The Cosmological Argument is one of the basic arguments for the existence of God. It depends to some degree on the intuition that most people seem to have that things which come into being require a creator. Since the universe came into being, it too must have had a creator, and that Creator is God. The logic is sound, and as long as the premises are correct, the conclusion is inescapable.
Yet some people refuse to follow where this line of reasoning leads. Recently, I conversed with a skeptic who claimed that his "intuition" was quite the opposite. He claimed that though he could not explain precisely why, his tuition told him that the universe was not itself created.
Yet some people refuse to follow where this line of reasoning leads. Recently, I conversed with a skeptic who claimed that his "intuition" was quite the opposite. He claimed that though he could not explain precisely why, his tuition told him that the universe was not itself created.
Now, this appears to me, on its face, to be a rather odd claim to make. When is the last time you saw a thing and, in surprise, suddenly “realized” that it had been created and was not itself eternal? If you arrived at your workplace and found a new stapler on your desk, I seriously doubt that you would look at it and marvel that it had arrived there fully assembled without any source. This is intuition, and you can’t help but be aware of it. It may be faulty, of course, but the shared intuition of practically every human being that ever lived, an intuition that under-girds the scientific enterprise, is not something I should easily distrust.
Put another way, if all things that come into being require a creator, why would you think that the universe - the biggest thing of all - would be an exception? As I told the skeptic, I don't actually believe that his "intuition" leads him there. I think he is asserting this despite his actual intuition to the contrary, for reasons that have more to do with what he wants to believe than what he does believe.
This, then, got me thinking about the nature of intuition. The word is defined in a number of ways: "direct perception of truth or fact independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension; knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception." All these definitions stem from the Latin root word for the verb "to gaze upon" or "to contemplate."
So, when we gaze upon and contemplate the universe, what are some of the things that we perceive? It is immensely large and contains objects which possess unimaginable levels of power. It runs according to extremely fine-tuned laws which work flawlessly and seamlessly to allow for life on this planet to flourish. These laws have a simplicity and mathematical regularity that are susceptible to being reduced to equations, and yet are, paradoxically, so complex that their solution defies the most brilliant minds among us. These equations nonetheless actually describe to a large degree what is occurring, and what we perceive around us. Calculus, for instance, can provide us reliable information about objects in motion. The universe is, in addition, a place of incredible artistry, at least as perceived by humans. Included in this artistry is the potentiality for human creations such as music, language and poetry. For humans, there is additionally a common recognition that there is a law at work that is not merely physical, but moral as well. All humans from all cultures throughout all recorded history have been aware that there is a way that they "should" act and that they fall short of this standard. Though differing cultures may approach the specifics differently, the existence of feelings of guilt is a universal feature of humanity.
As I contemplate these things, I move past the very basic sense that a created thing – such as the universe - must necessarily have a creator. This seems to me, as to countless other human beings, properly basic and without need for further proof. It is self-evident. But as I consider further the attributes of the universe, the cumulative case for its creation becomes compelling, indeed overwhelming. Each of the observations mentioned briefly above also necessitates the existence of a source. What grounds the laws that we perceive as nature? From where do the rules of mathematics emerge? How can we not recognize the existence of a "law giver" who is the source of the moral messages we receive regarding how we should behave? Where do artistry, music and calculus reside? Did these things come into existence when the first human being formed the first thought of them? This does not make sense. We intuitively recognize that men discovered the laws of calculus, they did not create them. Before that discovery, they resided within the mind of God. Likewise, we “intuitively” reject as inadequate any explanation that the universe "just is." That is no explanation at all.
Put another way, if all things that come into being require a creator, why would you think that the universe - the biggest thing of all - would be an exception? As I told the skeptic, I don't actually believe that his "intuition" leads him there. I think he is asserting this despite his actual intuition to the contrary, for reasons that have more to do with what he wants to believe than what he does believe.
This, then, got me thinking about the nature of intuition. The word is defined in a number of ways: "direct perception of truth or fact independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension; knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception." All these definitions stem from the Latin root word for the verb "to gaze upon" or "to contemplate."
So, when we gaze upon and contemplate the universe, what are some of the things that we perceive? It is immensely large and contains objects which possess unimaginable levels of power. It runs according to extremely fine-tuned laws which work flawlessly and seamlessly to allow for life on this planet to flourish. These laws have a simplicity and mathematical regularity that are susceptible to being reduced to equations, and yet are, paradoxically, so complex that their solution defies the most brilliant minds among us. These equations nonetheless actually describe to a large degree what is occurring, and what we perceive around us. Calculus, for instance, can provide us reliable information about objects in motion. The universe is, in addition, a place of incredible artistry, at least as perceived by humans. Included in this artistry is the potentiality for human creations such as music, language and poetry. For humans, there is additionally a common recognition that there is a law at work that is not merely physical, but moral as well. All humans from all cultures throughout all recorded history have been aware that there is a way that they "should" act and that they fall short of this standard. Though differing cultures may approach the specifics differently, the existence of feelings of guilt is a universal feature of humanity.
As I contemplate these things, I move past the very basic sense that a created thing – such as the universe - must necessarily have a creator. This seems to me, as to countless other human beings, properly basic and without need for further proof. It is self-evident. But as I consider further the attributes of the universe, the cumulative case for its creation becomes compelling, indeed overwhelming. Each of the observations mentioned briefly above also necessitates the existence of a source. What grounds the laws that we perceive as nature? From where do the rules of mathematics emerge? How can we not recognize the existence of a "law giver" who is the source of the moral messages we receive regarding how we should behave? Where do artistry, music and calculus reside? Did these things come into existence when the first human being formed the first thought of them? This does not make sense. We intuitively recognize that men discovered the laws of calculus, they did not create them. Before that discovery, they resided within the mind of God. Likewise, we “intuitively” reject as inadequate any explanation that the universe "just is." That is no explanation at all.
In the end, we are led intuitively to a creator, because this Creator is a personal being who wants to share communion with us. But he gave us free will, and with it the capacity to reject him. Better, it seems to me, to do that consciously and intentionally, than to hide behind rationalizations that lead us to deny what we really cannot help but knowing.
He is there.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment