Winfried Corduan's Case for God

A Review of Winfried Corduan's Case for God -- Part One

© Brian Tubbs

An analysis of Christian philosopher Winfried Corduan's argument for God. Is it logical? Does it truly devastate atheism?

Winfried Corduan, a religion and philosophy professor at Taylor University, is the author of No Doubt About it: The Case for Christianity. It is a well-written, highly effective assault on atheism and defense of the Christian faith. Chances are that many skeptics who read the book will cease to be so when they're done reading it.

Many Christians will differ with Corduan's argument for Calvinism (which, objectively speaking, is one of the weaker links in the book), but his defense of the basics of the Christian faith is compelling.

What follows is Winfried Corduan's personal form of the longstanding cosmological case for God -- accompanied by commentary and analysis:

1. Something exists

"Anything will do," writes Corduan. "I exist. You exist. The universe exists. A flower exists. My pen exists. It does not even have to be a material object. If you doubt this statement, your doubting exists, and that is good enough."

Corduan more than proves this first premise of his argument. It is indeed difficult to see how a rational person could refute it.

2. Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent

Here we come to some important defintions. If the reader fails to understand these definitions, the rest of Corduan's argument will make little sense. What does it mean to be "necessary" or "contingent"?

Since this is Corduan's argument, it is fair to let him provide the definitions to see whether his argument is at least internally coherent. If it is inconsistent or incoherent within itself, then it fails the most basic truth test and can be discarded.

According to Corduan, a "contingent" being is anything that is "dependent on something else." A contingent being is:

By contrast, a "necessary" being is something that is "totally independent of anything else." It is not caused. It needs no sustenance and it has not been externally determined.

Corduan holds that all things which exist must be either necessary or contingent. It is once again fair to give Corduan the benefit of the doubt here (in case there are any), since we must first test his internal coherence.

Yet, it should also be stated that it is difficult to refute this premise even if one were determined to be difficult. One would be hard pressed to deny the logic of the definitions.

3. A necessary being would have to be God

If there is such a thing as a "necessary being," it would - according to Corduan - have to be:

Now, some of my readers may be hung up on the apparent "religious-ness" of some of the above phrases, feeling that we are stacking the deck or "begging the question" (to use a phrase in logic). But carefully consider these points. Try to divorce them from any "baggage" you may have accumulated in church over the years.

Logically, these WOULD be the characteristics of a "Necessary Being," and it would be logical and fair to call such a being "God."

4. The world (or universe) cannot be a necessary being

This is the most controversial part of Corduan's analysis. It is here where atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics will likely balk. Some may try to object to one of the earlier premises, but they would be hard-pressed to do so. Here, however, they will likely dig in their heels.

Corduan argues that a belief in the world or universe as a "necessary being" can logically be described as pantheism. And pantheism, says Corduan, is a fatally flawed worldview.

"Pantheism is built around a contradiction," writes Corduan, "and a contradiction can never be true. No matter how spiritual or profound or enticing a message may appear, it must be false if it contradicts itself."

In order for the universe to be a necessary being, it would have to be uncaused, independent, eternal, etc., etc. There is clear scientific evidence which disproves this possibility. For example, we know that the universe is running out of energy and that the universe is expanding - two clear indications that the universe had a beginning. That it is not eternal.

In spite of science, logic, and common sense being to the contrary, atheists insist on an eternal universe. They know that if they accept a limited, finite, material universe, they've all but admitted the existence of God.

Our next article will continue Corduan's argument for God.

*****

For further reading, check out Corduan's book...

No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity by Winfried Corduan (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997)


The copyright of the article Winfried Corduan's Case for God in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Winfried Corduan's Case for God must be granted by the author in writing.



Comments
Jul 11, 2007 12:39 AM
redback :
This is a fascinating topic.

There was no physical space, no material substance, nothing apparently(?)...no obvious creation that God need express a love for, no universe, no vacuum etc. God was all there was. After the passage of an infinity or an eternity, the universe was created, then the Earth, and almost like yesterday, mankind.

<i>"...For example, we know that the universe is running out of energy and that the universe is expanding..."</i>

Has God yet to create the space for the universe to expand into or does this space already exist but our primitive skills can't see beyond our own "backyard"? Was there a previous universe or is there only one now?

I'm sure atheism has some view. But this, <b>to me</b> is probably more about our God-related over-inflated egos and the flawed reasoning of mankind than it is about atheism. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder a learned experience? Is our belief in our inherent good sense simply our tenuous grasp of a profound hope <i>it'll be right on the night</i>. And it may well NOT be all right on the night?

I'll await Part 2. But I reckon this little beige duck will find the going heavier than others who frequent these pages.
Jul 11, 2007 3:26 AM
Pink :
.
<i>I'm sure atheism has some view.</i>
.
I'm no Atheist; but, why do you say that?
.
As limited as my knowledge about Atheism is, its entire point seems to be that there is no god. Other than that, individual Atheists are about as varied in what they believe about anything as anyone else.
.
Right?
.
Jul 11, 2007 7:17 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>But this, to me is probably more about our God-related over-inflated egos and the flawed reasoning of mankind... </i>
.
In a nutshell. I couldn't agree more.
Jul 12, 2007 4:15 AM
redback :
Why do YOU ask?? Why DO I say atheism has a view when you already agree atheists within it have a range of views??

Christianity also has a view...Christians within it are as varied in their views and as tenuous in their argument probably as the hairs on my head. There is also an alleged 'worldview' which is another slippery little sucker to pin down. Hope that helps. :)

I simply didn't expand on the atheist position as it's not mine and I saw a greater point...as noted by Migisi. It is not for me to argue a Christian's or atheist's take on anything. I leave that to the experts.

The atheist's <b>conclusion</b> or "entire point" as you call it is there is no God. It's probably easier to pooh pooh the one-liner belief of atheism if that's all it is. Some people disbelieve any one-liner concept of Christianity. I make the point this is also about Christianity's version of God vs all other (man-made?) versions. Pooh Pooh to be continued.

We might be jumping the gun here, Pink.

Whatever the truth of creation, it is inarguable it would have been a wondrous event. I try to imagine going to the end of the universe and looking out its 'window' as I've <b>never</b> seen nothing before. I try to imagine a God alone in the...nothing??? an infinity past and in looking forward into future infinity wondering if I'd ever be able to interrupt his dinner over some incredibly petty life matter involving me.
Jul 12, 2007 7:56 AM
Boanerges :
<i>wondering if I'd ever be able to interrupt his dinner over some incredibly petty life matter involving me.</i>
I believe that question is the key question, Jeff...
[ If ] God [ is ] (then)....
willing to accept all for whatever they have done?
not willing to accept all for their crimes...
this is a moral question in the end. who determines what { is } right and wrong....?..... I say - it is God....

you may like to listen to this by Ray Comfort... It is a very good explanation. do yourself a favor and take a listen when time allows...

Hell's best kept secret
http://www.livingwaters2.com/audio/hbks.mp3

:)
Jul 12, 2007 8:10 AM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>But this, to me is probably more about our God-related over-inflated egos and the flawed reasoning of mankind than it is about atheism.</i>

Believe it or not....I partially agree with you here. But probably not in the way you mean it. Certainly not in the way Migisi means it in her concurrence.

It's not a reflection of an ego or flawed reasoning to conclude that since the present universe had a beginning, it must have had a Beginner of some kind.

From that premise, we can logically reason our way to some form of divinity.

That's not a stretch, but a common sense conclusion.

HOWEVER...to spin our wheels in needless questions such as "What was there before God?" and use those questions as an excuse to then reject God - well, THAT does reflect an over-sized ego, IMHO.
Jul 13, 2007 1:18 AM
redback :
<b>"It's not a reflection of an ego or flawed reasoning to conclude that since the present universe had a beginning, it must have had a Beginner of some kind."</b>

Tis a TOTALLY different premise to mine but I totally AGREE with you on it...as a self-contained statement. None of my posts here question <i>"What was there before God?"</i> but your inclusion of it suggests differently.

I won't second-guess you or Migisi but is that what you are trying to do...join us as a pigeon pair? Migisi answers so maybe I don't need to?? ABC :) My reference had context; to the article <b>so far</b> which I thought was only part 1; to the sorts of conclusions that come from connecting whatever dots that are visible to my naked eye as compared to yours as compared to all others through history. AND to the quantum leap needed to take me to 2006 and consensus about every one of the 695 pages within my version of the Bible. I simply believe there's ample room for flawed reasoning there.

Spinning wheels? Your article makes reference to demolishing the atheist position so IMO that may entail spending 5 minutes or so on what to you are "needless questions". BTW I did read an impatience in your article similar to what I read in Strobel ie "surely by now the reader is going to be totally convinced or is surely stupid so will never understand." OK, a tad poetic licence but I'm not as fast on the uptake as you and Boanerges would have me be.

I will spend time in wonder about creation. And if it sounds irreverent, irrelevant or simply 'spin' to you, I'm in good company here. :)

It makes sense to me to try to understand the article's opposing view...the athiest's. BUT I probably have a weird idea about what an atheist truly is. The fact is there is either one God or two or more. Correct? We all know there are also false gods. So, if a person believes in a non existent God, what he believes is irrelevant. He does not believe in God so by definition is an atheist. He may not realise this in his lifetime.

The one-liner God the Creator or any version thereof is clearly digestible and probably pacifying to all religions. But the Christian God does not exist without Christ so a person by definition who does not believe in Christ, may also be an atheist?? I really have no authoritative idea. All I know is the most articulate, the most strident, the most judgemental...aren't always correct.

In this context, maybe the atheist argument hasn't yet been demolished. Please be
Jul 13, 2007 3:43 AM
redback :
I suspect you and Brian misinterpret my reasons for opening discussion on this topic. At least you have telegraphed your punches for a long time, mate...so I can't really expect any different. :)

Believe me...the topic I had here about my personal spiritual journey is long dead.

My reference to an <i>"incredibly petty life matter involving me"</i> may seem ludicrous but I genuinely don't have the sort of ego needed to believe I'm rated way above the endless tsunamis <b>et al</b> that have occurred over the known and unknown parts of infinity.

Agnosticism:

<i>"Someone who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown or unknowable OR...."</i>

It may be a sign of an over-inflated ego to believe we DO know better or to believe an agnostic is a fake as they're in denial. Who on Earth really knows the truth of it....the true believer, the true atheist, the true agnostic...and the true consequence.

Is this really a discussion about the article or instead an opportunistic excuse to fast track to proselytism. Or is it instead a discussion about providing better and better examples of inflated egos.
Jul 13, 2007 3:55 AM
Pink :
.
:)
.
It is sooo good the way you craft your comments.
.
You have quite a skill.
.
:)
Jul 13, 2007 10:28 AM
Boanerges :
<i>I suspect you and Brian misinterpret my reasons for opening discussion on this topic. At least you have telegraphed your punches for a long time, mate...so I can't really expect any different.</i>

uhmm... no.. I simply made a statement and asked a question..
but.. nevermind... I'll leave this discussion for you and others..... Im off somewhere else...
Page:
24 Comments

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo