Cosmological Argument Part 1 – Kalam Cosmological Argument

All ten of the theologians reviewed gave mention to the cosmological argument. This argument has its roots in Plato and Aristotle and was developed by medieval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian thinkers.[1] The cosmological argument has been defended by many great minds and reads like a Who’s Who of western philosophy and theology: Plato, Aristotle, ibn Sina, al-Ghazali, ibn Rushd, Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Descartes, Spinoza, Berkeley, Locke, and Leibniz to name but some.[1],[2] Most recently, this argument has come into favor during the last century as modern cosmologists have increasingly become aware of the unique attributes of the primitive universe. This argument is generally the first one discussed and provides a convincing formalism. Generally, this argument can be formulated into three categories. The kalam cosmological argument for a First Cause of the beginning of the universe, the Thomist cosmological argument for a sustaining Ground of Being of the world, and the Leibnizian cosmological argument for a Sufficient Reason why something exists rather than nothing.[2] In the first of three posts, we will deal with the kalam formulation of the argument.

The kalam cosmological argument is usually given in the following syllogism:
(1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Given (1) and (2), (3) logically, necessarily, and inescapably follows. Hence if this argument is to be falsified then premise (1) or (2) must be denied. That is, one of the following must be demonstrated:
~(1) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause (i.e. that something has begun to exist without a cause)
~(2) The universe did not begin to exist
This argument attempts to demonstrate that the universe began to exist on the basis of philosophical arguments against the existence of an infinite, temporal regress of past events. For scientific evidence for the world having a beginning just look at the so-called “Big Bang Theory” held by most contemporary astronomers.3 Actually this syllogism can be expanded to give defense of premise two as follows[4]:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
          2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
                              2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
                              2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
                              2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
          2.2   Argument based on the impossibility of  the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
                              2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
                              2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
                              2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Each of these are argued out by Craig elsewhere.[4],[5] Much support for these is also seen is a simple thought experiment known as Hilbert’s Hotel.

David Hilbert was a German mathematician who was very influential on modern science, math, and philosophy. Hilbert’s Hotel was a thought experiment demonstrating the absurdity of the existence of an actual infinite. Essentially, if one were to imagine a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms and each and every room is occupied by a guest. If a new guest were to show up and ask the manager for a room, since the number of rooms is infinite, the manager need simply move guest 1 in room 1 to room 2 and guest 2 in room 2 to room 3…ad infinitum. Now, the obvious problem is that the hotel was totally occupied and full prior to the arrival of our new guest and yet somehow there is still room. This is simply absurd. Hilbert’s hotel get’s even more weird when we consider guests checking out of the hotel. Suppose that the following morning all the guests in all the odd numbered rooms decide to check out. The manager checks them out and yet somehow, there is no change in the actual number of guests checked in at the hotel even though an infinite number have left. For that matter, despite the fact that an infinite number have checked out, the hotel is still fully occupied and there are no rooms available for any new guests to check in to. Yet, if a new guest arrived that afternoon the manager could, once again, simply move guest 1 in room 1 to room 2, etc… as before and check in a new guest. It is easy to see how absurd the concept of an actual infinite really is.

What must be understood here, is that these are thought experiments, they are essentially games played by philosophers and mathematicians. They simply have no reference point in reality and that is just the point. No one could ever build Hilbert’s Hotel. As one continued to build rooms, the rooms would always be the previous number plus one and we would never reach a point where an infinite number of rooms even existed with which to actually play the game as described by Hilbert. Just as Hilbert’s Hotel could never ACTUALLY exist, we could never find an ACTUALLY infinite set of anything, including temporal events. If that is true (and Hilbert’s hotel seems to clearly demonstrate that it is indeed true) then time itself must not be actually infinite, the universe itself must not be actually infinite, the series of past events and future events must not be actually infinite, in short, nothing truly existing is actually infinite…there is a beginning somewhere. This raises a question about God. Isn’t god infinite? Indeed, God can be described as infininte. So then, an actual infinite exists. NO! How do we reason this out? When we describe God as infinite we are describing him qualitatively not quantitatively. I’m not even sure it makes sense to think of God as quantitatively infinite.

So let’s assume there is a First Cause. Even David Hume confessed, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.”[6] How do we know that the “Cause” is God? From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we’ve seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.[7]

Essentially any properties that exist in the effect, the cause must transcend or possess itself. Consider the existence of an army of robots created by some mad scientist. The mad scientist transcends the robots in that they cannot accomplish anything, feel anything, etc…that the scientist does not program into them. The scientist cannot program something into the robots that He is not aware of. He cannot program the robots to feel joy if he does not know what joy is. He must either possess the capacity for joy in order to program it in. He cannot program the robots to exist in time and space unless he either exists in time and space or transcends time and space. If he only exists in time and not in space, then he cannot create the robots in space. In a similar fashion, we can know that anything we see in the effect (the world) must be transcended by God or be possessed by Him. However, given that some properties are unique to this particular effect, namely the beginning of time and material, we know that these properties must be transcended by their cause. Furthermore, we know that whatever cause there is for personality, morality, or spirituality must possess these characteristics since an amoral, impersonal, and non-spiritual cause cannot produce a moral, personal, and spiritual effect. As Craig writes, “…there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful. And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked is what everybody means by God.”[8]

This argument seems to make sense, but aren’t we outside the realm of theology here? We are not. This is the branch of theology known as natural theology. It is not incorrect to use other disciplines to analyze arguments and provide insight. Any thinking person does this everyday. Plus, the premise we are arguing from (namely, that God exists) is firmly rooted in the Scriptures. Thus we are well within the confines of theology discussing the issue even when we use philosophical arguments or scientific evidences to support our theological conclusions.
_______________________________

(1)    Craig, W. L. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics; 3 ed.; Crossway: Wheaton, IL, 2008.
(2)    Moreland, J. P.; Craig, W. L. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview; InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 2003.
(3)    Geisler, N. L. Systematic Theology Volume One: Introduction and Bible; Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington, 2002; Vol. 1.
(4)    Craig, W. L. Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 1991, 3, 85-96.
(5)    Craig, W. L. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2006, 36, 565-584.
(6)    Hume, D. The Letters of David Hume; Oxford: Clarendon, 1932; Vol. 1.
(7)    Craig, W. L. In Why I am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe
Geisler, N. L., Hoffman, P. K., Eds.; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 2006, p 67-86.
(8)        Craig, W.L. The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe In Astrophysics and Space Science 1999, p 723 – 740

The Existence of God – Part 2

Dr. A.H. Strong

Of the great systematic theologies of years gone by, Strong’s treatment of the issue is one of the finest available. It should first be noted that Strong gives this topic the first major section of his book following his prolegomena, a section which is three chapters long. It sits just prior to the section on revelation and rightfully so. His famous phrase that the “knowledge of God is a first truth”[1] is supported by a four page treatment of the issue of “first truths” themselves. Afterwards he spares no pains in proving his point that the existence of God is indeed a prior. This is followed by a chapter on four major arguments for God’s existence from natural theology: The cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the anthropological argument, and the ontological argument. The issue is then closed by a third chapter which refutes three opposing views to theism. While some of the arguments that Strong makes have been significantly improved and developed since the time of his writing, there can be no doubt as to the sophistication of his treatment of the issue nor of how important he believed it to be. If we were to rank these systematic theologies on their treatment of this issue alone, one would have a difficult time arguing for any other than Strong’s to be placed on top.

Dr. Millard J. Erickson

Standing in contrast to Strong is Erickson. While Erickson is indeed a brilliant theologian and quite accomplished within the field, it is certainly not due to his treatment of the present subject matter. Erickson spends all of three and a half pages dealing with this issue. In these pages he presents it as a dilemma for the theologian seeking the starting point for his or her theology. He writes, “Should theology begin with God, or with the nature and means of our knowledge of him?”[2] Erickson evaluates (somewhat redundantly, I might add) the pro’s and con’s of both approaches before presenting his solution, which is to start with both as basic a priori premises for the work of theology. Needless to say, Erickson’s treatment of the issue leaves a great deal to be desired. He presents a false dilemma to begin with and then attempts to split the horns by ignoring the dilemma completely! It is hardly a well justified position. While he does a mediocre job of showing why the two horns of his dilemma are both persuasive, he doesn’t offer a single argument to justify his solution other than to say that it works well for developing a systematic theology. Thus, for Erickson, the treatment of this issue is either one of pragmatism or laziness, neither of which is very appealing.

Dr. Norman Geisler

Dr. Geisler puts forth an extensive prolegomena in his Systematic Theology.[3] Nearly the very beginning of his set of topics is “God: The Metaphysical Precondition”. He expounds what he labels “the rational basis for Theism”. He essentially begins with the cosmological argument for God’s existence. With his philosophical background Dr. Geisler has a masterful treatment on these topics of natural theology. He also gives the syllogisms for each of these arguments. The teleological, ontological, moral arguments are put forth very matter-of-factly. Anyone who has met Dr. Geisler will testify to his incessant, fact-spewing, to the point intellect and candor. One of the strong points of his entire four volume systematic theology is the way in which he addresses objections to many of his points with a point-counterpoint style. He almost always has a lengthy section which includes the opinions of the church fathers therein. After covering the arguments for the existence of God he then goes directly into a discussion as to why theism is a better alternative then any other system of thought on the topic (e.g. finite godism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, panentheism and deism).

Dr. John S. Feinberg

While this is not a treatment of a systematic theology, Feinberg is a fine example of a modern theologian who has done great work on the present subject matter. A quick review of his treatment of it within his book, No One Like Him is more than justified. That being said, Feinberg presents the four basic arguments for God’s existence: The ontological, the cosmological, the teleological, and the moral. While all four of these are well defined and evaluated for their various uses and scope, perhaps the most valuable thing that Feinberg brings to the table is the discussions prior to and following his discussion of the actual arguments. In the section introducing theological proofs, Feinberg does a masterful job of evaluating the two extreme positions one might take as to their value without pushing the reader one way or another. This alone would be worth the price of the book, but Feinberg goes further to deal with the types of arguments one might use and where the theistic proofs fall within these parameters. This is all very concise and though highly profound, is not bogged down in a lot of technical language. He then deals with the four arguments and then moves on to a section evaluating the value of these theistic proofs. This is a short three or four paragraphs, albeit interesting ones. Then Feinberg does a masterful job of dealing with various theological and metaphysical issues that are dealt with when one is trying to establish the existence of God. This includes God’s reality, infinity, being, etc…This is probably Feinberg’s finest section about this topic. While I disagree with some of the finer points of Feinberg’s reasoning in some cases or his evaluation in others, what should be taken away from this is that there is still work that can be and is being done on this issue by modern theologians. Furthermore, there is still a great need for understanding the intricacies of these issues. We cannot simply say that God’s existence has been established and can now be ignored or that the issues have been hashed out and we no longer need to work through them. We are indebted to Feinberg as well as many other fine theologians of our day for the work they have done and continue to do on this important issue.

Dr. Wayne Grudem

Dr. Grudem also places his discussion on the existence of God after the introduction and bibliology sections. He begins part two of his systematic theology[4] with the question, “How do we know that God exists?” While this topic is immense, Grudem only gives his treatment three whole pages! Truly disappointing for such a great work. Dr. Grudem’s theology is usually top notch and is impeccably organized. He includes deep questions at the end of each chapter for personal application, special terms given in each chapter, an excellent bibliography showing where this topic is treated in nearly every systematic theology known, a scripture memory passage, and a hymn that specifically reveals the topic. This quote almost sums up his entire treatment, “How do we know that God exists? The answer can be given in two parts: First, all people have an inner sense of God. Second, we believe the evidence that is found in Scripture and in nature.”[5] Dr. Grudem includes a very brief section that lists four major types of argument (the same arguments found in Dr. Geisler’s work discussed above) for the existence of God and treats each one with ~two sentences. He sums up this chapter by stating, “Finally, it must be remembered that in this sinful world God must enable us to be persuaded or we would never believe in him.”[6] Perhaps this is why Dr. Grudem really only mentions this entire topic in passing.

[1] Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology: New York: Judson P, 1985.

[2] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998

[3] Geisler, Norman; Systematic Theology Volume One: Introduction, Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 2002

[4] Grudem, Wayne; Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994

[5] Ibid, p. 141

[6] Ibid, p. 144

The Existence of God – Part 1

The existence of God is a rather complex and deep theological subject. It behooves us greatly to begin this discussion by inspecting what the great theological minds over the years have compiled in regards to this subject. Certainly we will gain much from examining the way that some of the greatest theologians of history have dealt with this topic. Undoubtedly not the least of these advantages will be in examining the simple format of the issue and the location of the topic within the system itself. While there remains definitive “proofs” for the existence of God (to be laid out in more detail in future posts) much of what needs to be discussed in this post is in regards to the prolegomena of this subject is expounded below. This approach will serve to provide a much needed breadth on this subject drawing from each scholar’s area of theological expertise and bent. One would do a great disservice to his or her understanding if they were to ignore these great minds. What follows is an attempt to summarize some of these for the mutual benefit of the writers and readers in future discussion.

Dr. Charles Hodge

In his Systematic Theology, we have the incredibly erudite Charles Hodge. Hodge is hardly a slouch in the area of scholarship, particularly theology and we ought to give great weight to his views simply for his contribution to both. Hodge has a great deal to say about natural theology. Interestingly one would have to read a majority of the first volume of his work to appreciate all that he has to say about the issue. However, due to limitations of space, we will only deal with some major points of his outline. First, it is interesting and important to note that his introduction itself is made up of six chapters. In it, Hodge attempts to essentially make a case for his method and persuasion of theology. A part of that is a section on natural theology in which Hodge makes a strong case for its proper use. He is ruthless in his arguments for its use, while he is simultaneously cautious enough not to suggest that natural theology could give one enough knowledge for salvation. Perhaps the most interesting part of this discussion is his extensive explanation of the various uses of natural theology as explained within the scriptures themselves. As we move into Part 1 of volume 1, Hodge begins with theology proper which again clearly shows his opinion of the placement of the subject matter within his system. Chapter 1 of part 1 deals with the knowledge of God as a priori innate knowledge (a discussion eerily reminiscent of Plato’s work). The end of the chapter is a discussion of the possibility of the proof of God, which is a must read for any theologian as it is a masterful treatment of the subject. Chapter 2 of part 1 goes on to discuss various arguments for the existence of God, four in particular: The ontological, the cosmological, the teleological, and the moral / anthropological issue. All of these are thorough treatments of the argument and even though much has been developed since the time of his writing, Hodge is clearly a foundation to much of what we see today in the area of natural theology.

Dr. Henry Clarence Thiessen

Dr. Thiessen in his Lectures in Systematic Theology[1] does an adequate job on this topic. Given that his work is only one volume and is not designed to be exhaustive in content, he provides satisfactory coverage on this nearly inexhaustible[2] topic. He starts his theology with typical introduction material. Part 1 of his work is entitled “Theism”. Immediately Dr. Thiessen addresses the definition of God and God’s existence. He holds that belief in the existence of God is intuitive, and assumed by the Scriptures.[3] He then also states that it is corroborated by arguments. It is said best on page 27, “the evidence is cumulative, a single argument for the existence of God being inadequate, but a number of them together being sufficient to bind the conscience and compel belief.” I think that statement truly speaks to this topic. Dr. Thiessen covers the cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and the argument from congruity all in about one page each. It is very intriguing that he decided to treat the argument from congruity. Perhaps this is due to the above quote regarding the number of arguments taken together being sufficient. This argument is based on the belief that the postulate which best explains the related facts is probably true. Many modern historians hold this criterion when testing for the best overall theory on a subject. I enjoy Dr. Thiessen’s Lectures in that they are entirely readable as if you can hear them being spoken. I have to say though, that I enjoyed his Introduction to the New Testament[4] equally as well.

Dr. Charles Ryrie

Ryrie’s Basic Theology is exactly that, basic theology. As such, it is not exactly intended to treat any area of theology with all the complexity that is possible, nor is appropriate to judge it as such. That being said, Ryrie’s treatment of the issue is hardly small concerning the scope and depth of his book. He does a good job of giving a basic outline of the cosmological argument and the anthropological argument and while his treatment is hardly polished, it is relatively thorough in its simplicity. Perhaps the biggest downfall for Ryrie is his comments about the scope of natural theology. He seems to think that natural theology is important only to the extent that scripture explains it, anything beyond that is susceptible to man’s flawed reasoning. He suggests that its value is primarily in its condemnation of unbelievers. He admits that it can help the case for theism, but he doesn’t seem to give this much credence. Beyond that, there is the evidence of God’s grace in natural theology through the fact that he would condescend to communicate with us through it. This is a difficult argument to understand since he doesn’t believe that God does communicate through general revelation exclusively, but rather through natural theology by way of specific revelation. In any case, it is difficult to deal with this issue in such a small space and with such a simple approach. Ryrie must be recognized for having done so and having done it well.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer in his voluminous Systematic Theology[5] addresses the existence of God at the beginning of his discussion on theology proper. This seems a most fitting place for this topic to be placed in such a work. Chafer puts this section (theology proper) after the prolegomena and after the section on bibliology. He concedes, “The term Theology Proper is a somewhat modern designation which represents the logical starting point in the study of Systematic Theology,”[6] I agree! It seems logically necessary to establish this concept before moving to other areas of theology. Chafer tells us that there are four sources of knowledge about God. These are listed as:

• Intuition – a confidence or belief which springs immediately from the constitution of the mind. It includes such themes as time and eternity; space, cause, and effect; right and wrong; mathematical demonstration; self-existence, the existence of matter, and the Person of God.[7]
• Tradition – considered either (1) as that which is remote – the early impressions of the race – or (2) as that which is present – teaching which is given to children.[8]
• Reason – the highest capacity in man – apart from revelation and the divine energy imparted to man – in his attainment unto the knowledge of God. It may be considered either (1) on the ground of its own intrinsic value, or (2) on the ground of that which it has accomplished.[9]
• Revelation – God has spoken to man through nature, through the manifestation of Himself in His Son, and through the Scriptures of Truth.[10]

Next, Dr. Chafer moves directly into what he terms “naturalistic theistic arguments”. These include what is known as the argumentum a posteriori and the argumentum a priori. The common arguments for the existence of God are classified into either camp. The cosmological, the teleological, and the anthropological arguments are all classified as a posteriori. While the only a priori argument for the existence of God is the ontological argument. From this introduction into natural theology Dr. Chafer then breaks down each of the above mentioned arguments. If you are a little foggy about these arguments don’t worry, each will be discussed in detail at a later date. Chafer gives this entire treatment 32 pages in his respected work on theology. He provides a very thought out approach which leaves little to be desired. Each argument is covered in detail and very objectively. This make Dr. Chafer’s Systematic Theology one of the best in regards to his approach of the existence of God.

Dr. Louis Berkhof

Dr. Berkhof provides a very surprising approach on this subject. The new combined edition of his Systematic Theology[11] includes at the very beginning of the theology section the discussion of the existence of God. He provides a scriptural proof of the existence of God and tells us, “The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith.”[12] He remarks that the Scripture really only assumes that God exists and never gives a direct proof. Next, he moves into a discussion of the denial of the existence of God. Then he includes a section on the “so-called rational proofs for the existence of God”. This section (about two pages) explains very briefly the ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral and ethnological arguments. The inclusion of the ethnological argument is interesting in that it is not treated as a formal argument in these other systematics. Essentially Dr. Berkhof is classifying the “intuition” of Chafer and Thiessen as a formal argument. Berkhof is quick to point out, “In evaluating these rational arguments it should be pointed out first of all that believers do not need them.”[13] He does say however that, “they are not entirely devoid of value.”[14] This is a rather small treatment of this topic given that Berkhof is a standard work in the field. Much more should be said in regard to these topics than just the fact that believers do not need them and they might have some very slight value.

[1] Thiessen, Henry Clarence; Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 2006

[2] If you are looking to be truly overwhelmed on this entire topic see the 17^th century classic:

Charnock, Steven; The existence and attributes of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996

[3] Ibid, p. 25-26

[4] Thiessen, Dr. Henry Clarence; Introduction to the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 1943

[5] Chafer, Lewis Sperry; Systematic Theology; Vol. 1 Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1948

[6] Ibid, p.129

[7] Ibid, p.130

[8] Ibid, p.132

[9] Ibid, p.133

[10] Ibid, p.135

[11] Berkhof, Louis; Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1996

[12] Ibid, p. 21

[13] Ibid, p. 27

[14] Ibid, p. 28

Foundational Blogging Principles

Here at Principia Theologica (PT) we strive for excellence in all the we post. This means none of that, “look what cool thing this person said in his blog” posts. We want to be intellectually honest. Sure, we are wrong from time to time (hopefully few and far between), but we want to be honest about where we stand on issues. The attempt will be made to provide references for the material and places where more information can be found – opinions and facts that have stood the test of peer review and scholarship. Seriousness about the issue at hand. We seriously hope that theological topics can be discussed that might help lead you to a deeper level of understanding than before. Together we can explore the rabbit trails of systematic theology and hopefully emerge with a bigger better grasp of the concept at hand! What do you say? Are you with me?!?