Bob takes us to the second
atheist objection to the Christian claim that God is the creator of the
universe. Bob seems to think this objection is more plausible than it actually
is which is mind-bloggling to me. (Totally intended) Here is his initial remark
regarding this objection:
No, I think we’re all on the same
page here. The issue is simply that your claim that everything had a cause must
apply to God as well. By your logic, he must’ve had a creator.
The first problem with this
objection is that it is a straw man. Christianity does not claim that
everything had a cause. So, let’s dissect this objection. First, if God created
the universe, who created God? Well, every created thing has a cause. The
universe is a created thing. Therefore, the universe has a cause. That’s pretty
simple. Next point: Christianity affirms that the universe had a cause because
it was created. And that cause was God. So the causal relationship exists where
there exists the created category. Something that was created was
obviously caused by something else. But what about things that exist outside the
created category? If they were not created, in the sense that at time x
they were not as they are now at time y, then in what sense can they be
said to be in the created category? And if they are not in the created
category, then there is no causal relationship. If x was not and then it
was, there is necessarily a causal relationship. But if x has always
been just as it is now, then there can be no sense of causality in x.
Aquinas put forth this argument
as well as anyone in the history of Christian apologetics. It is found in his Summa
Theologica, and is the second of five ways in which Aquinas believes that
God can be proven.
The second way is from the nature
of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order
of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible)
in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it
would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it
is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following
in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate
is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several,
or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore,
if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate,
nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on
to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an
ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly
false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which
everyone gives the name of God.[1]
This is the argument to which
Atheist Objection #2 is being applied. It is only proper, if one wants to
critique an argument, that they represent it accurately. Clearly Aquinas, by
referring to the world of sense, and by referring to a thing being prior
to itself, did not place God in this same category. What this means is that
Christians are perfectly justified in ignoring this objection because it is not
a valid objection after all. It attempt to apply the concept of causality to
uncaused properties. The objection simply misses its mark by either
intentionally or ignorantly misunderstanding the argument.
Now, should Christians continue
to use this argument? Personally, it may be useful in some circumstances, but
it should never be used as a basic or core proof of God’s existence. There is a
rational chasm between a first efficient cause and the conclusion that that
cause is rightly called God. I find this argument to be unhelpful in most
circumstances. Moreover, the argument itself only demonstrates that there is a
first efficient cause or ultimate cause of all things caused. It does not prove
that this cause is the Christian God revealed in Scripture. In order to
demonstrate that the first cause is the God of Scripture, you have to turn to
Scripture. My point is simply, if you are going to have to get to Scripture
anyways, why not just begin with Scripture. This way, instead of pretending
that logic or human reason is your authority and proof for God, you can turn to
the real source of authority and proof for God, the Scriptures. There is no
better place to answer skeptical questions about Christian beliefs than
Scripture itself.
God, being uncreated, being
self-contained, absolute, eternal being, does not require a cause. Nothing that
is uncaused requires a cause. The Christian claim is that only God is eternal
and therefore, only God is uncaused. Everything outside God is caused. It seems
rather elementary then to say that every caused thing must have been caused.
Indeed, it is a tautology. It should also be kept in mind that part of Aquinas
argument was to show that universe was created, not eternal as some opponents
believed.
The Christian then can dispense
with this silly objection. It is wide of the mark and one of the easiest
arguments to dismiss. In fact, I am surprised to see Bob offer a defense of it.
This just goes to show you that men are desperate not to believe that
Christianity is true.
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns
Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).
No comments:
Post a Comment