existence of God Archives

Tag Archive for: existence of God

The Necessity of a Cosmic Mind

Anyone who is anyone in apologetics has heard of the kalam cosmological argument. Short, concise, and powerful; the kalam argument notes the causal agency behind the origins of the universe. Simply put, the kalam argument holds:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause (C&M, 102).

After further researching the kalam argument, it was discovered that an ontological reality underlies the argument. That ontological reality is that one cannot escape the necessity of a Cosmic Mind for three reasons.

1. Necessity from Absolute Beginning of All Physical Universes. Physicists like Stephen Hawking and others posit that this universe is but one of many endless universes. Some theories contend that an endless movement of branes (not brains) collide and cause universes to “pop” into being. Other theories hold that an eternal multiverse gave rise to universes like ours. However, William Lane Craig and others have noted that the BGV theorem, named for its founders (Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin), indicates that any and all physical universes demand an absolute beginning. I do not deny that a multiverse could exist. A multiverse is entirely possible as are many other universes. Neither is problematic for the Christian worldview. When one notes the enormity of God’s Being, multiple universes become child’s play for such a God. Nonetheless, mindless universes cannot be the answer to why something exists as they too would require an explanation for their existence.

2. Necessity from an Impossibility of an Infinite Regress. Second, it is impossible for an infinite regress of physical past events to have occurred. That is, endless physical events of the past are impossible. There comes a point where something beyond the scope of the physical world is required to explain physical origins. Craig offers two philosophical arguments to verify this claim.

An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist (W&D, 390).

While mathematical infinities can exist, Craig notes that such infinities are a different story when considering physical infinities. Craig does not dismiss infinities. Rather, he holds an Aristotelian model of time where time is viewed as eternal but broken into segments (C&M, 114; W&D, 398-399). However, infinite past physical events are impossible given that actual infinities do not exist in spacetime.

Additionally, Craig argues,

A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite (W&D, 396).

Herein, no universe or universes could hold an infinite number of additions in time’s past. Thus, physical universes are temporal and finite.

3. Necessity from the Inability of Forms to Explain the First Cause. Some, like Erik Wielenberg, agree that the answer to the finitude of the universe is not found in an infinite regress of events, but rather in transcendent entities. However, these transcendent entities are not God, per se, but mindless Platonic Forms. Yet this is a fairly simple objection to answer. Mindless entities can do nothing. If mindless entities exist in the world of Platonic Forms, they just are. They do not do anything. They exist. Thus, a transcendent Mind is the only logical answer to this problem. This Cosmic Mind would need to be, as Swinburne and Craig note, “immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless” (C&M, 193). Interestingly, the Cosmic Mind that is necessitated sounds a lot like the God of the Bible.

If one follows the trail of necessities, one lands at the necessity of a Cosmic Mind. While this does not necessarily connect the God of the Bible with the Cosmic Mind implied, the similarities are so intricately connected that it would take more faith not to connect God with the Cosmic Mind than to connect the two. This Cosmic Mind knows all and sees all. Thankfully, this Cosmic Mind eventually became the Incarnate Son who provided redemption for all who would receive him.

Source

Craig, William Lane, and J. P. Moreland, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Walls, Jerry L., and Trent Dougherty, eds. Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments for God. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

The Fire-Breathing Dragon in The Garage vs God

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

In the year 2018 the debate “What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? (Frank Turek vs. Michael Shermer)” took place. Frank presented his case for the existence of God as the best explanation for some facts about reality, such as the origin and fine-tuned of the universe and the objective moral values and duties. One of Shermer’s arguments to demonstrate the deficiency of the hypothesis of God was to present the famous analogy of “The Dragon in The Garage”, used for the first time by Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World.

This is the original analogy:

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely, you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

Shermer’s version has some variants to ridicule Frank’s stance on the existence of God as an explanation of the origin of the universe, the objective moral values, and duties and the fine-tuning of the universe. The main objective of Shermer is to prove that the existence of God is impossible to refute in the same way that theists can’t refute the existence of the dragon in the garage. But is this a good argument? Not really. Let me explain why.

The first thing that Shermer wants us to believe using Sagan’s analogy is that the properties of God that the theists attribute to him are mere gratuitous affirmations without any evidence. Here Shermer has in mind the revealed theology, those attributes that we know that God possesses through his word revealed to us. But in the debate with Frank one does not affirm the attributes of God as in the case of the dragon in the garage. And although it is not necessary, let me compare the fire-breathing dragon and God with their respective attributes.

The case for the Fire-Breathing Dragon in The Garage

Invisibility. This attribute is granted without any evidence.

Floating in the air. Neither is inferred based on any evidence.

Cold Fire. Like the previous ones, there is no argument to attribute this property to the dragon; moreover, the property is self-contradictory.

Immateriality. Zero arguments, and like cold fire-breathing, this is a contradictory property of a dragon. For a dragon to be a dragon, it must have a body with certain essential properties of a dragon, it can’t be incorporeal.

The case for God

Creator, metaphysically necessary, self-existent. These attributes are inferred through the argument of contingent beings and the ontological argument.

Transcendent, personal cause, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, non-spatial, immaterial, extremely powerful. These attributes are required given the nature of a cause that transcends the universe and through the cosmological kalam argument.

Designer and extremely intelligent. These attributes are inferred by the fine-tuning argument of the universe.

Perfectly good whose nature is the standard of goodness and whose mandates constitute our moral duties. And this last attribute is concluded through the moral argument.

As we can see, the fire-breathing dragon is completely deficient in comparison to God.

Shermer also qualifies the hypothesis of God as a fallacy of the special pleading, but we have seen with this comparison that this is not the case. No serious apologist in a debate intends to refute the objections against the arguments in favor of the existence of God affirming that the atheist can’t understand the properties of God as the best explanation to some facts of reality.

Another important point is that Shermer also uses the dragon in the garage as a parody of God as an explanation to the following facts about reality: the absolute origin of the universe, fine-tuning, and the foundation for objective moral values and duties. But his parody fails miserably for two reasons: the first is, as we have already seen, that some of the attributes that the fire-breathing dragon possesses are self-contradictory, more than enough reason to determine that such a dragon is impossible to exist. Second, for the sake of argument, I will be very kind in modifying the dragon by removing all its contradictory properties and adding the property of omnipotence. Can the dragon be the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe being that it has enough power to bring the universe to exist? ¡Of course not! An essential property of the dragon is that it has to be material/corporeal/physical, without that property it would cease to be a dragon. But if our version of the omnipotent dragon is corporeal, if it is a physical being, then it can’t be the cause of the origin of the universe, because one of the properties that the transcendent cause must have is to be immaterial, it can’t be material because matter arrives at existence with the origin of the universe. The same goes to be the foundation of the objective moral values and duties, our dragon can’t be eternal, it had to come to exist together with the universe, therefore, it is contingent, and no contingent being can be the foundation for the objectivity of morality.

Conclusion

We have seen that the analogy of the fire-breathing dragon in the garage as presented by Michael Shermer as an argument against the hypothesis of God is deficient for four reasons:

Thanks to the contradictory properties of the dragon in the garage, we can affirm that its existence is impossible.
The properties of God are inferred using deductive arguments, which does not happen with the fire-breathing dragon.
Defend the properties of the dragon in the way Shermer presented, surely it is to commit the fallacy of special pleading, but it is not in the case of God.

Even if we were to grant the Dragon possible existence by removing its contradictory properties, it would fail to be the transcendent cause of the absolute origin of the universe.

Systems Engineering in Nature

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Cathryn Buse

Before I had children, I worked as a systems engineer at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Through my career, I met a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers who were committed Christians. But I also encountered a lot of intellectual skepticism to Christianity, especially on the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is one of the most consistent challenges Christians face. How can we adequately answer that question, especially when the questioner is scientifically minded? One way is through the evidence of design, something known as the “teleological argument.” It simply means where there is design, planning, and order there must be a Designer, Planner, and Organizer behind it. Something designed cannot be explained by just a natural process or material cause; design requires intelligence.

So if there is design in the universe, then there must be a designer. But is there design in the universe?

Atheists say there is not. Before we can adequately answer that, we have to determine what would constitute something being “designed.” It isn’t just that a system looks complicated or has lots of parts. For something to be designed, it requires several well-matched, collocated, and integrated components in order to work, where it would not work if any one of those parts were removed. Something like that would need a designer with intelligence and forethought to select the right components, size them accordingly, and integrate them together so it could function – and ultimately survive and reproduce.

From my background, I like to refer to this as systems engineering in nature. Part of my job at NASA was reviewing the Ares I Upper Stage design to make sure each system would integrate correctly so the vehicle could actually get off the ground. I would be checking for things like if propulsion lines were placed too close to an electronics box because of the extreme cold temperatures of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Or I would make sure the battery boxes were located near a human access point so they could be changed out at the launch pad. I would verify that a valve needing power from the launch tower had a connector on the umbilical plate. One of my favorite projects was making sure the vehicle could be shipped without being damaged. It needs covers, environmental controls, and other ground support equipment, especially since it ships horizontally but sits vertically on the launch pad.

As you can see, a NASA launch vehicle requires lots of systems engineering – and lots of intelligent design! Each system must be designed alongside the other systems so they will function together. If one system changes something, it may have devastating effects on the other systems. It must be a collaborative design effort. A launch vehicle won’t function if only one system is in place while the other systems are being built. The propulsion system must work with the design of the structure, the avionics and software, the thrust vector control system, and the engine. Remove any one component and the vehicle won’t get off the ground – or worse, will have a catastrophic failure.

So the launch vehicle needs all of these systems and their components to be functional and integrated all at the same time in order to work. A successful launch vehicle requires planning, order, and design; it requires intelligence – and many Designers.

Granted, a launch vehicle is obviously man-made. But is there something comparable in nature? If we can show a biological feature that requires systems engineering, then, like that launch vehicle, it could not have been formed by natural or material causes. It must be explained by some intelligent power behind it.

Luckily, you don’t have to be rocket scientist to find design in nature. We can find systems engineering in the interrelationships of the human body organ systems. For example, the circulatory system pumps oxygenated blood from the heart to the other parts of your body so they can do work. The blood stream then returns the oxygen-depleted blood back to the heart. But the circulatory system cannot distribute oxygenated blood by itself. It needs the respiratory system to get the oxygen. Tiny air sacs in the lungs, called alveoli, transfer oxygen from the lungs to the blood vessels. When the deoxygenated blood is returned, the blood cells transfer carbon dioxide and water, the waste products from the cell, back to the alveoli so it can be breathed out. The circulatory system, therefore, is quite useless without the respiratory system.

However, both of these systems are dependent on the nervous system. The hypothalamus section of the brain controls the body’s autonomic functions, life critical functions our body continually does without us thinking about them, like breathing and pumping your heart. Without this part of the brain and the network of nerves running from it through the spinal cord to the organs themselves, our circulatory and respiratory systems could not work.

The circulatory system also depends on the muscular system. The heart is a specific type of muscle made up of a specific cell type that allows it to contract and pump blood around the body. And it even depends on the skeletal system. The bone marrow produces the red and white blood cells and platelets that the heart is busy pumping around our bodies. Without the skeletal system, there would be no blood to pump.

Even the urinary system is necessary for the circulatory system to function. All of the body’s blood is circulated through the kidneys, where waste chemicals and excess water are filtered out. The kidneys then return clean blood back to the bloodstream. And there is even an interrelationship between the circulatory system and the endocrine system. Hormones from the adrenal gland can speed up your heart rate when it senses danger so you can run away quickly. Hormones from the pancreas are used to control blood sugar levels, which can be deadly if not maintained properly.

We know that everything in our body is dependent on blood flow, but it becomes clear that our blood flow is also dependent on everything else in the body! The human body is the epitome of systems engineering design. What does the body sound like? It sounds like that launch vehicle where the propulsion system needs the structural system, the avionics & software system, and the engine before it can ever get off the ground!

Now if the launch vehicle is missing a system, it fails to launch; we are delayed from resupplying astronauts or sending new missions to space until the design can be completed. But if a system is missing from the body, the body cannot live. All these body systems must show up at the same time, in the same place, fully functional and integrated for life to exist. And like the Ares I launch vehicle, its existence cannot be explained by a random, natural process. The human body has been uniquely and perfectly designed. And design requires a Designer.

What Is The Fine-Tuning Argument For God’s Existence, And Does The Multiverse Counter It?

2. Does God Exist?

By Wintery Knight

One of the best arguments for the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe is the cosmic fine-tuning argument. The argument argues that individual constants and quantities in nature cannot be much smaller or larger than they are, because it would remove the ability of the universe to support life of any kind. Dr. Michael Strauss, an experimental physicist, explains some examples of the fine-tuning in a recent post on his blog.

He writes:

I liken the finely-tuned universe to a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left, the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all.

Consider the knob that controls the strength of the strong nuclear force that holds quarks inside the neutrons and protons and binds the nucleus of the atom together. If the strength were increased by 2%, the element hydrogen would be either non-existent or very rare. Without hydrogen, there would be no water (H₂O) or stars that burn hydrogen as their nuclear fuel like our sun. Without hydrogen, there would be no life. If the strength of the strong nuclear force were decreased by about 5%, then hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. That would simplify the periodic table and make Chemistry class very easy, but it would render life impossible.

All known life in this universe is based on the element carbon, which is formed in the final stages of a star’s life. The carbon you and I are made of is the result of the nuclear processes that occurred as previous stars ended their lives. One nice recent study showed that if the mass of the quarks that make up neutrons and protons were changed by just a few percents, then the process that makes carbon as stars die would be altered in such a way that there would not be sufficient carbon in the universe for life. The masses of the lightest sub-atomic quarks are the precise value that is required for carbon to form and for life to exist.

Regarding the multiverse, let me just quote from MIT physicist Alan Lightman, writing in Harper’s magazine about the multiverse:

The… conjecture that there are many other worlds… [T]here is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that the basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.

The multiverse is not pure nonsense; it is theoretically possible. But even if there were a multiverse, the generator that makes the universes itself would require fine-tuning, so the multiverse doesn’t get rid of the problem. And, as Lightman indicates, we have no independent experimental evidence for the existence of the multiverse in any case. Atheists just have to take it on faith and hope that their speculations will be proved right. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning is just as easily explained by postulating God, and we have independent evidence for God’s existence, like the origin of biological information, the sudden appearance of animal body plans, the argument from consciousness, and so on. Even if the naturalists could explain the fine-tuning, they would still have a lot of explaining to do. Theism (intelligent causation) is the simplest explanation for all of the things we learn from the progress of science.

It’s very important to understand that if these values were any different, then it’s not like we would bridges on our foreheads, or have green skin, or have pointy ears, etc. That’s what science fiction teaches you. And many atheists form their view of science by watching science fiction entertainment. But the truth is that the consequences of changing these values are much more consequential: no stars, no planets, no hydrogen, no heavy elements, the universe re-collapses into a hot fireball. You’re not going to have complex, embodied intelligent agents running around making moral decisions and relating to God in a world like that.

Questions like the existence of God should be NOT decided by feelings and faith and superstitious nonsense. They ought to be decided by evidence. Specifically, scientific evidence. Everyone has to account for this scientific evidence for fine-tuning within their worldview, and they have to account for it in a way that is responsible and rational. Punting to the multiverse, without any evidence for it, is neither rational nor responsible. Holding out hope that the evidence we have now will all go away is neither rational nor responsible.

By the way, if you are looking for a good book on the cosmic fine-tuning, especially for evangelism and debating with atheists, you really need to get a copy of “A Fortunate Universe. “ Although it is from one of the most prestigious academic presses, it is pretty funny to read, and the main points are made clear, even if you don’t understand science. Two astrophysicists wrote it – one who believes that God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning, and one who doesn’t. I really think that Christians need to get used to the idea that evangelism can be pretty easy, so long as you are arguing from peer-reviewed facts. When you get a good book on evidence for God that is not in dispute, then you are invincible. Everybody ought to believe in God in a universe with this much overt scientific evidence spilling out everywhere. Whether this Creator and Designer is the God of the Bible, who visited us as Jesus of Nazareth, takes more work to establish. Working through the emotional objections people have to God, and coaching them to take on the difficulties of living out an authentic Christian life (very unpopular!), is even harder.

An Intro to Arguments for God’s Existence

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

Does God exist? This has been one of the most asked questions in history with the most profound implications. As Norman Geisler used to say, our view of God’s existence is most important since it determines what we think about everything else. There are many arguments for God’s existence. This article will examine the standard classical proofs with typical objections and evaluations.

The proofs for God are varied and different, but they can be classified as either a posteriori or a priori. The former means the proofs are based on (or after/post) experience, while the latter are allegedly not based on experience, but prior/apart from it. A posteriori proofs are empirical in nature and take it that we can trust our senses. A priori proofs start with the mind and are thus rationalistic. All but one of the following arguments are a posteriori.

The proofs we will look at are various forms of the cosmological argument, the teleological/intelligent design argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument.

Cosmological Arguments

Cosmological arguments are arguments based on the cosmos (from the Greek kosmos). They are a posteriori in nature, or based on experience and are thus empirical. There are many types of cosmological arguments. For a good survey, see William Lane Craig’s The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. Here we will examine a few such as the Kalam argument and two of the famous Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

The Kalam Argument

The Kalam argument, popularized by William Lane Craig, is an example of what has become known as a horizontal type of cosmological argument since it argues that there is a temporal beginning of the universe in the finite past (horizontally). Here is the argument:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is very straightforward in saying that if something came to exist that did not exist, then it must have a reason (cause) for its existence. This is because a thing must be either (1) self-caused, (2) uncaused, or (3) caused by another. A thing that began to exist can’t be self-caused since it would have to exist prior to bringing itself into being, which is a contradiction. It can’t be uncaused since there would, by definition, be no reason for its existence, and something can’t come from nothing. It must then be caused by another. This premise has its challengers, though. Some will say that things like virtual particles come into being from nothing and for no reason. However, such is simply not the case. Virtual particles are particles that arise from unstable energy in a vacuum. Since unstable energy is clearly not nothing, this is not a counter-example.

The second premise is really the crucial premise. The Kalam was originally provided by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages who argued that an infinite series is impossible, and since an actual infinite amount of time in the temporal past would be an actual infinite, then the universe cannot be temporally infinite: it must have had a beginning. Nowadays it is more popular to use Big Bang cosmology to show the universe had a beginning, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the fact that the universe is expanding, and the radiation echo discovered in the 1960s that demonstrates there was a massive explosion that gave rise to the universe’s expansion.

The Big Bang model is the reigning model, and atheists do not like its implications for a cause of the universe. Good books on this type of argument include Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers, Hugh Ross’ The Creator and the Cosmos, and Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator.

Aquinas’ 5 Ways

Thomas Aquinas’ famous 5 Ways (See Summa Theologiae Part I Q. 2. Art. 3) are other types of cosmological arguments. The first way is an argument from motion. The word ‘motion’ actually means ‘change.’ It is taken from Aristotle. Aquinas calls this “the more manifest way” since it is clear that change happens all around us. For Aristotle and Aquinas, change is when something goes from being potentially x to actually x. For example, a piece of wood can be hot, but until it is actually hot, it is only potentially hot. The actually hot fire actualizes the wood and makes it hot. Further, a thing can only be changed by something else; in other words, a thing can’t be in potency and act in the same way. So, change must be brought about by an actually existing thing. A thing cannot actualize its own potency as that would mean it would be actually and potentially x at the same time, which is a contradiction. The linchpin to this, and all of the 5 ways, is that there cannot be an actual infinite regression of causes like this. Since things are composed of act and potency, they must be put together of act and potency. But being put together like this requires a being that is either put together of these things or not, which cannot go on forever. So there must be a being that is not put together of act and potency, but a being of Pure Act (or pure existence). Such all men call God.

This is a complicated argument based on Aristotelian metaphysics. However, going through all of the metaphysical thought, in the end, pays great dividends. Much can be deduced from God being Pure Act, as Aquinas demonstrates in the subsequent questions. For example, if God is Pure Act, then he is simple, meaning he is not composed of anything. (See this article on divine simplicity.) Being composed, so the argument goes, requires a composer. So he has no potency. But potency is a requirement for change to take place. So if God does not have potency, then he cannot change. (See this article on divine impassibility which is related to this notion that God can’t change.) Further, if he cannot change, then he can’t be measured by time as time has classically been thought to be the measure meant of change. So he is eternal. (See this article on God being eternal.) In this sense, ‘eternal’ does not mean existing forever. Following Boethius, it means that God enjoys all of his being all at once. There is no succession. He is infinite and perfect (also following from Pure Act). Thus, while the argument is much more complicated than the Kalam, it tells us a lot more about God.

Objections to this argument include Newtonian laws of motion and the idea that a thing can change itself. It is argued, some say, that Newton disproved Aristotle’s point here since objects at rest or in motion stay in such a state unless impeded by something else. However, Aristotle’s point is metaphysical in nature, while Newtons’ is physical. Aristotle does not have in mind inertia, like Newton. While inertia (a thing moving in location) certainly is an example of change, it is only an example, and not change as such. Others maintain that a thing can move itself, such as one’s hand. However, the hand does not move the hand; the nervous system does, which is run by the brain, which the will moves. But such is not a counter example to the first way since the point stands that a thing in potency has to be moved by a thing in act.

Whew.

The second way is from efficient causality. It basically says that a thing cannot be the cause of itself since it would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is a contradiction. There cannot be an infinite number of efficient causes since such causes are the causes of intermediary causes, and if there were an infinite number of efficient causes, then there would be no ultimate beginning to effects. An example of this, that I owe to Richard Howe, is a train. When asked what is making a particular boxcar move, one can reply the boxcar in front of it. But there cannot be an infinite number of boxcars since a boxcar cannot cause motion; an engine is required for that. This kind of causes cannot be infinite in number; thus, there must be an ultimate efficient cause that is known as God. This type of cosmological is referred to as a vertical argument since it is based on a hierarchy of causes rather than a temporal beginning in the (horizontal) past.

A typical objection to this argument is, “what created God?” While one can argue with the reasoning or soundness of the above arguments, this objection demonstrates that the objector does not understand the arguments. The first way concludes with a being of Pure Act that per the reasoning can’t have a cause. The second way is the same since there would then require a seeming infinite number of causes, which the argument denies. God as an uncaused cause cannot have a cause, or he wouldn’t be the uncaused cause. Such an objection does not apply to these arguments.

Good books on the above include Maurice Holloway’s An Introduction to Natural Theology, and Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, along with Philosophy of Religion by Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan.

Teleological Arguments

While cosmological arguments argue from the existence of the cosmos, teleological arguments (also known as intelligent design arguments, or ID arguments) argue for God’s existence from the design of the cosmos and biological life. (The term ‘teleological’ comes from the Greek telos, meaning “end” or “goal.”) The argument tends to go like this:

Every design has a designer.
The universe and life exhibit design.
Therefore, the universe and life have a designer.

Regarding design in the universe, design can be seen that allows biological life to live on earth. For instance, the kind of galaxy we are in (spiral), where we are in the galaxy (outer arm), what kind of star we orbit, the size of our moon, the kind and make up of our atmosphere, etc., all go into making biological life possible. Biological life can also be seen to be designed given the amount of specified complexity in the human body. (“Specified complexity” refers to the notion that a given thing needs certain parts to work properly and to perform some function. A typical example is the mousetrap. It has few parts, but each part is necessary for the trap to function properly.) Parts in the human body exemplify specified complexity, such as the eye. Evolution does a poor job of explaining the eye since each part is needed in order to see. Given evolution, the person would not be able to see if the eye were developing slowly via random mutation (or even directed via God for that matter). DNA and the cell also exhibit amazing complexity and design. Since all designs need a designer, the universe and life require a designer.

What about evolution? As the above remarks indicate, evolution has a tough time dealing with specified complexity, as well as the origin of life (for which it has no answer), as well as many other problems. (See The Deniable Darwin and Darwin’s Doubt for a critique of Darwinian evolution. David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion is also very good.) But as a strategic move, one can grant evolution is the case and still argue for God’s existence. This bypasses unnecessary arguments since even if evolution were true, there would still need to be a cause to the universe and biological life (things evolution can’t explain—especially the former). Thus, one doesn’t have to be well-versed in the evolution debate in order to argue for God’s existence.

The ID arguments are very powerful and convincing. However, they don’t provide as much as the cosmological arguments. For example, ID arguments cannot demonstrate creation ex nihilo (that the universe was created from nothing). They also can’t demonstrate monotheism (that only one God exists). What they demonstrate is that there is an intelligent designer (or designers). They also can’t demonstrate that the designer(s) are transcendent to the universe. Nothing in the ID arguments alone can demonstrate that the designer(s) is not part of the universe. Further, natural science on its own cannot demonstrate a transcendent being to the universe since natural science studies nature, and a transcendent being would be supernatural. Thus, natural science is, by definition, limited on the issue of God’s existence without the help of philosophy. (See my earlier blog for a more complete critique of ID arguments and why I think philosophical arguments are stronger.) However, the arguments are very good in showing at least one intelligent designer, and most people are probably convinced that such a being is God. In conjunction with the other arguments, the ID arguments are very powerful.

Typical objections include the need for the designer to have a designer/creator, dysteleology (arguments for a lack of design), the accusation of the god of the gaps fallacy, and evolution. Taking these objections in order, the argument says that designs need designers, not that designers need designers.

Dysteleology is the notion that things are not designed well or do not show signs of design. Many of the examples for this tend to be based on a lack of knowledge. For example, the number of vestigial organs (organs that we supposedly don’t need) have dramatically shrunk in number. Further, the fact that some things may not appear to be designed do not demonstrate the overwhelming design in things like DNA and the cell. Such is positive evidence that far outweighs so-called dysteleology.

Many atheists argue that theists are saying, “We don’t know how this happened, so God must have done it.” (Such is an objection to the cosmological arguments too.) However, the God of the gaps fallacy is when one doesn’t have enough evidence to account for something and then invokes God (fallaciously). However, this is not what theists are doing with the above arguments (teleological or cosmological). We are saying there is so much positive evidence for a designer that there must be one. The God of the gaps fallacy is not committed.

As already stated, evolution is not a reason to give up belief in theism since there must be a cause for the existence of the universe as well as biological life. This is to say nothing of the problems with evolution.

All in all, the ID arguments are strong and persuasive but are not as complete as the philosophical arguments.

Some good resources on the ID arguments are Creator and the Cosmos, The Case for a Creator, and Signature in the Cell.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument is a very popular one. There are at least two forms:

Every law has a lawgiver.
There is a moral law.
Therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.

I have not seen an objection to premise 1. Premise 2 is much more contentious. The reason for it is that one can look anywhere throughout human history and see a basic moral code. For example, moral precepts such as don’t murder, lie, steal, commit adultery are pretty ubiquitous. There are different ways these codes have been understood. For example, in some cultures it is permissible to have several wives while in others it is permissible to have only 1. But cultures will (historically anyway) say that one should not have sex with a woman who is not his wife.

Another form of the argument is:

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

This has the same basic thrust as the first argument, it just takes a conditional form. But both arguments hinge on the objective nature of morality. While some people will argue there is no such thing as objective morality, such a view is hard to consistently maintain. For example, it is hard to maintain that the Nazis were not objectively wrong or that rape is not objectively wrong. The person who argues that the latter is not objectively wrong, for instance, probably would be highly upset if his daughter were raped. As Geisler used to say, we can tell more about a person’s beliefs by his reactions rather than his actions.

The moral argument says that there must be a transcendent cause to explain the objective nature of morality. If it is objective, it can’t be explained from within the human race. Evolution can’t explain the objective nature of morality either, even though atheists maintain that it can. If evolution is invoked to account for it, it should be pointed out that such “morality” could only be egoistic or utilitarian in nature. It could never be objective—only useful.

Such is a good argument. Sometimes it is argued that the moral standard that is invoked is God’s nature. Theists often claim that the Euthyphro Dilemma is solved this way while also providing an objective account of morality. (The Euthyphro Dilemma asks the question—put in modern vernacular—”Does God command what is good because it is good, or is it good because he commands it?” The first option is problematic since it would demonstrate that something is good apart from God, which would raise problems about how it is good without him. The latter option seems to make God arbitrary.) Many say, “The answer to the dilemma is to say God’s nature is the standard of goodness.” This is problematic for many reasons. I have written another article on this topic, so I won’t rewrite that here, but I will point out that it is not clear what it means to say that God is morally good. For humans to be morally good means that they measure up to some standard. Even if God could be said to be morally good, it’s not clear what it would mean for him to measure up to a standard since the standard would be his nature. But it seems incoherent to say a thing measures up to itself. It is also not obvious or clear why the standard for finite, temporal, changing, material beings is a being that is none of these things.

Rather than saying that God is the standard of morality, it seems to make more sense to say that God is the cause of the standard of morality. Instead of saying a non-human is the standard of human morality, it is more rational (and biblical) to maintain that human nature is the standard. But if there is an objective human nature (a highly debated topic in philosophy), there must be a cause to it. At this point, the argument becomes more of a cosmological argument for a cause to the objective human nature.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is the only alleged a priori argument in this article since it purportedly doesn’t argue from the cosmos but from the notion of being. The word ontological comes from the Greek ontos, which means “being.” The argument is an argument from being. It was presented by Anselm, an eleventh-century monk who was asked by his brothers to provide an argument for God’s existence that didn’t rely on Scripture. It goes like this:

God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind.
Thus, God must exist in reality.

It is a simple argument but very contentious. Atheists and theists have debated the merits of this argument more than any other (although there has been considerable interest in the cosmological argument as of late). The logic of the argument is based on a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, to deny God (or the conclusion of the argument) is to affirm a contradiction. If God is the greatest conceivable being and thus must actually exist extra-mentally, then a God that exists only in the mind would not be the greatest conceivable being. Thus, that God (in the mind only) would not be God. Given the nature of existence, God must logically exist extra-mentally.

Another monk named Gaunilo attempted to give a counterexample to Anselm by arguing that the most perfect island must exist extra-mentally rather in the mind only, given the same kind of argument that Anselm gave. Anselm pointed out that the difference was that God would have necessary existence, which makes his argument different than the island argument.

One’s philosophical commitments tend to determine if he thinks this argument is sound. As a moderate realist in the vein of Aristotle and Aquinas, I do not think the argument is sound as it makes a logical leap from the order of knowing to the order of being.

For resources on the moral and ontological arguments, see Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, along with Philosophy of Religion by Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan. For all of the above arguments in their primary (original) text, see Brian Davies’ Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology and Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Resources.

Conclusion

The above are merely a sampling of theistic proofs from a bird’s eye view. The interested reader should consult the recommended readings for more information. It is my contention that the philosophical proofs, namely the cosmological arguments, are the strongest, especially the five ways and such arguments that are based on metaphysics (the nature of reality). However, such arguments are complicated and difficult to use with non-philosophers. In conclusion, there are persuasive arguments for God’s existence, arguments that some of us consider to be metaphysically necessary since a necessary being must exist to account for contingent being. Contrary to many atheists, belief in God is not merely the desire of wishful thinking by illogical religious folk. Some of the brightest minds in the history of ideas have believed in God for well thought out reasons, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, et al.

Jeff Hester Debates William Lane Craig On The Topic “Is Belief In God Rational In A Scientific Age?”

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I was very excited to see a recent debate by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig against atheist astronomer Jeff Hester. When I summarize a debate, I do a fair, objective summary if the atheist is intelligent and informed, as with Peter Millican, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, or Austin Dacey. But the following summary is rated VS for Very Snarky, and you’ll soon see why.

The debate itself starts at 29 minutes:

The audio is very poor.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech

Dr. Craig went first, and he presented four arguments, as well as the ontological argument, which I won’t summarize or discuss. He later added another argument for theism from the existence of the universe that does not require an origin of the universe.

A1. Counter-examples

Theists who are elite scientists cannot be “irrational,” for example Allan Sandage, Gustav Tammann, George Ellis, Don Page, Christopher Isham

A2. Kalam cosmological argument

Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

A3. Fine-tuning of the universe to permit complex, intelligent life

The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore it is due to design.

A4. Moral argument

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Dr. Hester’s opening speech

Dr. Hester went second and presented two arguments, which both committed the genetic fallacy, a logical fallacy that makes the arguments have no force.

Hester starts his opening speech by asserting that Albert Einstein was irrational because he denied quantum mechanics.

Hester explains that he became an atheist at 15. This would have been before the evidence for the origin of the universe became widespread before we had very many examples of fine-tuning before the discovery that the origin of life problem is a problem of the origin of complex, specified information, etc. What kind of reasons can a 15-year-old child have for becoming an atheist? It’s hard to say, but I would suspect that they were psychological. Children often desire autonomy from moral authorities. They want to be free to pursue pleasure. They don’t want to be thought of as superstitious and morally straight by their non-religious peers.

Later on in the debate, Hester volunteers that he hated his father because his father professed to be a Christian, but he was focused on his career and making money. In the absence of any arguments for atheism, it’s reasonable to speculate that Hester became an atheist for psychological reasons. And as we’ll see, just like the typical 15-year-old child, he has no rational basis for atheism. What’s astonishing is how he continues to hold to the atheism of his teens when it has been falsified over and over by scientific discoveries in the years since.

Dr. Craig’s deductive arguments do have premises that reach a conclusion through the laws of logic. On the contrary, he just asserts that God exists as his conclusion, and then says that this assertion is the best explanation of a gap in our scientific knowledge. Some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge he uses in his arguments are: 1) he doesn’t understand why the Sun moves through the sky, so God exists, 2) he doesn’t understand why the wind blows, so God exists.

What counts as “rational” are things that have not been disproved. The progress of science has shown that the universe did not need a cause in order to begin to exist, and also there is no cosmic fine-tuning.

A1. The success of evolution in the software industry proves that there is no God.

All hardware and software are developed using genetic algorithms that exactly match Darwinian processes. All the major computer companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc. are just generating products using mutation and selection to evolve products over long periods of time. If you look over a typical software engineering degree, it’s all about Darwinian evolution, and nothing about design patterns, object-oriented design, etc.

This widespread use of evolution in the software industry undermines all of the arguments for God’s existence. Evolution caused the origin of the universe. Evolution explains why the universe is fine-tuned for life. Evolution, which requires replication already be in place in order to work, explains the origin of the first self-replicating organism.

A2. Theist’s view of the world is just a result of peer pressure from their tribes.

All of Dr. Craig’s logical arguments supported by scientific evidence don’t matter, because he got them from a primitive tribe of Christians that existed 2000 years ago. Everyone gets their view of origins, morality, meaning in life, death, etc. from their tribes. Except for me, I’m getting my beliefs from reason and evidence because I’m a smart atheist. I don’t have an atheist tribe in the university that would sanction me if I disagreed with nonsense like homosexuality is 100% genetic, transgenderism, man-made catastrophic global warming, fully naturalistic evolution, aliens seeded the Earth with life, infanticide is moral, socialism works, overpopulation will cause mass starvation, nuclear winter, etc. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because smart atheists don’t commit elementary logical fallacies that even a first-year philosophy student would know.

A3. Our brains evolved, so our rational faculties are unreliable, so God does not exist.

The logical reasoning that Dr. Craig uses to argue for theism are all nonsense, because human minds just have an illusion of consciousness, an illusion of rationality, and an illusion of free will. Everything Dr. Craig says is just deluded nonsense caused by chemicals in his brain. He has cognitive biases the undermine all his logical arguments and scientific evidence. He just invented an imaginary friend with superpowers. Except me, I’m a smart atheist, so I actually have real consciousness, real reasoning powers, and no cognitive biases. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because my arguments would not get an F in a first-year philosophy course.

Discussion

I’m not going to summarize everything in the discussion, or the question and answer time. I’m just going to list out some of the more interesting points.

Dr. Craig asks him how it is that he has managed to escape these biases from tribalism, projection, etc. He talks about how brave and noble atheist rebels are. The moderator asks him the same question. He repeats how brave and noble atheist rebels are.

Dr. Hester is asked whether he affirms a causeless beginning of the universe or an eternal universe. He replies he states that the universe came into being without a cause because causality doesn’t apply to the beginning of the universe. He also asserts with the explanation that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have undermined the kalam cosmological argument, mentioning a web site.

Dr. Craig replied to this phantom argument after the debate on Facebook:

Speaking of which, although I haven’t had time to consult the website mentioned by Dr. Hester concerning Guth and Vilenkin on the kalam cosmological argument, I know the work of these two gentlemen well enough to predict what one will find there. Since neither one is yet a theist (so much, by the way, for the dreaded confirmation bias!), they have to reject at least one of the premises of the kalam cosmological argument.

Guth wants to deny premiss (2) The universe began to exist–for which Vilenkin has rebuked him. Guth would avoid the implications of their theorem by holding our hope for the Carroll-Chen model, which denies the single condition of the BGV theorem. This gambit is, however, unsuccessful, since the Carroll-Chen model does so only by positing a reversal of the arrow of time at some point in the finite past. This is not only highly non-physical but fails to avert the universe’s beginning since that time-reversed, mirror universe is no sense in our past. The model really postulates two different universes with a common beginning.

So Vilenkin is forced to deny premiss (1) Whatever begins to exists has a cause. He says that if the positive energy associated with matter exactly counterbalances the negative energy associated with gravity, then the net sum of the energy is zero, and so the conservation of energy is not violated if the universe pops into being from nothing! But this is like saying that if your assets exactly balance your debts, then your net worth is zero, and so there does not need to be a cause of your financial situation! As Christopher Isham points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” in order to create positive and negative energy in the first place, even if on balance, their sum is zero.

Dr. Hester is asked how he explains the evidence for fine-tuning. He literally says that “Life is fine-tuned for the Universe,” i.e., that evolution will create living beings regardless of the laws of physics, constants, etc. For example, he thinks that in a universe with a weaker strong force, which would have only hydrogen atoms, evolution would still evolve life. And in a universe that recollapses in a hot fireball, and never forms stars or planets, evolution would produce life. Physicist Luke Barnes, who was commenting on the YouTube chat for the video, said this:

“Life is fine-tuned for the Universe” – complete ignorance of the field. Read a book.

Hester tries to cite Jeremy England to try to argue for life appearing regardless of what the laws of physics are. Barnes comments:

Jeremy England’s work supports no such claim.

Hester appealed to the multiverse, which faces numerous theoretical and observational difficulties. For example, the multiverse models have to have some mechanism to spawn different universes, but these mechanisms themselves require fine-tuning, as Robin Collins argues. And the multiverse is falsified observationally by the Boltzmann brain problem. It was so ironic that Hester claimed to be so committed to testing theories. The multiverse theory cannot be tested experimentally and must be accepted on faith.

Dr. Hester is asked how he grounds morality on atheism. He says there are no objective moral values and duties. He instead lists off a bunch of Christian beliefs which he thinks are objectively wrong. Even his statements about these moral issues are misinformed. For example, he asserts that homosexuality is causally determined by biology, but this is contradicted by identical twin studies that have a rate of 20-40% where both twins are gay.

Dr. Hester is asked about free will, which is required in order to make moral choices. He denies the existence of a free will, which undermines his earlier statements about morality. Morality is only possible if humans can make free choices to act in accordance with a moral standard. So, he claims that Christians are immoral, then he claims that they have no freedom to act other than they do.

Dr. Hester also volunteered that his father believed in the prosperity gospel, and tithed in order to be rewarded with money by God. Dr. Craig immediately says, “no wonder you’re in rebellion against Christianity.” Indeed.

Dr. Hester is asked about his view that human beings are unable to unable to perceive the world objectively. How is he able to perceive the world objectively, when all of the rest of us are unable to? His response is that he is just smarter than everyone else because his ideas have never been falsified by testing.

Scoring the debate

Dr. Craig’s five arguments went unrefuted. Hester’s argument about genetic algorithms was ludicrous to anyone who understands software engineering. His arguments about tribalism and unreliable mental faculties were self-refuting and committed the genetic fallacy. At several points, Hester denied mainstream science in favor of untested and untestable speculations. It was the worst defeat of atheism I have ever witnessed. He was uninformed and arrogant. He didn’t know what he was talking about, and he tried to resort to speculative, mystical bullshit to cover up his failure to meet Dr. Craig’s challenge.

Could The Universe Be Eternal?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

One of my favorite arguments for God’s existence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While this argument has historical roots, contemporary Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has popularized it more recently. The argument goes like this:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a logically airtight argument. That is, if we can demonstrate that both premise (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion (3) necessarily follows as true. Let’s consider the premises in turn.

(1) Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause.

This first premise seems intuitively obvious. To reject it, one would have to posit that something can come from nothing. But that view has to be the height of absurdity. Nothing can’t produce anything. After all, our own experiences and scientific observations tell us that things just don’t pop into existence uncaused. None of us, for example, have ever experienced a new Corvette popping into existence in our driveways, as nice as that would be. Additionally, if things can pop into existence uncaused, then it remains inexplicable as to why this doesn’t happen all the time.

As one might imagine, most embrace this premise, although a few have sought to refute it over the years. Quentin Smith, for example, suggests that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”¹ But I must confess, I’m not sure I understand how this is possible. How did we come from nothing? How did nothing have the capability of causing anything at all?

If prior to the existence of the universe, nothing existed – including space, time, matter, or God – how did the universe come to be? People, like Quentin Smith, must violate everything we know about the cause and effect relationship in our universe to adopt this position. Even the great skeptic David Hume once remarked, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.”²

To get around this metaphysical impossibility, skeptic Lawrence Krauss suggests that the universe came into being from nothing. But then he goes on to explain that “nothing” is really a quantum vacuum of fluctuating energy. And as many have already pointed out, Krauss equivocates on the word nothing. After all, a quantum vacuum of fluctuating energy isn’t no-thing. It’s something. One still needs to explain how this vacuum came to be.

Additionally, others have adopted the position that premise (1) is true for all things inside the universe, but it’s not necessarily true of the universe itself. The problem with this view is that it commits the taxicab fallacy. That is to say, it adopts the standard cause and effect principle when it’s convenient but then hops off — like one would a taxi — once it gets to its desired destination. Not only is this view logically inconsistent, it assumes that the causal principle is only true of the material world. But the cause and effect principle is a metaphysical principle, in that it’s true for all reality. Being cannot come from nonbeing.

Finally, the last objection to premise (1) usually comes in the form of a question: “Who caused God?” But this misunderstands the premise. The premise doesn’t state that “whatever exists has a cause.” Rather it states that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” And theists have maintained that God has never had a beginning. He exists eternally by necessity. If he doesn’t, then he’s not God. This is what we mean when we say “God.” If he owes his existence to an external cause, that external cause would be God. So asking the question, “who caused God?” doesn’t help the skeptic get around premise (1). Theists have maintained for millennia now, that God is necessarily eternal. And to ask, “what caused him?” misunderstands our position.

(2) The Universe Began To Exist.

Since it’s difficult to disprove premise (1), many skeptics set their sights on premise (2) which asserts that the universe began to exist. In a previous post, I laid out scientific evidence which suggests the universe is not eternal. In this post, however, I want to focus on the philosophical reasons for rejecting a past-eternal universe.

To get around premise (2), the skeptic must maintain that the physical universe has existed for all eternity and has thus existed for an infinite number of moments. However, while we use infinity in mathematical or theoretical worlds, infinity, in reality, is impossible as it results in all sorts of logical absurdities.

Think, for example, about a meter stick that you divide in halves forever. Could you divide the meter stick in half an infinite number of times? How do you know the point at which you cross the threshold of a natural number to infinity? And if you reach infinity, isn’t it true that you could subdivide the meter stick one more time?

Perhaps the most famous example demonstrating the absurdity of infinity, in reality, is David Hilbert’s thought experiment — Hilbert’s Hotel. Hilbert told us to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Additionally, he said to imagine that all the rooms are occupied so that not a single room is vacant. Now, suppose a guest comes to the check-in desk and asks for a room. The manager says, “yes, of course, you can have a room.” He then proceeds to move the person in room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #3, and the person in room #3 to room #4, and so forth to infinity. He then takes the new guest and places them in the vacant room #1. But remember, before the guest showed up, the infinite number of rooms were already occupied.

Now, Hilbert says to suppose an infinite number of guests show up to a fully occupied hotel asking for a room. “Of course, the manager says.” He then proceeds to move the person in room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #4, and the person in room #3 to room #6, and so forth to infinity, always putting the previous occupants in a room number twice their original one. Because all the former occupants now reside in even-numbered rooms, the infinite number of new guests all go into the odd-numbered rooms. Remember, though, before the infinite number of guests arrived, all the infinite number of rooms were occupied.

In the first example, we already had an infinite number of guests, but we were able to add one more. So, the equation would look something like this: infinity + 1 = infinity. In the second example, we had an infinite number of guests already staying in the hotel before adding another infinite number of guests. This equation would look like this: infinity + infinity = infinity. Despite adding a different amount to infinity in both equations, we still ended up with the same sum of infinity. The mathematical impossibility of such a hotel demonstrates the absurdity of an actual infinity in reality.

Consider another example. The medieval philosopher al-Ghazali asks us to imagine both Jupiter and Saturn orbiting the sun from eternity past. If for every time Saturn orbits the sun, Jupiter orbits it 2.5 times, which planet has orbited the sun more times? Well, if both planets have been orbiting from eternity past, the answer is that they’ve both orbited the sun the same amount — infinity. But doesn’t that seem absurd? In fact, we know that the higher the number of orbits, the greater the discrepancy that exists between the two. But if Saturn has orbited an infinite number of times, even though Jupiter has been orbiting 2.5 times for every Saturn orbit, they’ve both orbited the sun the same amount.

These illustrations help demonstrate that an actual infinite number, in reality, is impossible. And if an actual infinity is impossible, the universe could not exist for an infinite number of moments.

These absurdities raise another significant problem for the person who wants to reject premise (2). And that problem is that it’s impossible to traverse the infinite. Put another way; if the universe has existed for an infinite number of days, we could never arrive at today because that would mean infinity came to an end. But infinity can’t come to an end. That’s what it means to be infinity.

Or think about it another way. Before we can arrive at today, yesterday would have to occur, and the day before that, and the day before that, and so on to infinity. But how does one know when we’ve reached infinity in the past? There’s no point at which we could start counting the days backward to today. That would be like counting all the negative numbers from infinity back to zero.

Interestingly, many skeptics acknowledge our universe isn’t past eternal based on the scientific evidence. A lot of these same skeptics, however, attempt to get around this problem by suggesting an eternal multiverse. But the absurdity of infinity still applies to a multiverse. It’s impossible to traverse an infinite number of points in any physical universe, even one beyond our ability to detect. So, the skeptic still faces the same problem.

In sum, since it’s absurd to suggest that the universe has existed for an infinite number of moments, the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago.

(3) Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.

Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (1), and the universe began to exist (2), it follows necessarily that the universe has a cause (3). Based on this argument, what can we know about the nature of this cause?

First, whatever caused the universe must come from outside the universe itself. That is to say, it must transcend the natural world.

Meaning, this cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since space, time, and matter all came into existence at the beginning of the universe. Especially relevant to this argument is that the cause is timeless and, therefore, never had a beginning. Now, the skeptic might object that a past eternal cause faces the same dilemma of a past eternal universe. But he would be mistaken because the cause of the universe exists outside of, or independent of, time. That is to say, this cause existed in a timeless state and thus hasn’t traversed over an infinite number of points.

The cause must also be personal. We reach this conclusion based on the fact that there are only two possibilities for a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial entity — either an abstract object like a number or an unembodied mind. But abstract objects don’t possess causal power. They can’t do anything. This leaves a conscious mind who made a free will choice to create as the best explanation.

Finally, based on the size and complexity of our universe, this spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal being must be all-powerful and extremely intelligent. And this being is what theists refer to as God.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

I’ve never been much of an artist. I do, however, have great respect for those that possess the skill and patience to create a masterpiece. In fact, I admire anyone that can draw anything beyond a stick figure. I remember when I was growing up, my brother would draw figures from comic books, and my best drawings would pale in comparison. My wife is an amazing artist as well, and I now see similar talents in my daughter. I have to give credit where credit is due.

Often when you are in the presence of a great work of art or anything that has been finely made, you stand in awe. However, we are not simply in awe of what was made but that someone was able to conceive of and make it. The magnificence of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel is not the details in the design of what has been painted but in the fact that Michelangelo had the ability to paint such details.

To not give credit to Michelangelo is a lesser example of not giving credit to the designer of everything… including Michelangelo. We also see evidence of design in ourselves, on the earth and in the universe. We all see it, but we don’t all give credit to whom it is due. To acknowledge a work of art while ignoring the artist is disrespectful. To benefit from the works of the ultimate artist and not give Him credit is to worship the creation while ignoring the Creator. We have a purpose precisely because the ultimate designer has purposefully designed us.

Credit for making

When we see elements of design, we always understand that a designer initiated the process. In 1953 Francis Crick helped discover DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the molecular building blocks of life. DNA is the most complex system of message every composed. There are five levels of information transmission (statistics, cosyntics, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics). The highest level, apobetics, involves requests with an expectation of a response. DNA is information at the highest level. In other words, there is a clear design to DNA. To assume that this level of information could be achieved randomly or as a result of impersonal, non-communicative physical forces seems illogical. It seems, in that case, we would not be giving credit to whom it is due.

In Life Itself, Francis Crick proposed that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings. Unfortunately, that theory still begs the question – who created the aliens? When it comes to how we’re made, maybe there is someone else we should be giving credit to.

Credit for morality

When we are trying to understand objective truths, it is helpful to note that they usually exist through their opposite. For example, we know what left is because we know what right is. Almost everyone agrees that true evil does exist. This implies that true good must exist. For those that don’t believe in God, where do you root this idea of objective good? C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist and called himself ‘England’s most reluctant convert,’ wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

If moral values originate from humans, they will fluctuate with the whims and preferences of humans – thereby making them subjective. If there is objective evil, then there is an objective moral law. If that is true, then there is an objective moral law-giver – God. And He deserves the credit for the moral standard that we seek to live by.

Credit for meaning

If we are the product of time plus matter plus chance, then life has no meaning. However, everything about how we live and the fact that we are able to live points to the fact that life does have meaning. It behooves us to give credit to the source of that meaning.

The worldview we espouse will, by and large, determine our understanding of the meaning of life itself. This is important because if life has no ultimate purpose, then neither do you or I. In that case; there would be no purpose to fulfill, assignment to complete, or reason to exist. Once you are clear about your origin, you can gain clarity on your purpose. Once you gain clarity on your purpose, you gain clarity on where you’re going. That clarity comes from determining what is true and by giving credit to the source of all truth.

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XCLosh

July 16, 2019/by Guest

15 Quotes From Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bang’s Revelation of God’s Invisible Attributes

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

The Creator Revealed

In 2018 University of Oklahoma particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss released his latest book. In this short non-technical volume, he introduces the reader to the astrophysical discoveries that reveal the characteristics of the Creator of the universe, hence the title “The Creator Revealed.” He strongly emphasizes the claim of Romans 1:20 that the Creator’s attributes are “clearly seen” in the creation, even by those who wish to deny the Creator’s existence. I gave the book a full chapter-by-chapter review available here, but today I want to highlight fifteen of my favorite quotes from the book.

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

“I think that when we as Christians do not fully investigate the truth of something because we are concerned that it might confront our beliefs, we forget one of the very basic characteristics of the God we serve, namely that he is a God of truth.”

“How can we, as Christians, stand firm when our faith is challenged intellectually? We can do this by learning to love the Lord our God with all our minds; by asking tough questions about God and the Bible and finding good, reasonable answers to those questions; by learning how to properly interpret the Bible in its context and according to its culture…and by understanding that all truth discovered by humans will ultimately reveal the creator of all truth.”

“I have found that the more one studies nature, the more one can see that it reveals God’s personality, to such an extent that many of the writings of even nonreligious scientists clearly declare God’s power and majesty.”

“When we find truth in nature or we find truth in scripture, we see God’s character revealed.”

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

“If the big bang was God’s method of creation yet we as Christians deny its veracity, then we are building an unnecessary wall between us and other people who accept the big bang but don’t yet know God.”

“Most people already have heard of the big bang and agree with scientists that it accurately describes the origin of the universe. What most people don’t know is that the big bang also reveals the characteristics of the creator, the God of the Bible.”

“The evidence that the big bang was God’s method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn’t just reveal God’s character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation.”

“Modern science and the big bang can be tremendous evangelistic tools when we realize that they reveal the character of God.”

“When we understand how the big bang reveals the person and character of God, we see him more clearly, and this shows his glory, majesty, and wonder.”

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

“Based on the evidence from both observations and theoretical calculations, the scientific community eventually, and maybe reluctantly, has accepted the idea that the universe appears to have begun about fourteen billion years ago–because there is no other explanation that fits the evidence.”

“The evidence for the beginning of the universe in the big bang has become so powerful and so convincing that scientists have accepted it as true even though the philosophical and theological implications may be repugnant to some.”

“There are some Christians who say that most scientists today have misunderstood the facts of nature. They say that the facts clearly point to a universe created just a few thousand years ago. But such a belief is inconsistent with what Romans 1:20 implies. Paul says that the evidence left by the creator should be clearly visible so that all, even the scientists studying the universe, are without excuse if they fail to see it… [T]his is exactly the case with the big bang.”

“It doesn’t matter when the universe was created, whether it was six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago, to the naturalist who doesn’t believe in God, both ideas are equally repugnant.”

“It should not surprise you that the big bang reveals characteristics of the creator that (1) are clearly evident, (2) are apparent even to those who do not accept any kind of deity, and (3) correspond to attributes ascribed to God in the rest of the Bible. After all, that is exactly what Paul [in Romans 1:20] said the evidence should do.”

“An accurate understanding of the big bang and its implications can change lives. Truth has a way of doing that.”

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2R7yRJU

January 27, 2019/by Guest

Can Empathy Ground Morality?

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

One of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is the moral argument. Basically, an objective moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. But many skeptics still aren’t convinced. They claim that they don’t need God or some holy book to tell them how to live; they have empathy.

Dictionary.com defines empathy as “the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” In short, it is feeling what others feel. Someone who endorses empathy-based morality will say that good is whatever makes others feel happy and evil is whatever makes people feel pain. This sounds a lot like the Golden Rule: Do to others what you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12). It’s a great way to determine how we should treat others. But to use empathy as the basis of morality has problems.

Blatantly subjective

First, by the above definition, empathy-based morality is not objective; it is blatantly subjective since it is “the psychological identification” of someone else’s experience. It is based on my feelings about another’s situation. Objective morality means that morality is real and binding regardless of how anyone thinks or feels. In this, empathy fails as the foundation of morality.

Moral obligations

Second, what obligation do I have to act a certain way based on my empathetic feelings? If I feel bad seeing a hungry child suffer during a TV commercial, I could decide to volunteer at my local soup kitchen, or I could just change the channel. Those are two different responses to my empathy and to say which is right requires a moral judgment. Therefore, empathy isn’t the basis of right and wrong.

Furthermore, why should I care about a starving stranger, so long as my belly is full? And instead of following my empathy, why not act on rage, aggression, or sexual desire? Again, we must choose which of these feelings to follow by appealing to some moral standard.

Knowing vs. being

Third, empathy does not make things right or wrong; it is merely a tool to help discover morality. Philosophically, this is the difference between knowing (epistemology) and being (ontology). For example, I know the grass is green because I see that it is green. My sight is the tool to help me discover the color of grass. But I can only see – and know – that grass is green because grass has the property of being green. Grass would still be green even if I were colorblind or could not see at all.

The same applies to morality. If I say “Murder is wrong,” I don’t mean that I have the psychological identification that murder is wrong. No, murder has the property of being morally wrong the same way grass has the property of being green. Stating that murder is good is just as wrong as claiming that 2+2=5. Moral facts are true regardless of my opinion or whether or not my moral faculties are working properly.

Empathy is one way of knowing right and wrong. But it does not determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. We have deep moral intuitions that certain actions are right and wrong, but these intuitions are just the way that we know it. I could be a conscious-less psychopath with no conception of morality, but morality would still be real and objective.

A better explanation

So if morality is just as real as the physical world, how do we make sense of it? That is where the moral argument comes in. An objective moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. God has provided ways for us to know this moral law: by sealing it on our hearts (Rom. 2:14-15), His Word, and, of course, empathy. But morality itself is grounded in a holy, morally-perfect God. Good is whatever aligns with God’s nature, and commands and evil is whatever goes against it.

Without God, we would be lost in a sea of moral subjectivity, where morality is just a trend, fashion, or evolutionary survival instinct. But we all know better than that. Morality is just as real as anything else in the world, and the best explanation of this is an objective moral law founded upon a good and holy God.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Nr71aC

September 4, 2018/by Guest

Tag Archive for: existence of God

Source

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The case for the Fire-Breathing Dragon in The Garage

The case for God

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cosmological Arguments

The Kalam Argument

Aquinas’ 5 Ways

Teleological Arguments

The Moral Argument

The Ontological Argument

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Dr. Craig’s opening speech

Dr. Hester’s opening speech

Discussion

Scoring the debate

Recommended resources related to the topic:

(1) Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause.

(2) The Universe Began To Exist.

(3) Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Creator Revealed

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?