Here is another point that flows from this line of definition. The being which is self-existent by definition has no beginning. Had he a beginning, we should then have to seek out what caused that beginning. But, if there was a cause, then this being is no longer sovereign and wholly, utterly independent. He has a dependency on that cause. The first cause can have no cause. The sovereign god-being can never have not been.
This same line of reasoning requires us to hold that this god-being has no end, either. He is utterly sovereign. What would cause his end? If there existed that which could cause his end, then again, we have to look to that new thing as our god candidate, for the one we have considered thus far apparently wasn’t it. If this god-being can end, then there remains another first cause to be discovered. If he exists under the threat of death, as we do, then he is a creature, as we are. He is no god.
In short, the sovereignty by which we describe the primary requirement of god-ness requires eternality as a consequence. That which has a beginning or an ending cannot qualify as wholly sovereign, as utterly independent. Such a one continues to answer to somebody or something else, and we shall have to look farther to discover this thing we would call god.
