I don't think anyone here subscribes to this, but perhaps someone can solve me the age old paradox of Christianity.
I begin by noting W. L. Craig's recent article in Christianity Today via Jeffery Hodges (all information at link).
Craig's argument goes along these lines:
P1. Everything that exists must have had a beginning.
P2. The universe exists.
C. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
I just don't get it. Regardless of the truth of P1, if it is applied to God himself, Craig and anyone who follows this logic finds themselves in such a paradox:
P1. Everything that exists must have had a beginning.
P2. God exists.
C. Therefore God must have had a beginning.
What began God? What differences are there between the beginning of God and the beginning of the universe, and why do certain monotheists like to special plead that their God must be exempt from the same rule that applies to everything else?
Also, what is the status of Craig in the Christian community today?
11 comments:
That's not Craig's argument, however. His P1 is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Thanks for that, Stephen. I got it straight from Jeffery Hodges (linked), but I have heard the argument I wrote about before. But regardless, why do we have to have an ultimate beginning?
Chris
"why do we have to have an ultimate beginning?"
All we have to understand things are our human experiences, correct? Don't we experience that "everything that beings to exist has a cause" (or at least that it seems so to most)?
That wasn't quite my question - why do we have to have an ultimate beginning. I.e. Christians think that God is eternal, i.e. never had a beginning, therefore has no cause. But they refuse to believe that anything else might be eternal? Why not?
Chris
To me, it makes more logical sense that something 'intelligent' and eternal exists that created everything rather than that something 'unintelligent' simply exists eternally.
Neither concept of eternity is easily acceptable or understandable to our finite minds, but I can better accept eternity in an uncreated and 'intelligent' creator than in an 'unintelligent' floating mass of matter and void that has simply always existed and will exist for eternity without reason.
And the point of my previous post was to answer your question. We don't *have to* have an ultimate beginning, but my point was that it seems logical to conclude that we do from our human experience that "everything that begins to exist has a cause".
You're conflating two different arguments, Bryan. Even based on the premise that everything which begins has to have a cause, if we don't have to have the beginning, so it's quite irrelevant what the premise is. The argument does not apply.
Moreover, how does it seem more likely that an eternal intelligent being exists than mere matter that's eternal. Why does it have to be intelligent to be more likely? What's your criteria?
Human experience should tell you that it's more likely that unintelligent things existed first, and the world became more complex over time. That much is obvious from many different evolving things, from religion (cf. Christianity in America now and three hundred years ago), language (language diversity, i.e. Latin -> romantic languages), technology (no brainer on that one). All that even if you don't "believe" in evolution.
Chris
"You're conflating two different arguments, Bryan."
*sigh* No I didn't. I merely told you that there was another side to your question...the more likely side in my opinion. I still feel like you're looking for something to say the opposing view is wrong without really trying to understand it first....
Why does it have to be intelligent to be more likely? What's your criteria?
Human experience tells me so... Think hard about your next comments again.
Human experience should tell you that it's more likely that unintelligent things existed first, and the world became more complex over time. That much is obvious from many different evolving things, from religion (cf. Christianity in America now and three hundred years ago), language (language diversity, i.e. Latin -> romantic languages), technology (no brainer on that one). All that even if you don't "believe" in evolution.
All of the things you mention were *created* by *intelligence*. None of them have just existed from all eternity, and they could not have for it took *intelligence* to *create* them.
Bryan,
You're not listening to me. OK, so human experience tells you so. How does it do it? What does it say? You're not explaining yourself at all, you're not giving any sort of indication the criteria you're using when you say "tell you so". How does it tell you that? How are you arriving at that conclusion?
Also, there is no evidence that language was intelligently created. You're forcing your conclusions. What about plants, animals, stars? There are so many things that we do not know for sure were intelligently created, and yet you point to everything as being intelligently created as proof that everything is indeed intelligently created?
There's no intelligence in that argument. Try again. And please, before you tell me to listen, listen yourself.
Chris
It seems we just talk past each other... Not sure how to fix that.
I'm 'listening' to you just fine, you just seem to me to ask questions that I feel I've already completely answered... Again, not sure how to fix that.
My entire post was explaining, sort of by your own examples, that the things we experience as humans lead many of us to conclude that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'.
Also, there is no evidence that language was intelligently created.
Huh?? So language just kind of dropped out of the sky on humans and wasn't created by humans for the purposes of communication? Hmm.... I, caveman, *grunt* a certain way and point to my mouth wanting desperately for other caveman/woman to understand "I want food. Give me! Ugh!". Eventually other caveman/woman associates my specific grunt with me wanting food. Obviously, this game of charades and sounds only achieves true language by intelligence.
There's no intelligence in that argument. Try again. And please, before you tell me to listen, listen yourself.
That's the kind of unuseful, junk rhetoric I'm talking about and is why I sort of asked you "to listen" and try harder to understand in the first place. That kind of language merely comes across to me as "LA LA LA, got my fingers in my ears, and I ain't gonna listen to what you say!" ;-)
Oh well, I've tried to explain what you asked and to help you see things from my perspective. If you don't see it, you don't, but I'd caution against thinking that just because you don't get it, it's wrong.
Getting back to the beginning of this discussion, I guess my question is more based on the definition of existence. What is existence? Does existence mean that there has to be a purpose or does it simply be that some kind of mass is taking up a certain amount of space and volume, that it contains atoms? Is there a way that the latter can be true without the former? Is it possible for an object to exist with no purpose perceivable, whether it be a rock for making a wheel or grinding food, to a plant creating O2 for mammals to breathe or to a language created by cavemen to increase communication?
Another aspect is that of God existing. I have generally understood that God is not within my human confines of understanding...hope that makes sense. Anyway, as a human I am unable to understand God so would that put God outside of our understanding of the universe? Does the universe include that which is without confines, that which is omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent and omniscient? If God is considered of being outside of these confines would that not also make God outside the requirements of a beginning and of needing a reason/purpose for existing (if one is necessary)?
On the aspects of human experience, this has been a debate among theologians for centuries as to whether or not human experiences is relevant to the Christian message and to Christian purpose. This is mostly discussed through Rudolf Bultmann, at least within my readings. Bultmann largely argues for human experience within Christianity, and this is where existential theology comes into play.
I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on what I've added to the discussion.
Carlson is correct. The argument is everything that begins to exist has a cause. Why do we have to have an ultimate beginning?
I am not sure but I suppose, logically, an argument from the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite of past events could be given. Therefore a first cause or prime mover is necessitated.
Also, I suppose we could point to the big bang. It appears that all the matter, space, time energy and dimensions of our universe did have a beginning. Everything gets traced back. All the matter and elementary particles at one time are all energy, the four forces were unified into one and the entire physical universe was a fraction of a fraction of the size of a pin head during the Planck era. Tracing the cosmos back to me sure looks like a beginning. I don't think an oscillation universe has much scientific backing anymore and again, philosophically, could there be another bounce if an infinite number of them occurred already?
At any rate, its all a bit confusing. A 'time' 'before' 'time'? How do you temporal describe an atemporal realm?
Vinnie
Post a Comment