Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Welcome to the Harvester podcast.
We are happy that you are with us for this lesson, this season, season number three, and
we are discussing throughout this whole season Christian apologetics, and we will be
discussing the existence of God today and more particularly the cosmological argument.
I am your host, Brian Kenyon, along with other hosts.
Steven Ford.
George Beals
And we have been here discussing these things for Santa Maceris is usually with us, but
this is a busy time of year for him and really for all of us.
And so we appreciate the brothers here being able to get together and to continue the
season of this podcast.
And we will get back to a, for us in a way more relaxed situation in just a few weeks.
But in the meantime, we're still going to discuss these things, which are of a great
value.
not just to the world but even to the brotherhood, in the church need some really beefed
up in this area of study in order to better answer those who ask us for a reason for the
hope that is in us.
And so George is going to review the previous class to get us up to date and then we'll
get into the new material.
Thank you, Brian.
So looking at the existence of God, and maybe we should just point out by way of review
the purpose, the overall purpose of this series of studies, and really it's an
implementation of 1 Peter chapter 3 verse 15 which reads, sanctify the Lord God in your
hearts and always be ready to give a defense and apologia in the original Greek.
to everyone who asks you for, you ask you a reason for the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear.
Now, in the overall defense of biblical Christianity, we talk about first of all that God
exists and then the Bible is his word and then the Bible teaches a particular doctrine
called that X and therefore that doctrine must be true.
There's a logical sequence then that we're trying to follow.
And we begin then with God exists and we are still in that mode, talking about the
existence of God.
I have mentioned that in this series we'll look at several formulations of arguments whose
conclusion is that God exists.
Number one, the design argument, sometimes called the teleological argument.
And along the way on that one we said a few words about the fine-tuning argument.
And then secondly, what is called the cosmological argument, and thirdly, the moral
argument.
Just talking about and reviewing the design argument, the conclusion stated was that, for
example, a house or a toothbrush or a clock had an intelligent cause, not a
non-intelligent cause.
This is because one, we know that humans have made such objects, plus secondly,
Each is an object that has components working together to bring about an identifiable
purpose.
So on the same basis, an object absent the human factor allows us to conclude that the eye
and the acorn or the dog and the flower also had an ultimate intelligent cause.
So that's important to realize and we examine objects in this natural world then and look
for those that have
that work together to accomplish a useful and identifiable purpose, if you've got that,
then you've got design, and if you've got design, then of course, had to have been a
designer that exists and also has attributes at least equal to the task of causing such an
object or designing such an object.
think it's interesting also to note that you don't even have to open the Bible to know
from the design argument that there is a God, that there has to be a designer more
particularly.
And I think a lot of people don't realize that, is that we're not proving the existence of
God from the Bible even though that can't be done.
But even before that, God existing is the basis of everything.
Right, and in fact that's the affirmation of Romans 1 verse 20.
It makes that really point that there is adequate evidence in this external world from
which we without excuse can conclude that God exists.
So if we think of an object that has parts together that work together to accomplish an
identifiable purpose, maybe call that A, a shortcut term.
Then the question arises, well, what are the candidates out there in this world for an A?
And we can look from the micro world to the macro world.
And in the last class we discovered, or episode, discovered that there are many non-made
objects that exhibit profoundly the property of design.
And this shows that God exists.
So the design property then, what it is and its implications of intelligence.
Just as a suggestion, since the design property has been brought forward in our minds,
here and after, one might want to look for it in objects all around us.
For example, wherever you are at this moment.
And if helpful, you could do so in terms of Aristotle's so-called four causes.
That is, his four explanations are characterizations of objects.
And we talked about those.
A material cause, that is the stuff out of which an object is made.
A formal cause, that would be the shape of the thing.
A final cause, that's the end or the purpose of the object.
And then of course the big cause, main cause that we're interested in in this study is the
efficient cause, that is the maker of the object.
And so also we want to remember Hebrews chapter 3 verse 4 which says, every house is built
by someone but he who built all things is God.
And that word built, kataskuadzo, which means to make with purpose.
And so then the design argument in all of these.
We see an object that has parts that work together to accomplish an identifiable purpose.
That's implying then
design, whether you have a chair or a house or a flower or a honeybee or your eye or a
loaf of bread, all of this exhibits that characteristic.
Any further thoughts anybody have then on the design argument before we move on to a
second argument, the subject matter of this class, namely the cosmological argument.
Anybody?
I was just thinking that
Romans 1.20, where we mentioned a few times in the last few episodes, when you look around
you, it doesn't matter what it is that you see, an individual can know that there is a
creator.
Now, I do concede, and I think we all might do so, that just by looking at the universe
and things around us, a person may not be able to come to the conclusion of Jesus Christ
from the scriptures.
But I love that Romans 1.20 makes it very clear what you will come to realize.
You will come to realize there's a creator.
what are his attributes that are known as eternal power in Godhead.
uh
exponentially more powerful than are we in that he could create a universe and he has to
be outside of that which he's created so you see his nature, his godhood and you see his
eternal power so you may not be able to identify Jehovah from the scriptures or Jesus
Christ from the scriptures but you do know a creator and then in searching God says Paul
writes at least speaking of God that it's very plain that if you seek him if you're
seeking this creator who's made all things and you will find him
I think right along those lines the Bible passage in the book of Proverbs chapter 8 verse
17 says talking about the wisdom of God I love those who love me and those who seek me
diligently will find me.
So we look at the evidence that God exists from this natural world and think of the power.
that the intelligent cause must have in order to have created this wonderfulness.
And then uh it gives rise to the question, well, has he given us more information about
his will?
And that, of course, lends itself nicely into a study of the Bible to see if that might be
also his revelation.
Yeah, even Paul when he preached to the philosophers on Mars Hill, he spoke about the
unknown God to them, you know, from that one idol that he saw to the unknown God and him,
I declare unto you.
But he did say in Acts 17 26 that he is made from one blood or one man, every nation of
men to dwell on the face of the earth and has determined their pre-appointed times and the
boundaries of their dwellings so that they should seek the Lord.
in the hopes that they might find him so he created this world in order for us to seek him
and i know part of that will get into maybe when it comes to the problem of evil and later
later podcast but i just thought that applied here to this discussion too
So we can move on to a second argument, not that the first argument is inadequate.
I'm persuaded that the design argument does demonstrate clearly that God exists.
But we can add, it was sort of like piling on more evidence, looking at the so-called
cosmological argument.
And I'd like to give two formulations of this one.
The first formulation of the so-called cosmological argument I call
contingency to incontinency and we'll talk about that in this episode and then God willing
in the following episode we'll talk about a second formulation of the cosmological
argument which I call a process of elimination.
But before we delve into this first formulation just a few words about the names of these
arguments.
The design argument also known as the teleological argument as we mentioned.
Notice the word tele in there, T-E-L-E in teleological.
This is from the Greek word telos, means end or purpose.
As mentioned, the next argument that we'll look at is called the cosmological argument,
and notice in that term, cosmo.
This is uh from the Greek word cosmos, which is referring to the orderly universe.
So basically we can think of the teleological, or the design argument, as focusing on the
end, or the purpose of the universe and its objects, and argues from there.
And then we can think of the cosmological argument as in the other location, namely
focusing on the origin of this universe.
How did it all come about?
And I am persuaded that passages like Romans 1.20, as we indicated, are broad enough in
meaning that they affirm both the teleological and the cosmological arguments.
Again, that passage reads, since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, by
the way the world there is a cosmos in the original,
Since the creation of the cosmos, his invisible attributes are clearly seen being
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, which means
his divinity or deity, so that they are without excuse.
So the cosmological argument number one, contingency to incongruity.
We can begin this with a picture of a train moving along on tracks.
So let us say that you are watching a moving train for the first time in your life and the
tracks form a flat surface, surface not uphill, not downhill, and it is moving from your
left to your right.
All you see are several moving got boxcars.
and you notice that they are connected to each other and each box car is moving at the
same speed as the others and you want to know what is causing this motion.
but trees obstruct your vision on the left, the right and behind you.
So all you can see are these boxcars that are moving in front of you and doing so from
left to right.
You see enough play between the boxcars in their connections to convince you that each is
pulling the one behind it.
In other words, each depends on the one in front of it for its motion.
Further you notice that their speed is increasing.
So you conclude that none of the boxcars has the wherewithal, that is the capacity in and
of itself to cause the motion that you're observing.
Nor does the whole series of interconnected boxcars have the wherewithal to account for
the motion.
The motion is caused by each one pulling the one behind it.
oh
What is the ultimate cause of the motion?
That is, what caused the motion to begin with and what is sustaining this motion?
What is causing the increase in the speed?
What adequately explains all of this is what you're wondering.
And the answers cannot be that the Bloch's cars are the ultimate cause.
That is, uh
Both the individual boxcar or for that matter, if it were a whole series of interconnected
boxcars, they can't be the answer.
They themselves require something outside of them in order for them to move.
That is the nature of both the boxcar and for that matter, a whole series of boxcars does
not have the wherewithal, that is the capacity to account for the motion that you are
observing.
Given the laws of nature, there must be something that does have the adequate wherewithal.
In other words, there is an implied, what we would call a locomotive.
Blocks cars then are dependent things is the point.
This is the meaning of contingent things.
They depend on something else.
But the locomotive is an independent.
That is an incontinent thing in this analogy.
it moves itself.
It is a self mover in this overall idea.
Now of course we could press the point, the analogy further and say well even the
locomotive needs to have fuel and so forth, but uh considering the back off from that for
a moment and just uh borrow from this image the idea that the boxcars are dependent things
and they imply an independent thing, namely the locomotive.
even though you do not physically see that locomotive.
The boxcars represent the contingent beings in this world and the locomotive represents
the necessary incontinent being which of course we call God.
And so then the question arises, do dependent, that is contingent beings in this exist in
this world?
And like if we could
elicit some discussion on this.
For example, take anything, take maybe a tomato or a magic marker or maybe a plum or
string beans and then the containers that contain these things and think about maybe a
cow, maybe the grass, maybe uh us, maybe the combination of all of us, all of these.
are these contingent beings that we observe in this world?
And if so, how do we account for their existence?
Maybe we can have some discussion on that.
Yes, there's everything.
In fact, I'm holding in my hand a highlighter right here, just laying on the table.
And that highlighter is contingent.
It did not put itself together.
It's got pieces, it's got design for sure, because it does a purpose, and it's going back
to tailogical.
it's caused by something.
And even with the locomotive, and of course you did say you get into that, that the
locomotive is contingent.
In fact, everything in this world is contingent.
oh
And it points to God, like even this pen.
Well, this pen, well, it was created by a man.
Well, who made the man?
And the man is not sufficient, or woman, human being is not sufficient in and of itself
for its existence.
It's contingent on something else.
Well, would ultimately be God, but something else would be the parent.
Yeah, environmental event.
exactly.
Exactly.
Oh, yes.
And I've always uh used this in class sometimes, you know, where that tree come from.
Someone says, it came from a seed.
Where that seed come from?
A tree.
But as you mentioned in an earlier episode, uh an infinite set of something or another
cannot explain itself because, you know, we cannot transverse eternity.
And further, even if you have an infinite series of contingent things, like an infinite
series of boxcars, that does not explain their motion.
Something outside is still needed.
So infinity can't be the answer.
That also goes to point out that there are so many people who don't properly understand
terms.
That's why it's good to define your terms from the very beginning because if you try to
explain God to an individual who may not understand this premise that we're discussing
presently, they'll say, okay, so who created the God that you're describing in the Bible?
And then who created him and who created them?
So they get the contingent part, but not the incontinent.
I think that's very important.
The point is that you cannot uh satisfactorily appeal to what philosophers call infinite
regression to uh
provide an adequate explanation of what we see around us, these contingent things.
If you come up with infinite regression, that is this was caused by that, which was caused
by that, which was caused by that, then how did you get to the present?
So, and you cannot by definition traverse infinity to get to the present, yet here in the
present we do have things, contingent things that exist.
And so then all of this begs and forces us to look at something external to the contingent
something necessary that is of such a nature that it itself is not contingent, it is not
dependent.
There is a necessary being then that must exist in order to account for the contingent
things that we see around us.
it also points to something else too.
You know, no matter what example we use, you've mentioned the acorn in the tree, Brian
mentioned the highlighter, I was just thinking about our computers as we're sitting here
together, we all have one, and um they all point back to something, but the computer or
the marker requires something.
that is so different and unique from itself.
So the marker didn't come from another marker.
There had to be someone because there's like this magic marker that Brian had, this
highlighter rather.
There's a cap that fits precisely.
There's writing on it that demonstrates what color it is and what type it is.
No smear, chisel tip, pin gear, what have you.
All these different things.
So there's an intelligence that's here.
So even if you go back to...
You say, where the tree come from the acorn, the chicken, the egg, whatever we go back to,
there has to at some point be intelligence and has to be something that has will and
intelligence to be able to create these things.
that's Exactly.
So if we look for now, of course, we're going back to the design argument a bit.
But notice how the cosmological argument dovetails nicely into the design argument and
vice versa.
the if we look at a tree, for example, I think I mentioned that one time I was walking
along from a get together and I was ahead of the group walking back to my car and there
was a branch that was overhanging the side.
and I happened to stop waiting for the rest of the folks and gave me an opportunity
eyeball to eyeball or eyeball to leaf to examine that leaf in detail.
And I noticed that it had veins, it had some green around it and that in turn tied to a
branch and the branch tied to the trunk and the trunk had roots.
And I was thinking, look at this, look at all these parts.
Again, the design argument, these parts, they're working together and furthermore,
the the intelligence that it took to create such a thing to account for such a thing's
existence is not within the tree.
it's something that is greater than the tree and that of course goes back to the
affirmation in uh in Hebrews chapter 3 verse 4 that the creator of all the maker of all
things is God you cannot account for these for these objects that have such limited nature
for themselves it requires that we look for something outside and uh that something would
have to be
would have to be uh at least capable of producing such wonderful things.
I'm intrigued by the statement you made just a moment ago about, you know, we cannot
transverse eternity to get to the present.
Why is that?
Please explain.
Is that because the present is a finite thing versus eternity?
Eternity doesn't...
Well then I would explain that would be to focus attention on the very word infinite.
Infinite comes from, is a compound.
English word, plus finis, and it derives from Latin.
N in Latin means not, and finis means end.
So literally the word infinite means no end.
Yet if we agree that there does exist things in the present, and we try to argue that
these are the result of an infinite series of causes and effect,
What we are implying is that the present then is an end, this present moment is an end,
and then the next moment is another end of an infinite series of causes and effect.
Well that is implying then that infinity was traversed to get to the present end, but that
denies the very meaning of infinite.
So then it's what...
philosophers call an analytic falsehood.
That is to say it contradicts itself.
So you cannot traverse infinity by definition.
That's what infinity means, no end.
but we're looking at an alleged end in causes and effects to get to the present, that
therefore cannot be the explanation.
So you run into uh that problem.
It must be something other than an eternal series of causes and effect that account for
the present.
And what is that?
Well, as Steven pointed out, has to be something external to it because the very nature of
these objects...
are contingent that also then pushes us to something external to these objects.
other words God and that external cause must be so tremendous in its nature to account for
all of the all of what we see in this life.
uh in the objects in this life.
We see human beings who have purpose.
see, we even get a glimpse of infinity itself when we put one mirror in front of another.
We say, wait a minute, now that, so this object is being reflected in that, that's being
reflected back, that's being reflected, I'm seeing this, this is gonna go on forever.
The concept, at least, of infinity is uh brought to our attention as we analyze these, the
attributes of this contingent world.
all of it and implying that there had to be a necessary being outside of this contingent
conglomeration to account for what we see.
That's one of the things that I really enjoy about the scriptures that when you find
individuals witnessing certain things, they for the most part are kind of taken aback that
there's something greater.
And it just kind of popped into my mind.
It's kind of a different vein, just think about when Nicodemus is talking to Jesus.
He says,
you couldn't do these things except God be with you.
So he recognizes that something greater than what is natural is at play.
And though this is not necessarily uh an argument, excuse me, for creation there, but it's
just an observation that there's something that has to be greater than what I've witnessed
already, that is the cause of what I've just seen.
So a person couldn't do what you're doing because he'd been used to seeing the normal
course of things happen.
So by seeing something outside of that, he's able to recognize
that there was something greater than himself or greater than human beings that was at
play, which again kind of points to Romans 1.20.
You see God's eternal Godhead in power with the things we witness around us, it
demonstrates that there is something.
And it's kind of a, I think the cool is not the right word, but it's just kind of great
that God has left clues to himself.
so that we, and he's not hidden himself, but he wants us to find him.
He desires for us to know him and find him.
So he's left almost, I don't want to say breadcrumbs, but breadcrumbs so that we can, they
point back to him all the time.
yeah the evidence is definitely here and that's that's why in romans he says so that they
are without excuse
There is adequate evidence and also I can look inward and notice
And realize that I did not create myself.
I don't have the means, I don't have the wherewithal, the capacity to create a human
being.
Nor did my parents, nor did their parents.
Again, the very nature of the human being with our mind and our eyes and our ears and all
of these parts that work together to accomplish what we do and the various ways that we do
them.
again, not just the material part of us, but the...
our mind and our recognition of the logical principles and the conscience and so forth.
All of that, it's clear to me that I do not have the capability of creating, of making
such a thing.
And so then that ought to make me look outside of myself for a being who uh is of such a
nature that accounts for me.
And so the existence, and here's the cosmological argument number one then, the existence
of a contingent being implies
Just one contingent being.
We have many contingent beings.
The existence of a contingent being, a dependent being for its existence implies the
existence of an adequate incontinent being.
This is because the contingent cannot account for its own existence.
so then precisely stated, cosmological argument number one is this.
Since contingent beings exist and contingent beings imply the existence of an adequate
incontinent being for their existence, then an adequate incontinent being, incontinent
being, namely God, exists.
That then is the argument.
And looking back then at that analogy that we looked at, contingent beings imply an
incontinent being, moved things imply an unmoved mover.
Causes and effects imply an ultimate uncaused cause.
That then is the contingent to incontinient formulation of the cosmological argument.
Cosmological argument number two, as I call it, is a process of elimination argument, and
that we can get into in the next episode.
Okay, well we appreciate that insight, George, and we appreciate Steven being here.
And um as I mentioned, you know, not just the world, but church members could benefit from
this study of apologetics.
And so we thank you for joining us on this episode of the Harvester Podcast, and we'd
invite you to come back as we continue this study in episode number six.