Bible Students

Some Thoughts on “On Guard” by William Lane Craig (chapter 3)

This section covered chapter three, “Why Does Anything At All Exist?” This section tackles the philosophical and scientific roots of why a universe has come to be, and why atheism falls short in ultimately explaining the reason behind the universe. In philosophy, the questions of metaphysics and epistemology come first. What is everything, essentially, and how do we know? These two questions are essentially impossible to answer without first answering the other question. You can only understand metaphysics through an epistemological system and you can only understand epistemology through a metaphysical system. At the root, you must know that something exists outside of yourself before beginning. This is unprovable. 

One can only know that they exist and think, but as a hypothetical all other experiences can be wholly fiction, like a dream. One must take a leap of faith to believe there is anything at all in reality, other than themself (which acts as a sort of bridge to show subscribers of scientism that all people accept and live by at least one unprovable idea). 

The first existential question to be asked is a sort of extension of metaphysics. They are deeply related. Why does anything exist at all? I say these things are deeply related because often in human interactions the result of an exchange or behavior is the motivation behind the actions. If the universe was created by a mind something like our own, we may be able to look at the result of created things to find their created purpose. 

Purpose and intention require a purpose-giver, a mind behind the intended result. Intention requires a conscious agent to give that created thing intention. From the get-go, the question of “why” anything exists at all is loaded in favor of theism. In atheism there is no why everything was created, only a “how” everything was created (I use “created” here in a neutral sense, to mean the creation of particles after the Big Bang). 

If there is a why to the universe, that why must be outside of the universe. From that premise alone one can reason that the “thing” that created the universe must be a conscious unembodied mind, powerful, immaterial, non-abstract (in the sense that abstract things do not have causality), non-spatial, and atemporal. The being must be a mind because the universe was created at a certain point and has not existed forever. An eternal force could not change its nature to go from non-creation to creation a fixed amount of time ago, but a conscious atemporal non-abstract agent could have. 

It is important to note that this being is non-abstract. Abstract objects such as numbers are correct units of measure but are not concretely tied to any physical object. They are non-causal. No number can ever cause any event, as it is descriptive. One could make the case that any use of numbers is irrelevant under the metaphysical view of nominalism, as the object themselves are often arbitrarily defined. For example, a pile of sand. After taking away one grain of salt an (n) amount of time, at what point does the pile of sand cease to be a pile? Regardless of this criticism, however, abstract objects such as numbers still exist. 

The existence of abstract objects is important in this discussion as they act as an example of an atemporal object. Some things, such as abstract objects, exist without explanation. They are atemporal and do not require their own origin (since an object outside of time would not have a beginning). There are also necessary objects, which would exist always regardless of circumstances, such as numbers. 

With that introduction and definition of concepts addressed, here begins one of the most common arguments for the existence of a creator of the universe: Everything that begins to exist has an explanation for its existence. The premise is simple. If something begins to exist, it has an explanation. As will be touched on in a later reflection the universe did come into existence at some point. Because of this, the universe must have an explanation of its coming into existence. Now, the universe could not cause itself if it had not already existed. Therefore, the universe must have a cause outside of itself. 

This cause must be able to cause space, time, matter, and energy. Therefore, it must be outside of all four of those universal attributes. As was mentioned earlier, this creator must also be personal as atemporal forces can not create something without eternally emanating it. As a sidenote, the Creator is not an exemption to the premise as this Creator would be atemporal, without a beginning. The universe can not be an exception, as it came into existence. 

Some claim that the universe does not need an explanation for its existence, and that it simply exists. However, as mentioned, the universe comes into existence at a certain point and does not have atemporal properties. This critique is not valid. Claiming the universe does not need an explanation of its existence because it is all there is is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. 

A detour which follows the flow of the book is a definition of premises. The most common way of putting a premise and conclusion is: If P, then Q. This is a simple premise and conclusion. The reverse of this is not true: If Q, then P. This is a fallacy. However, the opposite is true always: If not Q, then not P. Additionally, as definitions, analogy is a point of similarity between two or more things and disanalogy is a point of dissimilarity. 

The careful articulation of these concepts has great apologetic and evangelistic value in everyday life. The ability to explain that the universe’s beginning requires an explanation of its existence is a point which I have personally found great use. For example, I had the opportunity to meet someone where they were with this cosmological argument and the necessity for a personal Creator given the reasons stated earlier. 

This person believed in a non-personal Creator. I am unsure of how this practically plays out in a worldview, though they seemed to believe the creator was a force. After explaining the necessity of a personal Creator, or God, they seemed to be convinced of that. I then got to explain that I am a Bible College student. I pray that person was able to see a glimpse of the great depth of Christian thought and look into it for themself. 

The reason for the beginning of the universe has many practical, personal, and theological implications. To begin, the beginning of the universe acts as a definite philosophical line of reasoning toward the existence of a Creator. Whereas someone could argue against the validity of historical evidences for Christ, it would be much more difficult to argue against the philosophical reasoning presented here, which is accessible to everyone. Historical evidences and miraculous evidences are very circumstantial and depend on careful study, however there are many philosophical evidences which act as a foundation for theism which are far more difficult to immediately excuse. 

In terms of personal implications, I can not escape the reality of a Creator given the beginning of the universe. Because of this line of reasoning my faith can only be shaken to a certain point. No matter where I am spiritually, I would be hard-pressed to find a work-around for the reason of the beginning of the universe. 

Theologically many things about the Creator’s nature can be discovered. Firstly, the Creator is atemporal, non-spatial, and immaterial. Additionally, the Creator is immensely powerful. Probably the most underappreciated implication of the beginning of the universe is the personal nature of the Creator. This Creator is personal in the sense that it was self-changing. This Creator was atemporal and necessary, however “decided” in some sense to enter into time by making one of its actions temporal (i.e. the beginning of the universe). This unembodied mind must also have some sort of intention for the universe, which can be discovered by exploring what the universe does. Biblically, the universe functions as an agent giving glory to God, as well as an immense amount of fine-tuning designed for the existence of humanity, the crowning jewel of creation, which gives glory to God. If the Creator had no desire (biblically, I speak of God as love here, demonstrating His desire to share His divine love with embodied creatures), it would have no reason for creating the universe. From the creation alone one can deduce a theistic Creator who is personal, can function temporally, and has some sort of desire for creation. These three conclusions are often overlooked, I have found, and to a great shame. These conclusions are an amazing segway into biblical theism, as will be explored in the following responses.