EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Objections are raised to these, and Craig has responded to these objections on his web site www.reasonablefaith.org I also expand on these arguments (except the first) in my recent book, Is God Just A Human Invention? But here they are laid out briefly along with simple comments for understanding. ARGUMENT 1: THE CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT This argument stems from the question of why there is anything at all. Why does the universe exist? Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (For example, if you found a translucent ball in the wilderness you would know that it has some explanation for its existence. Numbers may necessarily exist, but things such as people and mountains require an existence). Premise 2: The universe exists (Buddhists may deny this, but virtually everyone else accepts the existence of the universe as obviously true) Premise 3: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is an external, transcendent, personal cause. (Why? The cause must be greater than the universe. If we consider the entirety of the universe—space and time—then the cause must be spaceless and timeless. Only personal intelligences and abstract objects fit this description, but since abstract objects have no causal powers, the only cause of the origin of the universe must be a mind). Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal cause. ARGUMENT 2: THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (There is both empirical evidence that things don’t pop into existence as well as philosophical support that something cannot come from nothing). Premise 2: The universe began to exist (This premise has both philosophical and scientific support. For example, modern cosmology almost universally accepts that the universe began to exist a finite time in the past). Conclusion: Therefore, the universe began to exist (This conclusion necessarily follows if the first two premises are true. Since time, matter, and space came into existence the cause must have been timeless, spaceless, immaterial, intelligent, powerful, and personal). ARGUMENT 3: THE FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE (Teleological argument) Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (“Necessity” assumes the universe had to be as it is. “Chance” assumes we are lucky. But necessity is implausible because the quantities of the constants in nature could have varied. In fact M-theory allows for 1 x 10500 different possible universes. Chance is also excluded because the odds are incomprehensibly great. The common escape hatch for the naturalist is the “Multiverse,” even though not a shred of evidence for the existence of other universes). Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or to chance. Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design. (Detractors often say the mind of the universe also needs an explanation. But this misunderstands the nature of an explanation. For an explanation to be the best you don’t need an explanation for an explanation. If this were required then there would need to be an explanation of the explanation and on and on into infinity. Also, a mind has a different level of complexity than the universe. Ideas in the mind may be complex but a mind itself is not composed of physical parts). ARGUMENT 4: THE MORAL ARGUMENT Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist (Both atheists and theists agree on this. J.L. Mackie, the well-known atheist, admitted that if values are objective then God would exist. Nietzsche argued that without God values are simply human constructs. On a naturalistic view, what is so special about humans? On a naturalistic worldview rape may not be socially advantageous, and thus has become taboo, but this does nothing to prove that rape is actually wrong). Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (There is no more reason to deny the existence of moral values than the existence of the physical world. In moral experience we do apprehend moral values and duties.) Premise 3: Therefore, God does exist. Craig concludes that there are multiple signposts in the universe that point beyond it to an intelligent mind—God. These reasons, says Craig, provide a powerful cumulative case for the existence of a transcendent, necessary, all good being that created the world and brought humans into existence. I would love to know your thoughts about these arguments. Do you find them compelling? If so, which one is the most compelling? If you don’t find them compelling, why not? |
Comments
I don't find the arguments very compelling, partly because I'm skeptical of my own qualifications to evaluate them. The arguments turn on ideas that aren't so very simple. Most people, myself included, don't have very clear conceptions of existence, necessity, causation, time, M-theory, the multiverse, and objectivity--not to mention the idea of God as a "timeless," "transcendent," and "personal" being. I'm not sure that it is even coherent to say that a timeless being has causal powers.
Many of the more particular premises and inferences are dubious, hasty, or inadequate. Rather than presenting a half-dozen poorly developed arguments, I'd suggest focusing on whatever you regard as the most promising. One really solid, carefully explained argument is better than a hundred half-baked ideas. Unfortunately, finding that one argument may prove quite difficult: it usually turns out that any really careful articulation of any one of these arguments uncovers quite a bit of unforeseen complication, difficulty, and room for doubt.
Personally, I don't have to argue with regards to the existence of God because even if I don't see Him, I felt His presence. If we interrogate where all these things that we had seen around us came from, obviously from our Supreme Being and that is God. forex trading signals forex signals forex trading system
Woh I love your blog posts, saved to my bookmarks! comment maigrir rapidement maigrir rapidement menu pour mincir régime rapide perdre du poids vite
Binary Options Pro Signals
What is Binary Options Pro Signals? I subscribed to let you know what you are going to get.
C. Ehrlich has some good points in his comment. I too struggle with the idea that I, or any other human, possesses the faculties to answer these types of questions. Ultimately, everyone needs to adopt a worldview to progress anywhere in knowledge. However, a worldview by necessity is a kind of leap of faith. There is no evidence that proves a worldview as any evidence will be a result of the worldview in question. It's all circular.
As a Christian, I must first assume Christianity before I can see Christianity in the cosmos. However, I can see the argument that, if Christianity is true, God has placed the ability to look for Him based on what we see around us. The people who do not see this, repress that knowledge. But, evidence for this claim is true only if Christianity is true to begin with.
I am not convinced that the Aristotelian, and Thomas Aquinas', approach to finding God is the best way. Even though Aristotle and Aquinas used the same approach, they both ended up with a completely different God. As far as which God is closer to the approach used, I would say that Aristotle's god would more closely resemble the approach used. Aquinas had leaps of logic that didn't connect the dots properly. Thus, it is obvious that he had a presupposition of the Christian God before working through the Aristotelian approach. Descartes suffered from the same problem.
The main question is, am I autonomous enough to sift through all evidences to find which ones are truly true and which ones are not. If Christianity is true, I would say no due to our fallen state. Even Adam and Eve fell when they relied on their own autonomous nature instead of the Word of God.
I do not think that these evidences are useless however. I think they are useful in at least causing the unbeliever to stop and consider the truth of God that they have been repressing. But our understanding of nature is like shifting sand, it changes from generation to generation. I do not want to build my house on that foundation. I would say that evidence is built on the acceptance of the Bible. The Bible is the rock.
Objections to arguments above:
Contingency Argument:
Everything does not have an explanation these are called axioms that we must accept without explanation. For example, addition is distributive or two objects attract each other with inverse square law. Now the fact that universe exists does not necessarily need god as explanation because if we have to assume this premise we must say what explains god?
Cosmological Argument:
The regular intuitive ideas of causation breaks down in particle scale. And it is false to assume that everything that begins has a cause. Our current science clearly demonstrates this.
Moral Argument:
The basis of morality is the fact that we are all humans and as we learn more about human nature we can improve our moral notion. In any introduction to ethics class we learn that divine command theory is the worst theory for morality. Slavery, Women rights are just examples that show how divine command theory has failed to bring objective moral values.
Samdvr
I don't think your objections are valid.
You are right that axioms are accepted without explanations. Most axioms are abstract concepts, which have no "natural" explanation, such as numbers or logic. Now, when you talk about the inverse square law, you are talking about a pattern that has been observed in different levels of order. eg. gravity, light, sound. Yet, the law itself is an abstract concept. This is how I view the Contingency Argument (although Sean would have to reply to explain if he is arguing something different) We use order to explain order. There seems to be interconnected levels of order. So, if I want to explain sun beams, my explanation is not complete without talking about the sun. My explanation is not complete without explaining how light travels through space. In other words, I need to use order to explain order. However, an infinity of order cannot exist in a finite universe, that would be absurd since the order that governs the universe would be greater then the universe it is in. So, order (laws) itself needs an explanation. Sean is arguing that this explanation is God. Then you said that if we accept this, then God would need an explanation. On the surface this would seem a natural question, yet this question shows you might not have thought about the different classes of existence. The physical universe, that is atoms and energy, exists in one class. We are able to observe this class with out physical senses. Our senses seem to be telling us that the physical universe works on a cause and effect bases. Order causes order. Yet, God does not exist in this class of physical reality. Christians say God is transcendent. So, why would you require a natural explanation for a supernatural being?
"The regular intuitive ideas of causation breaks down in particle scale." I am assuming you are talking about quantum physics. If this is true, then I view this level of science affirming the Christian concept of God. The Christian views God as actively sustaining the universe. Not like a watch maker who winds up a clock and puts it down. That would be a Deist. If we observe something coming into existence, such as the base energy unit, that would point to a sustaining God. Otherwise, where did it come from? This just bolsters a Christian worldview. Of course, quantum mechanics is such a new and misunderstood field of study that basing metaphysics on quantum physics is absurd. For example, if we were to base all knowledge on quantum physics, we would conclude that physics, and all it's natural laws, are false. Yet, through repeated experiments, it is very difficult to conclude that idea. Lets just say, for arguments sake, that quantum physics is the last level of order in the natural universe. (If it is not, then your objection is false. However, it is logical that there must be an end to order in this universe) You are then left with two options. One, that it just blinks into existence with no cause, thus, nothing "creates" everything. Two, there is a transcendent being that created and sustains everything. That a mindless (orderless) quantum physics is the source of our ordered universe, or that a logical mind created this ordered universe. Both are profound conclusions. Yet, it would seem to me, that since the universe displays a cause and effect relationship throughout, that it would be more reasonable to conclude that the universe itself has a cause and effect relationship. How can causeless matter "create" such a causefull universe without any source for order?
Your last objection to the moral argument shows you don't know the source of Christian morality. The Divine Command Theory is not the Christian view on morality. Loftus, in his book Why I am an Atheist, put forth this false dichotomy. Does morality come from a command of God (Your divine command theory) or is there some moral order outside of God that make His command correct. If the first one is true, then God's commands are arbitrary and not good in any objective sense. If the second, then God's commands reflect some higher order that even God must submit to, thus, we should find out this order and worship it as it is greater than God. Both of these views do not reflect the Christian view of morality. God's commands are not arbitrary, that is they are not baseless, but are based on the very nature of God who is the source of everything. There is also nothing greater than God to base morality on. So, morality is based on His own nature in which there is nothing greater to base anything on, that is why the Bible repeatedly calls God the truth. Loftus did present this third option, yet waved it aside as essentially being meaningless. Why? The Christian view make God's morality objective and maintains that God is the source of it. I don't think Loftus has a correct view of what is means when we say God is the source of everything.
The nature of God is reflected in all levels of order, including abstract concepts (such as morality) and concrete concepts. (such as matter) Just like everything else, the buck has to stop somewhere, and all that somewhere seems to converge onto God. God is the source of everything. You can choose to believe that all that order converges onto nothing... if you want. (That sounds very Buddhist)
Axiom is the most basic fact that cannot be explained and needs to be accepted for example the basic law of addition cannot be explain how it operates it is just the way world is. But if you are to accept that god is that being which does not need explanation then by your own account universe might be that being that needs not explanation and therefore postulating god is unneccessary. You claim that god is transcendent well how do you know this? because again by your own account you cannot sense it and you do not have emperical evidence for it. To say god is transcendent commits a fallacy of begging the question because after all you are trying to prove the existence of god and puting it outside physical world just moves the check mate one step furthur. Now as for quantum mechanics, laws of quantum mechanics are not unstable and do not require divine intervention to work but my claim is that causation does not follow the 1 to 1 intiutive squence and to use words like cause is misleading, for all we know before the bigbang all these laws may have been not working the way we observe them today.
If you look in to the historical evidence Christianity and Bible has been source of much evil. Slavery, and thought crime is explicitly condoned in the bible and if this is the most objective and the best source of moral values as it claim I simply submit that evidence is against it.
Samdvr wrote: "If you look in to the historical evidence Christianity and Bible has been source of much evil. Slavery, and thought crime is explicitly condoned in the bible and if this is the most objective and the best source of moral values as it claim I simply submit that evidence is against it."
The Bible is the basis of western civilization, western morality. If you think the Bible has been the source of such evil, I suggest you try living in an area of the world which is not based on the Bible.
Your claim that the Bible condones slavery is faulty. No living Christian would accept this. The Bible is a book of progressive revelation and further, Christians have been progressive in their interpretation and understanding of it. In the 1800's debate was heated in Christian circles about whether slavery was condoned or mandated in the Bible or not. The Christian world came to a consensus that the love of God and God's purpose in creating man trumped other arguments such as Patriarchal example and the laws of ancient Israel.( Even the laws of ancient Israel were moving in an antislavery direction. In a lawless world, slavery was regulated and made more humane.)
But by engaging in this debate, you are acknowledging the force of the moral argument. You believe slavery is wrong. On what basis? We all agree that a moral code exists. We just don't agree perfectly on what it is. The existence of this moral code argues for the fact that we are moral beings in a moral universe, created by a moral Being.
C. Elrich says: "I don't find the arguments very compelling, partly because I'm skeptical of my own qualifications to evaluate them."
I don't think one needs a whole lot of experience to see that nothing can't produce anything. Furthermore, Craig lays out these theories in an understandable way in his books and says why they aren't any good or that they predict a finite universe anyway. See the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theorem.
Samdvr,
On the contingency argument: Unless you're a Platonist, axioms aren't things that have some sort of extended existence. They exist as thoughts of the mind, which leads to a good argument for God. Most think these axioms DO need an explanation for their existence, and only an eternal mind is a plausible one to me.
Cosmological: No one has shown either of the things you claim. I think we need some pretty immense evidence before we can take seriously that things pop into existence out of nothing. This defies all intuition AND experience.
Moral: All you've done is describe what that we can learn morality. That isn't the basis for it, but only a description of our capabilities as human beings. What is the morality we discover based in?
DCT does not fail to bring objective moral values. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Axioms are facts of the universe and how you get from existence of axioms and existence of god is a non-sequitur.
My claim about existence is the position of many leading physicists today to name a few
Garrett Lisi, George Smoot, Michio Kaku, and.....
The basis for morality is human nature. The fact that humans share the same basic biological foundation gives an objective basis for moral behavior. Are you proponent of Slavery or stoning just because bible condones an action does not make it objectively moral. Having objective moral values is not sufficient to constitute good moral values.
Samdvr,
You said: "Axioms are facts of the universe and how you get from existence of axioms and existence of god is a non-sequitur."
If that were true, then their truth would be based in the universe, not in themselves. But that's not actually quite right. Some, if not all, axioms would be true without the universe. 1 + 1 = 2 is true no matter what, even if there were no universe at all.
You said: "My claim about existence is the position of many leading physicists today to name a few Garrett Lisi, George Smoot, Michio Kaku, and....."
So these guys have demonstrated that nothing can cause things to come into existence? While I highly doubt that, even if they had they'd be making a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. That claim is highly counterintuitive and not based on any experience we have at all. Nothing comes from nothing. It's hard for me to take serious people who say otherwise.
You said: "The basis for morality is human nature. The fact that humans share the same basic biological foundation gives an objective basis for moral behavior. Are you proponent of Slavery or stoning just because bible condones an action does not make it objectively moral. Having objective moral values is not sufficient to constitute good moral values."
If moral values was based in human biology, then by definition it is subjective. It is contingent on the evolution and existence of humans. Human nature also contains a strong bent toward immoral and self destructive behavior. Why shouldn't that be the formula we all follow?
As far as the Bible and slavery go, read this post by a blogger friend of mine. Short summary, slavery is regulated by God, never explicitly condoned. The slavery that is regulated is far from the early American slavery that stripped all rights from people.
But unless God exists, then morality is subject to how humans evolved, which includes slavery...
The axioms are innate facts of our universe. when we say 1+1=2 it is like saying if we have one apple and put another apple next to it we have 2 apples but it is perfectly possible to imagine a world in which when we add the second apple they attract each other and become one apple so in that case 1+1 does not equal to 2 because for that universe this axiom is different than ours.
On your second point your faulty assumption is that everything has to be intuitive to be true. But many things that we observe in the universe is counter-intuitive. time and space curve and time relativity, dual nature of particles in quantum scale and,...
Intuition is by no means a reliable scientific basis.
Objective Morality is based on the objective biological foundation of humans. When we say humans are animals with 23 chromosomes this is as objective as saying triangle has three sides. Humans due to their linguistic capabilities desire freedom of speech and like any other animal avoid pain and ..... you can extract the most objective and good moral values if you understand what humans biologically cherish and what leads to their well-being. If bible truly could create an objective moral basis then we did not have more than 3000 denominations of Christianity.
Samdvr,
1 + 1 = 2 is true even without a universe. If you're correct, then you're defeating your own argument anyway.
I didn't said everything has to be intuitive to be true. I said the claim that something can come from nothing is highly counterintuitive and defies all experience. If the claim were true, then why don't we experience it all the time?
Regarding the counterintuitive facts you brought up, the difference between those and the claim that everything can pop into being out of nothing is we actually have evidence to back the others up.
All you keep doing is repeating yourself and your assertion about morality. I have shown the problem with calling that kind of morality objective; namely that it isn't. Who says the avoidance of pain is good? Some people like to cause pain. Why is that wrong? Just restating your position 5 different ways doesn't get you closer to an argument for your position.
`The reason I repeat myself is simply because you ignore my points. As I said earlier the axioms like addition that we accept is based on what we observe in this universe 1+1=2 maybe false in another universe as I gave the example earlier. and I am not defeating my argument all my point is axioms are natural like any other thing in the universe and do not require explanation let alone a god to sustain them. As for the "everything can pop into being out of nothing" I have gave you examples of some of the physics who agree with me based on what we observe from Hubble Telescope imaging and other evidences in physics.
"I have shown the problem with calling that kind of morality objective; namely that it isn't. "
Negation is not argumentation. You have failed to give a sound argument to show that biological foundation is not objective.
"Who says the avoidance of pain is good?"
Every rational being who has been in pain. and if you want to settle this issue objectively here's how you go about it. (1)Is it the case that all humans have nervous system?Yes
(2) Do nervous system cause pain to alert humans about a bodily function?Yes
(3) Is pain unpleasant?Yes
therefore from 1,2,3 humans generally must avoid pain.
"The reason I repeat myself is simply because you ignore my points. As I said earlier the axioms like addition that we accept is based on what we observe in this universe 1+1=2 maybe false in another universe as I gave the example earlier"
Then it isn't an axiom. An axiom, at least in the case of mathematics, is a necessary truth. That seemed to be the sense you were speaking of it in. If the truth were contingent on the universe it is in, then it's truth is based in that universe. But you said, "Everything does not have an explanation these are called axioms that we must accept without explanation. For example, addition is distributive or two objects attract each other with inverse square law." But in the way you're thinking of axioms, they would have a ground of why they are the way they are, and that would be in the universe they're in.
The only way they wouldn't is if they were necessary truths.
"Negation is not argumentation. You have failed to give a sound argument to show that biological foundation is not objective."
Sure it is. It's an argument not to accept your assertion.
"Every rational being who has been in pain"
Some people like pain. They're called Sadomasochists.
And all three points you offer up are based on personal opinions. Even if they were all true, which none of them are since there are counterexamples of all of them, it would still be a subjective basis of morality. Humans happen to not like pain. So what? Who is anyone to say pain is bad? You have to assume that, but what are you basing that assumption on?
Totally agree.
Human nature is no source for morality. History is the story of the strong using and killing the weak. That is human nature. The Nazis believed this, that their superior human nature made them masters over other races.
Binary Options Pro Signals
What is Binary Options Pro Signals? I subscribed to let you know what you are going to get.
Human nature is no source for morality. History is the story of the strong using and killing the weak. That is human nature. The Nazis believed this, that their superior human nature made them masters over other races.
I completely disagree. The nature of humanity is reason, and reason tells us that such actions are dishonorable, ignoble, wretched, depraved. If one listens to one's reason, one will always do the good. The problem is that most people have not really reflected deeply on the nature of humanity, the universe, and their own nature (all of which is necessary for self-mastery). Most people have no coherent plan for their existence, which causes them to waste their lives. If our "inner logos" did not infallibly provide us with both the content and motivation to do good, then we ought not to do"good" (and good is not really "good-" at least not for our individual selves). "Ought" implies that it is in one's own self-interest at some level to do something. With respect to moral truths, "ought" implies that there are certain virtues necessary for deep human excellence and flourishing which apply to all people.
Quote: "the nature of humanity is reason." You may believe this if you wish. However, history shows that the nature of humanity is brutality.
Quote: "reason tells us that such actions are dishonorable..." Where does "honor" come from? It is part of the moral fabric of the universe. This argues for a moral Creator.
What distinguishes humanity from animals is our reason. Reason makes us moral animals. I do not judge mankind by the masses; I judge what mankind ought to be (and can be) by the nobility and loftiness of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Cicero, Cato the Younger, Lycurgus, Marcus Aurelius, etc. They have actualized the potential for which nature gave them birth, which is the honorable.
A moral universe does not mean that the theistic conception of God is correct. I hold that the Logos is imminent but not transcendent. The notion of what is good and what is evil is written into our very natures, and we can choose to live in accordance with it (and be supremely happy) or we can ignore it (and be miserable). To live in harmony with one's self is to obey Reason and to revere Providence.
This info genuinely helped me, I'm sharing having a few friends. I might be checking back regularly to look for updates. | maigrir des cuisses
It is undoubtedly true that there are clever arguments for and against theism. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about which side has the stronger case, cumulatively considered.
These observations, however, are often difficult for certain Christians to accept. I have in mind Christians who believe that anyone who doesn't accept theism will--on that account--burn in hell for all of eternity at the hand of a just, loving, and all-knowing God. For these Christians, it is usually important to deny that a person can reject the case for theism for any reason except willful ignorance. But that's quite implausible, and I hope that Sean McDowell and William Lane Craig, along with all of the believers here, are sensible enough to appreciate this.
Thats very true.
inkasso
"it is usually important to deny that a person can reject the case for theism for any reason except willful ignorance"
Yup, this is the Christian perspective. Read Romans chapter 1,2. What is not sure Biblically is what hell will be like. One thing you must keep in mind when reading the Bible is some of it is hyperbole or visual imagery to explain spiritual truths. I think the descriptions of hell fall under this category. However, I think hell will be fundamentally worst then burning for an eternity. You will have a complete separation from God and your depravity will be total. You will live an eternity like this with no escape. But, it was unbelievers who chose their situation, not God. God just allows them to live the logical conclusion of their choice. In other words, these humans will live life completely autonomous without interference of the "meddling God" getting in the way.
Thanks ! perdre du poids
It's in reality a great and helpful piece of information. I'm glad that you just shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this web site. Thanks, I'll try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site? comment maigrir sans régime
You have brought up a very excellent details, thanks for the post.
Many people are arguing about the existence of God. Only your faith can tell about it. God does only exist in our hearts. - Paul Perito MD