Example:
a. All men are mortal
b. Socrates was a man
∴ Socrates is a mortal
It is important to use presuppositional thinking when arguing philosophical conclusions. In this section we will use this kind of thinking to show that something must be eternal. Later, we will use the same kind of thinking to show that this eternal is the theistic God.
Now that we have a basic understanding of general revelation and religious pluralism we can move forward with how we are to know God through general revelation. I will show that there is general knowledge (from general revelation) that all humans have access to and that therefore all humans ought to know the Eternal, as well as show that this reference to the Eternal is the same as the concept of God. This is based on the idea that if a person can do something, then they are therefore required to do thus, or in other words, “if a person cannot do something then they cannot be required to do it; or, if they ought to do it they must be able to do it” (2). If coming to know the eternal God is a requirement of all humans then this “implies that they must be able to know God through means at their disposal anywhere anytime. Therefore, the knowledge of God cannot be restricted to the sacred writings, temporally and geographically isolated, of one religion” (2). The fact that this has, and continues to be done, further proves that the clear knowledge about general revelation has been rejected, resulting in people relying in scripture alone to know the Eternal. Instead, what needs to be known is that scripture already assumes general revelation; accordingly, all persons should be able to have this general knowledge without, and before, reading a sacred scripture.
None is eternal is false:
First, in order to understand general revelation, I must show that there is something eternal (in contrast to the claim that nothing is eternal). This can be done through the use of reason to show that “none is eternal” is a self-contradiction, or implies a self-contradiction. To say that none is eternal, which can be referred to atheism, is a contradiction when is rationally proved; furthermore, making this implication false. When nothing is eternal, this implies that something, such as creation, came from nothing. This cannot be true as it is a self-contradictory statement because all would have to come into existence from something non-existent, resulting in an uncaused event. Everything that happens is an event, so to say that being came from non-being in this uncaused event is an irrational assertion. It is important to understand that being can only come from being and that “if being could come from non-being then there would be no distinction between being and non-being (‘a’ could be ‘non-a’)” (3). To believe this would be to deny reason; as rationality is human nature, this would be to deny what should be clearly known. Atheism believes that everything had a beginning, which means all it temporal, but what is the causation of this beginning? As I stated before, it cannot be the case that everything came from nothing as that is an irrational, contradictory statement. If there is one thing that can certainly be know, is that something must come from something else. This leads us to believe that something must be eternal or that even all is eternal.
All is eternal is false:
When we look at views that fall under all is eternal, we find contradictions, while rejecting the use of reason, within the view of general revelation that violate how to know the Eternal. One view that believes all is eternal, through Indian philosophy, is Advaita Vedanta “
which says that all is one, all is the Eternal, and this Eternal is changeless” (2). Advaita Vedanta states:“Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and imminent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā). The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman. The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman)” (4).
This is essentially arguing that everything, such as the self and the material world, are not temporal, but in fact eternal. Another view similar to this that believes all is one, is Buddhism, which is the belief that people are stuck in an endless (eternal) cycle of rebirth until they have the ability to reach Nirvana. Nirvana, for Buddhism, is a spiritual state of eternal nothingness (5). This can be deduced by a representation of a flame (the self) being extinguished into the air (when one dies to reach Nirvana), while the smoke in the air is the eternal state of nothingness, implying that the self is eternal. Both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism believe that all is one, or all is eternal. I then question, what exactly is it that is eternal? If all is eternal, then this implies that all matter is also eternal. As I stated earlier, matter cannot be eternal because it must be self-maintaining, it must preserve itself. Since material parts are finite and will not be forever, we know that these material parts are not self-maintaining. These views also believe that if all is eternal, then the self must as well be eternal. The self, or the soul, cannot be eternal for the reason that, if the self were eternal, then it would have infinite knowledge. We know this to be false because “the soul goes through unique events in time (growth in knowledge, enlightenment, etc.)” leading us to believe that if the self were eternal, it would already have this knowledge and this growth would not occur (3). It is clear to say that as human beings, we do not have infinite knowledge; therefore, the self cannot be eternal. These contradictions lead us to the final concept that some is eternal, and that this Eternal, or God, is known through a clear general revelation rather than scripture alone, precisely because scripture assumes general revelation.
This argument is summed up as follows:
Something must be eternal.
If nothing is eternal then all is temporal.
If all is temporal then all had a beginning.
If all had a beginning then being(existence) came into being from non-being(nothingness)
Being from non-being(existence from nothingness) is logically impossible.
∴This is sufficient to prove that something must be eternal.
If nothing is eternal then all is temporal.
If all is temporal then all had a beginning.
If all had a beginning then being(existence) came into being from non-being(nothingness)
Being from non-being(existence from nothingness) is logically impossible.
∴This is sufficient to prove that something must be eternal.
(2) Anderson, Owen. “The Presuppositions of Religious Pluralism and the Need for Natural Theology.” Forthcoming, Sophia, 2009.
(3) Anderson, Owen. Benjamin B. Warfield and Right Reason. Maryland: University Press of America, 2005.
(4) Menon, Sangeetha. “Advaita Vedanta.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/, 2007.
(5) Loades, Ann and Loyal D. Rue. Contemporary Classics in Philosophy of Religion. Illinois: Open Court, 1991.
You bring about some interesting arguments. The real mind trip is that God is eternal, but where did he come from? It is only supported by faith that the "eternal" exists, always has and always will.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the "self" isn't eternal in the fact that it has a beginning, but what would it be called since it doesn't have an end? The way I see the "self" is like a ray which has a starting point but lacks an endpoint.
When you say, “where did God come from” it seems as though something else must have created God. If something else created God, then that would assume that God is not the “greatest power.” We can compare this to the Ontological Argument most widely known by St. Anselm of Canterbury. His argument is as follows:
ReplyDelete“St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.”
If you believe that God is the being than which no greater can be conceived, then it is not possible that some other being created him, therefore, you cannot ask “where did God come from”. To say that God is eternal, that He always was, and always will be, is to say that God existed outside of time. But you then ask “what was God doing before time?” “What made God decide to create after an eternity of not creating?” This is a concept nearly impossible to comprehend because humans have only ever known time. We cannot relate life to “non-time.” However, if we say that time began when creation began then maybe it is possible to understand this concept. When God created, the concept of God and time began. We cannot think that God was sitting in space playing cards, because this was not possible, time did not exist.
As far as only believing God through faith, we need to have a clear understanding of what faith really is. Many people believe faith is having blind belief in something. For most, this is enough evidence that their belief is true. But can we not say that faith and reason must work together? I want to discuss this more in the reply to your other comment, but what I am asking is that, should we not use reason to give truth and understanding to faith?
If the self would have a beginning and not an end, we could consider this to be an immortal self. In Gen. 2:7 we see that the Lord created man from the dust and through his breath. Could this be an interpretation of the beginning of man, but given the immortality of God? However, we need to realize that there can, in fact, be an end to one’s soul or self. There are 2 types of death: spiritual and physical death. Spiritual death is a direct result of sin (with no repentance). Physical death is death of the physical body (which we all will have). We must also understand that this immortal self given from God is not the same immortality as God himself, as God did not have a beginning. We then ask if there is spiritual death, what then happens to the soul? Is it to have just an eternal death? Or is it to spend eternity in Hell? A couple questions I came across in a reading a while ago to think about are as follows:
1.) How can any finite sin (Earthly sin) deserve infinite punishment (Hell)?
2.) Are Heaven and Hell just if they seem to be all or nothing?
I meant to site the source for the Ontological Argument. You can find that information here:
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
You bring up some interesting philosophical discussions. The question "where did God come from?" is just a general question that I think most people have but cannot comprehend. He has always existed and it is just something that we cannot wrap our mind around because the concept of time and space is something that is so captive within the world around us.
ReplyDeleteWe are made in God's image, in his likeness (Gen 1:26) as a spiritual being melded with human flesh. The human flesh is simply a shell that enables us to act within this physical earth, but the spiritual being exists in eternity. The spirit is immortal in the sense that it exists forever, but not equal with God.
The bible describes spiritual death as a "second death" (Rev. 2:11, 20:14) but also as "eternal destruction (2 Thes. 1:9) and "eternal punishment" (Matt 25:46).
To answer the two other questions you posed:
Sin is sin in God's eyes. He created us to serve him. He is merciful, but just. We have a lifetime to live our lives according to his word we know the consequences if we don't. Justice is a relative topic as it relates to God and one that is also subject to similar philosophical arguments. From where do we derive what is or is not just? Who are we to question whether God's blessing or punishment is just?