No One Like Him: God, Time, & Eternity Part 1

Feinberg starts this section reminding his readers that the eternal nature of God is both vital and comforting. It is good to remember that God is the same always and that this has never changed. That word never is pesky though. What does it say about God's relationship with time that he never . Never implies eternity and the nature of eternity is the question we need to answer. "Is eternity timelessness, or is it never ending existence within time?" (375) Either way one attempts to answer this question problems and limitations in our understanding begin to arise. Another way of asking this question is to ask whether God exists within time or outside of time.
Feinberg offers a definition for consideration: Temporal Location- Something that must exist before or after a particular moment. This is an important point, because even to exists at all points of time implies interaction with time.
The first position considered is God's existence outside of time. Feinberg uses a classic resource in his understanding of this definition in the person of Boetheus. The quote used is from Consolation of Philosophy book 5, prose 6, "Eternity then, is the complete possession all at once of illimitable life." (376) An essay written on Boetheus's definition by two scholars, Stump and Kretzmann, is considered by Feinberg. The definition consists of four concomitant components:

1) Sentience- Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought or simply consciousness.
2) Illimitability- Sentience can not be limited by time.
3) Duration- sentience must endure through time.
-Now if your like me and several scholars who first encountered this definition a question must penetrate your mind immediately; how can it endure through time if it is timeless? As it turns out this question yields component number four.
4) Atemporality- To possess one's essence all at once.

Atemporality is an area that we should focus attention on. All finite beings exist sequentially or "before" and "after" a given moment. For example: "Before I met Jason Sturkie I thought I was good looking after I met Jason I felt I was very good looking." (This was not the example used in Feinberg but I'm sure he would agree with my conclusions in regards to how good looking I am) God has no such limitations, he did not need to gain knowledge because he is omniscient (all knowing) if he had to gain knowledge it would imply a denial of his immutability (unchanging). God can not change, but more to the point, if he gained knowledge it would also imply a time in which he did not possess knowledge thereby foisting him into a sequential order thus limiting him by time. (I'm not entirely sure Feinberg would agree with me that this is by necessity a limitation, but we will see) An atemporal being must possess its essence all at once.
You may be thinking that the term "all at once" is very time-laden. It's important to remember that we are talking about God's interaction with a temporal universe and that he is not limited by time when he interacts with it. Here is another pesky term though, when. We are truly limited in our abilities to fully comprehend and discuss God. I am a being in time so when I say when I don't mean to imply there is a time when God does not interact or sustain creation, rather when one is choosing a specific moment to identify the status of God or activity of God we are forced to use language that is limited by the scope of time.
The next issue Feinberg tackles is atemporal duration. Is this an oxymoron? You may have to decide for yourself. We must remember that time moves in one direction in a series of finite moments and within those moments we have a duration. That moment will not come again and we will be different at every successive moment or we will have a different duration at each successive moment. I think an illustration would be very helpful here.
Suppose you are looking at a picture of yourself when you were a kid. You existed in that state at that moment. Or you possessed that duration at that interval within the successive time line. Perhaps the sun was in your face and you were squinting. You can not say as you look at the picture that you were not squinting at that moment in your childhood, maybe before the picture was taken or after the picture was taken you were not squinting but at that moment you were. Let me ask a question, what was God's duration at that moment in time? Was it different than it is now? Obviously the answer is no. Time has changed and so have you, but God has not changed he was 100% who he is and was unaffected by time even though he was interactive with time at the moment that picture was taken. If you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this whole issue your in good company, Feinberg himself said he is not sure this makes sense to him either. In short God has a duration that is not limited by time, thus atemporal duration. No succession of moments are required for God to be who he is.
We will look at Feinberg's definition of God within eternal time at the next posting.