Is There a God? Part one of the "IS" articles by Pastor Eric Hann
The Cosmological Argument - Causation or “Cause and Effect” The “Principle of Causality” states “every finite thing is caused by something other than itself” (Norman Geisler: Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics). The two general forms of the argument are; 1) the cosmos needed a cause at its beginning - called the “horizontal” argument and; 2) the cosmos needs a cause to continue existing – called the “vertical” argument (one of its most famous proponents being Thomas Aquinas – 1225-1274). The main focus here will be on the “cause” at the “beginning” argument, known as the “horizontal” or sometimes “kalam ” (Arabic: “eternal”) argument. One of its current proponents is philosopher William Lane Craig. Craig and others point to indicators such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics to demonstrate that in a closed, isolated system, like our universe, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. Hence, since the universe is running down, it is not eternal. The basic breakdown of the argument then progresses as follows: 1. The universe had a beginning 2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else 3. Therefore the universe was caused by something else (Geisler ECA) Detractors of this line of thinking (including Bertrand Russell and others) hold that there is a self-contradiction in affirming that everything needs a cause, while at the same time claiming that God doesn’t need a cause. This can be answered by clarifying that the argument is not promulgating that everything needs a cause, but instead, that everything “dependent” (or imperfect) needs a cause (Peter Kreeft; Fundamentals of the Faith). Notice again, the clarified version of the premise: “Every finite thing is caused by something other than itself.” Fashioning it yet another way, William Lane Craig states “the first premise does not state, whatever exists has a cause, but rather, whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Some have suggested the universe is “infinite” by presenting such ideas as the “oscillating universe” (expanding and re-contracting forever), or even the chaotic, inflationary universe (which continually spawns new universes). The clear limitations of these are that they posit a potentially infinite future, while still ignoring the fact of the universe’s finite past. Take note of the following quote by Dr. Craig and his reference to Oxford scholar Richard Swinburne along these lines: “In the case of cosmic origins, as Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there cannot be a scientific explanation of a first state of the universe, since there is nothing before it” (Quoted from Swinburne by WL Craig. “Why I Believe God Exists” from Why I am a Christian ed. Geisler / Hoffman) There are those who have gone so far as to say that the universe could have actually come into existence “by nothing and from nothing.” Explanations of this vary from the sublime to the outlandish. As Peter Kreeft points out, we have to become complex and clever when attempting to dispute the basic, simple, even intuitive “causation” argument. In a 2003 debate between William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith at Harvard University (http://www.leadershipu.com) Craig continued, repeatedly, to point out to those in attendance that Smith wasn’t addressing this “contingency” argument with any sense of cohesiveness. Some of the transcript of Craig’s questioning reads as follows: An Excerpt of William Lane Craig’s First Rebuttal (following Smith’s presentation of a “circular causation” theory): “I would suggest that this sort of circular causation ultimately doesn’t work. Imagine that our space-time is doughnut-shaped, so that time goes in a circle. In that case you could have every slice being caused by a prior slice. So ultimately the universe would be circularly caused. This is the sort of scenario Quentin envisions. But that still leaves the question unexplained: Where did the donut come from? Granted that all the slices of the donut explain each other, you’ve still got to answer why you’ve got a doughnut rather than nothing at all. And that is my contingency argument, which I don’t think Quentin responded to directly” An Excerpt of William Lane Craig’s Second Rebuttal (following Smith’s “elementary particles” presentation):“We can still ask: Why are there any particles at all, rather than just nothing? Anything (finite) that exists has an explanation for why it exists, either on its own nature or in an external cause. There’s simply no reason in his theory why we should have this cluster of elementary particles in existence rather than non-being. So we need to have a metaphysically necessary being which will explain why there is something rather than nothing” An Excerpt of William Lane Craig’s Conclusion (following Smith’s conclusion in which he still did not address the subject of Craig’s two above rebuttals): “Well the contingency argument, I think, has really gone un–refuted tonight. Why is there something rather than nothing? There must be an explanation, not for the beginning of the universe, but for why there is anything at all rather than nothing?” Furthermore, Antony Flew, the long-time atheist debater conceded to the Cosmological argument of John Leslie as referenced in his following statements: “Leslie asserts that ‘the existence even of an infinite series of past events couldn’t be made self-explaining through each even being explained by an earlier one.’ If there is an infinite series of books about geometry that owe their pattern to copying from earlier books, we still do not have an adequate answer as to why the book is the way it is (e.g., it is about geometry) or why there is a book at all. The entire series needs an explanation… In a recent discussion with Swinburne, I noted that his version of the cosmological argument seems to be right in a fundamental way. Some features of it may need to be amended, but the universe is something that begs an explanation”(Antony Flew “There is a God – How the World’s most notorious atheist changed his mind” pp. 144 – 145) To read the rest of this article - go here: http://pastorericsunderground.wordpress.com Sources: Norman Geisler: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Peter Kreeft: Fundamentals of the Faith – Essays in Christian Apologetics Geisler / Hoffman (William Lane Craig) Why I am a Christian C. S. Lewis: Surprised by Joy William Dembski; The Design Revolution Charles Darwin; The Origin of Species Michael Behe: Darwin’s Black Box CS Lewis: Mere Christianity Benjamin Wiker: Ten Books that Screwed Up the World William Lane Craig debates: http://www.leaderu.com Antony Flew: There is a God – How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind About Author Pastor Eric Hann is the lead pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in Chariton, Iowa. He has a B.A. and a Master's degree in Christian studies, and is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Disclaimer: Article submitters are solely responsible for the content of their articles. ArtiLib can't be held liable for the contents of the articles. Report Abuse | Browse By Category |
| Contact ArtiLib| Privacy Policy| Terms of Service |