While it is logically possible that nothing ever existed, including God, it is not actually possible. Something does exist. As long as it is not actually possible for a total state of nothingness, then something must necessarily and eternally exist (e.g., God), since nothing cannot produce something. And if there were ever a total state of nothingness, then there would always be a total state of nothingness. For nothingness cannot produce anything.
A Necessary (Uncaused) Being Is Meaningless. But perhaps the whole idea of an uncaused
Being is meaningless. It is a coherent concept in the sense of being noncontradictory. A contingent being is one that can not exist. A Necessary Being is one that cannot not exist. Since the latter is logically (and actually) opposite of the other, then to reject the coherence of a Necessary Being would involve rejecting the coherence of a contingent being. But those are the only two kinds of being there can be. Hence, to reject the meaningfulness of the concept of a Necessary Being would be to reject the meaningfulness of all being. But to say “all being is meaningless” is to make a statement about being that purports to be meaningful. This is self-defeating.
Another way to show the meaningfulness of the concept of an uncaused Being is to point to the atheist’s concept of an uncaused universe. Most atheists believe it is meaningful to speak of a universe that had no cause. But if the concept of an uncaused universe is meaningful, so is the concept of an uncaused God.
An Uncaused Universe. As logically possible as an uncaused universe may be, it does not follow that one actually exists. The universe is a collection of parts, each contingent and so needing a cause. Either the whole universe is equal to all its parts, or else it is more than all its parts. If it is equal to them, then it too needs a cause. The sum of many dependent parts will never equal more than a dependent whole, no matter how big it is. Adding up effects never yields a cause; it only produces a big pile of effects. Only if the universe is more than all its effects can it be uncaused and necessary. But to claim that there is a something more, uncaused and necessary, on which everything in the universe is dependent is to claim exactly what the theist means by a Necessary Being on which all contingent beings depend for their existence.
The whole issue can be clarified by asking the nontheist this question: If everything in the universe (i.e., every contingent being) suddenly ceased to exist, would there be anything left in existence? If not, then the universe as a whole is contingent too, since the existence of the whole is dependent on the parts. But if something remained after every contingent part of the universe suddenly ceased to exist, then there really is a transcendent necessary uncaused Something that is not dependent on the universe for its existence. But in either case, the atheist’s claim fails.
Evil Eliminates God. Many nontheists insist that the presence of evil in the universe eliminates the existence of a theist God. These arguments are answered elsewhere (see Evil, Problem of).
Unconvincing Arguments. Some object that theistic arguments persuade only those who already believe and who do not need them Therefore, they are useless. But whether anyone is convinced by an argument depends on several factors. For one thing, even if the argument is sound, persuasiveness will depend in part on whether the argument is understood.
Once the mind understands the argument, giving assent to it is a matter of the will. No one is ever forced to believe in God simply because the mind understands that there is a God. Personal factors may lead a person to remain uncommitted to belief. Theistic arguments do not automatically convert unbelievers. But persons of goodwill who understand the argument ought to accept it as true. If they do not, it does not prove that the argument is wrong; rather, it shows their reluctance to accept it.
Conclusion. Many objections have been proposed against the proofs for the existence of God.
They are usually based on a misunderstanding of the proofs. None succeeds in falsifying the arguments. If it did, it would be a proof that you cannot have a proof. That is a self-defeating argument in itself.
Sources
W. L. Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. L. Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity.
J. N. Findlay, "Can God's Existence Be Disproved?”
R. Flint. Agnosticism.
S. Freud, The Future of an Illusion.
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, God.
N. L. GeislerandW. Corduan, Philosophy of Religion.
F. Hoyle andN. C. Wickramasinghe. Fvolution from Space.
D. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
---, The Letters of David Hume.
I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.
A. Kenny, The Five Ways.
B. Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian.
God-Talk. See Analogy, Principle of.
Gospel of Barnabas. See Barnabas, Gospel of. Gospel of Q. See Q Document.
Gospel of Thomas. The Claim of the Critics. Some radical critics of the New Testament claim that the Gnostic (see Gnosticism) Gospel of Thomas is equal or superior to the New Testament and that it does not support the resurrection of Christ. The so-called *Jesus Seminar places the Gospel of Thomas in their otherwise severely truncated Bible. Both stances are serious challenges to the historic Christian faith.
The Gospel of Thomas was discovered inNagHammadi, Egypt, near Cairo in 1945 and was translated into English in 1977. While some have attempted to date parts of it earlier, the Gospel of Thomas is most reliably dated no earlier than AD 140-170. It contains 114 so-called secret sayings of Jesus. Defenders of the Gospel of Thomas include Walter Baur, Frederick Wisse, A. Powell Davies, and Elaine Pagels.
An Evaluation of the Credibility of the Gospel of Thomas. The best way to evaluate the credibility of the Gospel of Thomas is by way of comparisonto the New Testament Gospels, which often the same critics have grave doubts about (see New Testament, Historicity of; New Testament Manuscripts). When this comparison is made, the Gospel of Thomas comes up seriously short.
The Canonical Gospels Are Much Earlier. Assuming the widely accepted range of dates for the Synoptic Gospels (ca. AD 60-80), the Gospel of Thomas falls nearly a century short. Indeed, there is evidence of even earlier dates for some Gospels (see New Testament, Dating of), as even some liberal scholars admit (see Robinson). O. C. Edwards asserts of the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospels that “as historical reconstructions there is no way the two can claim equal credentials” (Edwards, 27). And Joseph Fitzmyer adds, “Time and again, she [E. Pagels] is blind to the fact that she is ignoring a good century of Christian existence in which these ‘gnostic Christians’ were simply not around” (Fitzmyer, 123).
The Gospel of Thomas Is Dependent on the Canonical Gospels. Even if the Gospel of Thomas could be shown to contain some authentic statements of Jesus, “no convincing case has been made that any given saying of Jesus in the Gospels depends on a saying in the Gospel of Thomas” (Boyd, 118).
Rather, the reverse is true since the Gospel of Thomas presupposes truths found earlier in the canonical Gospels.
The Gospel of Thomas Portrays a Second-Century Gnosticism. The Gospel of Thomas is influenced by the kind of Gnosticism prevalent in the second century. For instance, it puts into the mouth of Jesus these unlikely and demeaning words: “Every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (cited in Boyd, 118).
The Gospel of Thomas ,s Lack of Narrative Does Not Prove Jesus Did No Miracles. The fact that the author(s) of the Gospel of Thomas did not include narratives of Jesus does not mean they disbelieved in Jesus’s miracles. The book seems to be a collection of Jesus’s sayings rather than his deeds.
The Canonical Gospels Are More Historically Trustworthy. There are numerous reasons why the New Testament Gospels are more trustworthy than the Gnostic ones. First, the earliest Christians were meticulous in preserving Jesus’s words and deeds. Second, the Gospel writers were close to the eyewitnesses and pursued the facts (Luke 1:1-4). Third, there is good evidence that the Gospel writers were honest reporters {see New Testament, Historicity of; Witnesses, Hume’s Criteria for). Fourth, the overall picture of Jesus presented in the Gospels is the same.
The Basic New Testament Canon Was Formed in the First Century. Contrary to claims of the critics, the basic New Testament canon was formed in the first century. The only books in dispute have no apologetic effect on the argument for the reliability of the historical material used to establish the deity of Christ.
The New Testament itself reveals that a collection of books existed in the first century. Peter speaks of having Paul’s Epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16). In fact, he considered them on a par with Old Testament “Scripture.” Paul had access to Luke’s Gospel and quotes it in 1 Timothy 5:18. The churches were instructed to send their epistle onto other churches (Col. 4:16).
Beyond the New Testament, there are extrabiblical canonical lists that support the existence of a New Testament canon (see Geisler and Nix, 294). Indeed, all the Gospels and Paul’s basic epistles are represented on these lists. Even the heretical canon of the Gnostic Marcion (ca. AD 140) had the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s Epistles, including 1 Corinthians.
The Second-Century Fathers Support the Canonical Gospels. The second-century Fathers cited a common body of books. This includes all the crucial books that support the historicity of Christ and his resurrection, namely, the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians. Clement of Rome (AD 95) cited the Gospels (Corinthians, 13, 42, 46). Ignatius (ca. 110-15) cited Luke 24:39 (Smyrnaeans, 3).
Polycarp (ca. 115) cited all the Synoptic Gospels {Philippians, 2, 7). The Didache often cites the Synoptic Gospels (1, 3, 8, 9, 15-16). The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 135) cites Matthew 22:14. Papias (ca. 125-40) in the Oracles speaks of Matthew, Mark (following Peter), and John (last) who wrote Gospels. He says three times that Mark made no errors. What is more, the Fathers considered the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles to be on a par with the inspired Old Testament.
Thus, the Fathers vouched for the accuracy of the canonical Gospels in the early second century, well before the Gospel of Thomas was even written.
The Resurrection Account. The Gospel of Thomas does acknowledge Jesus’s resurrection. In fact, the living, resurrected Christ himself speaks in it (34:25-27; 45:1-16). True, it does not stress the resurrection, but this is to be expected since it is primarily a “sayings” source rather than a historical narration. Furthermore, the Gnostic theological bias against matter would downplay the bodily resurrection.
Conclusion. The evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas does not even compare with that for the New Testament. The New Testament dates from the first century; the Gospel of Thomas, the second. The New Testament is verified by many lines of evidence, including self-references, early canonical lists, thousands of citations by the early Fathers, and the well-established dates for the Synoptic Gospels. The so-called Gospel of Thomas lacks all of this.
G. Boyd. Jesus under Siege.
O. C. Edwards, New Review of Books and Religion.
C. A. Evans et al.,NagHammadi Texts and the Bible.
J. Fitzmeyer, 'The Gnostic Gospels according to Pagels.”
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible.
R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity.
E. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem?
E. H. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels.
J. A. Robinson, Redating the New Testament.
J. M. Robinson and R. J. Miller, The Nag Hammadi Library in English.
F. Seigert et al., Nag-Hcimmadi Register.
M. J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds., Jesus tinder Fire.
Gospels, Historicity of. See New Testament, Historicity of.
Greenleaf, Simon. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the great minds in American legal history. He taught law at Harvard University and produced the standard three-volume study of legal evidence (A Treatise on the Law of Evidences, 1842-53) used to teach lawyers the rules of legal evidence and the means by which the authenticity of documents and witnesses can be tested.
When challenged to apply these rules to the New Testament documents, Greenleaf produced a volume {The Testimony of the Evangelists) which defends the authenticity of the New Testament. It defends an important link in the overall apologetic argument for Christianity—the trustworthiness of the New Testament witnesses.
An Authentic New Testament. Greenleaf s conclusions include strong points of evidence. The following quotations are from throughout his work The Testimony of the Evangelists: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise,” Greenleaf wrote. According to this “Ancient Document Rule,” the New Testament would qualify as authentic, since it bears no marks of forgery and has been in the proper custody of the church down through the centuries, as shown by manuscript evidence (see New Testament Manuscripts).
“In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.” Applied to the New Testament witnesses, this would mean that the books coming from them must be presumed authentic, since they were speaking of their own affairs, with which they were conversant.
“In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.” Since there is probable evidence that the New Testament witnesses told the truth (see New Testament, Historicity of), the possibility that they could have been lying does not outweigh the truth of their witness.
“A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.” There is competent and satisfactory evidence for the facticity of the New Testament record (see Archaeology, New Testament).
“In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.” The New Testament, like other books, must be presumed innocent. This is just the opposite of the “presumed guilty until proven innocent” principle used by negative critics (see Bible Criticism).
“The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.” In accordance with these principles, the New Testament is an authentic record (see Resurrection, Evidence for; Witnesses, Hume’s Criteria for).
Moral Certainty. Of the nature of moral certainty, Greenleaf wrote, “But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; by which is meant not merely that species of evidence which we do not obtain either from our own senses, from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd.”
On the whole, Greenleaf found himself persuaded of a high level of probability that the accounts are true: “Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts are to be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of the intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuitry of the investigation.” He adds, “The narratives of the sacred dwellers, both Jewish and Christian, abound in examples of this kind of evidence, the value of which is hardly capable of being properly estimated. It does not, as has been already remarked, amount to mathematical demonstration; nor is this degree of proof justly demandable in any moral conduct. In all human transactions, the highest degree of assurance to which we can arrive, short of the evidence of our own senses, is that of probability. The most that can be asserted is, that the narrative is more likely to be true than false; and it may be in the highest degree more likely, but still be short of absolute mathematical certainty.”
Conclusion. Greenleaf s conclusion speaks for itself: “The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader’s perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already stated. . . . His business is that of a lawyer, examining the testimony of witnesses by the rules of his profession, in order to ascertain whether, if they had thus testified on oath, in a court of justice, they would be entitled to credit; and whether their narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents, coming from the proper custody. If so, then it is believed that every honest and impartial man will act consistently with that result, by receiving their testimony in all the extent of its import.”
Sources
S. Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists.
---,A Treatise on the Law of Evidences.