Form Criticism

In our effort to objectively challenge historical criticism, I am going to put forth my strongest effort to critically assess the validity of form criticism. The topic of historical criticism has challenged many Evangelical Christians around the world, many of which have been overwhelmed by the alleged findings of the historical criticisms that they cannot reconcile their faith in Christ. With that information being outlined, the thesis for this article is to objectively examine the credibility of form criticism and its advocates in their attempts to retrieve historical information from the Biblical historical documents.

A Summary of Form Criticism

            The beginning of form criticism started between the years of 1914-1918 shortly after the War.[1] The three main scholars in the field of form criticism were Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann. While these individuals were the ones whose work dominated the early field of form criticism, they based their methodology on the work of previous Bible critics that dates back to the Enlightenment.[2] Form criticism is the translation of the German word Formgeschichte. The literal translation of this word is “history of form”.[3] A traditionally accepted definition of form criticism is, “a method of study and investigation which deals with the pre-literary stage of the Gospel tradition, when the material was handed down orally”.¹ As we can clearly see, the goal is to critically assess the form in which the information was preserved prior to being written down with the goal of identifying whether it was recorded reliably in order to test the historicity of the Biblical material that we have today. Form critics have used this practice to come up with a conclusion that is often unlike what Christians revere as history. A prominent form-critic by the name of G.E. Ladd explains,

“A close study of these forms led to the critical conclusion that in its earliest stages, the material in the Gospels was passed on orally as a series of disconnected units, anecdotes, stories, sayings, teachings, parables, and so on…This means that the indications in the Gospels of sequence, time, place, and the like are quite unhistorical and untrustworthy and must therefore be ignored by serious Gospel criticism”[4]

            After reading that quote, you may be wondering, “What do they believe?” That is an excellent question that is worth addressing. E.V. McKnight laid out a summary of the positions that were arrived at through the implementation of form criticism:

1.     The “two document” hypothesis was accepted. Meaning, Mark and Q served as sources for Matthew and Luke.

2.     Mark and Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by the theological views of the early church.

3.     Mark and Q contained not only early authentic materials but also materials of a later date[5]

You may question why this was ever accepted as a valid theory. Donald Guthrie provides four reasons why there was a significant rise in the acceptance of form criticism:

1.     The form critics were able to account for the amount of time from the Synoptic Gospel events to the writing of the events

2.     The questioning of the historicity of the Gospel of Mark

3.     The desire to update the gospels from the first century view to the world of the twentieth century.

4.     To position the literary materials in their original setting²

To gather further insight in addition to Donald Guthrie, it would be beneficial to see what two of the most prominent form critics concluded after their implementation of the practices of form criticism. Given that form criticism sets out to account for the time between the events themselves and the time the document was actually written, their opinion on whether they think there is evidence that is capable of supporting or invalidating the stories of the Synoptic Gospels would be useful. The two form critics that will be looked at more closely are Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann.

Starting with Martin Dibelius, the author of Form Tradition to Gospel, A Fresh Approach to New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Gospel Criticism and Christology, Jesus, and numerous others, is known to be one of the first prominent form critics. Dibelius never believed that there was a “purely” historical witness to Jesus. Dibelius claimed that the first century expansion of the early Christian church wasn’t due to the historical reliability of the resurrection but because the people who accepted Christ were content with the story of salvation.[6]

Rudolf Bultmann is a prominent New Testament scholar that is known for his work in form criticism and has written many books on form criticism that include The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the World, Theology of the New Testament, and Jesus Christ and Mythology. He is known for being very skeptical of his assessment of the Synoptic Gospels and he concludes  that “one can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge of the person and work of the historical Jesus and likewise of the origin of Christianity”[7] Bultmann is known to be more responsible for the field’s thoroughness and maturation than Dibelius or Schmidt because Bultmann developed form criticism to a more advanced level.² Bulmann practiced form criticism with the presupposition that the canonical gospels were “pre-scientific” and he greatly desired to modernize them.[8] Evolutionary dogma heavily influenced him in the formulation of his methods.²

It is clear that neither of these advocates of form criticism placed too much stock in the historical validity of the synoptic gospels during the practice of their form criticism. While so many Evangelical Christians place their entire faith in the reliability in the Synoptic Gospels, what information or mindset has led scholars of form criticism to completely reject the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels? It is important to highlight the unnecessary presuppositions that inspired their understanding of the form critical data in order to comprehend if they are in the objective mindset that is ideal for historical studies of this magnitude. If philosophic presuppositions were held at the time of assessing data from form critical research, what affect did this philosophic presupposition have on the interpretation of the data? What was the philosophic presupposition that the data was filtered through? Most importantly, was this presupposition ideal for conducting objective historical analysis or would it drastically skew the findings?  Below, I’ll be closely assessing the most common and destructive critiques against form criticism.

Common Objections to Form Criticism

            The most common objections relate to philosophically and scientifically related presuppositional foundations implemented in the interpretation of their findings, subjective theorizing about their data, and the categorization of highly subjective material reveals preconceived agendas. While these are few of the primary objections to form criticism, they will be enough to provide you with a foundational understanding of the negative consequences of form criticism and allow you the opportunity to see numerous reasons why these methods of form criticism have failed us in the past at uncovering the truth of the Biblical texts.

Philosophic and Scientific Presuppositions

            The claim that form critics have used philosophic or scientific presuppositions when assessing data is not uncommon. In fact, it is likely the strongest argument against form criticism. I’ll begin with a quote from Donald Guthrie concerning how Rudolf Bultmann’s presuppositions negatively impacted his historical work:

“Bultmann’s disillusionment led him to seek an approach to the Gospels which would emancipate him from the need for historical demonstration. Only so could the simplest, in his opinion, ever come to faith. He was further prompted to his non-historical approach by his commitment to existential philosophy”⁸

            It is believed that form criticism is the product of historical skepticism derived from source criticism, which was ultimately laid out by the philosophical foundation of the Enlightenment.² It has been deemed that much of the findings of form criticism are found while maintaining philosophical presuppositions. Eta Linnemann remarks on the difficulty of having “prejudgments” made prior to performing form criticism:

“A more intensive investigation would show that underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus”[9]

From a historian’s point of view, it would be unwise to enter into an investigation of history with presuppositions that would alter the findings in a search for truth. For example, if I was a historian on a search for truth about the lives of the founding fathers of America and I went into this search with the presupposition that all of these individuals were the products of fiction, I would have to compromise the truth value of my historical findings in order to manipulate the evidence to make it appear as though the evidence we have isn’t reliable enough to place our trust in. Clearly, this is an extreme example but one that illustrates the point that what these form critics have done over the last century with the New Testament Synoptic Gospels is comparably absurd.

Form criticism is also rooted with the assumption that evolution is the process of progression from the simple to the complex.² Kebler describes Bultmann’s form-critical analysis in the following:

“It [Bultmann’s concept of the development of the synoptic tradition] was a process as natural as that of biological evolution: simplicity grew into complexity…, an effortless evolutionary transition from the pre-gospel stream of tradition to the written gospel”[10]

The form critics, similar to evolutionary biologists, posit the concept of gradual change over time. In this case, they felt that the synoptic text were compiled by the early church and were not the testimony of eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. The form critics assume that the early church did this to suit their own purposes and not for historically accounting for the life of Jesus Christ.²

            During the period of time that oral tradition preserved the information contained in the Synoptic Gospels, which is roughly 30-40 years, the form critics would be merely speculating as to how this information was somehow transformed into a legendary or mythological tale. It is noted by Guthrie that, “The very fact that our historical data for the first thirty years of Christian history are so limited means that form critics inevitably had to draw a good deal of imagination, although none of them were conscious of doing so”.⁸ Essentially, these conclusions drawn by the form critics aren’t historical at all. When you take into account that the presuppositions traditionally accepted by the form critics do not allow for the possibility of an objective historical conclusion, it would be unreasonable to say that the findings of these form criticisms were the result of honest historical research.

Subjective Theorizing

            I.J. Peritz discusses the subjectivity of conducting form criticism:

Form criticism thus brings face to face with the obligation either to acquiesce in its faculty method and conclusions or to combat them. What is involved, however, is not the alternative between an uncritical attitude and criticism, but between criticism and hyper-criticalism. A critical view of the Gospels does not claim strict objectivity. It is hard to tell sometimes where poetry ends and history begins. It is highly probable that there is no underlying strictly chronological or topographical scheme; and that they are not biography in “our sense.” But this is far from admitting that we have no reliable testimony from eyewitnesses: that the Church from its Christ of faith created the Jesus of history, instead of from the Jesus of history its Christ of faith”[11]

When we view this observation, we can see that the form critics aren’t being entirely forthcoming in their presentation of their subjective interpretation. Form critics attempt to turn the story on its head by saying that the Christ of faith came after the Jesus of history. It seems as though that the form critics are a little too “hypercritical” of the historical evidence we do have and hence make the whole process of withdrawing information from the Synoptic Gospels impotent. Robert Mounce makes a valid assessment on the subjectivity on form criticism by analyzing the inconsistencies found across the board in the field of form criticism:

“Form Criticism sounds like a scientific method. If it were, you would find consistency of interpretation. But the interpretations of a single saying vary widely. Not only are interpretations widespread but form critics often can’t agree whether a pericopae is a miracle story or a pronouncement story – the two can be woven together. One would expect consistency in historical reconstruction if Form Criticism were a true science”[12] 

While many form critics parade form criticism around like a sophisticated method of retrieving historical knowledge, by pealing back the layers of subjective analysis and speculative guesses we can confidently conclude that form criticism is largely unscientific. While they all undeniable agree that Jesus’s disciples were too ignorant and uneducated to effectively document the life of Jesus, we can all identify their method of criticism is founded on their imaginative analysis filtered through numerous presuppositions of historically subjective information.²

Preconceived Agenda when Interpreting

            Based on the above philosophical and scientific presuppositions of the form critics when entering into their historical analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, we can say with confidence that they are likely interpreting the collected data with a preconceived agenda.² Form criticism is distinct from many other methods of historical analysis in that it can be largely considered to promote subjectivity in its findings. By comparison, grammatico-historical methods of interpretation are much more objective in its findings as they accept the findings of the Bible without prejudice. The reason for this distinction is that form criticism is largely based on the presuppositions of the form critic.  In addition, the large amount of information that is still unknown about the oral period gives the form critic the freedom to wildly speculate.²

            This is evidently clear when it comes to the acceptance of miracles. We see that Dibelius and Baltmann weren’t open to the possibility of miracles within the Synoptic Gospels. From the beginning, we see that they are entering into the analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition that the literature is false. Gutrie notes that, “Both Dibelius and Bultmann reject the miraculous and therefore the historicity of the gospel accounts of miracles. This is not so much the basis of ‘form’ as on philosophical and theological grounds”.⁸ Their philosophical and theological presuppositions weren’t allowing their mind to be open to where the evidence took them so they had to find another way to make sense of the evidence.

            Bultmann wanted to “demythogize” the New Testament in order to make it relatable to modern people.[13] However, there appears to be a strong antisupernatural bias by taking this position. It limits what you are allowed to accept as historically true. Given that Bultmann used this presupposition when practicing form criticism, he immediately chalked up Jesus’ baptism, temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and resurrection as legendary.² Bultmann described these narratives as “instead of being historical in character are religious and edifying”.[14]

            Both Dibelius and Bultmann held that these miracles accounts are unhistorical and can be classified as myths. However, are there grounds for making that type of claim solely by using form criticism? Given the nature of form criticism, it would be impossible to make an objectively historical case for mythological Hellenistic concepts to have influenced the Synoptic Gospels without relying upon presuppositions already predetermined to those findings. Unless they were already convinced that the Synoptic Gospels were influenced by Hellenistic concepts, form criticism wouldn’t have been the vehicle to lead them to that conclusion.

            Ironically, Bultmann himself doesn’t find the miracles in the Synoptic Gospels to be comparable to the ones found in Hellenistic traditions, “In general, however, the New Testament miracle stories are extremely reserved in this respect [in describing cures], since they hesitate to attribute to the person of Jesus the magical traits which were often characteristic of the Hellenistic miracle worker”.[15] Given that Bultmann concedes that the Hellenistic mythological miracle workers were largely different from the miracle working found by Jesus, what would inspire such a loyalty to the theory that Jesus had been plagiarized by Hellenistic sources? It appears that their loyalty to theories that easily explain away large amounts of genuine information with little evidence requires the person doing the dismissing to have a strong bias in the opposite direction if he is going to knowingly dismiss information without good objective reason.

Conclusion

On the surface, form criticism may appear to be a genuine practice of Biblical evaluation with the intention of gathering deeper insight into the Biblical text. I would caution you from placing stock into the findings of form criticism. Form criticism is not oriented towards objectively seeking truth from the Biblical text. Form critics enter the practice of performing their form criticism with philosophical and scientific presuppositions. Their conclusions cannot be genuinely historical because they will inevitably reflect their bias presuppositions of the Biblical text.²

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that objectivity is possible when analyzing the Synoptic Gospels. The grammatico-historical method has done so by safeguarding hermeneutics by highlighting the need for objectivity.² It is done in other methods of historical study but it doesn’t seem to be relied upon in form criticism. Positing conspiracy theories of the early church formulation of these stories and/or how the Jesus story evolved from Hellenistic sources fall tremendously short when evidence is weighed and viewed objectively without negative presuppositions.

---

[1] E. Basil Redlich. Form Criticism (Edinburgh: Nelson & Sons)

[2] Thomas L. Thomas & F. David Farnell, The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) Chapter 5

[3] Josh McDowell. Evidence for Christianity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc) Chapter 15

[4] George E. Ladd. The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)

[5] Edgar McKnight. What is Form Criticism? (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress)

[6] Martin Dibelius, Form Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner’s Sons)

[7] Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism (

[8] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press)

[9] Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids: Baker)

[10] Werner Kelber, “The Oral and the Written Gospel” (Philadelphia: Fortress)

[11] Ismar J. Peritz, “Form Criticism as an Experiment.” Religion in Life 10 (spring 1941)

[12] Robert Mounce. Personal interview conducted by Josh McDowell, July 2, 1974

[13] David Atkinson and David Field, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology (England: Inter-Varsity Press)

[14] Rudolf Bultmann, History of Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson)

[15] Rudolf Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels” in Form Critcism (Cleveland, OH:World)

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)