Category Archives: Existence of God

Existence of God – 9

Existence of God – 9

And now, after nine posts, the thesis:  If we are careful, there is much to be gained from the analogy of God as the author of creation.

I have drawn out this one attribute (omnipotence) via this one argument (the KCA) so that I would not have to draw out the introduction of the analogy.  Let’s see how that plays…

Let us consider an author, one just starting to write a book.  Let’s say you are the author, for the time being.

You are writing a love story, set in pre-Industrial America.  An upper class woman and a working class inventor, he working on a prototype for a steam engine.  They have a rendezvous in his shop, a secret appointment, and things start to get, um, steamy…

(Nice pun at the end there, you).

All of the evocative details aside, do you not have power, say, to have a giraffe walk through the shop during the middle of a long kiss?  Can’t you send stars crashing into each other in the rhythm of their heavy breathing?  Can’t you cut away the rest of the planet, so that they exist, in this shop on a small island of earth, with a 360 degree backdrop of the Universe?

We’re not talking about believability here (though we will eventually).  All I’m asking you is, what can’t you do?

Let’s ask one of the traditional riddles about God and omnipotence.  Can God make a stone so large that He can’t lift it?

Now, briefly, the implication is that if He CAN’T make that stone, then there’s something He can’t do; and if He can make it, but CAN’T lift it, there again is something He can’t do.  Thus, the dilemma is supposed to make absurd (and incoherent) the idea of omnipotence.  Therefore, there is no God, or else He is not omnipotent.

But what do we mean by “omnipotent”?  And how to answer this riddle in light of the present analogy?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Existence of God – 29

Existence of God – 29

We concluded the last post with the question, “Are there objective moral values and duties?”

There’s some potentially treacherous sailing ahead.  It all seems clear to me, but when I’ve spoken to some atheist friends about this, a kind of confusion settles in that seems mysterious, surprising.  I might add “obtuse” if I wasn’t worried about offending them.*

First let’s ask:  Just what does “objective” mean?  Simply this – that a thing does not depend on opinion for its validation.  For example, 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what I think.  I could throw up the wildest, most protracted, Bill Maher-ish argument possible, and still have no effect whatsoever on the fact that 2 and 2 add up to 4, even if an entire studio audience applauded my effort.  Mercifully so.

“Objectivity” can be applied to empirical things, too:  The law of gravity is an objective reality.  No other reality has seen more protracted or violent protests as when a man is falling to the earth against his will, either from a short distance or a great one; still the reality holds.  This qualifies it as objective, even if every person on earth were ready to deny it.

So:  Are there objective moral values and duties?

The example quickest to mind for many – and one offered by WLC – is that of the Holocaust.  In other words, the mass genocide of six million Jews was right, wrong, or of no moral significance whatsoever.

If a person accepts that objective morality exists, she is left to answer either “yes” or “no.”  More on this in a moment.

If a person rejects the notion of objective morality, he is left to answer that the Holocaust was of no moral significance whatsoever, and neither is any other word, thought, or deed.  One could murder millions of people or mow the lawn, and neither carries greater moral significance than the other.

Now, this latter option seems, in all other circumstances, to be obviously false; the former choice likewise has an obvious answer.  You might deny, against all evidence, that the Holocaust occurred, and try to escape the question this way.  But that only seems to admit that there is an objective morality, and that the Holocaust was objectively wrong – else, why avoid the reality?

I suggest that the question of morality becomes confused only when the implications of a God are introduced.  Let’s look back at the argument.

Premise 2 – Objective moral values and duties do exist.

This seems obvious, especially in an extreme example.  Yes, of course they exist; yes, of course the Holocaust was wrong.  There is something about gathering people in a deliberate and discriminatory way, marching them through intolerable conditions along great distances, tearing families apart, forcing them to work long and hard and feeding them just enough calories to stay alive, performing acts of torture, painful medical experiments, and other humiliations on them, and finally killing them en masse and stacking their bodies like sandbags in mass graves – this strikes us as obviously and extremely wrong.

Moreover, if the Nazis has gone on to global dominance, and continued their program of mass killings, we might all have been brainwashed into thinking this was an admirable goal, one which must be supported by every good citizen of the Third Reich.  Perhaps every person would eventually believe the Holocaust was a good thing.  And still, we know it was not.  The answer doesn’t change, not even if all the world thinks it does, no more than it does in simple arithmetic.

This gives us Premise 2.  The examples could be multiplied; they are not difficult to think of.

The crux of the argument, then, rests with Premise 1, which we will look at next time.


*My tongue is in my cheek, lads.

One thought on “Existence of God – 29

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Existence of God – 3.1 (an aside)

Existence of God – 3.1 (an aside)

There’s a TED talk in which Alain de Botton said (in effect):  I’m not here to discuss whether there’s a God or not.  We know there’s no God.  Let’s also admit that militant atheism doesn’t really get us anywhere.  Instead, let’s move on and talk about how we’re going to live our lives in a world without God.

His primary objective, to restate the paraphrase, was to envision an entirely secular culture, one that might even borrow from the “good things” he had seen religion doing.  An interesting perspective, if you’re curious.

In a similar fashion, my primary objective in this series is not to prove that God exists.  I did say that I’ve been studying the question, with all of the focus and spare time afforded to a father employed in a field far from Philosophy.  I do say, so far as I can tell, that God’s existence seems to me more plausible than not.  And not just by a little, but overwhelmingly so.

Further, as an autobiographical aside, I don’t believe my purpose is to go about proving that God exists.  I think there are minds at work which fare far better than mine, and their arguments range from simple (as we have seen with the Kalam Cosmological Argument) to quite difficult to follow.

So, as de Botton looks at life in the absence of God, and seeks fulfillment, I now take a contrary tack.  There is a God, a greatest of all possible beings, a mind so powerful and intelligent as to defy all comprehension except His own.  Now what?

The proofs for God’s existence are instructive for my primary objective, and that is why they will show up from time to time.  I do hope to give my agnostic and atheist friends exposure to them, to observe a depth of mind not often found in popular culture.  (EDIT:  There are similarly deep and profound insights offered by atheists and agnostics as well, and taken together with the theists’ insights, these represent thought far beyond what our televisions typically showcase).  I also aim to discuss the subject in such a way that it is not too pious for my A&A friends, though I have been guilty of that charge from time to time.

The very tip of the point of this series, then, is this:  To explore the nature of God through the analogy of an author.  More broadly, this might be called a “conceptual analysis,” which we have already done in brief:  If conditions are such that X exists, then what can we know about X?

In this manner, we learned what we did in 3.0.  In later posts, we’ll introduce the concept of “God as author” and begin to explore what this can tell us about God and how to live our lives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Existence of God – 3

Existence of God – 3

In our last exciting installment, I said that skeptics (and believers) often have a view of God which is painfully small, especially for human minds.  I noted that those human brains are often seen as bearing no significance at all, none to speak of anyway, when compared with the size of the Universe.  What, then, could set the Universe in motion?  How much greater must that intelligence and power be, compared even with our wild imaginations?

I submitted that this power (whatever its source) is something beyond comprehension, whether it comes from God or else a natural cause.  I think we must say the same for that intelligence – this is almost easier to recognize, though still beyond comprehension – though I do not necessarily mean that we must therefore admit a God.

I don’t know what else you’ll say could manifest that intelligence, but I’m listening.

Even with a view toward modern science (let alone “God”), I am looking through the glass dimly, and still can appreciate what a startling display of intelligence has been required to understand the cosmos, to draw conclusions about its origins and to sketch out what are the laws of physics.  There are people out there inventing mathematics to explain it, and talking about equations so difficult that we might never solve them.


This does not compute with a Universe tumbling into existence on the same mechanics as a roulette wheel.  That Universe would not require or condone complex, logical equations.  It would require a deck of cards and a lot of time.

But that’s not what smart atheists are saying now, so let’s do away with straw men.

Smart atheists are trying to find a way around this:

Premise 1 – Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2 – The Universe began to exist.

Conclusion – The Universe has a cause.

Again, the conclusion is not:  ”God exists.”  It is rather, “The Universe has a cause.”

The Big Bang theory does not quibble with this, but some physicists do.  Other physicists say the Universe began to exist, but without a God.

William Lane Craig, the contemporary champion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, rightly points out that, since the argument is sound, the burden is on atheists to refute one or both of the premises.  If the argument is successful, it would seem to demonstrate a cause which transcends those things by which we define the Universe – space, time, energy, and matter.  It is further suggested that this cause must be personal (that is, a person) because the act of creation would have been a choice, and only persons make choices.

If you would, how would you refute them?

One thought on “Existence of God – 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Existence of God – 35

Existence of God – 35

Before wrestling with what it means for God to be all-loving, we might find some benefit by shifting the emphasis.

Namely, we’ve focused primarily on God, appropriately so, in consideration of the analogy of an author.  We have seen, for example, how the human author shows herself to be all-powerful in the context of the story; so, by analogy and at least to that extent, we may say that God is all-powerful in reality, and there is nothing impossible or incoherent about such a notion.

But what about the story?  What about creation itself?

The first word I would offer is a word of caution:  The analogy should not be applied too stringently.  It is more of a guide, a way, an open door.  It is not a complete map, much less the journey itself.

So, for example, I think it would be fun to ponder the notion of “elementary particles” within any given story, and what, if any, significance there might be here.  Indeed, I do think there could be some.

However, it is important to see two things:  Whereas the analogy is metaphysical, elementary particles are proposed as simply physical realities.  The analogy will not teach us physics – we cannot observe the world of “War and Peace” and discover something about the force of gravity.  (At least not anything which Tolstoy had not already discovered himself, from…observing the real world).

The second is also a basic distinction:  God is the greater mystery, the more fundamentally real subject of our discussion.  The author is not an exact analogue to God – even if we can confirm a truth about the author, it might not necessarily show us something about God.  Rather, God is the One we are groping for, as if in the dark and cavernous space of the entire Universe, and we are hardly able to leap off our own pale blue dot.  The analogy may give us an idea of what we are looking for, perhaps how the search should proceed, perhaps even correct our course from time to time – but it is not the same as contact with the living God.

There is, rather, something wild and lonely and exhilarating about that journey, and it is never enough merely to consider the map in comfort.

So with that arduous caution in place, we’ll take up creation in the next post.

One thought on “Existence of God – 35

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Existence of God – 4

Existence of God – 4

And so, what can be said about the Kalam Cosmological Argument in particular?

Some rather intriguing things, if you ask me.  The following exposition is heavily informed by what William Lane Craig has to say about this argument, in support of it and in anticipation of possible objections.  You may, without too much exercise of the mind, still find an objection; you may also depend on the notion that Dr. Craig has fielded it, or readily will.

Premise 1 – Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Another way of saying this is, “Nothing comes from nothing.”  In the last post, I linked to the Wikipedia page for Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist who authored the book, A Universe from Nothing.  In it, according to the NYT, he proposes a “deeper nothing,” from which even the laws of physics are absent, and out of this nothing the Universe was born.  But then, he doesn’t actually mean “nothing” – we might have been spawned by the multiverse, which even the layman realizes is a whole lot of something.

By “nothing,” Dr. Craig says, we actually mean “not anything.”

And this seems to be true, in the sense that Stephen Hawking (also linked last time) theorizes that there is a boundary to spacetime, beyond which there is really nothing…except that he also admits something, namely the laws of physics.  To these he ascribes potential creative power (namely, causal power) whereas they have usually been seen as descriptions of our observations, and not things existing as causal agents.

What’s interesting to note is that neither of these theoretical physicists deny Premise 1.  They have some strange ideas about nothing – which is to say, they identify something and call it “nothing” – and yet they try to extract something from that nothing in order to provide a cause for everything.

Premise 2 – The Universe began to exist.

Nevertheless, it appears there really is a hard beginning to the Universe, which theorem has stood against alternative explanations.  If the Universe began thus, and there is no explanation which space, time, energy, or matter can provide, what do we suppose could have caused it?

Nothing comes from nothing, after all.  We must therefore posit an “abstract” something, or as we have said, something which transcends the Universe.

Those last two links are tough.  I admit to reading only what appears to be standard English, having to look up some of the technical terms (geodesic!) and taking only a cursory glance at the geometry.  I admit that they appear less clearly stated than the way Craig employs them, but he understands the field better than I do.  Would love to learn more about this.

What I understand better are the philosophical arguments against an actual infinity, which we’ll look at next time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Existence of God – 42

Existence of God – 42

The usual charge, against which we want to consider the existence of God, is that if the arguments for God’s existence were, at any point, all shown to fail, then belief in the existence of God would (should) also fail.

This charge requires a lot from the believer, because it is meant to suppose that if logic should cease to be logic, then we should be logical (who knows under which definition) and cease our belief in God.  Let me put the charge in an overly simplistic way.

If it can be shown that 4 + 5 = 10, and not 9, then we should all change our answers to that question from now on.  And not only to that question, but to every question which depends on that answer, and again, to every question which operates by the same mechanics.

In a word, we must question all calculations pursuant to the previously believed 4+5 = 9, and addition itself (how did we make that mistake before?  Have we been making it in more than one place?), and subtraction (is 9-5 no longer equal to 4?), division, multiplication..all of mathematics…and perhaps some logical assumptions besides.

But of course, 4 + 5 will never equal 10.  No amount of special pleading, or question-begging, or emotional appeal could ever change the answer, even if you wanted to sue me for it.

Now, the objection will be that the conclusion “God exists” is never as obvious as “9” is for the arithmetic above.  And that’s the start of another conversation.

As for this conversation, for the believer, it is about that obvious.  My contention in the last post is that logic is not central to one’s belief in God; that logic, in its academic forms, is not necessary for faith.*  Rather, the logical arguments for God are a kind of refuge or platform in a certain context, or an exercise in the breadth and depth of one’s mind, or even a devotional activity of those inclined to love Him with all their minds.

On the other hand, I have never bothered about the logical structure of my experiences with God in any academic sense.  I have tried to understand them, yes, and that with a gasping desperation.  In that case, however, I am more an adventurer than a thinker, more a disciple than a student.**

Those experiences seem to supersede human rationality.  For example, to feel you are in the presence of God is not something arrived at deductively, and so we are not afforded logical certainty.  It is, instead, something received, not arrived at.  If someone brings you a gift, you do not trouble with the logical certainty that the gift exists, nor with the existence of the gift-giver.  You simply receive it, and perhaps try to understand inasmuch as it helps you to appreciate the gift.

Indeed, it is tempting to have these rationalizations, to understand completely.  For skeptical minds, this gives us something to sink our teeth into.  Yet, it is important that the experience retains this flavor of being ultimately indescribable, or else, we are limited to what we can understand.  (This, really, is the downfall of skepticism, and to persist is to be a cynic).

It is better if we take the logic and the poetry together, a balanced meal of spiritual sustenance comforting to the soul.  We want the chicken with the breading, the salt with the asparagus.  This is what the analogy has offered me – it brings together a full meal, one I am still preparing, and often eating.  It seems like elven bread to me, the least nibble filling my stomach, nourishing me for days; better, it is like a multiplication of loaves and fishes.

I don’t promise it will do the same for everyone; this is not a sales pitch.  But if you are heavy on heart, and hungry for the meat of logic, you might find your protein here.  If your mind is weighed down with the complexities of argument, the leaven of a fanciful notion can lighten your spirits.


*Don’t forget the posts on Plantinga for a detailed reflection on this.

**This, of course, is not an unreasoning position, but simply an organic one, a less technical way of reasoning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Existence of God – 5

Existence of God – 5

In the last post we saw (in brief) how the Kalam Cosmological Argument (hereafter, KCA) interacts with physics – namely, how it is supported by the fundamental acceptance of causality in science (or science would soon die) and how the evidence seems to point to an absolute beginning of the Universe.

In light of this evidence (and the evidence for fine-tuning), many theorists have posited some form of a multiverse, the idea that though we are causally isolated from all other universes (often thought of as bubbles in a great foaming sea), ours is only one of many possible worlds.  Perhaps infinitely many, which would wash out much of the significance of the fine-tuning argument.

But let’s pause and consider – is it possible for an actually infinite number of things to exist?

Interesting as it is to apply this question to the multiverse, we should prefer to handle one argument at a time.  If someone responds to Premise 2 of the KCA – The Universe began to exist – by saying it might not have, but rather, it could be past-eternal, we come to the question at hand:  Can an actually infinite number of things (in this case, past events) exist?

Suppose you are walking along one day, and you hear a man counting down:  ”…-6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0!”  You ask him what he was doing, and he says, “I just finished counting down from negative infinity!”

Whatever your philosophical leanings, this has to strike you as preposterous, and perhaps humorously so.  With a smile, you ask, “When did you start?”

(This is not how the argument is supposed to go, actually, but the question occurred to me and it makes a point).

Rather, you ask yourself, “Why did he finish today?  Why not yesterday or the day before?”

And as you think about it, you wonder why it wasn’t last week, or last decade, or last millennium.  After all, no matter which date in the past that you pick, he would have had an infinite time in the past from which to count down from negative infinity.  No matter how far back you go, he should already be done counting!

But there’s a further difficulty – suppose he starts today, and says to himself, “Negative infinity!”  What is the next number down that he’ll count?

This obstacle is called “traversing the infinite,” and it’s understood as an impossibility.  This point might be easier to make in the opposite direction.

Say you are immortal, and you start counting today from zero.  Imagine, if you like, that you are able to count one million (or billion, or quadrillion) numbers a second.  When will you reach infinity?  What is the number you will say just before you get to infinity?

There is no such number, and in fact, whether you count a million numbers a second or just one per second, you will be equally “close” to your goal (which is to say, not making any progress at all).

What does this mean for our present discussion?  Simply imagine that the past runs to “negative infinity” and today is Day 0.  But you can’t count down to zero from negative infinity.  It means if the past really were infinite, we would never have reached today – you would never have lived to talk about it.  A past-eternal world is like a treadmill that always runs faster than you can.

A natural question, almost a reflex, is to ask, “What about the future, isn’t it infinite?”

It may, in fact, be infinite – but it is not infinite yet, and since we are able to count the days, it can only be considered a “potential infinite.”  And the question before us is whether there can be an “actual infinite.”

I really enjoy thinking about this stuff, much as it tends to twist my brain in knots.  And there’s at least one more post on infinity!

1 comment to Existence of God – 5

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Existence of God – 6

Existence of God – 6

We’ve been considering the concept of infinity as it relates to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) and the existence of God.

Imagine you’re stranded in a town in the middle of nowhere.  It’s getting dark, and you need a place to stay for the night.  You come to a 10 room hotel and ask the clerk for a room.  He says, “Unfortunately, every room is booked.  You might try Hilbert’s Hotel down the road.  They’re full right now, but they always have room.”

You can feel your face wrench into a puzzled expression, and the clerk merely shrugs and goes back to his business.  You figure, in any event, that Hilbert’s Hotel might be the only other place in town, and it might be worth suffering some word play in order to find a place to sleep.

As you go, you seem dimly that Hilbert’s Hotel is quite a long building.  It seems to go on forever toward the horizon, or as much of the horizon as you can still make out.  You step inside.

“Hi, I’d like a room.  The gentleman down the road said you were full, but might have a room anyway?”

The proprietor smiles at you.  ”Yes, yes, come on in!  We have an infinite number of rooms – and an infinite number of guests – but no problem!  Will it just be you?”

“Yes,” you say, apprehensively, “but if you’re full, how will I-”

“It is nothing!” he says with unbounded enthusiasm.  ”Here, I will show you.”

He leads you to Room 1, and knocks.  A woman answers, and he says, “Would you kindly move over to Room 2?”

The woman, having been afforded the same courtesy earlier, obliges.  When she gets there, she passes on a similar request:  ”The manager has asked me to move to Room 2.  Would you please move to Room 3, and pass it on?”

In just this way, every guest shifts to the next room up.  You now have a room, and no one has to leave, since there are still an infinite number of rooms.

This is surely an eerie phenomenon, so you decide to explore the building a bit after settling into your room.  And as you walk (Room 167…513…2,134…) you have no sense that the building will ever end.  There is no sense that the architects grew tired of designing the building, no sense that the builders experienced fatigue and began to fail in their workmanship.  It actually seems to continue forever, and now the quest of finding an end to this building has become decidedly futile.  You are tired, and a little overwhelmed, and so you return to your room to retire.

Just as you get back, the smiling manager approaches you.

“Great news!  We have a large party here seeking rooms for every member – it’s a party of infinity!”

You unconsciously shake your head, like you’ve been struck blind.  And there certainly are a lot of people, running clear out the door and as far as you can tell, on down the street.  Even if this is a thousand, how will they all fit?

“No problem!” says the manager, perhaps reading your mind.  ”Sir-” now he’s addressing you “-will you please move to Room 2?”

In a state of bewilderment, though certainly not belligerence, you move to Room 2.  When you get there, you pass on the manager’s instructions – Move to the room number which is double your current room number.  You also inform the guest in Room 3, and so the shift occurs as follows:  Room 1 moves to Room 2 – Room 2 moves to Room 4 – Room 3 moves to Room 6…

Once it is complete, all of the odd numbered rooms are open.  Not only that, but there are an infinite number of odd numbers, and so the entire party of infinity guests can be easily accommodated!

This is really too much, and so you decide to close your eyes and see if a night’s sleep will clear your mind and make sense of all this.

In the morning, you discover that guests have begun to check out.

First of all, that party of infinity has already left.  Yet, though an infinite number of people have left, there are still an infinite number of people still staying at the hotel!

But the manager does not like the appearance of a half-empty hotel (all the odd-numbered rooms are empty, after all) and so he asks everyone to return to the rooms they occupied before they moved last night (last night, of course, they all moved to the room number which was double the number they occupied at the time the infinite party checked in.  Now they move to the room number which is half of their current room number).

Then, you discover that before you had arrived, there was a previous party of infinity that had checked in.  In fact, at the beginning of the previous day, there were only three guests, one in each of the first three rooms.  There was no shifting required for that first infinite party!

Now, everyone from Room 5 and up is checking out.  (You’ll recall, when you arrived, that everyone had to shift over one room).  There are just four guests left.

This is a puzzle, you think.  How could you have two infinite departures – both representing an infinite number of people checking out – and while the first time there remained an infinite number of people, now there remain only four?


Now here is the main point of this wild illustration, originally the brainchild of mathematician David Hilbert:  To the extent that it is wild, and absurd, it is also unlikely to manifest in any way in reality.  (I say unlikely, but I believe there are serious thinkers who would say “impossible.”  I am only trying to be cautious).

This is not simply because the hotel is impossibly long, or because it’s impossible for us really to conceive of an actual infinite.  It’s also because the math doesn’t make sense.

For example, consider the guests checking in.

When you checked in, there were already infinity guests, and we will represent infinity as N.  You were alone.  By this math, we have to say that:


N = N,

and N + 1 = N


Then, when infinity guests arrive:

N = N 

and N + N = N


Then, when guests start checking out:

N – N = N

  and N – N = 4.


But our equations are obviously true, if we take seriously what infinity means.  If N stood for any number other than infinity, these equations would be puzzling, because they’d be false (except for the equations of identity, which only show how the subsequent equations are unusual).

There are yet more things to say about infinity, but we will move on.  This post and the previous two serve as supports to Premise 2 of the KCA – The Universe began to exist – as a way of demonstrating that the Universe could not exist from the eternal past, but must have had a beginning a finite time ago.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Existence of God – 7

Existence of God – 7

Following the last set of posts on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), we have…well, what do we have?

Suppose you are skeptical – that may be fair.  Which premise do you object to, and why?

For the skeptic, that is the only course of action here.  The logic can’t be denied (unless you want to deny logic).  Even for a hobbyist of philosophy, that’s pretty easy to see.

Let’s just say, for the sake of explanation, that you don’t like the first premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”  You think, vaguely (as I do),* that quantum mechanics must reveal some exception to this rule, or that somewhere down the line, we’ll find something truly astounding, which can’t be anticipated by this kind of logic.  Maybe in a Universe with different rules of physics, there are also different rules of logic.

Aside from taking the opportunity to use a phrase like “atheism-of-the-gaps,” what I would point to is the notion that we don’t need 100% certainty of the argument for it to be successful.  We just need the premises to be more plausibly true than their denials.

Is it more plausibly true, I would ask, that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause,” or rather, “Some things begin to exist without a cause”?  If you think the second statement is true, or just more plausibly true than the first, what example would you give?

If you can’t give an example, why think that some things begin to exist without a cause?  Why prefer this over the premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”?

Suppose you can’t find any exceptions or successful objections to either premise.  Is this any reason to jump to the conclusion that you must believe in the God of the Bible?

No.  I am one of the two Catholic guys, but my aim here is not to make you a Catholic, or Christian, or Jew.  What I aim to offer is that belief in God is more rational than the absence of belief.  That, I think, is one of the fruits of the KCA – the conclusion, it seems to me, is much more rational than the denial of the conclusion.

Keep in mind, Krauss offers that the multiverse is (perhaps) more rational than the absence of the multiverse.  Nevermind that there’s no evidence for its existence^ – it is simply a hypothesis to make sense of the evidence we do have.  And I have no interest or need to deny that hypothesis, except that we may be able to explain things without it.

Though no objections have surfaced in previous posts as of this writing, I realize some may come up when there is time for various readers to comment.  I’m interested in that conversation.

However, for the sake of this series, I want to continue with this assumption:  The KCA is more plausibly true than false.  Now what?


*In a bit of permitted confusion, what I mean to say here is that I think vaguely about quantum mechanics, but not that QM will someday prove that things can begin to exist without causes.

^As far as I have read/heard.  I suspect we’ll all know it if any evidence does materialize.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>