What Can We Know about God apart from Scripture?
In another thread, the question has come up as to whether or not we can have what I will call a "natural knowlege of God." People around the world seem to have different concepts of God and this fact could lend itself to the view that we just can't know what God is really like (or even if he exists). We all must be content just to have our own "faith perspectives" on the issue.
On the contrary, I think we can know some things about God simply by reflecting rationally on the nature of that being--call him/it what you will--who created the universe out of nothing. I am alluding, of course, to the age-old tradition of natural theology which offered rational arugments for God's existence and then deduced from those arguments' conclusions some characteristics of God. To be sure, the soundness of those deductions depends upon the prior soundness of the initial arguments for God's existence. So, we will have to start there.
Here is one arugment for God's existence that has proven to be very powerful and persuasive in much contemporary discussion. It's called the kalam cosmological argument:
(1) If the universe had no beginning, then an actual infinite number of events would have occurred prior to the present moment.
(2) It is impossible that an actual infinite number of events occur prior to any moment.
(3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Premise (1) of this argument is uncontroversial. If the universe literally had no beginning, then that logically entails that the set comprising all those past events prior to the present moment contains an actual infinite number of members. Put more simply, if the universe had no beginning (i.e., if the universe is eternal), then prior to the present moment there would have occurred an actual infinite number of past events.
Premise (2) is the crucial premise here. William Lane Craig and others have shown that an infinite number of concrete entities, including historical events, cannot exist because it would lead to absurdities. For example, let us imagine a library which contains an actual infinite number of books. And let us suppose that half the books are colored red and half the books are colored blue. And let us further suppose that someone visits the library and checks out all of the red books. How many books are left in the library? As unbelievable as it sounds, according to infinite set theory, the same number of books remains in the library as before the visitor arrived! But surely there could not really be such a library—a library in which half the books are checked out and yet the number of books in the library is not diminished! The idea that an actual infinite exists in reality is logically absurd. For the same reason, there cannot really be an infinite number of past events. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
The second premise of our argument may be defended another way. If the set of past events has an actually infinite number of members, then that means that in order for history to have reached the present moment, an infinite number of past events would have to have been “crossed” or formed one-at-a-time, since history progresses linearly and is not given all at once.
But, here’s the problem: by definition, an infinite number of events cannot be crossed one-at-a-time. A set with a number of members that can be traversed or completed, is by definition a finite set. It is just not possible to cross an actual infinite. To illustrate, Craig asks us to imagine a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity: . . . -3, -2, -1, 0. Why didn’t he finish yesterday? Or last year? Or a million years ago? For at any point in the past, he will have already crossed an infinite! That is, if the past has no beginning, then prior to any point in the past an actual infinite number of events will have already transpired. As Craig explains,
Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. (Reasonable Faith, p. 99)
So, the number of past events must be finite, not infinite, and that means that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Futher, we also know that something cannot come from nothing. More specifically, we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Thus, the beginning of the universe had a cause.
Now we come to the crucial question for this blog thread. What can we know about this cause of the universe? Several things. The first cause of the universe must be:
1. Eternal (existing outside of time) and non-spatial because it is the creator of the space-time universe.
2. Changeless/Immutable since to exist outside of time implies the absence of change.
3. Immaterial (non-physical) because materiality requires the potential for change.
4. Uncaused because if it were caused, then it would not be the ultimate cause of the universe and the first event (beginning) of the universe would not have been the first event, which is absurd. Moreover, the fact that the cause is timelessly eternal and immutable implies that it is uncaused and self-existent.
5. Enormously Powerful, if not omnipotent, because it brought the universe into existence from nothing.
6. Personal because only a personal being could account for the spontaneous beginning of the universe from nothing. If the cause of the universe were non-personal (i.e., some physical, natural cause), then that cause is either eternal or not eternal. If the cause is eternal, then the universe would also be eternal because when the necessary and sufficient conditions for some physical effect exist, then the effect exists. For example, the necessary and sufficient conditions for fire are fuel, oxygen, and heat. When these three elements come together at the same time and place, fire is the inevitable result. So, if fuel, oxygen, and heat existed together eternally, there would be an eternal fire. Likewise, if the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe were eternal, the universe would be eternal. However, we have already seen that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning. On the other hand, if the supposed non-personal necessary and sufficient conditions of the universe’s beginning were not eternal, then the cause must have changed prior to the first event of the universe. But we have already seen that the cause must be changeless and timeless. So, the cause of the universe could not have been a non-personal, physical cause. Only a personal agent who can act and will for things to happen apart from prior physical conditions is adequate to explain the beginning of the universe.
7. Good because he apparently designed a very complex universe in order that human life might live and thrive.
This sounds a lot like the Christian God, doesn't it?
On the contrary, I think we can know some things about God simply by reflecting rationally on the nature of that being--call him/it what you will--who created the universe out of nothing. I am alluding, of course, to the age-old tradition of natural theology which offered rational arugments for God's existence and then deduced from those arguments' conclusions some characteristics of God. To be sure, the soundness of those deductions depends upon the prior soundness of the initial arguments for God's existence. So, we will have to start there.
Here is one arugment for God's existence that has proven to be very powerful and persuasive in much contemporary discussion. It's called the kalam cosmological argument:
(1) If the universe had no beginning, then an actual infinite number of events would have occurred prior to the present moment.
(2) It is impossible that an actual infinite number of events occur prior to any moment.
(3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Premise (1) of this argument is uncontroversial. If the universe literally had no beginning, then that logically entails that the set comprising all those past events prior to the present moment contains an actual infinite number of members. Put more simply, if the universe had no beginning (i.e., if the universe is eternal), then prior to the present moment there would have occurred an actual infinite number of past events.
Premise (2) is the crucial premise here. William Lane Craig and others have shown that an infinite number of concrete entities, including historical events, cannot exist because it would lead to absurdities. For example, let us imagine a library which contains an actual infinite number of books. And let us suppose that half the books are colored red and half the books are colored blue. And let us further suppose that someone visits the library and checks out all of the red books. How many books are left in the library? As unbelievable as it sounds, according to infinite set theory, the same number of books remains in the library as before the visitor arrived! But surely there could not really be such a library—a library in which half the books are checked out and yet the number of books in the library is not diminished! The idea that an actual infinite exists in reality is logically absurd. For the same reason, there cannot really be an infinite number of past events. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
The second premise of our argument may be defended another way. If the set of past events has an actually infinite number of members, then that means that in order for history to have reached the present moment, an infinite number of past events would have to have been “crossed” or formed one-at-a-time, since history progresses linearly and is not given all at once.
But, here’s the problem: by definition, an infinite number of events cannot be crossed one-at-a-time. A set with a number of members that can be traversed or completed, is by definition a finite set. It is just not possible to cross an actual infinite. To illustrate, Craig asks us to imagine a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity: . . . -3, -2, -1, 0. Why didn’t he finish yesterday? Or last year? Or a million years ago? For at any point in the past, he will have already crossed an infinite! That is, if the past has no beginning, then prior to any point in the past an actual infinite number of events will have already transpired. As Craig explains,
Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. (Reasonable Faith, p. 99)
So, the number of past events must be finite, not infinite, and that means that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Futher, we also know that something cannot come from nothing. More specifically, we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Thus, the beginning of the universe had a cause.
Now we come to the crucial question for this blog thread. What can we know about this cause of the universe? Several things. The first cause of the universe must be:
1. Eternal (existing outside of time) and non-spatial because it is the creator of the space-time universe.
2. Changeless/Immutable since to exist outside of time implies the absence of change.
3. Immaterial (non-physical) because materiality requires the potential for change.
4. Uncaused because if it were caused, then it would not be the ultimate cause of the universe and the first event (beginning) of the universe would not have been the first event, which is absurd. Moreover, the fact that the cause is timelessly eternal and immutable implies that it is uncaused and self-existent.
5. Enormously Powerful, if not omnipotent, because it brought the universe into existence from nothing.
6. Personal because only a personal being could account for the spontaneous beginning of the universe from nothing. If the cause of the universe were non-personal (i.e., some physical, natural cause), then that cause is either eternal or not eternal. If the cause is eternal, then the universe would also be eternal because when the necessary and sufficient conditions for some physical effect exist, then the effect exists. For example, the necessary and sufficient conditions for fire are fuel, oxygen, and heat. When these three elements come together at the same time and place, fire is the inevitable result. So, if fuel, oxygen, and heat existed together eternally, there would be an eternal fire. Likewise, if the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe were eternal, the universe would be eternal. However, we have already seen that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning. On the other hand, if the supposed non-personal necessary and sufficient conditions of the universe’s beginning were not eternal, then the cause must have changed prior to the first event of the universe. But we have already seen that the cause must be changeless and timeless. So, the cause of the universe could not have been a non-personal, physical cause. Only a personal agent who can act and will for things to happen apart from prior physical conditions is adequate to explain the beginning of the universe.
7. Good because he apparently designed a very complex universe in order that human life might live and thrive.
This sounds a lot like the Christian God, doesn't it?
14 Comments:
Steve, any thoughts on this paper from John Byl On Craig's Defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (Word doc)
I'm looking forward to you presentation at the EMNR conference.
I started commenting, but it turned into a post over here. If you don't read it, here's the short version:
Well written. I'd not read anything quite like your point #6, which is rather thought provoking.
...
I don't have very many clear thoughts on the matter, but I owe my present confusion and desire to think about this topic this morning to you. That may not sound like a compliment, but from me, it's high praise. I enjoy any challenge to think, and I'll be reading your other entries soon.
Jeff asks...
Steve, any thoughts on this paper from John Byl
My initial thoughts are that Byl is mostly guilty of some confusions and misunderstandings. I really think most of his points on the philosophical arguments are wide of the mark. The only point he makes that caught my attention was this:
"If the future is indeed endless, then to an omniscient God it exists as a definite actual infinity, rather than as an indefinite potential infinity. It would seem that to God an endless future would have the same status as a beginningless past. Both entail the notion that God has an infinite stock of memories or thoughts (cf. Ps.139:17)."
I think I can grant Byl's prmemise without granting his conclusion. That is, I believe that we can grant that for God, since he is omniscient, the future is "endless" and thus comprises an infinite. But, it does not follow that God has an actual infinite "stock of memories or thoughts." BTW, the same kind problem arises when we think about, say, God's knowledge of abstract entities like numbers, possible worlds, etc. One might be led to think that this means that actual infinites must be possible after all since God's knowledge of the infinite number of numbers and possible worlds entails that he has an infinite number of concrete thoughts corresponding to each number and possible world. However, this does not follow unless you insist that God's way of knowing is exactly like our way of knowing. But I submit that God knows all things in one simple act of knowing. Which means that he does NOT have discreet individual thoughts corresponding to each item of knowledge.
Mark said...
If I understand you correctly, your argument for a personal cause is something like this:
If the cause were impersonal and eternal, why would it wait until it did to create time? Why would it not have done it before it did? Only a personal cause could choose to do what it had not already done.
This argument can't stand because it tries to deal with time before time.
I don't think the argument is trying to "deal with time before time." It simply tries to explore as coherently as possible the alternatives open to one who wants to attribute the beginning of the universe to a non-personal cause. Keep in mind that the earlier part of the kalam argument is not per se trying to establish that there was a beginning to time, but that there had to be a beginning to the series of physical events. So, at least as far as this argument goes, there is no incoherence like trying to talk about time before time. No, we're only trying to talk, at most, about time before the series of physical events--which is not incoherent at all.
Many defenders of the kalam argument, though they believe that physical time began with the Big Bang, believe that there did exist prior to the Big Bang an undifferentiated, immeasureable absolute time that (absent any kind of change) was not and could not be divided into discreet temporal moments.
>>How many books are left in the library? As unbelievable as it sounds, according to infinite set theory, the same number of books remains in the library as before the visitor arrived!
You are assuming that infinity is a specific number. In math, infinity is an unbounded limit (x --> infinity: means that x grows beyond any assigned value).
Lets say I have a 1 foot ruler. We know that it has in infinite number of points along it's edge. I snap the ruler exactly in half. Each half still has an infinite number of points along it's edge, but, we note that the halves of the ruler are only a half foot long each.
According to the logic in your library example, when I snapped the ruler in half, each half would be a foot long each.
How does one post an argument dependent on infinity without actually understanding the concept of infinity?
I appreciated the post, especially point #6, but I wonder how we keep God from suffering the same fate as the universe...If God is eternal, then before the present moment, there must have already taken place an actual infinite number of events related to God's existence...if the universe's eternality falls by this argument, doesn't God? Since my theology tells me that God is eternal and His creation isn't, then I am left wondering where is the flaw in the initial argument that the universe is not eternal...
The argument assumes a premiss that is metaphysically disputable and that our best physical theories deny, namely that time proceeds successively and does not just appear to do so for us. The most popular view of time is that it is simply another dimension of spacetime similar to the other dimensions of space. Consequently, the past can be already infinite and settled as well as the future and be an actual infinite. Strictly speaking, time does not literally start at the begining and finish at the end (or finsih up 'til now). Time already exists in toto as an aspect of the Paramidean material singularity called spacetime.
Further, any singular material object the matter of which is continuous is potentially infinitely divisible and this is all we mean by assuming the universe is "actually infinite". The argument assumes that we must regard moments of time as discreet but if the spacetime model is right there is nothing discreet about them. There actual infiniteness is possible just any continuous object can be distinguished into an actual infinite set of parts through division.
We already know that the appearance of the "progress of time" is relative to a standpoint, so it is quite natural to think that there is no fact of the matter about the flow of time. The appearance of the flow of time is epiphenomenal to the dynamics of matter and is simply a systematic mistake that our brains make on the level of classical perception.
I'm not arguing that this view is true but that its a possible view with motivations based on science. Since the argument rightly concludes that if we take something like a common sense view of time seriously we have to pose an ultimate first cause. Since the scientistic already is suspicious of a common sense view of time, he won't find the argument from Craig cogent.
monster zero said...
You are assuming that infinity is a specific number. In math, infinity is an unbounded limit (x --> infinity: means that x grows beyond any assigned value).
actually infinity is used in math in more than one way, and specifically, i am using "infinity" in the way it is standardly used in infinite set theory. There, an actual infinite is defined as a set of which a proper subset can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the members of the original set. This definition is clear and unambiguous, and all by itself generates the intractable paradoxes I spoke of in the argument (e.g., the "infinite library") So, although, the word "infinite" does not refer to a specific number, when we are talking about an infinite set we are indeed talking about a set that contains a completed, infinite, number--by definition!
Lets say I have a 1 foot ruler. We know that it has in infinite number of points along it's edge.
Here is where you go wrong. We most certainly do not know that that the ruler has an inifinite number of points on it. Indeed, we know the opposite--it does not have an infinite number of points. You have made an elementary mistake, confusing a potential inifinite with and actual infinite. I grant that there is a potential infinite number of points on the ruler--that is, you can (if you lived long enough) keep breaking the ruler up into more and more smaller parts forever. But, notice that no longer how many times you break it, you will only have broken it a finite number of times. As William Lance Craig says, "infinite divisibility does not imply infinite division." If the ruler truly had an actual infinite number of points, then, as Zeno proved, you could not move you hand from one end of it to the other.
Jason asked...
I appreciated the post, especially point #6, but I wonder how we keep God from suffering the same fate as the universe...If God is eternal, then before the present moment, there must have already taken place an actual infinite number of events related to God's existence...if the universe's eternality falls by this argument, doesn't God?
This is a good and fair question. The answer, however, is no--unless you believe that God is temporal. Traditionally, Christians have believed that God is atemporal (timeless). So, the problem is with the word "eternal." It can mean "everlasting" or it can mean "timeless." If you think of God's eternality simply as his being everlasting; that he has always existed, in time, forever, then the kalam argument does work against God. God can have an infinite past no more than the universe can. So, it is better to conceive of God's eternality as timelessness. God exists outside of time in an eternal present, not subject to temporal change.
>>Here is where you go wrong. We most certainly do not know that that the ruler has an inifinite number of points on it.
Points are 1-dimensional, and take up no space along a ruler. Yet, individual points are distinct. So, you are wrong: there are an actual infinite number of points along a 2 dimensional line of any length greater than 0. I can use set theory (and braces) to make it actual: {Points on my ruler}. There we go, a completed set of infinite size (without having to sit there for infinity breaking it).
Either way, your library example claims that after we take out half of all the books, the same number of books are left. Something like:
infinity = infinity
You are incorrect. Two infinite sets do not have to have equal quantities. Ex:
{positive integers} != {positive integers divisible by 2}
These are both actual infinite sets, but the contents of one is half as big as the contents of the other.
Monster zero said...
Points are 1-dimensional, and take up no space along a ruler. Yet, individual points are distinct. So, you are wrong: there are an actual infinite number of points along a 2 dimensional line of any length greater than 0. I can use set theory (and braces) to make it actual: {Points on my ruler}. There we go, a completed set of infinite size (without having to sit there for infinity breaking it).
Your thought experiment actually begs the entire question. You say there are an infinte individual, distinct points on the ruler, but saying it's so doesn't make it so. And your imagining the "points" on the ruler as being infinite doesn' make the actual ruler have an infinite number of points in concrete reality--your imagined ruler is an abstraction, and I have not denied that there can be an infinite number of abstract entities.
Either way, your library example claims that after we take out half of all the books, the same number of books are left. Something like:
infinity = infinity
You are incorrect. Two infinite sets do not have to have equal quantities. Ex:
{positive integers} != {positive integers divisible by 2}
These are both actual infinite sets, but the contents of one is half as big as the contents of the other.
Again you are mistaken. Can you place the members of the two sets you have distinguished in one to one correspondence with each other? Yes, you can--by definition. Ergo, they are the same size! This is the paradoxical nature of infinite sets and shows us exactly why an actual infinite cannot exist in concrete reality.
Dr. Steve Cowan:
If you thought like this all the time, you would be unable to pass pre-calc. The two sets above are not equal. Go get a calc book and read something other than the bible.
now a cevets said...
If you thought like this all the time, you would be unable to pass pre-calc. The two sets above are not equal. Go get a calc book and read something other than the bible.
And I would recommend that you check out a book on set theory (e.g., C.C. Pinter, "Set Theory") to see that nothing I have said has anything whatsoever to do with the Bible. I would also suggest that you stop blindly following the rules in your calculus book and engage in some independent thinking. Even a child can see that the members of the set of even numbers can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers ad infinitum--which logically entails that both sets have the same number of members. Prove me wrong, don't just resort to name calling which of course is the refuge of a person who hasn't anything intelligent to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home