When I was in middle school, I attended a private school that invited a Christian apologist to speak in chapel every year. Afterwards, the speaker (I cannot remember his name) would visit each class and answer questions for an hour or so. I remember being in 6th grade, and monopolizing the hour my class was given, by asking one question. The answer this apologist gave me, he said (after an hour), reduced to: "Why did God decide to put 24 hours in a day." Hm, I do not specifically remember my question, but am pretty sure it was not that.
{I recalled this story to a classmate of mine, who remarked that I must be a philosopher at heart if I had these questions at such a young age. So many warm fuzzies swelled within this this "words of affirmation" sucker. My other love language is when people leave comments and/or follow my blog}
*****
In my Advanced Apologetics class, we are discussing (among other things) truth, the ontological argument, and the kalam cosmological argument. Chad Ellison presented a thoughtful and articulate paper on logic today, which spurred some helpful discussion. The discussion was paused for the scheduled topic of discussion, but we resumed the discussion after class for an hour or so.
Interesting points were brought to mind while listening to Chad's paper. Four views on the ontological status of logic were presented, but I want to highlight two of them (copied from Chad's outline:
1) Logic exists by the necessity of its own nature (that is, logic exists independently of God)
2) Logic exists as part of God's nature. That is, it is grounded in the nature of God. God is logical by His own nature just as God is good by His own nature.
*Point 2 alludes to this, but I will be referencing both logic and morals to express the same point.
Something I have wrestled with, and may have alluded to in my previous posts, is how to reconcile logic/morals and the character of God. 1- Is God "under" the law of logic and the moral law? And 2- If He is not, does that mean that he arbitrarily decides what is logical and what is moral? I have been advised that this proposes a false dichotomy, and that rather theism asserts a 3rd option: morality and logic are found within the very character of God.
It was pointed out to me, that I am getting caught up on the concept of the "logical necessity of God." As an apologetics student I am expected to make an argument for the existence of God all the time, so this dilemma was bound to pop up at some point, thankfully sooner than later.
God is shown as a logical necessity through the ontological argument. I have penned some thoughts on this recently, but hopefully I can expand on those. The Kalam cosmological argument, asserts:
1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2 - The universe began to exist.
3 - Therefore the universe has a cause.
4 - The best explanation for this cause is God.
A initial observation, is that without an uncaused cause, we end up with an infinite regress. Therefore, the cause must be eternal. William Lane Craig makes a helpful distinction here between potential infinites and actual infinites (See his essay "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources). Now don't get me wrong, I love math. I also have not studied math in eight years, nor did my studies ever go this deep. Let's just take the brilliant philosophers/logicians/mathematicians word for it: that it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. If things have existed in eternity past, it is impossible to ever arrive at the present.
First, before you label me a heretic, thinking that I am implying God is not eternal, let me bring up another concept: time. Though our perspective is from within time, let me commend the idea to you that God created time. Therefore, prior (if that word is even appropriate) to creation, God's existence was not chronological in the way we exist; this eliminates the problem of traversing an actual infinite.
Second, and drawing off of the above comments, because God's existence is uncaused he is necessarily personal, for how could an impersonal being will to do anything, much less creation ex nihilo? (This was a hugh breakthrough for me, I alluded to my struggle with believing God was personal in a previous post.)
Let me make one crucial point here, and it is a point Chad commended to me in our post-lecture discussion: logical priority does not entail chronological priority. This is where it clicked for me with the concept of logic and morals: morals/logic and the character of God are mutually reinforcing, one does not have to come before the other. They simply (ha) simultaneously exist and affirm each other.
Back to 6th grade Molly...
I was thinking about the answer I was given 14 years ago, and remembered my question was in regards to how/why God sat around for billions and billions of years and then decide to create the earth, and the visiting apologist tried to answer that it was not in fact billions and billions of years because time did not yet exist. He then must have assumed my question was why God created time and decided to put 24 hours in a day (or something like that, I don't know how he went there). I am encouraged though that 1 - God had been preparing me for this very season of life at such a young age and 2 - that we should never look down on those we consider young (1 Timothy 4:12), even the dorky ones who monopolize the conversations with guest speakers.
No comments:
Post a Comment