God as the Necessary Being
A Review of Winfried Corduan's Case for God -- Part Two
© Brian Tubbs
Jul 16, 2007
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 in print or online 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.
Jul 19, 2007 8:57 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Corduan is saying that if there IS a "Necessary Being" or an Uncaused Cause, then such a being would be divine. By its nature, it could be logically called "God."
But let's remove the divinity from it for a moment, would you agree that it's logical and rational to conclude the following...
"In the beginning, a Necessary Being - an uncaused cause of some kind - initiated the universe."
Do you agree with THAT?
Or...put another way...
Which is more logical and likely?
a. The universe and all the contingent/caused beings that have existed were INITIATED or started, at some point in time, by an Uncaused Cause
OR...
b. Everything is a contingent or caused being. There is no uncaused cause.
It seems to me like you're leaning toward 'b,' but this strikes me as incredibly illogical. If you agree that the things we see and observed were CAUSED - then you must agree there were causes. This chain of thought inevitably leads to a question: How can there NOT be an ultimate cause?
Jul 20, 2007 5:34 AM
Pink :
.
Maybe we should define the word, being?
.
It is something that exists, correct?
.
Could it be energy?
.
Could it be something for which we have no words to define?
.
There are so many possibilities when we enter the realms of the unknown--they go beyond our imaginations and the process teaches us the basic meaning of the word radical.
.
My problem with Corduan is not that he has come up with one of those possibilities; but, that his possibility is being used as a "proof" that leads us down the path to prove whatever follows next in the minds of those who think he is some kind of an original thinker about any identity of God.
.
The idea that there has to be some absolute proof is the thing that has driven me away from organized Christianity--from the beginning. I never could figure out why I had to believe some organized set of beliefs based on doctrine cooked up in some body else's kitchen.
.
It doesn't follow.
.
:)
.
Jul 20, 2007 8:03 AM
Brian Tubbs :
It strikes me that you've completely bought into one of our dangerous postmodern lies - namely that "certainty cannot be obtained" or "truth isn't knowable." That really is the source of our disagreement, methinks.
Jul 20, 2007 12:12 PM
Pink :
.
Youthinks wrongly.
.
:)
.
It's interesting that you try to control the meanings of what others post through your interpretations.
.
But, that's okay.
.
We live in postmodern times and we all exhibit postmodern characteristings and you are no exception.
.
There is truth and there is absolute truth. I have no doubt of that. But, the idea that we are able to proclaim a certain truth of the unknown is what I have questioned. If would be a little more pleasing if, in our considerations, we would accept such a comment without having to put the other person down.
.
Postmodernism is an extremely complicated concept that cuts across a very wide understanding of culture. The attempts put out to discredit our times using the word, postmodern, as an ad hominem STRIKES me as the problem here. The <b>main mark of post-modernism</b> seems to have much to do with decontexualization, ie., taking idea and accepted concepts apart to see what makes them tick--precisely what we are trying to do here.
.
Jul 20, 2007 8:44 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>It's interesting that you try to control the meanings of what others post through your interpretations.
.
But, that's okay.</i>
Well, I'm not trying to do that. But I do try to understand where others are coming from. Usually, people correct me if I get it wrong. :-)
Aug 1, 2007 10:25 AM
Dan Cooper :
Hello Brian, and others.I have to agree with Pink on the point that our 'necessary being' has not been proven, but instead only posited. The argument hinges on the acceptance of a necessary being, and it does not establish one as truly existing. I composed a very long post on this before deciding it was too long, and too messy to post. But the gist of it was that the second premise is the downfall of the argument. The other point I tried to make was that the argument has been tried before, many times, and very long ago. And it is no more thoroughly convincing now than it was in the 1700's, or the 1100's, or back in 300 B.C.
Aug 1, 2007 10:41 AM
Pink :
.
For what it's worth, Dan is quick to show me the errors of may ways when I make them. And, I do make them.
.
Nice to see you still visit here.
.
:)
Aug 1, 2007 10:09 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I am aware that it's an argument that goes way back. I simply chose to frame it around Corduan's articulation, as I thought he did a good job of it. Of course, to truly appreciate it, one should pick up a copy of his book -- <i> No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity</i>.
Aug 1, 2007 10:12 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Follow up to Dan...
Look to point number 6 of the argument...
"Unless there is a necessary being, there cannot be any contingent beings."
This is what backs up the premise that there IS such a thing as a "Necessary Being."
It makes sense. If you have something that is caused, then there must be something else which caused it. You follow?
If not, I refer you back to an earlier article on this subject...
http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_compelling_case_for_a_creator
Aug 1, 2007 11:33 PM
Dan Cooper :
Yes, premise 6 can be viewed as supporting premise 2. But without accepting 2 you have a premise 6 that is irrelevant and meaningless. We never got that far. Premise 2 killed the argument dead.
We posited a Necessary Being, with no reasonable grounds for accepting its existence. We just stated that it has to be. And in fact, it doesn't have to be. The unfortunate result for believers, is that rejection of premise 2 gives us a problem with Necessary Beings in general. The Necessary Being becomes all the more unnecessary in explaining what we see in the natural order of the Universe.
The case for an infinite regress has been made. Although it certainly is not particularly in favor these days, I don't think we can rule it out.
The Big Bang is suggested as substantiation for God's control and responsibility for the Universe. But the Universe as we know it could just as easily be the latest development in a regular cyclical expansion and contraction of all that is.
If that is the case, the concept of a First Cause loses its bite and becomes, in effect, meaningless. 'First' does not exist in ongoing cyclical activity. We have chickens and eggs, but neither can be said to have come first.
You are accepting the posited condition of a Necessary Being: "It makes sense. If you have something that is caused, then there must be something else which caused it. You follow?"
Yes, I follow. But what we see in our Universe is that each effect has a cause, not that one cause appears to be responsible for all effects. I think it is an irresponsible leap to suggest that there must be a first cause, simply because there exist observable effects, and observable causes.
And yes, I did go back and read your article, "The Case for a Divine Cause." I liked the article, Brian, but it did not make the case (for me), as it was intended to do.
Cyclical Universes, one to the next, would create relationships that would appear very God-like from the viewpoint of the newly developing stage/cycle/Universe.
Aug 2, 2007 5:13 AM
Brian Tubbs :
The chicken clearly came first.
Aug 2, 2007 5:15 AM
Brian Tubbs :
We are agreed then that a cyclical universe with an infinite regress is the only possible alternative to the First Cause thesis. And so if the cyclical universe with an infinite regress can be discredited, the existence of a divine Necessary Being becomes all the more likely.
Aug 2, 2007 6:35 AM
Pink :
.
Let us assume the existence of the Necessary Being.
.
Let us say that it is the substance of life.
.
So, then, every living thing is contingent on the substance of life.
.
In this sense, it could be said that we all are a part of the Necessary Being and that we all are part of the Contingent. We are all that there is--without us, nothing can be said to exist.
.
It all ends up being circuitous and we end up dizzy.
.
Whenever humans probe into the unknown, they enter unchartered waters. Who knows what we will find when we come to the edge of the unknown sea? Will there be gigantic reptiles waiting to swallow us up? Wooooooooo.
.
Trying to prove the unknown is like trying to square a circle.
.
Aug 2, 2007 8:52 AM
Brian Tubbs :
This view you're proposing strays into pantheism. I'm not dismissing it or being accusatory. Just an observation. Do you see the connection?
Aug 2, 2007 10:06 AM
Dan Cooper :
"The chicken clearly came first."
Darn! And I thought it was the egg!
Aug 2, 2007 11:25 AM
Dan Cooper :
I, too, saw the pantheism connection in what Pink said. But I, for one, have not dismissed pantheism as a possibility. It has an inherent attractiveness, and its weaknesses, to my mind, are not quite as weak as those manifest in Monotheism.
Aug 2, 2007 5:45 PM
Pink :
.
Let's just do a little logic.
.
Accepting the idea of a Necessary Being, one is left with the fact that such a being has to be all that existed in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?
.
Then, if that is correct, all that is now was derived some how from what ever that Necessary Being was in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?
.
If it is, then all that is is a part of the original.
.
Is that correct?
.
As far as I can put things together, that does seem to be what the popular Christian belief amounts to.
.
Pantheism?
.
Could be.
.
Pretty much, it's the Jewish myth of the Shekinah which is mentioned in the Bible..
.
Aug 2, 2007 6:15 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Let's just do a little logic.</i>
Let's. :)
<i>Accepting the idea of a Necessary Being, one is left with the fact that such a being has to be all that existed in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?</i>
Yes
.
<i>Then, if that is correct, all that is now was derived some how from what ever that Necessary Being was in the beginning.
.
Is that correct?</i>
I'll answer in the affirmative with some caution, depending on what is meant by "derived from." If the Necessary Being is the omnipotent God described in the Bible, then such a God is capable of creating something out of the nothing - and need not use part of His own essence to accomplish that creation.
.
<i>If it is, then all that is is a part of the original.
.
Is that correct?</i>
It's correct IF God used part of Himself or, rather the Necessary Being used part of itself to accomplish the creation.
.
<i>As far as I can put things together, that does seem to be what the popular Christian belief amounts to.
.
Pantheism?</i>
No. Pantheism is distinct from Christianity for the reasons outlined above.
.
<i>Could be.
.
Pretty much, it's the Jewish myth of the Shekinah which is mentioned in the Bible..</i>
You can elaborate on that a little bit more, if you'd like, but the Genesis account does not endorse pantheism.
Aug 2, 2007 6:40 PM
Pink :
.
I'm not trying to sell the idea, ok?
.
But, I do think it deserves some honest consideration.
.
In the middle, you questioned the presentation with, <i>I'll answer in the affirmative with some caution, depending on what is meant by "derived from." If the Necessary Being is the omnipotent God described in the Bible, then such a God is capable of creating something out of the nothing - and need not use part of His own essence to accomplish that creation.</i>
.
Let's say that what ever the "omnipotent God described in the Bible" created, [He] did it with fore thought and purpose. So, whatever it was, it was derived from God's mind along with everything else. I think we can, thereby, say that it "was derived some how" from God.
.
So, then, we are all derived from that Necessary Being if my logic is correct. Has to be, Brian. Do the Venn Diagrams.
.
Aug 2, 2007 11:23 PM
Dan Cooper :
Hello Pink.
Nice to talk with you again.
And thanks for the earlier compliment, by the way. I always did enjoy our discussions, even when our POV was not quite identical. And while I am on the subject of reminiscences, I want to thank the Reverend Jones for his comment (which reply I failed to offer earlier). And also to thank him, as well as you (and only a small handful of others, by the way) for all the benefit your comments in the past have given to various discussions I have enjoyed.
But now to this particular discussion: I see and appreciate where Brian is coming from with his attention to this component of your premise, "derived from." It could probably mean a lot of different things. But as you later defined it, including the concepts of "forethought and purpose," you have implied 'design' as both a motive and an action. Having both of these, we certainly also derive your conclusion, and give Brian more than enough confidence to join you in that conclusion.
Brian's questioning of the definition, I am fairly sure, resulted from the possibility that the 'derivation' in question might be more simply defined, as something like what we observe on a regular basis, namely, the mundane and orderly 'cause and effect' relationships that occur in our world with some frequency. If 'derived from' means simply 'caused by,' as any more typical and normal effect in our ordinary world is caused, then the resulting conclusion is in line with pantheism. But with your elaboration, this derivation is specified as exhibiting more than just a simple causal nature, with forethought and intention as its formative components. If we have those components, we have Brian, and we also have God, but probably not in that order...
Aug 3, 2007 5:35 AM
Pink :
.
I sure don't have the skills necessary to always make my points clearly. That's one reason why I've asked for a discussion on the idea of Religionism in other threads.
.
But--here--it is important, I think, that we recognize that the God of the Bible is given the prerogative of having created all that is, was, and ever shall be. I'm sure even the formlessness and the void when only darkness gathered over the earth. So, whatever is, was, or ever shall be must as a consequentiality have come from God. It could not have come from any other place.
.
In this sense, we are all--as is EVERYTHING ELSE--in one way or another derivations of God. Nothing else can be true in this sense.
.
I don't see any thing wrong with that idea in so far as having to do with the creation stories in the Book of Beginnings--Genesis.
.
We can use logic here, can we not?
.
31 Comments
|
