A Maker of Heaven and Earth?
Christianity Today
July 2008
(Image from Christianity Today)
This morning, an online issue of Christianity Today appeared with an article by William Lane Craig, "God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence" (July 2008). In this article, Craig summarizes the current state of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and he begins by noting the resurgence of "natural philosophy":
The renaissance of Christian philosophy has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in natural theology, that branch of theology that seeks to prove God's existence apart from divine revelation. The goal of natural theology is to justify a broadly theistic worldview, one that is common among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and deists. While few would call them compelling proofs, all of the traditional arguments for God's existence, not to mention some creative new arguments, find articulate defenders today.Craig then procedes to explicate, in summary form, current formulations of four traditional arguments for the existence of God:
The cosmological argument.Actually, Craig provides five arguments, for he cites two types of cosmological arguments, the second of which is known as the kalam cosmological argument, a version that Craig notes has "a rich Islamic heritage" -- hence its identity as "kalam," from the Arabic word kalām (علم الكلام) "speech," possibly from some reference to Allah's speech, if we can trust Wikipedia.
The teleological argument.
The moral argument.
The ontological argument.
Craig provides a simple formulation of this kalam argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.Craig then states:
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise (1) certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial. The idea that things can pop into being without a cause is worse than magic. Nonetheless, it's remarkable how many nontheists, under the force of the evidence for premise (2), have denied (1) rather than acquiesce in the argument's conclusion.I'm no nontheist, but premise (1) befuddles me a bit if I reflect upon it. Craig's remark that "Premise (1) certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial" seems reasonable to me if I begin with an already existing universe, for the principle of causality would exclude things simply popping into existence without a cause.
But suppose that I imagine a lack of anything at all. No God. No universe. Utter absence of any existing thing. In utter absence, even principles do not exist. Therefore, the principle of causality also does not exist. If that principle does not exist, then something could 'pop' into existence uncaused.
No doubt, I've not expressed this point very precisely -- surely not precisely enough for philosophers -- but perhaps the intuition behind my reasoning is clear enough and could be more precisely formulated by any philosophers who might happen to be reading this blog entry. I'd be interested in seeing a very precise formulation of my intuition, along with the refutation . . . if there is one.
Meanwhile, a list of books for further reading on natural theology is provided by Craig in "Recommended Reading: Books on the existence of God" (Christianity Today, July 2008).
Labels: God, Kalam, Philosophy, William Lane Craig
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 4:05 AM
34 comments
34 Comments:
At some point we have to exercise faith when we deal with the universe and the presence of God.
I believe in a God who always is, has been, and will be. The eternal God brought the universe and all of creation into existence by a divine fiat. Therefore all creation had a beginning. How do you prove these concepts? It is beyond my capabilities. So I accept the Biblical account by faith. This might not satisfy one's intellectual curiosity, but it works for me. I have thought about beginnings, creation, and the existence of God, just like everyone else. I won't impress anyone with my intellect, but perhaps when I leave this world for a better one, I will understand it then.
Uncle Cran
Uncle Cran, you would probably enjoy reading William Lane Craig or some of the books that he suggests.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
"2. The universe began to exist."
Interesting how so many human minds can fathom a future without end but not a past without a beginning. This is equally true for believers in a diety or in the Big Bang theory.
Sonagi
Sonagi, there's a difficulty in conceiving of an infinite past, for if time is understood as a series of discrete increments, then there would have to be an infinity of moments prior to this moment.
The problem becomes clearer if we make an analogy to the future and try to imagine arriving at a point that is an infinite number of steps into the future. By discrete, incremental steps, we would always be a finite number of steps from our present moment and thus would never reach infinity.
Thus, our present moment cannot have been arrived at through an infinite series of prior moments.
That's my rough summary of the kalam argument . . . so far as I recall it.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
If there were no matter, no energy, no time, no spirit, no principle, no motion, no thought, no reason, no --- anything, then how could something "pop" into existence?
Getting something -- anything -- from absolutely nothing really is beyond magic, especially if there's no Magician, and no hat from which to pull a universe.
Regarding an infinite past, or future, I think you are absolutely right. One cannot traverse an infinity. If the universe were infinitely old, we could never get to 2008.
But, here we are! The universe, I take it, therefore has a beginning.
Let me take it a step further, Jeffrey.
In your supposition of absolute nothingness, are you also positing reasonlessness? If you are, then you won't be able to get a philosopher's take on your intuition regarding nothingness -- or at least not one that's reasonable or readable. Reason wouldn't apply to your supposal, yet you'd be asking for a reasonable and readable articulation of your supposal.
But if you do posit reason in your supposition of nothingness, then you can't escape causation, it seems to me. In other words, your mental project seems impossible.
Michael asks: "If there were no matter, no energy, no time, no spirit, no principle, no motion, no thought, no reason, no -- anything, then how could something "pop" into existence?"
My intuition is that from utterly nothing, anything could follow.
That said, an even stronger intuition of mine is that something must exist, that utterly nothing is impossible, for how could there be nothing? That is truly mind-boggling.
Existence of something is easier for my mind to accept.
I'm not especially good at explicating my intuitions, unfortunately.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Normally I would not take part in this sort of discussion for I feel inadequate but Jeffery you write:
"My intuition is that from utterly nothing, anything could follow."
It seems to me that the statement might be more properly written:
My intuition is that from utterly nothing, utterly nothing could follow.
Now as I've tried to emphasize, I'm not really up for a more qualified argument.
JK
Yes, I've had that thought, too, but it doesn't strike me as powerfully as my intuition that from "utterly nothing," anything could follow, for with "utterly nothing," no limitations would exist.
But my stronger intuition is that something must exist.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I can only agree that that "something" or "anything" can follow into existence because "I think therefore yada yada", but my "thought" relies on the basis that there never had existed (bad grammer here) the "utterly nothing."
JK
I guess I should have included, neither limitations nor possibilities would exist.
Utter nothingness is utter nothingness. Void, no limits, no limitations.
JK
JK, there's probably some need for a philosophical disquisition on "utterly nothing" to clarify and explore these intuitions.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I've been reading one of Malcolms' recent posts and since I had a question for him concerning an individual (now I know in this cause and effect world this might not be the best of metaphors to draw upon) but "utter nothingness" means vacuum, nada, never was, nor never will, squat.
As I said in the opening, I hesitate for a reason. I know it sounds kinda like an old Procul Harem song.
Last one for me Jeff.
JK
"Time" is a measure of the movement of matter. If in the beginning there was only God (or the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit), then time was not a concept. The Bible says that God declares the end from the beginning
Isaiah 46:10) and inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15). He declares he is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last(Revelation 22:13). Jesus prayed, "And now O Father glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
It seems that "time" began with the creation of the universe and the movement of matter.
Eternity includes the parenthesis of time as we know it (or think we do).
If God is pure spirit, he is not bound by time as you and I, in the universe wherein we abide briefly.
I remember when my mother had her 95th birthday, I said to her, "Mom, you have seen things from the horse and buggy days to the space age....you've seen the world change in your lifetime." She said, "Yes, and it went by too fast. I just turned 69 last June 29th, and it has gone by too fast............
Cran
How do deists accept a timeless God but not a timeless universe?
If the universe were infinitely old, we could never get to 2008. But, here we are! The universe, I take it, therefore has a beginning
Marking the passage of time is a collection of varied human creations.
RE: Kalam argument
I'm not familiar with it, but just as we have both positive and negative integers extending into infinity, so can time extend into infinity in both directions. One can count backward just as one counts forward. The only difference is direction.
Sonagi
The second law of thermodynamics has something to say about an eternal, timeless universe.Since everything is running down, it had to have a beginning. And it isn't infinitely old, or it would have already reached equilibrium. Therefore, the universe isn't eternal and timeless.
Also, the book of psalms comments on this:
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
(Psalm 103:35-27).
You can tell I'm dated, since I'm using the KJV Bible.
But I haven't reached equilibrium either...I'm still able to sit up and partake nourishment.
Cran
JK, I've posted another entry on "nothing" as a way of clarifying my befuddlement.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Uncle Cran, most theologians would agree that God is not subject to cosmic time, but some theologians argue for a different sort of time to distinguish moments of eternity.
I think that William Lane Craig has written about this issue, too, but I've fogotten what little I read on it.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Sonagi, precisely defined, timeless is not the same as infinite time. The former implies no time, the latter an infinite quantity of it.
Yes, concerning the negative integers, one could count backwards, starting with -1 and never stopping. Despite how long one counts, however, one will never reach an integer infinitely distant.
Now, turn this around by imagining that the present is that integer infinitely distant from -1. One can then see that if there had been an infinite number of past moments before the present, then the present could never have arrived.
Certainly, we deal with infinities in math, science, philosophy, and theology, but no one could ever count to infinity and reach it, not even God, for that would pose an impossible task.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Interesting psalm -- though it's actually Psalm 102:25-27:
"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."
Note that by the remark "thy years shall have no end," this psalm implies that God exists in time . . . but perhaps that's metaphorical, a condescension to human modes of thinking.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
RE: Second Law of Thermodynamics
The law applies to closed systems, and we do not know whether the universe is a closed system or not.
Now, turn this around by imagining that the present is that integer infinitely distant from -1. One can then see that if there had been an infinite number of past moments before the present, then the present could never have arrived.
You are still confusing time itself with the human measurement of it. The present is not whatever time your clock reads right now but this very moment itself, which has just passed as you read this.
Sonagi
Sonagi, you wrote:
"You are still confusing time itself with the human measurement of it. The present is not whatever time your clock reads right now but this very moment itself, which has just passed as you read this."
No, I'm not confusing anything. I'm simply giving an analogy to show why an finite series of incremental steps could never arrive at 'infinity.'
If past time were infinite in extension, and assuming that time passes in finite increments, then the present moment could never have arrived.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Then perhaps time does not pass in finite increments. Buddhism sees time as circular, not linear. My human mind cannot fathom infinity in either direction, but it cannot fathom a beginning and an end, either. What was there before the beginning?
Sonagi
Sonagi, perhaps not . . . though I'm not sure how to conceive of time passing is some other way than by increments. Continuously passing? Maybe, but what does that imply for infinities? I'm not sure.
As for circular or linear, they both would encounter the same problem with infinity if time passes incrementally.
I encounter the same problem with "beginning" that you do. What was before the beginning?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Even though classical thermodynamics refers to a closed system, it seems to apply to any system known to man. There are no known exceptions. Even though we live in a system open to the energy of the sun, any seeming pattern such as growth and development in living forms grows, ulntimately the 2nd law wins. I think that it was Isaac Isamov who wrote, "In the game of thermodynamics, you can't even break even," or some similar comment. There are no known untimate exceptions to the second law, whether open or closed.
Cran
I know Jeff, it's either very early or very late for me to be commenting. However I have slept so in this case, it's early.
"How do deists accept a timeless God but not a timeless universe?"-Sonagi.
I'm not certain that the deist is not able to accept both.
Now this might not be adding anything here but I awoke with the thought and could not get back to sleep. Yet I am sleepy. What to do? Comment.
Cause and his twin brother Effect or as the idea followed, me and my ex-wife. Had I never met her, she explained to the Judge, trouble would never have occurred in her life.
I know, it's a stretch but now maybe I can get back to sleep.
JK
Personally, JK, I blame quantum weirdness for all my problems...
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Now that I'm refreshingly refreshed, that works for me too. Thanks.
JK
I know this post is a few days, rather weeks old, but I thought I might add to the idea of "nothingness". I believe that it is fairly easy for nothing to tend towards something. For instance, the idea of nothing is essential unstable. Merely calling nothing nothing gives it some form causing it to tends toward something. If "nothing" truly existed (again giving if form by its existance) it would logically tend towards something, whatever that something may be. And that movement from nothing to something would be essentially reasonless, if only to define itself.
Just a thougt.
Schtebbie
Schtebbie, thanks for the commment.
If by "nothingness," you mean a "minimal form" of some kind, then it differs from the "utterly nothing" that I was getting at.
That said, this is muddled territory.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I actually have been thinking something very similar to this recently. The version of nothingness people imagine is actually pretty rigidly defined. I as well would be curious on a philosophy experts opinion on this. Just to bring a quote that sums up the crux of this issue to me (an issue that I do not think theism helps solve at all):
"...but i don't think one should underestimate the fix we're in, that in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature, we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don't describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question, why are the laws of nature what they are rather then some other laws? And I don't see any way out of that and I just regard it as another one of the tragedies that we have to get used to..."
- Steven Weinberg, from Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2IisaNC4bE)
S.O.S., thanks for visiting.
The problem that Weinberg faces concerning the reason that the world is as it is, fundamentally, perhaps goes beyond empirical science, but I don't think that'll stop philosophers from speculating.
And if I recall, the physicist Les Smolin tries to account for the universe's fine-tuning by drawing upon a Darwinian-style argument coupled with appeal to Leibnitz's principle of sufficient reason -- and argues for an empirical 'test' of his theory.
Of course, Smolin's theory doesn't get at the question of why there's something rather than nothing, for he has to start with something.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
S.O.S., thanks for visiting.
Thanks for having me :)
Of course, Smolin's theory doesn't get at the question of why there's something rather than nothing, for he has to start with something.
Actually that is what I find so fascinating about Weinberg's quote. The natural question would seem to be "why something rather then nothing" but the truth is the alternative may very well beg the same question, "why nothing rather then something?" So it all seems to come down to the question of "why this" regardless of what is or isn't. At least that was my interpretation. :)
I agree. The question could be posed about either case (but only in the case that something exists to pose the question).
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home