Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without God

Here is a truth I wish everyone would take the time to earnestly and honestly contemplate:

If God does not exist and there is no life after death, then there is no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose in life.

The question of God’s existence is the most important question we can seek to answer. If God does not exist and we do not survive the death of our bodies, life is ultimately absurd. J.P. Moreland provides an illustration which helps bring this truth home:

Suppose I invited you over to my house to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote, and a refrigerator in the corner of the room. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, throw the coin in the air, toss a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.

Now it wouldn’t take too many cycles of this nonsense to recognize that it didn’t really matter what you did with your turn, and here’s why. There is no goal, no purpose to the game we are playing. Our successive turns form a series of one meaningless event after another. Why? Because if the game as a whole has no purpose, the individual moves within the game are pointless. Conversely, only a game’s actual purpose according to its inventor can give the individual moves significance.[1]

As Moreland articulates, if the game of Monopoly as a whole has no purpose, the individual moves within the game have no meaning or value. The only way your moves within the game of Monopoly have significance is if you discover the purpose of the game and you align yourself with that purpose.

(non-) BOOK REVIEW for "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question"

Former LA prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi released his latest book "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question" recently and I decided to buy it. I like to use the investigative method when approaching truth claims and it sounded like Bugliosi was doing the same thing despite reaching a different conclusion. So I had to try it. Bulgliosi describes this work as the culmination of a two-year research project. He's written on the OJ case, JFK assassination, and George W. Bush but now steps out of his field to give his best case for agnosticism in this latest work. Bugliosi says he employs his prosecutorial skills to sift through the evidence for a rational conclusion. In that, I applaud him but the praise stops there.

The Debate Audio is Finally Here!

On December 9, 2009, Freethought Alliance hosted a debate at the Costa Mesa Civic Center titled "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" It was a 3-on-3 panel discussion between Christians and atheists.

The Christian side included Dr. Clay Jones from Biola University, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and our own Dan Grossenbach from Apologetic Junkie. The atheist panel included Dr. Bruce Flamm from the Inland Empire Atheists and Agnostics group, Mark Smith, and Alex Uzdavines.

Let me warn you in advance about this debate. The debate was quite lively and unconventional, which is why some would prefer to label it a panel discussion (or even a street fight!). The structure of this "debate" made a real debate nearly impossible. Unfortunately rhetoric often prevailed over reason and prevented genuine dialogue from taking place.

Full MP3 Debate Audio here.

In addition, due to the nature of the debate we thought it would be helpful to sit down with Dr. Clay Jones and Dan Grossenbach for a post-debate interview. Be sure to listen to their thoughts and reflections regarding the debate. It takes a lot more time to answer the difficult questions than it does to ask them. Hopefully this interview will answer the questions that time, format, and interruptions did not allow.

Full MP3 Post-Debate Audio Interview here.

We appreciate comments and feedback. Enjoy!

Debate Feedback

On Wednesday, Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe), Dr. Clay Jones (Biola), and I debated three atheists at the Costa Mesa Community Center in a packed room of about 300. The crowd appeared evenly split between skeptics and Christians based on a hand tally requested by two of the debaters in an early exchange.

It was one of the most unique experiences I've ever had in my apologetics ministry. In general, I've received positive feedback from Christians, but I'm curious to hear honest feedback from others who were there that night. Soon, I plan to write a summary of the arguments and give my perspective, but for now, I'm asking for input on the event. Perhaps we can start another discussion here on the Junkie. I know my perspective from on stage, but what's yours?

5 Reasons God Exists

(Reasons.org)

Kenneth Samples discusses the following 5 reasons for God's existence:

1. God uniquely accounts for the physical universe's beginning.
2. God uniquely accounts for the order, complexity, and design evident in the universe.
3. God uniquely accounts for the reality of objective ethical values.
4. God uniquely accounts for the enigma of man.
5. God uniquely accounts for the claims, character, and credentials of Jesus Christ.

Why I Believe In God

(Scriptoriumdaily.com) by John Mark Reynolds

In one comment thread on this blog, someone asked why I believe. Here is a short answer.

It is an odd thing to be called on to defend something you think you know. It is disturbing at first, because it makes you simultaneously wonder about your own mental clarity and that of your questioner. Why would he ask such a question? Isn’t the truth of the matter obvious?

Unfortunately, there are few things we believe that some other person, seemingly rational, cannot doubt. After a bit of reflection, the doubts of others about my beliefs are less disturbing, because it is a chance to exercise wonder. Not surprisingly it is wonderful to wonder and a chance to wonder why I think God exists has proven an excellent opportunity for healthy Socratic doubt leading to a sense of His presence.

I am thankful for the process.

God exists, but what God? I mean the God that is all-powerful, all knowing, the God who is the Creator of the cosmos. By definition if such a God exists, there is only one God, because only one being could logically be omnipotent.

Some of my atheist friends assert that since I don’t believe in many gods, I am just an atheist who has refused to go all the way. After all, having given up on the worship of Zeus why do I cling to the worship of the God of the Bible?

My friends are mistaken, however. I don’t reject Zeus, because he does not exist, but because he is evil. The Zeus revealed to me in Homer is not worthy of worship, because he uses his power for evil. Now my friends who are atheists might immediately reply that the God of the Old Testament also commands or does things that appear evil to us, but this is different. The God of the Old Testament is presented as good and some of His reported actions are difficult to square with that goodness. At the worst a believer need only doubt the report, but the gods of the Greeks are presented as intentionally acting for our harm.

There is no giving Zeus the benefit of the doubt, because he and his worshipers do not ask for it!

Of course, in any case Christians do not deny that Zeus might exist as a spirit, though he clearly does not (at present) physically dwell on the top of Mount Olympus! We do not claim to know every supernatural being that exists and for all I know the supernatural world is very complex place indeed. I have it on good authority that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in Richard Dawkins and my philosophy.

So why do I know God exists?

Given the limits of a short essay, I will only be able to point in the direction of my favorite reasons, but there are many books that provide deeper justification and further explication of these reasons. On a popular level favorite books that were helpful to me include J.P. Moreland’s Scaling the Secular City and A.E. Taylor’s Does God Exist? Readers looking for something more difficult would do well to check out the work of Richard Swinburne of Oxford University.

Of course, I don’t believe in God at first because I sat and thought about Him. I believe in God, because I encountered Him. I prayed and had an experience of Him from a very early age. He has answered my prayers and forced me to change my behavior. This every day direct mental experience of His existence is fundamentally why I know God is real.

If I did not have it, I would have little motivation to wonder about Him, but I sought Him and I found Him . . . or better He found me! Of course, despite my apparent sanity (from my own biased point of view!), I might be mad or deceived. God might be an illusion in my head, despite the sense that there is a different mental texture to what His voice is saying.

Once challenged in his beliefs by reasonable questions, only a fool or a saint would be sure that he was not deluding himself. I know I am no saint and I hope not to be a fool, so I had to ask if my experiences were real and if I had correctly interpreted them.

It is important, therefore, that I have every day indirect experience of His existence. The community of believers around me matters. I am not alone in thinking God is real or speaks to people. This does not prove that God exist, but the billions of people over long periods of time who have believed in God does suggest that at the very least I am not the victim of some private delusion!

So I speak to God and He speaks to me and millions of living and otherwise rational human beings share this experience. It is what I would anticipate if God is out there. Why do some people fail to share that experience?

I don’t know, but absence of evidence in a few does not suggest the problem is in those who believe.

Third, there are philosophical arguments that suggest the existence of God is either necessary or reasonable. For example, the existence and nature of the cosmos suggests the existence of a rational God. The universe appears to have order and design and I am not persuaded that merely naturalistic processes can account for this order and design. Whatever the process God used to create, and only the arrogant believe they have this all worked out, the fundamental nature of that creation suggests a plan.

Fourth, morality persuades me that God exists. The long trajectory of human history demonstrates a common morality behind the blind spots of any particular culture. There is a common way that most people in most places and most times have followed. This law suggests a lawgiver.

Fifth, the existence of gratuitous beauty convinces me God exists. When I traveled above the clouds for the first time with my oldest son, he told me that it was beautiful and neither of us was surprised. Wherever we looked, we saw beauty and this was not a beauty that could have been hardwired into us by any natural process. Wherever we look as human even to the furthest reaches of the cosmos beauty is there waiting for us.

Sixth, the world of Ideas points in the direction of the existence of the Mind of God. As a Platonist, I am convinced that numbers and ideas are real. There is a metaphysical world that cannot be reduced to the material. This does not prove God exists, but makes His existence more plausible to me.

Finally, love suggests to me that God is real. As Plato points out in his masterful dialogue Symposium love is surely of something. Humanity possesses a love for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful that demands a proper object. Only God is great enough to be a sufficient end for all the longing in the human heart. It might be that the universe is perverse and has given us this great longing without any means of fulfilling it, but there is no good reason to take this withering view. The sensible, indeed the hopeful response, is to assume that like hunger or thirst this longing too can be find satisfaction in reality.

My friends who don’t believe in God might claim that I believe in God, partly, because I want to do so. This is true. The existence of a good God is such an awesome, exciting, and hopeful idea that I am rooting for it. There is nothing irrational with giving good news the benefit of the doubt, if you don’t sacrifice your mind to do so.

You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart.

The Failure of Scientism

Science is good, but science isn't everything. Taken to an abnormal and irrational extreme it may be properly labeled "scientism." This is the view that "science is the only paradigm of truth and rationality...Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible."(1) In other words, you can't know something unless you can prove it scientifically.

In a 1998 debate, William Lane Craig faced off against Peter Atkins on the question "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?" During the debate, Peter Atkins made the claim that science can account for everything and is "omnipotent." When questioned by Atkins regarding what science can't account for, Craig lists the following five examples of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we are all rational to accept:

1. Logical and mathematical truths
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself

Watch the clip here:



If you enjoyed this short clip, download the entire debate:

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!
______________________________________________

1. See Love Your God With All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland, pg. 144.

What Science Can't Prove

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns,how can it disprove the existence of God?

I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.

I'm not saying that because I don't like science, but rather because I know a little about how science works. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist.

Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.

I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search the world to answer that question.

The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence.

This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error--what's called apodictic certainty in philosophy--you must employ the deductive method.

There have been attempts to use the deductive method to show that certain ways of thinking about God are contradictory. The deductive problem of evil is like that. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both.

If this argument is sustained, then Christianity is defeated, because contradictory things (the belief that God is both good and powerful in the face of evil) cannot be true at the same time. The job of the Christian at this point is to show there isn't a necessary contradiction in their view of God, that genuine love does not require that there be no evil or suffering, and that preventing such a thing is a not function of God's power. I think that can be done, and I've addressed that issue in another place (see The Strength of God and the Problem of Evil ).

So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."
You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science hasn't proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact ? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.

My First Debate

I've recently been challenged by an atheist to defend Christianity. While this is nothing new, this time, it's going to be recorded before a live audience of 500. It's a 3-on-3 panel debate on the topic "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" at the Costa Mesa civic center on the evening of December 9th.

As some of you know, I'm coordinating a debate between Sean McDowell and Dr. Jim Corbett for February 26th, 2010. It wasn't my intention to get involved in another one, let alone as a debater, but I'm excited about putting my training to the test. I am blessed to report that Christian brothers Clay Jones and Hugh Ross will be seated on the panel with me.

CLAY JONES, M.Div - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Prior to teaching at Biola, Dr. Jones was host of a weekly, call-in nationally syndicated talk radio program. Dr. Jones was the executive director of Simon Greenleaf University (now Trinity Law School), which offered degrees in law, Christian apologetics, and international human rights. Dr. Jones authored Prepared Defense, an interactive apologetics software program, encyclopedia articles on theodicy, evil, and suffering; journal articles on why God ordered the destruction of the Canaanites, and has a forthcoming book, Why God Allows Evil. Dr. Jones has been on the pastoral staff of two large churches and speaks widely on why God allows evil; Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch-hunts, etc.; the glory that awaits the Christian in heaven; and related topics. Here are a few examples of groups Clay has debated:

• a Buddhism professor
• the head of the Islamic Information Institute
• a Muslim cleric
• a Church of Scientology minister
• Mormon leaders
• Jehovah’s Witness leaders
• representatives of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
• the Council for democratic and Secular Humanism
• KFI’s Bill Handle
• a UCI professor on evil
• Gay rights activists
• a pastor who helps people form their own religions

HUGH ROSS, founder and president of Reasons to Believe, completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or "quasars," some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe. He and his colleagues at Reasons To Believe keep tabs on the frontiers of research and how it connects with biblical theology. In this realm, he has written many books, including: The Fingerprint of God, The Creator and the Cosmos, Beyond the Cosmos, The Genesis Question, A Matter of Days, Creation As Science, and Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. Between writing books and articles and hosting Creation Update, a weekly live webcast, Hugh travels the world challenging students and faculty, churches and professional groups to consider what they believe and why. He presents a persuasive case for Christianity without applying pressure. Because he treats people's questions and comments with respect, he is in great demand as a speaker and as a talk-radio and television guest. Hugh has debated some of the sharpest atheist minds including a recent debate on the existence of God with Dr. Victor Stenger.

And then there's me, M.A. Christian Apologetics - Biola University. I'm the amateur apologist of the group and a federal criminal investigator by profession. I also teach apologetics at Mount of Olives Church in Mission Viejo and blog on this site. My area of specific interest is with epistemology and the argument for God based on the reality of objective moral values.

The atheists on the other side of the panel include Mark Smith, Alex Uzdavines, and Bruce Goings. Mark Smith runs the anti-Christian website http://www.jcnot4me.com/. Alex Uzdavines is a leader of the atheist club at UCI. Bruce Goings from the Inland Empire Atheist & Agnostics group and has over 1,200 blog posts on the IEAA message board.

This event is hosted by Freethought Alliance which is a network of local atheist groups from the greater LA metro area so we certainly won't be on our home turf. The debate will be moderated by Brian Dunning, a skeptic blogger who runs the site http://www.skeptoid.com/. Opening and closing statements will be much shorter than usual to allow more time for a lively conversation. Five questions will be submitted in advance by each panel to the other side. At the debate, each side will alternate asking the questions of the opposing panel who will give their prepared response followed by closely moderated discussion. The remaining time will be spent addressing questions submitted online. Being an atheist site, most questions are likely to be slanted against us. Email debate@freethoughtalliance.org to submit your question today!

We hope you can join us for an exciting night. If you have any skeptical friends, this would be a tremendous opportunity to bring your conversation to a much deeper level. Let us do the dirty work in bringing up the uncomfortable questions and then you can follow-up over coffee the next day with a simple, "So, what did you think?" Unfortunately, the event isn't free, but costs just $10 if you buy through Paypal in advance (otherwise it's $20 at the door). DVDs will be available for purchase too. At the risk of sounding like a salesman, there really is limited space in the auditorium (500) so if you're interested, you might want to reserve your seat soon. Visit the Freethought Alliance website for more info.

Clay, Hugh, and I are asking for your prayers during our preparation and that ears are opened for those who need to hear the truth.

The Zoolander Objection, Part 2 of 2

The Zoolander Objection Part 1 of 2

Extended Cosmological Argument

The interesting continuation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God moves from the establishment of an eternal first cause merely existing, to demonstrating how it must be a person, good, and extremely powerful.


1. PERSONHOOD

We know that inanimate objects cannot voluntarily move. They have to be caused by something else to do anything at all. So the eternal first cause established by the cosmological argument cannot be an inanimate thing. The only things that are not inanimate are things with minds.

Furthermore, this holds up under either position in the free will/determinism debate. Regardless of whether or not the created things with minds that proceeded from the eternal first cause have free will or not, it itself could not have been caused or determined by something else. It is all that existed prior to what it brought into existence. So if there’s nothing to cause it to move or act, then the eternal first cause itself must exercise volition in order to act and create. It makes itself act. Exercising volition is to unaffectedly choose to create, to think, and be innovative. This is indicative of nothing other than a mind.


2. GOODNESS

The world we find ourselves in, that has come from the eternal first cause, exists with such things as moral rightness and wrongness. There are disagreements on just what exactly is right or wrong on various issues, but that is not relevant here. The point is that we all recognize it is possible to deviate from what is right, whatever that may be. This is what we call doing something morally wrong. Being able to deviate from what is right indicates that there is a morally right way things should be for us to deviate from. A moral law, if you will. Because we recognize that it’s wrong to deviate, and right to not deviate, means that the moral law we deviate from is right and good.

Since this moral law is inherent in all that exists, we know that it was created by the personal eternal first cause. The moral law giver, if you will again. Now, we know that the eternal first cause chose to create what it wanted to. It chose to do this by its own reasoning, unaffected by anything else. So since the moral law is perfectly good, then the moral law giver, who voluntarily made this moral law to be inherent in all it created, has to be morally capable to do so. Therefore, it must be perfectly good itself.


3. POWER

Finally, this perfectly good person who is the first cause, has to have enough power to be capable of bringing into existence all that exists. This pretty much means it’s the most powerful thing imaginable.

The Zoolander Objection Part 1 of 2

“But who created God?”, is what I call the Zoolander Objection to the cosmological argument for the existence of God. I argue here that this common response to the cosmological argument, whether given sarcastically or seriously, can only come from someone who does not fully grasp the argument. Furthermore, it is very similar to a memorable scene in the film Zoolander. But in order to make the Zoolander connection, I must first layout the argument. The goal of this argument is to show that an eternal first cause of everything, exists.[1]

Below are some key features of this argument, followed by an explanation for the naming of the Zoolander Objection.

I. Actual infinites cannot exist.

A. “Infinite/eternal” distinction.
How can the premise "Actual infinites cannot exist" be used in an argument for the existence of God? Isn’t God infinite? What needs to be clarified here is what is meant by ‘infinite’. The term ‘infinite’ means an infinite set of finite things. This is not synonymous with the term ‘eternal’. An infinite is a quantity, while eternity is a duration. (One could say that an eternity is a quantity of time, but this slightly misunderstands the concept behind the word 'eternity'. The concept of eternity refers to the passing of time. That is, it refers to how long the time goes for; the duration of it.) An infinite is eternal, but an eternal thing is not necessarily an infinite. (Much like all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples.) An infinite would be eternal because it would be a quantity that goes on forever if it were to be counted. So since eternity has to do with duration rather than quantity, an eternal thing can only be one of two things: An infinite set, or a single thing that simply always exists.

B. “Potential/Actual Infinite” distinction.
Mentioned above is how an infinite set would be eternal because it would be a quantity that goes on forever if it were to be counted. In this sense, it is potentially infinite. If it were actualized, then it would be infinite. It would therefore be eternal by going on forever if it actualized its potential.

C. ‘Cannot exist’
Although the concept of a potential infinite set can be utilized in mathematics, an actual infinite set cannot really happen. The non-crossing-over feature of actual infinites leads to the conclusion that they cannot actually exist. The occurrence of a particular thing in the set would always be waiting for its turn to occur. Because there is an infinite amount of things before it, the sequence would never ‘cross over’ to the time it takes place. It would never happen. This is the case for every part in the infinite series and makes an infinite series impossible in actuality.

For example, imagine going to dinner at a local restaurant. You show up and the hostess tells you there are two people in front of you and you’ll be seated after them. You wait a few minutes, and then you’re seated. You come back the next night and are told ten people are to be seated before you. You wait longer than the night before because there are more people in front of you. You come back a third night and there are 30 people to be seated before you. This time, you wait even longer. But just like the nights before, you actually do get seated. You get the picture: the more people before you, the longer you wait. Now imagine that there is an infinite amount of people to be seated before you do. How long would you wait? The answer is forever. You’ll always be waiting, and will never actually be seated. Because there is an infinite amount of people to be seated before you, there will never be a crossing over in the seating sequence to your actual turn.[2]

II. Our world cannot be part of an infinite series.

If the world we live in were part of an infinite series of events, then the past would never cross over to now. If the past events were infinite, we’d always be waiting for now to happen. In fact, now wouldn’t happen at all and we wouldn’t be here. Therefore, because we’re here, we know the past could not have been an infinite series of events.

III. Conclusion

If we were to trace the sequence of events from now backwards into history, we realize that there are a few different options to explain how this sequence of events came about. There are three options: 1) the events are an infinite set, 2) a single eternal thing started them, or 3) they started from nothing.

Option 3 is obviously impossible, so we can discard it. It cannot be the case that nothing existed and then something did. How can nothing cause something to happen? There’s nothing to do the causing. Therefore, since something exists, and something cannot come from nothing, something must have always existed.

This brings us to options 1 and 2. The sequence of events that we trace from now back into the past either 1) has no beginning and is an infinite set of events, or 2) began from a single eternal thing. These two options both have eternal histories to meet the criteria of always existing. Furthermore, they are the only two logical possibilities to explain how something could have always existed (i.e. they are the only two ways something can be eternal): either the sequence of events from now, back throughout all of history, rewinds into the past forever with no beginning, or rewinds into the past and terminates in a single eternal uncaused thing.

This is where the impossibility of actual infinites is crucial to this line of reasoning. Since it is impossible that the sequence of events that go from now back into history be infinite, then they had to originate from a single uncaused eternal thing. This is not merely a postulated conclusion being suggested because the other two options are impossible. This argument demonstrates that things could not be any other way than what the argument concludes in addition to the other two options being impossible. Again, there had to be a beginning to the sequence of events that make up all of history. They couldn’t have come from nothing, so they had to come from something that has always existed, but not as an infinite set. Therefore, an eternal first cause of everything is the answer. This is demonstrated by the key features of the argument: Something exists, actual infinites cannot exist, but something has to have always existed. It has to be this way. In poor grammar, an eternal first cause of everything cannot-not exist.

The Zoolander Objection

Now, after going through all this, to hear the question on what created this single eternal first cause of everything, is to assume the questioner either wasn’t listening or doesn’t understand the argument. To ask this question, is to ask what caused this uncaused thing to exist.

Sometimes, this statement is raised in a sarcastic fashion attempting to point out that the cosmological argument is either incomplete or leads to an infinite regress of causes. This sarcastic presentation of the “Who created God then?” question still very much qualifies as a Zoolander Objection. This is because the person raising the objection can only do so if they do not fully grasp the argument. There is still a failure to see that a single uncaused eternal thing exists.

Here now, finally, is why I label this objection the Zoolander Objection. In the film Zoolander, J.P. Prewitt (David Ducovany) provides Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) with an exhaustive explanation of how and why male models have been used as assassins. He gives examples of incidents when they were used and gives all the reasons why. He says it is because male models are in excellent physical shape, can gain access into the most secure facilities, and because they will do anything they’re told. So after hearing this complete explanation of exactly why male models have been used as assassins, Derek, in his innocent and comical, but slow witted way, asks, “But why male models?”. Prewitt, surprised at the statement, replies, “Are you serious? … I just explained that.”

So when the cosmological argument demonstrates that a single eternal first cause has to exist and cannot be caused by something else, is followed by the objection, “But what caused it?”, I am immediately reminded of Derek Zoolander. And since this objection is so unfortunately common, I think giving it a name is warranted.

____________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] For thoroughness, the formal argument skeleton has been included in the appendix. For space and time constraints, this blog post will just be going through the argument in a quicker way by explaining its key features.

[2] Chad V. Meister, Building Belief (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI.), 99.

APPENDIX:

Formal Argument Skeleton

The argument presented here is my version of Samuel Clarke’s cosmological argument for the existence of God. He calls it the argument from contingency.[3]

1. If the universe exists, then it either came from nothing or from something that exists eternally.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe either came from nothing or from something that exists eternally.
4. Something cannot come from nothing.
5. The universe came from something that exists eternally.
6. If the cause of the universe is eternal, then it is either an infinite series of events, or a single uncaused eternal thing.
7. The cause of the universe is either an infinite series of events, or a single uncaused eternal thing.
8. Actual infinites cannot exist.
9. The cause of the universe is a single uncaused eternal thing.
10. If the cause of the universe is a single uncaused eternal thing, then a single uncaused eternal thing exists.
11. A single uncaused eternal thing exists.

1. P ) Q v R
2. P
3. Q v R
4. ~Q
5. R
6. R ) S v T
7. S v T
8. ~S
9. T
10. T ) U
11. U

[3] Samuel Clarke, “The Argument from Contingency,” in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, ed. Louis P. Pojman, 4th ed. (Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003), 5-6.