Note, I rushed through this really quick because I needed to have it done, but I’ll have a full version done by the weekend

There are many different formulations of the classic cosmological argument for God’s existence, with the Kalam version being the most popular.  Within popular apologetics, many of these other variants are not considered.  Thus, this series serves to present and defend several non-Kalam versions of the cosmological argument.

The Argument from Contingency (Simplified Version)

This argument can be traced back to Aristotle, though it was St. Thomas Aquinas who formulated much of the argument in his Summa Theologica.  Aquinas reasoned for the existence of a necessary being based on the existence of contingent beings.  That is, an infinite being must exist because finite beings exist, otherwise we would end up with an infinite regression.  He writes:

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no caseknown (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the causeof the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.¹

Let us first define a contingent being. Winfried Corduan defines a contingent being as possessing any of the following characteristics:

1. It is restricted by time and space.
2. It can be changed by something other than itself.
3. It has a beginning in time.
4. It needs things other than itself to continue existing.
5. Its attributes, whether essential or accidental, are to some extent influenced by other things.²

Given this information, we can now formulate and demonstrate premise one — that the universe is contingent.  Consider a pencil.  When I write with the pencil, it undergoes change.  It undergoes change because it is made of matter, and a characteristic of matter is that is is mutable.  Now since the universe is comprised of matter (which is mutable), then it must be contingent.  Says R. C. Sproul:

We know that the chief characteristic of matter is its mutability — it changes, and it changes from one state into another state so that it is nto stable, eternally, and therefore it is in process; it is in a state of becoming and not in a state of pure being.  Anything that we find within the universe is changing; it manifests contingency, it is dependent on or derived from something else.  These things cannot be the ultimate core of being of the universe.³

 Critics usually charge the theist with the fallacy of composition, which is reasoning from a part to the whole.   But if matter is mutable and matter makes up the entire universe, then it follows that a universe as a whole is contingent because all of its parts are contingent. 

The Nature of Change

Aristotle and Aquinas defined change as moving from potentiality to actuality.   That is, change is when the potential of a substance or being is actualized by another being.  Consider a window, which has the potential to be broken.  This potential is actualized when a force outside of the thing in question acts on it.  In the case of the window it’s potentiality is actualized when a boy throws a rock at it or when the wind hurls debris into it. For an object’s potentiality to be actualized, it must already contain some actuality (all potentiality is nothing).  The cause must also contain some existing actuality, for potentials cannot actualize themselves (this is analytically false).

Now if all things are contingent beings, then one reaches an infinite regress.   For is everything is caused by another infinitely into the past, then ultimately nothing can be caused.  How can there be a chain of casualty when there wasn’t a moment where it began.  If it can’t even start, then how is it there?  Therefore, there must be an beginning to this chain.  The beginning is defined as a necessary being, as in that it is pure actuality.  It is pure being (otherwise it would be a contingent being if it possessed any potency).  Something that is pure actuality is not itself moved, so the “Who made God?” objection is not applicable to this argument (nor for that matter, most other non-Kalam cosmological arguments).  It may be objected that the universe or that the laws of nature can be a substitute for this necessary being, but they both fail.  The universe has already been shown to be contingent, and the laws of nature are acausal (lacking causal power).

The Argument

Based on what has been demonstrated, an argument can now be formed for God’s existence.  

1. The universe is contingent
2. Contingent beings are grounded in a necessary Being (God)
3. Therefore, God exists

1. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm [↩]
2. Winfried Corduan, “The Transcendental Argument” in Norman L. Geisler and Chad V. Meister (ed), Reasons for Faith: Making A Case for the Christian Faith (Wheaton IL: Crossway. 2007) PP: 204 [↩]
3. R. C. Sproul, Defending the Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 2003) PP:130 [↩]

William of Ockham would probably be rolling over in his grave right now if he learned that his famous razor had been applied to God.   As of recently, I’ve had the razor pulled against me in debates over dualism and the argument from reason.  It is argued that God is unnecessary to explain a coherent theory of mind and our being rational beings.  In responding, I would first like to offer a definition of Ockham’s razor, found in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

…entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.¹

 

Now that I’ve defined it, let’s address the issue.  Ockham’s razor does not rule out mind-body dualism nor does it rule out the argument from reason.  In fact, when the razor is being used in such a way, it constitutes question begging.  The razor tells us that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity.  But what is necessary in establishing a coherent theory of the mind or in establishing the criteria for our rationality?  The atheist simply assumes that theism is not necessary in providing both of these — but this is question begging!  The theist is not positing entities unnecessarily, the theist is arguing that God is a necessary entity to explain such phenomenon.  J. P. Moreland puts it eloquently:

…it becomes question begging when applied to the debate about dualism [and the argument from reason].  Why?  Because the dualist cites several phenomena for which physicalism as a theory is inadequate.  Dualists can agree that one should not postulate dualism needlessly, but they insist that dualism is, in fact, needed to explain honestly and fairly, important, uneliminable features of human beings.  The real debate, then, is not about Ockham’s razor, but about the relative merits of dualism versus physicalism.²

 

Basically, the theist argues that God is a necessary entity in explaining these two phenomena.  The atheist begs the question when he simply assumes that they are not necessary.  The dualist is challenging the very assumption that is being assumed.

1. Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005) PP: 259 [↩]
2. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IL.  InterVarsity Press. 2003) PP:245 [↩]

I couldn’t resist posting this:

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. 

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need. 

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need. 

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. 

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. 

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. 

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. 

MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you. 

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. 

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. 

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair “Cowgate”. 

BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheeps’ brains and they go mad. The government doesn’t do anything.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.. 

ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows. 

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. 

ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf. 

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

PERESTROIKA: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the “free” market.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

I enjoy reading and commenting on blogs that are run by atheists who are around my age.  Over at Ferret’s Cage, there’s been posted an argument against God’s aseity which is based on a complete misunderstanding on the necessity of self-existence. 

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument that God didn’t have to be made by another being, because since he’s omnipotent, he could make himself. Obviously, this makes no sense. If true,, it would also make monotheism unteneble. [sic] Think about it; if one potential omnipotent being does it, then couldn’t every single potential omnipotent being do it? And then, wouldn’t some make their presence obviously known? This debunks the idea God made himself; we’d see some evidence from other omnipotent beings if an omnipotent being could make itself.

What is this supposed to be?  Theists do not maintain that God created himself, they state that God has always existed.  There is a considerable difference between self-creation and self-existence.  Self-creation is false by definition, meaning that it’s a logical impossibility that even God cannot do, as omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible.  On the other hand, self-existence is simply existing for eternity.  Whereas the former is logically impossible, the latter is rationally possible.  No educated theist actually uses this argument.  This is simply demolishing a strawman that is dressed up to look like the real target.

But I think that this argument ties into the “Who made God?” argument, in which case, the explanation given would still suffice.  The law of casualty states that every effect needs a cause.  God is not an effect, so God does not need a cause.  One might object that the same could be true of matter of the universe, but both matter and the universe are things that can change, meaning that they are contingent.

Today I came across a superb exposition and subsequent refutation of the confusion between mechanism and agency that is behind the” God of the gaps” objection in John F. Haught’s book, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (2008, Westminster John Knox Press).  Haught asserts that the New Atheists are guilty of “explanatory monism”, which is when one assumes “that there is only one explanatory spot avaliable, namely, the one shaped to look for physical causes.” (86)

This assumption overlooks the fact that multiple layers of understanding or explanation can exist.  Almost everything in our experience, after all, admits of a plurality of levels of explanation in which the various accounts do not compete with one another.  For example, one explanation of the page you are reading is that a printing press has stamped ink onto white paper.  Another is that the author intends to put certain ideas across.  Still another explanation is that a publisher asked the author to write a critical response to the new atheism.  Notice that these three layers all explain the page you are reading, but they are not competing with or contradicting one another.  It makes no sense to argue, for example, that the page you are reading can be explained by he printing press rather than by the author’s intention to write something.  Nor does it make sense to say that this page exists because of the publisher’s request rather than because the author wants to record some ideas.  The distinct levels are noncompetitive and mutlally compatible. (84-85)

There are two different types of explanation evident in this.  One that uses agents, and one that uses mechanisms.  The explanation which uses the printing press is an example of a mechanism, it is an act.  The explanation which uses the author and the publisher are examples of agents who act.  There is no contradiction, it is complementary.  Just because a different mechanism could have been used (say, a typewriter), does not imply that there was no agent behind it.  For example, assuming that evolution is true, it by no means implies that God did not create humans.  Evolution could just have been his mechanism.  Disproving a mechanism does not disprove the agent behind the mechanism.

There is a fundamental difference between an agent and a mechanism.  The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines an agent as “One who acts.”¹ Mechanism is defined as “The belief that everything can be explained… [by] the quantitative laws governing the interacting of particles.”²  Thus, an agent is someone who acts, and a mechanism is the act/process itself.  

God is a good example of an agent; as by definition He is a personal being who exercises his power.   God is pure actuality, that is, he causes (acts) but is not caused.  Evolution serves as a good example of a mechanism, as it describes a series of processes which are alleged to have given rise to human beings.³  

With this in mind, the “God of the gaps” objection against theism seems to confuse mechanism and agency.  When science claims to fill a gap that was previously used to argue for God’s existence, it does not mean that God did not do it.  Again, consider evolution.  Assuming it to be true, it by no means entails that God did not create human beings.  At worst, theists are wrong about the mechanism that God used.  The idea that God created human beings would still be just as true as it was before the discovery.  All that really changed was our understanding of the mechanism that He chose to use.  Showing a different mechanism to be true does not imply that the agent behind the mechanism does not exist any more than showing that there is no Steve Jobs inside our iPods proves that he doesn’t exist.  God is “the agent who is responsible for the existence of the mechanism so that it all bears the marks of his handiwork — and that means the bits we do understand and the bits we don’t.”⁴  To confuse mechanism and agency in such a way is to equivocate the definitions of both terms.

The “God of the gaps” objection is therefore just pure conjecture.  It carries no argumentative weight, it only proves that we may be mistaken on the mechanism behind our existence.

1. Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005) PP: 9 [↩]
2. Ibid, 228 [↩]
3. Though I am highly skeptical of evolution, I am not aiming to critique it here [↩]
4. John Lennox, “Challenges from Science” in Ravi Zacharias (ed), Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 2007) PP: 118 [↩]

We’ve all heard the news, Barack Obama has been elected to serve as the 44th president of the United States. For most of the country, this is a light of ‘hope’ in the ‘darkness’ that was President Bush’s presidency. The liberal media has put such a ‘Messiah-like’ figure on Obama that everyone has flocked to his cause, mostly without researching the issues or looking into what change Obama will actually bring.

Now that the Democrats are on the verge of having a filibuster proof in Congress, we must be wary of the fact that if the Dems gain control, they will essentially be able to pass any bill or law they want. One can assume that Obama will appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court, ones that are most definitely not strict-constructionist. Once you look into Obama’s voting record and his stance on the issues, he, if unchecked, will begin converting the United States into a socialism, erasing away the very capitalist fundamentals that have kept our country strong for over two hundred years. We can expect capital gains taxes to increase, as well as overall taxation on the American people. What people do not realize is that his plan for the supposed ‘middle class tax cuts’ is not sound. Not only did Bill Clinton preach that idea while he was running for president in the 90s, he did not fall through with that plan when he was elected. On top of that, within the last several weeks Obama has dramatically decreased the amount by which you have to earn each year until you get a tax break. It was originally planned for people making under $250,000/yr to receive a ‘tax break’, (What exactly that tax break will be is still unknown), now it has dropped to $150,000, and continuing to drop. If Obama actually decides to go through with this plan, who’s to say that suddenly people making under $50,000 a year will receive a tax break? The point here is that you do not know what to expect with Obama. He has not made it clear what exactly his plans are. What we do know, however, is that when he begins to increase taxes, people will lose money, jobs, and opportunities, and businesses will be forced to continue to move out of the country if they are taxed even more heavily in the United States.

I did not make this post to debate the issues; Obama has already won. What I would like to discuss is how there is a great potential for good to come out of Obama’s presidency. Not through he himself, but with the aftermath, the outcome, let me explain.

I recently heard Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck discuss how Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. After researching more about what this meant, I now realize what they were saying. There is no doubt that Obama is a radical liberal with socialist plans for the United States. The liberal media knew this, and used his ideas to their advantage, hoping to get him into the White House, which they succeeded in doing. The media wants to see an ultra-liberal president, but where Obama is stuck is with the rest of the nation. Although most of the nation, however uninformed, has voted for Obama, most of the nation is not ultra-liberal. In fact, most of the nation could be considered centrist. Because of this, if Obama obeys the will of the media and begins initiating highly liberal plans, ultimately ending in socialism, the media will be happy but 60+% of the American people will not be. They saw a candidate who was left of center, not extremely left of center. Obama is stuck in the fact that if he goes extremely left, he will harm the nation but be loved by the media, but if he goes slightly left of center the masses will be content (at least those who do not know what they are getting), but the media will not. At this point, the media will abandon him knowing that Obama betrayed their image of him. Because of Obama’s position between a rock and hard place, Obama will eventually be exposed for who he is, and, hopefully, the country will begin to take up more conservative values again, in a new rise of conservatism much like that when Reagan beat Carter.

We all know that Obama will be in office for four years. How much he hurts the country and ‘changes’ the country is yet to be seen, but we know for a fact that he is liberal and wishes to fundamentally change the way America has been functioning for over two decades. However dead the American people are, rest assured that Conservativism is not dead, it is rising again. With McCain’s losing Candidacy, we saw how centrist the Republican party has become. The Republican party has lost its true Conservative values, betraying the trust and values they once held. Of the very, very few true conservatives left in the beginning of this race, the few who had a chance did not make it. Sarah Palin is one of those true conservatives, but she was not fit to be president at this time, not yet. After Obama’s first term, we can expect America to wake up the the dangers of socialism and the immorality of liberalism for this country. Just like the Reagan Revolution, Conservativism will rise again, most likely with Sarah Palin challenging President Obama in four years. Another young, but true and strong conservative, Governor Bobby Jindal, of New Orleans, would make a fine vice-presidential candidate for Palin. Jindal was actually considered by John McCain for his running mate, but I and many others are glad that Palin was given the spotlight. Both of them have shown experience in weeding out corruption, liberalism, and hold strong moral values that the Republican party has lost. It is my hope that in four years, a new Conservativism will rise again, one that is needed, one that will be revolutionary, one that will bring true hope for America.

There are many discrepancies between atheism and the New Atheists.  A rather basic tenet of atheism is the rejection of objective morality.¹  With that in mind, how are the New Atheists then able to make a objective moral judgement (That religion is evil) when their own worldview does not allow for the very concept?  The argument must borrow from the theistic worldview to make any sense, but in doing so it defeats itself.

That free will exists is also denied by atheism.²  It follows logically that moral responsibility is unjustifiable in the atheistic framework, for how can one be held responsible for something that he was not responsible for?  However, in direct contradiction to their worldview, the New Atheists argue that we should do this and that we ought to, say, eliminate religion.

One must wonder how such basic mistakes are committed.  Are they simply ignorant of what atheism entails, or maybe perhaps they are avoiding the implications of a consistently lived out atheism?  Whatever it is, they cannot expect to kill God and leave Western culture intact.  Many of the foundational principles of Western culture are inherently theistic in nature.  The removing of these principles will mean the end of Western culture.  I believe it was Nietzsche who said that if we kill God, civilization will still go on acting as if God existed for a short while of time because of the theistic principles it was built upon.

Perhaps the New Atheists should better practice what they preach.  Better yet, why not preach a consistently lived atheism?  It is naive to assert that one can remove religion from society and be better off.  A throughly atheistic culture is just the opposite of that.

1. Objective morality is the belief that acts are universally good or evil [↩]
2. Atheism rejects freedom in favor of determinism, the view that the acts of an agent are governed by antecedent conditions [↩]

Suppose I asked: “Are you a fool?”  To most thinking people, this is not a question that seeks an answer but an insult. I had obviously made a statement in the form of a question regarding your intelligence. The same can be said of this topic’s question. We all know the answer, and it’s a negative in our society. But must that be the case? Is intolerance really that bad?

Imagine Max, your best friend, was being bullied by others. Would you tolerate their behavior toward him? Of course not! You protect him precisely because you don’t think he deserves it. Let’s apply this reasoning to truth. If Max existed, would we allow the belief that he does not exist to go unchallenged? Unless we think all truth is relative (which is contradictory), we would rightly challenge that belief. As we defend our friends, so too shall we defend the truth. 

In Christianity, we too have a personal relationship with Christ, in whom we also believe is the truth. If I were to defend this claim, what makes it so different than you defending Max? Nothing. However, I think people ask this question to imply that religion is subjective just like your taste in music. It’s only when ethics and religion are involved, that people use objections like intolerance. The problem is, Christianity is not subjective because it claims to be objective which requires us to evaluate it in light of that context. 

This leads me to conclude that intolerance is clearly or unconsciously known to not be a universal requirement. Otherwise, one would contradict themselves by being intolerant of intolerance! Of course we should be respectful toward individuals when it comes to heated discussions like religion. But I see no reason to think intolerance for false beliefs is negative.

There’s an old maxim which goes along the lines of “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”  Humans crave answers from two perspectives, existential and intellectual.  Men find themselves paradoxically longing for answers which make sense and likewise will satisfy their emotional appetite.  Answers which meet the needs of only one of these two perspectives will do little to quell the hunger and may even serve to increase it.  The intellectual answer is not always effective as an existential answer and vice-versa.  Any successful apologetic method must find a way to cater to the intellectual need and the existential need in order to be effective.

In particular, issues such as the problem of evil and hypocrisy in the church demand an existential answer in addition to the intellectual answers usually given.  For though we may be able to show that God and evil are not contradictory and that hypocrisy in the church does not disprove Christianity, there may lie a real emotional problem that goes uncared for and can still function as a powerful barrier to embracing Christian theism.  Consider the atheist who uses the problem of evil based on the fact that he lost his parents at an early age, and was the victim of clergy abuse.  Will citing the free will defense work?  No, for though such an answer may challenge the intellectual grounds for belief in God, it is cold and insensitive as a existential answer.

The same is true if reversed.  The existential answer fails to resolve the intellectual problem and the intellectual answer does not satisfy the existential problem.  The good apologist must approach both issues with a balanced answer, one that satisfies the intellectual aspect but can also satisfy the existential aspect that is on the flip side.  Giving an existential answer where an intellectual answer is required makes the apologist look stupid, while giving an intellectual answer where an existential answer is required will make the apologist look cold.  Both end up shutting the door to effective evangelism.

Alex McFarland’s answer to the charge of hypocrisy in the church serves as a good example of a balanced answer.

Because God offers you Christ, not Christians
Because Christian truth is not negated by human failures
Because in reality, all people are hypocrites
Because our needs for Jesus is all the more clear¹

1. Alex McFarland, The Ten Most Common Objections to Christianity (Ventura, CA: Regal Books. 2007) PP:192 [↩]