On Monday October 6th we met for our third class to discuss "Why does anything at all exist?" from the third chapter of On Guard. The argument in this chapter formed the first in our four-part case that we'll build for the existence of God. The argument goes like this:
- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
- If the universe exists, its explanation is God.
- The universe exists.
- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
- Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.
I do have five follow-up comments from our discussion.
First, with respect to premise 1, remember that we are assessing the premises based on whether they are more plausible than their negation. The negation of premise 1 is that some things exist inexplicably. Virtually no one believes that. To help defend that we provided the example of a blue ball in the woods. We wouldn't accept that it simply exists inexplicably. We'd demand an explanation of its existence no matter the size. Even if it were the size of the entire universe it would require an explanation of its existence!
This brings us to a second point: the Taxi Cab Fallacy. That says that a person is being inconsistent in by "hopping into" a worldview to make a point then "hopping out" when it's convenient. In this case a person might say "yea everything that exists has an explanation of its existence... except for the universe." That would be an example of "hopping out" of the cab when it comes to the universe. It too has an explanation of its existence.
Thirdly, "but what about God?". Well, God is not exempt, He too has an explanation of His existence, namely the necessity of His nature.
Fourth, "well maybe the universe exists by necessity of its own nature then!" But, we know that is not true because our universe didn't have to exist. We didn't have to exist. Things could have been different! So then the universe has an explanation of its existence in an external cause.
Fifth, a sticking point was in the second premise, why does the explanation of the universe have to be God? I agree that stating "God" that early in an argument for God's existence is alarming. When we talk about "the universe" we mean all of space, time, matter, energy, and even time. So the external cause of the universe would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, very powerful, existing necessarily, and a personal creator. So we could simply list those at the end of premise 2 as the explanation of the universe (though those descriptions seem to characterize what theists mean by God!).
This argument is known as Leibnizian Cosmological Argument but sometimes is called the Contingency Argument and is characterized by the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). Ted Bruns did some research on these and found some good articles/links with explanations and objections. They're listed below if you're interested in studying this some more. The last one by Alexander Pruss is very thorough.
- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs-cosmological-argument-and-the-psr
- http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/09/leibnizs-cosmological-argument.html
- http://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2008-9/10100-spring/_LECTURES/5%20-%20Leibniz.pdf
- http://bama.ua.edu/~jklocksiem/100/LCA.pdf
- https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.html
The presentation from Monday is available digitally here.
Finally, I just want to say that I was thrilled to have some new folks show up. Dave and Howie were there for the first time and we even had some folks from Silver Spring. What a blessing!
Next time we will meet on October 20th, same place, same time, to discuss the topic "Why did the universe begin?" Please read through chapter 4 before then and jot down some answers to the homework questions for discussion next time we meet. If you have any questions or thoughts along the way, please feel free to shoot me an email. Also consider inviting a friend, all are welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment