>IF GOD EXISTS THEN GOD CREATED EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE. BUT I'M BOTHERED, QUESTIONS TROUBLE ME. DID GOD CREATE OUT OF NOTHING? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING? SUPPOSE THERE WAS NO BEGINNING TO THE COSMOS, THE UNIVERSE GOING THROUGH ENDLESS CYCLES. WHAT THEN? WHAT ABOUT THE RULES OF LOGIC? OR THE EXISTENCE OF NUMBERS LIKE TWO OR FIVE? PHILOSOPHERS CALL THESE ABSTRACT OBJECTS, AND THEY SEEM TO EXIST WITHOUT ANY CAUSE, NOT NEEDING A CREATOR. I HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS. SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY WAY TO FIND OUT. I START WITH A CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER AND APOLOGIST, KNOWN FOR HIS WORK ON CREATION, TIME, AND NATURAL THEOLOGY: WILLIAM LANE CRAIG. SOME SAY BILL GIVES THE STRONGEST DEFENSE OF HOW JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM VIEW CREATION - THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM LITERALLY NOTHING. BILL, WE ALWAYS HEAR THE GOD IS THE CREATOR. OKAY, SOUNDS SIMPLE. BUT WHAT IS THE CREATION? >>WELL I THINK THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION MEANS THAT GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ALL REALITY OUTSIDE HIMSELF, THAT APART FROM GOD EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN TO BEING BY GOD. >NOW WHAT IS EVERYTHING ELSE? >>IT WOULD BE ALL PHYSICAL, CONCRETE OBJECTS, IT WOULD BE TIME AND SPACE THEMSELVES, IT WOULD BE ANY REALMS OF SPIRITUAL REALITY THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE EXISTS, SUCH AS ANGELS AND OTHER SPIRITUAL BEINGS, AND IT WOULD INCLUDE ANY SORT OF ABSTRACT OBJECTS, IF YOU THINK THAT THOSE SORT OF THINGS EXIST. >LIKE MATHEMATICS? TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR AND -? >>SETS AND NUMBERS AND PROPOSITIONS AND SO FORTH. SO EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS OWES ITS BEING TO GOD AND I WOULD SAY WAS BROUGHT IN TO BEING BY GOD, AT A SPECIFIC TIME. WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE CREATION OR THE WORLD OR REALITY OUTSIDE OF GOD HAS NOT ALWAYS EXISTED. I THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE IDEA OF CREATION IS INHERENTLY BOUND UP WITH TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS. THESE THINGS ARE NOT JUST DEPENDENT UPON GOD FOR THEIR BEING, BUT THEY WERE BROUGHT IN TO BEING BY GOD. CREATION PROPERLY SPEAKING, IS, AS I'VE DEFINED IT, BRINGING THINGS IN TO BEING FROM NOTHING. NOW IN ADDITION TO THAT INITIAL ACT OF CREATION, THEOLOGIANS HAVE TYPICALLY TALKED ABOUT GOD'S CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD IN BEING, THAT IS TO SAY - >KEEPING IT GOING. >>YES. HE PRESERVES THEM IN BEING, AND WORKING TO WITHDRAW HIS CONSERVING POWER, THE WORLD WOULD BE ANNIHILATED, IT WOULD VANISH IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE. IT'S MORE OF A PASSIVE ACTION, IT'S JUST CEASING TO MAINTAIN IT. >IS THAT DISTINCTION IMPORTANT? >>IS IT IMPORTANT? YOU THREW ME FOR A LOOP. I THINK THAT BY THINKING OF ANNIHILATION AS THE WITHDRAWAL OF GOD'S SUSTAINING POWER RATHER THAN AS AN ACTIVE, ACT OF DESTRUCTION, IT UNDERLINES THE CONTINGENCY OF THE WORLD UPON GOD IN A WAY THAT EXALTS GOD'S POWER AND MAJESTY. WHERE AS IF THE WORLD HAS SOME SORT OF POSITIVE INERTIA IN BEING ON ITS OWN THAT WOULD REQUIRE GOD TO BLAST IT OUT OF EXISTENCE, THAT WOULD TEND TO MAKE THE WORLD LESS CONTINGENT ON GOD, MORE INDEPENDENT OF GOD AND THEREFORE WOULD PERHAPS BE THOUGHT TO DIMINISH GOD'S GREATNESS AND POWER, SO IN THAT SENSE, IT PERHAPS HIGHLIGHTS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. >IF WE ACCEPT THAT INDEED GOD, THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN GOD CREATED THE WORLD FROM NOTHING, WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM THAT? >>THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION OUT OF THE NOTHING UNDERSCORES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD AND THE UNIVERSE. IT MEANS THAT IT UNDERMINES ALL ATTEMPTS TO DIVINIZE THE WORLD, TO SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE IS NECESSARILY EXISTENT, ETERNAL, AND DIVINE. NOW THAT IS SURPRISINGLY, A CONCLUSION OF MOMENTOUS SIGNIFICANCE, BECAUSE APART FROM THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN ISLAMIC TRADITION, THERE REALLY IS NO DOCTRINE OF CREATION OUT OF NOTHING IN THE OTHER MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS. THINK OF THE PANTHEISTIC RELIGIONS OF THE EAST -- HINDUISM, BUDDHISM, DAOISM, OR POLYTHEISTIC RELIGIONS OF ANCIENT ROME AND GREECE OR OTHER SOCIETIES. IN NONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A ROBUST DOCTRINE OF CREATION OUT OF NOTHING, SO THAT IF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION OUT OF NOTHING IS TRUE, IT SERVES TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN TRADITION FROM ALL OF THE OTHER WORLD'S RELIGIONS, INCLUDING PANTHEISM. >WHAT ELSE WOULD IT SAY ABOUT GOD'S OWN INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS? >>IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE ANY OTHER DOCTRINE THAT WOULD UNDERSCORE GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE, HIS SELF-EXISTENCE, HIS NECESSITY, HIS DISTINCTION FROM THE WORLD, IN A WAY THAT THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION OUT OF NOTHING DOES. IF THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE IN CREATION OUT OF NOTHING, EITHER THROUGH A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THIS PROVIDES EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE LACKING. TYPICALLY ATHEISTS HAVE A FIRM THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ETERNAL AND UNCAUSED AND IT'S JUST THERE AND THAT'S ALL. >CAUSED ITSELF IN SOME WAY. >>YES, OR IS NECESSARY IN ITS EXISTENCE. THE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL IN THE PAST, POINTS TO THE CONTINGENCY OF THE UNIVERSE AND TO ITS GROUNDING IN A SUPRA NATURAL CAUSE WHICH TRANSCENDS SPACE AND TIME AND BROUGHT IT IN TO BEING. SO IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF CREATION, I THINK THIS WILL BE SOME OF THE MOST POWERFUL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THAT HAS EVER COME TO THE FORE. >GOD IS THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING. ALL THAT EXISTS COMES TO EXIST BECAUSE OF GOD. FURTHERMORE, BILL CLAIMS, GOD CREATED FROM NOTHING. ALL CREATED THINGS HAVE EXISTED FOR A FINITE TIME. NO THING, OTHER THAN GOD, HAS EXISTED FOREVER. BUT WHAT DOES FROM NOTHING, EX NIHILO, REALLY MEAN? TO FIND OUT, I GO TO BERKELEY, TO THE CENTER FOR THEOLOGY AND THE NATURAL SCIENCES, TO MEET ITS FOUNDER, ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL. BOB IS A MINISTER WITH A DOCTORATE IN PHYSICS. HE SEEKS CREATIVE MUTUAL INTERACTION OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY. >>THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN CREATION STORY, EX NIHILO, GOD CREATES OUT OF NOTHING -- IS IT RELATABLE TO SCIENCE? WELL MODERN COSMOLOGY, BIG BANG COSMOLOGY, TALKS ABOUT T EQUALS ZERO. >WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME - >>THE ABSOLUTE BEGINNING OF TIME, THE ABSOLUTE BEGINNING. LET'S SAY THAT'S TRUE. LET'S SAY SCIENCE SAYS IT'S TRUE. IS THAT RELEVANT TO EX NIHILO CREATION? AND SOME FOLKS SAY ITS DIRECTLY RELEVANT, IT'S ALMOST A PROOF OR A SUPPORT. THE OPPOSITE VIEW IS THAT IT'S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, THAT SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE IN SEPARATE WORLDS AND THEY SIMPLY DON'T RELATE AND TO TRY TO RELATE THEM IS TO CONFUSE THEM. >AND IF YOU DO TAKE SOME LATEST SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF SUPPOSEDLY PROOF, IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL SIMILARITY AND IT WOULD CONFUSING AND DISTORTING TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. >>OR MARRIED TODAY, WIDOWED TOMORROW. WHEN SCIENCE CHANGES YOU'VE LOST YOUR CONNECTION. THE SIMPLE WAY TO SAY IT IS THAT WHAT CREATION EX NIHILO REALLY MEANS IS THAT WITHOUT GOD THERE WOULDN'T BE IN THE FIRST PLACE. NO MATTER HOW IT CAME ABOUT, AND FOR SOMEONE LIKE AQUINAS, IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE BASIC MEANING OF EX NIHILO WAS THIS PHILOSOPHICAL CONTINGENCY THAT THE UNIVERSE COULDN'T EXIST OTHERWISE THAN GOD. >AND SO WHEN YOU SAY CREATION EX NIHILO WHICH LITERALLY MEANS FROM NOTHING, IT IS NOT IMPLYING ITSELF THAT T EQUALS ZERO, THAT THERE WAS A BEGINNING OF TIME. IT MEANS NO MATTER WHAT YOU'VE GOT, GOD HAS TO SIT BENEATH IT. >>EXACTLY. REMEMBER THOMAS WAS DEALING WITH ARISTOTLE'S COSMOLOGY IN WHICH THE UNIVERSE WAS ETERNAL. RIGHT, FINITE IN SIZE BUT INTERNAL IN TIME. AND HE SAID THAT'S FINE BECAUSE EVEN THAT UNIVERSE ISN'T SELF-EXPLANATORY, RIGHT? JUST BECAUSE ITS ETERNAL DOESN'T SAY WHY IT EXISTS. HOW IT EXISTS IS ETERNAL, ISN'T WHY IT EXISTS AS SUCH. ALL I WANT TO SAY IS THE INDIRECT RELEVANCE STARTS WITH THE FACT OF EXISTENCE, THEN SAYS WITHIN THAT, IF THERE IS A BEGINNING IT SORT OF ADDS MORE SUPPORT, MORE LAYERS. I CALL IT, IN A COURT OF LAW, I CALL IT A CHARACTER WITNESS, NOT AN EYEWITNESS, RIGHT? IT GIVES EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE FACT THAT THIS UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE THE KIND OF UNIVERSE THAT WOULD BE CREATED BY GOD BUT IT ISN'T THE REASON WHY I BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY GOD. I BELIEVE IN THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN GOD AS THE CREATOR. >FOR BOB, TO DEFEND GOD, AS CREATOR, THE PRIORITY IS FIRST THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, WITH OR WITHOUT A BEGINNING. AND THEN SECOND, IF THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC BEGINNING, IT STRENGTHENS THE GOD ARGUMENT. I WAS TAUGHT, AND ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT IF GOD EXISTS, GOD CREATED FROM NOTHING. BUT THEN I HEARD ABOUT A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING. IT CAME FROM A QUANTUM PHYSICIST AT CAMBRIDGE, WHO BECAME AN ANGLICAN PRIEST. JOHN POLKINGHORNE. WE MEET IN THE QUEENS COLLEGE CHAPEL. JOHN, WHEN I THINK ABOUT GOD AS A CREATOR, IT IS COMPLETELY UNSATISFYING TO ME JUST TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. I REALLY FEEL I HAVE TO TRY TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN. BOTH AS A MATHEMATICAL PHYSICIST AND AS A THEOLOGIAN, HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT GOD AS THE CREATOR? >>WELL I THINK THE FIRST IMPORTANT THING IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT CALLING GOD THE CREATOR ISN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION, WHO LET THE BLUE TOUCH PAPER, OR THE BIG BANG, WHO STARTED IT ALL OFF? CREATION IS NOT, IS ABOUT WHY THINGS EXIST, NOT HOW THEY BEGAN. WHEN STEVEN HAWKING PRODUCED HIS SPECULATIVE COSMOLOGY AND SUGGESTED THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS A FINITE AGE AND IT HAS NO DATABLE BEGINNING AND THEN WENT ON TO SAY WHAT ROLE THEN FOR THE CREATOR, THAT WAS SEEN BEING PRETTY NAïVE, I HAVE TO SAY. >WHY SO? >>BECAUSE, GOD'S ROLE IS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND BEING. GOD IS AS MUCH THE CREATOR TODAY AS GOD WAS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AGO WHEN THE UNIVERSE AS WE OBSERVE IT TODAY, SPRANG FORTH FROM THE SINGULARITY OF THE BIG BANG, SO THAT IT IS GETTING THINGS GOING. AT THE END OF HIS BOOK, STEVEN SAYS WHO BREATHES FIRE INTO THE EQUATIONS? AND GIVES THEM A UNIVERSE TO DESCRIBE, THAT'S OUR QUESTION THAT IS ANSWERED BY SAYING THE WILL OF GOD LIES BEHIND THE ORDER OF THE WORLD, SO TO SPEAK ABOUT GOD AS THE CREATOR IS TO SAY THAT THERE IS A DIVINE MIND AND A DIVINE PURPOSE UNDERLYING THE WHOLE OF COSMIC HISTORY, AND RELATE IT TO THE WHOLE OF COSMIC HISTORY, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TRUE, IF THE UNIVERSE HAD IN FACT HAD TURNED OUT TO BE A STEADY STATE UNIVERSE, WITHOUT, WITHOUT A BEGINNING OF OBSERVABLE KIND. >SO YOU SEE NO THEOLOGICAL STATE, STATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BIG BANG THEOLOGY AND A STEADY STATE? >>NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, NO, I THINK THAT THAT'S RIGHT, I THINK THAT THAT WAS NEVER, NEVER AN ISSUE. >SO YOU SEE GOD'S INVOLVEMENT ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS AS MUCH AS IF NOT MORE SO THAN AT ONE TIME. >>YEAH. I MEAN I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT IF GOD DID NOT WILL THE WORLD TO REMAIN IN BEING, THE WORLD WOULD DISAPPEAR. I MEAN IT'S NOT AN EXPERIMENT THAT I CAN DO OBVIOUSLY, FORTUNATELY, BUT THAT'S HOW I, THAT'S HOW I SEE IT. >SO IT IS A, A CONTINUOUS ACTIVE PROCESS THAT GOD - >>WELL I SEE HOW IT INTERACTS WITH GRACE - AND ONE IS A SIMPLY HOLIER BEING, AND THAT'S THE SORT OF FUNDAMENTAL, AND THAT'S THE TRANSCENDENT ASPECT OF GOD IF YOU LIKE, THE GOD WHO IS THE GROUNDED BEING. BUT I THINK ALSO GOD IS IMMINENTLY ACTIVE, I MEAN GOD ISN'T JUST A HOLIER THAN WORLD BEING WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. GOD INTERACTS WITH THE UNFOLDING HISTORY OF THE WORLD. THERE IS A GOD OF PROVIDENCE AS WELL AS A GOD OF CREATION WHO ACTS, ACTS THROUGH HISTORY. >ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD AS THE CREATOR, SAYS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE INCREDIBLY LARGE NUMBER OF GALAXIES, HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, AND HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF STARS IN EVERY GALAXY, THIS ENORMOUS UNIVERSE, AND THAT IF, IF LIFE IS JUST RARE ON EARTH, THAT IT SEEMS LIKE A PROFLIGATE GOD WOULD CREATE ALL OF THIS JUST FOR OUR LITTLE ISLAND OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. >>WELL HE WOULD SEE THAT ARGUMENT ON YOUR HEAD AND SAY GOSH YOU KNOW IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE SELF-CONSCIOUS BEINGS, GOD-CONSCIOUS BEINGS, THAT PART IS PREPARED TO LAY THAT OUT AND ONE OF THE INSIGHTS IS ACTUALLY THAT IF ALL OF THOSE TRILLIONS OF STARS WEREN'T THERE, WE WOULDN'T BE THERE TO BE POSSIBLY UPSET AT THE THOUGHT OF THEM, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A UNIVERSE THAT'S AS BIG AS OURS, WHICH CAN LAST THE THIRTEEN POINT SEVEN BILLION YEARS, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE COMING TO BE OF SELF- CONSCIOUS LIFE. THERE'S A NATURAL TIME SCALE FOR IT. SO EVEN IF WE ARE THE ONLY SELF-CONSCIOUS LIFE FORCE, OR ANY LIFE, YOU KNOW SO YOU DON'T KNOW BUT IT IS ASSUMING THAT THOSE STARS AREN'T REDUNDANT. THEY ARE THE NECESSARY PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS. >AND THEN THE ARGUMENT BECOMES, GOD MADE ALL OF THAT JUST FOR US? >>THAT MIGHT BE SO. OR MAY, GOD MAY HAVE MADE IT FOR LITTLE GREEN MEN AS WELL, I MEAN I DON'T SEE ANY THEOLOGICAL STAKE IN SAYING THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE THE ONLY SELF CONSCIOUS, GOD CONSCIOUS BEINGS IN THE WORLD. I MEAN WE CAN ALLOW GOD A CERTAIN GENEROSITY, BOTH IN THE RESOURCES GOD APPLIES AND THE PURPOSE THAT GOD IS TRYING TO FULFILL. >WELL, THEY USE THE VAST PERIODS OF TIME AND THE VAST UTILIZATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY, SEEMINGLY WAY OUT OF PROPORTION TO WHAT HAS BEEN CREATED. >>I LIKE TO SAY WHAT IS IN PROPORTION. YOU KNOW PASCAL SAID, PASCAL WAS THINKING AT THE TIME WHEN PEOPLE WERE JUST BEGINNING TO REALIZE HOW BIG THE UNIVERSE WAS AND HE SAID HE WAS FRIGHTENED BY THE THOUGHT OF THE ETERNAL SPACE, BUT HE ALSO SAID THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE JUST WEEDS, INSUBSTANTIAL BEINGS IN THIS VAST WORLD, BUT WE ARE THINKING WEEDS, AND THAT MAKES US GREATER THAN ALL OF THE STARS BECAUSE WE KNOW THEM AND OURSELVES AND THEY KNOW NOTHING. AND I THINK THAT THE SIZE AND SIGNIFICANCE AND CERTAINLY NOT THE SAME THING. >GOD SUSTAINING THE UNIVERSE, JOHN SAYS, IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN GOD STARTING IT. AND GOD PARTICIPATES ACTIVELY IN THE UNFOLDING OF HIS CREATION. BUT I AM STILL BOTHERED BY THOSE ABSTRACT OBJECTS -- LOGIC, NUMBERS, OR THE PRESENCE OF POSSIBILITIES. IT IS NOW TRUE THAT I MIGHT QUIT MY JOB, OR IDEAS LIKE MORALITY AND GOODNESS, IT IS NEVER GOOD TO TORTURE BABIES. ABSTRACT OBJECTS WOULD SEEM TO EXIST EVEN IF NO CONCRETE OBJECTS EVER EXISTED, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT ABSTRACT OBJECTS EXIST INDEPENDENTLY FROM GOD. SO WOULDN'T ABSTRACT OBJECTS DISQUALIFY GOD AS A COMPLETE CREATOR? I RECALL MY DISCUSSION WITH BILL CRAIG. SO THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU HAVE THESE ABSTRACT OBJECTS, NUMBERS, EXISTING NECESSARILY, MEANING THAT GOD DIDN'T CREATE THEM, THAT IS, THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN GOD? >>RIGHT, IT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD, WHICH THINKS OF GOD AS UNIQUELY SELF-EXISTENT. >NOW IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS SELF EXISTENT, THEN GOD IS JUST ONE OF AN INNUMERABLE NUMBER OF ABSTRACT OR SOMETHING THINGS AND JUST GOD IS PART OF THIS PANOPLY. >>YOU SAID IT EXACTLY RIGHT. IT WOULD LITERALLY BE INNUMERABLE, INFINITIES OF INFINITIES, OF INFINITIES OF THINGS THAT EXIST ALL INDEPENDENTLY OF GOD, WHICH COMPROMISES BOTH GOD'S SELF-EXISTENCE AND ALSO HIS CREATION OF EVERYTHING ELSE OUT OF NOTHING. IT WOULD MEAN IN FACT THAT MOST THINGS ARE NOT CREATED. >SO AS A CHRISTIAN THEIST, YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM. >>RIGHT. >SO WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT? >>WELL I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST ENCOUNTERED THIS ISSUE. IT STRUCK ME DEEPLY AND I THOUGHT THAT THIS IS A DAGGER AT THE HEART OF MY FAITH IN GOD. THIS IS A SERIOUS OBJECTION THAT I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED BEFORE. >WOW. A DAGGER AT THE HEART OF BILL'S FAITH IN GOD. DO ABSTRACT OBJECTS REALLY UNDERMINE GOD? TO FIND OUT I GO TO OXFORD. I SPEAK WITH BRIAN LEFTOW, PROFESSOR OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AN EXPERT ON THE DEEP MYSTERIES OF GOD. IS GOD THE SOURCE OF ABSTRACT OBJECTS? HOW COULD THAT BE? >>ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON GOD, NOTHING WAS A GIVEN FOR GOD. FOR US THERE ARE ALWAYS THINGS WE JUST INHERIT. FOR GOD, HE INHERITED NOTHING, IT ALL COMES FROM HIM IN SOME WAY OR OTHER. NOW THAT WOULD INCLUDE OBVIOUSLY THE CONCRETE THINGS, MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME. BUT WE ARE AWARE OF MORE THINGS THAN THAT. WE'RE NOT AWARE JUST OF COLORED THINGS BUT ALSO OF COLORS. NOT JUST OF A PAIR OF GLASSES BUT OF THE NUMBER TWO WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF FRAMES THAT ARE IN THE PAIR OF GLASSES. WE'RE NOT JUST AWARE OF SENTENCES, WE'RE AWARE OF TRUTHS THAT THE SENTENCES EXPRESS. THINGS LIKE PROPERTIES, IE: COLORS, THINGS LIKE NUMBERS, THINGS LIKE TRUTHS, ARE GROUPED TOGETHER AND CALLED BY PHILOSOPHERS ABSTRACT OBJECTS. >ABSTRACT MEANING NOT CONCRETE. >>RIGHT. NOT MATERIAL, NOT INVOLVED IN CAUSATION, NOT LOCATED IN SPACE, PROBABLY NOT LOCATED IN TIME EITHER. IT'S PLAUSIBLE THAT THERE ARE THESE ABSTRACT THINGS, AS WELL AS THE CONCRETE THINGS, AND SO WHEN YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION IS HE THE SOURCE OF THOSE ALSO? NOW ONE OBVIOUS RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION IS WHO CARES? WELL I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE MATTER. WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE NUMBERS. WELL IF GOD DIDN'T CREATE THOSE THINGS, IF HE'S NOT IN SOME WAY BEHIND THEM, THEN THEY STAND INDEPENDENT OF HIM, AND IN A WAY THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO HIM. >HOW SO? >>WELL GOD HAS TO LEARN ABOUT THEM. AND GOD DEPENDS ON THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WERE NO PROPERTY OF BEING DIVINE, GOD COULDN'T BE DIVINE. HE WOULDN'T HAVE THE PROPERTY TO BE. IF THERE WERE NO PROPERTY OF OMNIPOTENCE, GOD COULDN'T BE OMNIPOTENT. THERE WOULD BE NO THING FOR HIM TO BE. SO GOD DERIVES HIS VERY NATURE FROM THE ABSTRACT REALM IF IT IS OUT THERE AND INDEPENDENT OF HIM. >SO IN THAT SENSE GOD WOULD BE A PAWN, IF YOU WILL, OF THESE PERENNIAL CONCEPTS THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO GOD IN SOME CAUSAL SENSE, AND THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE SUPERIOR TO GOD. >>RIGHT, AND THEY MIGHT IN FACT CONSTRAIN HIS ACTIVITY QUITE A BIT. I MEAN ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT GOD HAS, BY VIRTUE OF HIS NATURE, IS PERFECT GOODNESS. PERFECT GOODNESS PUT SEVERE CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT GOD COULD DO. SO IF PERFECT GOODNESS IS SOMETHING INDEPENDENT OF GOD, WHICH GOD SIMPLY SO TO SPEAK, HAS IMPOSED ON HIS PART OF HIS NATURE, IT AND THE REST OF THE ABSTRACT REALM COMES FIRST. GOD COMES SECOND. IT'S AS IF THEY PUT GROOVES IN REALITY AND GOD HAD TO ROLL DOWN ONE OF THEM OR THE OTHER. IT'S NOT REALLY UP TO HIM WHAT HE DOES EXCEPT WITHIN NARROW LIMITS. IF GOD IS REALLY THE ULTIMATE REALITY, IF EVERYTHING TRACES BACK TO GOD SOMEHOW, THEN THOSE THINGS TRACE BACK TO HIM TOO. THEY'RE NOT OUTSIDE HIM, THEY'RE ROOTED WITHIN IT. >THAT SOUNDS LIKE CIRCULAR REASONING BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING ASSUMING THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, THEREFORE HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE DONE THIS. LET ME REVERSE IT ON YOU AND SAY THAT IF THERE WERE NO GOD, WHICH YOU DON'T THINK IS POSSIBLE, BUT SOME PEOPLE DO, SO NO GOD, WOULD TWO AND TWO STILL EQUAL FOUR? >>IF THERE WERE NO GOD, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WOULD EXIST. THAT'S WHAT'S INVOLVED IN SAYING THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR. IF YOU WANT TO TRACE EVEN MATHEMATICS BACK TO GOD, THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY YES, IF THERE WERE NO GOD, TWO PLUS TWO WOULD NOT MAKE FOUR. THEY WOULDN'T MAKE ANYTHING ELSE EITHER. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING FOR THE NUMBER TWO TO REFER TO. THERE WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS. BUT NOTICE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION HERE. I MEAN I BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS NECESSARILY, SO TO SAY THAT TWO AND TWO DON'T MAKE FOUR, THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY. RIGHT. EQUALLY IT'S AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT GOD NOT EXIST. THE ONE IMPOSSIBILITY IS ROOTED IN THE OTHER. >SO YOUR CONCEPT OF GOD AS A CREATOR REALLY IS WHAT I COULD SAY, CALL A STRONG CONCEPT IN THAT GOD TRULY IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THINGS. >>RIGHT, RIGHT. TO ME THERE IS NOTHING ABSTRACT, AS WELL AS NOTHING THAT IS CONCRETE, THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF GOD. >WHY THIS IS INTERESTING, IS THAT IT'S PROBATIVE OF THE COHERENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF GOD, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T RESOLVE SOME OF THESE INTRICATE IDEAS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE WHOLE IDEA OF GOD DOESN'T MAKE COHERENT SENSE. >>YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN IF GOD EXISTS, IT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR EVERY PART OF REALITY AND ALL OF THOSE IMPLICATIONS HAVE TO HANG TOGETHER AND MAKE SENSE IF THE IDEA OF GOD IS GOING TO HANG TOGETHER AND MAKE SENSE. >THE QUESTION OF GOD AS CREATOR IS RICH AND VAST. IF GOD DOES EXIST, IT PROBES THE ESSENCE OF GOD. IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, IT REVEALS INCOHERENCE, PERHAPS CONTRADICTION, IN THE CONCEPT OF GOD. THERE IS THE FACTUAL QUESTION OF WHETHER GOD CREATED FROM NOTHING, WHETHER THERE WAS A POINT WHEN OTHER THAN GOD, NOTHING ELSE EXISTED. NEXT, IF GOD IS SUSTAINER, HE IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN GOD AS CREATOR, OF GOD IN COSMOS CHANGE. THEN THOSE PESKY ABSTRACT OBJECTS, LIKE NUMBERS AND LOGIC, WHOSE NECESSARY EXISTENCE SEEMS STRONGER THAN GOD'S EXISTENCE. DO ABSTRACT OBJECTS SABOTAGE A SOVEREIGN AND FREE GOD? IMAGINING HOW GOD COULD BE CREATOR HELPS INFORM WHETHER GOD COULD EXIST. AND IF GOD DOES EXIST, HOW GOD WORKS. IS ALL OF THIS CLOSER TO TRUTH?
