This is our second part in a review of Professor Winfried Corduan's cosmological case for God. Corduan argues that the God of Theism is the only logical Necessary Being.
In his book No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity, philosophy and religion professor Winfried Corduan makes a compelling cosmological argument for God. This is the second part of our review of Corduan's case.
In the first part, Corduan argued (and in the opinion of his author, did so persuasively) the following premises:
1. Something exists
2. Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent
3. A necessary being would have to be God
4. The world cannot be a necessary being
****
The above four premises were explained and examined in the previous article. We now move to the final six of Corduan's points, from which he establishes his ultimate conclusion - that the God of theism exists as the ultimate and only "Necessary Being" of the universe.
5. There can be only one necessary being
It should be noted that, so far in his argument, Corduan has not established with any finality that there is, in fact, a Necessary Being. He has only proved that if there is a Necessary Being, it cannot be the world or universe, but would have to be God.
With this point, Corduan argues that there cannot be more than one "Necessary Being." In order for there to be two beings (be they necessary or contingent) as opposed to one being, Corduan explains that the two beings would "have to differ in some property or other." Identical twins, for example, may look the same, but they are not, in essence, the same person. Twins represent two distinct individuals.
Corduan explains that two "necessary beings" (just like two contingent beings) would have to differ in property from each other. But this would be impossible, if you accept the preceding description or understanding of what constitutes a Necessary Being.
A necessary being, for instance, is unlimited and "cannot lack any properties appropriate to it, and it cannot have any contingent properties extraneously tacked on." This represents a serious logical dilemma to the idea of a second necessary being. "Since there are no properties in which they [the necessary beings] can differ, there can only be one necessary being."
Corduan explains that this dilemma does not challenge the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, since it "does not teach that there are three Gods." The doctrine of the Trinity, as confusing and mysterious as it may be, holds that there is only one God - thus one Necessary Being.
6. Unless there is a necessary being, there cannot be any contingent beings
This is common sense. If a contingent being exists (and it's been clearly established that this is so), then it is impossible for such a being to exist without something to depend on. Inevitably, that chain of contingent beings must come to a halt at some place, and when it does, you will arrive at the Necessary Being. This is logical.
Trains need a locomotive to pull them and "coffee cups do not fill themselves," explains Corduan. Likewise, a chain of contingent beings or events requires an original cause.
If one accepts the existence of contingent beings (and it would be foolish not to), then one must accept that these contingent beings were caused by something or someone - and they are being sustained by something or someone. To do otherwise is to defy logic.
7. A necessary being exists
Atheists and/or skeptics at this point must argue for an uncaused chain of contingent beings and/or causes. They must say that the universe, the world, indeed life itself, is one long chain of random, uncaused causes. But this is not only illogical. It is impossible.
First, as Corduan explains, "unless something started the chain of actuality without being actualized by it, there cannot be any actuality at all." Period.
Second, believing that there is an infinite chain of contingent beings and causes is to embrace that chain as itself a "Necessary Being." And this brings you right to the doorstep of pantheism which breaks apart for the reasons already discussed.
The only logical conclusion, once the preceding six premises have been accepted, is that there must be a necessary being.
8. Therefore, God exists
This is a matter of simple definition. Once you accept that there is a necessary being which has caused the chain of contingent beings we see around us, then you've accepted God. The term "God" is logically and inevitably synonomous with the term "Necessary Being."
Note that this conclusion does not get us to the Judeo-Christian God, but only to an entity that can logically and rightly be called "God" based on what is known.
9. Therefore, only one God exists
This is a conclusion that follows from the preceding points. Since there can be only one necessary being, there can be only one God.
10. The God of theism exists
At this point, Corduan takes a step that many will be uncomfortable taking. Nevertheless, it is a logical step. Recall the characteristics of the Necessary Being. It would 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
These qualities would require one to admit that they resemble the characteristics of God embraced by the major monotheist religions of the world today. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity - the Big Three monotheistic faiths - all embrace a Supreme Being described in the above terms.
This concludes our two-part examination of Winfried Corduan's cosmological case for God. While some may pick at the edges, it is hard to deny the overall force of the argument.
Care to try?
*******
For further reading, see Corduan's book...
No Doubt About it: The Case for Christianity by Winfried Corduan (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997)
The copyright of the article God as the Necessary Being in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish God as the Necessary Being must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Jul 17, 2007 7:38 AM
Pink
:
. In your review, you point out this logic: . <b>1. Something exists 2. Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent 3. A necessary being would have to be God 4. The world cannot be a necessary being</b> . How does the professor get from #1 to #2? What is the basis for saying that each things that exists is either necessary or contingent? . I can see that it is a spin off from the Newtonian concept of cause and effect; but, it goes further by saying there is an effect that has no cause and that such an effect must be tagged as <b>necessary</b>. . So, the <b>necessary</b> has no cause? . That's quite a leap. .
Jul 17, 2007 12:29 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
The argument goes like this: IF there is such a thing as a "Necessary Being," then it (by its nature) would NOT have a cause. Something that is caused, by logic and by virtue of these definitions, would be a CONTINGENT Being - and not a Necessary Being.
The real debate is: Is there such a thing as a Necessary Being OR is EVERYTHING a Contingent Being? THAT is the question.
Dawkins would say (essentially) that everything is contingent - and that our existence is basically an endless, cyclical chain of contingencies. He doesn't use those exact terms, of course, but that IS his argument in <i>The God Delusion</i>.
Jul 17, 2007 2:34 PM
Pink
:
. My question was how does the argument go from point one to point two in the logic chain the author lays down. . Your response is <i>b.IF there is such a thing as a "Necessary Being," then it (by its nature) would NOT have a cause.</i> That's a big if. And, why does that "if" make it so that a "Necessary Being" not have a cause? I think a lot of people can be fooled by that logic; but, it is faulty and doesn't sustain the conclusion. . The idea of a "Necessary Being" is pure conjecture. And, it isn't that there is anything wrong with conjecture. But, it should be understood. .
Jul 18, 2007 8:24 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
How the author goes from point one to point two is addressed more fully in Part One. It was just summarized in Part Two of the article.
The idea of a Necessary Being is an exercise in deductive logic. It's not scientifically proven, but it does follow logically from what we know.
Jul 19, 2007 6:50 AM
Pink
:
. Deductive logic is about basing one's conclusions on an unprovable foundation, isn't it? .
Jul 19, 2007 9:49 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
I don't think so. And, in this case, certainly not so. The foundational premise of Corduan's argument is that "Something exists." Are you going to suggest that existence isn't provable?
This is where existentialists (not saying you are one) look really silly. The philosophy of existentialism at least exists. Right? My point of view exists. Your point of view exists. You exist. I exist. It is a certain, absolute fact that there IS such a thing as existence.
And existence is the foundational premise of Corduan's logic. If something exists, then Corduan begins to ask what can we then KNOW about existence and its cause. It's a logical argument that flows from a clearly established, proven premise.
Jul 19, 2007 11:56 AM
Pink
:
. I thought the foundational premise upon which the author builds his logic is that there is such a thing as a necessary being. .
Jul 19, 2007 4:53 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Go back and re-read the articles - both parts. The foundational premise is EXISTENCE. That's Point One.
From there, he reasons that all things which DO exist are either "Necessary" OR "Contingent." And he defines them. That's Point Two.
If you're saying that there IS no "Necessary Being" or that a "Necessary Being" isn't "necessary" :), then you can set aside Point Three - and all those that deal with God. Because there is no God (according to Corduan's logic) if there is no Necessary Being.
So, a modified Corduan tree would look like:
1. Something exists
2. All things that exist are either CONTINGENT (caused) or NECESSARY (<b>the</b> cause).
3. SKIP :)
4. The world/universe cannot be a Necessary Being (i.e., the world/universe cannot be the independent cause of those things which are caused)
5. There can be only ONE Necessary Being (i.e., if a Necessary Being exists, it is mutually exclusive to anything else - for it alone would have the logical properties of such a being)
6. Without a Necessary Being, there would be no Contingent Beings ***<i>HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT - the part where I think you have the most problem with, because THIS is the premise that establishes the reality of the Necessary Being</i>***
SO....allow me to elaborate...
IF we accept that things are contingent (and only an IDIOT would deny this - I say that in the confidence that you don't deny this), then SOMETHING had to cause them. Right?
IF you have an open window, someone opened it. More to the point...someone manufactured the window in the first place.
IF you have a house, someone built it.
IF you have a person, two biological parents made that person possible.
And on it goes. If we have contingent (or caused) beings, then we MUST have causes for those beings.
And...at SOME point...that chain of caused causes must lead you back to an UNCAUSED cause!
The buck must stop...somewhere. And when it does, you have your "Necessary Being."
Hence...
7. A Necessary Being exists
And I'll end the modified Corduan tree there, because the other points pertain to making the connection between the "Necessary Being" and the God of monotheism. There's no need for us to even go there, though, if you are going to argue that there is no such thing as a "Necessary Being."
Jul 19, 2007 6:04 PM
Pink
:
. It all sounds convoluted to me. . Which means that it all falls back into itself and it ends up being a matter of where it is the hypothesis starts. Why is it necessary to stop at a god to say we have found the necessary being? Perhaps God is a contingent being? . There's no end to the cycle. .
Jul 19, 2007 8:47 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Just because it sounds convoluted doesn't mean it collapses. It may mean that I have to communicate/explain it better, and I can accept that criticism. But the content of the argument must rise or fall on its own merits, but on whether it's effectively communicated or understood.
