I grappled with the arguments for and against God's existence. What struck me the most was that there are laws of nature. I've mentioned several times on this blog that I find the argument from order to be a rather benign argument, but that it's also one with some tremendous implications. Nowadays I sum up the argument like this:
1. Whatever exhibits regularity is not the result of chance alone. (Premise)
2. The laws of nature exhibit regularity. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the laws of nature are not the result of chance alone. (From 1 and 2)
It was this argument that convinced me that the laws of nature are the result of someone's or something's providence. If it was due to necessity, then I felt I had an argument for pantheism. If it was due to design, then obviously I had an argument for theism. Either way, I knew I had to maintain some form of religious conviction. Even if it were due to necessity, there are enormous medical benefits associated with prayer and meditation that I felt I had to take advantage of. [1]
As for life after death, I became convinced by C.S. Lewis's argument from desire that, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." I won't go into a lengthy defense of the argument, so I'll simply refer to any interested readers to Peter Kreeft's article. [2]
Lastly, I became convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead because of the transformation of the disciples' lives. They came to sincerely believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead, even though they had every reason not to. Again, I don't want to belabor this point, so a more detailed defense of this argument can be found in an article written by Gary Habermas. [3]
Anyway, I don't intend to engage in any debate in the comments section of this post. I simply wanted to share a little about my life experiences and why I've become a committed Christian theist.
Hi Doug,
ReplyDeleteI hope you're doing well! My name's John. I'm a fellow Catholic convert--I converted my senior year at Princeton about a year and a half ago.
If you like Habermas, you'll probably really like Michael Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus." He's one of Habermas' old students and he takes Habermas' "minimal facts approach" and gives it a lot of meat in that book.
Personally, I'm a fan of the argument from change (actualization of potentialities, Pure Actuality, etc.). It seems pretty intuitive. I'd also be interested in exploring the kalam argument some more from a Thomistic perspective. From what I understand, some Thomists accept it and some reject it like Aquinas himself did. Aquinas' reasons for rejecting it seem to commit the fallacy of composition, so I'm inclined to accept the argument. If you'd like to read a good defense of the kalam, William Lane Craig's book "On Guard" has a great, accessible chapter dedicated to it.
Best,
John
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I love the works you mention. I'm a big supporter of William Lane Craig, even though I don't agree with him on everything. Same goes for Michael Licona. I have his book, The Resurrection of Jesus, but I have yet to read it.
The argument from motion (change) is what I consider to be the definitive proof of God's existence, but it wasn't something I came to fully grasp until well after high school. The kalam argument is an interesting one. For Thomas, if the universe had a beginning in time, then he agreed with Bonaventure that the first cause must be God. As you mention, though, Thomas didn't think the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the universe's past were sound, so he opted instead to consider a doctrine of faith. I'm confident that Thomas would accept the kalam argument had he known of all the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the universe's beginning, but nothing is certain.
By the way, if you're interested in exploring the kalam argument from a Thomistic perspective, you might start with Mark Nowacki's book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. Although not overtly Thomistic, it's a good start because he introduces a substance-based interpretation of the argument and its implications.
ReplyDeleteThomas of Aquino would either have to reject the KCA or reject his own "cosmology". I am sure he was smart enough to realize both were incompatibe.
ReplyDeleteWalter
I doubt he would see them as incompatible. After all, he did affirm that the universe began to exist.
ReplyDeleteIf he really thought that his 'cosmology' was compatible with a beginning universe, then maybe he was not so smart after all.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, WL Craig obviously disagrees with Aquinas on this issue, as his 'reply' to Wes Morriston's excellent criticism of the KCA shows.
Walter
Putting cosmology and reply in quotation marks isn't going to get under my skin, Walter. If you have something constructive to add, please do so.
ReplyDeleteI put in in quotation marks because I am assuming for the sake of the argument that Aquinas has a cosmology, which is debatable, and that Craig had a substantial reply to Morriston, which is equally debatable.
ReplyDeleteThe point that Craig makes in his 'reply' is that while God's will to create is eternal,He nevertheless can somehow timelessly delay the execution of His will. The problem for Aquinas is that this is a change in God, which according to Aquinas is impossible. So either, the universe does not really have an absolute beginning, and Aquinas was right (at least in this respect), or the universe did have a beginning and Craig was right. But you can't have it both ways.
We've gone over the compatibility of divine immutability and creation dozens of times already, so I see no need to rehash the discussion here. More importantly, I mentioned at the end of my post that this post isn't for debate. John and I were just sharing a few concepts.
ReplyDeleteThis is not about the compatibilty of divine immutability and creation, and I am not debating anything, I am just sharing a concept with you.
ReplyDeleteYou were insulting peoples' intelligence. And yes, it does have to do with divine immutability and creation.
ReplyDeleteI was not insulting anything or anyone, and I explicitly assume (for the sake of the argument) that creation and immutability are compatible, that's why I put 'cosmology' between quotation marks.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I respect the fact that your do not want to debate this here, but I just want to get a gross misunderstanding out of the way here.
Saying Thomas isn't very smart is insulting. Adding quotation marks, your explanation notwithstanding, is insulting. I have no problem publishing your comments, Walter, but I'm asking you to choose your words more carefully from now on.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Morriston is a Christian theist. He just doesn't accept the philosophical arguments in support of the kalam argument. Even he admitted he lost his debate with Craig. I'll reiterate, though, this isn't the place to debate the kalam argument or anything else.
ReplyDeleteI have never said that Thomas isn't very smart, but if you say I offend you or anybody else, I am willing to choose my words more carefully.
ReplyDelete