The Eternity of God

Is God timeless? That is one of the most intriguing
questions in the philosophy of religion, not only
for students of the subject but for every scholar
who looks into field. Bernard Lonergan argues that
God is absolutely timeless because the most perfect
understanding cannot exist as a sequence of acts.
Given Lonergan s concept of time, it turns out to be
logically contradictory to postulate God as existing
in time. Richard Swinburne argues that God is
temporal (everlasting); he argues that such an
explanation is both meaningful and coherent. The
present book argues that, although Lonergan s concept
of God as unrestricted act of understanding is
meaningful, his insistence on the timelessness of God
is not justified. First, on Swinburne s minimal
definition of time, the temporal existence of a
perfect being does not imply any unintelligible
imperfection. Secondly, although Lonergan would
reject Swinburne s time as an illusion, it is only
with this concept of time that God can be said to be
truly timeless. Swinburne s explanation, therefore,
displays more explanatory power, especially taking
into consideration his criterion of simplicity.

Autorentext

LuboS Rojka, who received his doctorate from Boston College (2005), is assistant professor of the philosophy of religion at the Aloisianum, the Theology Faculty of Trnava University (Slovakia). He has published articles on time, on various problems in philosophical theology, and on the philosophy of Bernard Lonergan.

Klappentext

Is God timeless? That is one of the most intriguing questions in the philosophy of religion, not only for students of the subject but for every scholar who looks into field. Bernard Lonergan argues that God is absolutely timeless because the most perfect understanding cannot exist as a sequence of acts. Given Lonergan's concept of time, it turns out to be logically contradictory to postulate God as existingin time. Richard Swinburne argues that God istemporal (everlasting); he argues that such anexplanation is both meaningful and coherent. Thepresent book argues that, although Lonergan's conceptof God as unrestricted act of understanding ismeaningful, his insistence on the timelessness of Godis not justified. First, on Swinburne's "minimal"definition of time, the temporal existence of aperfect being does not imply any unintelligible imperfection. Secondly, although Lonergan would reject Swinburne's time as an illusion, it is only with this concept of time that God can be said to be truly timeless. Swinburne's explanation, therefore, displays more explanatory power, especially taking into consideration his criterion of simplicity.