Hello Dr. Craig,
I have a question about the "mystery of existence" basically. I’m an agnostic who used to be a Christian and I continue to think about theological questions and am open minded (I also have listened to all your podcasts and am continually engaged with your work). I recently watched a part of the "Closer to Truth" Series with Robert Lawrence Khun which you appeared on, but this segment was with the Physicist Steven Weinberg. His statements help to formulate my question and get you to see what I’m driving at.
Robert was asking him, “Some people say that science will hit a wall where they will get to something that will be beyond the bounds of scientific explanation and that's where religion comes in and purportedly has an answer" (I’m paraphrasing). He said that he agrees about what they say about science but doesn't agree with the part about religion. He basically says that if science is lucky, it will hit that wall, and have some final theory that is as far as it can go and that at the end of it you can ask "why this?" He grants that there is an "irreducible mystery (which I think is interesting since you definitely wouldn't hear that from someone like a Lawrence Krauss) but he thinks that the religious person has an equal mystery. He says if you ask a religious person "What is God like?" and they say I have no idea, then the notion really has no content and is just a three-letter word. But if they go on to say things like, "He’s kind, all powerful, loving, merciful, or humorous etc..." then the question must come up, "Why that?"
I think you would probably respond with things like the ontological argument, moral argument, God's being a metaphysically necessary being etc. but as an agnostic I have (and even as a believer) wondered, if God exists, why does he exist? This led me to think about "mystery" concerning the view of the naturalist/atheist and the theist, and I think there might be a reason why the theist might have an upper hand in this case.
If the naturalist is a physicalist, and lets also say takes a tenseless view on the nature of time, thus leaving you with a 4 dimensional space-time block, there would just be this block existing inexplicably and timelessly. This would seem to remove the need to answer such questions as "What was before the Big Bang, or what caused it" and such problems, but you would still be left with this mystery of an inexplicable block.
But if there were a God as roughly conceived by Theists, it seems to me the Theist would have the following advantage over the naturalist as regards the mystery of existence. In the naturalists case (as I’ve conceived it) you have this block that exists timelessly and inexplicably in the sense that there's no reason why its there (and its not like you can ask it why it exists) but in the case of God, who lets say is something like a mind, and is therefore relational, and if we are also roughly minds as well, it seems that we could relate to this Being in a way that we couldn't to the ultimate reality of the b-theory naturalist's space-time block in that we could ask God why he exists. Granted its probably not possible that He/It could answer us in a language or a semantic sense, he could possibly make it known to us in a relational way, by knowing us intimately and communing with us so that we could in a sense "become apart of “or share in the knowledge of his necessary existence and eternality. In any case I think it would be less mysterious if God existed than the block because God is a mind and you can relate to a mind (even though there would be a lesser kind of mystery in the sense that God is infinite and thus cant be exhaustively known or comprehended).
I wonder if you think that the theist does have a advantage in this way and if you disagree with Weinberg about the theist being equally perplexed at the mystery of existence.
Thank you.
Christian
Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd give this a third try, because I think it's important to address two crucial errors (based on Scripture) that Christian and Dr. Craig make - one each.
ReplyDeleteChristian's statement, "I'm an agnostic who used to be a Christian" is the first, grievous error. Such a thing does not and can't happen. This is noted, defined, explained, in utmost clarity, in Ephesians 1:13,14, and 1 Peter 1:5, and further explained in 1 John 2:19. Mind you, these are only three of multiple examples. If one studies these verses they will see that Christian (the irony of his name) is making the profound mistake of thinking he was a Christian, when in fact, he never was. Paul points out the mistake Christian is making in 2 Timothy 2:15 - 19. Two key points in these latter verses are, "The Lord knows those who are his," verse 19, and all of verse 15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved of God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Had Christian been diligent in his study of God's word, he would have been aware of these verses, and would then never had to be ashamed (because he is bringing shame on himself) to utter his spiritually disastrous statement. In other words, he would have known he was sealed and protected and guarded by the power of God and the Holy Spirit. If such was actually the case in his life, then if follows that he could never have become an agnostic. I think this is undisputable.
To compound his error, Dr. Craig writes back as says, "It sounds to me as if you're perilously close to arguing you way back to theism." This is/was dangerous for a number of reasons, and to a number of people, besides Christian. First, Dr. Craig knows about the verses I quoted above, and it follows that he knows Christian's statement is impossible, unless he was never a Christian, in the first place. If he's just patronizing him, so that he can move on to his philosophical answer, then he has done no good service to Christian. What he's actually doing/did is affirm that a Christian can lose his faith, and thus his salvation. This is monumentally terrifying, because now he has not only confirmed to Christian something that can't happen, but his confirmation will only further serve to scare the daylights out of immature Christians, who might now really think they can also lose their faith, and thus their salvation. Can you think of anything worse to plant into a Christian's mind?
Dr. Craig is a brilliant man, we all recognize and accept that, as we should. So how he made such an error is unexplainable. My best guess is that he was anxious to address the philosophical question, and thus skimmed over the theological implications of Christian's initial error.
I've done this three times now, and will not delete this one, so that if you are a Christian who is about to panic, after reading this nonsense that Christian put forth in his statement, and that Dr. Craig confirmed - if only accidently - the please don't panic and become afraid that you might one day lose your faith, and thus you precious gift of salvation. If such a thing could happen, then just know, as 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us" and so on. In other words, you never were a Christian, and there is work to do. Once again, if you belong to God, he will keep you forever and always, and you can't, I repeat, can't be separated from him.
God bless all of you. I apologize for writing such a long response, and the fact that I was redundant in places, but I don't want you to be fearful that what Christian thinks happened to him, can happen to you.
You keep saying God isn't a contingent being, but don't give any reason why. So why isn't God contingent
ReplyDeleteBecause He is uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. In addition, one can't have an infinite regress of causes to the universe. Other than that, and if you want more detailed knowledge, you are going to have to show some self-initiative.
DeleteWhy couldn't a necessarily existing law of physics be the cause of the universe, instead of God? Not because the universe includes minds, because why can't minds evolve from non-minds like other things form from things they're not? If that would make the universe a necessarily existing object, how do you know it isn't?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a physicist, but my general understanding is that physics is concerned with the fundamental structure of existing matter, not how matter originated. As an example, Newton's "Three Laws of Motion" describe how the motion of physical objects change, but these objects already exist. I don't know, nor have I heard, how a law of physics has ever produced physical matter. Please provide an example if you know of one.
DeleteThis part of my answer, concerning your question about the universe possibly being a necessarily existing object, and how do we know it isn't, is taken from an argument that Dr. Craig labels, "The Taxicab Fallacy," and goes like this - mind you, Henry, in its short form.
Sometimes unbelievers (atheists) will say that everything in the universe has a cause for its existence, but it is not true of the universe itself, or everything in the universe has an explanation, but the universe itself has no explanation.
This response commits what has been aptly called the 'taxicab fallacy.' For as the nineteenth-century philosopher Schopenhauer said, concerning the premise that, "Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence," can't be dismissed like a taxicab once you've arrived at your desired destination! One can't say everything has an explanation of its existence and then suddenly exempt the universe. It would be arbitrary to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule. Finally, merely increasing the size of the object to be explained - even until it becomes the universe itself - does nothing to remove the need for some explanation of its existence. Hence: The universe is not a necessarily existing object. You can find more about this subject on Dr. Craig's website.
As far as minds evolving from non-minds, I would say such an assertion is just silly. Again, if you can provide any example of that - any at all - please do, and that would include, as you say, "other things form from things they're not." I can only suppose you might be referring to some aspect of Darwinian evolution, but you are not specific.
I'm not sure I've understood your questions correctly. Perhaps Pastor J. - more qualified than myself - will provide his answer. Put you faith in God, Henry, and experience the kind of joy that surpasses all understanding. Bargaining with your eternal soul is not a trifling matter. God bless.
Physics is conserned with both how matter is created and how existing matter behaves. In "The Grand Design", Steven Hawkings claims that M-theory couldn't have not existed and that it creates matter. Even if he's wrong and no one knows of a law of physics that creates matter that doesn't prove there isn't one.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't saying the universe doesn't have an explanation, I was saying it could have been unitentionally caused by a necessarily existing thing instead of God. You said in "The argument from contingency" that if the universe was unintentionally created by a non-contingent thing that makes it a non-contingent thing. I was saying that doesn't prove it wasn't because the universe could be non-contingent.
Is it "silly" to think that water forms from hydrogen and oxigen, neither of which are wet? Or that any other compound forms from elements that don't have its characteristics?
I respect your input about water. Still, I would only point out that regardless of how it was produced (material from material) it still has no conscious.
DeleteI think the best approach - after all, few topics inspire more heated debate and controversy than God - should be researching and reviewing and deeply contemplating the cumulative knowledge associated with His possible, probable, and plausible existence.