Jewish philosophy -- Early works to 1800; Judaism -- Works to 1900; Philosophy, Medieval -- Early works to 1800
Some of the recent philosophers who adhere to the theory of the
Eternity of the Universe hold that God produces the Universe, that He
by His will designs and determines its existence and form; they reject,
however, the theory that this act took place at one certain time, and
assume that this always has been the case, and will always be so. The
circumstance that we cannot imagine an agent otherwise than preceding
the result of its action, they explain by the fact that this is
invariably the case in all that we produce; because for agents of the
same kind as we are, there are some moments in which they are not
active, and are only agents in potentia; they become agents when they
act. But as regards God there are no moments of non-action, or of
potentiality in any respect; He is not before His work, He is always an
actual agent. And as there is a great difference between His essence
and ours, so is also a great difference between the relation of His
work to Him and the relation of our work to us. They apply the same
argument to will and determination; for there is no difference in this
respect whether we say He acts, wills, designs, or determines. They
further assume that change in His action or will is inadmissible. It is
therefore clear that these philosophers abandoned the term “necessary
result,” but retained the theory of it; they perhaps sought to use a
better expression, or to remove an objectionable term. For it is the
same thing, whether we say in accordance with the view of Aristotle
that the Universe is the result of the Prime Cause, and must be eternal
as that Cause is eternal, or in accordance with these philosophers that
the Universe is the result of the act, design, will, selection, and
determination of God, but it has always been so, and will always be so;
in the same manner as the rising of the sun undoubtedly produces the
day, and yet it does not precede it. But when we speak of design we do
not mean it in this sense; we mean to express by it that the Universe
is not the “necessary result” of God’s existence, as the effect is the
necessary result of the efficient cause; in the latter case the effect
cannot be separated from the cause; it cannot change unless the cause
changes entirely, or at least in some respect. If we accept this
explanation we easily see how absurd it is to say that the Universe is
in the same relation to God as the effect is to the efficient cause,
and to assume at the same time that the Universe is the result of the
action and determination of God.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account