Cosmological Arguments

In LifeU we discussed a tradition of arguments for the existence of God called cosmological arguments. These types of arguments attempt to show that God is the first cause of the universe. The arguments have been formulated in various ways but we discussed two of the different approaches to the cosmological arguments. One was called the argument from contingency and the other was the kalaam cosmological argument made famous by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Here on this blog I will review these two arguments and make a case that the universe must have a first cause and the cause must be a personal God.

The Cosmological Arguments

I formulated the argument from contingency by rewording the version William Lane Craig uses. The argument goes as follows:

1, Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence either by the necessity of its own nature or
    by an external cause.

2. If the universe has an external cause that cause is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. The universe does not exist by the necessity of its own nature but has an external cause

5. Therefore, God is the cause of the universe's existence.

This is an example of a syllogism. Points 1-4 are called premises and point 5 is the conclusion. The syllogism is logically valid, meaning that if premises 1-4 are true, then point 5 logically follows. So the job of the person using this argument is to show that the first four premises are true. So are the first four premises true? Let's explore them.

Premise 1

In this first premise there is a distinction between a thing existing by the necessity of its own nature and having an external cause for its existence. Something existing by the necessity of its own nature means that it had to exist and it always existed. Something existing by an external cause means its existence is contingent, or dependent on a foreign cause. Premise 1 is logically self evident. There is no middle option between the two options given that makes sense. Either something had to exist or not. I do not imagine an atheist really denying this first point.

Premise 2

This premise and premise four are the most difficult to show. First we should define what mean by the universe. The universe can be defined as all matter, space, time and energy. If something causes the universe to exist then the being must be non-material, all powerful, intelligent and timeless. These attributes are by definition, attributes of God. 

Premise two is logically equivalent to the way the atheist would formulate an argument in favor of his worldview, The atheists would say that since the universe did not have an external cause, there is no God. So when talking to an atheist one should point out that premise two is logically equivalent to a premise they would use. 

Premise 3

If one denies that the universe exists then they have to deny that they exist but then who would be the one  denying his own existence? Our existence and the universe's existence are examples of transcendental first principles of knowledge. You cannot rationally doubt the existence of either without committing self contradictions. In other words, we exist and the universe exists because its rationally impossible to deny it. This is very similar thinking to the transcendental argument for God's existence from a previous post.

Premise 4

This premise is the most crucial premise and when thinking about this premise we can include a whole new syllogism called the kalaam cosmological argument by William Lane Craig. Craig formulates this arguments with two premises and a conclusion.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Premise 1 is logically self evident and premise 2 is the one that needs to be demonstrated the most. If the universe did not have a beginning that means that the number of past events in history is infinite. This is impossible for you cannot add a new event to an infinite number of past events because the number of events would still be numerically infinite. In other words, you never could arrive at the new event. At the bottom of the post I will include a video by William Lane Craig showing the impossibility of an infinite number of past events using in illustration called "Hilbert's Hotel"

In LifeU we showed the impossibility of an infinite number of past events called "Andrew's Lineage." I asked Andrew where he came from. He said his parents. Then I asked him who they came from. He said his grandparents. I asked him who they came from. He said his great grandparents. We did this until we had added seven greats to his grandparents. Could that have gone on forever? If so, how could Andrew have ever been born if his lineage goes back infinitely. In other words we find in our lives how our existence was not necessary but was contingent upon our parents and they on theirs and so on and so forth. So human nature does not possess existence necessarily but has to receive existence from something that owns existence or exists by its own nature. 

So the universe, because its a series of causes and effects or events, had to have a beginning. 

Therefore Premise 5 is true.

So by this argument we have shown that God is the creator of the universe and also that he is all powerful, non-material, intelligent and eternal. But I also say we can show that God has to be a person.

If the universe began to exist its cause must have freely chosen to create it or else the universe would be eternal because the cause and effect would both have always existed simultaneously. For example say the our world contained nothing but water and the temperature was always below freezing, the water would have always been frozen because the cause of water freezing, the temperature, would have always existed alongside its effect. But since the universe began to exist the cause must be a being with free will and a free will is an attribute of a personal being.

For more on this argument check out reasonablefaith.org

Here is the video explaining "Hilbert's Hotel"

Jason Anderson

Self-Deception And Its Consequences

Self-deception is a human problem that explains the intellectual side of a person who rebels against the ways of God. The problem in the heart is man's pride. This flows over into a person's mind and finally expresses itself through a person's actions. I want to explore this phenomena of self-deception in the context of apologetics. From my own experience, it is very saddening to see a person reject evidence of God's existence that appears obvious to Christians. Just take a search around the internet and you will find more blogs that are hosted by atheists/agnostics than Christians. On these sites, the bloggers go through painful efforts to try and refute the common arguments for God's existence, or for the reliability of the Bible. I will go through some examples of how atheists will answer apologetical arguments for God's existence using methods and reasoning that they would never use for any other intellectual pursuit or topic. Then I want to comment on what the Bible says is the real problem with humanity regarding self deception, and point to the consequence of a culture that exchanges truths for lies.  I want to see if ours is in danger of becoming such a culture.


Trying Really Hard To Deny The Obvious


We will explore many arguments for God's existence. as well as the reality of Christianity. I want to tell you that objectively, God's existence is not hard to "prove". In my last blog post I briefly laid out an argument that could be summed up as saying: "You can prove that God exists because without him you cannot prove anything," or "God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary." I will explore some objections to this argument and answer them in another post, but will also explore one here, to show what I believe to be an example of self deception. I explained that the transcendental quality of the laws of logic do not make sense in an atheistic world view. In a materialistic world view, universal, abstract entities cannot be justified, because all there would be is matter. To escape this dilemma, a person must somehow bring the laws of logic (or any laws, life morality, or the uniformity of nature) down from the transcendent and make them a product of the mind of man. They will say that the laws of logic are sociological and are conventional (man made). As we saw in the last post this is irrational. If they are in the mind of man then they are not laws because what happens in your mind is not what happens in my mind. We would therefore be able to make up our own laws of logic, which is nonsense. The atheist knows that the laws of logic must be universal, absolute, and unchanging because he uses them, and assumes their law-like, transcendent character, whenever he says that belief in God is irrational. Given the atheist world view, what if I said to him, "Well you may believe that belief in God is irrational according to your laws of logic, but my laws of logic say that belief in God is rational. Therefore we are both right at the same time. Is it both rational and irrational to believe in God?" I imagine they would not take me seriously. Yet what I said would be justifiable if the laws of logic were not universal laws that transcend nature. I would contend that the atheist knows this and purposely denies it to maintain his world view. No atheist operates with the assumption that the laws of logic are man made. Many atheists are brilliant scientists, medical doctors, archaeologists, engineers, etc. Most even love to engage in discussions about politics, ethics, and philosophy.  All of these actions assume that there is a God because they assume laws that only make sense, and which can only be justified, if there is a God.


Another example of self deception involves an atheist's objections to the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument (which we will cover in more detail) basically says this:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause (this is the kalam version of the cosmological argument put for by William Lane Craig).
Without delving into this argument, it proves its premises by showing that there cannot be an infinite regress of past events. In other words, the universe and its movement of events cannot be traced back into infinity, but must've had a beginning. The Big Bang Theory actually scientifically supports this theory, because it shows by scientific observation, that the expansion of our solar system can best be explained by a singular starting point of our universe. Stephen Hawking (who happens to be an atheist) is a big proponent of this theory. Most scientists believe the big bang is most likely the first event for our universe. Basically, they believe that the universe began to exist. That premise is actually a tough one to prove. The first premise, that everything that begins to exist has a cause, is the easy premise. It is logically self evident. However, atheists who believe the big bang theory, like Quentin Smith, basically say that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. Now, they do not really believe this in their personal lives. Say an atheist (who claims the universe began to exist without cause, came from nothing, or just popped into existence) owns a china shop. When this atheist closes down his china shop and goes home, he does not lie awake at night worried that a bull is going to just pop into existence out of nothing. I call this "the bull in a china shop delusion." These are the kinds of responses you will hear when an unbeliever gets intellectually backed into a corner. 


There is no other way to explain this type of thinking than to call it self-deception. 


The Bible's Warning To Those Who Suppress The Truth


Paul tells us in the Book of Romans:



For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(Romans 1:18-32 ESV)


Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome who are surrounded by a pagan culture, whose gods are man made and many. In the Book of Romans, Paul shows where the Gentiles have fit into God's plan of salvation. We must understand that, for the most part, the Old Covenant dealt with the tribes of Israel in view of the coming of Jesus. When one thinks about what the Gentile tribes and cultures were doing during the Old Testament times, we would be mistaken in thinking that God was ignoring them while he dealt with the Israelites. Paul tells us that the Gentiles (in fact every person) knew God, but because of unrighteousness, they suppressed that knowledge. This knowledge is clearly perceived in his created, natural order (which is why we can reason from cosmological arguments and design arguments to the existence of God). 


The reason they began to deny God was not because they were ignorant. It was because their hearts were darkened. This is the atheist's main problem. Let me be clear. I do believe that there are honest atheists who cannot intellectually admit that there is a God, but who are honestly seeking truth. However, I believe that God draws near to them and looks at their heart. By his grace, if they are willing, they will receive the life that only Christ can give. But even for the honest unbeliever, the problem is in the heart. Apologetics is good to break down mental defenses and to point out that, even in their reasoning, they are without excuse not to believe in God. Yet until they realize the problem of their hearts and commit to change their lives, their minds will continue to actively deny the obvious truth of the reality of God. 


What are the consequences of a person or culture whose thinking remains futile? We often think that God's wrath is always pestilence, storms, economic depressions, etc. I do believe God uses disasters to punish people or societies. Paul, on the other hand, shows another way that God reveals his wrath. Notice that the consequences for humanity's foolishness was that God gives them what they want. Three times Paul says, "God gave them up." What humanity in sin really wants is to rebel against God, and God eventually gives them what they want; this is worse than any natural disaster. This consequence is hell. If a person ends up in hell, it is what they wanted, and it's disastrous. Paul tells us that even when God gives them what they want, that they still know that their actions are sinful. They not only know their actions are sinful, but approve of others committing sinful acts. This is morality turned upside down (which reminds me of the abortions issue). Read these verses again and you will see a reflection of the culture we live in. This is why it is always important when talking to an unbeliever to have both the reasons for your beliefs and the love of Christ shining through you. Remember what Christ said in John 13:35: "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (ESV). This love is different than anything this world has to offer. It is our job to try and show an unbeliever that although they suppress the truth and want unrighteousness, they really have a desire deep down for God, and nothing else will ever satisfy that desire.

This post seems negative, but we have to know that bad news before the good news makes sense. The power of God is greater than any earthly power; he can soften the hardest hearts and enlighten the darkest minds. Remember what God says to all who are in sin: "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.” (Ezekiel 18:32 ESV)

Feel free to comment.



Jason Anderson

The Transcendental Argument

God can be proven to exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. That is what Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen said to atheist Gordon Stein in a formal debate back in the 1980's. Bahnsen was a defender of an argument for God's existence called the transcendental argument. This argument, as we discussed in Life U, attempts to show that God's existence is certainly true and that atheism is not just improbable, but is a worldview that cannot be true. This idea reflects the statement that Paul makes in Romans 1, where he explains that all men can understand the existence and divinity of God in nature, yet suppress these truths. Bahnsen used this argument and was critical of other arguments that attempted to show that it was more probable that God existed. While I do not agree with some of his criticisms of other arguments for God's existence, I do agree that the transcendental argument is by far the most fascinating, and if it is valid, it certainly shows that God's existence is not just a probable proposition, but a certain one. Here I will give a short overview of the argument:

The arguments starts by showing how each individual has a worldview. A worldview can be defined as what someone believes about all of reality. For instance, the Christian worldview sees reality as follows:

1. God is the creator of the whole universe. (Space, Time, Matter and Energy.)

2. God is an eternal being who is a Trinity of Persons sharing one Nature.

3. God is all powerful, all knowing and completely good.

4. God is spirit and transcends matter, space and time.

5. God made man his image and gave man a body, a mind and a soul.

6. All truth comes from God and is revealed in both the natural world and supernatural revelation (The Bible)

7. The fullness of God's revelation was revealed through the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who is God the Son from all eternity with both a full divine nature and a full human nature.

8. Jesus was put to death on the cross, was buried, but rose again from the dead. Because of this man, who is in a state of sin and separation from God, can now be justified and enjoy friendship and communion with God.

9. God is the foundation of all morality.

This is just a summary of the Christian worldview, for much more could be said.

The transcendental argument attempts to show that no other worldview makes sense except the Christian worldview. The most fundamental aspect of a worldview is whether or not that worldview includes God's existence or not. There are many worldviews that include God's existence or non-existence, but fundamentally one can break down each worldview as theistic (God exists) or atheistic (God does not exist). And each atheistic worldview has one common factor that is fundamental: all that exists is nature (space, time and matter). To deny this would be to deny atheism.

Therefore, given the fact that there are fundamentally two types of world views, we can judge which worldview is correct by seeing which one is consistent on its own terms, as well as our own rational experience. The atheistic worldview can be shown to be inconsistent because it assumes, or presupposes transcendental realities, while denying them at the same time. The most obvious way to prove this is by showing the transcendental nature of the laws of logic and how it is impossible that the laws of logic are a part of nature.

The laws of logic are what we use everyday, even if we are not aware of it, to make decisions and understand the world around us. One of the laws of logic is the the law of identity, meaning that a thing or idea is what it is. For example, A = A, or a phone is a phone. Another law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states that a thing is not its opposite. For example, A does not equal non-A, or a phone is not a phone and a non-phone. Everyday a person assumes and uses this type of thinking to carry out their normal daily routines. I get up and brush my teeth and assume that my toothpaste is not toothpaste and a brick at the same time. The laws of logic exist, and we can know this, for even if we doubted that there were laws of logic, we would have to use those laws in order to try and disprove them. For instance, if I tried to say that A does not equal A, I would still be using the law of identity to define what equal means as well as what a proposition is, and finally even to define what A and non-A is. These laws exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Now that we have established that these laws exist, we need to ask whether they are laws found in nature, made up in man's mind, or transcend man and nature. They cannot be from nature, for where do we find the laws of logic in space, time or matter? In fact, it would be impossible to discover these laws in nature, for we would already have to know them in order to try to find them. Secondly, they are not man-made laws. For instance, if they were man-made, it could be possible for another culture to make laws of logic that stated that a cat was a cat and a non-cat at the same time. But this would still be assuming correct laws of logic in order to be irrational. Also, these laws are held universally by all cultures. In fact, we know that the laws are not man-made because when we argue and debate, we do not appeal to our own opinions but we appeal to objective truth. Imagine a debate where a person believes the earth is flat and another person believes the earth is round. If the laws of logic were man-made, both would be right because both could make up their own laws to determine what is truth. Obviously, this is nonsense and contrary to experience and reason. So this leaves us with just one option-the laws of logic are transcendental.

Since everyone has a worldview, and since every worldview is fundamentally atheistic or theistic, which worldview displays the fact that the laws of logic are transcendent? Obviously, the theistic worldview, because its worldview includes non-material/transcendental realities, whereas the atheistic worldview does not. The atheist has to borrow concepts that do not make sense in their worldview to try and justify their worldview. Therefore, atheism is false because of the impossibility of the contrary.

This is a short summary and we will continue to explore this argument in Life U. I welcome thoughts, objections, corrections and any questions.

Jason Anderson

Objective Truth

Objective Truth


Recently in the Life U meeting we discussed what it means to say that something is true and whether we can know objective truths. There is a common modern day revolt against the idea of objective truths about anything except for the natural sciences. When it comes to morality, philosophy and God, we often hear that what is true for one person in those areas may not be true for another. This we found to be an irrational proposition.

First we must define what we mean by the word truth. A working, imperfect definition would be any proposition, thought, event or being that corresponds to reality. For instance if I say that God exists, if there is a God, then his existence corresponds with reality and the statement "God exists" would be a true statement. If I say that a unicorn exists in the material world, and a unicorn does not exist in the material world, then a unicorn's material existence would not correspond to reality and the statement "a unicorn exists in the material world" would therefore be false. This, I believe, is the most common sense way of thinking about truth.

Next we must define whether truth is objective or subjective. By objective, I mean what is true about reality exists independently from our minds. By subjective, I mean the opposite, namely, truth is relative to our minds and perceptions and we create truth rather then discover truth. Ignoring, for the sake of time, Kant’s theory of knowledge, I believe most would accept the idea that what is real, or true, does not depend on our knowledge of it but exists independently in reality. In fact, to try and prove that truth is relative to our subjective minds would assume, or presuppose, that there are certain laws of logic that transcend our subjective minds.

The existence of objective truth is necessary because of the impossibility of the contrary. The statement “there is no objective truth” is a self refuting statement, because the statement itself would be claiming a truth that was objective. It is impossible to think or say anything about the nature of truth unless there is objective truth. Therefore, there is objective truth.

What does the Bible say about truth?

The most important questions to be answered are those that relate to God about his existence, nature, moral commands, His purpose for humanity and our individual lives, to name a few. In the Life U class and on this site we will be exploring reasons to believe that the Triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists and that the Christian faith is true. But right now I want to give some brief thoughts on how the truths of God are both revealed in the Bible and how they relate to our pursuit of those truths.

In the book of Exodus, Moses encounters a burning bush in the wilderness where the voice of God gives him a command to go to Egypt and demand that Pharaoh free the Children of Israel from slavery. Moses asks God what name he should give Pharaoh if asked who had sent him. God gives the name “I AM” or “I AM THAT AM”. This name that God gave Moses could be unpacked in much greater detail then I will here but one insight I would like to point out, is the name, I AM, identifies God as a person from which all other personhood derives their being. Namely, He is ultimate reality. This would mean that any pursuit of truth, to be productive, would eventually lead to some knowledge of Him.

God also identifies himself in the Bible as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  This was God identifying himself with the covenant he made with Abraham. Our God is not an abstract idea or thought, but a living person that has been active in history from the beginning. He placed himself in covenantal bonds, uniting himself to human persons in the Old Testament. He entered into physical history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that could be seen and touched, uniting all of humanity, that would believe, under his new and everlasting covenant. Then God sends the Holy Spirit that indwells in those who have faith in Jesus. At all points of history God provided a way that we could know him, not just in our minds, but could see and experience him with our senses.

The Biblical notion of truth is that God is the foundation and cause of all reality and he makes himself known to us by his grace through The Holy Spirit both to our minds through rational thought and our everyday experiences. We must never forget that any pursuit of truth has its end in Jesus  for He proclaims that He is The Truth.

We will continue to discuss this topic as well as explore more as this class continues and we all continue to grow in our understanding of the Christian faith.

Feel free to add any comments, suggestions, or corrections.

Jason Anderson

New Blog For LIFE U

Welcome to a blog created for the specific use of Life U at Eastland Baptist to share our extended thoughts on the Christian Faith as we explore them through our class. Let us continue to search and discover truths about our living God-The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit!


JASON