This argument is based on the Kalam Cosmological argument. What is Kalam? In its bear essence: the universe is not eternal and therefore must have had a cause (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, pg. 399). This reasserts questions from my previous post concerning the Atheistic pseudo argument, "Who created God?" Let us explore the force and effect of Kalam before we move on to the atemporal argument proper. There can not be an actual infinite. Infinity by definition means "never ending", so how could it possibly be actualized? To be actual would require it to end and thus rendering it less than never ending. Infinites by definition are potential. A good example would be that there is a potential infinite between the numbers 1 and 2: 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, etc. Remember that time moves in successive moments. A picture of you starring at the sun would have been an example of one of those moments. Could there be an actual infinite number of moments before this one? Kalam suggests not. One could never arrive at this moment, for an infinite number of moments would have to pass first. In order for an infinite number of moments to pass prior to this one, infinite moments would have to be actualized thus rendering them finite. Evidence for the truth of this abstract argument can be found in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law, everything in the universe is moving towards equilibrium or entropy. This is why if one pours cold water into a tub then hot water, they don't collect in respective partitions. Rather, they equalize and form a synthesis. Anther example would be that smoke in a bottle does not collect in one side or another, it distributes evenly. This law is a governing force of the universe writ large and so the entire cosmos is experiencing heat death. The entire universe is moving into a state of equilibrium. If the universe consisted of an infinite number of past events, then why has this not happened yet? One can not say there has not been enough time, there has been an infinite amount of time! This demonstrates the finite beginning of the universe, which implies that it was created, which implies a creator. This element of Kalam not withstanding, there is yet another aspect. Each successive moment of time must be infinite in and of itself if an actual infinite could exist. How then could a moment pass? If the universe is finite then it had a beginning; if it had a beginning then one would have to cause its beginning. So the Atheist asks, "What caused the one who caused the beginning?" This question implies an actual infinite regress which would mean we could never have arrived at this moment. But we have arrived at this moment. Therefor, something has to be necessary in and of itself and it either the universe (according to Bertrand Russell) or its a God. But how could the universe actualize its self? We all see that the universe moves in a uniformity of cause and effect and that nothing can cause its self. It seems far more rational to imply that a creator God would then be a necessary being. This God would create an order of cause and effect while not subjecting himself to it for he is the necessary cause and the universe is utterly contingent. This really puts a damper on straw man arguments from Freud and Marx who claim that religion is a result of some form of personal or psychological deficiency (not to mention the genetic fallacy). It is rational to believe there is a God when the universe keeps shoving it in your face!
How does this relate to the atemporal position? If God exists in time then this would imply an actual infinite, which Kalam demonstrates does not exist. This moment could never have arrived if there is an infinite number of preceding moments. However, this moment has arrived. Therefore, there has not been an infinite number of preceding events. This implies that there was a time in which God began to exist. This is impossible given that he is a necessary being (if this seems unsubstantiated please read previous post, if that does not convince you please read 1984), therefore he must exist timelessly.
Feinberg discusses two objections presented by those who advocate God as time laden. Temporalists argue that, "'there cannot ever be a realization of an additive, infinite succession which has a beginning (emphasis original). But God's existence from all eternity past is not the sort of series or succession which has a beginning'". The Temporalist's God has no beginning so they feel this derivative of Kalam has no force. This defense, as it turns out, is docile. Simply because a time laden God requires no beginning it does not answer the question of how we have arrived at this moment. Temporalists are still postulating an actual infinite regardless of the denial of an additive beginning.
One argument is never enough though. The Temporalists offer a second argument which postulates that God's existence before creation was undifferentiated. What does this mean? There is a difference between stating that infinite time existed before creation and saying that an infinite series of events existed before creation. I find this to be unhelpful. Essentially, the Temporalist is saying that God existed in an uneventful, nonpartitional (or no individual moments that move in successive order), homogenized "God-time". Feinberg elicits the help of a scholar named Paul Helm who is very skeptical toward the the Temporalist's position. Helm rejects the notion that there would be a undifferentiated "God-time" prior to the existence of the world. Temporalists feel that a timeless God would be lifeless, but Helm argues that a God without events would be lifeless as well. Helm explains that the implications of "God-time" is that there would be a successive mental life or a succession of thoughts in the divine mind. Time would then be far from undifferentiated but instead be marked by a series of mental events. If God does not exist in a timeless eternity then his thought life would imply a series of events. Any series of events would be infinite and thus imply an actual infinite which Kalam demonstrates can not be.
Feinberg makes an interesting observation. If God had no beginning, has no ending, endures infinitely, though atemporal, the same problem appears to confront the Atemporalist, namely, God's atemporal infinite existence is itself an actual infinite. If God is atemporal the infinite is not a derivative of a tally of infinite moments of God's life, but it is still atemporal duration, and due to the fact that God actually exists, this seems to imply that the problem of an actual infinite is not resolved by the Atemporalist.
A summery of the big picture is offered. We can easily demonstrate that the universe has no hope of autonomy from God as exhibited by Kalam. But our own understanding of God's relationship with time is in jeopardy (jeopardy is probably too strong of a word considering that one should not expect exhaustive knowledge of God in the first place). The idea of God being temporal or of existing in some sort of "God-time" is in trouble due to Kalam. However, the Atemporal position has not provided a sufficient defense once confronted with Kalam as well. Until the Atemporalist offers a non-question-begging response to Kalam themselves both positions have a problem.
personal reflection
I am concerned with Feinberg's use of the word "atemporal duration" in regards to Atemporalists and Kalam. I identified this problem in one of my earlier posts that the word duration is a time laden word and an anthropomorphism. It would be advisable and helpful to reread post number one to acclimate yourself with some of my concerns. I don't believe that we can ever understand how God exists outside of time. Feinberg in so much as admitted this when he said that he felt that it was hard to make sense of the Atemporalist position. I think it makes sense in that it is cogent, but I do not think that it can be fully comprehended. This may be question begging and I should admit that up front, but I don't believe it is circular in regards to Feinberg's critique concerning Atemporalists and Kalam. Atemporalists escape the critique of Kalam due to the fact that time does not apply to God. I believe Feinberg is making a presuppositional error in that the word "duration" is univocal or means the same thing as time laden duration. Atemporalist believe that God is absolutely outside of time and that even terms like duration fail to adequately represent God's relationship with time. Is this position circular? Yes, just as circular as all properly basic assertions. Is it circular in regard to Kalam? No, notions of time do not apply to God.
3 comments:
Travis, I dealt with some related ideas in Donalds Baptist a few weeks ago. We had been doing a 10-week cult study and closed it out with two weeks of Atheism. I presented END OF FAITH by Sam Harris first, and tried to respond to him. The last week, we covered Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION. Dawkins dealt with several arguments for the existence of God in chapter three. He threw out the Ontological Argument on the basis that it is merely word games. I made a case that we could rehabilitate the Ontological Argument without simply playing word games by going through the back-door of Scripture. A robust apologetic of the truthfulness of Scripture will allow us to rightly call God the Greatest Possible Being. I know that may be cheating philosophically, but who cares. I then dealt breifly with Psalm 90:1-6. Moses says that God is from everlasting to everlasting. I interpret that to mean that God is eternal, existing eternally in past and future. I suppose someone could make the argument that everlasting to everlasting implies some sort of infinite temporal duration. Yet, I don't know how they could get around the actual infinite of time. I would be glad to entertain the idea that God can be an actual infinite, but if God is an actual infinite in time that would require that time also be an actual infinite. Time, however, is contingent, therefore, leading to the fallicy you mentioned in your post. I wonder though, if God is eternal and outside of time, then would God's necessary existence trump the problem of the actual infinite? I guess the upshot of my thoughts here is this: these philosophical arguments for the existence of God are useful and important, but are limited in what they prove. Take the Cosmological Argument as a prime example. All the Cosmological Argument proves is a Terminator for the Infinite Regress of Causes. The Teological Argument only gives us a "Goal-Maker." The Moral Argument of Degree only gives us a Moral Standard. In other words, the Kalam Cosmological Argument gives us the First Cause, but we need the Ontological Argument to give us Necessary Existence. Taken together, I wonder if the strengths of the Ontological Argument can outweight the apparent difficulties raised by the Kalam Argument. Namely, we have a terminator for the infinite regress who exists outside of time and yet does not succumb to the actual infinite fallicy because of His Necessary Existence. Ok, now we need a terminator for my infinite regress of rambling. Let me know what you think about the power of combining the arguments' strengths in order to counter-act the other arguments' weaknesses. And most importantly, if Scripture presents a characteristic of the nature of God, then the arguments better present the same characteristic. Failure to do that means the arguments need to be revised. I'm going to try to get my hands on Feinburg's book and follow along. Keep teaching brother, Jason.
Lol, "infinite regress of rambling". Before I forget, I read Escape from Reason, I loved it! It really put philosophy in its proper perspective. My response may be cut up into different posts because I am heading out the door, but I will come back. Also, you may want to read Alvin Plantinga's Modified Ontological Argument, I have not read it but I heard it was really good. I feel Dawkins' pain concerning the Ontological argument, it seems to be in a little nexus all by its self and yet one can not refute it. I think its really funny actually. In fact, we make fun of Dawkins because he essentially says he doesn't like the ontological argument, WHAAO! Stop the presses, what a zinger! I think your right about using scripture to supplement the Ontological argument and this demonstrates that its probably not a viable argument on its own merits. It seems like the viability of scripture argument would cohere better with some form of evidential apologetic, but I would love for you to flesh this out a little more because it really sounds interesting. Maybe an evidential/ontological argument. Can you see that as a title to a treatise? If someone were familiar with the subject the title would have them thinking, "How is that possible?!" I'll be back...
...ok I'm back. "if God is eternal and outside of time, would God's necessary existence trump the problem of the actual infinite?" I think time is a contingent particular. We often think of particulars as physical objects, but I don't think that is always true. In the case of time we are forced to understand it within the structure of a universe prostrate to cause and effect. God as a necessary being explains how time began, but I don't think he needs to be necessary (I mean necessary NOT necessarily)within time. One may even be able to say that this argument (necessity within time, even "God-time") is special pleading because being within time is to be within cause and effect, but do we remove this problem by invoking necessity? If time is a series of moments one must require the preceding moment as its antecedent, God exists within a similar arrangement that applies only to him and not to the cosmos,according to Temporalists. Now, we have a Kalam problem, but no. Why? Because God is necessary. I don't see how necessity escapes the problem unless necessity means that he is not subject to cause and effect which includes time or a special "God-time", which leads us to atemporality. I think that I am agreeing with you (LOL),Let me know if I have understood your argument correctly because this is a lot to wrap my mind around, but this has been by far the most enjoyable part of the blog so far.
I could not agree more in the limitations of classical arguments for God's existence.
I am in total agreement with your take on the Teleogical and Cosmological arguments. However, "The Moral Argument of Degree only gives us a Moral Standard." I may need clarity from you on this one. I think the moral argument shows the need for a moral law giver whom supplies the standard. Let me elaborate on this point. Because the universe is dynamic it can only produce other dynamic things (and only produce with available materials), but the moral law is static, so what causes and sustains it? It must be something static with the ability to originate, sustain, and enforce it. I am not saying that this proves God's existence, but it is a deductive argument that applies existentially. The Ontological argument is deductive, but it is light on existential value.
"we have a terminator for the infinite regress who exists outside of time and yet does not succumb to the actual infinite fallicy because of His Necessary Existence" If God is outside of time he already avoids infinite regress. Temporality along with cause and effect do not apply to him. If the Ontological argument is being applied to "God-time" I would have to stress that I think that would be special pleading.
Post a Comment