# Causailty and Uniformity Within The Ontological Trinity



## GenRev1611 (Apr 12, 2012)

I was wondering if someone can answer this question. In a recent essay that I wrote I stated that causality and uniformity which gives the existing preconditions for empirical observation can only have it's origin in the Triune God. I've read a number of Van Til's works, and have heard many of Bahnsen's lectures. Bahnsen appeals to induction to state his case for Christian theism. However, when one looks closely at the matter, one can seem to really only come up at least with monotheism. What I mean is that he makes the case that induction is a strong argument against atheism but never in his lectures or debates does he make the case that induction is a strong argument for Christian theism.

*Having said that, I have come up with this understanding. Nature's uniformity and regularity can only exist upon the foundation of the Trinity.* The basis for my argument is that communication presupposes that words have meaning that will never change. And since the Triune God doesn't change his mind, then there must be absolute unity of thought within the Godhead since the Three Persons are in absolute agreement. Let me state also that words can only have uniform meaning because a word's meaning reflects the nature of the Triune God's simultaneous imminence and transcendence which makes meaning universal rather than contingent. If unitarianism is true, then there could be no basis for nature's diversity essential to uniformity precisely because prior to the existence of any other thing or being, the god of unitarian thought could not have acted upon the basis of any other prior pre-existing causes. So the uniformity that would exist within the god of unitarianism could not bring diversity and therefore never make sense of experience. Also this would make diversity that is essential to uniformity a mere contingency. Hence, you have *monism*.

And the gods of polytheism could not be the true deities precisely because these deities have no absolute unity within their diversity. Polytheists for the most part don't believe that ideals exist within the deities themselves anyhow. Having said that, inductive inference must have something that unifies it's order, so that diverse experiences can be unified. Otherwise you have *atomism*.

*So here's my case, please follow*, if there was eternal communication within the Godhead, that communication had inherent within it's nature absolute uniformity. So since there was, is, and always will be absolute uniformity within the relationship of the Godhead; then this uniformity must be based upon the Three Persons being in total agreement in diverse communication. To put it simply, when the Persons within the Godhead communicate with one another, there is a perfect causal relationship within their communication. And if God's creation reflects His eternal nature, then the uniformity, diversity, and causality within the imminent creation must be a reflectance of his unifying nature within the diverse persons of the Godhead.

Also this touches upon the *Doctrine of Divine Simplicity*. If the causality, diversity, and uniformity that exists within the imminent creation reflect the nature of God, then one cannot divorce them from their own foundation. Hence, transcendental abstractions are *necessary *rather than *contingent *because they are founded upon the Triune God. This also means that causality and uniformity are *necessary *rather than *contingent* for the very same reason.

If unitarianism and polytheism is true, then there could be no basis for diversity within unitarianism and no basis for unity essential to uniformity within polytheism. Hence there could be no or causality and if there were causality, it would be merely contingent and temporal. If this were the case, then there could be no basis for trusting science because *there could be no basis for knowing if causation will suddenly cease.* If anyone has heard this somewhere in some other writings, please let me know.

I just think that essential to have a proper understanding of the one and the many to properly grasp both uniformity, and causality.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 17, 2012)

Very deep brother. I will try to wrap my head around it. If I understand your argument you are essentially saying that there will be certain necessary features of creation because of the essential attributes of God. Is that basically right? I have to confess a certain uneasiness about such speculation into the inner workings of the ontological Trinity. 

I sort of see your point though. I don’t see why nature must be essentially uniform because of God’s being? I think, and this is just a thought so no offense, that your argument may blur the lines between Creator and creature a bit. God made us in his image but he didn’t have to. 

I for one argue for the uniformity of nature based on the covenant instead. This retains God’s essential freedom and sovereignty but still gives a more than adequate basis for science. I think that it is implicit in the covenant of works that the universe would be uniform. Or else how could Adam ever have kept his covenant obligations. You cannot take dominion over something that can all of sudden change its essential nature. 

This also leaves room for miracles that does not invoke the nature/supernatural scheme that I dislike. Because although God has implicitly promised that nature will behave in a generally uniform fashion, he can and does change the course of things in his freedom while remaining true to his promise.


----------



## Philip (Apr 17, 2012)

GenRev1611 said:


> The basis for my argument is that communication presupposes that words have meaning that will never change.



This is simply absurd. Words do change in their meanings as their use changes. Communication merely presupposes that the audience uses the words in a similar way to the communicator. Even a basic study of etymology and the history of language can show you that language has changed. My ancestors spoke Latin, Anglo-Saxon, and French, which all blended to create the delightful linguistic stew that is modern English. If we look at the way that Shakespeare or the King James Bible use words, we find that many of the words they used have changed in meaning between now and then.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 17, 2012)

Philip said:


> GenRev1611 said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for my argument is that communication presupposes that words have meaning that will never change.
> ...



I had the same thought but I think the point was the ideas to which the words refer to do not change. A bird is bird in many different languages but we all still talk about the same thing.


----------



## No Name #5 (Apr 17, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> I for one argue for the uniformity of nature based on the covenant instead. This retains God’s essential freedom and sovereignty but still gives a more than adequate basis for science. I think that it is implicit in the covenant of works that the universe would be uniform. Or else how could Adam ever have kept his covenant obligations. You cannot take dominion over something that can all of sudden change its essential nature.
> 
> This also leaves room for miracles that does not invoke the nature/supernatural scheme that I dislike. Because although God has implicitly promised that nature will behave in a generally uniform fashion, he can and does change the course of things in his freedom while remaining true to his promise.


Wow, what a beautiful and profound insight. I never heard it put that way before. Is this one of Van Til's observations?


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 18, 2012)

No Name #5 said:


> Wow, what a beautiful and profound insight. I never heard it put that way before. Is this one of Van Til's observations?



It is. He doesn't (at least in the limited amount of books I have access to that he wrote) mention it this way. But he definitely assumes the covenant in his discussions of metaphysics. Following Oliphint I just merely emphasize the covenantal aspect of it. Van Til takes it for granted that his students just knew it. Neither one of them to my knowledge specifically applies to science alone but they apply to all human activities in general. That is the only original aspect of my post that I specifically apply it to science. If they did than I am unaware of it.


----------



## GenRev1611 (Apr 19, 2012)

My mistake, I thought I had included that words cannot change without prior causal relations, sorry, I read this as carefully as possible before posting it. Sorry that I missed that portion, didn't mean any confusion.



Philip said:


> GenRev1611 said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for my argument is that communication presupposes that words have meaning that will never change.
> ...




---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

If this is Van Tillian, I'd like to know since I have never come across this or have missed it somewhere before. I don't claim to have knowledge of this, and please take what I say with a grain of salt. I never want to confuse the body of Christ, only to better equip her.



No Name #5 said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I for one argue for the uniformity of nature based on the covenant instead. This retains God’s essential freedom and sovereignty but still gives a more than adequate basis for science. I think that it is implicit in the covenant of works that the universe would be uniform. Or else how could Adam ever have kept his covenant obligations. You cannot take dominion over something that can all of sudden change its essential nature.
> ...




---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Thank you for your most gracious response. I merely just a layman that reads a lot. I don't ever want to be responsible for spreading error in the Church so I did formulate this as a question. In my zeal to defend the faith, I do want to be most careful not to spread error. I just think that many on here are theologically and philosophically competent enough to give me some feedback. I could be wrong you know. That's what the body is for, to watch out for each other that no one drifts into error. Personally, I'd rather see how the giants of the faith deal with such things. Brother, if you have a link about how the covenant accounts for the uniformity of nature, I'd be more than glad to see this.

I invest this time to understand things because of my love for Him who saved me. About what I said regarding meanings of words not changing, I forgot to place words cannot change without prior causal means.

Again far be it for me to try to toy around with the sacred Triune nature of God, the one in whom I reverence. And don't worry brother, no offense was taken. Thanks for your feedback.



jwright82 said:


> Very deep brother. I will try to wrap my head around it. If I understand your argument you are essentially saying that there will be certain necessary features of creation because of the essential attributes of God. Is that basically right? I have to confess a certain uneasiness about such speculation into the inner workings of the ontological Trinity.
> 
> I sort of see your point though. I don’t see why nature must be essentially uniform because of God’s being? I think, and this is just a thought so no offense, that your argument may blur the lines between Creator and creature a bit. God made us in his image but he didn’t have to.
> 
> ...




---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------

Thank you for your most gracious response. I merely just a layman that reads a lot. I don't ever want to be responsible for spreading error in the Church so I did formulate this as a question. In my zeal to defend the faith, I do want to be most careful not to spread error. I just think that many on here are theologically and philosophically competent enough to give me some feedback. I could be wrong you know. That's what the body is for, to watch out for each other that no one drifts into error. Personally, I'd rather see how the giants of the faith deal with such things. Brother, if you have a link about how the covenant accounts for the uniformity of nature, I'd be more than glad to see this.

I invest this time to understand things because of my love for Him who saved me. About what I said regarding meanings of words not changing, I forgot to place words cannot change without prior causal means.

Again far be it for me to try to toy around with the sacred Triune nature of God, the one in whom I reverence. And don't worry brother, no offense was taken. Thanks for your feedback.



jwright82 said:


> Very deep brother. I will try to wrap my head around it. If I understand your argument you are essentially saying that there will be certain necessary features of creation because of the essential attributes of God. Is that basically right? I have to confess a certain uneasiness about such speculation into the inner workings of the ontological Trinity.
> 
> I sort of see your point though. I don’t see why nature must be essentially uniform because of God’s being? I think, and this is just a thought so no offense, that your argument may blur the lines between Creator and creature a bit. God made us in his image but he didn’t have to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Philip (Apr 19, 2012)

Here are some thoughts:

First, this is a rather impressive piece of natural theology and as such we have to avoid basing our faith on it. We believe because it has been revealed by the Spirit---this argument may or may not be valid, but our faith remains.



GenRev1611 said:


> If unitarianism and polytheism is true, then there could be no basis for diversity within unitarianism and no basis for unity essential to uniformity within polytheism.



What would you say to someone who was a monistic polytheist (certain forms of Hinduism)? Why merely three persons?

More to the point, though, you seem to think that the uniformity of nature is a belief held on the basis of other beliefs rather than a properly basic belief or a piece of tacit knowledge believed because of the epistemic practices which rest on it. Most people, I daresay, believe in the uniformity of nature not because of a certain metaphysic, but because the ordinary practices of belief-formation and learning demand this conclusion. Therefore, just as belief in the uniformity of nature is a second-order tacit beliefs, any beliefs concluded on the basis of the uniformity of nature would also be second-order beliefs, not basic ones.



GenRev1611 said:


> My mistake, I thought I had included that words cannot change without prior causal relations



I'm not sure what you mean here? Language is rather messy and the more I study it and the way it works, the more I realize that language, while never contradicting logic, is not a strictly logical kind of thing.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 20, 2012)

GenRev1611 said:


> If this is Van Tillian, I'd like to know since I have never come across this or have missed it somewhere before. I don't claim to have knowledge of this, and please take what I say with a grain of salt. I never want to confuse the body of Christ, only to better equip her.



Here is one place:


> If the creation doctrine is thus taken seriously, it follows that the various aspects of created reality must sustains such relations to one another as have been ordained between them by the Creator, as superiors, inferiors or equals. All aspects being equally created, no one aspect of reality may be regarded as more ultimate than another. Thus the created one and many may in this respect be said to be equal to one another; they are equally derived and equally dependent upon God who sustains them both. The particulars or facts of the universe do and must act in accord with universals or laws. Thus there is order in the created universe. On the other hand, the laws may not and can never reduce the particulars to abstract particulars or reduce their individuality in any manner. The laws are but generalizations of God’s method of working with the particulars. God may at any time take one fact and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent reason in the facts or laws themselves why this should not be done. It is this sort of conception of the relation of facts and laws, of the temporal one and many, imbedded as it is in that idea of God in which we profess to believe, that we need in order to make room for miracles. And miracles are at the heart of the Christian position.
> 
> Thus there is a basic equality between the created one and the created many, or between the various aspects of created reality. On the other hand, there is a relation of subordination between them as ordained by God. The “mechanical” laws are lower than the “teleological” laws. Of course, both the “mechanical” and “teleological” laws are teleological in the sense that both obey God’s will. So also the facts of the physical aspect of the universe are lower than the facts of the will and intellect of man. *It is this subordination of one fact and law to other facts and laws that is spoken of Scripture as man’s government over nature. According to Scripture man was set as king over nature. He was to subdue it. Yet he was to subdue it for God. He was priest under God as well as king under God. In order to subdue it under God man had to interpret it; he was therefore prophet as well as priest and king under God.*
> 
> The Defense of The Faith, third edition, page 27.



Following the discussion on metaphysics he relates it to the covenant of works in the bold section (my bolding).




GenRev1611 said:


> Thank you for your most gracious response. I merely just a layman that reads a lot. I don't ever want to be responsible for spreading error in the Church so I did formulate this as a question. In my zeal to defend the faith, I do want to be most careful not to spread error. I just think that many on here are theologically and philosophically competent enough to give me some feedback. I could be wrong you know. That's what the body is for, to watch out for each other that no one drifts into error. Personally, I'd rather see how the giants of the faith deal with such things. Brother, if you have a link about how the covenant accounts for the uniformity of nature, I'd be more than glad to see this.
> 
> I invest this time to understand things because of my love for Him who saved me. About what I said regarding meanings of words not changing, I forgot to place words cannot change without prior causal means.
> 
> Again far be it for me to try to toy around with the sacred Triune nature of God, the one in whom I reverence. And don't worry brother, no offense was taken. Thanks for your feedback.



Glad to have you on here. I look forward to interacting with you. I can look for more quotes if you want. But that is one major section.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2012)

It would be incompatible with Man's probation in the CoW and in the Creation Mandate to have an unpredictable and chaotic "universe" where Man could not rely on God's laws of nature.

But it would also be inconsistent with God's characteristics of wisdom, holiness, goodness and love, justice and truth.

Even since Man sinned God hasn't introduced a random, totally unpredictable universe, although Man has to live with the Curse.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 20, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> It would be incompatible with Man's probation in the CoW and in the Creation Mandate to have an unpredictable and chaotic "universe" where Man could not rely on God's laws of nature.
> 
> But it would also be inconsistent with God's characteristics of wisdom, holiness, goodness and love, justice and truth.
> 
> Even since Man sinned God hasn't introduced a random, totally unpredictable universe, although Man has to live with the Curse.



True. So it would now be under common grace.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2012)

Now that Man has sinned the uniformity of nature is still very necessary for common grace and saving grace.

Of course many would say that common grace is for the sake of saving grace anyway.


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 20, 2012)

GenRev1611 said:


> Hence, transcendental abstractions are necessary rather than contingent because they are founded upon the Triune God. This also means that causality and uniformity are necessary rather than contingent for the very same reason *[because they are founded upon the Triune God]*.



Correct me if I misunderstand you, but isn't this essentially saying that uniformity is necessary, and not contingent, because it is founded (contingent?) upon the Triune God? If something is actually *necessary* I don't see how it can be founded.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 21, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> GenRev1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Hence, transcendental abstractions are necessary rather than contingent because they are founded upon the Triune God. This also means that causality and uniformity are necessary rather than contingent for the very same reason *[because they are founded upon the Triune God]*.
> ...



Then we would have to ask could the Triune God have created a completely uniform Universe or a completely diverse universe?

Van Til taught that the head-scratching philosophical problem of the One and the Many in creation reflected God's nature, but whether that was the only thing God could do is not revealed to us.

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

*GenRev1611*


> In a recent essay that I wrote I stated that causality and uniformity which gives the existing preconditions for empirical observation can only have it's origin in the Triune God



Are you saying that "causality" is within the Holy Trinity e.g. that the Father "causes" the Son and the Spirit, the Father and Son "cause" the Spirit.

This would almost certainly be a misleading way of saying things. 

The nature of eternal generation and eternal procession are deep mysteries. I don't know if a lot can be said about them. You'd have to read deeply in the literature on the Triunity. Maybe Robert Letham's book would be good (?), although I've never read it.

Then causality itself is also a mystery since - as Hume showed - we only presuppose causality through experience.

You may need to sort your signature details out, before a moderator mentions it.


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 21, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Then we would have to ask could the Triune God have created a completely uniform Universe or a completely diverse universe?



One of the laws of physics, or presumably uniformity, is that which exists continues to exist. Things change form but don't just disappear. If this law is necessary, then, it means that it is logically impossible for the universe, matter and energy, to cease to exist. I don't see how that is not a logical possibility.


----------



## Philip (Apr 21, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> If this law is necessary, then, it means that it is logically impossible for the universe, matter and energy, to cease to exist. I don't see how that is not a logical possibility.



The key word here being _if_. I don't see how it is necessary at all.


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 22, 2012)

Philip said:


> The key word here being if. I don't see how it is necessary at all.



Me Either


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 23, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > The key word here being if. I don't see how it is necessary at all.
> ...



That was my point. If we view it through the covenant, than it becomes essential to creation as God intended it but not necessary in the logical sense, that is that God couldn’t have created it differently or change the laws from time to time.


----------



## Philip (Apr 23, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> That was my point. If we view it through the covenant, than it becomes essential to creation as God intended it but not necessary in the logical sense, that is that God couldn’t have created it differently or change the laws from time to time.



Not sure how the law of conservation of matter would be covenantal at all.


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2012)

Philip said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > That was my point. If we view it through the covenant, than it becomes essential to creation as God intended it but not necessary in the logical sense, that is that God couldn’t have created it differently or change the laws from time to time.
> ...



It is implicit along with every other law.


----------



## Philip (May 2, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> It is implicit along with every other law.



What? I don't see how this would be part of the covenant given that God does not bind His own actions by it.


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2012)

Philip said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > It is implicit along with every other law.
> ...



He does not have to at any point, miracles are evidence of this, bind his providence in his dealings with creation. If he decided to change the laws of gravity he could. But he doesn’t, why? Because implicit in his covenant is the idea of a regulated creation in which his larger, more important will, can be accomplished. Without the uniformity of nature you could never have redemption as he has decided to achieve it. I’ll admit that this may be speculative, so it is not essential to covenant theology but it does seem to flow from it.


----------



## Hilasmos (May 2, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Because implicit in his covenant is the idea of a regulated creation



Isn't it even explicit (Gen. 8:22)?


----------



## Philip (May 2, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Because implicit in his covenant is the idea of a regulated creation in which his larger, more important will, can be accomplished. Without the uniformity of nature you could never have redemption as he has decided to achieve it.



But isn't this just another way of saying that the created order is a necessary condition for covenant?


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Because implicit in his covenant is the idea of a regulated creation
> ...



Yeah I guess you’re right but the laws of science were the same before that as well. My point was that there is no explicit mention of this in the covenant of works but it was implied.

---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------




Philip said:


> But isn't this just another way of saying that the created order is a necessary condition for covenant?



Sure, but I don't see the difference between this statement and what I am suggesting. God created in order to fulfill his plan which was to enter into covenant with us. So you can say that the two are distinct but not separate.


----------

