I was one of those students who dreaded tests; partly due to bad studying habits of waiting till midnight before the day of the test to begin studying, but that was only one reason. However if I had to do a test I'd prefer multiple-choice over essay or true or false; my reasoning is because the answer is given to you amongst four other false ones and all you had to do was pick the right one. However as a child a strange and illogical thing ran through my head when I was presented with multiple-choice tests: if unsure of the right answer pick (c); in sum you can't go wrong with answer (c).
One of the many questions of life that is best asked in multiple-choice format is the question of God's existence. Atheist, evolutionary biology professor Dr. Richard Dawkins rejects the creationist's response of random chance to describe the machine that Darwinian evolution uses to produce biological diversity and its's improbability and inserts 'natural selection' in its place. He then responds to the creationist's intelligent design argument and it's solution to improbability with:
Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself ... immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin.[i]
In sum if the universe's origin is a designer what is the designer's origin? In a video entitled I Can Prove God Does Not Exist, Atheist Youtuber, Styxhexenhammer666 offers the same question. So to bring home his point he gives the benefit of doubt that the universe is in-toto a creation and not just a mere existence - the position that he holds. He states:
Here is the logical next step that no Christian can argue their way around; it is not possible. If the universe had to have been created because it is an existent thing; it had to have had some force or being creative; they label it God other people label it some cosmic force or other deity; so God created it. What created God?[ii] [sic]
And for a third example one of my sixth graders that I minister to as their youth-pastor interrupted my Bible lesson with a retort to something that I said:
"Okay that's all good and all..." he commented. "...but if God created us, who created him?"
The inquiry of God's origin as Dawkins puts it is not just a question that professional thinkers come up with. It seems to be a very real gap in our knowledge of God; and apparently an obvious one as even my 11 year old student instinctively sees this as a problem.
One argument that many theists present when responding to anti-creationist arguments is known in philosophical circles as the kalam cosmological argument[iii]. It is this argument that gives birth to the argument presented above. The kalam cosmological argument makes the assertion that the universe logically had to have a beginning. In sum due to exhilo nihilo fit (without a beginning nothing can exist) there had to be something in a pre-universe existence so to bring the universe into existence. Christians refer to this 'something' as someone namely Yahweh and other theists say that this something is their god. However the theologian who presents this argument argues in unison that God is the exception to the rule; so without a beginning nothing can exist except for God.
Can someone consistently hold to these two assertions within the same worldview? Yes as these two assertions are not in conflict with one another. Moreover, not only are these two assertions not inconsistent the assertion of God's eternality is necessary for the kalam cosmological argument to work. If God is going to be the creator of the universe he cannot be a created entity. The theist is presented with five options to the multiple-choice question: What is the origin of God?
a) God was created.
b) Option (a) is wrong therefore no G/god/s exist and thus the universe either has a currently unknown or perhaps unknowable natural beginning or it is eternal.
c) There is only one God who is eternal.
d) There are several gods which spin from one initial God.
e) There is one God who is manifested in many forms as is suggested in Hinduism.
d) There are several gods which spin from one initial God.
e) There is one God who is manifested in many forms as is suggested in Hinduism.
Option (a) presents the same problems for every theistic worldview within exception for those who don't care about the origin of their G/god/s. And it is objectively inconsistent with logic. For one to suggest that that God is created like his creation makes his ontology parallel to the ontology of his creation. This universe is quantifiable and discoverable. Scientists throughout the eons have been taking creation apart and putting it back together so to discover how its works. We can know how various parts of this universe are put together, such as oxygen; we know the numerical value of earth's gravity in comparison to the moon's gravity; we know how stars are formed and so on. God's nature however is not natural in the same sense as this universe is natural. God's nature is natural, but his ontology is on a different plane of natural. His nature cannot be taken a part and reassembled - its supernatural. To put it in one sentence: God's nature is not complicated, its incomprehensible; and God's nature is only knowable from what he has revealed to us (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29). It is prideful ignorance and nonsensical to suggest that God's nature has to be created; outside of Scripture what do we know about the nature of God? ANSWER: Nothing. Moreover, what does Scripture say about God's origin? He is eternal (cf. Revelation 1:8, Colossians 1:17). And two, as suggested above an eternal God puts into perspective the kalam cosmological argument; since there is an eternal God then he is the proverbial stage by which creation can come to fruition.
Option (b) is scientifically discovered to be false and it has the same problem that the Christian is presented with about God's origins: if this universe had a natural cause then what natural cause caused that natural cause? Options (d) and (e) are polytheistic systems; polytheism deserves its own discussion so it will not be discussed here; however both these options have an initial God, even if there is many gods, there is one initial god that started everything. Therefore option (c) simply argues that God is eternal and monotheistic.
Option (b) is scientifically discovered to be false and it has the same problem that the Christian is presented with about God's origins: if this universe had a natural cause then what natural cause caused that natural cause? Options (d) and (e) are polytheistic systems; polytheism deserves its own discussion so it will not be discussed here; however both these options have an initial God, even if there is many gods, there is one initial god that started everything. Therefore option (c) simply argues that God is eternal and monotheistic.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Colossians 1:17
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed; it only changes form. God preexisted the universe and he holds all things together; and there will come a time when he will revamp this creation so it is an existence without "...death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." - Revelation 21:4. So in today's test please allow me to encourage you to put your trust in option (c) as that is not only the right answer but because option (c) is the God according to Scripture - not everyone else's god - doing so will save you from the reality of eternity without Christ: (c = Christ). This assertion is bold, but it is likewise fact and shown to be true; but let's leave that discussion for another day.
__________________
[i] - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (Great Britain: Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers,2006), 145-146.
[ii] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn8kehZH24E - accessed February 19, 2014
[iii] - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument - accessed February 19, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment