The Necessity of God’s Existence

Today, on Renewing Your Mind… Self-creation is a logical impossibility. Self-existence isn't.

And what Christianity asserts is that God is an eternal being who exists in and of Himself. He is not an effect. He didn't have a beginning. Nothing produced Him. He is eternal. The current hypothesis for the origin of the earth declares that a combination of time and chance produced everything we see. Those who embrace this hypothesis claim that we don't need to worry about God's existence because God, in their view, is a logical fallacy. But there's a built-in flaw in that argument, and here to expose it is Dr. R.C.

Sproul. A few years ago I co-authored a book on apologetics with Arthur Linsley and chiefly with Dr. John Gerstner entitled Classical Apologetics. And part of my responsibility in that volume was to write the opening sections on Christian epistemology, trying to deal with the question, how do we know what we know?

How can we learn what we learn? And I isolated certain non-negotiables, said that there are certain principles that Christians or anybody else ought never to negotiate if they are earnestly concerned about discovering truth. And I said that those basic premises or basic assumptions of epistemology include four things. The first one is the law of non-contradiction, which we've talked about in logic, one half of the scientific method. The second one is the law of causality, which we're going to be concerned with today. Third is with the basic reliability of sense perception. The fourth is the analogical use of language, which we're going to skip altogether here, but that is a necessary prerequisite for people to be able to talk to one another, to have some common ground and some common frame of reference. Well, we looked at the role of logic so far in this whole debate of cosmology, and when I talk about the basic reliability of sense perception, I understand, as you all do, that our senses can deceive us, that our eyesight can fail, our hearing is not perfect, and so on, and that we are prone to error with the perceptions that we have of the external world. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it because the only transition I have from my mind to the world in which I live is my body.

It's the only way I can get in touch with reality external to myself, and that's true for all of us. But the big concern I have today is with the second one, the law of causality, because I said most critics of the idea of the origin of the universe as an act of divine creation retreat either into indeterminacy quantum physics or into a philosophical critique of causality. And the argument usually begins with an appeal to the prodigious philosopher David Hume, who lived in 18th century Scotland and who basically took British empiricism to what's been called the graveyard of skepticism that roused Kant from his dogmatic slumber into constructing a new approach to philosophy. But that which was so provocative in David Hume's work was in his critical analysis of causality. And we don't have time to go into all of the intricacies of it, but I want us to be able to at least grasp the basic idea of what David Hume was saying.

His basic thesis was this, that we never have a direct, immediate perception of causality. Now we think we do, and we're constantly looking for the causes of things, and we observe what's going around us. For example, we see a common experience where the rain falls and the grass gets wet. And what's the assumption we make? What's the inference we draw?

We draw the conclusion that the cause of the grasses becoming wet was the falling of the rain, because before it rained the grass wasn't wet, and after it rained it was wet, and the rain itself is wet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that there's a causal relationship here. But Hume says, wait a minute. That may be the way it seems to the naked eye, but there may be all kinds of invisible things going on that we cannot perceive.

He was, of course, playing off of some theories that had been developed earlier in the 17th century by the rationalists, people like Descartes and Leibniz and Spinoza, and we'll get into those people for now. But Hume was saying, all we see here is a relationship of contiguity, or what he called a customary relationship. A customary relationship is a relationship that we seem to see repeated again and again and again, and we are accustomed to assume will continue even as it has in the past. It's our custom to assume when we go to bed at night that the sun which has set will rise again in the morning. We don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we assume it rather safely on the basis of astronomical number of experiences of this customary relationship in the past. But what Hume is saying is, we don't know it for sure, and we don't know really what causes it. All we see is a relationship of contiguity.

Now, a relationship of contiguity indicates a relationship where one event follows in sequence after another, or one action follows after another, in many cases with a high degree of predictability. And Hume illustrated this business with his famous illustration of the pool balls on a pool table. He said, let's look for a moment at this game of pool and see what transpires. You have the table, you have the pockets, you know, and the object is to strike the object ball, hit the object ball that you've called into one of the pockets. And so you start with a cue stick.

That's the instrument, the organ on here, for the game of pool. I don't stand there and throw the balls around the table or blow on them. I use the cue stick.

And so I engage in a certain action. My arm moves the cue stick, and I strike the cue stick against the cue ball. And when I hit the cue ball, what happens?

It begins to roll across the top of the table. And then the cue ball hits the object ball. And after the cue ball hits the object ball, what happens to the object ball? It starts to move, and we hope it moves in the direction of the pocket and then disappears in the pocket, and we've scored the point that we're trying to score.

Now, all of this involves actions and interactions that we assume to be related in some kind of causal way. What Hume is saying is what you see is a person grab a stick, and you see the person and the stick moving. You see the stick hit the ball. You see the ball start moving. You see the ball hit the object ball.

And then you see the object ball start moving and roll into the pocket. And what's the assumption? We assume that we have all caused these things. How do we know, for example, from all eternity, God didn't decree that at the same moment in history that I would swing this stick, He would start the cue ball moving? How do we not know that this invisible demon under the table isn't causing the ball to start moving after the cue ball hits the object ball?

How do we know that it's the action of the cue ball that causes the action of the object ball to move? Now, this may sound absolutely ridiculous, and sometimes philosophy does seem absolutely ridiculous, but Hume was making a serious analysis here of something fundamental to knowledge and fundamental to science, because what we're very much concerned about in science is the question of causes. And when we're talking about the ultimate cause of all of reality and of all of the universe, we're talking about causality in a very serious way. Now Hume is saying, we don't perceive the immediate cause. We see relationships of contiguity, that is, contiguous events, namely events that follow one another. We don't perceive the connection.

All we see are the series of events. Do we understand that? What he's saying is that we're supplying the assumption of causality, and that's something that science has been applying since Thales and even before Thales in ancient Greece, that we have this idea of causality. Now, some people have come to the conclusion that Hume's close analysis of causality and skepticism with respect to perception demolishes the principle or the law of cause and effect to such a degree that we can now say in our sophisticated approach to science that anything can come from anything, that anything can happen, and things can occur without a cause, that material objects can appear without a cause, because here David Hume has proven that in the field of philosophy, and they will appeal to Hume to undergird their appeals to nothing or to chance or so on. Do you remember what Hume said about chance? I read it to you where Hume said that chance is simply a word for our ignorance of real causes. Now that should be a tip to something about Hume that is often overlooked. Hume did not destroy causality. Hume did not destroy the law of cause and effect. Hume did not deny that there are causes for things. All he was saying was, we don't know what is the particular cause in a particular moment. That's one kind of skepticism. It's quite another to go to the next level, which is a quantum leap, to say that there can be effects without causes. Now I mentioned a few moments ago the earlier publication of my book, Classical Apologetics, which was reviewed in one academic journal, and a philosopher wrote me and was very complimentary of the book, but he said he had one criticism.

He sent me a copy of his review, and the review that was published made one criticism and one criticism only of the work. He made this statement. He said, the problem with sprawl, that's me, he said, the problem with sprawl is that sprawl will not allow for an uncaused effect. I looked at that and thought about the universe exploding into being, the five kinds of nothing, and so on. I wrote him a nice letter, thanked him for his compliments, and I said, but I have to confess, you know, mea culpa, sprawl really doesn't allow for an uncaused effect.

You're absolutely right about that. I said, but you mentioned that as some kind of a criticism, where I thought it was a virtue not to allow for an uncaused effect, and I will certainly repent of this vice if you will just take the time to give me one example in all of reality or in all of history of an uncaused effect. Well, I never got a reply, and I don't suspect I ever will, because there's a case where this very knowledgeable, erudite, brilliant philosopher went to sleep, because he knows there can't be an uncaused effect. Why can't there possibly be an uncaused effect? Because the word effect, by definition, is that which is produced by an antecedent cause, so that the law of causality, for every effect there must be a cause, or for every cause there must be a corresponding effect, that definition is what we call analytically true. There's really nothing more in the predicate that isn't already contained in the subject.

It's like saying all triangles have three sides, or like saying bachelors are unmarried and there's nothing new added. All it is, the law of causality, is a formal principle. It's simply one application of the law of non-contradiction, because if an effect is an effect, that means that it has a cause, and if something really is a cause, that means that it's produced an effect.

If it hasn't produced an effect, it can't rightly be called a cause, and if something is uncaused, it can't rightly be called an effect. Is that clear? I mean, that's simple. But it's not so simple, because confusion of language occurs at this point, again, in some of the most distinguished thinkers of the ages. I'm thinking, for example, of a man who was really a titan in the realm of mathematics and philosophy in 20th century England, Bertram Russell. Russell wrote a little book entitled, Why I Am Not a Christian. An interesting book, fascinating book. It raises some significant objections against the Christian faith. But early on in the book, he tells of an experience that he had as a young man. He said he grew up assuming the existence of God, looking at nature and coming to the conclusion there could not be an eternal cause for all of this.

So far, so good. When he was 18 years old, he read an essay by John Stuart Mill in which Mill challenged the cosmological argument for the existence of God, that is, the idea that God is the first cause of all that is. And the challenge that John Stuart Mill expressed in this essay was this. If everything must have a cause, then God Himself must have a cause. And whatever cause God must have a cause. And you get lost in an infinite regress, which is the problem of self-creation or infinite being with a vengeance. If everything has to have a cause, then God must have a cause.

And later on, Russell makes this comment. He said if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. And if there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God. Now what do I think of this reason here? What do I think of this kind of logic that Russell is using? Remember we talked about arguments not being true or false, but arguments are either valid or invalid.

Is Russell's argument a valid argument? Yes. I told you beforehand, yes was the answer. That was just the time waiting for the question, and you remembered.

All right. It's a valid argument because if it's true that everything must have a cause, then manifestly God would have to have a cause, right? And he goes on to say if there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God.

Now the second premise there is a little suspect, but the first part of the argument I buy. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. Now the problem is the law of causality does not say that everything must have a cause. There is no law that says everything must have a cause. The law is every effect must have a cause.

Because for something to be an effect, to come into being, or to say it another way, every contingent being it must have a cause, that's the meaning of contingency. That doesn't mean that everything that is is contingent or is an effect. Self-creation is a logical impossibility. Self-existence isn't. And what Christianity asserts is that God is an eternal being who exists in and of Himself. He is not an effect.

He's not contingent. He's not created. He didn't have a beginning. Nothing produced Him. He is eternal. Now what law of logic does that concept violate?

None. There's nothing inherently irrational about the idea of an eternal, uncaused being. In fact, as Aquinas, I believe, rightly demonstrated, not only is it possible that there be such a being, it is logically necessary that there be such a being if anything exists at all. Everything must have the power of being independent from some antecedent, causal agent, or nothing could exist.

Now that gets me to the second part. You see, what has happened here is that John Stuart Mill changed the definition of the law of causality and said, if everything has to have a cause, God would have to have a cause. It's like the little boy who said that he asked him the question, who caused God and who made God? And the little boy said, God made Himself.

No, no, no. Even God could not create Himself. Even God cannot be and not be at the same time, the same relationship. If ever there was nothing, you can't have the spontaneous generation of a universe and you can't have the spontaneous generation of a God. Even time does not have the miraculous power to bring a God out of nothing. Anything that exists either exists in and of itself or is produced by something else.

Those are the only options you have. But Mill was saying that everything which is has to have a cause. No, that's not true. And unfortunately, when Bertrand Russell was a young, impressionable man of 18, he was persuaded by an erroneous argument from a very excellent philosopher, John Stuart Mill, and he held this position all his life. And the second part of his statement is that there can be anything without a cause. It may just as well be the world as God. Now, I said I wouldn't talk about the other alternative to explaining creation, namely an eternal world. Now, I quarrel with what Bertrand Russell says. If there's anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God. Is that true?

Let me state it this way. If there has to be something that is uncaused and we're agreeing with Bertrand Russell, there must be something that is uncaused. It may as well just be sprawl as God.

What's wrong with that? Sprawl has a beginning. Sprawl is finite. Sprawl is derived. Sprawl is dependent. Sprawl is contingent.

Sprawl undergoes mutations. Sprawl lacks the power of necessary being. Just as every physical thing lacks the power of necessary being. And so it is not true that it just as well be the world as God. What we need is an eternal, self-existent, independent being who Himself or itself is not an effect. Nothing less, dear friends, can save the phenomena of the universe in which we live. When we see the order of the universe, we can come to no other conclusion. God is the leader, and He is the superintendent of all that He spoke into existence.

Our teacher this week has been Dr. R.C. Sprawl as we've brought you portions of his series Creation or Chaos. The relationship between science and faith is controversial, even among Christians. This series addresses the most fundamental issue in the dispute.

In six messages, R.C. exposes the logical absurdity of the chaos theory of the universe and the supreme rationality of creation. When you give a donation of any amount to Ligetier Ministries today, we will send you the DVD containing the entire series. You can request it online at renewingyourmind.org or you can call us with your gift at 800-435-4343. Isaac Newton said the most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel of dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.

God's existence is logically necessary once we agree that anything exists at all. We hope you'll contact us soon and request this series by Dr. Sprawl. This is the last day we're offering it. It is a six-message series, perfect for high school or college students or a Sunday school class at your church.

As believers, we need to know what we believe and why we believe it. Let me give you our contact information again. Our phone number is 800-435-4343. Our web address is renewingyourmind.org.

And as always, we are grateful for your donation of any amount. You'll find even more resources covering this topic on our free Ligetier app. The thousands of articles, videos, and audio recordings cover theology, biblical studies, philosophy, and worldview.

You can find the app by searching for Ligetier in your app store. People are deeply concerned about the current state of the church. Plagued by scandal, fractured by schism, and threatened by heresy, the bride of Christ often appears irrelevant in anything but pure. Next week, we will feature a series by Dr. Sprawl that will increase our understanding of what's wrong in the church and what we can do about it. So we hope you'll join us beginning Monday for Renewing Your Mind.