In the Beginning God....
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
"...it is impossible,
I say, for the
human mind not
to believe that
there is, in all
this, design,
cause and effect,
up to an ultimate
cause, a
fabricator of all
things..." (TH:
Jefferson to John
Adams, Apr. 11,
1823)
I say, for the
human mind not
to believe that
there is, in all
this, design,
cause and effect,
up to an ultimate
cause, a
fabricator of all
things..." (TH:
Jefferson to John
Adams, Apr. 11,
1823)
" I hold (without
appeal to
revelation) that
when we take a
view of the
Universe, in its
parts general or
particular, it is
impossible for
the human mind
not to perceive
and feel a
conviction of
design,
consummate
skill, and
indefinite power
in every atom of
its composition."
(TH: Jefferson to
John Adams,
Apr. 11, 1823.)
appeal to
revelation) that
when we take a
view of the
Universe, in its
parts general or
particular, it is
impossible for
the human mind
not to perceive
and feel a
conviction of
design,
consummate
skill, and
indefinite power
in every atom of
its composition."
(TH: Jefferson to
John Adams,
Apr. 11, 1823.)
Motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"
| An Argument For God By John T. Lewis January 2004; Revised January 2005 |
As far as I know, I am the first to take the cosmological argument for the existence of God in
this direction. As you can see, I've been pondering, developing and perfecting it for at least
a year now. It goes back initially to a debate I had with Atheist Alonzo Jackson. Interestingly,
he quit the debate before our agreed stopping point. I am most happy to share that debate
with you if you would like it.
Principles Established At the Start:
1. Everything is either physical or not physical (Law of Excluded Middle. Basic philosophic
principle).
2. Everything physical must have a cause (basic human reasoning establishes this).
Main Argument:
1. Either the first physical thing was caused by something physical or something not physical
(no other options. Law Excluded Middle).
2. The first physical thing was not caused by something physical (if it were then it would not
be the first physical thing).
3. Therefore, the first physical thing was caused by something not physical (that's
deductive!).
How To Use This Argument To Prove God's Existence:
1. For a non-physical thing to cause a physical thing, the non-physical thing had to be of
greater intelligence than the physical thing which was caused.
2. Human beings are physical things which were ultimately caused by the first physical thing.
3. Therefore, the non-physical thing which caused human beings had to be of a greater
intelligence than the human beings which were caused.
Weaknesses of This Argument:
I think it's important for us to be honest with our position and examine the weaknesses and
contemplate solutions. With this mentality, we solidify and fortify our system of belief.
1. In order to avoid the idea of the non-physical creating the physical, the atheist may
attempt to say that the first physical thing has existed forever. Alonzo Jackson did this when
he saw the force of my argumentation. The whole argument is destroyed if the first physical
thing has existed forever. Even an elementary study of current scientific knowledge reveals
that the universe has not existed forever.
2. It doesn't necessarily prove that God exists even if something non-physical "created" the
first physical thing. That's not an absolute deductive conclusion. Even still, proof of the
non-physical realm goes a long way in making it much harder for one to be an honest
atheist.
3. An atheist may run to empiricism in an attempt to avoid the argument. Empiricism is
basically the belief that only things which can be verified with the senses are true. Since the
non-physical cannot be empirically verified, it is automatically rejected no matter what
philosophic argument is introduced. As far as I'm concerned, empiricism is pure nonsense
simply because when one interprets empirical data he is already using logic (a non empirical
thing) to draw his conclusions. The atheist only appeals to empiricism because the force of
this argument drives him to do so.
4. It may not be the case that a non-physical thing must have greater intelligence than a
physical thing in order to bring it into existence. My mind is still processing this principle. As
far as I know, all things within the physical realm must have things of greater intelligence
produce things of lessor intelligence. Sound logic would seem to indicate that the same
should apply to the non-physical. If this is true we are compelled to affirm a God which
possesses intelligence.
Conclusion:
All in all I think this is a good argument. This exercise doesn't necessarily argue for a
Christian God. To argue a Christian God requires a leap of faith far beyond the
argumentation I have presented.
this direction. As you can see, I've been pondering, developing and perfecting it for at least
a year now. It goes back initially to a debate I had with Atheist Alonzo Jackson. Interestingly,
he quit the debate before our agreed stopping point. I am most happy to share that debate
with you if you would like it.
Principles Established At the Start:
1. Everything is either physical or not physical (Law of Excluded Middle. Basic philosophic
principle).
2. Everything physical must have a cause (basic human reasoning establishes this).
Main Argument:
1. Either the first physical thing was caused by something physical or something not physical
(no other options. Law Excluded Middle).
2. The first physical thing was not caused by something physical (if it were then it would not
be the first physical thing).
3. Therefore, the first physical thing was caused by something not physical (that's
deductive!).
How To Use This Argument To Prove God's Existence:
1. For a non-physical thing to cause a physical thing, the non-physical thing had to be of
greater intelligence than the physical thing which was caused.
2. Human beings are physical things which were ultimately caused by the first physical thing.
3. Therefore, the non-physical thing which caused human beings had to be of a greater
intelligence than the human beings which were caused.
Weaknesses of This Argument:
I think it's important for us to be honest with our position and examine the weaknesses and
contemplate solutions. With this mentality, we solidify and fortify our system of belief.
1. In order to avoid the idea of the non-physical creating the physical, the atheist may
attempt to say that the first physical thing has existed forever. Alonzo Jackson did this when
he saw the force of my argumentation. The whole argument is destroyed if the first physical
thing has existed forever. Even an elementary study of current scientific knowledge reveals
that the universe has not existed forever.
2. It doesn't necessarily prove that God exists even if something non-physical "created" the
first physical thing. That's not an absolute deductive conclusion. Even still, proof of the
non-physical realm goes a long way in making it much harder for one to be an honest
atheist.
3. An atheist may run to empiricism in an attempt to avoid the argument. Empiricism is
basically the belief that only things which can be verified with the senses are true. Since the
non-physical cannot be empirically verified, it is automatically rejected no matter what
philosophic argument is introduced. As far as I'm concerned, empiricism is pure nonsense
simply because when one interprets empirical data he is already using logic (a non empirical
thing) to draw his conclusions. The atheist only appeals to empiricism because the force of
this argument drives him to do so.
4. It may not be the case that a non-physical thing must have greater intelligence than a
physical thing in order to bring it into existence. My mind is still processing this principle. As
far as I know, all things within the physical realm must have things of greater intelligence
produce things of lessor intelligence. Sound logic would seem to indicate that the same
should apply to the non-physical. If this is true we are compelled to affirm a God which
possesses intelligence.
Conclusion:
All in all I think this is a good argument. This exercise doesn't necessarily argue for a
Christian God. To argue a Christian God requires a leap of faith far beyond the
argumentation I have presented.
"The heavens
declare the glory
of God; And the
firmament shows
his handiwork."
(King David, Ps.
19:10)
declare the glory
of God; And the
firmament shows
his handiwork."
(King David, Ps.
19:10)