Craig concludes that the efficient cause of the universe must be one of two possibilities: either a naturalistic cause from eternity, or a personal being who caused the universe from eternity or in time. Clearly, a resolution of these disjunctions rests upon a clear notion of what exactly "eternity" is. Should we understand ``eternity'' to mean relational atemporality in the context of Kant's antithesis, or should we instead take a realistic view and understand eternity to be an infinite duration of time? I argue that Craig's own view of the impossibility of an actual infinite is in tension with a realistic view of eternity. If this is so, a naturalistic cause could efficiently cause the universe from eternity without violating the Muslim principle of determination. In order for us to be able to argue that God was the efficient cause of the universe, we must still make the case against the possibility of a naturalistic cause from eternity. If we do not do so we are in danger of begging the question for God as the efficient cause of the universe.
Copyright © James Still