|
7/8/2022
|
By Trent Blake
|
Does God exist? As Christians, we believe that Christ Jesus died on the cross so that we might be saved from our sin and be reconciled to God. And yet, increasingly more people today seek to cast doubt on the claims of Christianity - even on the existence of God himself.
In an effort to equip you to better share the reasons you have for the hope that is within you (1 Pet 3:15), today I will be sharing with you one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God. It is called the Contingency Argument. It originates with the 18th Century German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - and I believe it's one of the strongest cases we can make for the existence of God. It is a little on the complicated side, though - so hang with me!
The original argument is much shorter, but in order to show the logical steps and not lose anyone, I’ve expanded the argument, some. Here it is:
PREMISE 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.
PREMISE 2: The universe exists.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe has an explanation for its existence.
This is pretty straightforward, right? Unlike the Cosmological Argument, this argument works even if the universe didn't have a beginning! Why? Because even if the universe always existed, there still had to be a reason it existed rather than not. What could that reason be? That's where we get to our second syllogism:
PREMISE 1: Everything that has an explanation for its existence either exists necessarily or exits contingently.
PREMISE 2: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe either exists necessarily or exists contingently.
This syllogism simply says that there are only two possible explanations for something’s existence. Either it’s logically impossible for it not to exist (i.e., “exists necessarily”) or it exits because something else caused it (i.e., exists contingently”). This is fairly uncontroversial. We get our third syllogism just from the definitions of “exist necessarily” and “exist contingently”:
PREMISE 1: If it’s logically possible for something not to exist, then it exits contingently, not out of necessity.
PREMISE 2: It is logically possible for the universe to not exist.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe exists contingently, not out of necessity.
This syllogism basically says that since the universe didn’t logically have to exist, that rules out “exists necessarily” (not even leading atheists believe the universe exits necessarily). This leaves only one option for us: the universe must exist contingently on something else. Something has to exist “necessarily” to bring about the contingent universe. This leads us to the fourth syllogism in the argument:
PREMISE 1: Nothing can be the explanation for its own existence.
PREMISE 2: The universe is comprised of the entirety of time, space, and matter.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the explanation for the universe cannot include time space and matter.
This may seem obvious, but not everyone accepts this. After all, how do we know the universe is the entirety of time, space, and matter? What about a multiverse? The problem with this objection is it does not function to change the conclusion. All this objection would do, if correct, is just change the word “universe” to “multiverse” in this argument. From this change, there ends up being no difference in the conclusion. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the explanation for the universe must not be made up of time, space, or matter. But what else can we deduce about this explanation? That’s where the last part of this argument comes in:
PREMISE 1: Only free agents are able to perform actions without a material cause.
PREMISE 2: “The explanation for the universe” created the universe without a materiel cause.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, “the explanation for the universe” is a free agent.
Now, we simply need to put the pieces together. What must that the explanation for the universe look like? We already established that this explanation must exist necessarily and be outside of time, space, and matter. Here, we see that this cause must also be a free agent. To put it another way, this “explanation for the universe” must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, free agent, capable of creating the entire universe, including everything in it. This is the technical definition of God; isn't it?
So, the next time someone tells you that God doesn't exist, here is yet another argument you can use to show them that on the contrary, belief in God is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence of the whole universe.
In an effort to equip you to better share the reasons you have for the hope that is within you (1 Pet 3:15), today I will be sharing with you one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God. It is called the Contingency Argument. It originates with the 18th Century German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - and I believe it's one of the strongest cases we can make for the existence of God. It is a little on the complicated side, though - so hang with me!
The original argument is much shorter, but in order to show the logical steps and not lose anyone, I’ve expanded the argument, some. Here it is:
PREMISE 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.
PREMISE 2: The universe exists.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe has an explanation for its existence.
This is pretty straightforward, right? Unlike the Cosmological Argument, this argument works even if the universe didn't have a beginning! Why? Because even if the universe always existed, there still had to be a reason it existed rather than not. What could that reason be? That's where we get to our second syllogism:
PREMISE 1: Everything that has an explanation for its existence either exists necessarily or exits contingently.
PREMISE 2: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe either exists necessarily or exists contingently.
This syllogism simply says that there are only two possible explanations for something’s existence. Either it’s logically impossible for it not to exist (i.e., “exists necessarily”) or it exits because something else caused it (i.e., exists contingently”). This is fairly uncontroversial. We get our third syllogism just from the definitions of “exist necessarily” and “exist contingently”:
PREMISE 1: If it’s logically possible for something not to exist, then it exits contingently, not out of necessity.
PREMISE 2: It is logically possible for the universe to not exist.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the universe exists contingently, not out of necessity.
This syllogism basically says that since the universe didn’t logically have to exist, that rules out “exists necessarily” (not even leading atheists believe the universe exits necessarily). This leaves only one option for us: the universe must exist contingently on something else. Something has to exist “necessarily” to bring about the contingent universe. This leads us to the fourth syllogism in the argument:
PREMISE 1: Nothing can be the explanation for its own existence.
PREMISE 2: The universe is comprised of the entirety of time, space, and matter.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the explanation for the universe cannot include time space and matter.
This may seem obvious, but not everyone accepts this. After all, how do we know the universe is the entirety of time, space, and matter? What about a multiverse? The problem with this objection is it does not function to change the conclusion. All this objection would do, if correct, is just change the word “universe” to “multiverse” in this argument. From this change, there ends up being no difference in the conclusion. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the explanation for the universe must not be made up of time, space, or matter. But what else can we deduce about this explanation? That’s where the last part of this argument comes in:
PREMISE 1: Only free agents are able to perform actions without a material cause.
PREMISE 2: “The explanation for the universe” created the universe without a materiel cause.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, “the explanation for the universe” is a free agent.
Now, we simply need to put the pieces together. What must that the explanation for the universe look like? We already established that this explanation must exist necessarily and be outside of time, space, and matter. Here, we see that this cause must also be a free agent. To put it another way, this “explanation for the universe” must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, free agent, capable of creating the entire universe, including everything in it. This is the technical definition of God; isn't it?
So, the next time someone tells you that God doesn't exist, here is yet another argument you can use to show them that on the contrary, belief in God is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence of the whole universe.