Self existence
A self-existent-eternal-being
Necessary Being
This has and is a course on apologetics and we have been discussing the options or alternatives to give us a sufficient reason to explain reality as we encounter it. Our first one, Illusion has been eliminated. We then looked at self-creation and we found that from a logical and analytical perspective that this is a self defeating idea. That is, it is absurd by definition and therefore rationally impossible.
We have already established that somewhere, somehow, something is self-existent. Because we have eliminated the other two by the impossibility of the contrary.
Is it possible for anything to possibly be self-existent? It is logically impossible for something to be self-created because it would have to exist before it was. It would have to be and not be at the same time and same relationship. But is this question of eternal self-existence possible?
There have been times in the past when people have gone so far in philosophical terms that if it can be thought up in the mind then it can exist in reality. That is not what we are going to demonstrate here now. For example I can conceive right now of a unicorn. We can use abstract thought combine and reassemble thoughts then disassemble them again and construct something. All things can be conceived of with some creativity. But just because its possible does not mean that this animal-type exists. This question we posed goes along with this idea: is it possible for self-existence to be rational?
Can we conceive of an idea of a self existent being without violating rationality?
Sproul mentions that the everyday person will describe both Self Creation and Self existence as so similar, but are they? One may say, ‘they must both be irrational and impossible for there is little difference.‘ At least from the outset, we can say, there is nothing illogical about a self existent eternal being. A being can exist that is not caused by something else. Back when we spoke of cause and effect people tend to misunderstand this by saying that “everything has a cause.” No, the law of causality says that every effect must have a cause. An effect by definition is that which has produced by something outside itself or beyond itself. The idea of an uncaused being is perfectly rational. Now, just because we can conceive of an uncaused being doesn’t make it so. All we are saying up to this point is that we can conceive of this without violating the laws of logic and rationality. Reason allows for the possibility #3 while not allowing for #1 and 2.
It is conceivable but it may not exist. We could say that it is rationally conceivable that nothing would ever exist. But if ‘something’ exists that changes everything. If a self existent being exists it becomes not only possible but necessary. Sproul says it again:
If anything can exist, now the idea of the possibility of something being self existent becomes not merely a rational maybe but a rational necessity.
Let us go into detail about this. We call self-existence the attribute of Aseity. Something exists in and of itself that is uncaused and uncreated. It differs with everything in the universe that has a cause and is dependent and derived. This being, therefore, has the power to Be in and of itself. It doesn’t gain something of itself from something antecedent to itself. It has it inherently. Because it has it inherently, it has it eternally. There was never a time when a self existent being did not exist. If these things aren’t true then if wouldn’t have these descriptions said of it. It would have been created. The definition of a self existent being is one who has always been.
We are now saying that it exists, not only possibly, from the viewpoint of reason, but necessarily. Now when Thomas Aquinas was arguing for the existence of God in his time, one of his arguments from his 5 was from the principle of ‘necessary being.’ In Theology God has been called the ‘Ens Necessario.’
It gets complicated - pay attention closely
The 1st: When theologians and philosophers speak about God as necessary being there are 2 distinct way in which God is described as a necessary being. The first way is: He is necessary by virtue of Rationality. Or to say that the existence of God, that if anything exists, is rationally necessary. If something exists now then reason demands that we come to the conclusion that something has always existed. Then something somewhere has always had the power of Being within itself. Or we could not account for the existence of anything.
Again, I will remind you, if ever there was a time when there nothing - absolutely nothing - what could there possibly be now - except nothing. Because, Sproul says, ‘Ex Nihilo Nihilo Vit’ or out of nothing, nothing can come. (Unless it can comes by itself, creating itself which is a rational impossibility.)
Now Sproul knows that there will be immediate objection to this and will say that science has now within quantum physics and quantum mechanics something coming from nothing. But on the contrary, it shows no such thing. Science shows things that are mysterious, that you can’t fit into your present paradigms but to say that nothing made something is not only bad theology it is bad science.
We know that something exists now. That means that there could never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing. There had to always be something. So far we have not demonstrated that it is God, but we are only arguing at this point that there must be something that has the power of Being within itself and that it has always been there. Therefore it is a Being whose Being is necessary logically. It is a logical necessity, now, that we postulate of such an idea of self existent Being. In review: we began this as a rational possibility, of a self existent being -- and given the thesis that there is something that exists now -- rather than nothing -- takes us to the next level and step which brings us to a self existent being through rational necessity.
When we talk about God being necessary; in the first instance, what we mean by that is it exists by rational postulation. Reason demands the existence of a SEEB. This is very important to the Christian who is trying to defend faith. [Here Sproul has an aside: the guns of criticism against Judeo-Christianity are aimed and focused, almost exclusively, at the idea of creation - and the idea of a creator. If you can get rid of creation and a creator you can get rid of the whole concept God and it collapses. People argue if you are going to be rational and scientific then you have to believe in a universe without God. What we are trying to do is turn the guns around and propose to them that they need to turn the guns around at themselves and realize what they are postulating as an alternative to full bodied theism is manifest irrationality and hence, absurdity. It is reason that demands that there be necessary Being.]
This is the first way of defining and describing necessary Being. That is - rationally necessary.
The 2nd way of defining necessary Being as Aquinas gave is what we call Ontological necessity. Here it gets a little bit more abstract. More difficult if you are not a student of philosophy. Ontology is defined as the study or science of Being. So when we say the God is ontologically necessary, we mean by that, he exists by the necessity of His own Being. He doesn’t exist because reason says he has to. He exists because he has the power of being in himself in such a way that this being - cannot - not - be. The difference between a human being and a supreme Being is…….Being. Our human existence is ‘creaturely’ , that is, dependent, derived and a contingent creature. We cannot sustain myself forever. There is a time when I was not, there will be a time when creaturelyness will transition to something else. That being death. We need things right now to continue to exist; water, air, blood etc. All these things make us dependent. Our life, when we are alive, is a constantly changing existence. This is the supreme attribute of ‘contingent being.’ Creatures change. Constantly. Where as a SEEB is changeless. It never looses any power. It never gains any in the scope of its Being. It is never in a state of becoming as Plato and others understood things. It is what it is - eternally. This is what is meant as a self-existent-eternal-being. It is ontologically necessary because it cannot help but Be. Pure Being is dependent upon nothing.
This is the link we have been discussing, with biblical theism. This how God explains and reveals himself to Moses in the Middianite wilderness. Out of a fire he speaks to him. When Moses asks who he is and how should he say to others who he is. And God says, Yahweh. Which translated means, ‘I Am - who I Am.’ It isn’t I Was or I am in the process, or I am becoming but I Am. Without this Being nothing else could possibly be.
Does this God have a name or is it the universe itself? Is it matter itself? This will be our next session.
No comments:
Post a Comment