GOD AND THE GUARDIAN OF FOREVER

   

 

In an episode of the original Star Trek series entitled “The City on the Edge of Forever” Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock discover a “time machine” or portal as it were that would allow them to pass through it and into the past. Their purpose for doing so was to rescue McCoy after he passed through the portal under the influence of a self- induced injection. He had inadvertently emptied a syringe into his system which affected his neurological functioning causing him to hallucinate. In order to rescue him Kirk and Spock needed to travel back in time before McCoy injected himself. 

     This “time machine” or portal possessed the ability to communicate with Kirk and Spock. The ensuing dialogue between the three resulted in Kirk enquiring “Are you machine or being?” The “Guardian of Forever” replied, “I am both and neither. I am my own beginning, my own ending”. For our purposes we could phrase Kirk’s question as follows, “Do you exist contingently or necessarily”? This two-letter word “or” that Kirk uses is a very important one. It is indicative of a contrast between two opposing realities and only two. Those things which exist only exist in one of two ways, either they exist by their own nature, of their own accord, (necessarily) or they exist as a result of something or someone else bringing them into existence (contingently). The Guardian’s reply that it is, “both and neither” contains a contradiction. That word “and” is a conjunction implying that its existence is not one or the other but that it exists both contingently and necessarily. But this is impossible as it violates a number of laws of logic including the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that you can’t not have A and yet have A in the same sense to the same extent. So, the Guardian could not be both machine and being and at the same time be neither machine nor being. 

     Furthermore, this statement also violates the law of excluded middle, also known as the law of excluded third from the Latin principium tertii exclusi or more directly tertium non datur meaning “no third (possibility) is given”1 (emphasis added). Kirk has phrased the question of the Guardian’s existence correctly, “are you machine OR being” (emphasis mine). Kirk, or at least those who wrote the dialogue for this scene, realizes that the answer to the question must be one or the other, there is no third option. But the authors of this dialogue also seem to think that there could be a third option as the Guardian states, “I am both and neither”. Even though the task of the Enterprise is “to seek out new life forms” it is a logical absurdity that anything could exist both contingently and necessarily.  That which exists contingently is caused by something external to itself, it is as Aquinas has noted that things which exist contingently “are possible to be and not to be,”2. In other words, it is possible for them to not exist. The same could not be said of that which exists necessarily for anything which exists necessarily does so of itself. It is impossible for that which exists necessarily to not exist. Abstract objects such as shapes and numbers are said to exist in this fashion, that is, necessarily.

     Finally, this statement also violates the law of bivalence. In the law of bivalence every proposition made is either true or false. Thus, the answer the Guardian provides “I am both and neither” is either true or false regarding the way in which it exists.  The problem is that the proposition contains a contradiction, as I have already noted, and as such the statement “I am both and neither” is false because, as I have shown, nothing in existence can exist contingently and necessarily, it must be one or the other.

     Furthermore, the Guardian seems to ascribe to it own Aseity in stating, “I am my own beginning, my own ending”. The word “aseity” comes from the Latin a se meaning from, or of oneself. In other words, the Guardian is stating that it exists in and by itself, that it has the power of being (or existence) within itself, a corollary of which is that it exists necessarily. However, when Kirk enquired as to whether or not the Guardian could “change the speed at which yesterday passes?”  the Guardian replied, “I was made to offer the past in this manner, I cannot change”. (Emphasis added). 

     Curious, now the Guardian has contradicted itself indicating that its existence is contingent.  Remember, nothing which exists can do so both contingently and necessarily. How can the Guardian’s existence be predicated on a maker, or makers, and at the same time exist in and of itself?  It cannot be both created and be self-existing at the same time. By contrast, the Judeo-Christian concept of God is that He exists in and of Himself necessarily.  As a necessarily existing being, God’s non-existence becomes impossible, His existence is essential, and existence is the essence of His being, He cannot not exist.  Aquinas has stated,

     Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore, that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God, because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore, it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.3

In other words, if the essence of a thing differs from its existence, then its existence must be based contingently. By contrast, if the essence of a thing is intrinsic with its existence, then that thing must exist necessarily. 

     In the ensuing dialogue that God had with Moses in Exodus 3:14 He identified Himself by the name of YHWY (Yahweh) from the Hebrew root verb hayah meaning, to be, self-existent, or eternal. The proper name “Yahweh” has suggested to scholars a range of likely nuances of meaning including, but not limited to, that He is a non-dependent, self-existing Being; that He is immutable with respect to His Being and character and as such lacks all potentiality, and that He exists eternally. The proper name Yahweh signifies both his eternity (“I Am”) and his unchangeableness (“that I Am”). The former denotes the duration of the divine essence without beginning, without end, and without succession. The latter signifies that God’s essence, perfections, purpose, and promises endure eternally without any variation.4

     To summarize, anything which exists can only exist in one of two ways, either contingently or necessarily.  It is not possible that The Guardian’s existence should be predicated on a creator, and therefore exist contingently, and at the same time exist necessarily. Even God does not exist in this fashion.  Anything which exists contingently (The Guardian) indicates that its non-existence is possible, and if that is so then it cannot exist necessarily as something which exists necessarily (God) indicates that its non-existence is impossible.  Furthermore, it is not possible for a contingent being, such as The Guardian, to exist a se at the same time.  By contrast, intrinsic to the nature of God is the way in which He exists (a se), in and of Himself, the uncaused first cause, who exists eternally.  He is I Am.

 

1.      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle  

2.      2. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged) (p. 10). Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edition.

3.      3. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged) (p. 14). Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edition.

4.     4.  Lewis, Gordon R., Demarest, Bruce A. Integrative Theology: Vol.I, Knowing Ultimate Reality: The Living God. (p. 183). Zondervan.