Monday, November 17, 2008
Doubting Your Doubts - Part 2
I mentioned that I participated in a panel discussion answering questions on God's existence. Here it is. Click on Clues for God Q & A.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Two Arguments for God's Existence
Two Arguments for God’s Existence
Introduction
Alvin Plantinga, one of the foremost philosophers of our era, has presented a lecture to various academic audiences entitled “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.”[1] Instead of two dozen, I wanted to sketch out two arguments that I find persuasive for why I think God exists. Admittedly, these arguments do not show with absolute certainty that God exists. Nothing in philosophy that is of any real interest has that sort of mathematical demonstrative certainty. Instead, I am saying that on balance and given the cumulative evidence, God’s existence is more likely than not. I am indebted to the work of William Lane Craig for much of this.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
My first argument is that God makes sense of the origin of the universe. Have you ever looked up into the sky at night and think where did this all come from? It used to be the case that people thought that the universe was eternal and that’s all. But that doesn’t make much sense if we think about it deeply..
If the universe were eternal, then that would mean that the moments of time that make up the history of the universe is actually infinite. But if the moments of time are actually infinite, then how did we reach our present moment in time? In order to do that, one has to traverse an actually infinite number of moments. But it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of anything since you can always add one more thing to it (that’s what it means to be infinite). So, if the universe never began to exist, then we should never reach our present moment in time. But, we have reached our present moment in time. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
We commonly use the word “infinite” without really thinking about what it means. In fact, it turns out that the infinite is simply an abstraction in our minds that has no existence in physical reality. When we try to apply it to reality we get all sorts of absurdities. Here’s one. Imagine that Saturn and Jupiter and the Sun have always existed from eternity past to eternity future. Suppose that Saturn orbits the Sun 2.5 times more than what Jupiter does in the same amount of time. So, if Jupiter makes it around 10 times, then Saturn makes it around 25 times in that same period of time. Now, if the moments in time were actually infinite, then the number of orbits that Saturn and Jupiter would have around the sun is exactly the same! But how can that be if Saturn makes it around 2.5 times to every one time that Jupiter does? I’m sure you can think of other absurdities like this one. So, if the universe never began to exist, then the moments of time would be actually infinite. But, an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
These philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe are confirmed by empirical evidence from astronomy and astrophysics. The evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a "Big Bang" approximately 13.7 billion years ago. At the “Big Bang,” space, time, matter, and energy literally began to exist. Prior to the “Big Bang” nothing physical existed (no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no laws of physics). Other competing cosmological models have not risen to replace the “Big Bang” as the reigning cosmological model of origins.[2] So, at the “Big Bang” we have reached a point of creation out of literally nothing. But that doesn’t make sense because out of nothing, nothing comes. It is metaphysically impossible for something to come out of nothing. If something begins to exist it must have a cause. Therefore, there must have been a cause that brought about the beginning of the universe.
By the nature of the case, if the universe is all that is physical which includes time, space, matter, and energy, then the cause transcends all these things. The cause would be timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and extremely powerful. If we extend the argument and add the fact that the initial conditions of the universe at the “Big Bang” have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for human life to exist sometime in its history, then the cause must also be extremely intelligent.
In addition, the cause needs to be personal. Why? If the cause of the universe is like a mechanical set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then how could you ever get a universe to be caused in time? Imagine a bowling ball resting on a cushion from eternity past to eternity future. The cause of the depression of the cushion would be the weight of the ball. If the cause was eternal and the effect was eternal, how would you ever get change? The only way to get an effect that begins in time from a previous state of eternal timelessness is if a cause could exercise free agency in order to create a universe in time. And only persons exercise free agency. So, we have a cause that is uncaused, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, intelligent, and personal. Summarizing, the argument is this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Moral Argument
My second argument is that God makes sense of objective moral values. By this, I mean to say that if God does not exist, then objective moral values don’t exist. Something is objective independent of whether or not people agree about such a thing. Just as it is objectively true that the earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around, one can also say that Nazi anti-Semitism is wrong. Even if the Nazis won World War II and brainwashed or exterminated all those who disagreed, it would still be wrong. It would still be wrong even though the Nazis thought that it was good. I’m claiming that if God doesn’t exist, then objective moral values do not exist in this sense.
I think most people understand that God has something to do with moral values. Talk-show host Dennis Prager puts it like this:
If you were in an American city that you were not familiar with, alone, late at night, and you couldn't find your car, in a bad neighborhood, and you saw 10 men walking toward you, would you or would you not be relieved to know that they had just attended a Bible class?[3]
Thus, in a humorous way, he shows that there is some connection between God and moral values. In fact, I would think that God is the source of moral values because He is essentially good, and His divine commands impart to us our moral duties. Now, please understand that I am not arguing that one needs to believe that God exists in order to have objective moral values. Rather, I am claiming that God needs to exist in order to have objective moral values. The issue is God’s existence and not the belief in God’s existence.
But in the absence of God, moral values are simply a byproduct of our social and biological evolution. Human beings would be simply a more advanced form of animal such that moral values are just aids in survival and reproduction with no deeper meaning.[4] So, in the course of human development things like murder, child abuse, and racism become socially disadvantageous and taboo while acts of kindness, love, and generosity become socially advantageous and encouraged because it advances the species. But this doesn’t show that these things are really and objectively good. In the absence of God, human beings are just advanced animals, a sort of grown up germ. Animals are not the proper subjects of morality. All our beliefs, given naturalism, are selected for their survival value, not truth. Thus, even the beliefs in naturalistic accounts of moral values have no warrant.
But deep down, I think all of us know that objective moral values do exist. Even a staunch Darwinist like the philosopher Michael Ruse who believes that morality is an evolutionary adaptation with no deeper meaning, admits that someone who says raping little children is good is just as mistaken as someone who says that 2 + 2 = 5.[5] There is no good reason to deny the existence of objective moral values just as there is no good reason to deny the existence of the physical world.
So, if objective moral values do not exist unless God exists, and if objective moral values exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists. Summarizing, the argument is this:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I gave a brief sketch of two arguments for God’s existence that I find persuasive: the argument from the origin of the universe and the argument from objective moral values. I stated that God is the best explanation for making sense of both. These arguments, along with others, form a cumulative case where the preponderance of the evidence makes it more likely that God exists than not.
Notes
[1]http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf
[2]William Lane Craig, "The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe." Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270 (1999): 723-740.; http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html.
[3]http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/06/19/youre_in_a_bad_neighborhood_and_10_men_approach_you___?page=2
[4] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-289.
[5] Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), 275.
Introduction
Alvin Plantinga, one of the foremost philosophers of our era, has presented a lecture to various academic audiences entitled “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.”[1] Instead of two dozen, I wanted to sketch out two arguments that I find persuasive for why I think God exists. Admittedly, these arguments do not show with absolute certainty that God exists. Nothing in philosophy that is of any real interest has that sort of mathematical demonstrative certainty. Instead, I am saying that on balance and given the cumulative evidence, God’s existence is more likely than not. I am indebted to the work of William Lane Craig for much of this.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
My first argument is that God makes sense of the origin of the universe. Have you ever looked up into the sky at night and think where did this all come from? It used to be the case that people thought that the universe was eternal and that’s all. But that doesn’t make much sense if we think about it deeply..
If the universe were eternal, then that would mean that the moments of time that make up the history of the universe is actually infinite. But if the moments of time are actually infinite, then how did we reach our present moment in time? In order to do that, one has to traverse an actually infinite number of moments. But it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of anything since you can always add one more thing to it (that’s what it means to be infinite). So, if the universe never began to exist, then we should never reach our present moment in time. But, we have reached our present moment in time. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
We commonly use the word “infinite” without really thinking about what it means. In fact, it turns out that the infinite is simply an abstraction in our minds that has no existence in physical reality. When we try to apply it to reality we get all sorts of absurdities. Here’s one. Imagine that Saturn and Jupiter and the Sun have always existed from eternity past to eternity future. Suppose that Saturn orbits the Sun 2.5 times more than what Jupiter does in the same amount of time. So, if Jupiter makes it around 10 times, then Saturn makes it around 25 times in that same period of time. Now, if the moments in time were actually infinite, then the number of orbits that Saturn and Jupiter would have around the sun is exactly the same! But how can that be if Saturn makes it around 2.5 times to every one time that Jupiter does? I’m sure you can think of other absurdities like this one. So, if the universe never began to exist, then the moments of time would be actually infinite. But, an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
These philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe are confirmed by empirical evidence from astronomy and astrophysics. The evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a "Big Bang" approximately 13.7 billion years ago. At the “Big Bang,” space, time, matter, and energy literally began to exist. Prior to the “Big Bang” nothing physical existed (no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no laws of physics). Other competing cosmological models have not risen to replace the “Big Bang” as the reigning cosmological model of origins.[2] So, at the “Big Bang” we have reached a point of creation out of literally nothing. But that doesn’t make sense because out of nothing, nothing comes. It is metaphysically impossible for something to come out of nothing. If something begins to exist it must have a cause. Therefore, there must have been a cause that brought about the beginning of the universe.
By the nature of the case, if the universe is all that is physical which includes time, space, matter, and energy, then the cause transcends all these things. The cause would be timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and extremely powerful. If we extend the argument and add the fact that the initial conditions of the universe at the “Big Bang” have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for human life to exist sometime in its history, then the cause must also be extremely intelligent.
In addition, the cause needs to be personal. Why? If the cause of the universe is like a mechanical set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then how could you ever get a universe to be caused in time? Imagine a bowling ball resting on a cushion from eternity past to eternity future. The cause of the depression of the cushion would be the weight of the ball. If the cause was eternal and the effect was eternal, how would you ever get change? The only way to get an effect that begins in time from a previous state of eternal timelessness is if a cause could exercise free agency in order to create a universe in time. And only persons exercise free agency. So, we have a cause that is uncaused, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, intelligent, and personal. Summarizing, the argument is this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Moral Argument
My second argument is that God makes sense of objective moral values. By this, I mean to say that if God does not exist, then objective moral values don’t exist. Something is objective independent of whether or not people agree about such a thing. Just as it is objectively true that the earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around, one can also say that Nazi anti-Semitism is wrong. Even if the Nazis won World War II and brainwashed or exterminated all those who disagreed, it would still be wrong. It would still be wrong even though the Nazis thought that it was good. I’m claiming that if God doesn’t exist, then objective moral values do not exist in this sense.
I think most people understand that God has something to do with moral values. Talk-show host Dennis Prager puts it like this:
If you were in an American city that you were not familiar with, alone, late at night, and you couldn't find your car, in a bad neighborhood, and you saw 10 men walking toward you, would you or would you not be relieved to know that they had just attended a Bible class?[3]
Thus, in a humorous way, he shows that there is some connection between God and moral values. In fact, I would think that God is the source of moral values because He is essentially good, and His divine commands impart to us our moral duties. Now, please understand that I am not arguing that one needs to believe that God exists in order to have objective moral values. Rather, I am claiming that God needs to exist in order to have objective moral values. The issue is God’s existence and not the belief in God’s existence.
But in the absence of God, moral values are simply a byproduct of our social and biological evolution. Human beings would be simply a more advanced form of animal such that moral values are just aids in survival and reproduction with no deeper meaning.[4] So, in the course of human development things like murder, child abuse, and racism become socially disadvantageous and taboo while acts of kindness, love, and generosity become socially advantageous and encouraged because it advances the species. But this doesn’t show that these things are really and objectively good. In the absence of God, human beings are just advanced animals, a sort of grown up germ. Animals are not the proper subjects of morality. All our beliefs, given naturalism, are selected for their survival value, not truth. Thus, even the beliefs in naturalistic accounts of moral values have no warrant.
But deep down, I think all of us know that objective moral values do exist. Even a staunch Darwinist like the philosopher Michael Ruse who believes that morality is an evolutionary adaptation with no deeper meaning, admits that someone who says raping little children is good is just as mistaken as someone who says that 2 + 2 = 5.[5] There is no good reason to deny the existence of objective moral values just as there is no good reason to deny the existence of the physical world.
So, if objective moral values do not exist unless God exists, and if objective moral values exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists. Summarizing, the argument is this:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I gave a brief sketch of two arguments for God’s existence that I find persuasive: the argument from the origin of the universe and the argument from objective moral values. I stated that God is the best explanation for making sense of both. These arguments, along with others, form a cumulative case where the preponderance of the evidence makes it more likely that God exists than not.
Notes
[1]http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf
[2]William Lane Craig, "The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe." Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270 (1999): 723-740.; http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html.
[3]http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/06/19/youre_in_a_bad_neighborhood_and_10_men_approach_you___?page=2
[4] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-289.
[5] Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), 275.
Doubting Your Doubts - Part 1
My church has been doing a sermon series called "Doubting Your Doubts" where we've been looking at the big questions that doubters ask concerning the Christian faith. In addition to the sermons, we've been having our community groups study these doubts by reading Tim Keller's book The Reason for God. We also are doing mid-week Doubting Forums to answer questions people may have. I just participated in a panel discussion answering questions concerning the existence of God. I'll post this when it becomes available.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Election of President Barack Obama
Well, it cannot be denied...our new President will be Barack Obama. Despite the fact that he was not my candidate, nor can I imagine how he could ever be my candidate, he will be my President. My family will pray for him to lead well. But those areas where we disagree, I will oppose him vigorously. It is good to know, though, that despite differences amongst Americans on political party, we are in the end Americans. And isn't it remarkable how America has elected her first President where race did not matter. That is a big step!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
