God's willing-to-create the universe is causally sufficient for the existence of universe;
• P4: if a cause is eternal (timeless) and is sufficient for the existence of something, then the effect is also eternal (simultaneous causation), if anything is eternal, then it does not have a beginning
• C. it follows that universe both does and does not have a beginning.

A criticism of this argument is that it only applies from the point of view of eternity and not the point of view within the universe. They all have "beginnings" and "ends" from their own frames of reference, while God alone is the only thing that does not. But the point of view in the universe is that it never did not exist. So there is no contradiction with the 2 views with a onto logically eternal universe.

A timeless God willing to create the universe must be eternal because if you say God 'decide to create the universe. That would be saying that his will to create to the universe somehow had a timeless beginning, at one point he wasn't willing the universe and at another point he would be willing it. But with simultaneous causation comes simultaneous existence between these 2 scenarios which produces a logical contradiction if the God in both scenarios are the same entity. If a timeless God eternally wills to create, and that will is itself the act of production, and yet the creation isn’t eternal, then it appears that God wills and produces without effect. . . . until. . . . But we can’t say “until” because there is no before and after in the eternal life of a timeless God. So how does the created effect come to be? It seems we’re left with a dilemma: Either creation is eternal, or it can never come to be, since God’s eternal will-production doesn’t produce an equally eternal effect.

You cannot avoid a eternal universe with a timeless cause. Because if you object to the eternal universe and still hold on to the view that the universe had a beginning. Then your basically implying that there was a point where a timeless God existed with no universe and then another point where a timeless God existed with a Universe. But these are temporal successions. In a timeless setting it would be simultaneous which introduces a logical contradiction. As God existing with a universe and God existing without a universe would have no temporal gaps and occur simultaneously. So we must end up with a Eternal universe with a finite pass or say God never existed with a universe to avoid the logical contradiction. Without time, there is no point where the universe didn't exist.

We do not suffer a infinite regress if time onto-logically eternally exists because it being eternal does not mean there is an infinite regression of temporal events. Just time was always there and no moment it was not there.

One solution is that the universe never existed timelessly and only existed temporally. So the non existence of the universe in a timeless setting leads to no contradiction. Well in fact it does. because if God is defined as a being that is always timeless. Then to say the universe had a beginning still leads to the contradiction mentioned. If you say God became temporal. Well with simultaneous causation. Him being timeless and temporal would be simultaneous leading to another logical contradiction. The latter view is discussed below in the Hybrid views.

Point 3. Thirdly, Simultaneous causation allows causal loops. Like A causing B and B causing A,which means the A and Bare the reasons for each others existence. Or even the Universe causing itself. The entire reason anything can not cause itself or cause something which will cause itself is because the cause must precede the effect. But not with simultaneous causation. With simultaneous causation, the cause is simultaneous with the existence of the effect. So wouldn't this allow for anything to create itself if we appeal to this line of thinking?

The problem with saying the universe had a beginning in a timeless reality is saying the universe had a beginning is implying there was a moment where it didn't exist and a moment where it did exist. But these must have temporal gaps or else you get a logical contradiction. But then it is a temporal reality outside the universe and not a timeless reality. So either option in a timeless setting is God only exists alone or God only exists with a universe. The first option would go against the idea that this God is a creator and the latter option makes the universe eternal cause if God is eternal and never did not exist without a universe. Then the universe is eternal as well.

Did this timeless God have a choice?

If god is timeless, at least 'before' the creation of the universe, then it must have been the case that all of god's decisions, thoughts and knowledge, existed simultaneously in a timeless state. So how is it then possible for god to have willed the universe into existence? How could god, exercising his free will, go from a point of indecision - to decision - on whether or not to create a universe, as well as what kind of universe to create? If god is timeless he cannot have had such a transition, because that would require time.

If god's decision to create the universe existed eternally - in that there was never a "time" (metaphysical or otherwise) when he did not possess the will to create the universe, then god never could have indeed made that decision, and thus god never would have had the "choice" in creating the universe. The universe we live in at least would have been inevitable with no possibility that god wouldn't have created it, because any deliberation on god's part to create a universe or not, and what kind of universe to create, would necessarily require time. Or else you would have a logical contradiction were God decided to cause this universe and simultaneously hasn't decided to cause this universe yet. Simultaneous causation does not allow for Gods willing to explain the "coming" into existence of the universe because God's willing simultaneously exists with an already existing eternal Universe. It is merely a correlation of 2 things simultaneously existing.

So a timeless god could not, it seems, have had a choice in creating the universe. He must be always creating this particular universe. His will cannot change to something else unless it was already predetermined. The decision to do so would have to have existed eternally and logically simultaneous with all of god's other knowledge and decisions. The only way out of this, appears to be in seeking refuge in some sort of hypothetical time dimension that god exists in prior to actual time. But I'll discuss a temporal God in a later post. 

All of this, I think, among other things, renders the cosmological argument from contingency impotent, since a timeless god could never have decided to not create our universe, and our universe would not technically be contingent. In other words, if A exists necessarily, and if A exists, B necessarily exists, then B exists necessarily too, because there is no possible way that B could not exist.

View 2: Eternal God sustaining an Eternal Universe.

Objection: The assumption that ‘The universe would not be existing if God didn't timelessly sustain it'. This introduces an asymmetry between God’s willing to sustain and the continual existence of the universe, an asymmetry which allows the theist to say that it is God who sustains the universe, not vice versa. The problem with this idea is that the appearance of asymmetry is false. The assumption says in effect that God’s willing is a necessary condition of the sustained continual existence. But since God is omnipotent, his willing the existence of the universe is also a sufficient condition of its continual existence. This in turn entails that the continual of the universe is a necessary condition of God’s willing. In short, God’s willing and the continual existence of the universe are both necessary and sufficient for each other: there is no asymmetry. It follows that there is nothing to distinguish one as the dependent factor and the other as the independent factor, and hence nothing to make it true that God is the one who sustains and the universe is sustained, rather than vice versa.

God would be necessarily coexisting with a necessary eternal universe. As argued earlier, he had no 'choice' to not sustain it. The universe is necessary because it cannot not exist and he cannot not sustain it. But why would the Universe need to be sustained then? If God who is an eternally necessary existing being can exist without needing to be sustained. Why would a eternal necessary universe need to be sustained? I do not see the sense in claiming that a eternal necessary thing needs to be sustained by another eternal necessary thing. Sure you can claim that the Universe is sustained by God but it seems you are unable to argue for it compared to other alternatives. Like a necessary universe sustaining a necessary God.

Also on this view, God loses his omnipotence since he's locked into sustaining the universe and could not have been any other way. It also means god has no free will, which few theists are going to accept, as this would negate the traditional notion of god and make it unrecognizable. Without change-over-time, any eternal being is immutable. There is no change over time because an eternal being that created time is not itself subject to time. In other words: No progress, no retreat, no changes of mind, no learning, no psychology, no changing of emotions and no active thought. A being outside of time exists as one instant, one snapshot only (like our 2D painting in a 3D world; constant). Emotions, thought, planning, progress and all those other things require change over time. Knowledge, also, would be absolute. Whatever this thing is, it is an impersonal thing.

Conclusion

It seems either we get vast implications which go against many beliefs or allow possibilities that invalidate the need to invoke a God. There are many other views. Today's post was focused on purely timeless views on God and it causing the universe.