On February 25, 2009, Hugh Ross and Fuzale Rana from Reasons to Believe debated Michael Shermer (of Skeptic magazine fame) on the question of the scientific testability of divine creation. Gary Whittenberger wrote an article on the debate for eSkeptic, a weekly email report produced by Skeptic magazine. According to Whittenberger, “Ross asserted that God caused the beginning of time at the moment of the Big Bang. As other Creationists often do, Ross seems to ignore the fact that an act of a person causing something is itself an event in time, and so he backs himself into the corner of contradiction by implying there was time before the beginning of time. Of course this makes no sense, but Ross is unfazed; he simply imagines that there is a supernatural time and a natural time and supposes that this solves everything.”
While I am familiar with Ross’ work, I do not know enough about his views on time and God’s relationship to it to either defend or critique his position. Instead, I would like to challenge Whittenberger’s claim that God’s causal act of creation requires a time before time, and thus is nonsensical. God’s causal act of creation requires no such thing.
God’s causal act of creation constituted the first moment of time (i.e. it was a temporal act), being simultaneous to the effect of the universe coming into being. God’s causal act could not have been an eternal act, because that would require the universe to be eternal as well. Let me explain. A cause cannot exist without its corresponding effect. Take for example, the act of lighting a match. For the match to light, it requires a sufficient cause (an agent acting to strike the match against an abrasive surface). As soon as the sufficient cause is present, the effect (the match being lit) immediately follows. There is no temporal gap between the sufficient cause and the effect. If the match would have been struck from eternity past, it would have been lit from eternity past as well. It would be impossible to strike the match from eternity past, and yet the match remain unlit until a finite time ago. Likewise, if God’s causal activity to create the universe was an eternal act, the universe would have been created an eternity ago, making it co-eternal with God Himself. And yet we know from both philosophy and science that the universe if temporally finite, ergo God’s act of creation had to be a temporal act (an act in time).
Since God was timeless without creation, His causing the universe to come into being must have been the first temporal event of the universe. God’s causal activity in creating the universe was a temporal act that constituted the first moment of time. The change from God existing alone without creation, to God willing creation and co-existing with it, then, brought time into existence.
See also my article “Does God Know When Now Is?: Revisiting God’s Relationship to Time”
Thinking to Believe 
July 10, 2009 at 12:33 am
William Craig deals with this (I think, although can’t find it) by saying that before creation, God is not temporal, and at the point of start of creation, God becomes temporal due to relationship change.
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 1:28 am
Yes, that is Craig’s position. He has several different articles on this on his website, as well as a couple of books. I am convinced of his position. In fact, the article I wrote that is linked at the end of my post is a summary of his arguments for divine timelessness sans creation, and divine omnitemporality with creation.
Craig offers the same solution to the problem of the beginning of time as I do here. He argues that God’s causal act constituted the first moment of time, and that the effect of the universe coming into being was simultaneous to God’s causing it to come into being.
Jason
LikeLike
July 16, 2009 at 3:03 am
Ross is a progression creationist.
For the longest he did not have any page on how someone is to accept Christ. I pointed this out and had this on my website and forum. He got a bunch of complaints so he put up a page addressing it. And guess what type of prayer he put up? One that would not offend anyone. One that did not mention Christ. One that was basically new age.
Progression creationists are basically those who are afraid to say God did it. In others words they would rather deny the power of God instead looking stupid in front of secular scientists for standing behind the word of God.
What I mean by God did it, is being able to say God’s power did it even though I cannot explain it. And they search to much for temporal explainations for their answers.
The YEC view stands behind the word of God.
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/Creation9.0.1.html
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/Creation9.0.2.html
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/Creation9.0.3.html
LikeLike
July 16, 2009 at 2:33 pm
ikester,
I don’t see why one must have a page walking someone through to salvation in order to have a Christian web ministry. I don’t. I went to Ross’ site, and I didn’t find any such page, so I cannot comment on the nature of the prayer.
As for your charge that progressive creationists (including Ross) are afraid to say “God did it,” this is absolutely false. That charge may apply to some theistic evolutionists, but progressive creationists like Ross affirm over and over again God’s causal activity in creating the universe, as well as all that is within it. Just because they believe God created everything over a long period of time rather than in a short period of time is inconsequential to the question of agency itself.
Jason
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:28 am
One might object that God cannot will time and the universe into being because that would require a change, and a timeless being such as God cannot change. But this presumes that timelessness, and hence changelessness, are necessary properties of God. I see no reason for thinking this to be true. While eternality is a necessary property of God, timelessness is not.
As William Lane Craig responds to this objection: “A timeless being must be changeless, but that does not entail unchangeability. A timeless being is timeless just in case He exists changelessly, but should he change, then he becomes temporal. That, I suggest, is exactly what God did in creating the universe. But how could a changeless being initiate a change? By being a personal agent endowed with freedom of the will—hence, the conclusion that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator.” See William Lane Craig, “Youtube Takes Out the Cosmological Argument!”; available from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6515
Jason
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:32 am
I should add in the way of clarification to my previous comment that God did not cease being eternal at creation, but merely timeless. Temporality does not stand in contrast to eternality, but atemporality (timelessness). Omnitemporality and atemporality are two different ways in which one can experience eternality. What is essential to God is that He is eternal, not that He is eternal in a timeless way, or eternal in an omnitemporal way.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 1:47 am
[…] Creation was a Temporal Act […]
LikeLike
November 19, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. The author says “There is no temporal gap between the sufficient cause and the effect,” but this is surely mistaken. A cause is one event, and an effect is a separate event which follows the cause. So in Ross’ view, God did something, e.g. spoke, snapped his fingers, or whatever (the cause), and then our universe came into existence, presumably through the event of the Big Bang (the effect). In this view time had to exist prior to the Big Bang or the coming into existence of our universe. Also, if God exists, then did he not do anything else before he “spoke” to create our universe, e.g. maybe think about creating our universe, or “speak” other universes into existence, or cause the angels to come existence, etc.? If so, then these were other acts in time.
LikeLike
November 22, 2013 at 1:39 am
Gary,
You seem to be assuming that causation requires temporal succession. While I admit that this is common to our experience of causation, it is not a necessary feature of causality such that causality is not possible in the absence of time. Even in our experience, where cause-effect relationships endure through time, time is never part of the cause itself. It’s the casual entity alone, not time, that produces the effect. Time simply transpires between the moment the cause begins (t1) and the moment effect is instantiated (t2). If time is not part of the causal agent, then why think temporal succession is essential to causation?
Let me be clear: I don’t dispute that our experience of causality always involves temporal priority, but that is because our experience of the causal relationship is rooted within a world imbued with time. But when it comes to the beginning of the universe, we are dealing with the border between timelessness and time. Any causal explanation for the universe’s coming into being could not involve temporal priority of the cause to the effect. We could conclude that this means there can be no cause of the universe’s coming into being (as Stephen Hawking does), but this smacks in the face of all reason. The universe is a contingent being, and contingent beings require an external cause for their existence. Given the principle of sufficient reason, the universe must have a cause, and that cause must be a necessary being that is external to the universe. Unless we are prepared to give up on one of the most basic metaphysical axioms against all reason, then it behooves us to examine whether there is a form of causation in which temporality is not required. I think we have good reason to think there is.
Philosophers distinguish between two types of causal relationships: temporal, logical. A cause can be prior to its effect temporally or logically. A classic example of the logical causal relationship is the eternal ball and cushion. Imagine a heavy ball resting on a soft cushion from eternity past. If you were to look at the pillow, you would notice a concavity in the cushion where the ball was resting. Since the ball and cushion have both existed from eternity past, and the ball has always rested on the pillow, neither is temporally prior to the other. Would that mean, then, that we would have to conclude that the concavity of the cushion had no cause? Of course not! Obviously, the ball has caused the concavity in the cushion. The ball is logically prior to the concavity of the pillow, even though it is not temporally prior. This thought experiment demonstrates that causal priority does not require temporal priority. It is possible for a causal relationship to exist between cause and effect that does not entail time, but entails logical priority of the cause over the effect.
What I argue is that God’s causing the universe to come into being was logically prior to the universe coming into being (effect), not temporally prior. Indeed, God’s causal act marked the border between God’s timeless existence, and the creation of time. As I noted in the post, “God’s causal act of creation constituted the first moment of time (i.e. it was a temporal act), being simultaneous to the effect of the universe coming into being. God’s causal act could not have been an eternal act, because that would require the universe to be eternal as well. … Since God was timeless without creation, His causing the universe to come into being must have been the first temporal event of the universe. God’s causal activity in creating the universe was a temporal act that constituted the first moment of time. The change from God existing alone without creation, to God willing creation and co-existing with it, then, brought time into existence.” God’s creative act was the first temporal act. He did not create the world in time, but rather with time. God’s creation of the universe is coincident with the universe’s coming into being.
So what did God do without the universe, when He existed in a timeless state? Nothing. There were no acts. You have to remember that God is not a being who thinks discursively. All of God’s thoughts are known to Him at once.
Having said all of this, there are some, such as Newton, who believe in a time before time. They maintain that God’s eternality is one of eternal duration through time, rather than timelessness without the universe. On this view, the time before time is a metaphysical time, rather than the physical time we are familiar with. I don’t subscribe to this view, but if it were true, it would address both of your objections since God could be active prior to creation, and God’s causally creative act that brought the universe into being could occur before the effect of the universe coming into being. So no matter how you slice the pie, there is no conflict with the notion of God causing the universe.
Jason
LikeLike
November 23, 2013 at 3:04 am
Jason,
Thank you for your response.
I disagree with your suggestion that time is not a necessary feature of causality. It surely is! A cause is one event which precedes and is at least partially responsible for a second event, i.e. the effect. Time is not “part” of the cause or the effect, but time is essential for the definition of cause and effect.
I do not accept your hypothesis that the universe (the substrate of all which exists) came into being. Rather, I believe that the universe has always existed, that the Big Bang was just one transition event, and that this event probably had a cause. On the other hand, if the universe came into being, then I agree with you that there could not have been a cause; this event would not have been an effect of any cause since there would be nothing. I do not agree with you that the universe is a “contingent being.” Here you are assuming that it might not have existed. I take the opposite view – that it is noncontingent and must exist. For you to say “that cause must be a necessary being that is external to the universe” makes no sense because such a cause would be part of the universe, defined as the substrate of all which exists. We have no good reason to redefine causality sans the concept of time.
In your example of the ball and cushion, the concavity of the cushion had no cause! How could it? Causation necessarily entails events and you have set up your hypothetical scenario with no events. There is no such thing as “logical causality” without time. Causality includes a time concept, by definition! In your example, you could not conclude that the ball caused the concavity of the cushion without having observed many similar instances, which you have made impossible by the way you set up your scenario. I think you are thinking about some other concept, something similar to “logical contingency.”
Whenever you say “God’s causing” anything, you are implying the existence of time, by definition! Also, when you postulate “God’s timeless existence” you aren’t describing anything; you are inventing a “philosopher’s” definition of “God” which is quite different from the “common man’s” definition of “God,” and this latter god operates wholly within time. While both your philosopher’s God and the common man’s God are very unlikely to exist, your God is the less probable of the two. The idea of “an eternal act” is meaningless. An act is an event, having a beginning and an end, an event in time.
What would a timeless God be like? It would be like a person doing nothing at all, i.e. a “frozen” changeless intelligent being. The first event would be this God doing something for the first time (a first cause) resulting in the sudden existence of the universe minus God (the first effect). A cause cannot be simultaneous with its effect, by definition! This timeless God is a possibility, but so improbable that it is hardly worth considering. It goes against all our experience of persons or intelligent beings, cause-effect, and time. Why generalize against the evidence when you can generalize with it?
When you say “God is not a being who thinks discursively,” once again you aren’t describing anything; you are inventing your own God concept. In all our experience, intelligent beings think discursively. Thinking is an act in time. An intelligent being who does not think is possible, but so improbable it is hardly worth considering.
Assuming he had such a concept, Newton’s idea of a “time before time” is pretty much nonsense. If there are events, then there is time. If there are no events, then there is no time. God can’t be “active prior to creation” without operating in time. Like I said, it is possible that there was a timeless God who did nothing and then did something for the first time resulting in the rest of the universe (minus God) coming into existence, but this is both very improbable and incongruent with the common man’s conception of God. In this view, God was busy doing many other things before he created our local universe. Some people even believe that this God has been creating all kinds of different universes, angels, and other stuff forever!
LikeLike
August 1, 2014 at 5:26 am
Would you like to discuss something?
LikeLike
June 4, 2016 at 11:16 am
This blog was… how do you say it? Relevant!!
Finally I’ve found something that helped me.
Cheers!
LikeLike
June 4, 2016 at 1:51 pm
seo service:
If that was relevant than you should really be tickled with this find:
Which is the longer time? Forever or Never? They are both eternal concepts.
Since they are both eternal concepts there is no difference in time accept either one exists and one does not exist. And if there is no difference in time other than if “forever” exists or “never” exists, then either the Universe exists or it does not exist.
We know that the universe exists; therefore, since the universe exists the existence necessarily can only exist forever, excluding “never” but including all the relevant extensions such as time and space attributed to the universe. A complete package. “Something” rather than “Nothing”
All concepts, tangents, material and immaterial entities are extensions of the Universe and therefore, the God Hypothesis can only be defined accordingly.
It must follow, as the night the day, that humankind and everything that exists, exists within the essence of the Universe and everything within the essence of the Universe is part of the Eternal itself……………..and consisting of………………
L-ove, I-nfinity, F-orever, E-ternal.
LikeLike
February 27, 2018 at 2:18 pm
Jadwal Pameran
Creation was a Temporal Act | Theo-sophical Ruminations
LikeLike
July 22, 2018 at 4:56 pm
particular
Creation was a Temporal Act | Theo-sophical Ruminations
LikeLike
August 31, 2018 at 4:55 pm
1eth
Creation was a Temporal Act | Theo-sophical Ruminations
LikeLike
February 28, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Gary writes:
You’re using the word precede in a four-dimensional sense. That doesn’t apply outside the material realm. Hence, when we speak of a transcendent cause and effect, we’re referring to logical prior points, not material ones.
Even if we can speak of pre-material “time,” Jason is certainly addressing material time and distinguishing that from events outside our space-time continuum.
Whether or not you accept Jason’s hypothesis, that is the basis for his remarks. He does not define universe as “the substrate of all that exists.” He rather defines the universe as the material world. You’re certainly free to define the term any way you like, but that renders your critique off-target because that’s not the definition Jason is working with.
Moreover, since you do not defend the notion of an eternal material state, your counter does nothing to deflect the force of his argument.
I missed this in Jason’s replies. Where did he say that? I know that’s not what he believes, so perhaps you intended to write something else.
You go on to insist that the “universe” is not contingent. You are, of course, working with your own definition of the term and ignoring Jason’s. Again, that doesn’t touch his argument.
Yes, contingent, material intelligent beings think discursively, but God is not a contingent, material being, so your objection skewers a straw man. In all our experience, material, intelligent beings die too, but since God doesn’t die, you cannot appeal to contingent beings as proof that God does not exist.
And here you conflate material time with transcendent time.
You concede that it is possible that God did nothing prior to creation, yet you dismiss that as “very improbable and incongruent” because…well, you don’t elaborate except to appeal once again to “the common man’s conception of God.”
In sum, you both attack an argument Jason does not make, or you make blanket statements without supporting argumentation. In neither case do you diminish the force of his argument.
LikeLike
October 14, 2019 at 12:08 am
Have you ever considered publishing an ebook or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based upon on the same information you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my subscribers would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail.|
LikeLike
October 15, 2019 at 11:19 am
@Mayme Wafer
Hi! I believe you’re directing your comments at Jason, but the webpage associated with your name is an anti-virus download site. Why is that page associated with your name?
LikeLike
October 17, 2019 at 4:15 pm
Hi there. Unfortunately, I’m so busy right now that I can’t even keep my own blog fresh. Thanks for reaching out, however.
LikeLike