Winfried Corduan's Case for God
A Review of Winfried Corduan's Case for God -- Part One
© Brian Tubbs
Jul 8, 2007
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:
- caused -- It had its "potential to exist actualized." A thought. A child. A flower.
- sustained -- It would not exist "were it not for certain sustaining cuases." For example, a person needs oxygen, food, and water to survive.
- determined -- It gets not only its "raw existence," but also the WHY of its existence from external causes
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:
- Independent
- Unlimited
- Infinite and unlimited
- Eternal or unrestricted by time
- Omnipresent or unrestricted by space
- Immutable or unchangeable
- Pure actuality - it would have no potentiality, only reality
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 in print or online 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...
Jul 13, 2007 10:37 AM
Pink :
.
That's a relief.
.
Jul 13, 2007 11:46 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I define an atheist the way I think most people do. An atheist is one who rejects the idea of a god. One who believes emphatically that there is NO god or supernatural divinity of any kind.
You suggest that a Christian might define a non-Christian (i.e., one who rejects Jesus) as an "atheist." I obviously can't speak for all Christians, but I've not met one that does that.
Keeping the focus on belief in God or a god of some kind, a person is either:
ATHEIST - there is no god
AGNOSTIC - there might be a god, but there's no evidence to suggest that there IS one
PANTHEIST - "God" is the universe and all life
POLYTHEIST - There are many "gods"
MONOTHEIST - There IS a Supreme Being that we can call "God"
DEIST (an "Enlightenment"-born subset of monotheism) - There IS a Supreme Being we can call "God," but this God is more or less unknowable, unreachable, and irrelevant to our lives today
**For the record, some of our famous philosophers and western figures were Deists, including Thomas Paine and (for a time) Thomas Jefferson.
Winfried Corduan's overall book argues for the Christian God, but the argument I'm focusing on simply argues for A Supreme Being of some sort that we can safely call "God."
In other words, Corduan is arguing for Monotheism and/or Deism. THAT is the argument of his that my article series is focusing on.
And, yes, without trying to be arrogant, I find the arguments countering Corduan's case for Deism/Monotheism to be wanting.
It's a pretty safe conclusion that there is a Supreme Being of some sort. I can understand people poking holes or finding problems with specific religious systems, but to argue that there is no Supreme Entity at all is -- well -- problematic.
But, hey, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, rude, impatient, or anything like that. I'm just putting it out there as I see it. If you wish to dispute me, feel free. I welcome that.
Jul 13, 2007 12:04 PM
Pink :
.
Thanks.
.
I think you have given us a good set of definitions.
.
Jul 13, 2007 10:52 PM
redback :
My cited definition of 'agnostic' came from the Macquarie Dictionary. All your one-liner definitions seem to come from a concise dictionary which if say equally applied to 'Christianity' would hardly explain that term.
<i>"I define an atheist the way I think most people do."</i>
That's your input and I accept it. <b>MY</b> input can't be based on guesses about what majorities think about ANY topic. And my input is routinely not part of any subjective "we", let alone any "we" based on Christian religious dogma or any other group-think for that matter. And of course while I might empathise with Americans, I can't think like one. ABC :)
If Christ is a defined <b>'necessary'</b> part of the Christian God and there really is no other God, mine seemed a reasonable question to ponder. I'm not talking about what people think they believe...I'm talking about whatever the (unknown?) truth may be. My question can be dismissed on the back of popular opinion like you suggest, but I can only speak for myself. On that basis, one need only believe they are a Christian (at a risk of belabouring) and they're OK.
"<i>...You suggest that a Christian might define a non-Christian..."</i> <b>Nope, I didn't.</b> if you re-read my post and above clarification. I'm not aware that a Christian considers the possibility of another God, let alone is OK to believe it.
Ponder: A person 'believes' in "God" whatever that means to them...and boy have I read some doozies in my time. Say it is a false god. Are they in fact an athiest/infidel? OR one need only believe they are a Christian (at a risk of belabouring) and they are?
<i>"...And, yes, without trying to be arrogant, I find the arguments countering Corduan's case for Deism/Monotheism to be wanting."</i>
I'm just a simple folk who unlike you, has not yet been exposed to the conclusions within Corduan's case. An edited, selective few, yes. My reference to ego, flawed reasoning etc was a mankind reference...nothing Brian-specific, nothing inflammatory. I have read so many things about flawed man here and elsewhere, that I believe I reasonably question their claimed (even if unstated) flawless understanding of 'religious doctrine' if such a singular animal exists.
99% of any argumentative tone you may possibly read into my post is inner-directed. As you should have read from my earlier post...I leave argument to the experts here so you may have misread. Like I may misread when I read your "I partially agree for di
Jul 13, 2007 11:06 PM
redback :
Sorry, Boanerges. Re your key question comment. If I said I partially agree for totally different reasons, I risk offending. So, I won't. :)
I treated your post as an aside AND will check the link.
<i>"It is sooo good the way you craft your comments."</i>
Thanx Pink...I really do try to give deep, careful thought to my posts and I've lost better ones that get gobbled by cyber space. Here, the intrusion of the ads into my response to Brian made it too long...again!
Jul 15, 2007 1:32 AM
redback :
<b>Brian virtually asked me to check out atheism for myself. Well, he did sorta. :) </b>
One-liner "definitions" of anything usually need to be checked out. Even one-worders had me checking to see if Pink truly did 'explicate' himself over in the other topic-of-lengthy-posts-on-many-matters. :) ABC
I found this article:
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/exuberance.htm
which is 2 pages long. It is a comprehensive website...much info on many subjects. Not all written by dribbling buffoons...none manifestly obvious anyway. <i>(please refer to my earlier disclaimer that being articulate doesn't auto make it right)</i>
I ponder: The Bible, Biblical scholars from time immemorial, a wealth of religious doctrine, all the good work of the good people here...up against a one-liner. In real time, people being fed the one liner over time. I mean, we don't go into a porn shop if someone else said it was naughty, do we? :)
I know I was at risk of going blind but a cuppla articles including the one cited were interesting if only to see what makes 'em tick. Not all Christians tick the same way, either.
Theory and practice make curious bedfellows. The atheist argument IMO is clearly wanting in the question of the existence of God. So I'll bow to Brian's bored or jaded view the question barely bears repeating in 2006. :) BUT the athiest's take on religion IMO shows that is clearly wanting in how it claims the better alternative (to atheism) and how it practices the ethical high ground over the millenia. Mankind, including it's representative, the USA, produces countless examples. :)
Jul 15, 2007 7:18 PM
Brian Tubbs :
"Bored and jaded"? :)
Oh, and I know that one-liner definitions are not the most accurate or most authoritative. But it's an Internet discussion. So, I try to be succinct. I put the definitions out there to see if we could all agree on them and thus comfortably use those terms. If anyone wishes to suggest improvements to the definitions, that's fine by me. But, of course, they're not perfect.
Jul 15, 2007 9:56 PM
redback :
<i>"So, I try to be succinct."</i>
And I try to learn how you do that...successfully. :)
Jul 17, 2007 7:30 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Part Two of the article on Corduan's case for God is now live.
Jul 18, 2007 8:35 AM
Brian Tubbs :
In another thread, Pink challenges Corduan's arrival at Point Two (there are both contingent and necessary beings) from his first point (that something - anything - exists).
Here's the key passage from the article in which Corduan makes his case....
<i>According to Corduan, a "contingent" being is anything that is "dependent on something else." A contingent being is:
caused -- It had its "potential to exist actualized." A thought. A child. A flower.
sustained -- It would not exist "were it not for certain sustaining cuases." For example, a person needs oxygen, food, and water to survive.
determined -- It gets not only its "raw existence," but also the WHY of its existence from external causes
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.</i>
Jul 18, 2007 9:47 AM
Pink :
.
<i>One would be hard pressed to deny the logic of the definitions.</i>
.
I don't mean to knock his conclusions; but, I think any logic involved is subjunctive.
.
(Is subjunctive the correct word to mean it is based on conjecture of the mind?)
Jul 18, 2007 10:44 AM
Pink :
.
Brian,
.
Hope you had a good time with your father-in-law.
.
:)
Jul 18, 2007 11:54 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Oh, yeah. :) My son Jonathan and I rode back with him and his wife (my mother-in-law) and one of my wife's sisters. We left Busch Gardens earlier than the rest of the gang. And on the drive back, politics came up. I heard all about Israel, how bad Bush is, how terrible the war in Iraq is, and all that. Thought i was talking to you. :)
Jul 18, 2007 2:42 PM
Pink :
.
Come on now, when have you heard me cut Israel down?
.
24 Comments