Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.

The Argument from Efficient Causality for the Existence of God (Part 3)

  • Broadcast in Religion
  • 0 comments
Daniel Whyte III

Daniel Whyte III

×  

Follow This Show

If you liked this show, you should follow Daniel Whyte III.
h:172120
s:6634639
archived

The Reasons to Believe #44

Our Reasons to Believe Scripture passage for today is 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22. It reads, "Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil." 

Our Reasons to Believe quote for today is from John Lennox. He said, "We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters" - the longest "word" yet discovered?"

Our Reason to Believe powerpoint today is titled "The Argument from Efficient Causality for the Existence of God" (part 3) from "The Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli:

Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be --- even though their causes might no longer exist.

First, if the kalam argument is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.

Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist --- and neither would you...

 

Comments

 comments