Contingency Argument for the Existence of God
All philosophy falls along a spectrum between
full throttle Theism (Christianity, in my opinion the true north and clearest
understanding of reality and revelation from God) -- to full throttle Nihilism -- a
brew of materialistic atheism, hedonism and ruthless will to power. All philosophies between those polar
opposites "borrow" from one side or the other. Either God exists or He does not, so both
sides cannot be correct, and all in between are simply "hedging their
bets", but not accepting the logical conclusions of their world
views.
On meaning and purpose
To your friends, neighbors, loved ones and
co-workers you can readily show that the materialistic world view, regardless
of its various distinctives is at the end "meaningless". Ecclesiastes refers to this as "vanity
of vanities", which is just a superlative way to explain that life without
God is "supreme futility". You start life by accident from a meaningless event, proceed to live for
a time with some form of consciousness of your mortality, then you die,
returning to elements that in turn will decay into cosmic dust some day in an
ever darkening, dead universe that had no meaning or purpose. Long forgotten and having had no impact on
the destiny of the universe.
Albert Camus, an atheist philosopher, commented that the only serious topic left for Philosophy, having rejected the God Hypothesis, was whether or not to commit suicide to shorten one's time of suffering. Jean Paul Sartre described life a "nausea" and people as "useless passion". To reconcile the philosophy of reality without God you must address the reality that everyone you love, everything you cherish, all that you hold dear and believe in is useless and meaningless. Love is irrelevant and wasted emotion.
Virtue and Vice are simply matters of
preference. Nothing you do matters or
ever will. You have no hope and no way
to restore what you destroy. The
irreligious and weak believers instinctively know this because they fashion
their lives around endless distractions and "causes" they define
meaning to in order to achieve the impossible:
significance in a meaningless reality.
The "crutch" of Christianity
Meanwhile, Christians are accused of having a
"crutch" of religion. Ted Turner was quoted as saying that
"Christianity is for losers". He is absolutely right. Of course Christianity is for
losers - but without it, we are bigger losers -- we lose eternity. And what exactly makes a hedonist a
"winner"? I don't see very
many of them as happy.
Only Christ offers real hope, and that is what everyone deep down is really seeking. Without Christ there is no real justice - ever. There is no significance or meaning in life. But non-believers feel they should have the right to live their lives in any way that they choose, giving no allegiance or gratitude to their Creator, and then expect a Righteous and Holy God to simply accept them when their lives expire in this dimension.
The logic of faith
Blaise Pascal gave us his famous wager in Pensées 233 which simply ask people to weigh
the consequences of one's decisions and lifestyle here during a short life on
Earth against the eternal rewards or punishments that await us. Christians have simply looked at the evidence
and taken Pascal's wager. It is better
to choose Christ and live as a servant of God than to be one's own master for a
short time and be consigned to hell or annihilation.
If the Christian is wrong and God does
not exist, it doesn't matter
If the Atheists is wrong, and God
exists, everything matters, forever.
Why should theists
bear the burden of proof that God exists? Faith is both logical and popular -- it has been
the assumption of all mankind throughout history that a deity or creator exists. What rationale do atheists have to avoid the
burden of proving their own arguments? Where is their thoughtful response to
Pascal's wager?
The Ontological Argument (Contingency)
From Parmenides's
Argument we ask – "why does
anything exist at all"?
"Ex nihilo nihil
fit." Nothing comes from nothing.
If ever there was a
time when there was nothing, then there would still be nothing.
Something cannot "not" exist, then create itself
and then shazam! it exists. That's like
a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat with no rabbit and no hat... This
shows that either the universe must be eternal, or something else must be eternal, otherwise
there can never be a time when there is “no thing”.
Does the universe necessarily "have" to exist?
Why does the universe exist? Science cannot explain this, or why anything
exists at all. So the universe is dependent on
"something else". When
something must have an explanation for its existence, it is called
"contingent".
The property of
contingency is the need to have something else be the explanation for something
that exists.
Children are contingent upon
parents or genetic engineers, chairs are contingent upon raw materials and a
workshop or factory, dew on the grass is contingent upon atmosphere with the
right temperature and humidity, huge footprints in the woods are dependent upon
Sasquatch. The church is contingent
upon Christ. "Contingency" is
depending on something else in order to exist.
Leibniz' Contingency Argument
(Gottfried
Leibniz – 18th century German
mathematician proposed this in 1714)
1 - Everything that exists has an
explanation for its existence
2 - If the universe has an
explanation for its existence, that explanation is God
3 - The universe exists
4 - (Therefore from 1 & 3) The
universe has an explanation for its existence
5 - (Therefore from 2 & 4) The
explanation for the existence of the universe is God
1 - Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence
- “How did it get here”
- "What is the reason for its existence"
- "How is its presence explained"
2 - If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that
explanation has to be God
- If God does not exist, then the universe is “just here” for no explainable reason.
3 - The universe exists
- Other arguments such as the universe is just my imagination or is an illusion are rendered incoherent in any discussion because I can have the thought that it is someone else's illusion and doubt that it is someone's illusion.
- If the person you are having a dialog with won't accept this premise you are wasting your time anyway.
4 - The
universe has an explanation for its existence
- This follows or nothing in logic can be considered coherent
5 - The explanation for the existence of the universe is God
Leibniz proposed
this in 1714 and it has yet to be credibly refuted.
Isaiah 55:6-9 Seek the Lord while He may be found; call to Him while He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his way and the sinful one his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, so He may have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will freely forgive. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways.” This is the Lord’s declaration. “For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. HCSB
For more articles related to Christian Apologetics, see:
_____________________
Scripture citations are from: Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) © 2009 Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville TN
No comments:
Post a Comment