The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Don’t let the name frighten you; the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is rather simplistic in nature once you break down each premise into its fundamental components. While there are many components to each of the three premises of this argument, you don’t necessarily need to be a cosmologist to defend this argument well. Before getting started, I want to clearly state that this argument doesn’t directly argue for the existence of God. Rather, the conclusion of the KCA has theistic implications. As I move through the argument, you will see why the KCA has become tremendously effective throughout the years at defending the biblical concept of a “beginning” (Genesis 1:1) because it is well supported by scientific and philosophic evidence. With that being said, the thesis for this article is to show how credible the KCA is, even under intense scrutiny of the highest caliber, at evidencing the reliability of the universe having a sole beginning while thoroughly examining what theistic implications can be drawn from its objective conclusion.

Getting to know the Kalam Cosmological Argument

            To begin, I’d like to lay out the three premises that make up the KCA;

1.     Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.     The universe began to exist.

3.     Therefore, the universe has a cause.[1]

Before we delve into the details of each premise, I’ll inform you on the brief history of how the KCA was developed. Ironically, this particular argument was constructed by a Muslim theologian by the name of Abu Hamid Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Al-Ghazali from Persia (modern day Iran) around the time of the twelfth-century A.D.[2] Al-Ghazali was concerned with his fellow Muslim philosophers that were becoming heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and were denying that God was the Creator of the universe. After he thoroughly studied the material of the Greek philosophers, he wrote a book titled “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” which argues that the universe does have a beginning and challenges the popular Greek philosophy that the universe is infinite in the past.² As you will see, the KCA is more relevant now than it was back then because we now have significantly more evidence to thoroughly support the KCA which wasn’t available at the time Al-Ghazali was alive.

Premise One – Whatever Begins to exist has a Cause

            Of the three premises that compile this argument, the first premise is probably the most obvious. Living everyday life gives us the insight that things just don’t “pop” into existence out of nothing. If you are driving down the road on the way to work in the morning and suddenly you notice a deer in the middle of the road, no rational personal would think, “that deer mysteriously popped into existence right in front of me”. You would likely think, “that deer ran out in front of me!”. You would recognize the cause of why that deer was in the middle of the road regardless of whether or not you saw the deer run into the road in the first place. To illustrate another example, if you came home from work and saw a donkey in the middle of your living room chewing on your sofa, you wouldn’t automatically think that the donkey “popped” into existence in your house from nothing. You’d likely conclude that a door was left open or a neighbor was playing a cruel practical joke on you. We, as reasonable people, are able to identify causes because we understand the first premise of this argument to be a fact.

            In addition to these examples, there are some philosophical reasons why we find this first premise to be a fact. First, something cannot come from nothing.² Second, if something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why nothing is so discriminatory in what it chooses to create.² If nothing is capable of creating universes, why don’t we see examples of nothing’s creative powers in our everyday life? Why don’t I observe a brand new car in my driveway when I walk outside to go to work in the morning or a home-cooked meal on the table when I get home from work all caused by the hand of nothing? Lastly, and most simply, our everyday experiences and scientific evidence confirm the truth of this premise.² We can see that this premise is never falsified and continuously verified. The first premise of the KCA is shown to be both philosophically and scientifically sound.

Premise Two – The Universe began to Exist

            This premise is likely the most substantive and hotly debated of the three premises. There are two philosophical and two scientific pieces of evidences that will be discussed in support of this premise, which will ultimately lead to our conclusion of premise three, the universe has a cause.

            The first piece of philosophical evidence would be to acknowledge that “infinity” cannot actually exist in the physical world.² To clarify, infinities can be used and are commonly used in mathematics. However, we should acknowledge the difference between using infinity in arithmetic and using infinity in the physical world.

            Prominent Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig often uses an example called, “Hilbert’s Hotel” to illustrate how infinity cannot be used in the physical world which he adopted from a German mathematician by the name of David Hilbert.¹

            Let’s let our minds branch off from the realm of possibility for a couple moments to be in the right mindset to properly comprehend “Hilbert’s Hotel”. Suppose Hilbert brought you to a regular old hotel, however all the rooms were full and you couldn’t stay because there wasn’t any space. You had to leave and find somewhere else to sleep because all the rooms were taken.

            Now, pretend that he invited you to a second hotel with an infinite amount of rooms but all the rooms were full (this is important). However, someone arrives behind you and demands a room. The front desk attendant declares, “that’s no problem”. The front desk attendant moves the person from room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #3, and so on and so forth onto infinity. Now, room #1 is empty for the new visitor to occupy. You are standing in the lobby confused because you realized that the hotel was full and there was an infinite amount of rooms but they were able to accommodate another guest even though there was no space. You knew something wasn’t adding up.

            As you’re sitting in the lobby, an infinity amount of guests shows up demanding rooms. The front desk attendant states, “that’s no problem”. The attendant move the person staying in room #1 to room #2, the person in room #2 to room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and the occupants of each room would move to a room number that was double their own. Since anything that is multiplied by the number two is always an even number, this would result in all the odd-numbered rooms now being vacant for the infinity amount of new guests to occupy.²

            As you can see from the absurd illustration of “Hilbert’s Hotel”, infinities in the physical world are impossible. You wouldn’t be able to do this with a real hotel because infinities are non-existent in the real world.  This philosophical evidence would also extend to time.² Concluding that the universe is eternal is comparable to saying it is possible to have a real Hilbert’s Hotel.

            The second philosophical argument is that you cannot pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time.² An illustration of this concept would be a chain of dominoes falling one after another. Suppose each domino represents the number of past events in the existence of the universe. Al-Ghazali argued that if the number of past events is infinite, there would be no possibility of reaching the present because regardless of where you are in time, you would always have an infinite number of past events preceding you. Therefore, Al-Ghazali infers based upon this principle, it is impossible to pass through an infinite number of past events one at a time and reach the present.² In order to reach the present, there must have been a beginning a finite time ago in order to initiate the process of time to make that possible.

            Another example of this concept would be to try your hand at counting to infinity. Everyone knows that no matter how high of a number you counted to, there is always a number after it. Theoretically, there would be an infinite number of numbers after it (Hilbert’s Hotel). Better yet, try counting down from infinity. Then you would run into the problem of acknowledging that infinity is not a real number in the physical world.

            The first scientific argument for the second premise is the expansion of the universe. Science provides us with some of the most significant and persuasive evidence for the universe having a beginning. In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble made a revealing discovery through observations at the Mount Wilson Observatory that the universe was expanding! The significance of this finding is the realization of the reality of an expanding universe leads us to the fact that there was an initial point in time where the universe began to expand, hence a beginning.¹

            Through modern technology, we are able to rewind the expansion and see that all of these expanding objects within our universe; observing that the distance between any two points in space would ultimately be zero if we go far enough back. Meaning, the universe couldn’t have been in existence for an infinite amount of time if it began expanding from zero.¹ Zero ultimately signifies that the universe wasn’t in existence. There is a scientific term called, “initial cosmological singularity”.² This singularity is the point at which both space and time began.

            The second scientific argument is what’s called the thermodynamics of the universe. When doing my studies in this topic, I found this concept to be the most difficult idea to grasp so I don’t want any reader to feel distressed if you don’t immediately comprehend the material. I found myself becoming very frustrated (and still do) with the complexity of this particular scientific argument. Hang in there and stay persistent in your studies.           

            The second law of thermodynamics states that unless there is energy being fed into a system, that system will become progressively unordered.² What does that mean!? Let me explain this concept by using an illustration. Imagine that you have a glass vacuum-sealed container and you injected gas into the container. Do you think the gas would hide in one corner of the container or would it likely spread evenly throughout the container? The gas would likely spread evenly throughout the container. Now imagine that container was continually expanding at an ever-growing rate. What would happen to the gas? The gas would expand along with it.

            Now, let’s apply this same concept with the container and the gas to the universe and the energy that is within it. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe has a specific amount of energy within it, just like the container has a specific amount of gas within it. If the universe expands continually, then the energy (like the gas in the container), will expand with it and evenly spread itself throughout the universe. What are the implications of the energy spreading throughout the universe as the universe expands? The universe will become entirely inhabitable for any life. The temperature and pressure will be the same throughout the universe and scientists have coined the term “heat death” to describe this event.²

            You may be wondering how this supports the second premise of the KCA. It supports the KCA because if the universe is eternal, why hasn’t the heat death already occurred yet? In an eternal universe, there would have been an infinite amount of time for the energy to already spread throughout the universe which would have caused the heat death by this time. Ultimately, we would not be in existence if the universe was eternal because heat death would have already taken place.²

Premise Three – Therefore, the Universe has a Cause

          Based upon the first two premises, the third logically and inescapably falls into place. The first two premises were supported by sound philosophical and scientific evidence that make this deductive argument’s conclusion more plausible than its negation. Meaning, it is more plausible to believe in the idea that the universe had a cause based upon this evidence rather than the idea that the universe is eternal. However, let’s not forget about the common objections by those with contradictory viewpoints.

Common Objections to the KCA

            You are inevitably going to find someone come up with objections to this argument. Likely, these objections are founded on philosophical presuppositions that are determined to lean towards a naturalistic worldview. People of a naturalistic worldview don’t like the idea of universes popping into existence because it puts them in a difficult position of having to explain how something as large and magnificent as a universe can pop into existence without having any apparent naturalistic explanation. Obviously, everything we’ve ever observed that began to exist had a cause. We’ve never observed anything come into existence without one.

            The first objection I see often is, “the truth for the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion”.[3] I like this objection personally because it reveals the objector’s misunderstanding of the argument itself. The KCA is a deductive argument. Meaning, as long as the rules of logic are inferred within the premises, the conclusion will inevitably be logically sound and valid.³

            Let me illustrate with some examples of a deductive argument for a better understanding.

1.     All oranges are fruits

2.     All fruits go on trees

3.     Therefore, all oranges grow on trees

 

1.     All bachelors are single

2.     John is single

3.     Therefore, John is a bachelor

As you can see, the objection about the contents of the first and third premise does nothing to degrade the scientific and philosophical validity of the KCA itself.

The second objection is, “the universe must have come from nothing because there are no restrictions on nothing. If there are no restrictions on nothing then nothing can do whatever it wants”.³ This is my favorite objection because it highlights how desperate people have gotten in order to avoid an ultimate cause to the universe.

One of the primary reasons why this notion of “nothing” mysteriously having creative powers came from the writings of Arizona University professor Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Krauss authored the popular book “A Universe From Nothing” which has given credence to the notion that the universe is capable of coming in existence from nothing by nothing and for nothing. You’ll find that Krauss is awfully underhanded in his definition of “nothing” once further investigation is applied to what he actually means when he says “nothing”.

In a debate between Krauss and William Lane Craig, Krauss made the following remark about the origin of the universe, “But it [the universe] can come into being out of nothingness because nothing is unstable”.  When Krauss refers to “nothing” he is referring to the quantum vacuum.  The quantum vacuum is what Craig describes as, “empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a rich, physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure”.  So, if “nothing” isn’t really nothing, why is Krauss using it as such?  It is terribly confusing to those who don’t understand the terminology of physics.  Craig described the way Krauss uses the term “nothing”, “This is the grossly misleading use of “nothingness””[4]

                Ultimately, why is this misusage of terminology such a big deal?  It is a big deal because people are becoming convinced that the universe popped into being uncaused.  Krauss labeling “nothing” as the quantum vacuum is incorrect.  The quantum vacuum is something, and something has a beginning, which is therefore caused.  In 2003, a theorem called the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem was developed by three leading cosmologists that supported the claim that the universe is finite and not eternal.  Prominent cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin said,

 “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”[5]

If Krauss is implying that the quantum vacuum has always been in existence and subsequently popped out a universe, there is scientific evidence to show that the universe had a beginning and is not the product of an eternal quantum vacuum.  As Christians, we hold that the universe was created ex nihilo, which means that God created the universe without a material cause.  However, I’d like to clarify that the universe didn’t come into being by nothing because God is the cause for all matter and energy.[6]

As you can see, this second objection really is just a play on words. I feel that Krauss is the fuel that enraged this fire which is why I focused on his example primarily because it encompasses the entirety of the objection itself. In a nutshell, something is not nothing. I almost feel silly writing such an elementary fact grounded in common sense but unfortunately this objection does require that particular reiteration.

The third objection to the KCA is based on a belief that the first premise is committing “the fallacy of composition” because it claims that the first premise irresponsibly infers that the universe has a cause only because everything else within the universe has a cause.³ People who make this objection do so with the belief that simply because a part of a thing has one property (the contents of the universe), it doesn’t necessarily mean the entire thing (the whole universe) has the same property and therefore subject to the same rules as the things within it (premise one). Essentially, these objectors are implying that the whole universe should have preferential treatment because applying the premise one to the universe and everything within the universe doesn’t make sense because they all share different properties and should be treated differently. In layman’s terms, these objectors say that the universe shouldn’t be held to the premise one. I’ll simplify that objection in the next paragraph.

Let’s approach this objection as if we were dealing with a car. It is a fact that there are thousands of parts that make up a car. We can acknowledge that each part was made to serve a specific purpose within the car. Also, we can acknowledge that every part has different properties (big, small, heavy, light, shape, etc…) than the car as a whole. However, does that somehow refute the idea that the car began to exist? If anything, it reinforces the idea that anything that begins to exist has a cause. In the case of the universe, we observe that everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause. In this particular case, properties are irrelevant in the KCA. It has been addressed earlier in this article that something cannot come from nothing so the idea that the universe isn’t bound by the same premise is illogical.

The fourth and final objection to the KCA to be discussed is when an objector says the KCA commits the fallacy of equivocation because they believe the first premise is intended to be a material cause while the third premise (conclusion) isn’t a material cause.³ When objectors make this claim, they are essentially saying that the KCA isn’t logically consistent in its method of argumentation and is therefore logically unsound.

While this may sound rather complex, there is a rather simple solution to this objection. The two types of causes we need to be familiar with are material causes and essential causes. Material causes can be viewed as physical material that makes up something. Essential causes can be viewed as the agent that produces the effect.³ To illustrate with cars again, Henry Ford was the essential cause Model T while the material cause was the material used to construct the Model T. The KCA was written in the spirit of essential causes, not material causes. So when the objector makes the case that somehow the premise one is referring to a material cause, you can confidently correct them by outlining that each of the premises are referring to essential causes and there is no logical inconsistency.³

Conclusion

        After looking at this KCA from many angles, it should be clear that this argument is definitely a valuable tool for any Christian apologist. While I noted in my introduction that this argument is simplistic in nature, I certainly didn’t mean that the KCA is an argument you’ll easily master in a single sit-down. The reason for this is because the components of each premise can be explored at great length on scientific and philosophic levels. Each component to the KCA should be thoroughly explored if a Christian apologist is to attain a firm grasp on this argument and confidently employ it in discussion.

            From my own personal experience, this is the first argument that got me moving into Christian apologetics. It’s very unique in the sense that each premise is so simple yet the scientific and philosophic support is so vast and abundant. While the KCA isn’t a direct argument for the existence of God, the theistic implications of the KCA are undoubtedly clear. For the non-theist, the KCA is a nightmare because their worldview cannot adequately justify why something came into existence from “nothing”.

            As we’ve discussed some of the fundamental objections to the KCA, we can see that there are numerous excuses being made for why and how the universe came into being. Whether these excuses entail the universe coming into existence from “nothing”, the universe somehow is eternal despite all the scientific and philosophic evidence to the contrary, or the approach that says, “we don’t know now but we will one day”, these are attempts at avoiding the clear and obvious. Apparently their philosophical and scientific presuppositions prevent them from objectively evaluating the evidence and hence keep them from embracing the truth.

            In a society that allegedly embraces science, it is curious to see how so many non-theists reject this argument. That is why this argument (and all scientifically oriented arguments) is so important to familiarize yourself with because you are then able to effectively combat and challenge the secular interpretation of objective evidence. As explained before, their naturalist reasoning cannot explain away the objective conclusion of the KCA.

            Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (NASB). This argument strongly reinforces the historical validity of this verse through impeccable logic and solid scientific and philosophic evidence. This argument has stood the test of time under intense scrutiny from those who fear the implications of its conclusion. Let us fulfill the call to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, and mind as we dig deeper in the KCA and truly recognize and thoroughly appreciate the magnificent universe as a creation of God.

---

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books)

[2] William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook)

[3] William Lane Craig, Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up in Come Let us Reason (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group

[4] William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate (March 30, 2011 at North Carolina State University)

[5] Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill & Wang, 2006), p. 176.

 

[6] William Lane Craig, Must the Universe have a Material Cause? (Reasonablfaith.com)

An Introduction to the Moral Argument

In our current day, proclaiming that you’re a Christian is somewhat of a social taboo in the eyes of many social media outlets. Christians are seemingly becoming the minority in the eyes of the Western secular culture with our alleged outlandish and intolerant moral views on popular social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. The media often portrays Christians in a rather unflattering manner as a hateful, intolerant, bigoted, judgmental group.  Fortunately, none of these moral critiques against Christians carry any weight unless there is a foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. Hence, to evaluate this matter more thoroughly, the thesis of this article is to assess whether or not there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that objective moral values and duties do exist.

Before discussing this topic any further, I would like to identify what I mean by “objective”.  “Objective” is being used with the meaning of, “independent of human opinion”.  For example, the Holocaust during WWII was objectively bad despite whether the Nazis felt what they were doing was objectively good. The reality is that it is objectively wrong to murder innocent people.  To illustrate another example; murder, rape, torture, theft, adultery, and lying are also objectively wrong.  Those that participate in those activities would be objectively wrong regardless of whether they think they are doing something morally right.

Now that “objective” has been identified in its proper context, it is now time to lay the foundation for the objectivity of morals in relationship to the existence of God. This argument is called; “the Moral Argument” and the premises are laid as follows:

1)     If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist

2)    Objective moral values and duties do exist

3)    Therefore, God exists[1]

The further discussion will highlight the elements of the argument that make it effective and philosophically compelling. In addition to highlighting the elements of the argument, I’ll also evaluate the most common objections to the moral argument while laying out a comprehensive assessment of their shortcomings.

Affirmation of Objective Moral Values and Duties

This is a powerful argument among Christians today because a majority of people of all worldviews affirm the existence of objective moral values and duties. The reason for wanting to affirm objective moral values and duties is evident to anyone who has gone through a terrible tragedy or has ever been exposed to tragic events such as the terror attacks on 9/11, the Holocaust during WWII, the Columbine High School shooting, the recent shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and the like.

You may wonder why all people (atheists and theists) desperately want to affirm objective moral values and duties.  You may ask, “Why is that important?” I think this is best illustrated when we look at the moral argument with the assumption that God does not exist.  Given that we’re assuming that God does not exist, we then find ourselves in a world that does not have objective moral values and duties.  Any morals that we observe among society would be the incidental byproduct of biological evolution and societal conditioning that has developed within our species to assist humanity in its survival.  If we witnessed each other performing seemingly good deeds within our society, it wouldn’t be because it was objectively good.  It would be because our embedded natural instinct is to help each other in order to propagate our species.  By the same token, if we were to observe someone in the act of murder; they wouldn’t be acting objectively immoral. They would simply be acting unfashionably according to their social structure and we could identify that action as being counter-productive in the propagation of human species.

The reasons for this lack of moral objectively in a universe with no God is specifically identified by its lack of foundation in which to ground moral values and duties, thereby nothing can be considered objectively good or bad. A competent authority is needed to establish these objective moral foundations[2]. The atheistic worldview does not allow for objective moral values and duties because it lacks God, which is the competent authority needed to establish objective moral values and duties.

Misusing “Good”

However, there are critiques posed upon this argument which conclude that objective moral values and duties are also attainable under atheism. A prominent atheist by the name of Sam Harris authored the book, “The Moral Landscape”, and dedicated it to proving the notion that you don’t need God to have objective moral values and duties.  He is very creative in his argument; however it falls quite short from fully justifying how atheism begins to reconcile objective moral values and duties while being in a Godless universe.

It is creative because Harris uses the English language to manipulate the meaning of “good”.  He plays a rousing game of semantics with the term, “good”.  Meaning, he is not using the term “good” to mean moral good.  He often uses the term “good” to mean something related to the flourishing of sentient life[3]. In order to identify the differences between the word “good” in the moral context and the context that refers to “good” as the flourishing of sentient life, I’ll illustrate the point with some examples.

For example, moral good would refer to what is identified as an act such as generosity, putting others before oneself, loving one another, volunteering at a local homeless shelter, and other traditionally accepted actions associated with moral good. The way Harris is using “good” is in reference to the flourishing of sentient life forms.  For example, it would be beneficial for all sentient life to behave in a manner that assists in their flourishing and expansion³. However, we must ask, why is the flourishing of sentient life objectively good in the moral sense?

While it is good for flourishing to occur among sentient life, there is nothing that would lead us to conclude that it is objectively moral for sentient life to flourish.  Dr. William Lane Craig likened it to the flourishing of corn³. We can identify what helps corn to flourish but assisting it in its flourishing doesn’t illustrate how objectively moral we are or it is. We can all acknowledge the flourishing of sentient life is good because sentient beings like to flourish, however there is no moral objectivity that underlies the foundation of the flourishing.

This type of evaluation is an ontological versus semantic analysis.  The ontological nature of evaluating morals would be to identify the foundation of those morals. Meaning, what the foundation for objective morals? Is it God or is it nature? The semantic nature of “good” would be to evaluate the meaning of the term and would not play any role in trying to identify the ontological foundation for morality³.  This distinction is important to identify when responding to the claim that the objective moral foundation can be identified by nature. Simply put, creaturely flourishing and objective morality are two separate subjects³. 

Atheists That Affirm No Objective Morals

I’ve used the example with Harris and his “moral landscape” because he is of a minority of atheist scholars that continue to propagate the notion of objective morals from an atheistic worldview. You may be curious about what other atheist scholars have said about morality from an atheistic worldview.  I’ll list a few quotes below that describe what has been said about morality in a universe that is without a God:

“There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference…we are machines for propagating DNA…it is every living object’s sole reason for being” – Richard Dawkins[4]

“The position of the modern evolutionist…is that humans have an awareness of morality…because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands and feet and teeth…Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” they think they are referencing above and beyond themselves…Nevertheless,…such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,...and any deeper meaning is illusory” – Michael Ruse[5]

“Morality…is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends… In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate” – Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson[6]

As you can see, these atheists are being very honest and candid about their approach to morality from an atheistic worldview. They are indeed remaining true to their worldview. It is often hard to approach this topic in a straightforward and honest fashion simply because it is difficult for some people to come to the conclusion that we are no more important than any other living creature on this planet in terms of our morality without God. Without God, every action done by each of us wouldn’t be morally good or bad.  It would simply be morally neutral without a basis for measuring good or bad. Any appearance of morals would be the byproduct of social conditioning over thousands of years, and nothing more. The following is an eloquent quote by Francis Beckwith on the reality of objective morals:

“to deny the existence of universally objective moral distinctions, one must admit that Mother Teresa was no more or less moral than Adolf Hitler, that torturing three-year-olds for fun is neither good nor evil, that giving 10 percent of one’s financial surplus is neither praiseworthy nor condemnable, that raping a woman is neither right nor wrong, and that providing food and shelter for one’s spouse and children is neither a good thing nor a bad thing”[7]

Being Untrue to your Worldview

However, many atheists still desire to affirm that these moral values are objective despite their lack of belief in a God. It is certainly a curious position to take from an atheistic worldview. Nearly all of the atheists that I know are people I’d consider to be upright and moral people. However, they don’t acknowledge their morals to be founded in a transcendent source. I once had a discussion on the issue of morality with one of my atheist friends. Needless to say, she was repulsed that I would ever suggest that morals were founded in God rather than in nature. She took offense that I would offer such a proposition because she thought I was attacking her moral integrity. She thought that since she didn’t believe God, I was somehow suggesting she wasn’t a moral person. Needless to say, that wasn’t the point I was attempting to get across.  

Please understand that atheists are fully capable of being moral. This is a common misunderstanding among atheists when speaking on this topic. Many atheists feel that theists are making the assertion that people who don’t believe in God are not capable of being morally good people. That is completely false. It is certainly possible to be a morally good person without the belief in God. The distinctions between being morally good and knowing how objective morals are grounded are two completely different subjects. Simply put, the faith that there is a God isn’t a requirement for our objective morality, God is[8].

The Euthyphro Dilemma

There is a popular objection that many atheists use called the Euthyphro dilemma. The Euthyphro dilemma was developed as a character in one of Plato’s dialogues. The objection to the moral argument is as follows:

“Either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good”¹

The first half of the dilemma states that, “something is good because God wills it”. That means that God could have willed anything to be good. God could have potentially willed rape, murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… to be good. If those horrible actions were to be willed by God as good, then we would have the moral duty to perform those things to one another. What is good becomes arbitrary under this option. Therefore, the first half of this dilemma clearly seems to be an implausible assertion because the possibility of murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… being good simply because God wills it undermines the fact that some moral values are necessary in this world ¹.

The second half states that, “God wills something because it is good”. That means that whatever is good is completely independent of God and would completely undercut the first premise of the moral argument (If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist). If we contend that the first premise of the moral argument is true, we see that objective moral values are dependent upon God for their moral grounding. Therefore, God does not will something because it is good ¹.

An attentive observer of this dilemma will notice that this dilemma is not exhaustive of all the options for the foundation of morals. Essentially, Plato didn’t include every option for why morals are good or bad from a theistic point of view. This third option not included in the Euthyphro dilemma is as follows:

“God wills something because He is good”⁶

This alternative means that God’s own nature is the standard by which goodness is measured and the commands placed upon us are reflective of His nature. Our duties are dependent upon the commands issued to us by God, which are reflective of His nature⁶

By no means is the Euthyphro dilemma the authoritative and empirical method for identifying how morals can be identified as good in a theistic worldview. In fact, we are presented with an insufficient amount of choices under the Euthyphro dilemma. The reality is the moral status of an action is determined by the nature of God and any moral action is determined by God’s will⁶.

Atheistic Moral Platonism

This is a rather confusing objection to the moral argument however it is often posed. Plato also proposed that moral good exists on its own independently of God. When Christian thinkers evaluated this idea, they identified that the moral good Plato was referring to was actually God himself. Given this proposal, many atheistic thinkers may say that morally good actions exist without the need for any foundation because moral good is believed to be objectively independent of God⁶.

Given the principles that have been laid out thus far regarding the moral argument, we find that it is implausible to infer that objective moral values exist without being founded in a transcendent Being. This view also doesn’t address how objective moral duties can result from it. This view does imply that good moral qualities exist independently of God however under this view, what objective obligation do I have to perform any of these good moral duties? ⁶

Under this very same worldview of moral Platonism, morally bad actions like hate, rape, murder, lying, etc… identically exist just as the morally good actions do. Without the ontological foundation supporting moral Platonism that addresses moral duties, the moral good and bad are meaningless because there is no moral obligation to be good or bad⁶.

Lastly, to be a committed moral Platonist, you would be committed to believing that biological evolution developed in a manner that would separate the moral realm from the realm of creatures. As a result, these creatures would then need to be capable of comprehending the objectivity of morals. Given that morals are objective under this view, creatures would have to identify with this moral realm that is completely distinct from them and identify with the objectivity of its morals. On the whole, it appears drastically more plausible that the wholly independent natural and moral realms are under the authority of God rather than interpreting the presence of objective morals as a coincidental biological compatibility⁶.

Conclusion

As I touched on in the introduction, while the secular media freely scrutinizes Christians for remaining true to their worldview, they freely violate theirs by saying that what Christians represent is morally wrong. They can’t make that type of conclusion if there is no objective right and wrong. Gaining insight into the moral argument can give you an understanding of the fallacies that are being made when you hear secular individuals speak of objective morality while disaffirming God’s existence.

Many reasons have been laid out for the understanding of objective moral values and duties, the reasons for their objectivity, and the analysis of the most common objections to the moral argument. The moral argument is one of the most valuable arguments for any Christian apologist. The reason why is because people can relate to the reality of objective moral values and duties in their hearts.

People want to know that objective moral values exist because it brings them peace of mind knowing that there will ultimately be justice done to those who have committed wrongdoing and for those who have acted righteously. Why else would people be so distraught when they see unspeakable acts like 9/11, the Holocaust, and the Aurora, CO movie theater shooting? The reason why is because we have an innate belief that these actions are objectively wrong. If we felt that all actions are morally neutral, we couldn’t objectively differentiate between an act of love and an act of hate.

This moral argument is an important argument to understand. We are made in the image of God[9] and the nature of God is the reflection of the moral good. If we are made in the image of God, it makes perfect sense why we have an innate grasp on objective morality and strive to affirm it despite whether we believe in God or not. Humanity does affirm these values naturally without being incentivized. While we desire to affirm these objective morals that we experience, we must address and investigate which worldview makes the most sense of these objective moral values and duties. To me, it is clear that without God, we cannot claim the existence of objective moral values and duties as true while claiming to have been led by the evidence to the most plausible conclusion.

---

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books) Chapter 4

[2] William Lane Craig, Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “ought” from an “Is” from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theistic-ethics-derive-an-ought-from-an-is

[3] William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011

[4] Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden; A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1996), p. 133 and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden” Lecture 4 of 7, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1993)

[5] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-89.

[6] Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Philosophy of Biology, ed. Michael Ruse (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 316

[7] Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl, Relativism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)

[8] William Lane Craig, One Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 6

[9] Genesis 1:27

Is Agnosticism Tenable?

Over the years, I’ve encountered a few friends that have subscribed to agnosticism because they concluded that there is no way to possibly know whether or not there is a God. According to Oxford Dictionaries, agnostic is defined as, “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”.[1] I’ve heard prominent atheist Michael Shermer express his admiration during a debate for the bumper sticker that states, “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either”. Since many non-believers have chosen to take this stance, I thought it would be a good idea to further examine the tenability of such a position as it is comfortably placed between theism and atheism.

As proclaimed by Christopher Hitchens during his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola University, he feels “agnosticism is evasive”.[2] Does this claim against agnosticism by the late Christopher Hitchens, one of the four housemen of the New Athiesm, hold any credibility? I would venture to say that it does. I’ve included a video of William Lane Craig discussing agnosticism and how it is “practically untenable”. The reasoning for why agnosticism is “practically untenable” is because a true agnostic would have to have the evidence for atheism and theism be perfectly balanced on both sides in order to genuinely hold it for an entire lifetime if one chooses to be a long-term agnostic. While this possibility may be “theoretically possible” it is “impossible practically”.

Later in the video, Craig asked an analogous question of a chicken laying an egg on the peak of a barn roof, “which side would the egg fall?” One side of the roof would represent “theism” and the other side would represent “atheism”. The agnostic would have to perfectly balance their “philosophical egg” on the peak of the roof without having it fall to one side or the other. This analogy effectively represents how untenable agnosticism truly is when looking at the evidence in its entirety for both positions. Keep in mind; you don’t have to have 100% empirical proof for one position or the other in order to hold to that particular position. You can believe in something without knowing it absolutely. I’ve heard many theologians use the analogy of a marriage. You have no way of absolutely knowing whether your marriage will endure prior to marrying your spouse-to-be. That is a reality for everyone. You have to take all the information you have about your spouse and make the best decision. If that information leads you to the conclusion that this person is worth the risk, it may be best to make the decision to marry him/her which will hopefully result in much happiness. If you remain an agnostic about this spouse-to-be, you could potentially pass up what could have been an excellent opportunity for happiness and companionship. You’ll never get married because you are unable to commit due to your hyper-skepticism which has led to the inability to make decision. The point is that despite whether you know with 100% certainty that your marriage will be successful shouldn’t prevent you from making a decision. The same can be said about atheism and theism. There is enough information out there to make a decision if one is truly searching for answers. As Hitchens rightly said, “agnosticism is evasive”.

For agnostics, it is appropriate to ask whether they have been skeptical of their skepticism. Have they looked at the evidence enough to make an informed opinion on the matter? Don’t get me wrong, skepticism can be a very healthy thing when investigating a matter that that you are unfamiliar with. It assists in the avoidance of accepting information as truth too hastily. It allows us to check out all perspectives before making a determination on how you feel on the matter. However, becoming skeptical to the point of intellectually refusing to make a decision because you’ve submitted to be a “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either” only evades the question at hand.

In the video below, prominent Christian apologist Greg Koukl highlights the problematic nature of some forms of agnosticism. When speaking with an agnostic, he suggests evaluating the reasons for their skepticism and see if there are any underlying presuppositions that are leading them to this skepticism. The very reason for their skepticism could be that they’re not being critical enough of their own skepticism to have a genuine understanding of why they are skeptical in the first place.

---

[1] Oxford Dictionaries. Definition of “agnostic”, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

[2] Debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University in 2009, “Does God Exist?”

Dr. Craig Hazen Lecture Reviews

In full support of my friend and fellow apologist Mikel Del Rosario (AKA Apologetics Guy), I’ve reviewed two lectures that he is selling on his website, http://www.apologeticsguy.com/, that were given by Dr. Craig Hazen at a Christian apologetics conference. These lectures are being sold for $1.99/each. I would strongly encourage everyone to consider purchasing these lectures as they contain valuable information for a deeper insight into the Christian worldview and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The two lectures I reviewed are titled, “The Certainty of Christ in an Age of Unbelief” and “The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus”. I’ve included them below along with their respective URLs.

“The Certainty of Christ in an Age of Unbelief” – Review

http://www.apologeticsguy.com/shop/certainty-of-christ-in-an-age-of-unbelief-lecture-craig-hazen-biola/

This topic is very important in a modern day secular society because many skeptics are under the false impression that NO faith is founded in any objective evidence. While this may be the impression among society, Dr. Hazen is acutely in tune with the fact that it is a completely invalid assertion without any evidential basis. 

Dr. Hazen has earned his doctorate from the University of California in religious studies. That essentially means that he has a vast amount of knowledge on Christianity as well most other religions around the globe. His knowledge on topics of religion contains the solid foundation of scholarship necessary to validate the claim that you can be “certain of Christ in an age of unbelief”.

 While I want to review the lecture, not summarize it, I do want to bring to attention some of the key points that I found to be the most beneficial for a listener of belief or of non-belief.  Anyone who is planning on listening to this lecture can be certain that they’re going to be entertained.  Dr. Hazen is not only informative but also an entertaining speaker.  During the lecture, he has multiple stories that are comical and really keep your attention while maintaining focused on the topic of the lecture.  Dr. Hazen is certainly a breath of fresh air in comparison to many other academics.

While the lecture was entertaining and comical, Dr. Hazen has a passion for Christ that is exemplified through his delivery and speech.  It shows that he loves Christ and that he has spent his entire life examining this subject matter in order to know Christ at a deeper level.  When he was reflecting on the solid evidence for Christianity, he said, “I can’t NOT believe in God”.  His certainty in the fact that Jesus Christ existed, died, and resurrected for our sins is without dispute.  However, he doesn’t do so on blind faith.  He gives the reasons for how Christians can know with certainty that Christianity is the right answer that makes the best sense out of the information that we have today.

In conclusion, I would encourage anyone to listen to this lecture from Dr. Hazen because he provides a perspective that is rather unique because he is speaking from a “world religions” perspective.  He has investigated religion thoroughly and has the qualifications necessary to make a reliable judgment on their historicity.  In addition, I'd like to make a note for those on a spiritual journey; this lecture is particularly aimed at you.  Personally, Dr. Hazen is the guy I would want to sit down and speak with if I was an individual searching for Christ.

"Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus" – Review

http://www.apologeticsguy.com/shop/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-jesus-christ-craig-hazen-mp3/

If you’ve never been presented with factual evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, this is an excellent introduction. Dr. Craig Hazen is one of the best Christian apologists when it comes to speaking to the average layperson. He speaks in a manner that anyone can understand and he does so in a humorous and informative manner. When listening to this lecture, I would venture to say that you’ll be both informed and entertained.

Dr. Hazen tells stories of his past experiences in dealing with secular students and how they react once presented with objective evidence of the resurrection hypothesis. He told a story about giving a lecture on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ to UCLA medical students that was hysterical. His delivery is impeccable. However, more importantly, he described how receptive these medical students were to hearing the evidentially based argument for the resurrection.

He uses a method of communicating the evidence for the resurrection called “the side door”, and he described it as taking accepted truths from the harshest critics of the resurrection and evidentially supporting the resurrection by using this information acquired by skeptics to combat their own skepticism. He did so by gathering twelve facts that are accepted by believer and non-believer alike and uses them to build the case for the resurrection. Below are the twelve facts:

1)     Jesus died by crucifixion

2)     Jesus was buried

3)     Jesus’ death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope under the belief that their leader was dead

4)     The tomb was discovered empty a few days later

5)     The disciples had experiences that are believed to be experiences  of Jesus alive

6)     The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify with Jesus to bold proclaimers of Jesus’ death and resurrection

7)     The resurrection message was the center of preaching in the early church

8)     This resurrection message was proclaimed in Jerusalem where Jesus died and was buried

9)     As a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew

10) Sunday became the primary day of worship

11) James, a skeptic, converted to Christianity

12) Paul, a skeptic and persecutor of Christianity, converted to Christianity

What theory best fits the cumulative data?  Dr. Hazen does an amazing job of communicating how the resurrection hypothesis is the best hypothesis that makes the most sense out of the 12 facts that are believed by a majority of all scholars. I would strongly encourage the purchase of this lecture to get a deeper look into what Dr. Hazen says regarding each of these points.

Dr. Hazen highlights why this topic is so important by having us view 1 Corinthians 15, “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”. Our faith is useless without the resurrection of Jesus.

I’d encourage anyone to purchase this lecture as it will be a valuable resource for those that want a deeper understanding of the resurrection of Christ. Of all the apologists that I know of, I can say that Dr. Hazen communicates the most effectively to those wanting to become familiarized with Christ at a lay level because of his comedic and comfortable style of communication and his abundant knowledge and love of God. To all who seek God shall find him. Let this lecture help you in your path to a greater understanding of our Lord.

Can Science Answer Everything?

In an age of growing scientism, we often find that many atheists won’t believe in something unless it can be scientifically confirmed. This should be called to attention because if things cannot be evidentially proven by science, doesn’t that mean God is out of the question?  Since there is no test that we can run or satellite we can send out to locate God, is the possibility of God impossible since it cannot be proven empirically by science that there is a God?  In addition to asking whether we should believe in God despite there not being 100% empirical evidence proving that God does exist, we should also inquire as to whether or not this is a wise way to approach any problem.  Should we solely rely upon the results of science in order for our senses to allow for potential theistic considerations?  These are many questions that should be looked at more closely and thoughtfully considered before placing too many of our eggs in the science basket. 

Please, don’t misunderstand me.  I love science.  It has validated the claims theists have been making for hundreds of years.  However, is it still rational to place stock in God despite science not being able to empirically prove there is an existent God?  And, are there things science is incapable of proving?  The answer to both of those questions is YES. 

In the above video, we see that Dr. William Lane Craig lists off five things science cannot prove but we are all rational to accept.  I’ve listed the five things science cannot prove and included an example:

1.      Logical and mathematical truths (science presupposes logic and math)

2.      Metaphysical truths (there are minds other than my own, the external world is real, the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age)

3.      Ethical beliefs about statements of value (Whether the Nazi scientists in Germany did anything evil as opposed to doing anything good)

4.      Aesthetic judgments (beautiful vs. ugly)

5.      Science cannot be justified by the scientific method¹

Notice that many people who make the claim that science is all there is and say that science is the only reliable vehicle for confirming anything about life often discredit the usage of philosophy.  You often hear prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, and Lawrence Krauss discount the importance of philosophy simply because they have anointed science with supreme kingship over all other methods of data retrieval and sincerely believe that science can prove everything.  In fact, they’ve gone so far as to declare that it isn’t a fact unless it can be scientifically proven. 

To look at only one example of how science fails to answer every single question we can look to the moral argument.  As said in the third objection posed by Dr. Craig, science cannot determine what is and is not moral.  As prominent atheist Sam Harris has successfully shown in his book, “The Moral Landscape”, you may only scientifically prove what helps organisms flourish and not how their morals are founded in a sense of objective moral right and wrong².   

In conclusion, scientism fails to view the entire picture.  In partaking in a worldview that only allows scientific findings, you are willingly removing yourself from important philosophical conclusions which may have theistic implications.  It is safe to say that God is still a rational conclusion despite the scientific evidence not showing that God is empirically true.  However, there are no absolutes in life.  The best we can do is to objectively view the evidence that we have accessible to us, scientific and non-scientific.  Needless to say, science has brought theists large amounts of credibility with the discovery of the big bang, recognition of the fine-tuning of the universe, identifying the complexity contained within our DNA, and our vast understanding of biology, geology, astronomy, and cosmology.  While science is a tool that has granted us insight into God, it shouldn’t be viewed as though it is the only method of insight and nor should it be treated as a monopoly on information as many atheists claim that it is.

Notes

1 William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins debate (April 1998 in Atlanta, GA)

2 William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011