Anselm- Anselm is famous for the Ontological argument for God's existence, which insists that God is the greatest conceivable being in ALL facets. One of the the greatest attributes God would posses is eternity. Anselm never seems to elaborate on why he believes this would be a necessary quality of God. This was posited in his book Proslogium. In a later tome entitled Monologium Anselm reiterates this attribute of God while emphasizing his simplicity in relation to time. What does it mean that God is simple? Essentially it means that he does not have divisible parts, he is one. So he must be one at all times. If God could exist as a whole at different intervals then he is in time and composite. Because God is outside of time he exists as one whole all at once not at different moments, BECAUSE he possesses eternity as an attribute. Anselm is trying to stay within his logical framework.
Thomas Aquinas- Eternity should be understood as one whole instead of successive moments. It has no beginning or end. Time itself is imperfect due to its successive nature and each interval has a beginning and end. Eternity is one instance rather than successive moments with no begging or end. Since eternity is one perfect whole this is the way God exists. Aquinas is borrowing heavily from Boethius and is accepting his definition of perfect. After much argumentation Aquinas affirms God's immutability (unchanging nature) and due to God's immutability he exists as perfect timeless eternity.
Arguments for Timeless Eternity
Timelessness a Logical Derivation from Other Doctrines
Feinberg Chooses Anselm's doctrine to spearhead into this issue because his position is as clear as anyone else's. Anselm never seems to explain why the most perfect being must be eternal, he just pontificates that it comes from his perfect nature. It will be from the doctrine of simplicity (not possessing multiple parts) that we find a clearer argument for God's eternal nature. Why should one believe that God must be simple?
1) Something that possesses goodness from another source can not be good in and of its self. This is classically known as contingency. A being is contingent on something else is similar to saying, "The amount of money I get paid for my job is contingent (or depends) on how many hours I work." My whole being is contingent on someone else, I did not produce myself nor do I sustain myself. This is a very basic principle in evangelical theology commonly misunderstood by many. This classic misunderstanding is why many think questioning where God came from, or asking who created God supplies some brilliant argument against God's existence. All it really does is show an ignorance of the subject. For a more well though out critique of this element of our theology one should read Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian, his argument ultimately fails but it is outside of the scope of this treatment to address this issue now.
2) Does God participate in justice or is he the embodiment of justice? If God participates in justice than there is something outside of him requiring him to be just or justice is part of who God is. Therefore, God must be where justice "come from" so to speak and therefore he is how we know what justice is. Even unbelievers understand this basic principle when they digress in their minds that God will sort things out or imagine Hitler standing before God for his crimes. But most importantly for our discussion is that God is simple and justice is not part of what he is it is what he is. We are the ones who label it separately then turn around and apply to God what he already is.
Feinberg asks a good question, "What is this notion of depending for one's existence only upon one's self?... this is aseity!" (pg386) What is aseity? it is depending on nothing else for existence. I'm not advocating a tautology (furthering an argument without progression) I am just defining the word. So, it is not from perfection that God is simple, according to Anselm, but from perfection to aseity, then from aseity to simplicity, then from simplicity to eternity.
Feinberg uses William Mann to clear up the point concerning simplicity and its relationship to time. Mann essentially states that God has no body. God's simplicity is motivated by his perfection which implies his independence of all other things to be the being he is. By independent, what Mann is trying to say is that God is a necessary being, he relies on nothing else for sustenance or even his existence. He is the explanation for his own existence. All of our lives we struggle because so many things are dependent or contingent on something else. How will I eat tomorrow? If I have enough money. How will I have enough money? If I have a job. How will I have a job? That is contingent on... x and so on. God has no such restraints. So, God is sovereign over all things. If he is sovereign over all things then what does he rely on? Nothing but himself, he is contingent on nothing. Now consider this, if God were composed of multiple parts, like a physical object, then he would have parts that make him up and each part would be contingent on the other to make up the whole of who God is. If God were missing a part he would no longer be God, he would need every part of himself. Needing multiple parts is being contingent on multiple parts. The parts would define who God is as opposed to the parts relying on God for their definition. So, God would be dichotomously contingent the parts would be contingent upon each other to be God and God would need the parts to be defined. This is not the case because of the the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Mann continues to unfold his argument. God does not have temporal stages of existence. God has complete possession all at once. If God does not change (immutability) and he is eternal and he is not composed of parts (simple) then he can not go through stages. There is nothing distinguishably different including a different moment for that would imply a part or a change. What Feinberg is focused on for the purpose of this chapter of No One Like Him is that Mann demonstrates that one can follow simplicity to timelessness and from timelessness to immutability.
This is quite a brain teaser and fortunately for us Feinberg simplifies it in a summery. To be simple one must have no parts, but to have successive stages in one's life is to have parts. A timeless being has no stages in this sense thus a simple being must be timeless. Furthermore, God is always identical with himself, he never changes, so he is immutable. Feinberg goes over some ways to combat this understanding of God as timeless and hold to essential doctrines, but he covers covers arguments for God within time later and so will we.
No comments:
Post a Comment