|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 7, 2008 11:24:57 GMT -5
I have had an increased desire to study more apologetic in order to improve my campus preaching. I particularly like the five propositions and syllogisms that Finney uses in the following excerpt: THE EXISTENCE OF GODCharles G. Finney (Excerpt from "Lecture Notes on Theology") 8. Again, we have seen in a former lecture that the ideas of the finite and the infinite are contrasts, always exist together in the mind, and that neither can be held without the other. The same we have seen to be true of the ideas of the perfect and the imperfect, and also of the conditioned and the unconditioned, of succession and time, of body and space. One of these ideas, then, implies the other; and where one is the other must be. But does the fact of the existence of the finite imply the existence of the infinite; the existence of the imperfect that of the perfect; the existence of the conditioned that of the unconditioned? I answer, yes. (1) Because no finite being is self-existent. Every finite existence, therefore, must have begun to be in time, must have had a cause; and as an infinite series of causes and effects is a contradiction, there must be a First Cause. (2) An imperfect being cannot be a self-existent being; for whatever is self-existent, we have seen, must be infinite, and therefore every attribute which a self-existent being possesses must be perfect in the highest conceivable sense, since, being infinite, nothing can be conceived to be wanting. If then, there be an imperfect being, it must be a dependent being; but this implies the existence of a First Cause, infinite and perfect. (3) The same is true of a conditioned being. The very conception of a conditioned being is that of a dependent being, that is, dependent for existence. Such a being, therefore, cannot be self-existent. But if not self-existent, it must have been created; and there must have been a First Cause, which must be self-existent and unconditioned. IV. PROPOSITIONS, in the light of the foregoing. 1. First proposition: If any event ever occurred, an infinite and perfect God exists. Syllogism: Major premise: We have seen that events imply the existence of a First Cause. Minor premise: We have seen also that a First Cause must be self-existent and therefore infinite and perfect. Conclusion: Therefore if any event exists, God exists, the infinite and perfect. 2. Second proposition: If any consciousness exists, God exists, the infinite and perfect. Syllogism: Major premise: Consciousness must be either an eternal and infinite, or a finite consciousness. If an infinite consciousness, then it must be the consciousness of God, and God exists; if finite consciousness, it is an event. Minor premise: But the existence of any event, as we have seen, implies the existence of an infinite and perfect Cause. Conclusion: Therefore if any consciousness exists, God the infinite and perfect exists. 3. Third proposition: If any doubt of the existence of God exists, God must exist. Syllogism: Major premise: The existence of doubt is an event. Minor premise: The existence of any event, as we have seen, implies the existence of an infinite First Cause. Conclusion: Therefore, if any doubt exists of God's existence, God the infinite and perfect must exist. 4. Fourth proposition: If God's existence be denied, his existence must be a fact. Syllogism: Major premise: The denial of the existence of God must be an event. Minor premise: The existence of any event implies the existence of an infinite and perfect First Cause. Conclusion: Therefore, if God's existence was ever denied, his existence must be a fact. 5. Fifth proposition: If atheists exist, God exists. Syllogism: Major premise: the existence of an atheist is an event. Minor premise: The existence of any event implies the divine existence. Conclusion: Therefore, if there be an atheist in existence, God the infinite and perfect exists. (Lecture Notes on Theology, published by Truth In Heart, pg. 121-122) truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Theology/flt.htm#N_8_
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 7, 2008 13:25:05 GMT -5
Better be careful about reading Lecture IX, Section II, Point 8 regarding "eternity" as a natural attribute of God.... just kidding... overall, it seems like an interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 7, 2008 13:53:40 GMT -5
Yes Finney does define eternity as timelessness rather then infinite time. He believed and taught "Eternal Now". But I can overlook that because the rest of his stuff was so good.
I think that this is awesome:
"Therefore, if any doubt exists of God's existence, God the infinite and perfect must exist."
"Therefore, if God's existence was ever denied, his existence must be a fact."
"Therefore, if there be an atheist in existence, God the infinite and perfect exists."
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 7, 2008 14:56:07 GMT -5
"Therefore, if any doubt exists of God's existence, God the infinite and perfect must exist." "Therefore, if God's existence was ever denied, his existence must be a fact." "Therefore, if there be an atheist in existence, God the infinite and perfect exists." Unless you are willing to accept the logical argument that Finney lays out along the entire way in his treatise, these propositions cannot logically follow. For example, from your original post, Finney states the following... "(1) Because no finite being is self-existent. Every finite existence, therefore, must have begun to be in time, must have had a cause; and as an infinite series of causes and effects is a contradiction, there must be a First Cause." (emphasis mine) Why does Finney state that an infinite series of causes and effects is a contradiction? Because, as he says earlier in his treatise.... "...Again, it is a contradiction because it implies an infinite series of causes and events. But this again is a contradiction; because every event and cause must belong to time, and cannot be eternal, as we have seen...." His proposal here, in turn, relies on the acceptance of Finney's definitions of "eternity" and "events", and of God's existance outside the realm of time. If you are unwilling to accept these basic tenets then you cannot logically follow him to his conclusion, namely that "an infinite series of causes and effects is a contradiction," and thus you cannot accept the propositions which you have listed above.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 7, 2008 15:29:31 GMT -5
I do not believe that infinite time is a contradiction. God is a personality that has existed in infinite time. Without infinite time God cannot be a personality. The only alternative to this is that God does not have thoughts, feelings or makes decisions, and is therefore not a personality at all, because all of these require succession or time for their occurrence. Finney even admits that all events belong to time. Therefore if God ever thinks, feels, or wills, it must be in time. If God is outside of time, God is not and cannot be a person at all. So I fully believe in infinite time because God is a person and because God is a Creator.
Finney even says that all events occur in time. Well, if God created time, then the creation of time is an event. And if the creation of time is an event, it must have happened in time. Time could not be created (event) unless God already existed in time. Time is necessary for the creation of anything, because the creation of anything requires time. Therefore Finney cannot logically believe that God created time because He believes that all events occur in time. It is a contradiction to say that God created time in time. If God was already in time, God could not create time. But unless God was already in time, God could not create anything at all, because creation is an event and all events occur in time.
But what I do not believe in is that there can be an infinite series of finite cause and effects. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Each cause must be greater than the effect. An infinite series of finite cause and effects simply could not exist. To follow the series infinitely back, you would find greater and greater causes. But if you follow it infinitely forward, you would find lesser and lesser effects, until there were no more effects at all. They would get lesser and lesser until there were none at all. You cannot get infinitely lesser, that is impossible. Effects cannot get lesser and lesser infinitely. The only way a thing can be "lesser" is if it can be measured, if it is less than what it was before. And if it can be measured, it cannot be infinite. If it was less than what it was before, it cannot be infinite. And once you reach the point where there are no more, you have failed to find an infinite series of cause and effects all together. Therefore an infinite series of cause and effects simply cannot exist because of the very nature of cause and effects.
But if God is the person that has infinitely existed in time (eternity), then God can be a Cause. A cause is a part of an event, because a cause and effect makes up one event. And according to Finney, all events occur in time. Therefore, God cannot be the First Cause unless God already existed in time. Only if God dwells in time can God be a cause at all. And if God can only be the First Cause in time, God cannot be the cause of time, because causes cannot exist without time. God cannot be the Creator of time. Creating time is an impossibility. Time is a part of God's nature, and God is not the creator of His own nature. God's nature is what it is, completely independent of God's will. He is eternal, His nature has always existed, He never choose to have the nature that He has. God did not choose to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, or eternal (infinitely existing in succession).
So I can accept the propositions listed above, because I also reject an infinite series of cause and effects like Finney does, but with different reasons. Besides, Finney begs the question on whether or not time can be infinite or not. Finney says that an infinite series of cause and effects is impossible, because cause and effects can only exist in time. And if they exist in time, they cannot be infinite. But this begs the question on whether or not time can be infinite or not.
But we know that God is the first Cause, God is infinite, and causes can only exist in time. Therefore, time can be, is, and must be infinite. Otherwise, God cannot be the first Cause. Finney contradicts himself when he says that God is the First Cause, all causes occur in time, and yet God (the first Cause) is outside of time.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 7, 2008 17:26:33 GMT -5
Finney himself addresses almost all (if not all) of your points and objections in Lecture VII, Section III and IV.
I still stand of the opinion that if you are going to object to Finney's early logic then you can not necessarily follow him to his final conclusions.
For now, I will specifically draw your attention to a few points, all in Finney's own words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. PRINCIPAL TERMS TO BE USED IN DISCUSSION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE.
...
3. POWER - Power is the capacity or ability to be a cause or to produce effect.
4. CAUSE - This term is used in various senses, of which the following are the principal ones:
...
Cause and effect imply each other. Both must belong to time and neither can be eternal. A being may exist who has power to be a cause, who has never exerted that power for want of the proper occasion. The being may have existed from eternity. But from eternity he could not have been a cause. Exerting this power in an act must be an event and belong to time. But I must define event.
(6) Event. It is something that comes to pass.
(a) It may be the beginning of some existence or being.
(b) Or it may be some change in something already existent.
(c) All change is an event.
(d) Events occur in time, and cannot from their definition be eternal.
...
IV. SOME SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS OF REASON.
I now proceed to postulate several self-evident truths of reason. Some of them are first truths, as they have been defined. Others are self-evident and are directly intuited by the pure reason, and must therefore be accepted as infallible truth. We have seen that cause in the most proper sense of the term, that is, efficient cause, is power in efficient action. That efficient cause must be intelligent, free, sovereign. We have also seen that an event is something that occurs, comes to pass, or take place in time. It is a change somewhere and in something. Or, it may be the beginning of something that before had no existence. As it occurs, begins, takes place, it must occur in time, and cannot be eternal. An event cannot be self-existent and eternal, for this is absurd and contradicts the true definition of an event.
1. My first postulate is that every event must have an efficient or an adequate cause. The efficient may act through or by means of an instrumental cause, or through a series of instrumental causes; but whenever there is an event, there must be a self-acting power in efficient action producing the effect immediately, or through instrumental cause or causes.
2. My second postulate is that neither cause nor effect can be eternal. This is self-evident from the definition of cause and effect. God existed from eternity with power to become a cause. When infinite wisdom called for an act of causality, he became a cause. But both the act and effect belong to time, and are not from eternity.
3. I postulate that a power acting as cause from eternity under a law of necessity is a contradiction. It is no cause if necessitated to act; it is a cause only in a secondary sense. It is therefore impossible that the material universe should have existed from eternity under a law of necessary change. In other words, it is a contradiction to say that the material universe has existed in a state of eternal change; for every change is an event, something comes to pass, and it is a contradiction to say that that which comes to pass is eternal. That which is eternal never began to be, it is therefore no event.
4. Again, if a necessary cause were possible, a self-existent and necessary cause must be an eternal cause, and is therefore a contradiction. A being may have existed who is free and who became a cause by acting in time; but neither a self-existing and necessary, or a self-existent and free cause can be an eternal cause.
5. Again, an eternal series, therefore, of causes and events is a contradiction; because all causation and events must occur, and therefore come to pass in time.
6. Again, a self-existent being must be an unconditioned, and therefore the absolute, immutable, and infinite being. If self-existent his existence cannot be conditioned; if unconditioned in his existence he must be immutable; and if immutable he must be infinite in his being.
7. Again, a self-existent being must be absolutely perfect in every respect in which he really exists; that is, in all the attributes that inhere in his necessary existence. The term perfect is used in two senses - the relatively perfect and the absolutely perfect. By relatively perfect we mean that which is complete in its place or relations, in its adaptedness to its end. By the absolutely perfect we mean that to which nothing can be added. A self-existent being is a necessarily existent being, and exists just as it does with all its inherent properties or attributes, not one of which is capable of increase or of change; therefore, all the attributes of a self-existent being must be infinite.
8. Again, matter cannot be eternal. Whatever is eternal is self-existent. If it be eternal it never came to pass; its existence was never an event; it never had a cause. Again, whatever is self-existent is immutable. This we have seen in the last proposition above. If self-existent it exists just as it does in all its attributes from a necessity of its own nature - that is, it is eternally impossible that it should not have existed, and so existed. If the material universe existed from eternity, it existed in a quiescent state or in a state of change, from a law inherent in itself. If in a quiescent state, it was immutable in that state and could never have changed; but it does change, and therefore it is not eternal. But if it existed in a state of change and under a law of necessary change, the cause and effect must have been eternal, which is a contradiction.
Again, if matter were self-existent, it must be eternal, absolute, immutable, infinite. That is, if it be self-existent, it is eternally existent; it must be absolute because it existence has no conditions. It must be immutable because self-existent; for self-existence is necessary existence; it must be infinite because immutable, self-existent and eternal. But matter can be neither; this is plain from the preceding proposition. Again, if matter were self-existent, the order in the material universe must have been necessary, unchangeable, and eternal. But an eternal order is a contradiction, if by order is meant order of events; for events, as we have seen, cannot be eternal.
Again, it is a contradiction because it implies an infinite series of causes and events. But this again is a contradiction; because every event and cause must belong to time, and cannot be eternal, as we have seen. Again, if matter were self-existent and eternal, neither God nor man could change it in any respect. But we know that we can change the order of events in the material universe, and produce many changes of form and order, which show clearly that the universe does not exist and act under a law of necessity. For if it did exist and act under a law of eternal necessity, then no supernatural influence could possibly exist that could vary its order. And it is also true, as we have seen, that a self-existent universe, acting under a law of eternal change, is a contradiction, as it implies an eternal series of dependent events; whereas every event, from its definition, must occur in time.
9. A cause must be a free agent exerting his power in action. A cause is a mystery only. But a cause, as we have seen, cannot be an eternal cause. A free being may be an eternal power, as is the case with God; but an eternal cause or power in an eternally-productive action, is a contradiction. It involves no contradiction to speak of a free being self-existent and eternal, who originates his own action and becomes a cause in time; but the supposition of an eternal necessity in nature is not a mystery, it is a contradiction, as in that case cause and effect must have been eternal.
10. Again, as we have seen, a cause must be a free agent. We have seen that an agent is an actor. An agent exerting his power in producing actions, is a free, and hence a proper cause. Again, I am conscious of being a free cause. I am a moral agent and therefore free; I act myself in producing effects. In these actions I am cause; I know myself to be a cause, and a free cause, by being directly conscious of it. Hence I know that I am a supernatural being; in the actions of my will I am not subject to the law of cause and effect; the volitions of my will are causes. Of this I am conscious.
11. Again, we know that matter is not in any case a cause, in the highest sense of the term. It may transmit an influence which it receives; but all that we can know is, that in nature events succeed each other, under a law of necessity. The power cannot reside in matter itself; matter can be only an instrumental cause. An influence may be transmitted from the great First Cause through this chain of material causes, but we have seen that proper causes must be intelligent and free.
But in consciousness we know ourselves as proper causes; that the power by which we become cause is our own; and that we exert it at discretion, and under a law, not of necessity, but of moral responsibility. No intuitive faculty of ours can give us any other cause than that of free power in action; and this cause is directly given in consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 7, 2008 17:37:52 GMT -5
God is a cause. Causes belong to time. Therefore God must belong to time.
If Finney was consistent on this particular point, he would logically have to admit that God is in time since God is the First and Greatest Cause.
Creation is an event Events occur in time Therefore God cannot create time
If Finney was consistent in his logic, he would have concluded that time is a attribute of God's nature, instead of a creation of God's will.
I still stand by the position that causes and effects implies a First Cause. Therefore any event implies God.
Denying God is an event. Events require cause and effect. Cause and effect implies the First Cause. Therefore if a person denies God, God must exist.
This was Finney's logic:
"4. Fourth proposition: If God's existence be denied, his existence must be a fact. Syllogism: Major premise: The denial of the existence of God must be an event. Minor premise: The existence of any event implies the existence of an infinite and perfect First Cause. Conclusion: Therefore, if God's existence was ever denied, his existence must be a fact." Charles Finney
Again, causes and effects implies a First Cause. Causes can only occur in time. Therefore, causes and effects implies the God that dwells in time.
If God does not dwell in time, God is not a cause. If God is not a cause, there can be no cause and effect. And if there is no cause and effect, and if God is not a cause, none of Finney's arguments for the existence of God are true. The only way Finney's arguments for God can be true is if God is a cause. And the only way God can be a cause is, according to Finney himself, if God dwells in time. If time is not a part of God's nature, none of Finney's arguments work, because God could not be the First Cause.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Oct 22, 2008 22:25:06 GMT -5
I am going to wade in from the kiddie pool and ask some things.
1. Is it possible that God existed in eternity, a form of divine time, without the solar measurment of time?
2. Why does Rev 14:11 use yom time measurements for eternal torments?
And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Gr. Hemara - day
1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night
a) in the daytime
b) metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness
2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)
a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.
3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom
4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.
I won't list the Gr. for night.
Thanks for your time.
|
|