D-fendr: When I conceive in this area, things like will and want don't fit; maybe it's just me.
D, you said the not "as an 'initiation' of creation" but that creation occurred "as a result of its [creator's] existence". Then it was not a willful act. How does that square with your Christian religion which says that God actively worked for seven proverbial days to create the world?
[kosta: But since it [creator] exists eternally it would make sense the creation does also.]
I can see that conclusion. I can also not see it. Conceptualizing the boundary between eternal and temporal is a pretty dicey deal IMHO.
If the world is merely a consequence of the uncaused first cause's eternal existence (not its will or willful act), then the world must have existed eternally. This is contrary to the Big Bang evidence.
You might have me confused for someone else perhaps. And, these days "Christian religion" covers quite a range of views.
If the world is merely a consequence of the uncaused first cause's eternal existence (not its will or willful act), then the world must have existed eternally.
I'm sorry I still don't get how that necessarily follows. I did allow that that could apply to "creation" or creating. But I don't see it necessarily so, and if so wouldn't apply it necessarily to "world" or even "this universe." There could be much more going on - in time - that could be part of creating or creation.
As always, with the caveat that my conceptions here, perhaps all, are pretty limited, I think we almost could say by definition.
Thanks for your reply.