
Loading summary
Dr. William Lane Craig
Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig. Today An Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 7. For more resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org We've now looked at the
two premises of the argument from contingency
Student or Participant
or God's existence that are under dispute,
Dr. William Lane Craig
and those were, as you recall, that everything that exists has an explanation of
Student or Participant
its existence, either in the necessity of
Dr. William Lane Craig
its own nature or in some external cause. Or more simply, I said we could
Student or Participant
reformulate that as every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And then I offered a defense of the second premise, that if the universe
Student or Participant
has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And again, if you find that premise
Student or Participant
too jarring to suit your taste, that could be reformulated as well to a more modest premise.
Dr. William Lane Craig
You could reformulate that as if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is a transcendent personal being.
Student or Participant
You don't have to call it God
Dr. William Lane Craig
if you don't want to, but this
Student or Participant
will be a metaphysically necessary, transcendent personal being which has created the universe. And then the defense that you would give of the premise would be similar.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So I think we have good grounds
Student or Participant
for thinking that these two premises are true. And therefore, if the universe exists, it
Dr. William Lane Craig
has its explanation or ground in such
Student or Participant
a metaphysically necessary transcendent being. Now, what can the atheist do at this point?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Well, I think he does have one recourse left to him, though. It is a radical one. He can retrace his steps, withdraw his objection to premise one, and instead admit that, yes, the universe does have an
Student or Participant
explanation of its existence.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But he might say that explanation is that the universe exists by a necessity
Student or Participant
of its own nature.
Dr. William Lane Craig
The atheist can regard the universe as a kind of God substitute.
Student or Participant
It is the metaphysically necessary being that explains why everything else exists.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So for the atheist, the universe could be a sort of surrogate for God as the metaphysically necessary being that grounds
Student or Participant
the existence of everything else.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, this would be a very radical step for the atheist to take, and in fact, I cannot think of any contemporary atheist philosopher who says such a thing. Several years ago, I was participating in a conference on the philosophy of time at City College in Santa Barbara, and I thought that Professor Adolf Guernbaum, who
Student or Participant
was speaking at the conference and is
Dr. William Lane Craig
a vociferous atheistic philosopher, was flirting with this idea that the universe exists necessarily. But when I raised the question from the floor whether he thought that the universe exists necessarily, he was very indignant at the suggestion. Of course not, he said, and went on to say the typical line that
Student or Participant
the universe just exists inexplicably. It is contingent, but it just has no explanation for why it exists.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, the reason that atheists haven't been eager to embrace this escape from the
Student or Participant
argument, I think, is fairly obvious when
Dr. William Lane Craig
you look about the universe.
Student or Participant
None of the things that make the
Dr. William Lane Craig
universe up seem to exist necessarily.
Student or Participant
Whether we're talking about planets or intergalactic
Dr. William Lane Craig
dust or radiation or stars or or galaxies, none of these things seems to exist necessarily.
Student or Participant
They all seem to be contingent.
Dr. William Lane Craig
They could all fail to exist. In fact, at one point in the past, when the universe was very, very dense and very hot, none of them did exist.
Student or Participant
So these things don't exist necessarily.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And the universe is just the collection
Student or Participant
of all these things.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So it would seem the universe doesn't exist, and necessarily. And so atheists have not been eager
Student or Participant
to try to adopt this escape route from the argument.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, somebody might say in response to this, well, granted that all of the things in the universe are contingent, nevertheless, what about the matter that they're made out of? Maybe the matter itself exists necessarily, and then it just takes these different contingent configurations, and so that all of these different configurations of matter, like stars and
Student or Participant
planets and galaxies, are contingent, but the
Dr. William Lane Craig
matter itself, matter, is necessarily existent. Well, I think the problem with this suggestion is that according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter is itself composed of tiny fundamental particles like quarks and electrons, and all of the things in the universe are made out of these tiny fundamental particles. Indeed, the universe just is the collection of all of these particles arranged in different ways. So let's focus on the quarks and talk about them. Couldn't a collection of different quarks have existed instead of the collection that actually does exist? Does each and every one of these quarks exist necessarily? Well, it seems crazy to think that each and every quark in the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature, so that there couldn't have been fewer quarks, or there couldn't have been more, more quarks or different quarks. This is the only collection of quarks that could possibly have existed. That seems crazy. Now, notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say, well, all of these quarks are just different configurations of matter,
Student or Participant
and they could have been different, but
Dr. William Lane Craig
the matter itself exists necessarily. He can't say this because quarks are not made up of anything else. They just are the fundamental units of matter.
Student or Participant
So that if the quark doesn't exist, the matter doesn't exist. Quarks aren't composed of anything else. They just are the fundamental units of matter. So without the quarks, there wouldn't be any matter.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But then it seems obvious that a different collection of quarks Quarks might have
Student or Participant
existed Instead of the collection that actually does exist.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, if that were the case, suppose
Student or Participant
a different collection of quarks were to have existed.
Dr. William Lane Craig
I think then you would conclude a
Student or Participant
different universe might have existed.
Dr. William Lane Craig
If a different collection of quarks could
Student or Participant
have existed, a different universe could have existed.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, to see this point, I want to invite you to think about the
Student or Participant
shoes that you have on right now. Think about the shoes you're wearing.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Could those shoes have been made of
Student or Participant
steel instead of what they're made out of?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, certainly you could have had a pair of steel shoes that were the
Student or Participant
same shape and size as the shoes that you're wearing.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But would they be the same shoes, or wouldn't it be a different pair of shoes? A steel pair of shoes? Could the very shoes that you have
Student or Participant
on have been made of steel?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Well, I think the answer is obviously not.
Student or Participant
They would be a different pair of
Dr. William Lane Craig
shoes, not the very shoes that you have on. And the same would be true of the universe. A universe which is made up of different quarks Would not be the same universe. Even if all of those quarks were arranged in in exactly the same way so that the same macroscopic objects existed. It would be a different universe because
Student or Participant
it's made up of a different collection of quarks.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, somebody might object at this point. Well, wait a minute.
Student or Participant
They might say the matter in my
Dr. William Lane Craig
body is completely recycled every several years
Student or Participant
so that the molecules or the particles that I have in my body today Are not the ones that I had, say, when I was a little boy.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And yet I'm the same person. I remain identical even though all of
Student or Participant
the matter in my body is completely recirculated. And there's none of the particles in my body now that used to be there.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So they might say, analogously, a universe could be identical across different possible worlds, Even though it's made up of a
Student or Participant
wholly different collection of core.
Dr. William Lane Craig
I think that these two situations are not analogous, though. And the crucial disanalogy is that the difference between possible worlds does not involve any kind of intrinsic change. There is no enduring subject which undergoes
Student or Participant
a change from one state to another. Whereas in my body there is an
Dr. William Lane Craig
enduring subject that goes through intrinsic change. So comparing different universes in different possible worlds would be more like comparing human bodies which have no connection whatsoever with
Student or Participant
each other and are made up of different matter.
Dr. William Lane Craig
In that case, I think you would say it's not the same body. These are different bodies because the one doesn't change into the other one, as
Student or Participant
my boyhood body changed into my adult body.
Dr. William Lane Craig
In the case where there is no
Student or Participant
intrinsic change and there's completely different matter making up the object, you would have two objects. You would have two human bodies. Similarly, you would have two universes.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, is there any discussion on that point as to why it's plausible to
Student or Participant
think the universe is. Is not metaphysically necessary?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yes.
Drew
Drew, I'm wondering about, like Spinoza, do you think he would have bit the bullet and said, yes, it is. And do you have any idea what response he might have?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yeah, that's why I said no.
Student or Participant
Contemporary atheist Drew is pointing out the 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch or Benedict de Spinoza did believe that the universe
Dr. William Lane Craig
is a sort of God substitute. He coined the famous phrase Deus sive
Student or Participant
natura, God or nature. So he took the universe to be
Dr. William Lane Craig
God and to exist with metaphysical necessity. So you're right, there are or have
Student or Participant
been people like this.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But I can't think of anybody on
Student or Participant
the contemporary scene that would defend Spinozism or this alternative.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, where you would find it, I
Student or Participant
think would perhaps be in pantheistic religions, some form of Hinduism or Buddhism.
Dr. William Lane Craig
That regards though there they usually think
Student or Participant
that the universe is illusory, not that it's necessary, but I could imagine a pantheist saying something like this. But you won't find this among your
Dr. William Lane Craig
typical Western naturalistic atheist. And the response, I think, would be
Student or Participant
exactly what I've given. I think that given the fact that the universe is made up of this collection of fundamental particles, it would just
Dr. William Lane Craig
seem utterly implausible to say each and
Student or Participant
every quark in the universe exists by a metaphysical necessity of its own nature. That just to me is utterly implausible.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yes.
Student or Participant
Over here on the side.
Amy
Yes, Dr. Craig, I was having an issue with what you were saying at the beginning as you're reintroducing the stuff from. And I'm sorry to bring it up again because I don't know if I. If you guys already moved past it, but the personal part of what you're saying, that the creator of the universe must be. I guess I didn't get that in the previous case.
Dr. William Lane Craig
All right.
Student or Participant
Amy had asked me about that after class the other day, and the argument
Dr. William Lane Craig
there was we get to a being which is beyond space and time, beyond matter, and energy because it's the cause
Student or Participant
or explanation of the existence of the universe.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So this has to be an immaterial, spaceless, timeless, metaphysically necessary being. Now, if you ask yourself what could possibly fill that description? Something that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, metaphysically necessary. It seemed to me that there are only two things that I can think of that could possibly fit that description. Either an abstract object, like a number
Student or Participant
or other mathematical object, or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. An unembodied mind could be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and metaphysically necessary.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But here's the rub. Abstract objects don't stand in causal relations. It's definitive of what it is to
Student or Participant
be an abstract object is that it's causally effete, it's causally impotent, it has no causal powers.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So the cause of the universe cannot
Student or Participant
be an abstract object. And therefore, by logic it follows that it must be an unembodied mind or consciousness.
Amy
Okay, I guess the part or person. Okay, but how? What do you mean by person? You mean it has the traits of a person or do you mean an absolute?
Dr. William Lane Craig
By a person I mean a mind.
Student or Participant
Okay, A self conscious individual endowed with intellect, self consciousness and will.
Dr. William Lane Craig
There's actually another really nice argument for
Student or Participant
the personhood of this first cause that maybe I'll go ahead and share with you.
Dr. William Lane Craig
That was suggested by one of my
Student or Participant
students at Talbot in class. He pointed out, how do you get
Dr. William Lane Craig
from a necessarily existing cause to a
Student or Participant
contingent object like the universe?
Dr. William Lane Craig
If the cause is an impersonal sort
Student or Participant
of mechanically operating set of necessary insufficient
Dr. William Lane Craig
conditions, then if the cause is necessarily there and is sufficient for its effect, the effect should be there necessarily as well. So if you have a necessary being
Student or Participant
as your cause, you're going to have
Dr. William Lane Craig
the effect existing necessarily, though dependent upon the cause. How do you get a contingent effect from a necessary cause? And I think the answer is if the cause is a personal agent endowed with freedom of the will who can
Student or Participant
freely choose to create a contingent effect.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So getting back to a personal agent and appealing to agent causation will enable you to explain how you get a
Student or Participant
contingent effect like the universe from a necessarily existing cause.
Dr. William Lane Craig
I think this is a great argument.
Student or Participant
I really like this argument for the personhood of the first cause.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So that gives us two independent arguments
Student or Participant
for the personhood of the first cause, namely, the argument from the properties that it must have as being immaterial, spaceless, timeless, etc. And then the other argument from how do you get from a necessary cause to a Contingent effect.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So I think that there are good
Student or Participant
reasons to think that that second premise is true.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Wholly apart from the fact that, as I say, it's virtually synonymous to what
Student or Participant
the atheist himself says. And remember there we talked about how the atheist typically says that if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence, which is logically equivalent
Dr. William Lane Craig
to saying that if the universe has
Student or Participant
an explanation of, of its existence, then
Dr. William Lane Craig
atheism is not true, that is to say God exists. So I think that makes the second premise very plausible indeed.
Student or Participant
Yes, we'll have a question from Taewon here.
Taewon
Dr. Craig, I want to ask an antagonistic view. That is, if matter and energy are interchangeable, can we not think of this, this necessity as a energy which are converted back into matter in that relationship?
Dr. William Lane Craig
You know, Taewon, I think that perhaps what the non theist could do here would be to say that these fundamental
Student or Participant
quarks or these fundamental particles are different
Dr. William Lane Craig
configuration of underlying quantum physical fields.
Student or Participant
And that that's what underlies these particles that appear in different ways. And that would be an interesting, I think response.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But then it would require you to
Student or Participant
say that these quantum fields exist necessarily. And again, that just doesn't seem to be true, that these things have metaphysical necessity. They seem to be contingent. And I'll, I'll reinforce that in just one more moment with my next point.
Taewon
Would you classify energy as the timeless material?
Dr. William Lane Craig
No, no, no.
Student or Participant
That's clearly something that exists in space and in time and as you say, can be converted into matter and matter back into energy. That's Einstein's famous equation, E equals MC squared. So energy and matter would be convertible quantities. Any other discussion of this point? Yes, Bruce has a point.
Bruce
If you had a consciousness as necessary like they do in pantheism, you wouldn't have any. It doesn't reflect itself except in other deities and manifestations. So it doesn't show itself causally either. So you would, you would reject some kind of universal consciousness, right?
Dr. William Lane Craig
I mean, in Hinduism, for example, these
Student or Participant
gods are not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is impersonal and propertyless, can't be characterized. So these gods like Shiva and Vishnu
Dr. William Lane Craig
and so forth are just in a
Student or Participant
sense illusory manifestations of this impersonal, absolute. They're not the ultimate reality.
Dr. William Lane Craig
All right. What I've argued here is that it's implausible to think that the universe exists necessarily. Why? Because it's made up of stuff which
Student or Participant
is obviously contingent things like quarks and electrons.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now the claim that I'm making here, I think becomes all the more obvious
Student or Participant
when we reflect on the fact that
Dr. William Lane Craig
it seems entirely possible that the fundamental
Student or Participant
building blocks of nature could have been
Dr. William Lane Craig
substances quite different from quarks and electrons and so characterized by a whole different set of laws of nature. Even if you say that the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, that this is the only way that quarks and electrons could have behaved, nevertheless the laws of nature could still have been different because there could have been different substances than quarks that exist endowed with different dispositions and different properties, so that you
Student or Participant
would have a whole different set of laws of nature.
Dr. William Lane Craig
There's no reason to think that only quarks are possible and that there couldn't have been other kinds of particles instead of quarks, and that therefore there could
Student or Participant
have been a quite different universe. And I think it would be utterly
Dr. William Lane Craig
implausible to say that that would be the same universe. That would be like saying that a pane of glass, a glass window, a pane of glass, could retain its identity if it had been made of steel instead. That seems obviously absurd.
Student or Participant
That would not be the same window if it were made of steel instead of made of glass.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So I think that we have quite
Student or Participant
good grounds for thinking that in virtue of its composition or constitution, that the universe doesn't exist metaphysically necessarily. And that's probably why very few of any contemporary atheists appeal to this to try to escape from the argument. Any other comment on that defense?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yes, cash.
Keshe
Hi, Dr. Craig.
Cash
I have a question about past eternity and necessity and that, you know, like Carl Sagan in the opening sense of cosmos, which is pretty famous, he essentially substituted the John 1:1. He the cosmos is all that ever was, all that ever is, and all that ever will be. And I'm just wondering, if an atheist says, if he makes the claim that the universe has a state of past eternity, is that essentially claiming necessity for it? I'm wondering about that relation.
Student or Participant
Yes, we've talked about that now a
Dr. William Lane Craig
couple of times in the class, and
Student or Participant
I've tried to point out that merely making the universe past eternal doesn't make it necessary.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And I think the easiest way to see that is to imagine that the
Student or Participant
universe is past eternal. Imagine that the universe never began to exist.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Wouldn't it be logically possible for our
Student or Participant
universe to exist instead?
Dr. William Lane Craig
Well, of course it would, because we know this universe is logically possible. We exist in it, it's real. So if in an eternal universe it's logically possible that there could have been
Student or Participant
our universe instead, it follows that that eternal universe doesn't exist necessarily, it exists contingently, and there could have been a different universe instead.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So Leibniz's argument is just wholly independent of whether the past of the universe
Student or Participant
is eternal or had a beginning.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now, Cash's point, though, does make a
Student or Participant
very nice segue to the next point that I wanted to make.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And that is a second reason for
Student or Participant
thinking that the universe does not exist
Dr. William Lane Craig
by a necessity of its own nature is the fact that it appears to
Student or Participant
have begun to exist.
Dr. William Lane Craig
If something exists necessarily, then it must
Student or Participant
exist eternally, because if it begins to exist, that shows that its non existence is possible. It came into being so that an
Dr. William Lane Craig
essential property of a necessarily existing being
Student or Participant
will be its eternality, being without beginning or end.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And we have now pretty strong evidence
Student or Participant
that the universe is not past eternal, but had a beginning which would show its contingency.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now this takes us into the next
Student or Participant
argument that we're going to talk about,
Dr. William Lane Craig
the Kalam cosmological argument, which is based
Student or Participant
upon the beginning of the universe.
Dr. William Lane Craig
And as I've said, I want to try to keep the arguments as independent
Student or Participant
from one another as we can, because
Dr. William Lane Craig
then if they're independent of each other, you multiply the probabilities by accumulating these
Student or Participant
independent arguments in favor of God's existence.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So I think we've got good grounds
Student or Participant
for thinking the universe doesn't exist necessarily
Dr. William Lane Craig
quite independent of its beginning. But nevertheless, this does show how the arguments kind of dovetail into each other and reinforce one another. Because if the universe does have a beginning, that reveals the contingency of the universe. Not only that, but it reveals that the universe is contingent in a very special way, namely, it came into being out of nothing on the existence of an eternal universe, it would still exist contingently, but even though it exists eternally. But for the universe to exist contingently and have a beginning seems to be just doubly absurd, because now it comes into existence without any explanation whatsoever, out of nothing. So I can imagine giving the atheist a run for his money and saying, yes, if the universe is eternal, if
Student or Participant
it's always been there, it doesn't have a cause.
Dr. William Lane Craig
But once you say the universe had
Student or Participant
a beginning and came into being, then it just seems to me completely implausible to think that there's no explanation of the existence of the universe.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So the Kalam cosmological argument powerfully reinforces
Student or Participant
the argument from contingency by showing or
Dr. William Lane Craig
underlining the contingency of the universe in a very special way. Even if the universe is past eternal, it's contingent. But if it had a Beginning then
Student or Participant
that just makes its contingency all the more obvious and the need for an explanation just cries out all the more.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So, as I say, atheists have not
Student or Participant
been eager to affirm that the universe exists with any sort of metaphysical necessity.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Instead, the typical response to, to this
Student or Participant
argument is to just commit the taxicab fallacy and say the principle of sufficient reason applies to everything in the universe,
Dr. William Lane Craig
but don't apply it to the universe itself.
Student or Participant
The universe just exists without any explanation, which I think is arbitrary and ad hoc.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Alright, any final comments or discussion of this argument?
Student or Participant
Yes, over here.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Remind me of your name again too, please.
Student or Participant
I always forget, my name's David.
Dr. William Lane Craig
David.
Student or Participant
Okay, all right.
David
So I talked to my brother yesterday a little bit and just kind of generated some thoughts. Yeah, And I was just thinking through this whole thing and I remember the debate you had with Lawrence Krauss and it kind of hits me saying that he's probably the best atheist that ever existed because he wants to prove that everything just came out of nothing. The reason why I want to say that is because my brother was saying, this is my brother Paul, he was saying, what is the opposite of God? The thought wants to come in and say, you know, it's devil, but it's not the opposite of God because God created him and he gives him the abilities and all that. So the way Christianity looks at God, that God is everything, he's all powerful, so on and so forth.
Student or Participant
Now Christianity doesn't think God is everything, right? That's pantheism.
David
Well, God created everything, right?
Dr. William Lane Craig
That's very different.
David
Maximal being. Yes. So the opposite of God, he was saying, is nothing. And that's why I believe kind of that that's where atheists has to stand on that, that things came out of nothing.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Well, you know, let me just say, David, that it's difficult to know what
Student or Participant
a person means when they talk about
Dr. William Lane Craig
the opposite of a being. I think your example of the devil
Student or Participant
shows that a person might be thinking
Dr. William Lane Craig
opposite in terms of its moral qualities. In one sense, contingent beings are the
Student or Participant
opposite of God because he exists necessarily, independently.
Dr. William Lane Craig
We exist contingently and dependently. So in one sense that's the opposite of God, but in the sense that God exists, I can see why you could say the opposite of that is that.
David
But atheists can't take that approach, saying that contingency is the opposite of God. The atheist has to stick with nothing, that that is their whole beginning, I guess.
Student or Participant
Okay, I think maybe I'm understanding more
Dr. William Lane Craig
what you're saying when you say the Opposite of God.
Student or Participant
You mean? What is the alternative explanation to God?
Dr. William Lane Craig
In a sense.
Student or Participant
Right. I think that's what you're saying.
Dr. William Lane Craig
What's the alternative?
Student or Participant
And right.
Dr. William Lane Craig
The alternative seems to be to say
Student or Participant
that there is no explanation of the existence of the universe. And in the case of someone who thinks the universe began to exist, like Krauss, and that would mean the universe
Dr. William Lane Craig
just came out of nothing, which is what he asserts.
Student or Participant
But I have to say he doesn't really mean it.
Dr. William Lane Craig
He knows that in physics the vacuum
Student or Participant
state or these states that don't have classical space time in them are physical states.
Dr. William Lane Craig
They're described by the laws of nature. So Krauss will say things like nothing actually weighs something.
Student or Participant
Everything is almost nothing.
Dr. William Lane Craig
He makes all sorts of self contradictory statements.
Student or Participant
He's using the word nothing there in a way that is scientifically misrepresentative of the physics. It's a kind of colloquial way of speaking that isn't accurate. He's talking about states in which our general relativistic space time doesn't exist, but it is still a state of the universe.
Dr. William Lane Craig
It will be a very early state
Student or Participant
of the universe in which these sorts of structures haven't yet emerged, but it's not nothing in the sense of non being or not anything. And so it's really a gross misuse of language and I frankly think a deliberate misrepresentation of the science. Any other comment on this argument?
Keshe
Yes, Keshe, I guess this is more of an endnote, but for further study in looking up Leibniz's work, he wrote in German and French and Latin, unfortunately not English. He wrote on dozens, if not hundreds of subjects. He wrote thousands and thousands of pages. And it doesn't seem like for this kind of discussion that there's a single representative work that I could pinpoint to say, you know, it would be fun to go back and read what he actually wrote about it. Is there a certain edition or. What we really need is the William Lane Craig simplified Leibniz.
Dr. William Lane Craig
There already are such books. I'm glad you asked the question. There's a very nice volume called Leibniz Selections which includes all of these selected works that we've been talking about. Leibniz selection, I'm not exactly sure, but I think it's edited by Philip Wiener,
Student or Participant
or Wiener, I think he's the editor.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Philip Wiener Leibniz Selections.
Student or Participant
And it will include all of these.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Now you say, where am I going to get a copy of Leibniz Selections? You go to the East Cobb Library and order it on interlibrary loan. This is an untapped treasure trove of stuff. I rarely buy books. I go to interlibrary loan and get all of the stuff here in the little East Cobb Library. So for example, this past week I've been reading the three volume systematic theology of Francois Turretin, who was a Swiss 17th century Reformed theologian called Institutes of Elenctic Theology. And they got me that at the East Cobb Library on interlibrary loan. The week before, they got me a book by L.W. grenstedt called A Short History of the Atonement, which was published back in 1905
Student or Participant
or something like that.
Dr. William Lane Craig
They'll get you all of this stuff free. It's free, so there's just no excuse. Use your local library. This is an untapped resource that most
Student or Participant
people don't know about.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So thank you cash for that question, because this is how you can get this stuff.
Keshe
There's also, I just looked on Amazon, a copy for $0.41 with $3.99 shipping.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Go for it. Was it Weiner who edited it? Yes.
Student or Participant
Excellent.
Keshe
Published in 1951.
Dr. William Lane Craig
Let me just say by way of
Student or Participant
conclusion then, for this argument, given the
Dr. William Lane Craig
truth of the three premises, then the conclusion follows logically.
Student or Participant
God is the explanation of the existence of the universe.
Dr. William Lane Craig
So this argument gives us a very rich concept of God. An uncaused, unembodied mind who transcends the physical universe and even space and time themselves, and.
Student or Participant
And exists with a metaphysical necessity of its own nature. This is an exalted concept of God. Let's bow for a benediction.
Dr. William Lane Craig
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
Student or Participant
be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.
Dr. William Lane Craig
The copyright for the content of this recording is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith.org.
Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Date: May 25, 2022
This episode continues Dr. William Lane Craig’s deep dive into the Argument from Contingency—a core argument in natural theology for God’s existence. Dr. Craig explores possible atheist responses, the metaphysical necessity of the universe, and why most philosophers reject viewing the universe as a necessary being. The episode features engaging student questions, clarifies key terms (like "personal being"), and connects the contingency argument with the Kalam cosmological argument, building a cumulative case for God’s existence.
[00:19–01:42]
Quote:
"You could reformulate that as if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is a transcendent personal being."
— Dr. Craig [01:06]
[01:42–04:34]
Quote:
"The universe just exists inexplicably. It is contingent, but it just has no explanation for why it exists."
— Reporting Adolf Grünbaum’s response [03:32]
[04:38–08:46]
Analogy:
Quote:
"A universe which is made up of different quarks would not be the same universe... it would be a different universe because it’s made up of a different collection of quarks."
— Dr. Craig [08:20]
[10:47–12:43]
Quote:
"It would just seem utterly implausible to say each and every quark in the universe exists by a metaphysical necessity of its own nature. That just to me is utterly implausible."
— Dr. Craig [12:34]
[12:45–16:22]
Quotes:
"Abstract objects don't stand in causal relations... So the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object."
— Dr. Craig [14:12]
"Getting back to a personal agent and appealing to agent causation will enable you to explain how you get a contingent effect like the universe from a necessarily existing cause."
— Dr. Craig [16:02]
[17:18–18:38]
Quote:
“No, no, no. That’s clearly something that exists in space and in time… Energy and matter would be convertible quantities.”
— Dr. Craig [18:38]
[22:14–25:17]
Quotes:
"Merely making the universe past eternal doesn't make it necessary."
— Dr. Craig [22:50]
"If something exists necessarily, then it must exist eternally, because if it begins to exist, that shows that its nonexistence is possible."
— Dr. Craig [24:09]
[27:04–27:36]
Quote:
"The universe just exists without any explanation, which I think is arbitrary and ad hoc."
— Dr. Craig [27:31]
[27:40–31:53]
Quote:
"He makes all sorts of self-contradictory statements. He's using the word nothing there in a way that is scientifically misrepresentative of the physics... it's not nothing in the sense of non-being or not anything."
— Dr. Craig [31:00–31:28]
[31:53–34:29]
Quote:
"This is an untapped treasure trove of stuff... Use your local library. This is an untapped resource that most people don't know about."
— Dr. Craig [34:09]
[34:29–34:52]
Quote:
"So this argument gives us a very rich concept of God. An uncaused, unembodied mind who transcends the physical universe and even space and time themselves, and exists with a metaphysical necessity of its own nature."
— Dr. Craig [34:40]
| Time | Speaker | Notable Quote / Moment | |--------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:06 | Dr. Craig | “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is a transcendent personal being.” | | 03:32 | Grünbaum (via Dr. Craig) | “The universe just exists inexplicably. It is contingent, but it just has no explanation for why it exists.” | | 08:20 | Dr. Craig | “A universe which is made up of different quarks would not be the same universe... it would be a different universe because it’s made up of a different collection of quarks.” | | 14:12 | Dr. Craig | “Abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations... So the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object.” | | 16:02 | Dr. Craig | “Getting back to a personal agent and appealing to agent causation will enable you to explain how you get a contingent effect like the universe from a necessarily existing cause.” | | 22:50 | Dr. Craig | “Merely making the universe past eternal doesn’t make it necessary.” | | 24:09 | Dr. Craig | “If something exists necessarily, then it must exist eternally, because if it begins to exist, that shows that its nonexistence is possible.” | | 27:31 | Dr. Craig | “The universe just exists without any explanation, which I think is arbitrary and ad hoc.” | | 31:00 | Dr. Craig | “He’s using the word nothing there in a way that is scientifically misrepresentative of the physics…” | | 34:40 | Dr. Craig | “So this argument gives us a very rich concept of God. An uncaused, unembodied mind who transcends the physical universe and even space and time themselves, and exists with a metaphysical necessity of its own nature.” |
Dr. Craig adopts a reasoned and professorial tone—at times gently humorous and always rigorous—inviting critical questions and responding thoughtfully. The discussion is intellectually thorough, filled with analogies accessible to both laypersons and advanced students of philosophy. This episode offers a clear, cumulative case against the idea that the universe is metaphysically necessary, pushing listeners to consider the necessity of a transcendent, personal explanation—and thus, God.